Name-calling, Non-arguments, and Beth Moore
Earlier this year I broadly discussed what anyone with a meaningful grasp of foresight could see was going to effectively explode in modern evangelicalism in regard to Beth Moore. Then, just a few weeks ago John MacArthur essentially caused a tidal wave in Evangelical circles by engaging in a game of word association with WretchedTV host Todd Friel. Later, Dr. James R. White took time to break the controversy down on his podcast and did a very good job, in my opinion, did a good job demonstrating the emptiness of the objections.
One critic of the exchange called it, “tasteless,” which isn’t a real response to the substance of the argument. In fact, the best evidence that the person could muster was to appeal that deals with salvation and not with any precise didactic teaching on the question.
Another recent critique of the controversy, focuses on something that MacArthur, and any “Bible-believing” Christian would certainly agree with: namely that women are called to minister to other women in the church. The question is not that though, it’s in regard to the larger church.
A further critique seems to focus on MacArthur’s “tone” in his comments. I notice that this complaint seems to be a common thread in many of the articles that agree with MacArthur’s position, as if to say, “If he had just been nicer, this wouldn’t be such a big deal.”
I seem to remember a legend about a church father willing to throwing punches in defense of the faith. Then I also seem to remember that our Lord himself, when faced with the cacophony of merchants in the Temple, dropped the civil pretense and started swinging. There comes a point in time that being “nice” seems to need to be checked in favor of being blunt. Even Paul, once called the recipients of one of his letters “fools”.
The problem is that evangelicals are distracted by desiring the approval of culture over the approval of God, and until they decide which they would rather have, there will continue to be a deepening divide.