Rachel Held Evans Dead

[Josh]

Understood, JohnHurt. RHE held the same positions that you do that one can basically ignore Paul’s teachings on moral issues. That’s why I found it especially offensive how you posted so negatively about her shortly after her death.

I found this whole thing a bit of a shock. I’m the same age she was, and she had a very simple illness I’ve had before. It progressed badly very quickly. Nobody saw this coming, and her family is so young.

In the past my belief system was a lot closer to hers. An attitude like Boot showed above is helpful. We won’t win friends by attacking specific people because their beliefs are “wrong”.

[PeterG]

Several years ago I was eating dinner with my parents when someone mentioned the recent death of a prominent Christian leader with whom I had significant disagreements. "Good riddance!" I said. My parents gently rebuked me, and I learned an important lesson.

[QuietObserver]

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the death of Evans. While I disagree with her solutions, I think she tapped into some real problems within evangelical Christianity. Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of her writings, but I'm aware of her theological positions.

I think it's very tragic a young mother died so young. I only feel grief. It makes me sad to see people celebrating her death or condemning her to hell. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

[ohio jones]

Rachel Evans taught against what Paul taught in Romans 1:22-32. She believed that we should accept evolutionary science, that creatures created themselves, and not as what is written in Genesis 1. In this way, she encouraged us to worship the creature more than the Creator. She said that we should not be against homosexual relationships, as Paul warned against in Romans 1:26-27.

Understood, JohnHurt. RHE held the same positions that you do that one can basically ignore Paul’s teachings on moral issues.

It might be more precise to say that both "selectively ignore" Paul, since it appears John agrees with Paul when it suits his purposes. I suspect the same would be true of Rachel, though I am not familiar enough with her writings to provide examples.

Of course that raises the question of who has authority to decide which parts of Paul must be accepted, and which can be ignored.

[JohnHurt]

It might be more precise to say that both "selectively ignore" Paul, since it appears John agrees with Paul when it suits his purposes. I suspect the same would be true of Rachel, though I am not familiar enough with her writings to provide examples.

Of course that raises the question of who has authority to decide which parts of Paul must be accepted, and which can be ignored.

It is very simple, Mr. Jones. Christ has the authority to decide what is accepted and ignored, not us. If our understanding of Paul conflicts with the teachings of Christ, either our understanding is incorrect, or Paul is incorrect. Christ is not wrong, we are.

Here is an example: When Christ said that the law would never be abolished in Matt 5:17-20, we must consider that Christ offered Himself in the eternal tabernacle (Hebrews 9), which replaced the blood sacrifices. These sacrifices are still in effect now and for all time, for they are performed eternally by Christ. So not one jod or tittle of the law has passed.

When Paul speaks of the ordinances of the law in Eph 2:15 and Col 2:14, to make this fit Matt 5:17-20, it cannot possibly mean the entire law was nailed to the cross. It means, looking at what Christ has said and His sacrifice, that the blood sacrifices were nailed to the cross.

Looking at what Paul said about the "works of the law", we know that "not killing, not stealing, not having a graven image, or resting on one day a week, these are not a "work", but something that you do not do. If you understand Paul's words to mean something different that conflicts with Matt 5:17-20, that is an error. The "works of the law" could mean just the animal sacrifices. This would bring Paul's statements in line with Christ.

And Paul's opinion that salvation by faith through grace without works appears to be contradicted by Christ in Matt 19:16-19 and by James in James 2. This is something you will have to study. Paul is just a man, he is not at the same level of authority as Christ.

But the principle is clear, that the teachings of Christ are superior, and still in force for everyone that follows Him.

Concerning this lady that died, I think everyone has sorrow for her family, for her children, her husband. If she had lived a private life, we would not be having this discussion.

But when someone becomes a writer, they are a public person. Their writing, not them, can be discussed without injury to them, their family, or anyone else. Their writing stands on its own.

When I read Edgar Allan Poe, I find his writings depressing and quite scary. When I read some of L. Ron Hubbard's works, I found a science fiction writer that turned religion into a money-making business. These men are both dead, and though no offense is to be given to them or their families, their works are in the public domain, and can be considered for debate.

Christ was very clear about opposing those that taught for doctrines the commandments of men. (Mt 15:9). Teaching that evolution is a "science" or that homosexual relationships should exist inside the church, is a doctrine of men, not God. When someone said that His opponents were offended by His statements, Christ said:

(14) Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

Perhaps that is the best advice of all. If someone is going to follow the doctrines of men, and not Christ, just leave them alone.

[Dan Z]

I have read enough of Rachel's writings to consider her a sister in Christ. Thus, I grieve with those who grieve. I'm especially sad her husband and children have had to say good-by to their loved one so soon.

While I haven't always agreed, I have often appreciated and/or been challenged by her insights. She was a gifted and provocative thinker who at times challenged things within evangelicalism that needed challenging.

[MaxPC]

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the death of Evans. While I disagree with her solutions, I think she tapped into some real problems within evangelical Christianity. Admittedly, I haven't read a lot of her writings, but I'm aware of her theological positions.

I think it's very tragic a young mother died so young. I only feel grief. It makes me sad to see people celebrating her death or condemning her to hell. Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

While I do not know who this young lady was, I agree with this sentiment I bolded in the above quote.

Quaque spiritus est, spes est. (Wheresoever there is breath there is hope).

[RZehr]

I have read enough of Rachel's writings to consider her a sister in Christ. Thus, I grieve with those who grieve. I'm especially sad her husband and children have had to say good-by to their loved one so soon.

While I haven't always agreed, I have often appreciated and/or been challenged by her insights. She was a gifted and provocative thinker who at times challenged things within evangelicalism that needed challenging.

I haven't read any of her writings. How can you consider her a sister in Christ if she actively promoted things that you believe to be sinful? (Assuming she did by this thread.)

[Robert]

How can you consider her a sister in Christ if she actively promoted things that you believe to be sinful? (Assuming she did by this thread.)

[bible]acts 9,17[/bible]

[QuietObserver]

How can you consider her a sister in Christ if she actively promoted things that you believe to be sinful? (Assuming she did by this thread.)

[bible]acts 9,17[/bible]

Perhaps I'm thickheaded but I'm don't I understand how this answers the question.