John MacArthur on Beth Moore

Status
Not open for further replies.

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
I also appreciate his stand, but I didn't appreciate the flippancy / humor that was presented by some in this clip. These things should grieve believers, not cause laughter. The Lord isn't laughing.

I think a lot of that was caused by how Todd Friel was conducting the discussion. I don't watch his show regularly but I've seen some clips and this seems to be his thing (even calling his show "Wretched"). I think he wants to be "edgy" and "controversial" but he should just stick to making the points he wants to make. He can come across as rather pantomimish at times. As you say, these are serious matters and should be treated with the utmost seriousness. It suggests almost a lack of conviction in what you're saying if you can't say "controversial" things without making a joke to lighten the mood.

The audience was also to blame. I thought MacCarthur's "go home" comment was excellent and appropriate in a number of ways, but the reaction of the audience was totally over the top. Constant audience reaction is bad enough at political events but a dicussion in a church should be conducted without this sort of response from the crowd. Just sit quietly and listen. Can't seem to be done nowadays.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Association is different than being under the rule of a governing body. It is good for churches of like faith to associate, lest they become isolated. Don't mistake my comments for a commendation of hierarchical rule by a distant governing body.
But to know that there are like-minded churches that believers can fellowship with, visit when on vacation, and communicate with is of value. Believe me, in our area, I have few trusted fellow preachers who I can call on and seek advice from. Our church is unaffiliated with any denomination or association at the present, but we sure wouldn't mind a group of loosely associated churches edifying and encouraging each other to continue in the faith!
The problem is that even a loose affiliation brings baggage, and the sin of one becomes the sin of all--at least in the eyes of those looking in from outside. Our church is unaffiliated, but our pastors have much fellowship across the RB world. Sure, I get that an informal group with a directory might be nice, but even that would require standards to join, and reasons to eject.
Surely the other RB pastors here would be glad to speak with you on the phone from time to time, and eventually you could have your own personal network of fellow laborers to turn to without being in something with an acronym and a baggage train.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
How do you know there aren't Baptist churches already disassociating from the SBC over the "other" issues?

I think just as the messengers at the last convention took steps to remove churches that handled child sex abuse cases poorly they should also seek to do the same and cease from associating with churches that promote women preachers and egalitarianism.

However, I think when critiquing the issues in the SBC it's important to remember the distinctives of Baptist polity, specifically the autonomy of each individual congregation and it's voluntary cooperation with a convention. Baptists shouldn't be confused with Episcopalians or Presbyterians in the way the association of churches are governed. While some may argue the SBC has become hierarchical, it's really not...my point in bringing this up is it seems the independence and autonomy of each Baptist congregation makes it exceedingly difficult (and slow) to detect and address issues at the national level. As an example, my church voluntarily associates with the SBC as do nearly all other Baptist churches in my area and my congregation would likely never know if the church on the other end of town was having issues.
Baptist polity does not excuse any of this, but makes it even worse because they are not formally bound together and, therefore, could much more easily disassociate in a manner Presbyterian churches cannot. And yet many do not.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Sam Storms has weighed in here.

I think this sentence sums up his response:

"Not one returned with concerns that Beth preached herself “rather than Christ.”"

Clearly there was no concern- on behalf of the women or Sam Storms- that she was preaching full stop.

"Would you want other men to “honor” your wife even as the Apostle Peter calls on you to “honor” yours (1 Peter 3:7)?"

I would want our men to tell their wives they have no business "preaching". Beth Moore's husband has a lot of explaining to do.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
I suspect that this tweet is a reference to Beth Moore: "When a sinful woman is accused of being in sin, a thousand sword leap from their scabbards in her defense. This is the quintessential story-pattern of chivalrous tales of knights in shining armor. It is also the playbook for modern evangelicals."
 

lynnie

Puritan Board Graduate

Saw this elsewhere. 3 minutes of John Piper. He makes a good point about how Elizabeth Elliott was worth listening to, and other women; the problem is about authoritative setting up women like pastors in the church. Personally I would say BM has such bad doctrine she should not be listened to at all, but there are women (Joni E.Tada comes to mind) that have things to say about certain subjects that everybody can learn from.
 

Jack K

Puritan Board Professor
Clearly there was no concern- on behalf of the women or Sam Storms- that she was preaching full stop.

Let's be fair to Sam Storms. He seems to have used the word preach because that was the word used in the comments in the MacArthur discussion, not because Beth Moore preached at a worship service during her Oklahoma appearance. It appears she was merely teaching at a women's conference, not officially preaching in that case. I think Storms can be forgiven for not condemning her for preaching, periodsince she wasn't preaching. Whether or not her teaching role is appropriate and the teaching sound is a separate question.

Do some SBC churches suddenly seem alarmingly quick to embrace the idea of women preaching with little regard for what Scripture might have to say about it? Yes. And is it good for men like MacArthur to speak up? Also yes. But sadly, that particular audio clip failed to convey a sense of propriety or any humility, and has likely hurt the case more than helped. Like some others here, I'm not sure that was entirely MacArthur's fault, but I would like to see him address it nevertheless.
 

Susan777

Puritan Board Sophomore

Saw this elsewhere. 3 minutes of John Piper. He makes a good point about how Elizabeth Elliott was worth listening to, and other women; the problem is about authoritative setting up women like pastors in the church. Personally I would say BM has such bad doctrine she should not be listened to at all, but there are women (Joni E.Tada comes to mind) that have things to say about certain subjects that everybody can learn from.
I agree that Elizabeth Elliott was a woman worth listening to. I learned much from her. She was remarkably different in her presentation and demeanor. Both she and Joni Tada evidenced the fruit of the Spirit, probably as a result of their personal suffering. It simply cannot be said that they had any type of agenda or feminist resentments.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Let's be fair to Sam Storms. He seems to have used the word preach because that was the word used in the comments in the MacArthur discussion, not because Beth Moore preached at a worship service during her Oklahoma appearance. It appears she was merely teaching at a women's conference, not officially preaching in that case. I think Storms can be forgiven for not condemning her for preaching, periodsince she wasn't preaching. Whether or not her teaching role is appropriate and the teaching sound is a separate question.

Do some SBC churches suddenly seem alarmingly quick to embrace the idea of women preaching with little regard for what Scripture might have to say about it? Yes. And is it good for men like MacArthur to speak up? Also yes. But sadly, that particular audio clip failed to convey a sense of propriety or any humility, and has likely hurt the case more than helped. Like some others here, I'm not sure that was entirely MacArthur's fault, but I would like to see him address it nevertheless.

She shouldn't be teaching either but I think in this case the distinction between teaching and preaching is one without a difference.
 

rookie

Puritan Board Sophomore
My current church, had sent me an article, justifying Beth Moore as a preacher, therefore that was their stance on women preaching. The letter I got was way too long to type out here, but essentially, claimed that Beth Moore has a solid doctrine, therefore should be able to teach.

Quick edit, the article came from a preacher from a different church, but my pastor used it to justify women preaching. And the authority that was mentioned was "under the authority of God and the bible"...I'm not going to elaborate further on this.
 
Last edited:

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
My current church, had sent me an article, justifying Beth Moore as a preacher, therefore that was their stance on women preaching. The letter I got was way too long to type out here, but essentially, claimed that Beth Moore has a solid doctrine, therefore should be able to teach.
The problem is that is human logic going against the revealed will of God in this area.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
My current church, had sent me an article, justifying Beth Moore as a preacher, therefore that was their stance on women preaching. The letter I got was way too long to type out here, but essentially, claimed that Beth Moore has a solid doctrine, therefore should be able to teach.

Quick edit, the article came from a preacher from a different church, but my pastor used it to justify women preaching. And the authority that was mentioned was "under the authority of God and the bible"...I'm not going to elaborate further on this.

While I am not a fan of the term complementarianism in general, so-called soft complementarianism is nothing else but clear disobedience to the revealed word of God. In some ways, it is worse than evangelical feminism. At least the evangelical feminists admit that they are feminists, and, unlike the soft complementarians, do not pretend to oppose feminism.
 

rookie

Puritan Board Sophomore
While I am not a fan of the term complementarianism in general, so-called soft complementarianism is nothing else but clear disobedience to the revealed word of God. In some ways, it is worse than evangelical feminism. At least the evangelical feminists admit that they are feminists, and, unlike the soft complementarians, do not pretend to oppose feminism.

I personally always saw complementarianism as both man and women were equal before God in dignity, however, roles, may not be shared, depending on the role. They therefore "complement" each other.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Serious question: Is Beth Moore a false teacher (aka heretic) or just a woman preacher?

It makes a difference.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Serious question: Is Beth Moore a false teacher (aka heretic) or just a woman preacher?

It makes a difference.

From the little I've seen of her actual content I would say both. But for the purposes of this discussion all that matters is the latter. Whether what she was "teaching" was orthodox wouldn't matter. The fact she has usurped this authority would suggest her theology is not orthoox, however.
 

Taylor

Puritan Board Senior
Ann Voscamp responded to MacArthur on her blog here. In it, she says, "Whoever tells the church mothers to go home are homewreckers in our Father’s church."

How crazy is this? A woman proudly and flagrantly defies the Lord and his commanded order in his Church, and nobody says anything. Worse, people think it's good. Yet one man says two words—two measly words—in correction, and now he—not the rebellious and subversive woman—but he is now the "homewrecker in our Father's church."

Ludicrous.
 

alexandermsmith

Puritan Board Junior
Ann Voscamp responded to MacArthur on her blog here. In it, she says, "Whoever tells the church mothers to go home are homewreckers in our Father’s church."

How crazy is this? A woman proudly and flagrantly defies the Lord and his commanded order in his Church, and nobody says anything. Worse, people think it's good. Yet one man says two words—two measly words—in correction, and now he—not the rebellious and subversive woman—but he is now the "homewrecker in our Father's church."

Ludicrous.

If she were a proper mother she wouldn't be travelling the country shaking her fist in the face of God. She would be at home where she belongs.
 

Elizabeth

Puritan Board Sophomore
I found it rather amusing that Voskamp turned to Spurgeon in her defiance at God's created order. Spurgeon on women, ministry and roles:

"Peter’s wife’s mother did not get out of bed and go down the street and deliver an address to an assembled multitude. Women are best when they are quiet. I share the apostle Paul’s feelings when he bade women be silent in the assembly.

Yet there is work for holy women, and we read of Peter’s wife’s mother that she arose and ministered to Christ. She did what she could and what she should. She arose and ministered to him. Some people can do nothing that they are allowed to do, but waste their energies in lamenting that they are not called on to do other people’s work.

Blessed are they who do what they should do. It is better to be a good housewife, or nurse, or domestic servant, than to be a powerless preacher or a graceless talker. She did not arise and prepare a lecture, nor preach a sermon, but she arose and prepared a supper, and that was what she was fitted to do. Was she not a housewife? As a housewife let her serve the Lord.

I do not say that if you were converted a week ago you are at once to preach. No: but you are to minister to the Lord in the way for which you are best qualified, and that may happen to be by a living testimony to his grace in your daily calling.

We greatly err when we dream that only a preacher can minister to the Lord—for Jesus has work of all sorts for all sorts of followers. Paul speaks of women who helped him much, and, assuredly, as there is no idle angel there ought to be no idle Christian. We are not saved for our own sakes, but that we may be of service to the Lord and to his people; let us not miss our calling."
 

scget5

Puritan Board Freshman
The podcast 'doctrine and devotion' had a episode on JMAC's comments; I don't agree with everything that was said but, it was interesting.
 

bookslover

Puritan Board Doctor
In a sense, this isn't even MacArthur's fight, since he's not an SBC pastor and his church is not an SBC church. He was ordained in the 1960s in the Independent Fundamental Churches of America (IFCA).
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Is she not heavy into Charasmatic theology?

Every Charismatic is not a heretic. Folks can differ on theology and still be Christian. It is ok to be harsh with false teachers (aka heretics). But we go straight to the heretic label too many times.
 
Last edited:

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Another thought is that Phil Johnson is like MacArthur's attack dog and he called Beth Moore a Narcissist in the same session. But let me ask - who has a Bible named after him?

Of course, I also suppose it needs to be asked, what sort of strange conference has their pastors "free associate" with words? The whole thing seemed to be a weird setting.

I am not siding with Moore here, but I also do not trust any millionaire pastor, even Calvinistic ones. I believe part of our calling - while not to be poor - does necessitate us from not accumulating extreme wealth. MacArthur's Study Bible is also now available in the deficient NIV2011 Translation (a translation so bad even the SBC condemned it). Was this an attempt to reach a greater audience...or a greater market?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top