She may be seen as one
of the protestant sub-cultures biggest feces agitators, (probably in the
top five) but she is also one of the most important prophets in the
post modern era. Some may think she causes too much controversy,
others may call her a heretic, but the thing that makes Rachel shine is
you can tell she really cares. Oh, and worst of all, she's a
woman.
Seriously though, she cares about people. Believer or not. Conservative or liberal. She cares about the church, and how ineffective, and mainly how inauthentic it can sometimes be. After reading her work I sense a need for the authentic, she needs to rip off the old bandages and see the festering sores underneath. One of her blog features is called "learning to love the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be". The fact that this should be in anyway revolutionary (and it is) is sad.
I think she is one of the forerunners in a growing group of believers that have finally realized something. We don't have all the answers, and we need to stop pretending we do. Will we ever get there? I don't think so. If you had all the answers you would essentially be God, and that is how some individuals and groups act. They act as if they own the secrets of the "God franchise", and quite frankly, they are wrong.
She writes about whatever interests her, sometimes the reaction is limited, other times their is an explosion of heated debate. She may not always be right, or politically correct, or scholarly, but she generally has a good point, or question that should be talked about. She initiates conversation, and that is important. As a group we should be talking about everything. Why are so many afraid of shedding light on the how's and why's of the church? Power? I think so.
Should she be worshiped? No. Is she God? No. But she sure knows how to get your brain rolling, if you're willing to think about the questions she's asking.
Seriously though, she cares about people. Believer or not. Conservative or liberal. She cares about the church, and how ineffective, and mainly how inauthentic it can sometimes be. After reading her work I sense a need for the authentic, she needs to rip off the old bandages and see the festering sores underneath. One of her blog features is called "learning to love the Bible for what it is, not what we want it to be". The fact that this should be in anyway revolutionary (and it is) is sad.
I think she is one of the forerunners in a growing group of believers that have finally realized something. We don't have all the answers, and we need to stop pretending we do. Will we ever get there? I don't think so. If you had all the answers you would essentially be God, and that is how some individuals and groups act. They act as if they own the secrets of the "God franchise", and quite frankly, they are wrong.
She writes about whatever interests her, sometimes the reaction is limited, other times their is an explosion of heated debate. She may not always be right, or politically correct, or scholarly, but she generally has a good point, or question that should be talked about. She initiates conversation, and that is important. As a group we should be talking about everything. Why are so many afraid of shedding light on the how's and why's of the church? Power? I think so.
Should she be worshiped? No. Is she God? No. But she sure knows how to get your brain rolling, if you're willing to think about the questions she's asking.
