The current media cause celebre is apostate blogger/writer, Rachel Held Evans, who recently published her Bible-hating book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood, in which Evans “attempts” to live out what the Bible says about women in a literal fashion for an entire year. Of course, her conclusion is that such a thing is ridiculous and silly and so Christians shouldn’t seriously consider the Bible as a divinely inspired book that provides direction for a person’s life. More to the point, we should never think the Bible has anything relevant to say about the sexes, particularly male and female roles in family and church.
Figuring there will be a number of readers looking for some reaction and review of her work, I thought I would highlight some responses to her.
First is Sarah Flashing’s review over at the Center for Woman of Faith in Culture.
Then Denny Burk’s thoughts on Evans’ appearance on the Today Show where she talks about her book.
Added 10/30/12 – Kathy Keller’s review at the TGC site.
Added 11/1/12 Joe Carter goes hammer and tongs on Evan’s book.
Added 11/2/12 Doug Wilson, who probably doesn’t really count to Evans’ fans because he is such a meany sexist, provides his pithy remarks.
If and when more come up, I’ll try to link them.
hipandthigh 
Wow…I is all I can say. This is the wrong representation of Christians thanks Rachel.
Have you read the book?
Bruce,
No. I have not.
Now I bet you’re gonna respond with some finger wagging assertion that I can’t make any critical comments or pass judgment against her until I have, but this is postmodernist gobbly gook thinking.
Evans has been writing on these topics publicly for a number of years. Her first book is a big blast against evangelicals, and I can say the same without reading it. This new one is also the same. So there is nothing really new here that she hasn’t said before that I need to “read” her book first in order to offer comment.
I thought I would provide the preemptive remark to save you the time with lecturing me.
I do hope you will consider posting reviews that give an opposing view! For example, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/10/thoughts-about-a-year-of-biblical-womanhood-by-rachel-held-evans/
No, I will not consider posting reviews that give an opposing view. I plan to be very biased and mean about it. That would be like me posting positive reviews of Bart Ehrman or Richard Dawkins, and I don’t think either man has anything positive to contribute as they seek to destroy the faith of men. I say the same for Evans.
well, that is no surprise. by the way, the truth is that Evans is helping to restore the faith of many women whose faith has been undermined by the Church’s misinterpretation of scripture. the use of the phrase “the faith of men” says a lot about to women about why you might disagree with her writing.
Thanks for posting the Roger Olson (seminary professor of Theology at Baylor University and Christianity Today contributing editor) review. The fact that such an irenic Baptist scholar would recommend Evans’ book should be taken seriously by anyone claiming to discuss the book fairly.
Fred,
I hope that’s just hyperbole. Evans is seeking “to destroy the faith of men”? I understand you haven’t read her books, so what support do you have for such an uncharitable attack against a sister in Christ? And I hope you don’t attempt to judge the heart and argue she isn’t a Christian because she might honestly understand some parts of the Bible differently than you. Salvation is on the basis of the finished work of the cross, not our correct opinions about or understanding of the Bible, right?
That’s the Fred I know, right there!!!! Amen!!!!
Thank you Fred. Now I know not to take you seriously.
Thanks.
I’m still right, though.
Oh yes. I am sure that is the way you see it. Supporters of so-called gay “Christians” who revise history and re-translate the Bible to affirm homosexual sin say similar things as well. Bart Ehrman’s supporters also have similar sentiments, as do John Crossan’s fans.
Of course she is destroying the faith of men – and women as well. And of course she doesn’t see it that way at all. No heretic does. Arius, as I read about him, was allegedly a nice guy who only wanted to uphold Scripture and the like. His supporters were very upset that he was being attacked for just asking questions. So was Charles Russell, Charles Templeton, Bart Ehrman.
But again, your mistake is that you assume she is a Christian. I don’t give her that. The reason being is that the Bible is clear that those who follow Christ maintain and hold dear Christ’s commands. Ephesians 5 being a part of Christ’s commands. Christians don’t mock the Bible on national TV, or ridicule those who challenge her views. Evans has not demonstrated she respects Scripture, let alone desires to maintain purity in her theology.
For instance: Christ was exclusive, not inclusive. He is the ONLY means by which men can be saved. Thus, a nice, peaceful Hindu who followed the “golden rule” but never heard of Jesus will be judged by Jesus and will go to hell for his sins. This is what the Bible teaches. Homosexual perverts cannot claim to be Christians and remain fixed in their homosexual desires and pursue homosexual behavior.
I take it that you probably think Rob Bell is a dear brother in the Lord as well? I wouldn’t be surprised if you did. Makes me wonder what boundaries can or cannot be crossed in these matters and a person still be a “Christian.”
Fred, what do you think you are right about? Certainly not my response. Questionably about postmodernity. How do you know you are right about RHE?
Bruce writes,
what do you think you are right about? Certainly not my response.
I’m sorry the certainty bothers you, however, this is how I see it:
You wrote here asking me if I read her book. As I pointed out, it’s irrelevant if I have read her book. Her book is just an extension of her blog. I have read her blog. Nothing in her book is new that hasn’t already been written on her blog. In fact, she’s scamming you, making you think you are gonna get something fresh and innovative with her book when in fact its just her blog in a paperback and she’s charging you money.
I know how she has a proctologist view of evangelicals/fundamentalists and the core values of the Christian faith. I know how she has taken up this Xena princess warrior mantel to rescue women from the clutches of patriarchal churches who chain women to baby strollers and force them to homeschool against their wills.
So when you leave a comment implying I have no right to question her, challenge her, critique her, UNTIL I have read her book, I have to laugh at such an inference.
Questionably about postmodernity.
Really? Tell me how. The zeitgeist among these young fundamental iconoclasts these days is to think questioning the faith in the manner Evans does is a spiritual virtue. That’s because it is mistakenly believed spiritual truth is nebulous and uncertain and no one can be absolutely certain about it. Additionally, anyone, like myself, who offers pointed criticism of her thesis and has the gall to say openly that I think she is essentially a conman, I mean conwoman, is mean and has a closed mind and is being uncivil. So how is my take questionable?
How do you know you are right about RHE?
See my response to Keo above. How did Paul know the Judaizers were wrong? Or was he being unloving to question their hearts?
Gail,
How exactly does a woman (RHE) who does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, who mocks the Bible, who has no sense of redemptive history in understanding the Old Testament, how then is she restoring the faith of women who were supposedly turned off by orthodox Christianity? Faith in what?
Interesting question you finish with, Fred. I’m pretty sure the “unpardonable sin” is neither our attitude toward the Bible nor the degree of theological purity nor ridiculing people who disagree with us (lucky for you on that last one, eh?). How sad to live a Christian life of fear, always having to wonder whether one has crossed the line with this sin or that doubt, with this failure to understand the Bible correctly or that failure to comprehend theology correctly. “Oh, woe! Am I theologically pure enough?” Grace through faith PLUS this and that, or you’re not saved. Truly sad. Pretty sure Paul would have had strong words about that…. Wait — somewhere in Galatians, perhaps?
Theological purity? Really? That’s the criterion? Is that phrase even in the Bible? At least both Jesus and Paul said that the “golden rule” summed it all up, despite your dismissive comment about it. But theological purity? And you’re, what? 95% pure now, based on the blessing of your seminary training? 98%? And that’s good enough to prove your salvation? Or at least good enough to be a self-appointed purity policeman for the Body of Christ?
I don’t know Rob Bell or Rachel Evans, but Evans’ has received complimentary reviews from the likes of Scot McKnight and John Armstrong, wiser men than either of us I expect. You never fail to shock me by the speed with which you are willing to publish your denunciations of heresy against those believed by respectable Christians to be in the family of God.
1. What inference?
2. What is RHE’s thesis?
3. What exactly was your ‘pointed criticism’ of that thesis?
i couldn’t agree with you more Fred. Evans is a God hating apostate who’s gospel is another to be sure. Whatever that is. It ain’t Christianity.