Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 4: Chapter 2

This is part 4 of our critique of Rachel Held Evans’ book titled Inspired.  Here are the previous posts in this series:

Part 1 click here

Part 2 click here

Part 3 click here

In this post we will look at chapter 2 of the book.

Chapter Synopsis

Chapter Two is titled “Deliverance Stories.”  The chapter focuses on the narratives in the Bible that talks about God and liberation from oppression.  A big part of that is the story of Sarah’s female slave Hagar and God’s care for her and also how God freed the Hebrews form the Egyptians in the book of Exodus.  Yet the chapter also talks about what Rachel Held Evans find as problematic concerning passages of the Bible that she sees as oppressive.

Brief Questioning of the Historicity of the Exodus

On page 37 of the book Rachel Held Evans wrote

 This single event, whether historical or legendary or a bit of both, has shaped the faith of millions of people, inspiring artists and activists and world leaders for centuries. Never should it be discounted as just a story” (37).

It is sad to see her question the historicity of the biblical account of the Hebrew Exodus.  But since she didn’t spend time dwelling on this I would move on to her other areas she concentrate on in the chapter.

Multiple Meaning?

In this chapter we see Rachel Evans confuses Meaning and Application.

On page 40 we see Evans stating that there is the possibility of “new meaning” in the Bible:

The rich history of reading new meaning into the Bible’s deliverance stories reminds us, too, that in an effort to understand the unique context form which Scripture emerged and the original audience for whom it as intended, we dare not forgo the long and crucial tradition of sacred appropriation, of allowing these ancient stories to speak fresh life into new, fitting, contexts” (40).

One of the consequences of Evans’ idea of “new meaning” is that she believes there are multiple meanings of Biblical stories:

In other words, Bible stories don’t have to mean just one thing.  Despite what you may have heard from a pastor or Sunday school teacher along the way, faithful engagement with Scripture ins’t about uncovering a singular, moralistic point to every text and then sticking to it.  Rather, the very nature of the biblical text invites us to consider the possibilities” (40).

But it is better to see that there are many new applications for our contemporary situation from the Biblical deliverance stories but not necessarily new meanings.  There are many limitations to what a biblical text can mean; in other words, there are things the passage “can not mean.”  Authorial intent is important.  And the author’s intent of any written narrative cannot be something “new” since the writing was written in a historic moment conveying a message.  But from one’s interpretation of what a passage is saying, we get the “interpretation” of the passage, that is, its meaning.  The meaning of the passage then shape applications and the reason why there are many applications is because it vary according to the individual and the individual’s situation.

Let me add a little more nuance with this discussion of the view that there is “one meaning with a biblical passage but many applications.”  A passage having one meaning means the message of the text is defined and fixed.  “One meaning” doesn’t deny there are various aspects covered in that one meaning; nor does it deny chronological sequence of events, etc., since the various aspects covered in a passage or chronological sequences of a narrative are defined and fixed.  Really if there is the possibility of “new meaning” of the text that means the message of the Bible narrative itself are not defined and fix; it can be changed to be a different story altogether when chronological sequences in the story can be fluid and moved around, which affects the details and aspects of what the passage is objectively about.

At minimum Rachel Held Evans is confusing meaning and applications.  At its worst Rachel Held Evans view of “new meaning” and “multiple meanings” is by definition the twisting the message and original intent of the Bible.

How Would Jesus Read the Bible?

Earlier in part 3 of our series I noted Rachel Held Evans’ Intellectually Schizophrenic Subjective Hermeneutic.  I believe it manifest itself again in chapter 2 of the book.

On the one hand we can’t make the biblical text to mean anything we want:

Of course, the fact that a single biblical text can mean many things doesn’t mean it can mean anything” (41).

She then goes on in the paragraph to list the examples of those of those who twists the Scripture:

• “Slave traders justified the exploitation of black people by claiming the curse on Noah’s son Ham  rendered all Africans subhuman” (41).
• “Many Puritans and pioneers appealed to the stories of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan to support attacks on indigenous populations” (41).
• “More recently, I’ve heard Christians shrug off sins committed by American politicans because King David assaulted women too” (41).

After the examples she has given in the end of the paragraph she concluded with these words: “Anytime the Bible is used to justify the oppression and exploitation of others, we have strayed far from the God who brought the people of Israel out of Egypt” (41).

Yet on the other hand we can make the biblical text to mean anything we want:

If you are looking for Bible verses with which to support slavery, you will find them.  If you are looking for verses with which to abolish slavery, you will find them.   If you are looking for verses with which to oppress women, you will find them.  If you are looking for verses with which to honor and celebrate women, you will find them.  If you are looking for reasons to wage war, there are plenty.  If you are looking for reasons to promote peace, there are plenty more.  If you are looking for an outdated and irrelevant ancient text, that’s exactly what you will see.  If you are looking for truth, that’s exactly what you will find.

This is why there are times when the most instructive question to bring to the text is not, What does this say? but, What am I looking for?  I suspect Jesus knew this when he said, “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7)” (56-57)

Note the various ways Rachel Held Evans believe the Bible can be used.  These uses are even contradictory.  More importantly is the second paragraph.  She thinks the main issue isn’t “What does this say?” but “What am I looking for?”  For Evans the focus isn’t what the text objectively meant but rather something more subjective of what one wants to look for.  Evans have written a little further concerning the subjective dimension of what one is looking for:

“We all go to the text looking for something, and we all have a tendency to find it.  So the question we have to ask ourselves is this: are we reading with the prejudice of love, with Christ as our model, or are we reading with the prejudices of judgement and power, self-interests and greed?  Are we seeking to enslave or liberate, burden or set free? (56)

I appreciated how Evans pointed out sometimes we have ulterior motive in reading the Bible; that part I agree.  I also appreciated that she said we should read the Bible “with Christ as our model.”  And it is “with Christ as our model” that I want to critique her hermeneutical principle.

1. First off recall how Evans uses Matthew 7:7 to support her idea that Jesus knew of her principle that “the most instructive question to bring to the text is not, What does this say? but, What am I looking for?” in approaching the Bible.  She has taken Matthew 7:7 out of context.  The verse is part of a section of a passage from Matthew 7:7 to Matthew 7:11.  The topic of Matthew 7:7-11 is not about how to read the Bible at all; the Scripture or the Word of God isn’t even mentioned in this verse.  Matthew 7:7-11 is actually about prayer.  Matthew 7:7 teaches us the principle that God answers our prayers because God is good (v.11).  Evans is abusing the verse since the verse does not say anything about approaching the Bible more with the mind of “what am I looking for” versus the interpretative principle of “What does this say?”  Matthew 7:7 doesn’t provide warrant or proof for her methodology.
2. Secondly “with Christ as our model” you see Jesus prioritize the objective meaning of what does God’s Word have to say.
   1. After Jesus resurrected we read in Luke 24:45 that “He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures.”  Note that Jesus wasn’t addressing “felt” needs but instead focused on the disciples’ understanding of what the Scripture objectively meant.  Both Luke 24:27 and Luke 24:32 explicitly mentioned Jesus explained the Scriptures to His disciples instead of addressing what they subjectively want or looking for.
   2. Listen to Matthew 15:4-6: “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition.”  Note how Jesus quoted an Old Testament Scripture in verse 4 showing that God’s Word matter.  Note also Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees in verse 6.  Jesus didn’t complain merely about what they personally want to find in the Scriptures; rather Jesus chief complaint is that they invalidated the Word of God and what it objectively meant.  In other words Jesus’ primary concern was about what the Word of God has to say.
   3. When some opponents of Jesus attacked Jesus in Matthew 22 by twisting the Word of God Jesus replied “But Jesus answered and said to them, “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Matthew 22:29).  Although they were driven by jealousy and envy in their attack on Christ, Jesus didn’t address what they were “looking for” but addressed the issue that they did not understand Scripture.  Jesus saw the priority was the objective meaning of the Word of God.
   4. Jesus quotes Scripture many times throughout His ministry and expound on its meaning and its applications.  These many passages show that Jesus wasn’t concern about subjective hermenuetical principle of what one wants as much as the objective hermeneutical principle of what does the Scripture teaches.

Don’t forget that in order for us to even approach the Bible “with Christ as our model” you have to first answer the question “What does this say?” and not “What am I looking for?” If you begin with “What am I looking for?” you have already made it about you rather than truly have Christ as your model.  Like the first chapter Rachel Held Evans haven’t really done much exegesis of Scriptures but gave problematic and even self-refuting hermeneutical principles instead, one that ironically she needs deliverance from.