Analysis of Rachel Held Evan’s Book “Inspired” Part 9: Chapter 7 and 8

This is part 9 of our critique of Rachel Held Evans’ book titled Inspired.  It is the final installment in this series!

Here are the previous posts in this series:

Part 1 click here

Part 2 click here

Part 3 click here

Part 4 click here

Part 5 click here

Part 6 click here

Part 7 click here

Part 8 click here

In this post we will look at chapters 7 and 8 of the book.

Brief Reply to Chapter 7

This chapter is titled “Fish Stories.”  Out of all the chapters in the book I felt this one has better content than the others in her discussion about how the Bible has echoes.  It is the closest to Evans’ doing “biblical theology.”  the chapter touches on stories that Evans have had a hard time believing from Jonah and the Whale/fish, the fish having money for Jesus’ disciples to pay tax and other miracles.  She flirts with the idea that some of the miraculous moments in the Bible might be “colorful exaggerations” (177).  Sadly her suggestion for those who doubt is just this: “Act like you believe and maybe, at long last, you will.  Move your feet and your heart will catch up” (188).  This advice is unhelpful.  This chapter has no discussion about studying apologetics nor the problem of naturalism or the deeper issue of the possibility of sin influencing doubt and unbelief as informed by passages such as Romans 1.  It is rather disappointing.

Chapter 8 Synopsis

Chapter 8 is the final chapter in the book and it is titled “The Letter.”  It focuses on the New Testament Epistles.  She also talks extensively about her problem with Paul’s epistles.  On page 208 Evans states “To make peace with the BIble, I had to make peace with Paul.”  Sadly for those familiar with New Testament studies what she presents are stale liberal beliefs without it being well argued.  For instance on page 200 and 210 Evans states that some of the Epistles were written by individuals who used others’ name.  But there’s further problems beyond the discussion of authorship of epistles.

Presenting Those whom she disagree in the most negative light

Evans has a habit of presenting those whom she disagree in the most negative light and also picking the lowest hanging fruit to interact with.  Consider this excerpt:

On other hand, among more conservative believers, Paul get the opposite treatment and tends to be idolized for his theological lucidity on matters of salvation, justification, election and atonement.  I once heard an evangelical pastor brag that he had never preached from any biblical text that wasn’t authored by Paul, not even the Gospels” (209).

Note the caricature: Conservatives “idolized” Paul.  Note in the quote Evans misrepresent her opponents: Paul is idolized by conservatives because of his discussion of salvation, justification, election, atonement, etc.  It misrepresents conservatives who listen to Paul not because of his discussion of these subject but because Paul’s words in his epistles in the New Testament are God’s Word!   Here again we see another example that is apparent throughout the whole book in which Evans doesn’t quote any verses of the Bible that talks about the nature of the Bible itself.  Even the Apostle Peter himself affirm that Paul’s epistles are Scripture (a passage that wasn’t discussed in the chapter):

and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Note also how she mentioned an unnamed pastor who never preach from anything else but that which is authored by Paul.  Obviously this pastor goes against Paul’s own teaching that the Scripture is God’s Word (2 Timothy 3:16) and Paul’s example of using other parts of the Bible such as the Old Testament.  The guy’s a bad apple.  But why would Evans mentioned an extreme bad apple?  Two can play the game and one can always mention a bad apple example for every theological spectrum.  She does all this without actually interacting with the best scholars or pastors she disagree with.  Again her writing is rather disappointing.

LGBT Agenda

It is clear on page 208 that Evans have many gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends.  She does not believe their lifestyle are sinful as is evident throughout the book.

On page 204 the fifth end note for this chapter references Matthew Vines’ book God and the Gay Christian.  Sadly Evans appeal to this book for her “scholarship.”  Vines’ book has serious errors and his error is thick, going all the way to his theological method.  I critique Vines’ problematic pre-commitments for his theological method here.

Evans defense for same-sex behavior include the following argument:

You’d ever know it from current debate, but the bible says very little about same-sex behavior and arguably nothing at all about committed same-sex relationship, whose prevalence in the ancient world is a subject of historical debate” (203-204).

First off saying that the Bible says “very little about same-sex behavior” doesn’t dismiss same-sex behavior as a sin.  If the Bible even say it is wrong once, it is wrong according to the Biblical worldview.  Secondly even though she says there’s very little said about same-sex behavior she doesn’t interact with the majority of these passages at all.  So much for “very little.”  Thirdly she doesn’t consider the full weight of how all the passages that speak on same-sex relationship and behavior are in agreement, which goes against her position.  As one brother pointed out to Evans:

• 100% of the verses addressing homosexual behavior denounce it as sin in the strongest possible terms.
• 100% of the verses referencing God’s ideal for marriage involve one man and one woman.
• 0% of 31,173 Bible verses refer to homosexual behavior in a positive or even benign way or even hint at the acceptability of homosexual unions.

Fourthly Evans commit a logical fallacy of arguing from silence when she argues from the observation that “nothing at all about committed same-sex relationship” is prohibited in the Bible.  This does not mean it then follow that it is permissible!  If I can give an analogy, Scripture condemns the act of bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 18:23, Leviticus 20:15-16, Deuteronomy 27:21).  But it is bad logic to then say that since Scripture says nothing about bestiality in  committed human/animal relationships it is permissible.  It is perverted thinking (pun intended).

Gender Role

On page 203 Evans states the following:

So the question for modern readers, then is whether the point of the New Testament household codes is to reinforce the Greco-Roman household structure as God’s ideal for all people, in all places, for all time, or whether the point is to encourage Christians to imitate Jesus in their relationships, regardless of the culture or their status in it” (203)

Her conclusion?

The degree to which Paul reinforced traditional gender roles in his letters varies from church to church and city to city.  In places where women in leadership assisted in the spreading of the gospel, Paul encouraged it; where it might prove too disruptive or confusing, he discouraged it” (212).

Her conclusion was also reiterated in the last page of the chapters:

Paul was smart enough to know the answers to these questions would vary from church to church and person to person, so surely he was smart enough to also know they would vary from culture to culture and century to century” (214).

But there’s problem with her conclusion.  First off Evans offer no verses to back up her claim that Paul had varying and contradicting view of gender roles.  Secondly Evans also fail to offer any verse that Paul’s rational of holding or rejecting traditional gender roles should be based upon whether it is ” disruptive or confusing.”  Thirdly when we do look at Paul’s epistles more carefully we see that Paul’s conclusion was different than that of Evans.  Paul did not see his discussion about gender roles as shifting or relative.  For instance in 1 Timothy 2:13-14 Paul appealed to creation for the basis of gender roles he described:

For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. ¹⁴ And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression

By appealing to the Creation order going back to Adam and Eve Paul was saying the gender role he described are not Greco-Roman culture but to use Evans’ own words “God’s ideal for all people, in all places, for all time.”  For more on God’s created order of gender roles before the fall check out my series “7 Truths about God’s Creation of Man and Woman from Genesis 1: Table of Contents” and “Genesis 2 and God’s Creation of marriage Series: Table of Contents.”

Evans also argued against Paul’s Complementarian view by appealing to the general rule in Ephesians 5:21 of submitting to “one another” (203).  But here Evans employed flaw hermeneutics.  She thinks the general command to submit overrule specific call to submit.  Instead we should understand the specific command of submission (wives to husbands, etc) as clarifying what does the general command to submit looks like in particular instances.  The general command shouldn’t be seen as canceling out the specific commands.   We don’t take the command “submit to one another” in Ephesians 5:21 to somehow mean that children don’t have to submit to their parents anymore (Ephesians 6:1).  Evans has an inconsistent hermeneutics.

Evans also invoke Galatians 3:28 to challenge the gender role Paul taught in his epistles (203).  This also is problematic.  For an in-depth treatment see Women, Slaves, and the Gender Debate.

In conclusion I must say this is a heavily problematic book.  It is my prayer that this series help readers think biblically and interpret the Bible accurately.