First Came the Bible
I wasn't far along in my Christian journey when I first came across the works of Beth Moore. When I completed a Beth Moore Bible study at age 21, I was no more than two months into my new faith, a former atheist with a long history of living however I pleased. Moore's study had me searching the Scriptures at least five times a week. Her enthusiasm for God's Word convinced me that the seemingly stiff, impenetrable book had legs—that its insights could actually make a difference in my everyday life.
In 1984, Moore began teaching an aerobics and Bible study class for women. Aerobics was eventually dropped, and women began asking her for homework "like all the other classes have." In response to their request, Moore wrote what would later become her first published Bible study, A Woman's Heart, God's Dwelling Place, which focuses on the construction of the Old Testament tabernacle.
Since then, Moore has become a prolific writer, composing more than 20 best-selling books and Bible studies ranging from profiles of heroic biblical figures to topical studies such as Breaking Free, Believing God, Living Beyond Yourself, and When Godly People Do Ungodly Things. In addition to her Bible studies, Moore has written poetry and about topics such as motherhood, insecurity, how to pray God's Word, and finding freedom from oppressive situations.
Four fundamental themes are threaded throughout Moore's various writing genres: biblicism, spiritual warfare, mysticism, and, more recently, popular psychology.
Biblicism
Moore is truly a Bible teacher. Her teaching is rooted in her strong affinity for Scripture. She does not show much interest in theology or tradition, distrusting the way the academy has, at times, handled the Bible. "Godless philosophies have not been my temptation," Moore comments. "In my life experience, the most dangerously influential opinions have been those held by intellectuals and scholars who profess Christianity but deny the veracity and present power of Scripture." Although Moore believes that seminaries are necessary despite the "stunning arrogance" and "theological snobbery" that reside in them, she argues, "Psalm 131 reminds us that [the Scriptures] are not primarily for seminaries, dissertations, and theological treatments. They are primarily for everyday living on the third rock from the sun."
Moore is primarily self-taught. She uses commentaries and concordances when writing her studies, but she relies primarily on her own intuition when interpreting and applying Scripture.In Believing God, she writes, "In my personal research, I get a little worried when I can't get Scripture to teach Scripture. If I can find no other scriptural back-up, I tend to think I am better off accepting by faith what I cannot explain by reason and leaving it to God. I do not pretend to understand everything in the Bible, but many precepts are affirmed often enough to warrant deep roots in our belief systems."
Moore's strict adherence to biblicism echoes the question Tertullian posed two centuries after the birth of Christ: "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What communion is there between the academy and the church?" Because of this, Moore is not able to draw, as much as she might, on the solid biblical and theological scholarship that emanates from trustworthy seminaries and universities, teaching that actually guards us against heresy and reminds us of the hard lessons of history. Then again, in a culture of disbelief, in a time when many seminaries and universities are indeed questioning the authority, infallibility, and inspiration of the Bible, Moore's passionate defense of God's Word is surely compelling.
The 'Handicap Icon' Gets New Life
Sidelining the Stigma of Mental Illness
Not part of the community? Subscribe now, or register for a free account.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Newsletters
Google
Join the Conversation
Displaying 1–5 of 30 comments
See all comments
Anne S
Sarah, thank you for you response; I now better understand what you were getting at. Indeed, Beth Moore doesn't present her readers with a comprehensive method of study that teaches them how to feed themselves. I co-lead a women's Sunday school class, and we emphasize the importance of learning how to navigate God's Word without relying on one particular teacher. This has included sessions on how to use reliable study tools. So far as Moore goes, I believe the quote you provided is her heart, and she inspires women to go deeper (I've witnessed this effect myself), but perhaps in the future she could offer a guide that teaches women study skills. I can also agree that she can put too much of a personal interpretation on matters on which Scripture is silent [I found this in the Esther study]; even so, I appreciate this approach *to an extent*, as it teaches women that God's Word does speak personally into our lives, and that God is personally and actively involved in our daily affairs.
Sarah Flashing
Hi Anne, tnks for your thoughtful response. In fairness, Beth doesn't teach women the mechanics of Bible study, she leads them through the study. She uses a handful of resources to substantiate what she teaches, but doesn't encourages women to pursue add'l resources beyond what she cites in her writings. Spoon feeding is true of any bible study writer who is not providing the tools for self-study. Yet Beth states that she is teaching women *how* to study the bible. Her own words on page 123 of "Believing God": "My most earnest prayer would be that this Bible study...be a help in teaching you how to examine Scripture for yourself. Yet I plead with you not to accept my instruction without question." Her Bible studies do not focus on the mechanics, merely the content. Where does she teach a historical-grammatical approach? Her "figurative application" (BG, p. 212) has been made fully clear, but its not helpful in actually understanding the text.
Anne S
Sarah Flashing - did you read Beth Moore's daughter's response to this article? One could argue that, as her daughter, she is not a neutral, uninterested party -- but she *did* point out how this article took Beth Moore's words out of context, in a manner I personally find difficult to call "even handed." Also, as one who has done Beth Moore's studies, I don't find a "scorn" for seminaries or academic Christianity in the tone. I would agree that a steady diet of Beth Moore studies is not helpful -- a student of the Bible really should learn to dig into the Word for herself, and leaning too hard on the words of only one teacher does not give you a well rounded perspective on God's Word. And yet, to say she "studies it for [women]" and then "spoon feeds" is a mischaracterization of her work. If that was the case, why use *any* "canned" Bible study at all? Because, in essence, that *is* what most of them do, even those from within the academy. No study or commentary is perspective free.
Sarah Flashing
Halee, this is a great piece and I appreciate the even-handedness that you have done well to communicate. While Beth is fairly harmless doctrinally, and while she does sincerely encourage women to not take her word as the final word, she fails to appropriately model an approach to the Christian life that all women can pursue. She doesn't teach women how to study the Bible, she studies it for them and then spoon feeds. Her "figurative application" as Beth herself refers to it calls into question her ability to handle the context of a given passage. And her scorn for the theological academy is apparent not only in her writings, but in her videos and online audios. One need not look far to discover this on their own.
Annie M
Nice try Halee... but Beth teaches her students to seek out the truth and not to accept anything at face value. That applies to biblical interpretation as well as misquoted magazine articles.