Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 5: Chapter 3

This is part 5 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

Part 4 click here

In this post we will look at chapter 3 of the book.

Chapter Synopsis

Chapter Three is titled “War Stories.”  The chapter focuses on the warfare narratives in the Bible such as Israel’s conquest of Canaan.  Before I critique this chapter I do want to give credit where credit is due in terms of what was good and right from this chapter.  She is right to see the importance of considering the warfare passages in the Old Testament in light of the person of Jesus Christ (75-78).  I do think she still has a lot to unpack of what does that mean  and its implications but she admits she’s still working through the issues.  I also appreciated some of her attempts to solve the warfare passages though they are mentioned with a few mere sentences and I wished she unpacked them more.

Still this chapter is not without its problem.  One of the things I wished she talked about or share basic awareness is the question about the source of morality given the ethical and moral dimension in this chapter.  The complaint of the Bible’s morality concerning warfare narrative might superficially look like objections to Christianity and yet that objection needs God for it to be even be intelligible and meaningful in the first place.  I think that point is important to keep in the back of one’s mind when one read the chapter.

Complaint about Fundamentalist

On page 66 of the book Rachel Held Evans reacted very strongly to John Piper seeing God is right for the warfare of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan; she then took the time to swipe at Fundamentalists:

But this is the deleterious snare of fundamentalism: It claims that the heart is so corrupted by sin, it simply cannot be trusted to sort right from wrong, good from evil, divine from depraved.  Instinct, intuition, conscience, critical thinking–these impulses must be set aside whenever they appear to contradict the biblical text, because the good Christian never questions the ‘clear teachings of Scripture;’ the good Christian listens to God, not her gut” (66).

First off there is some truth to what “fundamentalists” are saying that people can be so effected with sin that they cannot sort out what is right and wrong concerning God.  The Bible does teach that people suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18ff).  People’s heart are darkened intellectually due to sin: “they became futile in their thinking.”  If this is true then we need to be careful when people question the clear teachings of Scriptures according to an ethical and moral standard that is subjectively based upon an individual.  Secondly her comment also misrepresent fundamentalists.  She says that because of the noetic effect of sin that means “critical thinking” “must be set aside whenever they appear to contradict the biblical text.”  For years our blog have applied critical thinking concerning difficult Biblical texts.  As we shall she later below some of her example of difficult biblical passages can be resolved through critical thinking of the text.  Thirdly, it is ironic that though she complain about fundamentalists’ alleged lack of critical thinking as we shall she she doesn’t go far enough with critical thinking herself.

Lack of Exegesis

On page 67 Evans stated the following:

So I decided to face the Bible’s war stories head-on, mind and heart fully engaged, willing to risk the loss of faith if that’s where the search led.

I listened to sermons.  I read commentaries and theology books.  I became a real downer at dinner parties.”

Yet despite what she claimed above similar with the other chapters we’ve critiqued thus far with Evans’ book there is a terrible lack of any serious exegesis being presented.  As mentioned in part 1 she complains no one is critiquing her exegesis but none is offered by her of actual deep and meaningful interaction with a passage from Scripture.  Instead in the chapter she spends a lot of space and time whining about Evangelicals trying to give her answer such as ambushing her with “well meaning interventions” (69) that is meant to help her deal with her doubts  and also of her “friends stopped calling” (69).  Her lack of exegesis in this book is a real downer; I think she over-promised on it.

Two Problems from Judges

On page 67 Evans stated the following:

It wasn’t just the story of Noah’s flood or Joshua’s conquests that unsettled me.  The book of Judges recounts several horrific war stories in which women’s bodies are used as weapons, barter, or plunder without so much as a peep of objection from the God in whose name these atrocities are committed.  One woman, a concubine of a Levite man, is thrown to a mob, gang-raped, and dismembered as part of an intertribal dispute (Judges 19).  Another young girl is ceremonially sacrificed to God after God grants a military victory to her father, Jephthah, who promised to offer as a burnt offering ‘whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites (Judges 11:31).” (67)

Evans then quote a feminist name Phyllis Trible and called these two Judges narratives (Judges 11 and Judges 19) as “texts of terror.”  I wished Evans dealt with these two alleged chapters and show us her exegesis.  But she doesn’t.  I have written on Judges 11 here: Resolving Bible Difficulty: Jephthah’s daughter.  I have a post on Judges 19 here: What are we to make of the Strange Passage in Judges 19 of the Levite and his concubine?.  Both links I believe show critical thought and exegetical consideration in dealing with the alleged difficulties.