Response to "Mythbusting Complementarianism: 4 Truths Egalitarians Need to Know about Complementarian Women" by Michelle Lesley

     Lori is taking a break from social media while her husband recovers from his illness, but that doesn’t mean I don’t still have the urge to write! Instead of responding to Lori, today I will be writing about an article by Michelle Lesley titled “Mythbusting Complementarianism: 4 Truths Egalitarians Need to Know about Complementarian Women.” I’ve never heard of Michelle, but her article is filled with so many poor arguments, intentionally misleading analogies, and complete nonsense that it must be answered!

     She begins by declaring her reason for writing the article: 

“I am frustrated by egalitarians – most of the ones who have crossed my path, anyway – because of the incorrect assumptions they make about me and other complementarian women.

And it’s not just that the assumptions are wrong, it’s that the assumptions are often hypocritically, “log in the eye,” wrong.” 

Well, this ought to be good! I can’t wait to hear about all the reasons a belief system that treats women as children and men as gods is merely being “misunderstood” by those who oppose it. Or how those who view and treat women as full human beings with equal value to men are somehow being hypocrites. 

     Michelle’s first point may be the most offensive in the entire article: 

“It’s a spiritual issue.

The reason you hold the positions and opinions you hold as an individual is based on one thing – your relationship with God. This is a me versus God issue. Do you love and obey God as a genuinely regenerated Christian, or do you reject Him and rebel against His commands as someone who is still lost?”

Right from the start, she has already engaged in bullying rather than answering anyone’s actual objections. If you disagree with her, you’re disagreeing with God and being disobedient (a classic method of attempting to be authoritative when you don’t actually have anything good to say). She continues: 

“The Bible makes crystal clear from Genesis to Revelation that people who genuinely know and love God obey Him, and that if you don’t obey Him, you don’t know Him or love Him. 

Additionally, if you’re not saved – a “natural man” – the things of God are folly to you. It’s not that you’re smarter or enlightened or have a different opinion than those who obey Scripture. It’s that you’re spiritually incapable of accepting, embracing, and obeying what God has told you to do. That’s why you see those of us who do as fools.

Let me say it plainly. If your general trajectory in life is to consistently find yourself angered by, indifferent to, or unable to accept the plain meaning of Scripture, and your heart persists in fighting back against God’s Word even if you’ve been biblically corrected, you are almost certainly not saved.³ That’s not me saying that. That’s a whole lot of Scripture saying that.” 

This is not an argument. This is emotional manipulation. She is attempting to stir up fear so that people will stop thinking and simply obey her (not God!). 

“This is the fundamental reason most egalitarians disagree with most complementarians. It’s usually not that either side doesn’t understand what the other side stands for. It’s that both sides generally do understand what the other side stands for and they reject the other side’s view because of where they are, spiritually.”

In other words, she dismisses any argument in favor of egalitarianism by simply labeling anyone who disagrees with her as being in the wrong place spiritually. She clarifies later that she doesn’t mean being an egalitarian causes you to be unsaved; rather, she simply means that if you’re truly saved, you will be growing all the time, and so won’t stay in the “rebellion” of the egalitarian mindset. She goes so far as to say “most people who are already false converts gravitate toward the egalitarian viewpoint as a fruit of the pre-existing condition of being unsaved.” Besides the fact that we still have heard no argument against egalitarianism or in favor of complementarianism, I would like to ask her who made her God and gave her the right to judge the salvation of others!

     She goes on to say: 

“As I’ve stated many, many times in my articles, the Bible is our authority as Christians, not a pastor or Christian leader who holds a particular position, not your loved ones who are in error but you’re certain they love Jesus, not any church or denominational structure or position that conflicts with Scripture – the Bible. If you are going to argue against a biblical principle, you need to support your argument with rightly handled, in context Scripture, not examples of fallible human beings – however godly or well-intentioned they might be. Scripture is our standard, not people.”

I agree with the above paragraph. I just wish she would read it to herself! The complementarian position is not biblical at all; the entire support for it is based on a few isolated verses that are taken out of context and have a lot of translational ambiguities. So I would repeat right back to Michelle: If you’re going to argue against the biblical principle of the complete equality of all believers (regardless of gender), you need to support your argument with rightly handled, in context Scripture!

     In the next section, she assures us that complementarian women don’t feel oppressed and are not in need of rescuing: 

“Obviously I can’t speak for every complementarian woman out there, but I can say that of the dozens of women I know personally and the thousands who have followed me online for the last eleven years, and speaking for myself, I have never met a single, genuinely regenerated, complementarian woman who felt diminished, held back, chained up, or walked all over by the role God lays out for us in Scripture.

We don’t need your pity, egalitarians, any more than a kid in a candy store needs to be pitied. And we don’t need to be rescued, just like you wouldn’t think of trying to rescue a child from Disneyland.”

That’s certainly the first time I’ve heard someone compare a belief system that subjugates an entire class of people to another for no apparent reason to a candy store or Disneyland. I find it ironic that both of her analogies involve children, since complementarianism ultimately views women as children in need of adults (men) to govern them and make decisions for them “for their own good.” 

     Of course, it’s not hard to find stories of miserable and dysfunctional complementarian marriages. Either Michelle has purposely avoided them, or she is being dishonest. But it’s very telling that she leaves herself an escape route: she specifies that never met a “genuinely regenerated” complementarian woman who felt diminished etc.! In this way, she can simply dismiss any who claim to be complementarian but are unhappy as not being real complementarians. In this way, she judges anyone who is not happy to be oppressed as not being a true Christian. 

“If egalitarians can’t see how arrogant, hypocritical, and sexist it is to stand on a pedestal and declare that they’re the ones who will empower women, ensure that women are heard and valued for their independent ideas and unique contributions, and then turn around and condescendingly assume that women who have used those very independent minds they themselves tout to reach a non-egalitarian conclusion are brainwashed, I’m at a loss as to how to explain it. “

I love how throws in the word “sexist” just because she’s tired of hearing it used to describe complementarians, even though it has nothing to do with what she just said. I don’t think it’s arrogant for egalitarians to say that they’re empowering women (because that's exactly what they're doing!). Regarding the charge that this is hypocritical: no, not quite. Not all ideas are equal or equally valid. This would be like saying all viewpoints are accepted, including the belief that not all viewpoints are accepted! If the goal of egalitarians is to empower women, this necessitates having no tolerance for those who would attempt to prevent the empowerment of women. In fact, it would be hypocritical to tolerate this, which is exactly the opposite of what Michelle is saying! 

     Besides, egalitarians are not saying no one is allowed to live their lives any way they want. If a couple decides that the brunette will make all decisions for the blond, or that one gets to make decisions during the week and the other during weekends, no one is stopping them. Egalitarians are simply fighting so that such ideas are not pushed on others along with the lie that God has commanded such a thing. 

     Her next point shows to what lengths complementarians will go to try to glamorize their position: 

“Complementarian women aren’t limited or lesser, we’re specialists.

Oh, that poor cardiologist! He’s so limited in his profession. If only he could be a General Practitioner!

I just feel terrible for that guy – he only practices civil law! He doesn’t know what he’s missing by not also practicing criminal, personal injury, estate, real estate, corporate, family, and malpractice law!

In the professional world, we normally regard specialty positions as more prestigious than more generalized positions.

But somehow, for egalitarians, that concept doesn’t translate to complementarianism. In the complementarian church, male pastors, elders, and teachers are the general practitioners. Women are the specialists. We specialize in discipling women and children, because we have a unique, God-given skill set for ministering to that unique segment of the population. God has given us the luxury and freedom to concentrate on this population He has called us to serve without the added burden of also having to teach, disciple, and oversee men.”

Unbelievable. Men are told they are qualified to do any task they like simply because they’re men, and women, simply because they’re women, are relegated to a single type of task, and yet this is portrayed as a “luxury and freedom” without the “burden” of having to oversee men. She might as well say the slaves in the 18th century had the “luxury and freedom” of not governing themselves and providing food, shelter, etc. Anything can be glamorized if you’re dishonest and manipulative enough (and if you truly believe the people listening to you are idiots who will be easily fooled).

     Also, notice how terrible the analogies of complementarianism are. Women are told that they are unfit to teach men. Sometimes no reason is given for this, other times it’s suggested that women are more easily deceived and so should not be teaching men. One wonders why it makes sense for those who are more easily deceived to be teaching others who are also more easily deceived, rather than the men who would supposedly be able to see through any false teaching. But anyway, in order to try to butter it up, she compares this to “specialization.” Once again, this is like saying the slaves in the 19th century “specialized” in picking cotton. This is not to say that teaching women, keeping the home, raising children, or other tasks to which complementarians regulate women are similar to slavery. The problem is not the tasks themselves, but the disingenuous portrayal of restricting women to only these roles based on nothing but who they are. 

     Michelle closes with the following points:

“The egalitarian worldview looks down on women who specialize in discipling women and children in the church and being the chief operating officer in the home. Our teaching only has value if there are men in the audience, which reeks of sexism. As if men are the standard, the high bar to be set, the only ones whose mere bodily presence can validate a woman’s teaching and suddenly make it worthwhile. Who cares about teaching women and children?”

This is a common misleading tactic among complementarians. If the egalitarian says it’s not necessary for all women to be homemakers, for example, the complementarian tries to twist these words to mean that there’s something wrong with being a homemaker. But clearly the egalitarian said nothing of the sort. It’s very telling that the complementarian must always rely on trickery such as this and is entirely incapable of addressing what the egalitarian plainly said. 

     This tactic is used here to claim that egalitarians are suggesting that the teaching of women has no value unless men are present. She even has the audacity to claim egalitarians are sexist! Of course, the egalitarian doesn’t care if men are actually present; they are simply pointing out that the complementarian devalues women by claiming there is something in their very nature that automatically disqualifies them from teaching men. But Michelle has desperately avoided answering such an objection. 

“The egalitarian view does not value women as women. It only values women who are cheap knock-offs of men. Complementarians are the ones who value women as a separate, and equally significant, unique creation of God – not measured by how well we can imitate a man, but measured by how well we live up to all God created us to be as women. And we’re supposed to feel oppressed, limited, and lesser by that?”

It’s hard to know how to seriously respond to such ignorance. Complementarians, who worship men as being more godlike simply because they’re male and imply women are lesser image-bearers of God; who tell women their very purpose is to bear children for men, serve men, keep the home for men, and obey men; who tell women that because Eve was deceived first, all subsequent women are naive and lacking in judgment and must be ruled by men - now want to claim it is THEY who value women as being equally significant creations of God? And they want to accuse egalitarians, who simply say God does not discriminate based on arbitrary factors such as social status, race, or GENDER, somehow don’t value women? It’s hard to imagine how anyone could not see through such blatant lies. And yet, sadly, some don’t. 

     But I also have a problem with this (also common) claim that egalitarians are pushing women to “imitate men.” We do no such thing, because there simply are not activities that are “manly” activities in the first place. The complementarian’s point is circular: they designate certain positions or activities to be for men only, and then suggest a women doing these activities is acting like a man because she is doing the activities they have already defined as being for men. But I could just as easily say that eating peanut butter on Wednesdays is a feminine activity, so anytime a man does so, he is “acting like a woman!” Women who preach, have careers, or make decisions are not acting like men; they are acting like the full human beings only egalitarians acknowledge they are! 

     Finally, there is the following abominable statement: 

“We’d have to be brainwashed to love a worldview that values us for what we are, not for clawing and scraping toward some impossible standard and state of being God never created us to reach?

When you set men up as the standard and tell women they have to measure up to men to have any value, what you are is not egalitarian. What you are is sexist.”

Again, we must marvel at the irony of a complementarian lecturing anyone on sexism. Do they even know that sexism literally means to discriminate based on gender, the very thing complementarianism is based on? 

     But perhaps the worst part of the passage above is the fact that she says women will be “clawing and scraping toward some impossible standard.” Yes, she is referring to what she believes is “acting like men.” In other words, women can’t do “the things men do”, such as become leaders, understand and teach the Bible, make good decisions, or take care of themselves. Yes, Michelle is explicitly telling us she believes women are simply inferior to men. 

     Sorry Michelle. You haven’t even come close to defending the complementarian view, but you have given us more reason to be horrified by it. You have proven you haven’t even taken the time to understand the view you’re criticizing. But this is no surprise to us, since you must know, deep down, that your position is indefensible. No, we can’t say for sure that you’ve been brainwashed into believing it; it’s entirely possible that you have done so by your own free will and intellect. But this would only mean that you have chosen to align yourself with egotistical, controlling men in order to join in the fun of oppressing and looking down on any women who disagree with you. I sincerely hope you will one day care more about what God actually says about the equality of men and women, rather than your pet traditions that are based not on the Bible but on the secular social structures of the ancient world! 


Link to the original article: https://michellelesley.com/2019/05/31/mythbusting-complementarianism-4-truths-egalitarians-need-to-know-about-complementarian-women/

Response to "Men Need Women. Women Need Men."

“Last year, I watched a documentary of two couples who had to live like people did in the 1800s for a year. It was a great show! (I did a blog post about it but I forgot the name of it.) One of the women was a feminist and at one point was so frustrated that she couldn’t do the hard work of tilling the land and all of the work the men had to do but instead had to do the work of cleaning and cooking. She had a difficult time accepting the fact that God gave men and women different jobs to do!”

No, God did not give men and women different jobs to do. Lori cannot produce a single Bible verse to support this opinion of hers, so she needs to stop using God’s name in this way. 

And let’s be honest about the fact that in many cases, men and women today likely would find the level of work required to work the land and care for the home in the 1800s to be overwhelming. This is simply because technology has made us so much more comfortable. This is not only true of women. 

She then adds this weird paragraph written by some guy named John Rice: 

“Man needs the help of a good woman. A home is not a home without a woman…but any woman who runs a business of her own, who meets the world on its own terms, often feels her frailty, often feels the need for stronger hands and shoulders and a bolder brain than her own…In the pioneer home, there was need for strong arms and hands to fell the trees and clear the land and till it. There was needed boldness for protecting the home against the Indians and courage to supply the larder with the wild meat. But in the cottage there was a need for daintier fingers to rock the cradle, to do the sewing and the cooking. And there was need for a tenderer heart, for a woman’s genius and a woman’s devotion and a woman’s loyalty.” 

No one disputes that the average man is larger and stronger than the average woman, but this certainly does not justify the use of the word “frailty” (has this guy ever seen a woman give birth?!?!). By the way, the fact that Lori and those with similar views feel the need to characterize the opposing position as suggesting this shows that their own position lacks much substance. But “a bolder brain?!” Despite what many insecure men (many of whom are big fans of Lori’s blog) want to believe, there is no difference between the intellectual and mental capabilities of men and women. Believe me, a woman taking care of several small children every day requires a FAR bolder brain than a man sitting in a comfortable office all day! 

But there’s something else to notice about the examples in the paragraph above. Fell the trees, clear and till the land, protect against Indians, hunting wild animals...these were necessities for every family in the 1800s! But obviously today it is quite possible to live a successful and comfortable life without doing such things. Why is Lori trying to pretend we still live in colonial times? Why should we adhere to social structures that were made necessary only by a lack of technology, when that necessity is entirely gone? This would be like digging a hole in the ground to go to the bathroom because in the old days they didn’t have flushing toilets! 

Next, she asks the unbiased and diverse women in the chat room what things they need their husbands to do because they are unable. Let’s consider some of the answers: 

“Open Jars.” I know plenty of women who can open tough jars. But even if they can’t, there are rubber tools for such things. 

“Carry heavy things.” Many of the women I know are capable of carrying far heavier things than insecure men would like to admit. 

“Fix things.” Why can’t women fix things? I know a lot of women who are handy. 

“Clean the gutters.” Women can't climb ladders? 

“Move stuff up and down from the attic.” Women can’t climb stairs?

“Make big financial decisions.” Lori would lose her mind if she found out women are on average better investors than men! (see https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannivet/2018/12/29/why-women-are-better-at-investing/#3d8aa3696f37)

“Electrical, plumbing, mechanical jobs.” There’s nothing about these types of tasks that women are generally unable to do. 

“Deal with snakes and mice.” Though this is merely anecdotal, many of the women I know like snakes and mice and are not afraid of them at all (despite the stereotype). Certainly this is something women are just as capable of as men. What is it about men that would make them better at setting mousetraps? 

The title of the blog seems to imply mutual dependence, but is it just me, or is this entire blog a portrayal of women being helpless without men? Unfortunately for Lori’s case, no convincing evidence was presented. Marriage is about so much more than having someone around to carry large items and open jars. It’s not for the sake of completing two incomplete people (a harmful, codependent idea).The beauty of marriage is that two people who are complete on their own and don’t have an inherent need for the other nevertheless choose to join their lives together and make something great. 

And it certainly does not help anyone for women to pretend to be helpless in order to stroke the egos of insecure men.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/men-need-women-women-need-men/

Response to "Heterosexuality is the Foundation of Patriarchy?"

Lori opens this blog with one of her wild claims with no link or reference to prove she didn’t make it up: 

“There’s an article written by a lesbian that states that heterosexuality is the foundation of patriarchy and has kept women subordinate for centuries. Women need to be freed from this bondage and be lesbians!”

Honestly, it’s not impossible that someone somewhere said this. But this is the tactic that exposes the weak positions of people such as Lori: in order to argue against feminism, they must choose the most extreme, fringe representatives of it! This is no different from using the members of Westboro Baptist Church to represent all Christians. 

“God created men to be the leaders in the churches and head over their wives. This is His created order and feminism rebels against this. Feminism teaches women to hate men and that they don’t need men. They only know how to tell lies as their father, the devil, does.”

No, God did not create men to be leaders of anything simply because they’re men. This entire idea is based on a reading of the word “head” in the Bible when referring to husbands as if it were written in English. In our language, “head” is used symbolically to mean “leader” or “boss,” but in Greek it meant something more like “source.” Likely Paul was referring to the fact that in the Genesis creation story, Eve was made from Adam’s rib. There is nothing remotely relating to authority in the portions of the Bible that refer to the husband as the “head” of his wife. 

“Heterosexuality is NOT the foundation of patriarchy. God is, and His ways are good.” 

No. God did not establish patriarchy. In fact, it was God who called patriarchy a curse! Genesis 3:16: “To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." Lori must completely ignore this point in order to maintain her opinion. 

“This doesn’t put women in “subordinate” positions, as feminists would have you believe. It’s God best for you, women!”

“Women being quiet in the churches, as God commands, doesn’t put women in subordinate positions either. God created man first and he is the one God ordained to be in authority positions in the churches and in the homes. It doesn’t mean women are less than, just as an employee is not less than the employer; it’s for order since God is a God of order.”

The passage above is packed with typical complementarian fallacies. First, when women are told to be quiet in the churches (in 1 Tim. 2:12 and 1 Cor. 14:34), this did not mean a total silence, as is evident from the fact that Paul earlier refers to women praying and prophesying in the churches (1 Cor. 11:4-5), as well as the fact that the word used for “quiet” is also used to instruct all Christians in the way they ought to live generally (1 Timothy 2:1-2). 

Second, as I’ve said before, the fact that God created man first in the creation story doesn’t even come close to implying authority for men. If it did, animals would be in authority over man, since they were created before him!

Third, what exactly does the word “subordination” even mean to Lori? How can she simultaneously assert that men are in authority over every aspect of their wives’ lives, and yet women are not “subordinate?” I might as well place a homeless person next to Warren Buffett and claim one isn’t richer than the other.   

The final myth in this paragraph is the comparison to an employer/employee relationship. This is a favorite analogy for complementarians, meant to suggest that those who object to an authority hierarchy in marriage have a problem with all authority generally. But there is no similarity between these two scenarios. An employer is in such a position because of her qualifications and because she earned the position. In a complementarian marriage, there is no consideration of qualification and no need to earn the position. Men simply are in charge because they’re men. An employer has temporary and limited authority over her employees; it only pertains to the scope and duration of the tasks on the job. In a complementarian marriage, the authority is comprehensive over a woman’s entire life, and it never ends. In theory, anyone has the opportunity to become an employer; no one is barred based on who they are. But according to complementarianism, women are barred from certain positions simply because of who they are. 

Lori is desperate to convince us that God established patriarchy, and that it’s for the good of women. But the Bible simply does not support this view. If women are not immature children in need of governing (and I would argue that they’re not!), then the men who attempt to control them “for their own good” are not doing them any favors. It’s time women who have jumped on this bandwagon admit this, or at least trying to convince the rest of us who actually have happy marriages built on equality.  Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/heterosexuality-is-the-foundation-of-patriarchy/

Response to "Marrying a Virgin is No Big Deal?"

     Today Lori once again reminds us that she "can't imagine" why her most viral blog stirred up so much protest: 

“You would think from the reaction (even from Christians) from my viral post, Men Prefer Debt Free Virgins Without Tattoos, that marrying a virgin or not is no big deal. After all, there are few virgins, anyway, so what does it matter? Once one is forgiven, it’s all washed clean, right?”

I addressed this at length in my response to the original blog. The primary objection made to the blog had nothing to do with whether it’s better to be a virgin until marriage. It is likely that most of those who had a problem with the blog did not disagree with this point. But the blog said much more than this, and Lori is simply pretending not to know that. It’s as if I wrote a blog saying only white, Christian, hard-working men should be allowed to vote, and when people criticized my blog, accusing them of having a problem with hard-working men! 

We need to begin teaching the young people to wait for marriage. Their virginity belongs to their future spouse alone. It’s not something to give away freely. 

     This statement is troubling to me. The implication is that you belong to another human being (a problematic idea on its own), but beyond this, that you belong to them even before you marry them or even know them! No, your virginity does not belong to someone else. When you get married, in a way you are offering all of yourself to someone else; but it's a gift, and not given because you owe it to them somehow; and they are, at the same time, offering all of themselves to you. If you are not a virgin when you get married, then this is not something you are offering them. And if they've chosen to marry you, they've accepted that. They don't have it because it never belonged to them, and you never gave it to them. 

“Most who give it away freely, struggle in marriage with sex.” 

Once again, Lori presents one of her unfounded opinions as fact. There are also many people who were virgins until their wedding night and still struggle with sex too, but obviously Lori would not accept this as an argument in favor of having sex before marriage. This is nothing but a scare tactic to coerce people into following her every word.

The remainder of the blog contains a comment from one of her male readers: 

“I forgave my wife for her pattern of fornication that she claimed was prior to her salvation. She cried and begged for my forgiveness. I forgave her and, thanks to nonsense I had heard preached in church, I foolishly assumed that was all behind us.

“On our honeymoon, her intimacy issues reared their ugly head. One week in, I felt tricked and trapped by my faith. Her ‘intimacy anorexia’ has made my life excruciating. She apparently was not repentant in the least; she just knew that she needed to appear that way to get me to marry her. She is currently bankrupting me in divorce court and has kept me from my sons for most of two and a half years of their lives so far.

“I made my sons swear to me that they will only marry a virgin, and that they themselves should keep themselves virgins to deserve one. Of all the stupid things I’ve done in my life, marrying a non-virgin has cost me ten times more than all the other mistakes combined. Learn from the ruin of my home.”

Lori’s persuasion method of choice seems to be presenting a single weird anecdote that literally proves nothing but has a profound emotional impact on the fearful. It is meant to produce not thought but panic. If I argued in the same way, I could just as easily find a happily married couple, both of whom were not virgins when they got married, and then declare confidently that everyone should sleep around before getting married because "clearly" that results in a stronger and better marriage!

     Further, the man seems to believe the entire reason things went wrong in his marriage was the fact that she wasn’t a virgin. How does he know this? It’s easy to find cases in which the opposite occurred (someone who was a virgin prior to marriage is unfaithful, or someone who was not IS faithful). Unfaithfulness in marriage could just as easily be attributed to numerous other factors. It certainly is not true that those who have only ever been with their own spouse are guaranteed to remain faithful. (To be clear, in no way am I suggesting "sleeping around" is a good thing. My point simply is that a person cannot and should not ever be judged entirely on the basis of their past in that regard. There are plenty of good people with such a past, and plenty of people with a "pure" past who nevertheless would make terrible spouses). 

  I would never suggest that someone for whom lack of virginity is an issue marry someone who is not a virgin, any more than I would suggest someone who insists on having a blonde spouse marry a brunette. Everyone is entitled to their own preferences, legitimate or not. However, those who feel this way cannot accuse who do choose to marry a non-virgin of doing something wrong (or predict that their marriage will fall apart on that basis alone). And they also cannot pretend they are not applying ignorant labels to people; if you characterize all non-virgins as automatically not spouse material, this has no impact on who they are or what they have to offer; it does, however, say something about you. 




Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/strong-single-women-advice/

Response to "Strong Single Women Advice?"

 “Strong Single Women: If people tell you that guys are intimidated by you, don’t mind them. Cuz, you are not going to marry that kind of man, else you will crush him and emasculate him. The man you will marry won’t be intimidated by you, but love your strength, because he will also be strong and secure in himself and God.”

     Lori begins her latest blog with this text from a meme she found. She proceeds to share the reason she believes it's bad advice (through responses from women in her chat room). 

Heather replied, “A woman who ‘crushes and emasculates’ any man for any reason is not a strong woman."

     One comment demonstrates the extreme nature of the complementarian position. They assume that there is either total subservience, or dominating and crushing; no middle ground. Also, they assume that either the husband will dominate the wife, or else the wife will dominate the husband; there is no concept of a relationship in which both are strong and yet neither "crushes" the other. 

     Why, we must ask, must being a "strong woman" imply crushing or emasculating? I would certainly describe my wife as strong, but this is a positive description. I can't help but feel that secure men will be more attracted to strength rather than weakness. 

     Another comment says this: 

Meredith wrote, “Exactly. If a ‘strong’ woman is crushing and emasculating her husband, she is not strong but rather rebellious."

Lori seems to be saying that the kind of woman who intimidates a man (or at least thinks she does) is a bad, rebellious woman. But, in my opinion, if a woman were intimidating to a man, it says more about the nature of the man than about the woman. The truth is that there are men who do not feel masculine unless they have subordinates; to have an equal partner is unacceptable to them. This is a weak and childish sort of man, and certainly not Christ-like at all. A strong, Christ-like man considers others more important than himself (Philippians 2:3) and never tries to be greater or in authority over others (Matthew 20:25-28). But there certainly are men who insist that their wives not "compete" with them, but support them, with no concept of supporting their wives in return. It's all about them, and their wives are their assistants (for evidence of this, we need look no further than the Facebook comment section on this particular blog!). 

     Real strength does not depend on its position relative to others in order to feel strong. A man worth marrying will never try to dominate his wife or insist that she fade to the background in order to help him feel like the center of everything. And a marriage in which each partner treats the other as an equal and with respect will be much healthier than whatever Lori has in mind. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/strong-single-women-advice/

Response to "How Wives Try to Control Their Husbands"

     Lori begins today's blog with the following: 

“In Genesis 3:16, we are told the consequences of sin that women would experience due to sin entering the world. One thing that would happen to them is that “…thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” There is great disagreement what this actually means. Even the commentaries of old disagree about the interpretation. I believe it means that the woman’s desire will be to control her husband just as in Genesis 4:7, we are told “sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Sin’s desire is to control us.”

I’m glad Lori at least admits that there is disagreement over the exact meaning of this verse. However, she offers no support for her own opinion here. In my opinion, a more compelling theory is that this verse is referring to women desiring their husbands in a way they ought only to desire God. In other words, placing their husbands on a pedestal and almost turning them into idols. You know, the way Lori teaches women to do. Either way, the idea that womens’ desire to control husbands just doesn’t hold water. If we look throughout history, which gender is it that has a much more obvious history of being obsessed with controlling the other? 

     Also, Lori doesn’t seem to notice this verse implies that men ruling over women is part of the curse. Despite this, she continues to portray the rule of men as a blessing for women! 

“From what I have observed throughout the years and in my own life, most wives want to control their husbands. This is why they nag and quarrel with them. They want their own way and they want their husbands to agree with them.” 

I cringe every time I see someone say “most.” If a specific amount or percentage were available, they would have provided it. This is a good indicator that the person has merely made a generalization based on their own experience, or perhaps even pulled the assertion out of thin air. It would be different if the “most” were followed by a citation of some sort, but I’m certainly not holding my breath waiting for such a thing from Lori. 

     Anyway, I can think of other reasons why there would be quarreling in a marriage...like, maybe, husbands trying to control their wives? 

I asked the women in the chat room how wives try to control their husbands and I received many great responses. 

Many of these responses made good points, at least when taken at face value. For example, they condemn emotional manipulation, giving the cold shoulder, looking at the worst in people instead of the best, always trying to get your own way, using the silent treatment, etc. The problem, of course, is the underlying one-sidedness of these statements. If men were to do any of these things, likely the first response would be to question what the woman did to drive them to it! 

     One comment mentioned the following: 

“Belittling him and making him feel incapable of making his own decisions. Guilt-tripping him into things. Pulling Bible verses out of context to show him how he’s wrong (possibly in context but with a bitter attitude).”

Needless to say, there is great irony with a complaint from a complementarian that wives are supposedly making husbands feel incapable of their own decisions, when the entire system is based on the premise that WOMEN should not be permitted to make their own decisions because of their supposed universal incapability! 

     Another comment mentions not “letting him make the final decision” as another way women try to control their husbands. This is one of the most frequently seen examples of an idea that is presented as if it were biblical, but does not, in fact, ever appear in the Bible. It’s not even hinted at. And yet, it is frequently asserted that husbands have the right to “make the final decision”, on account of their maleness, I guess. Either men are inherently better decision-makers, in which case complementarians believe women to be inferior in some way (and should admit it, or else they don’t believe there’s a difference and the distinction is completely arbitrary. They can’t have it both ways. 

Response to "Mothers who are Blaspheming the Word of God"

     This post was not written by Lori herself, but it clearly represents her opinions about women being homemakers. Lori begins by asking why ALL pastors don’t teach what follows. I’d like to answer that question for her. 

"The Bible says that when a woman refuses to be a keeper at home she causes the Word of God to be blasphemed. This means that she creates conditions that discredit the Word of God. It gives people reason to rail against God. Instead of glorifying God, the Word of God ends up getting blasphemed."

     I was actually excited when I first saw this blog. My primary reason for writing this blog is to counter Lori’s arguments by showing that the Bible does not, in fact, support her opinions. Responding to her points generally is fine, but I really craved the opportunity to show the ways in which she misuses the Bible in her arguments. However, since I started writing it, it’s been fairly rare that she actually made an argument from the Bible! She finally does so here. 

     Lori warns in another recent blog (“Let’s Stop Exalting Singleness”) not to base our theology on only a few verses. Does she realize that there are only two verses that instruct women to be keepers at home? One is Titus 2:4-5, and the other is 1 Timothy 5:14 (the latter of which is directed only to young widows). When is Lori going to take her advice and reevaluate her position? 

"God established that women be keepers at home, "that the word of God may not be blasphemed," (Titus 2:5). With something so important at stake it is no wonder that home making is so viciously attacked, so casually undervalued and so easily dismissed. And it is no wonder that a biblically illiterate and historically ignorant Christian populace does not even know what the Bible says about motherhood, women's roles and the creation order."

     Let’s take a look at each of her claims and see if they have the biblical support she thinks they do. Complementarians defend the “plain meaning” approach to the Bible whenever it suits them. In other words, whatever meaning first pops into our minds when we read a single verse, in a modern English translation, without any regard for textual or cultural context, must be the correct meaning, and anyone who disagrees is in rebellion against God! But, of course, this is to treat the Bible carelessly; it is a way to get the Bible to say what we want it to say (and claim divine support for our own opinions); it the easy way out rather than taking the time to study and try to truly understand its meaning. It’s ironic that she accuses those who put time into studying the text and history of being biblically illiterate, but those who read one verse and shut the Bible and say “done!” somehow are not!

     First, there is the obvious fact that within the Greco-Roman culture of the time, women being keepers at home was the norm. We cannot read Paul’s words as if he is writing to a culture like ours in which it’s common for women to work outside the home. If this is already what women were doing, why was he telling them this? 

     The reason actually comes up multiple times in the New Testament. Under the new covenant, there was greater and equal freedom for all believers. No longer were there special privileges for free, Jewish males that were denied to all others (Galatians 3:26-28). As a result, it’s likely that the Christian women would have been eagerly exercising their equal status in ways that were counter to the social customs of the time. In response, Paul, Peter, and the other apostles frequently urged their fellow Christians to do their best to follow social customs (as long as doing so did not entail sin) to avoid distracting non-believers from the Gospel for reasons that had nothing to do with the Gospel itself! Some examples of this are the command for women to wear head coverings (1 Cor. 11), the command for all Christians to obey government authorities in Romans 13, and especially the command to slaves to obey their masters in Col. 3 and Eph. 5. The commands regarding slaves especially illustrate that we cannot simply choose whatever we think is the “plain meaning” of the text, or else we would be forced to conclude that God condones slavery! 

     The point here is to avoid creating the impression that Christianity was a revolutionary, political movement, and instead emphasize that Christianity was all about internal change. This doesn’t mean that Christians should never push for social change; it was simply a concern in the early days of the church when the identity of Christianity was first being established. This is what Paul meant when he said “that the word of God be not blasphemed.” He was concerned about the reputation of Christianity among the unsaved if Christians needlessly disregarded social customs. 

     Also, some translations use the word “busy” at home, rather than “keepers” at home. This implies that Paul’s concern was that women spend their time productively and wisely in a general sense, rather than specifically pointing what on what type of productive activity they must spend their time. Again, in that culture, the only options for women were either to be busy at home or idle at home, so he urged the former. 

     Understood in this way, we see that Paul’s point when he commands women to be keepers at home is that they should follow the customs of the day, not that there is anything spiritually significant about cooking and cleaning and mopping the floor. Now we can see the irony that these verses are used to keep women at home (counter to our present culture); according to Paul’s original meaning, in our modern culture these verses should be understood to instruct women to feel free to go to college, get jobs, and move out of their parents’ homes, since the point is to follow, rather than go against, social customs! 

"So please understand how important home life really is even when so many do not value it. The women of this world who have abandoned home life to spend their days in cubicles, are the wrong role models. They defeat what is beautiful and good and lead a host of followers to do the same."

Lori constantly claims that she doesn’t shame women who work outside the home, but if so I’m not sure what else the above could be. Certainly, there is nothing wrong with staying home (as long as the family’s financial needs are met), and people who do so are able to bless their families in many ways. But it cannot be claimed that this is a biblical mandate, nor should women who cannot do so (or choose not to) be so viciously attacked. 

Being a keeper at home makes you a "keeper of the spring" for raising the next generation and filling the earth with worshipers who fill their churches and towns and nations with the knowledge of God. This is one reason women should be keepers at home. But there is also a terrifying reason - to reject it causes the Word of God to be blasphemed."

When there is no textual or logical support for your position, you have no choice but to use words like “terrifying” to try to convince others to follow what you’re saying. But would it be authentic obedience to God if, instead of studying and doing our best to understand what He really wants us to do, we merely blindly obey Lori’s opinions because we’re afraid of what will happen if we don’t? 



Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/mothers-who-are-blaspheming-the-word-of-god/