Near Emmaus

Category Archives: Rachel Held Evans


by Leave a comment

Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood is available.

I’ve seen people mention that they have seen Rachel Held Evans A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master at a variety of bookstores already, but today is the official release date, so if you’ve been waiting you don’t have to wait any longer (e.g, Amazon.com).

Remember, I wrote a review a couple weeks ago. You can read that here.

Let me share how I summarized the book:

I enjoyed this book. I recommend you read it. I presume that people who are sympathetic to Rachel’s views on this or that are more likely to read it than those who oppose her. That is fine. But I do hope some who find themselves skeptical will take the risk of reading this book. I think you will find it isn’t what you suspected (or what book reviewers for some coalition who claim to have a monopoly on the “Gospel” might say about it). This book exalts Christ, it honors the work of the Spirit, it respects Scripture, it challenges the church, and it serves as a prophetic voice in a world where women who are beloved by God wait for an advocate.

I stand by this. It was an excellent book, enjoyable to read, and very thought provoking.

About these ads


by 8 Comments

Book Review: Rachel Held Evans’ A Year of Biblical Womanhood

Held Evans, Rachel, A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2012). (Amazon.com)

I received an Advanced Reader’s Copy of Rachel Held Evans‘ A Year of Biblical Womanhood: How a Liberated Woman Found Herself Sitting on Her Roof, Covering Her Head, and Calling Her Husband Master a couple of weeks ago. Quickly, I began reading it. I respect all that Rachel has done as a popular blogger and her willingness to be a voice for women and other people who are ignored and/or mistreated within broader Christianity. I had a hunch that this would be an enjoyable book to read and she did not fail me. It was excellent.

On Twitter I described it using these four words: fun, adventurous, challenging, and prophetic.

Aim of the Book:

If you are unaware of the aim of this book it is an effort to spend one calendar year trying to live according to various mandates in Scripture aimed at women. Some people find this blasphemous. I find it fits within the heart of the Christian tradition. Immediately as I began to read the book the words attributed to the apostle Peter in the Book of Acts 15.10 (NASB) came to mind: “Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?” Christianity has not disrespected Scripture by acknowledging that strict, literalistic approaches are overwhelming and impossible. Rather, Christianity has honored Scripture by acknowledging its perplexing, exhausting, weighty nature. Christianity has said that the mandates of Scripture direct us toward Christ, because we cannot bear the yoke of rules and regulations.

This book (like A.J. Jacob’s A Year of Living Biblically) aims to make this very point with a smile.

Over the course of the year Rachel works on developing gentleness, domesticity, obedience, valor, beauty, modesty, purity, fertility (kind of), submission, charity, silence, and grace. I think the most wonderful aspect of this book is that while it exposes our pick-and-choose hermeneutic (and the blind selectivity of groups like the so-called Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood) Rachel does an amazing job of (1) bringing forth the positive principles found behind the problematic passages of Scripture and (2) honoring women (and people in general) who have decided to live strictly in accordance with a more literalistic reading of various passages.

While reading this book I learned about Jewish women, Amish women, Roman Catholic monks, a community of Quakers, and so forth. I learned about the positive side of their stories. The healthy disciplines they develop. The attractive aspects of their spirituality that might benefit us all. I know that some will dismiss this book as a radical feminist slandering of all things that progressives deem archaic and out-of-touch. If this is your presupposition, you’ll miss reading a great book. Rachel is very respectful. She realizes something my wife tells me often: there is no greater way to ruin women’s solidarity and support of one another than to turn them against each other for choosing to live their lives differently.

Some Reflections:

This book invites the reader on a wild roller coaster where Rachel tries to cook like Martha Stewart, honor her husband at the “gate” of her city, dress according to the strictest standards of modesty one can find in Scripture, and on and on. This book had me smiling and laughing on numerous occasions.

It made me upset as well. Rachel has done her homework and she shares with her readers the worldview of some writers–men and women–who advocate “biblical womanhood” as a woman staying home, having a half dozen children, never going to college, never having a career, and living for her husband as a servant. While there may be women who find this to be fulfilling there are other women who have a sense that this is not the aim of their life. These authors attempt to guilt women into a model of womanhood that has nothing to do with ancient Israel or first century Galilee as much as it does everything to do with 1950′s America. Rachel exposes this and she does it without being hostile. I must commend her on this because while I was reading excerpts from this or that author my face would turn red with anger. I cussed to myself on many occasions. What Rachel has done through this experiment is out do the legalist in their legalism!

Rachel’s book does not mock Scripture; her book exposes our inconsistencies as readers of Scripture, our false objectivity (a mythological epistemology that needs to die), and our foundationless and often hypocritical piety. Rachel proves to be a better and more honest reader of Scripture than many people whom I have met with doctorates in biblical studies. She lets Scripture bother her. She lets it challenge her. I found her honesty about Scripture to be refreshing and she has become a fellow pilgrim in my own journey to understand this complex, concerning, beautiful book known as the Bible.

In this book Rachel puts flesh on the “redemptive hermeneutic” of Scripture (e.g., see W.J. Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis). In other words, she displays quite well how the Gospel provides a foundation for the flourishing of women even if there are passages in the Bible that seem to be oppressive. She reminds us of the respect Jesus showed women. She wrestles with the cultural contexts of some of Paul’s words regarding women while drawing our attention back to his cornerstone claim that “in Christ” there is “neither male nor female.” This book takes the Bible seriously, even if Rachel doesn’t read the Bible like some people think she should read the Bible. (For what it is worth, my approach to Scripture is far more like Rachel’s than it is conservative evangelicalism’s.)

The Main Point:

The best part of this book was Rachel’s (here comes a big word) “Christocentrism,” which is encapsulated in what I consider to be the “money quote” of the book:

“As a Christian, my highest calling is to follow Christ. And following Christ is something a woman can do whether she is married or single, rich or poor, sick or healthy, childless or Michelle Duggar, mom on nineteen (p. 181).”

This is the main point: Christ calls women to be his disciples in this world. He leads them by his Spirit as he does men. This means some women may be stay at home mothers, and others may be CEOs. Some women may have a dozen children, and some may dedicate a life of singleness to Christ. Some women may organize the nursery on Sunday, and others may be preaching the sermons from pulpits. If I can put it this way, Rachel’s book reminds me of the words of the apostle Paul (Romans 14.4): “Who are you to judge another man’s servant?” If God calls woman to do something with which you are not comfortable her responsibility is to God.

Other Perks:

Throughout the book the reader is introduced to Rachel’s husband Dan through journal entries he wrote during the course of the book’s development. Let me tell you something: Dan challenged me to be a better husband to my wife far more than any literature from Focus on the Family or Desiring God could ever do. Dan is the ultimate team player. He supports Rachel. I gain from the book that he makes Rachel a better person and she makes him a better person. One can critique egalitarian marriages, but the fruit of the Spirit seems to be blossoming in the midst of their relationship, so do what you will with that. As I read his thoughts he made me ask myself if I am doing all that I can do to help Miranda become all that God has made her and whether I have supported my wife in her giftedness. Someday I’d like to meet Dan, give him a big handshake, and thank him for existing.

At the end of chapters Rachel provides short profiles on women from biblical narratives like Deborah, Rachel, Mary, Tabath, Junia, and more. As with the Gospel of Matthew’s genealogy one realizes that God has done some of his greatest work quietly through humble women over history right under the nose of radically patriarchal cultures! Yes, Scripture focuses on males far more than females, but the quirk of this is that it is in the silent, humble side of Scripture that we find the story moving forward to its destination.

The most challenging and prophetic part of the book is the vision she casts for women. This book does not spend all of its time arguing over women pastoring (it assumes the legitimacy of this acts, as do I), nor does it give tons of attention to all the quirky injustices we find in the church regarding women (as important as these are), but rather Rachel opens the reader’s eyes toward the global problems facing women: human trafficking, prostitution, abuse, abandonment, and so much more. She appeals to our calling as Christians to care for our sisters locally and globally. In her chapter on ‘Justice’ she reminds readers that feminism is not the stereotypes you hear on talk radio, but “the radical notion than women are people too.” Women are not property. Women are not ontologically inferior to men. Women are equals to be valued, respected, honored, admired, and supported.

Humanity could not exist without women (and this is applicable to more than giving birth). Women are essential to the mission of the church. Women are essential to the health of humanity. If we don’t invest in women we harm our present and our future.

Conclusion:

I enjoyed this book. I recommend you read it. I presume that people who are sympathetic to Rachel’s views on this or that are more likely to read it than those who oppose her. That is fine. But I do hope some who find themselves skeptical will take the risk of reading this book. I think you will find it isn’t what you suspected (or what book reviewers for some coalition who claim to have a monopoly on the “Gospel” might say about it). This book exalts Christ, it honors the work of the Spirit, it respects Scripture, it challenges the church, and it serves as a prophetic voice in a world where women who are beloved by God wait for an advocate.


by 21 Comments

Rachel Held Evans on the the word “biblical” and its misuse

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.


by 40 Comments

Is it 2011? The Gospel Coalition and Rob Bell have our attention, again.

Rob Bell is back with a new video titled “Rediscovering Wonder” that sounds a lot like a response to his detractors if you “listen between the lines.” Watch and tell me your thoughts (HT: American Jesus):

Also, we can’t mention Rob Bell without The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gaining our attention. Jared C. Wilson approvingly shared (see The Polluted Waters of 50 Shades of Grey, Etc) an excerpt from a book by Douglas Wilson (Fidelity: What It Means to be a One-Woman Man) that describes the role of males in sexual activity as follows: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants.” What do women do according to Wilson? “A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.” Interestingly he frames this as the good that rape culture and bondage games “pollute.” You can read the vulgarity yourself, though I do recommend caution.

Of course, as you can imagine, this has outraged quite a few. It could come across as quite insensitive to, oh I don’t know,  sexual abuse victims maybe? Doug Wilson responded by accusing everyone of not knowing how to read and Jared Wilson wrote a follow-up post (see Shades of Outrage) that is the equivalent to telling an impolite joke at a party and then responding to everyone’s outrage with, “What? What’s wrong? C’mon people, loosen up. Hey, where you going? No one can take a joke!” (see Dianna Anderson’s critique)

I don’t lose sleep that groups like The Gospel Coalition exist. I am sad that they are trying so hard to monopolize the word “Gospel.” Don’t they know misogyny is available? It is far more fitting.

Plenty of good, smart folks have responded already (I think the excerpt speaks for itself and I think anyone who thinks it is OK reveals their true colors…no need to argue with them): Joel Watts asks that these people unmask their ideas about sex and call  it what it is: rape. Daniel Kirk agrees calling “sexual conquering” rape. Rodney Thomas exposes the sexism and racism of this post. Rachel Held Evans gives a thorough response. Scot McKnight asks TGC to do the right thing by calling them to take the offensive post down.

Needless to say, it is 2011 again.


by 40 Comments

The fallacy of assumed universal experience.

Yesterday Rodney Thomas wrote a post titled “Can White People Do Contextual Theology Too?” wherein he rightly argues, “…many well-intentioned religious thinkers try to hide …whiteness in the name of universality. The idea that even white people do contextual theology is disruptive.” I recommend reading it, because it is true! Sometimes those of us with more Eurocentric worldviews forget that all history is not western history (using “western” for lack of a better word), all philosophy is not western philosophy, all religion is not western religion, and so forth and so on. While Derrida, Foucault, Lyotard, and other “postmoderns” receive a bad rap in my circles I think this was one of their great insights and one of their great contributions to the critique of western thought from within the paradigm of western thought: we should not assume our non-universals to be universals.

We hear a lot about African, Asian, and Latin American biblical studies/hermeneutics/philosophy/theology as if it is the abberation of the objective, universal approach to the aforementioned subjects. This assumes too much. It speaks of Eurocentric (i.e. white) approaches to various topics as universals when the truth of the matter is that this approach is contextualized as well. While I think it is right to discuss African, Asian, and Latin American (and other categories) forms of thought in order to be more aware of the differences, we must be careful to avoid to assumption the they contrast a fundamental, universal approach (i.e our approach).

It is easy to make this mistake. Often we assume our view is the universal, especially if we are in the majority. For example, my wife recently shared a few paragraphs from a chapter titled “Religious Microagressions in the United States: Mental Health Implications for Religious Minority Groups” in Microaggressions and Marginality: Manifestation, Dynamics, and Impact (ed. Derald Wing Sue) where the following paragraphs grabbed my attention (its from the Kindle edition so excuse the lack of page numbers):

“…another common experience for religious minorities may include asking someone to be a spokesperson for their entire religious or nonreligious groups. Such an act implies that individuals from a specific religious group have had universal experiences and that each person is interchangeable and nondescript. This phenomenon is similar to the theme ‘assumed universal black experience’ in which a Black/African person is asked to speak on behalf of the entire race (Sue, Nadal, et al., 2008). Expecting a person from a religious or nonreligious group  to speak for his or her group can be viewed as unfair and may evoke stress from the recipient. Perpetrators from dominant religious groups are rarely asked to be representatives of their groups. This form of religious microaggression can be similar in literature on race. For example, McIntosh (2003) reveals that one privilege that Whites have is that they may never be asked to represent their entire group, while people of color may be asked to be spokespersons regularly. Similarly, Christians may never have to be spokespersons, while Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and other religious and nonreligious minority groups may be asked recurrently.”"

I have heard from fellow Caucasians/Whites the opening line, “My friend _____ is Black and s/he thinks….” as the beginning of an argument for why one African American/Black’s vantage point suddenly sums up the views of a whole ethnic/racial group. Some examples would be “My Black friend _____ doesn’t like the idea of Affirmative Action, therefore….” or “My Mexican friend _____ says that s/he doesn’t think it is fair for the school in the Latino neighborhood to get a larger portion of government aid, so….” and the African American or Latino who happens to have a view similar to that of the majority is cited as evidence that the minority group either (A) doesn’t necessarily disagree with the majority or (B) since some within the minority group agree with the majority the concerns of the rest of the minority are unjustified.

I am a white, male Protestant/evangelical. This puts me in the majority in the United States. Sometimes I sense the need to defend myself against the demonization of “whiteness” or “maleness” and often one card we white males play is the appeal to our minority or female friend. I know why we do this, but I’m not sure that it is wise, especially when we ignore the views of a minority group in favor of a “spokesperson” who agrees with us.

Those of us from religious groups that are the majority do the same thing. I have heard some fellow evangelicals warn about the dangers of Islam because they heard “a former Muslim, now Christian” outline their own negative experience with Islam and then they assume this describes all Muslims. The same thing can happen when a “former Catholic” explains to Protestants why “Catholicism” is bad. The Protestant appeals to the view of one former Catholic, but does not give other Catholics a speaking platform. (This is one reason why I was hesitant in writing my series on Oneness Pentecostalism, since I know I am only one former adherent.)

I am not saying that this is the type of thing being done of Rachel Held Evans’ blog where she has a series that includes, “Ask an Atheist”; “Ask a Catholic”; “Ask an Orthodox Jew”; “Ask a Humanitarian”; “Ask a Mormon”; “Ask a Mennonite”; and “Ask an Evolutionary Creationist”, but I do think there is a danger that readers of these posts may assume a smug sense of “awareness” now that “a Catholic” or “a Mormon” has spoken on behalf of the religious minority. Rachel’s series does something very positive–it invites evangelicals to dialogue with “the other”. It allows someone from a minority group to speak rather than be spoken for by an outsider. Most importantly, it allows an individual to show that a generalization of a given group ignores that different individuals in that group have different opinions on various matters. If these things are kept in perspective all is well and good. What needs to be avoided is that misconception that the “spokesperson” represents the group or that it is even a “good” thing that they must be a “spokesperson”. It should be seen as the beginning of a conversation including more voices, not a final word spoken by one individual.

For those of us in the majority we must ask ourselves how much we would like to be represented by one voice. One example, as a citizen of the United States it was very concerning to talk to people who thought that because President George W. Bush had a particular foreign policy that he represented the entire American ethos. One person I know from Belgium was quite surprised to hear that all Americans aren’t pro-war!!! Another example is that as a white male I don’t like when it is assumed that I come from a line of slave owners (no evidence of this in my family line) or that I think a good woman is one who washes the dishes and cooks every meal (I cook sometimes and I do many of the house chores). If someone asked my dad what a “white, American male” thinks of a given subject I’d be quite horrified if someone assumed that his views are my own.

So we must avoid the fallacy of assumed universal experience from two angles. First, we must avoid the idea that our own experience is the universal while others are abberations. Second, we must avoid the misconception that the view of one person of a minority race, ethnicity, sub-culture, or religion represents everyone in said group.

What are your thoughts on this issue? 


by 7 Comments

Let’s put a human face on “the other”.

I am encouraged. In fact, I choose to be. Let me tell you why.

Yesterday I mentioned the Facebook post written by Pastor Mark Driscoll that caused public outrage because his words could very easily have led to pain for those who do not fit into the macho-masculinity paradigm espoused by many in our society. One of the most read responses was that by Rachel Held Evans where she called Driscoll a “bully” and then asked for people to contact Mars Hill Church where Driscoll pastors to ask for his correction. In response to Evans there was an article written by Dr. Anthony Bradley calling Evans’ response “libel” and warning us Christians of infighting that distracts from our witness to Christ. People commented on this article either defending Evans, defending Bradley, or some nuance of these positions.

I blogged about it because I thought it gave us all an opportunity to discuss public error and rebuke. What should we do in these types of situations? Who has the right to rebuke? What kind of rebuke is helpful and healing? What kind of rebuke comes across as spiteful and divisive? There were some good responses here.

Yesterday Mark Driscoll wrote a clarification. It was titled, “Gender: Is it a socially constructed reality or a God-given identity?” I am not sure that we can call it an “apology”, per se, but it is appreciated none the less. Driscoll wrote the following stratements:

“I…put a flippant comment on Facebook, and a raging debate on gender and related issues ensued. As a man under authority, my executive elders sat me down and said I need to do better by hitting real issues with real content in a real context. And, they’re right. Praise God I have elders who keep me accountable and that I am under authority. “

“In the past, I’ve not had a regular place to work out personal commentary on social issues, and so I’ve erred in sometimes doing so in places like Facebook, Twitter, and the media, where you can have a good fight but don’t have the room to make a good case.“

While some may not be satisfied because Driscoll doesn’t say, “I was wrong for what I said” this is an important step. If the church is graceful we will accept the step, pray for further maturity, and seek reconciliation. This is exactly what Rachel Held Evans does in her blog post in response to Driscoll’s response. She writes,

“… I am grateful that the elders at Mars Hill held him accountable and asked him to “do better” in speaking about these issues with decorum and respect. That means that our messages were heard and that something was done. I know that many were hoping for an apology, but as followers of Jesus we must be willing to forgive without one. This is a step in the right direction, and I thank Mark for taking it.“

“Evangelicals appear to be at a crossroads in this debate, and Facebook is certainly not the ideal forum for productive dialog….

…Mark is my brother in Christ, and I would welcome him to such a conversation with open arms. “

This is a productive, I think, though I know it is not satisfactory for many. What it is doing to some extent is admitting wrongs (from both sides), seeking humility, and welcoming discussion rather than detached, impersonal rebukes. I think this is what happens when we put a face on “the other”. We find a way to be gracious (and again, let me applaud this recent response from Evans because I think it shows great courage in seeking graciousness when it would be easy to dismiss Driscoll’s statement as insufficient). We must see the (A) humanity in even those with which we disagree and (B) seek reconciliation, especially with those who are fellow children of God in the same household of faith.

I don’t know if we have solved this “public error and public rebuke” conundrum. I presume something like this could very well happen again and we as the body of Christ will once again face the difficult challenges involved. Yet at this point I applaud steps toward reconciliation, understanding, and most of all love.