When I started the Twitter account, it didn't take long before Rachel Held Evans reached out and asked me to delete the account. I gave her a couple of 140-character responses, essentially saying that I was doing to her what she consistently does to others in her blog and that I'd delete my account when she deleted her blog. I understand that there's a difference between publicly condemning someone's theology and anonymously mocking it. The point was, and is, that she condemns people by name, and I'm condemning her by name. About a month later, despite having blocked my account, she reached out again and asked for a longer conversation. Once again, she asked me to delete the account out of respect for the fact that she was a real human beings with feelings; I had hurt her feelings. I responded with a 1300+ word email. You can read it here if you like, but I will explain much of that email in this post.
***Since I originally wrote this post, I've had a few more interactions with Rachel. My name on Twitter was "Rachel Held Evans II", and my avatar was a picture of her. However, per her request, Twitter suspended my account, asking me to change my name and photo. I changed my name to "The Fake Evans," and I changed my avatar to an animated character. My account was quickly restored. I have since learned from a Twitter representative that I was not actually in violation of any of Twitter's parody or impersonation policies; however, I kept the changes I made to avoid unnecessary conflict. She thanked me for making those changes, saying that those changes were all she was asking for and that she was not interested in silencing me. Based on my earlier interactions with her, I'm not sure that's entirely true. Either way, I have consulted several anonymous accounts on whether my account is truly beneficial, and I have decided that it would be best for me to continue running my account under a new name, unrelated to Rachel Held Evans.
I don't hate Rachel Held Evans. I hate her brand.
She wrote a blog post last year about the idea of separating a person from their brand. It's one of the few blogs she has written that I liked. She mentioned that she's not a fan of Mark Driscoll's brand, but since she doesn't know him, she has no business hating him. I'll begin by saying the same thing about her. This isn't personal; it's ideological.
I could have created a number of anonymous Twitter accounts like @ChristianFeminist, @LiberalXian, @PiperHater, etc., but the fact is that Rachel Held Evans has built a brand and has established an incredibly popular platform. She has been given the opportunity to influence a lot of people, and, fair or not, the grandness of her fame and popularity in the Christian blogosphere comes with an equally great responsibility to rightly divide the word of truth. She has failed at this. I created @TheFakeEvans Twitter account because her platform provides an opportunity for me to gain a platform of opposition, albeit a smaller one, by which I can grab the attention of her and some of her followers. Let me be clear: I am convinced that the liberal theology promoted by Rachel Held Evans will lead people down a path toward eternal destruction. Based on my interactions and observations of Rachel, it seems that she is a very nice person with intentions to do good work, but, as the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. With that being said, all of us need to weigh our personal intentions against the intentions of God revealed in Scripture. We will always assume that what we believe is right; otherwise, we'd believe something different. But God defines goodness and purpose. So my agenda is to directly address her agenda because I believe it directly contradicts God's agenda. I'll likely go into further details about each individual subject in later blogs, but for now I want to summarize [and explain the danger of] six things that she consistently gets wrong: gender roles, sexuality, the nature of doubt, hermeneutics, responding to abuse in the church, and the definition of love.
Gender Roles:
Rachel Held Evans often points to domestic abuse and the oppression of women to argue for egalitarianism, but the fact that male headship has been abused is not an argument against its legitimacy. Rachel argues, "it is within the context of judgment, not creation, that hierarchy and subjugation enter the Bible's story of man and woman," referring to Genesis 3:16. And if Genesis 3:16 were the only place that the Bible talked about male headship, her argument might be convincing. However, it's not. Just to name a few:
Ephesians 5:23-24 says, "The husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything." 1 Corinthians 11:3,8-9 says, "But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ...For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake." 1 Peter 3:5-7 says, "For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear. You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered."
Rachel tries to address those texts in various blog posts and in her book about biblical womanhood, but you have to do exegetical gymnastics to read those texts and conclude that men and women don't have different roles in the context of marriage. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that those roles will inevitably have cultural ramifications. I'm just asking you to look at the texts; accept or reject them, but please don't try to redefine them. In spite of the text, the reality for many marriages today is that the women are smarter, harder workers, better leaders, and better Christians. But the fact that women are leading in many homes is really just an indictment against men. Women ought to be praised for stepping in when their husbands do not or cannot. However, capability doesn't identify purpose. God defines purpose, and, even when we feel like we can accomplish more by defining our own purpose, we ought to pursue God's purpose. The reason it's important to get this right is because gender roles, particularly in the context of marriage, are central to the institution of the family, which is central to the health of society. This is why the instructions for marriage in Ephesians 5 are followed by the instructions for children that open up Ephesians 6. This is why the discussion of gender in 1 Corinthians 11 transitions into the goodness of the whole body in the following paragraphs. Egalitarianism in the context of marriage leads to the degradation of culture. So, rather than the flattening of gender roles, we need a robust renouncement of laziness in men and a call for men to humbly lead, serve, and provide for their families.Sexuality:
Gender and sexuality are ultimately inseparable, but their separation is certainly central to the movement of modern liberalism. It doesn't take long on Rachel Held Evans' website to find out that she is extremely vocal in her support for gay marriage and the acceptance of the LGBTQ community in the church. It's important to note that sexual immorality from heterosexuals has damaged the church far more than sexual immorality from homosexuals. However, the Bible does label homosexual acts as sins. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God." It's impossible to justify homosexuality without justifying every other thing in that list. The same is true of 1 Timothy 1:8-11. I've heard people talk their way around Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, but, once again, it takes a really open mind to be convinced that "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination" isn't talking about homosexuality. The same is true of Romans 1:27. It is important to note that everyone struggles with some sort of sexual immorality, and we are all called to repent from it. The danger of getting this wrong has implications that go in several directions. I don't think there is enough data to argue either way whether there are negative impacts from children raised by homosexual parents. At the same time, even if there was, the data would be holding those children up against children raised in homes with single parents, abusive parents, secular parents, etc., and therefore wouldn't offer anything conclusive. But the reality is, the hardware of men and women, and the natural reproductive process, suggest that men and women were designed for one another sexually. And Scripture presents a natural assumption that a mother and father would be involved in raising children. In addition, Ephesians 6:2 emphasizes that the command, "honor your father and your mother," is the first command with a promise, namely, "that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you." Perhaps I don't need to mention this, but the reason this is an issue of sexuality is because homosexuals can't have children. However, the greater implication of understanding sexuality biblically has to do with the salvation of the LGBTQ community. Salvation always involves repentance, and if a homosexual does not consider homosexuality a sin, then they won't even consider the potential of repenting from it. To justify homosexuality seems, on the surface, like love toward the homosexual community. However, it is far more loving to help the homosexual community see that homosexuality is a sin because, in seeing it, they will see their need for Christ.
The Nature of Doubt:
This won't take long. One of the common themes of Rachel Held Evans' blog is the affirmation of doubt. Lots of people struggle with doubt, and it's comforting to find people with similar struggles, particularly when those people are characters in the pages of Scripture. However, the Bible never affirms doubt. When Peter walks on water and then sinks, Jesus rebukes him, saying, "You of little faith, why did you doubt?" When Jesus appears before his disciples after his resurrection, they doubt what they're seeing, but Jesus asks, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?" The last line of Romans 14 is, "whatever is not from faith is sin." Faith and doubt are antonyms, and doubt is indeed a product of our sinfulness. When people have doubts, Scripture does not affirm their doubts, it calls them to greater faith.
Hermeneutics:
One of the unfortunate characteristics of modernity is the lack of respect for authorial intent. Rachel Held Evans tends to give a lot of respect to historically heterodox and heretical positions. This can be seen most clearly in her "Ask A..." series. For that series, a sampling of the people she has interviewed includes an open theist, a liberal rabbi, an interfaith couple, a liberation theologian, and a "reformed" pastor from the PC(USA) who explicitly denies several tenants of reformed theology in the interview. I think it's great to engage people with differing views. However, the people she engages in her blog are almost always those who have a common agenda of gender and sexual equality. Hermeneutics isn't about being able to justify a particular interpretation of a text. Hermeneutics is about discovering the intended meaning of a text. There are dozens of blog posts on Rachel's website in which she explains that the natural reading and/or the historical understanding of a text is wrong, particularly texts referring to gender and sexuality. Just a word of advice, any author who consistently wants to talk you out of the traditional reading of a text is probably someone to read with caution. In addition to that, the theologians that Rachel most commonly critiques are ones that strongly affirm the inerrancy of Scripture. It's obvious why hermeneutics is important because bad hermeneutics makes is incredibly easy to have bad theology. Bad theology will cause us to seek freedom in that which we are already enslaved. Scripture reveals a God that offers hope and freedom. However, as strange as it sounds, hermeneutics isn't about hope and freedom; it's about getting a text right. Our hope and freedom comes from enslaving ourselves to the righteousness that good hermeneutics will reveal. What you believe about Christ and his nature is the most important thing about you, so it's incredibly important to develop good hermeneutics for that purpose.
***Responding to Abuse in the Church:
Rachel often talks about abuse within the church. I truly commend her desire to expose abuse and to call out abusers. I agree with her that victims of abuse need to contact law enforcement. I agree with her that we need to stand with victims of abuse. However, on several occasions, she has argued that Calvinistic and Complementarian theology contributes to violence and abuse within the church. To prove her point, she points the finger at people like CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll, particularly because of their involvement in abuse within their own churches. She points to people like John Piper and Al Mohler and says that their theology is dangerous. She claims that believing in a God who violently punishes sinners contributes to violence. I believe that the opposite is true. Knowing that we deserve punishment but have been given grace is actually the greatest catalyst for living graciously. He who is forgiven much loves much.
The Definition of Love:
I explained in my first blog post what I believe most modern liberal Christians do under the guise of love. There have been many times when I've seen Rachel Held Evans on Twitter accusing others of not being loving. There may be some truth to her accusation, and the reality is that most conservatives could learn a lot from most liberals about compassion and empathy. I commend Rachel Held Evans for her pursuit of loving others, but I really believe she ought to reevaluate whether it is truly loving to call people into potentially sinful circumstances based on their felt needs. Salvation, first and foremost, involves a love of the truth. This is what 2 Thessalonians 2:10 means when it says, "they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved." And 1 Peter 1:22 reveals that Christian love is set on the foundation of truth when it says, "Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love for the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart." 1 John 3:18 says, "Let us not love in word or with tongue, but in deed and truth." Paul exemplifies this in Ephesians 4, where he says, "speak the truth in love," and then goes on to call the Ephesians to repentance. When Jesus gives the command, "love one another, just as I have loved you," in John 15:12, he follows it up by explaining, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends," which is exactly what he would do. This is the point Paul makes in Romans 5:8, "God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." The greatest act of love is the one that paid for our sin, and the implication for us is that the best way that we can show love is to point to the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins.
There are certainly other things that are troubling about Rachel Held Evans' theology, and, for the most part, people have addressed them. Every week, I learn more and more that a significant opposition to Rachel Held Evans already existed. Owen Strahan has written a blog post about Rachel's use of feminine language referring to the nature of God. Denny Burk is constantly writing about Rachel Held Evans in his blog. Summer Pinch's, "Open Letter to Rachel Held Evans," seemed to catch a lot of attention as she condemned Rachel's approval of homosexuality. Another post criticizes her liberalism, namely that liberals use conservative words and change or conflate their definitions. Rachel also regularly writes about the need for the church to adapt in order to reach millennials, and several people have responded to this as well. While the church has always adapted to culture to an extent, it has never been a good idea for the church to compromise its convictions in order to make its message more palatable for a certain group. 2 Corinthians 2:16 says that the church's message is always going to smell like an "aroma from death to death" to those who don't know Christ. The church cannot change just because people don't like its message.
I don't hate Rachel Held Evans. I don't even know her. But I hate most of what I read from her. The way she talks about gender, sexuality, and doubt are extremely harmful for those who wrestle with those issues. And the way she interprets Scripture and defines love, in order to pursue the agenda of her view on those issues, can be extremely deceitful. Rachel is not intentionally deceiving anyone. She is doing what is right in her own eyes, but, in doing so, she is inadvertently leading people astray.
I hope that Rachel and her followers will engage me and the ideas in this blog. However, I realize that most of the readers of this blog will be conservative evangelicals. Rather than using an article like this to become puffed up in our minds against liberal theologians like Rachel Held Evans, I hope that we will take this opportunity to pray for them and engage them tactfully with Scripture and reason. There is power in the gospel of Christ; may we all put our hope in it.
***These paragraphs have been added since I originally wrote this post.
