Listen in as Dave and I discuss the Beveres’ false doctrine and the way they twist Scripture on these issues, what the Bible really teaches, and more! Even if you don’t follow the Beveres, many other false teachers share the same beliefs, so you’ll want to give this a listen to educate yourself on the falsehoods flying around out there and equip yourself to help your friends and loved ones who believe them.
Be sure to check out Dave’s website, Servants of Grace, where you’ll find an abundance of great teaching, podcasts, and materials, as well as his social media links- and give Dave a follow!
Articles / resources mentioned or touched on in the episode:
Got a podcast of your own or have a podcasting friend who needs a guest? Need a speaker for a women’s conference or church event? Click the “Speaking Engagements” tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page, drop me an e-mail, and let’s chat!
Or maybe I answered your question already? Check out my article The Mailbag: Top 10 FAQs to see if your question has been answered and to get some helpful resources.
Dear Leslie,
Hi there! I’m so glad you’ve dropped me an email or social media comment or message. I love all to pieces those of you who make this mistake, but just so you’ll know, my first name is not “Leslie”. In fact, I have four names, a first name, middle name, maiden name, and married name, and none of those names are “Leslie”.
My name is:
Michelle Lesley
Michelle is my first1 name. Two “L’s”. Lesley is my last name. It ends with an -ey, not an -ie.
Like I said, if you’ve ever made the mistake of addressing me in writing by my first name as “Leslie,” no worries! I’m certainly not mad or upset, just amused and, after so many years of this happening, dying of curiosity. My name is clearly and prominently stated on my blog, my Facebook and X pages, and in my email address. I can kinda understand misspelling my last name with an “-ie,” but I’m not sure how some people think my last name is my first name. (It can’t be autocorrect. Autocorrect only “corrects” misspelled words, it doesn’t flip flop them, and it’s not going to autocorrect “Michelle” to “Leslie”. Right? I mean, autocorrect isn’t that bad, is it?)
Help me solve this mystery, readers, and you’ll have my undying gratitude!😀
In the meantime, I’ll just be sitting over here, thankful that I didn’t marry the first guy I was engaged to, whose last name was Stanley.😳 (Y’all wouldn’t really call me “Stanley” as my first name, would you?😂)
1Technically, Michelle is my middle name. I have always gone by my middle name, mostly because very few people can pronounce or spell my first name without being taught. No, I’m not going to say what it is, because I’m trying to quash confusion here, not create more, and one more name would just create more confusion.
(From Michelle: This reader’s lengthy email has been extensively edited and summarized. Suffice it to say, the summary does not do justice to the detailed description of egregious events she sent me.)
My husband and I have been living apart and separated for the past 10 years. During the first three years of our marriage, he committed adultery multiple times with multiple women (even fathering a child with one woman), was physically abusive, and would not hold a job, so that I had to support our family.
My country does not allow divorce, only annulment, which costs $5000. Neither I, nor my estranged husband can afford this, however he has moved on and married again due to becoming a Muslim (Islam allows multiple wives). I want to move on with my life, too, but how?
I want to be right with God. I am a new Christian and I don’t have a permanent church yet, or I would talk to my own pastor. I have tried to reach out to other pastors. Some, I’ve been unable to meet with because I’m not a member of their church. Others tell me I cannot get a divorce and that there are no biblical grounds for divorce or annulment (most churches in my country take the permanence view of marriage).
Do I have biblical grounds to file for divorce/annulment? Can I remarry?
Honey, I’m so sorry you’re going through this terrible situation. I know it must be very difficult.
Let me start by saying that, first, I’m not crazy about the concept of annulment after several years of marriage, because an annulment is basically a declaration that the marriage never took place. And after three years and having a child together, that’s a hard argument to make. A marriage did take place, it was just a really bad one. Additionally, I don’t know how your country defines and applies it, so I’m mainly going to stick to divorce, here.
Second, to provide context for the rest of my answer, I do not hold to the permanence view. Scripture makes clear that divorce is permissible (not required, and certainly not preferable to reconciliation if that’s at all possible, but permissible) but for Christians in the case of adultery or abandonment, and it sounds like your husband is profusely guilty of both.
So, yes, you have biblical grounds for divorce, but your country doesn’t permit it, so that’s a moot point in your situation. You can save up for an annulment, but it would only be biblical to apply for one if you can honestly meet one or more of your country’s requirements. If there’s a legal possibility of going to another country to obtain a divorce, you can also explore that option. But, from the way you’ve described your situation to me, it sounds like you’re pretty much relegated to living out the permanence view whether you like it, or agree with it, or not. And that means no, until your husband dies or you find some legal and biblical means to a divorce, you may not remarry.
I know that’s bad news that you don’t really want to hear, and I sympathize that it’s a bitter pill to swallow. But I would encourage you to do a few things in this undesirable situation:
○ Give 1 Corinthians 7, particularly verse 17 through the end of the chapter, a good study. It was written for people in similar situations to yours: new Believers married to unbelievers. Notice Paul’s reassurance that “blooming where God planted you,” so to speak, is OK, and consider your situation in light of that.
Brothers, each one is to remain with God in that condition in which he was called.
1 Corinthians 7:24
God knew all about your husband and your marriage before He saved you, and He knows your circumstances now, because He’s the one who has you there. He may or may not change those circumstances. All you have to do is get up every day and walk in obedience to Him that day.
○ Study Philippians 4, particularly the part about contentment. We all have to learn how to be content in whatever circumstances God places us in.
○ Pray. Ask God to resolve this situation for His glory and your good. Ask Him to help you be obedient to Him in the meantime. Thank Him for the work He is doing in your heart through this situation to grow you in Christ. Pray for your husband. Ask your brothers and sisters in Christ to pray for you.
While you’re doing all of that, the most important thing you can do is to find a doctrinally sound local church to join. Meet with your pastor and get some godly counsel from him. Perhaps he can even point you to a godly older woman in your church who has been through something similar who can disciple you through this.
We all face circumstances that are difficult and unpleasant, but God uses those things to sanctify us.
I’m a little embarrassed to admit that I am one who used to believe that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children. Can we know for certain that is false? Why would that be a bad thing? Maybe it was meant to be kept out of the Bible for protection of the lineage? I don’t mean any disrespect to Jesus for the questioning more for my own closure.
Hey, we all used to believe things that we look back in embarrassment on now. But there’s no need to be embarrassed about that any more than we should be embarrassed that we wore diapers or drank from a bottle when we were babies. Nobody is born mature, and nobody is born again spiritually mature with all her theological ducks in a row. And that’s a blessing, because if you were, you wouldn’t be able to look back over your life and see how much the Lord has grown you!
If someone came to me and tried to argue that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had children, I would ask her to show me where – chapter and verse of black and white, written on the page Scripture – the Bible says that. I would encourage you to try that on yourself. Search the Scriptures forward, backward, and upside down. You’re not going to find it. It wasn’t kept out of the Bible to protect Jesus’ lineage, rather, it wasn’t put in the Bible in the first place because it didn’t happen.
This fairytale is called an “argument from silence”. Scripture doesn’t explicitly say Jesus and Mary M. weren’t married (probably because it never entered the gospel authors’ minds that anybody would ever come up with that dumb of a lie) so the overactive, addled imagination of some heretic somewhere came up with the idea and tried to cram it in between the lines. Following that line of logic, how do we know Jesus didn’t have any Martians as disciples? How do we know the Israelites didn’t eat pizza in the wilderness? How do we know Noah didn’t have a Jacuzzi on the ark? This is not how Christians handle Scripture. This is how scoffers and mockers handle Scripture.
But this is an especially ridiculous (not you, but whoever came up with it) idea because it’s about Jesus. Just off the top of my head:
The Bible isn’t going to leave out that major of a detail about Jesus’ life. That would be equivalent to God lying to those of us who weren’t there to see for ourselves whether or not He was married.
Being married would have interfered with and been a distraction from Jesus’ ministry. He would have had to work to support His family, spend time with them, and train His children. Jesus was an itinerant evangelist. He didn’t have a job. He didn’t even have a home. His ministry took up all His time. None of that is conducive to having a wife and children, especially with Old Testament teachings and cultural expectations for husbands and fathers. Besides, 1 Corinthians 7:32-34 says:
One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. But one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests have been divided.
Jesus was famous. Tens of thousands of people observed Him during His life. Among that many people, you can’t possibly keep a secret as big as a marriage and children.
Aside from the fact that it’s nowhere even hinted at in the gospels, none of the authors of Scripture mention it in any of the other books of the New Testament. Marriage and fatherhood are taught extensively in the New Testament. If Jesus had been a husband and father, why wouldn’t the New Testament authors have pointed to Him as the perfect example of both? They certainly point to Him plenty of times as our perfect example of other things.
No credible extra-biblical historical works, letters, or other materials mention Jesus being married and having children.
It would not have been sinful for Jesus to have been married with children if that had been God’s plan for Him. But Jesus had a lot of work to do in a short amount of time. He didn’t need the added distraction and responsibility of being a husband and father. What’s sinful here is for someone to lie about Jesus being married and having children, or to repeat the lie to others and confuse them. I’m sorry someone did that to you.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
I want to handle a situation biblically. I am on my church’s mission committee. We have been asked to support [a parachurch missions organization, henceforth, “PMO”]. Several members of the committee have voiced concerns over the PMO’s position on CRT [Critical Race Theory] and LQBTQ issues. We have provided evidence in the form of video and internal PMO documents. We voted not to support this PMO, but after the meeting, the elder who oversees our committee emailed and said we can only voice issues if we have evidence from the PMO’s public website, and he has scheduled a meeting for us to listen to the PMO’s representatives share their ministry because he believes we are misrepresenting it. I do not want to attend this meeting. I am not even sure if I should continue serving on the committee. He only gave us 24 hours notice of the meeting. How should I respond?
(I have redacted the name of this particular PMO because the reader’s question is about how to handle this situation, not about the PMO itself, and because my answer could apply to any number of demonstrably false teachers or organizations. To name this well known organization would require me to provide and explain the voluminous evidence that this PMO does, indeed, vehemently endorse CRT (watch the video series linked above) and is becoming increasingly unbiblical in their position on perversion. I plan to deal with that in another article about this particular PMO at some point, but dealing with it here would make this article much too long and involved.)
I know that’s a difficult spot to be in, and, having been in similar situations myself, I certainly sympathize.
If you’re married, and your husband is a Christian, the first thing you should do (which you probably have done, I just like to begin at the beginning :0) is to thoroughly discuss this with your husband and find out what he wants you to do, and do that.
Hebrews 13:17a says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.” This elder is not doing his Titus 1:9, 3:10-11 duty to keep watch over the souls of his flock. He is harming them and calling some of them (the discerning committee members) liars. And he will have to give an account of all of that to God. You discerning committee members are actually God’s grace to him to protect him from this sin and subsequent judgment, and he apparently doesn’t realize or appreciate that.
He’s got several credible, doctrinally sound committee members coming to him, warning him about a legitimate biblical issue, and he’s basically telling them they’re wrong in favor of letting the serpents come into the church and further deceive him and the other, less discerning, members of the committee.
The point of this is for the members of the committee to be swayed to support him and the PMO because this is what he wants. He wants to support the PMO. If they’re doing the things you and the other concerned committee members say they’re doing (and they are – there’s plenty of reputable evidence out there to prove it, including what you found), does he really think the representatives are going to admit to it when they visit? Of course not. They’re going to speak, softly, gently, and lovingly. They’re going to be personable and witty. They’re going to give all the right biblical answers. They’re going to say whatever they think this elder wants to hear so he’ll side with them and give them the church’s money.
Something Amy and I have discussed several times on the podcast is this dynamic of sensuality (in the classical sense of the word: “appealing to the senses” of sight, hearing, etc.). It’s exactly what Satan did in the Garden to convince Eve to eat the fruit (see the section on Genesis 3, here). He smooth talked her and appealed to her senses – her feelings – which she followed over her reason: that which she already knew with her brain that God had commanded. (Sensuality is why, for example, it’s easier to be objective about whether or not the lyrics of a worship song are biblical when you read the lyrics from a piece of paper rather than listening to the song. The music appeals to your sense of hearing and your emotions, which can override your rational, objective reasoning.)
That’s why – whether he realizes it or not – your elder is bringing these people in to meet with you in person. It’s a lot easier to appeal to people’s senses and feelings face to face and with your sincere tone of voice and sparkling personality than it is to sway them with facts on a piece of paper.
I really hate to say these things about your elder, but either he’s being underhanded, or he’s well intentioned, yet incredibly gullible and undiscerning. (In fact, he may be allowing his feelings of sentimentality for this PMO to sway him even though he can clearly see the evidence that their beliefs and practices contradict Scripture.)
Either way, assuming this is his general state instead of this being a one time slip up, both of these things are disqualifying (see the qualifications for elders in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9). One of the requirements for elders in the Titus 1 passage is in verse 9:
He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.
He’s not “rebuking those who contradict” sound doctrine (the PMO), he’s being a corrupt gatekeeper and welcoming the wolves into his sheepfold. If he doesn’t repent, especially if this is a pattern for him, he has disqualified himself from eldership.
An additional issue is – what in the world is going on here with your church’s polity? Your committee voted not to fund this PMO and this elder singlehandedly overrules the committee? Why does the committee even exist? Is it just supposed to be a rubber stamp for whatever any particular elder wants? That’s not biblical.
Furthermore, why is he so locked in on this particular PMO? There are dozens of doctrinally sound missions organizations out there that your church could support and that your committee and your elder could probably unanimously agree on. Why does it have to be this PMO? (My guess: He worked for them in the past or has some sort of personal connection to them, ergo, the sentimentality, or there’s somebody he knows who works for this PMO that he wants to support using the church’s finances. This could be a conflict of interest.)
What I would do is to go to the meeting with my phone in hand, voice memo app open, and let it be known that you’re going to be recording the meeting so you can listen to it again later to make sure you haven’t misunderstood or missed anything. Do not try to hide the fact that you’re recording it. That makes you look sneaky and deceptive, plus, you have nothing to hide. You’re not doing anything wrong. This is just an electronic form of taking notes. Additionally, if you’re told, by the elder or the PMO representatives, that you can’t record the meeting, that speaks volumes about their motives.
After the meeting, the discerning members of the committee should go back to the elder and talk to him again. (You might want to really emphasize my point above that if the PMO were guilty of doing these things, they wouldn’t admit it.). If he digs his heels in and your church hierarchy has another elder or head pastor above him in the chain of command, make an appointment with him, take your whole group, and express your concerns to him. Go as far up the chain of command as you can until you get to the top or until somebody listens and deals with this elder.
If the elder is at the top of the chain of command, and supporting false teachers/doctrine is typical of the way he operates, and he doesn’t repent, you need to find out what your church’s protocol is for initiating church discipline with an elder and the discerning male members of the committee, your husband, and/or other appropriate men should initiate it. If there is no protocol and he can’t be removed and doesn’t repent, I’d go ahead and find a new church. But until you do (or if you decide to stay at this church despite this issue), explore your church’s options for designating your offerings so your money doesn’t go to support this PMO.
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
If you are considering commenting or sending me an e-mail objecting to the fact that I warn against certain teachers, please click here and read this article first. Your objection is most likely answered here. I won’t be publishing comments or answering emails that are answered by this article.
This article is kept continuously updated as needed.
I get lots of questions about particular authors, pastors, and Bible teachers, and whether or not I recommend them. Some of the best known can be found above at my Popular False Teachers tab. The teacher below is someone I’ve been asked about recently, so I’ve done a quick check (this is brief research, not exhaustive) on her.
Generally speaking, in order for me to recommend a teacher, speaker, or author, he or she has to meet three criteria:
a) A female teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly preach to or teach men in violation of 1 Timothy 2:12. A male teacher or pastor cannot allow women to carry out this violation of Scripture in his ministry. The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be living in any other sin (for example, cohabiting with her boyfriend or living as a homosexual).
b) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be partnering with or frequently appearing with false teachers. This is a violation of Scripture.
c) The pastor or teacher cannot currently and unrepentantly be teaching false doctrine.
I am not very familiar with most of the teachers I’m asked about (there are so many out there!) and have not had the opportunity to examine their writings or hear them speak, so most of the “quick checking” I do involves items a and b (although in order to partner with false teachers (b) it is reasonable to assume their doctrine is acceptable to the false teacher and that they are not teaching anything that would conflict with the false teacher’s doctrine). Partnering with false teachers and women preaching to men are each sufficient biblical reasons not to follow a pastor, teacher, or author, or use his/her materials.
Just to be clear, “not recommended” is a spectrum. On one end of this spectrum are people like Nancy Leigh DeMoss Wolgemuth and Kay Arthur. These are people I would not label as false teachers because their doctrine is generally sound, but because of some red flags I’m seeing with them, you won’t find me proactively endorsing them or suggesting them as a good resource, either. There are better people you could be listening to. On the other end of the spectrum are people like Joyce Meyer and Rachel Held Evans- complete heretics whose teachings, if believed, might lead you to an eternity in Hell. Most of the teachers I review fall somewhere in the middle of this spectrum (leaning toward the latter).
If you’d like to check out some pastors and teachers I heartily recommend, click the Recommended Bible Teachers tab at the top of this page.
Ruth Chou Simons Not Recommended
According to her website, “Ruth Chou Simons is a Wall Street Journal bestselling and award-winning author of several books… She is an artist, entrepreneur, and speaker, using each of these platforms to spiritually sow the Word of God into people’s hearts. Through her online shoppe at GraceLaced.com and her social media community, Simons shares her journey of God’s grace intersecting daily life with word and art. Ruth and her husband, Troy, are grateful parents to six boys—their greatest adventure.”
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
“If you lie down with dogs, you’ll get up with fleas.”
The Bible teaches us, and even the world seems to know, that ungodly people will have a deleterious influence and effect on us. This is one reason the Bible commands us over and over not to associate ourselves or have anything to do with false teachers or those who claim to be Christians, yet live in willful unrepentant sin (persistent false teaching being one of those sins). In fact, to associate with false teachers and fail to rebuke them for their false doctrine disqualifies pastors from ministry. Dare we expect any less from female teachers?
Unfortunately, unrepentantly yoking with false teachers has become a major snare for Ruth Chou Simons. Teachers are under a stricter judgment, and this rampant sin disqualifies her.
Partnering with, and Influenced by False Teachers (Including Female “Pastors”/Preachers)
Ruth’s life and ministry are absolutely saturated with false and problematic teachers, nearly to the exclusion of doctrinally sound teachers (at least this is the way publicly available information about her ministry associations makes it appear).
There are so many examples of her partnering with false teachers that it would be impossible to cite them all, but here is a sampling:
Television
Ruth has appeared numerous times on TBN’s Better Together. If you’re not familiar, it’s a little bit like a “Christian” version of The View without the studio audience. A group of several (varying) women’s “Bible” study celebrities discuss life issues and biblical topics. And par for the course for TBN, they’re all problematic at best, raging heretics at worst. (There’s a reason TBN is often wryly dubbed the “Total Blasphemy Network”.)
Ruth has also participated with the IF:Gathering team to create other media.
*See the final section of this article, “Other Issues of Interest and Concern” for a compelling, biblical review of Ruth’s 2020 IF:Gathering teaching session.
Ruth is part of Lifeway Women’s (the women’s division of Lifeway) stable of authors and conference speakers. The prototypical Lifeway Women author/speaker preaches to men, yokes with false teachers, and teaches false doctrine. (This is why you can feel comfortable making an across the board decision not to follow, listen to, or purchase the materials of a teacher if she’s platformed by Lifeway Women.) Ruth and her materials have been featured in articles, podcasts, giveaways, and so on a number of times at Lifeway Women.
Lifeway Women Live 2021. Photo courtesy of Lifeway Newsroom. Seated L-R: Jackie Hill Perry, Angie Smith, Kristi McLelland, and Ruth Chou Simons
The Gospel Coalition (TGC) should be avoided in general. While it may have been doctrinally sound 15-20 years ago, it has been on a progressive trajectory ever since. Today, TGC is woke, egalitarian, soft on perversion, has a social justice bent, and mishandles Scripture.
Ruth has spoken at some recent TGCW conferences alongside too many false teachers, women preachers/pastors, and “same sex attracted Christians” (yes, you read that right – I told you TGC has gone progressive) to list. One of these was TGCW24 (you can see all of the speakers listed here).
Women of Joy is a women’s conference organization that, for all its extensive proclamations of being “Bible first” and “Bible-based” (“No need to worry about the content that you will hear”!), seems to book false teachers – including women “pastors” and women who preach to men – as speakers almost exclusively.
“Extraordinary Women’s mission is to host Christian women’s events and provide resources that equip women to handle life’s difficulties while enriching their hearts, encouraging their souls and expanding their ministries.” Somehow they hope to do this by booking mainly false teachers to speak at their events.
Come and See Foundation fundraiser. Ruth will be speaking at a private event for this foundation, the purpose of which is to raise money for the production, translation, and distribution of the hideously unbiblical program, The Chosen.
In this episode of Ruth’s podcast, she featured the audio of her panel discussion with Jen Wilkin and Jada Edwards (who preaches frequently at the church her husband pastors) at Ruth’s “Pilgrim Stories” event.
If you’re not paying careful attention, and you don’t dig a little, you might be misled by the banner at the top of the Speaking page of Ruth’s website. “WOMENS EVENTS & CONFERENCES,” it boldly proclaims. Perhaps your initial reaction is (as mine was), “Great! That means she only teaches at women’s events!”.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. Ruth does – regularly and unrepentantly – violate Scripture by preaching to and instructing men in the Scriptures. Currently listed on her calendar of events are three co-ed evangelical events, at which it is reasonable to presume she will be speaking to co-ed audiences on biblical topics: the Sing! Conference, the Come and See Foundation Fundraiser, and the Turning Point Summit*.
*There is a women’s luncheon “hosted by a special guest” one of the days of the Summit, so, although Ruth’s calendar indicates she will be there for the whole event, it’s possible she’s only speaking at this luncheon and not to any co-ed audiences. This doesn’t lessen the point that she preaches to men, I just want to be accurate.
Previous events at which Ruth has preached to men:
Ruth was a keynotespeaker at the 2024 Asian American Leadership Conference. According to the FAQ page, “This conference is primarily for pastors and leaders serving in or adjacent to Asian American ministry contexts. However, this conference is not exclusively for pastors or ministry leaders.”
TGC23 – The Gospel Coalition’s National Conference (not their women’s conference, but the annual TGC conference which is co-ed). Men are clearly visible in this co-ed breakout session audience from the beginning of the video.
And, while one of her sessions at the2024 conference was geared toward moms, the other session she taught, “Preaching the Truth to Yourself and Your Child” was in the “Family Discipleship” track. It was not labeled as being for women and since fathers are responsible for leading family worship/discipleship, it is reasonable to assume there were men in attendance. Let me reiterate: a woman teaching men how to be the spiritual leaders of their homes.
Ruth preached a 2018 chapel service to the (co-ed) student body at Oklahoma Baptist University. Chapel attendance is required of all students as course credit for graduation.
Both I and a couple of my eagle-eyed research team members noticed that in several interviews (such as the one on Revive Our Hearts’ Grounded podcast above), in a series on her own podcast, and in various other discussions, articles, teaching sessions, and so on, Ruth talks a lot about “spiritual formation” and “spiritual disciplines”.
There’s a good bit of confusion these days in evangelicalism over spiritual formation. Spiritual Formation proper is an unbiblical system of mysticism led by people like Richard Foster and the late Dallas Willard. Some churches and individuals are not aware of this, and think the term “Spiritual Formation” is just a trendy, cutting edge synonym for “biblical discipleship” or training in Christian character, and, unfortunately, that’s how they use the term, creating no end of confusion.
Until the Spiritual Formation movement came along and co-opted it to include unbiblical, mystical practices, spiritual disciplines was legitimate theological terminology for practices taught in Scripture that help us to grow in Christ: Bible reading, prayer, worship, Scripture memory, giving, serving the church, evangelism, etc. Many doctrinally sound churches and Christians still use this term correctly and it does not mean they’re into mysticism or Spiritual Formation. (One example is Don Whitney in his excellent and doctrinally sound book, Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life, which was the subject of Ruth’s aforementioned podcast series.)
Unlike The Daily Grace Co. (and some other evangelical teachers and organizations) which has espoused Spiritual Formation proper, from what I can tell without examining every single thing she’s ever written or said on the subject, Ruth seems to fall into the second category of evangelicals who use the term “spiritual formation” to mean “biblical discipleship” and use the classical (biblical) definition of “spiritual disciplines”.
I listened to Ruth’s Spiritual Disciplines podcast episode on silence and solitude, Worthy of Your Full Attention. In Spiritual Formation proper, silence and solitude are for the unbiblical practices of lectio divina, contemplative prayer, some sort of Christian-y mindfulness, or the like. But this is not what Ruth describes. She talks about unplugging, going for a walk or being in a quiet room, and appreciating the beauty of God’s Creation, reciting and/or reflecting on Scripture, or praying. It’s not exactly your every day, formal Bible study and prayer time, but it’s a perfectly biblical way to rest your mind at other times.
From what I’ve seen so far, and unless I see hard evidence to the contrary, I don’t believe Ruth is teaching Spiritual Formation proper.
Discontent and Hollow Hope
I have no doubt whatsoever that Ruth loves and cherishes her children. She even says so at the beginning of this brief interview about her book Now and Not Yet: Pressing In When You’re Waiting, Wanting, and Restless for More.
That’s why it gave me pause when she described raising her children as “tedious” and as a stage of her life where she was “not getting where she wanted to go”. The subtle message that comes across is that motherhood is not a purposeful, God-glorifying end in itself. It’s a way station on the journey to where you really want to be, the thing that’s really important and purposeful.
So I read the sample chapter of the book that’s available at Amazon, and that’s the same impression I got of the overall theme of the book: “First, let’s commiserate in how tough things are right now, girlfriend, but cheer up! One day you’ll be where you really want to be in life.” This is not biblical. It reinforces sinful discontentment by training the reader to covet and put her hope in better life circumstances that God has not ordained for her at this time.
Now, not having read the entire book, perhaps I’m wrong. Perhaps somewhere after chapter 1, she really does stop telling personal anecdotes and experiences, she drills down into rightly handled, in context Scripture, and she teaches the biblical perspective on all of this: contentment. The Bible doesn’t teach us to get through trials and frustrations by putting our hope in better days ahead. The Bible teaches us to be content and put our hope in Christ, whatever our circumstances.
I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content. I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need. I can do all things through him who strengthens me. Philippians 4:11b-13
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. James 1:2-3
Nothing, not a word about focusing on a brighter future to get us through the unpleasantness of the moment. Contentment in Christ. Joy in being conformed to the image of Christ. That’s what the Bible teaches us about our difficult circumstances.
At the end of the interview when the host asks Ruth for a parting word to the audience, she has the perfect opportunity to share the gospel – to share real hope in Christ with millions of people. And she punts to, “Your ‘someday’ is made up of thousands of ‘right nows’.” Something any Buddhist, New Ager, or atheist could have come up with. A hollow shell of an empty promise. Not the gospel.
One of my researchers described her style as “self-help”. I would describe my impression of Ruth’s teaching as “evangeligirl life management”. Ruth doesn’t handle Scripture well. She talks around the gospel and clear cut, hard hitting biblical doctrine and principles, opting instead for fuzzy, watercolored Christianese platitudes and practical tips expressed in pretty penmanship with a Bible verse sprinkled in here and there. I would say her theology is a mile wide and an inch deep, but that would be grossly overestimating how wide it is. There’s just no substantive biblical there there. And to bring things full circle, that’s due, in no small part, to the influence false teachers have had on her.
I’d like to be able to recommend Ruth to you as a trustworthy source of biblical teaching. I really would. She seems fun and very nice, and I greatly admire her artistic talent. But when you have difficulty rightly handling Scripture, and you rebel against God’s Word by preaching to men and yoking with false teachers, you’re not a trustworthy source of biblical teaching, no matter how sweet and talented you are. I would encourage you not to follow or receive teaching from Ruth Chou Simons.
Many thanks to my research team for providing some of the links and information above. If you’d like to become part of my research team, click here.
This article crosses a line…it’s bashing…mean-hearted…We shouldn’t be looking to twist a knife or bask in “I warned you” glory…so settled in our sense of rightness that we can’t grieve for those who are struggling.
…reading that [we should pray for Beth Moore’s salvation] after all the condescension comes off as more of a southern “bless her heart”.
…this article comes across as sanctimonious with zero grace. It complete [sic] discounts the power of God to transform the most wayward heart….ostracizing and belittling those leaders who fall…I felt a lot of smugness in the article…lack of grace and love…[coming] from a place of superiority…[being] gleeful when sin comes to light…take on the role of judge and executioner…
Michelle: So it’s OK for you to bash me, but it’s not OK for me to “bash” Beth?
I’m not bashing you.
Whenever I post an article about Beth Moore or another false teacher, I invariably get comments like this on social media, the gist of which is that I’m being unloving for saying that she is a false teacher, for rebuking her sin, for recommending that Christian women not receive teaching from her, for my “tone” of using stark language, and so on. (I always find it ironic that the commenter is usually bashing me even as she’s accusing me of “bashing” the false teacher.)
Such was the case last Friday when I posted my article Bye-Bye Beth: What Beth Moore’s Split with the SBC Means. I’ve posted excerpts above from several comments about the article made by one woman – not to single her out, but because her accusations and phraseology typify so well the pushback I often receive from those of the “You’re being unloving” persuasion. There were a few other women who responded in the same vein on the same Facebook post(s), so this lady – who, I must say, was much more polite and articulate in expressing her thoughts than most usually are – was not alone in her viewpoint.
I have not excerpted this lady’s comments in order to take them out of context or misrepresent her, but because her comments were far too many and too lengthy to post in full. Assuming they have not been deleted, If you would like to read her comments (and those of the other dissenting women) in full to make sure I’m presenting an accurate picture of the thrust of their sentiments, I would encourage you to do so here, here, and here. (Please do not address these women any further. They have spoken their minds in full, and they have been addressed sufficiently. There is no need to pile on.)
So to those who would accuse me of being unloving or hateful, who shame me that “Jesus would never talk to people that way,” who think my wording is too harsh, unkind, not gentle enough, etc., here’s my answer…
You’re defining “love” as my saying something in a way that you’re comfortable with and doesn’t offend your sensibilities.
That’s not how the Bible defines it. And that’s why Jesus was able to speak to the Pharisees…
…woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces…you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves. Woe to you, blind guides!…You blind fools!…You blind men!…full of greed and self-indulgence…you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and all uncleanness…you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness…you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell?..on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar.
Matthew 23
…and God was able to speak about His idolatrous people…
And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoring lust. And after she was defiled by them, she turned from them in disgust. When she carried on her whoring so openly and flaunted her nakedness, I turned in disgust from her, as I had turned in disgust from her sister. Yet she increased her whoring, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt and lusted after her lovers there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose issue was like that of horses. Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts.”
Ezekiel 23:17-21
…so much more harshly and starkly than I’ve spoken about Beth in this article, and yet He is still the perfect embodiment of love, and the perfect example of love to us.
Using your definition of love, if you’re going to be fair and consistent, if you accuse me of speaking in an unloving way in this article, you have to accuse God of speaking in an unloving way in Ezekiel 23 and Jesus of speaking in an unloving way in Matthew 23.
But the Bible defines love like this:
God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 1 John 4:8b-11
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16
but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Romans 5:8
Because God is love, God alone has the right to define love. And God defines love as the redemption, restoration, and reconciliation of man to Himself. Love isn’t someone making you feel good about yourself or the world or your circumstances. Love isn’t being outwardly “nice”: always being the epitome of sweetness, never confronting anyone, affirming everything, never hurting anyone’s feelings, never saying or doing anything that makes anyone uncomfortable.
Because God is love, God alone has the right to define love. And God defines love as the redemption, restoration, and reconciliation of man to Himself.
While the world looks at a person’s outward, observable behavior and pronounces her loving or unloving depending on how pleasing that behavior is to others, God looks at a person’s heart and pronounces her loving or unloving to the extent that her motives match His.
…the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.
1 Samuel 16:7b
God defines love as cooperating with Him in rescuing the perishing, building up the church, and showcasing His glory. Sometimes that’s going to look like binding up the brokenhearted or healing the untouchable leper, and sometimes that’s going to look clearing the temple or calling false teachers a brood of vipers. While the world would call the former “loving” and the latter “hateful” based on what those behaviors look like, God calls both loving if they spring from a heart motivated to rescue, redeem, restore, and reconcile.
Sometimes biblical love looks like binding up the brokenhearted or healing the untouchable leper, and sometimes it looks like clearing the temple or calling false teachers a brood of vipers.
So, when you say I’m being “unloving” to use stringent language about false teachers (like God, Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles did), and I say you’re wrong, it’s because we’re using two different definitions of love. You’re using a worldly definition of love based on how pleasing my outward behavior was to you. I’m using God’s definition of love that’s based on the motivation of my heart. You cannot tell me I’m not demonstrating biblical love in a situation like this because you don’t know the motivation of my heart. I do. The article in question (like so many others about which I’m accused of being unloving) was motivated by love – God’s definition of love – for
Beth – that God would graciously remove the scales from her eyes and save her
Beth’s fans – that God would open their eyes to deception they’re believing and lead them to repentance and sound doctrine
Discerning Christians – that they might be encouraged not to let their guard down but to keep contending for the faith once for all delivered to saints
The church – that it would cleanse out the leaven of false teaching so that Christ might present her to Himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
and the Southern Baptist Convention – that it might forsake the idols of money, power, and celebrity, and return to its first love, Christ.
But it was also motivated by another component of love which the worldly definition of love, being worldly, is completely oblivious to. You see, the world’s definition of love only concerns itself with the “horizontal” love between one human being and another. But God’s definition of love finds its origin in Himself. He is the foundation and the culmination of love. He is both the starting gun and the finish line in the race of love. Where there is no vertical love of God, there is no horizontal love between people. There may be friendship, attraction, affection, attachment, and emotion, but there is no true love.
God’s definition of love finds its origin in Himself. Where there’s no vertical love of God, there is no horizontal love between people. So any biblical -rather than worldly- definition of love must start and finish with love for God.
And so any biblical – rather than worldly – definition of love must start and finish with love for God. Only a heart that loves Him because He first loved me can extend that same redemptive, restorative love to others.
And though I have never, and will never, this side of Glory, love Him as completely and perfectly as I should – as I want to – those articles that offend your sensibilities, that you feel justified in berating me about because they don’t meet your standards, those articles are rooted in and motivated by love for the Christ whom I serve. I would not continue to do what I do and take the abuse I take for it if I did not love Him.
I’ve heard this whole “tone police” perspective a million times. I’ve prayed about it. I’ve considered it. I’ve weighed the motivations of my heart. And in cases in which I know before the Lord that my motives have truly been unloving, I’ve repented. But the astronomically overwhelming majority of accusations I receive are not from people concerned with the biblical definition of love, but from people using a worldly definition of love whose personal sensibilities have been offended. People who wish to correct me from the authority and standard of their feelings, not from the authority and standard of God’s Word.
And as I’ve prayed, and studied, and weighed, and considered all of these things, the conclusion the Lord has graciously led me to is that there’s no way I will ever please every single one of the thousands of people who hear me. Just like Jesus’ words didn’t please all the people who heard Him, or John the Baptist’s words, or Peter’s, or Paul’s, or Noah’s, or Ezekiel’s, or Jeremiah’s, or… (you know, I’m starting to think I’m in good company!)
So rather than trying to please man, I’m going to strive to please God. If my conscience is clear before Him, that’s all that matters.
The fear of man lays a snare, but whoever trusts in the Lord is safe. Proverbs 29:25
For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ. Galatians 1:10
If you have a question about: a Bible passage, an aspect of theology, a current issue in Christianity, or how to biblically handle a family, life, or church situation, comment below (I’ll hold all questions in queue {unpublished} for a future edition of The Mailbag) or send me an e-mail or private message. If your question is chosen for publication, your anonymity will be protected.
