Christian women, Heaven

Weak Women and the Idolatry of Personal Experience

Michelle Lesley

Originally published April 17, 2015

Well, here we go again. Another child claims to have taken another trip to Heaven complete with another face to face conversation with Jesus. Oh, and the child’s mother has written a book about it which prosperity pimp, T.D. Jakes, has optioned for his second unbiblical “I went to Heaven” movie. (Heaven is for Real was the first one.)

The gist of the story is that this sweet little girl, Annabel, was climbing a tree when a branch broke, causing her to fall head first, thirty feet into a hollow tree, where she was stuck for five hours. It’s unclear from the reports I’ve read whether this was actually a near death experience, the reports mentioning only that she was “unconscious” at some point (this is when she supposedly “went to Heaven”), and that she was rescued without injury. Additionally, Annabel had suffered for years with a very serious intenstinal disease, and after her accident, became asymptomatic.

These are nice people. Sincere people. The kind of people I’d probably be friends with if they went to my church.

And they have nicely, sincerely, and with the best of intentions fallen into what I think is the number one theological error facing Christian women today, namely, believing and trusting in human experience over God’s Word.

It’s perhaps the number one theological error facing Christian women today: believing and trusting in human experience over God’s Word.

Now, I don’t doubt the facts of this story: that Annabel had a dangerous and frightening accident, that she lost consciousness and had some sort of experience before awakening, that she had a serious intestinal disease, and that, in God’s perfect timing, He chose to heal Annabel shortly after this tree accident.

And the reason I don’t doubt any of that is that it is all based in verifiable fact (unless someone comes forward with documented evidence to the contrary) and none of it conflicts with God’s Word.

But an actual “trip to Heaven”? That’s not based in verifiable fact and it does conflict with God’s Word.

If you feel upset with me right now for saying that, I’d like to ask you to examine why that is. Why are you upset? On what do you base your belief that this child (or anyone else outside of documented cases in Scripture) has actually made a real trip to Heaven and come back to tell about it? Her say so? This child was nine years old when this happened. Nine. Colton Burpo (Heaven is for Real) was three. Alex Malarkey (The Boy Who Came Back from Heaven– which Alex has been recanting for years) was six.

Have you ever spent any time talking to a nine year old, a six year old, a three year old? A lot of them will tell you they believe in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, or that they have an imaginary friend, or that they’re a super hero. They’re very sincere and they aren’t lying, but they’re also very wrong because their beliefs are not based in fact and are strongly influenced by their immaturity. So why are we so quick to believe, based solely on their own say so, that the experiences these children had while unconscious were actual trips to Heaven?

For the same reason we love chick flicks and fairy tales and Hallmark movies, ladies. These stories appeal to our emotions. They make us feel good just like a rich piece of chocolate on a stressful day. And when you slap the “God” label on a story of childlike wonder coming out of a nice Christian family, our belief not only makes us feel good, we also feel justified in believing the story.

And God’s word says that kind of mindset is not for strong, discerning, godly women, it’s for weak women.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people. For among them are those who creep into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and led astray by various passions, always learning and never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

2 Timothy 3:1-7

When we hold these “I went to Heaven” experiences (whether from children or adults) up to the light of Scripture, they crumble, from Hebrews 9:27, to the descriptions of God, Jesus, and Heaven that clearly contradict Scripture (and contradict the descriptions from other people who supposedly went to Heaven and came back), to the sufficiency of Scripture, to the stark difference between Paul’s and John’s scripturally verified trips to Heaven and the trips supposedly being taken today (interestingly, Paul was stricken with a “thorn” after his trip to Heaven “to keep me from becoming conceited because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations” while Annabel’s healing is being offered, in a whirlwind of publicity events, as proof that she went to Heaven), to the fact that the Bible doesn’t say anywhere that this kind of spiritual experience is valid or appropriate for Christians today.

The people who claim to have gone to Heaven had some sort of experience while unconscious, no doubt, but if they say that experience was an actual trip to Heaven, they are either mistaken or lying. It could have been a dream, a hallucination, an experience initiated by demons (let’s not forget that Satan was once an angel and continues to disguise himself as an angel of light), or a lie they’ve concocted, as was the case with Alex Malarkey. Yet, for some reason, Christian women, who, if asked point blank, would say that they believe the Bible is our ultimate authority for Christian belief, plunk down money for these books, movies, and other accessories, and eat these stories up with a spoon without ever engaging their brains and checking these supposed eyewitness accounts of Heaven against Scripture.

For some reason, women who would *say* they believe the Bible is our ultimate authority, eat these stories up with a spoon without ever engaging their brains and checking these supposed eyewitness accounts against Scripture.

But “heavenly tourism” stories aren’t the only area in which we’re choosing to believe someone’s experience over Scripture.

Do you follow someone like Joyce Meyer, Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, Christine Caine, Lysa TerKeurst, or Paula White? These women all say that God “called” them to do what they do, which includes preaching to and instructing men in the church setting. Do you believe them when they say God “called” them? If so, you’re believing their supposed experience over the crystal clear Word of God in 1 Timothy 2:11-3:7 (and plenty of other passages) which expressly forbids women from instructing men in the Scriptures or holding authority over men in the church.

And even putting aside the false and unbiblical doctrine these women teach, how many times have you heard one of them begin a sermon or teaching – not by reading God’s word and accurately teaching what the Bible says- but by telling a story about how God ostensibly “spoke” to them, acted in their lives in some way, or sent them a dream or a sign, and then basing their teaching on that experience rather than on God’s word? If you heed that kind of teaching, you’re believing their experience, not God’s Word.

What about when it hits a little closer to home? You know God’s Word says that homosexuality is a sin, but your 20 year old comes home and announces he’s marrying his boyfriend. So you just throw out that part of God’s Word in favor of a happy experience with your son. You defend your right to swear like a sailor despite what God’s Word says to the contrary. You “feel” that it was just fine for you to divorce your husband because you fell out of love with him, even though that’s not a biblically acceptable reason for divorce.

Ladies, if God’s word says it ain’t so, it ain’t so, no matter what you or I or anyone else experiences to the contrary.

Ladies, if God’s Word says it ain’t so, it ain’t so, no matter what you or I or anyone else experiences to the contrary. And it doesn’t matter how real or vivid or intense that experience was or how right or godly it seemed– God’s Word, and God’s Word alone defines reality, truth, existence, right and wrong. And we’d better get with the program and submit to its authority. If not, well, I guess we’ll prove the truth of what Paul said by choosing to be those women he talked about: weak, burdened with sins, led astray by our emotions, and always learning yet never able to arrive at a knowledge of the truth.

God doesn’t want you to be weak. He wants you to be a mighty woman of His word.

God doesn’t want you to be weak. He wants you to be a mighty woman of His word.

Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
John 17:17

 

Additional Resources:

90 Minutes in Heaven on the Big Screen?

The Burpo-Malarkey Doctrine

Heaven Tourism

LifeWay Christian Stores Remove All ‘Heaven Tourism’ Books From Shelves After ‘Boy Who Came Back From Heaven’ Story Confirmed as a Lie

Uncategorized

Taking a Little Time Off…

Michelle Lesley

Happy Monday, readers! I’m outta here for the week! My youngest son is getting married this weekend, I’m making the groom’s cake, we’re having family in, my grandbabies are coming, and I’m going to take the week off blogging.

If you’re working on my Research Team Request, you can still send in your research, and I’ll look at it as soon as I have time. (Remember, we’re trying to have all the research turned in by this Friday, July 25.)

I hope you and yours have a wonderful week!

Abortion, Gospel

Planned Parenthood: There, But for the Grace of God…

Michelle Lesley

Originally published August 15, 2015

You walk into your doctor’s office for your annual check up—flu shot, cancer, cholesterol and blood sugar screening, blood pressure check—you know, routine maintenance on the ol’ bod. You’ve chosen this doctor because you don’t have health insurance and he’s kind enough to lower his prices and work with you on a payment plan. His office is clean and bright, beautifully decorated, and the staff is always friendly. You even get a lollipop at the end of each visit.

But this year, as you’re walking down the hall to exam room four, you happen to notice that in exam room three, there’s a playpen in the corner with an adorable baby girl in it, cooing away and playing with a toy.

“Odd,” you think, since this is not a pediatrician’s office. You continue to your own room, don that scratchy paper gown, and wait for the doctor. By the time he comes in and begins the exam, you can no longer contain your curiosity. Whose baby is it? Why is there even a baby in the office?

“Oh, yes,” the doctor says matter of factly, “that baby was abandoned by her parents. Nobody wants her, so when I get finished with your check up, I’m going to torture her to death and then sell her organs to medical researchers.”

Your jaw hits the floor. Your stomach turns. You can’t believe the monstrous words you’ve just heard.

“How could you do such a horrible thing?” you scream over your revulsion. The doctor looks surprised that you should ask.

“It’s really no big deal,” he says. “We only do a few of those a week. The vast majority of my practice is providing health care and counseling for patients like you.”

Let me ask you something—would you use that doctor and think that the care he provides you mitigates his atrocious behavior? I hope not. Yet I have heard people defend Planned Parenthood (an organization which has been torturing babies to death for decades, and, we recently learned, profits from the sale of their organs) because Planned Parenthood ostensibly performs a minimum number of abortions and mainly provides health services, such as the ones mentioned above, to women who need them. Somehow, in these people’s minds, the health care Planned Parenthood provides makes up for the heinous murders they commit day after day.

Does it really all balance out? Of course not.

In fact, let’s say, Planned Parenthood had only ever tortured fifty babies to death (instead of the millions they’ve actually killed). And let’s say they provided free health care to everyone on the planet, cured cancer, and brought about world peace. Those are some wonderful things, but does it erase the fact that they brutally ended fifty innocent lives? Do all those good deeds make up for even one murder?

No. They don’t. Good deeds can never make up for heinous crimes. Planned Parenthood’s hands are drenched in blood that all the free health care in the world can’t wash away.

They’re hopelessly guilty. Just like we are.

Apart from Christ, we are Planned Parenthood. We come before God with blood on our hands. Not the blood of millions of babies, but the blood of one child. God’s child. Jesus. We are responsible for His death. It was our sin that caused Him to be tortured to death. Our sin that brutally murdered Him.

We come before God with blood on our hands. Not the blood of millions of babies, but the blood of one child. God’s child. Jesus.

“Oh, but it’s no big deal. I’m mainly a good person. The vast majority of my life is spent doing good things and helping people. That totally makes up for those few sins I’ve committed. My good deeds outweigh the bad.”

No. They don’t. Good deeds can never make up for heinous crimes.

But, grace… But, mercy… But the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior intervenes and wipes away the guilt. Washes our hands of Christ’s blood. Cleanses us from all unrighteousness, if we only turn to Him in the repentance and faith that He is gracious enough to give us.

Good deeds can never make up for heinous crimes, but the grace of God can.

But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Titus 3:4-7

Good deeds can never make up for heinous crimes, but the grace of God can.

Discernment, Mailbag

The Mailbag: Potpourri (Intend to offend?… Right Now Media… Jesus died for YOU?)

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.

This reader’s question is in reference to my article In Defense of Offense: Why Christians Need to Stop Worrying About Offending People.

Would you say offending with the purpose to offend with the truth is the same as what you are saying? So should we ever purpose to offend when we speak the truth from the Bible?

Great question! (And let me take this opportunity to say to all of my readers and followers that if you’re ever unclear about something I’ve written or posted – especially if it seems unbiblical or out of character for me – please, please, please just ask me about it politely, like this reader did, and I will be happy to explain if I’m able. I would much rather you ask than attack me, jump to the wrong conclusion, or worse, assume I’ve apostatized. Genuine, polite questions are always welcome!)

Hon, when you say “purpose to offend,” I’m thinking of a person who gets out of bed in the morning with the primary goal of offending people, making them angry, or upsetting them, not with the primary goal of sharing the gospel or restoring someone from sin.

I’m not sure why a Christian would have the desire, goal, or motive of offending people, regardless of his reason for doing so. That goes against the grain of everything Scripture teaches us both about Christian character and the ineffectiveness of provoking people. The Bible says:

A brother offended is harder to win over than a strong city,
And contentions are like the bars of a citadel.
…if possible, so far as it depends on you, being at peace with all men…

Proverbs 18:19, Romans 12:18

Fathers are told not to provoke their children to anger. One of the qualifications for pastors and elders (which we’re to emulate) is that they not be pugnacious (i.e. “looking for a fight”), but peaceable and considerate. (If not, they’re disqualified from ministry.) We’re not to place a stumbling block or offense before anyone – saved or lost, in order to protect our ministry and so that people might be saved. You’ll recall that Paul devotes significant ink to the idea that if it would offend people for him to eat meat sacrificed to idols, he’ll never eat meat again. We’re told not to be quarrelsome, but kind, patient, and gentle in our teaching and correction so that people can be saved. Titus 3:2 reminds us “to slander no one, but to be peaceable, considerate, demonstrating all gentleness to all men”.

The Scriptures go on and on about this. We’re not only forbidden from trying to offend people, we’re instructed to bend over backwards trying not to offend people. The Bible is offensive enough all on its own. That’s more than enough offense for sinners to try to deal with without us making things harder and piling on personal offensiveness.

And that’s the whole point of my article. Not that we should intentionally be personally offensive in our demeanor, but that we shouldn’t refrain from kindly, yet firmly speaking the truth in love so that sinners might be saved, and saints might be sanctified, just because we’re afraid that biblical truth will offend them.

What do you think about churches using Right Now Media?

I drop in on the RNM website from time to time, and from what I can see, it’s almost all (if not all) false teachers.

Scripture is clear that churches shouldn’t support (financially or otherwise) false teachers, and certainly not those, like RNM, who profit from platforming them and spreading their false doctrine. In fact, if your pastor welcomes false teachers into the church – in person, through their books and materials, via video platforms like RNM, etc. – instead of rebuking them and their false doctrine, he is participating in their wickedness, he is disqualified from pastoral ministry, and he needs to be under church discipline.

Yeah, it’s that serious to God.

And from a stewardship point of view, even if there are a few doctrinally sound teachers sprinkled in at RNM, I don’t see how it could possibly be worth the monthly subscription price for whatever few good teachers they might* carry.

*Visiting the RNM site, I get the impression that they want your money before they give you access to the names of all the teachers they platform. I clicked on several pages, and the teachers they did disclose fell into two categories for me: people I know to be false teachers, and people I’ve never heard of. I didn’t see the name of anyone I know to be a doctrinally sound teacher.

Since it’s a subscription service, not a “pay for the specific video you’re using” kind of thing, there isn’t even the option for pastors to say something like, “We feel like this particular R.C. Sproul video is the best one available on the theology of shoelaces, but it’s only available from RNM. We are recommending ONLY this video at RNM. Avoid everything else.”. No, you’re either in (and paying for everything) or you’re out.

Because RNM is primarily a source of false doctrine and false teachers, and because your church’s offering money would be going to support that – in disobedience to the commands of Scripture – you should be very concerned if your church subscribes to RNM. I would recommend that you and/or your husband set up an appointment with the pastor to discuss it. There’s an underlying issue here in subscribing to RNM – either the pastor is not exercising proper oversight over whoever subscribed the church to RNM, or the pastor is not discerning or diligent enough to know that he’s unleashing false teachers on his sheep.

🚨FRIENDLY WARNING🙂: The following question is related to Calvinism/Reformed theology. Please be reminded that we do not do Calvinism vs. Arminianism arguments here, on any of my social media platforms, or via email. Argumentative comments and messages will be deleted. Please see my Statement of Faith tab in the blue menu bar at the top of this page if you have any questions.

My wife and I just finished watching the taped version of your talk [from the Resolute Conference on Answers TV] and we both agreed that it was extremely helpful! Thank you for pouring your time and effort into what was a clearly well-researched message.

Thank you so much. Yes, some of the teaching sessions (including mine) from Answers in Genesis’ Answers for Women 2025 Conference, Resolute, have been posted to Answers TV. I’m sure the rest will be posted soon, so if you have a subscription, you can watch! If you don’t have a subscription, give it some consideration! It’s only $4.99 a month or $39.99 a year, plus they offer a seven day free trial to get you started! If you’d like to watch my session on the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), here’s the handout that goes along with it.

I do have one question, however. During your gospel presentation you specifically said that Christ died for “you” (i.e., the listener). But if you are saying that to an unregenerate person who has not been predestined to eternal life (according to the “U” in TULIP), how does that work with limited atonement (“The atonement for sin that Christ made on the cross applies only to those who are, or will, in the future be, saved”)?

Respectfully, how could you truthfully say that Christ died for “you,” if that person hasn’t been elected for life? Considering that you [are Reformed] your presentation of the gospel seems to be inconsistent with the doctrine of limited atonement.

I’d like to get your thoughts on this apparent discrepancy between the two. Thank you for your time and consideration!

You’re welcome. I’m glad to explain. I was speaking to about 3000 people that week (plus however many will watch the video, now), the vast majority of whom were already saved. So it is true for those people – Jesus did die for them.

When I gave the gospel presentation, I was addressing it to the elect in the audience – to those who would listen and believe the gospel, either right then, or later in life. (So it was true for them, too. Jesus died for them.) I was not speaking to those who would reject the gospel for the rest of their lives and spend an eternity in Hell – those who aren’t elect (if there were any like that in the audience), even though they could also hear me.

The thing is -and I know I’m not telling you anything new, here – you and I don’t know who’s elect and who’s not. That’s above our pay grade and none of our business. That’s God’s purview. The only way we can know for sure that someone is elect is after she gets genuinely saved and perseveres to the end. If she’s genuinely saved, that means she’s elect. But we can’t know before someone gets saved whether or not she’s elect, so, like the sower, we scatter the seed of the gospel with wild abandon, trusting God’s sovereignty as to what kind of soil it lands on and leaving everything after our gospel presentation up to Him.

I would also appeal to Scripture:

In Peter’s sermon in Acts 3, he’s preaching an evangelistic sermon and says -without knowing whether or not any of his audience is elect:

For you first, God raised up His Servant and sent Him to bless you by turning every one of you from your wicked ways.

Was everyone he was preaching to elect? Probably not.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul hearkens back to the gospel he proclaimed to these brothers when they were lost and says he told them that “Christ died for our sins”. At the time he originally said that, he had no way of knowing whether or not everyone he was preaching to would believe.

But all of that being said, I did read back through all of the sermons in Acts and some other evangelistic encounters in Scripture (and also discussed this on Sunday with one of our {unofficial} lay elders at church), and the general approach seemed to be: You’re a sinner, here’s what Jesus did so salvation and the forgiveness of sin could take place, repent, believe it, and be saved. The personal appeal was placed on the “you must repent and believe” part, not on the “Jesus died” part.

So, sure, I’ll tweak things and try to pattern my gospel presentation more in the style of the Apostles, not because of Calvinism as a framework, but because, as Christians – all Christians – we do always want to be as closely aligned with Scripture as we can get. So, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I appreciate the sharpening.

But I’m not going to quibble with anyone who says, “Jesus died for you,” when she shares the gospel accurately with someone. If the person she’s talking to gets saved, it’s true. If the person she’s talking to doesn’t get saved, she’s technically made a good faith, optimistic mistake while earnestly appealing to him to repent and believe the gospel, but she hasn’t sinned, it doesn’t matter to that person, and she hasn’t sent that person to Hell by saying so. And … you know … she’s sharing the gospel.

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.