If I could re-title this book, it would be, “Freed From the Shackles of Inerrancy.” I wouldn’t waste my time on it, frankly; I’m not. Yeah, call me dismissive. There are way too many other books of immediate importance (recent and from church history) and worth reading out there and I don’t need one more subversive, alleged evangelical to add to the list. You know, the old school theological liberals (at the very least, as I understand it) were fairly clear, in the main, about what they were doing, what their intentions were. Our generation of theological liberals, while claiming humility and to be within the evangelical camp, implicitly and explicitly mock the very concept of inerrancy as something foolish, backward and archaic and then make it into a project that gets picked up and promoted by the Christian marketing apparatus. Inerrancy is, or has been until now, at the very core of evangelicalism (along with penal substitutionary atonement, which is also being discarded), so one wonders which evangelicals she’s talking about being a part of. There are many, many frothing atheists that make me less angry than Rachel Held Evans. And, contrary to one of her fans I read in a comment section, I’m not upset with the book because I fear her, rather I fear the hermeneutic she uses will do damage to the cause of the Gospel. IMHO, her angle and tactic is dishonest (1: about what she’s doing, and 2: her supposed neutrality as if she has no bias) and it’s subversive to the faith once for all delivered. And subversion of the faith almost always starts from within and works itself outward. I’m still stunned how many people I know are eating this nonsense up.