Yesterday I proposed a thought experiment aimed at isolating the point of departure between (forgive me) JMac Twitter and Beth Moore Twitter: [THREAD]
If I understand their view, JMac Twitter objects to Beth Moore’s ministry because it violates what they take to be the biblical mandate on authority and submission vis-à-vis gender.
Their objection presupposes, of course, that their understanding of Scripture on these matters is correct—which is the very point that Beth Moore Twitter disputes.
(Sidebar: there’s a distinct but related discussion within SBC Twitter, concerning the fact that nothing about Beth Moore’s ministry contravenes the BFM2K, since she’s not ordained and she’s not a pastor. We can place this to one side.)
Anyway, the point of the thought experiment was to strip away the layers of gender and authority so that JMac Twitter would have to reckon with the central issue:
like it or not, some earnest, Bible-believing Christians think JMac is flatly wrong about how to read or apply what Scripture says about the role of women in the church, the home and the workplace.
Reactions to my thought experiment fell into two categories. The first I'd call 'helpful pushback/clarification'. Admittedly, my thought experiment was poorly framed. Thanks to @nwkitchens , @JJ_Denhollander , @HunterCrowder6 , @brockbahler et al. for the constructive dialogue.
The other category of reactions came from JMac sympathizers; and I would call their responses ‘revelatory’. Two in particular stand out.
In answer to my question about what JMac thinks a woman should do if her husband instructs her to preach, one individual offered a parody of my thought experiment in which 'preach' was replaced with 'watch porn with him'; and another replaced 'preach' with 'rape'. 
Evidently, when these two reflect on the moral significance of women teaching in church, front of mind are ideations of sexual violence and the reduction of the female form to an object of sexual gratification.
I didn’t know it was possible to fail a Rorschach test; but I think that’s precisely what these guys have done. I'll just leave that there.
The rest of the JMac sympathizers took essentially the same tack, though in less overtly disturbing terms: a woman teaching in church is just like this sin, or that sin, or "...literally any other SIN..." (sic).
Notably, every such response implicated sins that violate the Decalogue in some way or another. I don’t know of anyone who thinks that Scripture’s teaching on the role of women in the church is quite as clear-cut as the Ten Commandments--so there’s an important disanalogy here.
But their point seems to be this: It’s obvious enough what a woman should do if her husband instructs her to violate Scripture; so it’s obvious what a woman should do if her husband instructs her to teach God’s Word. End of story, right?
Not quite. Their implicit assumption is that a husband who instructs his wife to teach God’s Word is thereby instructing her to violate Scripture—which, again, is precisely the claim that JMac Twitter’s interlocutors reject.
So the reaction from JMac Twitter revealed that the only support they can muster for their position hangs entirely on the very claim that is in dispute: to wit, their interpretation and application of Scripture’s teaching on the role of women in the church.
Note well, JMac Twitter: simply citing the very passages of Scripture that are contested is nothing like an argument for your position. It’s no argument at all—merely an indication that you don’t know or don’t care what motivates the position of those who disagree with you.
Which leads me to wonder why JMac Twitter bothers interacting with people who disagree with them. If you’re not going to make any serious attempt to understand those who disagree with you and bring them around to your view, what’s the point? Entertainment? Potshots? Snark?
If you want to win the day, you’re going to have to try to figure out where the people who disagree with you are coming from. There’s no alternative.
I and many of those who agree with me know exactly what your reasons are. We’ve taken the time to understand you—indeed, some of us *were* you. We have other reasons, reasons that you don’t seem willing to acknowledge, for believing that you’re wrong.
