The Return of Jezebel

A few years ago, when the evangelical book fad The Prayer of Jabez was in full swing, I joked that the feminist revisionists would respond with their own small devotional volume: The Prayer of Jezebel. Well, now it is here.

Fortress Press, the publishing house of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, has announced the publication of The Jezebel Letters, which "combines top-notch biblical scholarship with a fictionalized first-person account of the biblical character." According to the Fortress press release, the book "transforms the stereotype of the notorious biblical queen into a more historically based portrayal of a powerful, literate royal woman."

How is she "transformed"? Well, in this reading, Jezebel is the protagonist. According to a Hebrew and Old Testament professor at the University of Amsterdam, the book uses "fictional but not fictitious letters and memoirs written by the ancient Queen herself," allowing us to "reverse our "cultural opinion of 'Jezebel' and see her for what she probably was: a regal, wise, politically active wife, mother and queen in Israel." A biblical studies professor at Claremont laments that "biblical narrative castigates Ahab and his Queen Jezebel as depraved idol worshipers who led their country to ruin." In fact, he writes, she was "the urbane and thoughtful Queen of Israel who gives voice to her efforts and those of her family in guiding Israel through one of its most challenging, and least understood, periods."

So I suppose the biblical narrative about Jezebel was not fictional but fictitious? The reclamation of Jezebel has been ongoing for several years in liberal theological academia. I first noticed it at meetings of the American Academy of Religion a couple of years ago, in papers seeking a "feminist reading" of the Jezebel texts.

This rehabilitation actually tells us much about the revisionist project of feminist theology. When confronted with the authority of the word of God regarding a rebellious and idolatrous reign, these theologians would rather have the role model of a "strong woman," whatever the cause. They listen then  to whatever archaeological "findings" might show in a positive light. Such has always been the case, so much so that the prophet Elijah wondered if he was alone in not bowing the knee to Jezebel's idols (1 Kings 19:10).  But the gods and goddesses of Ahab and Jezebel never answer. All that one hears are the chanting of the cultists around the altar. Sometimes the chanting is on Mount Carmel, and sometimes it is in an academic symposium. But the fire from heaven never comes.

Years ago, I heard a politically-incorrect preacher refer to the goddess-worshiping feminist theologians of some "mainline" Protestant seminaries as "a group of Jezebels." That might have seemed a bit harsh at the time. What what does one say when the feminist theologians call themselves "Jezebels," and mean it as high praise?

Comments

[David Fischler]

According to the Fortress press release, the book "transforms the stereotype of the notorious biblical queen into a more historically based portrayal of a powerful, literate royal woman."

So now "historically based" means "fabricated out of whole cloth, in accordance with the ideological and political preferences of the 'scholar'"?

[Jenna]

What what does one say when the feminist theologians call themselves "Jezebels," and mean it as high praise?

Well, for one thing, I think one can safely say that these feminist theologians are not among the 7,000 who have not bowed to Baal and that God does not count them among His remnant.

[Jenna]

Maybe Touchstone would like to begin referring to the ELCA the way confessional Lutherans do: as the E*CA. The asterisk replaces the "L" because - well - they're not Lutheran.

I would almost want to propose that, in this case, "feminist theologian" is an oxymoron, since theology is the study of God, and this book, whatever else it may be, is most assuredly not theology. But then again, you could say that joining the words together -- feminist and theology -- signifies the study of women in relation to God, or, better yet, the study of women putting themselves in place of God. Given the fact that they're reversing the Biblical measure of Jezebel and Ahab as rebellious idolaters, are they not substituting God's judgment with their own?

In the meantime, I mourn the loss of Fortress Press to the "dark side"...

[Beacon]

'fictional but not fictitious'.
That would be like: 'Fake but accurate'?
Only a Dutchman could use English that way.

[Donna V.]

It's not like there are no strong women in the OT: what about Ruth, Judith (now there's a tough cookie!)and Esther?

The M.O. of some feminists seems to be that no famous woman in history can ever be portrayed as bad or evil (unless you're talking about, say, Margaret Thatcher). No, we're all wonderful and always have been - our "sisters" have just gotten a bad rap from those evil white males.

[Thomas C. Wyld]

They're already advertising the film version of the Duh Vinci Code --

here for example: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/hd/

-- even though the film won't reach theatres until Summer, 2006, when we can (not) see it.

Must we wait until Summer, 2007, to (not) see Jezebel?

[William Tighe]

I think that E**A or E*"C"A would be better than E*CA, just as some of my friends abbreviate the (Protestant) Episcopal Church as (P)E*USA or (P)E"C"USA.

[Juli]

Quote: I think that E**A or E*"C"A would be better than E*CA, just as some of my friends abbreviate the (Protestant) Episcopal Church as (P)E*USA or (P)E"C"USA.

Of course, there are some Roman Catholics (and for that matter some Orthodox Christians) who consider Protestant communions "churches" at best, and I know some Protestants who consider Roman Catholics "Christians" at best. I think we should be careful here in our zeal to excommunicate each other.

[Jenna]

No need for any zeal on my part to excommunicate the E*CA. They are doing a fine job of excommunicating themselves.

[Juli Tarsney]

Lutherans were excommunicated by the RC church long ago. Those in the ELCA are excommunicating themselves from whom else?

[Carl]

We know what Luther has written about the Roman Catholic church, but I've often wondered what Luther would write about the ELCA if he were around today. Would he conclude that the people are being led by wolves?

FWIW,
Carl

[Tony]

The ELCA is like the YMCA: not for the young, not for men, and not Christian, but still an A.

They have diverged from the Good News, so E is out. They have betrayed their founder, so L is out. They have embraced cultural and religious relativism, so C is out. So they are the

Some Organization or Other Founded by Somebody or Other to Talk about Some More or Less Comforting Things in America.

[Carl]

Certainly you are referring to the leaders of this church body, right? I don't believe that many of the "people in the pew" are even that aware of what path the wolves are leading them down. But then, again, *whose* fault is that?!!

Carl

[Will Benton]

I wrote about how to refer to the "E""L""C"A a little on my site; I see that Prof. Esolen's view of the matter, unsurprisingly, is in line with mine.

I am interested in the question Carl raises: who is to blame for this? In my opinion, the absolute lack of Christian education in "Lutheran" churches bears the most culpability; perhaps an anecdote will draw this picture most clearly.

I recall teaching a confirmation class on Lutheran Doctrine in an ELCA church some years ago, shortly after the release of the Luther movie. A man dropped off his son and engaged me in conversation about the Luther movie. He had not seen it, but he had talked to his wife, who had. He recounted how she had said that Luther was "all about justification by faith, and not by works," to which he said "That's crazy! Do we actually believe that?" I told him that he was welcome to remain and attend the class.

If your church is populated by people who can't identify that "the doctrine upon which the Church stands or falls" is something that they "actually believe," they are liable to be led astray by any revisionist with a degree, a position of authority, and an agenda. (It goes without saying that it is wholly unclear to me how a child growing up in such a home could expect to have any grounding in Scripture, the Lutheran Confessions, or even in answers to common questions that trouble young minds, e.g. the problem of evil.) The systemic lack of education doesn't excuse the sheep from their responsibility for Scripture and doctrine, but it does tie a millstone more firmly around the necks of the ELCA leadership, who should know better -- after all, their degrees should have involved at least some exposure to orthodoxy.

[Jenna]

With regards to the question of blame, I agree that the greater part of the sin belongs to the clery and scholars in the E*CA (sorry, couldn't help myself); "from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked". They've either forgotten, never knew, or, most likely, never took seriously James' admonition that teachers will be held to a higher standard of accountability. They'll have an unpleasant surprise in store someday, I fear, when they realize that the Holy Spirit means what He says.

I'd like to flip the question around to the responsibility of the sheep for a moment. I'm a member of an LCMS church with a sound program of catechetical instruction. The confirmation program, for instance, is three years long and the young people don't automatically "pass"; if they fail to complete the assigned work in a satisfactory fashion, and then fail a public examination by our elders, the pastors and elders don't approve them for confirmation. Our two pastors are solidly confessional, gifted teachers. We provide weekly instruction for high school students and adults. The percentage of the congregation that attends class? Approximately 12%. With all these wonderful resources available, few are interested. I lament it...but how does a church reverse such a trend?

[GL]

Dear Will,

This may be off topic, but I will raise it anyway. I have been studying Lutheranism, to which I am very much attracted, over the past several months. (I am currently working my way through the Book of Concord.) The issue of justification by grace through faith *alone* is something I am trying to get my head around. As a Southern Baptist, we believe essentially the same thing, but the formulation has always bothered me because of James' epistle and Christ's own teaching on the necessity of obedience. I am now reading Bonhoeffer's "The Cost of Discipleship." I find that his presentation of how faith and obedience relate fits exactly my thoughts. Bonhoeffer was very clear that he did not see the necessity of obedience as being antithetical to the Lutheran formula, but complimentary to it. If his thoughts accurately present the orthodox Lutheran understanding, then it removes a significant hurdle to my acceptance of the Lutheran formulation.

So here is my question, did Bonhoeffer correctly discribe the orthodox Lutheran understanding of justification by grace through faith and the place of obedience in that formula? You may email me your reply off the blog by clicking my name since it is really off topic. (I would have emailed you that way, but your name took me to your web site and I could not readily find your email address.)

Thanks in advance for indulging my question.

GL

[Juli]

Thanks in advance for indulging my question.

Pun intended?

[rh]

Did any of you actually read the book? Or just the dust-jacket?

[penis enlargement pills]

Male orgasm more important than female orgasm?

Studies made in medicine show that men are capable to have a more intense orgasm then women, because men involve their entire body in the orgasm experience and they are able to experience multiple orgasms even if it happens or not in the same time with the ejaculation. It seems like as long as men […]