A few months ago, I began writing a piece on the teachings of Beth Moore. The fine writers at CT were working on a similar project which became a recent cover story and companion article. There is much to be said about Beth’s influence in the Church that I believe male and female leaders need to take a second look at. Well, when my article is published, I will provide a link to the full text, in the meantime, take a look at how Beth handles Paul. Keep in mind what she is ultimately saying about the insertion of sinful attitudes as part of the biblical writers’ instructional material.
Not only does Beth suggest that insecurity is one of women’s greatest problems, she also argues that insecurity is where she finds camaraderie with the apostle Paul. While clearly the writers of Scripture were human with the same propensity for sin and suffering, it is difficult to agree with Beth’s rationale for her claim to Pauline insecurity. In fact, her argument depends on an unpopular understanding of 2 Corinthians.
Beth writes that Paul is one of her “favorite people in the entire stretch of Scripture” because
he was enormously used of God in spite of himself [Emphasis hers]. Don’t think for a moment he didn’t fight his own flesh just like the rest of us. Take, for instance, the way he felt the need to affirm his credentials to the people he served in Corinth by using this little twist:
I do not think I am in the least inferior to those ‘super apostles.’ I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.’ 2 Corinthians 11:5-6
Tell me that’s not insecurity. If you’re not convinced, take a look at what blurted from his pen only a chapter later:
I have made a fool of myself, but you drove me to it. I ought to have been commended by you, for I am not in the least inferior to the ‘super-apostles,’ even though I am nothing. 2 Corinthians 12:11
Do you think just maybe he protests too much? In all probability, he fought the awful feeling that he wasn’t as good as the others who hadn’t done nearly so much wrong. I totally grasp that. At the same time, Paul also battled a big, fat ego. He was a complex mound of clay just like the rest of us, belittling and boasting of himself in a dizzying psychological zigzag.”[i]
A key criticism of Moore is how she handles scripture and then how she models that approach to her audience. After reading this section of SLI, my concern persists as I struggle to understand how she arrives at the conclusion that Paul is going through a “belittling and boasting of himself in a dizzying psychological zigzag.” The mere assertion that Paul was driven by feelings of insecurity as the reason for defending his apostolic authority ignores the immediate context of the second letter to the Corinthians, that the church was involved with false teachers claiming a high degree of authority but lacking true knowledge. But this gets at the heart of the problem; Beth does not explain the meaning of the passage as derived from the context, she reads the passage in isolation, an elementary Bible study error. What she often fails to do, as is the case in this instance, is to explain how in submission to the scripture she arrives at her conclusions. She admittedly speculates and introduces personal experience and psychologizing of the text to back up her claims. Her assertion that Paul is motivated by insecurity is dependent on a view that equates the “super apostles” with the true apostles instead of the false teachers, a theory that most theologians and commentators reject. But sadly, she leaves her readers, many who are unfortunately disenchanted with the intellectual nature of the Christian faith, revisioning Paul the apologist as someone whose defense is motivated by self-centered weakness instead of a necessary defense of the gospel. Following Beth’s perspective to its logical conclusion, if Paul did not struggle with insecurity as she claims, perhaps the Bible would contain fewer epistles.
Beth has been working for some time to define Paul as insecure. In To live is Christ, written about Paul’s journey of faith, she admits to speculating on what is going on with Paul “based on hints in the accounts.”[ii] She describes Paul as “overwhelmed by the polytheistic beliefs of the residents”[iii] of Athens because few people “believed and received Christ,”[iv] because they preferred to argue “rather than consider the truth.”[v] On the next page, she continues her speculation in asserting that Paul’s ego took a beating in Athens and that Paul probably “felt like a failure.”[vi] Continuing to project into the text, she writes that Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 1:18-19 may have been reflective of his experience with the Athenian philosophers. At the Areopagus, we understand from the text that Paul preached Christ, but certainly not to the contempt of the life of the mind. This kind of speculation paints Paul as being annoyed and fatigued by intellectual engagement in which he encouraged others.
[i] Moore, Beth. So Long Insecurity: You’ve Been a Bad Friend to Us. (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2010) p. 56-57
[ii] Moore, Beth. To Live is Christ: Joining Paul’s Journey of Faith. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001) p. 132.
[iii] Ibid., p. 132
[iv] Ibid., p. 132
[v] Ibid., p. 132
[vi] Ibid., p. 133
August 25th, 2010 | 5:57 pm | #1
Sarah,
Thank you so much for this piece. I often feel like the fish swimming upstream whenever I voice my reservation about the emotionally appealing, psychology oriented teaching of Ms. Moore and my concerns about it not adequately addressing the root problems based on a biblical theology. I think women need solid theological truths, not stories and emotional pep rallies.
I wrote about that here
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/11/why-i-think-women-need-to-study-theology/
August 25th, 2010 | 6:45 pm | #2
At root, Mrs. Moore’s problem is (as you’ve pointed out) that she both interprets scripture and applies her interpretation based on her assumption that her personal existential experience is normative for all Christian women, and to a lesser extent, all Christians. It’s true enough that we all struggle continually with various forms of sin and unbelief; it’s not true as she once told me (via a DVD) that all women are seeking escape from their “deep pain.” There are things in my life that cause me pain, but no, unlike some people whose sufferings have been greater and of a different nature from mine, that does not define my life. While I certainly share the need for grace with her, and the need for various kinds of repentance, they are not rooted in the same, or even parallel, experiences. But this is a common thread in her method, and her use of Paul as a mirror for her own insecurities is just another example of it.
I am glad that she is finally coming in for some examination and measured criticism. I am also glad that this is happening without it being the result of some kind of “witch hunt” by some nearly equally imbalanced person with an axe to grind, as is too often the case when teachers or ministries are called into question..
August 25th, 2010 | 7:12 pm | #3
Beth Moore’s approach can be heard every Sunday in pulpits across America that are “manned” (irony intended) by male pastors with M.Divs and D.Mins.
August 25th, 2010 | 11:49 pm | #4
Sarah,
Thanks for being brave enough to take on the, well, not exactly 500 lb. gorilla of the women’s ministry world, but you know what I mean. :)
Moore’s approach to Scripture is relentlessly utilitarian and woman-centered. It’s all about what Jesus can do for you now, not how what He did for you at the cross matters in the here and now.
The whole area of womens’ ministry is such a quagmire. On the one side, you’ve got the “just teach the girls how to make their houses pretty and their children behave” crowd who never want to go beyond Titus 2 and Proverbs 31 (that’s the world I’m closest to in church affiliation, although not at all in spirit). On the other hand, you’ve got the “You’re hurting and insecure and Jesus can fix you and make you all better” crowd. And then there’s the uncomfortable Genesis reality of women being “more easily deceived.”
It’s not a surprise that so many women are drawn to Beth Moore, but it is disappointing and frustrating.
(BTW, you did pray up in anticipation of being digitally dumped on by hordes of fangirls, right? :) )
August 26th, 2010 | 2:10 am | #5
There are curious gender patterns here at Evangel blog. I wonder what accounts for them.
August 26th, 2010 | 8:20 am | #6
Male. Houstonian (Beth Moore is also a Houstonian and teaches at First Baptist here.) Wife, sister in law and others regularly attend Beth’s classes (regularly = haven’t missed 5 classes in the last 8 years.)
I have long suspected based on the theology I hear parroted in my house that this was the case. My problem is what to do about it. Assailing Beth among the women in this family is like assailing Paul (irony intended.) I’ve tried systemic theology teachings, but these women seem resistant. It’s just not exciting enough, I guess. Who would you recommend as a counter argument/teacher to Beth? This is not a question about where to read theology, this is about how to counter this specific ministry. A bad tactic would be to bash Beth. A better tactic would be to “try this out,” and after they are hooked, say to them, “Let’s compare.”
August 26th, 2010 | 10:27 am | #7
Merlin,
You might try Tim Keller. It’s simply excellent teaching. Thoughtful and thought provoking.
August 26th, 2010 | 10:38 am | #8
Merlin, Excellent material written for women and by women is not flying off of the store shelves. I can vouch for Elyse Fitzpatrick and Elizabeth George, but frankly, would love to have them reading books and studying theology without the focus on their gender so much.
Rachael, I suspect the “fangirls” aren’t reading at this blog, but yes, I’m fully prepared. :)
August 26th, 2010 | 10:55 am | #9
Sounds like she’s projecting…
I know a lot of women who have gotten a lot out of Moore, including my friend and mentor. I’m not one of them, though, and have never really been able to get into her material.
Thanks for taking a theological look at her writing.
August 26th, 2010 | 11:49 am | #10
Howdy, all. I’m one of Beth’s original fan girls. The remarks, Sarah, that you made in your original posting seemed much kinder than one of the contributors who wrote sometime in the past few months – denouncing Beth as if she were in cahoots with the devil, himself; so, for your tone, I thank you.
I want to come back – when I have some free time – and consider more closely what you’ve written.
In the meantime, a couple initial thoughts: I don’t find Beth to be overly “therapeutic-ish” in her handling of Scripture. But, apparently, according to her, women by the hordes feel deep, continual levels of insecurity. Although I bought her recent book on the subject, I have little inclination to delve into it.
Part of why Beth resonates with women is that she so “gets” being a women in our day. She is endlessly entertaining about matters we (or most of us) live each day: marital “stuff”; laundry; carpools; hair products — so into Everywomen’s Everyday comes this engaging teacher who – like her theology or not – does love Jesus.
That’s why Beth “works” (if you will). She loves Jesus and she loves women. I’ve been long under the impression that her written material goes to a team of LifeWay scholars who give it the “theological” thumbs up/thumbs down before it ever sees the printing press.
So, perhaps some of the concern should include this “passing the muster” gang of theologians — ?
just some initial thoughts.
August 26th, 2010 | 12:39 pm | #11
Hi fangirl, thanks for your reaction. I don’t have as much time to respond now, but to your point about the Lifeway “scholars,” it is my view that their editorial staff has failed in this particular example. I am making the assumption, however, that they are more than grammatical editors.
To your point about the “hordes” of women, So Long Insecurity documents a survey she did of less than 1000 women. That’s hardly “hordes.” However, truth by popular vote has never been a position of mine, so I would still voice concern even if every woman on the planet other than myself found affinity with her concerns on insecurity. You ought to read the book…the comments in the CT pieces were accurate, its more psychology and not much Bible. And in the example I cite, not a very good understanding of scripture.
August 26th, 2010 | 1:31 pm | #12
Hi Sarah. Thanks for the response. When I used the word “hordes” I was more reflecting the large numbers of women Beth has interacted with in her stadium-sized conferences she conducts around the country – usually at least once a month — along with the fact that she’s been involved with women’s ministries for over twenty years. So, not to overly belabor the point, but I believe the book’s premise: that many, many women struggle with the issue of feeling deep insecurity – is one not simply derived from the online survey she conducted, but the premise came more from her decades-long involvement with women.
I participated in that online survey and was very surprised to learn that I was one of few who didn’t identify “insecurity” as being an issue I struggle with. I don’t know if this is a gender wide reality; if it is a Western Christian church type reality; or if it’s something else. I was rather dumbfounded by reading through the responses online to the survey and learning all the ways women feel insecure. Whether one agrees with her premise or not, Beth was tapping into a reality for a large number of Christian women.
Mostly, though, I wanted to refer you to a response Beth’s daughter, Melissa Fitzpatrick, wrote and posted on Beth’s ministry blog (called Living Proof Blog). If you go into the archives option at the top of the Living Proof Blog page and click July 2010, you can read the very (what I thought was) thorough and fair-handed response that Melissa shared with the few thousand of us who regularly follow the blog. It was posted July 30 under the title: A Recent Article. Melissa addresses, when dealing with the second article that appeared in CT, what she at one point calls a “misuse” of her mother’s work. I think for anyone who wants to be fair to Beth Moore – and fair to the thousands of American Christian women who have been blessed and challenged by her teachings, this response by her daughter is worth your read.
I think you will find it enlightening and I hope you will find it heartening.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:05 pm | #13
fangirl, yes, I have read the piece and did not find it compelling. When my larger piece will be available sometime in October. Please check back at http://www.womenfaithculture.org for a link to it.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:30 pm | #14
I’ll look forward to reading it, Sarah. Thanks for the heads up.
August 26th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #15
In addition to Elyse Fitzpatrick, can I offer up Paul Tripp’s name as an option? His books are theologically rich, and personally engaging and written simply without being simplistic. A couple of great examples would be Quest for More and Broken Down House.
August 26th, 2010 | 5:54 pm | #16
Your comments were excellent! Moore represents what is dominant in evangelical teaching today, a warm, personal and engaging delivery (watch her eyes when she speaks), and an emotional and therapeutic reading of Scripture, apart from a redemptive-historical perspective. Her misreading of Paul is not just a blimp on the screen but reflects the hermeneutics of many, including Charles Stanley. These type exegete their experience rather than the text and read the text in light of their experience as confirmation of what they feel. I look forward to the extended article.
August 26th, 2010 | 10:40 pm | #17
((It’s not a surprise that so many women are drawn to Beth Moore, but it is disappointing and frustrating.))
Rachel:
Thanks so much for your insightful comments. I’ve long had similar sentiments regarding Beth Moore and her mega-popular books. Whenever an appropriate occasion arises for comment, people look at me like I just flew in from Mars.
August 26th, 2010 | 10:49 pm | #18
Kristine, that’s exactly what happens over and over with so many including myself. But it got so bad I almost bit my tongue off in her fruit of the spirit study.
August 27th, 2010 | 8:24 am | #19
[...] by Don Bryant on August 27, 2010 Click here for an analysis of Moore’s psychological analysis of the [...]
August 27th, 2010 | 10:34 am | #20
[...] More on Beth Moore – Sarah carefully analyzes a few how Beth Moore handles Scripture with a few examples. [...]
August 27th, 2010 | 11:20 am | #21
Sarah,
Good observations on Moore’s hermeneutic.
There is a larger point that is coming to light here in fangirl’s comments. You (Sarah) are examining how Moore is using Scripture. Fangirl, as I read her, is focusing on the issue that Moore is addressing. These are two different things.
Let’s accept that “many, many women struggle with the issue of feeling deep insecurity.” If this is true, no matter how Moore arrived at her conclusion, this does not license Moore to handle Scripture the way she does.
In fact, if many women need help in their struggle with insecurity I would think misusing Scripture would more hurt than help.
August 27th, 2010 | 11:21 am | #22
You’re a brave soul, Sarah. Will the Moore legions show up?
August 27th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #23
[...] but I think that Sarah Flashing has begun to address something that needs to be addressed…the teachings of Beth Moore. I have long been concerned by the almost slavish devotion of some Christian women to this [...]
August 27th, 2010 | 12:24 pm | #24
“If this is true, no matter how Moore arrived at her conclusion, this does not license Moore to handle Scripture the way she does.
In fact, if many women need help in their struggle with insecurity I would think misusing Scripture would more hurt than help.”
Not only that, but when I attend a video-based study on the Psalms and all I hear about is how it’s going to help my insecurity, it’s depriving me of learning what the Psalms in question are really about. So it fails to help in the way it’s purported to, and it fails to really use the scriptures constructively.
And then there’s the whole question of what happens to people whose need isn’t to have the “insecurity” dealt with, but other things, but are mistakenly lead to believe that their problem is “insecurity,” since she sees it in every passage.
August 27th, 2010 | 12:36 pm | #25
Mark, thanks for making that clarification. There are so many questions when it comes not only to Beth’s hermeneutic, but her mission as well. Just because hordes of women say they’re insecure doesn’t necessitate they need her prescription for healing. The problem and the solution might be something entirely other.
Jules, I’ve been biting my tongue for many years. I hope you keep coming back to evangel and my website, http://www.womenfaithculture.org
August 28th, 2010 | 5:29 am | #26
In response to Merlin – at the beginning of the posts, what do the readers here think about Bible teachers like Nancy DeMoss, Kay Arthur, or Anne Lotz?
August 28th, 2010 | 7:25 am | #27
wonderingoutloud, i believe that Kay Arthur is sound. Nancy DeMoss is ok but she’s been taken to task for adding to scripture….there’s some other things going on there too. Anne Lotz? I honestly have not read enough of her, but what I’ve heard from her at conferences has been very weak.
August 28th, 2010 | 12:04 pm | #28
Thank you for this, Sarah. I know that Beth Moore is a sister in the Lord, but her hermenutics is worrying. When you see the Scriptures as being about you and how to solve your “issues” instead of about Christ and redeeming a people for Himself, you open yourself up to all sorts of problems. Beth Moore needs to be challenged about her approach for the sake of herself and the women she is ministering to. Tim Keller has an excellent spot on youtube on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkNa6tLWrqk&feature=player_embedded
August 28th, 2010 | 2:23 pm | #29
Richard, yep they certainly are a matter of concern. In my larger piece I acknowledge that she is a sister in the Lord and is clearly motivated by a love for God and that core doctrines aren’t at issue. But that’s not sufficient for the task before her. Methodology is hugely significant! I don’t think her ability to speak overshadow the teachings of scripture, which seems to be the case. Personally, I’d rather have Paul’s quandary, having a knowledge of scripture while not being quite as eloquent as the super apostles. Thanks for the link!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact