Vashti  and  Esther  Speak  out   Hagerman  Mennonite  Church     Markham,  Ontario   Susan  Kennel  Harrison   Aug  22,  2010     "Speak up for those who can't speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute."   Proverbs 31:8 Synopsis1     “The  Book  of  Esther,  like  Ruth,  is  historical  fiction.    It  was  written  in  the  post-­‐     exilic  period,  and  the  setting  is  the  Persian  court.    Although  the  book  is     named  after  its  female  protagonist,  the  character  Esther  has  not  always  fared     very  well  in  commentaries.    The  story  is  well  known.    King  Ahasuerus  (Xerxes)2     banishes  queen  Vashti  when  she  refuses  to  display  herself  with  (only  ?)  her  crown     on  before  his  guests  at  a  banquet  (Esth.  1).  After  much  preparation,  Esther  is     chosen  as  the  new  queen  (Esth.  2).            Meanwhile,  Haman  has  been  made  the  king’s  deputy  and  Mordecai,  Esther’s  cousin,  has     refused  to  bow  down  to  Haman.    Haman  then  decides  to  get  rid  of  the  all  the  Jews.     He  gets  the  king’s  permission  to  write  a  royal  decree  to  this  effect  and  seal  it  with  his  ring       (Esth.  3).    When  Mordecai  hears  about  it,  he  puts  on  mourning  clothes  and  wails  in  the     street  (Esth.  4:1).                Mordecai  then  advises  Esther  to  go  to  the  king.    She  responds  that  she  cannot  without  his     invitation,  but  Mordecai  encourages  her  with  his  famous  lines:    ‘Do  not  think  that  in  the  king’s       palace  you  will  escape  any  more  than  all  the  other  Jews.    For  if  you  keep  silence  at  such  a  time     as  this,  relief  and  deliverance  will  rise  for  the  Jews  from  another  quarter,  but  you  and  your       father’s  family  will  perish.    Who  knows  ?  Perhaps  you  have  come  to  royal  dignity  for  just  such  a       time  as  this’  (Esth.  4:13-­‐14).                                                                                                                           1  See  White,  Sidnie  Ann    “Esther”    in    The  Women’s  Bible  Commentary  [eds    Carole  Newsome  and  Sharon  Ringe,   Nashville:    Westminster/John  Knox  Press  (1992)  124-­‐129]    for  a  discussion  of  the  provenance,  date,  genre  and   reception  of  this  controversial  book  of  the  Bible.    Note  in  particular  that  its  oldest  forms  came  to  us  in  Hebrew  and   does  not  mention  God  or  show  any  concept  of  Jewish  law,  and  covenant.    The  later  Greek  Septuagint  versions,   notably  those  from  the  school  of  Alexandria,  do  much  to  add  pious  and  religious  content  to  “clean  up”  this  book,   leading  to  its  eventual  addition  to  the  canon.    According  to  White  the  “reason  for  the  difficulty  that  the  book  had  in   achieving  canonical  status  is  its  perceived  lack  of  religiosity.      Most  glaring  is  the  complete  absence  of  any  mention   of  God.  In  addition,  the  concepts  of  law  and  covenant  are  absent,  and  there  are  no  prayers.    In  fact,  Esther,  the   heroine  of  the  tale,  is  married  to  a  non-­‐Jew,  does  not  uphold  the  dietary  laws,  and  lives  in  a  completely  Gentile   environment.”  for  the  Note  too  that  in  the  eastern  church  Esther  was  not  considered  part  of  the  biblical  canon   th th prior  to  the  8  century  CE,  despite  its  already  late  (4    century  CE)  acceptance  by  the  western  church  in  to  the   canon.        The  version  we  have  available  to  us  in  the  NRSV  and  most  English  translations  is  a  harmonization  of  the   Greek  and  Hebrew  versions  of  Esther.   2  “Ahasuerus  is  normally  identified  as  Xerxes  I,  who  reigned  from  486  BCE  to  465  BCE.”    “Amestris  was  Xerxes’   queen,  not  Vashti.”    White,    “Esther”  page  124,125.       1             In  Esther  5,    Esther  puts  on    her  royal  robes  and  stands  at  the  inner  court  of  the  king’s  palace.     The  king,  seeing  her,  bids  her  come  in.    She  then  invites  him  and  Haman  to  a  banquet  that     evening.    At  the  banquet,  the  king  asks  her  what  she  wants,  and  she  invites  them  to  yet  another     banquet  the  following  evening.          Esther  6  describes  the  king  reading  the  record  books  one  night  when  he  cannot  sleep.    he  is     thus  reminded  of  how  Mordecai  had  saved  his  life  by  discovering  an  assassination  plot.  So  he     asks  Haman  how  he  should  honor  someone,  and  Haman,  thinking  he  is  referring  to  himself,     suggests  lavish  ceremonies.    He  is  mortified  to  learn  that  the  recipient  is  his  enemy  Mordecai     and  that  he,  Haman,  is  to  carry  out  the  honors  that  Mordecai  is  to  receive.        In  Esther  7  the  second  banquet  sees  Haman’s  downfall.  Esther  tells  the  king  how  Haman  has     planned  for  the  destruction  of  her  people.  Haman  is  sentenced  to  die  on  the  same  gallows  that     he  has  built  for  Mordecai.    Esther  8  describes  how  a  new  edict  is  sent  out  under  the  king’s  seal.       This  edict  allows  the  Jews  to  defend  themselves  against  their  attackers  (the  old  edict  cannot  be     revoked,  as  Persian  laws  were  irrevocable).    In  Esther  9,  the  destruction  of  75,000  anti-­‐Semites  is     recorded.    Then  the  biblical  story  concludes  by  saying  that  these  days  should  be  remembered     in  the  annual  festival  of  Purim,  the  word  pur  meaning  “lot”,  since  the  lot  had  been  cast  against     the  Jews  (Esther  9:26-­‐32).3      According  to  Richard  Folz  the  Purim  festival  seems  to  have  been  adapted  from  an  ancient  Persian   springtime  festival  called  “Fravardigan,  much  as  European  Christians  would  later  transform  the  pagan   Yule  into  Christmas.”4     Vashti   Let  us  focus  now  on  another  woman  in  this  story  who  rarely  is  mentioned,    Queen  Vashti.          Esther  (NRSV)  1:8 Drinking was by flagons, without restraint; for the king had given orders to all the 9 officials of his palace to do as each one desired. Furthermore, Queen Vashti gave a banquet for the 10 women in the palace of King Ahasuerus. ¶ On the seventh day, when the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs 11 who attended him, to bring Queen Vashti before the king, wearing the royal crown, in order to show the 12 peoples and the officials her beauty; for she was fair to behold. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command conveyed by the eunuchs. At this the king was enraged, and his anger burned within 13 him. ¶ Then the king consulted the sages who knew the laws (for this was the king's procedure toward 14 all who were versed in law and custom, and those next to him were Carshena, Shethar, Admatha, Tarshish, Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven officials of Persia and Media, who had access to the 15 king, and sat first in the kingdom): "According to the law, what is to be done to Queen Vashti because 16 she has not performed the command of King Ahasuerus conveyed by the eunuchs?" Then Memucan said in the presence of the king and the officials, "Not only has Queen Vashti done wrong to the king, but 17 also to all the officials and all the peoples who are in all the provinces of King Ahasuerus. For this deed                                                                                                                         3  Bellis,  Alice  Ogden  Helpmates,  Harlots,  and  Heroes:    Women’s  stories  in  the  Bible,    Louisville:  Westminster/John   Knox  press  (1994)  109.       4 Folz,  Richard    Spirituality  in  the  Land  of  the  Noble:  How  Iran  Shaped  the  World’s  religions,    Oneworld  (2004)  50.   2     of the queen will be made known to all women, causing them to look with contempt on their husbands, since they will say, 'King Ahasuerus commanded Queen Vashti to be brought before him, and she did not 18 come.' This very day the noble ladies of Persia and Media who have heard of the queen's behavior will 19 rebel against the king's officials, and there will be no end of contempt and wrath! If it pleases the king, let a royal order go out from him, and let it be written among the laws of the Persians and the Medes so that it may not be altered, that Vashti is never again to come before King Ahasuerus; and let the king give her royal position to another who is better than she.     The  bible  does  not  tell  us  why  Vashti  refuses  to  come  to  the  king,    nor  how  many  times  before   this  the  king  has  called  Vashti  to  display  herself  before  his  guests.    It  tells  us  that  this  time  her  act  of   resistance  did  not  only  anger  the  king,  but  threatened  all  men  everywhere.    All  “officials  and  all  the   peoples”  of  the  empire    would  be  in  danger  of  wives  looking  at  their  husbands  with  contempt,  we  learn,     and  so  the  punishment  of  Vashti  must  be  made  an  exemplar  to  keep  all  the  other  women  in  the  empire   in  their  place  !     The  rabbi’s  over  the  centuries  also  speculated  about  why  the  king  wanted  her  to  come  and  why  she   refused  him.      As  Elie  Wiesel  writes  that  Vashti  fared  poorly  in  the  Jewish  Midrash.5  Wiesel  writes  of   Vashti     “She  knows  the  price  of  her  temerity,  and  she  is  ready  to  pay  it:    she  will  not  submit  to     the  capricious  impulses  of  her  senile  husband.  He  wants  to  entertain  his  guests  ?    Fine,  but     not  at  her  expense.  Her  argument  –  as  recorded  in  the  Midrash  –  is  dignified,  noble:    ‘Why,     do  you  wish  me  to  appear  naked  before  your  guests,  Sire  ?    If  they  find  me  beautiful,  they  will     kill  you  to  possess  me;  if  they  think  me  ugly,  my  ugliness  will  blemish  you.’”6         Laverne  Gill  writes  that  whenever  she  preaches  to  imprisoned  women  she  uses  the  scripture   texts  about  Vashti.    Gill  writes  that  “for  women  who  have  been  incarcerated  because  of  something  they   did  to  please  a  man,  to  gain  a  sense  of  self-­‐esteem  or  to  self-­‐destruct,  it  is  never  too  late  to  say  ‘no’  to                                                                                                                           5  Wiesel,  Elie    Sages  and  Dreamers:  Biblical,  Talmudic,  and  Hasidic  Portraits  and  Legends,    New  York:  Summit  Press   (1991)  141.    The  Midrash     comments:    ‘She  talked  to  him  in  hints  and  he  understood  nothing;  she  scratched  him   and  he     felt  nothing.’    Enraged,  she  continues:  ‘Who  and  what  were  you  when  you  worked  in  the  house  of  my   father  ?  You  worked  in  his  stable.    You  are  used  to  mingling  with  prostitutes;  now  you  are  king  but  your  manners   have  not  change.’  Again,  the  Midrash  comments,  ‘She  spoke  in  hints  and  he  understood  nothing;  she  scratched   him  and  he  felt  nothing.’    Then  she  sends  him  a  last     message:    ‘Remember:  in  the  house  of  my  father  people  were   condemned  to  die  –  but  never  naked.’    So  impressive  is  she  that  the  Talmud  inevitably  asks  why  she  deserved  to   die  –  not  from     her  husband’s  point  of  view,  but  from  ours  ?    What  can  we  reproach  her  for  ?    The  Midrash   comes  up  with  several  original  answers.    She  tried  to  incite  Jewish  women  to  give  up  Judaism  by     making  them   work  on  the  Sabbath;  and  she  dissuaded  her  husband  from  rebuilding  the  Temple  in  Jerusalem,  saying:    ‘My   grandfather  Nebuchadnezzar,  destroyed  Jerusalem,  and  you  want  to  rebuilt  it  ?’  That  is  why  she  deserved   punishment  –  and  received  it  [according  to  the  rabbi’s  and  Midrash]  And  finally:    when  Ahasuerus  gave  his  dinners   for  men,  she  organized  parties  for     women.    While  they  were  having  a  good  time,  the  angels  complained  to  God:     Look,  Your  people  [the  Jews  in  Persia]  are  suffering  and  they  don’t  care  !  This  last  argument  [says  Wiesel]  is  the   weakest.    Why  should  Vashti  be  blamed  for  also  giving  dinners  ?”   6  See  also  “Vashti:  Midrash  and  Aggadah”    by  Tamar  Kadari    in  the  Encyclopaedia  of  Jewish  Women  (2006).   Accessed  online  19  Aug.  2010.       3     oppression,  even  if  it  is  self-­‐imposed.”    Gill  states  “Vashti’s  story  is  one  that  says  to  women  who  have   made  a  mistake,  or  women  who  have  lost  their  sense  of  self  esteem,  women  who  have  been  beat  up  or   beaten  down,  that  they  can  change  the  direction  of  their  lives  by  saying  ‘no’  to  past  oppressive   situations.    No  matter  how  many  times  they  have  said  ‘yes’  –  either  tacitly  or  openly  –  they  can  change   the  course  of  their  lives  by  saying  ‘no.’”7            She  points  out  that  saying  “no”  for  women  in  oppressive  situations  never  comes  easily  –  it  usually  has  a   high  price.  In  Vashti’s  case  she  lost  everything  –  “her  husband,  her  home,  her  status”  as  queen.    We  can   assume  that  the  situation  had  come  to  one  point  where  the  only  thing  that  mattered  was  her  dignity.     The  time  had  come  to  shift  gears  and  begin  to  value  the  person  [herself]  that  God  created.”8    Vashti  said   “no”  by  refusing  to  submit  herself  to  public  embarrassment  from  her  husband.    She  said  “no”  to   unwanted  physical  contact.    She  refused  to  cooperate  in  letting  the  king,  her  husband,  exercise   controlling  behaviours  towards  her.    Vashti  resisted  typical  forms  of  domestic  abuse.         According  to  Elsie  Klingler,  in  a  recent  article  on  the  Mennonite  central  committee’s  Abuse  response  and   prevention  website:       Studies all over the world, employing a variety of research and data collection methods indicate that family violence is still a major issue, all over the world. The data shows that even in Christian homes family violence is no lower than in non-Christian homes. The World Health Organization says that one in five women around the globe is physically or sexually abused in her life time. At least one out of every three women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. 1 That's a staggering number. One of the things we can do to protect and preserve the health of congregations and of family units is to speak out against family violence and abuse. At MCC, those of us who work in programs dealing with issues of violence and abuse, regularly receive calls and emails from women affected by abuse in intimate relationships. The abuse may be physical, sexual or mental. Always, the situation is unsafe and very scary for the person(s) experiencing the impact of abuse. One of the ways we can help prevent abuse and be agents of healing, support, safety and comfort to a person experiencing abuse, is to remind each other of teachings from Scripture that speak out against abuse. Scripture has often been twisted to justify abuse, yet the Bible is clear that abuse is not God's intention. Scriptural teachings are an incredible source of strength and hope for Christians experiencing abuse. To any who are prone to abusive behaviour, Biblical teachings and principles can strengthen our resolve to learn to be loving and respectful rather than controlling, harmful and dangerous. Speaking out against abuse in personal conversations, in small study groups and especially from the pulpit, is a very effective, powerful way to work at                                                                                                                         7  Gill,  Laverne  McCain    Vashti’s  Victory:  and  Other  Biblical  Women  Resisting  Injustice,  Cleveland:  Pilgrim  Press   (2003)  1,2.       8  Gill,  2.   4      abuse prevention and to increase safety in homes, congregations and communities.9        In March 2010 Helena Guergis, MP for Canada’s Minister of State (status of women) reported at the 54th Session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (Beijing+15) in New York and said that “There were 38,000 police-reported incidents of family violence [in Canada] in 2009, and 83 per cent of victims were women.”10 According to MCC’s web site the statistics in Christian homes are the same as wider society. For more information about types of abuse, ways to respond and to see prevention resources I refer to you to the Mennonite central committee website Abuse Response and Prevention http://abuse.mcc.org/abuse/en/ Vashti was a queen who lost status and privilege, to resist abusive relationship with her husband. She paid a high price for saying “no” to her husband. According to MCC [BC’s Abuse and prevention website home page] “living with abuse is not abundant living. In many of our homes, the abundant life Jesus promised is impossible because of the abuse inflicted by one family member on the others. Those who behave in ways that are abusive are also not experiencing the abundant life Jesus offers.” Society  tends  to  judge  harshly  a  woman  who  puts  her  self-­‐worth  and  dignity  on  par  or  even  above  that   of  her  husband,  and  those  who  make  their  dignity  more  important  than  their  marriage  covenant  or   contract.    The  Mennonite  confession  of  faith11,  itself  mentions  the  word  “divorce”  only  once,  in  the   commentary  on  article  19,  where  it  states  that    Jesus  “pointed  to  hardness  of  the  heart  as  the  ultimate   cause  of  divorce,”  even  after  it  names  the  fact  that  “Some  in  the  church  experience  divorce,  abuse,   sexual  misconduct,  and  other  problems  that  make  marriage  and  family  life  burdensome  or  even   impossible.”     Article  19  in  the  Mennonite  confession  of  faith  also  says  that  the  family  is  where  we  are  to  experience   relationships  where  we  grow  towards  “the  wholeness  that  God  intends.”    It  ends  with  saying  “The   church  is  called  to  help  couples  strengthen  their  marriage  relationship  and  to  encourage  reconciliation   in  times  of  conflict.  The  church  is  also  to  minister  with  truth  and  compassion  to  persons  in  difficult   family  relationships.  As  the  family  of  God,  the  church  is  called  to  be  a  sanctuary  offering  hope  and   healing  for  families.”          We,    and  our  society,    judge  people  who  resist  difficult  marital,  work  or  other  systemic  injustices.    It  is   common  to  hear  women  dismissed  as    “angry”,  “bitchy”,  “depressed,”  “feminist”,    “strong”,   “individualist”,    “ambitious”    and  other  terms  that  give  us  permission  to  not  take  their  pain  seriously.     This  has  been  no  less  true  in  Christian  churches.    Culturally  we  give  lip-­‐service  to  the  notion  that  women   in  life  situations  and  relationships  that  compromise  their  self-­‐worth,  their  equal  value  in  the  eyes  of   God,  women  and  children  who  live  in  relationships  where  self-­‐esteem  is  routinely  pummelled  from   emotional  and  verbal  abuse,  that  such  persons  “should”  be  able  to  resist,  even  to  the  point  of  leaving   the  marriage  relationship  or  their  family,    but  we  do  little  to  support  them.                                                                                                                               9  “Christians  and  Churches  Responding  to  Family  Violence”     http://abuse.mcc.org/abuse/en/articles/2004/august.html   10  http://www.swc-­‐cfc.gc.ca/med/sta-­‐dec/2010/0302-­‐eng.html   11  Online  version  of  Mennonite  Confession  of  Faith  can  be  found  at  http://www.mennolink.org/doc/cof/       5                 We,  as  churches,  and  as  a  culture,  do  not  know  how  to  “stay  in  the  pain”  that  abused  women,   children,  seniors  and  families  live  in.    We  want  them  to  use  the  “services”  that  the  police,  or  social  work,     shelters  or  therapists  might  provide  so  they  will  “move  on”  and    “get  over  it.”    But  abuse  and  crushed   self-­‐esteem  do  not  heal  quickly.    People  who  live  in  abusive  situations  or  are  recovering  from  abuse  are   often  socially  isolated,  enveloped  in  shame  and  self-­‐doubt,  struggling  with  ongoing  anger,  guilt,  deep   pain,  distrust.  They  are  often  conflicted  between  their  religious  teachings  that  tell  them  God  wants  them   to  be  whole,  that  they  are  loved  by  God,  that  their  marriage  or  family    is  to  be  sacred  and  a  place  for   growth,    that  the  church  is  a  place  where  burdens  are  shared,  and  their  contradictory  experience  of   living  with  abuse.    Perhaps  they  are  experiencing  the  bullying  or  injustices  from  persons  in  the  church   itself  ?    I  heard  a  story  of  a  monk  who  lived  for  many  years  in  a  monastery  where  his  confrere  repeatedly   verbally  and  emotionally  abused  him.    His  superiors  would  not  take  his  complaints  seriously  and  did  not   support  him.    Eventually  he  was  forced  to  leave  one  night,  taking  only  a  suitcase  with  him.   People  who  find  themselves  living  with  an  abuser  are  given  the  message  that  they  are  not  good  enough   or  they  would  not  provoke  that  abuser  to  do  what  he  or  she  does.    Most  people  want  to  be  good,  want   to  please  others,    and  they  don’t  want  to  rock  the  boat,  upset  the  status  quo.    Telling  someone  that   there  is  abuse  in  one’s  home,  workplace,  church,  or  school  makes  people  uncomfortable.    Letting  people   know  how  much  one  is  hurting,  is  in  pain,  or  how  angry  one  is  only  makes  others  uncomfortable,  and  so   “family  secrets”  continue  to  be  perpetuated.      I  learned  early  on  as  a  chaplain  that  these  dynamics  are   no  different  between  rich  and  well  educated  families  and  poor  or  poorly  educated  families  and   communities.  The  only  difference  is  that  the  rich  can  hide  abuse  in  their  families  in  a  way  that  the  poor   cannot.    Since  then  I  have  seen  how  domestic  abuse  takes  place  within  homosexual  partnerships,    and  of   course  we  are  now  fully  aware  of  the  abuse  of  children  that  can  take  place  not  only  in  families,  schools   but  in  the  church  as  well.    In  addition  to  child  abuse,  we  are  increasingly  aware  of  elder  abuse  –  where   seniors  are  taken  advantage  of,  bullied,  and  neglected  by  persons  they  trust.       Vashti’s  husband,  King  Ahasuerus,  had  his  own  anxieties  in  the  face  of  her  actions  to  claim  her  self-­‐ worth.  Like  all  abusers,  he  reacted  by  seeking  to  control  her.    His  eunuchs  voiced  the  anxiety  of  all  the   men  of  the  kingdom,  the  way  society  worries,    that  other  women  would  follow  her  example  and  chaos   would  result.    Like  society  and  religion  always  does,    it  seeks  to  regulate  women’s  place,  and  that  of   other  vulnerable  persons.       King  Ahasuerus  is  typical;    his  eunuchs  are  too...  they  are  threatened  by  a  “strong  woman”  who  dared  to   resist.    Such  women  frighten  us.  They  make  us  uncomfortable  ...  what  if  others,  like  our  own  wives,   daughters,  grandmothers  and  nieces  follow  suit  ?    What  if  all  the  women  start  to  say  “no”  and  stop   cooperating  in  our  patriarchy,  in  the  social  systems  we  have  in  place  ?    Then  “family  values”  will  be   compromised  and  all  hell  will  break  loose.  We  are  sure  of  it.    Such  sentiment  epitomizes  the  fact  of   patriarchy.    Granted  it  takes  shape  differently  in  each  culture  and  religious  tradition,  but  patriarchy  is  a   fact  everywhere,  even  in  cultures  that  have  laws  granting  equality  between  the  sexes.12                                                                                                                               12  As  one  of  a  multitude  of  examples  of  how  a  country  like  Canada,  that  claims  to  be  different  from  other  nations  in   its  treatment  of  women  and  minorities,  is  fully  patriarchal  we  can  look  at  pay  equity  and  voting  as  examples.  Only   as  recently  as  1988  did  Ontario  legislate  pay  equity  for  women  to  receive  the  same  pay  as  men  doing  the  same   jobs.    This  was  amended  in  1993  to  include  “proxy  pay  equity  adjustments  to  correct  lower  wages  paid  to  those   working  in  female-­‐dominated  jobs.”  But  then  federal  assistance  to  rectify  the  imbalances  was  stopped  in  1995  by   nd the  Tory  government,  only  being  resolved  in  2003  during  a  2  court  challenge  to  the  government.  [See  p.  27   Women,  Power  &  Politics  (2004)  Ontario  Coalition  for  Better  Child  Care.      Ursula  Franklin  was  among  a  group  of   6        There  are  numerous  times  when  women  have  dared  to  “step  out  of  her  place”  and  it  usually  costs  them   dearly  –  and  many  women  never  find  the  courage  to  confront  the  personal  injustices  they  face.    Other   women  can  also  hold  women  back  from  claiming  their  full  self-­‐worth  in  the  eyes  of  God.           Gill  writes  how  Vashti’s  “no”  speaks  to  all  of  us  –  saying  that  we  have  a  chance  to  change  oppressive   situations  at  any  time  in  order  to  be  what  God  would  have  us  be.”13    Saying  “no”  is  not  only  about  abuse   in  the  family,  for  some  it    may  mean  setting  limits  with  an  alcoholic  parent,  child  or  spouse:  a  refusal  to   participate  in  the  patterns  of  someone’s  addiction,  refusing  to  play  along  any  further  in  dysfunctional,   chaotic,  crazy  making  relationships.    For  others  is  may  mean  speaking  out  on  behalf  of  an  elderly   neighbour  whose  daughter  bullies  her.    Or,  it  may  men  supporting  a  teen  whose  teacher  is  sexually   harassing  them.       We  are  not  always  sure  we  are  up  to  the  task  of  supporting  people,    let  alone  taking  the  risks  to  “reverse   the  course  of  our  lives  by  taking  control  of  the  person  that  God  created  us  to  be.”    Gill  writes  that  “we   may  have  fallen  into  patterns  of  blaming  those  who  have  demeaned  or  hurt  us,”    and  perhaps  as  Vashti   did  for  years  before  her  big  ‘no’,  we  don’t  take  action  for  ourselves  because  we  are  waiting  for  others  to   validate  the  injustice  we  see  so  clearly.    People  who  live  in  unjust  situations  may  have  ceased  believing   their  own  feelings,  trusting  their  own  intuition,  or  accepting  their  own  analysis  as  true  enough  for  them   to  take  action  –  they  may  think  the  church  or  society,  or  others  need  to  name  or  see  the  injustice  before   they  will  believe  it’s  true  –  before  they  will  stand  up  and  resist  the  injustices  they  see.    Will  we  stand  up   and  resist  injustices  we  see  with  an  out  loud  ‘no’,  with  a  ‘no’  that  might  cost  us  everything,    or  even  with   the  passive  ‘no’  –  that  just  refuses  to  show  up  and  participate  in  an  unjust  system?    Will  we  support   those  who  do  ?       Such  “no’s”  come  at  a  high  price.    When  a  person  refuses  to  stay  in  their  place  in  a  dysfunctional  family   system  they  risk  losing  allot  –  even  as  they  gain  control  over  their  own  lives  and  claim  the  value  of  their   own  needs  and  self-­‐worth  in  the  eyes  of  God  by  saying  “no”  to  that  which  is  personally  destructive  to   them.    Vashti  then,  is  also  a  woman  peacemaker,  even  as  she  says  “no”  to  her  husband.    She  resisted  the   injustice  non-­‐violently  while  effecting  change  for  herself.    She  refused  to  let  her  status,  wealth,  access  to   privilege  be  more  important  than  her  own  dignity.    She  risked,  and  lost,  her  own  privilege  to  challenge   what  was  no  doubt  a  system  wide  problem  in  male-­‐female  relationships  throughout  the  kingdom,  given   that  we  learn  her  “no”  was  so  threatening  that  it  resulted  in  an  empire  wide  crackdown  on  women.     Because  that  is  what  happens  when  women,    when  anyone,  resists  injustice.    Reactions  and   reactors...things  also  become  much  more  messy  before  they  change  for  the  better.    It  takes  risk  to   challenge  the  status  quo.    The  church  rarely  supports  persons  among  her  own  ranks  who  take  risks  that   upset  the  equilibrium,  even  though  followers  of  Jesus  are  called  to  be  taking  those  risks,  just  as  he  did,     to  confront  injustice  in  relationships  and  systems  around  them.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     women  who  within  the  last  decade  brought  a  lawsuit  against  the  Univ  of  Toronto,  which  was  only  settled  by   mediation  in  2002.  This  action  showed  how  the  University  was  unjustly  enriched  because  of  the  many  years  in   which  it  paid  women  professors  and  librarians  less  than  their  male  counterparts.    The  settlement  awards  would   retroactively  award  pay  equity  so  that  the  retired  women  professors’  pension  would  reflect  that  of  their  male   counterparts,  among  other  things.    http://www.mun.ca/cwse/franklin_statement.pdf      In  Ontario  white  women   were  allowed  to  vote  as  of  1919  but  it  was  not  until  1947  that  East  Indian  and  Asian  women  and  men  could  vote,   and  First  Nations  men  and  women  waited  until  1960  for  the  right  to  vote.    (p.  29  (2004)  Women,  Power&  Politics)   13  Gill,  2.   7     It  is  not  only  women  who  let  themselves  endure  injustices  and  who  struggle  to  find  the  courage  to  resist   personal  injustice.  We  know  refugees  who  have  paid  a  high  price  for  choosing  to  value  their  dignity  in   the  face  of  oppressive  forces  back  home,    people  who  have  risked  losing  job,  status,    even  family   connections,  when  they  speak  out,    or  act  in  resistance  to  personal  injustices  in  some  shape  or  form.     The  task  of  the  church  ought  to  be  to  surround  such  persons  with  support,  emotional  as  much  as   material,    even  when  their  stories  make  us  uncomfortable.    They  make  us  uncomfortable  because  they   force  us  to  recognize  our  own  privilege,  or  our  own  complicity  in  systems  that  perpetuate  injustice,    and   our  own  vulnerability.         Esther’s  story   Esther  (Hadassah),    the  Jewish  teen  who  gets  chosen  to  be  the  replacement  queen,  after  Vashti  was   deposed,  is  the  other  woman  in  this  story.    And  usually  commentary  is  all  about  her,  as  she  is  the  main   figure  in  this  book  of  the  Bible.    She  represents  another  model  of  resistance.    Initially  guided  by  the   directives  of  her  uncle  Mordecai  –  and  one  could  say  even  abused  by  her  uncle  who  sends  her  to  the   king  effectively  using  her  for  his  own  political  gain,  to  get  closer  to  power  –  Esther  eventually  comes  into   an  awareness  of  her  own  power.    Once  she  fully  appreciates  she  has  the  potential  power  to  save  a   whole  people  from  genocide,    that  is  all  the  Jews  in  the  empire  who  came  there  in  their  exile  to   Babylonia,    she  sorts  through  what  is  in  her  capacity  to  do,  and  then  she  acts  on  that.    No  longer  taking   directives  from  her  uncle,  Esther  tells  her  uncle  and  the  others  what  she  needs  from  them  –  face  to  face   meetings,    time,    meals  in  her  own  quarters  on  her  own  terms,    prayers  of  the  people.      I  see  her  as  a   nonviolent  actor  in  the  face  of  a  huge  life/death  threat  to  a  whole  people.    As  a  nonviolent  resister  of   injustice    she  invites  her  enemy,    the  enemy  of  her  uncle  and  her  people,    to  a  meal.    She  risks  her  own   life,  knowingly,    to  approach  the  king  w/o  prior  invitation,    and  in  turn  invites  him  and  her  enemy   Haman,  to  her  quarters  as  a  guest.    Not  just  once  but  repeatedly.       Esther  uses  what  is  in  her  capacity  to  do,    she  uses  her  favor  in  the  kings  eyes  to  get  close  to  her  enemy.     She  essentially  works  from  within  the  rules  of  the  system.    She  disarms  her  enemy  through  hospitality   and  humanizing  contacts.    She  risks  losing  her  privileges  by  revealing  herself  to  be  a  Jew,    she  risks  her   life  by  daring  to  ask  for  face  to  face  relationship  with  those  in  power,    she  takes  huge  chances  with  her   own  life  to  do  what  she  can  to  resist  a  widespread  injustice  against  a  whole  people,    her  people.    As   Queen,  she  does  not  need  her  people  anymore,    she  does  not  have  to  care  about  them,    her  situation  is   secure,    but  she  risks  her  security  on  their  behalf  -­‐-­‐  only  after  her  uncle  suggests  she  will  not  be  spared.   (4:14)  While  Esther’s  motives  may  not  be  entirely  pure  as  she  goes  from  powerless  to  power-­‐full    she   uses  her  power  to  speak  out  on  behalf  of  others.  [Her  actions  are  disturbing  as  well.  for  example  we  see   that  at  the  end  of  the  story  she  asks  for  a  2nd  day  of  killing  !].14                                                                                                                               14  Wiesel  writes    “I  confess  I  never  did  understand  this  part  of  the  Book  of  Esther.  After  all,  the  catastrophe  was   averted;  the  massacre  did  not  take  place.  Why  then  this  call  for  bloodshed  ?  Five  hundred  men  were  slain  in   Shushan  in  one  day  and  three  hundred  the  next.    Seventy-­‐five  thousand  person  lost  their  lives  elsewhere.    Fact  or   fiction  ?  The  question  remains:    How  could  our  ancestors  celebrate  Purim  in  the  midst  of  such  killing  ?  Is  this  why   we  are  told  to  get  drunk  and  forget  ?  To  erase  the  boundaries  between  reality  and  fantasy  –  and  think  that  it  all   happened  only  in  a  dream  ?    Or  is  it  a  way  of  coping  with  our  hidden  frustrations  ?  One  day  a  year  to  imagine  acts   of  violence  –  during  Purim  when  it’s  but  a  game,  a  play  –  so  as  to  impress  upon  ourselves  the  lesson  that  they  are   prohibited  on  all  other  days  ?    This  must  explain  why  God  chose  not  to  give  His  name  to  the  Book  of  Esther:    He   refused  to  be  associated  with  the  denouement  –  with  the  bloodshed.    It  was  His  way  of  saying,  Don’t  ascribe  this  to   me;  I  had  nothing  to  do  with  I;  you  wanted  revenge,  all  right  –  but  don’t  make  me  responsible  for  it....What  does   this  beautiful  but  disturbing  story  leave  us  ?...”    (p  150    Sages  and  Dreamers)   8     Kathleen  O’Connor  does  a  literary  analysis  of  the  book  of  Esther  looking  at  the  humorous  turns  and   twists  in  it.    She  considers  the  book  “downright  hilarious”    but  also  tries  to  note  how  there  is  a   “subversive  nature”  to  that  comedy.15          She  discusses  how  humour  in  the  book  of  Esther  is  a  “political   satire,  a  survival  tactic,  and  an  act  of  hope”....by  satirizing  both  the  Persians  and  the  Jews,  with  the  brunt   of  it  falling  on  the  Persian  government.    “Humour  at  the  expense  of  the  Persians  functions  in  Esther  as  a   survival  tactic  of  the  Jewish  community  as  they  face  exclusion  and  genocide  in  the  post-­‐exilic  Diaspora.   The  book’s  characters,  its  grotesque  exaggerations,  and  its  sharp  turnabouts  work  together  to  overcome   fear  and  to  give  hope  to  a  people  who  face  destruction  in  an  alien  culture.”16         The  book  of  Esther,  including  the  characters  of  Esther  and  Vashti,    make  us  think  about  issues  of  gender,   power,  the  state,  genocide  and  otherness,  submission  and  agency.17       As  I  reflected  on  Esther  as  a  peacemaking  woman  my  mind  frequently  went  to  Ursula  Franklin,  a   member  of  Toronto’s  Quaker  meeting.    Ursula  is  a  retired  University  of  Toronto  professor,  the  first   female  professor  to  be  employed  in  their  department  of  metallurgy  and  materials  science.    She  was  a   pioneer  in  the  field  of  archaeometry,  where  modern  material  analysis  is  applied  to  archaeology.    Ursula   was  imprisoned  in  a  Nazi  work  camp,  prior  to  coming  to  Canada,  because  her  mother  was  Jewish.    In   addition  to  being  a  prolific  scientist  she  has  been  a  peace  activist,    being  named  an  officer  of  the  order  of   Canada  in  1981  and  a  companion  of  the  order  in  1992.    Among  many  honors  and  prizes  she  received  in   1991  a  Governor  general’s  award  in  commemoration  of  the  person’s  case  for  advancing  the  quality  of     girls  and  women  in  Canada  and  in  2001  she  received  the  Pearson  Medal  of  Peace  for  her  work  in  human   rights.    In  Ursula’s  book  Pacifism  as  a  Map  she  writes  about  the  role  of  Christians,  churches,  religious   group  in  speaking  truth  to  power.    She  writes    “Speaking  truth  to  power  requires  not  only  spiritual  clarity   in  terms  of  ‘truth’  but  also  clarity  in  terms  of  the  mode  and  locus  of  the  secular  powers  to  be   addressed.”    She  states  that  in  Canada  there  are  “many  unknown  and  unaccountable  advisors  and   consultants  a  genuine  shift  in  power  that  drastically  changes  the  structure  of  our  so-­‐called  parliamentary   democracy...it  may  be  necessary..  to  question  the  motives  of  those  in  power,  be  they  institutions  or   individuals.”      She  suggests  that  we  “seriously  consider  the  possibility  that  those  in  power  are  ill-­‐ intentioned  and  well-­‐informed.”      To  the  question  of  how  do  we  then  as  individuals  and  the  church   speak  truth  to  power  she  says  it  must  come  out  of  our  faith.    “in  the  end  it  is  our  lives  that  must  speak   the  truth.    What  we  do  and  what  we  refuse  to  do,  from  the  smallest  to  the  largest  decision,  is  the  truth   that  we  speak,  the  truth  that  nothing  can  hide.    In  terms  of  the  individual  and  collective  search  for  the   truth  and  its  effective  expression  in  everyday  life,    I  suggest  that  we  focus  both  our  practical  and  our   prophetic  witness  on  the  means,  rather  than  on  the  goals,  of  private  and  public  or  government  activities.     While  the  ends  of  our  endeavours  are  always  in  God’s  hands,  the  choice  of  the  means  is  frequently   ours,”    writes  Franklin.      “In  the  light  of  our  faith  we  must  re-­‐train  ourselves  and  each  other...to  fathom   the  ways  and  means  in  which  ...  [government]  promises  and  projects  are  to  be  realized.  ...  [we]  can,   [when  considering  foreign,  public  and  refugee  policy  decisions]  ...  ask,  “Who  bears  the  burden?”  and   “Who  benefits?”    and  “Who  might  suffer?”    The  answers  will  make  the  moral  dimensions  of  our   decisions  much  more  discernable.    We  know  that  unjust  means  cannot  produce  justice,  that  making   others  fearful  cannot  lead  to  peace  or  security,  and  that  the  means  will  finally  determine  the  ends.”18                                                                                                                                 15  O’Connor,  Kathleen  M.    “Humour,  turnabouts  and  survival  in  the  book  of  Esther”    in  Are  We  Amused  ?  Humour   about    Women  in  the  Biblical  Worlds  edited  by  Athlaya  Brenner,    New  York:  Continuum  (2004)  52.   16  O’Connor,  53.   17  Bellis,  194.       18  Franklin,  Ursula  The  Ursula  Franklin  Reader:  Pacifism  as  a  Map,    Toronto:  Between  the  Lines  (2006)  73.   9     In  yet  another  essay  Ursula  states    “Together  we  must  find  means  of  non-­‐participation  in  systems  of   threats,  be  they  local  or  global.    But  more  than  that,  we  must  learn  to  understand  the  structures  on   which  threat  systems  are  built  so  that  we  can  develop  structures  that  can  become  the  foundations  of   peace  and  justice.    In  our  resistance  to  the  arms  race,  we  should  focus  much  of  our  creative  energies   into  developing  these  structures  along  with  the  basics  of  economics,  technology,  laws,  and  the  meaning   of  citizenship  under  conditions  of  peace....What  is  needed  is  the  safety  net  of  interdependence  that  is   built  from  the  shared  priority  that  all  people  matter  equally.    Indeed,  the  well-­‐being  of  this  planet  and  its   inhabitants  is  the  only  guarantee  for  the  survival  of  any  nation,  group,  or  family.    If  there  is  to  be  security   and  peace,  it  will  be  security  and  peace  for  all:    for  those  we  love  and  for  those  we  can’t  stand.”19   Ursula  frequently  links  pacifism  with  feminism    stating  “To  me  the  struggle  for  women’s  rights  and  the   opposition  to  militarism  in  all  its  forms  are  two  sides  of  the  same  coin.    And  that  coin  is  the  promise  of  a   liveable  future...    If  this  future  is  to  be  realized,  it  must  be  based  on  respect,  not  on  domination,  so  that   its  principles  will  hold  for  relations  between  individuals,  between  groups,  and  between  peoples.    I  am   convinced  that,  if  these  goals  cannot  be  achieved,  there  will  be  no  future.”20   Both  Queen  Vashti  and  Queen  Esther    give  us  examples  of  people  who  live  under  the  power  of  others,   be  it  as  women  in  a  patriarchal  society,  wives  in  dominating  abusive  relationships,  as  vulnerable   members  of  society,  or  minority  groups.    In  each  case  we  are  reminded  that  God  intends  human   wholeness  for  individuals  and  people  groups.    We  meet  two  biblical  characters,  who  happen  to  be   women,    who  do  what  they  have  the  power  to  do,    to  claim  relationships  between  people  that  are  not   based  on  domination  but  on  respect,    that  speak  out  to  claim  that  which  creates  a  liveable  future   together.    They  give  us  models  of  speaking  up  in  the  face  of  personal  injustice  and  injustices  done  to   others.    They  do  what  they  have  the  power  to  do.     Questions  for  Quiet  Reflection:   1)    When  did  you  find  yourself  in  a  situation  where  you  became  aware  of  a  personal  injustice  ?    Did  you   resist  it  ?    Did  it  cost  you  anything  ?   2)  Are  you  aware  of  injustice/s  in  the  lives  of  other  people  ?    What  do  you  have  the  power  to  do  about   it?    What  will  it  cost  you  to  speak  up  ?     Song:    307  HWB    Will  you  let  me  be  your  servant  ?                                                                                                                             19  Franklin,  98,99.   20  Franklin,  102.   10