The internet blew up last week with responses to John McArthur’s comment that Beth Moore should “go home.” He meant that she should focus her energies on home life rather than Bible conferences. He made this comment at a pastors’ conference at his church in California in response to a question about women who preach and teach. It is fair to say that he maintains a very narrow view on women teaching and preaching. Of course, after his comments became known both sides on the issue came out swinging, and strong comments ruled the day.
John McArthur’s comment caused me to ask myself—Should Beth Moore go home? My answer is no; she should not remain at home. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with homemaking. Homemakers bless our lives in uncountable ways. Still, I believe Beth Moore has lots to offer the church through her writing and teaching ministry. I’ve never met Beth Moore, and I don’t know if I have ever been in a meeting with her. I admit that I have never read one of her books, nor have I attended one of her conferences. However, my wife, Barbara, has read several of her books, attended one of her conferences, and participated in several women’s Bible studies at church in which Beth Moore videos were shown. Barbara is a retired IMB missionary, long-time Sunday school teacher, and she has studied Bible and theology in college and seminary. She tells me that Beth Moore’s teaching is biblically sound. Beyond that, she finds Beth Moore’s teaching mentally stimulating and spiritually edifying. I trust Barbara’s judgment.
Why do I believe that Beth Moore should continue her teaching ministry to women? First, as I mentioned above, lots of women testify that her teaching blesses them. Why would we want to deprive them of sound, helpful teaching? Second, the Bible does not designate spiritual gifts according to gender. If a woman has the gift of teaching, then she should teach. Third, the New Testament mentions women teaching in several passages. We know that Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos (Acts 18:26). On the Day of Pentecost Peter quoted the prophecy of Joel—“I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy…” (Acts 2:17, NKJV). Peter taught the people that Joel’s prophecy was fulfilled that very day. Acts 21:9 tells us that Philip the evangelist had four daughters who prophesied. Further, the Apostle Paul exhorted the older women to “train the younger women to love their husbands and their children” (Titus 2:4,NLT).
Throughout my adult life I’ve taught in seminaries and Bible colleges. I’ve trained many young women to serve as foreign missionaries. I encouraged them to take courses on teaching the Bible so they could teach the gospel more effectively. I never told a single one to “go home.” I encouraged them to “go forth.”
I realize that by this point some Voices readers may think I’m advocating female pastors and preachers. I am not. I believe that 1 Timothy 3:1-7 restricts the position of pastor to men. That seems to me to be the simple interpretation of that passage, and one basic rule of biblical interpretation is that the simple interpretation is usually the correct one. Nevertheless, I believe that gifted women like Beth Moore can exercise their spiritual gift of teaching and bless other women. So, to Beth Moore I say rather than “go home,” you should “go and tell” (Mark 16:7). By the way, an angel spoke those words to three women at Jesus’ tomb.
It might be good for her to go hone dor a bit and restudy her studies ro make them more Biblical and less Bethical.
Bingo, amen, and dittos^^^^^^
Alan: I would wager she knows scripture and the languages better than you do.
The points she pulls out of some Scripture passages may be true enough. They are certainly not unchristian. But they often do not come out of the passage of Scripture she is examining.
In no way do I say this to be argumentative BUT that is likely true of most Pastors on Sunday mornings across our convention.
Ditto again Allen Calkins
So, do you agree with Ms. Moore, is calling homosexuality a sin exceeding scripture?
That’s not what she said. She said she should not have said it was particularly demonic. She went on to say that marriage is between a man and a woman and that all sexual relationships should happen within marriage. She is trying to tell the truth in love. I think she succeeds better than most.
Exhibit A of something she never said.
Yea, she took it out of a study and said she had exceeded scripture, yes she did…saw it for myself.
You saw what you were told to see because that is not what she said or what she took out.
Debbie, she got caught, she didn’t anticipate someone posting a screen shot of the original book pages, side by side with the revision pages update.
So she had to bob and weave and blame the people that called her out.
I can disagree with people that have different views, she needs to be a person of conviction and just say I’ve changed, but alas she can’t do that, it might hurt the Lifeway revenue stream.
The way I heard it was as Strider mentioned above.
No you just got caught in spreading lie
I personally have not attended a Beth Moore speaking event or done any of her studies, but my pastor has heard her and seems ok with her, so I will trust his judgment on that matter.
I agree that women should be able to teach/preach. I appreciate your view.
This may be taking this on a tangent so feel free to ignore or delete the comment:
Here is something that bothers me a little and its not specifically about Beth Moore especially because I’ve not listened to her (yet – I intend to). Any teacher or scholar, man or woman, should have their words tested against scripture.
There are some who will outright criticize a women teacher openly admitting its because she is a woman and I have nothing to say to or about that group right now. So I will skip to two other groups.
On the one hand there is a side who judges women who teach at a very different standard than they hold men to, and it seems they are so bothered by the fact that a teacher is a woman but some try to act as if thats not the case because they have criticisms of content. The problem is are the criticisms legitmate — would the criticisms be legitimate if the teacher was male. Or would the criticism be accepted or at least quietly ignored as a “way people sometimes speak.” Would it be a minor point of disagreement if said by a male. People who do speak out and have legitimate criticisms — are you targeting women to criticize or are you equal opportunity critics? And are your criticisms done as an attack or in a loving, redirecting way?
On the flip side, it seems like there are people who react against the unfair attacks on women teachers and err on the side of being unwilling to consider any even loving and fair critique. This is an overcorrection, but I can understand the temptation. I can and do hope that in these cases that loving redirection when found to be necessary is at least done in private for the edification of all. Women teachers’ ability to teach does need to have advocates and protectors, but called women are not frail and fragile. They are equals. Part of legitimizing their calling will be bringing them in as full and valued partners in the mission, including mentorship and education and correction. Until that, they will never seen as full partners. (And im not talking about women pastoring at all here, let me be clear.)
In a womens group a while back, I once read a comment. I dont recall exactly the wording, but the point was this. We are so used to fighting to be seen as legitimate that we tie our hands on the ability to critically exam each others work in a public space. Men scholars have the space to scholarly critique each other, to prove themselves, to improve and reevaluate.
When we spend so much time and energy and emotional capital on defending against attacks, we risk being stunted because we don’t have space to grow. When we give room for attacks we remove room for real critical evaluation and the whole body suffers.
Mr Thornton,
I believe that the implied context (not necessarily explicit) was that MacArthur had a Biblical issue with the ongoing acceptance of Mrs Moore’s preaching at churches with men and women. From his commentary immediately after his “go home” comment, he lamented the departure of the SBC in going this direction of the acceptance of women preachers. He also brought up the comment that seems reasonable to me, given these particular parameters of her ministry, that one cannot separate the “function” from “the office” of a pastor performing the function of preaching. By that, he seemed to mean that if a woman comes and exegetes Scripture when the assembled church is gathered, she is performing the act of preaching which is reserved for the male gender(ie pastor). That seems to be a reasonable explanation of what is occurring when Beth teaches/preaches on Sunday’s at churches. This phenomenon seems to break with historical precedent from the SBC, and certainly Biblical history.
I know that there is a camp within the SBC that will promote egalitarianism, and that faction seems to be growing, and MacArthur is lamenting that fact. My theological position, while I may have said it differently, is that women should not be the preachers to men based on what God’s Word says. That is not politically correct now, but that has been the historic understanding, and the most likely understanding imo.
Please note that this is Mark Terry’s article.
Duly noted after my posting 🙂
It’s my belief today’s local churches must still be contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints because certain persons creep in unnoticed who turn the grace of God into licentiousness. Their teaching does not outright promote unholy living; it just nicely undermines what is final and authoritative. Further, It’s my belief there remains in these last days a form of godliness, manifested in people who desire their ears to be tickled — and teachers readily available to do the tickling.
Good points Tedd, thanks
I disagree. 1 Corinthisns 13 would disagree among other passages of the Bible. I also disagree these are the last days. That too is a misreading of the newspaper and trying to fit it to scripture it has not fit for the last 75 years
I don’t know much about Moore other than that she is one of the few high profile evangelicals with enough spine to stand up to he-who-shall-not-be-named. That goes a long way in my book.
I think there would be some out there that would criticize Jesus if He wasn’t Baptist enough for them.
There would be major issues with his “water into wine” miracle. You are right Jon, I think this entire issue also speaks to the article yesterday about the problems with social media.
I think Jesus would use social media for the purpose of sharing Kingdom truths. Something many Christians don’t seem to know how to do. He also would not post cat stuff.
None of you “experts on Beth Moore” got one thing right. You heard from someone and just went with it evidently. without hearing or reading for yourselves. Not one thing.
Don’t blame this post on William Thornton. He just put it on the web site for me. You can blame him for his own words.
I don’t know Beth Moore’s view on homosexuality. She can certainly speak for herself. I do insist that we can disagree with someone on one point and still admire that person’s “body of work.” For example, I admire and appreciate the ministry of John Piper. I have found his sermons and writings quite helpful; however, I did (and do) disagree with him on one thing. He proposed to his church, Bethlehem Baptist Church, that they accept transfer members who had not been immersed. In the end the church rejected his proposal. I disagree with him about that, but I still recommend his book on missions (Let the Nations Be Glad) to my students.
Debbie, I am afraid we have a case where two hot button issues collide. We have the issue of Beth who is a talented teacher and this is a threat to our male dominated pulpits. We also have the issue of homosexuality. This issue is massively contentious partly because we are facing a culture that demands we accept it unquestioningly, and partly because we can’t accept those who don’t condemn others with the same words we condemn others with.
Beth originally said it was demonic which most here would approve of but then pulled that back to merely sin. She is of course, right and she has laid out the context for biblical sexuality very clearly by saying that it is only for a man and a woman who are married to each other. But, since we are desperate to strain at a gnat we can easily see that ‘sin’ is much softer than ‘demonic’ therefore Beth has gone soft! In the meantime, we swallow the camel of being unloving.
I agree Strider.
My first post here:
Beth Moore has crossed over the line. I had no problem with her when she was a teacher of women. But now she sees herself as one who can preach and have authority over men. She’s been gently called out on this issue by many good pastors and Bible teachers but she’s refused to listen to sound council. John MacArthur has taken a correct yet firm Biblical stance on that issue and now he’s being crucified for it.
It’s not her teaching he takes issue with. It’s her insistence on taking on a role she’s biblically not to take up. And beyond that, she’s encouraging other women to do the same.
If you’ve ever read MacArthur’s book “God’s High Calling for Women” you’ll understand his Biblical view. Also note that Grace Church recognizes women in the office of Deaconess. That’s not a position many conservative evangelical pastors would take, but MacArthur does.
He’s not a woman basher. He simply holds a correct Biblical view on gender roles and that the office of Pastor is reserved for men.
I agree, Beth Moore should go home, meaning she should return to the sound women’s ministry she was called to and stay out of the pulpit.
I agree! She is trying to stir up trouble in the SBC! Go home Beth! As a Southern Baptist woman I have lost respect for Beth!
As a Southern Vaptist woman Phyllis I would say it is not Beth who is starting trouble in the SBC. As for respect, I don’t think the loss of yours is too troubling.
That was probably rude and I really hate being blunt, but frankly the meanness in these comments is not surprising but although the minority with loud voices, is something that is not only against the scriptures , against Christ who when he gave his life and beat death, changed everything for both male and female.
Gentleness and meekness are fruits of the Spirit. Persevere Debbie, I am with you.
Ditto for me, too.
Thank you D.E. I agree with you. It has also gotten cultic with many BM disciples…like with some other national teachers/preachers. If one does not want national and public critic of ones national and public ministry then maybe one is not cut out for national public ministry. No one gets a free pass….
Could I inquire what you mean by her having “authority over men?” What exactly does that look like? I’ve been asking this question for years and have yet to get a clear and concise answer to my question.
I suppose I am unusual in this group because I have heard Beth Moore preach. On Palm Sunday no less. She did a wonderful job…far better than the sermons I have heard from a lot of pastors. To be clear it was not my church and I would not support a woman as a pastor. Not because she can’t do it but because of how I read scripture. Beth Moore opened the scriptures in a way that was just outstanding and highly respectful of the text.
You can disagree with Moore. You can believe as I do that she should not be pastor. But it’s a mistake to be dismissive and flippant of her.
was asked for a one word response to a number of topics, Beth Moore being one of them. His “go home” response was most easily understood as dismissive. Indeed it was welcomed by the crowd with great laughter. Ridicule and posturing is not the right way to handle serious topics. McArthur deserves the response he is getting.
Playing to your crowd is the surest way to lose the people you are trying to persuade.
So your position is that it’s allowable for women to preach as long as they don’t bear the title “pastor?”
If you feel scripture doesn’t allow her to be a pastor, what scripture would you offer to justify her as a preacher?
I don’t ask that to be quarrelsome, but I am curious as to how you can say scripture doesn’t allow her to be a pastor but she can preach. That seems to be contradictory.
I hear you DE. I know where you are coming from, from a sense of long tradition in our SB churches what you are saying makes sense. But, it is not exactly right. Traditionally we have equated the title Preacher and Pastor. The Bible doesn’t. The tall bit of wood (pulpit) at the front of your auditorium does not (tragically) make the speaker infallible nor authoritative. Pastors have authority to match the responsibility they are given to shepherd the flock. Preachers preach. They proclaim the Word and if they are truly gifted by the Holy Spirit they bring a gravitas whereby all who hear know they speak the truth and are convicted by it. But preachers don’t have authority over anyone. Their calling requires them to study the Word, hear from God and proclaim truth in whatever venue is given. Preachers minister to others the same way any Christian ministers to anyone but they don’t have a flock. Pastor’s have flocks and with that responsibility the authority to shepherd. That is how those of us who hold to women preaching see it. We don’t ‘throw out the Bible’ and we try not to disrespect tradition but it is time to let women take their place in the ministries they are called to.
With all due respect, all authority begins and ends with the Word of God. The only authority a pastor has is delegated authority. Anytime a pastoral leader steps away from the scriptures all pastoral authority is lost.
Since scripture declares that women should not teach or have authority over men any pastor who allows a woman to preach before the church has thrown God’s delegated authority out the window and replaced it with his own wisdom.
The words pastor and shepherd are synonymous is scripture. And I agree they are responsible. But they are also accountable.
As shepherds we have a responsibility to guard God’s truth and keep it pure. And we’re held accountable for doing that by God. Pastors are responsible and accountable for what is preached and who is preaching to their flock.
So in that sense, the role of Pastor and Preacher are intertwined. I don’t believe that is traditional as you put it. The pastor doesn’t have to do all the preaching in the church but by God he’s responsible and accountable for all of it.
In allowing a woman to preach a pastor abuses his authority rather than honors it.
As I said, I understand your point of view. My concern is that if we disallow a woman to teach what God has taught her from the scriptures then we are not rejecting women, we are rejecting God. Proclaiming the Word was done by women in the New and Old Testaments. Our tradition of equating to preach and to pastor is not biblical and not really what we practice anyway. You said that the only authority was that of God’s Word. If that were true then the Timothy passage makes no sense since authority there is presumed to be held by a woman over a man incorrectly. If neither men nor woman can have authority then let the woman stand and talk where she will, it doesn’t matter. But every pastor practices this differently than what you have set out above. Pastors do have authority in the Church, their members have given them the privilege of speaking into their lives in intimate ways. They are responsible for leading- biblically shepherding their people. The visiting preacher/speaker has no such authority. When you get right down to it the reason for the Timothy passage is that men and women in close discipleship relationships often ends in disaster due to our weaknesses. So, no a woman should not have authority over a man- can you imagine what his wife would say! But, Beth and many gifted teachers like her are not in that category. They don’t have the close relationship of the shepherd that leads to temptation. In deed, what they offer is biblical teaching guided by the Holy Spirit. This requires us to be humble enough to receive it. To reject sound teaching because we object to the messenger is immature and lacks discernment and humility.
Strider,
“So, no a woman should not have authority over a man- can you imagine what his wife would say! ”
Wait… what? What about all the women who are under the authority of men? Should we use the same logic to say women should only be under womens authority? What if her husband has something to say about her being under another mans authority?
Am I misreading this? Its possible given all the bad vibes Ive got from reading that, I may be reading something thats not there….
Sorry Kimberly, I get lost in my rhetoric in trying to communicate with others who hold a very different view than I do. Actually, I have some strong opinions about leadership and authority. I feel that we have often defined these terms in light of Jesus teachings and then practice them in the ways of the world. But rather than open up a whole ‘nuther discussion on leadership and authority we should stick to the role of women here. Which as you can see from DE’s response below isn’t going to change anyone’s mind. I will say this and then bow out of the conversation- I believe that what we are doing with the traditional DE take on women’s roles is that we are creating a false unbiblical space (the pulpit) and then excluding women from it. Legalism always leads to false dichotomies and illogical assumptions. If you take ‘a woman can’t teach a man’ out of context and apply it across the board it makes no sense because you end up with a son can’t learn from his mother! But, since we know that doesn’t work- and more than half of our best Sunday School teachers are women- we restrict the verse to the pulpit which didn’t exist in the first century.
The better way to see the the Timothy passage is to take it in context with ‘teach and have authority’. This places the teaching within a close discipleship relationship which we all understand to be dangerous between men and women. To define these verses as we traditionally have with a woman being disallowed to teach from the pulpit because she is a woman has led to a serious disrespect of women. It was not the theological position that got John MacArthur in trouble, it was his blatant disrespect which was so unloving that caught all of our attentions. My position is that the traditional view on women’s roles in the church always leads us to this place of disrespect. When I have to stand before God and give account for all my thoughts and actions I would rather hear him say, ‘You gave women too much freedom’ rather than hear him say, ‘You disrespected my daughters.’
Thank you for the clarification, Strider. =o)
Well, God certainly gifts women to teach. But then He restricts their teaching role by telling them not to teach men.
So to disallow women to teach men as you put it is to honor God’s word and to allow her to teach men is to dishonor God’s word.
I don’t see how you can Biblically justify your position.
To say we’re rejecting God by disallowing a gifted woman to teach men is contradictory. To do so puts God in the position of arguing with Himself.
Old Testament scripture can’t be used in this case because Paul’s command is within context of the New Testament church. But in either case I’ll challenge you to give me one Biblical example where a woman is called a preacher or said to be preaching or commanded to preach. I know if none.
And again I’ll say that only Christ has authority in His church. Christ speaks to us through the scriptures. So the Word of God, the Bible, is the place all authority. The pastor has delegated authority but he loses that authority if he speaks or acts outside the Word of God.
I think I’ll leave this alone now. In
1Timothy 2:9-15 God speaks clearly. I’m not sure what’s so hard to understand about it. Or why people want to argue against God. But God really doesn’t need my help. Just read it for yourself.
I was studying tonight and out of curiosity looked up Latin and Greek words ‘to preach’ and ‘preacher’. Apparently, to preach means to proclaim the Gospel, it translates to evangelist, prophet, and teach. By these definitions all women in the New Testament were commanded to preach and mostly they did!
Perhaps you missed that it was “not my church”.I was a visitor and felt no need to judge that congregation.
Long ago, a man who is now a highly respected PCA pastor walked out of a presbytery meeting because a woman brought a report to presbytery. I found his actions then and now, unChristlike. I can’t imagine Jesus embarrassing a woman for the sake of a meaningless and petulant demonstration about a theological point.
There are a raft of issues here.
One is Beth Moores competence as a bible expositor/teacher. My view is that she is better than many men I have heard in that regard. Perhaps most.
Another is John McArthur’s behavior. I found it unhelpful and likely unhealthy.
Still another is what roles may women hold in the church. I was not speaking to that issue. We find that answer not in the skills of the candidate but in the Word of God. Different people believe the Bible draws that line in different places as we see in the rest of the comment thread.
This is a key statement. Thanks, Dr. Terry. “Throughout my adult life, I’ve taught in seminaries and Bible colleges. I’ve trained many young women to serve as foreign missionaries. I encouraged them to take courses on teaching the Bible so they could teach the gospel more effectively. I never told a single one to ‘go home.’ I encouraged them to ‘go forth.”
Although we seem to be in a Beth Moore moment related to women serving, their roles and gifts – let’s rally around men and women together for the gospel – we work together, we are colaborers. All have gifts, all have roles, all obey the Great Commission. We must keep training each new generation to go forth.
Perhaps it’s time to take out eyes off of Beth and put them on how to enable the entire Body of Christ for the kingdom. Thanks for doing your part, Dr. Terry!
I don’t mind theologians having finely honed and distinctive views on issues. The church needs that. We’ve seen it in the Calvinism/Arminianism debates. And we see it in the discussion surrounding the texts in the NT dealing with women teaching in the church.
So I don’t mind the disagreement, even if it’s stated colorfully as MacArthur did.
A few points in no particular order.
I am not as bothered about the fine points. I am not typically worried about the fine points of complementarianism. But it’s fine by me if others are.
Beth Moore has been a blessing to many women for many years. I am for her continuing on that path.
I think the SBC would do well to focus more on quality.
For example, I don’t see people quibbling over what Rosaria Butterfield writes and says. No one would bat an eye if she became more popular in the SBC or were hired by a seminary.
She is a scholar with earned degrees and intellectual heft. She is a convert from the hard core of the other side. No worries about her softening up on things to fit the cultural trends. And she would have no interest in getting in the pulpit or even being the subject of a debate about it.
I would like the SBC to attract more true scholars in that vein. If women wanted to learn Greek, great! But why can’t we have a PhD in Greek teaching them?
If women want to learn about same sex relationships, why not learn from a woman who was a committed lesbian who converted to Christ and left that lifestyle to marry and raise a family?
I don’t see that the discussion over Ms. Moore and this topic has any impact on the abuse issues. I understand the desire by some to blend the two, possibly for leverage. But they are distinct issues and should remain so.
MacArthur is correct, I believe, in his intuition about where the SBC is headed. Time will tell.
But I am familiar with how positions shift and also how different sides dialogue in that process. We are too early to tell for sure, but don’t bet the ranch on things staying as they are.
I don’t think there is any intended interest in big changes. But big changes often come from small changes.
I was a proud and active participant in the CR. Today, I see more and more people in the SBC are moved by the PR.
And therein lies the danger.
Louis: things are changing… yes…for the better. The bullying days are over guys
That’s a good thing. Great thought Debbie!
I appreciate you Louis.
You, too!!
We sometimes disagree but I have no doubt regarding your intentions and overall concerns.
Hope we can meet one day.
I would like that Louis.
I haven’t heard this perspective yet here, so just another voice:
I’ve sat in many Beth Moore studies primarily because I found them more Biblical, challenging, and complete than other studies offered in Baptist church and circles. “Other studies” included fiction books on Ruth and Esther (I am not kidding); light and emotion-laden studies based on “how do you feel about _____”; studies that were light on material and heavy on personal opinion discussion; or studies that “don’t require homework.” The latter is like going to physical therapy that doesn’t require any home exercises: not effective.
So, even though I disliked the “imagine the swish of Esther’s sandals as she walked down that long hallway” padding, Beth Moore’s studies were solid. In Daniel and Revelation, for example, she challenges women not to skip any verses or say “this is too hard, it’s for theologians” but to trust that God gave us this Scripture for a reason, and we CAN wrestle with it ourselves. She is a good, challenging teacher. She exhorts.
I moved on to BSF for the same reasons. Both Beth Moore and BSF put women into their Bibles to learn for themselves, but not in a “feminist power” way. Both say “Pursue God and His character and truth for yourself.” Both challenge us to test everything, learn in community, and NOT to swallow unquestioningly every word that they say.
So I find Beth Moore to be respectful of women’s souls in a way that I did not find, generally, in the Baptist church overall. Just my experience.
I have come to this conversation late, but have read all 55 posts. Only 2 posts used scripture and one other explained how one scripture has been incorrectly interpreted. So, from where do all of the SBC Voices get their argument? It seems to me that all of these arguments are based on traditions and not Holy Scripture. So, I am adding another post without scripture references, but I am not making an erroneous proclamation as to what is right or wrong in this discussion.
You don’t have to be ordained to preach. Which is the case of Beth Moore, She is a LAY preacher and teacher.
Paul teaches that women can “prophecy” during public worship. Teaching that Rev. MacArthur rejects due to his radical extreme cessationist beliefs.