Response to "Dealing With a Rebellious Wife."

       Generally I respond to the most recent Transformed Wife blogs, but I stumbled upon one from 2014 that I couldn't leave unanswered. This one is actually from Lori's older blog "Always Learning," and is written by Ken. 

Lori and I have had some fun and some frustrations with some of her more recent posts on a very hot topic of the propriety of a Christian husband, not just attempting to deal with his rebellious wife, but actually doing so with great results used by the Holy Spirit to produce a happy and peaceful wife. 

In the actual blog, the words "Christian Husband" are a link. I clicked the link for context but got a message saying the page I was trying to access no longer exists. Considering what follows, this does not surprise me at all; Ken and Lori must have realized it was too controversial even for them. However, a quick Google search led me to the following link that provided all the information I needed: https://www.freejinger.org/topic/18772-lori-and-ken-alexanders-new-bestie-cabinetman/. If you are not concerned about the potential effect on your blood pressure, I would encourage you to check it out! To briefly summarize, for the crime of being "unsubmissive", this man would not allow his wife to hang out with her female friends, not allow her any money except enough for basic needs such as food and clothing, forbade her from attending a women's Bible study, and forced her to sleep on the couch or even in a cabin on their property. In short, literal mental, emotional, and psychological abuse. Just wait until you hear what Ken has to say about it! 

To be clear, Lori and I are not advocating that husbands everywhere discipline their wives. We are hopeful that your state of marriage is not such that you are a difficult or rebellious wife where such a thought must be even entertained. Although I will repeat that far too often husbands and wives punish each other with words, moods, scowls and withholding sex and the best of themselves, precisely because they want a response from the spouse. We see a world of difference between this unchristian behavior that is happening in Christian homes far too often, and Cabinetman’s heroic work in helping to redeem his wife from the pit of despair and rebellion.

"Cabinetman" is the pseudonym chosen by the man who is the subject of this post. What a strange name. Anyway, Ken proceeds to hide behind vagueness and euphemisms, but he cannot make this topic any less disturbing. If anything, he makes it more disturbing by referring to such behavior as "heroic!" 

All Christian discipline whether with elders to members, boss to employees, husbands to wives, parents to children should be the minimum correction necessary to obtain the desired long term godly results. 

There is, of course, an important distinction to be made regarding the examples above. A husband is not his wife's boss, elder, or parent! The Bible never gives husbands authority of any kind over their wives! Ken and Lori try to paint those who believe in the equality of men and women as having a problem with authority generally by including examples of legitimate authority. But a wife is not a child or an employee, and should not be treated as such. 

No husband in his right mind should be requesting a wife to follow discipline that is unfair, unjust, or harsh.

No husband in his right mind would ever want to discipline his wife in the first place or view her as a child, employee, or otherwise beneath him. Truly loving and caring husbands will never enter into such an arrangement in the first place, and those who would likely are the type who can't be trusted to be fair, just, and gentle. This is nothing less than a recipe for abuse. Only a twisted person could desire such a relationship. 

Many who commented opposing the concept of a husband disciplining his wife gave all kinds of excuses, but the main one is that you cannot find such a command in the Bible. Yes, point well taken, but, there are many things not specifically given in the Bible concerning marriage, as God expects us to function freely within His specific rules of 1 & 2 above.

This is one of those comments that ought to be screenshotted and posted on Lori's page frequently. Lori constantly tells us there is no command in the Bible for husbands to submit to wives, for women to preach, for women to have careers, etc., and believes this is enough to argue that these things are forbidden. Yet, Ken turns around and says that even though the Bible doesn't say husbands can discipline their wives, there is "freedom" to do so. 

        I figured out the pattern of Ken and Lori's double standards: if we're talking about women, they are not allowed to do anything unless the Bible explicitly says they can. But if we're talking about men, they are allowed to do anything not explicitly forbidden by the Bible. The default for women is lack of freedom, while the default for men is freedom. What a surprise! 

.        Ken hastily dismisses such objections as the potential for abuse, the need for both spouses to grow and change, the fact that Jesus would not treat the church in this way, and the concern that the husband is free to be as arrogant and controlling as he likes. Then, says this: 

Cabinetman's wife came to her hero's defense and told some pretty dark details explaining more as to why Cabinetman saw the need to take drastic measures to try to redeem his wife and his marriage. As soon as his wife brought depression and thoughts of suicide into the discussion, Cabinetman and all readers were then coached by some detractors as to how awful he was to try to save his wife by "isolating her" and controlling her without professional help and intervention.

Is Ken unaware that victims of abuse frequently defend their abusers? Of course he is. but accepts this as sufficient evidence that all is well. And yes, anyone with a brainstem would be concerned about a husband trying to "treat" his wife's depression and thoughts of suicide by isolating her instead of seeking professional help!

But then we have more of Ken's double standards: 

Tell me people... why expect a husband in such a desperate situation to handle everything perfectly? Many men would just cut their losses and leave, but Cabinetman, maybe warts and all, fought for his marriage. 

Even Ken has to admit (indirectly) that something is wrong here, but then he just makes excuses. When it's a woman, there is no grace, no second chances, no attempt to understand, just vicious attacks. But when it's a man, Ken says "now, now, he isn't perfect..." We're not asking for perfection; we're just asking for no abuse. This isn't difficult. 

       Another point that must be made is that Ken and Lori will glorify anyone who keeps a marriage together, with no consideration of whether it should be kept together (Jesus Himself allowed divorce in some instances, but I guess Ken and Lori would accuse Jesus of being unbiblical or something). They look past infidelity and abuse and everything going on inside the marriage, and simply rejoice over what they can see externally (that they are still legally married). It's almost as if they care about nothing except outward appearance...

So Lori and I have nominated Cabinetman as hero of the week for being faithful to what he believed was God's call to redeem his bride and participate with the help of the Lord to turn her into the godly, loving and happy women who lives out the Spirit inside of her. And for putting up with the obvious malpractice committed by far too many commenters who based their concerns on guesswork and feelings, not the facts. 

I'm not sure how to calmly answer this paragraph. HERO OF THE WEEK? Godly women who merely work outside of the home or speak in church are crucified, while abusers are given the title "hero of the week." Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness, who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter." And I would really like to know what "guesswork" and "feelings" he is referring to. The facts are literally right there! Ken tries to confuse us with vagueness and euphemisms and then pretend he is the one who is simply stating it like it is.

For those of you who still think he was too hard, or too arrogant or too borderline abusive, I can only say that I hope you, or your husband, never are put in the same predicament. Cast your stones if you may, then realize that biblically you have no footing to stand upon. The Bible does not in any way say that a husband cannot discipline his wife, so long as his motives are in love and he believes it is best for his wife to be corrected, reproved or rebuked.  This is between him, his wife and his Lord. Not the loud voices, some who do not know God’s Word, and others who do not believe or follow it.

No, I don't think he was "borderline" abusive. That is far too lenient. And notice how he "hopes" women and their husbands are not "put in the same predicament." This is a classic tactic of abusers: pretending they have been "forced" into it and therefore are not responsible for their own actions. The abuser is portrayed as the real victim because he "had to" resort to such extremes. 

       Then he claims those who are against abuse have no biblical footing to stand on, once again claiming that husbands are allowed to do anything the Bible doesn't explicitly forbid (a very different standard than that for women). Of course, let me say that the Bible does forbid abuse, telling husbands not to be harsh with their wives, for example (Col. 3:19). Oh, I forgot: Ken only reads the verses about female submission and hates the rest of the Bible because he can't twist it to justify his own sick behavior. Ken has the audacity to tell those who condemn abuse of not believing the Bible or following it. I have no words! 

Do you want a great marriage and not just an ordinary marriage where two singles come together from time to time to create part-time happiness? I mean a hot, intimate, feeling of oneness type of marriage?  Or are you still too scared he might take advantage of you or abuse you? We are talking about your husband here, none other. Can he have your blessings to correct you, admonish you, rebuke you and discipline you? 

You cannot have the type of marriage many long for until you are willing to be vulnerable enough to trust.

It seems to me that mutual love and respect between equals is a much better recipe for a great marriage. He entices men with a "hot" marriage in which they also get a free housekeeper who is unable to challenge them in anything, and he frightens women into thinking they'll never have a happy marriage if they don't submit to predators such as this. Trust is earned by treating people kindly and with respect, not by demanding it because you think you are entitled no matter how you act. 

       In closing, I hardly need to say that this is a highly disturbing blog, even more than most. As much as we rightfully object to nearly everything Lori says, let's at least recognize that she herself likely is the victim of some sort of abuse. I can't know for sure, but that certainly seems consistent with a lot of her behavior. We must continue resisting her, but let's also recognize the possible root of the problem, and hope and pray that she may one day become free and truly experience real love.  

Link to the original blog: https://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2014/02/dealing-with-rebellious-wife.html?m=1

Response to "She Wasn't There For Her Son."

        This has to be one of the most outrageous, and dramatic, blogs Lori has ever posted. A brief look through the Facebook comments on it reveals that her followers all suffer from the same delusions. This poor 12 year old boy! So sad! You have to read it to believe it. 

       Lori writes no comments of her own, but simply shares a letter written to her by a man who wishes to remain anonymous. He begins by sharing that he and his wife had always had an egalitarian view of marriage, but over the years his views changed. He began to believe “A wife’s place is in the home” and “Wives should be keepers at home.” He claims this conclusion was based on his study of the Bible and godly preaching of the Word (though, of course, the biblical support for such ideas is thin to the point of nonexistence). He did not get these ideas from the Bible, but from the man-worshiping ideas of those who merely use the Bible to justify their sense of superiority. 

“Unavoidably, this began creating conflict in the marriage when one of us has one view of marriage as an ordered hierarchy that God ordains for marriage, and the other thinks it’s a free-for-all.”

You think? One day you suddenly declare to your wife that you’re the boss and she has to obey you in everything, and you think it’s going to go over well? This doesn’t seem the least bit opportunistic to you? How convenient that you’ve suddenly “interpreted the Bible” in this way! 

       And notice his manipulative language. He calls his own ideas “God-ordained”, while the alternative is called a “free-for-all.” This is meant to scare us out of attempting equality in our own marriages. Those of us who are in egalitarian marriages are doing just fine, thank you very much. All it takes is some maturity and not thinking everything revolves around you. 

       He then shares his suspicion that she is planning to leave him: 

“It came to a head when my wife decided that she was done with the whole arrangement and began preparing for her exit….I know that when the last of the kids are grown up and moved out, that’s when she is going to leave. I’ve confronted her on it a number of times, and while she’s never confirmed it, she’s also never denied it.”

“I’ve done all that is in my power to avoid it (including pastoral counselling numerous times even after she walked out of it), and made sure that I am doing what the Lord requires of me, which I can control without focusing on what the Lord requires of her, which I cannot control." 

Hm. Have you tried not declaring yourself dictator for life? If not, you haven’t done all that is in your power. Also, notice how he claims he is simply “doing what the Lord requires of me.” How dare anyone challenge his position as dictator! GOD HIMSELF told him he gets to be the boss, and he’s just humbly following. Baloney. 

"But ultimately, the power is not in my hands; it is in hers. If she is determined that she is going to leave, then there is nothing I can do to stop her. So, I focus on my relationship with the Lord and with my brothers and sisters in God’s family in the local church, and leave the rest of the matter in God’s hands. She abandoned our marital relationship almost seven years ago. This is pretty much permanent, as far as I can tell.”

Wow, look at the poor sad man who just wanted to rule unconditionally and his wife wouldn’t let him! No, she didn’t abandon the marriage, YOU did, when you declared yourself lord and her your serf. 

       He then shares that they have three adult children, two older teenagers with cars, jobs, and friends, and a 12 year old. It is the 12 year old he is concerned about in his letter, due to the following:

“My wife has decided that she is going to enroll in college and start working towards a medical degree. Without saying such, I know that this part of her “exodus” plan. And I’ve been supportive of it. Since I cannot change her behavior then if she’s going to leave, I at least want her to be able to provide for herself. I don’t want her living alone on minimum wage income into her old age. We are both in our fifties. So, I’m helping and supporting this, against counsel to do so. I’m being told by pastoral counselors that I am aiding and enabling her to sin. But, in the end, I really have her welfare at heart.”

Right, because going to college once your kids are nearly grown is “sin.” Is there a Bible verse to support this? Of course not. 

       Also, he goes so far out of his way to portray himself as the silent sufferer who only has everyone’s best interests at heart. Am I the only one who suspects he’s not being entirely honest? 

He then shares what he calls “the final straw”:  

“I live close enough to work that I can get home for lunch, so I often do. This day, Ben was the only one of our children home. My wife told me that she is leaving to go study with her “college study group” and that she will be leaving in about an hour. So, by roughly after noon, she’s gone and Ben is at home by himself. I don’t have a problem with that. He’s old enough to keep himself occupied for a few hours.”

“But when I finally finish work that evening, and got home at about 10:30 pm, I find the house is dark, and he is still home and completely alone. My wife is still at her “college study group” and Ben has been home alone all day long and all night long from a bit past noon all the way until 10:30 pm at night. I’m a bit peeved at this. That is an understatement. I am intensely angry. I understand going to a study group for a couple of hours, but this has been all day and long into the night with Ben home alone the whole time. It is one thing for her to abandon me. I am used to that, and I am equipped to deal with that but to abandon our children? That is the final straw.”

Abandon? He’s TWELVE. I think he’ll be fine. 

“I ask him if he’s eaten anything, and he said, ‘No.’”

Wait...he doesn’t know how to FEED himself?!? 

“About the same time that I get home, Ben’s older brother, who is about 30, shows up at the house with his girlfriend. And he’s brought some fast food that they picked up at a restaurant. And I sit there, watching Ben watch his brother eat. “Then Ben says to him, ‘Can I have any leftovers if there are any?’”

“And my heart just broke. It took all I had not to cry in front of him. I cannot express in words the grief I felt in knowing what had happened to him all that day while I was at work, unaware of what was happening to him at home. I spent hours at work, completely oblivious to what was happening to him at home because he was alone. I was heartbroken for him. I get home to a dark house, a hungry son, and a missing wife.”

*SNIFF* Oh, it’s so SAAAAAAD! “Heartbroken!” “Grief!” “It took all I had not to CRY!” “Unaware of what was happening to him!” Can you believe this guy? And it just gets worse!

“Here’s a 12 year old boy who has been home all day and all night, alone, basically begging table scraps from his own brother. Why? Because his mother has not been home all day and all night to even so much as prepare a meal for him because she’s out pursuing worldly ambitions with her “college study group.” I try my best to suppress my outright hostility towards this “college study group” that is so much more important to my wife than her own son, let alone her own husband. I’m a grown man, capable of handling such treachery. But a 12 year old boy?”

“Begging table scraps”?!?!?!? This is the best comedy I’ve ever read! Does this guy really think anyone will be fooled by his drama? (well, a quick reading of the comments reveals that apparently some are). 

       It is not his wife who has failed her son; it is his father who is trying so desperately hard to paint himself as the hero. He has taught his son that women exist to serve him, whether they need it or not, and has not even taken the time to encourage his son to take care of himself. This is how you raise an entitled brat who thinks the world revolves around him and thinks of no one but himself. How can he not see this? 

“I took him to McDonalds to get a burger and fries at almost midnight.”

Oh, that explains it. It seems daddy doesn’t know how to cook anything either. Why bother learning when you have free slave-labor? 

“And I think to myself, ‘Where was his mother all this time?’”

She’s out doing something for herself for once, making the reasonable assumption that the rest of you are able to survive for a few hours. So “selfish”! 

“Ben is capable of making a sandwich, or a pizza, or some such, but he hasn’t and he shouldn’t have to. He has a mother, whom God himself has tasked with the keeping of her husband, her children, and her home.”

And why shouldn’t he have to? Are men gods? Is getting food for themselves beneath their dignity? Is it helpful to teach him ideas like this? 

“On school days, I ask her if Ben has a lunch prepared for the next day, and she will tell me “No. He knows how to make his own lunch. He can go in kitchen and make a sandwich.” But I think, in the long run, when he’s an adult, wouldn’t he rather look back on his childhood and remember a mom that LOVED and CARED for him, and didn’t simply tell him to go forage in the kitchen for himself?”

If only his dad LOVED and CARED for him enough to prepare him for the real world instead of spoiling him to the point of making him helpless (not to mention preventing him from ever having a normal and fulfilling relationship with a woman). This man doesn’t understand love or his duty as a parent. Imagine thinking that a Mother doesn’t love her son because she doesn’t wait on him hand and foot! 

“Wives are to be ‘keepers at home’ for this exact reason – to avoid this exact situation. This is the role God has ordained for wives, and laid out explicitly in scripture.” 

If you think this is “laid out explicitly” in Scripture, I suppose you think Eph. 6:5  is an endorsement of slavery? Or, in that case, do you suddenly become interested in context, culture, and translation? And why do you ignore those same things when it comes to the supposed “roles” of women? Oh right, I know: it would mean you would have to help around the house and can’t order your wife around. 

“I am considered anything from ‘old fashioned’ to outright ‘abusive’ if I bring these truths to light and tell her that I believe God expects us to work in the roles he has designated for each of us.”

Wow, I *can’t* imagine why you’re considered that way! 

“And God has tasked wives with taking that providence that God has given the husband, whatever it is (and however much, or however little that may be) and taking that and using it frugally and wisely in running the home.” 

I’m pretty sure he meant “provision”, not “providence”, but the slip is amusing. People like this certainly do treat men as if they were God. 

“And had the administrator been home, my son would not have been begging table scraps from his older brother.”

That’s right, to him his wife is “the administrator.” How dare she expect her 12 year old son to make himself a sandwich?! Haven’t you read 1 Misogyny 2:18, which states that God wants only women to make the sandwiches??? 

       What a drama queen! And yet, Lori posts it with all seriousness, letting it stand on its own and not even bothering to comment. And, as I mentioned, many in the comment section are wailing, tearing their clothes, and putting on sackcloth at the sad tale of the 12 year old boy whose mother no longer treats him like a helpless baby. 

       Who wants to bet if it had been a daughter, the dad wouldn’t have cared at all and would have wondered why she wasn’t making her own sandwiches years ago? 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/she-wasnt-there-for-her-son/

*Note: In case anyone wonders, I do recognize that there are problems with the actions of the mother in this story, IF he is telling the truth. To constantly threaten to leave but never make clear whether she intends to do so is wrong, and to be gone all day without letting anyone know is at least insensitive. HOWEVER, we have only heard the author’s side of the story, and he has done everything possible to make me question the accuracy of his account. For this reason I have not commented on the behavior of his wife. Lori and her followers, however, have no problem ripping her apart without even bothering to consider another side to the story and uncritically accept this man’s account as truth, despite the obvious drama and exaggerations. 

Response to "Living According to Your Nature Brings Happiness."

       Lori begins this blog with a comment posted on an article written by Suzanne Venker called “Four Feminist Lies That are Making Women Miserable”: 

“Living in accordance with your nature is what will bring happiness. Women have no idea how to live like a man, so instead, they ape men and thereby come off as perverse and ridiculous. It is a false masculinity that brings unhappiness. Feminism caused all this dysfunction, which has made everyone unhappy. Feminism has been the single most destructive force unleashed on the West since the end of the Bronze Age, and it will be the death of our civilization. Left and Right both have completely internalized the feminist framework, which includes disdain for tradition, resentment of men, the compulsion to ape masculinity, sexual neuroticism, a victimization fetish, entitlement, the prioritization of the self over any other consideration, including husbands, children, and family, and the destruction of masculine institutions, the churches, public and private education, and Western culture.”

I must admit I had to look up what “ape” means as a verb; apparently it means to imitate something else poorly. This is a common argument from those would subjugate women: they arbitrarily declare certain activities to be reserved only for men, then proceed to the conclusion that if a woman does any of these things she is “acting like a man.” Of course, they can offer no justification for this classification in the first place. I might as well say eating broccoli is for brunettes, so if a blond eats broccoli, she is “acting like a brunette!” It’s circular nonsense. 

       One of the (many) disturbing things about this paragraph is that you could swap out “men” and “women” for “white people” and “colored” people. These are the same kinds of arguments used to defend racism. And it is full of scary, apocalyptic language to manipulate our emotions to prevent us from thinking clearly. 

       And feminism has been the most destructive force since the bronze age? I think maybe the black plague or the Nazis would be better candidates, don’t you? Give me a break. I’m not even going to bother answering all the supposed elements of feminism listed above, since these people never even understand the basic definition of feminism. I would sooner ask the Amish about the best video games of 2019.

       Lori, of course, is highly impressed with this mess of a paragraph: 

She sure nailed it. Feminism has caused women to go far from God’s will for them and caused destruction in its path. No, I don’t rejoice when I see women coming back from the military to surprise their children. I grieve for the children these women left behind to do something that God hasn’t called them to do. I don’t rejoice when I see yet another mother going to medical school to become a doctor. I weep for the children who will receive very little of her time. God has created men to be the providers so women can be home with their children.

Lori expressed this sentiment recently in a rapid series of tweets that were met with warranted backlash, including comments from female service members themselves. I have little to add to the eloquent words of so many, except to say that if Lori is so ungrateful to those who put their lives on the line for her freedom, she is more than welcome to leave the country. 

       She then includes another idiotic tweet:

“It’s a silly thing for women to say that they don’t need a man. Societies are built by men. The home/apartment they live in was built by men. The building they work in and the car they drive was built by men. Almost everything they use on a daily basis was created and made by men.” 

Of course, women tell me all these things that women invented (which aren’t many) in order to put down men’s accomplishments, yet it’s still men who build the factories and make these few things that women invented.

       Just when I thought she couldn’t be more illogical, she surprises me yet again! It’s as if she adopted 10 cats and 10 dogs, let the cats run around outside freely but kept the dogs inside, and then concluded that cats like playing outside more than dogs. If you restrict women’s access to education and opportunity, men will accomplish more (DUH). And yet, whenever women have been empowered, they have proven they are just as intelligent and capable as men. 

       Lori expresses her offense at those who commented and shared the achievements of women who used their brains rather effectively (how dare they!), and then….this is where I completely lost it....she actually says that those who shared these facts about women were simply trying to put down men’s accomplishments! So here’s Lori, declaring all the ways men are so much better than women and that everything good that was ever accomplished was done by a man, and when someone points out that women have done extraordinary things as well, she is quick to point out (falsely) that it’s only “a few”, and claims that it is men who are being put down. I have no words. 

I would love to see the war between the sexes in Christian marriages and in the churches end. Let’s go back to the old paths that God created for us where men and women work in harmony together. 

That might be possible if people like Lori would let go of the worship of men and disparagement of women, and actually advocate for mutual respect. It is those who believe only men (not women) are worthy of respect who perpetuate the so-called “war between the sexes.” 

It’s Satan’s plan to cause division and hatred between the sexes. It’s destructive when famous female “preachers” tweet about the misogyny and sexism in the churches. This only furthers the division! 

What a sinister statement. Lori is following in the footsteps of abusers and those who protect them by blaming those who speak up, rather than those who commit the abuse in the first place! It’s not the sexism and misogyny itself that’s the problem; no, it’s the people who call attention to it. Lori would prefer everyone just hushes up and pretends everything is fine. This is not surprising, because this is also her policy for a no-conflict, “happy” marriage. 

In society, it should be the men leading. Women are making a mess out of everything as they are trying to lead. 

Got any evidence for that? I didn’t think so. Why should we take factual statements who deliberately and proudly keeps her head in the sand?

       Looking over everything, I realized just how aimless and random Lori’s entire blog is. It’s as if she didn’t really have a main point to make, but just sat down and thought about how she could insult women. It is so incredibly sad that she has so much contempt and bitterness in her heart. She has a platform that could be used for loving and building up others, and instead she spends her time in this way. If only God had a place in her “ministry.” 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/living-according-to-your-nature-brings-happiness/

Response to "Does Female Rebellion Weaken Men?"

Most of you heard about the fiasco between John MacArthur and Beth Moore. He told her to “Go home” which is biblical and I applauded him for doing so. However, many Christians were outraged over it. This past Sunday, he preached a sermon in response called Does the Bible Permit a Woman to Preach? I encourage you ALL to listen to it. It is fantastic! 

I just did finish listening to it, and no, it was not fantastic. To be clear, I have listened to John MacArthur’s sermons before and generally enjoyed them. He comes across as very intelligent and learned, and has an easy and humorous way of making his points that I usually enjoy. But this sermon was far below what I expect of someone in a position like his. The arguments were lazy, the scholarship was poor and inconsistent (why was he happy to take the culture into consideration regarding head coverings, but not regarding other issues!?), and as much as he may not even have intended it, his tone dripped of disrespect to women. 

       Lori followed her introduction with a few of her favorite quotes from the sermon. I have to say, even though I generally was disappointed in the sermon, there were certainly better portions than the ones she calls her favorites. It seems she simply looked for those that were the most outrageous and contemptuous toward women. 

Women are collectively moving to take control over the Church as they are in the political arena. 

I will never not be shocked by this kind of claim. Men can declare themselves to be in complete control and dominant over the church and women, and there’s no problem. But if women merely have equal opportunity and the same rights as men, they are trying to take over? 

You don’t want children ruling over you and you don’t want women ruling you. 

John (and Lori), women are not children, not matter how desperately you want to view them that way. 

When the weaker take power, the strong grow weak. Men are being replaced by crazy women. We’re being dominated by women.

Like I said, dripping contempt for women. You couldn’t do better than this, John? And I don’t think you understand what it means to be strong. Let’s let Jesus help you: 

Matthew 20:25-28:
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

That is strength, John. Not your desperate attempt to prove that you’re macho by declaring yourself better than others because of your gender. True strength empowers others. It is not threatened by their empowerment, as you clearly are. Oh, and by the way, until you give birth, I wouldn’t be so quick to call women “weak.” 

Women aren’t even called to lead their families.

Neither are men. Why don’t you actually study the Bible, John? The Greek word Paul used for “head” does not imply leadership of any sort. You and others who share your view impose your own ideas when you add the concept of leadership. And all believers are told to submit to each other, so submission clearly does not imply subservience. Husbands and wives should lead their family together, as a team. This is not difficult. 

 Women are vulnerable when they come out from under the protection of a man, as Eve was when she came out from under the protection of Adam. God designed women to be cared for, protected, and led by men. They’re vulnerable when they’re not.

This idea appears nowhere in the Bible. It is the invention of insecure men who have to be needed and have superhero complexes. The idea that Eve was deceived by the snake because she was alone and didn’t consult Adam before eating the fruit isn’t even hinted at in Genesis. It is simply based on presuppositions. Women are not any more in need of being cared for, protected, or led than men. There is nothing in the Bible to suggest this; in fact, this sort of idea originated with the Greek philosophers that predated Paul by several centuries. John has the audacity to present Aristotle’s negative view of women as if it appeared somewhere in the Bible! 

Wherever you have a woman preacher, you have a weak husband. Wherever you had women pastors, you have weak men.

If a woman preaching is enough to elicit this reaction, believe me, you already had a weak man. Only an already weak person could be weakened by someone else being strong. A truly strong person does not feel threatened by others having rights. 

 Where you have strong families with strong men and submissive women who are raising godly children, you have a healthy society.

This is a subtle tactic used to manipulate people into the patriarchal view. They exploit the fact that so many Christians believe our society is deteriorating rapidly, in order to stir up their fear; then they blame this deterioration on the fact that we are moving towards equality between men and women. Of course, they have no evidence that these two phenomena have anything to do with each other. Nevertheless, once they have made this alleged association, many who would otherwise see through the tactic become preoccupied with the state of our society and find themselves agreeing with the entire statement. 

       Of course, I would argue that equality and mutual respect between men and women can only improve society. I don’t understand how someone could believe that a master/servant dynamic that treats women as children, prevents them from reaching their full potential, and places many individuals in positions of authority for which they aren’t qualified simply because they’re men, could possibly be better than simply allowing everyone to function according to their individual strengths and recognizing the full equality of all people. 

       One chilling realization I had while listening to MacArthur’s sermon was that, if his words were modified to refer not to women and submission, but to colored people and slavery, I could easily imagine him delivering a nearly identical sermon in the 1800s. And that’s the point that John, Lori, and others need to realize. The Bible could be used to justify slavery, polygamy, and other terrible things if we insist on what they refer to as the “plain meaning.” Of course, John himself recognizes that verses about these other issues are not as straightforward as they seem. I just wish he would stop clinging to his precious traditions and realize the same about the equality of women. 

       John doesn’t realize that what he is arguing for is not as counter-cultural as he thinks (or maybe he does and is simply too arrogant to admit it). It was the norm in the Greco-Roman culture during the time Paul wrote. Careful study reveals that Paul actually taught a very counter-cultural equality for men and women. John makes the same mistake so many make: approaching the Bible as if it were written yesterday, in America, in English.


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/?s=Does+female+rebellion

Response to "Gender Perversion in the Home and the Church."

       Lori’s latest blog is an article written by Pastor Aaron Brummitt. It is over 3,300 words but could have been shortened dramatically, while retaining the exact same message, if he had simply said the following: “I know nothing about what I’m writing about but I think men are better than women and will do whatever I can to use the Bible to prove this.” But, since brevity was not his goal, I cannot hope to answer every point he makes. I will do my best to cover the highlights. 

Men and women were not created equal in every aspect and are distinctly different emotionally and biologically. Based upon these differences, God gave each of the two sexes well-defined roles in the home and the church. 

There are two things to note here. First, he makes the same old mistake of failing to understand the difference between “equal” and “same.” Always be on the lookout for the use of either of these words. When they say “equal,” they really mean “same”, but we don’t. Egalitarians don’t believe all people are the same; they simply believe we all have equal rights and should have equal opportunities. We must not allow complementarians to hide behind this dishonest misrepresentation. 

       Second, he says God commanded different roles for men and women based on these differences. There are two types of complementarians: those who believe men and women are equally capable of tasks such as leading, teaching, etc., but that God simply reserved these roles for men for the sake of maintaining order (it could just as easily have been blonds and brunettes); and those who believe there really are differences in the abilities of men and women, that women are not as good as men at tasks like these, and therefore should not be allowed to do them. Clearly he falls under the latter category. 

Beginning with the biological wiring of men and women, we find three distinctions. First and foremost, the average woman is physically weaker than the average man. The Apostle Peter writes, “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7). According to the National Strength and Conditioning Association, “Women generally produce about two-thirds the amount of total strength and applied force that men produce.” Every study, to date, has concluded that muscular strength and physical stamina is higher, on average, in men as opposed to women.

Egalitarians don’t deny this; they simply deny that it’s a valid reason to tell women they can’t preach or make decisions for themselves. 

Second, the Lord created man and woman with different biological organs for reproduction.

Wow, I had no idea! 

Third, we find that the woman was created to be more emotional than the man.

Clearly this guy has never seen a group of men watching the Superbowl. 

Due to the distinct differences in physical strength, reproduction, and emotions, God has given men and women unique roles in the home and the church. The scripture teaches us, in the first two chapters of Genesis, the woman was made for the man, and not man for the woman. 

The word “helpmeet” in Hebrew is the word ezer neged, which literally means “worthy helper,” “proper helper,” or “well-equipped helper.” 

       He fails to mention, of course, the fact that “ezer” was used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself, and therefore does NOT mean subordinate or assistant. 

The first sin ever committed by humanity, was committed by the woman when she listened to the serpent and not her husband.

That’s funny, I thought Eve listened to the serpent and not God. Aaron is either severely mixed up or intentionally trying to deceive us. Of course, it’s not surprising; complementarians do generally confuse men with God. 

Christian author, Debi Pearl writes, “Satan could have tempted [Adam]. But Satan waited – waited for the creation of the weaker vessel.” She goes on to write, “Satan knew that the man could not be [easily] deceived, but the woman could.”

Let’s consider this for a moment. Eve is put down for sinning, while Adam is upheld as the standard of righteousness and resilience to temptation. And yet, for Eve to sin, it took all the serpent’s efforts to form an elaborate argument to convince her. What did it take to convince Adam to do the same? Eve simply said “here, eat this.” And Adam said “OKAY!” *Chomp* So maybe Debi Pearl ought to rethink this point a little? It could just as easily be argued that the serpent chose Eve because he knew if she was stronger, and if SHE fell, it would be easy for Adam to fall after her. 

After the Fall, God firmly and protectively set up the gender roles for humanity. In Genesis 3, God said to the woman: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he SHALL RULE over thee.”

The willful ignorance of complementarians on this point never ceases to amaze me. The biblical text literally says right here than men ruling over women was not part of God’s design, but actually part of the curse, the result of sin. It takes an extreme kind of desire to impose your own ideas on the Bible to miss this point. 

According to the scriptures, the woman is commanded by the Lord to obey her husband and be in subjection to him. As Christ is the head of the man, so also the man is the head of the woman in all things.

No, Paul uses a Greek word meaning “obey” when referring to children and parents, and slaves and masters, but he chose a different word for wives and husband specifically to AVOID implying that wives are to obey their husbands. 

In the Greek, the word “submit” is the word hupotasso, which literally means “to obey, to place yourself under another, to allow yourself to be subdued by another, to subject yourself unto another.” 

Nice try, but no. He has given the definition of “hupotasso” in a military application (and I do hope he doesn’t consider marriage to fall under this category). In a non-military application, it means “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.” It has been suggested that the best way to translate this word into English would be “be supportive of.” Paul did not have anything remotely like obedience in mind. He tells husbands to love their wives and wives to be supportive of their husbands - two sides of the same coin. Paul had equality in mind here, and yet there is no shortage of those who would try to twist it to say the opposite! 

From Genesis to Revelation, God’s word does not bend on this topic. God intends the husband to rule the home, and the wife and children to be in subjection to his leadership. This apparent gender inequality is not to degrade women, but exists rather to bring honor to each gender uniquely.

I’d really like someone to explain to me how subordinating women as a result of their very nature does not degrade them, but I digress. There is not a single verse in the Bible that tells men to rule their wives and home. Paul easily could have included this, but he didn’t. All he ever tells husbands to do is love and care for their wives, and to sacrifice for them. Sounds pretty submissive to me! 

       He then transitions to the supposed separate roles of men and women in the church. He cites the following familiar passages: 

I Corinthians 14:33-35: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. 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.

There are 30 different words in Greek that could be translated “speak.” Paul specifically chose the one that simply means “talk” or “converse.” Women in that time and culture were generally confined to the home and did not understand how to act in public. Counter to the culture, Paul insisted both men and women be present in church, but the women didn’t realize it was rude to have conversations during the service. Paul was simply telling them not to chat with their friends during the service. That’s it. There’s nothing here about something specific to women that makes it shameful for them to speak. 

I Timothy 2:10-14: But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. 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. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

The same point can be made here, along with the fact that the word for “silence” Paul chose is the same he used when he told all believers in 1 Thes. 4:11 to live “quiet and peaceful lives.” So he’s referring to maintaining peace and order, not literal silence. Also, the word used for “authority” is not the one meaning legitimate authority, but a domineering, controlling authority (like the kind complementarians think men should have!). Timothy was dealing with a female-dominant cult in the Ephesian church, and Paul was simply telling him that women should not rule over men any more than men should rule over women.  

       But, of course, Aaron thinks the case is closed with the plain English reading: 

Based on these two passages, it is very clear that godly women should never usurp the authority of men or teach them in the church. Both of these passages speak directly to the heresy of adult women teaching adult men. 

Many Christians are far too quick to use the word “heresy” to refer merely to something with which they disagree. It’s a way to bully people and frighten them into giving in and not thinking critically. But two can play at this game: the way complementarians worship men and grant them roles and positions that belong to God alone is nothing short of IDOLATRY. 

Furthermore, we find zero instances where women prophesied the word of God to men, practiced street preaching, traveled as evangelists, or led church services. 

False. I’m beginning to think Aaron has never actually read the Bible. 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 says “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved.” (don’t worry about the point about head coverings, this was a cultural issue - even John MacArthur admits this!). This passage is referring to church meetings, and therefore, this is an explicit reference to women leading the church in prayer and prophesying (which could mean teaching, exhorting, etc.). Aaron, you need to stop ignoring the portions of the Bible you don’t like and that don’t fit your agenda. 

God never designed a woman to be a preacher. The word “preach” in the Greek is the word kerusso, which means “to herald, as a public crier, especially divine truth – the gospel.” God designed men with a stronger voice to handle situations that require being heard at great distances. For example, military commanders, in war time, are required to be heard over the sound of battle and at great lengths.

Clearly this guy has never heard my Mom yell. I know many women with powerful voices and men with weak voices...what’s your point?!

I emphasize the importance of a single woman having a proper authority in her life. Without a husband, or a godly father, a single woman needs to submit to the protection of her church elders.

And why is God not enough for her? Why are you so desperate for women to be dependent on men? 

There is no scriptural allowance for a woman to override her meek and quiet spirit to win a soul. 

Yup, you heard him correctly: silencing women is more important to him than winning souls!

In conclusion, there is much confusion in the world today about gender roles. Satan has worked hard to raise up an army of feminists and counterfeit “christians” to blaspheme the word of God. The demon of divination and the spirit of Jezebel are both hard at work teaching women to follow many false doctrines. Tragically, these spirits are seducing the next generation of young ladies to usurp the authority of the man, cast off their God given role as keepers at home, and become street preachers, woman pastors, and New Age theologians.

If Satan has done anything, it is to convince so many in the church that somehow silencing half its members was a good idea. 

       And for crying out loud, there is no such thing as a Jezebel spirit in the Bible! This was made-up simply as an attack on women whenever no legitimate arguments could be made against them.

       Beware anyone who adds so much of his own ideas to the Bible and calls them divine revelation, especially when those ideas so conveniently elevate him at the expense of others.