Dear Rachel,
It’s me…evangelicalism.
I finished my quiet time yesterday (lots of praising you know who for the Nic Cage Left Behind reboot!) and turned on the Today Show (I like to check in on the secular stuff every once in a while so I can stay hip to the kids). Lo and behold, the commies at 30 Rock had taken a break from praising that Muslim Obama to speak with you and your hubbie. I was more excited by that than when I registered to win a spot on the K-Love cruise or thought I was standing behind Kirk Cameron at Big Lots.
But then I heard you talk about “Biblical Womanhood” as if it was defined by the Old Testament. You do know there is a sequel, don’t you dear?
I have been struggling with whether to write this letter to you for a while. I check your blog every once in a while and I have a hard time differentiating it from the blog of some Episcopalian priestess who drives a Chevy Volt, listens to the Indigo Girls and wears “comfortable shoes.”
I know you call yourself an evangelical but to paraphrase that wild secular flick The Princess Bride, “I’m not sure you know what that word means.”
You see, Rachel, I was defined by white men (i.e., sexist honkies) like Carl F.H. Henry and Francis Shaffer who believed in the inerrancy of Scripture and gender roles within the church defined by that Scripture. If you need to know what evangelicalism really is take a gander at Henry’s God, Revelation & Authority. It isn’t what you are used to–it is a lot longer than a Maureen Dowd op-ed piece, not as much fun as a Mumford & Sons release and denser than
a
Rob
Bell
book.
But it defines how evangelicalism views Scripture (i.e., without errors and more authoritative than the OWN network or a streaming documentary on Netflix), which largely defines evangelicalism. Unfortunately, the movement can’t be redefined by disgruntled folks no matter how good it sounds after conversations over organic, fair trade, shade grown coffee at the Whole Foods cafeteria.
So, Rachel it is time for us to go our separate ways. I’m sure you will enjoy the Episcopalians or PC-USA or whatever dying mainline “church” you join.
Please don’t be sad. Go treat yourself to Ben & Jerry’s while you watch MSNBC and remember Earth Day is just around the corner.
Bye-Bye.
I won’t comment beyond saying I agree with you completely & I’m glad I’m not the only one who feels this way about her. I gave up well before you did.
I just watched her appearance. No NT references. Interesting.
What gives those men the authority to describe evangelicalism? By whose authority do they get to set definitions?
The gender roles you define aren’t biblical – they are set by the world, and not followed by the apostle Paul. Which I suppose is ok, since he wouldn’t fit in most evangelical churches either
Jason, why does RHE have the right to re-define it in ways that Billy Graham, Carl Henry and Francis Schaffer wouldn’t recognize when they are the ones who defined evangelicalism as it moved out of fundamentalism in the late 1940′s? You can’t chuck the core tenants of evangelicalism and still claim to be one–that’s like being a meat eating vegitarian!
But she has as much right to define it as they do – evangelicalism had thrown off all external or denominational authorities, so how does one become a leader in a movement with no leadership?
Take the women’s issue. NT Wright – a scholar’s scholar by all rights will tell you the bible shows women in leadership. Why do other scholars get to trump that (does evangelicalism have anyone on his level? Piper tried, and got embarassed). Who is the authority within evangelicalism?
They created the movement (and therefore were its leaders) and it has a statement of belief, The Lausanne Covenant. Oh, and those guys wouldn’t consider Wright an evangelical or anyone doesn’t hold to inerrancy, which is at the center of the Lausanne Covenant as well as Henry’s seminal work “God, Revelation & Authority.”
I think that’s an interesting idea – that they “created” it so they get to define it. I’m just not sure that that works. you’re appealing to a very particular type of evangelicalism, which ignores that evangelicalism is a much wider – and older – stream than those guys are.
I thought about whether to include Wright or not b/c of his anglican role, but he isn’t doing his scholarship from an anglican perspective, but from a biblical one, so i think the distinction isn’t worth much.
i don’t have a particular dog in this hunt – i’m divorced from Christian pop culture, so i don’t even know who RHE is. But I’m wary about attempts to define Christianity and to define who is in and who is out when there simply, especially outside of the denominational movements, isn’t an authority to appeal to. Evangelicalism is simply much wider than you’ve defined it here.
I didn’t define it. The evangelical leaders who drafted the Lausanne Covenant defined it and it has been defined as such for 30 years. There is no argument for redefining a term just because you want to claim it either out of ignorance or a marketing ploy. Moreover, I’m not saying who gets to call themselves a Christian but who gets to call themselves an evangelical.
OK, I give up. Who is this RHE chick? And yep, I’m going to Google her.
She’s a blogger and author who is trying to sell a new book on “biblical womanhood” that, for some reason, defines it as living like an ancient jew.
Oh, she’s the chick who “lived bibically” for a year, whatever that is huh? Didn’t know she blogged, should’ve known she was hyping a book.
This all makes sense now!
[...] Obama needs to read a letter from my friend Matt to another liberal, progressive “Christian” pretending to be an evangelical. Matt makes the [...]