What We Can Learn from the John MacArthur Beth Moore Battle
I was hunting Saturday—sitting under a tree near a water hole waiting for an elk to wander in–when I began getting texts from pastor friends about John MacArthur telling Beth Moore to “Go home.” I got a chance to do a little elk blind thinking. This is the best kind of thinking. Do not worry, all the elk are still safe.
It is the new big controversy in the evangelical world. This video has blown up creating controversy between conservative elements of evangelicalism and the more mainstream leaders of the SBC of which Beth Moore is a part.
In a question and answer session, three leaders, including John MacArthur were supposed to give two-word association answers to a prompt word. John MacArthur was given the name “Beth Moore.” His two-word response was “Go home.” The audience responded with loud laughter.
He later followed up by explaining that his response was in regard to the biblical principles of 1 Timothy 2 forbidding women preachers.
One SBC leader has come to Beth Moore’s defense equating MacArthur’s response to the antisemitism of Martin Luther in his latter years (here). J.D. Greear tweeted that Beth Moore was welcome in his house any time. While I think most of us would agree that Beth Moore has handled the speed bump of 1 Timothy 2 by stepping on the gas, this video is creating more heat than light. There are other hermeneutical and theological problems with her teaching, but that must be reserved for another article. Watching the conflict from the outside, we, as Baptist fundamentalists, might take this moment to learn a little.
Word association game? Really?
Word association is not an effective way to deal with theological controversy. Hopefully, this was just a bad idea that did not come across well and will not be repeated. Anytime we treat serious error light-heartedly we will get ourselves in hot water. We will end up treating serious issues as not serious or offending. This particular episode seems to do both. There are better ways to deal with an error, and to his credit, John MacArthur has done this quite effectively historically. Error must be handled with a biblical explanation for the purpose of edification.
Laughter is not an appropriate response to an error in theology or practice.
When I first watched the video and heard the audience response with shocked condescending laughter, I winced. Then I had to ask myself why. The Spirit of God in us sometimes prompts us to initial impulsive response, but we must always verify such a response with biblical principles. So why was I bothered? This format seemed to be about entertainment, not truly making a biblical point. Yes, some funny sermon illustrations can be effective, but they are usually intended to disarm or be self-deprecating, not laughing at the expense of a brother or sister. Laughing at someone’s expense is not kind and not godly (1 Corinthians 13). Laughing at the expense of one who is in error in doctrine or practice does not honor the seriousness of the issue.
This kind of behavior is what many accuse FBFI-types of doing (and have done at times). It looks like we are not the only ones. We need to be more careful to treat serious issues in a serious and thorough way.
There are many ways to disrespect leaders, this is one.
When he was first asked the question, MacArthur said, “I think I am being set up.” He was. This came across to me as John MacArthur being treated like an aging grandpa who has lost his “appropriateness filter”—who says what everyone else wants to say but does not for decorum’s sake. He was treated like one of Shakespeare’s court fools. To me, it seemed to dishonor him.
The political sarcasm/comedy model does not work for Christian theological discussion.
Todd Friel was running the QA session. His Youtube channel is a sort of theological satire. Satire, by its very nature, makes fun of someone. It is condescending. Theological condescension is not godly. It is not loving. When I treat you like you are inferior or ignorant because of your theological position I am “thinking more of myself than I ought to think.” Conservative evangelicalism has a lot of theological condescension these days. Just because someone takes a different view on an issue does not mean he is ignorant. He might be wrong, he might even need to be publicly corrected, but he is not necessarily ignorant, unlearned, or unenlightened. There is more to true Christianity than “theological correctness.”
True New Testament Christianity must also be accompanied by the fruit of the Spirit. Ungodly orthodoxy is still ungodly. I am not saying this video is proof of that. I am saying that it should remind us as biblical Baptist fundamentalists to be careful.
Edit: I was proofing this article and I realized I did it myself. I said, “Beth Moore has handled the speed bump of 1 Timothy 2 by stepping on the gas.” That comment was, well, condescending, but it seemed sort of witty when I originally wrote it. I decided to leave it in the article as an example of how easy it is to do this. Mea culpa.
Thanks for sharing this. Without speaking directly to the scenario you’ve addressed, I would like to suggest that, though some sarcasm and humor is certainly out of place in ministerial conversation, some sarcasm and humor is actually appropriate, even when addressing theological problems and Christian leadership figures. Consider the following examples from Jesus’ own teaching ministry: Mat 7:3, 12:3 (and similar expressions elsewhere), Matt 19:24, Matt 23:4, 14, John 10:32
God’s conversation with Job (Chapters 38-40) was pretty satirical/humorous, as well.
Friends laugh with me. Critics laugh at me. The first is a form of fellowship. But even that can go quickly to the place of disrespect. I’ve learned by sad experience that offence is often in the eyes of the offended. Jesus didn’t say anything good about being offensive.
The rest of the video/audio gives a pretty robust theological foundation for why he said what he did. It was not a personal attack on her, per se, although Phil Johnson used the word “narcissist” to describe her. I do not know her well enough to comment on that. But what MacArthur was pointing to was the theological underpinnings of the biblical notion of proclaiming the gospel. I watched a rebuttal video from some guy saying that he was attacking her just because he didn’t like how she did what she did or something. Then he read Beth Moore’s twitter responses and said she handled it with grace. There was no theological/biblical support of his comments, as there was with MacArthur’s. What MacArthur said is true on this, that is is far beyond a Beth Moore issue. She may be the one to be “out of the barn” initially, but there are plenty more who will follow her and will lead the SBC (in my opinion) down a path of full acceptance.
We can agree or disagree about the format of such a discussion, but the answer that JM ultimately gave was not empty or petty.
Part of this is a whole generation of conservative evangelicals who are learning how to be militant and gracious. That’s a learned art which is not always easy. I’ve been on record of defending Mac on multiple fronts. That said… I appreciate Kevin’s point. All of us need to work on being gracious especially when attached to pointed candor.
John has been in a continuous fight with liberals and also liberal-leaning evangelicals for decades. My guess is his mind is always tilted towards a militant defence of truth. I can’t imagine that’s too different than most of us in the IFCA, FBF & GARBC.
It’s easy to be snarky… especially if you know (or think you know) the other side will be snarky.
Kevin helps our thinking here…
Straight Ahead!
Jt
Read the last four chapters of II Corinthians. They are full of sarcasm, but the kind that brings tears rather than laughter.
Reminders to be careful in our speech are needed. That said, getting one or two word responses to topics can be quite thought provoking. I have experienced this at other conferences. Here, Dr. MacArthur gave an accurate response that got a laugh. The purpose of this panel was clearly not laughter or making light. As others have said, a thorough discussion followed. The only ones who have demeaned Dr. MacArthur are those who erupted in outrage over his standing for the truth: Beth Moore should not be in the pulpit. This exchange has highlighted the compromise taking place on this important issue. Further, satire is an inaccurate characterization of Todd Friel’s ministry. While many BJU grads, myself excluded, seem to cringe at animated personality, vocal variety, and demonstrative expression, Todd Friel is an effective communicator. I would encourage you to watch his program “Wretched” which airs weekdays on NRB. Viewing is free on the NRB app. You will find his show far from condescending but rather theologically rich, evangelistic, and seasoned with grace.
Marty, each to his own, but I find Friel extremely obnoxious. I try to discourage our people from listening to him. Not helpful. Just my opinion, of course!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
At first when I heard the beginning of the clip, I also winced. But then I listened to all of it, every word. I also noted “Beth Moore” and MacArthur’s momentary deliberation before he said, “Go home.” While Todd may have intended this to be lighthearted and humorous (the audience took it this way, too, based on their response), I believe Dr. MacArthur’s response wasn’t actually from the gut but was thoughtful and well stated. I don’t believe he was trying to be funny or sarcastic when he said, “Go home.” I think he was as serious as serious can be. You can tell by his follow-up. I think John was being literal, while others have judged his motives and inferred sarcasm in his tone. John is right. Having good speaking abilities and charisma before audiences doesn’t mean you are qualified to be a pastor/teacher/preacher. Beth has missed her true calling and has pursued a role not endorsed by scripture. The fact that he has been condemned for his comments by so many evangelical leaders just shows how nasty and hypocritical evangelicalism can be. Context matters. This is about women preachers, but haters love to try making it about something else; they are so similar to our liberal media. Folks like to point at Fundamentalists and say we’re the ones who like to fight. We certainly do not have the corner on this market.
In my opinion, Grace to You would be wise to reconsider having Todd F. emcee this type of discussion. I agree with others here. It’s unwise to deal with serious theological concerns in the framework of comedy.