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.
