Response to "Gender Has Little to Do With Someone's Capacity to Lead?"

       In this episode of “What Offends Lori Alexander Today?”, the winner is an Instagram post by Lisa Bevere: 

“GENDER is NOT the PROBLEM in LEADERSHIP; our challenge is a posture of PRIDE and a tendency toward PREJUDICE and judging others. These will BLIND SOMEONE who is otherwise a good leader. HUMILITY, EXPERIENCE, FAITHFULNESS, EDUCATION, and VIRTUE are just SOME of the qualities that QUALIFY LEADERS, but gender alone does not a leader make. Gender alone doesn’t QUALIFY a leader, so gender alone can’t DISQUALIFY one. 

For the record, I do not pastor, nor am I an elder or deacon, but I do often speak on Sunday mornings as a mother in the House of God, and ministering does not equal exercising authority over anyone; it is giving witness to what God is done. It’s sad that anyone one would imagine that I think that being a leader usurps our marriage roles. John and I have been married 37 years and raised a family together.”

Clearly Lisa believes in some level of gender roles, though obviously she is much less extreme than Lori. But, of course, this does not stop Lori from becoming outraged and unable to keep her opinions to herself: 

We have a problem here, women. I pray that it’s obvious to most of you. Gender is a problem in leadership. God has made it very clear that it’s men who are to be in leadership positions in the churches. God ordained men to be in all leadership positions all throughout the Bible with the exception of Deborah. 

No, God has not made it clear at all. To use Lori’s own standard, there is not a single verse that explicitly states that only men should be in leadership positions in the church. It’s interesting that even Lori must admit that Deborah is an “exception” to this supposed rule (though she isn’t the only one as Lori claims), and yet she brushes right past this as if hoping we won’t notice and think about it too hard. 

Women are nowhere called to preach on any Sunday as “a mother in the House of God” as Lisa does. It seems most female preachers want to leave out these verses: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 35) and “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” (1 Timothy 2:11, 12).

Here is Lori’s typical double standard. Sometimes we are permitted to do anything as long as the Bible doesn’t directly forbid it, but other times we are not allowed to do a particular thing unless the Bible specifically says we can. She chooses which standard to enforce based on her own whim (and probably whether the verse in question applies to men or women). The Bible never forbids women to teach in church because of their gender or due to any man-made gender roles. 

       To briefly comment on the above verses: in 1 Cor. 14:34-35, the key phrase to notice is “as also saith the law.” Paul is not referring to any biblical law here (none exist), so he is referring to the Jewish and/or Roman laws of the time. It could not be more obvious that he is simply telling the Christians to obey the laws and customs of that time and place in order to avoid distracting people from the Gospel message. The takeaway for us is that we should do the same (within reason) according to our own time and place. According to Lori’s understanding, God is commanding us to obey the laws and customs of ancient Rome as if they had some sort of spiritual significance. 

       Regarding 1 Tim. 2:11-12, the same argument could be made. But it is also worth noting that the Greek word for “silence” is the same used in regards to the whole church (in the same chapter) telling them to live “quiet” lives. So this is not a literal silence (indeed, at other times Paul mentions women prophesying in church, which is difficult to do without speaking), but a reverent demeanor and avoiding calling attention to oneself. Additionally, when Paul says women must not have authority over men, he does not use the typical Greek word for authority (exousia), but rather “authentein,” which does not mean legitimate authority but dominating, even violent control of another. Paul is not forbidding all authority positions, but responding to a specific situation with which Timothy was dealing. In the Ephesian church, there was a female-led cult that taught that women were better than men. Paul’s point here is that men and women are EQUAL, not that men should be in authority over women. 

       In a reply to his wife’s tweet, Lisa’s husband mentioned how the daughters of Phillip in the book of Acts prophesied and proclaimed God’s word even though they were female. In reply, Lori has this to say: 

Concerning what Lisa’s husband said about the Evangelist Philip and his four daughters, this is what Gill’s Exposition of the Bible had to say about it: “which did prophesy (Acts 21:9); not explain and interpret Scripture, or preach in public assemblies; for these were not allowed women, neither in the Jewish synagogues, nor in Christian assemblies; but they were endowed with a gift of foretelling future events, as was promised such should have in Gospel times.” Women, it’s a dangerous but common practice to try to defend your choices by finding examples in the Bible while ignoring God’s clear commands to us in the Church Age.

It’s interesting how quick Lori is to elevate the words of a mere writer of a commentary over the simple words of the Bible itself whenever it helps support her own opinions. I have no idea of the quality of this particular commentary, but the author is wrong on the definition of prophecy (and the distinction is significant). He claims prophecy is “foretelling future events.” Prophecy CAN include messages concerning the future, but does not always. Prophecy, ultimately, is simply delivering a message to someone from God. And this is significant because Lori, the author of the commentary, and anyone else who tries so desperately to find justification for their sexism, somehow claim that prophesying (delivering a message from God Himself) is LESS authoritative than simply preaching a sermon! I would argue that it is far more authoritative. They simply decide from the beginning that women must not do anything authoritative, and then shape their reality according to this assumption; since women prophesy, prophecy must not be authoritative. This is completely backwards when it comes to understanding the Bible. 

       Also, doesn't Lori realize she's correcting a man? Isn't that forbidden in her view? 

In the homes, the husbands are to lead their families. Wives are to submit to and obey their husbands, yes, in everything, since God made the husband the head over the wife. God has called men to be the leaders all throughout His Word. Yes, Lisa, gender does matter greatly to God when it comes to leading.

What an interesting conclusion considering the fact that the Bible never appoints husbands leaders over their wives! Again, to use Lori’s mantra, there is not a single verse that commands this. The word for “head” in Greek did not mean “leader” at all, but “source.” Every time the Bible calls men the “head” of their wives, this is actually part of the command to husbands to love their wives. In that time and place, men enjoyed greater privilege and status, and the point was that men should elevate their wives to the level of equals and share that privilege with them, rather than using it to their own advantage and dominating their wives. You know, exactly what Lori thinks they should do. There is literally nothing in the Bible that says husbands are to lead their wives or establishing a chain of command. This is a made-up idea based on an assumption that Paul had the metaphors of 21st century English in mind while he wrote his letters. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/gender-has-little-to-do-with-someones-capacity-to-lead/

Response to "Male Preachers Calling Out Female Preachers."

As I am sure you have all heard, John MacArthur was asked what he thought about Beth Moore and he responded, “Go home.” Many were up in arms over this statement and especially that people laughed after he said it. I listened to it right after it was posted and before seeing how others responded to it. When he said, “Go home,” I laughed and clapped my hands. I thought it was a perfect answer!

I suppose it was inevitable that I, too, would address the John MacArthur/Beth Moore controversy. I am, of course, disappointed that someone in such a prominent teaching role in Christianity would be so disrespectful (and laugh about it). What always surprises me is how someone like him who isn't new to Christianity and does have a lot of biblical knowledge, can nevertheless be so simplistic in their beliefs regarding the role of women in the church. It doesn't take much reflection to notice that there are only a few verses that could even be used to keep women out of leadership roles, and it doesn't take a lot of research to discover that these verses are either specific to a certain church or situation, have nuances in the translation that distort the meaning in the original language, and are better understood to not really be placing such restrictions on women when understood in the context of the whole Bible. Many prominent Bible teachers have fairly sophisticated views of other matters and have no problem, for example, investigating the original Greek, but when it comes to this issue they suddenly prefer to dumb it down and not look beyond the "plain meaning" as if it were written in English. I suspect this is because they prefer to cling to their traditions (which, of course, are based on ancient culture rather than the Bible) rather than admit that perhaps they've been wrong all this time. 

Having said that, I have a few comments on some things Lori says in the remainder of her blog. 

If women are not to teach or be in authority over men because they are more easily deceived (1 Timothy 2:14), then what right do they have to teach any biblical doctrine other than what God has specifically commanded they teach (biblical womanhood – Titus 2:3-5)?

It is, of course, a ludicrous claim that women are more easily deceived by men. The verse Lori provides mentions the fact that Adam was created first and that Eve was deceived in order to correct false doctrine in the Ephesian church based on local cults that exalted women over men and claimed that Eve was created first. But this is far from saying all women are more easily deceived by all men. Besides, which is better: to be tricked into eating the fruit? Or to do it deliberately (as the story implies Adam did?) Also, if women are more easily deceived and therefore more likely to teach what is false, why would they be given the responsibility of teaching children, who would be the most vulnerable to such wrong teaching? In reality, some people are more easily deceived than others, but it has nothing to do with gender. 

The older I get, the more I see the wisdom in all of this. God gave men the ministry of teaching the Word of God (elders are to be the “husband of one wife”). He gave them the ministry of teaching the major doctrines of the Word. 

If Lori were to actually study the Bible for herself rather than just take the word of men who interpret it for her, she may realize how little she actually understands it. We must study the Bible, not just skim it for the parts that allow us to bully women. Nowhere does the Bible say only men have been given the ministry of teaching the word of God. At the time the Bible was written, it was primarily men who were preachers (because of the low status of women in that culture), but the initially preachers were also unanimously Jewish; and we certainly don't hold modern preachers to that standard. 

He gave men the strong, low voices to preach behind the pulpits in the churches. 

Strong, low voices? Is Lori implying that men with high voices can't be preachers, or that women with strong, low voices can? How ridiculous. 

He tells women that if they have a question to ask their husbands at home NOT learn the Word of God from other women. 

The women who were told to ask their husbands questions at home were uneducated and disrupting the church service to ask the speaker questions (a common practice in public assembly at the time). Lori is missing the real point of this passage: Paul was concerned that the service not be disrupted (though the concern was lack of education, not gender), but more radical was his suggest that women ask questions at home in order to learn. The Jews of the time saw no reason for women to receive any religious instruction at all. Paul is emphasizing the fact that the women ought to have the opportunity to learn the things they don't know that are causing them to ask the questions in the first place. This matches up nicely with Jesus commending Mary for sitting at his feet and learning rather than Martha for being a keeper at home (Luke 10:38-42). 

They can know biblical doctrine inside out and backwards but if they aren’t living in submission to their husband and aren’t being keepers at home, they are blaspheming the Word of God (Titus 2:5). Most female Bible teachers are blaspheming the Word of God.

Actually, it is Lori who is blaspheming the Word of God. This is evident if we try to understand what Paul meant in these verses. Paul is urging women to follow the customs of the time (being keepers at home and living according to cultural expectations). He wanted to make sure the Gospel wasn't mistaken as primarily a social movement, but rather had to do with internal change. He also didn't want people to be turned off by those preaching the Gospel because they were living in a way that would be considered socially subversive (which would "blaspheme" the Word). Paul is not commanding women to be keepers at home because there's anything spiritually significant in this. Rather, he is recognizing social customs and telling women to conform to them as much as possible. Therefore, in order to avoid blaspheming the Word today, women ought to consider the social customs of our time (not those of Rome 2,000 years ago as Lori suggests). Since Lori insists we reject social customs for no reason, she is causing the Gospel to fall into disrepute. 

I won’t learn the Bible from any woman. I want to learn it from men of God. God gave this ministry to men and I don’t want to overstep the boundaries God has given to me. I will continue to teach biblical womanhood as long as the Lord gives me the ability to do so. There are few who teach this but many who try to teach the Bible. (It’s a lot easier to teach the Bible to women than it is to teach biblical womanhood, that’s for sure!).

Yes, we get it Lori. You want to make sure we all know how righteous you are. I just want to say, though, that the last sentence here seems rather silly. Easier to teach the Bible (which, if done well, requires comprehensive knowledge of the Bible itself, history, culture, translation, etc.), than merely to tell women to go home and how to cook and clean? I'm sure Lori wants to feel that what she teaches is advanced and difficult, but unfortunately that is not something about which she can boast. 

       She closes with the following verses (which I include with her commentary, which, I suspect, must be a form of teaching the Bible?): 

For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in ALL THE CHURCHES OF THE SAINTS [these verses are for ALL the churches of the saints! not just for those back then as many will try to convince you]. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

1 Corinthians 14:33-35

Lori would love to convince us that her opinion is correct, but I would respond with my comments above regarding the time- and culture-specific nature of this command. Yes, the command is for all the churches, but the command itself is to conform to the customs and laws of the present culture, and the 1st century Roman culture is not present for us. There is a hint in the verse itself that discredits Lori's view: it says the women are not permitted to speak, "as also saith the law." The law Paul refers to is not anything in the Bible (no such command exists in the Old Testament), but rather, the Jewish/Roman laws of the time. Which is exactly what I said above: Paul is urging believers to obey the law and customs to the extent possible. We ought to follow this command today as well, but it will look very different from how it looked then. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/male-preachers-calling-out-female-preachers/

       

Response to "Provoking Men to Wrath."

       This post is yet another case of Lori defending one of her controversial tweets (indeed, it seems more and more of her posts, rather than containing any new information, are simply overly sensitive self-justification). One must wonder if her goal isn't really just to go viral (a term she derives quite a bit of satisfaction from using based on the frequency with which she uses it). 

The other day, I tweeted this: “A wife has a much greater chance of being abused if she is quarrelsome, contentious, and abusive towards her husband rather than if she is kind, loving, and submissive. God’s ways are for our good, NOT for our harm.” It’s an eternal principle. We will reap what we sow but as so many hate God, they hate His principles. As expected, this tweet received a ton of outrage. (It’s easy to outrage and offend women these days. You would think they would simply ignore me as I ignore them.)

Ignore them?!? Lori, you're not ignoring them; you're literally writing a post in response to them! Did you really think we wouldn't notice? 

       Of course, we must address the content of the tweet, which is extreme even for Lori. This is undisguised victim-blaming. She is defending a man who blames a woman for his hitting her by claiming something she did "made" him do it. This is a classic practice of abusers, and Lori has chosen to take the side of those abusers. If a woman is in a marriage in which she will only be treated well and not abused if she is "nice" to him, she needs to get out, not wonder whether the abuse is ultimately her fault.  

If women think that they can never provoke men to wrath, they’re fooling themselves.

This is one of her characteristic attempts to subtly change the topic because she can't really defend her original statement. She is pretending anyone who was outraged at her tweet must be saying that women can act however they want, or that nothing they could make a man want to abuse them. But of course, these objections are made up. Of course there are inappropriate things women might do that may provoke men. Of course they shouldn't do these things. And obviously there are even cases in which women abuse men (both physically as well as in other ways). That's beside the point. It is the responsibility of every person to restrain themselves no matter how angry someone makes them. And there is never an excuse of someone allows themselves to lose control and physically harm someone else, unless in self-defense (and given how Lori relishes talking about how much stronger men are than women, I doubt there's ever a case in which she would believe a man would need to act in self-defense because of a woman). 

I provoked my husband to wrath on numerous occasions but thankfully, I married a man who can control his anger and would never harm me. Unfortunately, some men weren’t raised to control their anger.

It's as if she's throwing up her hands and saying "men will be men!" It's nice to be married to a man who can control himself, but if you're married to one who can't, just go along with it and try not to make him angry. What a recipe for a healthy marriage!

My tweet wasn’t to give men the green light to physically abuse their wives. I don’t teach men.

Amazing. She claims (unconvincingly) that she's not giving men permission to abuse their wives. But the reason she gives has nothing to do with the fact that abuse is, you know, wrong. Her main reason is simply that she doesn't teach men. Is she implying that if she did teach men, she would give them the green light regarding abuse? 

Yes, we are responsible for our actions just as men are responsible for theirs, but some women today falsely believe that women can do no wrong.

Again, she tries to completely change the objections made to her tweet because she can't deal with the real ones. No one said anything about women not being able to do any wrong! What does that have to do with any of this? 

This is why the Bible speaks about foolish women tearing their homes down.

If you ask me, abuse is a much more concerning way of tearing down a home. 

 It’s a mean, angry, or evil man who physically abuses his wife. These men need help but in the meantime, the wife needs to seek protection. 

This is a point she's made before. She claims it's only abuse if it's from a mean, angry, evil man. Otherwise, it's just a slip-up and women should keep quiet. They wouldn't want their husbands to go to jail, would they? I wonder, though, what kind of man Lori would consider mean, angry, and evil, considering the wicked, domineering men she praises (and who comment on her Facebook page). I suspect her standard is set so low it would be impossible for any man to fall below it.  

But I do want to make this very clear: an abusive man will abuse his wife whether or not she is submissive. 

Wait, now I'm confused...I thought she said in the tweet that women are less likely to be abused if they are kind, loving and submissive. Which is it? Seriously, what is her opinion? She can't even get her own story straight. By the time she reaches the end of her post, she doesn't even remember what she wrote at the beginning. Which makes me all the more suspicious that this is all just another desperate attempt at attention. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/provoking-men-to-wrath/

Response to "Why are so Many Women Not Getting Married?"

     In this blog, Lori laments the fact that fewer women are getting married than in the past. She begins with this paragraph full of claims without any backing evidence:

"Marriage is becoming less and less popular. Many women are grieving the fact that they never married in their 20s, because they put it off for higher education and careers. They thought they would get married in their 30s and begin having children, but it's not happening. In pondering this, I am coming to som conclusions of my own why this is happening."  

"Many" women are "grieving" the act that they didn't marry earlier? According to who? Is Lori suggesting that it's always best to marry as early as possible? (this is a rhetorical question...I know this is exactly what she's suggesting). In my own experience, marriage is wonderful, but it's not something into which someone should rush. There are many freedoms one has prior to marriage that should be taken advantage of. No one should marry until they're ready. 

     She also seems to imply that for women who wanted to get married in their 30s, "it's not happening." Again, where does she get this idea? I know numerous people who have gotten married in their 30s or older. She is trying to scare young women into marrying the first creature with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome who proposes to her, to make sure they don't end up alone. Lori's unspoken (but quite obvious) point is that women in their 30s apparently are "getting old" and no longer attractive. 

     And, amusingly, she notes that she has come to her own conclusions on why this is happening,  based on nothing but her own pondering. No surprise there. 

     Next, she tells us about her own college experience: 

My college friends and I weren't career-oriented. We all wanted to just get married and have children. We weren't hard-core feminists AT ALL! We enjoyed talking with guys and were all still very feminine. We had no desire to be competitive with the guys or be like them! We liked being feminine and enjoyed being in the company of guys. 

We spent a lot of our free time with guys, just hanging out with them and getting to know them. None of us were book worms and cared all that much about our grades. We cared a whole lot more about getting our Mrs. degree rather than a real degree."

There are a few things to note here. First, she admits that she did not have any learning in mind when she went to college, but was merely looking for a husband. She even points out that she and her friends were not bookworms and didn't care about their grades. The shocking point is that she portrays this as a positive thing! I've heard people talk about how they goofed off in college and didn't care about their grades, but it's always to point out that since then they have matured and realized how such behavior is wasteful of a good opportunity. But Lori implies she did nothing but sit around and flirt with the guys, and that this was a good thing! 

     Furthermore, notice how she uses the word "femininity" without clearly defining what she means. She will do this throughout the rest of the blog. Here, it certainly seems that she equates "femininity" with avoiding a good education, not caring about academic performance, not being competitive, and being obsessed with boys. 

     She follows this with a key insight into another reason why she fears women going to college so much: 

No, it's compete with the guys for the grades, the colleges, and then the jobs. This is NOT conducive for men wanting to marry women.

I believe this highly competitive and feministic culture has made men less and less attracted to women. They see that women no longer need them and I am not sure they enjoy having the competition that they have with women these days. I still think that men want feminine women! They want women who aren't in competition with them. They need and want to marry help meets, not competitors."

Besides the fact that Lori feels all women should do nothing but be wives, mothers, and servants (and of course college has nothing to do with any of that), it seems Lori's major concern once again revolves around the men! She is afraid men will not be attracted to women who go to college. We must again wonder what qualifies Lori to speak for all men. But, setting this point aside, apparently to men the ideal woman is one who is markedly his inferior intellectually, educationally, and competitively. Again, she slips in the word "feminine," apparently using it to mean uneducated, simple-minded, and unambitious. I'd like to know where she gets these hinted definitions from. 

     As a man, let me speak for men for a moment: any man who is intimidated by a bold, motivated, educated, intellectual woman is not a real man. He is nothing more than a wimp with such a fragile ego that he must insist that the women in his life intentionally dumb themselves down so he can maintain an illusion of superiority. It seems Lori doesn't only have a low view of women; what a sad, cynical impression of men! 

     Ladies, never settle for anything less than a man who admires and appreciates you for your intelligence and ambition, and who, instead of trying to hold you back to protect his own pride, are excited for you to reach your full potential and use all of your gifts!


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/why-are-so-many-women-not-getting-married/

Response to "Stop Causing Division Over the Non Essentials of Child Raising"

     This may be the strangest post from Lori I've ever read. 

     Lori begins by reminding us that different parents will do things differently. Some will give birth in a hospital, some will give birth at home. Some will let them date young, others will forbid dating until they're 18. Some will put them in the nursery during church, others will keep them in the service. Some will forbid them from dating until their 18, others will allow them to date earlier. And so on.

     Lori then shocks those of us who have been following her for any length of time by saying, essentially, "so what?" 

"Why am I telling you all of these things? I want you all to know that none of these things have anything to do with the salvation of their souls. We must not allow our differences in the way we raise our children to divide us as believers in Jesus Christ! There is too much pressure on mothers today. We are to raise godly offspring in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord. This is what God cares about. He doesn't give us the exact methods how to do this and this is where we have liberty. It should never cause division!"

Did someone hack Lori's blog? She seems to be saying that different people will make different choices, and we shouldn't criticize them for it! As she goes on, I began to suspect I was dreaming, as she said more and more things that actually didn't sound crazy to me. It seems more and more that parents are quick to judge and criticize other parents. I had to agree with a lot of what she said. Even though I recognized this doesn't in any way nullify the harm of her other posts, at least, for once, I thought I had found a post that wasn't filled with terrible ideas and judgment.

And then, abruptly, came a reminder that this was, in fact, still the real world. I wasn't dreaming after all. She had spoiled the blog by slipping in a subtle point about the authority of husbands:

"They have every right to raise their children the way they feel is best for them. If a husband wants his children vaccinated, vaccinate them and pray that the vaccinations won't harm them. God cares a whole lot more about wives submitting to their husbands rather than if the children are vaccinated."

Now, this is not about the vaccine debate. Lori shares a lot of misleading and false information regarding vaccines, but I won't get into that here. For now, my concern is that she herself (as she states in the blog) is opposed to vaccines and feels that they are harmful. Regardless of whether it's true, this is her strong conviction. And yet, she advises that if the father decides he wants his children vaccinated, rather than protesting, the mother ought to simply give in and pray that the children won't be harmed. 

     This may be harsh, but seriously, what kind of parent would silently step aside and allow something to be done to their children that they honestly thought was harmful, all for the sake of "submission?!" According to Lori, the point of submission is to have a happier marriage and avoid conflict with your husbands. So, essentially, she is suggesting risking the health and safety of your children for the sake of maintaining peace with your husband, putting your relationship with your husband above the safety of your kids. 

     Not only is this nonsensical and has no biblical support whatsoever, it is dangerous advice. Again, I don't believe there is any danger in this specific situation because I believe she's wrong about vaccines, but that is not the issue. The problem is the idea that wives should go along with whatever their husbands want even if they strongly believe the husband may be putting the children in danger. Where is the limit? What if he wants his kids to not wear seatbelts in the car? What if he wants them to eat nothing but fast food every day? What if decides it's okay for them to play video games for 12 hours a day? According to Lori, instead of simply pointing out the problem, she should instead keep it to herself and merely pray that God will supernaturally nullify the potential harm.

     Of course, the obvious fact is that parents ought to make healthcare (and all other) decisions for their children together, and neither has the right to make such decisions on their own. When one parent may miss something or be uninformed, the other can provide important input. This is a safeguard against at least some bad decisions. They work best as a team, not with one as an arbitrary leader and the other as the silent follower who merely nods like a robot and won't even warn of danger.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/stop-causing-division-over-the-non-essentials-of-child-raising/
      

Response to "Was this Truly Marital Rape?"

       Quite honestly, this may be the most horrific blog I've ever read from The Transformed Wife. That doesn't mean there aren't any that are more horrific, since I haven't read more than a small fraction of the vast total she's written. Nevertheless, I have a feeling this one would at least make it into the top 5. I've had a busy few days and haven't had time to write any blogs, but when I saw this one I knew I had to respond to it. 

     "Last April, I made a video called Should Wives Have Sex With Their Husbands When They Don’t Feel Like It? It was viewed by many, and many were very angry with me and accused me of promoting marital rape because a woman wrote to me and told me her husband asked to have sex with her one night. She told him no but found him having sex with her in the middle of the night. She asked if this was considered marital rape."

We all remember this. Why is Lori bringing it up again, except to cause more controversy or get more views? 

       Before I even get to what Lori thinks, I'll state the obvious. Yes, this is marital rape. A marriage must be built on mutual respect, and this respect is especially important when it comes to each other's bodies. If one spouse wants sex and the other does not, no one has the right to forcibly take it from the other. How does this even need to be said? Even if one were to believe it is sinful for a wife to refuse her husband without a good reason (which, of course, it is not), this still does not give him the right to do such a thing. And any husband who respects his wife would not do such a thing. But, of course, I'm not even sure Lori thinks husbands ought to respect their wives in the first place. 

       Lori begins her answer with the following: 

"I told her that no, this wasn’t considered marital rape. Marital rape is when a husband forces himself upon his wife on a frequent basis while drunk or high on drugs or is simply an abusive, mean man. If there is true marital rape, there is physical abuse that comes with it. Every woman who has told me that they were raped by their husbands, also told me that they were physically abused by their husbands. In this case, the authorities need to be called and the wife needs to be protected from her physically abusive husband."

Lori is not the one who gets to define marital rape. But her definition is interesting. She thinks it must happen "on a frequent basis" in order to qualify as rape. So if it's only once in a while, it's okay? Notice that she would also be the one to decide what "frequent" means, and likely would never consider anything to be so. No, rape is rape. It has nothing to do with how frequent it is. If it happens once, it's just as wrong as if it happens many times. 

       Note also it must be done by a drunk, high, or abusive man. In her mind, if it's done by a nice man, it's not rape and is totally okay. No, Lori: actions are actions no matter who does them. If anyone forces themselves on someone else sexually without consent, that's rape. I don't care who does it. And I would also say that anyone who does so is definitely not a nice man in the first place!

       She proceeds to make a bunch of excuses, exceptions, and technicalities: 

"He woke up in the middle of the night (maybe he wasn’t even fully awake, for all we know) and began having sex with his wife. What does this mean? Was he having full on intercourse with her or was he having foreplay with her? We don’t know. She didn’t tell me. If he was having full on intercourse with her, she must be a very deep sleeper but even if he was, I would never consider this marital rape."

"Maybe he wasn't even fully awake." She'll even go so far as to make up hypotheticals in order to remove any guilt from the man. And Lori knows good and well what "having sex" means. But suddenly she pretends ignorance and says "it could mean anything," again to protect the man. Having sex means having sex, even when you don't like the implications. "She didn't tell me if he was having full on intercourse with her"??? What did she want the lady to do, send her photos? And "she must be a very deep sleeper? Obviously not, because she woke up! How else would she know it had happened????

       She then proceeds to try to bully this woman into keeping quiet by filling her with fear: 

"Let’s say I told her that yes, this was marital rape. Then she would report it to the police in the morning. Her husband may be put in jail, then lose his job. He would have no means to support his family. He may even divorce her for considering him having sex with her one night as marital rape." 

We have to notice what a low view of men Lori has, and yet she seems to see nothing wrong with them supposedly being that way. What kind of man divorces a woman because she asked for him not have sex with her in her sleep? Does she really think this is a normal kind of man? If the men who comment most frequently on her page are any indication, likely she really does think this is the way men are. 

"So he divorces her and remarries. Her marriage is destroyed. She’s left alone to have to support herself and her children, if she has any, just because I told her that her husband was committing marital rape because he was having sex with her one time during the middle of the night. I won’t do this. I am in the business of restoring marriages and trying to make them better." 

No, Lori, you're in the business of protecting sexual predators. 

"I am sure there are many wives who would admit that their husbands have woken them up in the middle of the night trying to have sex with them. It’s not that big of a deal!"

Of course Lori doesn't think it's that big of a deal. She sees women as non-human possessions who literally exist only so men can do with them what they wish. But it certainly (and rightly) is a big deal to all women out there who know their worth and are mentally stable. 

       Not only is Lori victim-shaming and victim-blaming, but she is also actually trying to scare women in order to keep them quiet in order to protect the men who are committing these disgusting acts! She is nothing less than an accomplice to all such men. It's sick. 

      "Most husbands married because they want to have sex on a regular basis." 

Again, it's so sad that this is how she actually thinks of men! And it's inexcusable that she thinks it's okay. Do I even need to say it? NO, men who are worth marrying DO NOT get married just to have sex on a regular basis! Maybe the men Lori prefers do, but certainly Godly men do not. Men who actually love their wives and view them as human beings with feelings and a personality and intelligence and talents and something to offer besides being a sack of meat certainly do not. 

       There is also a (not so) hidden underlying assumption in all this: that sex is primarily for the benefit of the husband. Would Lori similarly defend the wife's right to demand it from her husband whenever she wants? Almost certainly she would not? Once again, a loving husband recognizes that his wife's happiness and fulfillment is just as important as his own. How can she enjoy herself if she's asleep? 

       She closes with this thought: 

"Be wise in the counsel you give to other women. Always fight for marriages rather than tear them down."

Somehow she believes telling women to cower in a corner and let men do whatever they want is fighting for marriages, while encouraging couples to have mutual respect and healthy boundaries and good communication is tearing them down. If Lori has never known anything different than abusive men who view women as slightly more inconvenient sex dolls, then she has my pity. But she has no excuse for spreading this poison to other women. This has to stop. 

Response to "Household Inequality is Domestic Abuse?"

       Lori begins her latest blog with the following excerpt from an article she read: 

“We need to stop framing equality as a nice bonus to a happy marriage. It is the bare minimum. Inequality is not inevitable. It’s not just the way men are, or a minor inconvenience. It’s time women listen to their own needs and value their own work. Household chore inequality exacts a real toll on our health and well-being. It is abuse. Like other forms of abuse, it exploits one person for the other’s gain. And like other forms of abuse, there is no excuse,” declares Zawn Villines in her article entitled, “Household Labor Inequality is Domestic Abuse.”

What is her solution? “A man who can happily watch his wife work herself into illness and depression does not care about his wife—or his children. Kick his a** to the curb. Every woman deserves better. Every child deserves to grow up in a house that acknowledges the full humanity and needs of both parents. This abuse can stop with our generation of mothers, but only if we demand better.”

I agree with pretty much everything written above. Surely Lori couldn’t be against such a message? Yes, she absolutely can:

“This is what feminism has led to, women. It’s led to the deterioration of marriage. “Abuse” being the term used for many things that aren’t actual abuse.” 

The word “abuse” tends to bring to mind violence, but this isn’t necessarily the definition. It can more broadly mean simply mistreating someone. And yes, I would agree that insisting that someone else carry a greater burden in a relationship is mistreating them. 

“Women becoming angrier and initiating almost up to 80 percent of divorces and devastating their children’s lives.” 

Lori loves to spout this statistic even when it has nothing to do with what she’s talking about. She gets a sick joy from putting down women. Even if it’s true (and I’m highly skeptical any time Lori says the words “statistics”, “study”, or “facts”), she fails to ask why this is the case. Perhaps men are more likely to be abusive or unfaithful! What a thought!

“God created women to have this job and this is why there is such a struggle with housework. Even full-time working mothers have most of the housework fall upon their shoulders, because they were created to do this no matter how much they hate it.”

The Bible never even hints that there is a decree from God that women do the housework. Lori is quick to point out when something isn’t explicitly commanded in the Bible, until she’s discussing her own made up ideas. And it certainly never says women were created entirely to cook and clean. Quite the opposite in fact. How could anyone ever respect women if they were made for nothing but this? It is little wonder that those who believe as Lori do have such a low view of women, no matter how much they pretend not to. 

       Also, how can she be so blind to the obvious fact that it is because of people like her that full-time working mothers have most of the housework fall on their shoulders? She fantasizes that somehow it’s due to biology or God’s command or something, but has she considered that if you arbitrarily tell men they are exempt from helping around the house, they probably won’t help around the house anymore? And that if you brainwash women into thinking it’s their burden alone, they probably will push themselves to do it and not ask for help? She might as well abuse a litter of puppies and then declare their behavior is evidence that dogs are naturally timid. 

"Yes, some husbands help and share equally in the household chores but many do not. This is what my first viral post was about. Housework has destroyed way too many marriages and it’s due to women leaving their God-ordained roles. God created women to be their husbands’ help meets not the other way around but feminism has forced husbands to be their wives’ help meets even if the husbands don’t want to be. Women demand it."

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if a marriage can be destroyed by arguments over housework, it was a weak and sickly marriage in the first place. Rather than going to the source and trying to strengthen the marriage, Lori consistently suggests we just artificially avoid and ignore the conflict. And if a husband would leave a wife because she isn’t doing all the housework, he never wanted a wife at all. He should have just hired a housekeeper. 

       Also, once again, Lori doesn’t understand what “help meet” actually means. She seems to imagine it means a wife is to be her husband’s assistant or secretary. But the Hebrew word for “help meet,” ezer, is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as He helps humanity. Clearly, a subordinate position is nowhere implied in the text and comes only from Lori’s own mind. The man and woman in Genesis are to be partners, not employer and employee. If Lori wants to be a secretary that badly, she should go get a job. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/household-inequality-is-domestic-abuse/

Response to "Questions Asked of Me."

       In this blog, Lori answers a series of questions sent to her in an email. These are rather general questions, and I suspect Lori's answers would be known to anyone who has followed her for any length of time, so it’s difficult to tell if they are serious or if someone is just trying to trip her up. You’ll have to be the judge. 

What do you think of infertile women who choose to have a career because they can’t have children?

It’s not what I think; it’s what God commands. Just because a woman is infertile doesn’t mean she has to have a career. There were many women in the Old Testament who were infertile for a long time (Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah), yet not one of them left their homes all day and worked for a boss. 

Lori constantly plays this card to dodge criticism and avoid having to justify her position. She wants us to believe she’s not presenting any of her own ideas, but is simply speaking for God. And yet seldom (if any) of her ideas actually appear in the Bible! We can be very thankful that Lori does not, in fact, speak for God, and I believe that one day she will have to answer for using His name to push her own agenda. What exactly does “taking the Lord’s Name in vain” mean, if not this? 

       And to support her position, she presents four women who lived centuries ago in a completely different culture. Of course these women didn’t leave the home and work for a boss! Does she think there was a Starbucks down the street that was hiring? This says nothing about whether it’s okay for women to work outside of the home today. 

What do you think of women who choose not to have children because they have a history of miscarriages in their family and don’t want to go through that pain?

I would encourage them to trust in the Lord. Just because there is a history of miscarriages in their family doesn’t mean that these women will have miscarriages. We must not live our lives by fear but by faith, knowing that whatever we go through, God will work all things together for good to those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

This is Lori’s typical advice when medical issues are involved: to use caution due to medical issues is to “not trust God” and to live by fear. According to this standard, merely exercising common sense is a sin. This is how cult leaders gain a following: they pressure their followers to not trust their own ability to think. This is the result of Lori’s belief that women are nothing more than baby factories (an accusation she was careful not to deny!). I have no doubt those who have taught such ideas have blood on their hands. 

What do you think of women who believe that God called them to have a career and not have children?

God doesn’t call any women to have a career. You can’t find one verse that states this. He calls them to marry, bear children, and guide the home (1 Timothy 5:14) and to love their husbands and children and be keepers at home (Titus 2:4, 5). 

God would also never call women to intentionally not have children. He created women to have children! Look at their bodies. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. He calls children blessings and wants us to be fruitful and multiply. He has never taken this command away. God’s will for married women is to have children.

Lori actually believes she can take two or three verses out of the Bible and declare that she knows God’s entire will for all women for all time. No, Lori: every woman is a unique individual and has a unique calling from God, despite your efforts to erase their personhood and turn them into faceless, indistinguishable servants and human incubators.

       And, for the record, my fists have the ability to punch people every time I see someone, but that doesn't mean I'm required to do so simply because my body has the ability. It is a highly suspicious, opportunistic leap to claim that every woman must have children simply because her body has the ability to do so. 

Do you think that God could have given some women less meek and more boisterous personalities?

God gives us free will. Are we going to live for Him and obey Him, or are we going to go with our natural bent which is usually opposite of God’s will? He wants women to have meek and quiet spirits. Those with boisterous personalities need to learn to tame them. It doesn’t mean that they can’t laugh, have opinions and discussion, and enjoy life. It means they don’t dominate conversations and insist on being right and don’t act and dress in a way to be noticed by others. They do think before they speak, and discipline themselves to be kind and loving in all that they do and say.

Allow me to be blunt: the only reason Lori feels women should have meek and quiet spirits is so that they never take the focus away from egotistical men who feel mistreated if they’re not constantly in the center of attention. 

       An interesting point can be made here. If asked, no doubt Lori would say the command to have meek and quiet spirits is given only to women. And yet, the description she gives, such as not dominating conversations, not insisting on being right, not drawing attention to oneself, thinking before speaking, and being kind and loving, are not gender-specific principles! Common sense (and the New Testament) tell us that these commands apply equally to men as to women! And yet, to be consistent, Lori must believe these are qualities only women should have. She views all men as dominating conversations, drawing attention to themselves, and thinking they are always right; and worse, she believes men are perfectly justified in being this way. It is only women who are held to any sort of standard. 

What do you think of female representation in the media: characters such as Captain Marvel, and Rey from Star Wars?

I haven’t watched any of those shows but I am sure it’s in order to make women look superior to men, therefore, I am not a fan. Feminists don’t like acknowledging the differences between the sexes. Men are generally stronger, faster, taller, and have ten times the testosterone than women have. God made men to be the protectors and providers. He had men over 20 years and older to go to war (Numbers 1:45), not women. Women and children have always been the ones who were protected up until recently. God calls women the weaker vessel for a very good reason.

Notice how she literally admits that she’s not familiar with these movies, and yet she goes right ahead and judges them. Also, isn’t it interesting how there’s no problem with making men look superior to women, but if they want to throw in a few female characters just to balance things out a little, suddenly this can’t be done because it’s “making women look superior to men”? 

       Also, isn’t it creepy how much she worships men? She never seems happier than when she’s listing all the attributes men have that women supposedly don’t (all external attributes, by the way). This is not normal. Doesn’t it seem like Stockholm Syndrome? 

What do you think of women who use birth control for health reasons such as endometriosis?

Birth control doesn’t heal endometriosis. As Dr. Jolene Brighten wrote in her book Beyond the Pill, “Did you know that women on the pill are more likely to be prescribed an antidepressant? That they are at significantly increased risk for autoimmune disease, heart attack, thyroid and adrenal disorders, and even breast and cervical cancer?” The birth control pill, along with most birth control contraptions, are dangerous to women’s health. Those with endometriosis and other conditions, I encourage to seek out a Naturopath and get to the root of their problems so they can heal.

Lori. PLEASE stop giving medical advice. Seriously. 

       I didn’t address every question in order to keep this blog from getting too long. Still, there is certainly enough here to be terrified of the thought of any woman taking Lori’s advice. Sadly, we know some do. Let’s hope and pray that somehow they can be set free! 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/questions-asked-of-me/