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/