Rachel Held Evans has written a best-selling book – Inspired. Its full title is “Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again.” It is published by Thomas Nelson (Paperback 240 pages).
Evans is a high-profile author, tweeter and blogger who self identifies as a “doubt-filled believer.” She has a substantial Christian following on Twitter and Facebook. She also has her critics.
In a post-publication interview she was asked whether she gave much thought to “invariably male” pastors and seminarians who criticize her hermeneutics and exegesis. She responded:
Actually they don’t criticize my hermeneutics or my exegesis. They just say, “This woman has no authority to write about the Bible.” They don’t even attempt to engage the arguments that I make, and that’s what irritates me.
When asked for a reaction to Franklin Graham’s charge that “progressive is another word for godless”, Evans replied:
It’s just not true. I think there are some people who think that white, male interpretations of the Bible are the default, and that if women are doing interpretation, if black people are doing interpretation, if people from South America or Asia are doing interpretation, then that’s contextual biblical interpretation. They think this while remaining unaware that all of us are interpreting the Bible in a context. A white man at an evangelical seminary is also in a context.
A careful person should note the implications of these responses. They raise a number of questions: Is God’s Word intended to be fluidly adapted to a reader’s background? Can we trust Scripture to be plainly understood in a fixed literal meaning? Is the Bible even inerrant? What did Christ have to say about Scripture? What does Evans really think of the Bible she invites readers to love again?
We get a clearer picture of her intent with favorable citations of Peter Enns (Theistic Evolution), Walter Brueggemann, Gregory Boyd, James Cone (Liberation Theology) and Timothy Beal (The Rise and Fall of the Bible). These individuals undermine biblical inerrancy and often reinterpret the purpose of the cross (Boyd).
Evans cites Timothy Beal: “The Bible canonizes contradiction.” She appeals to Beal’s skepticism in her discussion of Job:
“The book of Job is like a fault line running through the Bible. In it, the moral universe affirmed in texts like Deuteronomy, according to which righteousness equals blessed well-being and disobedience equals cursed suffering, is shaken to its core.” (Inspired p 97)
Ironically, I’d just finished reading Steve Lawson’s Commentary on Job, and Christopher Ash’s Job: The Wisdom of the Cross. Job is a difficult book. It takes care and effort to work through. Yet both authors demonstrate how it harmonizes perfectly well with the entire Bible.
Among other things, Evans doesn’t like the genocidal God the Old Testament allegedly portrays. While the subject is a thorny one, she fails to interact with, or cite in the Notes section, those who disagree with her conclusions. God’s character and sovereignty don’t need defending, as Rhett Dodson shows in his book on Joshua.
While I’m at it, I’ll point to Jonathan D. Sarfati’s The Genesis Account, Danny R. Faulkner’s The Created Cosmos and Douglas F. Kelley’s Creation and Change (Revised and updated). All these are biblical, scientific responses to Genesis creation skeptics such as Enns.
Nor does Evans believe all the biblical miracles. For example, she doubts the veracity of the stories of Jonah and Jesus walking on water (see Chapter 7 Fish Stories). One wonders why – if God created the universe ex nihilo. What about Christ’s resurrection?
Despite her skepticism, she needs to hold onto some semblance of Christianity. To do this she must re-interpret some parts while discarding others. Enter Midrash:
Midrash, with its imaginative engagement of the Bible’s stories, reminds us that biblical interpretation need not be reduced to a zero-sum game, but rather inspires endless insights and challenges, the way a good story does each time it is told and retold. (Inspired p 25)
The single cited source for Midrash is ELCA Associate Seminar Professor Wilda Gafney. Gafney has blasphemously suggested a connection between the Holy Spirit and the pagan goddess Asherah (see HERE). And as Arnold Fruchtenbaum notes:
In liberalism, this [Midrash] has tended to lead to a denial of biblical authority and a denial that the New Testament is the inspired Word of God…The implication here is that when rabbis practice midrashic interpretation, they deny the actual literal intent of the passage itself.
Evans is critical of those who allegedly reduce the gospel to a transaction wherein: “God needed a spotless sacrifice to atone for the world’s sins and thus sacrificed Jesus on the cross so believers could go to heaven.” She adds:
Jesus did not simply die to save us from our sins; Jesus lived to save us from our sins. His life and teachings show us the way to liberation. But you can’t fit all that on a bumper sticker. (p 153)
Both the Old and New Testaments testify that Jesus came to redeem sinners and creation (Romans 8 etc). Certainly His life serves as an example for Christians to live holy lives. But Evans prefers to focus on the latter (with emphasis on social justice issues). Does she believe unsaved sinners go to hell? Readers may get some inkling of her views on sin and hell at her blog.
Originally, I’d intended doing a multi-page review of Inspired. Much more capable people have since done this. Therefore I defer to the in-depth critiques linked below.
Please note that these critics have a concern for Rachel Held Evans. Allen and Jim (linked below) rightly suggest praying for her. They also have a regard for biblical truth and how doubt-ridden “Inspired” will adversely affect readers. Evans isn’t personally attacked on the basis of her gender – the reviewers engage what little exegesis appears in her book.
Further reading and review links:
Justin Taylor: How Could God Command Genocide in the Old Testament?
Michael Kruger: The Power of De-Conversion Stories
Monergism: Rachel Held Evans
Alisa Childer’s did a great job summarizing “Inspired.” This snippet nails it well:
Sadly, in seeking a way to love the Bible again, Evans has found a way to make it behave – to tame it – by fitting it within her preconceived paradigms…Evans started with a magic book, and it seems she’s ended up with a magic book – one that magically bends its knee to 21st century post-modern sensibilities.
Allen Nelson VI has written a thoughtful seven-part review of “Inspired” HERE
Finally, Presuppositional Apologist, Jim, from The Domain for Truth has done an excellent nine-part series on the book. I encourage you to read it HERE
Thank you to all these people for their dedication!
Sharing is caring!
