Jezebel

i) Recently I've run across criticisms of Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, and Sarah Young. This is framed in terms of the perennial cessationist/continuationist debate. I'll have more to say on that shortly.

I do think it's good that these people are scrutinized. Unfortunately, those who need to hear it aren't listening while those who listen don't need to hear it. It would be more effective if more of their critics were coming from the charismatic movement, rather than outside the movement. That's a typical failing of the charismatic movement. 

I myself only know them by reputation. I haven't read them or read much about them. I'm happy to delegate the evaluation to countercult ministries. A few years ago, I listened to Joyce Meyer for a few minutes, just to see if I could figure out the basis of her appeal. She struck the pose of a stand-up comedienne. Maybe that's what her fans like about her.

ii) There seem to be a number of women in this general vein. In addition to Young, Meyer, and Moore, you also have Gloria Copeland, Cindy Jacobs, and Paula White. One question is whether there's a distinctively charismatic component to their following. 

From what I can tell, it's more about gender than theology. Female bonding. Some women like to listen to other women. Some female speakers (and authors) have a strong following among women. I daresay their followers almost exclusively female. And it doesn't have to have a religious component, much less a charismatic component. Take Oprah Winfrey, Ann Landers, "Dear Abby," Joyce Brothers, or Laura Schlessinger. 

Likewise, you have popular women in the culture wars, like Janet Parshall, Sandy Rios, Beverley LaHaye. You also have popular women who are evangelical, but not charismatic, viz. Catherine Marshall, Elizabeth Elliot, Elizabeth Schaeffer, Jill Briscoe, Joni Tada, Anne Graham Lotz. On the Catholic side there's Mother Teresa and Mother Angelica.  On the "progressive" side there's Rachel Held Evans. Cori ten Boom had a following. She was charismatic, but she also had an inspiring personal story about hiding Jews from Nazis. 

So, from what I can tell, the religious or charismatic factor seems to be pretty incidental. It's mainly about gender. Women of no particular religious persuasion gravitate to women like Oprah. Evangelical fans gravitate to evangelical speakers. Catholic fans gravitate to Catholic speakers. Charismatic fans gravitate to charismatic speakers. The common denominator is gender. Women are fans of a woman who happens to be evangelical, happens to be Catholic, happens to be charismatic. They seem to be draw to women they can relate to, woman to woman. Women who "speak" to their situation. Women who understand what it's like to be a wife, mother, &c. The religious identity is accessory to that baseline appeal. A collective sense of sisterhood. 

It's like the way women are the market niche for soap operas and Harlequin romance novels. Not all women, of course, but hardly any men. By contrast, I don't think most men read or listen to other men because the writer or speaker is a man. More that he usually happens to be a man. Someone like Greg Laurie might be an exception. 

iii) On one level, cessationism has a simple way of winnowing the wheat from the chaff. If God no longer speaks to people, then, by definition, a modern-day prophetess is a false prophetess. 

iv) However, critics often discredit them for heresy, mispredictions, or demonstrably false claims. That's independent of cessationism. 

v) Although the cessationist criterion is practical, it lacks a basis in principle inasmuch as you had prophetesses in the NT church (cf. Acts 21:9; 1 Cor 11). Christians during the NT era did have to evaluate their claims (e.g. 1 Jn 4:1ff.). They couldn't invoke cessationism, for even if cessationism is true, the canon wasn't closed at that juncture.

vi) Cessationist critics say that if God still speaks to Christians, then the canon is open. Given continuing revelation, we should add that to Scripture.

One problem with that argument is the conspicuous fact that the NT church didn't draw that inference. For instance, Paul talks about prophetesses in 1 Cor 11, but he doesn't record their revelations. Luke talks about daughters of Philip, but he doesn't record their prophecies.  The reason, presumably, is that most of these prophecies were ephemeral. Addressing a particular individual, in his particular circumstances, with his particular needs. Not for Christians in general. Not for all time. 

vii) Apropos (vi), cessationist critics say that if God still speaks to Christians, then we must submit to Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, et al. But by parity of argument, that would mean 1C Christians ought to submit to Jezebel (Rev 2:20ff.). That objection is far too indiscriminate. 

For instance, the fact that Sarah Young says Jesus speaks to her doesn't give me the slightest reason to think Jesus speaks to her. It's not as if Jesus told me that he speaks to her. Indeed, I have reason to think God is not speaking to these women. From what I've read about her, Joyce Meyer bears an uncanny resemblance to a savvy, shady businesswoman whose found a lucrative market niche among gullible customers. 

One thing I notice in pop charismatic circles is that people who have no particular competence find it convenient to claim direct revelation. That's a substitute for what's clearly lacking in terms of acuity, judgment, and expertise. 

viii) There's also an ironic tension in followers who look to modern-day prophets for spiritual guidance. Based on their prooftexts (Jn 5:45; Acts 2:17; 1 Jn 2:20,27), isn't a special class of prophets or prophetesses redundant? Given the charismatic premise, why would Jesus speak to Sarah Young but not to her fans? Given the charismatic premise, Christians should not be dependent on a priestly caste of prophets and prophetesses, for isn't every Christian a prophet in the making? 

ix) However, irony can be a two-way street. In the case of women, cessationism intersects with complementarianism. But that also exposes certain tensions in the coalition. Joni Tada was a speaker at the Strange Fire Conference. How is that consistent with the prohibition against female preachers, in mixed company?  

Moreover, does she have a female fan base for essentially different reasons than Joyce Meyer, Sarah Young et al.? Aren't the psychological dynamics very much the same? 

Likewise, notice how these same staunch complementarians praise Janet Mefferd for reproving a male pastor (Mark Driscoll). But doesn't that upend their stated position on Biblical manhood and womanhood? We witness some cynical role reversals when it furthers their own agenda. The message clashes with the messenger.