Mailbag – Page 8 – Michelle Lesley

Originally published March 4, 2019

For an expanded and more detailed treatment of this topic (based on this brief article), please listen to the Mardi Gras, Ash Wednesday, and Lent episode of A Word Fitly Spoken.

What are Mardi Gras, Ash Wednesday, and Lent? Are they biblical? Should Christians participate in them?

If you don’t live in Louisiana or a heavily Catholic area, maybe you’re not very familiar with these observances. Let’s take a look at each of them:

What is…

Lent– Lent is a forty day period (not counting Sundays) leading up to Easter. It is observed by Catholics and some Protestants. Historically, it is supposed to be a period of repentance, penance, fasting, and self-denial. The aspect of Lent that people tend to be most familiar with is the idea of giving something up (self-denial/penance) for Lent such as watching TV, chocolate, smoking, or eating meat.

What is the meaning of Lent? at Got Questions

What is Lent? at US Conference of Catholic Bishops*

Ash Wednesday– Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent. Ashes are applied to the forehead in the shape of a cross to indicate repentance and that the recipient will begin the Lenten fast. Ash Wednesday is primarily observed by Catholics and some Protestants.

What is Ash Wednesday? at Got Questions

Ash Wednesday at Catholic Online*

Mardi Gras (Fat Tuesday)– Mardi Gras is the day before Ash Wednesday. It has its roots in Shrove Tuesday, which was originally a day of feasting on all of the foods that were forbidden during Lent so these foods would not spoil or go to waste since they could not be eaten again until after Easter. Through the years, this day of feasting has morphed into drunken revelry – sort of a “last hoorah” for getting all the sin out of your system before you have to start “being good” for Lent. In Louisiana (and a few other places), it is much more a cultural holiday than a religious observance. People from various religions as well as non-religious people participate in Mardi Gras. It is celebrated with numerous parades, balls, and other festivities. The colors of Mardi Gras are purple (representing justice), green (representing faith), and gold (representing power).

What is the origin of Fat Tuesday / Mardi Gras? at Got Questions

Mardi Gras History at Mardi Gras New Orleans*

Are these days/observances biblical?

Lent– Yes and no. Mostly no. The fundamental components of Lent – repentance, fasting, and the pursuit of holiness – are biblical. Repentance and holy living should be practiced by all Christians every day, and biblical fasting as the Holy Spirit convicts the individual Believer.

However, Lent is not mentioned or even hinted at in the Bible, and any Catholic observance (of Lent or anything else) is fundamentally unbiblical because the Catholic religion itself is unbiblical. It is also unbiblical for a church to require that its members observe a man-made religious ritual or to imply or teach that participating in this ritual earns favor with God or absolves or makes up for sin. Furthermore, to teach that there is a special time of the year set aside for repentance and holiness is unbiblical. Christians are to walk in holiness and repentance every day.

Ash Wednesday– Again, yes and no. Mostly no, and for most of the same reasons Lent is generally unbiblical. The fundamental components of Ash Wednesday – repentance of sin and the pursuit of holiness – are biblical and should be practiced by all Christians every day.

In addition to the unbiblical facets of Lent, Ash Wednesday’s forehead ashes “disfigure[s] their faces that their fasting may be seen by others” which is the exact opposite of the humble way Christ teaches us to fast.

Mardi Gras– No. The drunkenness, sin, and lasciviousness that go along with typical Mardi Gras celebrations are patently unbiblical as is the idea of getting all the sin out of our systems before we have to start being good. The Bible teaches against these things.

Should Christians participate in…

Lent– Catholic observances of Lent – no. Some doctrinally sound churches and individuals freely choose to set aside a time of biblical fasting, prayer, and worship in anticipation of Easter. For Christians who observe Lent in this way, as long as it is observed in keeping with Scriptural principles, it can be a valuable and meaningful time of respite and renewal with the Lord just as it could if observed at any other time of the year.

Ash Wednesday– No. It is unbiblical, as cited above.

Mardi Gras– Christians should not participate in any sinful activities any day of the year, including Mardi Gras, nor believe or portray to others by their actions, the unbiblical “theology” behind Mardi Gras. (And as a non-theological aside, violent crime in New Orleans during Mardi Gras has made attending Mardi Gras parades and other events very dangerous.)

However, as I mentioned, in Louisiana, Mardi Gras has become much more of a cultural holiday than an observance with religious undertones. Many smaller towns (and even some larger ones) eschew the debauchery that takes place in New Orleans and offer family-friendly parades which are basically as innocuous as our local Christmas parades or a Fourth of July fireworks show. For Christians who have worked and prayed through the appropriate biblical principles and whose consciences allow them to participate in non-sinful Mardi Gras activities such as attending these types of parades, I believe this is an issue of adiaphora (Christian liberty) similar to participating in non-sinful aspects of Halloween. (Don’t forget to take along some tracts to hand out!)

Additional Resources:

Mardi Gras & Lent: I wouldn’t if I were you at Cage Free Theology

*These articles are linked for informational purposes only. Obviously, I’m not endorsing Catholic websites or anything on a secular website that’s ungodly.

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: Should I correct my boss’s errant theology?

February 27, 2025February 26, 2025 Michelle Lesley

Originally published January 29, 2018

I work in a Christian child care facility where the leadership is neck deep in false doctrine. Nearly a year ago, I stepped out of the classroom and into a management position so now I feel I’m more on the front lines. Most of the people believing all the false teaching (Bethel, Hillsong, Todd White, Sarah Young, etc.) are gone but the big boss is still in it. I’ve been bold to speak out against it to some of the young women who work there, but when it comes to my boss, I’m a lot less bold. So I guess my question is, am I wrong for not standing up to her and pointing out her error? I’m afraid I’ll get fired. What are your thoughts on this? Should I be bold and point out error? Should I even be working there?

Sounds like a sticky and uncomfortable spot to be in. Maybe we can sort things out a little.

Let’s start by remembering whose authority you’re under. First, you’re under God’s authority, so you need to make sure your highest priority is obeying Scripture regardless of the circumstances. If you’re married, your next authority is your husband. Make sure the two of you talk it through thoroughly and that you submit to any decisions he makes. You (and maybe your husband too) might want to bounce this situation off your pastor or elders and see what their counsel is. There’s wisdom in an abundance of counselors. Finally, at work, you are under your boss’s authority. She is not a friend or a co-worker, she is your boss. The two of you are not equals, you’re subordinate to her in the workplace. “Boldly” telling her she’s wrong about something (especially if it’s in regard to something that’s not work related) is not in keeping with God’s instruction to you to submit to her authority.

I’m not really clear on whether the false doctrine is a personal belief held by your boss that has no effect on the workplace, or whether the false doctrine is workplace policy. In other words, the false doctrine is part of the classroom curriculum you have to teach, or employees are required to take part in Word of Faith type devotions and contemplative prayer every morning, or in your role as administrator you have to do business with heretical “churches,” etc. So let’s take a look at it from both angles.

If the false doctrine is not affecting your work environment and is only a personal belief held by your boss, it is not necessary, and may not be wise, to proactively push the issue any more than you would be pushy about sharing the gospel with your boss if she were a garden variety lost person. It’s something that needs to be handled carefully and with wisdom about timing, how deep to go, etc. A good rule of thumb might be to address the issue only if she brings it up and asks for your opinion.

If it’s a situation where she’s constantly pushing the false doctrine on you and assuming you’re amenable to it, one way to handle it might be to say something like, “I’m kind of uncomfortable talking about this right now. Could I take you out to lunch and explain why?” At lunch, you’ll need to briefly, carefully, and biblically explain where you stand from the perspective of, “These are my personal beliefs,” helping her to grasp that when she pushes her personal beliefs (i.e. false doctrine) on you, you feel pressured and uncomfortable because you want to please her as your boss (the Bible teaches us that we’re to submit to those in authority over us and work hard for our employers), but you also don’t want to compromise your beliefs (“We must obey God rather than men.”) Hopefully she will get the message that she’s creating a hostile work environment and will tone it down. If she doesn’t, you’ll need to consider whether or not you want to keep working there.

If the false doctrine is part of workplace policy, you’ll need to figure out how pervasive it is and whether or not it’s something that can be worked around in accord with biblical principles and your conscience. If the false doctrine pretty much permeates your job (for example, if you were a teacher and it was interwoven into the curriculum you had to teach), it’s probably time to start looking for another job, and to make an appointment with you boss and politely explain why you’ll no longer be working there.

If it’s only a small part of your (otherwise doctrinally sound) job – for example, the aforementioned morning devotions – see if there’s a workaround. Employees are given all kinds of exemptions and accommodations these days, even for religious reasons. Perhaps you could be excused from the devotions or a co-worker could handle business with the heretical “churches” while you take on another task. “If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all,” Romans 12:18 says. Be as cooperative and flexible as you can.

If you decide to stay at your job, the best way you can have an impact on your boss is by being a godly example. Pray fervently that God would open her eyes to the false doctrine she’s believing. Ask God to give you opportunities to slip in a doctrinally sound “word fitly spoken” in conversation from time to time. Be an “above and beyond” employee with a great attitude. Show kindness to your boss and co-workers, asking how you can pray for them, inquiring after their families, health, etc. Give doctrinally sound books as office Christmas gifts. Invite your boss and co-workers to an occasional event at your church. Suggest a doctrinally sound podcast you love if the topic comes up. There are lots of ways you can have a biblical influence on you boss. It doesn’t necessarily have to be “confront or quit.”

Mailbag

The Mailbag: May Christian Women Wear Pants?

February 18, 2025February 17, 2025 Michelle Lesley

Originally published April 3, 2017

What are your views on women wearing pants?

For readers who are a little confused by this question, you may not be aware that there are various churches which require women and girls to wear skirts or dresses rather than pants. The local churches I’m familiar with which carry this requirement are Pentecostal and Independent Baptist, though there may be others. (Some of these churches also require women to have long hair and abstain from wearing makeup.)

The initial basis for this requirement is Deuteronomy 22:5…

A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God.

…along with the general desire to encourage God-given femininity for women and masculinity for men. Definitely a good idea these days.

But, since my opinion is of zero importance – it’s what God thinks that counts – let’s look at what the Bible says. Is it biblical for a church to make this requirement of Christian women, or, for a Christian woman to choose, on her own, not to wear pants?

Let’s tackle that last question first.

There’s nothing in the Bible that says women have to wear pants, so if you want to wear skirts and dresses all the time, you’re absolutely free to do that. What you may not do (biblically) is think, or say, that wearing skirts and dresses somehow makes you holier or more obedient to God than women who choose to wear pants- because there’s nothing about that in the Bible either.

But what about Deuteronomy 22:5?

Well, let’s take a look at that Scripture using good hermeneutical principles. We need to look at the context, culture, audience, and intent of this verse.

First we need to recognize that Deuteronomy is in the Old Testament. Right off the bat, we must keep in mind that, while there are many underlying, timeless principles in the Old Testament that still apply to Christians (usually because they are reiterated in the New Testament) the particular pronouncement of the Old Testament verse we’re reading may not apply.

Next, Deuteronomy 22 is smack dab in the middle of the Levitical law that was given as a part of the Mosaic covenant. The Mosaic covenant was fulfilled in Christ, which means its laws are no longer binding on us as Christians. We are under the New Covenant of grace through Christ. This is why you’re not sinning if you build a house without a parapet around the roof (verse 8), sow your vineyard, if you have one, with two kinds of seed (verse 9), wear fabric that’s a wool-linen blend (verse 11), or go tassel-less (verse 12). If you think Deuteronomy 22:5 prohibits women from wearing pants, a good question to ask yourself is: “Why would I feel required to obey verse 5 of Deuteronomy 22, but not verses 8-12?”

The next thing we need to look at is the actual wording of Deuteronomy 22. Does it say anything about pants or any other specific item of clothing? No. It says women are not to wear men’s clothes and men are not to wear women’s clothes. Now, keep in mind that the audience for this verse was Old Testament Israel, and that, at the time, in that culture, both men and women wore what we would technically describe today as a “dress.”

Were Moses and rest of the Israelite men – who were actually receiving this law from God at the time – sinning because they were wearing “dresses”? (And, let’s remember, Jesus dressed the same way.) Of course not. In our time and culture, they’re wearing dresses, and dresses are for women. In their time and culture, they’re wearing a garment designed for men. God has never said, “Pants are for men. Dresses are for women.” Pre-twentieth century western culture has said that. So if the men of the Bible weren’t sinning for wearing “dresses” designed for men, how could Christian women be sinning for wearing pants designed for women?

Deuteronomy 22:5 is not addressing the construction of specific garments. It’s addressing the intent of the heart. Since men and women of that culture both wore garments of similar construction (i.e. sleeves, an opening for the head, and a sheath for the torso and legs), there must have been differing accessories (veils, turbans, sashes, belts, cloaks, etc.) that clearly distinguished between male and female outfits. A woman could wear those male accessories and still be wearing a “dress,” but what would her motive for doing so have been? The only motive she could have had was to appear to others to be a man.

In other words, Deuteronomy 22:5 is not addressing American women wearing pants designed for women’s bodies, sold in the women’s department of the store, marketed to women, and purchased by women who have no intention of trying to impersonate, or appear to others to be, a man. It is addressing the sin of cross-dressing (transvestism).

And that is a prohibition that does carry over into the New Testament under the heading of sexual immorality. We are to respect and honor God’s perfect and holy decision to create us as women or men. We are not to alter our clothing, accessories, cosmetics, hair styles, gait, body language, speech patterns, lifestyles, or anatomy in order to appear to others, or ourselves, to be the opposite sex. To do so is to tell God that His decision to make you a woman or a man was wrong. That is rebellion.

So, if a church today really wants to correctly handle and apply Deuteronomy 22:5, it will do so in light of the New Testament passages on sexual immorality. The church should teach that God always makes the right decision to create someone male or female, and that to rebel against God’s perfect design by altering one’s appearance to impersonate the opposite sex is sin which needs to be repented of and forgiven by the shed blood of Christ.

Deuteronomy 22:5 is not about 21st century American women wearing pants designed for women. So, when a church prohibits women from wearing pants – even when done with the best of intentions to honor God – what they are doing is mishandling Scripture and making a law where none exists. Jesus wasn’t too happy when “church leaders” of His time did that, and our churches today shouldn’t be doing it either.

All of that being said, I’ve had the privilege of knowing and, on occasion, worshiping with some dear saints in an IFB church which required skirts for women. These folks truly loved the Lord and honored His word. Any time I attended one of their activities, I wore a skirt so as not to be a stumbling block or draw attention to myself. Churches which carry the requirement of skirts for women but are otherwise doctrinally sound should not be regarded as apostate.

Discernment, False Teachers, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Gather25

February 13, 2025February 12, 2025 Michelle Lesley

Originally published February 27, 2024

2025 UPDATE: The article below was published in February 2024, approximately one year prior to Gather25. Yesterday (February 12, 2025), Amy and I dropped a much more detailed A Word Fitly Spoken podcast episode about Gather25, which will take place in a little over two weeks: Friday, February 28- Saturday, March 1. I encourage you to give it a listen, and warn your church, your friends, or anyone you think might be interested in attending or streaming.

Does anyone know what Gather25 is about? Is it similar to IF:Gathering?

This past weekend was IF:Gathering 2024. I shared my article about it on social media and one of my followers asked this question. I’m glad she did so I could give you a heads up and you can have a whole year to warn your church and your friends away from it.

According to its website, Gather25 is a 25 hour global simulcast of “prayer, worship, repentance, and commissioning” (i.e. sending people out under the auspices of the Great Commission, ostensibly, to share the gospel) which will take place in March 2025.

On their FAQ page it says:

“Gather25 is being organized and led by an alliance of Christian organizations: IF:Gathering, YouVersion, illumiNations, Right Now Media, and many more international ministries and churches. The original vision for Gather25 was cast by Jennie Allen.”

Jennie Allen is a false teacher and founder of IF:Gathering, an annual conference for evangelical women (and, no doubt, some men) which routinely platforms false teachers, women pastors, and women who preach to men.

YouVersion is hosted by Craig Groeschel’s LifeChurch.TV. He is a false teacher and platforms many other false teachers and women who preach to men.

The majority of the resources RightNow Media carries are from false teachers. For example, their home page – the “face” they present to the public – currently features Tony Evans, Jennie Allen, Bianca Olthoff, Francis Chan, and First Baptist Orlando.

illumiNations seems to be a Bible translation and distribution organization, which may be just fine, but I’m concerned that all of the evangelical celebrities they currently and proudly list on their home page as supporting their organization (Elevation Worship, Lecrae, Sadie Huff, Passion, IF:Gathering, MVMNT Conference, and Chris Tomlin) are false/woke teachers, or conferences and individuals that platform false/woke teachers.

And these are just the four organizations mentioned by name on the FAQ page. There are many more sponsors, and the ones I’m familiar with are all doctrinally unsound and/or run by false teachers. This thing is absolutely saturated with false teachers.

This event is going to sucker in a lot of undiscerning pastors, because, “What could possibly be wrong with prayer, worship, repentance, and commissioning people to share the gospel? We can just set aside the ‘secondary issue’ differences we have with these people and join them.”. But Scripture forbids us from having anything to do with false teachers. And if your pastor invites these false teachers into your church via simulcast, he is disqualified from the ministry. Titus 1:9 is part of the biblical qualifications for pastors and elders:

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.
Titus 1:9

Furthermore, what sort of false gospel might these false teachers be “commissioning” people to spread? What sort of unbiblical prayer and worship practices will they lead participants in? What is the definition of “repentance” these false teachers hold to? Will they lead participants to “repent” of things like “whiteness,” refusing to baptize practicing homosexuals, oppressing women by not allowing them to be pastors, and such?

If you think your pastor might be the type to have your church participate in this event, I would recommend you start praying now, start preparing now, and prayerfully consider whether or not you should warn him about Gather25 now so that he has plenty of time to be obedient to the Titus 1:9 mandate the Lord has given him.

If not, and he throws open the doors of your church to these false teachers, he’s a hireling, not a shepherd, and it’s time to start searching for a new church.

Mailbag

The Mailbag: Is “Jesus loves you” enough of the gospel?

February 4, 2025February 4, 2025 Michelle Lesley

Originally published April 16, 2018

I work in a parachurch organization in which I teach children. I have a passion for these kids to know God and know His Word. My direct supervisor, as well as the head of the organization, want to only emphasize God’s love and that we are ALL children of God. I am wrestling with this because I just don’t believe that I should make saying “Jesus loves you” the main message to the kids but rather the gospel in full context (of course getting down to their level but in no way changing the message). What should I do?

It’s always great to hear from someone who’s working with children and wants to put correct theology on the bottom shelf where their little hands can reach it. Thank you for serving God’s Kingdom this way!

There are three issues I think are important to address in this situation. Let’s take a look…

We are NOT “all” God’s children.
All humans are indeed made in the imago dei – the image of God. That’s definitely an important aspect of theology to teach children, and if that’s what your supervisors actually mean when they say “we’re all God’s children,” that’s super. But they need to use correct, biblical language and say “We’re all made in the image of God,” (age-appropriately explaining what that means, of course) instead of saying “We’re all God’s children.”

It’s not just a quibble over semantics. There are two very important reasons to get this right.

First, it’s simply not true on its face and you don’t want to be teaching the children a lie. I mean, Jesus once told some Jews (aka: God’s set apart people group) He was talking to, “If God were your Father, you would love me…You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires.” So, obviously, people fall into one of two categories: you’re either a child of God or you’re a child of the devil. Just as a person has to be physically born into a family, or adopted into a certain family, in order for that particular mom and dad to be her parents and for her to be their daughter, “you must be born again,” – a spiritual birth (and adoption) – must take place in order for God to be your Father and you to be His child.

Second, saying “We’re all God’s children,” smacks of universalism. Universalism is basically the idea that everybody goes to Heaven when they die. No repentance is necessary, no belief in Christ, it doesn’t matter what religion you are, if any. If this is what your supervisors are teaching or wanting you to teach, I would encourage you to find employment elsewhere. This is blasphemous false doctrine that no Christian organization or its employees should be teaching.

Teaching the WHOLE gospel
“Jesus loves you” is part of the gospel, and one that we need to make sure we’re including any time we share the gospel with others. It is only because of the amazing, unfathomable love of God that Christ came to earth to die in the first place. Without the love of God there would be no gospel at all. However, it is not the entirety of the gospel. The gospel also includes the components of sin, repentance, faith, and forgiveness.

Since this is a Christian organization you work for, I’m unclear on why (assuming they’re not universalists) your supervisors would not want the whole gospel taught to the children. Only three possible reasons come to mind:

1. They’re concerned that the children are too young to understand sin, repentance, faith, and forgiveness.
You didn’t mention the specific age of the children you’re working with, but I got the impression from your original message to me that they are elementary school aged. I have six children of my own and have taught every age level of children from birth through high school in church, parachurch, and school settings for most of my adult life, and I can tell you that elementary school aged children are perfectly capable of grasping these concepts when they’re explained at an age-appropriate level.

I would think anyone qualified to be in a supervisory capacity at an organization like yours would – as an experienced professional – know that children this age can intellectually handle these concepts, and would – as a Christian – want them to know the whole gospel so they can be saved and take the gospel home to their families.

2. They’re concerned anything more than a generic “Jesus loves you,” is going to offend some of the parents.
Tough. The gospel is offensive to sinners. They need to get over that fear of man right quick. And it’s not like the parents were tricked into putting their kids into a program they didn’t know was Christian, right? (By the way, this is not the tone I’d recommend using when speaking to your supervisors :0)

3. You’re spending too much of your time evangelizing the kids instead of teaching them the main topic(s) they’re there to learn.
That’s not the impression of you that I got from your original message, but just make sure that, if, for example, you were hired to teach the kids how to play kickball, you’re teaching them how to play kickball, not turning every practice session into a Bible study.

Honestly, I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around why any organization that openly bills itself as “Christian” would only want part of the gospel presented. I would suggest sitting down with your supervisors and asking them politely why they don’t want the whole gospel presented to the children at appropriate times in age-appropriate ways. Perhaps they have a good, biblical reason for it, but I’m at a loss to imagine what it is.

Submitting to authority
Submission to authority is a big theme in the New Testament. Christians submit to God’s authority, wives submit to our husbands’ authority, church members submit to the authority of their pastors and elders, as citizens we submit to our civil authorities, and, in the present day, we understand the passages about slaves submitting to their masters in light of the employee/employer relationship.

In God’s structure of authority, He is always at the top. So if any other authority in your life – husband, boss, government, pastor, etc. – wants you to do something that conflicts with God’s written Word, your response must be the same as Peter’s: “I must obey God rather than men.”

I’m still unclear as to whether or not your employers are asking you to do something that conflicts with God’s Word. After talking it over with them, praying about it, talking to your husband about it (if you’re married), and possibly seeking counsel from your pastor or a mature sister in Christ at your church, if you come to the conclusion that your supervisors are not asking you to disobey God’s Word, then the proper godly response is for you to submit to their authority and joyfully do as they ask. If you come to the conclusion that they are asking you to disobey God’s Word, prayerfully ask to meet with them again, and kindly, with Scripture, explain to them that you cannot in good conscience truncate the gospel. Perhaps God will open their eyes and they will change their policy. If not, it might be an appropriate time to tender your two week’s notice.