Response to "Does His Happiness Matter More Than Mine?"

       No one is wrong 100% of the time. Sometimes, even those who are wrong on many things are correct on others. Or, sometimes, they get so close to being right on something that you think they've finally discovered the truth....only to see them completely miss it in the end. Lori's latest blog is one such case. 

              Lori is responding to the following comment from a woman named Aubrey on an article she wrote: 

“Why does his happiness matter more than mine? Why should I have to know what makes him happy and what his favorite foods are? I would love to make my husband happy but only if he’s willing to do the same for me. Both of our happiness should matter equally, but this article makes me feel like his happiness matters more than mine. Please, help me understand as to why this is.”

I understand Aubrey's frustration at Lori's seeming insistence that men matter more than women. The only problem with her comment is that it could appear she is saying you should only do something for someone if they do something for you in return. In many cases, I think we ought to show kindness regardless of what we receive in return. Of course, that's a complex issue because we should avoid abusive situations in which one person consistently takes advantage of another in a highly imbalanced relationship. Still, to be fair to Aubrey, I'm sure she understands this. I suspect what she meant was simply that a healthy relationship involves giving on both sides. 

       Lori responds with the following: 

The bottom line is that we are all bent towards sinfulness and this is what destroys marriages. We go into marriage thinking of ways our husbands should be pleasing us and if they are not, we become angry and unhappy. It’s all about us and our pleasures. We are selfish and self-centered without Jesus Christ’s transforming power.

This actually isn't a terrible paragraph! Sure, she directs it toward wives in particular, but that is the focus of her blog. She appears to recognize that all, men and women alike, are inclined toward selfishness. I agree that it is best not to live only for ourselves, but for others as well, and that this is the ideal for both men and women, husbands and wives. 

       Lori also says this: 

Jesus Christ told us that the greatest of all is the servant of all. We are to be living sacrifices for Him. We are also told that we reap what we sow. Therefore, Aubrey, if you want a good marriage, go into it thinking of ways to serve and please your husband. Take your focus off of yourself and put it onto him. The more you learn to do this, the more content and at peace you will be; for selfish expectations destroy marriages.

Again, not terrible at all! One of the main ways I argue the Bible teaches mutual submission is that Jesus says the greatest is the servant of all, which destroys the idea that God is pleased when husbands rule over their wives! And if both spouses go into a marriage thinking about how they can serve and please their spouse, it can be a beautiful thing (again, as long as it isn't one-sided in a way that becomes abusive). She's right, selfish expectations can destroy a marriage (you know, like expecting the wife to do all the cleaning and child-raising and clean up after the husband if he throws food wrappers on the floor). 

       At this point, it's hard to believe how Lori can write these things and yet not see the problems with what she teaches. But then, she goes back to the same old Lori: 

How will a husband love and treasure a wife who is continually upset and frustrated with him? He won’t. He will love and treasure a wife who loves to please and serve him. 

So, according to Lori, if your husband doesn't love you, it's your fault. A husband should only only love you if you're never frustrated or upset with him. Doesn't matter if he does things that upset and frustrate you. You're supposed to "not be ruled by your emotions", right? 

       Much could be said in response to this. Doesn't Lori believe that men literally play the role of Jesus in a marriage, and wives play the role of the church? But, if so, I'd like to ask Lori why a husband's love should be conditional, when Jesus' love for us is unconditional? 

       Or, to look at it another way, Lori teaches that wives should submit to their husbands, and husbands love their wives. She says wives are required to submit whether their husbands love them or not, but here she implies that husbands have no obligation to love their wives if they're not submissive. And she doesn't see any problem with this? 

       Finally, she says: 

If you want a good marriage, do it God’s way, not your way. He is your Creator and He knows what is best for you. You were created to be your husband’s help meet, not vice versa. This may seem unfair, but our God is a just God and His ways are perfect. His ways bring beauty and order. The world’s ways bring chaos and disorder.

I'm happy to do marriage God's way instead of Lori's way, since the Bible, when taken as a whole and understood properly, clearly teaches an egalitarian view of marriage. Lori's model of marriage is based on the teachings of Greek philosophers thousands of years ago who viewed women as inferior creatures. I'll certainly take God's way over that. 

       Notice, in the end, how she never answers the original question. "Does his happiness matter more than mine?" She could have said somewhere in here "no, both your happiness is equally important", or even the reasonable point that the life isn't all about happiness anyway. But no, instead, she implies with a deafening silence that his happiness really is more important than yours. 

       And, before I go, to beat a horse that was dead long ago, she has no grasp of what it means for Eve to be Adam's "helpmeet." The Hebrew word, ezer, doesn't mean "servant", "secretary", or whatever else Lori wants to pretend it means. She would have us believe that men were God's main creation, and that women were created for no purpose other than to "assist" them in whatever it is they're doing. No, the word ezer is used far more often in the Old Testament to refer to God helping the nation of Israel. Unless Lori thinks that makes God a subordinate to us, she needs to rethink what she teaches. The women is only a "helper" in the sense that she is an equally capable individual who comes alongside the man as his equal partner. There is no assumption of hierarchy in the story in Genesis. That's added later by Lori and other men who think women, the Bible, and God Himself exist only to glorify them. 

       I'll agree with Lori's final statement, only with a slight edit:

"God's ways bring beauty and order. Lori's ways bring chaos and disorder." 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/does-his-happiness-matter-more-than-mine/

Response to "Complementarianism is an Appeasement to Feminism."

       Lori begins her latest blog with this: 

This post is based on a podcast by Hard Man called “Against Complementarianism.” I listened to it and took notes so I will be writing some things that were taught in the podcast along with my own thoughts.

Before we move on....why is Lori listening to a podcast called "Hard Man"??? I looked it up, and it's produced by a man named Eric Conn. I wasn't able to learn much about him, other than that he's obsessed with masculinity and is very proud of his beard (seriously...he describes himself as "a bearded gospel man" in the "about" section of his website). Anyway, it is clearly a podcast for men. So why is Lori listening to it? I can't think of a single reason other than the fact that hyper-masculine men are likely the only place she can find views toward women as extreme as her own. 

       For most of the blog, she shares quotes from the podcast. One such quote supposedly describes the views of "marxist feminists": 

They believe patriarchy is evil since it’s authority. The ironic thing is that feminists want to be at the top of the authority structure. They don’t want men there. Complemenatrianism is an appeasement to feminists and the world. It accepts patriarchy as evil and rejects masculine authority. They falsely believe that authority isn’t the right to rule, but the right to serve, thus the label of “servant leadership.” It takes away authority in a sneaky way. As believers in Jesus Christ, we can’t appease the world. We live only to glorify God.

First, I must say that I have a hard time believing that men such as this, who do not fall far short of worshiping their own masculinity, live to glorify God. But beyond that, there is a lot to unpack here. 

       No, patriarchy is not evil "because it's authority", and those who oppose patriarchy have no problem with authority. This is a common tactic meant to bully people into accepting the rule of men. No, we only recognize and encourage legitimate authority, not egotistical men who make up for themselves some sort of birthright to rule over others based on nothing but a Y chromosome. If one of these men were blond, and were approached by a brown-haired man who declared authority over the first man based on their hair colors, I suspect they would immediately see the problem. And they would not accept the lame argument that they have a problem with all authority! Authority is good when it is limited, has been earned, and is based on qualification. Authority becomes a problem if someone claims it based on race, net worth, religion, physical strength, or gender. 

       Moving on, it simply is not true that feminists want men to be removed from authority so they can be there themselves. Isn't it hilarious that these types of men, who are so obsessed with themselves and their own right to rule over others, try to claim that it is really women who have a power trip? You can't make this stuff up. No one has a problem with a man being in authority, as long as he is qualified for the position and is properly limited. But, again, there is a problem with a man who believes he has a right to be in charge simply because he's a man. 

       He moves on to attack complementarianism. This is fascinating to me, because I've always thought of Lori as complementarian. This is a label used by those who believe women should not be pastors or have authority in the church, should generally be keepers at home, and should be in submission to their husbands. Sounds like Lori, right? I don't know everything about the history, but I believe the term was invented because some thought "patriarchy" sounded too negative. I've always assumed they were two sides of the same coin, but clearly complementarianism is too watered down for extremists like Eric and Lori. No surprise there. I suppose one aspect of complementarianism is that it goes out of its way to assert that men and women are equal in value, even though they have different roles and functions (which doesn't even make any sense, but I won't spend time on that here). Apparently, Eric and Lori would prefer to leave out even the mention of equal value for women. 

       This takes us to the most extreme statement in that paragraph: "They falsely believe that authority isn’t the right to rule, but the right to serve, thus the label of “servant leadership.” It takes away authority in a sneaky way." Apparently, though complementarianism asserts that husbands are the leaders of their family, it emphasizes that husbands are to serve their families and place their needs above their own. This is too inconvenient for Eric and Lori, who prefer to remove every restriction on the freedoms and rights of men. I don't know how one can read the accounts of Jesus and come away thinking the calling of a man is all about ruling over others. Let's educate Lori and Eric on what Jesus taught: 

Mark 9:35: "Sitting down, Jesus called the twelve and said, 'Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all."

 Matthew 20:26: "Jesus called them together and said, 'You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant.'"

Matthew 20:28: "The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many." 

Who wants to bet Lori and Eric have never read these verses, or, if they have, that they hate them and just pretend they don't exist?

       Lori goes on: 

Biblical patriarchy is God’s ordained authority. The husbands’ role is providing, leading, and protecting. Husbands weren’t created to be their wives’ helper. Wives were created to be their husbands’ helper and live in submission to their husbands. God’s roles bring order and beauty. They are perfect and for our good.

What a mess! Literally everything she just said is false. There is nothing in the Bible that condones or commands patriarchy. The Bible was written during a very patriarchal time, so it contains quite a bit of is. But this is quite different from approving of it. It also contains quite a bit of polygamy, slavery, and many other things even Lori would condemn. But it's clear in Genesis 3:16 that the man would rule over the woman as a result of sin. It is the opposite of God's original design. And the Bible is full of God doing the exact opposite of what was expected: women, at a time when their testimony was disregarded in court, were the first to witness the empty tomb. Jacob was chosen to begin God's chosen people, rather than Esau, even though the first-born was so important at that time. Jesus condemned the wealthy who oppressed others, and instead championed the poor. It could not be clearer that God has taken all of those worldly, cultural customs that elevate the powerful, and turned everything on its head. How tragic that people like Eric and Lori are so focused on themselves that they miss this point. 

       The Bible never designates a husband's role as providing, leading, or protecting. These are all good things, but they do not belong exclusively to men. When the Bible calls wives their husband's "helper", it uses a word most often used to indicate God Himself, so it hardly means "servant" as Lori tries to convince us. Rather, it indicates an equal who would come alongside her husband as they took dominion of the earth together. All believers, including husbands and wives, are to submit to each other according to the Bible (Ephesians 5:21). What Lori teaches is not God's roles, but a copy of the social roles of first century Rome. They do not bring order or beauty. They bring bondage, prevent deep and authentic relationships between spouses, promote abuse and protect abusers, ruin the lives of children, and blaspheme the Gospel. 

       I may check out the "Hard Man" podcast, if I have the stomach for it. If I do, perhaps I'll write a post about it. For now, though, we have enough to go on with Lori's report on it. And we are reminded that it is men, not God, that Lori worships. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/complementarianism-is-an-appeasement-to-feminism/