"Bible" Studies?

Here we go again with “Bible” studies that appeal to the flesh rather than lead one to a deeper relationship with God.

The first one to tell you about is a study based on the movie Braveheart. Here is the study plan outline as found at http://biblestudies.stores.yahoo.net/braveheart.html

This study guide will help you discuss some of the major themes of Braveheart. When is it right to wage war? What is the meaning of freedom, and how is it attained? What do people live and die for?

Discussion Guide

1. Movie Summary 2. Discussing the Scenes

a. War (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Genesis 14:1-16; Numbers 31:1-12; Revelation 19:11-21; Ephesians 6:10-18)

b. Freedom (Romans 13:1-7; Luke 4:14-21; John 8:31-36; Romans 6:18)

c. What Do You Live and Die For? (Philippians 1:12-14; 1 Corinthians 15:22; Mark 8:34-38; Romans 6:5-10)

3. As the Credits Roll

The next one is called a “secular Bible study.” Say what!?!?!?! Take a look at this article, and notice the comments also! http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/faith/39916382.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DU2EPaL_V_9E7ODiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

Here’s a good quote from the article:

"Secular Bible Study hopes to attract a variety of people -- Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, Christians and even Jews and Muslims." The weekly class will focus on the Bible's historical and cultural context. Organizers have drawn up a set of ground rules designed to keep participants from proselytizing, but that doesn't mean that they want to discourage disagreement.”

Of course this one comes from the United Methodists, so it’s no real surprise.

I guess it all goes back to what Paul said to Timothy: “The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron” 1 Tim 4:1,2 “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.” 2 Tim 4:3

Have You Heard the Call?

This tidbit was in The Berean Call e-mail update on 2/20/09. Something to think about!

"Not called!" did you say? "Not heard the call," I think you should say. Put your ear down to the Bible, and hear him bid you go and pull sinners out of the fire of sin. Put your ear down to the burdened, agonized heart of humanity, and listen to its pitiful wail for help. Go stand by the gates of hell, and hear the damned entreat you to go to their father's house and bid their brothers and sisters, and servants and masters not to come there. And then look Christ in the face, whose mercy you have professed to obey, and tell him whether you will join heart and soul and body and circumstances in the march to publish his mercy to the world."

William Booth (April 10, 1829 - August 20, 1912) was a British Methodist preacher who founded The Salvation Army and became its first General (1878-1912).

The Pharisaical Apostle Paul

There is a great satire over at http://christianresearchnetwork.com/?p=9441 about how the Apostle Paul would most likely be treated by many Christians today. In fact, the "letters-to-the-editor" about his "article" on Galatians read much like the comments I've gotten about my Beth Moore articles!

"Beyond Opinion" - A Review of Chapter 11

I don’t know if I’m getting much readership on these reviews of chapters of “Beyond Opinion,” but I felt the desire to do this because each chapter is like a book on it’s own as for subject matter, although all are inter-related.

Chapter 11 is the most theologically interesting chapter of the book. It is titled, “The Trinity As A Paradigm For Spiritual Transformation,” and written by L.T. Jeyachandran. This chapter can give you a deeper understanding of the Trinity. An opening paragraph is this one: “I propose that God is the basis of all reality. If this is so, what he is like in his being and through his activity should provide an adequate explanation for all that we see and experience.” A bit farther on the page Jeyachandran says, “[I]f we could start from the point of who God is in accordance with biblical revelation and work forward, we should be able to provide an adequate explanation of all reality. In fact, we could provide a study of other religions from their understanding of God and verify which of the many alternative theologies has the best explanatory power.”

Jeyachandran goes on to discuss “God’s Revelation of the Triune Godhead” in sections titled, “God in the Old Testament”, “God on the Dusty Streets of Palestine and Jerusalem,” and “God in the Upper Room in Jerusalem.” In the last section he makes the point that, when Jesus “prayed to the Father that the ‘oneness’ of the disciples should reflect the ‘oneness’ that he himself enjoyed with the Father (John 17:11, 21-23). The word one in these verses is in the neuter gender in the Greek language (hen). It implies oneness in essence and not sameness of persons.”

For his next discussion, Jeyachandran goes into “A Trinitarian Paradigm for Apologetics.” The first section is titled, “Freedom and Identity of God.” Here is an example of what he’s talking about here: “The Bible makes the … all-important point that in all creation, humans are made in God’s image. Thus, we do have real freedom to make moral choices and engage in loving relationships. Trinitarian theology provides the very starting point of what it means to be a personal being. Personality has been defined frequently as comprising three basic faculties: intellect (thought), emotion (feeling), and will (volition). These qualities have very often been referred to as if they are stand-alone qualities, but are they? Are they not meaningless in a world where there are no relationships? What use is my intellect if there is nothing to think about? How would I experience emotion if there were nothing to feel? What is the meaning of will if there were no possibility of decision making? Thus, we are forced to conclude that these are relational qualities and have no meaning in isolation. In other words, in God, qualities of personality can be actualized only if there is an actual, eternal relationship in him prior to, outside of, and without reference to creation. Only in that way could God be a personal being without being dependent on his creation. When Moses asked God for his name, the answer he got was least expected: I AM (Ex.3:14). This amazing mystery of the name (identity) of God solves a problem that we may not always be aware of: God is his own frame of reference. We have already considered the fact that the infinite cannot be defined with reference to the finite. God, therefore, has to be self-referencing.”

Wow! Think about that! I don’t know about you, but I thought the three faculties of personality, and how all this relates to God, was such an interesting way of putting things.

The next section under the paradigm is “The Holiness and Character of God.” “We cannot define good with reference to evil because good is the original of which evil is the counterfeit - a problem parallel to defining the infinite in terms of the finite. Evil is an aberration. We need to look for a positive definition of good without reference to evil. … The Trinitarian God is complete in his love relationship without reference to his creation. …appeal to the Trinity, where good always existed without reference to, outside of, and before evil.” And then as he continues, Jeyachandran discusses the “Knowledge of God.”

Jeyachandran’s last part before his conclusion is “A Trinitarian Paradigm For Spiritual Transformation.”

In his section on “Worship,” he asks, “Are we guilty of baptizing alien methods of spirituality into the Christian church by reducing the totality of Christian worship to nothing more than Christian forms of the lonely soul’s Nirvana? Most of today’s Christian worship songs are in the first person singular - I, me, and my - with scant thought of the fact that our Christian walk has so much to do with others.”

From here, Jeyachandran continues to flesh out his paradigm in the area of worship:

“If we do not think of God as a relational being in himself, we cannot appreciate the point that we are made to reflect his image in our relationships with one another. … Many of the psalms are in the plural and not necessarily sung to God but to one another…. The idea of worship today is that every individual Christian is supposed to ride on an emotional high all the time. Each is supposed to lift him- or herself by some mysterious emotional bootstraps to maintain a steady state of high excitement. What is not emphasized is that it is simply not possible - happily so, in my opinion, because that kind of a sustained emotional state is recipe for a mental breakdown! On the other hand, the Scriptures teach us that when we are discouraged, we encourage one another to lift up our feeble hands in adoration to God. In so doing, we begin to reflect our dependence on one another and thereby reflect the being of God in our corporate worship. … No true worship of God is possible without the qualities of transcendence and immanence existing together in him. He is worthy of worship only because he is transcendent; we can truly relate to him in worship only because he is close to us (immanent)! Jesus admirably combined these complementary qualities in the opening line of the prayer that he taught his disciples to pray: ‘Our Father [immanence] in heaven [transcendence]…’”

"Beyond Opinion" - A Review of Chapter 10

Chapter 10 is titled, “Cross-Cultural Challenges,” and written by I’Ching Thomas. The chapter is a very interesting discussion about how we need to make the gospel understood in “every nation, tribe, people, and language.”

Our first problem is communication, in that we tend to use terms that are familiar to us - such as “salvation,” “sin,” “eternal life,” and even “God” - but that don’t necessarily have meanings to those we are speaking to. There is also the problem of defining our terms so that when we say “God,” or “heaven,” or “hell,” we know what each other’s meaning is. Often we find that the same terms mean totally different ideas.

Another problem is that people around the world tend to get their ideas about Christians from the entertainment media, especially in the cultures where they think anything in the U.S. is “Christian.” This can really skew their understanding of the Christian faith, as well as the true Christian worldview.

Thomas points out another very problematic issue for those in other cultures who think about coming to Christ: they may be disowned or even killed. It takes great patience and study of the others’ cultures in order to use the wisdom and understanding to reach them in spite of their fears.

In the section titled, “Engaging Cherished Traditions and Core Beliefs,” Thomas has some very good advice. He says,

"The challenge for us is to figure out if there is a way to locate some of the traditional values of other cultures within the Christian worldview. This means the onus is on us to learn and study about competing worldviews and religions, and their cultural expressions. Consider how to ask probing questions tactfully and learn to listen attentively as you seek the help of the Holy Spirit to discern the core issues at hand. We should be familiar with at least the fundamental affirmations of the worldview and religion that we are engaging. This knowledge will equip us to differentiate the various religious elements that are so closely entangled in the culture. This is crucial, since no matter where an interreligious encounter takes place, it always occurs in contexts influenced by culture, history, and the associations of the past coupled with present realities. … We have to realize that when we present the truth of the gospel to someone from another culture, we are essentially asserting that much of what he or she has been informed and known about life and reality is flawed. What’s more, we are suggesting that he alter his worldview by abandoning erroneous values and beliefs to conform to the truth. We have to empathize with the person in that this is a major decision that will affect his social and cultural identity. Thus, it is imperative that we are sensitive to this reality when we evangelize and engage in cross-cultural apologetics."

Thomas goes on to discuss “Christian Truth Among Other Truths.” From there he discusses “Battling Resignation and Pragmatism.” In this section Thomas has a couple more paragraphs that I highlighted:

“It is simply impossible for any educated person not to make at lease some implicit value judgments about religion in general as well as religious traditions in particular. Besides, a person who claims indifference and who subscribes to an ambivalent view of religion cannot avoid making at least some implicit value judgments about religious beliefs. For in making such a claim to indifference, he implicitly accepts at least one value judgment - namely, that participation in religious traditions is not worthy of one’s commitment.”

“Truth is true even if no one believes it, and falsehood is false even if everyone believes it. The truth of a belief or claim is not dependent on its popularity or on the believer’s culture, sincerity, or preference. Something is true only if it corresponds with reality. Thus, if we claim that the central beliefs of Christianity are indeed true, then we have a moral obligation to share this good news with others, regardless of their culture or tradition.”

Thomas proceeds from there to help us in “Crossing Over the Cultural Chasm.” Here he assures us that “any approach to Christian witness that is limited to sharing personal testimonies without the validation of the truthfulness of the gospel is deficient.” I think an excellent point he makes is this: “Paul did not explicitly quote the Hebrew Scriptures. Instead, he quoted from the writings of pagan Greek poets with which his audience was familiar (Acts 17:28). Likewise, sometimes we need not quote verses from the Bible outright to bring across the redemption message. There will be instances when the audience will be more receptive to the truth of the gospel when contextual expressions like cultural folk stories or anecdotes are used as illustrations.”

Thomas ends his chapter by teaching us how to engage in “Agape Apologetics.” We must approach evangelism with “the attitude of compassion and authenticity” and “dressed in love and humility.”

I found this chapter to be excellent for giving me ideas as to how to reach the many cultures my wife and I engage in our summer book-table ministry where we talk with people of diverse cultures and religious belief systems.

"Beyond Opinion" - A Review of Chapter 9

Chapter 9, Existential Challenges of Evil and Suffering, is by Ravi Zacharias. In his brilliant way, Ravi discusses “The Mystery of Evil,” “The Reality of Evil,” “The Universality of Evil,” and “The Complexity of Evil.”

From here, Ravi addresses the claim that “the presence of evil equates to the extinction of God,” demonstrating how illogical this claim is. In this section he tells a really great story that clearly shows the fallacy of those who claim moral superiority over God. Since this was such a good story, let me let Ravi tell it:

Some years ago, I was on a radio talk show at Ohio State University, answering questions…. We were talking about some theme related to the origin of the universe when a woman called in quite angry and attacked us with a volley of words. Her basic charge was that all this discussion was nothing more than a smokescreen for reversing Roe v. Wade and taking away the right to abortion from women. The outburst was odd since that was not even the topic of discussion. She continued to repeat the line, “It’s my moral right to do what I choose with my body.” Finally, I said, “All right, ma’am, since you brought it up, I’d like to ask you a question. Can you explain to me why if a plane were to crash and some die while others live, that a skeptic calls in and questions God’s moral nature if he at his whim chooses some to live and others to die; yet when it is your choice to allow a child within you to live or die, it is your moral right to make that determination? Does that not sound odd to you? When God decides, he is immoral. When you or I decide, it is our moral right.” There was pin-drop silence.

Ravi goes on to examine the idea that there is no moral order in the universe. In order to contradict that idea, this leads to a discussion on what Ravi calls “Life and It’s Story.” He says, “When all that the Scriptures have said is pulled together, there are six elements that combine to give an explanation that is coherent and unique. No escape is sought, either in the denial of the question or in the implications of the answer.” The six elements include:

1. “The Author of the Story.” God is the author of morality.

2. “The Script of the Story.” “God is not only the author in description, but he is also the author in prescription.” He tells us who we are and why we are here. “God has fashioned us in his image: we reflect a moral and self-determining propensity.”

3. “The Point of the Story.” “If there is a story, what is at the heart of it? Not only is God holy, but he reveals to us the sacred nature of love, to which he beckons us. And from this sacredness of his love must flow all other loves. The important aspect of this logical flow is that intrinsic sanctity provides both the reason and the parameters of love. The inability to understand the mystery of evil leads to an inability to understand the sacredness of love. A deadly mistake I believe our cultures make in the pursuit of meaning is this illusion that love devoid of the sacred, a naked love, is all we need to carry us through life’s tests and passions. Religions that promote polygamy confuse love with compassion and benevolence. Islam is one of those. Muhammad himself had multiple wives and concubines. The reasoning runs something like this: he was caring for their needs and provided for them. Without that care, they would have been destitute. All that sounds very gallant, doesn’t it? But love is greater than that. Muhammad could well have cared for these women without the consummation for himself. Love binds itself, and it is the nature of love to bind itself with exclusion and demarcation of relationships. The very statement that we are to love God with all our heart and soul tells us that we shall have no other gods beside him. Love that is pure transcends itself by making God supreme.”

4. “The Centerpiece of the Story.” “How is it possible for the sacred to acknowledge the reality of evil and still be able to offer a morally justifiable explanation?" Ravi then takes us into the message of the Cross as he winds through “Evil, justice, love, and forgiveness.”

5. “The Shock of the Story.” “Evil is more than an exterior reality that engenders universal suffering. It is an internal reality from which we run.” Ravi then tells of an encounter he and a friend had with a wealthy businessman. The man kept raising the question, “But what about all the evil in this world?” Finally Ravi’s friend said to the man, “I hear you constantly expressing a desire to see a solution to the problem of evil around you. Are you as troubled by the problem of evil within you?” I thought this was an excellent point to raise, and it is a question I will be using the next time I am faced with the same question by a skeptic. Ravi says, “One may as well ask, what would you do if you found out you’d never be found out? Imagine a world of such deceit.” Ravi’s final point of this element is, “The evil that we get so upset about doesn’t seem to upset us very much when we perpetrate it.”

6. “The Sting in the Tale.” “The surest evidence that evil is not the enemy of meaning is this inescapable existential reality: meaninglessness does not come from being weary of pain but from being weary of pleasure…. It is not pain that has driven the West into emptiness; it has been the drowning of meaning in the oceans of our pleasures. Pleasure gone wrong is a greater curse than physical blindness. And blindness to the sacred is the cause of all evil.”

Ravi’s chapter conclusion can be summed up in this statement he makes almost at the end: “I reject the notion that suffering is the cause of meaninglessness in this world. There are many who have experienced no suffering, for whom life is still empty. That by itself ought to be a clue.”

Beth Moore's "Breaking Free"

I have been slowly reviewing the title book for the past few months and now I felt the need to post analysis of what I read. Let me say firstly that, even though it took a long time due to my not taking the time to just sit down, it is still a very cursory review which doesn't detail all the problems I found.

Let me say up front that I think Beth gives some very good advice in this book, but her credibility is denigrated by the problems she presents in her teachings. If she could eliminate the claims of special revelations and correct her hermeneutics, this could be a valuable book for women. Unfortunately, there will never be changes made so I have to recommend against the book if I am ever asked, unless it is used by very discerning Christians - or at least provide this information to them!

I’m not going to address every time Beth has poor or misleading teaching, rather I am going to concern myself only with poor use of Scripture, claims of special revelation, and eisogesis. To point out every problem would be an arduous task! (She also has some pop-psychology that disturbs me.)

Claims of Special Revelation: (I skimmed much of the book, so I may have missed some)

1. “You see, the finished work that falls in your hands represents untold hours of intensity with God in which He first taught it in ‘long hand’ to me.” P.4

2. “God spoke to my heart and said something like this: ‘I sent my Son to set the captives free. You will go forth and ring the liberty bell.’" p.6

3. “The words He first gave me after I began walking the path to freedom still echo in my mind.” P.6

4. P.43. “When I finally bent the knee to the Prince of Peace over hurts in my childhood, I realized He was directing me to forgive the person who hurt me. God did not insist on my forgiving for the sake of my perpetrator but for the sake of peace in my life. Once I began to surrender to Him in this painful area, He began to give me a supernatural ability to forgive.” Besides the pop-psychology evident here, what is the evidence that God insisted Beth forgive her offender; did He say something audible? Was there a sign given? And what is the evidence that she was giving a “supernatural ability to forgive.” Again, did God reveal this to her audibly or with a sign? As a general rule, doesn’t the Bible say that we are to forgive people IF they repent and seek forgiveness? So would God insist we forgive someone who has never repented? Luke 17:3-4 says IF your brother repents, forgive him. It doesn’t say we can’t forgive anyway, but would God insist that we do?

5. “As God began stirring the tremendously heavy burden in my heart to write this study…” Who’s to say that this was just her own emotions instead of God “stirring” her?

6. P.102 Moore lists five reasons she believes God allowed her childhood abuse. I can agree from biblical principles that the first four items are highly likely, especially since Beth starts each statement correctly with, “He knew.” And God knew all the things would happen as she says they happened because God sees the future. It is her last statement that bothers me because she says dogmatically, “He wanted me to teach how to make freedom in Christ a reality in life from the passion of personal experience.” Beth CANNOT know this! Therefore, this becomes a de facto claim of direct revelation. (And it may well be that God never wanted her to do anything about it!)

7. P. 181 Beth says, “I believe this week will be a supernatural turning point for all who take advantage of what they learn.” I wasn’t sure whether I should also include this under “revelation” or “other problems,” so I’m putting it here. Is it not arrogant and presumptuous to believe that your teaching will be a “supernatural turning point”? Is Beth then saying that God supernaturally meets everyone who studies Beth’s work? Of course this only works if we “resist the temptation to take any shortcuts or skip any homework!”

Misuse of Scripture and other problems:

1. Pp.14-15. We have first looked at 2 Chron. 26:21-27:9 and then Isa. 6:1-8 for the context of this section. “Isaiah grew up under the reign of the mighty King Uzziah and no doubt idolized him as a young boy…” is how Moore begins on p. 14. Then she decides that when Uzziah died it was “perfect timing” for God to choose that very same year to call on Isaiah because Isaiah was now “hero-less.” She continues on the next page, “I believe Isaiah idolized King Uzziah.” I think the word “idolized” is a bit extreme. Beth continues with an analogy of how she sees sports figures and in the world. But I don’t think the Israelites would put their kings in the position of idol, since that would be a rank violation of the Commandments.

Moore then gets really extra-biblical as she imagines all sorts of things about these passages. “People crave a human worth worshiping. We are wise not to try to deliver. Uzziah accidentally left poor Jotham hopeless to measure up in the minds of many. I believe Isaiah was one of them. Notice Isaiah 6:1 does not say, ‘in the year Jotham became king, I saw the Lord.’ Not the existence of something new but the removal of something old opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.”

There are some real problems here. Firstly, Moore assumes Isaiah was worshiping Uzziah and then decided Jotham wasn’t worthy of worship. Secondly, she decides that Jotham was “hopeless to measure up” to his father “in the minds of many,” including Isaiah. Where does Scripture even intimate this? The Bible tells us Jotham, except for not tearing down the pagan “high places,” was more godly than his father! Moore’s idea comes because Isaiah says it was the year Uzziah died that he saw the Lord instead of saying it was the year in which Jotham became king. That is a non sequitur: what difference does it make how Isaiah recorded time? Perhaps he used Uzziah’s death because it was something that stood out? We don’t know because the Bible doesn’t say. But Moore says that the death of Uzziah was what “opened Isaiah’s eyes to the kingship of God.” So does this mean that Isaiah, in chapters 1-5, really didn’t understand God’s kingship? That’s what Moore implies. I think this is a gross misreading of Scripture.

At the bottom of the page Moore then makes this statement about Isaiah: “Isaiah was probably just as corrupt in mind, mouth, and practice as the people surrounding him.” I would think if this was the case that the Bible would have at least hinted at it. Isaiah was certainly a sinner, as everyone is, but it does not follow from this that Isaiah was so corrupt. Isaiah saw the corruption and I believe he was pained by it. After all, he was a prophet of God! Yet Moore has decided on her own that, “I don’t believe He called Isaiah because he was a man of character, like Noah. I suspect He may have called him because he was just as sinful as the rest of them.” But there is no Scriptural justification for this idea.

2. Pp. 32-33 Beth uses Isaiah 43:10-13 as if it is directed at the Christian, but the context of this passage is God talking to Israel. She asks, “Why have we been ‘chosen’ according to Isaiah 43:10?” But Is. 43:10 says nothing about us being chosen. The whole context of Is. 43:10-13 is about God and Israel yet Beth finds many parts of it addressing Christians. Can we as Christians take lessons about God from this passage? Yes: there is no other god besides God, there is no other Savior besides God, and no one can undo what God has done. Is Moore’s conclusion about who we are correct? Yes, but her method of coming to the conclusion is erroneous. (She misuses this same passage later in the book.)

3. Pp. 34-35 Beth again misuses Scripture to make her points. This time it is Isaiah 43:7. In context God is again talking about the nation Israel, but Beth asks the questions, “According to Isaiah 43:7, why did God create us?” In context God is talking about why He created Israel. Is Moore’s answer to her question correct? Yes, but again her road to the answer misuses the text.

4. P.39 we are to look at Jeremiah 31:23-25. God is talking about what he will be doing for Israel when He brings them back from captivity. Beth makes a spiritual application of this passage, saying that God “will refresh the weary and satisfy the faint” when He releases them from spiritual captivity. If she wanted to make an analogy, I’d have no problem with this, but to take the passage out of context and spiritualize it is another matter.

5. P. 46. Beth again is using Isaiah out of context with Isaiah 43:1-7. The context is God’s relationship with Israel but she makes it about His relationship with us. Again, if she discussed it as an analogy or a principle of God’s attributes, that would be okay. But she makes it a specific application to us.

6. P.73 begins a lot of pop psychology, which in itself can be harmful to individuals if that’s the route they take to deal with their problems. On page 75 Beth mentions things that keep us in bondage because of things we “inherit.” Then she defines what she means: “learned environmentally” (agreed), “genetically predisposed” (also agreed), “binding influence passed down through other means” (if this is the same as environmental influences, then it appears she is going into the “generational sin” of the aberrational spiritual warfare movement.).

7. On pp.79-80 she gives her interpretation of what Exod. 20:5 means, which really becomes no more than the unbiblical idea of generational sin. She starts by giving the example of “alcoholism” (a psychologically-incorrect term that pretends a lack of self-control with alcohol is a disease) and how many “alcoholics” (i.e., “drunks”) are in a family throughout generations because “alcoholism had been deposited in the family line.” But what she doesn’t see is that drunkenness is a learned behavior, not a “deposited” behavior. She seems to say these problems are learned behaviors with her citation of a story by Gilda Radner, but then she becomes inconsistent in whether it’s learned (environmental) or “deposited.” Maybe that’s why I’m confused about her teaching! While Beth, in that section, seems to be saying we can determine whether we want to continue with the sins of our progenitors or change for the better, there is also much to make me think she may want us to believe we can inherit these things, as Bill Gothard teaches (and as do many false “spiritual warfare“ teachers).

8. Her citation and use of Exod. 20:5 is common among proponents of this teaching, in that they overlook the next verse. She points out (p.83) how God allows “the sins of the fathers to visit the children to the third and fourth generations” but completely ignores the part about thousands of generations in verse 6! But even vs. 5 says “of those who hate me.”

9. P.99 Moore says that she believes Matt. 18:5-9 “specifically apply to child victimization or abuse…” While it is highly possible that victimization and abuse may lead the child into a sinful life, I think Jesus is talking specifically about leading them to sin in any manner. I’ve read some commentaries which say this isn’t addressing children so much as it is addressing those who are children in their faith. But Moore needs her meaning to apply in order for her to discuss her topic of child abuse. ( I think one can find plenty of passages to show God’s view of any abuse of a child!) The remainder of this section and the next is based on Moore’s interpretation. So, although her teaching on the subject may be helpful, her misapplication of Scripture is unacceptable.

10. P.120, Moore starts with a little bit of, “studying the tender - and may I say, romantic - ministry of Christ.” There is nothing “romantic” about Christ’s relationship with women any more than with men. This is one of the problems with many women’s teachings - they often tend to put a romantic slant on our relationship with Christ. Christ is not their individual husband as Moore claims beginning on p.121- He is the Husband of the Church. And that is a metaphor, not literal. Yet Moore continues to call each woman, and even each man, a separate bride of Christ, and she carries the analogy much farther than biblical. What she really leaves out by this teaching is the LORDSHIP of GOD the SON; he is not a lover. Beth continues the next chapter also teaching that Christ can fulfill “girlish dreams” of romantic relationships. This is unbiblical.

11. Beginning at p.126, Moore claims that the Song of Songs is “ultimately a story about Christ and His beloved bride - us.” This is 100% false. The Christian church, under Rome, started making this claim long ago because of prudery over the story. But if one reads the story in context, there is no way it can be about Christ and the Church. It is about a romantic - and even sexual - relationship between a husband and wife, and this cannot be made to be about Christ and the Church without eliminating the romance and sex, and then spiritualizing it all. P.135 ends with the romantic Jesus slant and the S.o.S nonsense. I will cut Moore a wee bit of slack on identifying S.o.S. as Christ and the Church because that has been taught by many.

12. P.148 “Even the Father and the Son had a Potter-Clay relationship. Christ obeyed the Potter.” Beth needs to be clearer here, because it sounds very much like she is saying Jesus was created by God the Father. I don’t think this is what she means, nor do I think she believes it, but she needs to be very careful of her verbiage, nevertheless.

13. P.163 Beth endorses a book by Francis Frangipane. I find this extremely disturbing! Frangipane has many, many aberrational teachings and is heavy into the “signs and wonders” movement and should never, ever be recommended in any teaching.

14. P.174, item 3. This sounds much like pop-psychology, self-esteem theology. Beth says that Jesus “thinks it will be heaven because you will be there.” So if you weren’t there it wouldn’t be heaven to Jesus? What if you choose not to follow Christ and end up in Hell - does Christ then think heaven isn’t heaven? Then Beth cites a song saying, “When He was on the Cross, I was on his mind.” No, it wasn’t anyone personal who was on Jesus’ mind, rather it was the salvation of mankind in total.

15. P.203 Beth says, “This journey has required the full participation of your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If you have fully participated in every lesson and every exercise, you have withheld nothing from Him.” This equates withholding participation in a Beth Moore study with withholding yourself from God. I find this a bit arrogant, as well as presumptuous.

Well, there you have it - my cursory review of this book by Beth Moore. I can only guess that the DVD probably has obnoxious behavior as seen on her "Believing God" series.

I really would like to see Beth Moore get some good theological training and retract a lot of her bad teachings, even pulling publications that have them. With her popularity, she could really do some good if she cleaned up her act.