My Theology on Video Games

Introduction

I have gained entrance to five difference dance clubs by showing off my moves to five different dance crews. I also was a back-up dancer for the Black Eyed Peas. I played my guitar to become part of a world famous band, I played my guitar to unite rival gangs in a city, I played my guitar to set free a demigod, and I played my guitar to stop zombies from invading a city. I tested a teleportation device for a science company. When the tests succeeded, the company tried to trap me to prevent their secret from escaping, and when I tried to escape, they tried to kill me. I helped detain an asylum when a few inmates tried to take control of the asylum in a coup. I accidentally killed my father in the utopian society he attempted to erect, and then went after the man who made me kill my father. All of this is possible through the world of video games.

Video games have evolved over the years in many aspects. They have evolved graphically. Video games have gone from eight-bit graphs to 1080p graphics. Video games have evolved in game play. Video games have gone from linear games, jumping from platform to platform, to games where players can explore worlds and make choices. Video games have also evolved in storytelling. Video games now have cut scenes, with animation and voice actors. With this evolving have come new worlds, new choices and new decisions. With new worlds, choices, and decisions, video games have earned a second glance.

Probably the most tell-tale sign on how much video games have evolved is how much time is spent examining video games. If someone attempted to study video games a mere decade ago, that person would come up with very little resources. When video games grew in popularity, however, and when video games clearly became a part of culture, video games had to be re-analyzed. Naturally, when the secular world analyzes something, the Christian must analyze it as well. In the past, when Christians analyzed video games, they seemed to take the five ways American Christians have handled culture, according to Andy Crouch in his book Culture Making. Christians have condemned video games, refusing to play them because they are sinful. Christians have critiqued video games. They willingly watched video games, but only saw their faith as conflicting with the video game world. On the other end, Christians have consumed video games, not even thinking about what video games have done to their faith. Christians have copied video games, making their own video games, and yet still missing the point. This paper will argue that none of those methods work the best. Instead, the best method is the method that examines the morals in the game, compare and contrast them to Christianity, and when possible, make the Christian choice within the video game. But first, in order to see why this is the best method, all other methods must be examined to see where they fall short.

Gaming is Culture

Video games cannot be denied as part of the culture. Surveys show that eighty-seven percent students in grades four to twelve play video games. These students will play video games for at least an hour a day. Video games cannot be limited to a single culture, either. In India, fifty-three percent of children who have access to a computer play video games. In China, people aging under twenty-five spend most of their computer time playing games. In Australia, children spend a fourth of their computer time playing games. These statistics demonstrate the gaming spans across different cultures over different countries and different continents. While gaming may not favor a race, it may favor a gender. In the United States, ninety-six percent of video games players are boys, leaving only four percent to be girls. In Canada, four-fifths of video games players are boys, and one-fifth of video gamers are girls. While Canada comes closer to a balance, both statistics may hint that video games fit men more than woman. Still, when combined with the surveys displaying how many people play video games, video games can be understood as important part of culture. Therefore, Christians must decide on how to appropriately react to them.

Critiques and Condemnation

If the fundamentalists would have a doctrine on video games, they would declare them evil and avoid them at all costs. If neo-evangelicals wanted to analyze video games, they would watch from a distance and criticize them for all the times that the game disagreed with their faith. The commonality between these two views lies in their negative outlook. The negative bias against video games is nothing new to anyone involved in video games, the makers and the players alike. This section of this blog will look at some of the complaints about video games and will show that they are merely criticism and condemnation is not the appropriate answer to video games.

Escapism

The Webster-Merriam Dictionary defines escapism as “habitual diversion of the mind to purely imaginative activity or entertainment as an escape from reality or routine.” In terms of video games, a video gamer commits escapism when he or she uses video games in order to live out life in a fantasy world instead of facing reality. Escapism has negative effects to the human psyche. First, escapism can cause denial when video games won’t face what’s happening in reality, but try to live out their fantasy world in reality. Second, escapism can lead to self-hatred. Gamers hate their real self, wishing to be their fantasy self. The worst effects of escapism hurt Christian gamers the most. Escapism can cause players to refuse to recognize any sin or evil in the world. The players rather escape to a world of happiness and perfection than rather deal with the sin of the suffering of the world, locally or globally.

Recently, studies show video games might not provide escapism as people thought. Instead, video games further equip the player for the real world. Educational video games help children advance in school. Math Blasters teach children math, Where in the World is Carmen San Diego teaches children geography, and Oregon Trail teaches history. Education video games help children so much in school that businesses look into making job training into games in order to train employe3s effectively. Even the military has taken advanced of this “gamification.” They created a video game out of basic training because they realized the best performers at basic training were those who played first person shooter games, such as Halo and Call of Duty.

If video games do have any escapism, it can be positive. In other words, video games can provide psychological needs video games might not receive in the real world. People need to feel like they are in control, and video games can put a person in charge of a person or a bunch of people. People need to feel successful at something. When a gamer completes a game, a feeling of satisfaction comes over a person. People also need to feel like they belong to a common community. Massive multiplayer online role playing games create a community of video gamers playing the same game, working together for the same goal. So video games might not simply be a tool to escape from the real world, but rather a tool to dive further into the real world.

Violence

Research hasn’t always been consistent on the correlation between video game violence and violence in real life. One study has saw that when people played violent video games, the part of the brain associated with anger and hatred becomes very active. On the other hand, many surveys have shown that in past years, the popularity of video games have increased, while violence has decreased in general. Those supporting video games credit video games as a healthy method to releasing anger, just like punching a pillow, while those against video games, claim the statistic is a mere correlation fallacy. A better interpretation of the studies and statistics conclude that while violent video games can fuel the rage within a person, the video game itself cannot induce a person to violence.

No one should shun video games because of violence. First of all, not all video games have violence in them. The ERSB rates games, taking into consideration the amount of violence within a video game. Games rated EC, E and E10 rarely have violence. If they do, the ERSB describes the violence as “mild violence” or “fantasy violence,” which is similar to the violence in Loony Tunes. Even games rated T and have violence keep the violence fairly mild, maybe not using blood. When games become rated M, then games become violent, but the M stands for “mature” and is not intended for an audience below the age of seventeen. Second, just because a game has violence available as an option, it does not mean violence is the only option. Players can actively choose a non-violent method. In fact, games like Mirror’s Edge and Call of Duty Black Ops give out pacifism achievements, which are rewards for not harming a single player. But even if a video games has violence, and makes the gamer participate in violence, don’t throw it out into the trash. These violent games can open the door for discussion on Christians and their views on just war and justifying violence. A good game to bring about such conversion would be the original God of War trilogy. In the first God of War game, the violence has an opportunity to be justified, as the god kills to avenge his fallen loved ones and seek repentance in his own wrongdoing. When the series progresses into God of War 2 and God of War 3, the mood changes. The god kills merely for revenge and to satisfy his own anger. This game alone not only opens a door for just violence among humans, but also can lead a discussion about the times when Yahweh is “violent” in the Bible.

 

Sexual

The first question anyone needs to ask when it comes to video games is, “Why is there sex and nudity in video games?” First, sex indeed sells. People will indeed buy video games just to see nudity and sex. Video game creators will take advantage of this market, making games like Leisure Suit Larry and Duke Nukem Forever, because the creators will know people will buy the game just for the sexual content. Second, when the creators see their games as forms of art, they put nudity in their games to demonstrate their artistic advance. Medieval and Renaissance artists did this in their painting and sculpting. In a time before photographs, artists painted and sculpted nude bodies to demonstrate how realistic they can portray bodies. The same philosophy stands true for video games. Back in the days of eight-bit graphics, the difference between a male torso and a female torso was rectangle torso for males and triangle torso for females. The nudity allows the game programmers to show off every curve of the human body. Third, the medium of video games is still young, and thus is immature. Film went the same direction early in its life. Early movies contain scenes of random nudity, men and women dressing and undressing, fully exposed to the camera, for no reason at all. The best explanation any film analyst would attempt to give is that film, in its youth, tried experimenting with what it could get away with in society. Video games might be participating in the same experiment, seeing how people respond to their use of nudity and sexuality. Fourth, and most importantly, video games use sexuality to show dynamic relationships. In the game Heavy Rain, if the player chooses for Ethan Mars to engage in sexual intercourse with Madison Page, Ethan forgives Madison and they remain together for the rest of the game. If Ethan and Madison do not have sex, the two characters separate and create a totally different ending to the story. In Mass Effect 2, the hero, Commander Shepherd, can choose to have sex early or later in the game. If Shepherd has sex early in the game, Shepherd destroys the relationship with the woman, but if Shepherds hold off on sex, the relationship with the girl flourishes and blooms. Sex can communicate relationships and character development in a story.

The appropriate response to sex in video games has much similarity to the response to violence in video games. First, video game ratings take into consideration sexual content. Games with EC, E and E10 ratings will have no sexual content, or even nudity. Games rated T will have revealing clothing at the most, but no sexual acts. Only the games rated M will have sex in them. People who want to enjoy games without sex should then avoid M rated games, as well as pursue caution in T rated games. Second, just because a game has sex does not mean the player’s character has to engage in sex. For the games with the most explicit sex scenes, gamers have to go out of their way to find these scenes. For the games that present sex up front, players have the option, most of the time, to turn down sex. Either way, players do have a say in their character’s sexual life. Third, and most importantly, allow sex in video games to open the door for theological discuss and try to create a theology of sex in video games. Christians should discuss with other Christians if sex in video is both permission and beneficial to the Christian. Christians should ask themselves what the sex signifies, and if the creators could have communicated the message in a better way. Once Christians have developed their philosophy, the Christian video gamer should attempt to live this out in his video game life. If the game chooses to live a life of celibacy, he should try to get his character to live the same way. If he cannot make his character live this way, maybe he shouldn’t be playing the game. As long as Christians properly deal with sex in video games, the excuse to not play video games because of sex should cease to exist.

Addiction

Critics of video games have often tagged video games as addictive. Even teenagers playing video games admit that they have spent too much time playing video games while they should have been doing homework. Indeed, video game players may not be good stewards of their time if they use a lot of their playing video games. At the same time, while video games can be addicting, video games themselves are not addicting. Unlike drugs, nothing in video games draws the human to need to play video games. With self-discipline and self-control, any person can fight off a video game addiction.

Humanity in Video Games

In newer video games, players don’t have to pick a character already made for them, but can make their own character and play as that character. It doesn’t matter what kind of game, for even music video games, like the Rock Band franchise, utilize a character creator. These character creators would like to get their players to believe humans can have a perfect body, with the tweak of a bar on the game screen. The character creator reflects the culture’s attitude of the body. For example, in Rock Band and Rock Band 2, when a player increases “weight,” it does not add pounds to the body. For men, their muscle mass increases, and for women, their breast size increases. While players can use character creators to make the character look similar to themselves, most do no. Most gamers choose to make their character how they want to. One person recalled that his character in Rock Band started to look like himself, but as the game progressed and he unlocked new clothing and makeup, he ended up looking like a member of Sergeant Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band with a ZZ Top beard. Character creation can leave a gamer unhappy about their bodies and their personalities. They could think that God made them incorrectly, which could lead them to deny any image of God in them altogether.

At the same time, perhaps video games help players experience the image of God even more. The image of God puts titles on both God and man. God is the creator and mankind is the creation. In the image of God, God gives humans the ability to create. When players make an avatar in their game, they have become the creators, and their avatar the creation. Gamers who make avatars get to share in the experience of creating, just like God did when he created man. Humans also experience the image of God when in community. In community, humans get relationship just like God gets in the trinity. Video games with multiplayer provide a chance to enhance community with other players locally and globally. While video games can give Christians a bad view of humanity by distorting the image of God, video games can help the Christian enhance the image of God in life.

Consummation

Opposite of condemning and criticizing, Christians can consume video games. Consummation of video games means playing video games and taking in everything about the video game, without filtering anything from the video game. Consummation of video games sees video games as mere entertainment, so video games shouldn’t be examined deeply or filtered for any reason. Consummation could also mean finding any good in video games, and that good would outweigh any kind of evil video games could contain. Therefore, liberal Christians would probably take the consummation side when it comes to video games. Other Christians should not jump quickly to consummation. Despite all said above, video games do indeed have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity. These issues in video games should not stop a Christian from play video games, but a Christian should not ignore them either. If Christian gamers intake these issues the wrong way, they could fall into temptation and sin. Christians still need to guard themselves from temptation. Consuming video games blindly does not protect the Christian from the temptation they need to guard themselves from.

Copying

When it comes down to Andy Crouch’s views on how to handle culture, two remain to be discussed: copying and creating. When it comes to video games, copying and creating have become one and the same. Every time Christians attempt to make video games, they become a direct copy of a secular game or become a game similar to a secular game in the same genre. An early example would be Exodus, a game for the Nintendo Game Boy, created in 1991. Essentially, Exodus copied Pac-Man. Instead of Pac-Man, Moses marches through a maze. Instead of ghosts, Moses avoids Egyptians. In game play, Exodus only differs from Pac-Man by making the player answer questions about the book of Exodus. Exodus, simply, was a Christian Pac-Man. Many games would follow suit. When Guitar Hero and Rock Band become popular in 2008, Guitar Praise came out the same year. Virtually, Guitar Praise played just like Guitar Hero, except the players played Christian praise and worship songs. Once again, the game merely mirrored a secular game in a Christian way.

While not all Christian video games copy secular games by mirroring them and Christianizing them, Christian video games have tried to be unique by copying a video game genre. Catechumen, released on the PC in 2000, is a good example. The game starts out with an archangel declaring the Romans as pagans and demon-possessed. The archangel gives the player in the game a literal sword, which he calls “the sword of the spirit,” to fight the Romans. The game ultimately becomes a first person shooter, as the player, from the first person point of view, shoots blue beams from his sword to convert the Roman. While this game tries to provide an alternative to violent video games by replacing blood and bullets with beams, this game ends up giving a metaphorical view of Christianity. No Christian wields a literal sword to evangelize the gospel. Even in metaphorical terms, the game does not produce a positive message about Christians.

Left Behind: Eternal Forces attempted to become a unique Christian game in 2006. Tim LaHaye fully funded the game based off his book, hoping to turn Christians from secular video games to a more Christian video game. While LaHaye might have thought the game was a good idea, both pastors and video game critics found faults with the game. The game starts out with the goal to convert followers of the Antichrist to Christianity. To tell which characters are Christian, antichristian, or neutral, a “health bar” appears the head of every character. Christians get green bars, the neutral get gray bars and those who side with the Antichrist get red bars. In order to convert a person to Christianity, the player must lower the red bar or gray bar. First, no one should turn converting people to the Christian faith a game. The world contains millions of people suffering in their sin, needing to know Jesus. Second, even if evangelism became a game, no one can measure a person’s spiritual life with a health bar. Naturally, after evangelism comes discipleship. The game provides five roles for the player and the characters he has converted: evangelist, soldier, builder, healer and worshipper. In the original game, however, women could not become evangelists or soldiers. Tim LaHaye, coming from a fundamentalist Baptist background, believed strongly that women should not become leaders in the church or state, even if it meant becoming an evangelist or a solider. Later patches of the game allowed women to become all five occupations, but by that time, the game already damaged its reputation in the country. While Christians can debate on women leadership, they should not bring the debate into the secular community. When the soldiers mature spiritually, their job becomes fighting the Antichrist’s army, in the form of the police. Now the Christians understand that the “police” here represent the minions of an evil man bring evil upon the earth, like Hitler and the Nazi party. In the secular mind, however, the non-Christian simply sees another game like Grand Theft Auto, teaching children to fight and mistreat the police. Once again, this game makes sense in the Christian community, but fails in the secular community.

Not all Christian video games merely copy a game or copy a game genre. Bible Champions: The Resurrection created a video game which cannot easily be placed in a category. Players choose either a boy character or a girl character. The character becomes a citizen of first century Israel. They follow Jesus around, watching animated Bible stories, and exploring the 1^st century towns and cities. While the game play stands as unique, the theology still suffers. Since the game creators aimed to have a child audience, and the game creators didn’t want to incorporate graphic violence in a children’s game, the story skips over the Crucifixion, going from the Last Supper to the Resurrection. Also, the game tries to put a quantity on faith and love. Most people wouldn’t measure faith and love in quantity. Even the best attempts to create a unique Christian video game end up with theological problems.

When Christians try to copy video games, either quite literally or merely the genre, problems occur, as listed above. Therefore, most Christians resort to simply making Bible trivia video games. The video game simply asks the player questions on the Bible, and the player tries to answer correctly. The Bible Game, created for the Play Station 2 in 2005, stands above the rest as an exceptional example. Not only does the game include Bible trivia, but also fun mini-games that incorporate Bible stories with contemporary Christian music.

Creating Video Game Theology

Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games because every game has a silver lining. Christians shouldn’t consume video games blindly because video games have escapism, violence, sex, addiction and bad views of humanity, which can corrupt a Christian who is not on guard. Christians try to create their own games, but every time, they end up becoming mere copies of secular video games. Therefore, none of these approaches work. Instead, Christians should try less to put their theology into video games and should develop theology that comes out of video games. Instead of video games and the Bible clashing, the Bible should correlate and correct what video games teach in their stories. The correct process first looks at what the video game teaches, then compares it to the Bible. In the places the Bible agrees with the video game, the Christian should support it, but then when the Bible disagrees with the video game, the Christian should be cautious about it. This process can be best done through the stories and the moral choices presented in games.

Most Games Have Narrative

Not all games have stories. Most games that do not have stories usually are quiz games or puzzle, but being a puzzle game or quiz does not automatically mean a game does not have a story. Puzzle Quest, a simple puzzle game, has a fantasy story. Most games do have stories. With the advance in technology, such as cut scenes, video game stories have become more obvious in video games. This does not mean older video games did not have stories. The original Super Mario Bros., created in 1985, tells a story about a plumber trying to save a princess while he survives in a changed world. The 1980 game Missile Command tells a story about defending the home country from a nuclear war. As simple as these stories are, these games still have stories, and the stories enrich the game.

Not an Allegory

When a Christian wants to make a theology about a video game, he may be tempted to make an allegorical interpretation. In an allegorical interpretation of Pac-Man, Pac-Man represents the Christian, the maze represents life, and the dots represent the days of that life. Just as Pac-Man munches down on the dots, Christians chomp by at the days that go by. The ghosts represent demons, both literally and metaphorically for the demons in life each person faces. The power-up dots represent the spiritual high because they can help fight off demons and only last a short time. While this allegory might seem to work, it ignores a serious hermeneutical rule. In Bible hermeneutics, the Christian reading the Bible needs to consider the author’s original intent in the Bible book. In the same way, Christians should not force a theology into a video game that the video game creator did not intend. A correct video game hermeneutic looks at how the creator viewed the game, and then compares to Biblical theology.

Types of Narrative

Video games tell narrative not only through cut scenes, but also through game play. The type of narrative depends on how the game tells its story through game play. Video game narrative can be placed in three categories: linear, binary and embodies games. Linear games have a set story from beginning to end, with little to nothing that the player can do to change the story, such as the Call of Duty games. Binary stories give the player two choices. The game already determines the good choice and the evil choice, and the player merely chooses good or evil. Good choices bring about a good ending, while evil choices bring about an evil ending. A binary game, as the name hints, gives a game narrative only two endings in the narrative. Bioshock and Dragon Age II are a couple binary story games. The most endings come in embodied games. Embodied games give players multiple choices. The game does not tell the player which choices are good or evil, but lets the player decide for himself. The game, in turn, has multiple endings. Endings do not get labeled “good” or “evil.” Endings simply change based on choice. While binary stories are better than linear stories, embodied stories are the best stories because the game personally connects with the player. What makes a narrative so great is the choices the gamer makes in the game, especially moral choices.

Most Games Have Choices

Not all video games have moral choices, but more games might have moral choices than a person thinks. Even the oldest video games have choices. The original Super Mario Bros. makes player choose between the short term goal of surviving each level and the long term goal of saving the princess. Missile Commands makes players choose which cities to defend. Players can focus all their defense on one city, or they can choose to split their defense power on all cities. Good games have choices, but the better games have moral choices. Players would play Missile Command differently if the game told players one city was a penal colony, the second city was a rehab for those addicted to drugs and alcohol, and the third city was a shelter for abused and neglected women and children. Video games have utilized this moral decision making for its benefits. In Bioshock, every level has a “little sister,” a girl with special powers. The player can choose, to rescue the little sister, freeing her from her powers and the plagues that come with them, or the player can harvest the little sister, killing her. While freeing the little sister is the right thing to do, the right choice doesn’t come without temptation. Players who harvest little girls get a lot of special power, while those who rescue little sisters only get a little power. The game separates the adjectives “moral” and “beneficial” in its game choices. Many of the best video games do so.

The Fable Trilogy

The Fable trilogy harnesses moral choices the best for a video game. When Peter Molyneux set out to make a video game, he concentrated on making his video game have moral choices. In the first Fable game, players made moral choices through their quests. For example, helping raiders attack a caravan would be an evil choice, but defending the caravan from raiders would be a good choice. The choice didn’t matter in terms of game play, for either way, the game rewarded the player the same way. On the positive side, players could make moral choices without the game swaying their decision on mere game play. On the negative side, by not giving a game play lean towards the evil side, players had no temptation to go to the evil, unless they wanted to be evil for the sake of being evil. Fable II fixed that problem, or so they game thought. Fable II provided plenty of temptation by giving advantages for going to the evil side, such as more money or more experience points, for example. Fable II forces the player to truly consider moral choices. The player must realize that sometimes being the good guy does not get a person ahead in life. While Fable II made the moral choices closer to the heart, the game still missed it by a bit. While watching test audiences, the game creators realized that some gamers would choose the evil choice merely because it gave a game play advantage. When the sequel came around, the creators set out to fix it once more, and their idea was genius. In Fable III, players play as a member of the royal family seeking to become king. Instead of merely measuring actions by good and evil, the game also measured acts as “popular” and “unpopular.” Good acts could be both popular and unpopular, and evil acts could be both popular and popular. In this way, both good and evil acts had separate yet equal advantages in disadvantages. By the end of this game, the game leaves the player asking if they truly did the right thing, despite the how popular their character was in the Fable world.

Conclusion

Indeed, video games are becoming part of the culture around world. Since video games are a part of culture, they penetrate the lives of all people as individuals. Because of video games, people can live out different lives in worlds foreign to them. With video games impacting the people in the world so strongly, Christians need to analyze video games and synthesize a doctrine theology about them. Christians shouldn’t condemn or criticize video games, for when they do, they cannot see the good in video games. Christians should blindly consume video games, for when they do, they will be caught off guard by temptation and sin. Christians shouldn’t attempt to create Christian video games, for when they do, they create bad video games and bad theology alongside it. Instead of creating video games, Christians should create a theology about the video games. When a Christian plays a video game, the Christian should first think about what messages the game conveys to the player. Then, the Christian needs to ask himself if those messages agree with the Bible. If they do, the player should use the game to engage discussion with both the unsaved and the saved, for both evangelism and discipleship reasons. If the games does not agree with the Bible, the player should figure out what the Bible says is the right thing to do in that situation. Either way, the Christian should try to live out a Christian life in the game that they play. If the game does not provide any chance to live out that Christian life with good Christian morals, then maybe the Christian should avoid playing that game. Sex, violence, addiction and escapism do not make a video game bad. What makes a video game bad is a game that forces a player to sin. What makes a video good is a good story is the narrative, and the choices that come within the narrative.

My Theology on Culture

Introduction

In “The Perscription Against the Heretics,” Tertullian asks the question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens…?” Specifically speaking, Tertullian rhetorically asks his audience what religion has to do with philosophy. What does religion have to do with philosophy? Broadly speaking, however, Tertullian asks a question about the Christian religion and culture. What does the Christian religion have to do with culture? The interaction between faith and culture can date back to the dawn of time itself. Scholars, such as Andrew Crouch, see God and the first man Adam creating and cultivating culture in the Garden of Eden. In the Garden of Eden, culture had a perfect relationship with people because the culture, the people and the relationship itself were all perfect. Perhaps if the Fall had never occurred, it would have stayed that way and a discussion about the relationship of Christians and culture would not be needed. Yet a fall into sin did occur, which resulted in a corruption of humans and a corruption of culture. Since that fall, believers in the faith have struggled on how to handle culture and its imperfections.

One of the greatest attempts to answer this question of faith and culture came from H. Richard Niebhur in his book Christ and Culture. In Christ and Culture, Niebhur presents five approaches on culture: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ in paradox with culture, Christ above culture, and Christ transforming. Niebhur seems to side with Christ transforming culture because he spends most of his time discussing Christ transforming culture, and he does not list any negative aspects to the position. Niebuhr’s book has come under criticism, besides his heavy favoring towards the Christ transforming culture view. Many scholars, such George Marsden and Andy Couch, point out that Niebhur poorly defines both “Christ” and “culture.” Evangelical critics and Anabaptist critics alike criticize Niebhur for improperly categorizing the categories, putting Christian denominations and movements in the wrong category, and not allowing categories to cross over. All these criticisms, however, do not provide an excuse to ignore Christ and Culture. Clearly, all five categories can be seen in the church’s attempt to deal with culture. Niebuhr’s views, as presented in Christ and Culture, merely need to be corrected. This paper will attempt to make those corrections. Instead of viewing the topic as Christ and culture, this paper will view the topic as Christians and culture. This paper will view culture as multi-faceted. Because of a multi-faceted view of culture, this paper will conclude that all five categories meshed together, in proper context, is the best way to view culture.

Christians Against Culture

Christians against culture fully reject culture. These Christians see the culture in the world as sinful and evil because of the fall. According to Christians against culture, culture is sinful because culture has rejected the Lord as authority. Therefore, since Christians accept Jesus as Lord, Christians should not have anything to do with someone or something that does not acknowledge Jesus as Lord, such as culture. If Christians should avoid everything sinful, then the Christians against culture would say to avoid oppose culture because culture is evil.

Biblical Examples

Christians against culture would quote the New Testament epistles for their reasons to oppose culture. Romans 12:2 tells the reader not to conform to the world, but be transformed. A Christian against culture would interpret to mean to not conform to culture, but instead reject culture to grow spiritually. In all of John’s epistles, when John talks about “the world” (except for two occurrences), it refers to secular culture. In 1 John 2:15, John says a true Christian cannot love both God and the world. If anyone loves the world, that person does not love God. Throughout John’s epistles, John continues to emphasize that anyone who loves the world cannot love God, which means that person is not a Christian. Christians against culture would say that “the world” in John’s epistle could be interchangeable with “culture.” Those who love culture cannot love God, and thus they are not Christians. Christians cannot love culture. This rejection of the world not only appears in John’s epistles, but also in John’s other writings. Revelation shows the world rejecting God, accepting an evil antichrist and fighting against everything good and Christian. A Christian against culture could not support that kind of world. If the world rejects the Christian faith, then the Christian faith must reject the world. John continues the thinking into his Gospel book. People commonly paraphrase John 15:19 as a command to be in the world, but not of the world. In John 17:14-16, John quotes a prayer from Jesus, where Jesus shows the contrast between his disciples and the world. John isn’t the only New Testament writer who stands against culture. According to Christians against culture, Matthew used Christ’s sermon on the mount to persuade the Jewish Christians to reject the Roman culture and to motivate them to go back to the Jewish culture. To follow God and obey his commands, a person must reject the secular culture.

 

Historic Examples

The earliest examples of Christians against culture date back to the early church fathers. Letters from these early church fathers, such as Barnabas and Clement, showed the early church fathers made sure they lived lives different from culture, and from all cultures. Christians saw themselves different from both the Jewish culture and the Roman culture, almost making themselves their own special culture. The epitome of the early church Christians against culture would go to Tertullian. Tertullian believed culture was so evil, if it weren’t for culture, humans would enter this world purely good. Tertullian saw non-Christian culture as savage, and  Christians he saw as mature and civilized. Tertullian believed Christians should not practice politics or government because they made the Christian living in the Roman Empire have to choose between Christ and Caesar. Tertullian refused to listen to philosophy believing it had nothing to do with religion. All in all, Tertullian distanced himself as far away from culture as possible, believing culture was pagan at heart.

A more modern example of Christians against culture would be the fundamentalists of the early twentieth century. Fundamentalist arose out of conservative Protestant Christianity during a time of increasing liberal Christianity. In a time when liberal Christians focused on themselves saving society, conservative fundamentalist Christians focused on saving the souls of the individual. While liberal Christians saw God returning in them, conservative fundamentalists patiently awaited Christ’s second return. These differences in doctrine would lead to difference in practices. When fundamentalists rejected a Christ returning in Christian hearts and accepted a literal return of Christ, they took on a view that Christians could not save culture; only Christ could. If Christ cannot save culture until he returns, then society could not currently be saved. Therefore, the fundamentalist had no need for human reform. They remained focused on saving souls from hell. Eventually, it would become saving souls from culture. After successfully evangelizing to a person, fundamentalists would encourage the newly saved Christian to pursue holiness in order to continue to save themselves from culture. Any human reform or social movement became suspicious of being liberal.

Yet fundamentalism became a social movement themselves, but of a religious social movement. They upheld many fundamental Christian doctrines that were under attack by liberal Christians, such as the inerrancy of Scripture and miracles, but the fundamentalists did more than just merely uphold them. They fought for them because they believed that true doctrine kept society in tact, while false doctrine destroyed society. Their militant attitude towards keeping such doctrine led to their defeat in popular opinion. Fundamentalism would never gain approval in mainline Protestant denominations in northern America because it lacked tolerance and focused more on being right. Then, when the Scopes Trial put fundamentalist on trial, fundamentalists came out looking like reactionary, anti-intellectually rednecks. The humiliations made the fundamentalists believe they were the rejected minority, although they grew in numbers. Therefore, they retreated from culture, both liberal Christian and non-Christians. They formed their own culture, one where everyone had to hold on to the same doctrine, no matter how big or how small. Overall, when the fundamentalist Christians went against culture, they separated totally from the world, putting themselves in their own little world.

Christians of Culture

Christians of culture are the complete opposite of Christians against culture. Christians of culture do not see culture as sinful and evil, but good and righteous. Therefore, any good act in culture comes from God. Christianity becomes what is good in culture and doing good things in culture. Christians of culture see Jesus as a good teacher and activist who brought about great change in the Jewish and Roman world during the first century. Therefore, being Christian means taking the same course and bringing about social reform in the culture which a Christians lives. In this way, culture becomes Christian by becoming better.

Biblical Examples

The Garden of Eden, as found in Genesis chapters 1 & 2, shows a time and place without sin. The Garden of Eden, existing for a time on earth, has culture, just like any other civilization that spent time on earth. The Creation account shows God creating culture out of nothing. Then God passes off the duty of creating culture to the first man Adam. Adam creates culture by naming the animals and tending to the Garden of Eden. Culture can be seen in the relationship between God and man, as well as the relationship between man and woman, for relationships are a part of culture. In this small window of a perfect, culture existed, and it was not against God. God and culture were the same, and so humans and culture were the same. If humans accommodated with the culture before the Fall, surely humans can accommodate with the culture after the fall, too.

To prove humans can accommodate with the culture after the Fall, go no further outside the Old Testament. Just look at the nation of Israel. The nation of Israel in the Old Testament could not separate their religion from the rest of the culture, such as the food they eat, the clothes they wore, the language they spoke and the holidays they celebrated. In fact, the Israelites’ religion told them what foods to eat, what clothes to wear and what holidays they celebrated. The Israelites did not separate culture from religion, but rather, they accommodated. Religion accommodated culture, culture accommodated religion. The Israelites, commanded to be a light to the Gentiles, were suppose to demonstrate to the Gentile nations what a culture looked like when God ruled, and they were to show it made culture better, too. Most likely, Old Testament Israel remained unsuccessful in communicating this message, due to idolatry. Yet if Israel did communicate this message successfully, it would have displayed God in culture.

Historical Examples

Nineteenth and twentieth century liberal Christians show the world what Christians of culture look like, and they demonstrate it through the Social Gospel movement. Christian liberalism in America developed out of American liberalism itself. Nineteenth century Americans began to believe humanity could be perfected, to the point of becoming divine itself. Americans believed they could achieve this perfection through progressing in scientific knowledge and in technological production. Yet scientific knowledge and technological production still lacked morals. So many Americans simply merged the Christian religion with “American religion” to give the American religion morals. The problem that arose from this merger was that Christianity merely accommodated to culture to serve culture, not for culture to serve Christ. Nevertheless, this merger of Christianity and American civic religion brought about progressive reform, such as regulation of corporations and social justice. Examples of such would be anti-trust laws and child labor laws.

Seeing the positive reforms in culture, Christians of culture jumped on the Progressivism bandwagon to form the Social Gospel. Christians of culture rejected premillennialism because premillennialism believed that only Christ’s return could bring about change in the world, so change happening in the present could not happen. Instead, Christians of culture accepted postmillennialism, believing God would change culture through humans. Christians of culture saw salvation meant more for society as a whole, not the individual. Christians of culture used the Social Gospel to do good and bring about justice to the fallen world. Christians of culture created the YMCA, Salvation Army and other rescue missions in order to bring love and justice to the poor in the cities. In exchange, however, Christians of culture became liberal Christians, denying many Christian doctrines and watering down others.

Christians in Paradox with Culture

Both Christians against culture and Christians of culture stand at two opposite extremes. Christians against culture stand at the conservative extreme, while Christians of culture stand on the liberal end. Niebuhr presents three “in-between” options. Only one of them is truly an “in-between” option because the other two options do have a conservative or liberal lean on spectrum, although they are not as extreme as Christians against culture or Christians of culture.

Christian in paradox with culture lean towards the conservative end of the spectrum, although they do not take the same extreme as the conservative Christians against culture. While both the Christian against culture and the Christian in paradox with culture profess culture to be sinful and evil, Christians in paradox to culture admit they cannot escape culture, while Christians against culture try their hardest to separate from culture. Christians in paradox see themselves living in two different realms: the realm of faith and the realm of culture. Since Christians live in both realms, Christians in paradox with culture realize that culture can seep into faith, for better and for worse, but their concern is mostly with sin corrupting the church. Christians in paradox with culture see their faith constantly in tension with the culture. Therefore, the Christians in paradox with culture believe their job is to constantly correct the church from the evils of culture in order to keep them pure. Through the church, God will uphold His followers and bring about His will.

Biblical Examples

The best Biblical would be none other than Jesus Christ. Christ’s teachings always came into conflict with the Jewish culture of the first century. For example, the first century Jews taught law, while Jesus taught grace. The Jews taught God’s wrath, while Jesus taught God’s mercy. The second best example would be the apostle Paul. Paul’s teachings continued to contrast the faith and the culture with dualism. Those who lived in the world lived in darkness, but those who lived in the Christian faith lived in light. The non-Christians are slaves to sin, but the Christians are slaves to Christ. Both Jesus and Paul seemed to see life as always in tension with the culture they were living in.

Historical Examples

Many church reformers during the Reformation period believed in Christians in paradox with culture because of the church-state ties with the Catholic Church and Holy Roman Empire. Martin Luther sticks out of all those reformers as one of the leaders of Christianity in paradox with culture. Luther believed Jesus defined what actions are moral. Jesus uses those moral definitions to build a moral community within the church. On the other hand, Jesus does not command the culture of the community outside the church. He lets them go to their own free will. Martin Luther was one of the first reformers to decide which philosophies outside the church Christians could accept and which philosophies Christians should reject. Luther also allowed Christians to pursue art and education from secular culture. Yet the Christians still had to abide to Christian laws and commands, especially those commands that contracted cultural norms.

 

Christians above Culture

Christians above culture take another “in-between” view on the spectrum, but they take a liberal lean, although not as liberal as the Christians of culture. Christians above culture directly oppose Christians against culture and Christians in paradox with culture because they believe that the church cannot be fully separate or fully opposed to culture. Instead, Christians above culture synthesize the church with culture. God lives and moves in both the church and the culture. Therefore, Christians must live and move in culture, too. Christians must strive to achieve goodness in both the faith and the culture they live in. For examples, Christians must submit to both God and the government. When a Christian achieves this goodness, God uses this person to advance the culture in ways the culture can advance by divine grace. In God’s grace, God calls Christians above culture in a relationship with Him, and then he sends them back down to culture to advance it.

Biblical Examples

The first Biblical example appears with all the patriarchs in Genesis, especially Abraham. God blessed Abraham, promising that Abraham would bless the world through Abraham’s blessings. Abraham lived a life above the culture by having a relationship with God very few people in that culture had. Because Abraham had the relationship, God blessed him. In turn, Abraham blessed everyone Abraham came in contact with, such as the king of Egypt and the king of Gerar. God blessed the cultures of Egypt and Gerar through his follower Abraham.

A later Biblical example comes from the remnant of Israel during their exilic period. An exiled Israel, consisting of the nation’s finest people, lived in Babylon for seventy years. One of those fine men was Daniel. Daniel lived a life above culture. He pursued his relationship with God as his highest priority. He refused to eat the meat King Nebuchadnezzar sacrificed to the Babylonian gods. He continued to pray to the Lord when Darius passed a law forcing his subjects to only pray to him. God blessed Daniel for his obedience, and Daniel, in turn, used it to bless the Babylonians. God gave King Nebuchadnezzar dreams, Daniel interpreted them for Nebuchadnezzar, and Nebuchadnezzar praised and worshiped God. Daniel lived above the Babylonian culture and brought advancement to the Babylonian culture through the king.

Christians Transforming Culture

Christians transforming culture take a moderate “in-between stance” on culture. Christians transforming culture do not see culture as evil as the Christians against culture or the Christians in paradox with culture. Christians transforming culture do not believe that culture is as good as the Christians of culture and the Christians above culture claim it is. Christians transforming culture see culture as a perverted good that needs to be converted to good. The Christians transforming culture, like the Christians of and above culture, claim culture can be converted, unlike the Christians against culture and the Christians in paradox of culture, who claim culture is beyond saving. Christians transforming culture have a positive outlook and a hopeful possibility of converting the culture to Christianity.

Historical Examples

Most examples of Christians transforming culture come from modern history, mainly twenty-first century evangelicals and the emerging church. Both seek to make the faith relevant to the culture. They show that culture can be redeemed by taking something from culture, which could be evil, and give it Christian values, guaranteeing it to be good. In turn, Christians evangelize their faith by creating their own culture with the culture of the secular world. For example, evangelical Christians have created a culture within Christianity that is pro-life, and that culture has grown so much, the culture is pushing out into American culture. All in all, evangelical and emerging Christianity has been able to defend Christianity with apologetics, while at the same time they preach a message of love.

 

Conclusion

In Christianity and Culture, Niebuhr categorizes the relationship between Christ and culture into five different categories: Christ against culture, Christ of culture, Christ of culture, Christ above culture, Christ and culture in paradox and Christ transforming culture. One of the biggest problems with Christianity and Culture is that Niebuhr shouldn’t have talked about the relationship between Christ and culture, but rather Christians and culture. This paper has reviewed all the categories again, but this time relating culture to Christians, not Christianity. By doing so, this paper has fixed a second problem with Niebuhr’s book, which is the simplified definition of culture. Culture cannot be simplified into one broad meaning, but must keep in mind that multiple cultures exist. This paper shows that each view has worked, in both Bible times and after Bible times in history. Therefore, each of these views should be considered because each view has worked at some place and at some time.

Each view does have both positives and negatives. Christians against culture remember to always keep God as the holy authority over a sinful world, but it forgets God created the world and it also forgets sin could happen within the church. Ultimately, most Christians against culture end up becoming separatists, living in their own little world. Christians of culture can find good in the culture, but they ultimately go liberal and take Christ out of the picture. Ultimately, Christians of culture go from liberal Christian to humanitarian atheists. Christians in paradox with culture recognize sin can happen in the church, but they also have a habit of separating the physical world from the spiritual world. Their idea of engaging culture ultimately becomes criticizing culture. Christians above culture seem to actually be living in the real world, attempting to make a Christian culture. Still, they depend on human efforts too much. They would claim that even so-called “Christians,” those who do not hold to orthodox doctrinal beliefs, could bring about good in culture. Christians transforming culture have more hope towards re-gaining a perfect creation that was lost in the Fall, but when they try to transform culture, their transformation seems to be a Christian copy of secular culture instead of creating culture itself. Since each view has both positives and negatives, no one can say one view works better than another view, which is even more the reason to consider all views.

If Christians want to grasp a correct view of culture, they need to consider all views of culture. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be against culture. Christians need to condemn sexual liberty that has developed in secular culture, such as premarital sex, extramarital sex and homosexuality. Sometimes, a Christian should be of culture. Christians should be involved in ending racism and sexism, as well as helping the poor and oppressed. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be in paradox with culture. When the culture world promotes revenge, Christians need to demonstrate forgiveness. Sometimes, a Christian needs to be above culture. Christians can work on lowering the divorce rate in society by developing marriage counseling programs and also lowering the divorce rate within the church as well. Sometimes, a Christian needs to transform culture. Christians do need to transform church into a program that reaches out to its culture yet uphold its faith statement. When Christianity begins to use all five views in the theology on culture, Christians will be able to engage in culture, reach the lost, preach love and keep their doctrinal statement and still be able to pursue holiness, all for the glory of God.

[Esther 4] Act 2 Scene 1: The Heroes Devise A Plan

Where we last left off, the villain came into the picture and set his dastardly plan into effect, aimed at attacking the heroes. Now it’s the heroes chance to respond. Act 2 will focus in on our heroes, combating the villain’s master plan. And Act 2 begins in Chapter 4.

Start out with Esther 4:1-4. Mordecai responds to the news by putting on sackcloth and ashes and mourning. This is a common practice in the ancient times. Biblical examples would include, but not be limited to: Job when he loses everything, the king of Nineveh when he hears Jonah’s message, David, etc. As you can see, it’s a common practice. If you noticed, all them are during sad occasions. Sitting in ashes, wearing sackcloth and mourning was a sign of humility and grief. Mourning in public, he is obviously associating himself as a Jew. He mourns outside the king’s gate, so everyone in the palace can hear him. But he can’t go beyond the king’s gate because of his appearance only the cleanest can enter the king’s residence. Esther tries to offer him clean clothes so he can come in and talk this over with her, but Mordecai is mourning so much, he refuses.

So what happens is Esther chooses Hatatch, a eunuch, to become the middle man messenger. Esther 4:5-11 records the dialogue. Esther sends Hatatch to find out what all the commotion is about. Mordecai sends back the degree with a suggestion that Esther go before the king. Not only does Mordecai say why he’s mourning, but he fully explains, even giving evidence. Then he proposes a way to fix it. Esther reminds him the rule is she can’t go before the king unless summoned, or else she’ll die. Esther’s reminder is very descriptive, too. She even mentions that a month has past without her being summoned, so she isn’t likely to be summoned any time soon. But Mordecai is ready to respond to that. It’s found in Esther 4:13-14. This verse is very important, so important that I’ll put it right here

Esther 4:13-14-

“Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to royal position for such a time as this?”

Some scholars have suggested these verses to be the theme verses of Esther. You might remember that in my introduction I mentioned a verse that would be perfect to use the name “God” or “the Lord.” This is it. It would have been perfect if Mordecai would have said, “And who knows but that God/the Lord has put you in a royal position for such a time as this.” But Mordecai doesn’t. Whether God is explicitly stated or implicitly hinted, Mordecai’s statement stays the same. And what a bold statement it is! Do you realize what Mordecai is saying? Mordecai declares that God will send a deliverer for the Jews, no matter what, even if Esther does not step up. If Esther does not stand up, that does not mean she will be safe. Instead, the Jews will be saved and Esther will die. Bold, right? How can Mordecai be so sure? God’s covenants with Israel! God’s covenants have unconditionally promised a chosen people out of Israel will come. No matter how bad they are or how bad they have become, there will always be a remnant, or a small percentage of what is left will always be around. God has to save the Jews in order for all his covenantal promises to be fulfilled. God will send a deliverer.

 

This is a reminder to us that there is no situation that God cannot deliver us out of. The Jews right now seem to be in a tight spot. There is a law that’s going to wipe out all of the Jews, and there’s nothing that can stop it. But Mordecai is sure that a way out will come. A way out came for us, too. Because of Christ’s sacrifice for us on the cross, Jesus made it possible for everyone to be delivered from their sin. Esther was the deliverer of the Jews during this time period, but Jesus is the ultimate deliverer, delivering everyone from everywhere and every time of their sins. And because of Jesus, there is no sin we can be doomed from. All we have to do is come to Jesus, confessing our sin, with a repentant heart. If you have never made the decision to follow Jesus, today can be the day Jesus will deliver you of your sins and welcome you into his family. If you want to make that decision today, make sure you go see a pastor, and they’ll help you with that. But maybe you’ve already received Jesus as your deliverer, but you are still struggling with a sin in your life. I urge you to come to Jesus right now, confess it and receive forgiveness.

Let’s close with Esther 4:15,16. Esther decides that she will fast and pray with her entire harem for 3 days. Then she will appear before the king. She realizes what she is about to do and what the consequences could be. So she lies her faith totally in God, without even mentioning it. I think here Esther recognizes God as her deliverer, too. So we should follow her example and put our faith in Jesus Christ.

*Photo Credits: Microsoft Word 2003 Clip Art

[Esther 3] Act 1 Scene 3: The Villain is Introduced,and He Begins His Evil Plan

In Esther 1, God’s providence is shown through God setting the stage for Esther to be queen. In Esther 2, God’s providence is demonstrated through God strategically placing Esther and Mordecai. Up to this point, the heroes have been introduced. In Esther 3, we, the readers, will meet the villain. We’ll watch him introduce conflict into our story. Then we’ll ask ourselves, “How does God’s providence work when evil is afoot?”

So let’s meet our villain. Start reading Esther 3, and you’ll bump into him right away. First, we learn that his name is Haman. Second, we learn Haman is the son of Hammedatha. Third, we learn that Haman made his way through the ranks to second-in-command. Haman, in our terms, was a prime minister. We don’t know why he was elevated; the Bible simply tells us he was. Fourth, we learn Haman was an Agagite. The term “Agagite” could mean a couple of things. The complicated answer is that it means he’s a descendant of Agag, the last king of the Amalekites. To give you a brief history reminder, the Amalekites were Israel’s greatest rival. Because of their sin and great hatred towards God’s people, God planned to blot them out. So in the last war between the Israelites and Amalekites, God, through Samuel, told King Saul to totally wipe out the Amalekites. That includes every man, every woman and every child. But King Saul did not listen. Instead, he let King Agag and his family live. It wasn’t until Samuel appeared that the king was killed. Haman might be a descendant of Agag, but it’s dependant on the fact the King Agag’s wife or child escaped the Israelite army somehow. A more simple answer would be Agagite means “from the town/region of Agag” and Agag is either a town or providence of Persia. Unfortunately, the uncertainty of the location also brings this theory into question. Also, may I add, to further the frustration, that Haman’s name has not been found in any archaeological records. But to anyone who says that, I add “yet” to the end. It could still be out there, and it’s just that no one has found it. And even if they can’t find anything, that does not mean Haman didn’t exist.

Continue onto Esther 3:1-6. From the first 6 verses of Esther 3, the conflict is clear. Mordecai won’t bow down or pay honor to Haman. Haman here connects the fact that Mordecai won’t bow down because he is a Jew, and that’s the best reason I can give you, too. Mordecai won’t bow down or pay honor to Haman because Mordecai is a Jew. If I tried to explain it more specifically, I couldn’t because there is no clear, specific answer. Perhaps Mordecai is simply following the 2^nd commandment, which commands the Jews to bow down to no one or nothing but God Himself. So perhaps Mordecai considers bowing down to Haman as idolatry. Maybe it goes back to a historic battle, the battle between King Saul and King Agag. Now it’s the descendant of King Saul who refuses to pay homage to the descendent of King Agag, just King Saul refused to surrender to King Agag. But that would require for both of them to know each other’s ancestry. Or maybe it’s as simple as Mordecai not recognizing Haman as a legitimate authority or power. Remember Mordecai sides with Xerxes, the king, but he doesn’t side with Haman, the second-in-command. Since we don’t know how Haman got into power, it’s possible he got into power in a dishonest way. So maybe Mordecai doesn’t recognize Haman as a legitimate leader and ruler. The specific reasons could be any and every reason given, so it’s hard to say officially. But broadly speaking, we can make the same connection as Haman. It has something to do with Mordecai being a Jew. So now Haman doesn’t want to kill just Mordecai, but he wants to kill all the Jews. Once again, I will raise the question, “Does this go back to a historical battle?” Haman might be trying to win the war against King Saul’s descendants that his ancestor King Agag could not finish in victory. I also want to remind you that “every Jew” means every Jew in the Persian Empire. That includes the Jewish refugees trying to rebuild Jerusalem! They already have enough trouble from adversaries, they don’t need more problems.

Haman begins his evil plan in Esther 3:7. The word “pur” comes from the Babylonian word “the lot.” This would the same as flipping a coil, rolling a dice, or even using a roulette wheel. It has been used many times in the Bible, in both the godly and ungodly circumstances. Examples would include, but not be limited to: Lots were cast to choose Mathias as the new disciple, lots were cast to divide Christ’s clothes, lots were cast to figure out whose fault the storm was in Jonah, etc. Now whether the pur is a godly pursuit or not is up for debate. Those for it will quote Proverbs 16:33; those against it will demonstrate that casting the lot came from pagan roots. Let me add one more piece to that equation: the results. The pur is cast on Nisan, which is during our April-May, but for them, it’s the first month of the year. The lot falls on Adar, which for us is February-March, but for them, it’s the last month of the year. Is this a coincidence that it’s going to take a whole year to execute or not? Let that resonate with you for the rest of this chapter. I’ll come back to that, so make sure you have an answer, or at least a thought by the end of this devotional commentary on Esther 3.

Haman presents his plans to Xerxes in Esther 3:8,9. Haman convinces Xerxes that Jews’ customs will not allow them to follow the laws of the land, which will lead to anarchy. Haman suggests the only way to solve this problem is to completely annihilate all the Jews. Haman even offers to donate 10,000 talents of silver. In today’s weight, that would be 750,000 pounds of silver. In today’s currency, that would be worth around $25 million. $25 million is a lot, back then and today, to commit genocide. But Haman sees it necessary and worth it.

Let’s finish up the chapter with verses 10 to 15. What King Xerxes does is foolishly gives his signet ring to Haman. The signet ring was what was used to make a seal. The seal of the king was the king’s official word. It gave laws power. What this means is Haman’s words and King Xerxes’s words are now one and the same. Haman issues the law to be written in every language and sent off to every province. Everyone in the empire is going to know about the law because everyone in the empire is going to be effected. And at the end of this chapter, the only two people who are at peace are Haman and Xerxes. The whole empire is confused, bewildered and scared. This is out of character for King Xerxes. And as we know, the whole reason is because Xerxes is just a puppet for Haman.

 

 

Time is up. Do you think the pur is a good method or a bad method? Do you think the timing worked out well, perhaps too well? I’m not sure the method is exactly the mostly godly, but I do believe that the results are godly. Is it just a coincidence that of all the months it could have fallen on it has to fall on the last month, especially when the lot is thrown in the first month. I truly believe this is the providence of God. We’re going to call it “perfect timing.” God providence is perfect timing. For a picture to help you remember, I’m going to put on a calendar. If yesterday’s, which we called “strategically placed” is could be summarized as “in the right place” then “perfect timing” could be summarized as “at the right time.” Ever have one of those moments were things happened at the right time? Maybe you finished a test just before the bell rang. Maybe all your homework end up being due on the Thursday before the big Friday night big game, so you could watch the game without worrying about homework. Maybe the concert just so happens to fall on the weekend you have off of school or work. If I were to think of one, I remember a time where it was down pouring rain on and off. I had forgot my raincoat and I was carrying important papers with me. I was afraid they were going to get wet. Well, just I was about the building, the rain stopped. I walked across the parking lot dry. And just as I starting pulling out of my parking space, it began to downpour again. It stormed the whole time, until I got back to my place. As I parked, the rain stopped again so I could get inside dry. Once I was inside, the rain continued. Of course I praised God. I cannot say that was pure coincidence. It had to be God. I gave you my testimony about how God used perfect timing in my life, and I gave some possible scenarios. I hope you can find some scenarios in your life. And I hope once you realize those moments, you will respond in the same way I did: by praising God.

And with the end of chapter 3 comes the end of Act 1 of the Esther epic. All the characters have been introduced, from the heroes, to the villains, and everyone in between. The villain has brought in the conflict, which will lead us into Act 2 and the rising action. How will the heroes react to the conflict? Will they think up a plan to save themselves and their people? We’ll find out as we continue through Esther!

 

*Photo Credits: Microsoft Word 2003 Clip Art

[Esther 2] Act 1 Scene 2: The Heroes Are Introduced and Strategically Placed

In Esther 1, King Xerxes and Queen Vashti are introduced. But they aren’t the only two characters in the story. There are two more characters we will learn about today: Esther and Mordecai. In Esther 1, we saw how Vashti exiting had an important impact on the story. In Esther 2, we’ll see how Esther and Mordecai enter the story in an important place. So we must ask ourselves, “How are the heroes in Esther 2 strategically placed?”

Start off by reading Esther 2:1-4. A phrase that sticks out to me is “the king’s fury subsided.” Perhaps it means the king waited for his anger to settle down to make a judgment. Do you think King Xerxes might be regretting his decision? Maybe he is because he is no longer drunk and he made a quick movement. Maybe not because he is just waiting to make a sound decision. I think it could either way. Something I do want to point out in these verses is that this is an empire-wide search. This means that every young virgin girl, from Greece to Egypt to Rome, to even including the land that use to be Israel. But this also includes the girls in Susa.

So here enters Esther and Mordecai. Move on to Esther 2:5-7 to meet them. Now we officially know Mordecai is from the tribe of Benjamin. And with that we know Mordecai’s family was sent into exile. An interesting point I may point out is Mordecai’s family line has some interesting names. Kish is the name of King Saul’s father. Shimei was an advisor to King David. The term “the son of” in the Hebrew language simply means a descendant, if taken a little figuratively. Now if we are taking the term “the son of” more literally, it’s still possible he’s a relative of these men because names of famous family members were recycled. Either way, Mordecai and his family had famous family members, and maybe even a direct relative of a brother of King Saul. The other person introduced is who we know as Esther, but before this story was called Hadasseh. I find it funny that Esther has become a Jewish name, but its origins are really either Babylonian or Persian, and not Jewish. The Jewish name is Hadasseh, which means myrtle. Whether the name Esther has Babylonian origin or Persian origin, the name comes from the word “Isthar” means “star.” Historians believe that is linked to what we call Venus, what the ancients thought was the most beautiful “star.” Either way, Esther is seen as beautiful. The connection between our two heroes is that when Esther’s mother and father die, for untold reasons, Mordecai takes his cousin in with him and treats her like direct family.

I believe Esther’s beauty is a important part of these chapter, and the whole book as well. I believe Esther’s beauty is part a bigger picture. Esther is a charming woman, in both looks and personality. Read Esther 2:8-11 and you’ll see what I mean. What happens is when Esther is taken in as a possible virgin to become queen, she is put under the care of Hegai, a eunuch. Under Hegai, she wins over his favor, and thus Hegai gives her special treatment. One of the special treatments is that Esther and Mordecai can communicate with each other by sending messages back and forth.

The process to become a queen is a long one. Read Esther 2:12-14 to see what Esther had to go through. The first step is about a half a year of oil and myrrh. This is what they used to bathe in Persian times. Remember, the virgins were not chosen based on their wealth on social status. Some of them could have been the poorest of poor, who have been living on the streets. They would have smelled poorly. After those 6 months, it’s another 6 months of perfume and cosmetics. It’s another half year on focusing on just becoming beautiful. We’re already up to a yearTo prepare for her night with the king, she is given any clothing or jewelry she wants. She dressed the way she knew best. It seems as if she has access to riches they she wants, so she probably would go all out. Next, she spends the night with the king. and you can guess what that means. If you can’t, the next step will give it away. The last step is the woman goes to another part of the harem, under the care of Shashgaz. I’m not going to lie to you. That part of the harem is probably for the girls who are not virgins. So if they go from the part of the harem for the virgins to the part that is for non-virgins, you should be able to figure out what happens with the night with the king. Going back to our canonicity question, this passage is used both in favor and against Esther. You can probably guess how the critics would speak against it. They would be concerned about the year of preparation. Does it really take six months to bathe with oil and myrrh? Does it really take six months of perfume and cosmetics? It seems too long. How could we use this as a strength for Esther? Well, the author is well informed about the customs of the day. This has to be how things went because the author is able to give good detail about what happened here.

Back to Esther, we continue to see her win favor in verses 15 to 18. First we see that while every women seems to be maxing out what she can take, Esther takes a small minimum. The result is Esther wins over everyone’s favor. Then she presents himself to the king, and she wins over his favor as well. This makes Esther queen, and everyone celebrates with more feasting.

A majority of this chapter focuses on Esther being made queen, but another little story happens in Esther chapter 2. It goes back to Mordecai. Mordecai is at the king’s gate. The king’s gate is the most important and busiest place in the marketplace and the whole city of Susa. A lot of talk happens here. Among the talk, Mordecai overhears an assassination attempt on King Xerxes. Two men are attempting to kill King Xerxes. So what happens is Mordecai tells Queen Esther, and Queen Esther tells King Xerxes, giving Mordecai the credit. When they find out the story is true, the two men are executed.

It’s important to note this story in this chapter because the one common connection is that both characters are being strategically replaced. This goes back into our original question, “How the heroes are strategically placed?” Let’s quickly state why we can say the heroes are strategically placed. Esther is strategically placed because she is made queen. For Mordecai, Mordecai is given credit for preventing an assassination on the king’s head. His credit will show that he is in favor of the king and sides with him. Mordecai is not the king’s enemy.

 

Esther 1 showed us God’s providence as setting the stage, or preparing things behind the scenes, whether we know it or not. In Esther chapter 2, God’s providence can be seen in a similar way, but more specifically. It’s about God’s providence strategically placing us. What’s the difference? : In setting the stage, God is working before we get there. In strategically placing us, it is more specifically to us, being put in the right place. What good is it if God perfectly set the scene, but we are not there, or we are in the wrong place? We need to be in the right place. I put up a picture of Risk to help remind you of strategic placing, but if you’re not familiar with it, you can use another game, like Monopoly or chess. But I’m going to stick with Risk because, frankly, it’s one of my favorite board games. In Risk, you start out by splitting up the territories, and then splitting up the starting soldiers among the territories. Some players evenly split them out. Other players bunch them in one spot. Yet others will focus on one continent. This decision can make the different in who wins and who loses. We can relate to this in real life. Where we are placed in life determines how our life plays out. How comforting it is to know God is at work placing us.

The example I would use in my life is my student teaching. Finding me a place to student teach at was hectic. Technically, I was suppose to have two different places to student teach, but it was so hectic finding me one, the college and I settled at just one place. When the education department finally found a school for me to teach at, it was all the way in York, a whopping 45 minute drive from Lancaster, where I was living. This was going to be hard on me (getting up earlier, leaving later, spending time in traffic, etc.), but also hard on my gas tank, for I had little gas money. I wasn’t sure how I was going to do it! But God knew what he was doing when he strategically placed me. Because I stayed at one school (as compared to two schools, which I was suppose to do), there were some things I didn’t have to do a second time. At sometimes, I felt like I had half the work compared to my other classmates. Unlike my classmates, I didn’t have to get re-accustomed to a new school. Furthermore, I was suppose to do 2 middle schools, instead I did 1 middle school, and even got to do a bit of high school, which is what I preferred to do. It even extends to after my student teaching. It would just so happen that, 3 months later, I would find out my girlfriend lived 10 minutes away from that school. A few months later, my co-op teacher from that school would help me connect with someone who would help me find a place to live closer to my girlfriend. Now that’s divine providence. God strategically placed me in York in order to have the best possible student teaching experience, as well as know the area for when I would begin dating my girlfriend.

In closing, notice how the two scenes from this first act go hand-in-hand. Without the position being opened in scene 1, Esther could not fill it in scene 2. But if you remember, Act 1 is all about introducing the characters and the main plot. We’re still missing one more character, the antagonist, who will introduce the conflict into the story. All that will happen in the next chapter.

*Picture Credits: “Sony Pictures Sets Its Sights on Risk: A Feature Remake of the Original Boardgame.” 10 June 2011. Social Hollywood Magazine. 6 Sept 2012.

[Esther 1] Act 1 Scene 1: A Spot Opens Up

If you remember from my literary pyramid that I made for the prologue/introduction, I said that the base on the left is where the setting and the characters are introduced, and then I placed Esther 1 on there. Therefore, Esther 1 is all about introducing new characters to the story. In Esther 1, we’ll meet two main characters: King Xerxes and Queen Vashti.

Right from the bat, in Esther 1:1, the text introduces the king. Let’s start off with a question that might seem obvious: What’s the king’s name? It may seem like an obvious question, but it might change depending how your Bible translates. Depending on the translation, the king’s name might be “Xerxes” or “Ahasuers.” It’s not that big of a deal. Xerxes is the king’s Greek name, and Ahasuers is the king’s Hebrew name. But the king is not Greek or Hebrew; he’s Persian. So the most “accurate” name would be his Persian name. So what is his Persian name? His Persian name is “Khshayathiya Khshayathiyanam.” Yeah, good luck trying to pronounce that. Interesting enough, the name means “king of kings and lord of lords.” I find that interesting because that’s a title God gives himself, as seen in Revelation. Maybe Xerxes saw himself as God, or maybe it’s just a title to show he’s the king of an empire, which is made of many kingdoms. I don’t want to go too theological into that. But verse 1 does back up that Xerxes is a king of an empire. Verse 1 says that Xerxes rules over 127 providences from India to Cush, which is the upper Nile region. In fact, Xerxes extended the Persian to Ethiopia and Greece as well. Xerxes’s father was Darius I, which is the one we know from the story of Daniel. Xerxes reigned from 486-465. There’s the proof that Esther does belong in the Bible because the story of Esther fits right in that time period.

Esther 1:4-6 records one of the first actions Xerxes does. The first thing we hear King Xerxes do is throw a banquet, and the Bible records it happens for 180 days, which is about 6 months. Naturally, some people question this. Why do some people question this? It’s not feasible to have a banquet for 180 days. It would six months, taking the princes and governors away from their jobs to party. At least, that’s what the critics say. So perhaps a better explanation would be that Xerxes threw a bunch of small banquets for one prince of governor at a time over a period of 180 days. Also, may I add this might to rally all his princes and governors to his side. Greece is threatening to take back their lost land. King Xerxes needs all his governors on his side to wage war. Well, after this 180 days of banquets, King Xerxes throws another week long banquet for just the officials in Susa, possibly to thank them. This banquet is vividly described. So what’s the point of this? What’s the point of six months and one week of banquets? Why does the Bible want to describe what the decorations look like? To show us how rich King Xerxes is and that King Xerxes spares no expense. It shows King Xerxes’s wealth, and in a way, it shows King Xerxes’s power. He can afford to do this.

Another important part of this banquet was that there was drinking aplenty. Read Esther 1:7-8. Depending on your nationality, there was different drinking customs. For example, in the Greek culture, you were required to drink, and if you did not drink, you were asked to leave. In the Roman culture, a guest of honor was chosen at random, and he decided when to drink, where to drink, and how much to drink. According to this passage, Xerxes did not place rules on this. He let them drink when they wanted, where they wanted and as much as they wanted. There were no limits. As fun as this might sound, the danger about alcohol is distorts reality, which leads to rash judgment. This might have led to the downfall of Queen Vashti.

Now let’s meet Queen Vashti in Esther 1:9. Before we talk about the queens of Persia or the wives of Xerxes, I want to mention that this is where archaeology does not help us. There is no mention of Vashti in the Persian writings at all. In fact, there is only one mention of a queen, but the name is “Amestris.” Some have suggested this might be another name of Vashti, but we cannot be sure. Anyway, this verse tells us that Queen Vashti also threw a banquet, but for the women. This actually fits with the custom of the day. When banquets were thrown, men and women were in separate rooms. So that’s probably what is happening here.

Conflict can sometimes arise in the first chapter of a novel. While the big conflict does not arise in this chapter, a smaller conflict will. It happens in Esther 1:10-12. We hear King Xerxes, in front of nobles, officials and servants, asks for Queen Vashti to appear. What is King Xerxes trying to do? Show off Queen Vashti. Maybe it’s her beauty he’s trying to show off, or maybe it is his wealth. When Queen Vashti receives the message, she refuses to come. Why? Queen Vashti doesn’t want to be used as something to show off.

So as a problem arises, a solution is sought. It takes verses 13 to 22 to fully develop the solution. What’s the first thing Xerxes does? He consults his advisors. Some have suggested King Xerxes is showing weakness because he can’t make the decision on his own, but needs help to make decisions. I don’t think this is showing weakness. I actually think he’s being a good king for seeking guidance and advice. After all, we wouldn’t think the president is a bad president for seeking the cabinet for help. We wouldn’t think our president is weak for seeking the cabinet’s advice. King Xerxes is seeking his cabinet for help. The first “cabinet member” to speak up is Mermucan. Mermucan suggests that if King Xerxes allows Queen Vashti to disrespect him, women all over will disrespect their husbands. Maybe it’s true, maybe it’s false, or maybe it’s just an exaggeration. Either way, it leads Memucan to give what he thinks is a good solution. Memucan suggests Xerxes banish Vashti from his presence, which most likely means the whole city of Susa, and a new queen should replace her. Memucan claims that this will set an example to women to stay in their place.

I want to spend the rest of the post on focusing on a single question: “How is this small story important to the big story?” or “How does Esther 1 contribute to the book of Esther?” First, this story makes a comparable standard for when Esther becomes queen. We knew the rules set for the queen, what the appropriate response is suppose to be, and what the result will be for not following orders. Now I don’t think I’m spoiling the story because most of you are familiar with the story, but when Esther is queen in the future, she will also defy the King’s law in a somewhat similar way. The rule for the queen is that you don’t appear for the king if he does not summon you, but if he does summon you, you must appear. While Vashti refused to enter the king’s presence when summoned, Esther enters the king’s presence without being summoned. Look at how different the results are. Queen Vashti is kicked out of the capital city. But King Xerxes allows Esther to enter. Why do you think that is? It could be a difference in laws, Esther has more favor, pure grace and mercy, or a whole plethora of other options. I’m not going to go any further into that, as we’ll be able to see it more clearly by the time we reach that point. Keep that in mind as we get closer to the chapter where Esther defies the law. It will become clearer then. But for now, I want you to see that Esther does have an upper hand over Vashti.

But I want you to look at the bigger picture here, which is the second point that last group hit on. This story opens up a spot for Esther to be queen. There is no way Esther could have saved her people without being queen. To be queen, there needs to be an open spot to be made queen. I see God working here to open up that position. When God calls us to a position, he’s not going to call us to a position that is already taken. God isn’t going to always put us in a position that we can get to. God will provide a way to put us in the place, position, ministry or mission God wants us in. And sometimes to do that, he’s at work even before we get there, or even before we know it ourselves. It may even be before we were born. The best example I can think of is my own life. My parents fell away from the faith after they finished high school. But when my mother was pregnant with me, my father and mother thought it would be best to start going back to church to raise me to be a good, moral American citizen. And I am very sure that if my parents did not make that decision, I would not stand before you today teaching you the Bible. I had no control over what parents I would get, and whether they were godly or not. But God does have control, and he controlled it to be so.

 

 

So the lesson about God’s providence in Esther 1 is “setting the stage.” I’m going to try to put a picture for every lesson, not only to help you remember the lesson, but also to show God’s providence. In this picture, a stage crew is setting the stage for a performance. In Broadway musical and plays, the stage crew sets the stage. The cool thing about the stage crew is that they are not always seen, but you know they are there and working because everything is perfectly in place for the actors and actresses to use. If all the world’s a stage, and the people merely actors, then one of God’s roles is to be the stage crew, setting the stage for your life. Ever think hard about that? It might blow your mind. Think about it: God is already setting the stage and planning out the next stage in your life, even if you don’t know about it. Now think about where you are in left. Looking back, can you see how God set you up to be in that position? Every positive blessing that you have in your life, God set it up for you to have it. Take the time to praise him for that. If you’re doing the “assignment” I gave you, try to make your “God Sighting” of the day to be a recent way God has set the stage for you. Give God the credit due.

Don’t be too worried if you can’t see God setting the stage right now. This is just the beginning of Esther. As we go through Esther, we’ll see how God setting the stage leads to God working in other parts of the book of Esther. And then maybe you can see God working through other parts of your life, too.

* Picture Credits: Jacoby, Matt. “Setting the stage at the Princess Theatre, Brisbane.” 29 Oct 2004.  Sons of Korah. 3 Sept 2012.