Response to "Regretting Her College Education"

     Today Lori Alexander continued her crusade against higher education for women:

"A woman named Kathryn Beal tweeted this the other day: 'I regret my college education. If you want to be a wife and a mom, you will likely feel aimless like I did. Many people see college as necessary, but it isn't. For aspiring homemakers, the cost may not be worth the benefits.'" 

     One gets the impression, especially due to some of the comments she includes regarding how colleges are godless and full of false teachers, that Lori doesn’t approve of anyone going to college, male or female. But, of course, she is careful not to teach men, so her opinion on this matter must remain a mystery. On the other hand, I do wonder if she sees no problem with men going to college because she thinks somehow they’re more resilient to “bad influences.” But I suppose we'll never know. 

     Lori declares that the purpose of college is to prepare people for a career and paycheck. Sure, those who attend college generally hope that their degree will benefit them in this way. However, there is so much more to be gained by going to college. It’s an opportunity to further our ability to be productive citizens, to learn how to defend our own viewpoints and also hear and benefit from opposing views, to think critically, to make friends and connections, and to grow on a personal level. However, this is a digression so I won’t spend further time on this point. 

     Lori says God never calls women to have careers or make money in His word. This is a common argument from Lori; perhaps we could call it the argument from omission. In other words, if the Bible doesn’t specifically mention it, it must not be allowed! But does Lori apply this principle universally? I’m pretty sure the Bible doesn’t command women to write blogs either. 

"Colleges' purpose is to prepare people for a career and a paycheck. God never calls women to careers or making money in His Word. It also exposes them to godless teaching and feminism which is the opposite of being feminine." 

     Having attended college myself, I can confirm that I was exposed to a lot of godless teaching. In my Operations and Supply Chain Management class, for example, there was not a single mention of God. I’m sure my friends who took math, engineering, or economics classes will agree. 

     And she says feminism is the opposite of being feminine. I suppose “femininity” means simply having inferior social status compared to men?

     She then asks the women in her chatroom for their opinions, and of course they too felt that their college degrees were wasted and that they regretted going. I guess the argument is that since a few women wish they hadn’t gotten degrees, you shouldn’t either!

     She ends with the following verse, which, of course, is referring to marriage, not going to college. This is what is known as twisting the plain meaning of the Bible.

2 Corinthians 6:14:  "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?"

     Women, if you want to go to college, go to college. If you don’t want to go, don’t. There are many factors on which your decision ought to be based, but your gender is not one of them. It would be a sad world indeed if our universities were entirely devoid of the perspectives and talents of women. 

     Because there was no such thing as a modern university when the Bible was written, there is very little (if anything) the Bible says that could be applied to the question of whether women should get a college education. The only passage that comes to mind is the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42. Mary chose to take the opportunity to learn, while Martha fulfilled the role of a woman by keeping the house. Let’s not forget which one of them Jesus praised.  


Link to original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/regretting-her-college-education/

Response to "Let's Stop Exalting Singleness"

     In this post (written jointly by Lori and her husband, Ken), we are told that marriage and producing offspring is God's design for us. Here and there they seem to acknowledge that it may be God's desire that some remain single, or that some are single even though they wish they weren't, but they fall short of positive affirmation of the choice to be single. 

     This is a long post, so I won't be able to address all of it. There are, however, a few points I would like to make. 

     I suspect their motive in writing this post is to protest the declaration that singleness is somehow superior to being married. But in doing so, they revert to the opposite extreme and heavily imply that marriage is superior to being single! Why not a middle ground, in which God has a will for each individual (for some marriage, for others singleness), and that neither is inherently or universally superior to the other? 

     As a side note, in response to Paul's statements about the advantages of remaining single in 1 Corinthians 7, it's particularly ironic that they remind us not to "build a theology based on a few verses." Complementarianism itself is based on only a handful of verses, most of which either have translational ambiguities or are snatched out of their context. But this is a digression, so I won't pursue it further. 

     My major contention with this post has to do with some comments made near the end. Here are the two closing paragraphs: 

"Marriage is God's design and it is GOOD! Singleness isn't His design. Yes, it happens even to those who would love to be married because we live in a fallen and imperfect world. There are very few who don't truly burn, never want to marry, and want to devote their lives to the Lord, so let's stop exalting singleness as many are doing. Far too many are staying single well into their thirties because they simply do not understand how they fit into GOd's plan for creating the family of God. And too many Christian parents are not taking the investments of their children God has given them seriously to deliver to Him someday soon as godly offspring. 

Marriage and bearing children take great sacrifice or maybe a better word is investment. Every moment of the day that we invest in our children and even grandchildren, we are multiplying the talents God has given to us and for this, there is a great reward that can only come from a godly marriage and family. Singleness is for a few, but it is marriage and family that accomplishes the plan of God for eternity." 

They state clearly that singleness is not God's design. I suspect they would deny that they are shaming those who are single (especially voluntarily single), and yet, how else are we to understand this comment? If singleness isn't God's design, this must mean those who are single are living in disobedience to God. Or, at the very least, they must be abandoning their greatest purpose in life and therefore must be failing in life to some extent. 

     The other sentence I would like to point out is the final one: "Singleness is for a few, but it is marriage and family that accomplishes the plan of God for eternity." Again, either this is simply very poorly communicated, or else they are suggesting anyone who is single (intentionally or not) is not accomplishing God's plan for eternity. 

     Fortunately, God judges each of us by His own standards, not by those of Lori and Ken. If He calls any of us to singleness, we certainly don't have to answer to Lori and Ken for it. On a personal level, since I got married I have come to understand Paul's comments about the advantages of singleness so much better. Marriage is a blessing in many ways, but it also necessarily involves less time spent in such things as ministry. I now urge unmarried people not to be in a hurry to get married, and instead to be sure to make the most of their time while single, doing things they may not be able to do once they're married. Singleness is absolutely a gift, and should not be belittled, especially for those God has called to it. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/lets-stop-exalting-singleness/

Response to "How Do Wives Win Husbands With Who Are Believers?"

     The key Bible verse in this post is 1 Peter 3:1-2: “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear." Lori begins with her argument that this verse applies not only to unbelieving husbands, but also to Christian husbands: 

"Are these verses only for women who are married to unbelievers? Many believe this to be so, but I do not. Even Christian men can disobey the Word of God! The Apostle Paul could have easily written, '...that, if any are unbelievers...' since this word is used other places in the Bible."

Before we hastily accept Lori's analysis, let's consider the verse in context. In the previous chapter, verses 7-8 say the following: 

"So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
    has become the cornerstone,”[a]

 and

“A stone of stumbling,
    and a rock of offense.”


They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."

Chapter 3 must be understood in light of what was said before it, and these verses clearly use the phrase "disobey the word" to refer to unbelievers. Additionally, in 2:13-15, Peter instructs all believers to be subject to every human institution and government authority, "that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people." Again, the idea behind this is that Christians should do their best to obey the law and live as responsible citizens so that unbelievers will be unable to find fault with them. In this way, those who rejected the Gospel would be rejecting the Gospel itself, instead of those preaching it, and therefore would be without excuse. So it seems clear that Lori's attempt to apply the original verse to believing husbands fails.

     More disturbing, however, is a point she makes later: 

"If your believing husband is doing something that you know to be sin, of course, you can make a humble and kind plea to him, but then you need to give it to the Lord as you live in subjection to your husband with godly behavior." 

There is disagreement among complementarians on this point. Some say a wife is not obligated to obey her husband if he commands her to sin, while others are uncomfortable with the thought of wives having the right to judge their husbands' commands in order to determine whether they would involve sin. Those in the latter category hold the outrageous opinion that wives ought to obey even if their husbands command them to sin. They suggest the husband ultimately is responsible for her behavior, so God will not find fault with her if she is obedient; His displeasure will be directed entirely to the husband. 

     It's not entirely clear, but it seems from the above quote that Lori holds the latter opinion. Her suggestion that wives "give it to the Lord" and continue to be in subjection to their husbands seems to make this implication. 

     My first question to someone with this viewpoint would be to ask where in the Bible it says wives must obey their husbands even to the point of sinning? Of course, anyone who has read the Bible knows no such command exists. 

     I would also point out that such a command requires wives to consider their husbands to be a higher authority than God (or at least a more primary one). Apparently, husbands receive their instructions directly from God, but wives must go through the mediator of their husbands. Why would this even be necessary unless they believe women are not capable of having the same kind of relationship with God than men can? Does God only speak to men? Where are these ideas to be found in the Bible? 

     Simply put, to place the authority of a husband over the authority of God is nothing less than idolatry. It is to grant to husbands, who are merely human (which Lori admits in her post!), a position that only God should fill: that of ultimate authority. This is no small matter, and yet complementarians either don't understand the problem or refuse to acknowledge it. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/how-do-wives-win-husbands-who-are-believers/

Response to "Few Teach Women to be Keepers at Home"

     Here is Lori Alexander with a reminder that, once again, the world can only be viewed in black and white, either one extreme or the other: 

"Being a wife and mother are not valued in this culture, no, not even among many Christians. They teach their daughters to pursue higher education and careers which often keep them far from God's will for them." 

Apparently, if you don't agree with her that raising children, cooking dinner, and mopping the floor are the only reasons God created women, that must mean you don't value those who do these things. It would be no different if I said not everyone has to be a librarian and then being accused of not valuing librarians! 

     Lori bases her opinion that the Bible forbids wives from having careers and commands them to be homemakers on a single verse: 

Titus 2:3-5:

Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

     This is especially ironic given her warning in another recent blog ("Let's Stop Exalting Singleness") against basing our theology on only a few verses! Apparently it's okay to make an exception if a particular verse appears to affirm our prior opinions? 

     She complains about those who "do all types of gymnastics with words to get around this." In other words, don't think too hard about what you read, and especially don't study. Studying the Bible involves considering things like textual and cultural context as well as translational nuances and difficulties. What happens if we take the easy way out and simply take each isolated verse at face value? We come away from Luke 14:26 thinking that God commands us to hate our families, or from Matthew 19:21 thinking that salvation is not by grace, but by selling everything you have and giving it to the poor! 

     No, we can't simply dismiss objections to the supposedly "plain" meaning of such verses by accusing those who attempt to understand their original intent as simply looking for an excuse to disobey God. I could just as easily present Lori with one of the verses above and accuse her of being in rebellion against God because she doesn't hate her family. Any time someone is hard on you for studying further and attempting to understand something as best as you can, there is good reason to be suspicious. 

     So does this verse command all wives to remain at home? We cannot read the Bible as if it were written directly to us in the 21st century. It was written to real people in a real (different) environment and time period. Learning what we can about the people to whom it was written can only help us understand the intent behind it. 

     In other words, Lori takes this verse as if it were written in a culture in which women having careers is normal. But it wasn't. It was written at a time when no one would have thought of women doing anything other than staying home. Therefore, the obvious question is why did Paul even feel the need to command such a thing? 

     One hint is found by comparing the word used in different Bible translations. While many say "workers at home" or "keepers at home", other say "busy at home." This paints a slightly different picture. Instead of telling women to remain at home, it would appear Paul was telling them to be productive and not idle (which, unlike the idea of women being confined to the home, actually does find much support throughout the Bible). In other words, Paul was already assuming they would be at home, and was simply telling them not to be lazy. 

     Another interesting point is that Paul gives this instruction "so that the word of God will not be dishonored." What does he mean by this? The Gospel has nothing to do with household chores, so obviously Paul isn't saying that somehow God is upset if someone other than the wife is cleaning and cooking. Rather, Paul's concern is that believers do their best to follow the customs of the time and place in which they live, to avoid turning people away from the Gospel for reasons that had nothing to do with the Gospel itself. This theme is found throughout the New Testament. Christianity was a new religion and would have had a harder time growing if people confused it for a movement for social change. 

     One example to support my point above is found just a few verses later in Titus 2:9-10: 

Urge bondslaves to be subject to their own masters in everything, to be well-pleasing, not argumentative, not pilfering, but showing all good faith so that they will adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect.

This presents us with a dilemma: if we take each of these verses at face value and refuse to consider their context, we must conclude that God approves of slavery. If, instead, we admit that this verse commanding slaves to obey their masters exists for the reasons I mentioned above (to distinguish Christianity as being primarily about internal rather than social change, and obeying authorities to the extent possible so that there would be no distraction from the Gospel), how do we justify insisting that just a few verses earlier, the command to be keepers at home must be for all women at all times and in all places? 

     I have no doubt having a parent at home is great for kids (although there's no reason it couldn't be Dad instead of Mom if that works out better in some cases!). But it would be ignorant to pass judgement on every family in which both parents work. Lori can have this opinion if she likes, but she should not so hastily declare the Bible to be on her side when, in fact, the biblical support for such an idea is at best extremely thin. As I mentioned above, Lori would do well to take her own advice and avoid basing an entire doctrine on a single verse. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/few-teach-women-to-be-keepers-at-home/

Response to "A Recipe to Heal an Unhappy and Crumbling Marriage

     This post contains a bizarre parable shared by a reader of The Transformed Wife, about a young woman with an unhappy marriage who seeks advice from a wise old woman. The old woman provides her with a small pot filled with water from an old well, instructing her to keep the water in her mouth whenever she was around her husband, never swallowing any or letting any drip from her mouth. The young woman tried this for two weeks, believing the water had magical properties that would change her husband into a more loving man. Over time she noticed all conflict had disappeared from the home. After two weeks, she returned to the old woman to tell her the amazing results and asked if she could have more. The old woman then revealed the secret: the water had no magical properties at all. Rather, the change had been due to the fact that the wife had kept her mouth closed and never spoken. Since the wife couldn't speak, she hadn't nagged or scolded her husband, but merely focused on serving him and making sure his needs were met. In response, he had softened toward her, and their marriage was suddenly "happy." 

     Couples with truly happy marriages will immediately see the problems with this story. However, even more concerning is Lori's summary at the end of the blog. I honestly expected her to say something like "obviously the parable is oversimplified to make a point; it's not as if wives truly should never speak." However, nothing of the sort appears in her concluding remarks:  

"No wife has ever won her husband to herself by talking, preaching, scolding, or nagging him. God tells us that wives are to win their husbands by their godly behavior which includes a meek and quiet spirit. I believe having a quiet spirit includes not speaking our minds and not always having to give our opinions, but actually being quiet."

Several things must be said here. First, Lori's claim that God tells wives to win husbands by their godly behavior is a reference to 1 Peter 3:1: "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives..." This verse generally is understood to refer specifically to women with unbelieving husbands. Lori, however, prefers to broaden the application to include believing husbands who are not treating their wives in a loving way. This, of course, is stretching what the Bible actually says to say what she wants it to say. 

     Second, in the first sentence above we are told that "no wife has ever won her husband to herself by talking, preaching, scolding, or nagging him." Talking? Is she suggesting women shouldn't talk? As I mentioned above, she makes no attempt to clarify this comment further. If we are to understand her words according to their plain meaning, this is what we must conclude. 

     Third, isn't it interesting that she only allows for two extremes? Apparently, either the wife doesn't talk at all, or else she must be nagging, preaching, and scolding. Apparently she cannot concieve of a middle ground in which wives and husbands speak to each other both freely and respectfully. 

     At the end, she declares women must have gentle and quiet spirits. Let's consider the verse she is referring to regarding women having quiet spirits:

1 Peter 3:3: " Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God."

In context, this verse is cautioning women about focusing too much on their external appearance and trying to impress people with their looks, and instead to cultivate inner beauty. Also, it is not speaking specifically about marriage, so it certainly has nothing to do with improving one's marriage in the way she suggests. 

     Finally, she says that for a woman to have a quiet spirit means to not speak her mind or give her opinion, but to remain quiet. Here she could have qualified her comments and pointed out that she doesn't literally mean wives shouldn't speak, but again, she does not attempt to make this distinction. Instead, she suggests the secret to a happy marriage is for women not to speak their minds, give their opinions, or even talk. 

     One wonders how Lori thinks a husband and wife can have a truly successful relationship, in which both are able to make a meaningful contribution, if only one is allowed to share their thoughts and opinions? Of course, the actual secret to a happy and successful marriage is the complete opposite: treat each other equally with respect, and COMMUNICATE! A couple who does not communicate can never be close, can never share mutual respect, and can never truly be friends. It is reduced to nothing more than a business transaction. 

     Ultimately, the problem is that Lori doesn't seem to realize a conflict-free marriage is not necessarily a happy marriage. There may be no conflict in a prison camp, a hostage situation, or a physically abusive relationship either, but these are anything but happy environments.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/recipe-to-heal-an-unhappy-and-crumbling-marriage/