“The Transformed Wife, it is inconsiderate of the HUSBAND to just leave a mess around CARELESSLY 24/7. Just as the wife would be considered as inconsiderate if she did something like that, am I right?”
“The Transformed Wife, if a man can’t look after himself and refuses to, then he isn’t a man. So yes, divorce him. I want a husband, not a son.”
Sounds reasonable to me. The husband and wife should hold each other to the same standard. It would be entirely wrong for one to leave messes without cleaning them up and yet expect the other to be neat. Of course, this doesn't mean each spouse can't help the other out here and there. If one of us makes a mess but is not feeling well or too busy working on something else to clean it up, my wife and I will pick up the slack for each other. But it would be a problem if I were consistently lazy and made a habit of refusing to pick up after myself, and expected my wife to do it as the norm. Sure, I may be tired sometimes (and so will my wife!). But if I change my clothes, it's not exactly difficult to put them in the dirty clothes instead of leaving them on the floor. If I accidentally spill something, I'm quite capable of cleaning it up. If I open food or another item, it's up to me to throw it away. These are not heavy or unreasonable burdens.
But, of course, Lori sees it differently. The problem with Lori's position is that she seeks to avoid conflict at all costs. But a conflict-free relationship is not necessarily a healthy one, if the resentments are simply left to build up like molten lava lurking under the ground. Eventually, the volcano will blow. There are worse things than a relationship in which there is occasional, healthy conflict that leads to greater intimacy and understanding of one another, as well as the opportunity for both spouses to mature and learn to compromise and not always get their way.
As is her practice, Lori sought the opinions of the women in the chat room. Judy says:
“I wonder how well those elders can make the husband pick up after himself? Many of the elders may be messy too. There are women struggling with husbands who abuse, fail to provide, husbands with ongoing addictions, and those who commit marital unfaithfulness. Although messiness and inconsideration is annoying, most ‘picking up’ can be done in a few minutes. This verse comes to mind: ‘If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men’ (Romans 12:18).”
Judy's point is that there are bigger hills to die on, and that finishing a bag of chips and leaving it lying around instead of throwing it away is far from the worst that a wife might have to deal with. However, does this mean it's wrong for a wife to remind her husband when he's left something lying around and ask him to be more neat? If this isn't a big deal to Judy, that's up to her. But her suggestion could end up being a recipe for a lack of communication, which often leads to built up resentment because no one is talking about their feelings in order to maintain "peace." There is a middle ground between harsh nagging on one end and total dishonest silence on the other.
By the way, I should mention that I think it seems a little odd to me to appeal to the elders of the church on an issue as small as cleaning things up. Couples should probably settle these things between themselves rather than setting up a precedent of running to the elders anytime they don't like what their spouse is doing. However, truly settling such things requires communication.
Lindsay says:
“She’s basically saying that if the husband won’t do women’s work by cleaning up the house after himself, he’s sinning. Where exactly in the Bible is it written ‘Thou shalt pick up your own mess?’ I can’t seem to find it.”
Okay, Lindsay, where exactly in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt pick up your husband's mess?" Pretty reckless of you to attempt such a rebuttal when your own position is found nowhere in the Bible. Lori and her followers can believe all they want that a wife ought to be willing to always clean up after her husband, but what they cannot do is claim that it's biblical. On what grounds does she call this "women's work"? It may be her work in her home, if that's her choice, but Lindsay, please don't add to God's Word by implying your own preference is in the Bible when it is not.
Jessica says:
“She needs to humble herself and submit to her husband. #jezabelspirit”
Of course, the infamous (fictional) Jezebel spirit. As I've pointed out before, despite how frequently this term is hurled at pretty much any women who does not subscribe to a very narrow idea of who and what every woman should be, it is found nowhere in the Bible. There was a real Jezebel, but her issues were much different from not picking up her husband's candy wrappers. Anyone who mentions a "Jezebel spirit" simply ends up sounding like they have no idea what is actually in the Bible.
And besides, the biblical idea of submission has to do with considering others more important than ourselves and seeking their best interest (such as in Philippians 2:3). Of course, this command applies to both men and women, not just women (as Lori so often insists). This is a much richer and significant definition of submission than simply cleaning up your husband's messes.
Here is a different Lindsay:
“When a husband refuses to clean up messes, even after his wife has brought it to his attention, then he has made the executive decision, as head of his household, that his wife should be the one to do that cleaning up. The wife should honor this and do it herself, without complaining."
Lindsay seems to believe that the husband has total freedom to make whatever decision he wants and the wife must obey. What if he decides that the bed belongs only to him, and she must sleep on the floor? Where does this seemingly unlimited authority end? Most complementarians will say that the wife is not required to obey when asked to sin by their husbands (though some think she should!), but there are plenty of demands that are objectively unreasonable. I suppose, to them, the wife has no option in these cases but to take it.
The Bible, of course, never even comes close to giving husbands such authority over wives. In a highly patriarchal culture, Paul opposed the cultural norms placing husbands over wives by clearly avoiding ever telling husbands to rule over, make decisions for, or have authority over their wives. He tells children to obey parents and slaves to obey masters,but never uses the word "obey" with wive. This was deliberate. The word he uses for submit appears in Ephesians 5:21 when he tells all believers to submit to each other; therefore, the only consistent way to understand this is as I mentioned above, caring for one another and considering each other's needs above our own. Not to obey, which makes no sense if everyone is told to obey each other. Besides being impossible, that would be chaos if seriously practiced!
Lindsay continues:
“Imagine the impertinence of a child being told to wash the dishes and telling his mother that she needs to wash her own dishes and when the mother does not, he tells the mother that she is in unrepentant sin. No, it’s not sin for the mother to delegate that task to her child. She is in authority over him and he should obey. In the same way, it is not sin for the husband to delegate the task of cleaning up the house to his wife, regardless of who made the mess. He has that authority. It is impertinent and rebellious for the wife to insist that her husband has to do that chore. She doesn’t get to decide which chores he does. She doesn’t have that authority. She’s not the boss. Her husband is.”
All I can do here is reiterate that nothing Lindsay is saying is biblical. The Bible does not declare husbands to have authority over wives. It does not command wives to obey their husbands. It does not call husbands the boss of their wives. And it's frightening that anyone would think the relationship between a husband and wife is (or should be) like that of a parent and a child! Women are not children, and if they were, it would be creepy for men to marry them. There is a reason relationships between two people with significantly different positions of power, such as a boss and employee, are generally discouraged, as there is too much opportunity for abuse and too much difficulty in showing equal respect to each other. How much worse is it to force a hierarchy on the marriage relationship itself!
Lori herself chimes in at the end of the blog:
God created wives to be their husbands’ help meets, to be keepers at home, and submit to their husbands in everything. I agree with Lindsay. If he doesn’t want to clean up after himself, so what, women? If he’s a good provider, faithful, and loves you and your children, be thankful and cheerfully clean up after him!
When the Bible calls the woman a help meet to the man, it isn't talking about picking up dirty laundry off of the floor. The Hebrew phrase "ezer" is used far more times in the Old Testament to refer to God than to Eve. This kind of "helper" is not a servant or assistant, but a strong, capable support on which the one being helped depends. That is, unless Lori thinks God is running around picking up men's socks. Also, the full phrase is "ezer kenegdo,""Kenegdo" means "corresponding to." In other words, the woman corresponds to the man as his equal, tasked with the same job of subduing the earth and just as capable as he is. Lori insists on reading this phrase as if it were written in English. But, of course, it was written thousands of years before English existed.
If wives can’t clean up after their husbands because they believe their husbands are being “disrespectful” to them for being “slobs,” they have forgotten what Christ did for them (remember – being crucified on a cross) and what He said: “The greatest of all is the servant of all.” True love bears ALL things.
This is one of the biggest problems with Lori's views. She often advocates for Christlike ideas, such as serving one another. The problem is that, for some reason, she thinks only women are to be Christlike. In her world, men should not be serving their wives. So "the greatest of all is the servant of all", unless we're talking about a man, in which case you should just forget about what she just said. And she can't hide behind the fact that she "doesn't teach men." Part of responsibly teaching women is giving them a realistic idea of what a healthy marriage looks like. What Lori portrays is far from it.
When someone disagrees with Lori's teaching, she accuses them of being against the concept itself, when often the real problem is that it's one-sided. I am not against respect; I am against respect that is given in one direction but not the other. I am not against serving; I am against calling it normal for one person to always be required to serve the other without doing anything in return. This is not, by the way, to say that we should only show love to someone if we'll get it in return. My point is that we must have an ideal in view, a recognition of what a healthy relationship looks like, and to strive to serve and put others above ourselves - yes, even men.
After all, if positive concepts such as serving and sacrificing for others are presented as being one-sided and entirely in the favor of one at the expense of another, it was never about love in the first place: it was about control and taking advantage of others.
