Response to "Raise Your Daughters in the Ways of the Lord"

     There is so much to say in response to this post that I’ll have to do my best to not let it get too long. If I fail to address anything written that was offensive or inaccurate, please know that does not necessarily mean I consider it to be anything less than nonsense. 

     Lori begins with this: 

"Recently, I wrote this on twitter: 'Raise your daughters from an early age that thier highest and best calling is to be a wife and a mother! They will hear the opposite from culture.'" 

According to who? The Bible certainly never says such a thing. How can she presume to know the highest and best calling of every woman who ever existed? What about women who are not married, or married without children? In fact, what about women who may one day marry and have children but haven’t yet? Is everything they do simply a waste? If confronted on this point, I’m sure Lori would protest that this is not what she means. But we certainly don’t see any attempt to clarify this in the blog itself. 

     As is often the case, a comment from a reader makes up the bulk of the post. Although these are not Lori’s words, she is presenting them and agreeing with them, so I feel it’s fair to respond to them as if she said them.  

"I absolutely love swimming against the apostate tide of this world and going against its ungodly opinions/culture (so do I!). This is one such case and suffice to say, I agree with The Transformed Wife." 

One of the most ironic points about those who insist on adherence to traditional gender roles is this is a cultural, not biblical, idea. The Bible recognizes and works within the framework of such cultural norms as women not being educated or working outside the home, but it does not explicitly command it (if it did, it would be far more obvious than one or two verses about homemaking stripped of their context). So the writer of this comment is upholding not a biblical culture, but the culture of ancient Rome. 

"According to the Bible, the highest calling for a woman is to be a helpmeet unto her husband (Genesis 2:18), a homemaker unto her family (1 Timothy 5:14), and a mother unto her children (Psalm 131:1-3, Deuteronomy 32:11, 12). 

This is not opinion. It is scripture."

Let’s look up these verses and see if they really say what they think they say. 

Gen. 2:18
“The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

The Hebrew word for “helper”, “ezer”, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself helping us, so clearly it does not in any way suggest inferiority or subservience. Either way, this verse says nothing about women’s highest calling. This is added in an attempt to pretend that mere opinion is a biblical principle. 

1 Tim. 5:14
“Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach..”

This is an example of a case in which Paul was merely recognizing the social customs of the time, not commanding they be followed for all time. Paul is instructing Timothy to create a list of widows over 60 so they can be supported by the church, but pointing out that younger widows should not be put on the list because they have many productive years still ahead of them. Therefore, he preferred that younger widows continue to do what was expected of young women at the time: marry, have children, keep the home, etc., rather than becoming idle. His focus is not specifically on what they do, but that they should continue to be productive rather than idle. So no, this has nothing to do with such duties being a woman’s highest calling. 

Psalm 131:1-3 and Deut. 32:11-12 have literally nothing to do with our topic, so I’m not even going to bother addressing them. If you’d like to see what they say go ahead and look them up. 

     Then, of course, there is Lori's favorite verse: 

"Titus 2:3-5: "That the aged women...teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chase, KEEPERS AT HOME, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Do you know what it means to give the adversary "NO OCCASION FOR SLANDER"? It means do nothing that the Devil can go to God to accuse you of. In this particular case, the scriptures are referring to a woman's primary purpose." 

When this verse says “that the word of God be not blasphemed”, it is not referring to the devil accusing us before God. Rather, it is referring to an idea that appears numerous times in the New Testament, that of avoiding needlessly breaking the social customs of the culture so that people who may otherwise be open to the Gospel won’t be turned off by the behavior of Christians. In other words, Paul is encouraging the Christians to conform as much as possible to social standards, just the opposite of what Lori suggests. Of course, Christians ought to go against cultural standards when there is a clear contradiction with God’s commands, but obviously this is not one of those cases (or else Paul would not be giving this instruction). 

     And where in the Bible does it say these things are a woman’s primary purpose? I would suggest a woman’s primary purpose is no different from a man: to have a relationship with God, to spread the Gospel, to reflect the image of God, etc. Women have a far greater purpose than merely cooking, cleaning, and popping out babies. 

"The sad thing is, many of those (husbands) appointed spiritual leaders and mentors over them, and who are meant to lead them in the ways of the Lord, are the ones actively promoting and encouraging this ungodliness and rebellion. Like Adam before them, they have partnered and become one flesh with them in disobedience." 

Where does the Bible say this? Once again, the idea that a husband is the leader of his family is a cultural idea that some have read into the Bible for convenience. Nowhere is the husband identified as the leader or mentor of his wife. The typical objection to this point is to quote verses that refer to the husband as the “head” of the wife, but those who do this forget that the Bible was not written in English, and therefore figures of speech that are unique to English cannot be assumed to be relevant. In Greek, the word for “head” did not mean leader, but “source.” The Greeks believed the heart, not the head, was the center of rationality and decision-making. 

"More so, if a man is supposed to be a provider to his family - as the Bible states and many agree, why on earth are women leaving their homes, marriages, and children to work outside? Is it that his provision is not enough?"

Once again, the Bible simply does not say men are supposed to be the sole providers for their families. The closest I can find to this idea is 1 Tim. 5:8, which says “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” The focus of this verse, of course, is on the act of providing, not on the gender doing the providing. This entire idea is based merely on the pronoun used in this verse, which makes sense in a culture in which men were indeed the providers. 

"Of course, it is because many have bought into the lie of dual income households; all because of abject greed, crass materialism, and shameless covetousness.

If people were to let go of their desire to look a certain way, drive certain cars, live in a certain house, send their kids to certain schools, and live in a certain way, they will find one income is MORE than enough for a family to live on."

This is such a privileged and ignorant comment. Usually (if not always), the people who make such assertions live quite comfortably themselves and simply have no idea what it’s like to struggle financially. Lori (and the writer of this comment) have no idea of the income and expenses of each individual family, and yet they are guilting and shaming those they know nothing about because they don’t conform to their personal standards. Lori is quick to condemn women contributing financially to their households because the Bible never explicitly commands them to, but ignores the fact that neither does the Bible explicitly tell them not to!

     Beyond that, the commenter actually has the nerve to suggest all those who struggle and need two incomes do so because they’re obsessed with living in luxury and having things like fancy cars. It's hard even to figure out how to response to such an absurd, ignorant claim. I would simply ask anyone who makes this claim either to back it up with real data, or stop making such claims and admit that they simply have contempt for and prejudice against those who are less economically fortunate than themselves. 

     Lori ends this post with the following: 

"Now, all this is based on the WORD OF GOD, rather than the worldly wisdoms of feminist icons like Michelle Obama. So, if you'd like to opine on this post, please make sure it is also based on the word of God. It is the ONLY thing that reigns superme here!" 

No. Merely saying something is based on the word of God does not make it true. Nothing reigns supreme here besides Lori’s narrow and ignorant opinion. She disrespects God's word by giving her own ideas the label of “the Word of God” in order to bully others into following what is otherwise a completely indefensible position. I would turn this request around on Lori and the author of the featured comment: YOU need to go back, admit that you cannot find biblical support for what you teach, and start actually basing your ideas on the word of God.  


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/raise-your-daughters-in-the-ways-of-the-lord/