In Esther 2:21-23 Mordecai uncovers a plot to assassinate the king and acts immediately to save the king’s life:

During the time Mordecai was sitting at the king’s gate, Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s officers who guarded the doorway, became angry and conspired to assassinate King Xerxes. But Mordecai found out about the plot and told Queen Esther, who in turn reported it to the king, giving credit to Mordecai. And when the report was investigated and found to be true, the two officials were hanged on a gallows. All this was recorded in the book of the annals in the presence of the king.

The book of Esther does not portray king Xerxes in a particularly positive light, and yet Mordecai still sees it as his duty to act in the king’s best interests. Of course we could be cynical and decide that Mordecai reported the plot for his own advancement, or even for Esther’s protection, but nevertheless this is still a good example of Mordecai acting in accordance with Jeremiah’s instructions:

seek the peace and prosperity of the city to which I have carried you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper." (Jer 29:7 ESV)

The New Testament also teaches that even though we are citizens of heaven (Phil 3:20), we are still to be good citizens of the earthly kingdom we are part of. We’re called to pray for our leaders (1 Tim 2:1-2) as well as submit to them (Rom 13:1). In the workplace, we are expected to be fully committed to whatever it is that we have been given to do (Col 3:23). We are to seek to do good to not only those inside, but also those outside the church (Gal 6:10).

Despite this strong strand of teaching that encourages loyalty and submission to the human rulers of your land, many evangelicals are emphasising the “politically subversive” nature of the gospel, and in particular the teaching of Jesus. If Jesus is Lord, then Caesar isn’t (N T Wright on “God and Caesar”). How do we hold these two seemingly conflicting ideas in tension?

My own thoughts are that in every generation there are indeed issues of justice that challenge us to be politically subversive, but in all other respects, and wherever possible, we should seek to be good citizens of the nation we are in, and to be a blessing working within the existing structures rather than always fighting against them.

So Christians have to pick their battles wisely. The first century believers were never likely to overthrow slavery in the Roman empire – it was too deeply entrenched. Instead they focused on helping those caught up in the system to live in a way that honoured God. However, the time did come for believers like Wilberforce to take on slavery and seek to change the law to be more God honouring.

What do you think? How does a Christian find the right balance in this area? And what are the areas in which we should be dare to be “politically subversive” in our own day?

One of the most striking features of the book of Esther is that God is not mentioned even once in the entire book. In fact, neither is prayer or worship, the Scriptures or the law, Jerusalem or the temple. We can only speculate as to why the author chose to do this. I’ll just give a few of my ideas. I’d be interested in hearing any others in the comments.

Perhaps it reflects the fact that Esther and Mordecai lived in a society in which Israel’s God was not on the agenda for conversation. As in our own culture, talk of God is not always welcome and sometimes downright suppressed, with even prominent figures such as Tony Blair and Wayne Rooney finding their opinions on God censored. It raises questions of how we present God to a culture that does not want to hear about him.

Or maybe it reflects the fact that much of the time for Esther and Mordecai, God’s presence was not obvious. There are no miracles in the book of Esther. It is only with hindsight that his presence and sovereignty is seen. The author invites us as readers to do what Esther and Mordecai had to do, to look with the eyes of faith to see God at work in the events, without always being able to comprehend why and how he is working. It prompts us to re-examine the story of our own lives, having faith to see God at work even in the apparently random events that we find ourselves caught up in.

Another possibility is simply that the author wants to use the power of story to make us reflect more deeply and look for signs of God. Often when we watch a good movie, the story stays with us for the next few days as we mull it over in our minds, wondering whether there was a “meaning” or a “moral” to the story. We might have to reinterpret events early in the story based on things we discover only at the end. Sometimes the director of the movie refuses to be drawn on what he was trying to say in the film, preferring to leave people to ponder the story. Jesus seemed to take this approach with many of his parables, often leaving them unexplained. This leaves a challenge to Christians who write novels or film scripts. Can we learn the art of telling stories that point to God without having to explicitly mention him?

One of the things that struck me as I was studying Esther was Mordecai’s example as a father. In many ways, his family was unconventional. He appears to be a single dad (Esther 2:7). He is not Esther’s biological father – he has adopted her. I just want to highlight a few aspects of his parenting, in which I think he sets a helpful example.

First, he was serious about protecting his daughter. I think this is the major reason behind his instruction to her to keep quiet about her Jewish identity in Esther 2:10. He knew that she was going into a very dangerous situation and he had very little power to help her. But his way of protecting her was to give her advice that would protect her from harm. (Whether his advice was strictly speaking “right” is perhaps another issue). Fathers need to give their daughters good advice that will protect them from harmful situations.

Second, he knew what was happening in her life. It wasn’t easy for him, as he was denied personal contact with her. But he took the time and effort to keep in touch, and was able to get messages to her (e.g. Esther 2:22). Parents need to take the time and effort to find out what is happening in their children’s lives in order to be able to help and support them in an appropriate way.

Every day Mordecai would take a walk near the courtyard of the harem to find out about Esther and what was happening to her. (Esther 2:11)

Third, he was loving enough to earn her respect and obedience. Esther had the chance to cut ties with Mordecai and escape his authority over her. She had effectively grown up and left home. Yet she continues to submit to his authority and obey him (see Esther 2:20). Clearly she had come to respect his wisdom and knew that he loved her. This made it possible for her to continue to obey even though she didn’t have to. Obviously, there is no magic formula that will stop a child rebelling once they get some freedom (e.g. going off to university), but we should strive to be the sort of parents who earn the respect of our children.

But Esther had kept secret her family background and nationality just as Mordecai had told her to do, for she continued to follow Mordecai’s instructions as she had done when he was bringing her up. (Esther 2:20)

Fourth, he allowed her to grow up. It is interesting to see how Esther and Mordecai’s relationship changes throughout the book (which takes place over a period of about 10 years). In Esther 4:17 we see Mordecai taking orders from Esther. He does not presume that because he is her father he can control her life. He continues to give his advice, sometimes quite strongly, but by the end of the book, we see them working together in equal partnership (Esther 9:29). Parents need to understand that as their children grow up the nature of their relationship changes. We move from simply giving commands to small children, to explaining our reasoning for those commands as our children grow older, to simply offering our advice once they become adults in their own right.

I’m back from New Wine now and back to blogging through issues in Esther, ready for my first seminar which is on Wednesday. This one follows on from my post on compromise.

In Esther 2:7, we discover that Esther had two names. He real name was “Hadassah”, while the name she was known by to those outside her family (and fellow Jews?) was “Esther”. Karen Jobes remarks:

Esther is the only person in the story with two names. Leland Ryken interprets this as the author’s way of depicting Esther as a young woman trying to live in two worlds – the Jewish world in which she was raised and the opulent world of the Persian court into which she was thrust.

As Christian believers living in a society that is largely secular, we find ourselves in the same situation. We have to live in two worlds – sometimes living in the Christian world of our church family, but much of our time, out there in the “real world” where our beliefs are not necessarily respected or welcomed.

There is therefore a real temptation that we cope with this by taking on a dual identity. We can be one person at church meetings, and a completely different person as we mix at work or college with our non-Christian friends.

Lawrence Singlehurst uses the phrase “enthusiastic dualism” to describe the phenomenon of Christian young people living what are essentially two completely contradictory lives, and yet failing to recognise the disconnect as being a problem. They might as well have two names, a “Christian name” they are known by at church, and a pagan name for the rest of the time.

Did Esther do this? In Esther 2:10 we see that she kept quiet about her Jewish identity. “Hadassah” was a Jew, but “Esther” was, as far as anyone knew, just another Persian. This does not necessarily mean that she completely blended in and adopted the Persian value system, but the fact that no one discovered her Jewish identity until she revealed it suggests that the difference in lifestyle was not so remarkable as to have attracted much attention.

The question I want to raise then is, how important is it to be recognised as being a Christian by those outside the church we mix with? Must we find some way of announcing that we are believers as quickly as possible to every new person we meet? Is it sufficient to attempt to model a different value system, and hope that we provoke a response?

Francis of Assisi is often reported to have said “preach the gospel, and if necessary, use words”. But as Graham Tomlin helpfully puts it in his book “Provocative Church”, “without actions, no one listens, without words, no one understands”. Words are indeed necessary, but it is our actions that should prompt the opportunity for those words to be spoken, and lend integrity to them.

Perhaps the reason we struggle to be provocatively different in our places of work is that we have a weak “theology of everything” – we fail to see how the lordship of Christ makes a significant difference to the everyday activities we find ourselves doing. And so we default to blending in with our surroundings, unwittingly living a dual identity.

This post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love your feedback in the comments

I’ve noticed that several commentators pick up on the fact that king Xerxes can’t seem to do anything without his advisers. He is an indecisive man, and his reliance on advisers leave him open to being manipulated. But hang on a minute. Isn’t there wisdom in seeking out advice from other people?

Without counsel plans fail, but with many advisers they succeed. Prov 15:22 (NIV)

Here’s my advice on how to take advice…

1. Choose advisers wisely. Rehoboam is the classic example of getting this wrong. Instead of listening to the wise advisers of his father, he followed his friends advice (see 1 Kings 12:8) and the kingdom spectacularly imploded. It’s not enough to take advice, we need to take it from the right people. “Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked” (Ps 1:1) This means seeking out advice from those who are spiritually mature, who know God’s Word and who are not prone to flattery or promoting their own agendas.

2. Take responsibility for your own decisions. Just because somebody you respect gave you advice doesn’t mean you can abdicate responsibility for your own decisions. Sometimes after hearing advice we may have to graciously and firmly refuse to take it. And once we’ve made our choice, there is no place for blame shifting. “Each of us must give an account of himself to God” (Rom 14:12).

3. Take time. There may be rare occasions where we have to instantaneously make a decision, but most of the time it should be possible to delay a decision until we have heard the advice of others and prayed about the situation. Xerxes had the bad habit of making decisions while drunk. We are repeatedly called in the scriptures to be “sober-minded” (e.g. 1 Pet 1:13), to be those who can think clearly about a situation, using the principles of God’s Word and sensitive to the leading of his Spirit.

this post continues a series looking at various issues raised by the book of Esther. I’d love you to add your own comments to the discussion

The book of Esther opens with an glimpse of the opulent luxury that king Xerxes enjoyed. He lays on a lavish feast that lasts a full six months, with the wine freely flowing the whole time (apparently his cure for a hangover was to just keep on drinking). His wealth was vast, and he fully intended to enjoy himself with it.

Recently, there has been much public indignation as the generous salaries of top public sector workers have been revealed. We look down on those who greedily grab far more than they need. But which of us would say no to a 20% increase on our own income? It always seems as if we need just a little bit more than we currently have before we can truly say that we have “enough”.

But at some point, we say to ourselves, we surely would be satisfied. Xerxes’ example suggests otherwise. In looking for a new wife, he was not just content to find the most beautiful woman alive. Rather, he wanted to stockpile all the beautiful virgins in the entire empire, and keep them exclusively for himself. (Jobes reports that those women in the harem who did not please the king would not be free to marry someone else, but forced to live out their days in seclusion).

It raises the issue of how much is too much? At what point should the Christian be content with what they have and stop seeking for more? OK, with wives its fairly obvious. Stop at one. But what about houses and cars and televisions and mobile phones. When do we stop wanting more and better and be content with what we have?

I’ve blogged about the upgrader and collector mentality before. Let me quote myself …

Jesus said that the person who has two tunics should share with him who has none (Luke 3:11). There were doubtless some very good and pragmatic reasons for having more than one tunic in those days – two is hardly extravagant. But where there are people with nothing, hoarding an abundance is selfish and greedy.

Paul says “But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content” (1 Tim 6:8) and the author of Hebrews says “Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have” (Heb 13:5). At the heart of the “upgrader” mentality is dissatisfaction with what we have and the foolish belief that the problem is merely that what we’ve got isn’t quite good enough. The fact is, that possessions can never satisfy at the deepest level, so the cycle of upgrading will never end (perhaps unless you are a millionaire and actually own the best of everything – at which point you’ll just get depressed).

Is it just me, or are we as Western Christians really bad at obeying these verses? We have good intentions, but maybe we are short on ideas of how we can resist the allure of more, and become content with merely enough. Here’s a few practical suggestions that might help. Feel free to disagree or add your own suggestions in the comments…

• Whenever you buy a newer or better version of something, how about giving the old one away, rather than storing it “just in case” it’s needed, or having it as a “spare” or even selling it on ebay.
• How about really being willing to share resources like books or movies (accepting the inconvenience and loss of doing so). What if the people in your church only owned one copy of Lord of the Rings between them, rather than one per person. How might the money saved be put to better use?
• How about not buying something just because it is on special offer. I suspect that doing so will save you money in the long run, even if it means you end up buying some items at full price later. Many “bargains” turn out to be things we don’t really need or use.
• How about actually letting things wear out before replacing them? Yes it might mean that you have to suffer a brief period where you have none, but usually this isn’t quite as much of a hardship as we imagine it will be. And maybe we need to rediscover the lost art of fixing broken stuff, and “making do” with imperfect things.
• How about selling something on ebay and giving the proceeds away?