So I was chatting with Mel, (“Why There Can Never Be an Online Church,”) and a few other wise souls too, when I suddenly realized why I disagree. It’s because we are the church, you and I, those of us in the Body of Christ. The church is not something that happens in a building on a Sunday morning, the church is a community of believers.
Where we go, “the church” goes, too. Or so it should be.
I share a lot of concerns about the dangers of interpersonal or rather depersonalized communication, like one might find on the internet, and within social media. Are we losing our humanity, our ability to perceive one another as full human beings rather than avatars hidden behind a keyboard?
I think that’s a valid concern, the problem being, we see plenty of that happening IRL, on the ground, absent the internet. Man’s ability to dehumanize and depersonalize his enemies (or stab his friends in the back,) has been going on for centuries, certainly long before the internet.
Heck, we can even depersonalize and dehumanize God Himself, “dehumanize” Him in the sense of remaking Him in the image of the worst man has to offer, rather then the best.
Recently I’ve been bearing witness to a Christian twitter mob lined up against Beth Moore, a dark, ugly “witch hunt” if you will, and what I found so facinating was the whole idea of language as metaphor. I have nothing else to describe the kind of fascist, stone the adultress, burn the heretic, vibe that currently surrounds her, except references to the past. And so this is a metaphorical “witch hunt,” a reference to the precise same kind of behavior that happened long ago, pre internet.
Speaking of “witchcraft,” the biblical word there is “pharmakeia,” the same word we get pharmaceuticals from. The US is currently experiencing the largest opioid epidemic in history, involving pharmaceuticals that have killed more people in one year then we lost in the entirety of the Vietnam war. What’s going on at the border? Enough fentanyl and meth is being smuggled in to kill each of us ten times over. It’s not just the addicts who are bewitched however, but whole communities now living off of sustainable deniability.
Like, this is a cataclysmic, apocalyptic, downright biblical situation, so naturally the biggest threat to the Christian world is now going to be……a woman preaching and teaching? Sheesh.
Within me I have a desperate desire to blame the media, to blame fake news, to blame the internet, to wail and lament, “what is the world coming too and what is even wrong with you people??” I’m desperately seeking some excuse for the foolishness of man, as if to say, it’s not really their fault, they just haven’t had enough human, face to face interaction.
See, this is just what happens when everyone is plugged into their phones 24/7…..
The problem being I want to blame the internet for the total depravity of man, which is a well documented bit of theology, or if you prefer, a well documented historical fact. When we aren’t outright killing one another, taking slaves and taking territory, we’re betraying one another and stabbing our friends in the back. Even Christians seem to delight in eating their own.
Which brings me back to Beth Moore who is currently being devoured not by liberals, homosexuals, and atheists, but by her own denomination, by her own brothers and sisters in Christ. One cannot help but observe it was also the religious leadership of the day and jeering crowds who condemned Jesus. It wasn’t because they were on their phones all day, or because they were caught up in the excitement of a mob, or because they suffered from mental health problems. It was because people can be bloody evil. Because sin.
There already is an “on line church” and the whole world is looking right at it. That should scare the heck out of us, but that ugliness isn’t a new thing, it’s the same old, same old, playing out on a whole new medium. Well, if the darkness of the world and the darkness of the church can spread itself across the internet, then so can His Bride and His Light.
So whether we like it or not, whether we agree it’s possible or not, we of the Body and on the internet really are the, “on line church.” And like it or not, we share that distinction with more than a few really unpleasant people.
Photo by Adrien Olichon on Pexels.com
What is she being devoured over? Preaching to men?
LikeLike
It may have begun as a debate over teaching men, but it has now progressed into outright woman hatred. Here is one of the less vulgar comments, “Is there any doubt Basic Beth’s inability to process/accept her menopause and inability to attract attention and manipulate men because of it is a major factor in her antics and steady drift toward apostasy?”
LikeLike
Well, don’t you think those are valid concerns?
My position is that the Bible is clear: she isn’t qualified to teach men.
I’d even hesitate to recommend ANY teacher that isn’t under the authority of a local church.
It seems like she stirred up some other kind of controversy right before the convention though, right?
LikeLike
What part is a valid concern?? The part about how “Basic Beth is unable to accept her menopause and can no longer attract and manipulate men??” Is that what constitutes apostasy these days, menopause?
No seriously, if this is what passes for being under authority of the local church, then count me out. A church that treats women with such disrespect has no authority.
LikeLike
It might have been slightly disrespectful. But hasn’t she brought some of this on herself by thrusting herself into authority positions over men?
The thing is, when women go through menopause and even when they still have their cycle, there is often some emotional change taking place.
Honestly, speaking as a woman, I’d never trust a woman preacher who wants to usurp the 1. God-given authority of the local church and 2., the God-ordained order of pastoral and teaching authority within the church.
A Southern Baptist pastor answers to someone. Usually a deacon board or other ordained elders.
Who does Beth Moore answer to?
No one.
Even without the crude menopause comments from the peanut gallery, I wouldn’t pick Beth Moore as a hill to die on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It wasn’t “slightly disrespectful,” it was an incredibly hateful comment directed towards all women who apparently in that Christian mindset, have no worth or value beyond their youthful sexual attraction to men.
The hill I will die on is the one where that man is allowed to speak that way towards his mothers, his sisters, with no consequence, but Beth is an alleged heretic.
LikeLike
I don’t know if she’s a heretic. I tuned her out years ago because she is so ecumenical.
Is the comment hateful? I think it’s off-color. But I’m not too bothered by it because I just don’t tend to get overly emotional about words said in the heat of a battle.
The bottom line for me is not what someone said about Beth, but instead, does Beth practice what’s in the Bible that she claims to believe?
No, she doesn’t. So she’s a strike out for me. If she’s having Twitter battles with idiots, then that’s just more evidence that she’s a Time-waster.
LikeLike
She is a Christian friend to thousands of women. There are woman who have deepened their relationship with Jesus because of Beth Moore. That is not a “time waster.”
Perhaps if more women had a deeper relationship with Jesus themselves, they wouldn’t be so prone to accept and even condone outright sin and abuse. The comment was not “off color,” it was demeaning and wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve just finished reading up on her most recent controversy, her lack of love towards Scripture in regards to certain sins.
Sounds to me like God is doing to her what He usually does when sheep stray.
LikeLike
I don’t mean to sound unkind here, but is the way you and others speak about Beth Moore going to be the same way you also speak about me?? Because if so, I don’t want to be a part of that kind of church. If this is the kind of fruit being produced by the local church, then the fruit is rotten, the local church has failed, and it is time to try something new.
The Bible clearly says, “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
It does not say, everyone will know you are my disciples because you persecute alleged heretics and cast people out of your club.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you choose to leave the church Christ ordained because someone called Beth Moore out on her glaring lack of doctrinal obedience and fealty to God’s Word then you might want to rethink if you are a follower of Beth Moore, or a follower of Christ.
LikeLike
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, not a follower of middle school mean girls who try to tell me whose table I am allowed to sit at in the cafeteria.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You and you alone have to choose where your fealty lies.
LikeLike
Fundamentally, I don’t at all understand what should prevent any woman from being a pastor, preacher, bishop, pope, or whatever. I mean, they are all God’s children, yes? They are all souls created/loved by him, yes? So what is going to ever prevent God from walking with that soul, guiding it, loving it, and letting it share God’s words and blessings with us?
Are you going to tell us, that God cannot do this? Won’t allow this? I find that pretty arrogant and amazing.
If you at all believe in the words of Jesus, then you should be happy and joyful that someone is taking up the burden of going forth and sharing it with the rest of the world. Not backstabbing and belittling it.
I don’t know who she is. I haven’t read anything about her or of her. (And frankly, I don’t have the time to care – she has taken up the firebrand, that is enough; I have my hands full trying to save the rest of the world.) But the display you are putting on here – and elsewhere, I gather – is exactly why the Church is finding itself in such dire straits everywhere in the modern world.
People are sick and tired of being told what they can and cannot believe. And you are not helping.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If God Himself has decreed this, and He has, I’m not going to question Him.
And because I do believe in the Word, I’m going to happily accept the order in the church that Jesus Christ ordained and died for.
Why pretend to believe in Jesus and then rage against him?
Beth Moore’s problem is that she has become a false teacher and a woman who usurps the position of men in the church.
(False teaching: She edited her books to appear more favorable to homosexuality.)
The problem for Beth Moore is that she refused to answer to very polite questions asked of her, to explain her new position that’s in opposition to Scripture.
I don’t really care that the Beth Moore’s of this world, including Jen Hatmaker and the late Rachel Held Evans, are being hoisted in their own petard.
I wouldn’t listen to a false teacherette.
The Bible tells us not to. What’s so hard about that?
LikeLike
You are going to have a really hard time convincing me that God Himself (!) decreed this. At best, you may say that one of his apostles said it, on behalf of God. But for sure, God did not.
Even that is doubtful however.
And no, I am not saying you cannot find scripture in the Bible which supports your point of view. Of course you can. You can also find scripture in the Bible which supports the mauling of children by bears. What you cannot find, is a scripture which says that God did so. Please notice the fine distinction there.
But let’s take a look at this scripture of yours. You are aware, I presume, that the scripture and the Bible was used as proof incontrovertible that the only proper way of governing the world – and all the lands and people in it – was by a heavenly ordained autocracy? Meaning: we are all supposed to be governed by a king, and democracy be damned?
If you insist on reading the Bible to exclude women, then please keep to the text proper and also exclude the rest of modern society as well.
LikeLiked by 2 people
If you don’t believe the Bible then all you can claim is to follow your own mind.
Believe what you want. It’s no shrimp off my boat if you don’t believe.
I’m sticking with the Word of God.
Acts 17:11 King James Version (KJV)
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
And BTW, Scripture relates the children being mauled by bears. That’s not any reason at all the discard the Scriptures.
But shrug, if you follow yourself and whatever you create to believe, again, go for it.
People reject the veracity of God’s Word with great frequency.
You won’t be the first, or the last. Even Jesus said so.
John 5:46-47
“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.”
“But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”
LikeLike
Point 2: This country is not a democracy, it’s a republic.
God ordained in the New Testament His order for the church.
If you hate what He did, I don’t care.
Just because Israel rejected God at a certain point in Old Testament Times and demanded a king has absolutely nothing at all to do with the New Testament Church.
LikeLike
Just because people disagree, that does not mean they hate Jesus, hate His word, and are not saved.
This is a precise example of the same kind of behavior I am objecting to. It is actually a form of spiritual abuse and it is not okay.
If this is the kind of fruit that the “local church” is producing then the local church needs a major over hall.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The Bible is true and is the authority on every single one of those questions.
If you think that is “abuse” then you have a problem I’m not qualified to help you with.
LikeLike
It seems to me that you are awfully quick to claim that I hate the work of God and do not believe the Bible. And yet, the only thing I did was to reject the hash you made of reading it. You are purposely hand-picking just those bits and pieces of it which support your own, parochial reading.
I assume you live the US? In that case, yes, you do live in a democracy. Properly speaking: a representative democracy. Meaning: a society which is pretty much contrary to every proper ordering of the world – according to the Bible.
But by all means: if you want to live in the dark, medieval ages, be my guest. Just keep the rest of us out of it, ok?
And yes, I actually hold the Book in high reverence. I just happen to read it the way it is supposed to be read.
LikeLike
I live in the US. We are a republic, not a democracy.
I believe the Bible is true. You don’t.
Hence we’ll never be in agreement.
In the end, we’ll see who was right.
But I honestly don’t care to change your mind. I’ve found over many long years that those who reject the veracity of Scripture usually tend to stick to their non-beliefs.
I can’t make people believe the Bible is true. You either do, or you don’t.
I do, without apology.
LikeLike
Sorry, you are wrong. The US is a republic, yes – and it is a (representative) democracy. Look it up.
I will happily agree to disagree with you about the Bible. But I honestly think you would not care to live according to it – if you really read it. But your choice.
But by the way … as any kind of democracy is – pretty much by definition – an ungodly ordering of the world, I find it difficult to believe that you can both support the Constitution and live according to the Bible…
LikeLike
The New Testament orders the church, not the US, which is a republic.
LikeLike
Good morning, A.
You know, that depends totally upon how you read the New Testament. And I am somewhat curious as to why you are relying on a medieval-time interpretation of the role of women, but a modern-time interpretation of how to govern a country.
Shouldn’t you be in sync there? I mean, I have no beef (or shrimp, or any other edible artifact) with you preferring a medieval interpretation of the Holy Book. But a bit of consistency could be in order, maybe?
Specifically – the Bible has been used for centuries as an argument for the divine rights of kings to rule the country.
But, as an American citizen, you have actually sworn allegiance to the Constitution. Which, as I think you know, was written as a result of a rebellion against the rightful, anointed-by-God king, and which forbids kings and installs a constitutional democracy in their rightful place.
Now, the “divine right of kings” to rule (there is a very good Wikipedia article about it; you should read it someday) is actually based on the same St. Paul you are referring to in relation to the rights of women.
How do you justify taking one snippet out of his text and using that to keep women debased, while ignoring another snippet by the same person just because that is convenient for you as a citizen in a democracy?
Oh, and you may not know this, but – this text I am referring to here? Romans 13:1–7. That exact argument was used by Martin Luther (yes, that Martin Luther) in 1525 to urge the secular authorities to crush a peasant rebellion…
You know, that could have been the American revolution instead…
So, not very democratic-minded, is it?
… Unless, of course, you prefer a more “modern” reading of that. In which case my original question still stands: why are you using a medieval reading when referring to women, but not for your country?
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Bible says that where righteous is, there is liberty. I’m ok with that.
LikeLike
You do know you are dodging the question, right?
LikeLike
God has said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
And unto God, the things that are God’s.
I personally find that a representative form of government, such as the republic here, is ideally suited for liberty.
Without liberty you are forced to believe.
With liberty, you have a choice.
LikeLike
Funny you should say that, A. For liberty is not what you are advocating, when it comes to women preachers. Quite the opposite in fact.
But all right, you probably will disregard whatever I say. So let me quote a (male) pastor of “a tiny, conservative Southern Baptist church”, who posted this in Word & Way:
“In my view, the case against women pastors is based on some faulty assumptions. 1. A faulty biblical assumption — that scripture prohibits women preachers and pastors. Yes, the Apostle Paul told women to keep quiet in the church (Cor. 14:35; 1 Tim. 2:11). But be careful. Biblical literalism can be a trap. Paul also told women not to braid their hair or wear jewelry (1 Tim. 2:9).”
But you may disagree, of course, and keep to your literal reading. In which case I suggest you also take Romans 13 literally. It says:
“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.”
Read that once again, and then tell me how you reconcile that with swearing allegiance to a country ruled by those, who have deposed the anointed king? If you read the literal words, that makes you either an oath-breaker or a religious hypocrite.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m not sure that you understand the basic premise of church vs state.
God has not ordained females as pastors. I don’t have a problem with that because I believe the Bible to be the complete authority for the church.
Even Jesus didn’t include a female disciple.
I’m ok with that. It’s the Bible. It’s good, it’s perfect.
LikeLike
Are you asking, because you are in doubt yourself?
Ok, let me explain (I promise, I will be brief – but you can read much more about it on the Internet)…
The seperation of Church and State, common throughout most of the world today, is based on ideas formed during the Reformation. The American Constitution is one of the earliest expressions of this concept in actual practice. It is also an idea which has, present-day, been universally adopted by the various churches throughout Christendom – with some reluctance, I should add.
However… it is definitely not an idea which is based on a literal reading of the scripture. In fact, the New Testament proclaims pretty much the exact opposite: that the State is subordinate to the Church, and that the mundane rulers on Earth are servants appointed by God. (ref. Romans, as per my earlier reply to you).
Granted that you seem to be a very literal gal, I am somewhat curious as to why you are supporting (as it seems) a very modern interpretation of the Book on this point, while opposing the emancipation of women?
But of course, you were probably brought up like that, so it would seem entirely natural to you (I even made a blog post about this effect, a little time ago). Still, I strongly urge you to use your brain a bit and actually think about it.
Personally, I think you would gain by liberating your mind and reading the Bible again – with modern eyes.
LikeLike
You are confusing the Catholic Church position with the Biblical position.
LikeLike
Oh, darn! My bad. I seem to have been quoting the Catholic Church in the above…
No, wait, I wasn’t.
Dear A, Romans 13 is in the Bible. In the New Testament, actually. I don’t think I need to tell you that?
Which makes the Biblical position quite clear:
“For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”
In fact, that is pretty much exactly as clear as Tim 2.11: ” I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man”
Pray enlighten me: in what way are those two quotes different?
Oh, and while you are pondering that. Let me point out that Martin Luther – the founder of the Protestant branch of Christendom – used Romans 13 to justify that the authorities should destroy a peasant rebellion – because it was against the authories and therefore against God.
You, on the other hand, is using the *modern* interpretation of Roman 13 at the same time as you are using a literal *medieval* reading of Tim.2. And that is simply… excuse me, but I am trying to think of another word than “stupid”, maybe “mindless” would do?
I could respect, kind of, a medieval reading of the Bible – if it was consistent. I mean, that would make it a matter of faith. But this? Your interpretation is not a matter of faith; it is purely and simply a matter of convenience and lack of thought.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s start with Scripture:
Romans 13:1. “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”
This is true. Obey the law. Be good. Do right.
And of course God controls ultimately the affairs of all men and nations.
The Bible says the “kings heart is in the hand of God and He turneth it wheresoever He will.”
This doesn’t mean this country is a theocracy. Far from it.
It just means that ultimately God is in control, not the government.
LikeLike
Yes, we quite agree.
And you did not answer my question.
I do not disagree with your quote. I disagree with your great flexibility in interpreting it – while you refuse the same flexibility to the role of women.
LikeLike
The Bible nowhere says that the church should rule the state in the NT.
Your whole premise is faulty.
God does however preclude women from serving as pastors, elders or in a teaching position over men.
The Bible is clear.
If people like Beth Moore (or yourself) don’t believe the Bible is true, then just own. No one cares if you don’t believe.
Just own your own unbelief.
LikeLike
To call people you disagree with “non believers” and to claim “no one cares if you disbelieve” is small minded, petty, and mean spirited. That is not fruit of the spirit at all.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Now that’s understatement. lol
How many great minds have disagreed yet remained the very best of friends- to question one’s faith based on whether one likes a shade of green over the other, then dismiss him/her because ‘sage’ is interpreted as ‘forest,’ is well, kinda thtoopid, yeah, I know, a spelling error coming from a Bee winner.
Therefore I have zero credibility because I made a literary faux pas- but the point is made, why we crucify our own………….geez msb. 😉
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not saying they are non believers in Christ. I can’t know that because they have not stated either way.
But they have stated they do not believe the Scripture.
That doesn’t bother me that they reject the Bible. Jesus told us to expect such.
So I don’t waste any sleep over wherever people are on believing or rejecting the veracity of scripture.
It is however important to note from which position someone is arguing.
LikeLike
You didn’t read my previous answer at all, did you?
I think I will post it again then, just for you…
“For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”
In addition (!) to that – and guessing that you are of a Protestant church… Pray tell me, which authority are you leaning your interpretation on? Because right now you are in full-out and direct contradiction with the *founder* of the Protestant branch of Christianity…
I would really love to hear which authority you can dredge up, whom you imagine can compete with him…
You really sound like your knowledge of history ends at the beginning of the 20th century – if that much. Please, go read up on the history of Christianity some day. Because with those statements of yours, you are in direct contravention of more than a *milennium* worth of Christian analysis and dogmas about the role of Church vs. State…
LikeLike
I’m not a Protestant or Catholic, I’m a Christian.
I don’t accept or believe in the baptism of non-believers that Catholics and Protestants believe in.
In one sentence tell me the point you are trying to make please.
LikeLike
You are using a literal interpretation of scripture to debase women, while refusing an equally valid literal interpretation of scripture which gainsays your personal oath of allegiance to the US.
Meaning: hypocrite.
LikeLike
Point out in Scripture what you are talking about, because you stopped making sense about 10 posts ago.
I believe the Bible to be completely true and when God forbids a woman to teach and preach to men, I’m going to agree with God.
No apologies.
LikeLike
Well, at least you’ll admit it. I guess that’s a start…
LikeLike
You’ve still made no point.
LikeLike
One cannot learn anything until one acknowledges that one does not know everything…
But if we are to have a reasonable conversation about this, we have to know where we are starting from. So – what scripture/quote is it, specifically, that you are using as the foundation for your belief that women cannot be teachers? (as I think you said earlier? Or was it just female pastors you objected to?)
LikeLike
Never been much of a Beth Moore fan as I tend to lean away from those mass media darlings of the pulpit…but I totally agree with you IB about Christians chomping at the bit to devour their own…
We are a flawed mess are we not?
But isn’t that the Enemy’s tactic—have a double front war while attempting to divide and then conquer?
Be wary we all must be.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yep, separate, divide, and control, the enemy’s favorite game. Unfortunately people watch how we treat our own and they think, if that’s what being a Christian looks like, count me out.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Exactly
LikeLiked by 1 person
The thing is, the Bible tells us to judge all things.
It’s needful for people of discernment to speak out.
LikeLiked by 2 people
True— but it’s equally important that those who hear discern and even test the words spoken which they hear with the guidance of the Holy Spirit
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every thing needs to be tested against scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Julie!
LikeLiked by 1 person
☺️
LikeLiked by 1 person
IB. While online is certainly a community and even important to many, it actually doesn’t meet the definition of one of the Lord’s churches…that being a local, called out assembly of believers.
I agree that the behavior towards Beth Moore has been hateful and that much of it is simply because of her gender. On the other hand she is just wrong about some stuff, notably her preaching. Her stance on other things is veering off also. Why? Like many, men and women, she has set herself up as the main attraction rather than Jesus. Having said that, the level of hatred towards her certainly is not Biblical.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Her stance that has been “veering off” is actually a political one, as in she objected to President Trump and complained about his response to the border. So those suddenly attacking her are not motivated by a love for Jesus or for the Word, they are motivated only by politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, she seems to be veering off on homosexuality suddenly too. And yeah I’ll agree some act like speaking against the president is an attack on the Lord himself
LikeLiked by 1 person
She has not veered off on homosexuality at all. The letter being passed around makes that false accusation in an attempt to malign and belittle her. Apparently hating on homosexuality is the new litmus test for our salvation.
LikeLike
Well once again I actually agree with that last sentence. I still say that the behavior of some morons doesn’t mean she gets a free pass. There’s three sides to every story…your side, my side, and the truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
When the adulteress was about to be stoned Jesus did not say,” well, there are 3 sides to every story and she shouldn’t get a free pass.”
LikeLike
But He did say go and sin no more. See this is the problem. One side says she has done everything wrong the other says she has done nothing. Truth is somewhere in that place nobody is willing to go.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He also said, “He who is without sin cast the first stone.”
The church today is plumb full of people so deceived they actually believe themselves worthy to throw those rocks.
LikeLike
IB. We are all sinners. That’s a fact. That doesn’t mean the church ceases to exercise accountability with it’s members. I don’t have to be perfect to tell a brother he is wrong and neither does he to tell me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There are also some things in the Bible about not bearing false witness and not sowing discord among the brethren.
LikeLike
I agree. Let us not use that to mean that people cannot speak against sin in the church. Ironically then we could not even speak against the sins of false witness and sowing discord. IB as you may or may not know, my wife and I have left our church for another. Her after 44 years there. Why? An open and public lifestyle of sin on the part of a leader which not a person would confront…except us. An entire body turned their back on us and treated us like unloving legalists. That doesn’t mean the Lord’s church is rendered moot, it means maybe that assembly is no longer one of his churches. He may have removed their candlestick.
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m so sorry, Wally. That is really painful and tough on your wife, too.
Wally, women all teaching just like Beth Moore does, penned the accusation against Beth in a meanspirited and envious attack. Not only do they have no authority, what they accuse Beth of isn’t even a sin.
If the church was functioning as it should be, each one of those women would have paused and consulted with the Holy Spirit first, and perhaps then written a private letter asking Beth for clarity. They aren’t interested in reconciliation or restoration or the truth, they just want to see Beth Moore labeled a heretic and destroyed. Shoot, there are now several women publicly accusing their pastor’s wives of being heretics because they read Moore’s books. This is what you call mass hysteria, or perhaps just plain old sin.
THIS Wally, this rubbish I am bearing witness to is the IRL church, on the ground right in front of us, and the whole reason why I think the online church just might be a vast improvement.
LikeLike
I concur with all up to the last. Jesus created the local church and no online church will improve it. We just need to do it right. Doing it right doesn’t mean declaring it obsolete and I’m pretty sure you know that. And FYI because I believe that to be true we have joined with another church. Because that’s what He wants.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve now read the open letter to Beth and it was kind and honest.
How hatful of Beth and her followers to cast aspersions on the open letter writers!
You claim they have no authority to ask those questions?
What authority do they need? They didn’t edit Beth’s books, Beth did. She alone answers for that.
Or should.
LikeLike
Amen Wally! It’s the false teachers who sow discord!
If Beth Moore wants to embrace homosexuality and edit her past-published books to reflect her new stance, tell it to the church.
LikeLike
Thanks Angel. I agree. Now, having agreed let me get on with my mission of irritating everybody. The object of church discipline is not to drive the wrong one away; it is to bring repentance and restoration. There is clearly more going in here than that. Some have made this very personal and ugly. That comment about menopause? If some guy said that to my wife or sister, he would get punched, repeatedly. I really think some in this are not really looking to bring a wayward one back, but hold on to their power. That, too, violates the nature of the local church. Like is said, three sides to every story.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t support the off-color remark. But this isn’t my first rodeo (and this one isn’t even my rodeo) but people can say things in the heat of the moment that I’m not going to crucify them for.
I don’t think Beth wants power in the church. She knows her fan base.
But she has become sort of unhinged in that she believes she is a law unto herself.
A good example is what she said about the Covington kids, calling them Nazi’s and the vomit of Hell.
Beth Moore is no angel. She’s not even right in her embrace of homosexuality.
But she’s operating outside of the authority of anyone.
These are things that the Lord allows to happen to us when we are out of order and rebellious.
LikeLike
Well that’s more than off color. That guy needs a little authority in his life as well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
All questions here are rhetorical – intended only to stimulate thinking.
From the time of Ezra, who re-discovered the scrolls while rebuilding the Temple, women have not been allowed to read to the congregation from the scrolls in the Temple. No female “platform ministry” allowed. Paul and his contemporaries were Jews, trying to fashion a new form of worship out of what had been the Temple rituals. When Paul said “I do not permit a woman to do platform ministries in this new church”, he was not fashioning a new restriction on women. He was with a group of like-minded Jews who were trying to decide what to keep and what to discard of the old Temple rituals. Paul was simply saying that, at least in his churches, he would retain the Temple prohibition on women having platform ministries. Acts 15 goes into this discussion about what to keep and what to discard in more detail.
Forget Beth Moore. Answer the question “why were women not allowed to read from the scrolls in the Temple”? Then extrapolate through the New Testament up until today. Sinners will maybe know we are Christians by our love. But Jesus said that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter heaven. Only those who do the will of the Father who sent him. How do we know what that will of the Father is? Well – there are three or four places in the New Testament where the things that will elicit the wrath of God and keep one out of heaven are listed. Women teaching men is not in those lists. Neither is divorce.
Do we think we will get to the Judgement Seat and hear God say – oops, you did this, or oops, you didn’t do that, so go with the goats and jump into the Lake of Fire – naming some thing that is not in the Bible? We protest to God – where did you say in the Bible to not do this one thing, or to do that other thing. Oh, these things are not listed anywhere, says God in response. But you should have known, even if I didn’t tell you.
Anyone really think God is going to treat us this way? If you say no – then we need to stick with what is actually laid out in the Bible. And women teaching men, and divorce, are not in anyone’s list of things that will cause God to reject us at the Judgement Seat.
But then there is that thing again about how women were not allowed to have any sort of platform ministry in the Temple. What’s up with that? Where did that come from? And was it appropriate for Paul to say that he would continue the practice in the new Church that he and his posse were creating? Why bother making an issue out of it (the Temple; Paul) if women teaching men is not in anyone’s list of the things that will call down God’s wrath on us?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, RichardP, for bringing a measure of sanity into the school yard here. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
When you don’t believe the Bible is the Word of God, if you don’t believe what it says is true, could you (going forward) preface your remarks with your disbelief so I won’t waste time reading them?
No offense.
LikeLike
The problem is (in my humble opinion) we are still chasing things “of the world”. There shouldn’t really be such a thing as a famous pastor, a pastor should never seek fame.
“Let us make a name for ourselves” was said at the building of the Tower of Babel. People are still trying to “make a name for themselves”.
Only the meek will inherit the earth, not the bleaters in the midst of a twitterstorm. Why would you even seek that?
I don’t know any of the names involved in this recent debacle thankfully. I am learning to unplug from the world and leave Babylon as that is what we are all still living in; cultural and spiritual Babylon.
If you live by the flesh then you cannot lead in the spirit. Leading in the spirit would mean telling truth in love PRIVATELY not publicly like a flaying or a beheading.
When Jesus realised that Judas was going to betray Him, did Jesus denounce him and expose him to the others?
No.
He washed his feet and broke bread with him.
Whenever we go on social media (and it is a lot better when we don’t) we should think; am I going on here to build people up, plant seeds and water them or am I going on here to sin?
I find the devil delights in social media as it is so easy to sin through it. I myself have been so guilty of this that I am very sober and wary of the whole thing.
We know that Jesus would not have a Twitter account or a Facebook group so we have to ask ourselves when we do, why are we doing it? Are we still so desperate to be of the world or do we earnestly beleive we are preaching to the lost? Which is it?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Of course there is an online church as u say msb, else why would believers waster their time? In addition, read the likes of the ones gone before us, they who inspire us with lives of faith, Phoebe, Timothy, Titus, Paul, people we NEVER met, the same way u and I inspire each other, having never met.
I think it’s called the church universal which is perfect from heavens point of view, as opposed to the church local, where we kill and bury our own.
The latter line being of course what u are addressing here, and telling of a gal whom I know nothing about. Maybe this is a good or bad thing, but heck, time and attention are short.
That said, your usual careful dissection of things is no doubt spot on, and I for one raise my Ebenezer since I’ve enjoyed your fellowship from the beginning.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you, Colorstorm. Much appreciated. Happy Lord’s Day. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow. I admit I did not read all the comments – just got too discouraged. The Reformed tradition definition of The Church is “all the faithful of every time and place.” Where they are is, basically, everywhere.
In Judaism, there is a concept of “blaspheming the name” (of God) – which basically means that behavior that brings shame on the God with whom we are in covenant is wrong – to be avoided. This concept is a NT concept as well. (Romans 2:24)
I don’t have time to Google Beth Moore, since I should be getting ready for church. Still – if online speech can’t meet the Ephesians 4:15 test, we might want to ask ourselves what kind of personal public Christian witness we are actually putting out there.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Amen. You are so right. We Bible tweeters, etc., are the Church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I used to resent Beth Moore. When I was a young mom who went to Bible study to interact with other women, I couldn’t do so because of the video format. Everybody just sat there and watched a video and then went home. I wanted to believe I had intellectual arguments against her, and I did, but as with so many things, we try to logically address our objections when they aren’t logical at core. Related, as a northerner trained to be a stoic, I didn’t get her or her big hair and charisma. At all. So I wrote her off for years. I don’t know what her beliefs are regarding homosexuality (I haven’t been paying attention to the scandals), but she used to be very orthodox in her beliefs. Even her teaching was only aimed at women. She was a complementarian who didn’t violate the male/female roles. She has never been a pastor, either. Just a minister to females. And she’s ministered to a lot of them, bringing them encouragement and the gospel. I can’t condemn her at this point. But that’s all maturity and growth for me…I wasn’t there at one time. It”s very difficult to convince a person who is determined to hate her to give her the benefit of the doubt. The lynchmob is what it is — irrational, not given to wise judgement.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great comment!
You remind me of something else that I think applies to my argument in favor of the online church, on the ground IRL, often it is a video format, or an environment where there can be no discussion, no healthy conflict. Passive recipients rather than participants. I love my church, but we are big on curriculums and formats, videos and structure. People are often unable to speak about their real lives or find answers to their questions.
I also had never really heard about Beth Moore until recently and that was when our church did a Beth Moore women’s group, in the same style, video, curriculum. I didn’t go, but it was valuable for the women who did. My point being, it’s incredible how not intimate and totally impersonal we can actually be in real life, even face to face As much as I hate the ugliness of the internet sometimes, often it does provide more authenticity.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I haven’t been paying attention to the scandals, either. And I’m not sure I should. (Even as I was reading all this – Exhibit A of just what the original post was saying – the rest of the family has gone to bed.)
I’ve only got one thought to share at this point, at the risk of getting sucked in, but I hope to encourage some people to be kinder in the way they communicate with one another …
There have been a lot of accusations that people who don’t happen to agree with us do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. That may be the case – maybe they don’t. But to give our brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt, can we agree that people can disagree on some points and still believe in the Scriptures with all their hearts?
For example, when Paul wrote a letter to a specific church, in a specific place, at a specific time, when they were dealing with certain specific problems, does that mean that everything he said to them in 1st century Ephesus applies to 21st century America? Some say yes, some say no, but it’s possible that both groups believe in the inerrancy of Scripture and should not be at each other’s throats. I don’t know anyone who follows scripture in every detail.
For example, I’ve noticed that most of the people I know who staunchly believe that women should not teach men are OK with women showing up at church with their heads uncovered. So, it would seem we are all picking and choosing what verses we will follow.
So, often the issue isn’t that we are disagreeing over whether the Bible is true or not, just how we personally apply it to our lives. So, let’s cut each other some slack. Paul did say “The greatest of these is Love,” and I haven’t been seeing enough of it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yikes, IB. You sure know how to stir up a hornet’s nest. 🙂
Nothing makes me shutter more than when Christians say they believe in the Bible and you don’t. What they actually mean is, if you don’t believe in my interpretation of the Bible I’m going to dismiss you as an unbeliever or heretic. There is no communication going on at all. I’m right and you’re wrong! 🙂 As you said, this is conversation on the level of playground taunts. This is what Paul called carnal and not spiritual. And the sad thing is, the world just looks at this and shakes their head (and rightfully so). We need to grow up. 🙂
I know nothing about Beth Moore and don’t wish to get into that conversation, but if we say that a woman cannot teach a man then we better be consistent and cut off our hands or pluck out our eyes when they cause us to sin, hate our families, and say that women can only saved in childbirth (among a dozen other things said matter-of-fact in the New Testament). The truth is, Paul had many women who were leaders in ministry during his time, as mentioned in Romans 16 and other places. I think RichardP was close to the context of Paul’s cultural admonitions to Timothy and to the Corinthians. But when we take the Bible with wooden literalism like this, plucking verses out of their cultural and biblical context, we create all kinds of problems and contradictions. We are projecting our own inclinations on to the text and calling it “believing the Bible.” You create any kind of awful, mean-spirited doctrines that actually run counter to Christ and His teachings, using the Bible.
On the online church thing. To clarify my point here, I DO believe we certainly can do BOTH the physical church and online, just not online without the physical organism called the local expression of Jesus’ body called the Church. There’s a lot of good things happening online that might be supplemental to the Body of Christ, but these things simply cannot replace authentic, face-to-face relationships, doing life together in community, where we must deal with our issues between real people. As I said, 96% of communication is non-verbal. It’s mostly body language, gut-feelings, it’s what we sense when we’re in each other’s presence. It’s a major part of actually “knowing” someone. It’s when we’re looking someone in the eye to see how they’re doing. Just like with a marriage, you really don’t know what’s in you until you live out your life in relationship with other human beings. LOL! We will never know someone like that online, and that is how we’re supposed to know each other in Jesus’ church.
Just like there are really bad and dysfunctional marriages, it doesn’t change the fact that a marriage is fundamentally lived out together in person. And I agree we’ve done it poorly in our traditional churches, but that’s the point. That only means we need to find an authentic way of having community of believers, not prop up the tradition of “going to church” if it’s broken. Because, in the final analysis, we only find out what we’re really like and, thereby, grow in authentic spiritual maturity, when we come face to face with our issues in authentic community. This was Paul’s point to the Corinthians. That kind of growing together simply does not fundamentally happen online.
IB. I love what you write here, and agree with your points on this subject, but I will never really know you like I do the people I live in community with. 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ha! I’m sorry Mel, I had no idea what direction this discussion was going to take. I probably should have slipped over and warned you since I linked to your thought provoking post. But conflict can be good, it can be healthy! I really appreciate what Northern has said, and Richard too.
I love your last paragraph because I live in an area where many people don’t know one another and don’t even want to. That has really impacted our churches. It’s also created a lot of lost and broken people. I have lived in community with people for some 30 years who still have no idea who I even am. I remember before he left our pastor trying desperately to sell the idea of actually talking to one another, asking for a show of hands for how many people had lost a sibling? Talk to one another, you guys aren’t as alone as you think. I blame the weather, I blame rugged individualist attitudes, I blame generational curses, but one thing I am keenly aware of, we sure aren’t doing church like we should be.
LikeLiked by 3 people
No prob! And well said here, IB. I totally agree with your last point. It’s sad that a pastor has to actually get up and beg a congregation to get to know one another. Compared to this version of “church”, I agree, we’re doing better online.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You are right about the cultural and historical context being important, Mel. And no, I didn’t know that Paul also had female leaders in his organisation at the time – though I am not actually surprised at it: they were a grass-roots organisation, and they needed all the help they could.
Indeed, it was only several hundred years later that they started forbidding their priests to marry, as I recall it.
On another topic: you are totally right about the limitations of online media. And we are constantly hit by another effect of this also – it is much, much easier to let go of your common courtesy and behaviour when online, and just bash whoever and whatever gets in your way. Effectively, the screen acts like a huge “mask” you are settling down in front of you, allowing you to enact all of your basic emotions and aggressions without feeling bad about it. And whenever we start discussing things like religion, that becomes a major issue – as there is literally nothing which is so fraught with emotion as that.
LikeLiked by 2 people