Given I spent a good bit of time yesterday going over the words Beth Moore originally wrote on the subject of homosexuality and then had removed recently I think today’s article she posted should be read carefully and fairly.  I will be brief at this point: Mrs. Moore must know by now that there is nowhere to hide on this topic. She can appeal to emotion and feelings for only so long. There are serious, pointed, important questions that everyone knows she must answer, and the longer it takes her to do so, openly and honestly, the more damage she does to herself, and more importantly, to her followers.  Just a few items:

1. It seems she is saying, along with people like JD Greear, that homosexuality is just “one sin among many.” That it is not, in fact, “particularly satanic.” And yet, Paul specifically laid it out as an example of the depth to which our rebellion goes, even to the point of damaging the core of our being, and God listed it amongst those sins so pernicious and serious that the land vomited out its inhabitants in Leviticus 18:24-25.
2. She has yet to interact with what, specifically it was about her words that “exceeded Scripture.” She says she “overspoke,” but the only example she gives is an emotionally-derived hypothetical about a 13 year old struggling with “an onslaught of sexual feelings.” This seems to indicate she now embraces the “born this way” perspective as well.  She likewise conflates categories.  Note her words, “comes to the conclusion that he or she is particularly demonic.” Well, if the person thinks they themselves are homosexuality, I suppose, but the point of the Scripture is to warn us of the nature of the sin to which we are tempted and to therefore flee from it to that which is pleasing in God’s sight. Again, more identity confusion seems to be present here.
3. She says she holds to a “traditional Christian sexual ethic.”  Well, that is great, but what does that mean when applied in this situation?  Those questions she was asked a few weeks ago would, in fact, clarify exactly this, but alas, we have not received any answers to those questions. So it seems she wishes to say that homosexual acts are sinful (since marriage is only between a man and a woman) but that leaves the issue of orientation undefined and the question of whether that desire needs to be mortified unanswered.
4. I have often spoken of the dangers and errors of fundamentalism in its modern form, and I think with considerably more accuracy of definition and historical development than Mrs. Moore is providing. It is not “hyper-fundamentalism” to ask her to be clear and plain on this topic.

She closes her piece with a citation of Galatians 5:19-21, but not 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which would have been directly relevant, I would think.  The questions asked a few weeks ago stand, and need to be answered more now than ever. And the questions I asked, drawn directly from the words she wrote, but has now disowned, must be answered.

One last item.  Mrs. Moore says she holds to a traditional Christian sexual ethic.  Almost everyone I have seen abandon that ethic and embrace the LGBTQ(nowP+) revolution has said the same thing, and given the same reasons for their actions. There is a theological foundation for that sexual ethic.  It is not a matter of what 13 year olds feel, or think.  It is rooted in deep theology, deep commitments to the Christian worldview.  It is not normally a part of visions and dreams and impressions and the like.  It abides and remains from generation to generation and is not altered by the trends of culture or fashion. The question is this: upon what foundation does Beth Moore stand?  And given that others have granted to her a position of teaching authority (whether she should possess that or not is yet another important question), the fact is asking for the foundational views of such a person is completely appropriate and, I dare say, necessary.