My kids and I recently rediscovered the old Disney classic movie Hook. The movie begins with the middle-aged workaholic Peter Pan who is so deeply preoccupied with his all-consuming legal work that he has virtually no time or energy left to invest in his relationships with his wife and children. He spends the entirety of his daughter’s school play distracted by a call from work. He misses every one of his son’s baseball games. He’s never around to offer encouragement or guidance, let alone good, old-fashioned fun.
Dear sweet lord, this woman (whoever she is?), completely misrepresents Held Evans’ positions in order to assert her own fundamentalist theology. “Many have the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
Oh knock it off. Slander, by definition, requires deceit. And no one (dead or alive) who claims to lead people toward God is exempt from criticism of their ideas.
I am a 75 year old grandmother of ten. While I have not "deconstructed" my faith, living and losing and loving has caused me to evaluate some of the things I have been taught (like emotions,.....can't trust them. and other confusing things that didn't work in the crucible of life.) I read a lot and am tired of seeing yet another person get "brave and talk about hard things - one recently said she had deconstructed and now is a "spiritual independent." whatever that is. Most of the time I end up feeling "old," which of course I am, but along with that comes the feeling that I would be likely viewed as hopelessly out of touch with those I read. So finding you and reading your writing is refreshing. Don't even know where I found you or how i stumbled on you, but I appreciate much of what I read here. I've been meaning to tell you this and it seemed as good a time as any.
I'm a year older than you, Carol, and a grandmother of none (yet), and I understand your great appreciation for Kaeley. "Refreshing" is an appropriate descriptor!
Any idea how to get Substack to stop showing me fundy shit like this? I've seriously blocked 5 articles just like this today. Can't Substack see that I don't want to hear ANYTHING from church ladies frantically trying to dust off the Church's reputation while the church is literally cheering as our country is dismantled in front of our eyes and the most vulnerable among us are targeted. All by people who look an awful lot like you. Maybe you so have a good heart, but your religious affiliation doesn't show it.
Rachel Held Evans did not say in that blog post that “all roads lead to heaven.” She just posits that eternal damnation may not be the fate of “the unevangelized.” The belief in Christian Universalism (which she implied but did not state she believes in) does not believe that all paths lead to heaven, but rather than Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross was wide enough to cover everyone; and that one day all will be saved—that grace will have the final word. How that happens post death is debated, and obviously cannot be known as fact. I feel it’s bold to call that belief blasphemy, when there are Bible-believing Christians of many different denominations who hold to this as a Biblical view supported by exegesis and their understanding of scripture. Zondervan, an orthodox Christian publishing company, even includes this view in their Four Views of Hell book. I can provide more books and authors, but I mainly want to say it’s bold to call someone blasphemous for having a different interpretation of scripture than you. I also feel it’s highly unfair to group RHE in with abusive and patriarchal leaders in the church. It sounds like you are determining her motive when you say she disguises her rebellion as doubt. I also do not see how the issues you raise with her writings, constitute patriarchal abuses of power?
This article is deeply flawed. I understand the author believes this down to the marrow in his bones, yet it is still deeply flawed. The author is way off base with regard to Rachel Held Evans. If you are going to attempt to throw someone under the bus, while emphasizing your superior “knowledge and understanding” choose someone alive and well enough to have a healthy discussion. Not someone who is no longer on this earth and cannot rebut or respond to the article. Also try to steer away from folks who have children who can read your hurtful comments on the internet.
It is awfully convenient and safe to challenge what a dead person has said and believed. Show some Grace for gosh sakes.
Truth telling is gracious, Darla. I critiqued ideas that lead to harm and emphatically reject histrionic abuse of the “you’re mean and hateful” silencing convention designed to shut down conversation.
If you think I’ve misrepresented her views, you’ll need to provide an actual substantive example of how and where.
I'm curious how a protestant understanding of the Bible can call another protestant understanding blasphemous? I'm not trying to be cute here, but more asking on what authority is blasphemy determined? I have read Rachel Held Evans (I think most of her work) and found her helpful on my journey back to Christianity. Do I agree with her entirely? No. But I was raised for years in a denomination that didn't believe in hell and I don't consider them blasphemous. Am I on board with super liberal morality? Absolutely not, but I believe in love and compassion for all as taught by Jesus. I have found myself in agreement with catholic and orthodox teachings on morality, and while I agree, there is no way I can live in accordance with all of it. I do my best with what I have and where I am. We will always fall short.
I just now stumbled across your article, and it was a breath of fresh air. Long story short, I grew up in a strict “conservative” church, and didn’t discover Rachel Held Evans until a few years ago, at the recommendation of a couple of friends. I, too, read some of her work with a sigh and a, “Yes, someone else gets it. She’s put into words what I hadn’t figured out yet.” However, some of the things she said left me unsettled and unable to agree with, despite the high praise she was given from others. Your article was inspiring and I can’t wait to read more of your thoughts.
Hi Kaeley, I agree with your assessment and critique of Rachel Held Evans. But i don’t agree with some other things you said in this post.
I will submit another comment when I’m on my laptop not my phone. My second comment will explain where I disagree with you, and why.
I just wanted to do this initial reply to your article because I want to thank you for raising the topic of how advocates can often go off the rails and lead their followers into dangerous waters. It’s an important topic, that needs to be raised, and few are willing to do it.
" And like Wilson, she was verbally vicious, a trait that seems to get a free pass in most camps as long as it’s directed at the people and ideas the loyalists consider enemies."
-- Amen. This was powerful writing and both points (treat women better, including those defending women and stay way from Captain Hook) need saying over and over again. Beautifully, powerfully written. May we strive together for truth, peace and love in Jesus' Body.
Thanks for restacking this, Kaeley. I followed Rachel's blog almost from the beginning, and you are right about everything she got right. I was so sad and dismayed when she started letting her sympathy for hurting people (which we absolutely should have) overwhelm being able to lead them to the depths of life in Christ. She rightly rejected what was bad, but didn't fill that empty space with something more substantial.
A very helpful resource for me when I was still an Evangelical Protestant was Christians for Biblical Equality. They have been very careful to be able to answer the accusation that viewing woman as fully human on the basis of Scripture does not lead to accepting the lies of LGBTQWERTY.
I've been EOrthodox for 16 years, and one reason I walked that path is that, though there are problems, there's absolutely no official teaching that women are inherently less human than men; indeed, quite the opposite when one studies Christian history, esp the first several hundred years when Christianity was one, and the actual prayers and worship texts. Any Orthodox person, male or female, ordained or not, who thinks the issue with men and women is about "power" doesn't understand Orthodoxy.
Kayley you named four women who have been advocating against abuse and exposing abuse in the church — Julie Roys, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rachael Denhollander and Aimee Byrd.
Let me offer you my observations about three of those women. (I have talked about Sheila in a different comment).
JULIE ROYS
I think that Julie Roys is doing great work. I think she and her team are doing excellent journalism, They cite their sources. Before they publish an article they invite comment from the abusers, their allies and henchmen who they are exposing.This is proper journalistic practise. And if the abusers and their allies give no comment, Julie tells her readers that.
However, I am hoping that one day Julie Roys will expose the more egregious evils in the church — ritual abuse, satanist ritual abuse, Freemasons in high positions, trauma-based mind control, and the prominent leaders in churches who have been complicit with or perpetrating those abominable sins. As yet, to my knowledge, Julie Roys has not touched on those things. I have given Julie info about those things but she has not acknowledged my attempts to inform her. I don't necessarily infer that she is stone-walling me on this. I think it's more likely that she is just overloaded with the stuff she is already addressing. So I pray for her.
AIMEE BYRD
I think Aimee Byrd's work has been valuable. I know she has made good contributions to the discourse about abuse in the church. However, I don't think she shows much evidence of understanding the extreme trauma that Christian victims of domestic abuse suffer. And she does not prioritise those victims. She focuses on the dangers of complementarianism, but that focus can all too easily end up only landing on the question of whether women can lead in churches. Whether women lead or do not lead in churches, domestic abusers still get away with perpetrating their abuse. Proponents of egalitarianism are often unable to discern the men who are using coercive control to predate on and abuse their female intimate partners. I've seen this time after time.
In my view, Aimee, like most other advocates, is yet to " remember the poor". The poor are the afflicted, the ones who have suffered the most horrendous oppression and abuse are the ones who are most poor. It's wooden to think that "the poor" are always and only the people who are most impoverished financially.
In "remembering he poor" we must be remembering and prioritising the needs of the ones most afflicted by interpersonal abuse. Their trauma. Their pain. Their need for the church to build moral communities rather than fostering amoral communities. Their need for the community to stand WITH them AGAINST the abusers. Their need to not be pathologised and stigmatised by the church. Their need to not be pathologised and slandered and shunned and blocked by advocates who disrespect victims. Victims need to be vindicated and protected. Vindication is not vengeance — read Judith Lewis Herman's latest book if you want to understand that more.
It is my contention that the most afflicted in the church are the women and children who have suffered domestic abuse (which often co-occurs with or overlaps with child sexual abuse).
In my observation, victims of domestic abuse are the victims who most well-known advocates are only giving lip service to.
RACHAEL DEN HOLLANDER
I think Rachael den Hollander does excellent work in talking about child sexual abuse and how the church leaders are often responding very badly when allegations of child sexual abuse are made.
i know that Rachael and Jacob are homeschooling their children and I think that Rachael is probably doing a great job with that so I don't hold any grudges that she does not engage with me when I have given her feedback that might help her improve her work. But I do have concerns that in her focus on childhood sexual abuse, she skims over the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
Some good insight here. I don’t think it’s our job to decide what other women’s focus ought to be. If they are not focused on domestic abuse, it’s probably not their assignment, and that’s fine. We are each responsible to be faithful with the things and experiences God gives us to champion.
Sometimes men will rebuke me for not speaking up more about male victims of domestic abuse, but I just shake it off and tell them that’s not my lane because it’s not. I care about it, but I know the boundaries of my activism, and that’s someone else’s job. I suspect it’s the same for these women.
I agree that each advocate has their own lane, their own expertise. But that lane is not necessarily seeing the big picture.
What I long for is to see more advocates taking the bigger BIGGER picture on abuse. Advocates who are worth their salt ought to be trying to think about the bigger picture—the wide-screen multidimensional perspective that God must have on abuse and abuse in the church.
IMO taking a really wide perspective on abuse in the church must entail considering and prioritising the needs and viewpoints of the ones who have been most oppressed.
Barbara Roberts, you are correct to understand that Julie Roys is overloaded with the stuff (church sewage) she is already addressing. Regarding the deeper hidden egregious evils inside the church such as SRA, how about we NOT expect Julie to shoulder that burden too? There are a number of other well qualified folks who serve in that wheelhouse already such as Ally Carter (www.allysarmy.com) and Jessie Czebotar (kingdomlivingwithjessie.com).
BTW: In August of 2024 when I asked YOU Barbara Roberts to bring more exposure to the work being done by solo whistleblower Ruth Wise (youtube.com/@ruthwise2159) you responded to me as follows:
"Sorry, but I am unable to help Ruth’s blog get additional exposure.
You asked me: Maybe you would choose to help guide her with how to move further on the 1987 molestation by a church leader when she was a teen?
Other than the links below I can’t help guide her on that."
I will forever be grateful for RHE. It was her compassion and love that kept me holding onto Jesus and eventually led me back to the body of Christ. This unexpected path where she played such a key role actually led me to the Catholic Church. I now live and breathe Jesus through this faith that I hold so dear. Many but certainly not all of her positions are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, which brings up some interesting internal struggles for me. What I do know is that I learned to embrace those internal faith struggles through her example. Certainly the struggle now is different than my previous struggles or her struggles. I so look forward to seeking Jesus’ heart in the spaces she found herself drawn to knowing that I must not share any other version of Him other than the Truth. As you point out, other versions lead to death and Jesus is too good to not share in His fullness. I also fully recognize that while this post focuses on RHE there are other faith leaders that have taken this very same approach in recent years. Prayers for all of us who share the name of Jesus that we may do so filled with companion, mercy, and truth!
Dear sweet lord, this woman (whoever she is?), completely misrepresents Held Evans’ positions in order to assert her own fundamentalist theology. “Many have the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
I quoted her directly. You’ll have to be more specific,
Truly! Quite a move to take the work of a tragically deceased woman and basically slander her.
Oh knock it off. Slander, by definition, requires deceit. And no one (dead or alive) who claims to lead people toward God is exempt from criticism of their ideas.
I am a 75 year old grandmother of ten. While I have not "deconstructed" my faith, living and losing and loving has caused me to evaluate some of the things I have been taught (like emotions,.....can't trust them. and other confusing things that didn't work in the crucible of life.) I read a lot and am tired of seeing yet another person get "brave and talk about hard things - one recently said she had deconstructed and now is a "spiritual independent." whatever that is. Most of the time I end up feeling "old," which of course I am, but along with that comes the feeling that I would be likely viewed as hopelessly out of touch with those I read. So finding you and reading your writing is refreshing. Don't even know where I found you or how i stumbled on you, but I appreciate much of what I read here. I've been meaning to tell you this and it seemed as good a time as any.
I'm a year older than you, Carol, and a grandmother of none (yet), and I understand your great appreciation for Kaeley. "Refreshing" is an appropriate descriptor!
Any idea how to get Substack to stop showing me fundy shit like this? I've seriously blocked 5 articles just like this today. Can't Substack see that I don't want to hear ANYTHING from church ladies frantically trying to dust off the Church's reputation while the church is literally cheering as our country is dismantled in front of our eyes and the most vulnerable among us are targeted. All by people who look an awful lot like you. Maybe you so have a good heart, but your religious affiliation doesn't show it.
Bigotry wrapped in any garb is still bigotry.
How can you oppose patriarchy for cis women but ignore the same patriarchy as it hates the lgtbq community. Please learn better
Trans ideology is leftist patriarchy and bigotry against women. I will not play nice with it. You’re done here.
Could you explain what you mean by leftist patriarchy?
Rachel Held Evans did not say in that blog post that “all roads lead to heaven.” She just posits that eternal damnation may not be the fate of “the unevangelized.” The belief in Christian Universalism (which she implied but did not state she believes in) does not believe that all paths lead to heaven, but rather than Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross was wide enough to cover everyone; and that one day all will be saved—that grace will have the final word. How that happens post death is debated, and obviously cannot be known as fact. I feel it’s bold to call that belief blasphemy, when there are Bible-believing Christians of many different denominations who hold to this as a Biblical view supported by exegesis and their understanding of scripture. Zondervan, an orthodox Christian publishing company, even includes this view in their Four Views of Hell book. I can provide more books and authors, but I mainly want to say it’s bold to call someone blasphemous for having a different interpretation of scripture than you. I also feel it’s highly unfair to group RHE in with abusive and patriarchal leaders in the church. It sounds like you are determining her motive when you say she disguises her rebellion as doubt. I also do not see how the issues you raise with her writings, constitute patriarchal abuses of power?
This article is deeply flawed. I understand the author believes this down to the marrow in his bones, yet it is still deeply flawed. The author is way off base with regard to Rachel Held Evans. If you are going to attempt to throw someone under the bus, while emphasizing your superior “knowledge and understanding” choose someone alive and well enough to have a healthy discussion. Not someone who is no longer on this earth and cannot rebut or respond to the article. Also try to steer away from folks who have children who can read your hurtful comments on the internet.
It is awfully convenient and safe to challenge what a dead person has said and believed. Show some Grace for gosh sakes.
Truth telling is gracious, Darla. I critiqued ideas that lead to harm and emphatically reject histrionic abuse of the “you’re mean and hateful” silencing convention designed to shut down conversation.
If you think I’ve misrepresented her views, you’ll need to provide an actual substantive example of how and where.
I'm curious how a protestant understanding of the Bible can call another protestant understanding blasphemous? I'm not trying to be cute here, but more asking on what authority is blasphemy determined? I have read Rachel Held Evans (I think most of her work) and found her helpful on my journey back to Christianity. Do I agree with her entirely? No. But I was raised for years in a denomination that didn't believe in hell and I don't consider them blasphemous. Am I on board with super liberal morality? Absolutely not, but I believe in love and compassion for all as taught by Jesus. I have found myself in agreement with catholic and orthodox teachings on morality, and while I agree, there is no way I can live in accordance with all of it. I do my best with what I have and where I am. We will always fall short.
You have a really good way of stating disagreement without trying to destroy the person with whom you disagree.
I just now stumbled across your article, and it was a breath of fresh air. Long story short, I grew up in a strict “conservative” church, and didn’t discover Rachel Held Evans until a few years ago, at the recommendation of a couple of friends. I, too, read some of her work with a sigh and a, “Yes, someone else gets it. She’s put into words what I hadn’t figured out yet.” However, some of the things she said left me unsettled and unable to agree with, despite the high praise she was given from others. Your article was inspiring and I can’t wait to read more of your thoughts.
Hi Kaeley, I agree with your assessment and critique of Rachel Held Evans. But i don’t agree with some other things you said in this post.
I will submit another comment when I’m on my laptop not my phone. My second comment will explain where I disagree with you, and why.
I just wanted to do this initial reply to your article because I want to thank you for raising the topic of how advocates can often go off the rails and lead their followers into dangerous waters. It’s an important topic, that needs to be raised, and few are willing to do it.
Bless you dear sister. Iron sharpens iron.
" And like Wilson, she was verbally vicious, a trait that seems to get a free pass in most camps as long as it’s directed at the people and ideas the loyalists consider enemies."
-- Amen. This was powerful writing and both points (treat women better, including those defending women and stay way from Captain Hook) need saying over and over again. Beautifully, powerfully written. May we strive together for truth, peace and love in Jesus' Body.
Thanks for restacking this, Kaeley. I followed Rachel's blog almost from the beginning, and you are right about everything she got right. I was so sad and dismayed when she started letting her sympathy for hurting people (which we absolutely should have) overwhelm being able to lead them to the depths of life in Christ. She rightly rejected what was bad, but didn't fill that empty space with something more substantial.
A very helpful resource for me when I was still an Evangelical Protestant was Christians for Biblical Equality. They have been very careful to be able to answer the accusation that viewing woman as fully human on the basis of Scripture does not lead to accepting the lies of LGBTQWERTY.
I've been EOrthodox for 16 years, and one reason I walked that path is that, though there are problems, there's absolutely no official teaching that women are inherently less human than men; indeed, quite the opposite when one studies Christian history, esp the first several hundred years when Christianity was one, and the actual prayers and worship texts. Any Orthodox person, male or female, ordained or not, who thinks the issue with men and women is about "power" doesn't understand Orthodoxy.
Thanks again.
Dana
Kayley you named four women who have been advocating against abuse and exposing abuse in the church — Julie Roys, Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rachael Denhollander and Aimee Byrd.
Let me offer you my observations about three of those women. (I have talked about Sheila in a different comment).
JULIE ROYS
I think that Julie Roys is doing great work. I think she and her team are doing excellent journalism, They cite their sources. Before they publish an article they invite comment from the abusers, their allies and henchmen who they are exposing.This is proper journalistic practise. And if the abusers and their allies give no comment, Julie tells her readers that.
However, I am hoping that one day Julie Roys will expose the more egregious evils in the church — ritual abuse, satanist ritual abuse, Freemasons in high positions, trauma-based mind control, and the prominent leaders in churches who have been complicit with or perpetrating those abominable sins. As yet, to my knowledge, Julie Roys has not touched on those things. I have given Julie info about those things but she has not acknowledged my attempts to inform her. I don't necessarily infer that she is stone-walling me on this. I think it's more likely that she is just overloaded with the stuff she is already addressing. So I pray for her.
AIMEE BYRD
I think Aimee Byrd's work has been valuable. I know she has made good contributions to the discourse about abuse in the church. However, I don't think she shows much evidence of understanding the extreme trauma that Christian victims of domestic abuse suffer. And she does not prioritise those victims. She focuses on the dangers of complementarianism, but that focus can all too easily end up only landing on the question of whether women can lead in churches. Whether women lead or do not lead in churches, domestic abusers still get away with perpetrating their abuse. Proponents of egalitarianism are often unable to discern the men who are using coercive control to predate on and abuse their female intimate partners. I've seen this time after time.
In my view, Aimee, like most other advocates, is yet to " remember the poor". The poor are the afflicted, the ones who have suffered the most horrendous oppression and abuse are the ones who are most poor. It's wooden to think that "the poor" are always and only the people who are most impoverished financially.
In "remembering he poor" we must be remembering and prioritising the needs of the ones most afflicted by interpersonal abuse. Their trauma. Their pain. Their need for the church to build moral communities rather than fostering amoral communities. Their need for the community to stand WITH them AGAINST the abusers. Their need to not be pathologised and stigmatised by the church. Their need to not be pathologised and slandered and shunned and blocked by advocates who disrespect victims. Victims need to be vindicated and protected. Vindication is not vengeance — read Judith Lewis Herman's latest book if you want to understand that more.
It is my contention that the most afflicted in the church are the women and children who have suffered domestic abuse (which often co-occurs with or overlaps with child sexual abuse).
In my observation, victims of domestic abuse are the victims who most well-known advocates are only giving lip service to.
RACHAEL DEN HOLLANDER
I think Rachael den Hollander does excellent work in talking about child sexual abuse and how the church leaders are often responding very badly when allegations of child sexual abuse are made.
i know that Rachael and Jacob are homeschooling their children and I think that Rachael is probably doing a great job with that so I don't hold any grudges that she does not engage with me when I have given her feedback that might help her improve her work. But I do have concerns that in her focus on childhood sexual abuse, she skims over the needs of victims of domestic abuse.
Some good insight here. I don’t think it’s our job to decide what other women’s focus ought to be. If they are not focused on domestic abuse, it’s probably not their assignment, and that’s fine. We are each responsible to be faithful with the things and experiences God gives us to champion.
Sometimes men will rebuke me for not speaking up more about male victims of domestic abuse, but I just shake it off and tell them that’s not my lane because it’s not. I care about it, but I know the boundaries of my activism, and that’s someone else’s job. I suspect it’s the same for these women.
I agree that each advocate has their own lane, their own expertise. But that lane is not necessarily seeing the big picture.
What I long for is to see more advocates taking the bigger BIGGER picture on abuse. Advocates who are worth their salt ought to be trying to think about the bigger picture—the wide-screen multidimensional perspective that God must have on abuse and abuse in the church.
IMO taking a really wide perspective on abuse in the church must entail considering and prioritising the needs and viewpoints of the ones who have been most oppressed.
A long time ago I came to the view that Jessie Czebotar is not to be trusted.
It is true, Steve, that I never continued interacting with you.
Barbara Roberts, you are correct to understand that Julie Roys is overloaded with the stuff (church sewage) she is already addressing. Regarding the deeper hidden egregious evils inside the church such as SRA, how about we NOT expect Julie to shoulder that burden too? There are a number of other well qualified folks who serve in that wheelhouse already such as Ally Carter (www.allysarmy.com) and Jessie Czebotar (kingdomlivingwithjessie.com).
BTW: In August of 2024 when I asked YOU Barbara Roberts to bring more exposure to the work being done by solo whistleblower Ruth Wise (youtube.com/@ruthwise2159) you responded to me as follows:
"Sorry, but I am unable to help Ruth’s blog get additional exposure.
You asked me: Maybe you would choose to help guide her with how to move further on the 1987 molestation by a church leader when she was a teen?
Other than the links below I can’t help guide her on that."
I never heard back from you again...
Shoo! Good and hard stuff.
Substack, please block the TERF fundies.
Honey, that’s your job. If you want to be a handmaiden to the new male supremacy movement, you’ll have to do it on your own.
I will forever be grateful for RHE. It was her compassion and love that kept me holding onto Jesus and eventually led me back to the body of Christ. This unexpected path where she played such a key role actually led me to the Catholic Church. I now live and breathe Jesus through this faith that I hold so dear. Many but certainly not all of her positions are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching, which brings up some interesting internal struggles for me. What I do know is that I learned to embrace those internal faith struggles through her example. Certainly the struggle now is different than my previous struggles or her struggles. I so look forward to seeking Jesus’ heart in the spaces she found herself drawn to knowing that I must not share any other version of Him other than the Truth. As you point out, other versions lead to death and Jesus is too good to not share in His fullness. I also fully recognize that while this post focuses on RHE there are other faith leaders that have taken this very same approach in recent years. Prayers for all of us who share the name of Jesus that we may do so filled with companion, mercy, and truth!