Beth Moore Defends Egalitarianism with Justin Peters and Jim Osman

Do you know how old your water heater is? If it's 10 to 15 years old, it may be time to switch to the savings, comfort, and reliability of a new high-efficiency model. Nobody wants to experience a breakdown, so if your equipment is getting near the end of its lifespan, now is a great time to make the switch.

Take advantage of National Grid's incentives and save up to $550 on select natural gas water heaters. Learn more at ngrid .com slash ma-waterheating. Judy was boring. Hello. Then, Judy discovered ChumbaCasino .com.

It's my little escape.

Now, Judy's the life of the party. Oh, baby, mama's bringing home the bacon. Whoa, take it easy, Judy.

The Chumba life is for everybody, so go to ChumbaCasino .com and play over 100 casino-style games. Join today and play for free for your chance to redeem some serious prizes. ChumbaCasino .com. No purchase necessary.

Void where prohibited by law. 18-plus terms and conditions apply. See website for details. Okay, today we are going to be talking about, well, I hate having to do this again. We always seem to have to deal with her.

Beth Moore. Oh, no, not again.

Welcome to The Wrap Report with Andrew Rapaport, where we provide biblical interpretations and applications. This is a ministry of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Community. For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to strivingforeternity .org.

Beth Moore, Egalitarianism, and the Caring Well Conference

All right, well, welcome to The Wrap Report. I am your host, Andrew Rapaport. Glad to have you with us, and I am joined by two brothers, Jim Osmond and Justin Peters, because whenever talking about Beth Moore, well, it's good to bring in the big guns, because, you know, they know a whole lot more than me.

But I sent this clip to you guys last night, I guess just to ruin your night. You did, yeah. And said, okay, let's record on this. By the time this airs, Justin, you and I will be still, I believe, in California, just wrapping up.

Well, you'll be just wrapping up Truth Matters. I'll be up in Northern California because I leave to head up to Redwood City. But by the time this drops, but I'm sure there's going to be a lot of discussion that we will, that people will be discussing this video clip we're going to play in a bit by then.

And so a lot of what people may hear by that point, what we cover may already have been covered or things like that. But let's start. I want to play this clip because it's really, this is where we're going to end up talking about.

And so there is a clip of Beth Moore. This is her speaking at the Caring Well Conference. And Flying Free put it as excellent clip on the question, does complementarian cause abuse? And that is the topic she's looking to raise.

So let's listen to her. It may be a little bit light or soft. I'm going to try to boost the volume as best I can. So you may need to just be aware that it's going to be a little hard to hear. This is from someone's phone at the conference way back.

And so let's give a listen to this.

Complementarianism, Egalitarianism, and Abuse in the SBC

Circles of the SEC formed and virgin. Contributed to it. Absolutely. Even if I thought you were sitting over coffee late tonight, talking about how you didn't like it. I would know you were talking about.

Because see the world is watching to see if we will bring up. Is the biggest elephant in the room? Yes. Complementary theology. Became such a high core value. That it inadvertently, by proof of what we have seen, look at the became elevated above the safety and well-being of many women.

So much of our world. Complementary theology is now contortions or dismisses. They have a low view of Scripture. Because unless they supplementary in theology, the word of God. Watch. Test you can see if it is.

Too many SEC congregations and SEC seminaries. So few women. Visible area. Women who are being abused by the system itself. Are in places of power. Don't even have a female to turn to. That's right. They don't even know where to go.

That's why I know. If complementarianism were a woman. I told you that woman is being abused. And somebody needs to call the police. And start an investigation. And God help us. If the police. And I guess now I will enter the witness protection program.

What is that noise? I'm certainly not suggesting you throw out.

Interesting. Sorry about that. It seems that I have to keep it in this moment.

I'm saying it is imperative. To become a healthier church culture. That she be protected from abuse. And from exploitation. For the sake. Of the image. Of the Lord Jesus Christ. There is a secondary kind of grooming.

In many of our environments. And it is this. Not to question. Those in high position. That must become a thing of the past. Those who cannot be questioned. Be trusted. And she. We are in a culture. Where we have watched.

Shepherds protecting shepherds. Instead of protecting the sheep. To encourage present generations. For this moment. Has been defiantly entrusted to us. If we are cowards. The generation coming up behind us.

Will either despise us. Or belittle us. We have the courage to defund the church. Because we love church. We can embrace ourselves for the accusation. That indeed we do not. It was the apostle Paul himself.

Who said in the Galatians in 416. Have I now become your enemy. Without telling you the truth. Today church. Because some sweet tomorrow. We shall see the face of Jesus. Our savior. Our deliverer. Our redeemer.

Our strong tower. And our healer. And we shall be the one. Who outshines the sun. And we shall know. As we have been known. And we will be shown. What we have longed to see. And all our openness. Will be limited.

And he shall make us.

We will stop that there. She walks off stage. There is a whole lot there. I'm going to put a link in the show notes. Someone was kind enough to transcribe that. I sent that to you guys. Or at least transcribe some of that.

And I'll have that in the show notes. Along with the Facebook link. Unfortunately this was Facebook. I couldn't download it. Therefore we had some technical issues. Sorry about that. So guys. Let's talk through this.

There is a lot here. That she said. That I think really needs to be exposed. First off. What's your overall thoughts of why she did this? What her message was at this conference? Where by the way. If you didn't notice there were men in the audience.

Why do you think she's becoming this voice for abuse in the SBC? Jim you want to go? Go ahead.

Beth Moore, Paul, and the Red-Letter Jesus Versus Paul Argument

I think a number of reasons. One thing. Beth Moore is heavily invested in the social justice movement. This is one of the cars that follows that social justice engine. There is a lot of different cars following that engine.

And egalitarianism is one of those cars. Beth Moore claims to have a high view of scripture. She just quoted there the Apostle Paul. And yet in a recent tweet she actually seems to. Here I'll just read it to you.

We can talk about it. She says. No I was not sub-tweeting the Apostle. But I would like to say something here. I believe wholeheartedly that all scripture is inspired by God. Authoritative truth. But the persons themselves, Paul and Jesus, are not equals.

I know this is hard for some to swallow. But Paul is not our Savior. Paul would be horrified, I believe, by the way he has been deified. So Beth Moore seems to take this kind of tack as along the lines of what's called the red-letter Christians.

That Tony Campolo was well known for beginning that somehow the red letters, the red words, are more inspired and authoritative than the Apostle Paul's words. Beth Moore, as is common for her, she tries to have her cake and eat it too.

She says. Yes, I believe that all scripture is inspired. But Paul is not our Savior. Well, nobody ever said Paul is our Savior. But she's throwing shade on the Apostle Paul and what he says about the roles of men and women.

Beth Moore claims that she's complementarian. I don't believe it. I believe in her heart of hearts. She is egalitarian. She openly preaches on Sunday morning corporate worship in clear violation of 1 Timothy 2, verse 12.

So she's trying to have her cake and eat it too. She's trying to keep one foot in the conservative wing. But really, I believe in her heart of hearts. She is egalitarian. And she is part of this social justice train, this worldly philosophy that has invaded the SBC and other denominations.

Jim, what do you think? She obviously gets a lot of positive feedback and affirmation and support from people who want her to go this direction. You could hear the people applauding in the audience when she said things like that.

She is the champion for this voice, not only within the SBC, but also among people not in the SBC who follow her teachings. She's the champion of that voice of plain outspoken egalitarianism. And Justin would know better than I do if she claims to be a complementarian.

But if she does, she's equivocating on the meaning of the word complementarian. Because she wants to affirm that she's a complementarian. And then she wants to come out and smash complementarianism and equate it with misogyny and abuse and all of these high crimes against women throughout all of the history.

And she conflates it with inspiration and orthodoxy. So she wants to, like Justin says, have her cake and eat it too. She's attacking complementarians while claiming to not attack complementarians. And so she's speaking out of both sides of her mouth.

Either she's not defining it properly or nobody has told her what it actually means. But she's flip-flopping on both sides of that issue. She's clearly attacking an orthodox position with her.

And so therefore we should really start with some definitions because we're speaking of terms that may be new to some people. Complementarianism, egalitarianism. The idea that we see in these is the fact, and some people have broader definitions for it.

But the issue is really dealing with the women's role in the church. Can a woman be a pastor? Can she preach a Sunday morning sermon? Can she have authority over men? This is the issue. Now the egalitarians would say no.

A woman can do anything a man can do. Women can be pastors. Women can do as she's doing, preaching at pulpits. And there's different levels some people have. Some people will say they're complementarian.

And they're going to say, well, a woman can preach at a conference as she was doing there, but not on a Sunday morning service, which she does do anyway. So either way, she's fitting in the definition of egalitarian.

There's some people that have an abusive definition of complementarian where they're going to say that a woman is to submit to every man. So your wives are supposed to submit to every other man in the church.

That would be an abusive definition and not found anywhere in Scripture. The issue really comes down to what role a woman can have in church. And so we first have to start there because I think you're right.

She equivocates on this. I think in what we just heard in this clip, she clearly is defending egalitarianism. But I think what you said, Justin, is really interesting in this tweet between Paul versus Jesus that she tries to pit because this exposes a real problem that she has.

And she has very bad thinking. The question is not Paul versus Jesus. No one is deifying Paul. The question is who wrote the scriptures that especially those verses she doesn't like. The reason she's pitting Jesus versus Paul with this red letter view is the fact that Paul wrote things in 1 Timothy 2, 12 to 14 that she doesn't like because that limits her to not have authority over men, to not be preaching and teaching men.

She doesn't like that. That's where this is coming from. So the question really isn't are people deifying Paul? The question is, and this isn't an inerrancy question, does she actually believe that what Paul wrote is from Christ?

Not did he actually speak it, but did he, God, actually write it? That's the issue. Because Jesus didn't write a single verse in Scripture. He said things that are quotes, but he didn't write a single one the way she's trying to say Paul did.

But it's all written by him.

Yeah. She's making a false dichotomy. She says that Paul would be horrified, I believe, by the way he has been deified. Nobody is deifying Paul, but what we know of Paul is recorded in the New Testament.

And Paul's words are just as Theonoustos, God-breathed, as Jesus' words. Paul himself was not deific, but his writings were just as inspired as everything that Jesus said. There is no difference between the authoritative level of the words of Christ and the words of the Apostle Paul.

Because as Paul wrote Scripture, they were Theonoustos. They were God-breathed. And so she's creating this false dichotomy. She's trying to create a crack between the red letters, if you will, and Paul's words.

Because Paul said some things that she just does not like. And earlier in the clip, she says that we have conflated complementarianism with inerrancy. And if we look at people who are egalitarian, we claim that they don't believe in inerrancy.

Well, show me an egalitarian. Show me a denomination that has gone egalitarian that still holds to inerrancy. It doesn't exist. It's like Bigfoot. You know, there's rumors and grainy photos, but it doesn't really exist.

Every denomination that has gone egalitarian has gone liberal. Every single one of them.

Inerrancy, Low Views of Scripture, and the Meaning of Complementarianism

Well, the issue I think here, again, it's conflating because looking at the transcript of what she says, right? Complementarian theology has become such a high core value that it inadvertently, by proof of what we've seen, look at the fruit of what happened, became elevated above safety and well-being of women.

So high core has it become that in much of the world of complementarian theology is now conflated with inerrancy. Case in point, notice how often our world changes or dismisses egalitarians by saying they have a low view of Scripture.

Well, you know why we say they have a low view of Scripture? Because they do. Sorry, 1 Timothy 2, 12 to 14, what do they do? They reject it. They reject what it actually says. They either try to come up with some other meaning for what it says, or they say that's just Paul.

That's not Jesus saying this. Well, what have they done? They've had a low view of Scripture because they're putting Jesus versus Paul. Yeah. It's all Scripture. It's all Scripture. This is why we would say they have a low view of Scripture, because they do.

That's right. It's not that we're saying you have to be complementarian to have a high view of Scripture or to be complementarian is equal to inerrancy. We're saying that if you're going to believe in inerrancy, if you're going to believe God wrote this, then you believe God wrote all of this, even the parts you don't like.

Yep. Yep, that's right.

Yeah. Go ahead, Jim. I was just going to say it's interesting how she very subtly shifts the focus of the debate, because she smuggles something into the discussion here, and it's worth noting. She says we have deified Paul.

And what she's doing there is she's saying if you take Paul seriously and believe in complementarianism, that's deifying Paul, as in worshiping Paul instead of Jesus. Well, no, we're taking what Paul says as inspired Scripture and taking it seriously, that a woman should not exercise authority over a man, that the office of preaching and teaching Scripture in the public worship assembly should be reserved for men and not women.

And so she subtly says that if you are a complementarianism, you've deified Paul. And this is what liberals do constantly. They shift the terms of the discussion to redefine a word so that if you affirm this thing, well, then you're affirming X, Y, and Z as well.

If you affirm A, B, and C, you have to affirm X, Y, and Z. So she'll say things like complementarianism has led to abuse. Therefore, complementarian theology is abusive theology, and we're against abusing women.

So she begins with that. We're against abusing women. And all of us complementarians say, absolutely, we're against abusing women. That's horrible. And we should treat women as spiritual equals in the church.

That's right. We would affirm that. We should treat them as spiritual equals in the church. Yes, we're on board with that. Well, complementarianism doesn't treat women as spiritual equals in the church.

Complementarianism leads to abusing women, which you say you're against. And that's when we stop and we say, hold on. I didn't say I was for abusing women. I am a complementarian. Therefore, you're in favor of abusing women.

You see how she smuggles in the definition, a definition of complementarianism in the discussion when she says, we're against abusing women. We agree. Complementarianism abuses women. Well, that's something that you can't point to.

I don't know of any complementarian that would embrace abusing women. I know people who take complementarian theology and abuse that theology, which leads to horrible consequences. But you could do the same thing with egalitarians too.

I know of egalitarians who would lead to horrible consequences and horrible actions from that theology as well. So she doesn't want to have a discussion on the relevancy of the text. Instead, she wants to smuggle in this concept of abuse.

Well, if you take Paul seriously there, that women shouldn't teach or exercise authority over men, then you must be a complementarian. And all of us know complementarianism is misogynistic and is abusive to women.

And that's just something that we have to, you know, that's a form of begging the question. She's smuggling that conclusion into the premise of the argument and then arguing from there.

Well, I mean, this is filled with logical fallacies, right? Her topic for this conference is, does complementarianism cause abuse? We heard in the very beginning of the clip. She says, does complementarian theology cause abuse?

The answer is no. She should have got off stage then. Right? I mean, that's the answer. But then she wants to, like you're saying, smuggle this in because what she does, the rest of what she says is to basically say, yes, it does.

And people that aren't trained in logic or debate, they don't even pick this up. And you obviously did pick it up, Jim. Right? Because everything she then goes on, the rest of that clip, what she goes on to do is to answer that, yes, I said the answer is no, but the real answer is yes.

Yeah.

She says that in the beginning. She says, no, it doesn't. Abuse is caused by satanic influences and the wickedness of the human heart. But, you know, and she emphasizes that but, and then she switches gears.

But yes, complementarianism does cause abuse. Imagine if we were to set the terms of the discussion the opposite direction and use the same way of arguing that she does. We'd say, does egalitarianism lead to an all-out apostasy with women in leadership abusing and oppressing men?

Well, no, of course it doesn't. But we all know that egalitarians who put women in leadership have led to the abuse of men. And here are all the ways that men are abused by egalitarians. And so we've done the exact same thing that she has done, but just on the other side of the coin.

Does egalitarianism itself lead to the abuse of men? No, technically it doesn't. Does complementarianism itself lead to the abuse of women? No, it doesn't. But she views abuse as, I'm not allowed to preach in a Southern Baptist church, therefore I'm being abused.

And that's a misogynistic position.

Well, that's a complementarian position. This is one of the other things I saw that she slipped in right from the beginning, right? Because she says, it's not the theology, it's sin and gross selfishness and the human heart cause abuse, demonic influences.

However, has the culture prevalent in circles of the SBC formed? So she's given us the context, okay? She's answered the question. It's not complementarianism that does this. So when she goes to address everything else in complementarianism, it is a false argument because she's already answered that question.

But what does she do? She's telling us this is the view of the SBC. So right there, what she's done is another fallacy by equivocating because she's using complementarianism. Now, if she is attacking the complementarianism that says that all women have to be submissive to all men, well, that's not the SBC's view.

Nor is it a complementarian view. Correct. Right. We'll see some complementarians might say that's their view, but she's given us the context. She's talking within the SBC. But if that's not the view of the SBC, therefore, she can't be taking that extreme definition to be saying that's what causes the abuse.

She has to stick within the definition for the SBC. Therefore, what she hasn't proven and she'll never prove is that preventing a woman to speak at a pulpit or pastor a church causes them to be abused sexually, which is the issue that the SBC was addressing.

The reality is you can't prove that. It's not going to be there. She does this over and over again where she's going to try to say, well, this is what the SBC has to let women preach. That's where she's going to end up going with this.

She's finally coming out of the closet with her egalitarianism that we've all known she holds to by practice. And what I think you end up seeing here is she's going to equivocate on all this stuff to use things that she has.

She's already said that theology isn't the cause. She's already defined it as the SBC. Well, show us where in the SBC they've done this, because you know what? There's plenty of men. Jim, I know in your church, you've got a lot of godly men, but they're not all preaching.

They're not all pastoring. In fact, I know you. You're pretty protective of your pulpit. You don't let just anybody preach at your pulpit. Is that abusing all those men?

No, I don't think so. We guard the pulpit. I mean, we did let you in there a couple of times.

Hey, a broken clock is right twice a day.

No, we don't let every man here preach. And we do have standards that we keep. We guard the pulpit. In fact, just recently, we addressed this very issue with having a local Gideons presentation, where we've decided now that we're not going to have Gideons come and present from the pulpit unless the Gideon is a member of our church.

And the reason being is because a lot of Gideon's representatives come from churches that don't hold to some of our theology. Some of them don't hold complementarian theology or cessationist theology.

Some of them come from charismatic churches that have horrible doctrine. And in years past, we have allowed them to come and present the Gideon ministry and to talk to people about what Gideons are doing.

And we just said, no, we're not going to do this anymore. Under no other circumstance would we allow one of those guys to take our pulpit and address our people. So why should them being a Gideon all of a sudden give them a pass for that?

But that's not because we don't like those people or we hate those people or anything like that. It's not being abusive.

Beth Moore, Questioning Leaders, and the Victimhood Narrative

Justin, I want to ask you this question because there's something she said toward the end that just totally shocked me that she would have the audacity to say this. So I wrote it down because this wasn't in the transcript that I found online of it.

But she said, those who cannot be questioned cannot be trusted. I was blown away because, you know, on this podcast, we had Michelle Leslie come on with an open letter that several women had signed asking her, questioning her about her position on homosexuality.

And she basically slammed those women as saying, well, they don't they didn't come through the proper channels. They didn't do it the right way. They don't have it. They shouldn't be doing this. And attacking the women who had the nerve to question her.

So, Justin, by her own word, does this mean that we can officially say Beth Moore cannot be trusted because she cannot be questioned?

Absolutely. Absolutely. The open letter was very clear, was very succinct. Softball questions. I mean, the ball was sitting on the team begging to be knocked out of the park. And Beth Moore dodged. And she did.

She did just exactly what she did in this video. She says, oh, I affirm all scripture. I believe that all scripture is authoritative. But she did not answer the simple, direct questions. So, yeah, she cannot be questioned.

She is. She is that. She is that of whom cannot be touched. She is. I tell people if Southern Baptists had a female pope, it would be Beth Moore. You cannot question her. Sometimes I'm just gobsmacked at her lack of self-awareness.

The things that comes out of her mouth is just utter hypocrisy. And that's a great example of what you just cited. Yeah, she's above that. She's above us little peons asking questions. She's above these ladies submitting the open letter.

She just won't lower herself to that standard and ask questions that should be very easy to answer.

And this is why I say this is hypocritical for her. She's playing the victim in this being like, oh, look, you can't question these leaders about this stuff. But no one can question her either.

That's part of the social justice mode of operation. That's how they operate is you're always the victim, this perpetual victimhood status. I'm the victim. I've been oppressed. And that's exactly what Beth Moore is doing.

She is playing the social justice victimhood card. Poor Beth Moore, all these people picking on her. Yeah, I'm convinced that Beth Moore is. Here's another thing that the social justice tactics, part of the social justice tactics is that they use conservative lingo, but they redefine those terms.

They will use the terms with which we would identify, but they ascribe to those terms different meanings. For example, in the topic of our conversation here, yes, I'm complementarian. I just believe that a woman can preach to the gathered body on Sunday morning.

Well, if you believe that, then you're not complementarian. Yes, I believe that all Scripture is inspired. I just don't think Paul's words are as inspired as Jesus. Well, then you don't believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture.

I believe God speaks to me today, but what he says to me is not as inspired as Scripture is. You see, they make these false dichotomies, and they try to wrap themselves in a conservative mantle, but they completely redefine the terms.

It's like what the Roman Catholic Church does with grace. Oh, yes, we believe in grace. We just believe you have to merit it. Well, then it's no longer grace. See what I'm saying? They use the same terms, but they ascribe different meanings to these terms.

But see, in our culture that we're in today, it has been so confused that in her mind, this now makes sense. I mean, you have people that are, when you look at this whole thing with gender, and just the nonsense that goes on where people are, my wife and I were just talking about this earlier today.

Like we're waiting, the health industry is, you know, they're companies that provide health care for women to get pregnant. Women. You know, I'm waiting for our culture to be like, well, that's not fair.

I, as a man, want to get pregnant. I think you need to pay for medical so that I can be pregnant. Well, it goes against the very definition, right? I think this was an interesting quote she had, and I thought that this shows how she gets spun up in her rhetoric and doesn't even think about what she's saying.

She said, far too many SBC congregations and SBC seminaries, so few women are in any visible area of leadership that women who are being abused by the system itself or within it by people that are in a place of power don't have any female to turn to.

They don't even know where to go. You know where I would go if I wanted a female opinion? My bride. Same here. They can't find a woman. They don't know where they are. In my house. That's where they are, you know?

And where do the, you know, if you're going to, if you're trying to say that she's saying this, that the women being abused have nowhere to turn to because all the men in leadership? That assumes that every man in leadership is an abuser.

And every woman in the church is complicit with it. If you have nowhere to go. Yeah. You're telling me that there's not an equal number of women in the average Southern Baptist church and there are men?

I would bet that in most Southern Baptist churches, there are more women than there are men.

She's going to argue that the women aren't in leadership. Because think about what, so you have a couple different ways to parse this. And with her, you end up having to parse it different ways because she is never clear in her words.

If you're going to parse it that the men in leadership don't have a woman to turn to because there's not a woman in leadership. Well, they don't need a woman in leadership to turn to a woman. If it's that the women are being abused because there's no women in leadership that can put a stop to this.

Well, okay. First off, you put a woman in leadership. If her thinking is correct and every man is an abuser and every woman, the victim, putting a woman in leadership doesn't change it because the man still going to abuse the woman that's in leadership.

But when she argues that she's not an egalitarian, there's no way you could take this quote and say she's complementarian. There's no way because what is she arguing for? Women in leadership. The very definition issue that we're bringing up.

So, I think the one thing that really is clear is she has finally come out and made it very clear she's not a complementarian. She's very much against it.

Yeah, and she does another sort of sleight of hand here is that she begins to speak in all these generalities, again, that we would agree with. That abuse is wrong, etc. But then she describes these situations where women are in these churches.

They have nowhere to go to. They're being abused and the men who are abusing them are just protecting the shepherds. Shepherds guarding shepherds and not shepherds guarding sheep. She mentions that at one time.

And my challenge to her would be, where is this church? Which church is it? Give me the name and the city that it's in, the name of this church, and who are the leaders. Can you point me specifically to anything that fits this description?

And chances are good you would not be able to point us to any Southern Baptist church that fits this description. And so she speaks in these generalities, but without naming any specifics, as if what she is describing is so widespread that it deserves the entire revamping of the entire SBC to remedy the situation.

You know, we have one of the speakers at Striving Fraternity. He's a SBC pastor, Pastor Frank Mullis. He's involved right now with a pastor who the SBC group, the local group, is preventing a guy. Basically, he resigned from a church over claims of sexual abuse.

It was a strange thing. And he stepped down and some other church brought him in. And all the guys, the SBC pastors, local pastors said, no, that's not going to happen. And so what do you have? You have men in leadership in SBC putting a stop to a man who wants to be a pastor again, who has, you know, been involved in some questionable practices as a leader.

So right there, this isn't, as she puts it to every, like every SBC church, and it's everywhere in the SBC. She does this strange analogy. I don't know if you guys really understood this. I mean, I think what she does is she gets like herself, kind of like the African American pastors where they get into the cadence and everyone just gets into it.

And they don't think about what they're saying. I have a friend of mine that says, you know, black pastor can preach Little Miss Muffet and people will amen it. And I was like, it can't happen. We were in this missionary housing and he's like, he's doing it with the whole cadence.

And this woman is walking past and go, amen, preach it. And he's preaching Little Miss Muffet. I think she gets into that. Because she's like, if complementarianism were a woman, I tell you that the woman is being abused.

And someone needs to call the police and start investigating. And God help us if the police are in on it. And now I will enter the witness protection program. What in the world was she saying?

She's playing the victim card. Again, so is it complementarianism that is being abused or is it complementarianism that is abusive? That's unclear. She's having that both ways. You know what, Andrew? There's an aspect of this that just makes me sick.

And that is that Beth Moore has put me in a place where I have to defend SBC churches and pastors. I was about to say, we're a little uncomfortable here. Oh, my goodness. It's a new low in American evangelicalism when Justin and I have to come to the defense of the SBC.

Well, see, I've never been part of a denominational church. I've always been independent Baptist. I've never supported denominations anyway. But, you know, it was interesting at the end of this. Because you said she plays the victim card.

She quotes a passage from Ephesians. And she does it so she could play the victim card. And she quotes it where she's saying, you know, well, we're being attacked because we're speaking the truth. What truth is she speaking?

She said the topic of her thing is complementarian theology causing the abuse. The answer is no. So she's not speaking the truth on complementarian theology. She says in the thing that we just read, right, that she's talking about complementarianism causing the abuse.

But yet it's not. She's also saying in this quote that complementarianism itself is being abused. So, you know, you're like, what truth is she actually saying? When you read through this whole thing, the truth she's claiming is egalitarianism.

That's what she's defending.

Yeah, she's, as I said a minute ago, she is using the same lingo, but she is ascribing new definitions to that lingo. This is part of what the social justice movement does. They take your language and they redefine it.