To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Shouldn’t you be spending more time trying to figure out what’s wrong with Mike Huckabee? Gracious, you guys are obsessed with Rachel.
Are you referring to Huckabee’s implicit ‘test of fire’ allusion to 1 Corinthians 3:13, which people of limited biblical literacy have taken to refer to eternal judgment in hell, or are you referring to something else?
Denny and the folks that think like Denny are obsessed with Rachel–a post almost every day. I’ve said it before and I will say it again–Denny, Rachel should thank you for the free advertising-though I know that is not what you meant.
RHE, a woman that is not controlled by religion–what a threatening thought!
Power to her!
All this makes her more popular.
Dismiss her once , not every single day!!!, it seems like you are scared of her!
I actually pray that her corruption has little influence, but many of the people who disagree with her seem to be indirectly promoting her.
I hope her influence is far reaching.
the old lane kiffin line… “even bad publicity is publicity”
i’m not buying it. RHE’s voice will fade in the evangelical world in short time. the people that will buy her books will be the same one’s buying bell’s and mcclaren’s books. disappointed former evangelicals who don’t have the courage yet to identify themselves with mainstream liberalism.
I don’t understand why bringing something up like this very frequently—especially during the week of her book release—is “obsessive.” Maybe daily critiques need to be offered? Maybe the book is simply that bad, but is unfortunately influencing a lot of people? Rachel Held Evans is certainly no Arius, Marcion, Valentinus, or Pope—but would you call Irenaeus, Augustine, Athanasius, or Luther “obsessed?” I’d call them simply faithful. Rachel Held Evans’ book is the most recent bad—yet influential—book to hit the market. This here is a blog—a place where someone writes brief thoughts on recent topics. Denny is a professor who teaches the Bible and an elder, thus his main concerns are with biblical topics. Why would he not be writing about this?
It is obsessive because it is like Denny is tracking her every move this week. It goes beyond just giving her book a bad review.
How is he “tracking her every move?” He reads her blog. On her blog she says where and when she will be on TV. The reviews of her book that he has posted are on popular evangelical websites that anyone who reads evangelical websites would see. To me, that looks like reading around and staying up-to-date on a relevant and currently popular subject concerning the Bible and theology…
If you take such an issue with it, then why continue reading Denny’s blog?
” Denny is a professor who teaches the Bible and an elder, thus his main concerns are with biblical topics. Why would he not be writing about this?”
I think anyone who has read Denny’s website already knows Denny’s opinion as well as his arguments against what RHE wrote. Saying the same thing over and over is a form of obsession. Particularly when it is done in a short time.
…But he’s not saying the same thing over and over. He’s addressing the same topic from different aspects, i.e. his own thoughts, videos that RHE has posted or referred to, other people’s book reviews… I mean this particular post is simply a video…
But when people point out that Denny asserts things about RHE without evidence he does not provide the evidence but either provides a reference that does not support his assertion or simply ignores the push back.
The problem that I think affects both Denny and many of those sympathetic to him is that they see, rightly or wrongly, RHE as a liberal. They then say liberals think such and such. Therefore RHE thinks this too.
There are two problems with this.
First, it has yet to be established that RHE is a liberal.
Secondly, liberals do not all think alike. The precise views of each libeeral need to be considered. A generic rejection is mindless. It is a form of what CS Lewis called Bulverism. It is a mode of argument used by liberals about evangelicals and is worthless.
What claim is not backed up by evidence?
On the post dated 22nd October titled ‘Dialog about the Nature of Scripture’ you replied to Stacy and asserted that “RHE made the statement about no longer believing in inerrancy here: http://rachelheldevans.com/bible-series. ” The trouble is nowhere in that link that I can see does RHE make the statement attributed to her.
Again Denny asserted that RHE said she ‘she loves the Bible not as the inerrant and authoritative word of God but as a flawed collection of stories.’ is also unsupported. It might be true but I cannot find the support.
These were drawn to your attention on 30th October but not responded to.
I have this picture of you standing outside her window with a boombox blasting Phil Collins.
Thanks Denny; interesting but sad.