MacArthur on SBC: “When you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority”

"During the 'Truth Matters Conference,' held Oct. 16-18 at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, where he is pastor, MacArthur and other panelists were asked to give their gut reactions to one- or two-word phrases. Asked to respond to the phrase 'Beth Moore,' the name of a well-known Southern Baptist Bible teacher, MacArthur replied, 'Go home.'" - RNS

4178 reads

There are 68 Comments

Joeb's picture

Bert good arguments I agree 100%.  D Meyers the McArthur defender like the Paige Patterson matter started with a Jane Doe making allegations and everyone crying liberal plot and fake news and so on  A Jane Doe Anonymous Source has made allegations against McArthur and his minion pulling a Paige Patterson at Masters University.  Also a couple of other former Masters University female students commented on a blog they got similar treatment.  Considering Masters University was cited twice for not reporting on campus rapes as required by Federal law I'd say those allegations carry some weight.  Plus the gal victims are talking about forming a group.  The McArthur Jane Doe  allegations were as heinous as some of the proven ones against Paige Patterson. 
 

Also I read an article I don't know if it's true but someone pulled stats and Masters University reported zero on campus rapes prior to both the citations (2014 & 2018 ?). .  The article said statistically Masters University with the total number enrolled should have 10 incidents a year.  Now that my be a high number but ZERO.  No way.  That is an indicator McArthur and Masters University are burying the incidents.   

Based on the above, BIG MOUTH MCARTHUR should not be saying anything about anybody especially Beth Moore the one women fighting the BAD MALE PASTORS in the SBC protecting abusers and continuing a horrific culture of abuse of our fine sisters in Christ. Worrying more about theological purity and liberals amongst  them then the simple job of protecting the sisters in Christ under their charge. WHO CARES ABOUT THEOLOGICAL ISSUES IF THE PERSON DEFENDING THEM IS A SCUM BAG.   

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong.  I find that McArthur should not being saying booh about anyone.  Especially Beth Moore considering all the problems going on in the SBC.   

pvawter's picture

TylerR wrote:

The best thing for all of us to do is separate from Baylor and from every compromiser who dares to have his photograph disgrace that image (heh, heh) ...

Clearly I'll have to block the radio stations which broadcast Tony Evans and Alistair Begg in my area. Not only that, but I'm sure the church will have to publish a resolution. That'll teach em!

Joel Shaffer's picture

Joel, I appreciate the link to Resolution 9.  To me, it's obviously a compromise resolution, giving advocates of CRT some statements they can point to for justifying whatever use they want to put the theory to, while also giving opponents statements they can point to for telling the advocates that they're going beyond Res 9.  

Um.....How can you make a judgment about it being a compromising resolution when you don't even deal with any of the specific points?  That is why I actually linked Neil Shenvi's response to it, because he doesn't make unproven generalizations but specifically addresses the document.  Did you take the time to read the Shenvi link?  If you've ever read any of Neil Shenvi's writings, he and his writing partner Dr. Patrick Sawyer are both researchers, scholars, and fierce opponents of CRT, CT, and etc... And yet they didn't see compromising aspects to Resolution 9.    You're coming across quite subjective in why you think that the resolution is a compromising document.

Given that CRT is today's cultural and theologically liberal fad, and given that kowtowing to political correctness never ends well, I would have enthusiastically voted against the Resolution if I were a delegate (or messenger).  It strikes me as being very unwise -- opening the door to further abuse and misuse by those who don't think Res 9 went far enough in affirming CRT.  Reviewing the above video of three SBC seminary professors/administrators seems to me to demonstrate that certain persons in the SBC are already going beyond what Res 9 authorizes.  The SBC is going to have to revisit the issue; hopefully they'll do a better job next time.  I started to write that the proponents of CRT in the SBC are probably inevitably going to go too far and then get shut down more completely, but that may be too optimistic.

2 to 5 minute clips of these 3 SBTS professors without much context to their talks is terrible way to prove that they are influenced by CRT.  Its just bad journalism because it allows the viewer (like yourself) to establish what they meant rather than doing all the grunt work to discover the speaker's intent in the video.  On a side note, I find it quite hypocritical that we follow a high standard of hermeneutical guidelines in interpreting scripture by doing the hard work of establishing authorial intent, but are extremely sloppy and subjective with hardly any research when we attempt to describe what the authors meant in these videos.   By the way, I am more familiar with Curtis Woods and Jarvis Williams than I am with Matthew Hall because I've read both journal articles and blog articles from both of them.    But as an example of this, lets look at the first video cut of Matthew Hall where he states he struggles with racism and White Supremacy and will continue to struggle with these sins until he dies.  On a surface level, many anti-SJ Christians see this as a prime example of CRT influence because they assumed and criticized Hall for acting "Woke" or Hall believing he is somehow trapped because of his whiteness in a cycle of "White-Guilt" for his privilege and oppressive status.  Without any context along with a MacArthur-influenced bias from the viewer, it would be quite easy to make such a shallow assumption.  But the fact of the matter is, because of our shared identity with Adam, we struggle with sin.  And because racism is a sin, there will be an inclination towards the sin of racism, or  pride, or sexual immorality, and the list goes on...in every fallen human heart.   To find out if he is actually influenced by CRT, there needs to be an important question asked.  Does he also believe that People of Color can also struggle with the sin of racism their entire lives as well?  If Hall denies, for example, that black Christian folks could ever be racist or struggle with the sin of racism throughout their lives, then he's compromised the doctrine of sin and adopted a dangerous CRT worldview when it comes to these cultural issues.  Right now, there's not enough information given to reach the conclusion that the video is attempting to make. Again, bad journalism.

Also, the person who strung these videos together, Trevor Loudon, is a far-right political conspiracy theorist (who believed that Obama was a closet communist) not a person who has done any serious research on CRT.      In contrast, what I like about Neil Shenvi/Patrick Sawyer is that they really go the distance with the research and attempt to be fair without all the logical fallacies that normally accompany many of the anti-social justice Christian leaders such as MacArthur, Johnson, Ascol, Buck, Wilson, and etc....

Jim Welch's picture

JOEB, I can appreciate your passion for those who have been abused.  I can not be silent and let you use unbiblical and ungoldy language in the post.  All caps, BIG MOUTH MCARTHUR is in my opinion unbecoming of a servant of the Lord who must be gentle.  I encourage you to stay passionate.  I encourage you to use language that reflects the fruit of God's Holy Spirit. 

Bert Perry's picture

TylerR wrote:

The best thing for all of us to do is separate from Baylor and from every compromiser who dares to have his photograph disgrace that image (heh, heh) ...

My thought is that the best reason to separate from Baylor is not having Moore speak, but rather the tolerance of sexual assault that their sportsball programs exhibited a few years back.  Hopefully not any more, but I've not been watching their debacle the way I've been watching the (deleted for Jim Welch's sake, smile, J/K Jim) at my alma mater, Michigan State.

A serious thought regarding Jim Welch's comment; Joe was talking about the regrettable pattern among many leaders, including too many in conservative evangelicalism, of brushing aside some very serious criminal issues for the sake of maintaining a facade of respectability.  If we're more concerned about using ALL CAPS or calling someone "scum", we seriously need to change our perspective.  Also worth noting is that those ministering to victims, or the loved ones of victims, will do well to let some emphatic or even obscene language slide.  Diverting the discussion from super-serious crimes to "watch your language" would seem to be a Matthew 23:24 moment.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

Agreed.  I'll use Bad Actor.  Question is do you agree with my argument that McArthur has no business throwing grenades at Beth Moore.  The whole issue of a women preaching is totally secondary to the problems the SBC faces and McArthur faces. Right the ship first then get into the other.
   
The male Pastors in the SBC are more concerned with Moore then the fact that GILYARD a convicted child sex abuser is back in a SBC pulpit and instead of getting GILYARD booted  and booting any SBC Pastors who aided and abetted Paige Patterson allowing GILYARD to allegedly rape his way through four churches.  GILYARD repented doesn't cut it anymore and the Pastors who kept this monster and other monsters in business should have their credentials revoked by the SBC.    

Again who cares right now if BETH MOORE is preaching.  It's a minor issue compared to all the other outstanding issues.  Deal with that when the ship is righted and most of the wholes are plugged and as many of the the big sized mice aboard are thrown overboard in a compassionate way.  I'm sorry is no good anymore to continue as a Pastor.   
 

It's called a serious misplacement of priorities by supposedly Men of God.  Bert's point of the good that Beth Moore is doing greatly outweighs at this point anything McArthur has done until McArthur is cleared.  As Bert said in the past an Independant Investigation by the church needs to be done regarding McArthur.  

Jay's picture

If you want to know why Moore is so popular instead of griping about her popularity, here is the reason in a nutshell:

The specific book I'm reading is "Get out of that pit", and in it, she shows that she "gets" that people are hurting.  This makes sense in a world where about 2/3 of young people eventually live in a home where Mom and Dad are not together, where 1/4 of young people are sexually abused, and where the 2/3 of young people who aren't made to get a bachelor's degree often face a horrible time in the job market--and where those who are fit for a BA or BS often end up with crippling student loans.

Beth Moore is popular because she speaks to issues that most women have dealt with all of their lives and men haven't or discount if they do.  Frankly, if some of our pastors understood that and had the kind of hesed love for their sheep that Beth has for her supporters, we probably wouldn't need to have this conversation at all.  

Moore to the point (groan)...while I understand MacArthur's opposition to women preachers and agree with him that the office of pastor / elder is off limits to women, the entire thing seemed much more designed like an opportunity designed to take shots at everyone's favorite whipping girl than a serious discussion of anything in particular.  I thought Johnson's description of Moore as "narcissistic" was rich with irony, and that MacArthur's remarks about selling wares on TV was completely uncalled for.

I am also concerned about what seems like a drift from "Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time" to something that is increasingly driven by a pugnacious tendency to engage with every possible threat to Christianity in general.  I know what GTY was built on because I've been a fan of theirs since the early aughts.  It's not at all the vibe that I get now from Sun Valley and they seem to be distracted from their original focus on systematic bible exposition, which is terribly disappointing.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jim Welch's picture

I am not aware of the SBC's issue with Gilyard; but if what you say is true (& I have no reason to doubt it), the man is not to be trusted to have a pulpit or pastoral gospel ministry.

I am still waiting to see how the MacArthur issue turns out.  Clearly no one is accusing Mac of sexual sin.  I will reserve judgment on how he did or did not handle the rape accusations at Masters.

Beth Moore is a known by now.  She can be judged by her words.  So, I don't want to get in a "which is the greater sin" arguement.  You are absolutely correct about Gilyard.  Not sure that John MacArthur needs to be shut down just yet.  Thanks

Mark_Smith's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

Mark, did you just prove my point by demonstrating your willingness to tolerate MacArthur's lies, slanders, and misrepresentations on a topic where he knows very little about?  And since you speak in such broad-brush generalities, what are some specific examples of CRT ideology among Southern Baptists that you see as foolishness or not Biblical? 

Certainly not.

You think the CRT Resolution is fine and useful for race relations. I think it is a back door to changing biblical interpretation and Christians have no business using it for any reason whatsoever. It was a resolution that came out of nowhere. No one knew anything about it when it showed up at the SBC convention for approval. Most people were looking at each other and asking what is CRT? Since then I have studied CRT to a reasonable extent and I know it serves no purpose other than deconstructing Western civilization, and the Bible's role in that.

Furthermore, you split hairs over Mac's interpretation of the resolution. That is not the same as "Mac is a lair and a deceiver." I think you are taking it too far.

Bert Perry's picture

Jim, Darrell Gilyard was something of a protege of Paige Patterson's until the weight of his sexual offenses (including at least one sexual assault that landed him in prison) became too much.  Whether, or how long, Patterson tolerated this while knowing is a hot subject of debate.

Regarding MacArthur this way, the worst allegations I've heard have to do with handling of Title IX reports, including one where reportedly a student was expelled with a 0.0GPA after 3 years of As for the "crime" of not confessing to infractions of student code after being raped.  Have not seen the grade reports/transcript/etc.. to verify or deny this.  These allegations are at least tangentially related to the accreditation issues with The Master's College centering around whether students have adequate support and whether trustees are adequately independent of MacArthur.

But back to the subject, my biggest concern is related to your comment on the language used; in the case with Moore, and in the case Joel mentions, MacArthur seems to be making some rather reckless accusations and outright insults.   We should be troubled.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Joeb's picture

Bert good argument.  You said it very well. I just want to say from my background a criminal act within a church especially in the nature of sexual abuse trumps all other priorities especially if the system is corrupt.  
 

Who cares about gay marriage or women Preachers.  Those  are administrative matters that fall under church discipline.  The other even if it is theft or wife beating is the higher priority period.  When we're talking safety issues they are number one.  It could even involve child custody issues wherein a husband or wife kidnap a child from a Christian School campus.  Safety safety safety trumps all.  

dmyers's picture

Joel Shaffer wrote:

Um.....How can you make a judgment about it being a compromising resolution when you don't even deal with any of the specific points?  That is why I actually linked Neil Shenvi's response to it, because he doesn't make unproven generalizations but specifically addresses the document.  Did you take the time to read the Shenvi link?  If you've ever read any of Neil Shenvi's writings, he and his writing partner Dr. Patrick Sawyer are both researchers, scholars, and fierce opponents of CRT, CT, and etc... And yet they didn't see compromising aspects to Resolution 9.    You're coming across quite subjective in why you think that the resolution is a compromising document.

Given that CRT is today's cultural and theologically liberal fad, and given that kowtowing to political correctness never ends well, I would have enthusiastically voted against the Resolution if I were a delegate (or messenger).  It strikes me as being very unwise -- opening the door to further abuse and misuse by those who don't think Res 9 went far enough in affirming CRT.  Reviewing the above video of three SBC seminary professors/administrators seems to me to demonstrate that certain persons in the SBC are already going beyond what Res 9 authorizes.  The SBC is going to have to revisit the issue; hopefully they'll do a better job next time.  I started to write that the proponents of CRT in the SBC are probably inevitably going to go too far and then get shut down more completely, but that may be too optimistic.

2 to 5 minute clips of these 3 SBTS professors without much context to their talks is terrible way to prove that they are influenced by CRT.  Its just bad journalism because it allows the viewer (like yourself) to establish what they meant rather than doing all the grunt work to discover the speaker's intent in the video.  On a side note, I find it quite hypocritical that we follow a high standard of hermeneutical guidelines in interpreting scripture by doing the hard work of establishing authorial intent, but are extremely sloppy and subjective with hardly any research when we attempt to describe what the authors meant in these videos.   By the way, I am more familiar with Curtis Woods and Jarvis Williams than I am with Matthew Hall because I've read both journal articles and blog articles from both of them.    But as an example of this, lets look at the first video cut of Matthew Hall where he states he struggles with racism and White Supremacy and will continue to struggle with these sins until he dies.  On a surface level, many anti-SJ Christians see this as a prime example of CRT influence because they assumed and criticized Hall for acting "Woke" or Hall believing he is somehow trapped because of his whiteness in a cycle of "White-Guilt" for his privilege and oppressive status.  Without any context along with a MacArthur-influenced bias from the viewer, it would be quite easy to make such a shallow assumption.  But the fact of the matter is, because of our shared identity with Adam, we struggle with sin.  And because racism is a sin, there will be an inclination towards the sin of racism, or  pride, or sexual immorality, and the list goes on...in every fallen human heart.   To find out if he is actually influenced by CRT, there needs to be an important question asked.  Does he also believe that People of Color can also struggle with the sin of racism their entire lives as well?  If Hall denies, for example, that black Christian folks could ever be racist or struggle with the sin of racism throughout their lives, then he's compromised the doctrine of sin and adopted a dangerous CRT worldview when it comes to these cultural issues.  Right now, there's not enough information given to reach the conclusion that the video is attempting to make. Again, bad journalism.

Also, the person who strung these videos together, Trevor Loudon, is a far-right political conspiracy theorist (who believed that Obama was a closet communist) not a person who has done any serious research on CRT.      In contrast, what I like about Neil Shenvi/Patrick Sawyer is that they really go the distance with the research and attempt to be fair without all the logical fallacies that normally accompany many of the anti-social justice Christian leaders such as MacArthur, Johnson, Ascol, Buck, Wilson, and etc....

Shenvi's post is very good.  He simply has more confidence than I that those who refer to Res 9 in the future are going to do so in good faith or objectively.  It's good to know that there are people out there like Shenvi who can help us respond to those who will attempt to use Res 9 improperly as an endorsement of CRT (or CT, as Shenvi refers to it).  I didn't recite all the specific provisions of the resolution because I thought it was pretty obvious which ones were intended to provide the "fencing" around the use of CRT. In any event, my comment wasn't a factual one; I was giving my opinion or analysis, with which anyone is free to disagree.

I'd be very interested to know if Shenvi has interacted with either the YouTube video of the three SBC seminary professors, or if he has interacted with any of those professors' statements directly.  If he has, could you post a relevant link here?  In the absence of such, I'd invite anyone to view that video to see if it seems likely that the professors' statements are being presented unfairly.  Your description isn't accurate -- each clip goes on noticeably longer than typical "hit" pieces, I think in an effort to avoid being accused of being less than full statements or taken out of context.  And there are multiple clips of each professor.  You assume the clips are unfair, but you don't provide any evidence that they were.  Did the professors complain they were being misrepresented?  Did they explain how?  Have you viewed the entire video of the sources of the clips to see if the professors were actually saying something different than what the clips presents?  If not, you're just speculating.  I'm reacting to what they've actually said; you're complaining on the basis of something else you hope they said.

I don't know anything about Loudon or his organization, Enemies Within.  Being an Obama critic isn't a negative to me.  And like I said, if your guy Shenvi has weighed in on this video, directly or indirectly, I'd love to know his thoughts.

dmyers's picture

Bert Perry wrote:

A serious thought regarding Jim Welch's comment; Joe was talking about the regrettable pattern among many leaders, including too many in conservative evangelicalism, of brushing aside some very serious criminal issues for the sake of maintaining a facade of respectability.  If we're more concerned about using ALL CAPS or calling someone "scum", we seriously need to change our perspective.  Also worth noting is that those ministering to victims, or the loved ones of victims, will do well to let some emphatic or even obscene language slide.  Diverting the discussion from super-serious crimes to "watch your language" would seem to be a Matthew 23:24 moment.

This has my head spinning a little.  Joe's extremely strong language against MacArthur is just fine and shouldn't become more important than the underlying issue he's addressing, but MacArthur's simple "go home" IS the story and he's to be condemned for having said it?  Am I missing something that doesn't make this a black and white example of a double standard?

Bert Perry's picture

You're missing a bunch, dmyers.  The major knock against MacArthur is not (or at least should not be) that he used strong language.  It is that what he said was a series of insults with little basis in fact.  

On the flip side, what Joe said, in light of what MacArthur clearly did, is strong language, but has a basis in fact.    

To put things gently, Ephesians 4:29 and other verses regulating our speech do need to be read in context of Prophets, Apostles, and Christ Himself referring to people as "whitewashed tombs", "brood of vipers", "adulterers", "cows of Bashan", and the like.  What matters seems to be not whether we use ALL CAPS (like the Alexandrian manuscripts of the NT) or suggest that someone's in need of a filter on one's mouth, but rather whether what comes out is true and worth saying.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dmyers's picture

OK, now you've lost me.  What "series of insults with little basis in facts"?  If you're talking about the various statements paraphrased in the RNS article, which ones do you contend were insults without factual basis?

As far as "what MacArthur clearly did," are we talking about his "go home" comment or about the failure-to-report-abuse allegations Joe addressed?  If the latter, Joe provided no links or citations to demonstrate that MacArthur "clearly did" (or didn't do) anything.  Do you have any such evidence/proof?  Or is the issue still being investigated/adjudicated so that you and Joe are assuming a conclusion before it's proven one way or the other?  These are genuine questions, because I'm completely unfamiliar with the situation(s) Joe is talking about.

TylerR's picture

Editor

The attitude on display from that Reformation Charlotte article is despicable. The sychophants on both sides are disgusting. What a horror show this is, just in time for Halloween.  

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Bert Perry's picture

Dmyers, watch the video.  It's linked from the original article.  If you can't figure out where he's being reckless, I'm not going to be able to help you.  

For further examples of reckless, vicious accusations, take another look at "Reformation Charlotte".  Again, if you can't see how this would be rightly seen as reckless or objectionable, again, I cannot help you.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

dmyers's picture

I watched the video, Bert.  Complaining about a series of insults with little basis in facts and then refusing to identify which statements you're talking about is a complete cop-out.  As far as I'm concerned, you've nullified your own complaint.

As for gripes about the site I linked to, I stated up front I wasn't vouching for them.  The point is what Beth Moore said.  But you studiously avoid responding to that.  You also completely ignored the second paragraph of my most recent comment.  

If you're going to cast aspersions on John MacArthur while defending Beth Moore (!), stand up and walk us through the details of your criticisms and your factual support for each, and then respond point by point to the push back you get.  Otherwise, you're just talking smack.  Go somewhere else and do that where you can have your own echo chamber instead of wasting our time.

Jay's picture

That Reformation Charlotte article is exactly the kind of thing that proves MacArthur's critics (of whom I am one) right.  There's no substance there - it's simply angry ranting and incessant name-calling instead of rational disagreement.  Frankly, I think that Wilson, Johnson, Ascol and the others that are so upset about this are doing the best job of illustrating the problems in their view of complementarianism, so I largely sit back and refer to them as appropriate.  The RC article just adds more evidence to the view that there are some very strange and misogynistic ideas in certain corners of "complementarianism".

These two articles, on the other hand, are excellent and well worth your time:

A Response to John MacArthur and an Appeal for Common Courtesy
How to Turn Conservative Evangelicals into Egalitarians

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Larry's picture

Moderator

Joel, I wonder if there is any room for someone to disagree with you on how a particular thing might be applied without being accused of slander, lying, etc.? Even a misunderstanding wouldn't rise to that level of charge, would it?

TylerR's picture

Editor

The FBFI just decided to link to an article from Pulpit & Pen, that wretched sewer of the Reformed internet, about Karen Prior's recent hire at SEBTS. Feast your eyes on this title: "SEBTS Hires Gay Affirming Feminist Who Says ‘Abortion Isn’t Murder’ to Teach at SBC Seminary."

Here is P&P's original article.

The internet can be a great place. It can also be an outlet for the most vile, hate-filled and despicable conduct. This is the latter, and the FBFI ought to be ashamed. It is unworthy of your organization. Or perhaps it is ...

Shameful! I will continue to steer any and every Christian I meet (young, old and in-between) away this toxic conception of Christian life and practice.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and an Investigations Manager with a Washington State agency. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Jay's picture

...but not all that shocking.  By their fruits you shall know them, Tyler.

 

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Jay's picture

Since you raised the issue of Moore calling MacArthur a misogynist, I wanted to link to her tweet directly.

And for those who may not want to click on the link, this is what she said:

Hey, y’all. Let’s cool it on the slander toward JMac et al. Doesn’t honor God. Let’s move on.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Joeb's picture

Tyler if you are arguing that due to the FBFI Member's past blunders they should not be saying booh I'm all with you.  However as far as their complaint against this female professor I think there are good grounds to differ with her concerning her positions unless the FBFI is erroneously presenting them.  
 

I said it a few times now.  Except for the Hyles/Anderson crowd it seems to me the traditional IFB overall has learned their lesson and are moving on in a good direction.  Question is has it been long enough to again start criticizing others for obvious reasons I don't know.  However at least they are moving in a positive direction.  For that I thank God for 

If I'm misunderstanding you Tyler please correct me.  

Jim Welch's picture

Bert, I don't often get on SI to comment.  Too much hate on here.  Bert, according the scripture you are wrong about the usage of language.  No corrupt communication should come out of my mouth or yours.  So no place for a Christian to use vulgar or obscene language allowed for the child of God.  As far as calling a minister of the gospel a BIG MOUTH, I still stand by my words-just misses the taste of the fruit of the spirit.  

This is my last word on the subject.  Seriously swallowing a gnat, I don't think so.  If I remember correctly, my Lord said something about our words and being judged by them.  I love good discussions of truth.  I love good debates.  Your words were designed to shame me.  I refuse to be shamed.  

dmyers's picture

Jay, I'm not sure whether you're missing the point or purposely being obtuse or misleading.  Yes, what you quote was Moore's early morning response to the kerfuffle.  (And good for her on that one.)  By that afternoon, however, her tone had changed significantly and she accused MacArthur (and all complementarians) of misogyny.  Her words:

Really busy work day so I’m just now able to follow this up. Believe me, you guys, I’m not talking about cooling it on the issues. Misogyny is rampant & shameful. I’m talking about not returning insult for insult. What Jesus called us to do in a case like this is HARD but right.

So her version of not returning insult for insult is to say MacArthur (and anyone who agrees with him about women preaching and/or Beth Moore's overstepping biblical boundaries) isn't just wrong or misunderstanding something, but hates women.  That's a bald-faced lie, and she knows it.  But that's the politically correct, "woke" defense to every disagreement:  I'm not going to prove my case from scripture, I'm going to accuse you of hating all women, or all minorities, or whatever.  It's bollocks.

How about you defend the tweet I pointed to instead of the one I didn't point to?

Mark_Smith's picture

TylerR wrote:

The FBFI just decided to link to an article from Pulpit & Pen, that wretched sewer of the Reformed internet, about Karen Prior's recent hire at SEBTS. Feast your eyes on this title: "SEBTS Hires Gay Affirming Feminist Who Says ‘Abortion Isn’t Murder’ to Teach at SBC Seminary."

Here is P&P's original article.

The internet can be a great place. It can also be an outlet for the most vile, hate-filled and despicable conduct. This is the latter, and the FBFI ought to be ashamed. It is unworthy of your organization. Or perhaps it is ...

Shameful! I will continue to steer any and every Christian I meet (young, old and in-between) away this toxic conception of Christian life and practice.

Tyler, That SEBTS division of English and Christianity & Culture is of major concern to me. They are one of the sources of Prop 9 that MacArthur talked about, having promoted CRT in evangelicalism for a while now.

So what is your view of Prior?

Mark_Smith's picture

dmyers wrote:

I'm not sure whether you're missing the point or purposely being obtuse or misleading. 

Dmyers, what a great statement. I have thought that about several people here at SI! Smile

Jay's picture

The tweet in question never references MacArthur at all.  Beth specifically mentions "the issues" and then refers to "misogyny" a moment later.  She also explicitly denies the validity of "returning insult for insult".

You can freak out and read shots at MacArthur into the tweet, or you can read what was actually written:

Really busy work day so I’m just now able to follow this up. Believe me, you guys, I’m not talking about cooling it on the issues. Misogyny is rampant & shameful. I’m talking about not returning insult for insult. What Jesus called us to do in a case like this is HARD but right.

And as others have said, MacArthur misrepresented Resolution 9 to his audience.  What he said it was is untrue but what a lot of random people believe it to be.  Read the text of Resolution 9.  I have read it, disagree with it, and would have voted against it but I am not going to lie about what it says.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Pages