Response to "Dealing with a Messy Husband."

       Lori wrote this blog in response to several comments on her Facebook page, such as the following: 

“The Transformed Wife, it is inconsiderate of the HUSBAND to just leave a mess around CARELESSLY 24/7. Just as the wife would be considered as inconsiderate if she did something like that, am I right?”

“The Transformed Wife, if a man can’t look after himself and refuses to, then he isn’t a man. So yes, divorce him. I want a husband, not a son.”

Sounds reasonable to me. The husband and wife should hold each other to the same standard. It would be entirely wrong for one to leave messes without cleaning them up and yet expect the other to be neat. Of course, this doesn't mean each spouse can't help the other out here and there. If one of us makes a mess but is not feeling well or too busy working on something else to clean it up, my wife and I will pick up the slack for each other. But it would be a problem if I were consistently lazy and made a habit of refusing to pick up after myself, and expected my wife to do it as the norm. Sure, I may be tired sometimes (and so will my wife!). But if I change my clothes, it's not exactly difficult to put them in the dirty clothes instead of leaving them on the floor. If I accidentally spill something, I'm quite capable of cleaning it up. If I open food or another item, it's up to me to throw it away. These are not heavy or unreasonable burdens. 

       But, of course, Lori sees it differently. The problem with Lori's position is that she seeks to avoid conflict at all costs. But a conflict-free relationship is not necessarily a healthy one, if the resentments are simply left to build up like molten lava lurking under the ground. Eventually, the volcano will blow. There are worse things than a relationship in which there is occasional, healthy conflict that leads to greater intimacy and understanding of one another, as well as the opportunity for both spouses to mature and learn to compromise and not always get their way.

        As is her practice, Lori sought the opinions of the women in the chat room. Judy says: 

“I wonder how well those elders can make the husband pick up after himself? Many of the elders may be messy too. There are women struggling with husbands who abuse, fail to provide, husbands with ongoing addictions, and those who commit marital unfaithfulness. Although messiness and inconsideration is annoying, most ‘picking up’ can be done in a few minutes. This verse comes to mind: ‘If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men’ (Romans 12:18).”

Judy's point is that there are bigger hills to die on, and that finishing a bag of chips and leaving it lying around instead of throwing it away is far from the worst that a wife might have to deal with. However, does this mean it's wrong for a wife to remind her husband when he's left something lying around and ask him to be more neat? If this isn't a big deal to Judy, that's up to her. But her suggestion could end up being a recipe for a lack of communication, which often leads to built up resentment because no one is talking about their feelings in order to maintain "peace." There is a middle ground between harsh nagging on one end and total dishonest silence on the other. 

       By the way, I should mention that I think it seems a little odd to me to appeal to the elders of the church on an issue as small as cleaning things up. Couples should probably settle these things between themselves rather than setting up a precedent of running to the elders anytime they don't like what their spouse is doing. However, truly settling such things requires communication. 

Lindsay says: 

“She’s basically saying that if the husband won’t do women’s work by cleaning up the house after himself, he’s sinning. Where exactly in the Bible is it written ‘Thou shalt pick up your own mess?’ I can’t seem to find it.”

Okay, Lindsay, where exactly in the Bible is it written "Thou shalt pick up your husband's mess?" Pretty reckless of you to attempt such a rebuttal when your own position is found nowhere in the Bible. Lori and her followers can believe all they want that a wife ought to be willing to always clean up after her husband, but what they cannot do is claim that it's biblical. On what grounds does she call this "women's work"? It may be her work in her home, if that's her choice, but Lindsay, please don't add to God's Word by implying your own preference is in the Bible when it is not. 

Jessica says: 

“She needs to humble herself and submit to her husband. #jezabelspirit”

Of course, the infamous (fictional) Jezebel spirit. As I've pointed out before, despite how frequently this term is hurled at pretty much any women who does not subscribe to a very narrow idea of who and what every woman should be, it is found nowhere in the Bible. There was a real Jezebel, but her issues were much different from not picking up her husband's candy wrappers. Anyone who mentions a "Jezebel spirit" simply ends up sounding like they have no idea what is actually in the Bible. 

       And besides, the biblical idea of submission has to do with considering others more important than ourselves and seeking their best interest (such as in Philippians 2:3). Of course, this command applies to both men and women, not just women (as Lori so often insists). This is a much richer and significant definition of submission than simply cleaning up your husband's messes. 

Here is a different Lindsay: 

“When a husband refuses to clean up messes, even after his wife has brought it to his attention, then he has made the executive decision, as head of his household, that his wife should be the one to do that cleaning up. The wife should honor this and do it herself, without complaining."

Lindsay seems to believe that the husband has total freedom to make whatever decision he wants and the wife must obey. What if he decides that the bed belongs only to him, and she must sleep on the floor? Where does this seemingly unlimited authority end? Most complementarians will say that the wife is not required to obey when asked to sin by their husbands (though some think she should!), but there are plenty of demands that are objectively unreasonable. I suppose, to them, the wife has no option in these cases but to take it. 

       The Bible, of course, never even comes close to giving husbands such authority over wives. In a highly patriarchal culture, Paul opposed the cultural norms placing husbands over wives by clearly avoiding ever telling husbands to rule over, make decisions for, or have authority over their wives. He tells children to obey parents and slaves to obey masters,but never uses the word "obey" with wive. This was deliberate. The word he uses for submit appears in Ephesians 5:21 when he tells all believers to submit to each other; therefore, the only consistent way to understand this is as I mentioned above, caring for one another and considering each other's needs above our own. Not to obey, which makes no sense if everyone is told to obey each other. Besides being impossible, that would be chaos if seriously practiced! 

Lindsay continues: 

“Imagine the impertinence of a child being told to wash the dishes and telling his mother that she needs to wash her own dishes and when the mother does not, he tells the mother that she is in unrepentant sin. No, it’s not sin for the mother to delegate that task to her child. She is in authority over him and he should obey. In the same way, it is not sin for the husband to delegate the task of cleaning up the house to his wife, regardless of who made the mess. He has that authority. It is impertinent and rebellious for the wife to insist that her husband has to do that chore. She doesn’t get to decide which chores he does. She doesn’t have that authority. She’s not the boss. Her husband is.” 

All I can do here is reiterate that nothing Lindsay is saying is biblical. The Bible does not declare husbands to have authority over wives. It does not command wives to obey their husbands. It does not call husbands the boss of their wives. And it's frightening that anyone would think the relationship between a husband and wife is (or should be) like that of a parent and a child! Women are not children, and if they were, it would be creepy for men to marry them. There is a reason relationships between two people with significantly different positions of power, such as a boss and employee, are generally discouraged, as there is too much opportunity for abuse and too much difficulty in showing equal respect to each other. How much worse is it to force a hierarchy on the marriage relationship itself! 

       Lori herself chimes in at the end of the blog: 

God created wives to be their husbands’ help meets, to be keepers at home, and submit to their husbands in everything. I agree with Lindsay. If he doesn’t want to clean up after himself, so what, women? If he’s a good provider, faithful, and loves you and your children, be thankful and cheerfully clean up after him!

When the Bible calls the woman a help meet to the man, it isn't talking about picking up dirty laundry off of the floor. The Hebrew phrase "ezer" is used far more times in the Old Testament to refer to God than to Eve. This kind of "helper" is not a servant or assistant, but a strong, capable support on which the one being helped depends. That is, unless Lori thinks God is running around picking up men's socks. Also, the full phrase is "ezer kenegdo,""Kenegdo" means "corresponding to." In other words, the woman corresponds to the man as his equal, tasked with the same job of subduing the earth and just as capable as he is. Lori insists on reading this phrase as if it were written in English. But, of course, it was written thousands of years before English existed. 

 If wives can’t clean up after their husbands because they believe their husbands are being “disrespectful” to them for being “slobs,” they have forgotten what Christ did for them (remember – being crucified on a cross) and what He said: “The greatest of all is the servant of all.” True love bears ALL things.

This is one of the biggest problems with Lori's views. She often advocates for Christlike ideas, such as serving one another. The problem is that, for some reason, she thinks only women are to be Christlike. In her world, men should not be serving their wives. So "the greatest of all is the servant of all", unless we're talking about a man, in which case you should just forget about what she just said. And she can't hide behind the fact that she "doesn't teach men." Part of responsibly teaching women is giving them a realistic idea of what a healthy marriage looks like. What Lori portrays is far from it. 

       When someone disagrees with Lori's teaching, she accuses them of being against the concept itself, when often the real problem is that it's one-sided. I am not against respect; I am against respect that is given in one direction but not the other. I am not against serving; I am against calling it normal for one person to always be required to serve the other without doing anything in return. This is not, by the way, to say that we should only show love to someone if we'll get it in return. My point is that we must have an ideal in view, a recognition of what a healthy relationship looks like, and to strive to serve and put others above ourselves - yes, even men. 

       After all, if positive concepts such as serving and sacrificing for others are presented as being one-sided and entirely in the favor of one at the expense of another, it was never about love in the first place: it was about control and taking advantage of others. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/dealing-with-a-messy-husband/ 

Response to "Yea, Hath God Said..."

       This blog contains a comment on Lori's previous blog entitled "Does Feminism Seek to Destroy Christianity?" Blair, the author of the comment, uses a tactic commonly used by defenders of patriarchy, one that is meant to frighten those who disagree into blindly accepting their teaching. 

       As we all know, the serpent in the garden of Eden created confusion and doubt in Eve's mind as to what God had commanded regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. "Did God really say..." Indeed, we need to be familiar with the commands of God so there is no confusion. However, it is a problem if this fact is used to defend that which is not, in fact, a command of God. If God did not say it, then it is legitimate to ask this question, and the correct answer is "no." This may seem like an obvious point, but the defenders of patriarchy twist this story to discourage us from questioning not God but them. They assert God commanded something He never did, and if we point out that God didn't say it, they try to manipulate us by comparing us to the serpent in the garden. 

       Blair's words are a perfect example of this, as she writes her skewed view of the egalitarian position:  

 Yea, hath God said – that you are a help meet to your husband? He is really supposed to be helping you instead.

Egalitarians do not believe husbands alone should "help" or serve their wives; we believe husbands and wives ought to support and help each other! It is people such as Lori who suggest that the call to be servant of all for some reason applies only to women. 

       Besides, when Genesis calls the woman a "helper" to her husband, it uses the Hebrew word ezer. This word does not mean secretary, or servant, or subordinate, and in fact is used most often in the Old Testament to refer to God Himself as He helps us. The use of this word demonstrates the full equality of the woman and the fact that she comes alongside her husband as an equal in ability and position. 

Yea, hath God said – that you are the weaker vessel? You are not weaker. You can do anything a man can do, and do it better and faster.

1 Peter 3:7 does not actually say women are the weaker vessel, but only that men should treat them as weaker in the sense of showing them honor and care. Of course, women are on average physically than men, but it says a lot about defenders of patriarchy that they make so much of physical strength. And, of course, egalitarians do not believe women can do anything a man can do better and faster. Instead, we believe each person, regardless of gender, has unique strengths and weaknesses specific to them, regardless of their gender. 

Yes, hath God said - that you are supposed to be keepers at home? You have brains. You need a job and your own money. 

Paul urged women to be "busy at home" in a culture in which there were only two options for women: keeper at home, or prostitute. Big surprise that he preferred the former.  

Yea, hath God said – that you are to submit to your husband? You are no one’s slave. How dare your husband tell you what to do. This is 2020 not 300 A.D.

Egalitarians are not, in fact,against submission. Actually, we believe in more submission, as husband and wife both ought to submit to each other, in the sense of laying down their lives for each other, placing the other above themselves and considering the other's needs above their own, etc. This is, in fact, Christlikeness. It's interesting that people with views like Lori's demand Christlikeness only from women. 

Yea, hath God said – that a woman shall not teach or have authority over a man? You can teach men. And what about that promotion to being a boss at work. Those men can now look up to you.

In 1 Timothy 2, Paul forbade women from having authentien, which means forceful dominance. He specifically avoided the word exousia, which is what he would have used if he were forbidding women from having legitimate authority over men. And it is no surprise that he didn't allow women to teach, as they would have been without the necessary religious education in such a culture. But it's interesting to note that Paul urged the women to learn (which would have been radical at that time and place!), and also that he uses the present tense in this statement: in the Greek, it reads "I am not allowing a woman to teach" rather than "I do not allow a woman to teach." This strongly indicates a temporary rather than permanent intent. 

       Something I found interesting in the above statement is the fact that she implies that women should not be bosses in the workplace. Of course, I know she doesn't think women should be working at all, but that's beside the point. Most complementarians believe the restriction of women from authority positions technically applies only to the church. Blair, however, seems to think it applies even to the workplace, a much more extreme view. 

Yea, hath God said – that a woman is to keep silence in church? No one is going to tell you to be silent. And you know you are more spiritual than men, so get up there at the pulpit and preach.

When Paul said women should not speak in church, he had 30 Greek words to choose from. He specifically chose the word for "converse." In other words, the women, having little knowledge of how to act in social situations, would have been engaging in conversation during the church service. Paul was simply saying "don't talk during church", a command that would apply equally to men but didn't need to be said to the men because they already knew this. Paul was not saying any more than this. 

       So, to answer Blair's questions: No, God did not say the woman alone is a servant to her husband, but that husband and wife should serve each other. No, God did not say women are inferior to men because they are weaker. No, God did not say only wives must submit to their husbands but not husbands to wives. No, God did not say women are barred from authority positions (indeed, God Himself placed women like Deborah in authority!). And no, God did not command all women to be silent in the church simply because they're women. You see, Blair (and Lori), it's okay to acknowledge that God did not say something...when He actually didn't say it! We see through your attempt to equate your own words with God's and usurp His authority in order to promote your own man-centered ideas. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/yea-hath-god-said/

Response to "The Cultural Train Wreck Coming to a Church Near You."

       This extremely long blog was written by Ken in response to the pastor of his church affirming that women are allowed to speak in church, and even *gasp* allowing several women to do so during the service. According to Lori, Ken was so upset he actually got up and left the service! Maybe Lori's tweets saying Christians should be the most unoffendable people should be directed at Ken instead of her followers! 

       Ken directs the blog directly at the pastor in the form of an open letter, which makes me wonder why he wouldn't first try to speak the pastor privately about his concerns. Perhaps he is more comfortable using the safe method of ranting about it in writing to people who largely agree with him, instead of challenging face-to-face someone who clearly does not agree with him and also actually understands the Bible. Those who are educated and knowledgeable have always been Ken and Lori's greatest adversaries. 

       Ken begins with a half-hearted attempt to dismiss the need for cultural and contextual understanding of the Bible:

The new third principle of hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible) is now to take what the text actually says, examine the context and culture of the time, then read modern day culture back into the text to make it relevant. If culture is strong enough on any one issue, it is allowed to trump the first basics of hermeneutics by claiming that what the Word actually says was only for “that church,” the Corinthians, or Ephesians, but no longer applicable for today.

Not surprisingly, this is not a faithful portrayal of the real position. We do not "read" modern day culture back into the text." Rather, often we must understand the original culture in order to determine what the author was really trying to say. Ken himself does this all the time when reading the Bible, he just doesn't recognize or admit it. For example, if the Bible speaks of God increasing your livestock, we understand that to mean wealth generally today. I certainly don't expect to wake up one morning expecting 1,000 sheep to have suddenly appeared in my backyard. Either we read the Bible as if it were written in a different language and different culture, or we read it as if it were written in English in our own culture. And, of course, only the former makes sense. 

       Further, it is as good a time as any to note that the view that women and men are equal is not a modern idea inspired by feminism. In fact, it dates all the way back to the early church (and is evident even in the writings of Paul, when properly understood). The patriarchal twisting of God's intent in the family and church creeped in only later when Christianity spread to the Greeks, who interpreted Paul's writings through the lens of the misogynistic views of the Greek philosophers, such as Aristotle. It is Lori and Ken who believe in a perversion of God's true design and have followed secular culture! 

Your pastor may teach that in today’s modern Church, women are so much more educated than they were back in the days when Paul had to forbid them and shame them into not speaking in church.  The letter to the Corinthians is now taught to be a “one off” issue that was not a problem in any other ancient church, just the Corinthians. These women were special as they believed that because they were free in Christ, they were allowed to fully participate in church services and they were shouting out ignorant questions and being disruptive instead of learning in silence. So, of course, we can all see why the apostle Paul would write, “Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:33).

Another partial misrepresentation (or, to use Lori's favorite term to misuse, "strawman"). It is people like Ken and Lori who "shame" women into not speaking in church, by implying there is something about their very nature that disgusts God enough that merely speaking aloud in church is somehow repulsive to Him. Paul himself never "shamed" women into not speaking in church, and in fact never told them not to at all. When Paul says women should remain “quiet”, the Greek word for quiet is “hēsuchia.” This word does not mean literal silence but rather calmness or “keeping one’s seat.” Paul is simply saying they ought to learn calmly and without disruption (which would apply to men as well). Also, there are 30 Greek words that translate into English as "speak," each having a slightly different meaning. When Paul tells women not to speak in church, he used the word "laleo”, which means simply “talk” or “converse.” In other words, Paul was saying nothing more than “don’t talk during church", something women in that culture, being mostly confined to the home and very limited in their freedom to interact with others in public, would not have known.

       Ken is also wrong about how egalitarians interpret this verse. We do not believe it was a "one off" issue that only applied to the Corinthians. In fact, we believe it still applies today, but must be applied with wisdom. In the same way that 2 Corinthians 13:12 tells us to greet one another with a kiss, but we understand this not to be a specific command to kiss one another (which would be pretty weird in our culture) but rather simply a command to greet each other warmly, this verse telling the women to learn silently is applied today as a command to maintain order in the church. Ken and Lori have elevated the letter of the law over the spirit, and in so doing they have made obedience to this verse an empty ritual and no longer even understand the actual point behind it. Such blind obedience is not honoring to God, it is an attempt to earn brownie points with Him. 

       Let's see how Ken tries to refute the arguments against his legalistic interpretation of this verse:

Pastor, I have a question and I am not an uneducated person, so can I ask it? Didn’t you just say how important context is, and how the Bible was written with no chapter headings, verse numbers, or even punctuation marks? Okay, so if that is true, why did you not read the phase right before “let your women keep silent” where it says, “As in all of the churches of the saints” (1 Corinthians 14:32)? Would not the context and text itself in this case shed some light on whether or not “women keep silent” was just for the Corinthians, just for the ancient Church, or for all churches of all times? What could “All the churches of the saints possibly mean”?

Well, it means exactly what it says, and not more, as Ken wants us to believe. Like I said above, it did not apply only to the Corinthian church, but all the churches at that time as most of the women everywhere, not just Corinth, would have had the same limited social exposure. It does not, however, say anything about "for all time." It's rather bold of Ken to make such a big deal about being faithful to what the verse actually says, and before he even finishes to slip in his own idea, as if we wouldn't even notice! 

For that matter, why did you not explain the second half of the verse and the verses following the words “let your women keep silent… but to be in submission, as the Law also says.” Was this submission spoken of by the apostle unique to this church? Why is the apostle appealing to the Law when he makes this command?

Ken avoids digging too deeply here because he knows the evidence is against him. What "law" is this verse referring to? It is not Old Testament law, since there is no command of this nature in the Jewish laws. If anything, it would be the Roman laws in that particular time and place, in which case this verse would have followed Paul's command elsewhere in the New Testament that Christians should do their best to follow human authorities to maintain the good reputation of the Gospel. But this would be quite different from claiming that those Roman laws were somehow divine in nature and must be followed for all time, as Ken wants to believe! I have also heard an argument that the "law" simply is referring to the moral law that requires all of us to honor one another, not talk over each other, and be respectful. Likely a case could be made for either, but what is clear is that the reference to "the law" in no way means this command is to be followed to the letter for all time. 

Pastor, there cannot be a passage of scripture that is more clear in its text and context than this one, but by the time you get done with it, we are all confused. 

No one is confused but you, Ken, and I'm not even sure you are. I think you just want to confuse the rest of us to maintain the power with which you are so certain your male nature bestows upon you. "No passage of scripture is more clear in its text and context than this one?" If this verse is so clear, and we should interpret others with the same superficial "plain-reading" method you suggest, what about the following verses? Does Ephesians 6:5 condone slavery? Does Luke 14:26 teache that we ought to hate our families? Does 1 John 1:3:9 teach that Christians never sin? I'm sure you would agree they don't, but this immediately shatters your attempt to get us to believe that these verses are clear as they read in their English translations and that we should be afraid of studying any further. 

I am just curious, Pastor, but how do you know that these women were uneducated chatter boxes?

Well, Ken, some people study history and try to learn more than the minimum necessary to maintain their dogmatic views. You have access to a computer, why don't you try Googling it? I have some great articles I could recommend. Your implication that this historical fact is not true reveals your profound, intentional ignorance on the subject. 

I guess the bigger question, Pastor, is why are you going against what the church universal and what your own church has taught from the beginning?...Did our purposeful, omniscient, and sovereign God allow His Church to get His Word all wrong for 2,000 years?

The fact that the church has taught or believed something for the majority of its history does not alone imply that it must be correct. Ken, have you heard about the Reformation? It is absurdly easy to find plenty of beliefs in the church that were wrong but yet persisted for centuries. Clearly God is not stepping in and correcting every wrong belief. Besides, what do we do with the positive view of slavery and racism that was so prevalent even in the church throughout the centuries?  I suspect Ken would have been on board, using these same arguments to defend his views! 

Pastors, when you teach that the these passages are only for the Corinthians and Ephesians, just two early churches and not “all of churches of the saints,” you undermine all of scriptural authority. You make up hypotheticals and make believe stories trying to explain away what the actual text and context say. Your whole basis of truth and ability to trust God’s Word are undercut, and your own authority called into question.

No, Ken, egalitarians believe just as much in the authority of Scripture. The difference is that egalitarians have the respect for it to study it and try to determine what it really means, not simply assume the English translation taken at face value, which conveniently seems to say men like yourself are somehow special simply because they're men, is the correct one. It is Ken who does not respect Scripture, but uses it to feed his own superiority complex. 

We know that women form the backbone of the Church in many ways, as without them the service of the church could not exist, but now they want more. This idea of living in submission is foreign to this culture as a cry for “equality” is what many believe the Church needs. And how does one gain equality? Women must be more up front, be able to preach and teach men, and exercise authority in the Church! After all, it is the only way they can feel empowered, and isn’t empowerment what God is all about? Didn’t God send His Son to rule and reign from Jerusalem, or did He send Him as a Suffering Servant who modeled for us both the roles of the Godhead and how one gives up their rights to equality to sacrificially serve the needs of others?

Ken tries to appease women with a few flowery words, but his actions speak much louder. Isn't it interesting how Ken thinks women who ask for equality are "trying to get more," and yet men who try to reserve all authority for themselves are "simply being obedient to God"? Ken is correct that Jesus' model for us is one of a servant who gives up His own personal rights in order to serve others. The profound problem with Ken's theology, however, is that he thinks only women must follow this example of Jesus. Where is his call for men to give up their rights and serve others? No, he has replaced the actual commands of the Bible and the example of Jesus for all believers, and replaced them with his own ego-driven hyper-masculinity that could not be further from what God desires for us. 

If our pastors are going to be relevant to try and create a “safe place” for our young women, they too often give up the solid principles of interpretation to adopt the feminist talking points. They listen to scholars like NT Wright and become enchanted with his guesswork and story telling on these important scriptures. 

This is where I just have to laugh. Ken seriously suggests that the work of someone like N.T. Wright is "guesswork" and "story-telling", while his own method of intentionally avoiding any study of the Bible but simply choosing whatever interpretation appeals most to his own ego is the correct one? 

       In the end, most of Lori's blogs make very little reference to the Bible and are easy to see for the rambling they are. But occasionally, there is a blog like this, which is far more dangerous. Ken uses the same methods of the devil himself by sprinkling some truth throughout so that those who are not educated will be impressed by the "knowledge" and "scholarship" presented, and will be tricked into thinking Ken actually knows what he is talking about. This is why it's so important for each of us to know the Bible for ourselves, and not simply take the word of "teachers" who have their own interests in mind and are counting on their followers to not check into it for themselves. Ken is a wolf in sheep's clothing, a false teacher, and I hope more and more are able to see this and are not swayed opportunistic twisting of the words of God! As we truly study the Bible, we find that Ken is full of it, that the "evidence" for Ken's anti-women views is far thinner than Ken implies, and, eventually, that such evidence does not exist at all. 

       Isn't it interesting that we hear nothing from Ken and Lori about hypocrisy or even abuse in the church? Nothing about the real problems, but when women are allowed to speak, they lose their minds. They're not concerned with holiness or obedience to God at all. It's all about power, nothing more. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/the-cultural-train-wreck-coming-to-a-church-near-you/

Response to "Birth Control for Christians?"

       This blog covers a topic that is important to me because it was the issue that initially motivated me to study the topic of gender roles and "traditional" ideas such as Lori holds. And I believe it is one of the most weakly supported and poorly argued of all their points. This post is guest written by Nancy Campbell from the blog "Above Rubies."

The Lord, in His holy Scriptures, calls children blessings. He calls them a reward.

Why would we not want a reward from the Lord? Would we refuse any other reward from Him? A bigger house? A newer car?

Nancy, children are not new cars or bigger houses; they are people. People like this think they are the ones who value children, and yet the fact that they speak about them this way is very telling. They see children not as individuals but as numbers. 13 children is objectively better than 12 to them. Furthermore, underlying this view is a very self-centered idea. They push couples to have more children because of the personal blessing it will supposedly bring them. 

       Before moving on, I would also add that their logic does not follow. They take a verse from the Psalms (poetry, not commands) that describes children as blessings, and want to turn it into a command to have more children. This is a blatant addition of their own ideas into the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible say that we should always strive to have more children. To go from "children are blessings" to "you are required to have more, because who wouldn't want more blessings" is a major (and unjustified) leap. 

There are no Scriptures supporting the use of birth control.

Brilliant. There is also nothing in Scripture supporting the use of the internet, the writing of blogs, or, for that matter, flushing toilets. These people seem to have forgotten that the Bible was written a little while ago and doesn't include mention of modern technology because it didn't exist. How does this even need to be explained? If the absence of mention of birth control in the Bible somehow means the Bible forbids it, Nancy and Lori need to delete their blogs and start digging holes in the ground to go to the bathroom. 

The only mention of any sort of birth control (deliberately preventing a child from being conceived), follows with the Lord killing the man who committed the act.

Even if Nancy were telling us the whole story here, it would merely be a story and not a command for all time. However, she craftily hides key details. She is referring to Onan in Genesis 38, who "spilled his seed" on the ground to avoid impregnating Tamar. The reason for God's anger, however, had nothing to do with birth control. Tamar was Onan's widowed sister-in-law, and the laws of the Hebrews required a man to marry his deceased brother's widow in order to provide children for her, who then would legally be heirs of the deceased brother. Onan didn't like the idea of fathering children who would not be his own heirs. These are important details, Nancy, and your intent to deceive us is clear from your omission of them! 

We see many Scriptures that describe how the Lord opens and closes the womb. He is in control. If we claim to believe in the sovereignty of God, how can we deny His sovereignty in the the life He creates in the womb?

This is the typical argument made on this point, and it seems convincing to the impressionable. However, they apply the principle rather sparingly. Why do these people buy groceries if God is sovereign and able to take care of them? Why do they own insurance if God is sovereign and able to take care of them? For that matter, why do they look both ways when they cross the street if God is able to protect them and won't allow any harm to come to them until their "appointed time"? The fact that they apply this principle only when it comes to children reveals that they don't truly believe it. They simply want to convince people to have more babies at any cost, so they can increase the number of those with these wacky beliefs. 

When we have the attitude of not wanting another baby because “circumstances aren’t right,” “finances are tight,” or “it’s just too hard,” we are having the same attitude of people who kill their children in the womb.

What a sinister idea. These people compare the choice to not have children to actually killing children! As if un-conceived children somehow already exist and are being denied the right to life by not being conceived. It's utterly absurd, and the logical conclusions are disturbing (enforced procreation, or prosecution for failing to have children?). 

       Furthermore, I would argue that people who delay or prevent children actually love their children more, since they are thinking not just about having as many as they can so they themselves can be blessed, but are carefully weighing their ability to give their kids the best life possible. They are also more likely to value each individual because they see him/her as just that, an individual, not just a number. 

Up until the early 20th century, the Protestant church was completely opposed to couples using birth control and considered it sin.

Okay? So what? The church used to be okay with slavery too. We don't determine our moral choices based on what the church believed centuries ago. 

Why has this changed?...I believe birth control became more readily accepted so women could go out to work outside the home–something else that is not Scriptural. With couples being able to “choose” when and how many babies to have, it freed up women to go out into the workforce, therefore weakening the family with mothers away from home.

Ah, here it is. The truth. Nancy, Lori, and others like them don't care about children. As we saw above, they view them as a commodity, a way of keeping score and impressing God, and a way of pushing their ideas on others by increasing their percentage of the population. But here is perhaps the #1 reason they push women to have as many children as possible: it keeps them from doing everything else. It's about control, in the end. They want women kept out of the workforce, higher education, and anywhere else where they might become empowered. 

       Nancy and Lori, PLEASE read the Bible you pretend to honor so much. It never tells women they must stay home and never work, and it never tells couples to have as many children as they can. You blaspheme the word of God by adding your own opinions to it. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/birth-control-for-christians/

Response to "A Child Left to Himself."

       I've been writing this blog for less than 6 months, and yet already I've noticed Lori spends most of her time repeating herself on the same few points over and over and over. I guess that's what happens when you base everything on only 5 verses in the Bible and refuse to look at any others. So anytime she covers a topic to which I haven't yet responded, I jump at the chance. This blog is one such topic: spanking. 

       Lori begins with an attempt to trick us by presenting one of her favorite argumentative fallacies, the false dichotomy: 

There are too many children who are being left to themselves. Their parents aren’t disciplining, nor are they training their children. They have fallen for the “gentle parenting” movement. They refuse to say “no” to their children or tell them what they should do. They want them to have a “free spirit” so when they are biting, hitting, and pulling out other children’s hair, their response is, “They’ll grow out of it.” This is testing God. This is playing Russian roulette with their children. This is disobeying God’s clear instructions in His Word. They are raising rebellious children. Part of loving your children, women, is disciplining and training them.

As we all would be able to guess, Lori is going to spend the rest of the blog insisting that spanking is the only correct method of disciplining our children. Therefore, essentially she is saying here that anyone who chooses to use a method other than spanking must be letting their children run wild and do whatever they want, refusing to say "no" to them ever, and must not love them. 

       I want to get personal for a moment before moving on to the rest of what Lori says, and talk about the history of my own thought regarding spanking. I myself was spanked as a child, but was not traumatized by it as far as I'm able to discern. I always imagined myself spanking my own children when I had them. When I was around age 20, my first girlfriend and I had a disagreement over whether it is best to spank with an item (such as a plastic spoon), or with your hand. I felt it was better to use a spoon, while my girlfriend thought using a hand would be better (not surprisingly, each of us preferred the methods our own parents had used). To settle our disagreement, we asked a mutual friend from church who is a counselor for children. Her answer surprised us both: she simply said she preferred natural consequences rather than spanking.

        That was the first step in changes to my thought that ultimately led to where I am today, with two small children of my own. My wife (not the girlfriend above, whom I did not marry, but for reasons other than her opinion on spanking!) and I thought, talked, and read quite a bit about spanking in order to make the best choice we could. There are numerous studies that have been done analyzing the psychological effects of being spanked, and I'm sure it wouldn't be difficult to find them in a Google search, so rather than review any of them here, I'll simply share my personal thoughts on the matter. One of the issues we often have with our children is the older daughter (age 3) being rough with the younger (9 months). She just doesn't yet understand fully how to be gentle, though she's learning. As we discussed how to deal with it, we realized how hypocritical it would be to try to deter her from hitting her sister by hitting her! Either hitting is okay or it isn't. Children model the behavior they see from their parents, and if they see us either handling our frustration or making them bend to our will through violence of any kind, the message it sends them is that that ultimately is how you accomplish those goals. And that was not the message we wanted to be sending. 

       Further, we realized how unrealistic spanking is. It doesn't reflect any sort of real-world consequences that an adult would experience for inappropriate behavior, and ultimately we are to prepare our kids to be adults. Finally, we wanted our kids only ever to be touched in a kind, loving way by us. 

       But, to circle back to Lori's comments above, this does not mean we don't discipline our children. Far from it! It simply means we have found alternative, and seemingly more effective, methods. We do "time-outs" with our daughter most of the time. The idea is that if she doesn't act in an appropriate way around other people, she briefly loses the right to play with those people. This works very effectively. Or, if she does something inappropriate with a specific toy, she is not allowed to play with that toy for a while. In this way we match as closely as possible the consequence to the infraction. 

       One thing we have realized, through experience as well as our reading, is that children ultimately do want to act in a way that pleases us. Too often, people like Lori insist that children are wicked and the only hope is to beat the sinner out of them. Certainly they are sinners, as we all are, but I've noticed that if my daughter is throwing a tantrum, the best approach is simply to get on her level and validate what she's feeling. If I reflect her feelings back to her, she immediately calms down and begins to talk to me about it in a more appropriate way. Children often act out simply because it's so hard for them to make themselves understood, and not always simply because they're trying to rebel. 

       Having said all that, let's get back to what you came for: analysis of Lori's comments. 

“He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24). I like to use the 1828 Webster Dictionary app for definitions of words in the KJV Bible since it isn’t politically correct. “Chasten” means “To correct by punishment; to punish; to inflict pain for the purpose of reclaiming the offender; as, to chasten a son with a rod.”

This is the classic verse used to support spanking. Apparently Lori thinks whatever is not politically correct must automatically be right. However, once again she makes the mistake of assuming the Bible was written directly to her in 1st century English. As anyone knows who has spent any time reading the Bible, Scripture is full of symbols and metaphors. God often is spoken of as having body parts, such as wings or hands, but we understand these are not literal but mean something like protection or provision. The key to understanding ancient Hebrew is that they did not have words for concepts. God's strength, for example, would have been indicated by referring to God's arm. With this in mind, there simply is no need to take the "rod" referred to in this verse as necessarily an actual rod used to beat a child. It makes perfect sense for the rod to be the symbol of discipline. Solomon, therefore, simply is telling us that it is good to discipline your children, not necessarily the exact method of disciplining them. 

       Furthermore, I have read that when we read about a rod in the Old Testament, often it refers to a shepherd's rod, which was used not to beat the sheep but to gently steer them in the right direction. We can't be sure this is what Solomon had in mind when he wrote the above verse, but this certainly seems like a much better fit than whacking your children with a stick.  

       Lori continues with her specific instructions regarding spanking: 

The main discipline of your children should begin around 18 months to two years and be over by the time they reach five. You shouldn’t have to spank your children after the age of four or five since they will then be taught to obey you and do what is right. I know you have sensitive spirits, mothers, but don’t allow their crying to persuade you to stop spanking them. You are doing this because you love them and you want them to grow up to be adults with self-control who choose to do what is right.

My oldest child is only 3, so I can't speak from experience, but it sounds very strange to me that there would be no need to discipline a child beyond the age of 5. I think the reason this bothers me is that Lori and I have fundamentally different perspectives on the goal of discipline. I believe it is to help a young person mature and develop the self-control and wisdom to make good decisions. Lori, on the other hand, seems to think it's all about blind obedience. Lori thinks she's done her job as long as her kids unquestioningly do whatever she tells them. But what happens when they're on their own? What happens if parents tell them something that is wrong? Of course a child ought to obey his or her parents, but raising children must go beyond simple obedience and actually empower them to make good choices on their own. 

       To me, it seems a child who needs no discipline beyond the age of 5 merely has been so frightened into obedience that they panic whenever a command is given and obey it simply to avoid harsh treatment. This does not lead to true respect for their parents, or true understanding of why one choice is better than another, but merely avoidance of discomfort. It is very telling that Lori doesn't seem to understand the difference. 

“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15). All parents can see that foolishness is bound in the heart of their child. Yes, they can use time outs and other means to correct them, but God commands that they use a rod for clear disobedience. What is a rod? A wooden spoon or a small strap on the bottom or upper thigh are good choices.

Lori almost seems to admit that alternative forms of discipline are fine, but then goes on to imply that we must not deviate from the exact wording in the Bible (the rod). But then, she turns around and defines the rod according to her own assumptions. No, a wooden spoon or small strap is not a rod, if we're going to be literalistic. This is common among fundamentalists: they insist that we all accept the literal interpretation, but they themselves do not! And often they all disagree with each other on what the text "plainly" is saying. 

       We must at least give Lori credit for telling us later in the blog never to spank our children in anger, slap them, spank them in front of others, etc. However, that certainly does not redeem the remainder of her message. Abusers never think of themselves as abusers; to them, their methods are reasonable. But there are major red flags in Lori's approach to discipline. Many in the older generations seem to cling to spanking simply because that's how it's always been done; fortunately, however, it seems more and more are seeing that there are much better methods of discipline. Those who do not believe in spanking do believe in discipline, and the fact that Lori must accuse her opponents of avoiding discipline altogether is nothing more than a sign that she has no good argument to make. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/a-child-left-to-himself/

Response to "Adopting the Sins of Jezebel."

       This blog, written not by Lori but by "Anonymous", perpetuates one of the most egregious myths pushed by people like Lori: the "spirit" of Jezebel. Jezebel, for those who don't know, was the wife of King Ahab in the book of 1 Kings. To make a long story short, she was a wicked influence on her husband, instituted the worship of false gods, and drove the prophets of God out of Israel. In modern times, those who desire to oppress women throw her name around so much they have probably forgotten what the actual Jezebel did (and did not) do. For anything a woman does such as working outside the home, not "obeying" her husband, being a feminist, or speaking in church, she is called a "Jezebel" or said to have the "spirit of Jezebel." This is despite the fact that none of these actions have anything to do with the real Jezebel. It is simply a bullying tactic, meant to shame and control women. But, of course, it is not remotely biblical. "The spirit of Jezebel" is found nowhere in the Bible; it is completely made up by opportunistic people. 

       With that out of the way, we can get into what "Anonymous" wrote: 

Fundamentally, the primary premise of God’s Word is about building the family of God. Would you agree?

Yes, I would agree, except that Anonymous goes on to define the "family of God" differently from what you may think: 

God made man and woman and asked that they join together as one to create the next generation of godly offspring. In doing so, we have a choice in who we marry, but once married, we are to join together as a family unit to achieve God’s primary purpose which is to give Him children who will love Him and who He will love and care for an eternity.

When I hear "building the family of God", I think of the Great Commission, the command from Jesus to go make disciples of all nations. Anonymous, rather, has making babies in mind. They elevate the command to Adam of Eve over the command of Jesus, and twist the message of the Bible to be primarily about reproduction instead of evangelism. And this is no accident! People in what is known as the "Quiverfull" movement (with which Lori seems to be somewhat affiliated) believe that the primary way in which Christians will make an impact in the world is by out-breeding everyone else. Instead of going out into the world and preaching the good news, they hide away and reproduce as much as possible, intending to eventually become such a huge percentage of the population and government that they will be able to institute "biblical" laws (though most of their ideas are anything but biblical!). Of course, this idolization of reproduction is unbiblical and a complete misunderstanding of the Gospel. Nevertheless, clearly it appeals to many. 

Far too many women, even Christian women, have adopted the sins of Jezebel. They play at being a wife and mother, but their true desires and purposes lie elsewhere. The easiest to see this in is the true feminist who throws off God’s design and desire for her life to go do her own thing, whatever that may be. The harder one to identify is the one who “plays” at being wife and mother, but in reality her heart is self-seeking.

Again, we can see that what Anonymous labels the "sins of Jezebel" have nothing to do with what the actual Jezebel did. Perhaps Anonymous should go read their Bible before speaking on such matters? Beyond this, though, a false dichotomy is being presented. Anonymous is suggesting that for a woman to do anything besides being a wife and mother (which is not a command found in the Bible!) is self-seeking. In reality, it is people like Anonymous who are self-seeking, making up rules for women with which God had nothing to do in order to secure for men a servant and house-keeper. In reality, God has called many women (there are plenty of examples in the Bible) to tasks other than being a wife and mother. But Anonymous cannot be bothered by what God actually says, so they ignore it (or perhaps they never bothered to check in the first place). 

If she is married, is she first and foremost committed to her marriage and to raising the next generation of godly offspring? This is not an optional issue for any Christian family, except those who have bought the lies of feminism and placed a woman’s own need for “success” above what God desires and asks of her.

Again, here is the idea that Christian couples exist primarily to have children. Unless Anonymous can show us in the Bible where this is taught (it's not!), we'll have to reject it as false teaching. Also, there is another false dichotomy: women who decide not to have children or do something other than serve their families may be serving God in whatever way He has uniquely called them. It is not necessarily a "selfish" need for personal success. And, it should be said, there is nothing wrong with striving for personal success, as this is not necessarily selfish and will quite possibly benefit other people as well. I notice Anonymous, Lori, and others like them certainly don't see any problem with men striving for personal success!

God’s design for marriage is that a husband would be head and leader of the home and his wife a willing submissive follower. No matter what success she is achieving outside the home, or the success she is having as a spiritual teacher, is she following God’s desire, or have her ambitions left her husband behind?

Please read your Bible, Anonymous. The Bible never tells men to lead their homes or their wives, and it never tells wives to obey their husbands. These "teachers" who push the subordination of women capitalize on the fact that their followers don't know the Bible themselves but are dependent on the "teachers" to explain it to them. If only they would look into it themselves!

No, evangelism is not their focus. To build the body of Christ by teaching the Word? Well, that is what they think they are doing, all the while modeling for these women exactly the opposite of what God has asked them to prioritize: husband, children, and home.

Such hypocrisy! It is Anonymous who does not care about evangelism. God has called many women to preach the Gospel, and yet people like Anonymous and Lori pass judgement on God for this and decide they know better. It is not God who has said all women must prioritize nothing except husband, children, and home; it is these people, who usurp the authority of God and blaspheme His name by invoking it in order to give weight to their own opinions. 

       The moral of the story, I suppose, is that if Lori's followers read the Bible for themselves (and did not feel bullied into blindly accepting someone else's understanding and terrified of forming their own opinion), Lori would have far fewer followers! Most of the remainder would be the men who think so highly of themselves and are seeking servants rather than spouses, while all the women would have found freedom and left Lori behind. Let us pray for that day to come!

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/adopting-the-sins-of-jezebel/