People are obviously interested in this woman who would voluntarily and literally banish herself to a corner of her home’s roof for speaking contentious words to her husband.

You may have heard of Rachel Held Evans. She’s the blogger who is making headlines for her year-long experiment to practice all of the Biblical laws relating specifically to women. Since October 1, 2010, Evans, who lives in Tennessee, has been living what she calls her “Year of Biblical Womanhood;” she slept in a backyard tent during her menstrual cycle, sewed her own clothes, and wore a head-covering while praying. She also designed a chart to remind herself to submit to her husband’s Netflix choices.

Evans and her project are getting attention. (Diane Montgomery wrote an excellent post at the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood site challenging Evans’ errors on gender issues and emphasis on outward requirements.) She’s also been featured on Slateand NPR, and her eponymous blog about the project currently has 3,176 Facebook “likes.” People are obviously interested in this woman who would voluntarily and literally banish herself to a corner of her home’s roof for speaking contentious words to her husband.

Evans only seems radical.

Granted, other woman probably won’t be joining her in a similar year of ceremonial law- keeping, but Evans is nevertheless a high priestess of the age. Far from being radical, her presuppositions reflect a worldview that she shares with many others.

Underneath Evans’ lipstick-free exterior, she holds popular ideas.

Discipline Has a Goal (and It’s Not Holiness)

At worst, Evans’ project is merely a publicity gimmick to write and sell a book in a tough market (her book, tentatively titled A Year of Biblical Womanhood, will be published by Thomas Nelson after the project ends.) At best, she’s trying to accomplish a more noble goal. On her blog, she says she hopes to “start a conversation about how we interpret . . . the Bible.”

But, she is not law-keeping to grow in holiness or to glorify God. The very idea that this undertaking is a “project” with a defined beginning and ending point (this Saturday) aligns Evans with her culture. She is no different from her Christian neighbors who try self-denial at Lent, yoga three evenings a week, and quiet meditation for times of stress.

Different Interpretations of Scripture Mean There is No Correct Interpretation

Evans introduces her project like this: “While many hail ‘biblical womanhood’ as the ideal, few seem to agree on exactly what it means, so women like me receive mixed messages about how to honor God with our decisions.” Later in the same introduction, she reflects, “I strongly support women at all levels of leadership in the church and am suspicious of anyone who would claim that the Bible presents just one ‘right way’ to be woman.”

Ruth Graham, in her Slate.com article about the project, calls Evans “an earnest evangelical” and the All Things Considered interview with Evans that aired last weekend introduces her as an evangelical, too. It’s unclear how these journalists are defining the term, but on her blog, Evans does say she believes the Bible is “inspired by God.”

However, her ambivalence about any correct interpretation of the inspired Word undermines her “evangelical” label. This, too, is not unusual. It’s all too familiar to anyone who has tried to apply a biblical text only to hear: “Well, that’s your interpretation.” Which, in the relativistic spirit of this age, means: End of argument.

The Law Has No Nuance and Therefore No Significance

In an article for Christianity Today’s Her.meneutics blog, author Rachel Stone commends Evans’ year of biblical womanhood, saying: “Overall, it looks to be an amusing and interesting project with an important point: no one really applies ALL of the Bible literally.”

And, in Slate’s article: “As Evans points out, it’s ‘Biblical’ for a man to take multiple wives, or for a father to sell his daughter to pay off debts. When the term ‘Biblical’ can mean anything, it means nothing. If Christians can acknowledge this, they may treat each other more lovingly and conduct themselves with more humility.”

By her indiscriminate application of the law, and her planned termination of the project after 365 days, Evans casually dismisses any lasting value in the law. Specifically, she intentionally makes no distinction between ceremonial laws fulfilled in the sacrifice of Christ, civil laws given to Old Testament Israel, and the moral law and its binding character for all godly women. Her anti-nuance stance flatly ignores the significant theological issues regarding the place of the law in the life of Christians. She doesn’t make the effort to thoughtfully acknowledge that, though some Biblical laws are “selectively” applied or are not “literally” kept, they all have eternal and present significance.

Hers is the same cultural Christian thinking that throws out the Sabbath with the sacrificial system, embraces homosexuals along with Gentiles, and assumes that when Jesus summarizes the law in Matthew 22, He is really saying: “anything goes as long as you’re nice about it.”

Law-Breaking is Not Serious

Next week, Evans will cut her hair (which she has been growing all year in reference to I Corinthians 11); she’ll pack away her head coverings and perhaps her long skirts; she’ll stop seeking to submit to her husband’s decisions. She has checked law-keeping off her list and will return to casual law-breaking. She will have accomplished her goal to “encourage Christian women to cut themselves and one another some slack because none of us are practicing biblical womanhood 100%.”

For her, as for many others, the law has no reference point in the holy and just character of God, and so breaking it is no offense at all.

. . .And, Therefore, Christ’s Work Is Insignificant

On her blog, Evans calls herself a “follower of Jesus” joining multitudes of other Christians who make the same claim. Sadly, His significance is diluted and His sacrifice made nearly meaningless in the lawless spirit of the age. Christ died for the unclean, the disobedient, the murderer. Christ died for those whom the Father has given Him from all times and places and cultural contexts. Christ died for law-breaking women.

This devaluing of the precious blood of Christ is the sign of the times. Sadly, and homemade matzah aside, Rachel Held Evans could even be called mainstream.

@Copyright 2011 Megan Evans Hill – used with permission
Megan is a PCA ‘Preacher’s Kid’ married to Rob Hill who is pastor of St. Paul Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Jackson, MS She and her mom, Patsy Evans, blog at Sunday Women.

Sources:
Evans, Rachel Held. “Womanhood Project.” Rachel Held Evans blog. 1 October 2011. http://rachelheldevans.com/womanhood-project

Graham, Ruth. “A Year of Biblical Womanhood.” 1 September 2011. Slate. http://www.slate.com/id/2302892/

Kumar, Anugrah. “Tenn. Christian Explores ‘Dark Underbelly’ of Biblical Womanhood.” 5 September 2011. The Christian Post. http://www.christianpost.com/news/tenn-christian-explores-dark-underbelly-of-biblical-womanhood-55064/

Montgomery, Diane. “Rachel Held Evans: ‘A Year of Biblical Womanhood.’” 18 February 2011. The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Rachel-Held-Evans-A-Year-of-Biblical-Womanhood

NPR Staff. “’Biblical Womanhood:’ A Year of Living by the Book.” 25 September 2011. All Things Considered. http://www.npr.org/2011/09/25/140761994/biblical-womanhood-a-year-of-living-by-the-book

Stone, Rachel. “Are Evangelical Women Primarily Interested in Parenthood.” 9 September 2011. Her.meneutics.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/women/2011/09/are_evangelical_women_primaril.html