20 January 2013

NoCo90: Where Is Beth Moore's Husband?



Further Reading
A 'No Compromise' Conversation
Beth Moore's 'Sabbath Moment' Playdate with God
Beth Moore Preaches Sunday Service at Louie Giglio's Passion City Church

29 comments:

  1. Hi EBenz,

    Thanks for posting NoCo90, I wasn't aware that Pastor Abendroth had begun a new ministry. I like him very much, and listen to him frequently. His NoCo90 regarding Beth Moore's husband was a great introductory topic.

    I've written several times about the secret Christian feminists. These are women who live a feminist life but call it "ministry". They justify what they do by calling it a "gift from God."

    In one part of the series, I researched Mrs Moore's lifestyle to see if it matched up with what the bible said women should be living like. It turned out that in an interview in CT, she claimed that she maintained a regular home life because that was what her husband demanded, but her actions belie the truth. She is gone from home 20 dates per year on Living Proof Tours, she appears weekly on a television show, she disappears for weeks n end to a cabin in the woods to write books, and she is gone on book tours for weeks at a time. She is President of her Living Proof Company- not her husband, a company that brought in 4.1 million in 2010, with over 1.3 million left over. Of course the president of a company that size will also attend meetings and perform work related to the running of it.

    Mrs Moore lives a very feminist life, and her claims that she is a stay-at-home mom are far from what her lifestyle shows us it is.

    In birthing spiritual daughters who follow her example, the husbands are even more overt in their choice to swap roles. Priscilla Shirer's husband is her secretary, negotiating and noting his wife's speaking dates and bringing the kids to school, and doing the house work so she can write. Same with Christine Caine These facts are on the record in interviews, nothing that has to be unearthed or is hidden.

    Pr. Abendroth's question is a great one: and I add to it by asking where are all the husbands of these very forward women who love a feminist life, choosing the leadership role in the family and being the breadwinner? Not only where are they, but WHY do they allow it?

    I'm sorry for the long comment. It is a topic that makes me very upset, particularly for two reasons. One is I know the spiritual anguish that these women are putting themselves through in choosing to live a life that isn't ordained by God. They may not admit it, but they feel it, therefore I feel pain for them. And second, Rev 2:18-29 records the condemnation at Thyatyra is against a woman prophetess who birthed spiritual daughters who brought false doctrine - and the church allowed it. Where were the husbands? I not only feel for these women who live such lives, calling it "ministry" and not feminist careers, but I *fear* for them, too. Thank you for reading this

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oops! A tough question. And here I thought that asking tough questions was no longer allowed and would get you an armed escort to the catapult or the local bus stop. Beware, pastor Abendroth, the facist, 'christian' question police are on to you. You are being watched.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent question, one that could be asked of Joyce Meyer, Anne Graham Lotz, and every woman who thinks they have a biblical mandate to 'front' a ministry. I think it bears worth repeating, men are to be the head, leaders in the church; why? Not because they are 'better', but because Almighty God has ordained it that way. 'nuf said

    ReplyDelete
  4. Elizabeth Prata, could you help by pointing me to Scriptures referring to stipulations re: bread winning in the family? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Poustman, Sure thing!

      The bible outlines roles for men, women, and children in the family. The man is to be the head, the spiritual leader and the main decision maker. The woman is to be the helpmeet.

      Genesis 2:18 speaks of the wife as the helper to the man
      Titus 2:3-4 the woman is to stay busy at home.
      Proverbs 31 speaks of a woman of noble character doing all to help her family.
      1 Corinthians 11:9 says neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
      Ephesians 5:22-24 explains the roles, again, the husband submitting to Christ, and the wife submitting to the husband

      Now, I mention priorities. *In general*, the wife is the helper while the husband is the main leader, and that includes breadwinner. I mean, if she is at home then the man is working, it seems obvious to say. Therefore, a woman's priorities are to be aligned with what the bible teaches. However, there are some circumstances where this does not occur. For example, perhaps the family has made a decision for the wife to be the sole breadwinner as she supports her husband through seminary, or training, or college. In that case, it is a discrete goal that has a purpose and an end. Or perhaps literally, there are no jobs and the woman is earning while the man stays home. Or perhaps she has a job that supports her husband because it supplements the family's income while not interfering with the child-rearing.

      These are temporary circumstances (hopefully). What I was writing about is a *willful* reversal of roles in these Christian feminists for no other purpose than it is convenient, personally tempting, or lucrative. I was speaking of the various women who have adopted leadership roles in the church and in the home while the husband voluntarily and willfully gave up his work to support her, do the housework, and raise the children. This is not the ongoing family structure the bible outlines as best for men, women, and children.

      Hope this helps!! You're welcome!

      Delete
    2. Elizabeth,

      The verses you pulled are truth, but since we're talking about marriage, we should add the verses about a man's loving, self-sacrificing care of his wife, which are equally important.

      Ephesians 5:25-33
      1 Peter 3:7
      1 Timothy 5:8
      1 Corinthians 11:3
      Colossians 3:19, 21

      Regarding your following comments about these Biblical priorities, I think we all need to be careful not to supplant scripture with our personal views. Example, you mentioned there were some "temporary circumstances" that you felt were ok where a woman's priorities may not be aligned with what the Bible teaches - but who is to define what these allowable circumstances are or what "breadwinner" means or what a "discrete goal" is or how long "temporary" is? Ie - with saying the man has to be the breadwinner - what if the husband has a full-time occupation that is low-pay (like a private school teacher, a career that is a labor of love but pays a pittance), and his wife, never neglecting the home, and with her husband's joyous permission, has a part time job with a very high pay (nursing, physician's assistants are some examples), where salary wise even though she works very little outside the home, she pulls in more money than he?

      We need to be very, very careful. Each husband and wife are to work out their own marriage in accordance to the written word, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, without passing undue judgment on others.

      As you rightly said, God has aligned in His word the order of family. Willful reversal of this order is sin. It's a heart issue.

      As for Beth Moore, if I may, it seems the concerns are this:
      1. She has taught men off the pulpit. (At least I understand this to be the case, please correct me if I am wrong.)
      2. She teaches some doctrinal errors (like her cappuccino dates at the zoo with God, mysticism, some ecumenicalism, etc)

      Rightly so, her husband should be addressing and correcting both issues. Her teaching should be limited to women, and her doctrine needs to be sound, else she shouldn't be teaching.

      But as for her time spent on the road, etc, running her own business, etc. As far as I understand, her children are grown and are adults now. That would reduce her home responsibilities and increase her freedom for ministry, as to how this pans out in their family, that is for the Moore's to decide. What about when their children were under their roof? Is there evidence they were neglected? A married mother can certainly work outside the home without neglecting her God given home responsibilities, even the Proverbs 31 wife seemed to have a talent for real estate. We need to be careful. Especially because some of our dear sisters in the Lord, often through no fault of their own, are single mothers...

      Closing thought - these comments are coming from a woman who primarily works in the home (all "outside" work and/or activities and/or interests have never been at the expense of the home, and are only done with absolute support from my godly husband), and who has never and will not participate in Beth Moore Bible studies, due to the above mentioned concerns (numbers 1&2). In other words, I'm no feminist and definitely not a Beth Moore "groupie". I am just concerned that we don't go beyond what is written... that we don't promote legalism or license... and that in the process of rightly dividing the word and discerning, we don't become as sounding brass.

      YSIC,
      -carolyn

      Delete
    3. Carolyn, My personal view is that the bible teaches what the structure of the family is to be. However, we can't say one way or another a woman should or should not work outside the home because the bible does not expressly forbid or allow it. That is why there IS room for personal/family interpretation based on differing circumstances. It IS each family's personal view as to how they approach husband-wife swapping roles and it IS up to them individually through prayer and Godly decision-making how long a circumstance should continue... It’s impossible go beyond scripture in this case because scripture doesn't specifically answer the question about breadwinner one way or another...but it does offer principles.

      However ours is not a discussion about the generalities of husband-wife roles and my comment was never intended to be. It always related to Moore, Shirer, Caine and other women who have usurped the family principles outlined by God and are living the leadership role at home. Caine has admitted this outright.

      The point I am making is Beth Moore and other women 'in ministry' are living a feminist life, and the men left their headship behind. We need to be careful. I bring you back to the post EBenz made. I think you and I agree that Christian feminism is not good. It is an issue. Else why would Pastor Mike Abendroth even *ask* the question..."Where is Beth Moore's husband?"

      Delete
    4. Hi Elizabeth,

      Hopefully you come back and look at this post again, since it's older. Anyhow, thanks for your reply. Your first paragraph comments, we're in step. Perhaps I didn't quite follow what you were saying, and I wasn't initially sure if you allowed for liberty in family application of the Scriptures regarding the Biblical roles of husband/wife.

      Second paragraph, I do have a question:

      You said, "It always related to Moore, Shirer, Caine and other women who have usurped the family principles outlined by God and are living the leadership role at home. Caine has admitted this outright."

      Now with Caine (I don't know who she is, sorry), if she's admitted this outright, I would be in full agreement with your assessment of feminism, which is opposed to Christian truth, and we'd be in step there.

      But with Moore and Shirer (I don't know who she is either, sorry), is there the same kind of direct evidence that these women have usurped headship / their husbands abdicated headship in their homes? I just don't like to draw conclusions with what appears to be circumstantial evidence. You said Caine has openly admitted her rebellion, so that would be direct evidence. What about the other two?

      With Moore, the only direct evidence I see is related to her teaching - it is well documented that she's teaching error and is teaching men - this is clear, it is definitely wrong, and we all agree here. But that doesn't necessarily mean her husband has abdicated headship. He may have the exact same doctrinal errors, so he may not see any of this as wrong, hence he isn't correcting her? What about their home church? What is being taught there? I don't know much about her at all, honestly. I'm just asking - do we know the direct root of her error, and/or have a direct admission, as with Caine?

      I just want to be VERY careful that I only discern with righteous judgment and don't make assumptions. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. Hope this came out more clear... if not sorry.

      Thanks again Elizabeth, and Erin too for giving me the room to speak.

      YSIC
      carolyn

      Delete
  5. i don't understand the reference to play-dates with God at the zoo. please explain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      If you listened to the video, then you'd know that Pastor Abendroth was referencing something that Beth Moore wrote in one of her books. The relevant quote can be found here.

      Delete
  6. Hi carolyn. I have read in an article that Moore has taught in Giglio's Church on one particular Sunday. I don't know what Sunday it was and I think it was sometime last year.

    So, with this said I don't see how -whether or not it's a problem for Mrs. Moore to travel and teach if her and her husband have some kind of mutual agreement. It is a problem though when she's allowed to preach at a Church and her husband has not spoken out as the leader- as one who should be the head of the house and be her head covering.

    As far as teaching men at her conferences, She makes a big point to say that she only teaches women. She addresses men who attend her conferences by stating, “I have no desire to have any kind of authority of you.”

    I'm not sure if she believes that saying this gets her off the hook or is some kind of apology for herself or the men who go. How do you keep men from entering the conference at their own choosing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Linda,

      Yes, I saw reference of that Giglio/Moore article somewhere, but I don't remember the details, don't think I paid that close attention, honestly, because I don't care a whole lot, as Giglio's not my pastor, so it doesn't affect me. But in general - pastors who abdicate the pulpit to a woman for a Sunday worship service, exegeting scripture and all that, that's a problem. And these churches with their formal Pastrix's are unbiblical too. I just steer clear. Nuff said there.

      The point I was trying to make with Elizabeth - and forgive me, I'm not the best speaker/writer - is there are really two issues here, that need to be separated, and addressed individually.

      First, is the issue of the private marital arrangement of these women-in-ministry couples, with regard to travel vs home duties, etc. There is no reason any of us should be in a tizzy over the fact that Mrs. Moore travels and teaches with her husband's blessing. We shouldn't be calling Moore (or any other lady speaker) a feminist because she travels "too much". What is "too much" anyways, pray tell? We've got no ground to discuss/hypothesize/criticize what private arrangements she and her husband have, or to pontificate over their family's headship/lack thereof. It's their marriage, not ours, and we aren't their pastor or their local church, either, in the event there is sin that needs addressing!!! That's the point I was getting at.

      The other part is the part that is factual and open to the "universal" church to discern, that is publicly known women teachers who teach error, and publicly known women teachers who teach men. On the first count, yes these errors should be publicly called out, for the sake of the body. I pray these ladies see their errors, repent and stick with the Bible; and personally I won't listen to teaching (from a man or woman) unless it's sound all around...

      The issue of women preaching men. This one is clearly unbiblical yet potentially not a simple issue - in the local church it's easy to deal with, very straightforward. But at conferences, not so much, because as you said, you can't keep the men from entering the conference. What should she do? I don't have the answer.

      All I know is that at least with Moore, she says she doesn't want to teach men, she keeps saying this over and over. We can't judge her motives or her heart. We can only hear words and see actions, but even in those we need to be extremely careful how we interpret the evidence, again because we can't see the motives or heart. I've assumed more than once, and God has proven me bitterly wrong...

      Personally, I want to ensure that in the name of discernment and desire to obey God, that I don't cross the line into ad hom attacks, conjecture, hearsay, gossip, etc.

      So with that, I shall (hopefully) lay this to rest.

      I hope I made some sense. If not, please forgive me.

      God bless you ladies, especially patient Erin who lets us all babble on so.
      -carolyn

      Delete
  7. Linda, I would say Moore is definitely a feminist and has taught men for decades starting at her church. See: http://web.archive.org/web/20050326224406/http://www.watersedgeclass.org/about.htm Her claim of saying she has no authority over men...and then she goes on to teach them is still a flagrant violation of Scripture. Women are not to be teaching men spiritual truths. If you notice, if she's even made that claim, its only half a verse and the context is clear who should be teaching and who should be learning:

    1Tim. 2: 11 "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

    To stand behind a pulpit with the Bible open IS to teach with authority, regardless of her weak claim. If Moore was merely about teaching women, she wouldn't be teaching mixed audiences. And I have to say I really doubt she says that very often (her disclaimer) either. Either way, her actions are what prove her rebellion in that regard, if you see what I mean.

    Here's a "'Christianity' Today" article that also shows her feminism: http://www.christianity.com/print/11622465/ where her former pastor John Bisagno gave her the pulpit on Sunday evenings. May I say too, that just because one's husband and/or pastor allows a woman to teach men doesn't make it right; it means they are helping that woman to violate God's command as they reject that same command. So for her to teach on a Sunday morning at Lou Giglio's church was nothing new for her.

    I,too, have often asked of women like Moore, Kay Arthur, Marilyn Hickey, etc. the same thing: where are the husbands? You don't see them because they are not the leaders, their wives are; they are front and center doing the teaching and leading.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you Denise, about her feminist attitude because I used to have this kind of attitude myself. As I understand from what Mrs. Moore has said in the past she was sexually abused growing up. Well, I can relate to that since I too was sexually abused. This sets off an unhealthy pattern of thinking that is against manhood and despises authority. Before I was saved I hated the authority men had and despised the verses in Scripture that the woman was to submit to the husband as is fitting to the Lord." In fact that was the very verse God drew me to 2 weeks before He saved me. I tried to live up to that standard and just didn't have it in me. It repulsed me and brought me to a state of utter hopelessness before I saw my NEED to be saved..

      Anyways, what I'm saying is,, this causes a way of thinking throughout a person's course of life of rebellion. As a Christian a person can unwittingly be carrying around in their heart deep scars of this pain although saved not be aware of it. Only Christ defeated sin at the cross and his resurrection from the dead victory over death. ONLY When we truly repent of (our sins) and stop acting like the victim can we truly be healed. Mrs Moore sounds like she's trying to defeat sin herself by redefining it. It is for FREEDOM that Christ set us FREE". I dunno, she just sounds so weary and tired to me. I would not want to be on her treadmill. What I see with all who are feminists is their myopic view of submission. We are submitting to CHRIST and it becomes a JOY not a hindrance and nor a duty.

      Also, I believe that we need to be very careful with what is sin and what is not sin if a spouse chooses to travel apart from their husband/wife. Paul stated that "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything."-1 Cor. 6:12.

      I don't see that what she does is beneficial. And THIS is why I believe the gentleman in the NoCo90 video has asked the pertinent Question "Where is Mrs. Moore's husband." it's not because he's trying to nitpick, but because when you do something that is NOT beneficial, it's grievous to them. It's not normal to spend copious time apart from your spouse and never hear of him.

      Delete
  8. I don't know who the man is in the video, but when someone makes fun of the way God speaks to someone, I see that person as "lost", and not having a true relationship with God. God speaks to people....male and female....He doesn't only speak to me through my husband. I would like all the experts on here to please explain such things in the Bible as the leadership of Deborah, or prophetesses such as Huldah or Anna. There are more, but why don't you start with those? You can make a point without running others down, or being sarcastic. People will not listen if you are sarcastic and caustic. If you have a point to make, why don't you look at how Jesus responded to those He did not agree with.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous,

      Even though your comment breaks comment policy by being left on such an old post, I had to post it to ask you: did you even watch the video? The man in the video - who is a pastor, by the way - is not saying that God speaks to women only through their husbands. That is not the point of the video at all. And it's not difficult to discern that from watching the clip. Watch the video again and if you still don't understand it, then we can explain it further here.

      Delete
    2. There were many women who started ministrys in the Bible - icluding Lydia, Priscialla, Tabitha along with those already mentioned. God speaks to everyone, thank goodness, and who know who we can learn from. The Bible was written at a time when women were seldom named because that is the way it was back then, but it does say that not only the diciples followed Jesus but also many women. The woman at the well told everyone in the town to come meet Jesus. Jesus spoke to Mary Magadalene before he could even be touched. That says a lot. He sent her to tell his disciples. That also says a lot.The women followed Jesus when he was taken away; the men ran away. There are many women in the Bible that God used. (Mary, his mother comes to mind). When there was the discussion of women not speaking in chruch it was a specific case. A group of women were arguing back and forth and they were told to shut up and let their husbands do the talking. Jesus never said a word against women in the ministry.

      Delete
    3. Hi first of all no one said woman cannot have ministries in the local Church. They are encouraged. Next you say God speaks to everyone. Are you saying God speaks today outside the Bible? Does he speak to you in your head? Is it through feelings? Is it a loud booming voice from a cloud? How exactly does this work because I can’t find anywhere in the Bible where we are supposed to hear God speak outside the Bible. If he was going to whisper to you why did he write a book? He could have saved all that parchment (where does parchment come from?) You made the claim God speaks to everyone and I agree if you mean he speaks to us through his Word. If you say he speaks outside his Word I need you to prove it. You made the claim please back it up. Do you believe God wrote the Bible using men he chose? I am sure you do so what difference does it make when it was written? God wrote it at his appointed time and put in it what he wanted us to know and he wanted us to know that he does not want woman leading in his Church. It’s not up to us to attempt to get around the clear teaching of Scripture. To meet the qualifications of an Elder you have to be a man. There is no way around it. If you won’t believe the clear instructions in 1 Tim and Titus that men are the teachers in the Church then what else are you willing to set aside? Look if Beth Moore wants to teach the Bible (sort of maybe) she is more than welcome to but she needs to teach woman. All the other woman you mentioned were not Pastors in the Church. You are twisting up the issues. How do you know there was a group of woman arguing? Were you there? My Bible doesn’t say that. I bet you if you look back where you first heard that it will be a pro lady Pastor person. People are all fallen creatures so they bend things to what they want. Again this is why we were given an unchanging book because what are you going to do if I announce that God told me he has never talked to you and never will? How can you prove me wrong? You can’t and that’s why we have the Bible and not feelings. Lastly of course Jesus never said anything against woman He loves woman he created them but he did forbid them from teaching men in his Church

      Delete
  9. Ok, nevermind, after researching more on your site, I realize that it seems only made to run people down and not to actually offer any solutions. I came across it in a Google search, when I typed in a question regarding Harvest Bible Chapel's stance on Israel. It led me here....and then I started looking around. I actually did watch the video, and I have nothing more to say on that. I would like to let you know, however, that if all you can do is act self-righteous and sarcastic, and put down any of us whose ideas differ from yours, you will never persuade anyone that you are "right". Thanks for your time.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I completely agree with you. Everything is so "legalistic" in this entire thread. Is this what Christianity is? No thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is extremely disturbing and I'm sure my comment won't be published but here goes anyway. This website is more corrupt that ANYTHING I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY ENTIRE LIFE!!! The creator of this blog seems to have totally ignored 5 very stearn warnings from Christ: 1. Luke 7:10 v.37 Do not judge and you will not be judged. Do not condemn and you will not be condemned. 2. Luke 7:43 v.43 No good tree bears bad fruit. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. 3. Matthew 15:13 Every plant not planted by my Father in Heaven will come up by the roots. 4. Matthew 15:v.7-9 You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. 5. Matthew 18:6 But if anyone causes one of my little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. This last verse by the way was recorded in all 4 gospels of Luke, Mark, Matthew and John which means they all heard him declare this statement out of his mouth. To launch this kind of attack against women or any one else in the body of Christ as a whole is extremely risky. If you wear a cross which in comparison is equilivent to the silver star of military combat and do damage to Christ you will be judged by a higher standard than anyone else. If any of these women teaching his word are misguiding any believer or non believer through improper information or logic, make no mistake the Sovereign God of the Universe will pull them out by the roots. All this negative attacking is only turning people away and doing the work of the enemy by polorizing Christ's followers. Christ died on that cross and shed his blood to bring humanity together, not seperate them. Judas betrayed him and Peter denied knowing him and he still forgave them and obediently hung there and bled out because of what was at risk which was ALL OF US!!!! If you keep taunting these women of faith with legalistic mind sets there may be some hidden fear or threat that isn't being dealt with personally. God knows what man does not see and others try to hide. Consider this a sharp rebuke and try some positive outlet rather than this negative blog. If you choose not to post this then your cowardice has been proven...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The verses you mention are out of context and have NOTHING to do with why women preachers should not be preaching.

      Again, where does it say that Christ died on the cross to bring humanity together? It doesn't say it in my Bible, is it in yours?

      I am no coward when it comes to defending Christ to the world.

      Maybe you should study your Bible a bit more and read it in context next time before commenting.



      Delete
  12. Jesus Christ did NOT die on the cross and shed his blood to bring humanity together - He died on the cross to save sinners, of which we all are. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus died on the cross to bring humanity together? Nowhere.

    Matthew 10:34-39 says: 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth ; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 "For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW ; 36 and A MAN'S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. 37 "He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 "And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 "He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Matthew 15:7-9 is in reference to the empty ritualism that does not bring closeness to God. Jesus used this verse to describe the Judaism of His day.

    These verses do not pertain to Beth Moore being allowed to preach or not.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Matthew 7:1 says : "Do not judge so that you will not be judged."
    Luke 6:37 says: "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned."

    There is a righteous kind of judgment we are supposed to exercise with careful discernment (John 7:24).

    Beth Moore is being judged by the exercise of moral and theological discernment, which is biblical.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What this man said was negated by his attitude. God says that we are to be filled with the Fruit of the Spirit. By this you will know them - who is genuine and who is not genuine. The man should have gone to Beth and spoken to her privately with great compassion and understanding, not airing his Pharisaical attitude on the internet which is immediately suspect. A MAN AFTER GOD'S OWN HEART WOULD NOT DO THIS IN THIS WAY!!! May God have mercy on his arrogance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm confused You are judging Pastor Mike because you think he is judging Beth Moore? Are you not doing exactly what you say he is doing? Beth Moore puts her teachings out all over the internet and TV. She is a public figure and should receive praise or critique for what she says. God does say we are to be filled with the fruit of the spirit he also says woman are not to teach in the Church. We dont get to pick and chose what of God's Word we follow right? We must believe it all Do you?

      Delete
  16. Reading all these comments leaves no one wondering why non-Christians listen to Christians banter and small-minded opinions and preoccupations and say 'no thanks I'll stick with Buddha at least he loves'. Jesus liberated women - they followed him, sat at His feet in discipleship, asked questions, provided for Him out of "their OWN means", challenged His healing and treated them with respect, love, and care. He also had better things to do like spreading the "GOOD" news and healing, loving, helping the poor, ministering to the those in injustice, etc. Not once did He rant out Rome or Caesar or anything of the like. Pharisitical action was the one & only thing He abhorred - lots of Pharisitical banter going on up above my note. He's the example we're to follow - not Paul's writings to a specific church for a specific time which also was opposite of other things Paul said and allowed women to do in other churches at other times (Priscilla preached and taught right along beside him - read your Bible a little closer people!). If you don't like Beth Moore, don't listen to her, but you're not everyone's "Holy Spirit" to be telling them what they should & shouldn't do.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jesus did not come to liberate woman. Jesus came to earth to seek and save what was lost. He liberated sinners from their sins. He came to pay the price for the sins of his people.
    Luke 19:10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
    Matthew 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”
    You are right when you say Jesus never ranted against Rome Who by the way would be the ones causing the social injustices of the day. He was not here to right all wrongs. He was to reconcile Christians to God.
    2 Corinthians 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
    1 Timothy 1:15 The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.
    1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
    You said Jesus had better things to do like to spread the Good News. What is the good news he was spreading? Is this the good news?
    Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
    John 8:24 I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.”
    How can you call John 14:6 good news when you just claimed you were sticking with Buddha?
    John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
    John 14:15 “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
    Ok now it’s time for the good news and this applies to everyone even you and Buddah (when he was alive). Oh ya I forgot he’s dead isn’t he?
    John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
    Priscilla never preached and she was never a Pastor in a Church. Paul never contradicted himself on any issue. The entire Bible was written by Jesus so there are no errors. Paul’s words are the words of Jesus.
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
    So far all of your claims have been false. Paul’s writings are to the New Testament Church which all Christians are apart of. They do apply to us. Maybe you should read your Bible a little closer.
    Please keep in mind Buddah can’t save you and your own unbelief is what separates you from God. Unless you repent and turn to Jesus you will die in your sins and someone has to pay for them. It’s either you in hell for eternity or God applies Jesus perfect sacrifice to you and you spend eternity in Heaven with him. There is no third option.

    ReplyDelete

Please keep it pithy (in other words, if your comment is long enough to be its own blog post, don't bother), pertinent (please don't go off-topic), and respectful (to the author, to the other readers, and to the subject of the post). If you can't do that, your comment will not be posted.

If you haven't already, please read the Comment Policy in its entirety.