Servant of Christ, wife, mom, Mamie, church, women's discipleship blogger/speaker, @awfspodcast. Stmt of faith: https://xitter.cf/t.co/zcpLlqU8hR I don't donate $ on X.

Baton Rouge, LA
Joined June 2015
Pastors & women's ministry leaders- Need someone to come speak to your ladies' group? Click below for my info. (I'd love to hear from local churches too!) Podcasters- If you need a guest or a fill-in, please keep me in mind :0) michellelesley.com/speaking-…
133
24
6
328
Michelle Lesley retweeted
Replying to @MichelleDLesley
When you deny the Bible's teaching on gender roles in one area, you'll do it in another.
1
6
593
Michelle Lesley retweeted
Replying to @MichelleDLesley
Their "ministry" began with pride (the original kind) and was fed by the fame and compliments that accompany "success". Scripture was an optional tool used to attract a religious crowd, and now it can be discarded or misinterpreted so that their own image is the product.
1
1
8
2,202
Michelle Lesley retweeted
Not for nothin', but Lifeway pulled Jen Hatmaker's materials from their shelves when she started going public with her views on perversion. But up until somewhat recently, they were platforming Rebecca McLaughlin -who personally identifies as "same sex attracted"- in their stable of women's "Bible" study authors/speakers. If I were Jen, I'd be a bit miffed.
1
22
3,002
How it started... How it's going. Most professing "Christian" women who end up at the "hubris" parade start out in the pulpit. That's one of the reasons I warn about them.
4
13
254
47,449
Not for nothin', but Lifeway pulled Jen Hatmaker's materials from their shelves when she started going public with her views on perversion. But up until somewhat recently, they were platforming Rebecca McLaughlin -who personally identifies as "same sex attracted"- in their stable of women's "Bible" study authors/speakers. If I were Jen, I'd be a bit miffed.
1
22
3,002
Michelle Lesley retweeted
The Word of God is not a decoration to be displayed but a weapon to be drawn.
3
19
429
I'm pretty happy with how well the Tigers are doing so far this year. Of course, I know by saying that out loud, I probably jinxed it for the rest of the season.😂
A dominating victory on The Plains
3
547
Tomorrow, thirteen of my favorite people in the world and I will fill these chairs for Sunday lunch. I am unbelievably blessed by my kind and loving Savior.♥️
3
1
111
1,291
Week in Review: Just what is it we’re building our doctrine and practices on these days? Maybe it’s time we took a good hard look at how far we’ve strayed from the purity of Scripture over the last 500 years. Maybe it’s time for another Reformation. michellelesley.com/2026/10/2…
1
374
Week in Review: Today, we're going to take a look at some women in Reformation history and in biblical history who exemplified biblical womanhood by influencing others toward godliness. wp.me/p1qdEF-aCe
335
Michelle Lesley retweeted
If I might offer some respectful feedback: "The title “lord” is not exclusive to Jesus, otherwise it wouldn’t make sense that he’s “Lord of lords” (1 Tim 6:15)" I'm aware that the position of "lord" and terms like "my lord," as a title of respect addressing men, have been used at various times and in various cultures throughout history. I understand that and have zero problem with it. What I said was: "for Christians *in 21st century western culture* who call the Godhead "Lord," it can be awkward and potentially confusing to others." and "It's not fit for *our current culture*." In *our* current culture, the position of "lord" does not exist, and no one in *our* current culture is going around calling men "my lord" and women "my lady". If they did, we'd think they were weird and probably aping medieval Europeans. That's because when people in *our* current culture hear or say "Lord," they're talking about God. That was my point. "The modern “sir” is similar to “lord” in that it’s a respectful title for a man in authority" Yes, in *our* current culture it's a respectful title used by adults to other adults in situations in which lip service "respect" is forced or demanded to someone you do not have the intimate relationship of spiritual oneness with, not in a godly marriage where respect is freely given -by both spouses to one another- out of love, oneness, selflessness, and affection. It would be just as weird for a man in our culture to say "yes ma'am" to his wife as a term of respect as it is for a woman to say "yes sir" to her husband. "Most modern women have no problem saying “yes sir” to their boss at work, but would never say “yes sir” to their husband at home." See above. It has nothing to do with *actual* respect and everything to do with the fact that no woman in our current culture would think to do that because that's not the way things are done in our current culture. There are lots of things other cultures do that we don't think to do because they're not part of our culture. For example, in Asian cultures people bow to one another as a greeting and a sign of respect. Nobody here does that because it's not part of our culture. It would feel and be viewed as weird. But that doesn't mean that a handshake in *our* culture is DISrespectful just because it's different from Japanese culture. In *our* culture, one way of demonstrating respect is with a handshake. I once read that somewhere in the Middle East it's considered a sign of respect and gratitude to one's host to burp loudly after a meal. Here, that's considered rude. But that doesn't *make it* rude in the Middle East. It just means we're two different cultures with two different ways of showing respect and gratitude. "I would argue that a wife should not give more respect to other men than she does to her own husband." And I would argue that a godly wife calling her boss "sir" is not giving him *more* (quantity) respect than her husband, she's giving him *a different kind* (quality) of "respect" than her husband. A lip service kind of respect that's actually *lesser* than the respect she gives her husband because the "respect" for her boss is forced rather than the organic respect she *wants* to give her husband because of her love for, and oneness with him. Frankly, I would say it's not *truly* respect if its forced, and husbands ought to give that some serious thought. "A wife calling her husband “sir” would not only honor him, and show respect for his authority in the home, but would also be an excellent model for their children about how to speak respectfully." And if that's what you and your wife agree on for your home, knock yourselves out. You're free in Christ to do that. You (not you, personally, general "you") are not free to bind the consciences of every Christian to your conscience and practice. And that's what hyper-patriarchalists are trying to do. In my home, it would NOT honor my husband for me to call him lord or sir. As I explained, it would actually be unsubmissive for me to do so because he has told me he doesn't want me to (in obedience to 2 Timothy 2:15). What I'm trying to get across here is that the Bible instructs women to respect, be subject to, and submit to our husbands. It does not give us any specifics about *how* to do that, like "Serve dinner at 5:30 every night," or "Polish his shoes weekly," or "Call him lord or sir". It's very similar to many other instructions the Bible gives us like "Bring your children up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord". How? Every father has to give his children an 8 p.m. bed time? Every father has to implement a Scripture memory program for his children, and, if so, which Scriptures? Every father has to make sure his daughters only wear floor length dresses? The Bible doesn't give us these types of specifics because God, in His wisdom, knew that it would have to be applicable to Christians in *every* culture and country across thousands of years of time. What He told us to do is to "work out our own salvation with fear and trembling," *knowing* we would have to do so within the time, culture, and context in which He sovereignly placed us. God is OK with cultural differences. Why aren't hyper-patriarchalists? This HP demand (I'm not saying you, personally, are making this demand) that all wives call their husbands lord or sir goes against the grain of the way God created us to live in our particular cultures, and goes beyond Scripture in both letter and spirit (Not to mention, as I pointed out, using this passage to demand that one's wife call him lord is clearly taking this passage out of context and mishandling it. Husbands who do so are being disobedient to 2 Timothy 2:15.). There are numerous ways godly wives in our culture can and do show our husbands deep and heartfelt respect without this legalistic demand of hyper-patriarchalists that has been imposed on this text of Scripture. We must obey what God's Word *actually says* rather than man's mishandling of God's Word. Finally, I would just end with a rhetorical "food for thought" question. Hyper-patriarchalists place so much emphasis on men leading (which I heartily agree with), but all I ever see them doing is putting the burden of the marriage relationship on wives. If something is going wrong in the marriage, it's ALWAYS the wife's fault. She's rebellious. She's a feminist. She's not being respectful and submissive enough. She's weak. She's stupid. As far as I can recall, I have NEVER seen these guys admonishing husbands to love their wives. To be self-sacrificial. Not to be harsh with their wives. To act in a way that naturally inspires respect. To be humble. To lead like Jesus led. Hyper-patriarchalists are so focused on whether or not women are doing what they're supposed to do. When are they going to start focusing on whether or not men are doing what they're supposed to do? If they're truly leading biblically, looking in the mirror should be their first order of business. I don't see that happening, and I have no respect for that.
1
1
1
5
498
Week in Review: What does it look like to be a woman of the modern day Reformation? What can we church ladies do to help turn the tide of apostasy in Christendom? Permit me to nail eight theses to the door of your church… wp.me/p1qdEF-aC8
1
3
355
Michelle Lesley retweeted
Do the "Christians" celebrating this have no fear of God? Samuel Sey is A) not an illegal alien and B) a brother in Christ. Praying for Samuel and his dear wife and family. May this be sorted out soon. Beware those who breathe lies and sow discord among brothers (Prov. 6:19).
235
94
64
1,522
337,889
I'm sorry, I must have missed the Bible verse that commands Christian women not to use the internet or have social media accounts. Where does the Bible teach that?
You're a woman online. You most definitely do NOT hold to biblical patriarchy.
1
45
1,024
I don't call my husband "Lord," because he doesn't want me to (so if I did it anyway, that would be unsubmissive and disrespectful). And the reason he doesn't want me to is because he handles and understands 1 Peter 3:1-6 rightly and in context, in obedience to 2 Timothy 2:15.
Replying to @sbc_sdg
Yes, and some of them ask questions, not because they genuinely want to know something, but because they're looking for a "gotcha" moment, which I surmise may be the case here. That's why I asked. Nevertheless, I'm happy to answer. Because of your question, my husband and I just took a look at this passage together. We're both on the same page about it. Here's the essence of what he/we said (He would tell you himself, but he rarely gets on X): I asked him point blank if he wanted me to call him "Lord" and he said no. Here's why: We both handle Scripture correctly and in context (2 Timothy 2:15), which you, SBCSDG, have failed to do in your question. That's one of my major issues with hyper-patriarchalism. It twists and weaponizes Scripture in a variety of ways, but primarily to denigrate and subjugate women. 1 Peter 3:5-6 says: "For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being subject to their own husbands, just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. You have become her children if you do good, not fearing any intimidation." (LSB) "Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord," is DEscriptive, not PREscriptive. In other words, it is not a command to me or any other Christian woman to literally call her husband "lord". It is describing what *Sarah* did. κύριον (kyrios) was an appropriate term of respect for godly women in *Sarah's* time and culture to use for their husbands, but for Christians in 21st century western culture who call the Godhead "Lord," it can be awkward and potentially confusing to others. (For example, after our conversation, my husband left the room. I was looking for him, and I thought he was outside, so I went out there, and just to be funny, I called out, "Lord, are you out here? Lord, where are you?". It not only felt weird to say, but what if my unsaved next door neighbors -who know we're Christians- had heard me seemingly question God's existence/omnipresence?) It's a similar situation to Jesus addressing Mary as "woman" in John 2:4. In Jesus' time and culture, that was a term of respect. In our current culture, addressing one's mother as "woman," would be considered very DISrespectful and dishonoring. Today, an equivalent term of respect for one's mother might be "Yes, ma'am.". It's the same way with "lord" in 1 Peter 3:6. It's not fit for our current culture, but there are other ways godly wives speak respectfully and submissively to their husbands, which I strive to do. But there are a couple of other things we should all take into consideration: 1. The context of *this passage* is not about Christian wives submitting to their Christian husbands (that's Ephesians 5:22-23 and Colossians 3:18). The context here is instruction for Christian wives on the best way to be a gospel influence on their *unsaved* husbands. My husband is a Christian, as I already mentioned. 2. The point God (through Peter) is making here is not that Christian wives of unsaved husbands are to call their husbands "Lord" exactly like Sarah did. The point here is that they're to follow the example of Sarah and all the holy women who came before them by *being subject to their husbands*. All of those women, including Sarah, were subject to their husbands in a variety of ways. So am I. You'll notice it says, "You have become her *children*". Your children share your DNA. They look and sound like you. They imitate you and pick up various aspects of your personality. But they are not clones or exact copies of you. Each successive generation carries your seed, but they live and work out their own salvation in their own culture and context. Just like women who are "Sarah's children" today. 3. This one is just an interesting tidbit my husband brought up. There was a time span of roughly 2000 years between Abraham/Sarah and the writing of 1 Peter, the same, roughly, as the time span between 1 Peter and today. Considering how much language and culture have changed in the last 2000 years, it is reasonable to deduce that language and culture also changed quite a bit during that earlier 2000 year time span. Most likely, the women in Peter's time and culture weren't calling their husbands "Lord" any more (not because they were rebellious or feminist, as I'm sure most hyper-patriarchalists would assume), and Peter wasn't instructing them to. He was giving them an *example* of ONE way Sarah had demonstrated respect for her husband. So to sum up, no I don't call my husband "Lord" because he doesn't want me to. So if I were to call him "Lord," I would be disrespecting him, not being subject to him, and failing to submit to him. He doesn't want me to call him "Lord" because we both understand and handle this passage rightly and in context. But I am subject to him and I do speak respectfully and submissively to him. I hope this answers your question.
2
1
25
1,175
More contempt and hatred for women from a hyper-patriarchalist. Men who know Christ do not speak this way about fellow image bearers who are their sisters in Christ. If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for the one who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. 1 John 4:20
7
1
1
52
2,440
There is something so deeply wrong with men who profess Christ and speak of women in these ways. If they actually know the Lord, they do not live as though He is their Lord.
"The period theologians" Do y'all need any more evidence of the hyper-patriarchy camp's ungodly contempt for women image-bearers?
1
23
1,727
If you follow The Holy Nope on X but not on Facebook, you might want to be aware of the following. (TLDR: He's in the Webbon hyper-patriarchy camp and has attacked/slandered Tom Buck). You're obviously free to follow your biblically informed conscience, but I found this vitriol extremely disappointing from what I thought was a trustworthy ministry, and I no longer follow him. 1. facebook.com/TheHolyNope/pos… 2. facebook.com/TheHolyNope/pos… 3. facebook.com/TheHolyNope/pos…
46
2
9
85
19,241
Replying to @Amomlogetics
"You're obviously free to follow your biblically informed conscience." Says it right there in the post. *My* biblically informed conscience won't allow me to follow someone in that theological camp any more than I would follow someone in, say, the prosperity gospel camp. I simply shared that personal decision of mine. The purpose of my post was not to say everyone has to unfollow THN, but to shed light on and provide info about this incident that happened on Facebook so that X followers who aren't aware can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to continue following THN.
251