Beth Moore?

[IisJustMe]

So what you're saying is, if YOU agree with something, then....... that's proof enough that it's good?

Hardly. Please read it again. My opposition to the SF/PC type of worship and it's reliance on "experience" over the Word of God should tell you that my positive opinion of her means I've never, ever seen or heard her speak anything remotely resembling WoF or similar heresy.

Well anyways, I wasn't calling her WOF - if you would of asked me instead of jumping on me, I could of clarified what I wrote.

You directly stated she "hangs out" with a WoF crowd. That's ridiculous. She doesn't. And you relied on a blog for that info. Blogs are not reliable sources for anything. They are people's opinions and mostly colored by their perceptions. The blog you cited in the post to which I am now replying is by one of the most legalistic people I've ever read. I wouldn't trust the opinion expressed for any information on which I could base a decision.

I would THINK she would be discerning enough since she's so "Holy Spirit guided", to know about what the 'Be Still' material (contemplative prayer) promotes since she backs it & supposedly would do some homework on what she was endorsing.

The "Lighthouse" link you provided that makes this statement is sometimes reliable for certain subjects, but is also excessively legalistic. The telling remark they make is this one:

While the DVD is vague and lacking in actual instruction on word or phrase repetition (which lies at the heart of contemplative prayer), it is really quite misleading. What they don't tell you in the DVD is that this state of stillness or silence is, for the most part, achieved through some method such as mantra-like meditation.

This is typical of the opposition to the Be Still DVD, and if you haven't seen it, basing your opinion of it on this kind of tripe will give you the wrong impression. The reason the DVD is "vague and lacking in actual instruction on ... repetition" is because the contemplative prayer spoken of on the DVD -- which also included Max Lucado, who I'm sure most would not think would be involved in anything mystical or satanic -- is not the "contemplative prayer" of the eastern religions. It is simply being attentive to God's own instruction of "Be still ... " (or, as the NASB translates it more directly) "Cease striving, and know that I am God."

The DVD is simply an expansion of this biblical passage. It is important not to make prayer a laundry list of thanks, praise, confession, supplication and intercession. Prayer is a two-way conversation with God. Shut up and listen to what He has to say. Otherwise, you're missing the key aspect of all relationships: Communication.

This is just more of the same old legalistic crap coming from people who aren't happy with anyone who would dare suggest that there is any way other than theirs to worship and relate to God. The "Lighthouse" suggestion that silence in our prayer time leads to a pantheistic view of God is ludicrous. There is no "mantra" or "repetition" involved in Christian contemplative prayer. That's why the DVD "is vague or lacking" in that information. There is simply a reverent silence that enables us to enjoy His presence, and hear His voice.

Just because some of our ways resemble the ways of non-Christian religions doesn't mean we are adopting those non-Christian religions or their methods. That's the same kind of reasoning that has extreme legalists refusing to celebrate Christmas or Resurrection Sunday, because they have "roots" (also garbage) in paganism.

 

[Giver]

OK, lately, everybody and their grandma has been singing the praises of speaker Beth Moore and her series of devotionals. My wife and I have been looking for some sort of study activity to do together in the evenings so I decided to pick one up. We got "Jesus. 90 Days With the One and Only"

We started and right off the bat I was TOTALLY creeped out by her constant expression for passionate love for Jesus. I was weirded out for two reasons.

1. It came off as man/woman love. I can quote some of it to you when I'm at home, but that's how it sounded. She mentions thinking he was beautiful in paintings etc. She speaks more passionate about him than I've probably said about my wife.

2. I don't feel a deep LOVE for Jesus. I can only feel these kinds of feelings for people I know and have lived with personally/phsyically. I have respect for Christ. I am thankful for Him. But is it LOVE? I don't sit idly dreaming of Him. (more like I feel how much I'm disappointing him by my lack of action, repentance, etc), I want to meet him in Heaven, to listen to what he has to say. But puppy dog affection? Never felt it. Not like the love I have for my wife, my kids, my dad, etc. If I tried to pretend to have it it would be completely phony.

So i was left after the first few day's studies feeling bummed out and a little less Christian. "Good for you miss goody two shoes, you have this super deep love for God, which apparently I don't." My wife felt the same way and we gave up on the book.

I wonder if it would help by sharing an experience where I was taught that when someone gets all emotional about expressing love for Jesus, it is not necessarily love?

Many years ago I was part of a large group of ministers of many different denominations, which expressed a belief that Christians should walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We met every Tuesday for lunch, prayer/worship, and sharing. One afternoon while worshiping many of the ministers were raising their hands and emotionally crying out how much they loved Jesus. Jesus spoke to me and said: “NO they don’t love me.” He then had me write down a number of scriptures which expressed to love Jesus you need to hear his Word and live that Word.

 

[Nadiine]

Hardly. Please read it again. My opposition to the SF/PC type of worship and it's reliance on "experience" over the Word of God should tell you that my positive opinion of her means I've never, ever seen or heard her speak anything remotely resembling WoF or similar heresy.

Well that's good to hear, but I didn't SAY that she teaches WOF or heresy. Maybe you can show me where I did.

You directly stated she "hangs out" with a WoF crowd. That's ridiculous. She doesn't. And you relied on a blog for that info.

I guess I have to repeat this again - I gave the links to what I read for others to read and make up their own minds - I left it neutral, I wasn't FOR her and I wasn't AGAINST her.
I was simply giving out info I found. Where do I put her on a whipping post & start going to town against her? lol
I never did!

I used the blog for their personal opinions of what she had not done in their opinion. I thought it held merit.
If you apologize for something or disagree with it, you would usually do something to make sure you aren't associated with it any longer & the blog was saying that they didn't see her do those things.
If that's the case, it has some merit as an observation.

Blogs are not reliable sources for anything. They are people's opinions and mostly colored by their perceptions. The blog you cited in the post to which I am now replying is by one of the most legalistic people I've ever read.

It was the opinion I was using it for; whether he's legalistic or not, it can still hold some merit. I never said I agreed with everything he said either.

I wouldn't trust the opinion expressed for any information on which I could base a decision.The "Lighthouse" link you provided that makes this statement is sometimes reliable for certain subjects, but is also excessively legalistic.

In your opinion it is. On issues regarding the new age/eastern aspects in some of the emerging church issues, they're spot on and I'm in full agreement of their findings.
That isn't legalism, it's discernment.

The telling remark they make is this one:This is typical of the opposition to the Be Still DVD, and if you haven't seen it, basing your opinion of it on this kind of tripe will give you the wrong impression. The reason the DVD is "vague and lacking in actual instruction on ... repetition" is because the contemplative prayer spoken of on the DVD -- which also included Max Lucado, who I'm sure most would not think would be involved in anything mystical or satanic -- is not the "contemplative prayer" of the eastern religions. It is simply being attentive to God's own instruction of "Be still ... " (or, as the NASB translates it more directly) "Cease striving, and know that I am God."

The DVD is simply an expansion of this biblical passage. It is important not to make prayer a laundry list of thanks, praise, confession, supplication and intercession. Prayer is a two-way conversation with God. Shut up and listen to what He has to say. Otherwise, you're missing the key aspect of all relationships: Communication.

This is just more of the same old legalistic crap coming from people who aren't happy with anyone who would dare suggest that there is any way other than theirs to worship and relate to God. The "Lighthouse" suggestion that silence in our prayer time leads to a pantheistic view of God is ludicrous. There is no "mantra" or "repetition" involved in Christian contemplative prayer. That's why the DVD "is vague or lacking" in that information. There is simply a reverent silence that enables us to enjoy His presence, and hear His voice.

Just because some of our ways resemble the ways of non-Christian religions doesn't mean we are adopting those non-Christian religions or their methods. That's the same kind of reasoning that has extreme legalists refusing to celebrate Christmas or Resurrection Sunday, because they have "roots" (also garbage) in paganism.

I'm not going into the whole Emergent Church thing here, it's not the thread.
I will say that having traits of emerging isn't what's wrong in finding other ways to express worship... the problem is that some of the top proponents of it DO teach the Eastern/new age terms and practices; repacked for Christians. If that's what you embrace and want to do well then, feel free to go buy a yoga mat & burn some incense; have at it.

I'd warn anybody about the practices of false religion's (emptying the mind, chanting words & statements,etc.) being peddled as "Christian" just becuz they slap a biblical verse or term over it to make it palatable for us to do in God's name.

 

[IisJustMe]

Nadiine, you claim "Lighthouse" is "spot-on" in their assessment of the supposed infiltration of new age crap into Christianity. They aren't. They're alarmists. New age crap is creeping into very liberal Christ-denying denominations. "Lighthouse" sees it under every pulpit and behind every new thought that comes along. You also said you agree with them. That's an opinion and no more an indication of their being right or not than how you misconstrued my first post on this subject this morning to mean "If I agree, they must be right." I didn't mean that. Apparently you did.

One final thing ...

I will say that having traits of emerging isn't what's wrong in finding other ways to express worship... the problem is that some of the top proponents of it DO teach the Eastern/new age terms and practices; repacked for Christians.

You say they are "top proponents" I say they are fringe adherents. "He said, she said." Mainly, however, is this: "Top proponents" of Christianity teach that "holy hankies can heal you," "you must be baptized to be saved," and "speaking in tongues is the only true sign of the indwelling Holy Spirit." None of these teachings are universally accepted within the church. Neither is the view that the emergent church is a bad thing because a few nutballs want to drag the teachings of Buddha or Vishnu into the picture.

I've said what I had to say. I'm done.

 

[Nadiine]

Nadiine, you claim "Lighthouse" is "spot-on" in their assessment of the supposed infiltration of new age crap into Christianity. They aren't. They're alarmists. New age crap is creeping into very liberal Christ-denying denominations. "Lighthouse" sees it under every pulpit and behind every new thought that comes along. You also said you agree with them. That's an opinion and no more an indication of their being right or not than how you misconstrued my first post on this subject this morning to mean "If I agree, they must be right." I didn't mean that. Apparently you did.

I've said what I had to say. I'm done.

The problem is, it isn't ONLY Lighthouse sounding the alarm - many others are seeing it also. And if they're using the quotes of the people themselves, that isn't legalism, it means the people actually ARE promoting what you read.
This "centered prayer" page is what they go after, and frankly, they're spot on! Since when is this mentioned in scripture when we're taught to always meditate ON scripture/His word, etc.
http://www.contemplativeoutreach.org/methodcp.htm

& Since when is anything "repedative" proper Christian worship/prayer as other teach contemplative prayer?
Mat. 6 Jesus clearly tells us not to repeat w/ 'many words' like the heathen do. I don't see legalism in sounding that alarm.

Dismiss what you want, it's there.
We'll agree to disagree.

 

[RedTulipMom]

She doesn't have her own show, but she has a segment on Life Today, which is James & Betty Robison's show. They don't have her as a guest, but as a show within a show. Checking the website, it's called Wednesdays with Beth, and it does seem to be on Wednesday, so I guess that fits. And it may be Daystar, TBN or PAX. Just search for Life Today on your cable or satellite service.

P.S.: A little further research - Beth Moore goes to First Baptist Church in Houston, TX. It's Southern Baptist, which I guess explains why LifeWay Christian Stores (run by the SBC) are so fond of her.

The show is on TLN (total living network) here on our cable tv

 

[RedTulipMom]

hanging out with WOF preachers and teaching/preaching WOF doctrines are two different things. Just like hanging out with an alchoholic doesnt make you a drinker and hanging out with a prostitute doesnt make you a prostitute.

Show even 1 link of something Beth moore has said that is WOF teaching? i have NEVER seen it. i am ANTI-WOF teaching and know its heresy and wont go near those teachings, but i love Beth Moores teachings and if i ever saw her teaching WOF junk i would stay clear of her. So show me where she teaches anything WOF...she don't! just sayin..

 

[IisJustMe]

OK, one last thing (and this time I really mean it!)

Three of the seven Hebrew words meaning "prayer" (siyach, siychah, taequillah) literally mean "meditate." The meditation referred to, particullary in Psalm 119:97, 99) is just that -- meditation, silence, communication. That is according to both Thayer's and Nave's. The most commonly translated word for prayer in the Greek is proseuchomai and simply means prayer. But In the fourth chapter of I Timothy, Paul explains that mere words are not enough:

I Timothy 4:1-5
But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with gratitude; for it is sanctified by means of the word of God and prayer. [emphasis added]

The word translated prayer in this passage is enteuxis, and while it is related to the word from which we get "entreat" the definition is "a falling in with, meeting with, as in an interview in which two come together, converse, visit." This is two-way communication, and it is not possible if we as the petitioner are the only speaker. We must "Be still ... " "Cease striving ..." in order to benefit from prayer. That is all the contemplative prayer concept is about. Some may make it to be something else, but that does not negate the concept as is espoused by Beth Moore and Max Lucado as being valid.

As for your link, you offer no proof or substantiation that this is what Moore and Lucado are talking about. If you had watched the DVD you would know full well that it most assuredly is not. So I must assume you are indeed going by what blogs and alarmist web sites are saying. Those sites are deceptive. They describe the concept as it is outlined on the link ("The Method") you supplied, then say, "Moore and Lucado have a DVD out that talks about 'contemplative prayer' " and thus link them to this nonsense.

What is on that link is not what Moore, Lucado and the DVD Be Still are about. It is what I've talked about today. If we are going to be sheep, we need to be sheep for Christ, not for others who want to control everyone's method of worship and prayer. That's legalism, not discernment.

 

[Nadiine]

hanging out with WOF preachers and teaching/preaching WOF doctrines are two different things. Just like hanging out with an alchoholic doesnt make you a drinker and hanging out with a prostitute doesnt make you a prostitute.

Show even 1 link of something Beth moore has said that is WOF teaching? i have NEVER seen it. i am ANTI-WOF teaching and know its heresy and wont go near those teachings, but i love Beth Moores teachings and if i ever saw her teaching WOF junk i would stay clear of her. So show me where she teaches anything WOF...she don't! just sayin..

Please READ MY POST

To clarify - again,
It is was what was posted on a webpage that I linked. And yes I do take some consideration as to who Christian leaders hang out with.
I'm well aware that sitting with or being friends with a drinker doesn't make me one - that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to who people hang out with either. (opposite extremes again).

A perfect example of that is here on CF - someone who used to be conservative has recently leaped into heavy liberalism after hanging out with a group of liberals over time.
So while it doesn't "make" anyone anything, I don't ignore & turn a blind eye to the company people keep either - not insinuating she even does.
Just stating the generalities

 

[IisJustMe]

It is was what was posted on a webpage that I linked.

Do you also repeat every rumor you hear? this is indefensible, Nadiine. You are taking the word of someone you don't know for truth, and ignoring or discounting the statements of people you should have come to trust through constant interchange of ideas on this board. That not only isn't fair to Mrs. Moore, it is naive and gullible.

 

[Nadiine]

OK, one last thing (and this time I really mean it!)

Three of the seven Hebrew words meaning "prayer" (siyach, siychah, taequillah) literally mean "meditate." The meditation referred to, particullary in Psalm 119:97, 99) is just that -- meditation, silence, communication. That is according to both Thayer's and Nave's. The most commonly translated word for prayer in the Greek is proseuchomai and simply means prayer. But In the fourth chapter of I Timothy, Paul explains that mere words are not enough: The word translated prayer in this passage is enteuxis, and while it is related to the word from which we get "entreat" the definition is "a falling in with, meeting with, as in an interview in which two come together, converse, visit." This is two-way communication, and it is not possible if we as the petitioner are the only speaker. We must "Be still ... " "Cease striving ..." in order to benefit from prayer. That is all the contemplative prayer concept is about. Some may make it to be something else, but that does not negate the concept as is espoused by Beth Moore and Max Lucado as being valid.

I am not against the TITLE of 'contemplative' anything - all I am advocating is that any and all new age practices be removed from it (which are clearly being taught).

This article details info/statements from the Be Still DVD --- IF this is true, then I have a problem with it and anyone promoting it.
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/bestilldvd.htm

As for your link, you offer no proof or substantiation that this is what Moore and Lucado are talking about. If you had watched the DVD you would know full well that it most assuredly is not. So I must assume you are indeed going by what blogs and alarmist web sites are saying.

Actually I think it's Moore's own statement that tells a story - she wouldn't feel any need to apologize or recant anything if nobody found it & brought it up to her.
This page goes into explanation from someone who saw the DVD:
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=31776

The POINT being brought up by the other blogger I linked previously and the others was that she merely replied to the source who confronted her on the issue, she didn't go any further than that to make sure everyone understood that she wasn't in support of anything New Age regarding contemplative prayer.

I won't go into such speculations as to her motives or what she really feels about it - I can't know that; I was ONLY relaying those things I found.
Again, I was staying neutral in my position, not being for OR against her. Just providing information I had found.

I'll add this in closing, and most importantly, we should ALWAYS be examining and testing ANYONE AND EVERYONE'S teachings - from Dr. Charles Stanley to Beth Moore to James Dobson to TBN people alike.
NEVER are we to let our spiritual guards down and just swallow what we're fed by anyone advocating God's name.

 

[IisJustMe]

IF this is true, then I have a problem with it and anyone promoting it.

That's the problem, it isn't true, and you're assuming it is because it's on a web site. Very poor excuse for adopting any view.

Actually I think it's Moore's own statement that tells a story - she wouldn't feel any need to apologize or recant anything if nobody found it & brought it up to her.

Did you realize she has since retracted her original statement? Why, do you suppose? I can tell you -- it's because she saw something similar to the tripe you've been posting and feared she'd been duped. Then she talked with Lucado, and saw that it is people like those who post "Lighthouse" that are the problem, not the DVD she and the others made. Get over it, already!

This page goes into explanation from someone who saw the DVD:

Someone wbo is just as disingenuous as "Lighthouse" is -- really, Nadiine, do some research that doesn't rely 100% on legalistic crap. I'm done. With this thread, and probably with this forum, too. This is just getting ridiculous. There's the SF/PC people who want to claim being "non-denominational" dragging their stuff over here, and there's the legalists vying to supremacy as well. I don't need it.

 

[Nadiine]

That's the problem, it isn't true, and you're assuming it is because it's on a web site. Very poor excuse for adopting any view.Did you realize she has since retracted her original statement? Why, do you suppose? I can tell you -- it's because she saw something similar to the tripe you've been posting and feared she'd been duped. Then she talked with Lucado, and saw that it is people like those who post "Lighthouse" that are the problem, not the DVD she and the others made. Get over it, already!Someone wbo is just as disingenuous as "Lighthouse" is -- really, Nadiine, do some research that doesn't rely 100% on legalistic crap. I'm done. With this thread, and probably with this forum, too. This is just getting ridiculous. There's the SF/PC people who want to claim being "non-denominational" dragging their stuff over here, and there's the legalists vying to supremacy as well. I don't need it.

Obviously you want to attrubute INFORMATION as someone's solid stance AGAINST someone (Moore).
so be it.

I still haven't denounced her, yet you keep trying to make it like I have. I have lifted up THEIR statements as points being made on an issue.

Again, lighthouse is not the only site that brings the new age stuff out of what's being taught, it is 1 of them and there are links to new ageism in who those teachers & leaders quote. There are ties to it - just not by everybody in this 'emerging' movement.
It's not everyone & I know that.

If asking people to BE AWARE is so horrible & legalistic, then so be it, I'll stand in line with Paul & others who teach us to constantly be aware.

I'm sorry you're having such issues w/ me, us or CF and maybe if that's the case then it's better to leave or take a break; that's up to you.
I don't know.
But I don't like that I'm being painted into a corner when it wasn't my position. IF offering information to discuss is going to turn into this, I guess I'd just as soon leave too.

 

[IisJustMe]

I haven't read your post, Nadiine, and I won't. But I will apologize. In the midst of writing that last post, I got a call from my brother. My dad is in the hospital again, probably for the last time. I finished it hastily and posted -- probably should have just deleted it and headed back home. In fact, I did drive back here today -- I'm in Missouri now -- and I've got a lot of hard decisions to make. The differences we've had here pale in comparison. And the differences are pointless. I'm not buying your arguments and you aren't buying mine, so one of us, if not both, should have been smart enough to bow out a long time ago. God bless. I probably won't be online for a few days, but I'll try to pop in just to give updates on Dad. The "fun king/queen threads" will have the info. Thanks for your prayers (I know I don't even have to ask, you're already doing so) and I'll look in when and if I can.

 

[Svt4Him]

Thread closed at the request of the OP.

/fake mod hat here