Talking Back to God

Rachel Held Evans recently wrote that she would have failed God’s test of Abraham.

It’s a test I’m certain I would have failed:

Get your son. Get a knife. Slit his throat and set him on fire.

I’d like to think that even if those demands thundered from the heavens in a voice that sounded like God’s, I’d have sooner been struck dead than obeyed them. 

Regardless of one’s interpretation of this much-debated and reimagined text (which makes a bit more sense in its ancient Near Eastern context), the story of Abraham’s binding of Isaac should unsettle every parent and every person with a conscience. Yes, God provided a lamb, but only after Abraham gathered the wood, loaded up the donkey, made the journey, arranged the altar, tied his son to the stake, and raised the knife in the air.

Be honest. Would you have even gathered the wood? 

I think I would have failed Abraham’s test.  And I think you would have too.

And I’m beginning to think that maybe that’s okay….

In response, Bobby Grow of The Evangelical Calvinist questioned RHE’s faith.

As one of my professors in seminary wisely counseled us in regard to what he called ‘methodological skepticism’ (he was speaking of Rene Descartes), he said: ‘skepticism of this kind is like unconstrained acid, once it is released it is virtually impossible to contain.’ This I would suggest is where Rachel Held Evans has been living for the last many years, especially in the years of her notoriety. She began questioning things, trying to be ‘critical’ towards her evangelical (maybe even Fundamentalist) heritage–which can be a healthy project with the right parameters in place–but has ended up where she is now; essentially rejecting the God of Bible.

Okay, but here’s the thing: RHE has not rejected the God of the Bible.

I am continually dismayed by how narrowly evangelicals fence in Biblical interpretations—and how ignorant they are of the breadth of understandings that came before them and still exist today. At least, I know this was the case for me growing up in an evangelical church and evangelical home. I had literally no idea that there were Jews who believed Abraham had failed his test—that in not objecting or arguing (as he does when God tells him he is going to destroy Sodom) and in assuming that God would actually want him to kill his son, Abraham erred.

I didn’t know there were Jews who believed the command was God’s punishment on Abraham for throwing his son Ishmael out into the desert, or Jews who believed that Abraham had only imagined God’s command. I had no idea that there were Jewish commentaries that viewed the story as God’s way of impressing on Abraham that he (God) did not want child sacrifice, in a time when the peoples around him practiced child sacrifice regularly. (See here, here, and here.)

This isn’t to say that Jewish views are perfect, and Judaism has such a complex and varied history and present that I’m sure I’m not doing Jewish views justice here. I’m also not saying that there is necessarily a way to justify away any problems with the story of Abraham almost sacrificing Isaac. My point is simply that I was completely unaware of the huge variety of ways this passage has been understood—and all by people who most certainly did not reject the God the text was written about.

Interestingly, talking back to God is central to Judaism. Anyone who has watched Fiddler on the Roof should be familiar with this concept—the main character, Tevye, has a running dialogue with God in which he is often quite critical. Some Christians have followed in this tradition, and likewise feel that God can take questions and criticism and even disagreement. Rachel Held Evans happens to be one of this group.

I guess it’s just sad to me to see the Christian tradition so sucked dry of discussion and diversity that those who ask questions or talk back to God will be told they have rejected God entirely. I remember being there—having questions and being immediately viewed as an apostate when I wasn’t—and it was the worst. It’s almost as though evangelicals would rather shoot their wounded than have to find a way to live with them.