This is part 4 of our critique of Rachel Held Evans’ book titled Inspired. Here are the previous posts in this series:
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.
- 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.
- Secondly “with Christ as our model” you see Jesus prioritize the objective meaning of what does God’s Word have to say.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
“More recently, I’ve heard Christians shrug off sins committed by American politicans because King David assaulted women too”
I am surrounded on all sides by Christian Trump supporters, and I have never heard on say THAT. Now, I will admit they tend to be quite forgiving of his conduct, but I have even once heard something like that said. See, that’s the kind of broad, sweeping things from all sides that cause conversations to get inflamed and angry instead of trying to reach for common ground.
I think Rachel Held Evans has this desire to present the most extreme examples of the other side she disagrees with so that way it seems her position seems more “moderate,” that is in the “middle,” and more reasonable. Being aware of her tactics goes a long way. But when we examine deeper the rest of what she has to say there’s a lot of problems including how her views are self-refuting as the end of our post demonstrate. Personally I don’t know why Rachel Held Evans is that appealing for my generation. If you say she’s intellectual, she isn’t really intellectual. If you say she’s biblical, she’s far from it. I pray that God will use the posts in our series for Christians to be more discerning and think more logically and biblically.
She reflects the spirit of this age
Hey, Wally. I’m not a fan of Rachel Held Evans by any stretch, but Jerry Falwell Jr. and other politically focused evangelicals did invoke King David in support of Trump.
http://time.com/4258270/donald-trump-king-david/
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/26/17164268/stormy-daniels-donald-trump-bible-christian
Oh my. That is nuts. What’s wrong with those people?
Agreed.
This is so well stated and clear, thank you for detailing in an articulate way the truth. I don’t know how you can handle it at times, her “theology” is absolutely mind boggling to me and it’s just tragic watching someone reinvent God’s word to suit her own beliefs… who the heck do we think we are doing things like that? :0 Anyways, keep up the good work, it’s needed and appreciated.
Thank you so much sister for reading this series. You are right, it is tragic to see someone tamper with God’s Word to suit her own beliefs. I have tried to be as gracious and accurate with her view as much as possible, even taking a few days after I read each chapter to write my critique of them in order to not misrepresent her. Pray that I be able to pump out the post for these series a little more faster and that I accurately present her views and refute it both biblically and logically. Thanks sister!
I really appreciate your critique here of Held Evans’ very flawed hermeneutics. Mainline Protestants interpret the Bible almost completely as allegory.
Is she mainline? It seems she bashes Evangelicals and Fundamentalists a lot but never thought about what she is other than she’s really wrong.
She’s Episcopalian.
Thank you Tom for reading this. I do think her hermeneutics is quite self refuting as my last paragraph pointed out. I hope you had a blessed Sunday, I just came back from church.
Thanks! I had a very blessed Sunday and I hope yours was also!
Oh, my… her book sounds problematic. Thanks for your review, Jim!! God bless you!
Jim, thank you for sharing your review. My approach to everything used to be to find support for my pre-conceived ideas. More and more as the Holy Spirit leads, I look for anything that will post itself to my heart with new understanding of Who God is and what He wants me to know and share with others. Blessings for your week as you prepare for your next Lord’s Day message.
Frances you said, “More and more as the Holy Spirit leads, I look for anything that will post itself to my heart with new understanding of Who God is and what He wants me to know and share with others.” That is something I see evident on your blog. I have benefited from that and I know others have also as well. Thank you for your word of blessing on my preparation for the next Lord’s Day, I really appreciated that Frances, I hope you have a blessed Labor Day today.
Thank you. Enjoy our Lord as He leads you by His Spirit through His Word.
Her book is an illustration of how subtle deception can be. I don’t know the author and have not read her material (other than your posts) so I would not dare to say she is an intentional deceiver. However, from what I have read, I can rightfully judge that she has been deceived.
It would appear her teachings have originated from messages she may have heard in which the speaker spoke that Scripture has multiple layers (as with an onion). NOTE:
I say multiple layers, NOT multiple meanings. While it has a core layer, the Lord can peel back the verse or text to speak to us where we are at. For example, the Lord used John 3:14 as a course correction for me to quit giving Him a casual glance and to focus intently on Him. Most people would not see that because it is not applicable to them. Notice that I did not create new doctrine or alter the overall meaning of the verse. It was simply used by the Holy Spirit to correct a certain attitude that I had.
I hope that made sense…
That totally makes sense brother. I like the onion layer analogy, that’s something I need to think about but I like it
Thank you for this, Jim. I know that not all Church tradition is Biblical, but have seen a number of religious leaders trying so hard to break from tradition that they themselves become ‘unbiblical’. They seem to be using a similar approach as Ms. Evans.
I think you’re right, she’s trying to break out of the box so much that I think she ends up being unbiblical. Her view of Scripture unfortunately is very V-E-R-Y Problematic. How was your Labor Day brother?
Enjoyable but busy. Trying to get a little more exposure for my comic, so I loaded it up at WEBTOONS and Tapas. Not like having my own site at Blogger and here at WordPress, but they seem to have a lot of traffic. We’ll see. How was your’s Jim? I hope it was great!
My Labor day was well! Busy as well with people from church for our Labor Day Potluck. I imagine WEBTOONS and Tapas are web comics hosting sites? Are they sites worth checking out?
Well, they have a wide variety but they are secular. Haven’t found any Christian comics yet and there are some dark and profane works that I wouldn’t recommend; but there’s also some talented individuals putting out good comics and that gives me hope. Heh, I kinda fantasize about being a light in the darkness when I’m on these sites. Usually, I go ignored though.
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] 2.) Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 4: Chapter 2 […]
Pastor Jim, you’ve been gracious and fair to her, and chosen the best Scriptures to refute her. Lord bless you!
Thank you for your kind encouragement. Your comment prompted me to pray for Rachel Held Evans…
So glad! Keep being an example, my brother.
This 4-part series is an excellent guide for how to read and interpret the Bible properly.
Thanks for reading these posts sister Anna. I’m still reading and slowly writing up posts critiquing her book and its still ongoing. I’m a slow reader and even still a slower writer but I rather err on being cautious and not misrepresent her in my critique. I hope you will stick around for part 5 and beyond!
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 4: Chapter 2 […]
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] Part 4 click here […]
[…] Part 4 click here […]
Pray for her she’s in a coma. I hope God would use this to turn her around to come to the truth
She died today
I read up to part 4 before I realized from your comment that she just recently died. I was thinking the whole time wow, she’s really wrong and so off can’t someone tell her how ignorant she is, before its too late; but now we see its already too late for that.
Good write-up. Must pray some of her followers would read this and see the serious problem with her teaching.
She doesn’t even read Jesus properly to retrieve Jesus’ hermeneutics. SMH.
Having read up to part 4 of your review I see this is one book you don’t want to get for Christmas.
It never occur to her that her writing has a singular meaning; if we read her book the way she reads the Bible it would be nonsensical. But then as you pointed out in this article her writing even with what she mean in her authorial intent is already a big whooping irrational mess.
Your post makes me realize that there’s a lot going on with false teaching, that there’s a tidal wave of error both methodologically and in terms of doctrines
RHE’s beliefs are terrible. This is the logical conclusion to a worldview that is idolatrous at its core.