I'm sure you've heard by now about Rachel Held Evans's book, A Year of Biblical Womanhood. She decided to live a year under the biblical mandates for wives. Ultimately, of course, her aim was to demonstrate how foolish they are, at least today. So, when she read, for instance, "It is better to live in a corner of the roof Than in a house shared with a contentious woman" (Prov 25:24), she understood that to mean "When I am a contentious woman, I need to go on the roof." Of course, that's not what it says nor even implies. The text obviously means that the husband would feel better on the roof if his wife was contentious. But, hey, let's not bother ourselves with details there, okay? To Rachel Evans, it is what it is ... even if it isn't.
Evans did a spectacularly good job at her aims. She aimed to ridicule any genuine reading of the Bible as written, and she did. She aimed to ridicule the biblical view of women and wives, and she did. She aimed to ridicule anyone who would suggest living by biblical guidelines, and she did. Beyond that, she accomplished a live demonstration of a popular belief: You cannot take the Bible for what it says and anyone who does so is either being dishonest, naive, or stupid.
Look, quite clearly the Bible is not a monolithic set of truth, rules, instructions, and guidelines for God's view of what we should believe or how we should live. It's ... a moving target, an evolving set of notions. It is applicable here for people here and not applicable there for people there and certainly not solid at any given point except perhaps in the most general of understandings of the concept of "solid". So, for instance, when marriage is defined by God in Genesis 2, you can't take that as a standard definition. Things change. And when Paul argues that there is "the faithful word" and "the teaching" as if there is such things, you can't take them as either "faithful" or "the teaching" as if such things exist. One thing we know is that everything changes and any claim to the contrary is stupid.
Except, of course, that claim comes from Scripture. God Himself claims about Himself "I do not change" (Mal 3:6). And Scripture claims about itself that it is God-breathed. As such, it cannot change. And logic demands that if there is indeed a God who is omniscient and immutable, His Word would be an accurate, faithful, one, single, God-approved set of truth. The only question remaining at that point would be the failure of humans to properly understand that truth. You know, like Rachel Held Evans.
So, for example, when God commands (both Old and New Testament) that we love God with all our hearts, it isn't a suggestion, a variable, a rule for a time but no longer, a guideline that we may or may not follow depending on circumstances. It's a monolithic, unchanging, faithful, and accurate command for all God's people for all time. And that is only the beginning of such truth and rules found in Scripture ... post-modern meaninglessness not withstanding. Anything else is an echo of Satan's first attack: "Did God say ...?" When you hear that query in whatever form it comes, remember that the father of lies has children. Remember, when someone stands against historical, biblical orthodoxy and suggests something new has superseded it, just such a thing was promised, and it's not from God. And you can relax just a little bit because it's not you in question at that point. It's God who is being attacked. Even by those using His own name.
3 comments:
Rachel Held Evans did just what every cult leader and other false teacher does. She completed twisted every cited passage out of its context and thoroughly abused it beyond recognition so as to promote her personal agenda.
She either did it intentionally, or else she proved she has no idea what the Bible really says. I actually think it was both.
If I had to guess, I'd say she did it deliberately because she has no idea what it really says.
What did you mean by that last sentence, "even by those who use His own name"?
Post a Comment