I really really appreciate you pointing out the difference between psychological confusion and spiritual deadness. You make it clear, and do so tastefully, that what is being communicated is not the message of the Bible. Your contrast with DeMoss is also appreciated. She is a solid thinker and writer in the culture of women’s ministry. Do you like Carolyn Custis James? She is the first female author (theologian…) that I was able to appreciate.

Ruthanne, this is a fantastic piece. I have to really try to come up with a critique of your work here, but here are a few thoughts: 1) I would love to see you talk more about cultural presuppositions about ourselves and why books like Moore’s sell so well in the Christian contemporary market; the ability to sell books in mass quantity really does affect the message produced. 2) Your conclusion could be strengthened by adding another paragraph that brings the conversation more fully back to Moore as the focus and gives the reader a challenge or something to hold in their hands: Should the reader reject entirely everything from Beth Moore? Should the reader resist her church using Moore Bible studies? You almost answer the question in the last two sentences, but don’t say it entirely…make that statement.

Some things to help you: Generally, there are few minor grammatical issues that i’m sure you’ll look over. But just two examples to help you: make sure to capitalize the “You have been a bad friend to us” in the second paragraph of “Beginning Ministry” and be consistent with whatever the title is (the next paragraph you reference the same book but say “You’ve Been a Bad Friend…” instead of “You Have”). Another example is forgetting to capitalize the “M” in “DeMoss” in the beginning of the fourth paragraph of “Contrasting Content”.

As for the content, the paragraph on Nancy Leigh DeMoss seems somewhat out of place in the “Beginning Ministry” section because you have described Beth Moore for so long. It would be helpful to create a new title over the start of her description, or just make the transitional more clear because I assumed “beginning ministry” was in reference to Moore’s ministry.

Although I agree that the thinking that Moore “was special” can lead to a growing sense of victimization, I don’t know if I would come down too hard on the idea that when she was a child, she didn’t have a intense sense of personal sin. However, if she still has not discovered that later in life (or doesn’t talk about it), then I believe that is an issue. Maybe it would be good to add a clause to the part of her childhood about how “she has carried this sense of a soft Gospel with her through many books” or something.

Your paper seems to contrast Moore’s work with DeMoss’s work specifically. Therefore, you should mention DeMoss must earlier on in the paper by name. In the first paragraph of the whole paper, don’t just leave it “other female bible teachers…” but add “other female bible teachers like Nancy Leigh DeMoss…”. Otherwise she just seems like a random example thrown in a few times in the paper.

When you talk about Nancy Leigh DeMoss, make sure to specify how she’s setting a greater example. It’s assumed, but it’s better to clarify each time you bring her up, make an initial transition that she is doing a better job so that the contrast is more clear and the transition is easier because you usually leave it to the last sentence to specifically bring it up (especially in the section “Contrasting Content”).

Besides that, you’re doing a fantastic job; what a compelling topic!