I stumbled across an astounding blog post on John Macarthur’s comments that is a strange blend of Social Justice Warrior and chivalry. The post is by Mark Beuving, and is titled John MacArthur’s Disgusting Comment: Go Home, Beth Moore. Beuving is literally shaking:
But—oh my gosh—I just heard an audio recording in which John MacArthur demeans and dismisses Beth Moore. I’m shaking. If I conjure up every ounce of optimism and benefit-of-the-doubt-ness I possess, I still can’t find a way to describe it as anything other than disdainful and mean-spirited. If I try to give an honest assessment of how it sounds to me, I think I have to say his words sound hateful and anti-Christ.
This is really striking because it was written by a man. He claims he is making a biblical case against MacArthur’s comments, but all that comes out is a lengthy description of how MacArthur’s words make him feel. Not only is he shaking, he also has the dry heaves:
This is absolutely disgusting. I’m seriously doing the theological equivalent of dry heaving right now. Once more I find myself pleading: Stop treating Beth Moore like garbage!
This is ironically the best indictment of MacArthur Beuving offers, albeit unintentionally. This kind of Leave Britney Alone! emoting is evidently what he learned in MacArthur’s seminary (emphasis mine):
This is a weird post for me to write. Maybe I should first tell you that I graduated from John MacArthur’s seminary…
…[John MacArthur] states with absolute confidence and condescension that no one can argue otherwise. And yet I’ll stand here as a graduate of his seminary, as someone who still employs the hermeneutical tools and methods I learned at his seminary, and make a strong argument to the contrary.
Taking this at face value, Beuving must have learned that Christians make strong arguments by having meltdowns, and focusing on their own feelings. Not only do MacArthur’s words make Beuving shake and have the dry heaves, they make him gag and die!
And that’s where I died. Those words are so condescending. They seem calculated to wound. To dishonor. To destroy. When I close my eyes and try to picture Jesus saying words like these, I gag.
Yet by the same standard, the Apostle Paul would clearly be anti Christ. Surely 1 Cor 14:34-35 (ESV) must make Beuving dry heave:
34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Likewise Titus 2:3-5 (ESV) must leave Beuving shaking!
3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
And 1 Tim 2:11-15 (ESV) can only make Beuving gag and die!
11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.
Here is the Apostle Paul telling Beth Moore to be silent and go home! This violates both chivalry and feminism, and I strongly suspect it will leave our brother Beuving with a tummy ache.
Beuving is shaking and dry-heaving only because he has no power. If he was wielding the State’s power as a VP in a corporation or at University (modern versions of a Gaultier or Commisar), then he would channel those emotions into action – against John Macarthur.
No mercy would be shown against such a heretic against feminism.
So very Gamma of him. His reaction smacks of a female brain in a male body. If Beuving thinks taking a male feminist stance is going to curry any favor with women he is dead wrong.
It always seems ironic that men who support women preachers rush to protect them as if they are the weaker vessels. Their actions do not support their beliefs. Are they strong enough to stand on their own in the rough and tumble fight for the truth, or not?
What originally made chivalry attractive to women is that knights were badasses. They were killers. Their profession was war, and their recreation was tournaments that simulated combat, and were almost as dangerous.
A servile knight was his lady’s ultimate tamed bad boy.
Today’s white knights shake, dry heave and die (apparently) at the words “go home”.
Somehow, I doubt that has the same effect.
The vapors are real!!!
Funny how all these Christo-Feminists are appealed at the “ungodly,” “unbiblical,” and “hateful” rhetoric that apostates like John MacArthur spew. Then when someone starts to quote actual scripture to them, they disappear and/or block the people who are actually discussing the scriptures in question.
Beuving is a pathetic excuse for a man. Does not deserve the air he breaths.
If Chateau Heartiste was still posting, mewing Mark Beuving would be a good candidate for Beta of the Month.
Yeah i’ve noticed that too, quote scripture to them that is actually used in context and you’ll see a chorus of “REEEEEEEE!!!!’s” the likes of which you’ve never seen.
I’m imagining a herd of demon possessed pigs squealing.
“I’m shaking” can be said if you survive a home invasion, hold a dying child, or are in a war zone. Anyway else is total gayness. Sometimes I cannot believe our culture has become so gay a sissy soft beta like me is starting to look manly.
Oh please. Being outraged by something is not a weakness, nor does it mean one has no argument, nor is it a response that is more prevalent among women. I see outrage expressed on this page and in other contexts by men all the time. It is only when the outrage is on the other side of an argument does it get characterized as a weakness. And yes, outrage involves feelings and often physical responses. We humans are physical and emotional beings. Staying in tune with that fact is better than deceiving oneself into believing one is a wholly rationalistic thinker with a purely cerebral response to injustice.
Also, there is nothing “ironic” about a male pastor defending a woman’s right to teach. Writing a blog post in defense of someone’s rights doesn’t mean that person is too weak to defend herself. That has to be obvious, right? People defend each other with words personally and professionally and on blogs and in editorial pages all the time. Only when the person being defended is a woman do you hear this insane argument her defense by another person somehow implies she isn’t strong enough to defend herself.
Besides, Ms. Moore clearly doesn’t need defending. There is nothing whatsoever to stop her from doing her thing. What is being defended is a principle that is surely just as important to Pastor Beuving and to society as a whole as to Ms. Moore.
Lexet, that’s the sound of ungodly amounts of bacon being fried up.
Hello,
Regarding female submission, I have read several apologetics articles that argue Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 14:34-35 was Paul quoting an opposing belief (that is, one held by the Corinthians, but not by Paul himself), then challenging its holders with his mocking statement at the beginning of verse 36. Do you have any thoughts on this? While I’m at it, I’ll press my luck and post these:
http://tektonics.org/film/paulhatesgirls.html
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-corinthians-1434-35
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fem09.html
I’m curious as to what you might have to say about this, as I am a bit torn.
Thanks,
Jordan
@Lurker
The “Jackass theology” preacher (his name for his website) is acting womanish in his defense of her because he has made no defense except for his appeal to feelings. He did not defend a woman’s right to teach. Perhaps you did not read the article linked, but, whereas he says he could make an argument using the exegetical tools he learned at Master’s Seminary…he doesn’t. He’s all emotional fit and no follow-through. His subsequent paragraphs say:
– It’s misleading and harmful to dismiss disagreement on the point, because he himself could make the case for it…but does not.
– He then declares Phil Johnson to be anti-Christ and unloving, and he cites the Biblical warning against causing division as what he stands on. Dr. MacArthur could of course stand on every Biblical warning against accepting a heretic.
– He then “died” at the “condescending” words of Dr. MacArthur in saying that Beth Moore had a natural gift for selling jewelry on the TV shopping channel because he could not picture Jesus saying an insult to someone.
– He then calls MacArthur a Pharisee, and says he’s qualified, because he’s a recovering Pharisee.
– He then demands they repent of saying that Beth Moore should not preach.
The demand for that exegesis goes unanswered. Brave Sir Robin declared he could make the case against MacArthur and Johnson, and then he called some names and bravely ran away.
It would have been enlightening to see him use those exegetical tools he learned at Master’s. (As my school as well, I would certainly love to see him do it. I took that same exegesis class. I can read Greek.)
Being outraged by something is not a weakness, nor does it mean one has no argument, nor is it a response that is more prevalent among women.
You’re delusional now, come back at a different time of the month…
if his writing is this effeminate and emotional, I can only imagine how painful his sermons are to listen to.
One of my younger brothers is currently at Grace and he said that John doubled down on his statement in a Q&A session he had in response to this whole situation. I love a preacher who is not afraid of speaking the Truth.
Here is a quote from Charles Spurgeon that is relative to people’s uproar of MacArthurs comment:
“Everybody admires Luther! Yes, yes; but you do not want anyone else to do the same today.
“When you go to the zoological gardens you all admire the bear; but how would you like a bear at home, or a bear wandering loose about the street? You tell me that it would be unbearable, and no doubt you are right.
“So, we admire a man who was firm in the faith, say four hundred years ago; the past ages are a sort of bear-pit or iron cage for him; but such a man today is a nuisance, and must be put down. Call him a narrow-minded bigot or give him a worse name if you can think of one.
“Yet imagine that in those ages past, Luther, Zwingle, Calvin, and their compeers had said, ‘The world is out of order; but if we try to set it right we shall only make a great row, and get ourselves into disgrace. Let us go to our chambers, put on our night-caps, and sleep over the bad times, and perhaps when we wake up things will have grown better.’ Such conduct on their part would have entailed upon us a heritage of error.”
— Charles Spurgeon
@Lurker
He engaged someone in a comment, and he pointed to “Junia” in Romans 16:7 which he misidentified as 16:2.
The NA28 has the word “en” instead of “ek” for “notorious”, so that Junia and Andronicus are notorious in not notorious of/from the apostles. The BDAG says the preposition matters. Koine Greek is big into prepositions – not only does the preposition matter, but sometimes, the case of the object of the preposition matters. In any case, the text says “en”, which the BDAG supports as being “in” and sometimes “by”. So, they were known by the apostles.
First Corinthians 9:5 includes the assertion by Paul that he is the only apostle who has not “taken a wife”. Other remarks of Paul collate the term “apostle” to have been applied by him to the eleven, the replacement, himself, Barnabas, and the Lord’s earthly brothers James and Jude. There is no admitting a woman “took a wife’ in 1st C AD.
It is no wonder he glosses over this sort of point as a speed bump in his comment section: he doesn’t have the argument from the Biblical language. He’ll point you to other books (mostly by women) as to why it’s OK, and he’ll act like there’s a giant conspiracy behind Junia – the NA28 says Junia. His babble about the word ending is trying to argue that because her name has been treated as a category-2 noun with a nu on the end in that it is somehow pretending she’s a boy, but it’s not – it’s an accusative case of a category-1 noun. There’s no conspiracy in the text. That the Textus Receptus boys sometimes had 1 or 2 letters off and sometimes misapplied rules like a first year Greek student does not make a conspiracy. (See “Good will toward men” vs. “Peace to men of Good Will” which differs in noun case by the absence of one single letter, but can be understood by the rest of the Bible regardless.) The NA28 is the New Testament. His argument is throwing these up against the wall to pretend he has a point here, because a woman he cites has written a book with a Dan-Brown-esque conspiracy about that verse.
Again, he says there’s an exegetical case, but he only cites other people’s bad arguments in passing as if he made them and they were good. Gal 3:28 is not the commerce clause of the Constitution.
Lurker
Being outraged by something is not a weakness, nor does it mean one has no argument, nor is it a response that is more prevalent among women. I
The style of the outrage, from “shaking, just shaking” to zero reasoning to “just died” is very feminine. Dalrock’s label “Leave Britney Alone” is accurate.
PS: Beth Moore, Go Home.
On the Junia issue: It doesn’t say the names listed were apostles, just that they were known of among the apostles. Perhaps the Greek really does matter, but it would still fail the test of 2 or 3 witnesses being required to establish anything of importance.
Pingback: He’s shaking! (Prepare the fainting couch) | Reaction Times
Re-reading the guy’s post, I am now wondering if you guys really want to attack this pastor. He seems to agree that the issue of whether it’s proper for women to teach is something reasonable people can disagree on and that the opinions of the guys who wrote the New Testament a couple millennia ago should carry some weight on this subject. So this pastor is not my guy.
But I think his point was to report on the incident and criticize the disrespectful manner of the other pastor in calling out Beth Moore, not to engage in an argument that has been gone over many times in the past. As to whether “theological dry heaving” (whatever that is) is especially feminine or not, I doubt it but don’t see why it matters.
My own view is yep, Paul wanted women to siddown and shut up. This fact has never tempted me to actually sit down and shut up.
Its funny and unironic that reading a man trying to manipulate me with his soft emotional state like a woman (which i have no tollerance for either) actually did make me a little queasy. He is pandering to hedero christian men like he would a gay lover. Like his audience is gonna come back at him “honey im so sorry lets go shopping and forget about how poor beth was treated!” What a fruit.
“He seems to agree that the issue of whether it’s proper for women to teach is something reasonable people can disagree on …”
But it isn’t. There is no room for disagreement or compromise. Yes, that heretic needs to be shot down.
“But I think his point was to report on the incident and criticize the disrespectful manner of the other pastor in calling out Beth Moore, …”
Calling him a concern troll does not help him, or you.
“My own view is yep, Paul wanted women to siddown and shut up. This fact has never tempted me to actually sit down and shut up.”
I’m sure hell is full of women who could say that.
My own view is yep, Paul wanted women to siddown and shut up. This fact has never tempted me to actually sit down and shut up.
Lurk moar
Or, in the words of John MacArthur, “Go Home.”
Mark Beuving receives his due reward.
Go home
Right on
One day I asked the LORD if this was just Paul’s view of women. He replied, “No Bro, look at Martha & Mary.”
“Now while they were on their way, Jesus entered a village [called Bethany], and a woman named Martha welcomed Him into her home. She had a sister named Mary, who seated herself at the Lord’s feet and was continually listening to His teaching. But Martha was very busy and distracted with all of her serving responsibilities; and she approached Him and said, “Lord, is it of no concern to You that my sister has left me to do the serving alone? Tell her to help me and do her part.” But the Lord replied to her, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and bothered and anxious about so many things; but only one thing is necessary, for Mary has chosen the good part [that which is to her advantage], which will not be taken away from her.””
LUKE 10:38-42 AMP
https://www.bible.com/1588/luk.10.38-42.amp
Women like Beth Moore And Martha in making it all about them have rejected and rebelled against what LORD has for them. They need to learn to listen and receive what the LORD has for them as Mary did.
Sheeesh is he a MAN of God or a simpering, emotional faggot
Apparently telling someone to go home is tantamount to spiritual abuse in his eyes *facepalm*
Mark Beuving :
I was expecting worse. Still, physiognomy is real.
Re pic of Beauving: soiboi cuck.
It’s the soft, wimpy face and the sissy smile.
The only thing stopping Beth Moore from preaching is a command from God for her to keep silent in church.
So there’s that.
Chicken or the egg?
All churches that “ordain” women into the fake clergy, become cucked SJW organizations that rapidly begin to die off. I cringe every time I see one of these female Anglican “clergypersons” blasphemously and sacrilegiously dressed up in ecclesiastical regalia. It’s no coincidence, I think, that about the time this cr@p started, the Anglican church (of which I’m not a member) began to collapse. The Anglicans seem to have no idea what they believe anymore.
Female-“clergy” churches inevitably embrace brazen homosexuality (many female “clergy” seem to be lesbians–what a surprise haha) homosexual so-called “marriage,” abortion, and other moral atrocities. The pattern then seems to be theological squabbling leading to schism and organizational death as compromised churches descend ever-further into degeneracy, the splits being SJWs fighting about just how far they should go in serving Satan–er, I mean Progressive Modern Morality.
Are female clergy a symptom of apostasy, or the cause? It doesn’t matter. They have no business existing.
It’s a bunch of bonuses for evil. Feminism gets to invade and destroy one of the last male bastions. The Yougoguuuurlls get to be important. With false clergy comes heretical teaching that confuses the faithful. And above all (and most important to the supernatural evil entity behind all this), another corner of Christendom is destroyed, the sum of its atomized parts much less–in size, morality, and basic Christianity–than the original whole.
@Jordan
However how much I have learned from JP Holding and Glenn Miller, I still think they’re wrong on this issue. Comments on this blog cannot possible serve as the thorough rebuttal both of them really deserve. However, I find it very difficult to NOT see the continuity in Paul’s speech:
women ,,, they … you. I cannot but classify the idea of Paul countering an opposing view as ‘weak’.
What kind of hermeneutical tools and methods does Beuving have to use to make the Bible mean the exact opposite of what a plain reading of the text appears to say i.e. women should be silent in church actually means women should be in front of everybody talking? I’ll concede that there are aspects of Christianity that are mysterious and even paradoxical, however, God’s expectation for who can be a preacher is not one of them. When considering what is worth fighting/debating about you have to ask yourself, is this a “main” issue or a “plain” issue. Even if someone could make a case stating that the role of pastor is a secondary issue, there’s no way they could say that the requirements for being a preacher are ambiguous and shrouded in mystery.
If I didn’t know any better, it’s like every single feminist Christian believes that God was a terrible at communicating 2000 years ago and it has only been in the last 40 years that He has been able to explain what He really meant by sending feminists into the church to set the record straight. Thankfully, these same feminists also have the spiritual gift of “apostolic empathy” whereby they are able to express negative emotions on Gods behalf for when people have literal interpretations (or even worse literal applications) of the Bible.
The debate over who can be a pastor needs to be elevated beyond the prohibition of lady preachers. The reality of the biblical standard goes way beyond just being a man. Just read 1 Timothy 3:2-7, depending on how you divide it up there’s around 15 different expectations for being a pastor, and only 1 of them has anything to do with being a man. God sets the standard, and it’s not just “I feel called by Jesus”. What would we say to a man who is an adulterer, drunkard, or greedy but “feels called”? They have no business being pastor, it doesn’t matter how much they feel called because God prohibits adulterers, drunkards, and greedy men from being pastors. In terms of biblical qualification, nothing gets overruled because of feelings. The biblical standard for preachers exists for the benefit of God’s church and God’s kingdom. Any so called “shepherd(ess)” who doesn’t listen to the owner of the flock needs to be rebuked (especially when the owner of the flock gives explicit instructions). The main issue isn’t that Beth Moore is a woman, the real issue is she elevates her feelings above God’s word. When Beth Moore preaches, she’s not rebelling against men, she’s rebelling against God. Paul didn’t set the standards, John Macarthur didn’t set the standards, the southern baptist convention didn’t set the standards, and Beth Moore doesn’t get to reset the standards.
Too many people seem to be afraid of causing division and not enough people seem to care about maintaining the purity of the church. Christ died for His church and purchased it with His blood. Unity is good when it is centered around truth, but the church is Christ’s bride and His expectation is that she be: “A pure virgin” (2 Cor 11:2), and: “a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27). The role of pastor exists for the church’s sake, not for the pastor’s sake and people who have a problem with how God has ordered things should repent and join Job in saying: “Behold, I am of small account; what shall I answer you? I lay my hand on my mouth. I have spoken once, and I will not answer; twice but I will proceed no further” (Job 40:4-5).
@Paul
Thanks for responding. Do you know of any good in-depth sources on this issue that support your (and Dalrock’s) views on the textual interpretations? Unlike you I found JPH’s arguments to be compelling, but I am absolutely open to criticism/correction on this issue, if a solid case can be made, biblically speaking.
I am personally drawn to the redpill outlook based on personal observation and preference, but I do think JPH makes arguments that are good enough to not be ignored. At least to my layman eyes.
Thanks,
Jordan
Lost Patrol says: October 25, 2019 at 8:06 pm
@Lost Patrol: The only problem for Mr Beuving is that Beth Moore doesn’t wear a long, feminine dress to cover her portly body. Nor does she have long, flowing beautiful feminine red locks cascading down past her shoulders, indicating health, beauty and vitality. Beth Moore is fat, portly, buzz-cut ugly and venomous.
Men like Mr Beuving need to understand that getting accolades from such women is at best empty and at worst will get you cucked in the future. You wouldn’t get knighted by one such as her.
What is it with modern Christians anyway? Dalrock’s comparison of Beuwing to Mr “Leave Brittany alone!” is fitting, but I would liken his response to TWO WORDS by John MacArthur as over-the-top emotional incontinence, akin to Sheila Gregoire’s daughter when she responded to a simple statement:
“Men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos”.
When the Apostle Paul went to the Areopagus in Athens (Acts Ch 17), he spoke the fundamentals of the Gospel. No one went emotionally incontinent. rather, those in charge sais, “What is thois babbler trying to say? He seems to be advocating some foreign gods. We will hear you next week…”
Emotional incontinence is unhelpful for Christians. Not only does it demonstrate a mind controlled by passions and not the Holy Spirit, it puts up an emotional wall preventing us all from getting to the truth of an issue.
Paul and his contemporaries creating the New Testament Church were Jews, well-versed in Jewish Law and the Traditions of the Temple. The New Testament, particularly Acts 15, tells us that these men worked to define what they should keep of the Jewish Law and Traditions of the Temple, and what should be jettisoned because Christ had become the final sacrifice, the Temple Veil that separated the common man from God had been breached, and man could now come directly to God.
It would be useful for some of the commentators here to read about the rules and traditions of behavior within the Temple, and the Synagogues that followed. They did not allow women to have platform ministries either. It is easy to find material on the internet that discusses this and the very practical reasons why the rules and traditions existed. The Law of God did not forbid platform ministries for women in the Temple. The very human men of the Temple forbade it, and for logical, practical reasons. When Paul proclaimed “I do not permit … “, he was not creating a new ruling for the Church to follow out of whole cloth. He was merely stating that he would impose on the churches he was responsible for the same requirements for platform ministries that the Temple had imposed since at least the time of the rebuilding of the Temple after the Babylonian captivity.
I wasn’t there, so I don’t know for certain – but I’m guessing that Paul’s “I do not permit …” was not a commandment directly from the Lord, creating a new requirement for the New Testament Church out of whole cloth (I’m sure the Lord knew that the Temple had not allowed women to have platform ministries for hundreds of years before Paul). I can accept that the Lord encouraged Paul to keep that tradition from the Temple and impose it on the New Testament Church.
There is an awful lot of emoting here on this issue by folks who are not well-informed on its history. The issue didn’t start with Paul. And it wasn’t God who decreed that it should be, in the Temple. God may have guided the thoughts of the men who decided to impose those platform restrictions. But those restrictions were imposed for very practical reasons. (Birth control has turned those reasons on their head.)
In a nutshell: Women who are pregnant and who are raising children have a responsibility that men do not have, time-wise. Therefore, they were excused from the “thou shalt do” commandments. They could do them if time was available, but were not required to if time was not available. Jews recognized that man’s natural tendency is to rebel. Therefore, they held in higher esteem one who obeyed commandments because he had to (the men, who could have rebelled but didn’t) than one who didn’t have to obey the commandments, but chose to do so (the women, where rebellion was not an issue, because they weren’t required to obey the commandments).
1. The male who could have rebelled, but didn’t was preferred for the platform ministries.
2. It would be an embarrassment to the congregation if no such male could be found in the congregation.
3. One was at the Temple to worship. Men were designed to be attracted to female attributes. A woman on the platform leading worship would increase the likelihood that the men would be distracted and therefore would not be totally commited to the worship of God, which is what they were there fore.
Here is a link to one such source of information. Scroll down to the section entitled The Role of Women in the Synagogue
http://www.jewfaq.org/women.htm
Ignore the Scroll down to the section entitled “The Role of Women in the Synagogue” instruction. That was for a link I didn’t use, and I forgot to delete that phrase.
Jordan, read 1 Cor 11, the teaching of women being under the authority of men is grounded in the order of creation. Clearly this is not a temporary cultural or local issue. Notice the subservient fact of every woman in 8 For man [i]does not originate from woman, but woman from man; 9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
This is the direct opposite of chivalry: the woman is there for the man and NOT he for her.
Even McArthur does not demand that women cover their heads in Church, which he should, nor the Church I attend. Since the 1960’s women almost every Christian woman is in direct open rebellion to Scripture as they follow Vatican 2 undoing 2k years of the simple understanding of the Bible. Women at Church without a headcovering are the symptom of how completely the Church has been taken over by Jezebel. I am not called to change the entire world, but my wife and unmarried daughters are not allowed in Church with me save they put something on their head as a visible sign to the angels that they understand their role is subordinate to me. They know the Power that backs up my commands, as their lord (1 Peter 3:6). They fear God, therefore they obey me. Beth Moore does not fear God, and men fear her, as most pastors fear telling women to cover their heads, be quiet, and call their husbands lord. Men fear her because they also do not fear God, nor believe His power. I would advise every man here not just complain about the out of control, destructive whores that modern women have become and ask God to judge them one by one as well as collectively. Already God is again using Islam to judge feminism, as He long ago used it to judge the idolatry of the Church starting with the “Orthodox” and then the Roman “catholics”. Islam is the chemotherapy for the cancer of feminism, a form of idolatry. There is no “Queen of Heaven”, “Co-Redemptrix” or any female semi-deity: God is exclusively male, all adoration is for the Trinity alone. Everything found in a woman is found in a man, but not the reverse, Eve is taken out of Adam for his benefit and named by Adam as his property. Yes a woman is also the image of God, and of equal worth, but her rank is below that of man, and she is saved from second class citizenship by the raising of children. Like Chuck Norris, I also was once a man trapped inside the body of a woman, so I owe a woman my protection, nourishment, and earliest teaching when I was young; which is why as a husband it is now for me to protect, provide and lead/teach (mishal) my wife. It is the spiral of life.
It comes down to faith. Do you believe God will listen to your prayer? Ask Him for wisdom, test these words not only in exegesis, but in your life. My wife of 37 years still gets goosebumps when I hug her because every time she tests my resolve, she finds the Power that backs up ,my unflinching stand. She also sees me accept the correction of God, even laughing through a well deserved kidney stone. I know my place also.
I am trying to stay away from this blog, but John McArthur is someone I highly respect.Anyway those are my 2 cents.
Soiboi Baptist Convention
Soros Baptist Convention
Are you sure you have seen Beth Moore? She has her problems, but being fat and short hair is not among them. Unless she looks much different than the photos I have seen and just found with a Google search.
Would MacArthur be willing to do something about it, minus some pissy squabbling? Is not Ms/Mrs Moore capable of handling her own affairs? A normal man wouldn’t engage in such trivial/petty malarkey.
Pardon: Beuving. I screwed that up.