Response to "He is the Patriarch of His Home."

       Lori begins this blog with a description of what she considers to be the ideal relationship between a husband and a wife. Specifically, she is sharing the way an unnamed woman describes her daughter-in-law: 

She told me her DIL truly lives a submissive life towards her husband. Where he wants to live, she wants to live. What he wants to eat, she wants to eat. He is the patriarch of his family. She trusts his decisions. She doesn’t always have to give her opinion and suggestions, then argue to get her way. He leads. She follows. He is head over her. She is submissive and obedient to him. This is how it’s supposed to be, women. She is not a contentious or quarreling woman. Her husband adores her. She is reaping what she is sowing.

Though it is never less shocking, this is not at all surprising coming from Lori. In the first few sentences she declares that women should not even have their own personalities, preferences, or opinions, regarding both major decisions (where to live) as well as more minor ones (what food they enjoy). She says the wife "doesn't always have to give her opinion or suggestions", but it is evident that she really means the wife should never offer these. She has only watered it down here so she can pretend those who oppose her views are actually suggesting that women ought to always get their way. She calls any woman who does not follow this formula "contentious" and "quarreling." 

       The problem, of course, is that not a single word of this is biblical. The Bible never says women must have no ideas or preferences of their own but simply follow those of their husbands. It contains many instances of patriarchal families but never condones this any more than it condones slavery or polygamy, of which there is certainly an abundance in the Bible as well. In fact, it never tells husbands to lead their families and wives to follow their husbands and obey them. It uses the word "obey" to instruct children and slaves, but deliberately uses a different word for wives. When Paul tells wives to submit to their husbands, the word for "submit" is the same used when telling all believers to submit to each other, so clearly what Paul has in mind is not hierarchical but has to do with living sacrificially toward one another. To say only wives should submit to husbands is as absurd as saying only husbands are required to love their wives. 

       But, despite attempts by so many to point out these facts to Lori, she simply ignores them and doubles down on her preferred twisting of the Bible. If only she knew that the idea that women must serve men and men are the leaders of the family did not come from Paul, but rather from the Greek philosophers from several centuries earlier, such as Aristotle. Many of the things Paul wrote were meant specifically to refute the ideas of those philosophers! 

       Because there is no biblical support for Lori's claims, she must instead turn to a very particular dictionary as her reference. When those who argue against her use any source other than the Bible, she is quick to point this out and declare the Bible alone to be her standard. But when she can't find what she wants in the Bible, she has no problem looking among the words of men: 

“Patriarch” defined in the 1828 Webster’s Dictionary explains it this way: “The father and ruler of a family; one who governs by paternal right.”

It is no surprise that a dictionary written at a time when both women and colored people were viewed as inferior and existing primarily to serve (white) men declares that there is such a thing as a paternal right. But I must here make the point that Lori makes only selectively: since the Bible itself never declares a "paternal" right to govern the family, I will not accept the words of this dictionary as authoritative. 

       In the next paragraph Lori criticizes an article defending complementarianism. This was interesting to me because I have always referred to Lori as complementarian, but perhaps I need to revise this assumption. Complementarians at least pay lip-service to the idea that men and women are equal in value, but declare that they nevertheless have different God-ordained roles and that men are in authority. Apparently, even this extreme view is not enough for Lori. She prefers the more extreme patriarchalist view. I'm not entirely sure of the details of the differences between this two, but perhaps it's something to explore in the future. 

What about in America’s past? Were women as a whole oppressed? Not from what I have read or seen. Even in Little House on the Prairie days when men were the leaders in everything, women were free to do many things as you can clearly read in the writings of Laura Ingalls. Women were far from being slaves. True oppression is what the actual slaves in America experienced. Not being able to vote isn’t oppression.

Have you ever had a friend who always had to top whatever you told them? If you say you've been ill recently, for example, they always respond with a story of a time when they were even more ill. this seems to be what Lori is doing here. Certainly women were not as oppressed as slaves, but this doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with how women were treated! Also, Lori seems to think she is the ultimate judge of what is and is not oppression; if she doesn't think it's oppression, it isn't. In this way she can dismiss all historical examples one might present. Given what we know of her views regarding the rights of women, it's no surprise she thinks they weren't oppressed in the past. 

       In reality, however, it's not difficult to research the ways in which women have been oppressed throughout history. Roughly 100 years ago, for example, women were not able to apply for loans in their own name, work in the legal profession or civil service, inherit property on the same terms as men, serve on a jury or, of course, vote. No, this is not the same as slavery, but that does not make it just. 

       Lori then quotes the article I mentioned earlier defending complementarianism, along with her own commentary: 

From the article: “Men have a responsibility to exercise headship in their homes and church family, and Christ revolutionized the definition of what that means. Authority is not the right to rule—-it’s the responsibility to serve.” Yes, Christ taught us that the greatest of all is the servant of all but He didn’t take the authority away from men to rule in their homes or in the churches. The Apostle Paul still clearly taught us that men are to the be heads of their wives and the elders are the leaders of the churches. Husbands and elders still have the right to rule as Christ rules His Church.

Isn't it interesting that Lori, who complains so often about people supposedly trying to find "exceptions" to what the Bible teaches, literally says the words "Yes, Christ taught us that the greatest of all is the servant of all BUT.." No, Lori, there is no "but." This teaching does not apply only to women. Men must also be the servant at all. This is what the Bible teaches, not a supposed male right to rule. 

I think this is why some have a problem with the term “servant leadership” that is so popular today. It assumes that the leaders are only to serve not to rule as Mary stated. That’s silly! It’s like saying parents are only to serve their children not to rule or that employers are only to serve their employees not to rule. You see, women, many women today have great trouble with any authority in their lives. They don’t want anyone to tell them what to do. 

If it wasn't clear before, it is now. Lori has a problem with the idea of "servant leadership", which, though not very well-defined as a concept, is still enough to offend her. She can't stand the thought of men having to serve others in any way. She believes men were placed on this earth only to be served. How shocked she would be if she actually read the New Testament! 

       She also thinks it's as "silly" to say men shouldn't rule their wives as it is to say parents shouldn't rule their children or employers shouldn't rule their employees. There are multiple problems with this. First, I would point out that parents don't exactly rule their children and do primarily serve them. They have authority over them, but this is not the same as ruling over them. Similarly, employers certainly do not rule over their employees. They have a mutual contract, and if the employee wants to keep the job he/she must do what the employer wants, but this is a bit different from an actual authority structure. And even if it were considered authority, it is very limited in scope; it is only in effect while the employee is on the job. 

       But, more importantly, there simply is no biblical mandate for husbands to rule their wives or wives to submit to such rulership, and as much as Lori would like us to associate these other examples with husbands and wives, there is no justification for doing so. Women are not employees or children of their husbands, though I've seen some of Lori's followers imply both (and worse!). 

       Also, Lori is wrong when she says women have a problem with authority in their lives. I know plenty of women who have great respect for authority. But they should not have any tolerance for illegitimate authority declared over them, nor for men who pretend to have the kind of authority only God does. To submit to such "authority" would be idolatry. You cannot set up a false authority and then accuse everyone who does not obey of being "rebellious." 

The commands for husbands on how they are to treat their wives are that they are to love their wives. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t to rule over them (make the decisions and lead the home in the way they decide). Yes, godly men should rule lovingly over their wives (but it doesn’t mean that godly wives get to decide what this looks like)...

Lori brushes past the command to husbands, trying her best to sweep it under the rug before anyone notices. She also fails to notice the obvious point that husbands and wives ought to love each other, and if this is the case, why would we not also conclude that husbands and wives ought to submit to each other (in the sense of loving and sacrificing for the other)? I don't know about you, but "ruling" over someone by demanding that things be done the way you decide doesn't sound very loving. And notice how, while declaring that a husband's "ruling" of his wife ought to be loving, she is quick to add that wives have no right to decide what this looks like. In other words, she wants absolutely no restrictions on men and seems slightly concerned that they may be inconvenienced by God's command for them to love their wives. She wants to make sure men can do whatever they want and simply label it "loving", and the wife must accept it. 

       Patriarchy was the social norm at the time the Bible was written, but simply is never commanded anywhere in the Bible. Quite the opposite, in fact. I don't know how it's possible to be familiar with the Gospel, the way Jesus treated women, and the overall message of the Bible that declares both men and women to be made in God's image as equals and actually includes frequent examples of the problems caused by the exclusive rule of men, and still think that somehow patriarchy is God's design. Genesis 3:16 declares patriarchy to be a result of the curse of sin, and history has made this clear. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/he-is-the-patriarch-of-his-home/

Response to "Developing Thicker Skin as a Newlywed."

       Lori's latest blog is based on an email she received from a young woman named Sarah: 

“I am a young newlywed. I don’t have any older women in my life that can give me biblical advice. That’s why I’m writing to you and I hope that’s alright. Being married is all new to me and it’s not as easy as I thought it would be. I really did put hope in God helping me but I keep failing. And having to live with my mother-in-law is not easy.

“My husband and I have recently been having fights every time he gets off work. He is very critical of me and I’m very sensitive. I have no thick skin. I start to act hurt and that’s how the fights start. How can I get a thicker skin?

“I feel the sadness fill my whole body and I can’t help crying. My husband doesn’t like my crying and many times I feel like I’ve done nothing wrong. He seems to try to put me down. I do clean our home every day and I cook for him.”

Let's think about this for a moment while we work up the courage to look at Lori's response. The way Sarah describes her situation is incredibly sad. Although she's asking for advice and seems to recognize something is wrong, she still appears mostly convinced that the way things are going somehow must be her fault. After saying her husband is critical of her, she immediately points out that she is also sensitive as if these two facts are equally problematic. She quickly points out that she has no thick skin, again as if she is ultimately responsible if her feelings are hurt. Then, in a very telling sentence, she says the fights start because she acts hurt. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say the fight starts when he says whatever it is that causes the hurt? She has probably been conditioned all her life to view herself as the problem in these kinds of situations. She even appears to believe that his obligation to treat her well depends on whether she serves him by cleaning and cooking. 

       Then, disturbingly, she mentions that her husband doesn't like her crying. This may be the biggest red flag here (though there are plenty!). Clearly he can't be bothered by a wife who has her own feelings and need for respect. This is a classic tactic of abusers; they condemn any sort of protest or expression of feelings as inconvenient. They make it seem as if their victims are wrong for reacting, rather than themselves being wrong for hurting the other in the first place! 

       Well, we can't put it off forever; let's take a look at Lori's advice. 

I can relate to this woman. I thought I was a submissive, godly wife to my husband since I cleaned our home, cooked for him, and was even available for him sexually, but I was extremely sensitive and easily offended. If my husband said or did something I didn’t like, I would get angry and cry. I would stomp upstairs and wait for him to apologize no matter who was at fault. It was definitely a manipulation tool that I didn’t completely realize at the time. It certainly didn’t draw my husband to myself. Men get tired of seeing their wives in tears over every wrong that they perceive. We married imperfect men. We’re imperfect. It’s learning to accept him as he is and not trying to change him. That’s God’s job! Our husbands aren’t going to treat us exactly as we want them to treat us.

Lori exhibits the same tactic as abusers here. Without any justification, she immediately dismisses the possibility that this man truly is cruel, and instead assumes that what Sarah is distressed about simply is not a big deal. She paints the man as merely doing little things the woman doesn't like, such as squeezing the toothpaste in the middle of the tube or leaving the toilet seat up. In this way, Lori can dismiss the cries of women and make them sound silly. We are not talking about something she "didn't like." We're not talking about not being treated "exactly" the way we want. We're talking about emotional abuse! 

Women struggle with their emotional nature and this is something that we must learn to control if we want a better marriage. Being led by our emotions gets us nowhere. When a husband doesn’t treat his wife the way she wants to be treated or says something that offends her, the quicker she learns not to react but to give it up to the Lord, the better. This makes for a much more peaceful marriage.

Lori continues reciting the manifesto of the abuser. No need for husbands to not be cruel to their wives in order to have a better marriage. No, it is the wife who is wrong for reacting. It is up to her to control her emotions. How dare she have feelings? Again we see how Lori whitewashes the issue, saying the wife is merely "offended" and isn't being treated "the way she wants." 

      Lori doesn't understand the difference between avoiding conflict and truly having peace. There probably is very little conflict in a hostage situation too, but is it peaceful? Sadly, Lori doesn't know true peace, so the best she can do is chase after a hollow imitation that is nothing more than learning to shut off your emotions until you are less-than-human, because the alternative is much worse. This is classic Stockholm syndrome, and tragically, there are those to whom Lori wants to pass it on. 

We must also remember that it takes two to fight, Sarah. It takes only one to not fight. Be the one not to fight. State your opinion in a kind way and then let it go. You don’t have to be right and you don’t even have to try to make your husband understand you completely. 

Does Lori really believe it takes two to fight? Seems to me she believes only women are responsible for conflict. And I'm starting to sound redundant, but this is not about stating opinions, being right, or being understood completely! Sarah said her husband is critical, won't even allow her to express her feelings, and puts her down. But Lori turns a blind eye; she cannot even consider that the gender she worships may just be doing something wrong.  

Whenever he tries to put you down, ping those comments off of your shield of faith straight up to God. Don’t allow them to steal your joy. 

This is like telling a depressed person to "stop being sad." 

You will never develop a “tough skin” if you allow your emotions to control you. You’ll continually be like a ping pong ball – up if he’s treating you right and down if he’s not. 

Certainly we should not be completely controlled by our emotions, but again, that's not the issue. Lori is saying women should not show emotion at all. And she says this because she herself is terrified of the consequences if she shows her emotions, so she warns other women lest what she is afraid of may happen to them. This is not a normal or healthy relationship. 

Living with a person who gets easily offended isn’t easy. It’s like having to walk on eggshells with them. You don’t want him to walk on eggshells around you, right?

Amazing. Again, it's the abused woman's fault. This poor abusive man doesn't like having to think about what he says and be kind. How dare his punching bag protest! How dare she make him afraid to say and do literally whatever he wants with no regard for her feelings. Living with a person who is easily offended? How about living with an abuser?!

       And, for the record, there certainly is no sign Sarah is easily offended. On the contrary, likely she is far too tolerant, because she has been brainwashed to believe she's just supposed to sit back and take whatever her husband decides she must suffer. 

       We don't know much about this couple, but what we do know is terrifying. My heart goes out to this young woman. I fear she's in for a miserable life unless she is somehow able to get out (although we know how difficult that can be among such people). Still, she is at least questioning her situation. Hopefully there is enough of a spark of clarity that has not yet been "disciplined" out of her that she might realize that this is not the way marriage should be. This is not true love. And it could not be further from God's will for her. Contrary to what Lori tells her, she has rights; she has dignity; she deserves respect. And her weak, bullying abuser does not deserve her efforts to appease him by cooking and cleaning and being a good little wife, nor does he deserve Lori's obsessive, worshipful attempt to defend him at all costs and paint him as the victim. This young woman is exactly the type of person we need to hope and pray for the opportunity to rescue. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/developing-thicker-skin-as-a-newlywed/

Response to "Mothers Need Separation from their Children to Grow?"

       If we needed any more evidence that Lori is full of contradictions and can’t even get her own story straight, her most recent blog will do just fine. The first and second half sound like they’re written by two different people engaged in debate. 

A young mother wrote this recently on her Instagram: “I feel sorry for any mother who can’t get a break from their children. Having your kids 24/7 does NOT make you a great mother. It destroys you mentally, you need separation to grow.” Not one thing about this statement is biblical, women. I shared this on my Instagram and women asked me if I would write about this since the mindset of “mom needs her own time/getaway” is very strong in our culture.

Any mentally-healthy parent who is not fanatical knows the importance of getting a break. It simply cannot be denied that it is unhealthy to do something literally 24/7 without a break, to the point that I don’t even feel like bothering to argue with Lori about it (though, as I hinted above, she does a wonderful job of arguing against herself later). For now, though, the main statement above that catches my eye is that there is “nothing biblical” about this. Lori can’t make up her mind: sometimes, women have freedom to do something as long as the Bible doesn’t specifically forbid it; other times, women are not permitted to do anything unless it’s specifically allowed or commanded in the Bible. Lori flips between these without shame (and probably without even noticing), based entirely on which position would support the point she’s trying to make currently. 

       In fact, a comment on her Facebook page regarding this blog illustrates this nicely. Someone said “Show me where in the Bible it says a mother has to be with her kids 24/7 and never get a break?” This is a reasonable question considering Lori’s constant insistence that everything she teaches is biblical. But Lori simply snapped back, “Right after you show me verses that tell us that mothers need breaks from their children for their emotional health and in order to grow.” She admits she has no biblical support, but implies she doesn’t need it, while in the same sentence demanding that someone else’s statement is invalid without biblical support! (by the way, this brief exchange was screenshotted by the Facebook page “Things Godly Women Say”, which covers Lori frequently. If you haven’t checked them out I suggest you do!). 

You see, young mothers, God has given you the power to raise happy, secure, and emotionally stable children or unhappy, insecure and emotionally unstable children. It depends upon how you raise them. I’m not telling you this to put a guilt trip upon you but to help you realize the importance of being a mother. God wants you to raise your children in the nurture and the admonition of the Lord and He wants you to protect them from this wicked generation.

It wouldn’t be a Lori Alexander blog without fear being used as a weapon at some point. Here she subtly makes the sinister suggestion that any mother who is not with her children 24/7 will raise unhappy, insecure, and emotionally unstable children! She even claims she is not trying to put a guilt trip on anyone. Sadly, I’m fairly convinced Lori’s entire understanding (or lack of understanding) of Christianity is centered on guilt and shame. 

        Then, after talking briefly about how hard it was for her to raise her kids, but that it was so worthwhile, she says this: 

I was with them pretty much 24/7 and I wouldn’t have wanted it any other way.

She has said “24/7” several times and criticized mothers for wanting even a little time to themselves. Am I missing anything? Is any of this ambiguous? I’m sure you’ll agree that this is what she is saying. But then something happens and she completely forgets everything she just wrote: 

Your constant presence in your children’s lives is the greatest gift you can give your children. One thing I do want to encourage you about is that you need to make sure your children know that you are the authority in your home, not them. My children went to bed early so I could have some alone time and with my husband. They were in their rooms an hour or so in the afternoon for naps or rest so I could rest. It’s okay to want to have some alone time and be able to study God’s Word (spending time in His Word is how you will actually grow!), rest, or do what you enjoy doing. There’s nothing wrong with this and it helps recharge your batteries, but don’t be upset if it doesn’t always happen due to sickness or other things.

So, what exactly is Lori trying to say in this blog? Initially she seemed to allow no exceptions whatsoever and demanded that mothers literally never leave their childrens’ sides like like a deranged vulture, but then she turns around and allows for exactly those types of breaks she condemned as being “unbiblical.” Of course, this is no big mystery; she finds “exceptions” for exactly those things that she herself did! What a surprise! Perhaps she simply needed to find someone/something to criticize, so she used that tone in the first half, but then wanted to appear reasonable in the second half to preempt the critics. Ultimately, it’s just more of the same sad, confused gibberish. 

       Mothers, don’t ever feel bad for needing a break. You’ve earned it, but it’s also better for your children and husband as well. Husbands and wives need time to themselves to maintain and build their relationship; if they don’t have a strong marriage, this will ultimately harm the children. Though Lori doesn’t want you to believe it, there is a middle ground between obsessively hovering over your children 24/7 and abandoning them entirely. Never feel bad about doing what you need to take care of yourself, and you will be a more positive influence on those around you. After all, people on planes are instructed to put on their own oxygen mask first and then assist the person next to them! 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/mothers-need-separation-from-their-children-to-grow/

Response to "Is Your Husband Truly the Head of Your Family?"

       This one is a complete mess of a blog, more rambling and weird even than usual. Lori begins with this ironic statement: 

There is a lot of contention among believers over many things. This should not be named among believers in Jesus Christ! “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Galatians 5:15). Yes, hold firm to your convictions but share them in kindness, not to dominate others. 

She uses this to transition into one of her rants about how wives can be the best doormats for their husbands:

In all of these things, women, is your husband the one who decides? Does he decide whether or not you celebrate Christmas and Easter? How about vaccinations? Is he the one who has the final say on this issue even if you disagree? What about headcoverings? Do you wear one if he wants you to and do you not wear one if he doesn’t want you to wear one?

Let me start by stating the obvious:none of this is biblical. Lori is so quick to point out that there is no Bible verse commanding women to work a 9 to 5 job, or to have real estate licenses, or to use a specific form of birth control, but then she'll turn around and present piles upon piles of her own ideas as if they were straight out of the Bible. 

       How about husbands and wives decide together whether to celebrate certain holidays, if they should vaccinate their kids, or how to dress? The only reason anyone would be opposed to this is if he has such a huge ego that he can't stand the thought of working with someone else as an equal. And this is precisely the kind of person who should not have absolute power. 

       She goes on to list other decisions that supposedly are up to the husband alone, such as how modestly a wife should dress, whether to spank your children, and even what Bible translation to use. There is no point to any of this unless a husband is so fragile and egotistical that he must have complete control over another. My wife can read whatever Bible version she wants, thank you! 

  Do you cause contention about this in your home or do you let him decide since he is the leader of the family? 

Once again, the Bible never calls husbands the leader of the family. Every time Paul refers to the husband as the "head" of the wife, he could have used the Greek word arche for "head", which really does mean "leader." Instead, however, he used kephale, which does not have anything to do with subordination and has more to do wtih falling in line among equals. 

       Note also how she blames the wife for causing contention for simply wanting an equal voice, and not the husband for declaring himself dictator for life!

All of these are big issues to many of us and most of us have very strong convictions about them BUT we must remind ourselves that God made our husbands as head over us (the ones in authority) and we are commanded to live in submission to them. God has given our husbands the authority to decide these issues, not us.

More of the same. Nothing can be found in the Bible giving husbands the authority to decide any issues alone, let alone these specific ones. I truly wonder where people who believe as Lori does come up with this idea! And yet, they all believe without question that the husband is to be the final decision-maker in the home. Likely they all unquestioningly follow whatever their opportunistic leaders teach them and never even realize such ideas are not actually biblical. 

Sure, we can share our opinions and what we believe is best, but we must not quarrel or cause contention about them.

She claims wives should be able to share their opinions, but she so frequently praises wives who literally remain quiet and go along with everything that I think she's simply pretending she thinks it's okay for women to do so. Trying to sound reasonable I suppose. Of course, she would label as "contentious" any contradictory opinion anyway. 

No, we don’t submit to evil but none of the above are clearly in the “evil” category...

Yet another unbiblical idea: that wives must obey husbands as long as they are not commanded to sin. Some are even more extreme than Lori and suggest wives should obey their husbands even if they do command them to sin, and that the responsibility will fall on the husband. However, even Lori's less-extreme idea is extreme enough. Before I was blocked on Facebook, I asked her if she is required to obey if her husband commanded her to hop on one foot and sing Old MacDonald. Ken replied to me and told me she laughed when she saw my comment and said yes, she would do so, that it might be fun! This is the absurd lengths to which such people must go to defend the supposed supremacy of men. Alas, I didn't get a screenshot...how I wish I had! 

       She then launches into a random speech on her position on vaccines, while still saying if a man wants his children vaccinated that the wife should have no say in the matter. "This is the husband's decision, in the end," she says. I just have one question: Why???? My wife and I will continue making decisions together, and we certainly haven't had an difficulties as a result of this arrangement. 

     Like I said, this whole blog was random and unfocused. Some days it seems she can't think of anything to write and just says whatever will make egotistical men feel good about themselves. If only she would take up a hobby instead of insisting on writing every day! 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/is-your-husband-truly-the-head-of-your-family/

Is it sinful for Christian couples not to have children if they can?

       Is it sinful for Christian couples not to have children if they can?

       No. It is not. As Lori loves to say (though only when it supports her own views), “there is not a single Bible verse” that says this. But, of course, this does not stop her from naming herself judge of what is right and wrong. 

Married women have written to me and told me that they are deliberately choosing to not have children, then ask me if this is a sin. What if ALL Christian couples who could have children decided to not have children? Would this be sin? Of course! One of the main purposes for marriage is to raise godly offspring. The first command God gave to Adam and Eve was to be fruitful and multiply.

I’m not quite sure what she’s saying here. Her words could be taken to mean that as long as some Christian couples have children, it’s not wrong for the others not to. Of course, this isn’t at all what she means to say. Instead, she is suggesting that because it would be wrong for no Christians to have children, that must mean every Christian who is capable must have children. Lori needs to look up the phrase “non sequitur.” 

       Not every command in the Bible is meant for every one of us. Fundamentalists don’t like this statement, but they can’t deny it. In 2 Timothy 4:13, Paul asks Timothy to bring the cloak with him that he had left at Troas. Does anyone think each one of us must also bring Paul his cloak? The command to be fruitful and multiply applies generally to the human race, not to every member of it. 

Couples deciding to deliberately not have children should not be named among Christians. This type of attitude supports the abortion mentality that children are a nuisance instead of a blessing. 

No, it doesn’t. Deciding not to have children, or not to have more children after having one or two, is not calling children a nuisance. In many cases it is an attempt to be sure you are able to care as best as you can for the ones you do have. Those who have never struggled financially or gone without a good support group of family, nannies, etc., are unable to understand this, of course. 

I asked the women in the chat room how they would respond to the question of whether or not it is a sin for a couple to decide not to have children.

Ah, yes, the “experts” in the chatroom. Lori claims she only teaches what the Bible says, and yet she constantly has to refer to a bunch of carefully selected women in a chatroom instead of simply quoting the Bible. Almost seems like the Bible doesn’t actually say any of this stuff, doesn’t it? 

       Lindsay from the chatroom says: 

“Yes, it is sin to decide to marry while intending never to have children. In fact, it is not marriage. To reject a large part of what God designed marriage to be is to reject marriage.”

And where exactly did all these ideas come from? There is no book of Lindsay in the Bible. And last I checked, none of the actual Bible books say that a marriage without children is not a marriage. 

       Sharon from the chatroom says: 

“IF a young woman ‘doesn’t want’ children, there is something amiss: her training, her understanding, her selfishness, her worldview. She needs to ‘be transformed by the renewing of her mind!’ You cannot say you love God and reject the fundamentals of His Design.”

What an arrogant statement. Sharon thinks there is literally something wrong with anyone who does not share her views: they are selfish, or they “lack understanding.” These people are so sure God defers to them about these things, aren’t they? 

       Also, notice the frequently-occurring and disturbing word “training.” Here, I must agree with Sharon, although I would use the more accurate term “brainwashing.” Yes, if a woman decides perhaps children aren’t for her, it does indeed mean that her brainwashing failed. Those who push such ideas know of no other way to transfer them to others than by forcing them on people and not allowing them to even hear any other views. 

       Lorrie from the chatroom says: 

“I would respond with the thought that there is something wrong with our hearts if we do not want to obey Gods commands. This is something that needs to be mourned—if you do not want children as a woman, your heart is on earthly matters, not heavenly things.”

This is just more of the same manipulative language. It’s as if I told someone they must eat only rice krispie treats for the rest of their life, and when they refuse, I respond with “you don’t want to obey God’s commands!” Prove what you’re talking about really is God’s command and not you’re own, and then we’ll talk. People use this method to elevate themselves to God’s position and try to make it impossible for anyone to question them. 

       Another amusing point is that she claims that to want marriage and children is to have your mind on heavenly things, while the opposite is to have your mind on earthly things. This is the exact opposite of what Pauls says in 1 Corinthians 7:34! “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.” Lori and her followers need to read the whole Bible, not just their few favorite verses. 

       The actual reason Lori and others like her are so obsessed with having as many children as possible is no mystery: they want to out-breed everyone else. I’m not kidding or exaggerating. If you have the time (and the stomach), check out the Quiverfull movement. Rather than focusing primarily on evangelism, they want to shift control of America over to themselves by producing enough voters to be a majority. Unfortunately, any movement that condemns birth control and insists that everyone reproduce as much as possible will not easily fade away! 

       Children are wonderful. I have two of my own. And raising them well is extremely important. But the biggest lie here is that if you fail to have one more child, you must not value the ones you already have. Or if you feel it’s best for you personally not to have children, you must hate all children. I wonder what Lori would say to the childless Apostle Paul? 

       Lori and people like her claim to value children, but they actually treat them as mere numbers and a means to an end. They don't matter to them as individuals, and a smaller number are treated as if they're worth less than a greater number. This is terribly sad. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/is-it-sinful-for-christian-couples-not-to-have-children-if-they-can/

Response to "To Love, Honor, Vacuum, and Obey."

       Lori wrote this one with "help" from Ken (not sure exactly what that means). Though she speaks from her own perspective, the writing style clearly is Ken's. 

       She begins by asking why "most" Christian women will do housework without complaining but struggle with obeying their husbands when it's "clearly commanded by God." She then quotes the following verse: 

“For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement” (1 Peter 3:5, 6).

This is very important to unpack. The Bible does NOT ever command wives to obey their husbands. Submission and obedience are very different things. All believers are told to submit to one another (such as in Ephesians 5:21), meaning that they ought to prefer others over themselves and seek to meet each other's needs. Paul deliberately uses a different word when talking to wives vs. others. When Paul tells children to obey their parents, for example, he uses the Greek word "hupakouo." The same word is used when referring to slaves. But he took care to avoid using this same word when speaking to wives; instead he used the word "hupotasso." It could not be more clear that he wanted to make sure we realized he was not telling wives to obey their husbands. Lori and Ken don't like this fact, so they ignore it. 

       As for the verse stating that Sarah obeyed Abraham, it is usually overlooked that Abraham also obeyed Sarah multiple times! For example, in Genesis 21:12, God himself tells Abraham to do what Sarah is telling him to do. So this verse cannot be used to support a husband's exclusive right to bark orders. 

Many pastors avoid the subject altogether or just as bad, they teach a sermon on a wife’s submission to her husband by explaining everything he is supposed to do for her and not do to her, even going so far as to say, “A wife was not born to serve her husband.”

I'm not sure exactly what Lori and Ken had in mind what they wrote "do to her," but it certainly sounds sinister. And let me gladly "go so far as to say" a wife was not born to serve her husband! Men and women alike ought to serve God above all others, and yet Lori and Ken literally seem to believe that for a wife, her husband comes before God. This is nothing less than idolatry. Regardless, women are capable of (and were made for) so much more than being housekeepers, cooks, secretaries, and assistants to men! I suspect if Lori and Ken had been in the room when Jesus praised Mary for sitting and learning from Him rather than Martha for housekeeping, they would have denounced Jesus Himself! 

I thought the Word of God teaches that all believers are born into Christ and are to serve others and that this service begins with serving our spouse, family, and fellow believers, then extends to all others in need. What a lame thought to put in the mind of a believer that we are not here to serve. What are we here for if not to serve God and in turn serves others?

What a crafty attempt to deceive us! To suggest that women don't exist solely to cook and clean for their husbands is not to say that no one ought to serve each other! Rather, I would suggest that men must serve as well (something Lori and Ken seem to think is beneath them). They would apply such requirements only to women. 

 It’s not like submission is some fringe view taught only by some cults, but rather it is spelled out clearly in eight to ten places in the New Testament and modeled in both the Old and New Testament and for 1,980 years of the Church age. So what makes submission all of a sudden such a pariah to these women?

Needless to say, Lori and Ken's idea of submission is a pretty fringe view, and yes, they are rather cult-like. Isn't it weird how they say it is spelled out in "eight to ten places"? Do they not even know how many? Why not just give the exact number, unless you're making something up? Instead, they try to slip past it without even providing references. And the fact that it has been practiced for such a long time throughout history is no more an argument that it is what God intended as the same argument would be regarding slavery. The Bible records much that it does not condone. If we must follow the lifestyle of every Bible character, why are Ken and Lori not shepherds? 

So under the guise and excuses of “potential abuse” and the excesses of some men, Christian women everywhere are losing out on some of the very best that God’s ways offer them. They are making themselves into islands who are separated from their husbands physically, emotionally, and spiritually, all in the name of protecting themselves from something God says is good.

I really don't think the wives out there whose husbands treat them as adults and not children, who respect them as an equal, and who share decision-making, are missing out on much. But this is how Ken and Lori and those like them ensnare people: they fill them with fear to the point that they can't even use common sense anymore and see through the lies, so they are afraid to try a marriage based on equality or to listen to those who advocate for it. 

Don’t be angry at me about this but talk to Sarah about it when you get to heaven. My guess is she will tell you, “I sure wish I had trusted God and my husband more fully and not made the mistakes I made by taking on the leadership role at times in my marriage, in spite of God’s Word, because I feared that my needs for a child may not get met in spite of God’s promise to me.”

I really look forward to Lori herself asking Sarah this question. And, in fact, talking to the Apostle Paul! I suspect he would have quite a few corrections to make to Lori and Ken's teachings. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/to-love-honor-vacuum-and-obey/