Response to "Was the Headship of Men Over Their Wives Inbuilt in Creation?"

        I must admit I was excited to read and reply to this post. The reason is that, ironically, a large portion of Lori's posts don't discuss and engage with what the Bible teaches. It's still worth rebutting those other posts, but my main desire in countering Lori's teachings is to set the record straight and show that the Bible actually is not sexist, as Lori believes. This is one of the more rare posts that gives me a chance to do so. 

       The first half of the blog is all about a story she read about a man and his wife who never set out to have a patriarchal marriage, but in the end felt that their marriage had naturally settled into an arrangement in which he was the "head" of his wife. She spends quite a bit of time on this, which is odd, since all it proves is that for this particular couple, the husband was a more natural leader. This is not unusual; I can think of many couples like this, as well as many for which the wife is a more natural leader. Each couple can do marriage however they like. She can't possibly think that one example of a couple in which the husband naturally took the lead is any sort of evidence for the universality of her views. Then again, she actually may believe that!

       The second half of the blog is more interesting. She follows up the story with this mess of a paragraph: 

  Was the headship of a husband over his husband inbuilt in the Creation? Children know their fathers are the head of the family even if their wives don’t acknowledge this. How do I know? If a child has a godly father, the chances of the children growing up to be believers is extremely high. If a child has a godly mother only, the chances of the children growing up to be believers is low.

No, the headship of the husband was not inbuilt in creation, and we'll get into more on that later. For now, it proves nothing if children "know" their fathers are the "head of the family. Of course, she has no basis to even make that statement in the first place (has she really conducted a survey, or is she just assuming whatever she wants). But it's no mystery that a child of parents who have this belief (or at least the husband has this belief) would notice. Children are very perceptive. But this in no way proves it to be innate. Things would look exactly the same if it were culturally based - which it is. 

       She then makes the claim (it's not the first time) that a child with only a godly father has much more chances of growing up to be a Christian over a child with only a godly mother. I find it interesting that she could think such a thing while simultaneously believing that women should primarily be responsible for the religious teaching of the children and that a father who is almost entirely uninvolved besides going to work is the ideal. But, let's not slip past the fact that, as usual, she provides no evidence or sources. I gave her the benefit of the doubt and tried to find a study or article, anything to support that claim. I couldn't find anything. On the other hand, I did find these three articles (two of them Christian sources) saying that mothers have more spiritual influence on kids than fathers: 

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/its-the-moms-who-get-kids-to-church/505310/

https://www.barna.com/research/moms-christians-households/

https://www.christianpost.com/news/mothers-contribute-more-kids-spiritual-growth-than-fathers-barna-study.html

Maybe someone who doesn't mind spending their time on pointless activities should send these to Lori! I should mention, of course, that this doesn't mean fathers can't have similar influence, or shouldn't. However, I suspect that the primitive gender roles that Lori pushes are a major factor contributing to this! 

      Anyway, back to the blog:

Children can see that their fathers are generally bigger, stronger, and with louder, deeper voices than their mothers. This is inbuilt from Creation.

She's made this point before, and it's rather disturbing. How does having a louder, deeper voice qualify one to be a leader? It has nothing to do with it, so it's an absurd point. And if a woman came along with a loud, deep voice, I certainly doubt Lori would suggest she should be in charge. And the fact that she thinks being stronger and bigger is concerning. A good leader does not lead by coercion, and therefore muscle ought to have nothing to do with it. A good leader leads by example, by motivating others to action and recognizing their strengths so they can encourage them in the best direction. Lori's idea of a leader sounds more like a bully or control freak. What a surprise! 

Yes, women will effectively deny all of this because they have been taught that authority by their husbands is oppression, yet they trot off to work each day to be under authority of their bosses, and they obey the speed limit since they are under the authority of the government, yet forget being under the authority of the one they chose to love all of their days.

See how crafty she is? She attempts to frame it as if women deny biological facts, which is blatantly dishonest. Nobody denies that men (generally) have lower voices; what they deny is that voice pitch is a qualification for being a leader! The same goes for other attributes such as size or strength. 

       Going to work and being under the authority of a boss is entirely different, because it is voluntary, it is limited in scope (a boss doesn't have control of every aspect of his/her employee's life), and it is based on the fact that the boss has earned that position (rather than a husband getting to be leader without needing to prove anything except that he is male). Obeying speed limits is, similarly, entirely different. We all choose to do this for the safety of ourselves and other drivers. This is very different from elevating the will of one flawed human being to the level of the will of God Himself. And the authority of the government is based on the will of the people, ultimately; Lori's view of a husband's authority much more closely resembles a monarchy from biblical times, or perhaps the dictatorships of more recent times. 

Satan convinced Eve that authority to God was evil, and he went to her instead of to Adam for a good reason. This is how he was able to deceive her and have her eat the forbidden fruit.

Yes, Lori believes there was actually a fruit and a talking snake. I don't mean to criticize Christians who believe this, as there are many, though I myself feel it makes much more sense (based on the literary genre and writing styles of the time) that it was a metaphor, and I think it has a much deeper and richer meaning that way than if it were taken literally. One problem with reading it as a historical account is that some people get hung up over the fact that the snake went to Eve first, assuming this must have some deep meaning regarding the ability of women to resist temptation. If the story didn't literally happen, that point is moot. But let's assume for a moment that it did: does this imply a weakness of women, or the authority of men? Hardly. Notice how the snake had to craftily trick Eve into eating the fruit, whereas all it took for Adam was for her to hand it to him. He didn't resist at all. Thus, if the story is taken literally, it seems to paint women in a superior light! 

Yes, the headship of husbands over their wives was inbuilt from Creation since the purpose for God creating Eve was to be a help meet to her husband. This is God-ordained and it is good. For those who want to argue that being a helpmeet didn’t mean that Adam was in authority, oh yes, it did. In 1 Timothy 2:13, was are told that one of the reasons that women are not to usurp authority over men nor teach them was because Adam was created first. God made him first and had Adam name all of the animals.

Notice her snotty tone? I suppose we must give Lori credit for actually attempting to engage with the arguments of her critics. That doesn't mean she does it well, however. Taking her points in order: the Hebrew term for help meet, "ezer kenegdo", did not mean a servant or subordinate of any kind. Most of the times it was used in the Old Testament were to refer to God when He came to the rescue of the armies of Israel. Using Lori's sort of logic, it would not be difficult to argue that women must be the leaders of men, since the same word that is used for God is used to describe women! Of course, those of us on this side of the argument know better, but it shows how simplistic Lori's reasoning is. 

       Next, we must point out that there is simply no indication in the Genesis account of Adam and Eve implying male authority. This idea must be assumed prior to reading Genesis at all, and then shoved in awkwardly. Needless to say, this method could be used to prove just about anything has biblical support. 

       She presents 1 Timothy 2:13 as her proof, where it says "For Adam was formed first, then Eve", as if that settles everything. But we must be aware that Paul wrote to Timothy primarily to correct false teaching spreading around the early church, and Timothy was combating the ideas of a cult that elevated women above men (which is as much of a problem as elevating men above women). This cult taught that Eve was created first in the story, so Paul was correcting them. He could not have been presenting this as a reason that men rule over women, because Adam being formed first is not a reason for this! If it were, the animals would be the ruler over Adam, because they were created even earlier! This is the laziest sort of attempt at biblical interpretation, and one that is certain to "just happen" to confirm what the reader already believes. 

Adam was in authority over her, and this is why women are to “learn in silence with all subjection” (1 Timothy 2:11) in the churches. It hearkens all the way back to Creation and has nothing to do with cultural norms.

It's no use. No matter what, Lori stubbornly clings to her preferred interpretation that the command to the women to be quiet was not cultural, but for all women for all time. So I'll leave it up to you: between the following: 

Option 1: One women thousands of years ago chose to eat a fruit she was not supposed to eat, and therefore all subsequent women are stained and therefore forbidden from holding positions of leadership, teaching men, or even speaking in a church setting. This stain is so great, not even Jesus' redemptive power can overcome it. 

Or, 

Option 2: The women in the 1st century generally were not allowed to engage in public meetings and did not know how to act in public. Therefore, Paul instructed them not to have conversations during the church service (which is why among the 30 or so Greek words that mean to speak, he chose the one that simply means "talk" or "converse"). This verse has nothing to do with forbidding women to speak because they're women, but about order in the church service. Men would also be forbidding from having conversations during the church service, but they simply did not need to be told because they already knew how to act in public due to their greater freedom in that culture. 

Which of these sounds more plausible to you? 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/was-the-headship-of-men-over-their-wives-inbuilt-in-creation/

Response to "Are You Worthy of the Entire Fairy Tale?"

        Most of Lori's blog posts can be summarize by "Today, Lori Alexander is offended by _____." In this blog, she gripes about an Instagram post. I'm not sure who posted it, but Lori makes sure to tell us it is a woman who has a large following. Jealous, by chance? 

       The post is long, so I won't reproduce it in its entirety. Basically, it tells women they are worthy of flowers, bubble baths, candles, and a man who loves them as Christ loves the church. It concludes by telling women they are worthy of "the entire fairy tale."   

       Now, I have to be honest, I find such things to be rather cheesy, though if anyone is genuinely encouraged by such a message, that's great! But Lori's problem with it seems to be that it has the potential to cause anyone happiness. She must crush that possibility at once! 

Unfortunately, there are many women telling women these untruths these days. This only sets women up for unrealistic expectations and failed marriages. We are worthy of nothing, actually. Only Jesus Christ is worthy. He is the One who makes us worthy by clothing us with Christ’s righteousness, filling us with His Spirit, and making us new creatures in Christ who can do all things through Christ who strengthens us. He then gives us everything we need for life and godliness.

I think Lori is mixing up the Gospel here. I agree, we are not worthy of God's grace, which is exactly why it is called grace. With all my imperfections, I am reminded daily that I fall short of God's perfection, and grateful that He loves me anyway. But Lori seems to take this a step further and assume we don't deserve anything from anyone. It is God's grace that we do not deserve - this does not mean that other people do not owe it to us to treat us with respect and dignity. Lori seems to think we should not even expect people to treat us well. This has nothing to do with the Gospel. 

How about asking women if they are making themselves worthy by becoming godly women? They certainly aren’t worthy of anything simply for existing and being women.

And yet, Lori thinks men are worthy of being honored, obeyed, reverenced, and practically worshiped simply for existing and being men. Yes, I do think existing is enough reason to treat someone kindly, and I disagree with Lori that we must earn even the right to be treated well. 

Are they working on being kind and loving? Are they working on showing grace and forgiveness to others? Are they working on becoming feminine women of God with meek and quiet spirits? These are what younger women need to be hearing from older women, not that they are worthy of a fairytale marriage without any responsibility of their own.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like Lori is saying women are unlovable unless they earn love by conforming to her view of what it means to be "feminine." And let me point out that the original Instagram post said nothing about having a fairy tale marriage with no responsibility of their own. She added this point herself. Ironically, it's Lori who believes men deserve a fairy tale marriage, complete with a maid and cook who has sex on demand!

Also, who is to determine if a man loves his wife as Christ loves the Church? Is it the wife? I did this for a long time. I expected my husband to love me regardless of how I treated him. It never worked. Until I gave up this expectation and worked on myself alone did I find our marriage improving dramatically.

If I want to know how to love my wife better, who do I ask? MY WIFE. Seems pretty simple to me. 

       And isn't it interesting that Ken just wrote a blog all about how love should be unconditional? Did Lori even read it? Now she is saying that there is no problem with a husband's love for his wife being conditional. She says she was wrong to expect his love, and had to fix herself first.This is just a glimpse into how sad Lori's life really must be. 

If he’s not romantic and doesn’t do all of these things listed above for you, it doesn’t matter. Flowers wilt, bubble baths get cold, candles burn out, and fairytales are only in movies, but a godly man is what you need to be looking for as you work on becoming a godly woman.

I'm glad she ends with this, because it's important for me to clarify what I'm saying. I'm certainly not saying that a husband who does not constantly spoil his wife doesn't love her. I must confess that being romantic like this does not come naturally to me at all; I try, but I fall far short of other husbands who are great at it. That's not my point. It's not about flowers, bubble baths, or candles. It's about a husband caring enough about his wife to try to show her how much he loves her. It's about not having double standards, expecting wives to pretty themselves up and smile and talk in a certain cutesy tone and pick up after their husbands and keep silent much of the time and cook only the meals he wants and everything else Lori thinks is demanded of women, while not even requiring a minimal level of respect and fair treatment from husbands. Keep in mind, Lori believes women do not deserve anything from their husbands. She uses such extreme trivial things as bubble baths and flowers (which, ironically, is what she constantly accuses her critics of doing), but if pressed, she would say the same regarding such things are respect and treatment with dignity.  

       The advice Lori is giving women, if followed, makes it much more difficult for them to find a husband who will actually love them, because they were told to have no expectations and made to feel selfish if they want affection of any kind. How would a woman following Lori's advice tell the difference between a man who will love her, and a man who literally cares nothing for her and simply wants a housekeeper and sex doll? They would not be able to distinguish between the two. And, I suspect, that's precisely the point. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/are-you-worthy-of-the-entire-fairytale/

Response to "The Tit-for-Tat Marriage."

       This post was written by Ken, and I'm probably going to skip over most of it. As anyone who has read Ken's writings will know, he tends to be very wordy. I'm not criticizing this, since I have the exact same problem! However, I want to focus on a few points he made that seem to be the most in need of a response. 

       Here is Ken's opening paragraph: 

 We live very much in a Tit-for-Tat world and this same mentality now permeates our churches. Although nothing could be further from the heart of the gospel of Christ than conditional love and behaviors, still far too many “Christian” couples are playing the tit-for-tat game trying to ensure “fairness” in their marriages. If you are all about ensuring that everything is fair for others, I get it and am with you to some extent. But if you are all about trying to make sure that you are treated the way you think you should be in your marriage, even putting on a frown, pout, and harsh words to even up the score, you are outside of living the Christian life.

       As we will see, Ken is very tricky with his words. He tries to make his views sound so elegant and reasonable, but hidden behind what he writes are many wrong and harmful assumptions that are designed to be invisible to the most vulnerable type of person. This is the primary skill of the manipulator: frame issues in a subtly vague or oversimplified way that plays off of an agreed-upon point, so that people will feel unreasonable for disagreeing. So, I agree with Ken that love should not be conditional, and the Gospel is not about merit. Frowns, pouts, and harsh words are a problem. But there is so much more here beneath the surface, as we will see. 

       He shares about a conversation he had with another man who asserted that while wives must submit, husbands must love their wives (of course, we know that the submission the Bible teaches is required by both husbands and wives and has nothing to do with obedience, but I don't have time to get into that here). Ken tells us he replied with  “I didn’t know that our obedience to God’s Word is conditional.” Of course, as Ken tells it, the man did not say anything of the sort, only that both spouses have obligations to each other. But this is how a cornered animal lashes out at those who get too close to uncovering the lies on which they have built their teachings. 

       Ken continues: 

As I started thinking about it more, I realized that one of the greatest harms to a marriage’s love and intimacy is this idea that I will do my part ONLY if you do yours. The egalitarian Christian marriage is far too based off of this false notion of Christianity that God only wants me to fulfill His commands and admonitions so long as I have equal say, equal rights, and most of all, you treat me the way I believe I am supposed to be treated. Certainly Egalitarians would not say it this way, but watch what happens when they feel mistreated.

Once again, we cannot help agree with some of Ken's points. Absolutely I should be kind to my wife even if she is not kind to me, and the other way around. We all have weak moments and should continue to love and have grace for each other through those moments, rather than reflecting back exactly what we receive. The problem, however, is that Ken sneakily inserts a mention of equal rights, equal say, and fair treatment. I know Ken and Lori bristle at mentions of abuse and wave them off as "exceptions" that have no bearing on the general "principles" they teach, but they are very real problems that must be addressed. Some types of advice will be good for most relationships but terrible for those in abusive ones, and it is our responsibility always to be clear about this to avoid causing harm. Let me be loud and clear: no one should feel as if they are betraying God or their spouse if they remove themselves from a harmful situation. And, thankfully, what is truly abusive or harmful is not up to Ken or Lori to decide. 

       Having said that, even for relationships in which abuse is not present, there is a balance to be maintained. Boundaries are healthy and necessary. If one spouse is consistently being treated unfairly (which is much more likely in a relationship that is built on authority structures, as Ken and Lori encourage), there is a point at which that spouse must put his or her foot down. Jesus said to "turn the other cheek", but we also all believe in the right of self-defense. We ought to have grace and a self-sacrificial posture toward one another, but that does not mean we can never stand up for ourselves. Ultimately, Ken doesn't seem to understand what love really is. Boundaries are part of loving someone. It is never loving to let them do whatever they want, as every parent knows. If you fail to hold your spouse accountable and resist their harmful behaviors, you are not loving them. You are enabling them. 

       As a side point, it's interesting to me that Ken is suggesting here that each spouse is responsible for only their part, and yet he and Lori frequently insist wives do their part in making their husband feel masculine or feel like a leader. For all his talk, he sure seems to require wives to do their part first. Ken even wrote a post once about how to discipline your wife if she isn't the way you'd like her to be! 

       Beyond this, I would also like to address Ken's deceptive misrepresentation of egalitarian marriage. Of course, there is nothing more natural than both spouses being equal and working together instead of one ruling over the other. As a result, those who insist on such unnatural marriage models as patriarchy must go to great lengths into deceiving their followers in order to achieve their agenda. Patriarchy simply cannot stand up to egalitarianism without some trickery (and, often, bullying). In addition to the above, Ken says the following regarding egalitarianism:

 Tit-for-Tat may be great for egalitarian marriages where each side keeps score on the big things to even them up, but in reality, things are never equal in any marriage because our roles and giftings are so different. 

I have an egalitarian marriage, and so do many others who are very happily married. Despite the rantings of Ken and Lori and others like them, egalitarianism really works. Their goal is to paint egalitarianism in a terrible light and insist that the patriarchal model is heaven on earth, but the facts do not support them. 

     Egalitarians do not believe in "tit-for-tat." Like I said earlier, I believe each spouse should be responsible  for themselves and treat the other well regardless of moments of weakness and bad days (within reason, of course, based on reasonable boundaries). Egalitarians do not believe in "keeping score." And Egalitarianism has nothing to do with believing God's commands are conditional upon how happy we are with how we are treated, as Ken said earlier. The truth is, egalitarianism is simply about mutual respect and acknowledgement of equality. Yes, Ken, things can be equal in marriage, despite different giftings. My wife and I play different roles in our family because we have different strengths and weaknesses, but why on earth does that qualify either of us to rule over the other? There is no logical reason it should, which is why Ken has to rely on eloquent words and inaccurate comparisons to pull the hood over our eyes. 

       In the end, Ken seems to think that love means permissiveness and enabling. It is truly concerning that someone who apparently counsels so many husbands still doesn't understand himself what love really is. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/the-tit-for-tat-marriage-2/

Response to "Asking Foolish Questions."

        Lori uses this blog to respond, rather nastily, to the comment below that appeared on a previous blog: 

“Hi Lori – this is my first time visiting your blog. It is very interesting. I am wondering what you think about women who choose to live chaste lives in service to God (e.g. nuns). According to the person you quoted above, the ability to have children is what makes women special. I wonder then, is the work of a nun of any value? Is she also special? Is she still considered a woman even though she doesn’t procreate? Thank you.”

Needless to say, there are many who are trying to make Lori look bad or trap her into saying something that could be used against her. As you will see, Lori seems to think the writer of the comment is a "troll" (Lori's go-to method of lazy dismissal). I'm not entirely convinced, though it's always possible. In my opinion, it really could be a legitimate question, which makes Lori's harsh response even more unkind. 

       As I said, this very well could be a serious question. Lori frequently praises motherhood and service to a husband as the sole mission and purpose for women, and talks about how wonderful she believes this calling is. Though at times she is forced to admit exceptions (such as women who are not able to have children), I certainly would be very curious to know how she feels about nuns and those who remain single for the sake of ministry. 

       But, of course, Lori sidesteps the issue: 

"First of all, I am not a Catholic and there’s nowhere in God’s Word that He commands men and women to remain single for the service of God. Yes, the Apostle Paul tells us that it’s good for the unmarried and widows to remain single, but he speaks this “by permission, and not of commandment” (1 Corinthians 7:6). Paul commands that the leaders of the churches (elders and deacons) be the “husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2).” There was no requirement for them to remain single. Some of the Apostles were even married."

I'm not sure why she would need to be Catholic to answer this question, so clearly she's at a loss and looking for a way out. And isn't it interesting how, despite her insistence that she simply allows the Word of God to speak for itself, as soon as it contradicts her main opinions (which it does quite frequently), she does what she accuses others of and finds an excuse to ignore and dismiss it. Paul's point when saying that remaining single was not a commandment was that it was not necessary for everyone (obviously, or else Christianity would either die out or be the end of the human race). This doesn't change the fact that he felt it was very beneficial for certain people, so that they could focus on ministry. And this is absolutely true. I have a wife and children, and though I'm glad to have chosen this path, I realize how much less time I have to be involved in ministry as a result. There's nothing wrong with that, this is simply my phase of life right now. But choosing to remain single is a viable option, and this is the point Paul was trying to make. 

       But Lori, rather than recognizing that Paul was simply saying each of us should make our own choice, decides that Paul's words are wrong and can be ignored entirely (I guess when it's Lori vs. Paul, Lori wins?). The irony is that most of the verses Lori twists to oppress women and support her own opinions are also written by Paul. Has Lori heard of the term "cherry-picking"?

       Basically, in my understanding, the position of the Bible on marriage is that it's a wonderful thing, but that it won't be the main mission in life for some people, and that's okay. Lori, however, isn't able to see this nuance. It's all or nothing to her; either the Bible commands everyone to marry, or no one to marry. And since she can't find a verse commanding no one to marry, she declares that the opposite must be true. She misses the point entirely and is in direct opposition to the Bible, once again. 

       Lori continues: 

"The person I quoted didn’t write that having children is what makes women special. There are some women who can’t have children. Other women will never marry and it’s not by choice. Are they not special? I, personally, don’t talk about anyone being special. We are all human beings in desperate need of a Savior. We are nothing without Him."

I have no idea which blog this comment was on, so I don't know whether the quote said that motherhood makes women special. But anyone who reads Lori's writing knows that Lori herself conveys exactly this all the time. Consider, for example, this quote from her blog "The Home is the Nursery of a Nation" from March 31:

"Motherhood is beautiful, wonderful, and vital to the health of families, children, and the future of a stable and flourishing nation. No amount of cold, hard, plastic toys will replace the warm, human touch of a mother. No amount of staring into a screen will replace the loving gaze of a mother’s eyes."

I don't know about you, but I think what she described above sounds pretty "special." Does Lori seriously think that what matters here is that she didn't specifically use the word "special"? 

"Are nuns not considered women, as you have asked? This is why I usually don’t publish nor respond to comments such as these. This is a strawman argument since I don’t know anyone who has every said that nuns aren’t women, do you? I doubt the woman who asked this question has either. Most of her questions are foolish and the Bible warns us to not answer a fool according to his folly, so I am not going to answer this one."

Her rebuttal is not very convincing, considering it's coming from the woman who constantly reminds us about all the body parts that make women who they are. Regardless, she's playing dumb here, taking the words hyper-literally in order to make them look silly. No one is seriously asking whether a women ceases to be a woman if she doesn't have children. This is not what Lori teaches. Lori does, however remind us constantly of what she thinks it means to be a woman (be silent, meek and quiet spirit, raising children, helper to husband, all that stuff). It is this that the questions refers to. In other words, has a woman who doesn't do the things Lori thinks she should failed to have a meaningful life? Lori believes she has, but by sidestepping the issue, she shows she is too cowardly to come out and say it. 

       Finally, she quotes above, and at the end of the blog, the following verse: "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." This is Proverbs 26:4. If Lori continued on to the very next verse, she would read this: "Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Hmm, what do we have here, a contradiction? Maybe the Bible isn't quite as straightforward as Lori would like? Maybe you can't just pick out a verse and pretend that settles the matter in your favor? Maybe some verses are principles, rather than commands, such as in this case? Perhaps Lori should spend a little less time blogging and a little more time actually reading the Bible. She might be surprised at what she finds, if she would actually try to understand it herself instead of simply relying on the interpretations of opportunistic men. 

       That second verse, by the way, is exactly what I aim to do by writing this blog. I guess, according to Lori, it's what I have been commanded to do by the Bible itself! 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/asking-foolish-questions/