Response to "Something to Ponder Before You Divorce."

        Once again, Lori is not the author of this blog; rather, it was written by Michael Davis, one of the men who lurks around her Facebook page. This is just a copy and paste of a comment he wrote on her page. It's a fairly short blog, but there is a lot to say. And, as always, even though they're not Lori's words directly, it certainly is fair to say she is endorsing the words and is in agreement with them. 

       One question I would ask a woman who’s thinking about divorcing a man simply because they’ve “grown apart” is, “In what way is your life going to be improved by divorce? This is presumably the man who knows you better than any other person on the planet, has accepted you as you are, has raised children with you, has provided for you, has been faithful to you, and has given you a home. So what situation do you think you’re going into that will be better than what you have now?”

Before I say anything negative, I want to point out that I am in agreement with the basic point of this blog, as long as we accept all of the assumptions uncritically. In other words, if the point is nothing more than that remaining married is the ideal, I have no problem with that. Certainly no one gets married planning to divorce. And as a Christian, I do believe marriage is a major promise and should be taken seriously. The Bible does allow for divorce in certain cases, such as infidelity, and I can't imagine a reasonable person condemning the choice to divorce in a case of abuse. But, according to the assumptions in the paragraph above, if it's simply the case that one spouse "fell out of love" with the other or grew bored, divorce would be a tragic end and I hope every effort would be made to avoid it. To be clear, I don't feel I have any right to tell anyone in that situation what they should do; that's between them, their spouse, and God. But, speaking very generally and basically, there's nothing wrong with supposing the ideal to be avoiding divorce. 

       The problem with what Michael Davis wrote is his bullying tone and his shallow assumptions, both of which will become much worse as we go along. Already, in the paragraph above, he is assuming the woman initiates the divorce, and that she did so because she was bored. Undoubtedly, these cases exist. In fact, I quickly googled "reasons for divorce" and found an article stating the top reason is "lack of commitment" (75%). But the important thing about a statistic is that it has no relevance to an individual case; it only makes a statement about an entire sample or population. You cannot take the statistic above and apply it to every individual case to discourage divorce universally. The article also included many other reasons that had fairly high percentages as well: domestic violence (23.5%), getting married too young (45.1%, and ironic considering Lori's advice to do exactly that), and infidelity or extramarital affairs (59.6%). Davis acts like all these reasons don't exist or are unimportant, and assumes the man is a complete angel in his paragraph above. If he were only addressing those situations, and discouraging divorcing due to boredom, that would be fine. But, as will be come more clear, he is painting a picture of the results of any divorce, no matter the reasons, and trying his best to frighten women out of it by convincing them that no matter how bad things are now, they'll be worse if they're divorced. (here's a link to the article of anyone is interested...it only used a sample size of 52, so I'm not sure we can assume those percentages hold universally, but certainly they are all real factors, and the conclusions are not unreasonable: https://www.insider.com/why-people-get-divorced-2019-1).

Let’s do away with the pretense and the divorce porn peddled by the feminists. Women who seek divorce because they’ve “grown apart” are presumably over 40. Well, I hope you have some job skills, because when you’ve taken that faithful man to the cleaners, you’re going to be trying to finance two households on the income that used to comfortably finance only one. Get ready to take a serious downgrade to your standard of living.

Davis gives no justification for targeting women over 40, except that it happens to be convenient for the next points he wants to make. And the assumptions only multiply from here. He assumes the woman does not have a job or any job skills, which is ironic considering the fact that according to Lori's teachings, there is no reason for the woman to have job skills. Lori criticizes women for planning for "what-ifs" if their husband were to pass away or leave them. So Davis is criticizing women for doing the very thing Lori teaches them to do! That's only half true, of course...it's not so much that he's criticizing women for not having job skills, but rather, telling them that because they have no job skills, they would be stupid to divorce their husbands. 

       This is nothing more than trying to scare people into remaining married because their "standard of living" will diminish. Is that a reason to remain married? To maintain your standard of living? I think a lot of women don't think it's worth it to endure an unfaithful or abusive spouse just so they can have a boat and nice clothing and jewelry. And there's another instance of irony...aren't Lori and her followers constantly pushing families to lower their standard of living as far as necessary to enable the wife to stay at home? So what kind of sense does it make to use the possibility of a more affluent lifestyle to entice women to remain married? 

   Also, your youth, fertility, and looks have diminished. The men your age who are single have probably been burned already by divorce and don’t have money, and if they’ve never married and DO have money, they’ve probably been playing the field this whole time and are only interested in dating much younger women. 

Speak for yourself, dude. My wife isn't yet 40, but based on how she's aged so far I have no doubt her looks will not have "diminished." But that's beside the point. I shouldn't even have to say that women have value beyond their youth, fertility, and looks. This is yet another weird point coming from a source that supposedly holds older women in such high regard. The rest of the paragraph just has more convenient assumptions and sure makes it seem like this is just another of those bitter MGTOW men. 

Let’s face the real issue. Your kids are out of the house and you’re bored. Or worse, you probably buried yourself in the role of “mother” so hard for so long that you can’t relate to your husband any more. You treated that man like an ATM in order to buy the right house and the right car so that you could impress the other women in the right neighborhood. He probably stayed with you for the sake of the children, and then he resigned himself that his prime was past and he was willing to “make it work.” But you’re motivated by some dream of greener pastures now that you’ve drained his wallet.

The more he goes on, the more confused I am about why Lori would ever post such a thing. Why did he put "mother" in quotes, as if to express contempt for the role? He actually could have made one good point there, that parents have to be careful not to neglect each other because the kids take up so much time and energy. But he ruined it by showing disdain towards mothers. 

       I cracked up when I read the part about treating a man like an ATM. First, Lori teaches that any wife should be happy if her husband provides an income and should not expect anything else from him. This is, quite literally, treating him like an ATM. And second, Davis himself is treating men like ATMs when the only reason he can offer for women to stay married is to maintain their standard of living! Davis is telling women to treat their husband like an ATM, and then yelling at them for doing so. In the end, I think he's just confused.  

       And bitter. "He probably stayed with you for the sake of the children." What is the point of such an acidic tone? Again, this is a hypothetical woman he is speaking to (unless he has a specific one in mind, which certainly could explain his clear resentment), so there's literally no reason to say such a thing unless he just wants to hurt people. 

       By the last paragraph, Davis abandons all restraint and leaves us with one last emotional outburst: 

Good luck. You’re probably going to wind up cashiering at Walmart and in a crappy apartment collecting cats until you get too old for that. Hopefully at that point, one of your kids will take you in. Your husband, on the other hand, will keep working and continue to put up with his situation just like he’s been doing for a few of decades now. Maybe, he’ll actually get some fishing or chess or poker in with some buddies. At least, it’ll be quiet after you’ve left.

I hardly have an idea of what to say to that. It's just....ugly. It's pure bullying, meant to terrify women about what might happen if they get a divorce, no matter the reason. Like I said before, if you have to scare someone into remaining married, there's probably some problems with the marriage that need to be addressed. I certainly don't want my wife staying with me just because she likes my income. In fact, rather than being a deterrent to divorce, this blog is more like an argument for why women should be educated and have job skills in case they do end up either divorced or widows!

       Again, if we're strictly talking about a divorce occurring just because one spouse got bored of the other, I am on the same page that this is not a good thing. But if that's the message Lori wants to communicate, any way of doing it has to be better than this. Talk about how it's natural after time (and especially kids) for it to become harder and harder to find time to work on your relationship with your spouse. Suggest going to counseling, or being deliberate about regular date nights. Point out that generally, you get out of a marriage what you put into it. Be encouraging about it, share some good advice, talk about how tragic it would be for your marriage to end (especially if you have kids). But this is just a bunch of fear-based, bullying vitriol. And in the last paragraph, Davis gets so worked up he drops the pretense and shows that he's not even talking encouraging women to say in a good marriage. Instead, he just tells them that their husbands will be happier without them. This is a very sick individual. Does Lori actually think any woman would read this and come away inspired not to get a divorce after all? 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/something-to-ponder-before-you-divorce/

Response to "What Exactly is Preaching?"

       If you've been paying any attention to The Transformed Wife page, you'll know there has been quite some drama over something Lori posted a few days ago. I won't reproduce the entire post here, but essentially Lori was commenting on an image saying Christianity is not about being perfect, but about being a sinner in need of God's grace. Lori said she disagreed with the post because Christians have been sanctified and God calls us saints now. I think both views are correct in a way and it simply depends on what we're trying to say. However, my purpose is not to analyze whether what she said is theologically correct. Many people had a major problem with her posting such a thing, because she so often claims she teaches nothing but so-called "biblical womanhood." Some were her followers, who are vehemently opposed to a woman teaching anything besides Ephesians 5 and Titus 2, whether it be from behind a pulpit or a keyboard. Others were not fans of hers but saw her post as hypocritical, since she frequently speaks out against women teaching and preaching. 

       It is in response to this mess that Lori wrote today's blog. Before we dive in, I must ask why Lori is so defensive about such things. She constantly tells women that they should be unoffendable and "ping offenses off of their shield of faith", whatever that means. And yet, she seems to be very triggered any time someone accuses her of being a hypocrite and preaching. For someone who insists women should turn the other cheek and suffer in silence, she sure isn't very silent about this. And I would think that if she truly believes she is doing the Lord's work and that her reward is not of this world, she would be less concerned with what others think of her, especially the "trolls", as she calls them. 

       As I've mentioned before, Lori never seems to clearly define what she means by "preaching." Her title suggests that perhaps we may finally get a clear answer. Without further ado, let's find out! 

Back in the days when only men preached behind pulpits, people knew what preaching was. Now that many women preach, people are confused with what it actually means. Many have accused me of preaching since I write biblical truths for a blog and social media. Do I preach? No! I teach biblical womanhood as God has commanded that older women do. Writing for a blog and on social media is NOT preaching.

I wonder what "days" Lori is reminiscing about. Though it doesn't contradict anything she is saying here, I did a little research and discovered the first woman ordained as a pastor was Mary Bosanquet Fletcher in the early 1800s. In fact, she was credited with convincing none other than John Wesley that women ought to be allowed to preach. I suspect Lori believes women preachers came about as a result of feminism, but clearly that is not so. But that's not all; there is archeological evidence that there were female clergy all the way back in the early church. Here are two interesting articles I found that elaborate: 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/spirituality/scripture-life/archaeology-and-female-authority-early-church

https://www.ncronline.org/news/theology/researcher-artifacts-show-early-church-women-served-clergy

      So Lori is off to a good start introducing her topic, but all she's done so far is tell us that many people are confused about what it really means to preach, and that writing online is not it. Let's see what else she has to say: 

If you carefully read through Acts, you will see that it was John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul who preached. Not one woman is told that she preached, not one. Preaching is different than teaching or writing and I am going to tell you how.

I've read through Acts many times, and I've never found in it a definition of preaching. The fact that it records John the Baptist, Jesus, the disciples, and Paul preaching does not support her point at all (actually, Acts does not include Jesus or John the Baptist preaching; that's the Gospels, but we'll let that slide). First, we must remember that the Bible does not endorse everything it records. That's why we can read all about examples of polygamy and yet don't come away thinking God approves of it. So the mere fact that all those who were said to preach are men doesn't mean they have to be, only that they were. 

       Second, Lori is starting with the idea that only men can be preachers, and then looking through the Bible to find support for that idea. That is not how we should study the Bible. If Lori were truly looking to the book of Acts to inform her on who could be preachers, she would notice Paul and all the disciples were Jewish as well. And yet, she doesn't teach that all preachers must be Jewish. Why not? Why single out their gender, but no other qualities that apply to them universally? Because she did not get her idea from the Bible, but opposed her idea ON the Bible. 

       Third, she appears to be suggesting that no one should be allowed to do anything unless the Bible records an example of someone doing it. In that case, I notice not one woman in the Bible wrote a blog, not one! 

Let’s look at this verse: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine” (2 Timothy 4:2). Does this verse mean that all of us are to preach the word? NO! This verse was written to Timothy who Paul was training to be a preacher.

That's interesting...one of the ways in which people defend women preachers is by arguing that the verses that appear to forbid it do not apply universally, but were written at a specific time, in a specific place, to a specific individual or church. I've written about this before, so I won't get into it here. I would simply like to point out that Lori hates it when people argue this way and insist that those verses apply universally. And yet, now, when it suits her, she turns around and dismisses an entire verse of the Bible by saying it was meant only for Timothy. If it was meant only for Timothy, what is it doing in the Bible? Surely Timothy is not the only one who should preach the Gospel (and if asked, Lori would agree)! But there is no indication in this verse that the others besides Timothy must be men. 

       Lori goes on to quote some old commentaries that spoke about the definition of "preaching." I won't reproduce them all here, but the main idea seems to be that to preach is "to proclaim loudly and boldly." That's it? That's the definition of "preach" that we've been waiting for? In that case, I suppose Donald Trump and Joe Biden are preaching at their rallies! Seriously, though, I guess Lori's argument is that if writes, she is not literally speaking out loud, so it's fine. But wait! I thought one of the reasons Lori gave for women being forbidden to preach is that they are more easily deceived than men, and so cannot be trusted to teach correctly? Is she saying, then, that women are more easily deceived when they speak out loud, but if they type their words, suddenly the tendency toward deception vanishes? It makes no sense and becomes nothing more than a contrived, empty rule to follow. It brings to mind the Pharisees refusing to do any work on the Sabbath, even rescuing their lamb from a pit. 

       And, for the record, one of my faithful readers pointed out recently that in Mark 16, the word for "preach" is kērussō; one of the possible definitions of this word is "publish." So perhaps what Lori does really is preaching! 

       Lori's final paragraph is so full of points I must respond to that I'm going to break it up piece by piece: 

The ministry of preaching was given to men.

No, it wasn't. There's not a single verse in the Bible saying this. As I said, finding a list of male preachers in a highly patriarchal society is hardly evidence that it must be that way for all time. Does she think God based His rules on 1st century Roman culture? The closest the Bible comes to saying this is when it says overseers must be the "husband of one wife." But this is entirely missing the point of that verse; Paul was speaking against polygamy, not women being overseers. We should not make too much of the gender pronoun, since there would have been no need to tell women they shouldn't have multiple husbands! Paul could easily have said "an overseer must be male", but he never did! 

  Preachers preach. Women are forbidden from preaching yet many do. 

There is no verse in the Bible forbidding women to preach. Those famous verses about women being silent in the churches were about maintaining order in the church, and one of the verse appears in the middle of a discussion about people randomly speaking in tongues. It was about order, not discrimination against a certain gender. What is so disorderly about a single woman speaking to the congregation? Besides, the Greek word Paul used to tell women to be silent did not mean literal silence: it was more like "to hold one's peace" and not speak out of turn. Clearly these verses are not forbidding all women for all time from preaching or holding the office of pastor, and yet there are some who so desperately try to make them say exactly that to try to conform to their man-made traditions. 

Women are to have meek and quiet spirits. Women up on stage preaching don’t have meek and quiet spirits.

Actually, all believers, both men and women, are to have meek and quiet spirits! For example, in Matthew 5, Jesus says "blessed are the meek", not "blessed are the meek women." And Timothy himself (a man) is instructed twice to be meek, in 1 Timothy 6:11 as well as 2 Timothy 2:25. Some versions use the word "gentleness" instead, but the King James Version uses the word "meek." There are also many places in the New Testament when all believers are commanded to be "quiet", because, as I said before, the word used for quiet doesn't mean literal silence, but rather holding one's tongue when appropriate. Once again, these apply to all believers, not just women. So the idea that being meek and quiet is only for women ignores the teaching of the Bible. And, since all believers are commanded to be meek and quiet, if these are disqualifies for being a preacher, I guess neither men nor women can be preachers! 

They are doing something that they are not called to do. They are to teach the young women biblical womanhood.

Here is yet another example of Lori drawing an obviously fallacious conclusion. Lori's idea of biblical womanhood is primarily based on Titus 2:3-5, in which older women are told to teach younger women to be reverent, love their husbands and children, be busy at home, kind, self-controlled, etc. But there is no indication that this is the only thing women are permitted to teach! Paul does not say "teach this and nothing else!" He simply says to teach this. Lori is adding in her own idea that the teaching of women must be restricted to these principles; there's no way around it. 

       Besides, in the verses preceding these, the older men are told to be worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, love, and endurance. Are we to suppose these are qualities only men should pursue? Of course not! It is absurd to try to make each of these sections exclusive to each gender. Paul simply is saying "teach these kinds of things." 

God gave men the low, strong voice to proclaim loudly and publicly for a reason. Preaching is for men.

Lori ends here with this weird point. Not all men have low, strong voices, and I have no idea where Lori got the idea that some men have such voices for the sake of preaching. What about, you know, microphones? For that matter, what about women with low, strong voices? I know a few myself. Certainly Lori wouldn't allow them to be preachers on that basis. So why even bring up this point? If that's the strongest argument you have, you may need to rethink what you're trying to argue for. 

       The bottom line is that Lori has no problem flip-flopping on her burden or proof to force whatever conclusion she wishes. Unless the Bible has a verse that literally says "it is okay for a woman to stand behind a pulpit in a church building and preach to a congregation that includes men", she will not be convinced that women can preach. Yet, there is no verse in the Bible that explicitly says "it is NOT okay for a woman to stand behind a pulpit in a church building and preach to a congregation that includes men." This is classic cherry-picking. Lori, like all those who "find" in the Bible the idea that God disqualifies some from serving Him in certain says simply because of their gender, do not find that idea in the Bible at all. They find it within themselves and the cultures of past centuries, and impose it on the Bible. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/what-exactly-is-preaching/?unapproved=182088&moderation-hash=2644a78b06e15ea6a2bc38f85cbcec54#comment-182088

Response to "Warnings Against the Feminization of America."

        Here we go again...

People all over America will go to the polls soon and vote. I have heard women proclaim that people had to fight and die for women to have the right to vote as if this were a God-ordained right. This isn’t true. There was never any civil war over this issue nor is it a God-ordained right. Women “fought” (meaning they left their homes, raised their voices, and shouted for their “rights”) for the right to vote since they felt they knew better than men. They didn’t trust men to lead them in the right way. They wanted to be leaders and run things.

There's quite a lot in this paragraph. She's right, I'm not aware of anyone dying directly to give women the right to vote, and there was definitely no civil war. In a more indirect sense, however, there were many who died to give all of us the privilege of living in this great country, and one of the reasons America is so great is the right of self-government. She's correct that the right of women to vote is not a "God-ordained" right, but, notably, neither is the right for men to vote. And I'm sure Lori is patriotic enough (not being sarcastic, by the way) that she would very strongly defend men's voting rights. So what point is she trying to make by saying it's not a God-ordained right? Is she saying no one should have any rights except for those that are "God-ordained"? As I said, in that case, no one would have the right to vote. 

       As far as women wanting to vote because they "felt they knew better than men," this has nothing to do with men vs. women. Each woman is an individual just like each man is, and it is an American value that the individual have a say in his or her own governing. In a sense, we all feel we know better than anyone else how we ought to be governed, because in many cases we do. We broke away from England in order to preserve that right, and here is Lori insisting that women should go back to the way things were and allow someone else to decide how they should be governed. Which is it, Lori? Are we for American values, or not? 

      She writes for a while about a poster from the anti-suffrage movement, and then continues with her own commentary on what she considers to be the results of women gaining the right to vote: 

Ask yourself, have women stopped nagging and wanting their way since they achieved the right to vote? NO! In fact, I saw a poster recently that Iceland has complete gender equality but I am sure it hasn’t made women any happier and less complaining. Women are louder and more demanding (example: the Women’s March) than ever before even though they have more rights than ever. It’s a deep pit that is never satisfied.

Would Lori describe the men who led the American Revolution as "nagging" and "wanting their way"? How about "loud" and "demanding"? Hopefully not, and yet, if women protest against oppression, those are the words she chooses. It has nothing to do with the actual protest, or what is being protested. Lori is saying it is who is doing the protesting that makes it wrong. Men are allowed, even admired, for standing up for their rights, but women are expected to just sit down and take whatever is thrown at them. And her last sentence is completely irrelevant: at any moment in the history of our country, it has been true that women had more rights than ever before. But obviously this doesn't mean they should just stop and go away, happy with the bone they've been thrown. 

       I'll also note that Lori paints standing up for rights as if it's always selfish and about oneself, but this is simply untrue. Anytime we stand up for rights, we are also standing up for everyone else who ought to have those rights. This is why people often engage in protests for issues that don't even affect them directly. So to paint it this way is a straw man. 

       And then she mentions Iceland. I don't know enough about Iceland to comment on that, but I do notice she says "I am sure it hasn't made women any happier." She's making an unwarranted assumption based on her feelings...isn't that just the sort of thing that would cause Lori to criticize someone else for doing it? 

       She then makes an attempt to use the Bible to support her cultural, man-centered views: 

 Let’s look back at the beginning of time and see who God created to be the leaders. The first human begin He created was Adam, a man, and he was to be the leader. He named all of the animals. Then God created Eve to be Adam’s help meet to support Adam in his work, not to usurp it.

Then God chose men to be the leaders as priests, kings, prophets, patriarchs, apostles, elders, deacons, and husbands. It seems clear to me that God made men to be the leaders. Jesus could have easily chosen a female disciple but He did not.

I'll just address these briefly, because I want to get to the part where she talks about voting. Yes, the creation story shows Adam being created first, but no indication is given in the text that would mean that makes him the leader. In fact, throughout the Bible we see God turning the cultural idea of the rights of the first-born on its head; for example, God chose Jacob, not Esau, as the founder of the nation of Israel, and He chose David, the youngest of Jesse's sons, as king. So the fact that Adam was created first doesn't even come close to proving Lori's point. 

       The Hebrew word for "help-meet", ezer kenegdo, means something like "helper, corresponding to." Significantly, the word ezer is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God helping the nation of Israel in a military sense, so obviously it doesn't imply subordination of any kind. Eve was to come alongside Adam as his equal, and they were to fill the earth and subdue it together. That command was given to both, not just Adam. Some, like Lori, try to twist the Bible to their own agenda and pretend it was Eve supporting Adam's work, but the Bible itself presents them as equals sharing in the same work. 

       Finally, we should not be surprised that most of the leaders, kings, etc., were men, since the world has been patriarchal for the vast majority of history. However, the Bible records many things it does not condone. Surely Lori doesn't think the Bible supports slavery or polygamy, but it records these in the same way. So Lori is being inconsistent in the evidence she'll accept that God supports something. Regarding Jesus' disciples, Jesus did have female disciples who helped support His ministry, they were simply part of the larger group of disciples that were not the 12 who were closest to Him. And the fact that the 12 were all men is not significant in the way Lori would like it to be, since it would have been scandalous at that time and place for Jesus to have close female followers. Remember, He was a rabbi. This says something about that culture, and that's all it says. If we make a big deal out of that, why not also insist that all leaders should be Jewish, since the 12 were all Jewish as well? Again, Lori is constantly inconsistent; she just pulls out whatever she needs to if it seems to support her point, without thinking through it very much. Suffice it to say none of this is remotely convincing that the Bible establishes men exclusively as leaders. 

       We now come to the part that made me decide to write a response to this one: 

What are my thoughts on women voting? I have been asked this frequently. I am not a fan at all. Women overwhelmingly vote Democrat. They vote for big government to take care of them which means higher taxes and more laws and regulations which means less freedoms. They vote for free health care and abortions. They vote for leftist policies which are highly destructive to the family and culture. Socialism hasn’t worked any where that it has been tried.

This is where we must ask: does Lori hate America, or does she just completely misunderstand what makes it great? We'll give her the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter. It is our freedoms and the right of self-government that set us apart! Yet, here is Lori, wishing that she could take away the right to vote from anyone who disagrees with her political views! It may come as a surprise to some of you that I actually lean fairly conservative in my political views. But I certainly don't think that gives me the right to take away anyone's right to vote, and I would never wish to do so. 

       Where does it end? Does Lori wish to remove the vote from colored people and minorities, who also tend to vote Democrat? This view, I'm sorry to say, is anti-American. And I would like to point out to Lori that if you give the government the ability to choose who is allowed to vote based on how they vote, there would be nothing preventing them from taking away the rights of Christians to vote. Would she be okay with that? 

       And yet, Lori herself votes!

Do I vote? Yes, I vote to support my husband’s vote and try to overturn a vote that is against all I believe in. I encourage conservative, Christian women to vote for life-affirming principles, smaller government, and more freedoms.

Some say she's a hypocrite for doing so. I suppose, though, that while she considers it the ideal that women wouldn't be allowed to vote, since they do, she probably figures it's better to continue voting to balance out all those who will vote differently from her. She does say that voting or not voting is not a sin, so at least she's not telling women that God commands them not to vote. On the other hand, if she truly believed in what she's saying, why not set an example and do what she believes is right? 

       In the end, I'm glad she votes, because there were strong, brave women who earned that right for her, and part of the greatness of America is that people like Lori can have a voice. Even if we don't like the message, we fight for the right of others to speak it. And that's why I'm so disturbed by her wish that those who vote differently from her not have the right to vote at all. I love America, and therefore I do not love what Lori is saying in this blog. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/warnings-against-the-feminization-of-america/?fbclid=IwAR2WjPM5EBXcvQ9SZL9hPL3W8qdCW2aQ2n3Qv4kGptcX0OKlERi5Zum9oWk

Response to "A Sexless Marriage is a Catastrophe for Men."

       Lori begins this weirdly titled blog with the following quote from the book "How to Be a Wife" by Suzanne Venker: 

 “Research shows men and women have affairs for different reasons. For men, it’s almost always a result of a sexless marriage. For women, it’s a result of emotional deprivation: the husband is too wrapped up in his job or his hobbies or whatever else to give his wife the time and attention she needs. That’s a great example of the research shows men and women have affairs for different reasons. Many wives are all too happy to go years without sex. For men, it’s a catastrophe.”

Forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about this "research." To be fair, I don't have the book, so I don't know for sure that there isn't a footnote with a reference to some sort of study. But we know how hastily Lori and those with similar views tend to accept and stand behind anything that appears to support their position. This particular claim demonstrates the same flaw we see in many claims like this: it is simply too broad, too simplistic. We all would like to fit the world into convenient boxes, and many especially seem obsessed with doing so when it comes to gender. But, like it or not, we are each individuals, and even when there are "tendencies" to one gender or another, that says nothing about the qualities of any individual. In short, each affair happens for a unique reason in a unique situation, and it is extraordinarily unhelpful to try to squeeze it in a neat little box. 

       That is, of course, not even to mention the all-too-predictable focus on the needs of men. But this certainly is nothing new. 

My husband mentors men.

Yes, and this causes me great concern. 

Many, if not most, of the men he mentors tells him that their wives don’t want to give them sex. It’s as if these wives have decided they don’t want it, so they don’t want to give it. They falsely believe that it’s not part of the marriage vow that they made to their husbands. They are tearing their homes down with their own hands.

Whoa, slow down! First, we need to stop using the phrase "give him sex." Sex is a mutual thing, intended for both to enjoy. It is not something the woman "gives" to the man, as if it's all about him. Of course, we know that among those who practically worship men and masculinity, the man's sex drive is quite a high priority. So this language is not surprising; but it needs to stop. 

       Second, Lori has no comprehension of the concept of nuance. She hears a generic statement that may or may not even be true, such as that most wives don't want to have sex with their husbands, and immediately decides she knows the problem and the solution. "It's as if these wives have decided they don't want it, so they don't want to give it." Wait a minute! We have no idea what might be going on in each of these nameless, faceless marriages. If one spouse is seriously opposed to having sex with the other, a good solution might be to go to a qualified counselor who can help them work through their issues. There almost certainly are a lot of factors involved, different ways in which each spouse has hurt the other or pushed them away. But in Lori's head, she's already solved the problem: the wives need to just stop it and sleep with their husbands more. Problem solved! This is a bandaid on a wound that needs stitches and antibiotics. Simply having more sex does not even identify, much less solve, the underlying problems. She can't just accuse the woman of "tearing down her home."  But, of course, Lori never seems very concerned about getting to the bottom of such things. She would rather sweep them under the rug and just pretend everything is fine. In her mind, this conflict-free, soul-less marriage is the ideal. 

The Apostle Paul commands those that burn to marry; for it is better to marry than to burn. He also commands us to not deprive our husbands for lack of self-control. Most godly men marry because they burn. They want sex. They want a wife who is available to them to meet this need.

This is profoundly sad. Lori has a terribly cynical view of men. I certainly didn't marry my wife because I was horny and wanted a female body lying around to meet that need. Imagine thinking that this describes godly men! A man who is so self-centered and unconcerned for anyone else is anything but "godly." There are many good men who value women, and their wives, as human beings with more to offer than their bodies. Tragically, it is just these types of men who are often criticized as not being "manly" enough by men who are hyper-obsessed with their own sex drives. And people like Lori actually are trying as hard as they can to convince young, vulnerable women that the latter type of man is the one they should be looking for! 

If you are married, you are to fulfill that need for your husband. If you don’t, you have some part in his seeking out porn or an affair if he does.I know women hate to hear this, but it’s true. God warns of this happening if we deprive our husbands! He commands us not to deprive our husbands because of this. Yes, if the husband begins to look at porn or have an affair, he will stand guilty for his sin but the wives will stand guilty for depriving their husbands.

No, no, no, no no no, and...no. Hasn't Lori ever read Matthew chapter 5?! Jesus was very clear that men who lust were responsible for their own sin and should "gouge their eyes out." He never blamed the women who were being stared at, never asked what they were wearing. The principle Jesus was trying to convey is clear: we are all individually responsible for our own actions. If a wife pushed her husband away for no reason and refused to have a relationship with him, she certainly is in the wrong; in that situation, he should do everything he can to try to get at the root of the problem, and likely should involve a counselor. But if he decides to have an affair, that is entirely on him. He is not responsible for her coldness, but he is 100% responsible for how he reacts to it. This is just another case of victim blaming. And I notice it is always in the man's favor. How would Lori react if a wife cheated on her husband because he wasn't fulfilling her needs emotionally? Would she say the husband is partly responsible? Of course not! I suspect instead she would write a bunch of tweets about how we are all fully accountable for our own actions! 

       Lori closes with this: 

Don’t deprive your husbands, women! Build your homes up and be a willing partner for your husband. This is a huge part of keeping your marriages strong.

And to this, I say: no, the solution is not simply to have more sex, or sex whenever he wants it. That will never solve any underlying issues. Instead, learn to love, respect, and honor each other, and treat each other as equals. If you do this, likely the sex will come far more naturally. Sex is a symptom of how things are going beneath the surface. It does no good to try to manipulate the symptom; but if we dealt with the problem, maybe there wouldn't be any need to nag us about having sex in the first place. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/a-sexless-marriage-is-a-catastrophe-for-men/

Response to "Feminism has Demeaned and Trivialized Women's Traditional Work."

       In her typical blunt fashion, Lori begins this blog with the following: 

 Many women falsely believe that if they serve their husbands, they are doormats. One woman wrote me recently and told me that she has never picked up after her husband because she didn’t want to be a “doormat.” She has equated serving her husband with being a doormat.

As usual, there is a lot of nuance (to which Lori is blind) that must be addressed. I agree, serving your spouse does not necessarily make you a doormat. Sometimes my wife picks up after me, and sometimes I pick up after her. Sometimes I wash her dirty dishes, sometimes she washes mine. The problem, of course, is when such service is one-sided, or when the willingness of one to clean up is taken advantage of by the other. I can't help but recall Lori's blog, "Dealing with a Messy Husband", in which she made the nonsensical claim that cleaning up is a "woman's job", as if somewhere God decreed in the Bible who should be doing the housework (hint: He didn't!). If a husband consistently leaves a mess and expects his wife to clean it up because he thinks that's what she's there for, then yes, "doormat" might be an accurate description. Spouses can serve each other, but neither should treat the other like a servant. There's a difference. 

       Lori follows this up with a comment on her Instagram page: 

“Women think they are being a ‘doormat’ for doing domestic tasks because for the last half a century, feminism has consistently demeaned and trivialized women’s traditional work to the point where many women won’t even consider it and even turn their noses up at it. I personally think that women need to reclaim this very important work of caring and nurturing and that if we did, over time the family unit could be restored, divorce and abortion would decline, and God would be restored as the center of the family.”

Needless to say, there is a major logical disconnect. But this type of reasoning is all too common among those who stubbornly cling to such wacky views on relationships. To say that it is not entirely a woman's job to cook and clean, for example, does not in any way put down cooking and cleaning! Both are very important. In fact, they are so important, both men and women should be able to do them! Such a strawman argument might as well be a flashing sign that says "I have no good support for what I'm saying!" 

Women, we were created to be their husband’s help meet! They were created to pick up after him and serve him; make his life easier.

Once again, we witness Lori's terrible biblical understanding. The Bible never comes close to suggesting that wives were created to pick up after their husband and "make his life easier." In Genesis 2, when God says He will make a "help meet" for the man, the Hebrew word was "ezer," which did not mean anything like "servant." The word was used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as He repeatedly came to the rescue of Israel. By calling the woman a help meet, the author of Genesis is conveying her equality to the man. She was to come alongside him as his partner so they could fulfill their mission in life together. The idea of hierarchy in this story is completely made up. 

 I have never once heard a man complain that he was a doormat because he had to go to work every day and work hard for his family, yet women often complain. 

Yes, if a husband lives the life Lori thinks every man deserves based on nothing but his gender, going to work and then clocking out and relaxing all evening without having to even pick up after himself, while his wife deals with all cooking, cleaning, and childcare (which is a 24 hour job), I don't think it's much of a mystery if he doesn't complain about that arrangement. 

 They seem to have more of a predisposition to complain and be unhappy. It’s probably why divorces are initiated by women up to 80 percent of the time. Women contemplate their “feelings” more than men and if they’re not happy in their marriage, they want to do something about it and it usually doesn’t involve changing themselves but their circumstances instead.

More of Lori's nonsense, unsupported, bitter claims. Perhaps Lori has a predisposition to be unhappy and complain, and therefore assumes all women must be just like her? She loves to quote her statistic about women initiating 80 percent of divorces, conveniently ignoring the fact that who initiated a divorce tells us nothing about why a divorce took place. Each situation is different, and we have no idea how many of those divorces are justified. Lori just assumes they're all because women are "unhappy." How convenient and lazy. And regarding women supposedly contemplating their feelings more than men, I suggest Lori spend more time reading the comments of her devoted fanboys; she will see far more feelings and emotion than she's prepared for! 

God tells us that the greatest of all is the servant of all. As we serve our husbands, we are serving Christ. When we pick up after them, we are picking up after Christ. Whatever we do, we are to do heartily as unto the Lord. The Apostle Paul wrote: “For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself a servant unto all, that I might gain the more” (1 Corinthians 9:19).

Great! Did she notice Paul is a man? And yet, despite this fact, he had no delusions of the right to rule over others, but made himself a servant? Indeed, it is a wonderful thing for all of us to serve others. But Lori only believes this applies to women. I don't remember Jesus telling only His women disciples to serve others. And if Lori did admit that men must serve their wives as well, I suspect the "service" she would have in mind is barking orders and making decisions on their behalf as if they were children. 

       So, no, feminism has not demeaned and trivialized such things as cooking, cleaning, and keeping the home. If Lori would actually listen to people who disagree with her, she would find that many women who believe they deserve equality with men also love baking and other "feminine" activities. I believe it is more demeaning to these tasks to try to force women to do them exclusively. If that role is so wonderful and natural to women, they wouldn't have to be forced. These things are necessary for every household, and each family is free to determine for themselves how they split up tasks. Lori trivializes the desires of God by thinking what He is most concerned about is who does the dishes and laundry. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/feminism-has-demeaned-and-trivialized-womens-traditional-work/

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/

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/