Saturday, November 10, 2012

Rachel Held Evans - Year of Biblical Womanhood

Rachel Held Evans
Rachel Held Evans (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Last week I was listening to Dr James White's Dividing Line web cast and for the first time I heard of Rachel Held Evans  and her experiment for living out all the Biblical verses that deal with prescriptions for women for a year.  She has written a book based on her experience. That book has recently been publish and she has been making the round promoting the book.  She was a guest on ABC's shows The View and Good Morning America. She appeared with her husband and both shows had video clips of her while she was living out the most wooden literal interpretations of the Bible imaginable. I was intrigued to learn more. Both of her network television appearances are available online and I think that they do a disservice. There is no attempt to apply a sound hermeneutic to Scripture. To secular television, the Bible is a joke and they do not think that there is anything of value in it. Evans does not seem to want to go that far but instead wants to cherry pick the parts of it that make her feel like she is closer to God. She has no problem with that because in her view that is what everyone does any way. She does not think that there is a consistent detailed message in the Bible about what it means to be a man or a woman or what does God desire for us. I totally disagree with that. She also seems to think that the Bible's prescriptions doesn't leave room for a woman to be herself. She's wrong about that. Here are some videos that I was able to dig up. Easy to find. The first one is her announcement for the project.


The second is from her appearance on the Techology webcast. She has thirty minutes to talk about herself and the project without the limitations she had on secular network television. I really recommend this one.



The third is another  summary of the project by Evans herself.



Here is the Good Morning America clip
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 
And on the View




One of the biggest problem is that  in her appearances she really seems to get a lot in the Bible wrong for example, there is video of her sitting on the roof of her home because she understands a passage in Proverbs 21 meaning that contentious wives should be punished by being forced to be in "time-out" on the roof of the home. But look at what the passage says:




 Better to live on a corner of the roof
    than share a house with a quarrelsome wife. - Proverbs 21:9

It's not saying that putting your wife on time-out on the roof when she is contentious is the thing to do! Instead it is talking about how horrible it is to live with a quarrelsome wife. It's so bad that the man feels like he would rather live on the corner of  his roof than live in the same house! This is but one example and not having read the book, I sure hope there are better hermeneutics and exegesis employed than what I have seen so far but I'm not real optimistic.

Also notice that she said that treated Proverbs 31 as a to-do list but she told the Techology webcast that in researching how Jews read Proverbs 31 and saw that they do not read it that way. I wonder why. Think she answers that question in her book?

There have been a few response materials released to answer some of these challenges.Some Response Articles

A Response to Rachel Held Evans on the Today Show
Mutuality 2012: Responding to Rachel Held Evans
What Biblical Womanhood is not

The Bottom line is that man and woman are ontologically equal - neither inferior nor superior to the other. But God has given men and women different roles. Both are needed and important.

Here is a link to Rachel Held Evans' book
Enhanced by Zemanta

44 comments:

  1. You, of all people, need to read her first book, "Evolving in Monkey Town".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed and I will. You, of all people, need to read James White's The King James Only Controversy. It will help you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...need to read James White's The King James Only Controversy.

    I would think from the title the reason I was recommending the Rachel Held Evans book was obvious. White's book it's not so much. But do tell.

    In any case, I've read some of White's stuff in a past life and he's not that great.

    ReplyDelete
  5. With you delusions about Christianity, it is obvious that you would recommend Evan's book, given that she shares some of them. As for why you need to Dr James White's book on the King James Only Controversy is will help you to stop making the same mistakes they do in understanding the Bible and help you with textual criticism (you are confused).

    ReplyDelete
  6. From reading the intro, it would seem he's making a case that you can trust modern translations. But that's fine, I agree with that. What I don't agree with is that you can trust the autographs.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What I don't agree with is that you can trust the autographs.

    He goes over a lot of lapses in logic and church history and exposes why they are wrong. I see much of the same problems in your thinking. As far as your issues with the autograph...you are definitely in the same boat as Rachel Held Evans.

    ReplyDelete
  8. He goes over a lot of lapses in logic and church history and exposes why they are wrong...

    Why the autographs are wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  9. No why the King James Only proponents are wrong. You are wrong about the autographs.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You are wrong about the autographs.

    We can't know that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Without God you can't know. And unfortunately, you don't have God.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You and your account are not trustworthy. This is the problem...

    ReplyDelete
  13. You and your account are not trustworthy. This is the problem...

    You seem to not even begin to understand what the problems are.

    1. There is no possible way you claim to know that the autographs are not true. You have chosen to believe that by blind faith.
    2. Just because you don't know God doesn't mean that no one else does either.
    3. You talk like you and your lack of testimony is any more trustworthy than me and mine. You are not.
    4. Truth is undetermined by what either you or I think.
    5. God is right and both of us are wrong. You're just too deluded to have the desire to find out what God wants and submit to God.
    6. You continually make comments that have nothing to do with my posts but illustrate an unhealthy and unsatisfied need to demonstrate that I am wrong in what I believe to make it easy to settle for your delusion.
    7. You need to be born-again.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Blah blah blah from an untrustworthy man.

    Note: #4 makes no sense

    Note: #5 is you asserting something while acknowledging you are wrong...

    Note: #6 consider it a service

    Note: #7 is nonsense

    ReplyDelete
  15. So I guess you agree that you agree with points 1-3. Progress, I guess.

    Blah blah blah from an untrustworthy man.

    All people are untrustworthy. That is why you need to find Jesus.

    Note: #4 makes no sense

    Why? It's English. Truth does not depend on what you or I think. Maybe it was the word "undetermined" threw you. Good thing I didn't us "indeterminate".

    Note: #5 is you asserting something while acknowledging you are wrong...

    What? You get to do it and I don't? You are the one who said "What I don't agree with is that you can trust the autographs." And then you agreed with my point 1. LOL. You are inconsistent and dishonest according to your own standards = untrustworthy - exactly opposite to the autographs.

    Note: #6 consider it a service

    Yeah, comedy relief.

    Note: #7 is nonsense

    You illustrate why you need to be born-again. (as in John 3)

    ReplyDelete
  16. So I guess you agree that you agree with points 1-3.

    No, just not worth responding to.

    Nor is the rest.

    Except this, tell me you see the problem with a "person" making this statement, "All people are untrustworthy. That is why you need to find Jesus.

    What? You get to do it and I don't?

    I've not done this. Your bias may make you think I have, but reread. I didn't say that "the autographs are untrue". Give just a tiny bit of thought to what I actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I've not done this. Your bias may make you think I have, but reread. I didn't say that "the autographs are untrue". Give just a tiny bit of thought to what I actually said.

    You did do it. Look:

    Except this, tell me you see the problem with a "person" making this statement, "All people are untrustworthy. That is why you need to find Jesus.

    Where did I say that I believe the Bible because people told me it was true? I didn't. Just like you didn't say that the autographs were untrue you said that they were untrustworthy. And then you pretend truth and trust are mutually exclusive. You pretended that by claiming that they are untrustworthy that you are not also not claiming that they are untrue. But obviously you are saying that they are not true because why would you reject something that you thought was true (given you some unwarranted credit there but I feel generous)? That sure is truckload of presuppositions and assumptions you claim and then try to wiggle out of.

    You seem confused. I don't claim that the autographs are valid (ie true and trustworthy (since you seem to make a distinction)) because people told me they are. Everyone from Moses, Joshua, Samuel, all the prophets, and apostles were sinners just like you and me. I believe they were telling the truth and I can trust them because of God not because of them. Your problem is that you don't know God and they did. That is why you are not trustworthy and they are.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Wow... word salad.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Over your head, sorry. May be a 1st grade reading level would help. I will remember that for next time

    ReplyDelete
  20. Over your head, sorry.

    No, you misunderstood. You said "where did I say that I believe the Bible because people told me it was true?"

    You are a person too, and as untrustworthy to yourself as you are to others

    ReplyDelete

  21. You are a person too, and as untrustworthy to yourself as you are to others


    You are the one not understanding. Trusting that the Bible is true or that God exists has nothing to do with my perceptions or my own trustworthiness. That is why you are confused. You are relying on your understanding and perceptions that are no more trustworthy than mine.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Trusting that the Bible is true or that God exists has nothing to do with my perceptions or my own trustworthiness.

    Of course it does. Don't be daft.

    ReplyDelete

  23. Of course it does. Don't be daft.


    You're daft if you think that I am stating that my perceptions and trustworthiness is the only reason I believe that the Bible is true. And even more stupid if you think that your perceptions are better than mine and that you are any more trustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ultimatley, our perceptions are all any of us have, so to say something like my perceptions are not the only reason I believe is just being dishonest with yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Ultimatley, our perceptions are all any of us have, so to say something like my perceptions are not the only reason I believe is just being dishonest with yourself.

    Nope. That's not ultimately true. You are being dishonest. Are electrons in your perceptions (ie can you see, hear, touch, or taste them)? Would you know about them if others had not found them? Nope. Most of what is real is not directly perceptible to us. Given this, saying that all we have, ultimately, is our perceptions is truly deluded as best and stupid at worst. Which are you, deluded or stupid? How about honest enough to retract that statement?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Would you know about them if others had not [perceived] them?

    Nope, sure wouldn't.

    Most of what is real is not directly perceptible to us.

    And until someone perceives it, we're not aware of it, or we "don't have it".

    But you've lost focus here in a spectacular way.

    ReplyDelete
  27. You are missing the point. Just like you wouldn't know about electrons without revelation, you need God to reveal God to you. Just because you have not had such a revelation does not mean no one ever has.

    You should Read Isaiah 48

    ReplyDelete
  28. You are a little to lax with your terminology above.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Here a couple ways this could go...

    Just like you wouldn't know about electrons without [someone telling you], you need [someone] to [tell you about] God[]. Just because you have not had [someone tell you] does not mean no one ever has.

    Or...

    Just like you wouldn't know about electrons without [someone else perceiving them], you need [someone] to [share their perceptions of] God to you. Just because you have not had such a [perception] does not mean no one ever has [thought and asserted that they've perceived god].

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe your confusion could be relieved if you actually try to understand what I am saying. You might learn something. Your assessment is wrong. You're blinded by naturalistic presuppositions causing your confusion. It's not about you needing someone to tell you about God or that they think they had met God. It is about God revealing himself to you! And you know that hasn't happened to you but that does not mean that God has never revealed himself to anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Maybe your confusion could be relieved if you actually try to understand what I am saying.

    Try not using "revelation" in more than one sense. Common apologist trick though...

    Fixed this for you.

    It is about [you perceiving that] God [has] reveal[ed] himself to you!!!!!!!1!ONE!

    Hint: even if it's true that god has revealed himself (itself?) to you, it's still only your perception, which is untrustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  32. No you are still confused. Either God has revealed himself to you or not. You claim that God has not revealed himself to you. We agree God has not revealed himself to you. Your failure is that you wanna go the added step of claiming that God has not revealed himself to no one because God does not exist. Because of your own faulty and untrustworthy perceptions you cannot honestly make that claim. Just because God has not revealed himself to you does not mean that no one has received such revelation. On the other hand, I have more than just my own perceptions to inform my understanding. You don't.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Either God has revealed himself to you or not.

    While true, it's still just your perception, which is untrustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I have more than just my own perceptions to inform my understanding.

    You don't.

    ReplyDelete

  35. While true, it's still just your perception, which is untrustworthy.


    So is yours. Your perceptions are just as untrustworthy as mine. Given that you have no ground on which to base your conclusions. That is why you should be begging God to help you out.

    ReplyDelete
  36. So is yours. Your perceptions are just as untrustworthy as mine.

    That's sort of the point.

    ReplyDelete
  37. And that is why you, and all of us, need Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No, it's why any claim you make about god is worthless to anyone else

    ReplyDelete
  39. You'd be right if that was the only evidence there was. But you are wrong about that.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Retread what you just wrote. What exactly are you trying to say?

    ReplyDelete
  41. You would be right about any claim made by anyone about God would be worthless if those claims were made solely by our own perceptions - including your nonbelief. However you are wrong - God's existence is not dependent on my perceptions. God's commands are not dependent on what I think.

    18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. - Romans 1:18-20

    ReplyDelete
  42. God's existence is not dependent on my perceptions

    Your perception of god's existence is dependent upon your perception.

    ReplyDelete
  43. My perceptions are not dependent on yours.I can be right about somethings being true based on my perceptions and yet you can be wrong based on yours. It goes both ways. The Existence of God is a truth about reality that is independent of my perceptions and yours. Look at the passage I quoted. The Bible is not telling us that we know of God because of our perceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  44. My perceptions are not dependent on yours.

    Um, well no, of course not.

    ReplyDelete