Category Archives: Relationships

Complexity in Esther

Posted on by
Reply

As you interpret Esther as a biblical character, let me encourage you to embrace complexity. Good narratives focus on dynamic characters, and scripture is replete with complex, multi-layered narratives. Rather than thinking in black and white, I’d encourage you to think in terms of layers. In short, characters can have layers of strength, layers of weakness, and layers in between.

(Note: I am not saying to reject binaries or absolutes; what I am saying is that literature invites us into deep, holistic, and rich readings—especially in regards to characters.)

Thus, rather than labelling Esther as “good” or “bad”—or “faithful” vs. “unfaithful”—we see displayed in Esther the full human condition. As many have mentioned previously, Esther was not perfect, and as New Testament readers, we know that “all fall short” of perfection. Perhaps some of her early actions could have been rejected, similar to how Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego took a stand in the face of danger. It’s often pointed out that she could be more brave or more faithful.  

That being said, we need to be very careful about if/how we label her. Ultimately, it’s not our job to “judge” Esther, and really, her spiritual status is not the main point of the story. (In other words, people can have different views of Esther and still reach the same conclusions about the overall narrative.) Esther is complex, like all of us are, so labelling her as “all good” or “all bad” isn’t very helpful. Perhaps she willingly went along at times, but perhaps not; she could have hated her actions and the situation. To be frank, the narrative leaves some of that unknown, but just as you and I are “mixed bags”—within our collection of good gems we have some stones—so does Esther demonstrate the complexity of the human condition.

I point this out because we do not want to demonize Esther, as if she were a horrible Jew. As presented in the story, she is certainly not a villain, but a victim. She is held prisoner and has very few choices in front of her. (As my wife points out, Esther is portrayed as a “passive” character early in the narrative, while the men are the primary actors.) Again, she could have rejected the king, but very few would ever make that choice, given an impending death sentence. Especially due to the power imbalance—a king over a servant—it should be clear that she was objectified and used by the king. (A parallel is how King David misused his power over Bathsheba; he did not romance her, but abused her, prior to killing her husband.) Even though Esther is eventually “blessed,” the ends do not justify the means—so we can acknowledge that both victimization and elevation occur. 

Thus, when the text says that the King was “pleased,” it does not mean that Esther fully embraced the role. Nothing in the text suggests that Esther enjoyed being in that position, so we don’t want to see Esther as “sinning” or being unfaithful in that situation. Even the preparation ahead of time does not mean she fully embraced the role, since she likely felt surrounded and stuck. Again, some aspects are unknown, but the silence raises a crucial point: it would be presumptive to say Esther sinned when the king took her, since as most ethicists would point out, immorality involves (unforced) personal will—not legitimate, threatening coercion from another, especially not by a person of power. (Note: Ethicists debate how much will is needed in the face of such coercion, such in as the infamous Patty Hearst case, so that could be debated.)

To state the issue more directly: In cases of sexual abuse, as well as potential cases being investigated, outsiders should focus on facts. We must be extremely cautious when assessing inner thoughts and motives of victims, since horrifically, it’s far too common for people to blame or shame victims. We should not presume anything. To use the parallel example of Bathsheba, rather than guess at her motives and blame or shame her, since the data is extremely limited, the focus should be on David’s atrocious behavior. Due to the incredible imbalance of power, regardless of anyone else’s actions, David wildly abused his position.

Literature commonly features “flawed protagonists,” since no one is perfect. Thus, regardless of the fine details (such as her motive or inner thoughts), we can embrace Esther as a “hero”—especially since other biblical heroes (e.g., Moses, David, Peter, Paul) acted far, far worse. I hope we don’t get “lost in the weeds” when debating Esther as an individual, since the author’s main focus is the overall success of the Jews, as enabled by God. Most importantly, no matter how we interpret Esther as a character, and no matter how many outstanding questions remain, what is certain is that God is the ultimate hero in this story. 

Persistent Prayer

Posted on by
Reply

One thought has sustained me over the past two weeks:  Hundreds of believers around the world are praying for our family.  With so much unknown before us, knowing of these prayers has been deeply comforting. Especially in the morning, when it’s easy to fear and hard to start another day, I remember your prayers. In my mind’s eye, I envision heaven being bombarded, all throughout the day, intercession after intercession, to the point where no one could ignore the pleas — and certainly not a loving God who invites us to pray.

This morning, while struggling with thoughts of Ginny in pain, my thoughts wandered to Genesis 18, a passage where Abraham pleads for help in a horrible situation.  He begs for mercy, asking God to spare life should there be “ten” people who are righteous, and God agrees with Abraham’s request. 

As I think of my friends around the world — people who serve, who teach, who give, who care, etc. — I am certain there are well more than ten who love God. In fact, over these weeks, I’ve been reminded of dozens and dozens of incredible friends I’ve met throughout my life.  This gives me confidence, knowing that if God listened to Abraham, he also listens to us. 

For those familiar with the Genesis story, you know that there were not ten who were righteous, and for that reason, Sodom was turned into smoke.  However, the story points us to something even greater — a truth that would only be fully realized hundreds of years later.  When we lack righteousness, or when we don’t even have ten on our side, God hears when even one prays. 

First, God listened to Abraham, singularly, when Abraham was alone and afraid. That prayer, despite the sad outcome, was heard and answered.  Second, countless stories throughout scripture tell of a single individual praying — and God responding.  One of my favorites is Jesus’ story of a widow who keeps praying and praying, and God eventually responds to her (Luke 18). All of those stories are encouraging, but it gets even better than that.

None of us are perfectly righteous or “super spiritual” — not even Abraham (who not only lied but “traded” his wife for his own safety) nor the widow (who is described as annoying). But there is, indeed, one who is righteous, and through Him, we can be assured that God hears our prayers.  As John writes, “We have an advocate who pleads our case before the Father. He is Jesus Christ, the one who is truly righteous” (1 Jn. 2:1).

There is power when believers unite in prayer, and in those efforts, we ask the Lord for peace, time, wisdom, and healing. We know that our plans may differ from the Lord’s, and we accept whatever He decrees. Yet, in our uncertainty, we can be fully assured that voices around the world are being raised to throne — and that Jesus Christ himself is praying for our good (Rom. 8:28).  

While Ginny’s condition is largely considered “incurable” according to current science, we believe that God can provide temporary healings along the way — reducing pain (Mk. 5:34), inspiring helpers and doctors (Mk. 2:3-5), or extending earthly life (e.g., Lazarus). We also believe that, ultimately, full and total healing will come to Ginny’s body, whenever God determines that to be (Rev. 21:4).

This promise is not merely for some, but for everyone. As our Good Shepherd (Ps. 23), God tends and cares for his sheep, and he does not leave them lost, alone, or suffering, but he finds and consoles them (Luke 15). Not a single sheep is left behind, and each one is kept safe in his loving arms. Ginny may feel like the one lost sheep, apart from the ninety-nine, but Jesus is focused on her. In that promise, we rest. 

In the meantime, friends, let us “bother heaven” like the persistent widow (Lu. 18:5). Please persist with us over these upcoming months and years. The parable is not told because God is bothered by our prayers, but quite the opposite: Jesus tells the story to invite us to “always pray” and to “not lose heart” (Lu. 18:1). In our persistence, we will be reminded, again and again, of our dependence on the only one who can save us — the only one who is perfectly righteous, God Almighty.

—

So don’t you think God will surely give justice to his chosen people who cry out to him day and night? Will he keep putting them off? I tell you, he will grant justice to them quickly! 

(Luke 18:7-8a)

Reasons to Welcome, Not Ban

Posted on by
Reply
 

25 Reasons Why Christians Should Welcome (Not Ban) Immigrants & Refugees

  1. God cares for all people, not just those inside a particular national border.
  2. As Christians, global citizenship trumps national citizenship.
  3. Christianity affirms that all people have the same value, regardless of their current religion, since all of creation comes from God.
  4. The Good Samaritan story includes ethnic dimensions: (1) those outside of your ethnicity may surprise you with kindness, and (2) our neighbors include those of other ethnicities.
  5. The Golden Rule requires it: treat others as you would like to be treated.  (If you were endangered, you would want someone to help you.)
  6. Personal safety is not the ultimate ethic for Christians, while love is.
  7. Political policies are not divinely insprired and often contradict God’s call for justice.
  8. Political policies should never be superior to Christ’s commandments.
  9. “Love your neighbor” is not limited by a country’s border and includes those from other countries.
  10. Hospitality is an important motif throughout the Bible (e.g., Abraham welcoming the sojourners, Jews welcoming and not welcoming Jesus, the Apostles welcoming Paul, etc.)
  11. “Love your enemies, bless those who persecute you” includes atheists and those of other religions.
  12. Religious litmus tests may increase personal safety, while hindering the spread of the gospel.
  13. Religious litmus tests are inaccurate; after all, some people within our own churches are “faking it” for one reason or another.
  14. Religious litmus tests work against the gospel, since at one point, you yourself were not a Christian; being banned by Christians would have turned you away from, not towards, the faith.
  15. Welcoming other religions to your country offers an opportunity for mission without ever leaving your homeland.
  16. Ignoring human rights issues for the sake of personal safety merely perpetuates the problem.
  17. Love always involves some degree of risk, so risk itself is not an excuse not to love.
  18. The innocent, such as children, should not be slaughtered with the guilty.
  19. Abraham was a sojourning immigrant (in Egypt).
  20. Joseph was an enslaved immigrant (to Egypt).
  21. Israel as a nation was an immigrant (in Egypt), poorly mistreated yet protected and rescued by Yahweh.
  22. Moses was a refugee and immigrant (in Egypt).
  23. Jesus was a refugee (in Egypt).
  24. In the Bible, marked by the recurrence of Egypt, the necessity of immigration and the importance of hospitality cannot be ignored.  (Lev. 19:33-34)
  25. Jesus sacrificed His personal safety for the betterment of others, including those outside (Gentiles) of His own ethnicity (Jewish).

The “Rightness” of Sports

Posted on by
Reply

Play the game right.  We all agree on that.

 

But what does it mean to play the “right” way anyways?

 

We face a dilemma when a player is expected to win — and then that same player departs to a better team to win.  Most recently, people across the country felt outrage when Kevin Durant left Oklahoma City for Golden State, a move that inspired feelings of anger, distrust, and envy.  But why?

 

And then we cheer for losers and underdogs. Whether an elderly Kobe, a cheap Dirk, a non-jumping Duncan, or a booed Porziņģis — we want athletes not to take shortcuts, but to win the right way.  We prefer the “good” storyline rather than the bad one, and we turn on players who sign for money or who team up with other superstars.

 

As crazy as it sounds, we recognize that faithfulness counts in sports — maybe even as much as winning does.  If we’re honest, we know that our team might not win in the end, so at the very least, we want players to stick together and to stay with us.  We want players to be as faithful to us as we are to them.  For after all, the average fan would rather lose with loveables than win with thugs.

 

Whatever side we take, Durant’s choices demonstrate that ethical obligations do not exclude sports.  Old-fashioned ideals such as faithfulness, trustworthiness, and kindness apply to professional athletes, just as to everyone else.  At the end of the day, fans want athletes to represent them not only in terms of geography, but in terms of character.

 

In the eyes of loyal fans, Kevin Durant broke a promise. And that is what fans despise the most.  Win or lose, no one wants to be betrayed, and no one wants to be left behind.  That’s not to say that Durant did in fact break a promise; after all, he fulfilled his contract, and he has the legal right to move on.  But to many basketball fans, what matters is that it felt like a broken promise.

 

End results only matter for so much. Veteran fans know that championships are few and far between.  As decades pass, we learn that “doing things right” involves more than winning.  When we look to the courts and fields, we hope our athletes represent our ideals, not merely add numbers to a scoreboard.  As fans, we can still cheer after losses, as long as we believe in the character of our athletes.

 

More than anything else, sports of an insight into passion, drive, and character.  No matter how bad a team may be, we are drawn to cheer for athletes who battle despite the odds — for those who fight on behalf of the people who love them.  And that is how you do things right.

 

Brady & Belichick

Posted on by
Reply

Regarding Brady and Belichick, my thought is that they were “willfully ignorant.” That still leaves them culpable to some degree, of course, but it allows them to honestly say that “I did not know.” For some reason, the reporters did not push that point harder. The “process” of preparing the footballs was still quite vague, even at the end of the press conference.

Brady said he selected the footballs out of a grouping. Of course, he’s not testing PSI (no one would expect that), but if there were 20 footballs, he could easily select the 12.5, 12.0, 11.5, or 11.0 ones. He would “not know” in a sense; he just knew that he selected ones that felt right. After months, the ball boy would never need to be told; he would simply know that deflated ones made his boss happy. It would seem that strange number — 11 out of 12 — would confirm this. No one was explicitly told to deflate them, but by “defined chance,” Brady happened to select the lower PSI balls from the group.

Brady may have been honest during the press conference. After all, he played better in the second half with the inflated balls, so maybe he didn’t notice during the activity of the game. I would normally be suspicious, but if the referees did not notice, then the difference is pretty subtle. He may have planned his willful ignorance before the game, but really, no one pressed him about that.

I’m surprised the referees haven’t been grilled more. It’d probably be too risky to deflate them on the sidelines, so my guess is that the “football checker” was also negligent. But who could blame him? It’s such an unexpected thing to happen that he probably just checked them by hand.

That’s a lot of speculation, but willful ignorance is a way to “tell the truth” and “ignorantly” cross the line.

Valentine’s Day & God

Posted on by
1

Depending on your stage of life, Valentine’s Day can be exciting, romantic, confusing, lonely, or depressing.

heart (emmy)Whether or not you are in a relationship, holidays like these raise  expectations so high that sometimes those expectations are impossible to meet.  Today, some people will be let down because they are not in a relationship.  Others will be let down for by their significant other, their fiance, or their spouse.  The plain fact is that human beings eventually let us down.

On days like these, we must remember the Kingdom of Heaven.  Valentine’s Day is not part of the liturgical calendar, of course, but as an artifact of our society, what does Valentine’s Day remind us about God and our relationship with him?

1) God cares about your loneliness.  (Gen. 2:18)

2) God establishes friendships, families, marriages, and churches, so you do not need to be alone.  (Gal. 3:28)

3) God provides companionship when no one else does.  (Ps. 62:2)

4) God restores relationships and will eventually heal every heart.  (Rev. 21:4)

No matter how this day goes for you, be comforted that God cares.  After all, He is the One who created relationships in the first place.  Although we often miss out on healthy relationships, and although we sometimes mess them up, God is always there to heal our broken hearts.  When we place our expectations in him, we will never be disappointed.