Tag: Christian Women

Ruth Bible Study

Ruth: Lesson 5

Michelle Lesley

Previous Lessons: 1, 2, 3, 4

Ruth 4

Now Boaz had gone up to the gate and sat down there. And behold, the redeemer, of whom Boaz had spoken, came by. So Boaz said, “Turn aside, friend; sit down here.” And he turned aside and sat down.2 And he took ten men of the elders of the city and said, “Sit down here.” So they sat down. 3 Then he said to the redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land that belonged to our relative Elimelech. 4 So I thought I would tell you of it and say, ‘Buy it in the presence of those sitting here and in the presence of the elders of my people.’ If you will redeem it, redeem it. But if you will not, tell me, that I may know, for there is no one besides you to redeem it, and I come after you.” And he said, “I will redeem it.” 5 Then Boaz said, “The day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the widow of the dead, in order to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance.” 6 Then the redeemer said, “I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption yourself, for I cannot redeem it.”

7 Now this was the custom in former times in Israel concerning redeeming and exchanging: to confirm a transaction, the one drew off his sandal and gave it to the other, and this was the manner of attesting in Israel. 8 So when the redeemer said to Boaz, “Buy it for yourself,” he drew off his sandal. 9 Then Boaz said to the elders and all the people, “You are witnesses this day that I have bought from the hand of Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and to Mahlon. 10 Also Ruth the Moabite, the widow of Mahlon, I have bought to be my wife, to perpetuate the name of the dead in his inheritance, that the name of the dead may not be cut off from among his brothers and from the gate of his native place. You are witnesses this day.” 11 Then all the people who were at the gate and the elders said, “We are witnesses. May the Lord make the woman, who is coming into your house, like Rachel and Leah, who together built up the house of Israel. May you act worthily in Ephrathah and be renowned in Bethlehem, 12 and may your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, because of the offspring that the Lord will give you by this young woman.”

13 So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife. And he went in to her, and the Lord gave her conception, and she bore a son. 14 Then the women said to Naomi, “Blessed be the Lord, who has not left you this day without a redeemer, and may his name be renowned in Israel! 15 He shall be to you a restorer of life and a nourisher of your old age, for your daughter-in-law who loves you, who is more to you than seven sons, has given birth to him.” 16 Then Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse.17 And the women of the neighborhood gave him a name, saying, “A son has been born to Naomi.” They named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.

18 Now these are the generations of Perez: Perez fathered Hezron, 19 Hezron fathered Ram, Ram fathered Amminadab, 20 Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salmon, 21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David.

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

Questions to Consider

1. Briefly refresh your memory on Deuteronomy 25:5-10 (God’s instructions for levirate marriage), and read Leviticus 25:23-28 (God’s instructions for selling and redeeming property). Compare the actions of Boaz and the other redeemer (1-10) to these two passages. Did both of them obey the law? Since Boaz is a type of Christ, how does his fulfillment of this law point us to Christ’s fulfillment of the Law? Compare Boaz’s obedience to the law in order to redeem Ruth to Christ’s obedience to the Law in order to redeem sinners.

2. Why do you think Boaz first proffered the sale of the property to the other redeemer rather than mentioning Ruth first? (3-5)

3. Compare the other redeemer’s unwillingness to bear the cost of redeeming Ruth (6) with Boaz’s willingness to endure great cost to himself to redeem Ruth (9-10). How does this point us to Christ’s willingness to empty Himself of the riches of Heaven to redeem sinners?

4. Examine verses 9-10. Would you characterize this business transaction more as an investment for financial gain or the purchase of a debt? Who stood to gain materially from this transaction, Ruth or Boaz? How? When Christ redeemed us by purchasing us with His blood, who stood to gain from that transaction, Him or us? Read these passages, and examine Christ’s purchase of our sin debt and the benefit we receive at salvation by His righteousness being imputed to us.

5. Notice the impact Ruth and Naomi’s story had on the women of the town who had been watching these events transpire. (13-17) How were Ruth’s, Naomi’s, and Boaz’s godly behavior a witness to these women of God’s goodness and faithfulness? Consider your own life. How could your godly words and actions point watching women to Christ and open a door for you to share the gospel with them?

6. Why did the women say, “A son has been born to Naomi,” (17) when Obed was Ruth’s baby? (10)

7. Compare verses 18-21 with these passages. How do the people mentioned in verses 18-21 fit into the family line of Christ? How does the story of Ruth and her family line showcase God’s sovereignty and the way – centuries in advance – He was setting events in motion and working out His plan for the coming of Christ?

Homework

Just as Ruth was living in poverty and needed someone to redeem her out of that life, someone you know is living in the poverty of sin and needs Jesus to redeem her from eternal death to eternal life. She needs Jesus to purchase her sin debt and give her the riches of His righteousness in exchange. This week, share the gospel with someone. Tell her about Jesus our Redeemer.

Sanctification, Throwback Thursday

Throwback Thursday ~ Going to Pot

Michelle Lesley

When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.”
John 2:3-10

Much has been said, and many words written, about Jesus’ first miracle– the turning of the water into wine at the wedding of Cana. Why was this first miracle a miracle that put Jesus in the position of a caterer? Why not a healing? What did the disciples think? Was it really wine or just grape juice? And so on.

But I don’t believe I’ve ever heard anybody look at this account from the perspective of the waterpots.

What was it about those waterpots that made Jesus decide to use them? People used the water in them for washing their hands and possibly their dishes. They were common. Utilitarian. Probably not very clean. Why didn’t Jesus call for golden pitchers or silver goblets for the fine wine He was making?

The waterpots were close to Jesus.

The wedding Jesus was attending was in a small town, in an average home. It was likely that the hosts didn’t even own goblets or pitchers made of silver or gold. If they did, they certainly didn’t own enough large ones to hold all the wine Jesus was about to make. Gold and silver containers would have been far away in a palace or a wealthy home. The waterpots were close to Him, ready and available.

The waterpots had a great capacity for being filled.

We’re talking 120-180 gallons here. Your bathtub holds about 60 gallons when completely filled, so this would have been the equivalent of two to three completely full bathtubs of wine. Pitchers and goblets wouldn’t cut it.

The waterpots were willing to get dirty so others could get clean.

(Ok, so I realize I’m anthropomorphizing, but just go with me for a minute.) Those waterpots stood there year after year providing clean water for dirty people. They didn’t consider themselves too good to be used for handwashing. They didn’t pick and choose how or when they were used. They just stood there and fulfilled their purpose thanklessly, without complaint that they were being used or getting dirty. They were willing to take on a humble task, and Jesus took them and did a great work through them.

The waterpots were usable.

When Jesus told the servants to fill the waterpots with water, no one said, “Oh no, that’s the good china! You can’t use those!” The waterpots themselves were accustomed to being used. That’s what they were made for.

The waterpots also didn’t put up a fuss when Jesus wanted to use them for a new purpose. They didn’t say, “We’re too old to change,” or “We’ve been doing this for years. Who are You to tell us to do somethng new?” They were at their Master’s bidding.

What about us? Sometimes we want God to do great things through us like He did with the waterpots, but we don’t want to be like the waterpots. We want to be gold pitchers or silver goblets. We want to be special, not humble. Pretty, not getting dirty. Served, not serving. Our way, not His way.

Are you close to Jesus?

Do you, through prayer and study of the Word, have a great capacity for being filled?

Are you willing to get dirty so others can be cleansed by the gospel?

Are you usable?

Maybe “going to pot” isn’t such a bad thing after all.

Ruth Bible Study

Ruth: Lesson 4

Michelle Lesley

Previous Lessons: 1, 2, 3

Ruth 3

Then Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, “My daughter, should I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you? 2 Is not Boaz our relative, with whose young women you were? See, he is winnowing barley tonight at the threshing floor. 3 Wash therefore and anoint yourself, and put on your cloak and go down to the threshing floor, but do not make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 But when he lies down, observe the place where he lies. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down, and he will tell you what to do.” 5 And she replied, “All that you say I will do.”

6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did just as her mother-in-law had commanded her. 7 And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. Then she came softly and uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 At midnight the man was startled and turned over, and behold, a woman lay at his feet! 9 He said, “Who are you?” And she answered, “I am Ruth, your servant. Spread your wings over your servant, for you are a redeemer.” 10 And he said, “May you be blessed by the Lord, my daughter. You have made this last kindness greater than the first in that you have not gone after young men, whether poor or rich. 11 And now, my daughter, do not fear. I will do for you all that you ask, for all my fellow townsmen know that you are a worthy woman. 12 And now it is true that I am a redeemer. Yet there is a redeemer nearer than I. 13 Remain tonight, and in the morning, if he will redeem you, good; let him do it. But if he is not willing to redeem you, then, as the Lord lives, I will redeem you. Lie down until the morning.”

14 So she lay at his feet until the morning, but arose before one could recognize another. And he said, “Let it not be known that the woman came to the threshing floor.” 15 And he said, “Bring the garment you are wearing and hold it out.” So she held it, and he measured out six measures of barley and put it on her. Then she went into the city. 16 And when she came to her mother-in-law, she said, “How did you fare, my daughter?” Then she told her all that the man had done for her, 17 saying, “These six measures of barley he gave to me, for he said to me, ‘You must not go back empty-handed to your mother-in-law.’” 18 She replied, “Wait, my daughter, until you learn how the matter turns out, for the man will not rest but will settle the matter today.”

The Holy Bible, English Standard Version. ESV® Permanent Text Edition® (2016). Copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.

Questions to Consider

1. What did Naomi mean when she said she wanted to “seek rest” for Ruth?

2. In order to understand what is about to transpire between Ruth and Boaz in Ruth 3 and 4, it’s important to familiarize yourself with Deuteronomy 25:5-10, God’s instructions for levirate marriage. What was the purpose of levirate marriage? Why is it significant that Boaz was a relative of Naomi’s? (2) How was he related to her family? What did it mean that Boaz was a “redeemer,” and that there was a nearer redeemer than he? (9, 12-13)

3. Naomi’s instructions to Ruth (1-8) may seem a little odd, even inappropriate, to our Christian way of thinking. This is why it’s important, when studying God’s word, to understand, as best we can, the culture and customs of the audience of the book we’re studying. Read this commentary on Ruth 3:2-4. Were Ruth’s actions in any way immoral or inappropriate, biblically, or in her culture? What did Ruth mean when she said, “Spread your wings over your servant”? What was Ruth trying to convey to Boaz by her words and actions?

4. What are some ways Ruth demonstrates submission and humility in this passage? Compare Ruth’s demeanor with 1 Peter 3:4. How does Ruth model a “gentle and quiet spirit”?

5. Examine Naomi’s wisdom and counsel to Ruth in this chapter. How does Naomi exemplify the older “Titus 2 Woman“? How does Ruth exemplify the younger “Titus 2 Woman”?

6. If Boaz is a type (symbol, foreshadowing) of Christ, who does Ruth symbolize? Did Ruth have anything to offer Boaz that would make this marriage materially beneficial to him? When we come to Christ as sinners, do we have anything to offer Him that would make us “worthy” of saving? Compare Ruth’s humility and dependence on the good graces of Boaz to redeem her to our humility and dependence on God’s grace and mercy to redeem us. Compare verses 13b-14 to Ephesians 2:1,4-6. If Ruth represents us as sinners, what does her lying down for the night and rising at dawn symbolize?

Homework

Boaz points us to Christ as our redeemer. Look up the word “redeem” in a Bible dictionary and study these verses. What does it mean for Christ to “redeem” us- that He is our “Redeemer”?

Mailbag

The Mailbag: May Christian Women Wear Pants?

Michelle Lesley

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.

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 (Small groups, Furtick, Slander…)

Michelle Lesley

 

Today’s edition of The Mailbag is a tad different in format. Usually, I answer one reader’s question in a long form article. Today, I’m addressing various questions from several readers in a “short answer” format.

Please note: Due to the recent change in my comments/e-mail/messages policy, I’m not responding individually to most e-mails and messages. Several of these questions could have been answered instantaneously if the search bar had been utilized.

I wanted to ask if you could suggest a study for mums with young children, all of whom need lots of support and encouragement, as well as one who is struggling with her faith at the moment.

While there may be a good, doctrinally sound study out there for moms of small children, I’m not personally familiar with any. Still, I would recommend simply choosing a book of the Bible and studying it from beginning to end. The best and most biblical support and encouragement comes right from Scripture. See my article: You’re Not as Dumb as You Think You Are: Five Reasons to Put Down that Devotional and Pick Up the Actual Bible.

For someone struggling with her faith, the book of 1 John is excellent. If you don’t feel equipped to teach a book of the Bible, get some training so you can. Untrained, undiscerning teachers are a major way false doctrine creeps into the church. See: McBible Study and the Famine of God’s Word.

What are your thoughts on: Rebecca Manly Pippert, Revelation Wellness, Liz Curtis Higgs, Heaven by Randy Alcorn, Dr. Caroline Leaf, Stephen Ministry, Jan Markell’s Olive Tree Ministries, Johanna Michaelsen, and Angie Smith?

Rebecca Manly Pippert, Revelation Wellness, and Stephen Ministry: I’m afraid I’ve never heard of them.

Dr. Caroline Leaf, Jan Markell, Johanna Michaelsen, and Angie Smith: I’ve heard the names in passing, but I don’t really know anything about any of them.

Liz Curtis Higgs: I’ve never read any of her stuff or heard her speak, but I know that, until it disbanded this year, she was a featured speaker for Women of Faith, alongside false teachers such as Sheila Walsh, Jen Hatmaker, Sarah Jakes Roberts (daughter of T.D. Jakes), and musician Nichole Nordeman (pro-homosexuality). Partnering with false teachers, even if your own doctrine is sound (and I don’t know whether or not Higgs’ is), is prohibited by Scripture, so for that reason alone, I would not recommend her.

Heaven by Randy Alcorn: I read most of this book, but it was probably ten years ago or more. I don’t remember any specifics from the book, nor was there any egregious false doctrine that sticks out in my memory. All I remember is that I quit reading it because it was way too long and because a lot of it was – while based on Scripture – speculation and extrapolation as to what Heaven would be like. Randy Alcorn is not someone I currently keep up with very closely. Although I have recommended him as a fiction author: The Mailbag: Christian Fiction Recommendations, I don’t often read his blog or other non-fiction work. From the little non-fiction of his that I have read, my impression of him is that he is generally doctrinally sound, but may not thoroughly vet the people he quotes and appears with.

For more information on checking out various teachers and ministries, see my article: Is She a False Teacher? 7 Steps to Figuring it Out on Your Own

How can I find a solid church and what are your feelings regarding small groups?

For recommendations on finding a solid church, see The Mailbag: How Can I Find a Good Church?

I’m strongly in favor of small group Bible studies and Sunday School classes as a supplement to sound preaching from the pulpit, if the small group teacher is able to teach (availability and willingness do not equal ability to teach) and has been trained in good hermeneutics, and if he or she is teaching the Bible. For more, read my article McBible Study and the Famine of God’s Word.

Do you have an opinion of Steven Furtick?

I have many opinions of Steven Furtick (“pastor” of Elevation “Church” in Charlotte, NC), none of them good. He mercilessly twists God’s word, he yokes with false teachers (including T.D. Jakes, Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Christine Caine and others), and he allows women to preach from his pulpit (Including Lysa TerKeurst. Furtick is her pastor, which is one of the reasons I warn against her.) Additionally, Furtick has been immersed in Word of Faith false doctrine for years, and is now venturing into New Apostolic Reformation false doctrine. For more information, see Fighting for the Faith, Berean Research, Berean Examiner, and Apprising. I’ve also seen a number of YouTube videos from various sources explaining the doctrinal problems and scandals with Furtick (use the YouTube search bar).

The Bible says that women should learn in submission and not instruct men, however, The Great Commission is written to believers (which includes women). Therefore, if that is my aim to fulfill the Great Commission, in turn fulfilling God’s will, how am I sinning?

You’re not. Preaching to men, instructing men in the Scriptures, and holding authority over men in the church is not the same thing as evangelism and I have never claimed that it is.

I think a better grasp of the role of women in the church would be helpful for you. I’d recommend reading Rock Your Role: Jill in the Pulpit as well as the remaining articles in my Rock Your Role series. For more on women evangelizing men, read #11 in my article Rock Your Role FAQs.

I am wondering if you have ever done a post or topic on homeschooling? I have been praying for your conference.

I do home school, but I’m afraid I haven’t written anything on it. My friend Rachel over at Danielthree18 sometimes writes about home schooling, as does Gospel Centered Mom. These ladies could probably better point you in the right direction for doctrinally sound home schooling blogs than I can. It’s just not something I read much about or have an interest in writing about.

Thank you so much for your prayers. I am leaving Thursday to speak at a Christian women’s retreat in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, addressing the topic of suffering.

Readers, if your church would be interested in having me come speak at a women’s event, please click on the “Contact…” tab at the top of this page.

What is the criteria for a woman in regards to not teaching a man?…I particularly like The Voice translation for this in 1 Timothy 2:12…I think the ‘women teaching’ Scripture was more of a custom back in the day as is this Scripture about men and long hair.

I would recommend reading all of the articles in my Rock Your Role series, starting with Jill in the Pulpit. My article  A Head of the Times- Head Coverings for Christian Women? will help answer your questions regarding men and long hair (since the two issues are in the same passage), particularly some of the articles in the “Additional Resources” section (I would start with the WWUTT video near the end of that section). Also, we always need to keep in mind that God is the author of these Scriptures, not Paul. These are not Paul’s ideas and preferences, they’re God’s.

I would strongly recommend you find a reliable translation of the Bible rather than using The Voice paraphrase, which had several false teachers and female “pastors” as contributors. More info. at The Mailbag: Which Bible Do You Recommend?

Lysa TerKeurst (or Beth Moore, Priscilla Shirer, or anybody else I’ve warned against, I get this one a lot) should sue you for slander for the judgmental things you’ve said about her!

So you’ve obviously read my article about Lysa TerKeurst. Did you happen to see and read the big, bold notice at the top of that article (and every other discernment article I’ve written) which says:

If you are considering commenting or sending me an e-mail objecting to the fact that I warn against false teachers, please click here and read this article first. Your objection is most likely answered here. I won’t be publishing comments or answering emails that are answered by this article.

Your objection is answered in detail in #5 of this article. However, I’d like to add a few things:

1. There’s not a single teacher I’ve ever mentioned on this site that could sue me for slander. Not one. Why? Because slander is about false and defamatory speech. What you’re talking about is libel, which deals with false and defamatory writing. Get a dictionary and use your words.

2. In order to sue someone for libel, my understanding (maybe a reader who’s an actual lawyer could help out here) is that you have to prove that a) your reputation has been damaged (Anybody see people “Leaving Lysa” in droves? I don’t. Her “ministry” is, unfortunately, continuing to grow as far as I can tell.) b) that the allegations are untrue (The allegations I’ve made aren’t untrue. I’ve taken Lysa’s own words and actions – from videos of her speaking, and from texts of her writing – and compared them with Scripture. If she’s able to demonstrate – from Scripture – that what I’ve said is untrue, she won’t have to sue me for anything because I’ll gladly repent and print a retraction. But, judging from the way she generally handles Scripture, she’s not going to be able to do that.) and c) that the writer acted with malice. (I’ve made very clear that my desire is for Lysa – and the others – to repent and teach sound doctrine so I can point women to them as solid resources. How could being for Lysa in this way, and wanting to help her ministry, be construed as malicious?)

3. If Lysa (or any of the others) did try to sue me for libel, she would only be further proving my point about her disobedience to Scripture, because Scripture instructs Christians not to sue each other. That’s not going to do a lot for her credibility in court.

Thanks for playing.

Why haven’t you answered my e-mail/social media message or posted my blog comment?

See: New E-Mail, Messages, and Blog Comments Policy

From the “Welcome” tab: As of March 2017, I will not be responding to (and often, not publishing) blog comments which require more than five minutes of my time to answer. While I love hearing from readers, it is simply taking too much time away from my family to engage in long, in depth, or teaching conversations in the comments section of my articles.

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.