Well, somehow I don't think Esther is going to be one of the all-time favorite Bible stories in this church. The first chapter, about the drinking party and the deposition of Vashti, didn't go over well with some of the women. They sure aren't going to like chapter two!
Since we finished up the Book of Ephesians at Sunday night Bible study, we've been casting around for a new topic. One of the suggestions is that we discuss Pastor's sermon. Oh, boy! Now, be good now, these are nice people and they've been good to you. Try to behave yourself and not give too much away. Leave that stuff for the blog. And of course, no discussion is complete without a set of prepared questions that are easy to answer, right?
Well, that plan has been put aside for a time. Apparently the group leader decided, in conjunction with some of the other leaders, that maybe this might not be such a good idea for this particular book. He (and they) are smart. While several people in the Bible group admitted that they were not familiar with Esther, there are some of us who are. Like myself. And Esther is a book that raises a lot of difficult questions. I think on some level the leadership understands this and wants to avoid the icebergs ahead. They want to stay in control.
It's quite interesting watching this in action. He started out by asking if anyone had any comments or questions about the morning sermon. Well, first I mentioned that there are actually two versions of the Book of Esther, one Hebrew and one Greek. The Hebrew version is the one that has no mention of God. Apparently the translators of the Septuagint thought that needed correcting and so they added some sections that do mention God. The Catholic church considers these sections to be just as inspired as the Hebrew text, so Catholic Bibles contain both. Jews and Protestants don't consider these sections to be inspired. This raises an interesting question, which I didn't go into, which is Who Decides and How? I mean this is the Word of God we are talking about. What makes this book sacred and that book not? Because there are all kinds of "lost books" and "hidden Gospels" that didn't make the final cut, but at one time or another were considered sacred Scripture to the groups who used them. This isn't a book that was dropped down from the sky or uncovered in a hill or revealed by an angel in a cave, it's a whole collection of books that was argued about until finally someone somewhere said These are it and that's final. Except that another major group of people said, oh, no, these are it, and that's final. So we have three versions of the Bible, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, with possibly a fourth because I understand the Eastern Orthodox have additional books they consider part of the canon. But that's muddying the waters, and I try not to do that too often. It's really not fair.
Well, they thought that was interesting; the additional parts of Esther just give a little extra filler as to what is going on but really don't change much. The big thing is what is God telling us in 2012 through this book. What does He want to show us? How does He want us to apply the text? And I agree, you really can't do much with a drunken king and a queen who's got better things to do than to come before a bunch of intoxicated louts. Although there are churches--and I have been in one--who think that the king's decree that men should rule their households and women bow down to them is an excellent model of family relations. This church doesn't seem to be that way, at least not openly. But it seemed in yesterday's sermon I did detect a hint of "the king's advisor did have a point, he was concerned about the well-being of the family because a nation can't survive if families are in chaos." I don't like where that is going because I have seen where that goes and it is always the woman who has to sacrifice to save the family. I am going to say something very shocking--maybe not all families should be saved. If a family's well-being and a nation's well-being depends on keeping one or more of its members in subjugation, then maybe we ought to take another look at what we call well-being. And yes, he did try to soften it up by quoting Ephesians about husbands loving their wives as Christ did the church, but--the man is still on top! Women don't lead men in this church, I've noticed. No, it is never mentioned out loud, but I watch and I see, and I dare say if I put myself forth as candidate for elder I'm pretty sure that I'd be firmly and Scripturally shown my place. Well, I'm not interested in leadership positions--I'm not even interested in membership, even though they treat me as one. Wonder how long it will take before anyone figures out that I am not really a member and have never applied? It's been almost a year.
Anyway, to get back to Esther, I brought up the whole free will/puppet issue that I wrestled with in my previous blog. They all thought it was a very good question, but one of course that couldn't be decided by this group tonight. Let me tell you, when someone says, "that is a very good question," it is a hint to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You've been acknowledged, now let's move on. I've seen it in action quite a few times and I find it immensely amusing, because they think that you've been pacified when actually the opposite is true. So I approached it another way by asking them why did they think I came here in the first place. Was it my own free will or was God working in me? I said I had absolutely no intention of joining a church before I came (and since I haven't applied for membership, that should give them a clue that I really haven't changed my mind but I didn't say that), I came basically because I heard so-and-so was going to preach and that was it. So what is going on here? Did I come here of my own free will or did God lead me? That stumped them but only for a minute. Of course it was God working in me, and how much I have changed, etc. But have I really changed or am I just not telling them everything? As Pilate said, "What is truth?" Apparently, whatever you want it to be. God, I sure hate to hurt these people and my coming clean would hurt them, tremendously.
Since we finished up the Book of Ephesians at Sunday night Bible study, we've been casting around for a new topic. One of the suggestions is that we discuss Pastor's sermon. Oh, boy! Now, be good now, these are nice people and they've been good to you. Try to behave yourself and not give too much away. Leave that stuff for the blog. And of course, no discussion is complete without a set of prepared questions that are easy to answer, right?
Well, that plan has been put aside for a time. Apparently the group leader decided, in conjunction with some of the other leaders, that maybe this might not be such a good idea for this particular book. He (and they) are smart. While several people in the Bible group admitted that they were not familiar with Esther, there are some of us who are. Like myself. And Esther is a book that raises a lot of difficult questions. I think on some level the leadership understands this and wants to avoid the icebergs ahead. They want to stay in control.
It's quite interesting watching this in action. He started out by asking if anyone had any comments or questions about the morning sermon. Well, first I mentioned that there are actually two versions of the Book of Esther, one Hebrew and one Greek. The Hebrew version is the one that has no mention of God. Apparently the translators of the Septuagint thought that needed correcting and so they added some sections that do mention God. The Catholic church considers these sections to be just as inspired as the Hebrew text, so Catholic Bibles contain both. Jews and Protestants don't consider these sections to be inspired. This raises an interesting question, which I didn't go into, which is Who Decides and How? I mean this is the Word of God we are talking about. What makes this book sacred and that book not? Because there are all kinds of "lost books" and "hidden Gospels" that didn't make the final cut, but at one time or another were considered sacred Scripture to the groups who used them. This isn't a book that was dropped down from the sky or uncovered in a hill or revealed by an angel in a cave, it's a whole collection of books that was argued about until finally someone somewhere said These are it and that's final. Except that another major group of people said, oh, no, these are it, and that's final. So we have three versions of the Bible, Jewish, Catholic, and Protestant, with possibly a fourth because I understand the Eastern Orthodox have additional books they consider part of the canon. But that's muddying the waters, and I try not to do that too often. It's really not fair.
Well, they thought that was interesting; the additional parts of Esther just give a little extra filler as to what is going on but really don't change much. The big thing is what is God telling us in 2012 through this book. What does He want to show us? How does He want us to apply the text? And I agree, you really can't do much with a drunken king and a queen who's got better things to do than to come before a bunch of intoxicated louts. Although there are churches--and I have been in one--who think that the king's decree that men should rule their households and women bow down to them is an excellent model of family relations. This church doesn't seem to be that way, at least not openly. But it seemed in yesterday's sermon I did detect a hint of "the king's advisor did have a point, he was concerned about the well-being of the family because a nation can't survive if families are in chaos." I don't like where that is going because I have seen where that goes and it is always the woman who has to sacrifice to save the family. I am going to say something very shocking--maybe not all families should be saved. If a family's well-being and a nation's well-being depends on keeping one or more of its members in subjugation, then maybe we ought to take another look at what we call well-being. And yes, he did try to soften it up by quoting Ephesians about husbands loving their wives as Christ did the church, but--the man is still on top! Women don't lead men in this church, I've noticed. No, it is never mentioned out loud, but I watch and I see, and I dare say if I put myself forth as candidate for elder I'm pretty sure that I'd be firmly and Scripturally shown my place. Well, I'm not interested in leadership positions--I'm not even interested in membership, even though they treat me as one. Wonder how long it will take before anyone figures out that I am not really a member and have never applied? It's been almost a year.
Anyway, to get back to Esther, I brought up the whole free will/puppet issue that I wrestled with in my previous blog. They all thought it was a very good question, but one of course that couldn't be decided by this group tonight. Let me tell you, when someone says, "that is a very good question," it is a hint to CHANGE THE SUBJECT. You've been acknowledged, now let's move on. I've seen it in action quite a few times and I find it immensely amusing, because they think that you've been pacified when actually the opposite is true. So I approached it another way by asking them why did they think I came here in the first place. Was it my own free will or was God working in me? I said I had absolutely no intention of joining a church before I came (and since I haven't applied for membership, that should give them a clue that I really haven't changed my mind but I didn't say that), I came basically because I heard so-and-so was going to preach and that was it. So what is going on here? Did I come here of my own free will or did God lead me? That stumped them but only for a minute. Of course it was God working in me, and how much I have changed, etc. But have I really changed or am I just not telling them everything? As Pilate said, "What is truth?" Apparently, whatever you want it to be. God, I sure hate to hurt these people and my coming clean would hurt them, tremendously.
