Tim Keller’s wife Kathy has a hard-hitting review of Rachel Held Evans’ book A Year of Biblical Womanhood. She hits all the right points. In particular, she critiques Evans’ flat reading of the Bible that does not interpret specific scriptures in their redemptive historical context. She concludes by critiquing Evans’ notion of love and power:

Rachel Held Evans has recently asked readers whether or not there is room for Christians to “debate the nature of Scripture – like what we mean by ‘authority’ or ‘inerrancy’ or ‘inspiration’?” (source). In her own writings, Evans has certainly been calling these issues into question, and she has been giving answers that consistently land on the liberal end of the theological spectrum. She reveals that she herself long ago stopped believing in the “Bible’s exclusive authority, inerrancy, perspicuity, and internal consistency” (source). I for one am grateful that Evans is willing to engage this conversation. These issues do in fact relate to the nature of scripture, and I can…

Dr. Brian Payne, professor of Christian Theology and Expository Preaching at Boyce College, preached one of the best sermons I’ve ever heard in Southern Seminary’s chapel. It’s just good, solid biblical exposition. You can watch it above, listen below, or download audio here. [audio:http://www.sbts.edu/media/audio/fall2012/20121016-payne.mp3]

I am glad that Rachel Held Evans is stoking a conversation about the meaning of “evangelical.” Evans says that she herself is an evangelical, yet she defines the term in a way that can only be described as radically revisionist. I daresay that very few would recognize her definition as anything approaching what evangelicals have historically held. We all know that defining the term ‘evangelical’ can be controversial, but many observers still look to David Bebbington’s quadrilateral as a helpful outline of the defining characteristics of evangelicals.