Porter on Christianity Today Caving to Mob Rule . . .

https://domainthirtythree.com/2019/05/14/ct-caves-to-pressure/

Blaspheming St. Rachel Held Evans

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/blaspheming-st-rachel-held-evans/

RHE

Thus far I haven't made any direct comments on the life, death, and legacy of Rachel Held Evans:

1. It's a family tragedy that she died at 37, leaving behind two young kids and a bereaved husband. 

2. Some of her defenders are striving to have it both ways. On the one hand they treat her as a fearless theological shieldmaiden. On the other hand, they treat her as untouchable. Take the Christianity Today article that was pulled a few hours after publication because, apparently, it was insufficiently adulatory. 

I don't bow to their double standard. RHE was an outspoken critic of conservative evangelical theology. She was a public figure by choice. Some folks are dragged into the limelight against their will, but she courted publicity. 

When Hans Küng dies, that will be an occasion for lots of commentary, from supporters and critics alike, about his theology and legacy. There's nothing hateful about that.

3. Both on Twitter and on his blog, progressive theologian Randal Rauser has been hunting for reactions to be offended by. Essentially daring or baiting anyone to say something he can offended by. On the lookout for something outrageous, he moused over to Pulpit & Pen. In my deliberately limited experience of Pulpit and Pen, it's like an internet version of the Westboro cult. That's a reliable source of spite. Mission accomplished! 

4. Over the years I've posted almost nothing about RHE. Up until now, I haven't made any public comments about her theology, "apostasy" or eternal destiny for a couple of reasons:

i) My understanding of her theology is almost entirely secondhand. I know her by reputation. But I have almost no direct knowledge of her theology, so I'm not qualified to offer a detailed assessment. 

ii) It'a my impression that she was a popularizer. From what I can tell, her following was personality-driven. I doubt that will have a lasting impact. In critiquing progressive theology, I aim higher up the food chain, viz. Randal Rauser Gregory Boyd, Peter Enns, Marilyn McCord Adams. 

Rachel Held Evans

Here's an article that was posted at Christianity Today, then withdrawn a few hours later. It strikes me as a very balanced article. It's not a hit-piece.

On God, providence, and natural disasters

1. Two recent hurricanes in Texas and Florida renewed perennial debates about the problem of natural evil. Calvinists and freewill theists give different answers. A friend asked me to comment on this old screed by Rachel Held Evans:

https://rachelheldevans.com/blog/abusive-theology-piper-mahaney

I rarely read RHE. Outrage is crack cocaine for folks like RHE. The moral satisfaction of waxing judgmental gives them a temporary high. They're addicted to indignation. They live for indignation. Because the high wears off, they are constantly on the lookout for something wax indignant about. 

In her post, RHE uses John Piper as a foil to attack Calvinism in general. She also uses the occasion as a pretext to launch into a gratuitous tirade against C. J. Mahaney. I say gratuitous because that has nothing to do with natural evil. 

In this post I'm not going to comment on the allegations against Mahaney, both because it's a red herring in relation to the primary topic of her post, and simply because I'm in no position to offer an informed opinion regarding his complicity, if any, in the scandal. 

"Why Rachel Held Evans is Wrong to Tell Christians to Vote for Hillary Clinton"

Part 1 of 3

Part 2 of 3

Part 3 of 3