17 Comments

  • Scott Terrell

    Shouldn’t you be spending more time trying to figure out what’s wrong with Mike Huckabee? Gracious, you guys are obsessed with Rachel.

    • alastairjroberts

      Scott,
      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?

    • Tom Parker

      Scott:

      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!

    • Akash Charles

      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.

    • JM LaRue

      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.

  • Dallas Goebel

    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?

      • Dallas Goebel

        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…

    • Steve Dawson

      ” 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.

      • Dallas Goebel

        …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…

        • wggrace

          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.

            • wggrace

              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.

Leave a Reply to sarah lauren Cancel reply