Tim “Moth” Murcek

Jesus Follower | Yinzer | Washed-up hockey player | Mediocre golfer | Fan of CS Lewis, Gin+Tonic, @Penguins hockey | Always full-sending

[Joseph Rixon @joeyrix]

For guys who act like Sharia law is comin to America they certainly seem to be really cool with… Sharia Law

[Griffin Gulledge @griffingulledge]

“Men are the caretakers of women, as men have been provisioned by God over women…”

Great Bible verse, right? Except it’s not. It’s from the Quran. And that’s what this garbage is starting to sound like.

[Alisa Childers @alisa_childers]

Since this post by @howertonjosh post is about me, I'll offer a few thoughts.

-I did not share false accusations. I shared a 3 minute clip from a longer podcast (that I have encouraged people to watch in order to get the full context) and observed that what they laid out as a leadership structure is precisely how NAR churches are defined. The entire podcast is oriented around setting up a leadership structure that protects the pastor, not the sheep. I'll link that again in comments.

-I do believe what was shared on that podcast is spiritually dangerous and I would encourage every Christian to listen to the whole thing and compare it with the biblical qualifications for elders.

-Some of you are expressing disappointment in my ministry focus as of late, and I truly do understand. And I say this earnestly...if some of my work has been helpful to you, I praise God for that. But if you feel you need to move on at this point, I truly bless you to do that. But I am not going to stop. NAR is one of the greatest threats to the gospel in this moment in church history. NAR leaders almost never announce themselves as such. Many don't even realize they've been sucked in. They almost always deny that NAR even exists. But you can ask the thousands of people who have been burned by this movement that it is indeed, very real.

-Do I think Howerton is NAR? I truly hope not. I am praying that if he isn’t, he will step away from guys like McPherson, repudiate what was taught in that podcast, and call out false teachers like Paula White and Mark Driscoll instead of defending them. I would be the first in line to cheer him on.

-I am taking my daughter on her birthday trip so I will be out of pocket for a couple days, so I won't be able to engage much here. But I didn't want to leave this without a response. 🙏

[J.D. Greear @jdgreear]

I didn’t become convinced against Christian nationalism by reading another book. I became convinced after my own church faced discrimination when we were denied permission to build. Here’s why that experience clarified how I think about the government's authority in matters of religion.

https://t.co/Z3LTmmbjAB

[Jonah Goldberg @JonahDispatch]

Megan, sorry for the delayed response. Just bothered to look. I think this response of yours is embarrassingly insipid. Sorry.

First, as many have noted, you seem to know nothing about Jefferson’s writings on this, or Washington’s Letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, or the debates around the establishment clause, the meaning of the Declaration, not to mention the role of deism and similar ideas.

You also seem to think “they were 99% Christian” is some kind of novel insight and silver bullet argument. Disagreements between Christian denominations were quite meaningful to the Founders at the time, and to American culture generally. There were these people called “the Puritans” who, in no small part because these disagreements, fled England for America. It’s true that states could have established churches, but that practice evaporated very early in the new republic, in part because of this preference for theological diversity (if you prefer “theological pluralism” that’s fine with me). Indeed Madison and others argued that theological competition was actually good.

But the really annoying thing about your response is that you are buying into the idea that the low brow rank bigotry that started this conversation can be salvaged with your shallow historical and theological musings. You are coming to the rescue of a mob of bigots, and you’re carrying a nerf bat into the fight.

[Jimmy Spencer @JimmySpencer]

.@howertonjosh and I certainly have plenty of mutual friends across the country, and I couldn’t disagree with him more on this utter nonsense he’s become. I’m not even going to get into the racism sitting behind much of this conversation… as if a group of Texas students are somehow different in God’s eyes because of their skin color, their ethnicity, or where they or their families came from. That part is evident and gross, Josh.

But the theology here deserves the most scrutiny since that’s why you’re trying to hide behind anyway.

You’re taking Deuteronomy 28:43–44, a covenant curse specifically addressed to Israel, and filtering it through a modern American political framework it simply does not contain. The passage says nothing about “mass migration,” nothing about preserving Christian voting blocs, and nothing about foreigners “diluting Christian influence.” Those are additions to the text. Verse 45 actually tells us what the judgment concerns: Israel’s failure to obey God’s covenant commands.

And within Deuteronomy itself, one of those commands is remarkably inconvenient for this interpretation: God “loves the foreigner,” and Israel is therefore commanded to love the foreigner too.

Christians can absolutely debate immigration policy. Borders, capacity, security and assimilation are legitimate political questions. But that is very different from using Scripture to suggest that foreigners becoming numerous or influential represents the erosion of God’s people.

By the New Testament, God’s kingdom is explicitly breaking through those categories. Gentiles who were once “foreigners and strangers” become fellow citizens in God’s household.

That’s where I think this argument gets backwards. Christianity does not need demographic protection from the people Jesus commanded us to reach. The early Church had no Christian nation, no Christian voting majority and virtually no political power … and somehow trusted the Gospel anyway!!

There’s a difference between allowing Scripture to challenge our politics and recruiting Scripture to validate politics we already brought with us.

This reads much more like the latter. Yet again.

[Alec Stapp @AlecStapp]

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[Erick Erickson @EWErickson]

I'm really not at all surprised by the people defending Bo French. It is entirely predictable. Ask yourself who on the Right depends on the algorithm for income and every one of them is defending French.

[Erick Erickson @EWErickson]

Will the pastors lamenting Talarico lament this? Or must the sinner have a D next to their name, Amaziah?

[Sean T at RCP @SeanTrende]

The amazing thing is that this is an example of immigrants doing exactly what the anti-immigrant wing often claims is impossible: assimilating into traditional American institutions.

[Rich Villodas @richvillodas]

Lunacy.

[David French @DavidAFrench]

Can someone please tell Matt that Christianity is, in fact, less misogynistic than murderous Bronze Age paganism.

[Erick Erickson @EWErickson]

The succubus right is exhausting, sucking all the joy out of life. Don't go see Nolan, "it's woke." Don't watch sports. "It's woke." Don't do this. Don't shop there. It's like the Left — draining the joy from life in the name of some weird purity.

[Matthew McConaughey @McConaughey]

bets still on the table America, yet.

[Beth Moore @BethMooreLPM]

Those in the SBC who think I no longer should have anything to say about the SBC profoundly underestimate the power of love. I’d served southern Baptist women for 40 years by the time I left. And when I left, I left directly on their behalf because it became disturbingly clear to me that the SBC as an entity was more interested in protecting shepherds than the sheep entrusted to their care. When protecting the pulpit from women becomes a far greater priority than protecting women (& children) from an abusive pulpit, something is wrong. Which has been the greater problem: women trying to become your senior pastors or pastors misusing or abusing women?

My biggest concern is that what happened with the CRT witch-hunt will happen now in regard to women. The overreach resulted in numerous pastors, teachers and professors dropping the immensely important biblical teachings against racism rather than risk being accused of CRT. I heard from pastors at that time who preached against racism and already had emails Monday morning from people in their congregation accusing them of CRT. Because the difference wasn’t clarified, they lumped all of it into the one category. The aim became: shut every mouth to shut some mouths.

I pled for SBC seminary presidents and leaders to please clarify to pastors and teachers and, thereby, to congregations & students what qualified as CRT and what indeed was the proper and deeply rooted and needed biblical approach to anti-gospel racism.

Crickets.

I see the same potential here. I have never once fought for SBC women to take over church pulpits. I have esteemed and supported the role of male senior pastors. My own pastors would tell you that. If you think I was in the SBC trying to lead a revolution against men, you are clearly not familiar with my materials. What I believed then and believe now is that God has called both men and women to serve their churches and communities and proclaim the gospel. He has poured out his Holy Spirit on men AND on women, calling them to broadcast the good news.

You have beaten the drum loudly about what women in SBC churches cannot do. So, what CAN they do? Clarity here is essential. What is a woman to do who has been gifted BY GOD to teach the Bible, especially if her church has moved to the community group model and there is no Sunday school to teach?

Here is what I see on the horizon. If you leave these matters involving women so vague that it becomes about pastoral roles/actions rather than the title of pastor, it will shift to the subjective rather than objective. I wish I was naïve enough to think that wasn’t the point to some of these leaders but, sadly, I’m not.

What if that senior pastor doesn’t allow a woman on the prayer team to pray over people at the end of the service because he deems she is acting pastorally? What if the pastor sees that a woman’s Sunday school class of WOMEN is getting, in his estimation, a little too big? Can he just decide she acting pastorally and remove her from the role? Can she counsel people with her God-given wisdom and knowledge or would she be acting pastorally? The examples could go on and on. And, of course, I realize many would not use their positions to disesteem women but surely you and I both know countless others would. God only knows how many unqualified, unloving, mean-spirited men are in pastoral positions but the obsession remains the women.

I have no desire to see SBC women leave the denomination. I loved and flourished in that denomination. I want them to be able to flourish in their spiritual gifts. I want them to be esteemed in their serving inside and outside their homes. I want them to be able to serve Jesus and proclaim his glorious gospel.

I know I’m going to get hit here. That’s fine. But you should know I will fight for them to the death. Because I love them. And, yes, whether they love me or not.

[Rory Cooper @rorycooper]

Ben Sasse is uniquely extraordinary…but if you watch that interview and wish we had more civically serious leaders like him, please understand that’s a choice. Voters can demand it.

[Kim R. Holmes @kimsmithholmes]

A lot of people are asking why more politicians are not like Ben Sasse.

Because voters will not elect them, that’s why. They may say they care about character, but most don’t vote that way.

Instead they vote party line, ideology, self-interest, or out of pique against a perceived enemy.

How can we expect our leaders to embody higher levels of virtue if a majority of voters don’t make personal character a red line?

It looks like we get the leaders we deserve.

[Tyler Lee Conway @TylerLeeConway]

One other thing about the dumb “toxic empathy” argument is this. Allie’s framing boils down to “this virtue can lead to something bad, and when it does, it’s toxic empathy.”

But Aristotelian Virtue Ethics understands that virtue is the mean between excess and deficiency.

[Jay Alto @theJayAlto]

you pity the moth confusing a lamp for the moon, yet here you are confusing a screen for the world