Ross Douthat and Diana Butler Bass have had their say. Now Rachel Held Evans has weighed in on the issue: Liberal Christianity, Conservative Christianity, and the Caught-In-Between. She finds lacking in both positions a sense that “we’re in this together, that, as followers of Jesus, we may need to put our heads together to re-imagine what it means to be the Church in a postmodern, American culture where confidence in organized religion is at an all-time low.” In the meantime, however, she professes to be caught between the two:
For one thing, I don’t “fit” in the conservative evangelical church:I believe in evolution.
I vote for democrats.
I doubt.
I enjoy interfaith dialog and cooperation.
I like smells, bells, liturgy, and ritual—particularly when it comes to the Eucharist.
I’m passionate about gender equality in marriage and church leadership.
I’m tired of the culture wars.
I want to become a better advocate for social justice.
I want my LGBT friends to feel welcome and accepted in their own churches.
I’m convinced that the Gospel is about more than “getting saved” from hell.But I don’t “fit” in the progressive, Mainline church either.
I love a good Bible study.
I think doctrine and theology are important enough to teach and debate.
I think it’s vital that we talk about, and address, sin.
I believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
I want to participate in interfaith dialog and cooperation while still maintaining a strong Christian identity.
I want to engage in passionate worship, passionate justice, and passionate biblical study and application, passionate community.
I’m totally down with a bit of spontaneous, group “popcorn” prayer, complete with hand-holding and references to the Holy Spirit “moving in this place.”
I’m convinced that the Gospel is about more than being a good person.
On one level I can sympathize with Evans’ feeling of being caught between polar extremes. Too often I experience this with respect to the political options on offer in North America. I have rarely voted enthusiastically. I generally vote against rather than for. Our electoral systems exacerbate the artificial duality of our politics. With respect to church life I am a member of a Presbyterian congregation, where I know in my heart I belong. I strongly believe that the Reformed tradition is most faithful to God’s word revelation. However, I could wish that Reformed Christians celebrated the Lord’s Supper as frequently as Anglicans and Lutherans, whose liturgies are much closer to the historic shape of western worship as it has developed over the course of nearly two millennia. So even on the ecclesial front I know what it is to feel caught in between.
However, something about the tone of Evans’ piece bothers me. If she were arguing that her own position were somehow more biblically faithful or more obedient to God’s expressed word than those of evangelicals and mainliners, then what she says might be worth hearing and weighing in the balance. But I don’t hear her making such a case. What I do hear is: “I enjoy. . .”, “I like. . .”, “I’m tired. . .”, “I want. . .” (this last one four times). I don’t quite understand “I’m totally down with. . .”, but I think it means she approves! In other words, Evans appears to be presenting a checklist of personal preferences which together make up something idiosyncratic at best. I could come up with a similar checklist, but all it would add up to is something that might as well be called “Koyzism,” a religious “tradition” with, to put it mildly, precious few adherents. It would be presumptuous of me to stand in judgement on various Christian communities for not conforming to my checklist.
Obviously I would never try to assess the merits of Evans’ personal faith. Nevertheless, because she hasn’t really presented a solid justification for her somewhat eclectic collection of preferences, it is difficult to know why her remarks should have relevance for the rest of us. Admittedly, Evans does offer this near the end of her post:
I have no problem with Christians arguing with one another. Really. We’re brothers and sisters, for goodness sake! Of course we’re going to argue! We just need to learn to do it better.
Good advice, that last sentence. Yet arguing implies offering an actual argument, that is, the articulation of a reasoned defence of one’s position by appealing to commonly acknowledged standards and authorities. Unfortunately, mere checklists will not take us very far in this direction.
July 18th, 2012 | 7:04 pm | #1
I have read quite a few of her offerings and Ms. Evans seems to have created her own religious philosophy and she then cherry picks from the Bible to support what she has already decided. Lots of opinion but very little substance and virtually no submission to what the Bible actually says. Instead she seems to delight in reminding people of all of her doubts, as if not standing for anything other than her own personal preferences is somehow the standards for maturity. Unfortunately she is quite popular and has gotten than way by telling other “pick and choose” religionists what they want to hear.
July 18th, 2012 | 8:27 pm | #2
I don’t think she “cherry picks” at all, if by “cherry picking” you mean she doesn’t take the Bible literally for every single word. But even if she does, as she wisely points out, we all do at some level. No one is immune.
I don’t understand what’s troublesome about her statements of belief. She’s a pretty moderate Christian, far from the most progressive wings of the Church. I don’t think she was saying “I like” merely to indicate personal preference; I think she genuinely believes these things. They’re just colloquially used words. When she says “I like” the traditional practice of liturgy, I don’t think she merely means, “Yeah, it’s cool, but, whatever, that’s just a personal thing.” From what I’ve read of her it’s pretty clear she thinks there is some significance to the traditional Eucharistic practices. I wouldn’t say these choices are “eclectic” either, unless your metric is either the staunch right or the staunch left.
Plus, since she was likely trying to put out a fast response to a very current discussion, I don’t think she’d have the time to outline all the philosophical bases for her arguments. She’s pretty prolific, and I’m sure you could find warrants for all her opinions on her blog.
I like Held Evans a lot, and I contributed to her “Week of Mutality”, something I find very important. At its most basic, I think Held Evans is saying something that needs to be recognized: when we talk about improving the Christian church, we shouldn’t have to see ourselves as warring factions that need reconciling. Rather, we all don’t perfectly fit into our respective denominations (most of the time), and it’s best for us to find the strands that unify the denominations, rather than nit-picking doctrinal disagreements.
July 19th, 2012 | 11:23 am | #3
“However, something about the tone of Evans’ piece bothers me. If she were arguing that her own position were somehow more biblically faithful or more obedient to God’s expressed word than those of evangelicals and mainliners, then what she says might be worth hearing and weighing in the balance.In other words, Evans appears to be presenting a checklist of personal preferences which together make up something idiosyncratic at best. I could come up with a similar checklist, but all it would add up to is something that might as well be called “Koyzism,” a religious “tradition” with, to put it mildly, precious few adherents. It would be presumptuous of me to stand in judgement on various Christian communities for not conforming to my checklist.”
I know Catholics who are de facto their own popes. Rachel Held Evans is her own pope. And David Koyzis might arguably be considered his own pope.
And so might many others.
July 21st, 2012 | 4:46 am | #4
I think we all become our own popes, one way or the other.
July 21st, 2012 | 1:53 pm | #5
I really don’t see the distinction between Ms. Evans’ form of own-popeism, and traditional liberalism. Liberalism was not originally defined by things like rejecting the bodily resurrection of Christ; that was the *fruit* of it. Liberalism as such is denial of fixed scriptural and church authority to the extent that it violates modernist assumptions about reality. Eventually that will get you to rejecting resurrection. Evans’ liberalism doesn’t look quite the same because her assumptions aren’t modernist, but rather post-modernist. But she still has the same base tendency to reject transcendent authority in favor of pre-established personal assumptions. In her case, the assumptions are less fixed in a “hard” philosophy such as modernism, and more rooted in what seems comfortable and workable for her personally.
So the bodily resurrection doesn’t bother her because she’s not a materialist. But if it bothered her for some other reason, she’d dump it as fast as she has dumped other aspects of orthodoxy. She’s every bit as “liberal” as those who reject the bodily resurrection of Christ, because she roots her choice of beliefs not in divinely instituted means (scripture and/or the historic voice of the church) but in what seems plausible to her chosen worldview. She’s just decided to leave bodily resurrection on the menu, for whatever reason seems good to her.
July 21st, 2012 | 3:40 pm | #6
I don’t think she “cherry picks” at all, if by “cherry picking” you mean she doesn’t take the Bible literally for every single word. But even if she does, as she wisely points out, we all do at some level. No one is immune.
I don’t understand what’s troublesome about her statements of belief. She’s a pretty moderate Christian, far from the most progressive wings of the Church. I don’t think she was saying “I like” merely to indicate personal preference; I think she genuinely believes these things. They’re just colloquially used words. When she says “I like” the traditional practice of liturgy, I don’t think she merely means, “Yeah, it’s cool, but, whatever, that’s just a personal thing.” From what I’ve read of her it’s pretty clear she thinks there is some significance to the traditional Eucharistic practices. I wouldn’t say these choices are “eclectic” either, unless your metric is either the staunch right or the staunch left.
Plus, since she was likely trying to put out a fast response to a very current discussion, I don’t think she’d have the time to outline all the philosophical bases for her arguments. She’s pretty prolific, and I’m sure you could find warrants for all her opinions on her blog.
I like Held Evans a lot, and I contributed to her “Week of Mutality”, something I find very important. At its most basic, I think Held Evans is saying something that needs to be recognized: when we talk about improving the Christian church, we shouldn’t have to see ourselves as warring factions that need reconciling. Rather, we all don’t perfectly fit into our respective denominations (most of the time), and it’s best for us to find the strands that unify the denominations, rather than nit-picking doctrinal disagreements.
July 21st, 2012 | 3:42 pm | #7
pentamom,
The problem with your comment is that it presumes there are only two options: you either buy orthodoxy wholesale or you become your own pope. It’s obvious Held Evans has respect for traditional church teachings (how many modern progressives like traditional Catholic liturgy?), she just doesn’t quite fit in to the mold. There’s nothing fundamentally contradictory about what she believes on the Christian faith; I don’t see where she’s “departing from orthodoxy.”
July 21st, 2012 | 4:01 pm | #8
Hmmm, it seems my hyperlinks didn’t go through. Here’s a link to Held Evans’ article on how we’re all selective one way or another:
http://rachelheldevans.com/complementarians-are-selective-too
July 21st, 2012 | 6:18 pm | #9
Nikolai Volk: “I like [Rachel] Held Evans a lot, and I contributed to her “Week of Mutality”, something I find very important.”
Doesn’t surprise me that you like Rachel Held Evans a lot.
Actually makes a lot of sense.
July 21st, 2012 | 6:21 pm | #10
Pentamom: “I really don’t see the distinction between Ms. Evans’ form of own-popeism, and traditional liberalism.”
Many folks consider her a LibProt, a liberal Protestant.
July 21st, 2012 | 6:23 pm | #11
Nikolai, “buying orthodoxy wholesale” is also known as “being a believing Christian.” When I refer to orthodoxy, I’m not referring to every jot and tittle someone else comes up with. But I am referring to the historic faith, and yes, I do believe that you either have to hold to the historic faith or come up with your own version. What would be the third alternative?
My beef with Rachel Held Evans’s departures from orthodoxy isn’t limited to the above list. It is rooted in a much larger body of her writing, mostly on her own blog. In fact, it’s not so much about specific departures, as about the freedom she very cheerfully expresses to make those departures as she chooses, on the basis of what she feels comfortable with, what fits with what she already believed (rather than conforming her beliefs to revealed authority), what seems more compassionate by her own lights, etc.
July 21st, 2012 | 6:27 pm | #12
Nikolai, I read that “selectivity” article months ago shortly after it was published, and it’s a mess of equivocation and a very weak hermeneutical approach. It doesn’t come close to proving that complementarians practice the kind of “I like this but I don’t like that” kind of selectivity she espouses, but rather a very different kind — the kind that approaches scripture’s commands in a far more sophisticated way than her odd, irreverent “year of biblical womanhood” approach, and so realizes that not everything is applied the same way at all times — in fact that scripture *requires* that things not be applied the same way at all times.
July 21st, 2012 | 6:27 pm | #13
TUAD, that was my point.
July 21st, 2012 | 8:44 pm | #14
Nikolai,
Oh my stars.
Honestly, Pentamom has it pegged. One of the problems with Rachel’s “pick and choose” mantra is that she not only does her own picking and choosing, she picks and chooses from the works of others as it suits her to make her points against them.
The real problem with the picking and choosing is not that we all do it. We don’t. What she studiously refuses to recognize is that there are recognized hermeneutical approaches that provide grids for how we approach the interpretation and application of Scripture. Faithful Christians hold to one or the other of these hermeneutical approaches, we do not go around proclaiming our own approach because to do otherwise would make our scalp itch.
The truth is not that we pick and choose, it is that we are all fallen creatures, imperfect in our obedience. But Evans wants to call this out as picking and choosing. Sorry, that ain’t gonna work.
If Evans is a “pretty moderate” Christian, I’m the Queen of Sheba! She not only cheerfully blasphemes (see her reference to “god herself” at the end of her second women of Easter post), she is a magna cum laude graduate of the “Serpent’s School of Question Asking”. As for your participating in her “week of mutuality” heresy-fest, are you aware that she is recommending books by Rosemary Radford Reuther (whom even most liberal Catholics have the sense to run away from) and Chung Hyun Kyung (a pantheist syncretist who more moderate religious feminists condemn) as well as promoting her appearance at a conference last year where her co-headliner was Rita Nakashima Brock (the old dragon of the Re-Imagining conferences and advocate of a “christology of erotic power”)?
And you seriously think we’ll buy your line that she is, “a pretty moderate Christian”. Sorry, that trick ain’t gonna work with this ex-feminist.
July 22nd, 2012 | 2:00 pm | #15
Nikolai Volk,
You’re a LibProt.
July 22nd, 2012 | 3:06 pm | #16
TUAD,
Gee, you’ve got me pegged.
Kamilla,
I’d really like a warrant as to why the Week of Mutality is a “heresy fest.” I don’t see one in your post. Recommending books from certain authors isn’t tantamount to buying their philosophies wholesale. I’d recommend that all students of philosophy read Descartes’ Meditations on First Philosophy, even though I disagree with nearly all of it.
Using the feminine to describe God isn’t blasphemy. To describe God as only male implies that he has a physical sex, which would be heresy. Christ is male, but to imply God can exclusively be described by the male sex is, I think, heresy. God encompasses male and female. The Bible even uses feminine descriptions for God:
http://clubs.calvin.edu/chimes/970418/o1041897.htm
This comes from a professor at Calvin, far from the bastion of progressive Christianity today. As the professor wisely puts it:
And while Evans may be left-leaning, she’s far from “extremist.” As I mentioned earlier, she’s only extreme if your metric is either the staunch right or the staunch left. The woman likes traditional liturgy, Bible studies, and as far as I can tell affirms the Nicene Creed. Please tell me how that’s crazy leftist.
pentamom,
in fact that scripture *requires* that things not be applied the same way at all times.
Really? Where is the verse that says you can ban women from speaking in the church, but it’s okay if you forego all the strict clothing requirements? Any attempt I’ve seen to dismiss away the latter comes from an external standard, not an internal, “Biblical” one.
July 22nd, 2012 | 3:15 pm | #17
Also pentamom, to qualify what I mean by “buy orthodoxy wholesale.” From best I can tell, she affirms the Nicene Creed. That is the standard for Christian orthodoxy. What I meant by someone “not buying orthodoxy wholesale” would be like, for instance, a Catholic who believed in consubstantiation instead of transubstantiation. (Weird example, but I’m sure they are out there.) I’m not talking about things like questioning the divinity or person of Christ, but of secondary doctrinal issues over which there have been long dispute.
July 22nd, 2012 | 3:45 pm | #18
What “strict clothing requirements” are you speaking of?
Whatever it is, there is more to having a biblical hermeneutic or exegetical argument than “pointing to a verse.” You can’t point to a verse that allows you to wear a linen-cotton blend, but there is a well-developed theology of covenant that is biblically rooted that explains why the old command concerning this is no longer in force. Having a developed theology based on scripture is not “picking and choosing.”
If Ms. Evans meant to make the case that she’s not merely picking and choosing, that would have been a decent argument. But to call an approach to scripture that results in some things being deemed not applicable in the same sense at all times, to be “picking and choosing” is, at best, lazy. And it would have come off a lot better than a “tu quoque” of the indefensible.
July 22nd, 2012 | 5:07 pm | #19
The verses in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy where a woman is required to cover her head and not to wear certain ornate bits of jewelry, etc. Those aren’t “old commands” by any means; they’re in the New Testament, spoken by Paul himself.
Moreover, in Held Evans’ article on selectivity, she’s responding to a specific example of complementarian “picking and choosing,” namely whether or not complementarians are okay reading from women scholars. She uses John Piper as a model for this. The example she provides isn’t a case of “Biblically rooted theology;” it’s actually a matter of arbitrary line-drawing. (i.e. “It’s okay if you learn from women, you just ‘can’t become dependent upon them,’” a distinction not found in scripture… in fact Piper’s logic here ignores one part of scripture namely that women should be quiet.)
Held Evans likes theology and Bible studies (as she admits in the list provided on this blog), and obviously she’s an egalitarian theologian. That means there is some systematic method to how it works. Just because she didn’t explain it step-by-step in one post she wrote to a particular issue doesn’t mean she’s just picking things randomly.
July 22nd, 2012 | 6:26 pm | #20
“Just because she didn’t explain it step-by-step in one post she wrote to a particular issue doesn’t mean she’s just picking things randomly.”
No, that’s true. Her other work shows that it’s not random. But the point isn’t whether it’s random, it’s whether it’s submissive rather than self-directed.
And while it’s true that not all Christian women cover their heads in worship (though many do) and some do wear ornate jewelry, there are other explanations for this besides a kind “picking and choosing what to obey” that validates Mrs. Evans’s approach. One might be a lack of teaching; one might be a failure to be as obedient as we should be, and one might be that there are defensible hermeneutical and exegetical approaches to these matters than cause them to be applied in ways others than the ways that immediately occur to Nikolai as being required. This is not “picking and choosing,” it is choosing to obey *everything* with appropriate understanding, insofar as we understand it and insofar as our warring flesh does not deter us. No doubt Mrs. Evans also claims to be doing this, which makes her “picking and choosing” argument one which simply shoots herself in the foot.
July 23rd, 2012 | 12:41 am | #21
Nikolai,
Well, in spite of my suspicion that you wouldn’t recognize a heresy or a blasphemy if it walked up an introduced itself …
The warrant for the week of mutuality being a heresy-fest is this: Feminism itself heresy. It has roots in three of the classical heresies. First, in gnosticism with both its denigration of the body, the differences between male and female, as well as its pretense to what we may call secret knowledge (seeing things in Scripture no one else sees). The second heresy is in modalism. Classical modalism believes the three persons of the Holy Trinity are nothing more than masks the one God, an absolute unity, wears. The Anthropological Modalism of religious feminism treats male and female as two masks that “humanity” wears. The third heresy is deism. Religious feminism would have us believe that the Holy Spirit, charged with guiding us into all truth hied himself off on a 20000 year vacation and only now is getting around to opening our eyes to the real truths hidden in Scripture. So, to dedicate an entire week to an aspect of feminism is to, by definition, have a heresy-fest.
Second, as to recommending the works of certain authors – it isn’t like reading Descartes when one is studying philosophy. She’s not recommending resources giving a general history or overview of theology related to the sexes, she is giving a list of resources she endorses because they support a particular view of anthropology and the proper relationship of the sexes. With Reuther and Kyung, she listed particular works of theirs which the religious feminists I know, who are much more moderate than you seem to think Evans is, condemn. I don’t know about you, but if I was invited to be a featured speaker at a conference with a woman who promotes a “christology of erotic power” and I was *not* invited to be an alternative view but as one who would be among many speakers all in the same orbit of belief, I’d run screaming the other way. With regard to all three – their is nothing in their output any servant of Christ can endorse, period.
Using the feminine to describe God is definitely not what Evans did. No one denies or tries to ignore the feminine *metaphors* used in Holy Scripture to describe some of God’s characteristics. But in Scripture, God is Father, never mother. Never. And to refer to God as “god herself” is the very essence of blasphemy – speaking sacrilegiously about God.
OK, that’s it, I’m done. Just read your line to Pentamom where you call Evans a “theologian” which might just be the biggest howler of all.
July 23rd, 2012 | 12:29 pm | #22
“Nikolai Volk, You’re a LibProt.
TUAD, Gee, you’ve got me pegged.”
Nikolai Volk, do you peg yourself as a LibProt?
July 23rd, 2012 | 2:52 pm | #23
[...] David Koyzis responding to RHE Share this:EmailPrintFacebookTwitterMoreDiggRedditStumbleUponLike this:LikeBe the first to [...]
July 24th, 2012 | 9:32 am | #24
Kamilla writes:
This is why I think we need to be exceedingly cautious in using names for God that he himself has not revealed to us. In the ancient Hebrew worldview, to name someone is to have a certain power over him or her. We dare not name God to suit our own agendas.
And then Nikolai offers this:
We cannot really judge heresy apart from scripture, which overwhelmingly speaks of God in male terms. Yes, the masculinity of God is metaphorical, but what is the metaphor trying to communicate? Even if God is not literally masculine (who would claim this?), it is clear that scripture calls him Father, King, Lord, &c. We lack the authority to change these, either in translations of the Bible or in our liturgies.
July 26th, 2012 | 3:24 pm | #25
Kamilla,
Several things.
I would caution anyone here on this forum from saying “feminism is this” or “feminism is that.” Feminism is a broad ideological constellation that does not have unified doctrine like, say, the Catholic church does. I know that’s scary to us Christians, but I don’t think the major ideas of feminism are at all contrary to Christianity. To address your various points:
Not all feminists believe there are no differences between men and women, either physically or spiritually. They do wisely point out that men and women are more alike than different, which is why the phrase “opposite sex” is so misleading. This is not to say there are no such differences at all, however. And I don’t quite understand your point on secret knowledge; if you think feminists are gnostics because “they think they see something in scripture no one else sees,” then all Christians are gnostics. I’ve had multiple arguments with Calvinists, for instance, who think they see something in scripture that I just can’t see; vice versa when I try to argue my point.
Again, this is an oversimplification. Feminism has competing definitions of male and female. I point you to Luce Irigaray, a Catholic, whose work on creating a female subject is deeply important work. Moreover, the analogy isn’t even apt here: modalism says that Christ is but one “mode” of God, wherein God changes form to become Christ. Men don’t change into women, or vice versa.
This has always troubled me. I don’t see a compelling warrant, either logically or scripturally, for the statement, “Well, if a particular practice has happened for 2,000 years, then it must be infallible!”
First of all, the practice of excluding women from church participation hasn’t happened for that long; in the early Church, the one most proximal to Christ, mind you, women led house churches and served as leaders in the movement to spread the gospel. This began to change after the male-dominated Roman culture co-opted the faith (see Constantine).
Second, lots of bad things have happened throughout history for long periods of time; endemic racism and slavery have existed since Christ, yet we would all rightfully condemn those things. Just because these events were happening alongside the growth of the church doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit approves of them.
Third, the Bible is not a car manual. While it is the divinely inspired word of God, it does not explain everything in the world. It couldn’t have; it’s a set of documents written for a specific purpose. Christ didn’t come down thinking, “Well, I need to set out a specific, codified Christianity that systematically addresses all ethical issues.” Much of what we believe about ourselves, even the Bible, is culturally informed. Christ himself was addressing a specific culture. It’s this very reason why so many churches today gloss over specific commands, like to wear headcoverings in church. And I don’t think it’s wrong to think that way; the Epistles are contextual documents, written in a specific time and place. Though they do speak timeless truths, in writing them that wasn’t their purpose.
One last note, and this isn’t addressed to you, Kamilla, as I don’t know your denomination. I hear this argument used a lot by Protestants, which I find ironic since they overturned 1500 years of a church “being led by the holy spirit” in supporting the Reformation. Lots of practices that go on in the Catholic church, which have gone on for two thousand years, are often rabidly rejected by Protestants, namely the Papacy, transubstantiation, amongst others. As someone who vaguely identifies with Protestantism (I’m traditional in my liturgical practices), I don’t think this is a wrong attitude. Yes, the Papacy has been in place for 2000 years, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to question it.
July 26th, 2012 | 3:27 pm | #26
David,
People act like God is literally masculine when at the mention of any feminine descriptions they cry heresy. Yes, God is spoken of mostly in masculine terms in Scripture, but that text was written by men in a patriarchal culture. Those metaphors would communicate well with them. But now that we have a deeper understanding of God, it’s not heresy to refer to him as father and mother, since we know he carries traits of both.
And I wasn’t calling for an upheaval of our liturgies. I was just suggesting that calling God “mother” or “her” isn’t heresy.
July 26th, 2012 | 3:33 pm | #27
TUAD,
I’m Protestant in that I’m not Catholic, though in terms of liturgy, music, Church architecture, and other things I’m more traditional than anything else. I like to think of myself as a mix of Anglicanism and Quakerism. I like the former’s adherence to traditional practices, and I like the latter’s dedication to peacemaking and its anti-hierarchical structure.
As for “liberal,” I don’t know. Since I’m a pacifist and a feminist, I guess that makes me liberal by most of the church’s metric. But I affirm the historic creeds, believe in the physical resurrection of Christ, who is a real person, and probably believe in transubstantation. And I’m pro-life. So realistically I’m probably somewhere in the middle.
So while I don’t self-identify with the term “LibProt,” I’m not offended by it, either.
July 26th, 2012 | 5:21 pm | #28
#26, Nikolai Volk:
Yeah, you’re a LibProt.
You don’t have to self-identify with it, but yeah, you’re a LibProt, no doubt about it.
July 27th, 2012 | 12:30 am | #29
Nikolai,
I can see why you think so highly of Mrs. Evans. I see no point in continuing a discussion about Scripture with someone who denies inspiration, as does Mrs. Evans.
Kamilla
July 27th, 2012 | 1:07 am | #30
TUAD,
Okay. Again, not offended by the phrase, so… yeah.
Kamilla,
I’m not sure why you think I deny the inspiration of scripture, especially since I outright stated I believe that earlier in this comment section.
July 27th, 2012 | 3:08 am | #31
Let’s start with this:
“But now that we have a deeper understanding of God, it’s not heresy to refer to him as father and mother, since we know he carries traits of both.”
In which you place our current understanding above Scriptures in which God is Father, never mother and in which Christ teaches us to pray to the Father, not the mother. And in which Paul explains that we only have human fathers because God is our Father.
That’s enough for me.
July 27th, 2012 | 12:24 pm | #32
Nikolai Volk, you support same-sex marriage. Definitely a LibProt.
July 27th, 2012 | 4:36 pm | #33
TUAD,
If there was ever a tautology contest, you’d be a gold medalist.
Kamilla,
It’s clear you and I disagree on this particular issue of interpretation. This does not mean, however, that I deny the inspiration of Scripture. If you take the inspiration of scripture to mean that we must follow every word of the Bible literally (which I don’t think you do), then yes, I don’t believe in inspiration. But I don’t believe that’s what inspiration means.
So though we may have divergent views, to say that I don’t believe in inspiration is false. It’s also misleading to say I’m “elevating current understanding of Scripture over scripture.” As the philosopher Karl Jaspers once put it, all knowledge is interpretation. Meaning that your beliefs about the Bible are just as interpretive as mine.
July 27th, 2012 | 5:55 pm | #34
Inspiration has never meant, among orthodox believers, that God is incapable of clearly and adequately converying His character through the voice of human authors in His written word.
Therefore, to say we now understand God so much better that we have warrant to call the Father “mother” is a denial of inspiration. It is also a supreme insult to God’s people throughout the ages (and another mark of the neognosticism of the religious feminist).
July 27th, 2012 | 6:15 pm | #35
Nikolai Volk = LibProt.
That’s a tautology?
July 27th, 2012 | 6:55 pm | #36
TUAD,
I’m not exactly sure where you’re going this, since I haven’t run away from any of these conspiratorial descriptors you’ve given me. Yes, I suppose the title “LibProt” fits me. I don’t self-identify with it, but I don’t think it’s inaccurate nor am I offended by it.
Kamilla,
The topic of the Bible’s ability to clearly speak things has a discussion I’ve only entered to recently, and as a result my opinions are in their nascent stages. But let me suggest this. I think it is a greater shame to say that the Bible is so plainly and obviously decipherable, and that those who ignore the herd consensus completely undermine the faith. To say this does blatantly ignores Christian history, which has always had major interpretive disagreements. There were the broad ones like East vs. West, then the West led to Catholic V. Protestant, not to mention all the various interpretive arguments amongst sub-groups and denominations.
Is the Bible divinely inspired? I believe so. But I also believe it was written by human hands in a culturally specific context, one that was written for people within that culturally specific context, one we are far, far removed from. For example, take the Pauline epistles. Do I believe, as the Bible says, those letters contain truths that are God-breathed and inspired for teaching? Absolutely. But do I understand those truths in the same way that Paul’s audience does? No. Paul didn’t write those letters thinking, “you know, somewhere down the road people will believe X about this statement here.” Paul wrote those letters to those audiences they were addressed. That means there are multiple hermeneutical and philosophical concerns we have to take into consideration.
This isn’t doing violence to the text. Pretending that the Bible was written in a timeless bubble wherein all truths were understood does violence to the text, as it strips it of its historicity. Since the Christian faith is, I believe, a historical one, we must understand these truths as related to the time in which they were written.
This means we must also be aware of our presuppositions, which we always carry when interpreting the text. Your statement that God speaks clearly and unequivocally through the text isn’t one found in scripture; that’s one you carry to the text yourself.
July 27th, 2012 | 7:44 pm | #37
Nikolai Volk: “Yes, I suppose the title “LibProt” fits me.”
Good.
July 27th, 2012 | 11:47 pm | #38
Nikolai,
Nice straw man you have there. I’d suggest you put the matches down, though.
I never said, nor did I imply, that God speaks clearly and unequivocally. I did say that God is capable of adequately conveying his character, period.
The simple truth is that you have no warrant whatsoever for calling God, “mother”.
Kamilla
July 28th, 2012 | 3:47 pm | #39
Kamilla,
I apologize, I wasn’t trying to put words in your mouth. The meaning I was trying to get at derives from your initial comment in #34.
So now let me use your words, “clearly and adequately,” instead of mine. I don’t doubt God can speak clearly and adequately; I’ve never questioned that. But there is a difference in saying, as you did, that God “is capable of clearly and adequately converying His character through the voice of human authors in His written word,” and saying, “The Bible is clearly and adequately understandable.” When discussing inspiration, I’ve never understood any of the warrants for why the Bible must be a clear text. That’s my confusion. I still think the Bible can be difficult (which it is) but nonetheless be the word of God.
July 31st, 2012 | 1:25 am | #40
“But in Scripture, God is Father, never mother. Never.”
You concede that God is often referred to in “*metaphors*” as a mother, but in scripture he is always father, never mother? Are these “metaphors” not in scripture? What’s the real distinction that can be made to assert that all references to God as a father are not merely “metaphors”. I think that you’re the one who is really picking and choosing here.
God acts as a fatherly role indeed, but as I think we can all agree, God has no sex, neither male or female. “Father” or “mother” refer to a role. Doesn’t God refer to himself in a motherly role in scripture? Doesn’t scripture that you hold so dear often refer to God “giving birth” to Israel?
This isn’t to say that “God the mother” is necessarily the proper use of speech when referring to God, but it does indicate that God does in fact have a motherly role, ESPECIALLY IN SCRIPTURE, therefore belief in a God that also has female attributes is not “heresy” it’s merely scriptural accuracy.
July 31st, 2012 | 3:59 am | #41
If I’m to be accused of “picking and choosing” I’ll pick, starting with these verses:
Matthew 6:9-13
Galatians 4:4-6
Ephesians 3:14-15
John 8:54, 14:23
Romans 1:7, 15:6
I Corinthians 1:2
2 Corinthians 1:3
I’ll stop there and repeat just once more: God is Father, never in Scripture is He mother. I am going to say something I havent said in a long time, but is needful in the cases we have here in Nikolai and Livingston:
Anathema Sit!
July 31st, 2012 | 4:12 pm | #42
Kamilla,
First of all, just to get this out of the way: yes, all those verses you cite refer to God as Father. Yes, there is no verse in the Bible that cites God as “mother.” However, there is no verse in the Bible whatsoever suggesting that the repeated metaphors about God as father mean that any reference to him as mother is heresy. That’s the sort of verse you need to justify your position, but unfortunately it’s not there. You can’t just say, “Scripture never says God is mother, therefore it’s wrong to say he is.” That’s an argument from ignorance.
Calling God “Mother” does not negate God’s father-ness; “mother” and “father” are human roles, thus when we say God is father we are saying he behaves similarly to a human father’s role. God, being non-material, behaves both as mother and as father. Your problem is you conflate motherhood and fatherhood as oppositional, which they aren’t in real life and especially with God. When I say, “God is mother,” I don’t mean he’s not father. He’s clearly both, as scripture can attest to. The Bible may never use the word “mother,” but the feminine metaphors are more than enough to suggest God is both father and mother.
But honestly, that’s not what’s important. “Anathema sit!” are the words of an (admittedly articulate) child who refuses to listen to a reasoned and thorough argument just because she disagrees with the conclusion. That’s not how Scriptural debates should go. I’m not trying to straw man you or say you’re making a mockery of the faith; obviously, you’re trying to maintain fidelity to God’s word, which is something I support. I’m trying to take you at your best, and I’ve corrected myself when I’ve misconstrued your words.
But keep in mind this whole conversation began when you accused me of heresy (never directly, but calling something I deeply support a “heresy fest” is a close enough association), rather than asking me why I believe what I do. So if you want to dismiss myself (and Livingston), fine. I don’t want to have a conversation with someone who won’t be fair in these proceedings. I suggest for the future, though, that you see those you disagree with not as people trying to burn the Bible and everything Christianity stands for, but people who likely have a different, understandable interpretation. The whole reason a lot of Christians get mocked today is because they make a straw man out of other worldviews; it only gets worse when we talk internally about scriptural issues, it seems. I’m not trying to make a convert out of you; I’m trying to explain my position. Online chat forums aren’t usually sites for grand revelations and conversions, and I recognize that. When I’m called/attacked as an associate of heretics, I’m going to defend myself.
So I guess it’s sad the conversation has gone the way it has, but I’ll live with it. Hopefully in future discussions things will be more fruitful.
Oh, one last thing, as I meant to write about this earlier: when I read the title “Christology of Erotic Power,” I laughed. I’m not worried about that as heresy, I’m worried about that as a bit of ridiculous, highfalutin academic theology. Which is to say, often wordy and pointless. Though it would be a good name for a metal band.
July 31st, 2012 | 9:03 pm | #43
I’d like some clarification on the tenets of Held-Evansism: I’d like all to feel welcome and accepted in the Church as well. I’d also like them to be repentant and to strive, with God’s grace, to sin no more. Does RHE believe same-sex intimacy is a sin? Does she believe that those who practice such acts need to repent and seek to sin in this manner (and others) no more? Or does she believe that such acts require no repentance because they are not sin?
August 2nd, 2012 | 12:54 pm | #44
Dear Diogenes: I was just wondering the same thing. We must be accepting of certain communities and yet clearly address sin?
I think the tenet should probably read, “I think it’s vital that we talk about, and address, CERTAIN sins.” Or perhaps we should address “what I am not down with.”
One item I did identify with strongly: I too am tired of the culture wars–especially since I’m pretty sure my side has already lost.
However, with God all things are possible, and say not the struggle naught availeth. We are called to continue on no matter what, right?
August 4th, 2012 | 11:54 am | #45
“Does RHE believe same-sex intimacy is a sin? Does she believe that those who practice such acts need to repent and seek to sin in this manner (and others) no more? Or does she believe that such acts require no repentance because they are not sin?”
Has Rachel Held-Evans said or written anything to show her position/answers on these questions?
August 6th, 2012 | 6:05 am | #46
I would say Held Evans is supportive of the LGBT community, but I haven’t read any extensive writing on her part describing how she sees homosexuality and the faith interacting on a theological/ethical level. She does have some good words here, though:
http://rachelheldevans.com/article-1226708823
Her first comment below this article:
http://rachelheldevans.com/article-1210966492
From what I can tell, I’d say I agree with her on all counts.
August 6th, 2012 | 6:06 am | #47
Weird… I’ve posted two responses to this, but it doesn’t show up on the side of the Evangel page. It shows my comment, and below it says “Your comment is posted,” but I don’t think anyone else can see them…
I would say Held Evans is supportive of the LGBT community, but I haven’t read any extensive writing on her part describing how she sees homosexuality and the faith interacting on a theological/ethical level. On her website she has some articles that give some indication, so I’d look there.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact