Sometimes we give ascent to anyone who accepts the label “evangelical” without appraising their actual belief system. For instance, Beth Moore treats the Word as an allegory to apply it to life. As the following analysis provides, she takes the content and does not give it any direct application to life. Instead, she latches onto confidence in the presence of God by way of Christ’s work and turns it into some convoluted sense personal assurance before men. Hormones and all. She feminizes the faith. She is teaching heresy.
She makes relationship management the basis for spiritual behavior. She changes grace into law. She makes demands of God. She says that our confidence is our sense of personal value. In other material she goes so far as to say not to study the Word because she has done it for the listener. She says that redemption is meant to fix our cracks. This is nothing more than “name it/claim it” in a skirt.
But she can sell it well. It’s in her commercial.
Do not let your church use her material. It is dangerous. It is heresy.
March 13th, 2010 | 7:27 pm | #1
i am 16 minutes and have heard Beth speak about 45 seconds. Can this guy actually shut up long enough that we could hear what she is saying?
March 13th, 2010 | 7:36 pm | #2
what’s breathtaking is when Beth quotes scripture accurately, he doesn’t like it
She says
You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
Pirates response is that’s law law law
what? that’s straight out of the NIV.
March 13th, 2010 | 7:38 pm | #3
I agree with dac
I don’t know who this guy is commenting on Beth Moore, but he is an arrogant you know what. It is clear that he has just enough “theology” to make him dangerous. He obviously loves to hear himself speak, and it is deeply ironic that he is critiquing Beth Moore’s notion of confidence given his high degree of arrogance. I’ll take Beth Moore over him any day of the week.
And this guy also really does not know much about law and gospel, or his own theological agenda, which is another irony. This guy does not even realize how deeply his own presuppositions cloud his understanding of the gospel. To him, he’s just defending the “gospel.” Self-confidence indeed!
March 13th, 2010 | 7:52 pm | #4
My previous tirade was a momentary lapse, but I’m better now. I think it had something to do with a seemingly manic 3.5 year old running around the table. However, I do stand by the basic point even if I must ask for forgiveness for the harsh tone.
March 13th, 2010 | 8:06 pm | #5
ok, when he finally shuts up and lets Beth talk, his points start making sense.
March 13th, 2010 | 8:11 pm | #6
ok, got to the obligatory Hitler reference. nice
March 13th, 2010 | 8:16 pm | #7
Ok, 50 minutes in, I am done.
Overall I would say he is about 50% right in his review of Beth. Unfortunately he loves his own voice to much and interrupting every 5 seconds gets in the way of his own arguments. Plus, Hitler references as well as suggesting her problem is PMS are just stupid.
March 13th, 2010 | 9:53 pm | #8
After some ruminating, he is a guy who sees the tree very clearly, but cant see the forest.
March 14th, 2010 | 1:48 am | #9
It’s a pot and kettle situation. He’s obnoxious; she’s a garden-variety women’s speaker. i.e. good at public speaking; bad at hermeneutics. It’s a toxic combo.
In my younger years, I was borderline egalitarian. Today, I can’t think of a single “brand name” women’s teacher I’d sit still for twenty minutes for. If John Piper or D.A. Carson would ever deem to do a conference just for women, I’d go in a quick minute. Other than that, count me out.
March 14th, 2010 | 7:23 am | #10
Folks,
Yes, I find his analysis lacking. She is not Pelagian but certainly semi-Pelagian. He spent too much time clarifying what should have been simple points.
But that does not excuse Moore. What she has done I have also seen many lazy men (she is not theologically alone in these errors) do — ignore the clear content of the Word and turn it into some obtuse metaphor. That’s not a women’s problem at all. It is simply a problem. And when it is coupled with things like the word-faith heresy you get the worst of it. You get heresy that is, well, attractive. I could have titled the post “Beth Moore is Hot!” It might have worked.
March 14th, 2010 | 9:27 am | #11
Actually, I think he is just plain wrong on a number of things, the biggest is that he clearly does not understand justification/sanctification. It also seemed clear to me Beth was discussing self confidence because of what Jesus has done for us (eminently biblical), not self confidence in ourselves because of our own being.
So Rachel is clearly right -its pot –> kettle time on Pirate radio. I won’t go back
March 14th, 2010 | 9:33 am | #12
@Rachel
Jill Briscoe, wife of Stuart Briscoe, is an excellent teacher (as is Stuart and their son Pete)
Highly recomended
March 14th, 2010 | 10:37 am | #13
Collin: “She feminizes the faith. She is teaching heresy.
Do not let your church use her material. It is dangerous. It is heresy.”
Collin, I appreciate the clarity and straightforwardness of your warning in plain speech.
It is such a helpful contrast to the Christian Correctness that ambiguates and muddies so many other folks’ lukewarm writings.
March 14th, 2010 | 10:39 am | #14
Rachel Starke: “In my younger years, I was borderline egalitarian. Today, I can’t think of a single “brand name” women’s teacher I’d sit still for twenty minutes for.”
I cherish complementarian women.
God bless you, Rachel.
March 14th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #15
To qoute Ben Witherington (with whom I agree)
Thank God for strong, gifted women in the church. No, the problem in the church is not strong women, but rather weak men who feel threatened by strong women, and have tried various means, even by dubious exegesis to prohibit them from exercising their gifts and graces in the church.
March 14th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #16
Collin et al.,
Please refrain my using that wonderfully vague epithet semi-Pelagian. It is deeply pejorative and, to be consistent, you would need to use of it everyone who does not hold to Augustine’s idea of single predestination. This would include most of the Protestant world, many Catholics, and the entirety of the Orthodox world.
Synergism, semi-Augustinianism, or semi-Pelagianism is not a heresy. It actually has greater antiquity than Augustine, and please, let’s not go to Paul because it is disputed as to whether the Augustinian position is also the Pauline one.
As to women preachers, I myself have heard numerous wonderful women preachers. It may be that they are not heard as often because many men rarely let them speak. And this is not a liberal/conservative issue unless you think that the holiness and Pentecostal folks of the 19th and early 20th centuries were liberal feminists before such an animal ever existed. Or, that the Quakers of the 1600s were liberal when their women preachers argued for women’s ordination.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #17
Dale Coulter, from a previous thread: “Dear Pastor Philip,
The Finnish Lutheran church has been in dialogue with the Russian Orthodox church for quite some time. Here is a link to the documents of that dialogue: http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutort95.html“
It’ll be interesting what direction the dialogue will take considering that some folks are wondering whether the Finnish Lutherans are keeping up with the ELCA in terms of apostasy.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:39 pm | #18
Thanks for these clarifying remarks Mr. Benson. As Paul Harvey has said, “and now for the rest of the story. . . .”
March 14th, 2010 | 2:43 pm | #19
Dale,
Yes, semi-Pelagianism may not be heresy on its own (because the term is so imprecise), but she did express those tendencies toward Redemption as being a therapeutic measure. This is, at best, a half-truth and misrepresentation of the gospel. I take her errors as a whole package, a complete system that produced these errors.
There, of course, are women who teach (and even preach) who are generally consistent with the Word. But Beth Moore is not one of them.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:46 pm | #20
Chris B,
If I gave her all the possible benefit of the doubt on every point, her effort would still be one where interpretation is confused with application. That sill amounts to a high level of laziness for one in such a public position.
March 14th, 2010 | 2:52 pm | #21
@comment 21
at least for the specific message we are talking about. Other than this one, I have never listened to or read BM, so I would not necessarily apply it to her entire ministry.
But yes, this particular message has multiple problems
March 14th, 2010 | 4:07 pm | #22
I kind of think that a therapeutic understanding of salvation has gotten a bad rap since the 1960s because of Freudian psychoanalysis and its appropriation by some theologians.
The ancient church saw salvation as entailing the therapy of human desire. Now, salvation was not reducible to this, but it was part of it. Think about Augustine’s understanding of the Spirit as love who transforms human loves so that humans come to rest in the triune God.
Once sanctification is factored in, then therapy of human desire is an important feature. Reading the Bible “with the church” helps us to see this. I think I may have said that somewhere along the way :-).
March 14th, 2010 | 4:36 pm | #23
To TUAD: Yes, it will be interesting. Thanks for the link.
There is a fundamental realignment occurring, and it shows no signs of slowing down.
March 14th, 2010 | 8:43 pm | #24
Good grief! Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. Moore is pretty good…. she does not deserve the radio guy’s arrogance or this condescending tut-tutting.
March 15th, 2010 | 12:35 am | #25
I am going to ask a few questions before I get to Beth Moore and the question at hand.
How casually should we use the word heretic? In what sense is a person a heretic? Is it in their understanding of Jesus? Is it found in their profession of faith? Is it in their application of Scripture? What if someone knows Jesus yet holds to a doctrinally flawed profession or application of faith? What if they don’t relationally know Jesus but have a wonderful orthodox profession and application?
I think we use the word heretic far to casually in our day. In my youth I used it far to willingly. Instead of getting our hands dirty and really investigating something or someone we make snap judgments and throw out labels before really diving in to the substance or severity of that charge.
The term heresy was used to label her work. I did not hear him call her a heretic. I have seen many on twitter and across the blogosphere do so regularly. The two terms do not necessarily always overlap.
I have admittedly read very little of Beth Moore’s material. I am no expert and the following is from mostly, though not completely, second hand sources and reading about her.
Categorically, I would not recommend her material. Let me state why.
First, I do not doubt that she loves God and is loved of God. Yet, I do worry for her theology, calling, and final judgment of her ministry. I think the admonishment that “not many of you should be teachers” should be heeded by her. She is a self motivated teacher to “women.” Due to certain anatomical limitations I do not qualify as her target ministry.
Second, I hesitate more and more at branding someone a heretic without diving over their entire available corpus of work. Granted a selection may give a good implication but should not be the deciding factor. It is not very helpful nor does it appear discerning to not give a thoughtful critique of a corpus of works.
I do know of Beth Moore’s work. I use to work at Lifeway Christian store that pimped Beth Moore material out like a group of Nation of Islam adherents looking for converts in east Durham NC. Lifeway is the publishing branch of the SBC and Beth Moore does conferences for Lifeway and is herself SBC. I was told to pimp her materials. I never advocate anyone or anything without reading it first. Hence one reason why I am no longer in Christian retail.
I flipped through a few of her works, those published circa 2002ish and before. My initial reaction was Beth Moore was passionate about Jesus, quasi-orthodox in theology & had a poor application of the gospel. I concluded that at the root of her ministry is a therapeutic works based righteousness understanding of Christianity.
It is helpful to know a bit about her before critiquing Beth Moore. She leans heavily towards Arminianism in her theology. She has admitted that she does not like or believe in Reformed theology in its view of God. Her theology is heavily influenced from a recovery based model. She was sexually abused in her early life. She started teaching to help other women experience God’s grace.
Let me say that I don’t doubt that God can’t, hasn’t, or won’t use Moore and her studies for good. He uses sinners all the time. I am one! I do doubt it gives a full and accurate portrait of grace and the gospel. We should call it like it is. That is the sin of heresy. Heresy after all is a novel change to a established system of belief.
Beth Moore’s use of allegorical interpretation is not the main issue. To make it the main issue is just plain silly. The issue is her understanding of God and the Church. Her teaching relies heavily on a mixture of a orthodox and rightly celebrated view of God’s love for his elect. This is why Evangelicals particularly the SBC love her. This view of God is not only correct but should be applauded! Unfortunately there is also her unorthodox works based application of the gospel that is fatally wrong. Leslie Wiggins at Discerning Reader has a article on one of Moore’s studies worth reading. When Beth Moore or anyone preaching in the name of Christ errs in presenting the gospel then that should be called out because we love them.
The original question was does Beth Moore know how to read the Bible? From what I have read of her works personally and what I have witnessed from second hand sources I think the answer is no. Beth Moore doesn’t articulate the pervasive, persevering, perfecting, and provocative Grace that is Jesus apart from our works.
Does this make her a heretic? No. It makes her a flawed sinner who should reflect deeply on teaching the gospel in light of the admonishment on those who walk in to that Biblical role and office. Some may ask does this make her work heretical? In part yes. Where she focuses on the relational with God most certainly not. When it comes to application then probably so. Regardless, let us be careful of throwing around the heretic label.
March 15th, 2010 | 1:17 am | #26
Who said Beth Moore is a heretic?
March 15th, 2010 | 6:46 am | #27
TUAD: Collin called BM’s material heresy, which is fairly close to calling her a heretic. However, there is a difference in intentionality. Technically, a heretic is one who refuses to recant after being brought before a group of bishops, etc., at least, that’s the way the term evolved in the third and fourth centuries. So, from that perspective, I don’t think (my esp of Collin’s mind is reaching out right now) that Collin believes BM is a heretic. He does say that her teaching is heresy.
March 15th, 2010 | 7:45 am | #28
TUAD,
How I got here was seeing a pro vs anti Beth Moore rant on twitter. The heretic word was being thrown around there. That is why I qualified it in the mini commentary I wrote above.
Blessings,
Will
March 15th, 2010 | 9:10 am | #29
Dear Will,
Thanks for the softer side of Sears I detect in your desire not to play the heretic card.
As another aside, let me express a little opinion about your claim: “Beth Moore doesn’t articulate the pervasive, persevering, perfecting, and provocative Grace that is Jesus apart from our works.” I love the P’s by the way, always good for sermon construction!
I really think such a critique could be leveled at many, many preachers. I must confess a little weariness over the utility of such a claim. It strikes me as a lob from one side of the evangelical world to the other. After three years in seminary where I was battered repeatedly with this word, grace, I came to realize just how technical persons were being with it (yes, I am slow).
Of course, then came the Lordship Salvation controversy and all of a sudden Reformed folks, who were trumpeting grace, started talking about making Jesus Lord of every area of your life, which entails sanctification. In the face of the Dallas Theological Seminary threat from Zane Hodges and Charles Ryrie that grace must be absolutely free and thus no one ever need do another blessed thing (you like that double entendre), Reformed folks (and even some non-Reformed like John MacArthur who is always up in arms about something Christians are getting wrong) moved into the “cost of discipleship” mode, proclaiming that making Jesus Lord required transformation.
In light of all these battles, I just wonder sometimes, “can we all play nice for a little while.” It’s all a balancing act, and you can’t say everything when you say anything.
March 15th, 2010 | 11:14 am | #30
Collin writes:
“Synergism, semi-Augustinianism, or semi-Pelagianism is not a heresy. It actually has greater antiquity than Augustine, and please, let’s not go to Paul because it is disputed as to whether the Augustinian position is also the Pauline one.”
The Pelagian controversy, for the record, was never about what contemporary Protestants have dubbed synergism versus monergism. It would be like referring to the dispute between Thomas and Molina as a version of Calvin v. Arminius.
The Council of Orange that officially declared Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism heresies, asserts this, which sound more like the Council of Trent than Calvin’s Institutes, especially in Orange’s view of infused grace in baptism and our cooperation:
////CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, “For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake” (Phil. 1:29). And again, “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, “I have obtained mercy to be faithful” (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, “because I was faithful,” but “to be faithful.” And again, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, “Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights” (Jas. 1:17). And again, “No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven” (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God’s kindness.////
March 15th, 2010 | 11:35 am | #31
Dear Francis,
I actually made that statement rather than Collin, so maybe I should respond.
Thank you for taking the time to engage me. When I wrote that, I was actually thinking of the debate between Augustine and the followers of John Cassian as attested to in Augustine’s two final completed treatises. As you know, Cassian was a devotee of Egyptian monasticism in general and Evagrius of Pontus in particular. So, there is a clear historical thread for the synergism endorsed by the theologians of the east. This, it seems to me, is part of what Vincent of Lerin had in mind when he said that we must hold to what has been believed, always, everywhere, and by everyone. He was in part eschewing the novelty of the Augustinian position and placing it along side of Nestorianism. In addition, we have a few letters from Augustine to Cyril of Alexandria in which Augustine wonders why Cyril has not weighed in on the condemnation of Pelagius. It was only at that fated Christological council of Ephesus that Cyril decided to forever link Pelagianism and Nestorianism. But this is not a rejection of the synergism still embraced by the Orthodox Church and with an antiquity preceding Augustine (if one thinks of the Greek theological world going back to Ireneaus). I would beg to differ on this being a Protestant move of mine.
The Council of Orange was itself a local council and not an ecumenical one by anyone’s reckoning. So, it is not universally authoritative in my view. I don’t think it goes quite so far as to endorse the entirety of Augustine’s position on single predestination despite the concerted efforts to get in Prosper of Aquitaine’s dossier of quotations by Augustine. It see it as a local synod attempting to mediate between a hard-line Augustinianism coming from North Africa (Fulgentius et al.) and the remnants of Cassian’s theology embraced by the monks of Lerin who produced many bishops.
I do not think it anachronistic to portray the debate between Augustine and the followers of Cassian in terms of synergism vs. monergism. In view, it is a helpful move away from the sloganeering of Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, etc., which, as you know, has such a tortured history in the churches of the West.
One more point on the language of infusion. Prior to Philip the Chancellor, who employed Aristotle’s notion of habitus to describe what would become “created grace,” one cannot talk about infusion as though there is something substantially bestowed as an accidental quality. One is still, to my mind, in the realm of pneumatology, in which the Spirit intersects with human affectivity and transforms it. I am all too happy to employ the language of infusion in that sense of the term. It’s the habitus bits that I’m still working through.
March 15th, 2010 | 11:41 am | #32
I should hasten to add that my desire in the previous post was to articulate how I read the debate between Augustine and Cassian’s followers. I see it as a different kind of debate than the one between Augustine and the “Pelagians.” I am sure you know this history quite well and was not trying to lecture even though it might come across that way. If it does, please forgive.
March 15th, 2010 | 5:00 pm | #33
Wow. Heresy? That’s so cool how there’s a few hundred folks who read this blog, and ten or twenty who’ve bothered to post; while over on Beth’s Living Proof Live Blog, close to ten thousand will read whatever she decides to share on any given day, and upwards of three to four thousand will post (if she’s asking for feedback).
If we’re so concerned about her potentially living in heresy, I would think a firm and loving letter, email, phone call, or visit to Houston to address these matters done from a concerned brother in the Lord to a sister in the Lord would have been the better, more Godly, certainly more loving, more productive, more beneficial, more mature, more tenacious step/s.
Oh well.
Let’s just drag out “heresy”, dust it off and lob it at a fellow believer who touches millions of believers the nation and world over.
If some of her theology could use correction, I wonder what kind of correction your heart needs in posting such sniping, grace-less anger?
(And please, can we spare the Evangel community this pirate vitriol? Let him ride his high seas full of himself – don’t invite us on his ship).
March 15th, 2010 | 5:44 pm | #34
I think every self-appointed pope, bishop, magisterium, and council (yes, a council of one), should excoummunicate every person not in agreement with himself. That way we can know who the real believers are. We’ll be able to avoid like the plague all of the fake believers and false teachers. Not only that, we’ll help people get connected to the pipeline of divine truth.
I’m tired of all of the heretics. It’s time the true Church of God makes a stand! People need to know that the real Church is made up of believers who understand the following:
1. There is no such thing as a pope. If you disagree with me, you’re not part of the church. No one has the authority to make claims for God. Therefore, I anathematize all who believe in a pope.
2. The real believers have ALWAYS believed exactly what we believe today. Sure, they’re spotty in Church history, but likely means they had to be underground because of their views.
3. Postmillenialism is legit. Get with or get left beh-…or don’t get with it…but you’ll regret not getting with it.
4. Cafeteria-believism has got to go. No more denominational syncretism. Either you belong to the
New-Formed Post-Presbyerian Ecclessial Veritas Partially-Dispensational Non-Charismatic Infallible Innerantistic Somewhat-Hard-Line-Old School-Anabaptist Suzerainty Covenant Evangelical (not that there’s anything wrong with that…no, of course not) Association in America
or you’re just picking and choosing what you want to believe, which means you haven’t got it all figured out yet. In which case, don’t call us, we’ll call you (btw, if you’re on the list of the elect, eventually you WILL get a call. Oops, did I say “will”? I meant that in a good way. Dang it, I said “I”. My old nature is so synergistic it’s ridiculous. Anyhoo, you’ll get a call.).
5. We meet at Chad’s house every Sunday night to worship and talk crap about the beliefs of Catholics, Pelagians, and the wrong kinds of evangelicals. Bring a dish for yourself and to share. Chad’s parents don’t mind us using their living room as long as we clean up afterwards. They say they’re believers, but they never stick around for the church service. We’ll keep praying for them.
6. By the way, on Sunday nights we don’t call it “Chad’s house” or even “Chad’s parents’ house”. We call it “Gospel Reformation Reclamation Fellowship”.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:02 pm | #35
orthodoxdj – I’ll bring the green bean casserole – and the smug self righteousness (but I assume that goes without saying) – to Chad’s.
My gosh, but it feels so good to be so right.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:09 pm | #36
Edvee,
Welcome to the desert of the real.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:10 pm | #37
OrthodoxDJ,
At the “Gospel Reformation Reclamation Fellowship” can we rip a new lip for those who practice Christian Correctness?
Those Liberal Pharisees of Process, Procedure, and Politeness need the Right Hand Palm Strike of Fellowship applied to their foreheads.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:14 pm | #38
Mr. TUAD,
You’re welcome to do and say whatever you want as long as it’s line with our doctrinal distinctives.
March 15th, 2010 | 6:20 pm | #39
Thanks OrthodoxDJ!!
Delivering the Right Hand Palm Strike of Fellowship to the foreheads of the Liberal Pharisees who stare down on anyone who violates their man-made laws of Christian Correctness will certainly make the church doctrinally distinctive.
March 19th, 2010 | 8:01 pm | #40
Dear Dale,
I hope Sears sends me a gift card for representing them well. I was a lead pastor for three years. May be again if God so desires it. That is another long story but being a pastor probably contributes to my pension for writing hopefully memorable lines. Some things do not depart from your seminary days. Sometimes, no matter how hard you try. I once was a vocal Pelagian until I kept meditating on the words of Jesus. I now sit solidly though not uncritically in the Reformed camp.
Anyway on to my assertion that “Beth Moore doesn’t articulate the pervasive, persevering, perfecting, and provocative Grace that is Jesus apart from our works.”
I have heard Beth about a half dozen times in one of our Wednesday morning meetings which start with prayer and a devotion. Lately the devotions are drawn from her video teaching. Beth talks a great deal about the grace of the Father from what I can tell. You can hear and sense a deep connection for her in God’s paternal love. She connects with God the Father. I do not see a connection with Jesus as Lord in her teaching.
I don’t see the pervasive love of Jesus rejoicing in His lordship that scream through our selfish desires. I don’t see the persevering assurance of Jesus that never forsakes us and never stops seeking us in our rebellion (before and after we experience salvation). I don’t see the perfecting patience of Jesus in Beth’s ministry where she affirms that it is Jesus alone that makes us righteous by his work for us, in us, through us, and in spite of us. I also do not see her painting Jesus as the most provocative individual ever. Her articulation of Jesus never makes us cringe. There is no Jesus that forces us to either curse him or bow before him in her theological articulations from what I have seen. They may be there. I just haven’t seen them.
In her works from what I have heard there is a great deal about the Father’s love. I just don’t see it filtered through the person of Jesus except as Savior.
Finally you are right Beth Moore is not alone in her treatment of Jesus in how she reads and interprets the Bible. Many and from what I have experienced the majority of pastors in our time preach like her. I use to. May God forgive me for it.
I believe to read the Bible rightly is to understand who Jesus is and then learn to shout it with all your life. When we really see Jesus what we see amazes and shocks us. It confronts us and makes us repent in spite of our idolatrous hearts. He is love and wrath. I don’t see her making much of that later side of Jesus.
I believe she is a sister in Christ. I love her as such. I have no stones to cast at her. I’ve seen my sins written in the sand. My major critique is that I just don’t think she reads the Bible as God intended and that has consequences. The balancing act analogy is a good one. If she does misunderstanding the centrality of Jesus it will likely cause some to topple off.
Sincerely,
Will
March 19th, 2010 | 8:05 pm | #41
Christopher,
Good point. It may be easier to take short cuts but that doesn’t make it right. I wonder if he went to her first?
I have a good deal on my plate but I will try to take the claims off the back burner in the future and to document those assertions.
Thanks for the word,
Will
March 20th, 2010 | 5:43 pm | #42
Hello
I wanted to share with you all my experience regarding Beth Moore’s teachings. I have been attending a small church in the country here. where my husband and I live. Last fall, the Pastor’s wife began a Bible study with Beth Moore’s dvd series entitled Believe God. The first meeting seemed to me, to be alright. The Pastors wife, who led the study, had crocheted all of us blue bracelets, that we were to wear during the entirety of the course. My first response within myself was why? I did not put mine on and quietly stuck in into my booklet. Also, all the ladies would get up at the beginning of the study and join in with Beth to do the I believe God hand signal thing. I also refused to do that as I felt something was not right but didnt know what it was. I was a part of that study til the third session where the Lord by His grace, began to open my eyes to the falseness that I was both viewing and hearing. I noticed that she jumped around so much and spoke so quickly, that it was difficult to keep up. I also noticed that she spoke so much about herself. The thing that really troubled me though, was that her teaching seemed to be laced with pop psycology and alot of extra-Biblical revelation which I believe in this day and age, is very very dangerous. Also I noticed that after those studies, the ladies, especially the Pastors wife were so excited about the things that Beth said, yet there was no mention at all of the Lord. It was almost like they were infatuated with her. I have done some studying lately about Beth’s teachings, listening carefully to what she says and it is my conclusion that she is a very dangerous false teacher. I do not believe that she is a true Christian, for if she was, she would not be twisting Scripture and taking Gods word out of context. She says God speaks to her audibly, I don’t believe that God speaks to people in the way that Beth says He does. We as true Christians are told by Gods word to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart all thy soul and all thy mind. Do not let false teachers fill your mind with things contrary to the Word of God. Pray about and walk circumspectly, for the days are evil. False teaching is everywhere these days but, God knows those who are His and he will keep them until that great day of His return. A concerned Christian in British Columbia
March 20th, 2010 | 11:55 pm | #43
Dear Lin Willms,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and concerns.
March 28th, 2010 | 7:03 pm | #44
thank you sooo much1 i agree with you and you know what, just hearing all of this makes me want to really get closer to God….hearing you explain the scriptures as they are instead of someone else’s two cents. I am so sick of people adding their two cents because it gets so confusing. Thank you for pointing out Scripture according to God instead of to Beth Moore.
March 28th, 2010 | 11:27 pm | #45
Dac,
Thanks for the recommendation. I’ve heard Jill’s name before and so will definitely look for her material.
Lin, thanks from me too for that first hand narrative. I don’t know that I’d go so far to say that she’s genuinely unsaved, but your description lays out with crystal clarity what I’ve seen, and worse, the craziness it produces in women who just glom on the way women do…I’m ashamed of my gender. :(
And Crystal, please don’t take from this post that godly teachers aren’t incredibly helpful as we pursue richer fellowship with God. God’s Word says a lot about how to discern who’s a godly teacher, and who may be leading us down the garden path. There are quite a few people in the Christian blogsophere who’ve been specifically blogging through Colossians lately, where Paul takes on this issue of solid teaching vs. bad teaching head on. I’d recommend starting there.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact