Methodist Kudzu – The Problem of Beth Moore
If someone is setting fire to your house, why let them in?
One of the more frequent arguments I’ve seen in the church lately is about Beth Moore. A colleague was asked why they wouldn’t allow a Beth Moore bible study to be used by a Sunday School class. The colleague responded with this concise one-liner that we’ll expand on in one of the longest posts ever at Hacking Christianity:
“If someone is setting fire to your house, why would you let them in?”
The Problem of Beth Moore: Introduction
Beth Moore is a Southern Baptist author, teacher, and evangelist, and the founder of Living Proof ministries that offers videos, bible studies, and events for women. She is very popular and is probably the #1 moneymaker for LifeWay Christian Bookstores, a Southern Baptist affiliated chain of bookstores (similar to Methodist’s Cokesbury).
Because she is massively successful, her videos are inspirational, and her events are empowering to women, it is not uncommon to find a Beth Moore bible study in a United Methodist Church in the Bible Belt. It used to be that pastors could prohibit it by saying “We only allow curriculum from Cokesbury” but Cokesbury sells her materials now. Also, there’s usually pressure for male United Methodist ministers to allow this dynamic woman into their Sunday Schools or else they get accused of misogyny.
Therein lies part of the problem of Beth Moore. One of my facebook friends described Beth Moore as Methodist Kudzu: a plant that was taken from its natural habitat and now runs wild causing havok. While Moore is perfectly at peace and in sync with the Baptist tradition (other than being a female teacher in an anti-women-preacher denomination), her brand of theology and way of reading the bible conflicts with the Wesleyan tradition and the United Methodist Church’s doctrine to which it has spread.
So what is a United Methodist clergyperson or church to do with Beth Moore?
Here’s where I’m on shaky ground: I’m not a woman. I have no idea what it feels like to be a woman and see a confident, capable female biblical scholar whose passion about the Bible is infectious. I haven’t watched these videos in a woman’s group and been inspired and had the discussions afterward. So I don’t know what that is like and I’m hesitant to comment on it…
But luckily for you…I have woman friends! To be more specific, a half-dozen mainline (not crazy liberal and not crazy conservative) United Methodist women who are either clergy or clergy spouses have done at least two full studies and video programs with Beth Moore in their churches and wrote about their concerns to me.
I’ve categorized them and I’ve done some light editing to proofread/anonymize them but 98% of the quotes is their words.
Some disclaimers (or pre-emptive strikes, if you will):
- I am ABSOLUTELY not dismissing Moore’s ministry, faith, perspective, or obvious love for the Gospel of Jesus Christ and for helping women form a relationship with Christ. I am saying Beth Moore is appropriate for Baptist women within their theological system and NOT appropriate for Methodists and the Wesleyan system.
- I am ABSOLUTELY not dismissing women’s lived experience of Beth Moore or the transformations that she has had in their lives. That’s awesome and I celebrate that for you. Really! However, for those women who do not have a positive experience or are wondering about it, I offer these women’s lived experiences for you. If you think I’m dismissing women’s experience, I’m actually celebrating these women’s experience and holding them up as a counter-narrative to the Beth Moore phenomenon.
- Finally, I am ABSOLUTELY supportive of women in ministry. If you search online for Beth Moore criticism, almost all of them start out with the bullhonky about “women shall not have authority over men.” Most online criticism is thus not helpful to United Methodists, who by empowering women are closer to Jesus on that point (BOOM!). So this is an attempt to add to the conversation but without the fundamentalist hangups that, frankly, discredit most online commentary on Beth Moore in my eyes.
We good? Good. Read on…
The Problem of Beth Moore: Biblical Scholarship
Quotes:
[1] Beth Moore cleverly hides that she is a literalist. She does not just shoot from the hip, she uses a lot of commentary and you can learn about the cultures at the times the stories were written…probably the best part is when she explains why God hates the Amalekites and other groups and that’s why it’s okay for David to kill philistines and why the one guy in Esther hated Mordecai. She never approves of it officially, just explains it matter of factly without ever mentioning that the perspective of the authors may have been biased obviously.
[2] Beth Moore uses the New American Commentary as her primary source for Biblical exegesis (This is from their website–The New American Commentary is for those who have been seeking a commentary that honors the Scriptures, ….The New American Commentary assumes the inerrancy of Scripture, focuses on the intrinsic theological and exegetical concerns of each biblical book, and engages the range of issues raised in contemporary biblical scholarship.)
One of the main disagreements between her commentary and others is the four kingdoms that are represented by the beasts in Daniel. The whole idea of Daniel is taken as a literal prophecy (no consideration that it could have been written after the time of Daniel–he wrote it himself of course.) So she uses the Romans as one of the conquering armies, and keeps tying Daniel’s visions into the Romans conquering the Jews, and thereby brings Jesus into it.
She furthermore uses Revelation as a confirmation and continuation of the visions of Daniel, and ties them all together into this weird little package of end-time prophecies, with a literal Antichrist, matching the “big horn” in Daniel with the AntiChrist in Revelation.
It gets confusing, and a little dangerous, because there is just enough solid scholarship, in the names of the Greek Rulers, the Seleucids, Maccabees, the Babylonians, etc., that people tend to “buy” what she is saying, and tying this all in together.
Summary & Commentary:
Moore says often that scholarship and higher-level thinking gets in the way of the Gospel message. As a bible scholar, nothing offends me more. In her Daniel study, she takes everything very literally and does not offer any scholarship on what a message meant back when it was written, only at face value.
It also offends me that the very passages she quotes are often taken out of context and sometimes is read into beyond what is there. It might be helpful to slow down or pause her videos. In her videos she speaks so quickly that if you slow her down and look up the Scriptures she is referencing, you might see something different than what she is saying. I found that several times in her references to Mark and Romans in her Believing God DVD.
Further, a female blogger writes about Moore’s book So Long Insecurity:
This gets at the heart of the problem; Beth does not explain the meaning of the passage as derived from the context, she reads the passage in isolation, an elementary Bible study error. What she often fails to do, as is the case in this instance, is to explain how in submission to the scripture she arrives at her conclusions. She admittedly speculates and introduces personal experience and psychologizing of the text to back up her claims…sadly, she leaves her readers, many who are unfortunately disenchanted with the intellectual nature of the Christian faith, revisioning Paul the apologist as someone whose defense is motivated by self-centered weakness instead of a necessary defense of the gospel.
In short, students often learn how to read the Bible based on their teacher. By the way Moore presents the bible as Literal Truth but doesn’t read it literally, she is not modeling a consistent or helpful hermeneutic for students.
The Problem of Beth Moore: Unhelpful Theology
[3] My biggest problem with her theology is that she’s a Calvinist and though she avoids emphasizing it at times, she will wait for scripture that supports her perspective. Case and point: Esther (“but who knows that you have come to this position for such a time as this”). She really drilled it home on Esther and I couldn’t make it through the whole study. Now, like all successful modern Calvinist she always discusses the pain she has been through and never officially suggested that women are raped, abused, etc. for some higher purpose. She almost always uses her Calvinist perspective in a positive way like that we are destined for something greater that what we are living right now.
[4] From the Esther study, the main [problem] is her extreme doctrine of Providence. She believes, states, and teaches that everything that happens in our lives is an event caused by God, in order to teach us, or help us, etc. God causes everything to happen, whether good or bad. She goes on and on about it extensively, almost every lesson. I had to tell my ladies to really think about this–and where it leads. Because if they believe this, then do what do they tell a mom whose child has just died–that God caused it? To teach her what? Of course, the women don’t believe that, as most UM’s don’t…
[5] My Beth Moore criticism would include teaching that God causes bad things to happen to us to teach/test us. Lots of women in my church are ODing on BMoore – end up in my office for counseling when God “causes” tragedy & they can’t trust Him.
Summary & Commentary:
In addition to the above, my personal take is that Moore overuses the idea “God spoke to me” and people feel inadequate b/c God doesn’t always speak to them the same way. I am not doubting her experience, but as a pastor, I doubt she realizes the effect this has on some people. There’s a pastoral issue when one emphasizes special revelation in a study that is meant to be empowering and illuminating…and given her role, of course she doesn’t have to deal with the ramifications for the individual women trying to make sense of why God “willed” their son to die.
Thus, to these women, Moore’s biggest conflict with United Methodism is whether God wills terrible things to happen. From the Esther study, her main teaching is on Providence. “God causes everything to happen, whether good or bad” as our commentator mentions. This is absolutely unhelpful to women who have lost a child, have cancer, etc. I have never been able to look a woman in the eye who had a stillbirth and tell her God has a plan for her child to die (though God does have possibilities for healing!).
For example, the United Methodist Book of Worship includes a healing service for a family who has lost a pregnancy. Nowhere in this painful service do we ascribe to God that God had a purpose in this. We talk about mystery, we talk about “limited understanding” but never do we assume God’s intention in this, either the content of the intention or if there is an intention at all!
United Methodists are a diverse lot but if you really got down to it with the Methodist Middle and our Doctrine and Polity, we do not believe in this form of Providence (also called Determinism which is also taught by Rick Warren). It’s fine if individual Methodists believe this (and find meaning in it), but I do not and anyone I let into my house to teach ideally should not.
The Problem of Beth Moore: There’s Few Alternatives
Cokesbury and UMPH went the wrong way on the Beth Moore phenomenon. Instead of seeking out and offering publishing deals to a spunky United Methodist woman who loves the bible (a dozen of them I know just off the top of my head), they sold out and went where the money was and supported Moore’s publications.
What happened then is that Methodists had no equivalent to compare to Moore. What, suggest a women’s group just do a Disciple bible study instead? Please. BORING. Even the Living the Questions studies on Uppity Women are great theology but snoozer presentation (and SO EXPENSIVE that they are inaccessible to most). While these studies reach a certain segment of the denomination in really inspiring ways (I love them personally), the population segment that is attracted to Moore is not as attracted to these studies.
Why? Here’s my claim and feel free to debate it: People who watch Beth Moore aren’t as interested in the Bible as they are in someone who loves the Bible. One of my pastor friends expressed his frustration with Beth Moore being so popular by saying “she’s just so excited about reading the Bible.” While flippant it points out that while there may be better theologies out there, the UMPH is not offering comparative personalities.
Three of the six respondents mentioned that the attraction of Moore’s work wasn’t her theology but the way she made bible studies exciting. Her cadence, her structure, and the rhythm were well done…and easily/authentically imitated by a UM woman. As one of the commentators said and I promised I would include for balance sake:
[6] Here’s the kicker: I couldn’t have talked to you about any of those characters in the old testament before i did her studies. You learn the names, the stories, you get excited about the Bible, and she funny and interesting to listen to for the most part. I would have stuck with her, but her newer stuff is just too Calvinist. My favorite of the three i have done was David because it is a really exciting story and I never got bored. Please emphasize at some point that what she really has is a good structure for a well-paced study of the bible and she isn’t boring. I really think that’s why she has the Methodists. That, and the fact that none of us know anything about the Bible
That last line is flippant but it’s true for more people than you think!
All the above said, in an ideal situation personality shouldn’t dictate whether a study is good or not. From another female blogger Kim who reviewed The Patriarchs study:
A bible study should NOT rest on the strength of the speaker; it ought to rest with the strength of how God’s Word is presented and explained. When we rely on style alone, it becomes a matter of taking the Scripture and adjusting it to make us look more dynamic. That will invariably involve more personal narrative than exposition, and then where are the students left? Nothing wrong with personal narrative; it just should NOT form the bulk of the teaching.
Excitement is contagious, but instead of supporting a UMC equivalent, Cokesbury went where the money was, to our shame.
Conclusions, Suggestions, and Call for Resources
In short (for those of you that skip to the conclusions), there’s three things about the Beth Moore phenomenon within the United Methodist Church.
- Moore offers biblical criticism that is anti-intellectual even though it wraps itself in appeals to a commentary (one that interprets Scripture literally). There’s a difference between using biblical criticism and commentaries (which she does) and valuing intellectual engagement with the cultural context of the Scripture (which she typically doesn’t but has started to use more with her more recent material, thankfully).
- Moore’s expressed theology does not fit within a Wesleyan system. Her reliance on special revelation and emphasis on determinism often requires a pastoral care response that must deal more with the problems with that theological framework than the personal problem the individual has.
- There is undoubtedly an equivalent voice to Beth Moore in the UMC, but the publishing house and Cokesbury bookstores sold Moore (and now David C. Cook too! Argh!) instead of finding and supporting a comparative UM voice. We give money to the Baptists in our United Methodist bookstores and invite in a theology that John Wesley opposed fervently.
For me, any teacher who disregards scholarship and paints a very different image of God than I’m comfortable with would be very difficult to deal with in a Sunday School setting or a women’s group study. If I spend all my time building up a Methodist theology in my church, why would I want a Calvinist theology that is antithetical being taught (and indeed, Wesley is one of the few evangelists of his time that resisted Calvinism). Thus, if someone is trying to burn your theological house down, why let them in and run unchecked?
Even though one-liners to prohibit Beth Moore studies are entertaining, here’s some suggestions for dealing with Moore Kudzu in your congregation:
- Teach the studies yourself. This is by far the #1 suggestion. If you are a clergyperson or Sunday School leader who is well versed in United Methodist doctrine, it might be most helpful to allow the group to watch the video with the requirement that you be given time to respond at the end. By the third session of this, one of my clergy friends who did this had the participants look at her whenever they heard something out-of-sync with United Methodism. It works and it meets people where they are, but only if the clergyperson is well versed to handle it. And honestly it may stop people from asking for it so they don’t have to hear your comparisons! Ha!
- Continue to not allow Moore and print off this blog post as a conversation starter. Educate and show your congregation why Moore is problematic. Engage the person in conversation about these issues and why it is out of your pastoral care for them that you think it is not helpful.
- Lift up an alternative suggestion and emphasize WHY it is important to hear the voice of women in our same ecosystem. There’s a whole range of UM women who have great books, studies, and work even if they don’t have the same cadence or rhythm of Moore. I’m not going to add my preferences at the moment–I’d rather other voices lift up their experiences below. If you have an alternative suggestion, mention it below in the comments and the compilation will be published as a future blog post (and this one will be updated too).
Your turn! Requests for further engagement:
- Share who the alternatives are! There are a ton of United Methodist women (or other religious leaders whose expressed theology doesn’t inherently conflict with Wesleyan systems ie. Calvinism) who are excited about the Bible and offer comparable experiences for pastors and laity who want similar exposure. Who are they? What has been your experience? Leave them as comments and we’ll publish them for a future post.
- Comment below your experience of a Beth Moore study. Remember to read the ABSOLUTELY disclaimers above before you accuse me of discrediting yours or Moore’s faith. If you’ve had a good experience of Beth Moore and have grown as a follower of Christ, I couldn’t be happier for you. Comment, please!
Thanks for reading and sharing.
(Photo Credit: [1] “Beth Moore Live Simulcast 2010” by Brian Hendrix, Creative Commons share on Flickr; [2] “frustration” by e-magic, Creative Commons share on Flickr)
Click the footer Creative Commons icon for distribution permissions.
Just found this site yesterday and can’t shake it.
“Beth Moore cleverly hides that she is a literalist.” Beth Moore does an absolutely fascinating job of exploring the many subtle semantics of the original Hebrew and Greek root words, illustrates word-play, and uses many linguistic allegories. I am a retired Speech/Language Pathologist and Literacy facilitator. Language is my thing and words are my game, so I know of what I speak.
“and the point of this blog post is not to bash Beth Moore”; but that is exactly what you have done, although in a more intellectual way than some of the commenters.
“Jenny, I responded on your blog, but suffice to say I agree with you that a more proper emphasis on our distinctive theology and practice of that theology is needed at the local level to augment and shift the pedestrian theologies of our congregations.” Jeremy, this response reminds me of D. C. politicians who think they are so much smarter than the citizens who elected them.
“Traci, did you read the study above? I had a half-dozen theologically-trained women do the studies and I reported their responses. Just because you had a good experience with Beth Moore doesn’t mean that others have to. They have given voice to an alternative experience, after having done studies from start to finish. I fail to see how that is not important to talk about.” Jeremy, is it possible that you ‘sent them’ with a sense of knowing your negative attitude, however unintentional it may have been on your part? People can usually get a feel for what it is you want them to see.
AND Rebecca Jones. Re: “ I love Wesleyan theology. When clergywomen get together, it seems they are all way more liberal than Wesley ever was”. Being an extreme over and above John Wesley is a good thing? How? Why?
“For me, any teacher who disregards scholarship and paints a very different image of God than I’m comfortable with would be very difficult to deal with in a Sunday School setting or a women’s group study.” And you say you are not bashing her.
“For it is written, I will baffle and render useless and destroy the learning of the learned and the philosophy of the philosophers and the cleverness of the clever and the discernment of the discerning; I will frustrate and nullify [them] and bring [them] to nothing.”(1Corinthians 1:19 AMP)
“For it is written: ”I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
(1 Corinthians 1:19 NIV)
“Therefore once more I will astound these people with wonder upon wonder; the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish.” (Isaiah 29:14 NIV)
It seems to me that with all the dangers we are facing on this planet Earth, that we should be coming together as the Body of Christ, not exaggerating our differences. Perhaps you should read entire chapter: 1 Corinthians 1; Wesley’s Notes on the Bible.
KJV 10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
Wesley’s Notes: 1:10 Now I exhort you – Ye have faith and hope; secure love also. By the endearing name of our Lord Jesus Christ – lnfinitely preferable to all the human names in which ye glory. That ye all speak the same thing – They now spoke different things, 1Co 1:12 And that there be no schisms among you – No alienation of affection from each other. Is this word ever taken in any other sense in scripture? But that ye be joined in the same mind – Affections, desires. And judgment – Touching all the grand truths of the gospel.
KJV 11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.
Wesley’s Notes: 1:11 It hath been declared to me by them of the family of Chloe – Whom some suppose to have been the wife of Stephanas, and the mother of Fortunatus and Achaicus. By these three the Corinthians had sent their letter to St. Paul, 1Cor 16:17. That there are contentions – A word equivalent with schisms in the preceding verse .
KJV 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
Wesley’s Notes: 1:12 Now this I say – That is, what I mean is this: there are various parties among you, who set themselves, one against an other, in behalf of the several teachers they admire. And I of Christ – They spoke well, if they had not on this pretence despised their teachers, 1Cor 4:8 Perhaps they valued themselves on having heard Christ preach in his own person.
KJV 13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
Wesley’s Notes: q1:13 Is Christ divided – Are not all the members still under one head? Was not he alone crucified for you all; and were ye not all baptized in his name? The glory of Christ then is not to be divided between him and his servants; neither is the unity of the body to be torn asunder, seeing Christ is one still.
Point of view from another writer:
Confessions of a Beth Moore Convert
Americans are becoming more biblically illiterate than ever. The Barna Group reports that fewer than half of us can name the four Gospels. Sixty percent of us couldn’t name five of the Ten Commandments, and fewer still could name two or three of the disciples. The now deceased, but ever-respected Michael Spencer warned that this illiteracy was only part of the free-fall that is seeping into evangelicalism. Spencer warned in 2009, in the widely read “The Coming Evangelical Collapse”: “Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.”
Spencer was right. We have managed to busy ourselves with issues that have us flailing about in shallow waters, rather than investing in the disciplines of our faith. We find it sexier to participate in a march advocating prayer in schools than to actually spend time praying. We’d rather sit at Starbucks discussing the Bible than to spend time reading it.
Bible Study is like homework, right? And everyone knows, homework is, like, so B-O-R-I-N-G.
Unless, you happen to be Beth Moore.
Linda, my sister, has long been a fan of Moore’s. Over the past decade, if Moore was within a day’s driving distance, my sister was in the audience. To be honest, Linda’s rabid devotion for all-things-Moore annoys me. My sister waited four months before ordering my most current book. If Moore releases a new book, Linda has it ordered within four minutes. Hundreds of thousands of women share my sister’s affection for Moore and her teaching ministry, but as usual, I’m late to the party.
I gave up on women-only Bible studies in the 1980s. I’m not a huge fan of fill-in-the-blank workbooks. I’m loathe to whittle big issues down to four words or less. I wrangle publicly with hot-topic issues like gay marriage, war, and the poor. As a rule I don’t like uniformity or conformity. If a pastor asks the congregation to repeat something together, I’ll be the woman singing a Janis Joplin tune aloud instead.
But I came off my last book tour convicted that I needed to spend less time writing about people who live out their faith, and more time living mine out.
The first thing I signed up for was the women’s Wednesday morning Bible study. They were studying Moore’s 2005 study When Godly People Do Ungodly Things.
Thankfully, I was delighted to discover Moore was not the woman I’d stereotyped her to be. I had wrongly dismissed Moore’s popularity to her being pretty, and perky, with big Texas hair. What I had not counted on was that Beth Moore is neither simplistic nor over-wrought.
Her studies present the Scriptures in a straightforward fashion. She often concedes that there are different ways of considering the matter. “There is a big difference between a head full of knowledge and the word of God literally abiding in us,” she warns. She’s funny but never demeaning (which can’t be said for many these days). “Everyday temptation and intentional demonic seduction are as different as a snowball and an avalanche.” Anyone who has experienced the two, and survived, knows the truth and wry humor of that statement. Moore’s workbooks have the same general theme in that they repeatedly point people to the Jesus who can and will, given the chance, completely transform their lives. I’d go as far to say she is the female Billy Graham, unabashedly falling on her face in prayer in front of the masses.
Moore has her critics, to be sure. As a Southern Baptist (LifeWay publishes her Bible studies and books), Moore adheres to a conservative theology. Yet whatever she thinks about gay marriages or physician-assisted suicide isn’t something she discusses. Moore is intentional about not wading into murky political waters. She makes every effort to avoid the trap that Spencer warned us about, a trap I’ve fallen repeatedly into — that of believing in a cause more than a faith.
As Sarah Pulliam Bailey reported for CT in 2010, Moore did not attend seminary so what she knows about the Bible she learned “boots on the ground.” The Army Major’s daughter has steered clear of impropriety of any sort, be it sexual or financial. Her self-taught methodology is cause for concern for some — including Halee Gray Scott, who wrote about Moore’s theology for CT — who belittle her references of “hearing from God.” But Moore is quick to point out that her hearing from God is not an audible thing, but rather the result of being in relationship with a living God.
Why should we dismiss people when they say they have heard from God as being intellectually wacky? Isn’t it the whole point of a believer’s study of hermeneutics and theology to hear from God? Dietrich Bonhoeffer believed that it didn’t matter how well-trained a theologian was, or how much preparation one put into a sermon; if God didn’t come and grasp the people, all that study, all the preparation was useless. How does one have faith without expecting to hear from God?
In his letter, Paul urged Timothy: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Greek context here for the word study is spoudazo. It means “to do one’s best, to spare no effort, to give it your all.”
It seems to me that Beth Moore is attempting to do that very thing. That is what has earned her the respect Paul was speaking about — including, finally, my own.
Karen Spears Zacharias is author of Will Jesus Buy Me a Double-Wide? (Zondervan, 2010), and is a contributing blogger at Patheos. She can be reached at karenzach.com or via Twitter @karenzach.
Correction: I referenced Max Lux. That should be Michael Lux, Jesus vs Christians
this commentary is very biased. i have taken several beth moore studies, in fact i just finished 2 of her studies. she is bible based with life-liviing examples,refferenced by scripture. it is unfair to accuse her of all of your comments without even having studied of read her books. i pray anyone who reads this will also feel deemed to comment on her behalf.
I believe that if you have a problem with her theology you should talk to her about it personally, not publicly call her out on an internet blog. Read Matthew 18:15-17.
You are absolutely spot on. Thank you for this. She should not be carried by Cokesbury, and neither should David C. Cook.
Hogwash! I have belonged to a Methodist Church as well as a SBC, in our families moves across the country. Beth Moore is the real deal, a Spirit annointed minister of the gospel. Your article is complete hogwash. god bless your soul!