Rachel Held Evans Departs Evangelicalism: are Millennials Next?

on March 16, 2015

Institute on Religion and Democracy Press Release
March 16, 2015
Contact: Jeff Walton office: 202-682-4131, cell: 202-413-5639, e-mail: jwalton@TheIRD.org


“Millennials are forgoing the authority of Scripture and embracing a couch potato, cafeteria-style Christianity — all in the name of tolerance.”
-Chelsen Vicari, Evangelical Action Director

 

Washington, DC—Progressive Christian writer Rachel Held Evans announced this month in an interview with Religion News Service columnist Jonathan Merritt that she has joined the Episcopal Church. While Evans resists characterizations that she has abandoned Evangelicalism, the author of A Year of Biblical Womanhood has distanced herself from Evangelical understandings of salvation and biblical authority.

Chelsen Vicari, Director of IRD’s Evangelical Action program, commented:

“In some cases trains are passing in the night: figures such as Evans reject aspects of Evangelical Christianity in favor of liberal expressions found in the Episcopal Church or Emergent Church movement. Simultaneously, those groups are failing to reproduce themselves or witnessing congregants move towards orthodox, liturgical or historic Christian churches.

“Research tells us that evangelicals are drifting further away from the orthodox truths their parents held dear. Our churches have rarely—if ever—faced the exodus we are seeing today. This will have a direct effect on the spiritual and moral values that will shape the nation in the coming years.

“The culture wars, growth of family, success of missions, prosperity of our nation—the future rests on millennial evangelicals’ worldview. That is cause for concern, because something has gone wrong with young evangelicals’ theology.

“The millennial generation’s susceptibility to ‘feel-good’ teaching is playing a part in America’s moral decline. Millennials’ religious practices depend largely on how actions make us and others feel, biblical or not. We only attend churches that leave us feeling good about our lifestyle choices, even if those conflict with God’s clear commandments.

“Liberal evangelical authors tell young evangelicals that if they accept abortion and same-sex marriage, then the media, academia and Hollywood will finally accept Christians. Out of fear of being falsely dubbed ‘intolerant’ or ‘uncompassionate,’ many young Christians are buying into theological falsehoods. Millennials are forgoing the authority of Scripture and embracing a couch potato, cafeteria-style Christianity–all in the name of tolerance.

“By becoming an Episcopalian, Evans is now truthfully aligned with a denomination representing her views. Other like-minded ‘evangelicals’ should follow her example instead of exploiting the evangelical market even after they’ve long left evangelical beliefs.”

Vicari’s book Distortion is published by Frontline. Her recent article How the New Christian Left is Twisting the Gospel appeared in Charisma magazine.

www.TheIRD.org

  1. Comment by Jason P Taggart on March 16, 2015 at 5:08 pm

    This Evans neither knows nor cares what true Christianity is. She is a publicity glutton who appeared on The View to promote her anti-Christian book, she was raised fundamentalist and will spend the rest of her life running away from her childhood, aching to be accepted by unbelievers. I can respect people who were raised in Christian homes but who as adults become atheists or agnostics. I have zero respect for her sort, people who hang on to the label “Christian” solely because it helps her get attention from secularists, who will fawn over her (temporarily) for sharing their worldview The contempt for Christianity in her two books and on her blog is as intense as anything you’ll find on an atheist blog. If you’re going to hate a religion and work to destroy it, do it openly, don’t do it while pretending you still support that religion.

  2. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 21, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Those who demand there is only one understanding of Christianity are unable to see the forest for the trees…

  3. Comment by MSBassSinger on March 21, 2015 at 11:32 am

    So God, Who has given Scripture as the sole understanding of Christianity, unable to see the forest for the trees? But you have a greater omniscience than God Himself, and thus you can?

    Is that not the same lie, in principle, Adam and Eve made?

  4. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 21, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Your interpretation of Scripture is nothing more than your personal interpretation. You do not speak for God. Your pride goeth before a fall.

  5. Comment by MSBassSinger on March 21, 2015 at 4:00 pm

    You are projecting with your pride. Scripture, interpreted in light of the whole of Scripture, speaks for itself. It does not depend on individual interpretation for the essential matters of salvation, faith and, practice. Scripture is the authority above man.
    Only those who wish to twist its plain meaning to call evil good, and good evil, require personal interpretation.

  6. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 21, 2015 at 6:10 pm

    Then why are there dozens of Christian denominations, each of which has dramatically different interpretations of Scripture?

  7. Comment by MSBassSinger on March 21, 2015 at 8:26 pm

    You exaggerate, and I suspect you know that.
    There are some denominations that create their own theology trying to do away with the plain teaching of Scripture and replace it with man’s doctrine that is in contradiction to Scripture.
    There are other denominations that differ on the non-essentials that Scripture does not speak to as requirements. People worship and serve in many ways, the body has many parts. The Church Militant has multiple denominations that all adhere to Scripture as the authority for faith and practice, as inerrant, and as authored by God Himself – “theopneustos”.
    The bottom line is whether a given denomination’s teaching adheres to Scriptural teaching – Scripture in light of Scripture. No denominational authority is above Scripture. None. If they oppose Scripture, they oppose God. Period.

  8. Comment by Mark Brooks on March 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    Well said.

  9. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 25, 2015 at 4:33 pm

    And only YOU have the ability to determine what true Christianity is? Such arrogance…

  10. Comment by Paul Hoskins on March 25, 2015 at 5:20 pm

    If Paul the apostle, who wrote over half the New Testament, does not understand the will of God, who does? Certainly not some 21st century homosexual whose only goal is to justify his own depraved lifestyle. Only a fool would claim that Christians have been teaching the wrong ethics for 2000 years. If people don’t like the ethical teachings set forth clearly by Jesus and the apostles, they can choose a different religion.

  11. Comment by MSBassSinger on March 25, 2015 at 9:57 pm

    What a stupid response. First, I never said only I have such an ability, and second, I never exercised such an action.
    For centuries, Christians around the world have held Scripture as the standard for defining Christianity. Scripture itself makes that claim.
    Any other standard(s) used to define Christianity are manmade, and therefore inferior and subject to error.
    If you don’t like it, argue with God. He gave us Scripture – theopneustos – and is THE Sovereign.

  12. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 5:17 am

    And throughout those centuries, Christians have disagreed on how to interpret said Scripture… including what Scripture should be included in the Bible in the first place. There is no one “Christian religion”, there are many Christian religions and they often conflict in their regards to their interpretation of Scripture. But keep the arrogant insults coming; your self-serving orthodoxy is turning off young Christians in droves.

  13. Comment by MSBassSinger on March 26, 2015 at 7:25 am

    Another ignorant response. The mainstream of Christianity – indeed the foundation of the Reformation – is that Scripture is the sole definition and authority of what Christianity is.
    Those who find the authentic Christ a stumbling block, a scandalon, but would accept your watered-down, manmade imitation Christ, are merely seeking to join the club, to be nothing more than whitewashed sepulchers. When the Holy Spirit has prepared and called a person to salvation, of any age, only the real Christ, the Christ of Scripture will satisfy. Your weak substitute will be worthless compared to the real Christ. And how can I or anyone know the difference? In large part because of Scripture. Plain and simple.
    Unfortunately, you do not appear to want the real Christ. Good luck on judgment.day with your fake Christ. It will not be him on the throne.

  14. Comment by JustNTyme on March 26, 2015 at 9:34 am

    Hogwash. ALL Christians, everywhere, accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the foundation of faith. You’re using that silly “Christians don’t agree about the Bible” line to try to pretend there is disagreement about the New Testament passages condemning homosexuality. There is NO disagreement.

  15. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 12:32 pm

    Tell that to Rachel Held Evans. Your inability to deal with reality is most telling.

  16. Comment by Melissa Windom on March 28, 2015 at 5:13 pm

    She has only a bachelor’s degree and is no Bible scholar, her views on interpretation of the Greek New Testament are be worthless. Her books have been reviewed by competent Greek scholars

  17. Comment by Mark Brooks on March 22, 2015 at 1:52 pm

    What utter nonsense. God wrote his word to convey plain truth to his followers. It is an exercise in comprehension, not your “interpretation”. It is you who presume to speak for God, the God of your own imagining.

  18. Comment by kccoallday on March 22, 2015 at 10:22 am

    If Christians can believe anything at all, then the word “Christian” has no meaning. Evans is no Christian.

  19. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 5:21 am

    The word “Christian” has a multitude of different meanings to different people. Your’s is one of them, nothing more.

  20. Comment by JustNTyme on March 26, 2015 at 9:35 am

    What’s your definition – “someone who tells sodomites they should keep on sodomizing”? Strange definition of love, telling people who spread AIDS they are just fine.

  21. Comment by Holgrave on March 16, 2015 at 9:20 pm

    There’s too much equivocation in this article between “episcopal” and “emergent.” Although TEC is pretty far down the road of distorting its Christian identity, it does represent an ancient form of the Christian faith. Insofar as it retains certain elements (liturgy, the church year, the apostolic-episcopal order, sacraments, the Prayer Book) it may continue to attract former “evangelicals” like me who are looking for those things, even though we are not in sympathy with the modern developments.

    I bet these elements, more than TEC’s sexual liberationism, are the reason RHE has joined. If she was interested in the latter without the former, she would have stayed in the emergent movement.

  22. Comment by Linda on March 17, 2015 at 11:36 am

    Have you ever visited her blog? Homosexuality is her main cause, so it’s pretty obvious she joined the Episcopalians because homosexuality is their core value. For every person who joins the Episcopalians because of their sexual agenda, there are 5 more who leave the denomination to join a Christian church.

  23. Comment by Holgrave on March 17, 2015 at 11:51 am

    That’s certainly one of the things she cares about, but that in itself doesn’t force one toward TEC. My point was that there are positive Episcopalian characteristics which RHE has praised in the past; the prayers, the church year, the sacraments. That’s why she’s joined an Episcopal church rather than some other progressive fellowship.

  24. Comment by Dr. Dee Tee on March 16, 2015 at 11:49 pm

    For Miss Vicari– I used your one of articles in one of my posts at: https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/evangelical-identity/

  25. Comment by MarcoPolo on March 17, 2015 at 10:43 am

    Christians aren’t being falsely dubbed ‘intolerant’ or ‘uncompassionate’.
    They are accurately being dubbed that, and more!

    I don’t think our entire society will be less moral if millennials become less orthodox. But there will likely be a larger number of this group showing more compassion toward the important aspects of life in the twenty-first century. And that’s a good thing for any society!

    Rigid authoritarianism will run almost anyone away from a religion. And I think that is what is happening today.

  26. Comment by Mike Ward on March 17, 2015 at 11:01 am

    I applaud Evans for becoming an Episcopalian. Too many Emergents act like they invented liberalism. Before the millenials were even born, there were already plenty of churches practicing all of the “new” ideas they just found out about. Better they join one of those churches than create yet more denominations.

  27. Comment by Neil Bragg on March 17, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    The Episcopal church is all about appearances, not substance – clergy gowns, candles, incense, all the religious toys that attract the shallow. People who are serious about their spirituality won’t waste their time on this church and its bizarre combination of toys and political leftism. All that is a distraction from our appointed task of loving God and loving our neighbors. In the parable of the good Samaritan, the Episcopalians would play the role of the snooty priest and Levite who pass by the unconscious man, not wanting to soil their pretty hands by touching a human being in need.

  28. Comment by MarcoPolo on March 18, 2015 at 11:19 am

    I think your interpretation of the character (of the Episcopalian) is completely the opposite of the truth, regarding the Semaritan.

    It seems more often today, that the Religious Right is the group who would not wish to soil their hands on the needy.

    There IS substance within the halls of Episcopalia, it’s just not the flavor that appeals to many ‘standardized’ Christians.

  29. Comment by TampaZeke on March 18, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    They are so hard up for money that they now charge a $10 admission fee to tour the Washington Cathedral. What does that say about their membership, that they can’t even support their churches? This non-Christian denomination will continue to exist a few more years, since their historic churches do make attractive venues for weddings, but obviously the homosexuals are stingy when it comes to supporting their social club, and they aren’t exactly producing a new generation of Episcopalians. The gospel goes on, institutions die, and this one definitely deserves to. Their open contempt for Christianity and embrace of sexual perversion has been their downfall.

  30. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 21, 2015 at 11:30 am

    You have an infantile understanding of the Episcopal church.

  31. Comment by Neil Bragg on March 22, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    That is correct, I understand that the Episcopal church is infantile. Its only attractions are things that might intrigue an infant – robes, candles, bells, stained glass. It has nothing for adults – no theology, no ethic, no attempt to nurture people’s faith. I’ve heard sermons in Episcopal sermons, and they are a joke, things that a 6th grader could put together in less than 5 minutes, but it didn’t matter because they people who attend those churches have no spiritual interests anyway. It’s a club for homosexuals, and it won’t last much longer, as the numbers prove.

  32. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 24, 2015 at 9:27 am

    You just proved my point…

  33. Comment by Paul Hoskins on March 25, 2015 at 5:23 pm

    Meaning what? Churches are supposed to be clubs for homosexuals? Who says? Do you know what’s happening to those churches? They’re shrinking.

  34. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 5:46 am

    Meaning that you have an infantile understanding of the Episcopal Church. You know what’s truly shrinking? The credibility of “orthodox Christians” in the public arena. And that is why you are so angry and bitter.

  35. Comment by JustNTyme on March 26, 2015 at 9:36 am

    You’re the bitter old one. Some elderly guy with nothing but a dog.

  36. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    My beliefs and life’s work are now endorsed by most Americans, particularly young people. I had a successful career which has allowed me to buy a gorgeous lakeside resort as a retirement project. Various life-long friends come every month to visit. Next week over 30 members of my family are coming from all over California to celebrate Easter at my place. They have many religious perspectives, from Episcopalian to non-denominational, to agnostic, to Mormon. And yet we all get along great. So… why would I be bitter? On the contrary, I am blessed.

  37. Comment by Terri Kinney on March 26, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    If you feel the need to constantly trash Christians, you have some severe personal issues. People secure in themselves don’t post such vitriol as you do. Get some therapy, hatred is a destructive emotion regardless of how much you may enjoy it.

  38. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 4:12 pm

    Feel free to indicate where I have “trashed Christians” in this thread.

  39. Comment by VAvoter on April 1, 2015 at 5:31 pm

    That’s funny, because this article and a lot of other articles on this site are devoted to trashing certain types of Christian groups.

  40. Comment by Mark Bell on April 4, 2015 at 1:34 pm

    What is your “life’s work,” blowing men in public restrooms?

    Look at that photo,that is a LOSER. They ought to euthanize single guys over 70, you’ll never get laid again, ever.

  41. Comment by RCQ_92130 on April 11, 2015 at 2:48 pm

    Episcopalian isn’t a religion – simply a social club

  42. Comment by Nohm on March 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    More silliness and tripe from the ex-evangelicals. Does anyone take these people seriously?

  43. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 21, 2015 at 11:28 am

    Yes. Most Americans and very shortly, the Supreme Court.

  44. Comment by kirk on March 22, 2015 at 10:51 am

    At one time most Americans approved of slavery. Majorities can be wrong and usually are. People with no spines and no morals follow the crowd.

  45. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 25, 2015 at 4:29 pm

    And self-proclaimed “Christians” used the Bible as “proof” that slavery was Scriptural. I agree with your second point.

  46. Comment by Paul Hoskins on March 25, 2015 at 5:22 pm

    Christians do not support slavery. Your posts are childish. If you can’t discuss serious matters like an adult, then stick with gay blogs where everything has the same contempt for religion as you do. Christianity is not the product of homosexual focus groups. In fact, the churches that embrace homosexuality are all losing members and will soon be extinct.

  47. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 5:36 am

    In the 1850s, almost ALL southern Christians supported slavery. And if you know anything about the Civil Rights Movement of the ’50s, your know that most of the arguments made against desegregation were claimed to be based on Scripture. The KKK has always viewed itself as a Christian organization. But enjoy that bubble you live in while you can, it’s about to pop in June. And you can yell, stomp your feet, and hold your breathe until you turn blue but it won’t make a bit of difference. Your interpretation of Scripture is on it’s way to the ash heap of history.

  48. Comment by Geoff McLarney on March 17, 2015 at 4:27 pm

    I was under the impression Ms Vicari was herself married: I suppose her church is just “making her feel good about her lifestyle choices”? In fact, Christian marriage is a demanding vocation, and gays and lesbians who choose it do so, like anyone else, because they are prepared for the demands it makes. It’s pretty brazenly hypocritical for a married woman to pretend that gays and lesbians who choose the same path she has are somehow taking the easy way out. The “easy way out” is to reject religion altogether and pursue unfettered sexual autonomy: many gay people do just that, and Vicari’s column makes it sound like there’s no difference between monogamous Christian gay families and orgiastic swingers.

    I’m aware that there is disagreement over the acceptability of same-sex unions from a biblical standpoint, but Vicari can better make her case without resorting to inaccurate and insulting characterizations of people who are just trying, imperfectly, to live the Christian life like anyone else.

  49. Comment by JClarke on March 22, 2015 at 1:13 am

    What “inaccurate and insulting characterizations” are you talking about? This article has nothing to do with ‘gay’ marriage. It only tangential refers to same-sex marriage. What is this “easy way out” business? that phase never occurs in this press release. Sorry to say this, but I think you’re a little bit confused.

  50. Comment by Geoff McLarney on March 22, 2015 at 12:26 pm

    Anything but, I assure you.

  51. Comment by Alex Soderberg on March 22, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Actually, no, there is no “disagreement over the acceptability of same-sex unions from a biblical standpoint.” The Bible is clear. Homosexuality existed in the New Testament period, and Paul condemned it. People who disagree with the New Testament don’t have to attend church or call themselves Christians, and in fact there is no reason why they should – except, obviously, the goal is to bend the churches to their agenda. The homosexuals who openly distance themselves from Christianity are at least honest. “Gay Christian” makes no more sense than “violent pacifist” or “beef-eating vegan.” You can’t twist words to mean whatever you want them to.

  52. Comment by Geoff McLarney on March 22, 2015 at 8:57 pm

    I do not read what you read, but I will not question your honesty.

  53. Comment by DasAperture on March 20, 2015 at 11:21 am

    Well, that’s a “shocker.” What took her so long? Now we can at least stop having Evangelical associated with her.

  54. Comment by hcat on March 21, 2015 at 10:30 am

    The evangelicals may be shrinking, but the “sideline” churches are not profiting from it. When there two evangelicals left in the USA, there will be one “progressive Christian.”

  55. Comment by Kay Glines on March 22, 2015 at 11:22 am

    We have several ex-Episcopalians in my church, and the traffic between the Christian churches and the liberal churches moves in both directions, but it’s pretty obvious from the numbers that there are more people leaving the mainlines for the Christian churches than vice versa, so Rachel Evans is in the minority. There really is no reason for the mainlines to exist. They don’t believe in sin, and with no sin there is no need for a Savior, so no need for a Christ or for a church. The liberal churches will continue on for awhile as social clubs but there are too many other social outlets in America today. most people do not wish to get up on Sunday to hear a pastor rant against gun control or global warming.

  56. Comment by MarcoPolo on March 23, 2015 at 8:17 am

    I know plenty of folks who would get out of bed to attend a service for our Earth and Society, whether it includes a deity or not. So I guess I agree with your assessment that “mainline” churches will become less “Churchy” and more Secular.

    And so it goes!

  57. Comment by Ken McPherson on March 26, 2015 at 5:55 am

    “it’s pretty obvious from the numbers that there are more people leaving the mainlines for the Christian churches ” So you define “the mainlines” as non-Christian? Are Catholics Christians? Are Mormons Christians? Or just those who share your understanding of Scripture?

  58. Comment by Alex Soderberg on March 22, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    The Episcopagans’ decline is much bigger than just losing members from each congregation. Entire dioceses have broken away: South Carolina, Quincy IL, Fort Worth, San Joaquin, and Pittsburgh. The remaining Episcs in the Quincy diocese were merged into the diocese of Chicago. Fort Worth now has an ACNA diocese (Anglican Church in North America, the orthodox breakaway group) and Episcopal diocese, ditto for Pittsburgh and San Joaquin – the ANCA dioceses being larger than the Episcopal dioceses. As of Jan 2015, a court ruled that the breakaway (conservatives) in South Carolina could retain all their church property and the name “Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina,” at which point the old (liberal) faction began using the name “Episcopal Church in South Carolina.” These kind of large-scale schisms hark back to the 1840s and 1850s when the major denominations split into pro-slavery and anti-slavery (which meant Southern and Northern).

  59. Comment by Jory Micah on March 27, 2015 at 2:55 pm

    WOW! I think we are forgetting to couple love with truth here Chelsen. The nasty comments on here are nothing like Jesus Christ. I agree that LGBT marriage is not righteous, but I would never talk about Rachel as if she is not a person or judge her salvation. These comments literally make me sick and are so far from the way Christ taught us to engage one another. Love should always be our highest aim as love is the greatest commandment of all – even greater than telling the truth.

  60. Comment by Melissa Windom on March 28, 2015 at 5:09 pm

    I understand what you’re saying about the comments, but I can’t help but feel that Rachel Evans brought a lot of this on herself. Have you read Year of Biblical Womanhood? I heard some women rave about it (women in their 20s, younger than men), so I read it cover to cover and frankly I was horrified by some of the things she says about evangelicals’ and our beliefs. She actually says she is “not comfortable” with the image of God in the Bible, one who makes rules that are designed solely to make people feel “guilt-ridden, exhausted, and confused.” That certainly does not describe the evangelicals I have known. ” “I was raised evangelical, which means I spent a good part of my life feeling sorry for the rest of humanity on account of its certain destiny in hell.” Again, not the evangelicalism I’ve witnessed. She says Proverbs 31 is “perpetuating a three-thousand-year-old inferiority complex among just about every woman in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”. Who are these women with inferiority complexes she’s referring to? I’ve never met one. The book is just page after page of these slanderous and baseless statements about evangelical Christians, so naturally a lot of people are irate, plus her rather obvious attempt to undermine belief in the inspiration of the Bible. I have to disagree with your last sentence: there is no conflict between love and speaking the truth, one without the other is useless. Sometimes Christian disputes become contentious. Read Acts and Paul’s letters, that is the nature of faith.

  61. Comment by Jory Micah on March 29, 2015 at 7:47 pm

    Thanks for commenting, but we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t care if Rachel burned evangelicals alive; we would still be called to love her! Read 1 Cor. 13.

The work of IRD is made possible by your generous contributions.

Receive expert analysis in your inbox.