Even in literature and art, no man who bothers about originality will ever be original: whereas if you simply try to tell the truth (without caring twopence how often it has been told before) you will, nine times out of ten, become original without ever having noticed it.         C S Lewis

 

Well, just as I suspected, the thought police had a field day with TWW's Beth Moore post. I was called foolish and silly and given a Bible verse about being foolish and silly. Since a Bible verse was used, I must be indubitably, undeniably and most definitively,  foolish and silly.

 

Interestingly, I read a blog post written by one of Beth Moore’s daughters. She defended her mother and I found her feelings understandable. However, the comments by her readers made me shake my head. Moore’s daughter discussed the Christianity Today article. Several women commented that they NEVER read magazines or newspapers because they couldn’t trust them. Yet, they could not see that they trust a fallible individual to always give them the full and absolute truth. In their eyes, Beth Moore’s view on life rises to the level of Scripture. They never read a different point of view outside of their own little circles and as such, never get a chance to intelligently formulate their own perspectives. Somehow, I believe that Beth Moore might encourage them differently.

 

Years ago, I was in another yet attempt at an all women’s Bible study. One woman spoke passionately about how Proctor and Gamble executives were “Satan worshippers.” I could not contain myself. I asked where she had heard such drivel. She claimed that they appeared on the Phil Donahue show and said this. I asked her if she had witnessed it herself. She was nodding, as if she had, when I said that this was a lie and that Christians should be ashamed of themselves for passing on such twaddle. I told her that Proctor and Gamble was aggressively pursuing legal claims against those who were spreading that lie and that the majority of reports were coming out of churches. Churches, mind you, that are supposed to be followers of the One who called Himself the Truth!
 

Through the years I have been the recipient of emails that spread unfounded accusations (Obama was born in the Middle East, for one) and claim they are the truth. Most of them are from supposed Christians who seem to have a penchant for spreading this stuff. I have even received this claptrap from pastors. Today, we are able to quickly check facts on sites such as Snopes. But I guess it takes a couple of extra clicks instead of easily mashing the forward button,
 

There are many in the church who are insulated and, as such,  self talk amongst a select group of exact minded people. As such, they rarely look outside their own biases for a different point of view. Mind you, I am not saying that a different point of view is necessarily right but different perspectives can often bring depth to an opinion.

 

As many of our reader’s know, we are not fans of CJ Mahaney. Yet we have read his books, followed his blog, listened to many of his talks and even went to an SGM church and heard him speak. We did not change our opinion of him but we certainly took the time to think about his theology and viewpoints. In fact, our studies made us even more alarmed at the ministry of Sovereign Grace Ministries. It often amuses me when we get comments from offended SGMers who accuse us of not listening to Mahaney. I would imagine that we are almost as well(and, perhaps, better)  versed as an average Mahaney sycophant.
 

Which leads me to my next point. Our post on Moore was picked up by another blog called Here I Blog. I found the blog name intriguing since our blog is named after the castle that Martin Luther was sequestered away from an angry Pope. I assume said blogger is alluding to Luther’s great statement, in front of the Pope, in which he defended his writings, “Here I stand; I can do no other.”
 

However, a most offended gentleman, named Mark, while commenting on that blog, raised a protest, stating that he did not think our post was “Biblical.” He wanted it removed from “Here I Blog.” So, does this blogger act bravely as did Luther? Did he suggest that Mark come onto our blog and engage in conversation? Nope. He does what any weenie does when called out by a stronger bully, he caved and removed the link. Actually he made some comments that, had he developed them, would have made for an interesting dialogue. But, dialogue is not welcome in “think exactly like us” land.
 

I thought our readers might like to see some of the comments made about women and our blog post. You might find them, shall we say, provocative.Here is the link directly to the comments which our manly blogger left up although he delinked us (Is that like defriending?) Get this. He left up the comments and delinked the blog so you can't figure out what in the world we are commenting on. Such strength and clarity! (Scroll to the bottom of the page and see the comments section).

 

I have put my comments under some headings called "Rules."
 

Rule 1. Never, ever question a difficult personal decision.

 

(Mark)“Then she has the unmitigated gall to question Beth Moore’s choices in regards to her abuse and the prosecution of her attacker”.
 

It appears that this man believes that I have no right to ask questions about Moore’s choices. He finds that insulting and degrading.  Actually, I contend that I have a higher view of Moore than he does. Why? Because I think she is a strong woman who can stand the courage of her convictions. Moore has raised this issue on a number of occasions in large public gatherings and appears comfortable in dealing with the topic. She also claims to have overcome this stronghold and I believe her.

 

The evangelical church has been riddled with documented cases of pedophilia. The tendency of many churches has been to bury these incidents, allowing the pedophile to keep on offending. Mark went on to question the statistics I placed in the post even though there are links to reputable organizations that specialize in this area. Also, I spent three years as a public health nurse following children who were sexually abused. I am a devoted friend of a young man who was the teen victim of such abuse and have spent hours defending him and others who have been victimized; first by the pedophile and, then, by the church.
 

He claims that it is reasonable to assume that Moore would have reported this if she thought it would help. He speaks, either from ignorance or a profound lack of experience, in this particular area. Many victims are reluctant to report this violence for decades as witnessed in the Catholic Church debacle. I have seen elderly men cry as they finally confront their pain and decided to name their accuser from 50 years in their past. When they name the monster, others finally speak up saying, "I thought I was the only one." Hence, healing begins. I stand firm in my decision to raise this issue.

 

Rule 2: Mainstream evangelical journals are promoting dangerous and heretical ideas as defined by me; not disagreements, mind you, heresy!

 

(Mark)“Dee, Christianity Today has done a lot more than report on trends, it has uncritically given a platform and a voice to damaging and dangerous ones. For a very long time it has had little if any discernment in the things that it publishes. It seems odd to me that you would have such a strong commitment to it while simultaneously criticizing Beth Moore for theological liberality.

 

“In fact, what I see is the danger of it (CT), popularizing heresy and error and putting it in the hands of Christians everywhere who are often then led astray by this. Yes, I see this as a net negative. We’re not talking about secondary issues here, we’re talking about issues as core as the very nature of God”.
 

 

It is important to see the restrictive and theologically arrogant viewpoint that this man proposes. To say that Christianity Today has promulgated “dangerous” and “damaging” points of view shows an inbred fundamentalism that needs to be exposed and challenged. He cannot even read a respected Christian magazine without cries of heresy and danger. Egads!!!! At this point, I should have realized that I was dealing with an unreasonable person who has narrowly defined the faith by utilizing secondary issues that he has raised to primary importance.

 

I tried to broach the subject by making a remark that conservative evangelical Christians  are splintering into warring factions within the faith . Here is his response. “I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at regarding splinter groups. I don’t think anywhere I wrote anything recommending that”. He does not even have a clue that he is one of the reasons that certain churches and people are driving away deeply committed Christians who differ on secondary issues. He is a religionist.

 

I would recommend that he, and others like him, read the book, Mere Churchianity by Michael Spencer, the recently departed, much beloved Internet Monk. He defines the difference between Christianity and religionism. Mark would probably call him a heretic as well.
 

 

Rule 3 Women must avoid ever being in authority over any man unless it is a basket weaving demonstration. (Maybe, just maybe, she might be able to give financial advice as well).
 

I posed the following question. If I were to be speaking at a Christian venue and “if I spot a man in the room, what do you think I should do?”

 

He responded, “Unfortunately, this is not a question with a clear-cut universal answer. It depends on the nature of the class, the context of it (local church? Conference?), the topic (exegetical teaching, good financial management, basket weaving, what-have-you), the teachings of the church in question and thus the expectations of men in the classroom, etc. Of course, none of that really matters at all unless you are convinced by Scripture of God’s purpose for the order he instituted in creation."

 

Whoo boy is this answer loaded with buckshot. First, this man was convinced that I was not charitable and thoughtful in my approach to Moore. Then, he gives an answer that shows his genuine lack of understanding of the complexities of the issues regarding gender. Hint: It is obvious that this man believes that a woman should not be teaching men. Then he puts theological exegesis, financial management and basket weaving as examples, giving, perhaps not intended, the possibility that women could teach basket weaving and not perform theological exegesis.

 

He goes onto say that it is the men’s expectations in the situation that counts. He did not mention the women’s expectations. I do have a question for him. If the church allows for women teachers and deacons, do they fit his paradigm of “what the church allows?” Methinks not but I could be wrong.

 

Then comes the corker. “None of this matters unless you are convinced of by Scripture of God’s purpose for the order he instituted in creation”. Now this deserves translation. He knows what the Bible says on this matter and anyone who disagrees with him does not. I almost asked him what he meant by creation-6 day or old earth- but I knew that would antagonize him. I bet he knows exactly what the Bible means on this subject as well.

 

Rule 4 Our seminaries are going to hell in a handbag and are not teaching anything worth studying.

 

(Mark)“The only people who can do real biblical study are people who have gone to seminary? That’s the only valid definition of theology? Apparently this author isn’t paying any attention to what’s going on in our seminaries.”

 

I didn’t say this but that really doesn’t concern this man. It now appears that all seminaries are out of the question since they apparently do not subscribe to this man’s exacting point of view. Which seminaries do you think he is talking about? Reformed, Baptist, Nondenominational, ..?

 

In fact, since he knows so much, maybe he could publish his definitive list of seminaries that don’t agree with Mark. Funny thing, he sounds like a seminary of one.Theological arrogance once again raises its ugly head. It just goes to prove that one does not have to be educated to be arrogant.

 

Rule 5 As a blogger, cut and run if someone questions your adherence to his said view of the world. (TWW would have been out of business in two weeks)

 

Here is what the editor of the blog wrote:

“I did read the Beth Moore article. I thought it interesting, but that doesn’t mean I endorse every word in every article. Honestly, I did struggle with linking the Moore article.

It was unfair to attack Moore for her stance on her abuser as well as her adopted child. At the same time, the writer seems to be an egalitarian who seems to criticize Moore for not admitting to being an egalitarian while at the same time teaching men. I think I have that right.

I thought the author was warning Moore not to discount a seminary education while critiquing her position of intuition hermeneutics.

Anyway, you’re point is well taken and maybe I’ll remove the link.
Thanks, I’m thinking….” 

 

Frankly, the blogger actually got what I was saying about intuition hermeneutics. He did not understand my thoughts on the abuse or the adoption, calling them an attack.

 

I asked some valid questions which Moore herself first raised in multiple public sessions. But, I guess I am not allowed to ask questions of someone's personal life even if the person raised the issues herself. (I wonder if said blogger ever commented on Bill Clinton's life?)

 

I raised the point that Moore does not have to take the responsibility or wrath of religionists who object to big, manly men who want to listen to or to be even (hope you are sitting down) taught by her. It is called freedom of conscience or soul competency.
 

Believe it or not, gentlemen, there are many men who do not find it unbiblical to be taught by a woman. However, it is your choice to not be taught by them. But, I suspect, that is not good enough. They must believe and behave as you do. Are you really saying that men are as gullible and easily deceived as women??? Naughty, naughty. 

 

I made the point that Moore does not have to be “on her guard” that men might think she wants “authority” over them, whatever that means. I don’t think most people know what that means anyway.  It just sounds good, very patriarchal and conservative.

 

Rule 6 You are allowed to skip over sentences if they do not shore up your argument.

 

Mark accused me of violating all sorts of Scriptural commandments in my review of BM's ministry. I apparently did not treat her like a "person" nor was I kind whatsoever.However, here is one of several “nice” things that I said. “I have no doubt that Moore loves the Lord and is following what she believes to be good and true. In other words, I have no intention on judging her motivation”.

 

It probably doesn’t matter. Mark told me I was in violation of "Ephesians 4 and Colossians 3". ALL OF IT?? Well, darn! 

 

I don’t know quite how to end this except to link you to a blog with which I have profound disagreement. Maybe this is will teach (Oh, oh-head for the hills and don’t read anything more, Mark and Mark)) these two experts on Biblical law a thing or two about reading differing points of view. Then again, it probably won’t but I can always hope.

 

In the meantime, your humble blog queens will more than make up for the lack of cojones at other blogs and go on presenting the complexities of the faith (with glamour, of course).