The IRD has set its sights on Rachel Held Evans with several recent articles, namely this one. Oddly enough, a writer for the IRD is also a writer for the Gospel Coalition. Anyway, they aren’t taking too kindly to Evans’ take down of modern day Evangelicalism. Now that she has shown how a woman can do more than stay in the kitchen quietly, they are ramping up their minions to attack.
I posted a review of Honey BooBoo’s book on Amazon, and that provoked the Attack of the Killer Shrews. Wow, talk about LOYAL fans! If only people were that committed to Jesus of Nazareth! The comments all followed a pattern: “How dare you! Rachel loves Jesus! I love Jesus! Rachel is a woman of valor! You didn’t read the book! Rachel has opened up the Bible for millions of women!”
Never confuse “fame” with “greatness.”
In one post, her critics have all but accused her of promoting the destruction of a man’s property – his future’s wife virginity. I almost wrote vagina, but this is a family blog. The commenters on this post in particular show a complete ineptness of what Scripture says about sexuality. Of course, that won’t stop them, as they seem insist that a woman is less of a good thing if she has sex before marriage.
All of this is nothing more than a bunch of backward “evangelicals” missing the point, judging not on facts but only what they think they know, and generally doing a bang-up job of being the prime example of what it is not to be either a Christian or a real Evangelical.
The author of the most recent article on Evans concludes her statements with this,
Although Evans did not define “biblical womanhood” in any real sense, she showcased clearly her approach to scripture, which deviates dramatically from that of evangelical tradition….
Thank God it deviates… Of course, Evans has a habit of taking Scripture honestly and showing how the so-called “face value” or “plain sense” hermeneutic is quite funny in practice.
It seems unlikely that most evangelicals, who have historically emphasized the authority of scripture, will follow her call to evolve into communities of questioning and doubt.
Authority is one thing – Evans engages the authority of Scripture like we all should. However, what the author really means is that Evans takes Scripture for what it is and where it came from and where it is today. She doesn’t rely upon the final interpretation motif common among Evangelicals today, but instead shows that if you stick Scripture on a pedestal, you are doing it wrong.
It is sad that Evangelicals will not take Evans’ advice and follow her at least partially out of the hindering mindset that is modern (American) Evangelicalism.
Christianity would be better served with more Evans and less Tool-ey clones.
HT to Rod for the pic.