Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Bolshevik Beth

Beth Moore comes out of egalitarian closet

I’m a little late to commenting on this as there were other stories to talk about. However the unsurprising nature of Beth Moore coming out against her complicity in complementarianism was easily foreseen when she departed the Southern Baptist Convention. One month ago Evangelical Dark Web noted this about Moore’s career move:

A move by Beth Moore has long been expected, as she has immersed herself in Critical Theory and will probably milk the opportunity to become an ordained pastor at an egalitarian church.

In a tweet thread, she apologized for “supporting” complementarianism.

At the time I aptly noted that we should use Scripture to interpret Scripture, not Trump, as the year 2016 would indicate. Beth Moore’s words also resemble a woke apology tour.

Beth Moore has attacked people for denouncing her as egalitarian in the past

Never shy to lash out at critics, Beth Moore has lashed out at those who publicly call her (past) complementarianism a lie. JD Hall notes in his open letter on the subject:

Amidst my encouragement, however, I also have a rebuke. While you concealed in your heart a detestation for complementarianism, which you have only recently denounced, you simultaneously accused me of slander for claiming that you were not a complementarian. But Beth, you in fact did not believe in complementarianism and I was correct all along (and so were many others with me). You chose not only to sit by while your fans and followers called us “slanderers,” you let them proclaim that you’ve only been misunderstood and that you must be a complementarian because you were a Southern Baptist (a stupid thought, but a common one).

Evidently all those who called her egalitarian are vindicated by her recent actions.

Her arguments about “litmus test” are wrong

Her first tweet articulates a substantive premise about using doctrine as a litmus test for larger foundational beliefs, like inerrancy and the authority of Scripture. However, she’s wrong. You can make sweeping inferences based on seemingly minor issues. For instance, Beth Moore scrubbing biblical sexuality from her books is a good indication that she has, at best, a squish view on what the Bible says on the issue.

More applicably to the situation, egalitarianism is a rejection of much of Scripture, as egalitarianism teaches that men and women are interchangeable. Before the Bible had its modern indexing system, 1 Timothy 2 where Paul states that women cannot be elders leads right into the qualifications for elders. It’s not entirely unfair to use 1 Timothy 2:9-15 as a proxy (author’s terminology) for one’s belief in the authority of Scripture. Now this is not to say that regenerate Christians and even pastors cannot be in error on this issue, as we are not immune from the errant traditions and teachings of men. However, with Beth Moore, what we are seeing is someone actively rejecting complementarianism and apologizing for professing a belief in it.

Therefore, it’s fair to question whether she believes in the authority of Scripture. Egalitarian proliferates other errors. The United Methodist Church is a prime example. The Evangelical Covenant Church is another example. These purpose of using these proxies is not to reject someone’s salvation, rather for us to act wisely with regards to said individual.


Leave a Reply