Why Christians need to be cautious with Rachel Held Evans' writings

This lady has gotten attention; for her skepticism, embrace of doubt, for questioning everything about traditional American evangelicalism. Bible interpretation, women's roles, especially the word "biblical", homosexuality, gay marriage and other sexual issues are all areas that she has a voice in.

She strikes a chord with those jaded by evangelicalism. Or the cynics. Or people who have doubts that they just can't conquer. She also strikes a chord with people who are or have been part of a typical evangelical subculture or church, but who do not have the family structure that is usually desired: marriage and/or children.

These issues and viewpoints are personal and, I'm guessing, painful. They definitely cause a lot of friction. Thus when I write this I have absolutely no intention of causing more hurt. I also realize that writing as one with the desired familial structure I may not be well received.

Can the reader set aside any bias against me? I hope so. I'm simply writing as a Christian to anyone who is curious enough to know my two cents.

I've been observing Rachel Held Evans from a distance for two or three years now; reading her stuff, reviews of her stuff, articles about her or by her, etc. She's smart. I love her writing style. I resonate with many of her concerns about American evangelicalism. I too struggle with church.

But there are some things about her trains of thought, her presuppositions, her hermeneutic, her views of authority, that I think can lead to some serious betrayals of orthodox Christianity. Not evangelicalism, but Christianity. Stuff that transcends the littler issues that divided denominations or elected presidents. I'm talking core stuff.

Before I go any further, I want to say that Evans is so good with words and thoughts that I'm sure she would easily refute what I have to say. In fact, it's as if the trap has been laid, and I'll probably step right into it, for refuting anything she writes only confirms what she writes about stereotypical evangelicals. Inherent in her style is an argument that is almost impossible to refute, for she speaks out of both sides of her mouth when using her postmodern hermeneutic on God's word and world.

Nonetheless I'll say what I feel led to say: 

Following her train of thought will lead a Christian down a path that forsakes the inerrancy, authority and sufficiency of Scripture. On this train also rides those who don't truly believe, deep down, that the Holy Spirit is working in evangelical churches, which are part of Christ's body, today. In her view, it seems as if most (or all) authority in America's church is really a fabricated, man-made, and hopelessly corrupt system. Therefore we can't trust these pastors or church leaders, we can only trust ourselves.

The subtle denial of Scripture's inspiration and its implications, embracing and nurturing doubts of Scripture's authority, and lowering the Bible to the status of just another classic novel or good moral book is an age-old practice. What I see that may be new with Evans is that she blurs the line between higher and lower textual criticism, but at the core embraces a higher criticism and doesn't view Scripture as authoritative. This leaves one with a powerless social gospel, devoid of the Holy Spirit and the power of regeneration and sanctification and glorification. Jesus didn't die and physically raise from the dead in order to save us from the penalty of our sins; He just physically rose and we don't know what for.

But I see that God's Spirit is working. Yes, even in silly ol' 'Murica. And a vast majority of the Scriptures are really easy to understand and are much harder to twist than people say it is. In fact, the Bible through and through has some pretty nasty things to say to those who choose to reject God's word. It has some doubly nasty foretellings for those who lead God's children away from the gospel as well. There actually are God-given categories of thought for fear and trembling, and for God's authoritative judgment. He is our Creator.

We should fear to flout what God says in his word. We should fear his judgement for tampering with a Christian's one reliable source of eternal truth. We should also fear that we are trampling on the blood of Christ poured out for us, going back on what we had received; adoption into God's family, wholly undeserved; the inheritance of God's kingdom; the sure promises of God; an essential place to serve in the body of Christ; the gospel of peace on our feet, powerful to save and free to all; the child-like trust in God alone for reconciliation with him! We cannot throw these eternal benefits away to have our ears itched, our doubts confirmed and to feel better about not fitting a temporal man-made mold of the nuclear family! What do we get if we gain the whole world and yet lose our souls?

Dear friends, if you are a fan of RHE I make no claim to know where your heart or hers is when it comes to the Christian faith. I'm only saying what I see in what she writes. I think one should be very cautious to lock themselves into a way of thinking proselytized by a person whose fame has flourished on a platform of creating a vacuum of belief, of denying old ways, and pulling out and tossing aside foundation stones.

I also don't think that questioning things is wrong. The right or wrong is in the answer you settle on. And the standard of right and wrong belongs to God, not people.

Lastly I think this all just boils down to who you put your faith in and how you perceive the role of postmodern thought in biblical interpretation or the illumination of Scripture. If red flags don't come up in your mind when someone makes weighty claims that question millenia-old teachings of Christianity, then I fear for you.

Butterfield's book, homosexuality, etc.

I haven't written in a while! I think it's been 11 days, which is a record. I'm sure the internet missed another person's opinions.... anyway...

I've been taking this time to let Rosaria Champagne Butterfield's testimonial book just sink into my soul. Like I said, I'm in the process of reading 3 different books giving autobiographical testimony of conversions, all of which come from some sort of sexual brokenness. This is in an effort to understand where people come from to Christ, and how better to relate to them, befriend them and love them.

And Carson starts fussing now... this is the other reason why writing blog posts is hard! Having a crazy, adventurous toddler! That being said, I don't really have time to write any kind of comprehensive review of her book. I'm glad that's not my job. So I want to write about how her book changed my life!

Rosaria went from being a feminist, lesbian English professor studying Queer Theory in New York to being now a wife, pastor's wife and adoptive parent. She describes her conversion as a trainwreck, traumatizing and just really hard! She says that as she read through the Bible to refute it, and met with her new friend, a Reformed Presbyterian minister, the Word of God got bigger in her than herself. She had a lot of ups and downs along the way, but I'll save those for your own reading.

Two things powerfully struck my in the beginning of reading this book. 1) Her critiques of American evangelicals, and 2) the role of pastor Ken Smith as a friend and advocate in her search through the Bible (before she left her lesbian lifestyle).

1) When I first read her critiques of evangelicals I was offended. I felt my face get hot as I read it. I didn't like reading all the things that people like me are doing wrong toward the gay community. I knew she was right though! When I read through this part of the book a second time, having read the story of her conversion, it was easier to read. 

Examples:

"Here is one of the deepest way Christians scared me: the lesbian community was home and home felt safe and secure; the people that I knew the best and cared about were in that community; and finally, the lesbian community was accepting and welcoming while the Christian community appeared (and too often is) exclusive, judgmental, scornful and afraid of diversity..." pg 5 (italics mine).

"[Christians] appeared to use the Bible... in order to bring the Bible into a conversation to stop the conversation, not deepen it" pg 4.

"I'm grateful that the Lord brought me to a church that was as strong on teaching as it is on compassion... My lesbian friends had to learn that not all Christians are bigots. My Christian friends had to learn that Christians have a lot to learn from gay and lesbian folks about mercy work... I didn't know how to bridge the two groups..." pgs 23-24.

Here is a long one, but this one powerfully struck me:

"Shortly after becoming a Christian, I counseled a woman who was in a closeted lesbian relationship and a member of a Bible-believing church. No one in her church knew. Therefore, no one in her church was praying for her. Therefore, she sought and received no counsel. There was no "bearing one with the other" for her. No confession. No repentance. No healing. No joy in Christ. Just isolation. And shame. And pretense. Someone had sold her the pack of lies that said that God can heal your lying tongue or your broken heart, even cure your cancer if he chooses, but he can't transform your sexuality... She said: 'Rosaria, if people in my church really believed that gay people could be transformed by Christ, they wouldn't talk about us and pray about us in the hateful way that they do.'

"Christian reader, is this what people say about you when they hear you talk and pray? Do your prayers rise no higher than your prejudice? 

"I think that churches would be places of greater intimacy and growth in Christ if people stopped lying about what we need, what we fear, where we fail, and how we sin... And I suspect that instead of seeking counsel and direction from those stronger in the Lord, we retreat into our isolation and shame and let the sin wash over us, defeating us again" pg. 25.

Wow. 

2) The friendship that this Reformed Presbyterian minister and his wife, Ken and Floy, formed with this nonChristian, Christian-hating lesbian activist was truly loving and authentic. And to be loving and authentic he did not have to approve of the homosexual lifestyle. But he did have to go against what most Christians do today, which is to separate themselves from close friendship with anyone in the LGBT community. 

There were some notable components of their friendship... the fact that he didn't just invite her to church and quote a ton of Scriptures at her, that they didn't treat her like a project, scapegoat, blank slate for them to write on, or example of warning to Christians. He didn't humiliate her. He didn't just talk about sexual issues all the time. It seems like to me they talked mostly about the Bible and Jesus and Christianity. Mainly because she was writing something against the Christian Right and needed to study the Smiths. 

She says, 

"Before I ever set foot in a church, I spent two years meeting with Ken and Floy and on and off "studying" scripture and my heart. If Ken and Floy had invited me to church at that first meal I would have careened like a skateboard on a cliff, and would have never come back. Ken, of course, knows the power of the word preached but it seemed to me he also knew at that time that I couldn't come to church - it would have been too threatening, too weird, too much. So, Ken was willing to bring the church to me. This gave me the room and the safety that I need to match Ken and Floy's vulnerability and transparency. And so I opened up to them. I let them know who I was and what I valued. I invited them into my home and into my world. They met my friends, came to my dinner parties, saw me function in my real life. They made themselves safe enough for me to do this" pgs 11-12.

After I read the whole book, one big theme concerning sin and repentance struck me: the true cost of the Christian life in denying oneself and taking up one's cross. In Rosaria's life this can be summed in this sentence: "One doesn't repent for a sin of identity in one session" pg 23. 

We all have to repent of our identities and give our whole selves to Him. We all are depraved and lost without him. And as Christians we should see ourselves on an equal plain with the rest of the condemned, non-believing world, were it not for Christ in us. 

I came away from this book wanting to make more non-believing friends and friends from the gay community. I hate that they have a hard time and many times don't have anyone to share the truth about Christ's love and sacrifice to them. 

I know that Rosaria's case is unique - she sought out this pastor after receiving a letter in response to an article she wrote. He sought her out too, but she had to initiate. She had to study the bible for herself, and she did so because of her academic goals, not because the pastor told her to. Ultimately, it was God who saved Rosaria. He only used the Smiths for a time. I pray that more Christians can do that, especially with what's going on in the U.S. today. I think next week there is some legislation on gay marriage that's getting voted on. Instead of hating the gay community and seeing them as the enemy, we should remember that our battle is not with flesh and blood, but evil spirits and Satan himself.

On being an everyday apologist

I am continually surprised and at the same time discouraged by how many people who have called themselves Christians in the past are doing things against... let's call it, 'traditions'. I don't mean this self-righteously. I'm tempted to do the same things they now do, but the grace of God sustains me. I don't really talk to any of these people anymore.

But I make war on the doubts that creep up in my mind. I'm troubled. I'm burdened. I'm struggling. But I'm not defeated because of God in me. Over the years, even in Bible college, I've been through serious doubts about God and about Christ and about the Bible. But in the bloody pits of these battles I call out to God and He sustains me. Sometimes I don't even call out to God, and ignore Him; yet still, he speaks to me. He reveals himself to me. He shows his love to me. 

I don't know if these people who fell away did that, or what kind of pain they have been through, or anything. I don't really know them, I just see and hear about what they do. And I read about the kinds of thoughts and philosophies that lead to a denial of our faith and a free license to do whatever they want without fear of God. 

But nothing strengthens faith like discouragement, opposition or persecution. I turn over in my mind the claims of those against my faith. And I'd like to write more about what goes in on my brain here. 

My hesitation has always been the crap that people will throw at me, or the kinds of things they will say behind my back. Or to my face, since the internet makes people more rude and bold at times. 

But if I am staying true to my conscience, to what I feel God's Spirit leading me to do, and if I am doing nothing against the plain word of God, then I have nothing to be ashamed over. It's not shameful to be passionate about what's good. And if my passion for what's good makes someone feel guilty for being passionate about bad things, but they cover up their guilt with anger and hate and snappy remarks, I'm told that I'm blessed in receiving that. But am I throwing the proverbial pearls before the proverbial swine?

So maybe I'll go out of my comfort zone a bit. I'll start blogging about being an 'everyday apologist', with a Bible in one hand and a baby in the other. As I'm washing dishes and thinking, or as I'm watching Carson play and thinking, ... maybe I'll write some of those thoughts here. Maybe not.

Let me make one thing clear: I have no reason to hold myself above anyone who lives differently than me. I am just 'one beggar telling another beggar where to get bread.'

If I sound self-righteous to any of you, you have misunderstood me and I'm sorry. I work all day every day at setting aside my pride and checking my motives. I've almost gone insane over it, but for the assurance of God's acceptance of me by Christ.

Just remember this: I have the right to type these things, and so far, the American government has not restricted that right. I thank God for that and pray He uses me for His glory. 

His glory is the only worthy reason to writing about defending the orthodox Christian faith. 

Controversial Questions

source: sbts.edu/women/seminary-wives-institute/

Well I've sure been a slacker when it comes to SWI. It's a great resource for the ladies not in seminary around here, and I'd been taking only electives and not core classes for... ahem... 5 years now! lol. I can't believe it's been 5 years. In 5 years I have taken 6 electives, 2 required, and a combined total of 2 years off. Of course they aren't super strict with it. I've never been told: "You have to take this course or we'll kick you out!"

It was honestly hard to get into SWI because I had just finished getting a B.A. in Bible at Moody when we moved here 5 years ago. It wasn't so much that I had nothing new to learn, but that I was a bit burnt out from intense theological studies and paper writing and reading and wanted to relax and take more directly applicable classes. 

My favorite so far has been Nuts and Bolts of Local Church Ministry, which taught all new material for me and required us to read Liberating Ministry from the Success Syndrome by Hughes. I can't say enough good things about that book or that class. But especially the book - all the things that people get disillusioned with when it comes to church, all the obstacles a man like my husband faces in his ministry career... it all has it's cure in the Scriptural principles that Liberating puts forth. "Success is serving... success is praying... success is loving... success is faithfulness... success is prayer... success is attitude... success is holiness..." Those are the chapter headings. It sounds cheesy but when you get into the book, it makes perfect sense. 

Anyhoo, I was going to talk about the current SWI course that I'm signed up for. It's called Controversial Questions. It deals with creation and evolution, government and law, sexuality and gender (uh-oh...), family and children, medicine and bioethics, and doctrine and Scripture. 

If anyone reading my blogs in the past hasn't noticed, I kind of have a thing for controversies. It bothers me that all kinds or people, even people with less education than me in these areas, will proclaim their opinions and rants on the internet and get a lot of agreement, not because they are saying anything true, but because they are mad or hurt and are saying what peoples' itching ears want to hear. It's especially hard when I see people my age, who I've known from church or bible college, denying what they used to hold to for the sake of having their itching ears relieved for a time.

Not only do these things bother me, but my own questions and disillusioning experiences and doubts are what drive me to seek answers. When someone seeks answers to their questions with a heart that believes their God is good, a heart that is willing to feel hurt and be healed, those answers are easy to find. Hard to apply. God gives wisdom to those who ask. But when someone seeks answers that satisfy their desire for revenge or to cast blame, including on God, or answers that justify the things they do that are not pleasing to God, they'll find the fake answers. 

I don't profess tons of knowledge gained in experience in these areas, but I have enough experience of churches to know that you can never go to a church expecting a utopia. The only utopia that will exist on earth is when Jesus returns. But when utopia-seekers join a church and become disillusioned, they blame it on their local church or denomination. They leave. They cast judgments and use their bitterness as fuel for snide remarks. This reaction is just wrong.

What is stopping me from joining this online discussion and providing another perspective? Again, many people I read don't have any more educational experience than I do, especially in Biblical studies. Maybe someday I'll jump in an be an orthodox voice in the debates. The holdback is the drama. Sigh, the drama. The ad hominem and the name-calling. The slippery slopes and the straw men. If I jump in, I may never come out alive!

Downton Abbey Season 3 (revised post)

Oh. my. word. 

I just finished Downton Abbey season three, because my mom, who has a special membership with PBS, got me the DVDs for Christmas. So of course I finished the season within 2 days! (I was also sick, so I had time to lay around ;) )

Since I don't want to spoil it for my friends, I will use words to describe how I feel. 

UGH. Frustrated. Shocked. 

None of those above words are shocking because, well, it's Downton Abbey. They always want to shock. :P

A TV show is a TV show, and I was thankful to see a real life sunset tonight, knowing that real life is much different than Downton Abbey.

I will say, they have changed some of the characters' personalities. They have an agenda to communicate, so they made Carson and Lord Grantham more intolerant and bigoted to prove their point. People love having bigots to scowl upon, because it always makes someone feel good to have someone else to look down on!

But both Carson and Lord Grantham, from the beginning of Downton, were kind, sweet and fatherly. Now they are harsh and cold-hearted, at least much of the screen time. Suddenly upholding even the most minute of traditions is more important that kindness. This was not the case at first. I hate that they sacrificed the fatherly figures of the show just to make a social point. And it doesn't make the point for me, sorry! It only muddles social issues and makes them more messy. 

However, that change is the only thing I didn't like about the season! I love how redemptive the show is as a whole. Each character goes through a kind of personal redemption (without naming Christ of course). The most inspiring redemptive story for me was Mary's story through seasons 1 and 2.  

And when it comes to tolerance, I will say that they made a great point about it when Thomas makes a new friend (not 'lover') at the end of Season 3. Bravo for that. It makes a point that all evangelicals I think mean at heart: that though we disagree with any immoral actions, showing general kindness to others is one way we desire show Christ's love. Yes, Christ's love has a tough side. A very tough side. But He's God and we're not. :)

My encounter with the nasty passage of Genesis 34

For years now I have really loved the book of Genesis. I love the narrative, the snapshots into ancient culture and customs, and how God revealed himself so plainly...

But today I hit a bump in the road. It's been over 8 years since I've really studied this, and since then I've usually swerved around this bump in the road, but there is a time to face your doubt head-on and deal with it! Gen. 34 is just nasty. The whole situation and every player in it is just nasty. The nastiest thing is what Jacob's two sons did. Cruel, heartless, mass-killing! 

And the voice in my head, a voice I am convinced was nurtured by all the anti-belief trends I marinated in while growing up in the Seattle area, the voice that dominated my being until I met Christ at 14... this voice questioned, "What kind of 'good' faith would have patriarchs like these? " or, "How can the Bible be God's Word with such horrific acts?" or, "How can God approve of this?"

These questions have heavy presumptions. The core presumption being that everything set forth in biblical narratives, including the choices of key people, is (or should be) approved by God and is considered holy even today. That patriarchs were perfect, holy people and should be our example. 

Psh! 

This is why it's important to get education in the Bible. This is why it's important for pastors to explain the whole Scriptures to their congregants. I'm so blessed to have gone to one of the best Bible colleges around, Moody Bible Institute. But again, I hadn't gone in-depth into a study of Genesis for 8 years now!

Luckily we still have our textbooks, plus more from David's seminary classes. I'd been reading a few things on Genesis (like commentaries and Bible encyclopedias) but the best thing I read on this has been James Montgomery Boice's commentary Genesis: An Expositional Commentary, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.)

Boice's chapter (117) on Genesis 34 is entitled, "A Shameful Incident". The first thing he points out is that many influential commentators have not dealt with the passage, by either skipping it completely, telling readers to figure it out on their own, or sometimes even telling pastors there is no valuable lesson to preach from the passage (p. 829). Boice insists that there is, especially in the area of how not to live!

But the main encounter I want to focus on with Gen. 34 is bibliology (doctrine of the Bible) and even the inerrancy of Scripture, not so much the Christian life. The latter is a cake walk in this case...

Anyhoo, Boice says, 

"Whenever the Bible contains material that reflects so badly not merely upon the sins of humanity in general but also upon the particular wickedness in the hearts and lives of God's people, this is evidence of the divine and not merely the human origin of the Scriptures... Human writers would have suppressed these events, just as commentators sometimes seem compelled to suppress them today... As we study this chapter we find the words of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to be true; "All Scripture is [indeed] God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man" [i.e. person] "of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (pp. 829-830).

If you were transcribing the ancient scrolls, would you not want to leave out Genesis 34? I would. Yet the Jews have included it in the Torah from the beginning (829). Our natural shame wants us to suppress things like this.

That's the point of the passage! We should be horrified by what we read. It was wrong. 

Moreover this passage touches on the roots of the Good News: Man cannot save himself. All other religions/spiritualities involve man reaching out to the divine somehow, but Christianity is God reaching down to man. The Good News is that all have sinned, that the wages of sin is death, and that the gift of eternal life is for all who believe in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation, not their own imperfect and perpetually tainted good works. (Romans 3:23, 6:23-24, Ephesians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1) 

Look at this pretty graph I made!

I first learned this from my youth pastor, and then learned all the amazing details from the Bible

Even before Christ, God told the Israelites that he chose them not because they were better than all the other nations around them, but because of his own goodness and sovereign plan (>>>Deuteronomy 7:6-9). And it is clear that regardless of all the stupid things God's people have ever done (like the Crusades, etc) God will still work out His plan. People will still believe in Jesus Christ. 

God's love is relentless. There's nothing we can do to stop Christ from doing his work on earth. People saying that Judaism or Christianity is false or the Bible is false can't stop it either. And pointing out Gen 34 as a reason to reject God is only an excuse masking deeper, tougher issues. 

Of course God hates what Simeon and Levi did. Their shame is our warning and our reminder that we are all capable of such evils, and such evils are in all our natures, and that God is the only one who can save us from ourselves and from His wrath against evil.