This last weekend, Beth Moore, a prominent charismatic and feminist preacher, had her drummer come forward and kneel on the stage “asking their forgiveness for all hurts & harms they’ve ever received at the hands of men”.
I want to first give thanks to Snapper(one of my regular reader) who sent this my way and I also want to give credit to PulpitAndPen for their powerful rebuke of this wickedness where they stated:
“Moore started her career as a teacher for women, but now preaches to both genders. Evangelical leaders like John Piper have encouraged men to listen to her violations of 1 Timothy 2:12. Not deterred by Scriptural admonitions against women teaching doctrine or preaching to men, Moore has gradually become a chief proponent of evangelical feminism…
Of course, there is nothing in Scripture that suggests any individual can apologize for the sins of someone else, least alone an entire gender. The very notion is Biblically untenable. Neither is it wise to presume that every woman is a victim, but in Critical Race Theory (which is a Marxist political ideology that applies to gender, sexuality and other “identity groups” as well as race) and in the ideology of Marxist Intersectionality (the combining of two “victimized” identity group, in this case Native Americans and women), it is necessary to presume victimhood upon all.”
I say to PulpitAndPen- AMEN and AMEN. What wickedness our generation is now seeing before its very eyes.
Now let me add a few of my own thoughts to what PulpitAndPen said. Much of this error goes back to the roots of Methodism and Pentecostalism.
During the reformation, Protestants rejected both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox position that Church tradition was equally as authoritative as the Bible. Protestants also rejected the Catholic doctrine of Papal authority as well. The Protestants while having diverse opinions on many doctrines were united in the doctrine of “sola fide” meaning “justification by faith alone” against the Catholic Church’s position of faith plus works being necessary for salvation.
One of the main divisions within Protestantism was over the issue of whether the Scriptures alone formed the basis of faith and practice or whether they simply had higher authority than church tradition.
Some Protestants took the position of “prima scriptura” which held that the Scriptures were the “first” or “above all” source of divine revelation BUT not the only guide for faith and practice. The Anglicans believed in following church tradition as long it did not conflict with the Scriptures. The Methodists and the Pentecostal churches that grew out of the Methodists believed visions and other supernatural gifts were also to guide the churches.
And it was this error at the very root of Methodism and Pentecostalism which lead both groups to embrace feminism far before any other evangelical churches did.
Others Protestants like the Lutheran churches, Presbyterian churches and Baptist churches strongly held to the doctrine of “sola scriptura” which meant that the Bible alone was the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
However, the Baptists were the strongest and loudest of all the Protestants in their preaching of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The Baptists were heavily persecuted by other Protestants on the basis of another major division between Protestant groups and that is on the issue of infant baptism. Baptists were persecuted by other Protestant groups for rejecting infant baptism as unscriptural and instead preaching believer’s baptism by immersion.
This is why it should come as no surprise that the “Bible Belt” which is overwhelming populated by Baptist churches and located in the Southern United States has the highest concentration of conservative Bible believing Christians in the United States. It is in this place where we find the most Christians in America standing against feminism. That is not to say there are not outliers throughout the rest of the country. I do not live in the south but I can say where I live there are outposts of Christianity that are taking a stand against this apostasy as well.
The Church can never ever base its practices on either the traditions or feelings of men or women for that matter. Our sole source of faith, our rules for church conduct (including offices and those who preach or teach) and our rules for holy living must be founded upon the Word of God and the Word of God alone.
CBNNew reported on the following on this incident:
“Moore said tears began falling and that the Holy Spirit fell on the women. “How much more Christlike could this brother have been?” she asked. “He had committed no such sins against women. But he stood before them representing those who had. It was one of the most powerful things I’ve ever seen.”
The tears flowed like rain. I was told again & again that most of them had never EVER heard these things addressed & had certainly never heard anyone say I’m so sorry. Many hurts also come through other women & I addressed those next but this was when the Holy Spirit fell on us.
— Beth Moore (@BethMooreLPM) October 8, 2018 “
What this drummer did was not Christlike at all. We as Christian men bow before God. Christian men do not bow to the idols of feminism or the MeToo movement. Christian men stand firm in the faith.
9 thoughts on “Beth Moore Has A Man Bow to the MeToo Movement”
“Feminist Christian” = “Oxymoron”.
The fact that this church has a female preacher is a dead giveaway that it’s “fake Christianity”. The Bible clearly states that the preacher must be a married male.
There is no room for feminism in Christian doctrine. Women are making the mistake of trying to be God in our society just like Eve in the garden! Men are making the mistake of following women doing this just like Adam in the garden! Will we never learn? Will we never grow? Will people be so easily mislead? Serve the Lord Jesus only. His way only. Accept who He made you to be with humility and gladness. Accept the place He gives you at the table with gratitude.
I think what frustrates me about Beth Moore is that the woman clearly has biblical knowledge, and it was fine when her calling was to teach and encourage women in the faith so long as her husband did not object and she was meeting all of her responsibilities as a wife. I am going to say, like Eve, she wanted more and she went outside of biblical boundaries for it. I am also going to say that her husband failed her, by giving her the free reigns to get this far out of bounds. This is how sin is. First she violates 1 Tim 2;12 and begins to teach men. Then she has them bowing before women violating God’s clear order! I don’t hope to know what is next. Women, be careful with your desired to be bowed to, it is not from God, but from the one who wants to destroy you.
People (both men and women) need to learn what it is to follow.
In the past Feminists would say “Has God really said”.
Now they apparently skip the pretense and go straight to “you shall be as god” complete with the worship of men.
“You shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,”
A funny spoof on this stuff…
Strangely, Baptists are not even considered Protestants by some Baptists. Its like they consider themselves to be independent(not mean’t to refer to the Independent Baptist denomination). Wonderful article though!
I agree with you on every point except that true Independant Baptist (myself included) are not protestant. We were never a part of and completely reject the catholic organization. We trace our roots back through the Anabaptist which has existed since the establishment of the church with Jesus and his disciples.
I highly recommend the booklet “the trail of blood” by J. M. Carroll as a brief outline of the history. It is available as a free pdf online.
I am extremely familiar with J.M. Carroll’s Trail of Blood. Most of the Independent Baptist Churches I was raised in and the Independent Baptist Church I attend now has copies of this book readily available to its members. I read through that book several times in my youth. I like many independent Baptists used to believe it was true until I dug deeper into Carroll’s claims. I have always been an avid student of World history, church history and American history. I made it my business to delve deep into this history of the church including the anabaptists.
My conclusion was this. I do believe that there is evidence to prove that that there were some groups of Christians that resisted Rome’s attempt to start exercising authority over the whole church. The church historian Eusebius claimed that Linus, a character mentioned in the New Testament, was “the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter” and Jerome made a similar claim stating that he was “the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church”. Some historians dispute that there is any real evidence of Peter ever being in Rome. But lets just say Eusebius and Jerome got it right and they saw more evidence than we do today for Peter being in Rome and taking charge of the Church at Rome.
Here is what happened. The church at Rome falsely believed since Linus had received his “episcopate”, or Bishop’s authority over the church at Rome, that he was somehow not just some normal church Bishop. But rather since he received his appointment from Peter he was special Bishop who sat in “the chair of Peter”. Eventually Bishops of the Church at Rome following Linus began to expand on this “chair of Peter” concept as if the church at Rome had a special place to settle doctrinal and church practice disputes for all Christian churches throughout the world.
Unfortunately many churches, especially those in north Africa and the middle east began to fall for this false assumption of power the church at Rome was making. In a way it is understandable as some felt like the leader of the church of Rome could be a human connection to the Apostles. But the point is in the Scriptures we see the that the office of Apostle was temporary for the establishment of the church and unlike Bishops and Deacons there are no qualifications and appointment processes mentioned for this type of hierarchical position over the church. And it is for this very reason, the complete lack of Scripture authority for a papal office, that many Christian churches in what is today northern Italy, France and other areas of Europe reject invention of the papacy by the church at Rome.
These dissident who rejected the invention of the papacy and held to the Scriptures as their only authority for faith and practice where the forerunners of the Waldeneses and many like minded groups throughout Europe. As far a Baptism goes the Waldeneses were said to reject infant baptism and tithes to churches and they were very much for seperation of church of state. Unforunately though the Waldeneses after many centuries of persecution by the Catholic church began to fold on their infant baptism position and started allowing their children to be baptised in order to avoid death and other persecution even if they did not believe in its spiritual power as the Catholics did. The would eventually join with the Swiss Protestants accepting the doctrines of the reformers at the same time that a new group called “Anabaptists” were seperating themselves from the Swiss Protestants. But there is absolutely no historical connection between Conrad Grebel’s Swiss Anabaptists and the Waldeneses.
The Anabaptists would eventually become several factions including the Mennonites(which made up the vast majority of Anabapists) and also the Hutterites, Amish and Quakers.
Now we come to the English Baptists from which Independent Baptists are directly descended. They is absolutely NO historical connection between the Waldneses, or any other earlier anabaptist groups and the English baptists. Even Conrad Grebel’s Anabaptist movement which came directly out of the Swiss Reformation(they were called radical reformers) has little connection to the first English Baptists. The first English Baptists were actually former Anglicans.
John Smyth became an Anglican priest in 1594 but in the years to follow he would become an English Separatist rejecting the Anglican church believing it was still following too many traditions of the Catholic church and not the Bible. He fled with about 50 followers from King James I’s persecution to Amsterdam with he established and English separatist church. His writings show he came to believe the Scriptures only showed two offices, that of the Bishop and Deacon and office of the priesthood as the Anglican and Catholic churches had. In 1609 he came to realize his baptism from the Anglican church was illegitimate and that he and he congregation would all need to be rebaptized. He baptized himself and then 36 others, one of those being Thomas Helwys.
The sad part is that in 1611, after a couple of years of interactions with Mennonite Baptists in Amsterdam, John Smyth came to reject his new faith and church he had formed. Part of the reason was that the Mennonite’s believing a false Apostlic succession theory, convinced Smyth he had no authority to baptize himself of he church. He tried to convince his members to abandon their church and join with the Mennonites. Some of them did. But Thomas Helwys stood against Smyth and the Mennonites even saying the Mennonites believed in many false doctrines including being pacifists, or being involved in political office or swearing oaths and there generally isolationists tendencies. Thomas Helwys recommend to his church that Smyth be excommunicated from the church he had founded and Thomas Helwys took over as its pastor. He then moved his congregation back to London where he would found the first permanent Baptist Church in 1611.
All of the Baptist churches of England from that point forward either came directly from Thomas Helwy’s church or they were started by other English Separatist groups in England that believed in the Baptist doctrines. Of course later we would have the divide between the general(which is what Hewlys was) and the particular Baptists over the doctrines of Calvinism. But the point of all this is – Baptists actually did come out of the Protestants. To say they were never Protestants is not historically accurate. Now if you were to say the doctrines they believed in were held by many groups prior to the Martin Luther and the reformation – that would be true as well. But it Baptist succession theory is neither Biblical or historically accurate. In fact the first English Baptists adamantly opposed as false doctrine the idea of Apostolic succession spread by the Mennonite Anabaptists.
I am beginning to wonder if Beth Moore and the other feminist preachers are what Jesus was warning about in Rev 2 at Thyatira regarding Jezebel. So many parallels to modern churches and I wonder if many of them are modern Thyatira’s. First, a woman teaching, called Jezebel by Jesus. What does she do? She leads his servants away from Him so they can commit fornication and eat things sacrificed to idols. I was thinking quite literally the first time I read this, but then I wondered if Jesus was talking about this spiritually or perhaps both. Could them eating things sacrificed to idols mean their acceptance of her false teaching the result of which is them to no longer belong to him? Could that mistruth be the seed of feminism that we now see in the church? Another connection that sticks in my mind is that feminism paves the road for sexual sins like the acceptance of gays in church. Would that have ever gained a foothold if it wasn’t for feminism (or a Thyatira) situation? I can’t help but to think about Beth Moore and her like when I read this…
I have never heard that visions, etc were to guide the church in my Pentecostal church. In fact, I have always heard if any “gift” does no line up exactly with scripture, to discard it.
That being said, I know there are a lot of looney “pentecostals” out there.