Post Page Advertisement [Top]

Moore Confusion

Russell Moore, dean of the school of theology and senior vice president for academic administration at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, attacked feminism and defended patriarchy in a recent speech. Many evangelicals unwittingly live as feminists, Moore says - (BP)

Moore makes a common mistake in assuming there is only one feminism. In reality there are multiple feminisms, with some groups rejecting the views of the others. Often critics of feminism will take the ideas from radical feminists and use them to attack all feminists. This is as misguided as taking the extremist views of Pat Robertson and assuming all Christians agree with them (please don’t think I agree with him!).

Ironically, Jesus should be considered a feminist (I know that will make some uneducated Christians cringe). He brought women into his ministry and taught that all people were equal. How sad that the teachings of Jesus that once helped bring women their God-given equality and rights (after all, many of the early feminist suffrage leaders were devout Christians), are now (mis)used by some to hold women back.

Moore also defended patriarchy (male hegemonic rule), and he again shows he is quite confused. He argued:

"And it will also address the needs of hurting women and children far better, because it is rooted in the primary biblical means for protecting women and children: calling men to responsibility. Patriarchy is good for women, good for children, and good for families."

This is such a scary idea since patriarchy is actually what hurts women and children (spousal abuse, sexual abuse, etc.). Patriarchy by its very definition cannot be good for women or children!


  1. Truly appreciate your piece and work in general. So much so that I've blogged you and added a link to you at
    Keep it up, brother. Godspeace.

  2. Rick,

    Thanks for the kind words. I have added you to my list of blogs as well, and will make it a point to check your work out frequently. It is great to see other Christians who are willing to think and challenge others to truly follow the teachings of Jesus. Keep of the good work!

  3. Brian, your definition of (or perhaps more accurately, your interpretation of Moore's definition of) "patriarchy" as "male hegemonic rule" fired-off a few synapses, reminding me of a specific word: Authority.

    I have had the pleasure and torment of knowing several individuals whom were reared upon / indoctrinated into the teachings of entities such as Bill Gothard's Institute in Basic Life Principals. Only when I was invited to a "Basic Seminar" and left in disgust halfway through the second session, did I begin to do research on the organization.

    The perversion of authority - descending into authoritarianism - is endemic today, both on the political Left and Right. But it is most immediately destructive in families. It is especially perverse that the IBLP, which was initially created supposedly to solve problems with children, often causes far greater problems. What greater problem is there for a child on the precipice of true, saving faith in God, than to turn his back on God never to accept His gift?

    I welcome your efforts here, as I've often found myself internally recoiling at the dogmatic and often wrong statements of those who would presume to speak for our Lord and Savior. I am reminded of the title of a book I once saw, but have yet to read: Following Jesus Without Embarassing God. Perhaps you've read it?

    Generally, I have found those critical of more politically conservative Christians, while calling themselves Christians, tend to focus on the politics of those they criticize, rather than their manner of following Christ. This tends in my view to undermine their "Christian" arguments. Such is why I am more heartened to see your blog. I am glad also to see a link to Al Mohler's exceedingly excellent blog. This tells me that no matter where your actual political bent may take you, you are sensitive to the persuasion of a great argument, which Mohler often makes.

    Some friends and I started a blog a few months ago, appropriately termed Reasonable Nuts, in order to bandy-about notions we think should be discussed. Sometimes I stray with what I find interesting, as my other blog has been less-than-online for a while. But generally, we like to offer up topics that need some investigation. We have a couple of more conservative Christians and a couple more libertarian, such as myself. We haven't added any distinctly liberal friends, but one is coming to mind who I may ask. I usually invite based on an ability to communicate effectively rather than a specific political bent.

    I'll be reading your blog and look forward to your interpretation of events and ideas.


Bottom Ad [Post Page]