Category: Mailbag

Discernment, Mailbag

The Mailbag: “I Speak Jesus,” Charity Gayle, and How to Vet Christian Music

Michelle Lesley

Every time I hear “I speak Jesus over you” I cringe. I can’t exactly explain why. Is it scriptural??

No it’s not, which is why it makes you cringe. It’s pretending to be biblical and your John 10:5, 27 sheep ears know it’s not. Here’s why it’s not:

• There’s nothing in Scripture that tells us to do, or shows an example of anyone doing anything of the sort. The Bible speaks in terms of encouraging, teaching, preaching, exhorting, rebuking, reproving, and comforting others with the written Word of God. If that’s what the person using this phrase means, then that’s what she should say.

Christians should use biblical terminology for biblical concepts, not made up, mystic linguistics. But what “I speak Jesus over you” sounds like, and what she probably means is some sort of supernatural transaction in which she mystically, verbally pulls Jesus down out of Heaven and invisibly spreads Him out over you, like a tarp or an umbrella, to ward off evil spirits or negative circumstances. Sounds kinda pagan, and witchcrafty or incantationy doesn’t it? That’s because it is, which brings us to the second reason you’re cringing…

• You don’t hear doctrinally sound, biblical Christians saying this. This is a buzzword/phrase typical of New Apostolic Reformation heretics. You probably heard this from an NAR false teacher or someone you know who’s into NAR (Bethel, etc.) garbage. This is John 10 at work in your spirit again: Christ’s true sheep (genuinely regenerated Believers) know His voice – what His teaching of sound doctrine from Scripture sounds like – and they will not follow the voice of strangers (false teachers).

• It’s grammatically… incorrect stupid. We speak words. We can’t speak objects or people. It’s impossible. It makes no more grammatical sense to “speak Jesus” over someone than it does to “speak a frying pan” over her.

God ontologically wired human beings for language, and the structure and grammar that goes with it, and we intuitively know when something is linguistically whackadoodle, even if we can’t put our finger on why. That’s another reason you’re cringing.

So if someone said “I speak Jesus over you” to me, I’d have some questions:

• What do you mean by that?

• Where, in context and rightly handled, does the Bible teach us to do that?

• What is that supposed to accomplish, or what will the result of that be so I can watch for it?

People who use this kind of phraseology are going to have trouble coming up with answers to those questions, because “I speak Jesus over you” is not taught in Scripture and doesn’t even make logical or grammatical sense.

◦◦◦◦◦

I was asked this question publicly on X. Since I don’t listen to pop “Christian” music – and especially not “Christian” music of this theological caliber – I was not aware that I Speak Jesus is the title of a song by an artist named Charity Gayle. I misunderstood the lady who asked the question to mean that this is a phrase she’s heard people using in conversation (I’ve heard NAR people say similar things), so that’s the way I answered. After I answered, she informed me that it’s a song.

(Just a little aside here: I do try to keep abreast of things and people in evangelicalism, I promise, but there are so many things and so many people that it’s impossible. Followers often ask me brief questions with little context, use acronyms I’m not familiar with, vaguely allude to situations I’ve never heard of, etc., assuming I’ll know what they’re talking about. I’m very flattered that my followers think I’m up on everything that’s going on out there, but I just want to be perfectly transparent that I’m not. I can’t be. Sorry about that. So when you have a question, do have mercy on me and make sure I know what you’re talking about so I can give you an answer that will actually be helpful to you. I don’t want to be unhelpful. :0)

So now that I know it’s a song, I thought this would be a good opportunity to demonstrate for you, step by step, using I Speak Jesus as an example, how to vet the purportedly “Christian” music you might be listening to.

1.

You hear a song. It’s catchy. You like it. You’re kind of half paying attention to the lyrics, but nothing jumps out and slaps you in the face as overtly heretical, like “🎶 Ooo, ooo… the Trinity doesn’t exist…🎶” or “🎶 Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? YES, baby, YES! 🎶.”

2.

You listen again, this time paying attention to all of the lyrics. You still don’t hear anything overtly heretical. On the surface, everything seems like it aligns with Scripture, or at least doesn’t contradict it. In fact, you’re pretty sure you heard some theological words or part of a Bible verse in there, somewhere. It must be a biblical song, right? Not so fast, there, Skippy.

3.

🎶 Whoa, whoa… listen to the music…🎶 NOT. Turn the music off, get a text copy of the lyrics (It’s easy to do this by typing the title of the song, followed by the word “lyrics” into your preferred search engine.), slowly, carefully, and discerningly read the words, and compare them to rightly handled, in context Scripture.

Why read instead of listen? Because, whether you realize it or not, the music itself is impacting you. You wouldn’t have finished listening to the song the first time if you hated the music. It’s pleasing your senses, drawing you in, and dulling your objectivity*. You don’t need that distraction when you’re trying to be discerning. Additionally, listening to a song, no matter how slow the tempo, doesn’t give you the time you need to stop and ponder the words in light of Scripture, nor do you have all of the words in front of you at once.

*(Full disclosure: I gave the answer above to the lady on X about the phrase, “I speak Jesus over you” and went through the lyrics of this song two or three times before I listened to it, and even then I could feel a little tickle at the back of my brain going, “The music is great. Maybe the song isn’t so bad after all.” That’s probably exactly how Eve was feeling in the Garden when the serpent offered her that beautiful piece of fruit. And we all know how that turned out. It’s imperative that our brains, logic, and rational thought keep our feelings and senses in check when we’re trying to be discerning.)

Let’s look at the lyrics of I Speak Jesus:

I Speak Jesus

Verse 1:
I just wanna speak the name of Jesus
Over every heart and every mind
‘Cause I know there is peace within Your presence
I speak Jesus

Verse 2:
I just wanna speak the name of Jesus
‘Til every dark addiction starts to break
Declaring there is hope and there is freedom
I speak Jesus

Refrain:
‘Cause Your name is power
Your name is healing
Your name is life
Break every stronghold
Shine through the shadows
Burn like a fire

Verse 3:
I just wanna speak the name of Jesus
Over fear and all anxiety
To every soul held captive by depression
I speak Jesus

Refrain

Bridge:
Shout Jesus from the mountains
Jesus in the streets
Jesus in the darkness, over every enemy
Jesus for my family
I speak the holy name
Jesus, oh (oh)

Repeat bridge

Refrain

Repeat verse 1
Repeat bridge and refrain as artist desires

Performed by: Charity Gayle
Written by: Jesse Reeves, Dustin Smith, Abby Benton, Kristen Dutton, Carlene Prince, Raina Pratt
I Speak Jesus lyrics © Integrity’s Praise! Music, All Essential Music, For Me And My House Songs

OK, so what is the singer saying she wants to do here?
She wants to speak the name of Jesus.

Over whom?
Verse 1: Over every heart and mind (all people)
Verse 2: Over addiction itself (as a spirit or entity), or over people with addictions (it’s unclear)
Verse 3: Over fear and all anxiety (as spirits or entities), and over people with depression

Why?
Because she believes merely speaking the word “Jesus” taps into His power, healing, and life. She believes that speaking the word “Jesus” can break every stronghold; that the word “Jesus” will shine through the shadows and burn like a fire. (You’d have to ask the songwriters exactly what they mean by those last two metaphors, but I’m surmising that they mean something along the lines of, “Speaking the word ‘Jesus’ brings light to spiritual darkness.”)

Is this biblical?
No. Not in the way it’s being presented, as if the word “Jesus” is some sort of magic word you say, like “Abracadabra!” or “Hocus Pocus!” that – TA DAAAA! – magically makes things like addiction and depression disappear.

If saying the word “Jesus” did that, you’d see a lot more healing and peace and all the other things mentioned in the song happening, because a lot of people “speak Jesus” in vain a lot of the time. I mean, when was the last time you were watching a TV show and one of the characters blasphemously exclaimed, “J—s!”? Did that heal you of the flu or your gout? No, of course it didn’t.

To which Charity and the songwriters would probably reply, “Well, we didn’t mean it like that! We mean Christians speaking the name of Jesus over people with faith that doing so will heal them, bring them peace, etc.”.

Maybe so, but that’s not what they’re saying. The lyrics of the song imply that there is some sort of intrinsic power in the word “Jesus” itself. “Your name is power. Your name is healing. Your name is life.” The lyrics don’t give any other provisos other than the word passing someone’s lips.

But let’s grant them the benefit of the doubt that when they say “speak Jesus” they mean Christians speaking it with some sort of faith in what saying it will accomplish. Is that biblical?

No, it’s not. It is actually a violation of the third Commandment (taking God’s name in vain) and the laws and commands against practicing witchcraft, magic, and casting spells. Because that is exactly the way they’re using the name of Jesus – the same way witches cast spells. They’re attempting to speak words that harness supernatural power that doesn’t belong to them in order to exercise power and control over things that only God has power and control over.

And remember this little incident in Acts 19:11-19a?

And God was doing extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, 12 so that cloths or aprons were even carried from his body to the sick, and the diseases left them and the evil spirits went out. 13 But also some of the Jewish exorcists, who went from place to place, attempted to invoke over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus, saying, “I implore you by Jesus whom Paul preaches.” 14 Now seven sons of one named Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this. 15 And the evil spirit answered and said to them, “I recognize Jesus, and I know about Paul, but who are you?” 16 And the man, in whom was the evil spirit, leaped on them, subdued all of them, and utterly prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. 17 And this became known to all, both Jews and Greeks, who lived in Ephesus; and fear fell upon them all and the name of the Lord Jesus was being magnified. 18 Also, many of those who had believed kept coming, confessing and disclosing their practices. 19 And many of those who practiced magic brought their books together and were burning them in the sight of everyone;

The magicians burning their books of spells in the fear of God in verse 19 demonstrates that they recognized that the Jewish exorcists “invoking the name of the Lord Jesus” (13) were doing essentially the same thing they were doing- casting spells. The magicians saw what happened to the exorcists and they didn’t want that to happen to them, too.

And invok[ing] over those who had the evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus (13) is exactly what I Speak Jesus is teaching. Go back up to “Over whom?” above. See how I’ve notated the lyrics “addiction,” “fear,” and “anxiety,” as “a spirit or entity”? There’s a reason for that. The NAR doesn’t teach sin like the Bible does. It doesn’t say, “You’ve committed the sin of drunkenness and you need to repent.” It says, “The spirit of addiction is on you and you need to be delivered from that spirit.” The NAR teaches that sin (and illness) happen because you’re possessed by, or at least influenced by, demonic spirits, and you need “deliverance” from those demons and spirits (Sounds an awful lot like the “exorcists” trying to drive out “evil spirits” in v. 13, doesn’t it?). This is not at all what the Bible teaches about sin (or illness either, for that matter). Here’s what God says about why we sin:

But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is fully matured, it brings forth death. James 1:14-15

No demons. No evil spirits. You and I sin because our flesh wants to. Because our flesh craves and lusts after something unholy that we’re not supposed to have. “The devil made me do it,” was a Flip Wilson comedy routine, not biblical theology. We are responsible for our sin, not some demon or spirit.

This was funny at the time because everyone – even pagans – knew it was ridiculous. But this is basically what’s now being taught at New Apostolic Reformation “churches” all over the world.

The Bible does not teach us to “speak Jesus over” anyone or anything for the purpose of bringing about results (healing, peace, freedom from sin, conquering the enemy, etc.) that are strictly within the purview of God. If you want to see people set free from sin, fear, anxiety, depression, and addiction, the biblical thing to do is to call them to repent and believe the gospel.

Is this song biblical?
No. It teaches false doctrine and is completely unbiblical.

4.

Now, maybe you’re not so much with all this “right brain” stuff – artsy words and metaphors and such. You’re more of a “left brain,” analytical, “Just the facts, ma’am,” kind of gal. Or maybe you’re just looking for a faster way to find out whether a song is worth listening to in the first place.

I have good news for you. Assuming the artist in question is somewhat prolific, there’s often a faster and easier way to find out what you should or shouldn’t be listening to. And it’s also a more biblical way than vetting individual songs.

When the Bible deals with false teachers, it doesn’t teach us to sift through every article they’ve written or every sermon they’ve preached and keep what’s good and throw out what’s bad. (In common parlance, this is often referred to as “chewing up the meat and spitting out the bones,” and it is an unbiblical way of dealing with false teachers.) The Bible teaches us to stay away from them, altogether.

Romans 16:17-18– “Turn away from” or “avoid” them.
2 John 9-11– “Do not receive him into your house and do not give him a greeting”.
Titus 3:10– “Reject” a factious man.

Scripture teaches us to avoid that teacher completely. Avoid him as a person and every piece of content he has ever created. And that’s the model we should be following with Christian musicians as well. In the same way you wouldn’t listen to a “good” sermon from heretics like Bill Johnson or Steven Furtick, you shouldn’t be listening to “good” songs from doctrinally unsound or heretical musicians. And churches should definitely not be using music from heretical sources in their worship services.

Why Your Church Should Stop Playing Bethel, Hillsong, Elevation, and Jesus Culture

How do you find out who should be avoided? You examine the musician’s life, doctrine, and practices. If you need a little help, you can use the resource I’ve created for vetting teachers: Is She a False Teacher? 7 Steps to Figuring it Out on Your Own.

The first thing I would suggest looking for is any ties to Bethel, Hillsong, or Elevation – all households of heresy (New Apostolic Reformation / Word of Faith). Bethel practically holds a monopoly on the Christian music industry (Hillsong, not as much any more since all the scandals, but Elevation is still hanging in there as a wannabe.), so any evangelical musician seeking fame and fortune is going to be looking to hitch her wagon to Bethel’s star. So look for connections to Bethel and anyone with strong ties to Bethel, for example, Phil Wickham. But also look for connections to any musician or band that you know has bad theology. I’ve got a few listed here, but this is honestly not an area I keep current with, so you may need to bounce things off a discerning friend who is more in the know than I.

Is “I speak Jesus over you” a biblical concept? Nope. Is the song I Speak Jesus biblical? Nope. Keep being discerning as you decide which music and artists to listen to.

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.

Mailbag, Politics

The Mailbag: How Should Christians Vote?

Michelle Lesley

Originally published November 5, 2018

Tuesday, November 5, is election day in the United States. How should Christians vote?

Voting is a privilege, and, for U.S. citizens, a right. I encourage you to use your vote as a godly influence by voting according to biblical principles. My answer to today’s Mailbag question is adapted from my 2008 article, How Should Christians Vote?

10730205_864190773621858_7293920273710529598_n

November 5 is election day. How can we steward our vote in a godly way?

First things first. Christians, especially Christian women, should vote, if at all possible and if their consciences allow. Neglecting to vote would not only be an insult to the sacrifice of the dedicated men and women who have given their lives in the cause of freedom and suffrage over the years that we might have the luxury of having a voice in our governance, but voting is a gift from God. Should we treat this gift lightly by failing to exercise it?

If you have never had the opportunity to visit a country, such as those in the Middle East, in which basic freedoms and women’s rights are limited if in existence at all, I urge you to do so if at all possible. After I returned to the U.S. from a visit to the Middle East a few years ago, I realized just how much we take for granted what an enormous blessing it is that God has seen fit to place us in a land of liberty, abundance, and opportunity. When I vote, I see it as a way of returning thanks to God for the gift of freedom, and honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our liberties.

When I vote, I see it as a way of returning thanks to God for the gift of freedom, and honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure our liberties.

For whom should Christians vote? The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 10:31 that whatever we do, we should do all things for the glory of God. “Whatever” and “all things” includes voting. Christians should vote for the person they believe will bring the most glory to God. Considering the candidate options with which we’re often presented, this, at times, seems an impossible task.

How do we know which candidate to vote for? Like all other decisions in a Christian’s life, this one should be governed by God’s leading through prayer and Biblical principles. Ask God for wisdom (James 1:5) to make a Godly decision.

Study the candidate’s platform and where he stands on each issue. Is he a proponent of anything that clearly conflicts with Scripture? Would he push to legalize or undergird things God calls sin such as abortion or sexual perversion? Does he support the persecution of Christians – denying us freedom of speech or assembly, and taking away the rights of Christians to run their businesses according to biblical principles?  Can we, as Christians– whose goal in life is supposed to be turning from sin and pursuing holiness – knowingly and intentionally disregard the fact that a candidate would work to further sin, rather than fight against it, and give him our support?

Sometimes we lean towards voting for the candidate who would benefit us the most, personally. Perhaps he has promised a tax cut for our particular bracket, or said he would improve the roads we use for traveling to work. In and of themselves, those are good things, but does his platform also include favoring things which would hurt others or be detrimental to the fabric of our society in general? In other words, should a Christian vote for something or someone who will benefit herself at the expense of harming others?

I don’t believe we can do that and remain true to Biblical principles such as:

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Philippians 2:3-4

Now we who are strong ought to bear the weaknesses of those without strength and not just please ourselves. Each of us is to please his neighbor for his good, to his edification. For even Christ did not please Himself; Romans 15:1-3a

The Bible calls us to the mindset and heart attitude of placing others ahead of ourselves, laying down our lives for others, and doing what’s best for others before we consider what’s best for ourselves.

The question of a candidate’s character is another issue for Christians to consider. Some Christians consider sitting out an election or voting for a third party candidate who has little to no chance of being elected because one of the two major candidates stands for ungodly policies while the candidate whose policies more closely align with biblical principles is a person of questionable character.

I completely understand this dilemma, and if you are strongly convicted that you should either not vote, or vote for a third party candidate, then you should certainly not violate your conscience. That being said, your conscience should be molded primarily by Scripture, but also by reasoning. If I might offer a few thoughts for your consideration:

  • Could you possibly cast a ballot for the major candidate of poor character with the perspective that you are not voting for him, but that you are voting against the major candidate with more ungodly policies? Or, could you go into the voting booth with the mindset that you are voting for policies, not a person?
  • Voting for a particular candidate does not mean, even in God’s eyes, that you agree with or endorse any sinful actions he has committed in the past in his personal life. You are hiring him to do a (secular) job. If you were interviewing someone to clean your house and you found out that, in the past, she had had an affair and divorced her husband, would hiring her mean that you approve of her past sin?
  • Consider the fact that the “moral” politicians of yesteryear may have been, in actuality, just as immoral as the “immoral” candidate currently on the ballot, but because the media and historians were more discreet and protective of politicians’ privacy back then, you just don’t know about their moral failings. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of politicians are/have been unsaved (just like the vast majority of people, period, are unsaved), and sinners gonna sin, even if you don’t know about it. You will never have the opportunity to vote for someone who isn’t a sinner. Every candidate has sinned in the past and will sin once in office.

If you’re unsure, could you take the perspective that you are not voting *for* a candidate, but *against* the candidate with the more ungodly policies? Or that you are voting for *policies,* not a *person*?

As is frequently the case these days, the person we vote for, believing he will make the most Christ-like decisions, loses the election. I don’t know about you, but I’m usually pretty disappointed when this happens.

I try to keep it in perspective, though. It’s within the realm of possibility that the person who won the election will get radically saved after taking office and make even more Godly decisions than the other candidate would have made. It’s also possible that he will unintentionally make the decisions God wants him to make for other reasons, such as political expediency or pleasing a particular special interest group. The Bible says in Proverbs 21:1, “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes. “

Not only should we pray before we vote, but we have a Biblical mandate to pray for the winner after the election is over:

First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I Timothy 2:1-4

Above all, we must remember that, while this election and future elections may determine who will sit in the White House, the Congress, or the State House, they do not, nor will they ever, determine who sits on the throne of the universe as King.

While elections may determine who will sit in the White House, the Congress, or the State House, they do not, nor will they ever, determine who sits on the throne of the universe as King.

Please steward your vote in a godly way. Research the candidates, the issues, and the Scriptures, and vote for the people and proposals that are most aligned with biblical principles.

Please steward your vote in a godly way. Research the candidates, the issues, and the Scriptures, and vote for the people and proposals that are most aligned with biblical principles.

Additional Resources

Election 2020 – How Can Christians Vote Biblically? at A Word Fitly Spoken

The Mormon Moment: Can Christians Biblically Vote for a Mormon? (Depending on the candidates in your district, you may find the principles in this article from the 2012 Presidential election to be helpful.)

Does God expect Christians to vote? at Got Questions

Since God is totally sovereign over world leaders and events, why should we vote or be involved in politics? by John MacArthur

Christians and Politics: Part 1  Part 2  Part 3  Part 4 by John MacArthur

Principles for Voting by R.C. Sproul

Should Women Vote? at A Word Fitly Spoken

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.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Is lust a sin for women, too?

Michelle Lesley

Originally published September 17, 2018

In the past, I’ve had lots of trouble wondering about my desire and tendency to look at, and get excited by, physically attractive men, especially men who reveal a lot of themselves in underwear modeling and soft-core porn. I think this is a sin, but I’m not sure.

I’ve gotten mixed reactions when I’ve mentioned this to people. There are some who say that, yes, this is the sin of lust. Yet there are others who have told me that women cannot possibly struggle with lust, only men do. I once dealt with one particular man who was very dogmatic that God created men and women to be tempted differently, and that lust is not a temptation women deal with, so he dismissed my struggles with this subject.

When I tried to search Scripture, using Matthew 5:28, it would also seem that this is a male-only sin. So is it OK for me to keep looking at male models, including underwear modeling and soft-core porn?

This is an awesome question for three reasons. First, you’re concerned about whether or not you’re sinning with the aim of mortifying this behavior if it is a sin. Second, you’re not relying on your own feelings, opinions, or experiences to determine whether or not this is a sin, you’re turning to Scripture to find out. Those are both very encouraging things. They demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is working in your heart to sanctify you and make you more like Christ. Third, it gives us an opportunity to take a look at the Scriptures in more depth and give an example of handling God’s Word correctly and in context for everyone reading this article. So, thank you for asking!

The short answer to your question is, yes, lust is sinful for the women who experience it just as much as it is for the men who experience it. But I don’t want you to just take my word for it, so let’s look at why.

The Scripture you’ve cited, Matthew 5:28, is definitely one of the passages that addresses this issue. It says:

But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

I suspect this verse might be the reason the man you spoke with said that lust is a male-only sin, because this particular verse speaks to men lusting after women. However, to make a blanket statement that because God created men and women differently, lust is never a temptation for women is foolhardy and shows a lack of biblical knowledge and understanding as well as a denial of reality.

Let’s address reality first. It is true that God created men in such a way that they are more likely to be sexually stimulated by what they see than women are. However, that does not mean that no woman anywhere has ever experienced lust. God also created men in such a way that men are usually taller and stronger than women and women are usually more emotionally expressive than men. But we can look around us and see that some women are taller or stronger than some men, and some men are more emotionally expressive than some women.

Furthermore, while you really can’t do anything about how tall you are (and, to some extent, how strong you are), lust is something that can be introduced to women and encouraged in women by culture. A hundred years ago, it would have been unthinkable to see advertisements featuring nearly naked men, or strip clubs with male dancers, or pornography aimed at women, so readily available and with so little shame attached. And at that time there were probably far fewer women who struggled with the sin of lust.

These days, it’s right there on your phone or computer or TV or at the bachelorette party for your friend. Lust, lewd behavior, and lurid talk by women are actually encouraged by the feminist movement. (If men are going to objectify women with lust and porn, we’re going to objectify them right back. Really? This is equality? The right to sink to the same depth of degradation as the scuzziest of men? No thanks.) Watch any sitcom or drama on TV. You’ll see it soon enough. And, of course, there’s money to be made by making women into consumers of porn and other sexual material, so the businesses that peddle these things encourage women to lust as well. All of which means that today, just a hundred years later, far more women are struggling with the sin of lust.

So we can see that the reality is that lust is a temptation experienced by some women, even though men are more prone to it.

But is lust a sin for women if Matthew 5:28 is speaking in terms of men lusting? Yes. There are a couple of different reasons for this, one cultural, and one biblical.

Let’s go cultural first to understand more clearly why this particular verse is addressed to men rather than men and women. We start off with the knowledge that men are much more likely to experience lust than women. Then we take the culture of the time into account.

Jesus spoke these words in a patriarchal society. In His culture, there were no women in positions of authority and power. Men ran the political system, the religious system, and men were the heads of their households. (By the way, despite what our culture today would say, this wasn’t a bad thing in and of itself. In fact, most of this was perfectly biblical.) Normally, women were not educated, and they depended on men – first their fathers, then their husbands, and finally, their grown sons – to take care of them their entire lives.

So when Jesus was teaching to the crowds as with the Sermon on the Mount (which Matthew 5 is part of) the cultural understanding was that He was primarily teaching the men, and any women and children they brought with them were basically along for the ride. Indeed, many would have thought the women incapable of understanding teaching (since they were intellectually inferior to men) or unworthy of receiving teaching (because God had created them as “lesser” than men).

The Jewish understanding that Jesus was primarily teaching the men would have been similar. Rabbis didn’t teach women, they taught men. Any intentional biblical instruction women received would have been from their fathers or husbands at home. We can see further evidence of this cultural and Jewish understanding in several different Scriptures. A few examples:

At the feeding of the five thousand, the feeding of the four thousand, and some other New Testament “crowd scenes”, the crowd is numbered by the number of men present.

Both the woman at the well herself and the disciples “marveled” that Jesus was speaking with a woman.

Due to Martha’s cultural and Jewish understanding of women’s roles, Jesus had to explain to her that it was OK – even good – for Mary to sit at His feet and learn.

At Pentecost, Luke refers to the “multitude” as “devout men“, and Peter addresses this crowd as “men of Judea“, “men of Israel“, and “brothers“.

So, in Jesus’ secular and Jewish cultural context, He was understandably speaking to the men present. (And what was He telling these men who lived in a world that taught them that women were inferior to men, and that men could regard and treat women any way they wanted to? Jesus elevates the status of women by telling the men they’ve got to respect women even in their hearts. They’ve got to respect their wives by not committing adultery with other women in their hearts, and they’ve got to respect those other women by not using them as objects of sexual gratification in their hearts.) It would have been an unnecessary distraction from His message to address the women directly, and it would certainly have been viewed as inappropriate, maybe even perverted, for Jesus to have suggested that women lusted after men.

So Jesus’ culture, and the fact that lust is largely a sin committed by men, required Him to address this remark to men. But those two things do not have any bearing on the intrinsic sinfulness of lust itself, and they do not mean that this instruction applies only to men. In the section of Matthew 5 preceding the section on lust, Jesus deals with the sin of being angry with your “brother”. Does this mean anger is only sinful if you’re angry with a man instead of a woman? The section of Matthew 5 immediately following the section on lust says men may not divorce their wives except for unfaithfulness. Does this mean women are free to divorce their husbands for any reason? Of course not.

But it’s important to remember that Matthew 5:28 is not the only passage of Scripture that deals with lust. Let’s look at some others.

These passages describe lust as female attribute:

a wild donkey used to the wilderness, in her heat sniffing the wind! Who can restrain her lust?
Jeremiah 2:24a

Oholah played the whore while she was mine, and she lusted after her lovers…everyone after whom she lusted…the Assyrians, after whom she lusted…Her sister Oholibah saw this, and she became more corrupt than her sister in her lust and in her whoring, which was worse than that of her sister. She lusted after the Assyrians…all of them desirable young men.
Ezekiel 23:5a,7b,11,12a,c,

Ezekiel even describes Oholibah viewing pictures of men lustfully. Doesn’t it sound like a woman viewing pornography?:

But she carried her whoring further. She saw men portrayed on the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed in vermilion, wearing belts on their waists, with flowing turbans on their heads, all of them having the appearance of officers, a likeness of Babylonians whose native land was Chaldea. When she saw them, she lusted after them and sent messengers to them in Chaldea.
Ezekiel 23:14-16

In the Jeremiah passage, the lusting woman represents Israel. In Ezekiel, Oholah represents Samaria, and Oholibah represents Jerusalem. So these are not individual women lusting, rather, God is using the illustration of a woman lusting after her “lovers” to describe the unspeakable abomination of Israel’s idolatry. He was using the severest language He could to disgust His people over their sin and move them to repent and turn back to Him. God could have chosen any sin – male lust, robbery, murder, etc. – to represent how horrific their idolatry was to Him, but what did He choose? Female lust. Let that sink in.

Romans 1:18-32 clearly refers to the sins of both men and women, with verse 24 stating:

Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,

These passages speak of lust in neutral, rather than male or female, terms:

and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion
2 Peter 2:10a

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world.
1 John 2:16

Lust is a form of coveting – the greedy yearning to have something that God has not given to you or has given to someone else, and that is certainly not limited to men. Also notice in these passages that you can covet a person, and that coveting is often linked to sensuality or sexual immorality.

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
Exodus 20:17

coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.
Mark 7:22-23

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints…For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.
Ephesians 5:3,5

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Colossians 3:5

Finally, lusting after another person – adulterous coveting – is not loving your neighbor:

For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Romans 13:9

When you look at another person with lust, you are loving yourself. You are thinking selfishly about how that person could gratify your base desires, make you feel good, serve you. That is the antithesis of everything Jesus taught and stood for. Our Master, the One we follow and strive to be like, said:

For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Mark 10:45

Jesus came to die on a cruel rugged cross to pay for the sins of the flesh. He would never have thought of using another person to gratify His own selfish desires. How could we?

Is lust a sin for women too? Absolutely. Stop it. Repent. Receive the merciful grace and forgiveness Christ offers.

Additional Resources:

Just Stop It: Instructions on how to repent at The Cripplegate

Hey, Porn Addict: Stop It by Gabriel Hughes

How do you stop looking at porn? at When We Understand the Text

God Over Porn

Every Woman’s Silent Struggle: Fighting Lust with Sisters in Christ by Marian Jacobs

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.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Leslie who?… Can I get divorced?… Were Jesus and Mary Magdalene married?)

Michelle Lesley

Welcome to another “potpourri” edition of The Mailbag, where I give short(er) answers to several questions rather than a long answer to one question.

I like to take the opportunity in these potpourri editions to let new readers know about my comments/e-mail/messages policy. I’m not able to respond individually to most e-mails and messages, so here are some helpful hints for getting your questions answered more quickly. Remember, the search bar (at the very bottom of each page) can be a helpful tool!

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.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Elder crusading for approval of unbiblical missions organization

Michelle Lesley

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.

Readers, if you’re going through any sort of similar situation at your church, you may wish to explore my article The Mailbag: How should I approach my church leaders about a false teacher they’re introducing?

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.