It’s biblical!
I received my advanced reader’s copy of Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood in the mail yesterday. I began reading it this morning and I have an excerpt to share (from p. xvi):
“Now, we evangelicals have a nasty habit of throwing the word biblical around like it’s Martin Luther’s middle name. We especially like to stick it in front of other loaded words, like economics, sexuality, politics, and marriage to create the impression that God has definitive opinions about such things, opinions that just so happen to correspond with our own. Despite insistent claims that we don’t ‘pick and choose’ what parts of the Bible we take seriously, using the word biblical prescriptively like this almost always evokes selectivity.”
Last night I had a conversation with a family who comes from a tradition that tells women that they cannot wear pants, jewelry, makeup, and so forth and so on because they have a proof text that supports their views. I tried to emphasize that the Bible is not a rule book full of universal principles for the “good life,” but a narrative of the people of God that must be interpreted, examined, discusses, and read cautiously. Other traditions may not have these strict rules, but they have their favorite texts, those that reinforce their worldview. They may not dislike their wife’s make up (in fact, it may cause them a lot of aesthetic pleasure), but they don’t want their wife to have an authoritative voice in the world. As I said, this isn’t about the Bible. It is about our wants and desires, our need for power and control, and the Bible happens to be a useful weapon to conquer others, so we use it.
Biblical can be an exciting word, but often it is a dangerous, abusive word meant to baptize our preset ideology.
September 18, 2012 at 7:28 am
Agree, but you have to read RHE through her preset ideology, i.e. that she does not think complimentarians or whoever are biblical (generalization I know). I am afraid she may correctly identify the misuse, but only to push her own ideology!
September 18, 2012 at 7:30 am
Re: Rachel’s quote … That and people understand ‘biblical’ to mean different things … which is why, if we are to make a ‘biblical’ point we should do so directly from the bible, or from first principles ( deductively ), again from the bible, rather than simply brandy the word about.
(Funny, I rarely find myself agreeing with Rachel Held Evans. Perhaps I should try looking beyond my knee-jerk tendency to find her points objectionable in case there truly is perspective of substance there … Hmmm.)
September 18, 2012 at 8:24 am
Patrick
True, but she admits her ideology. This is important. It is one thing to act like objective readers of the Bible. It is another to admit that you have particular views. My views are influenced by the Bible, but I won’t pretend there aren’t passages of the Bible that contradict it in trajectory.
September 18, 2012 at 9:23 am
Brian said “I won’t pretend there aren’t passages of the Bible that contradict it in trajectory.”
That’s true of us all. The bible is a mirror. I know only ONE who is reflected in it perfectly.
September 18, 2012 at 10:01 am
Although I agree with Evans on this point, I would be quick to remark that others have already made it, and recently at that. And this is my larger complaint with Evans and her work, while she’s a talented writer she doesn’t seem to have anything interesting to say. She’s not pushing the boundaries of progressive evangelicalism like Brian McLaren or trying to give shape to its developing theology like Daniel Kirk, nor does she have enough experience with the conservative evangelicalism of her youth to truly deconstruct it in interesting ways like the late Michael Spencer or possibly Peter Enns. I suppose she can continue to write about her own experience as a coming of age progressive evangelical, but her life story isn’t that unusual in an of itself, which is probably why she dedicates a significant portion of her blog to the stories of others (e.g. “Ask a transgender Christian”) and has to spend a year living according to the principles of “biblical womanhood” so that she can have something to write about in her next book.
September 18, 2012 at 10:19 am
Listening to the stories of others respectfully and carefully is very rare for Christians of all persuasions to do consistently. If this is all RHE contributes to the wider church it’s a more productive legacy than most bloggers or commentators will ever manage to do. Not that it is all she contributes by any means but I can see why, if you don’t agree with her views, you might want to dismiss her by sneering at the normal person she is without recognising that it is her very ‘ordinariness’ which is so appealing.
September 18, 2012 at 10:33 am
Ali,
Glad to see you concede my point. It’s always nice when other people agree with you.
September 18, 2012 at 10:48 am
Hmm – an interesting response that proves my point. Thank you.
September 18, 2012 at 11:08 am
Ali,
Whatevs.
September 19, 2012 at 11:41 am
makes you wonder about all those ‘biblical studies’ departments.
September 19, 2012 at 3:43 pm
With regards to this:
“And this is my larger complaint with Evans and her work, while she’s a talented writer she doesn’t seem to have anything interesting to say. She’s not pushing the boundaries of progressive evangelicalism like Brian McLaren or trying to give shape to its developing theology like Daniel Kirk, nor does she have enough experience with the conservative evangelicalism of her youth to truly deconstruct it in interesting ways like the late Michael Spencer or possibly Peter Enns.”
I note that all of these are men. As a woman, Rachel Evans does indeed have things that I, as a woman, find very interesting indeed. “Interesting” is a very subjective word, after all. Could it be that Ms. Evans speaks in ways that you are not accustomed to taking seriously?
September 19, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Another point:
“she dedicates a significant portion of her blog to the stories of others”
I might note that this inclusive, collaborative approach is distinctively a female approach, which is not to say males never use it, but that it is in general outside established (male) categories of discourse. This is not a weakness of Ms. Evans’ blog, but a strength.
September 19, 2012 at 3:59 pm
I should probably add that my question, ” Could it be that Ms. Evans speaks in ways that you are not accustomed to taking seriously?” is not intended as an accusation of sexism, but merely as an acknowledgment that distinctively female voices and methods of discourse have not traditionally been taken seriously by society, and that there is an ingrained habit of not taking them seriously which still exists– a problem which female writers still do struggle against.
September 19, 2012 at 4:13 pm
krwordgazer,
First of all, as with Ali, glad to see you concede my point.
And I note that you’re a woman along with Ali and Rachel.
Not at all, I think she’s a great writer and happen to agree with her more often than not. I just don’t think she has anything interesting to say that hasn’t already been said by someone else.
On the other hand, could it be that you’re just defending Rachel because you and her share a common gender?
Be that as it may, if she’s more interested in sharing other people’s stories and facilitating online community than expressing her own thoughts then she should change her site from a blog to something else.
September 19, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“On the other hand, could it be that you’re just defending Rachel because you and her share a common gender?”
I’m defending Rachel because I think you’re writing her off too easily, and because she does indeed have interesting things to say.
September 20, 2012 at 1:17 am
@ krwordgazer
I would say that the fact Rachel is a woman is pretty much irrelevant. Personally I don’t think she adds anything because she is a woman but because of what she says and how she approaches life and theology and I’m not sure how much you can put that down to gender. In my experience the collaborative approach has been more apparent in the leadership of men than women so I remain unconvinced this is a gender trait – I think it is more about personal confidence and security coupled with a respect for others that finds expression in valuing their contributions generally. Your experience of men and women is different to mine though but I think it important not to generalise.
The main reason for dismissing her gender as relevant to her way of approaching theological discussions is that the engagement with different voices and emphasis on listening to others is very much part of the Baptist and Quaker traditions of formulating theology – in this way Rachel is just continuing an long established tradition of doing theology that other traditions often seem to dismiss or ignore albeit in a forum that is new and still being tested. That she has much to add to the evangelical community is without question – her detractors simply don’t like what she is saying, and even worse, hate the fact she is being listened to! They’re not allowed to write her off as a woman now without getting shot down by the PC brigade so they turn to undermining the person in any other way they can. Which says far more about them than it does about the person in their sights.
September 21, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Ali,
The idea that collaboration is feminine while automony and “going it alone” is masculine is not my idea. Here’s a link to a Psychology Today article that elaborates on it:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/married-and-still-doing-it/201208/ryan-lochte-his-mom-and-us
If the collaborative method of doing theology is a long established tradition that other traditions seem to dismiss or ignore, this could be part of the reason why they dismiss and/or ignore it. It’s not so much that people say to themselves, consciously, “Oh, this is a female method of doing theology, and thus I don’t find it interesting.” It’s more a subconscious, cultural-blinders kind of thing. As the article puts it, “Our societal norm mandates that men are to achieve and women are to relate.” What I’m hearing from Residentoftartus is that Rachel’s blog is not achievement-oriented enough. She’s more interested in faciltating dialog, with her own occasional contribution, than she is in showing her own prowess. Not that there’s anything wrong with prowess-showing, but it doesn’t have to be what blogs are all about– unless that’s a reader’s expectation and he’s not going to be interested without it.
September 21, 2012 at 3:13 pm
PS. I also find it interesting that the historical roots of both the Baptist and the Quaker traditions were very female-participatory, which may have been a factor in the development of this method there. Again, I’m not saying men never collaborate or that it’s unmasculine to collaborate. I’m just saying that this is not traditionally how “successful manhood” has been viewed in our society.
September 21, 2012 at 4:24 pm
I know it’s not a new idea but I don’t agree with it!
My observations and experience, in and out of church, do not bear out the theory that it is primarily feminine to collaborate/relate so it would be ridiculous of me to accept it as fact. The most collaborative people I have worked with are high achieving men in the legal profession and in academic theological circles. The idea that women relate and men achieve is a very outdated concept for certain sections of society – in my generation (I’m 43) the need to achieve outside the home is as important for a woman as it is for a man. The many women who have succeeded in professions and business have pretty much shown this theory the door.
Assuming that the collaborative approach is the result of female involvement is to miss the fundamental underlying principle of this approach. It is crucial to understand that the collaborative approach is not adopted because it comes naturally – it is a theological belief. Men and women who participate in these churches and communities do so in the belief that this is how the priesthood of all believers is worked out. It is the result of a theological conviction not personal preference. It is certainly not a comfortable or easy way to discern the mind of Christ together but, if you believe that this is what being the priesthood of believers demands, then you do it..
The established Baptist tradition I am most familiar with, was founded and sustained by men and many of the ‘new monastic’ communities (such as the Northumbria Community) have emerged as groups who value collaboration and relationships very highly indeed – most of these have been initiated and sustained by men as well as women.
But if so many men are active in collaborative traditions then the reason why collaboration is rejected cannot therefore be primarily because it is feminine – another answer must be sought. I think it is probably more to do with the culture we all live in – fast moving and obsessed with measurable and quick success. We want the quick fix and the straightforward answer – especially when it suits us. Those who want power never want to share it which is also the reason why collaboration is rejected. Of course, once in power, they teach and practice a theology that keeps them in power..
Rachel is getting attention because she is highlighting controversial subjects and people are engaging with her collaborative style because they love being part of the conversation, trying to work out what truth is but I still don’t think this is a peculiarly feminine approach. It would be interesting to know what she thinks about this. Maybe Brian could ask her sometime (if you’re still reading this Brian!).
September 21, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Ali, I think we may have a slight miscommunication. I am not saying it is somehow inbred in females to collaborate, while it is inbred in males not to, or anything like that. I am saying it is a historical, traditional perception of our society that collaboration is a “feminine” way of doing things. As you say, those who want power never want to share it, so collaboration is often rejected by those in power. Those in power in the church have been, and still are, male. However, though the Baptist tradition you are most familiar with was founded and sustained by men, it is my understanding from my studies that the Baptist (and Quaker) movements were historically very female-inclusive at their beginnings. I certainly agree that theologically, collaboration would spring naturally from the idea of the priesthood of all believers– as, of course, does female-inclusiveness.
In any event, I think we are basically in agreement, just approaching the matter from two different angles. I don’t believe collaboration is inherently feminine. I do believe that it is a route considered and treated as more feminine historically, and thus often used by women.
September 22, 2012 at 4:03 am
Yes – we are in basic agreement here!