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

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

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

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

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

       Lori responds with the following: 

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

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

       Lori also says this: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Finally, she says: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to "Complementarianism is an Appeasement to Feminism."

       Lori begins her latest blog with this: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

       Lori goes on: 

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

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

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

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

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

Response to "Traditional Families Are More Productive in the Long Run."

       In this blog, Lori focuses on an article called "Families With a Stay-At-Home Parent Are Better Off, According to a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics." The full article can be read here: https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/families-with-a-stay-at-home-parent-are-better-off-according-to-a-nobel/.

       Lori begins with a quote from the article: 

       “In simple English, it turns out that households with a homemaker who specializes in childrearing, while the other parent focuses completely on their career, tend to be more productive in the long run.” ......The author supports the notion of women being keepers at home and men being the providers and gives plenty of evidence why this is best.

       I read the article and I'm not sure what "evidence" she is referring to. It's not at all detailed in its argument, or even very clear. For example, how is "productivity" defined and measured? As a result, it's difficult to evaluate the claim. From a purely monetary perspective, it may very well be most efficient for one spouse to work and the other to stay home and take care of the children. My wife and I do exactly that; we considered both continuing to work and getting childcare, but decided against it after seeing the cost. Having her stay home is what works for us, but ultimately it will be dependent on each family's unique situation and is up to them to decide. An academic study of this nature, even if it makes valid points, can only apply to averages and cannot be used to tell each individual families what they must do. 

        Also, the article goes out of its way to avoid saying which gender should work and which should stay home. It simply says one should do the former and the other should do the latter. I think Lori was too giddy over finding something that "agrees" with her to notice this small detail. 

       She continues with another quote from the article: 

  

“In his 1981 book A Treatise on the Family, Becker analyzed the household as a sort of factory, producing goods and services such as meals, shelter, and child care. One of the interesting discoveries found was that, in order to maximize household output and wealth, once a family has kids, it’s generally better for one parent to stay home and run the household while the other parent with the higher income potential focuses 100 percent on work and maximizing their career."

There are a few disturbing points in this paragraph. First, the comparison of a household to a factory producing goods and services. To be clear, I have no problem with this assumption being used by the economist who drew these conclusions. That is, after all, not a statement about how family dynamics should be, but a deliberate oversimplification to make data-based analysis possible. However, when Lori presents it as evidence that "God's ways" (actually Lori's ways) are best, she is making a somewhat different point. She comes across as saying that the traditional family structure should be chosen because the goal is to maximize economic output. A simpler way to say that would be that it's all about money. Now, to be clear, I don't think she actually views the purpose of the family in this way, but she certainly could have clarified. And she does not. 

       The other disturbing point is that the article suggests one spouse ought to focus "100%" on their career. This point will be elaborated on later, and it doesn't improve at all. And again, although I don't think Lori believes fathers should completely ignore their children, it's unfortunate that she doesn't attempt to clarify that point. 

       And yet another quote from the article: 

       “When the members of a household specialize in their respective fields, they’re able to maximize the total output of their economic production. A breadwinner who doesn’t have to worry about housework can dedicate their focus on optimizing their career track. For example, a husband whose wife is a full-time homemaker can dedicate his focus completely on his work outside of the home. If their child falls ill, the breadwinner won’t have to worry about asking his employers for time off to stay home and care for the sick child.”

       I suspect the economist used this oversimplified model in which one spouse focuses on career and nothing else only for the sake of developing a usable model. Certainly it is not being suggested that if the working spouse does a load of dishes in the evening, it would ruin their career track. But this oversimplified model happens to line up precisely with what Lori really does believe is the ideal. In other words, she has taken a simplistic model meant only for illustrating a broader point and declared that the model itself should be followed precisely! 

       And here I must make the obvious point: I work 40 hours a week, roughly 9 to 5. Just what am I doing in the evenings and weekends that prevents me from being able to participate in taking care of the children and home? Is Lori suggesting husbands should be spending evenings and weekends at work? Obviously not, but then she must be saying that those times must belong entirely to the man so he can relax. Lori claims feminists "devalue" homemakers, and yet here she is saying only those who have a career deserve to relax and take a break! As anyone who has stayed home full time knows, it's just as exhausting as any career, but the difference is that you don't get breaks on weekends, evenings, or even in the middle of the night. And, from an economic standpoint, I have to ask how one spouse sitting on their butt every evening and weekend and not contributing to the household somehow is more efficient! 

       Next, we're back to Lori's own words: 

When the wife is a homemaker and stays home to care for her home and children, the husband can pour all of his energies into his job and not have to worry about sick children, running them to sports activities, cooking, and cleaning. There’s a good reason that God said that it was not good for a man to live alone, thus he needed a help meet.

      When the Bible refers to Eve as Adam's "help meet" in Genesis,it meant "equal partner", not "domestic servant." It was about Eve coming alongside Adam to have dominion over the world with him. It was not about her cooking his meals and doing his laundry. But when has Lori's biblical interpretation ever been reliable?   

      I gave her the benefit of the doubt before, but now she really did come out and say it. She believes it's better if husbands focus entirely and only on their jobs; no "worrying" about sick children, cooking, or cleaning. It's funny how she complains about people who supposedly denigrate these activities when it's a woman doing them, but at the thought of a man doing them, suddenly she describes them as nuisances that he shouldn't have to "worry" about. Which is it, Lori? Is raising children the greatest and most important job, or not? 

       But this isn't all she says. She wants the husband to never have to worry about taking his children to sports activities. What exactly is left, in Lori's model, to allow fathers to spend time with their children? They shouldn't take care of them when they're sick, shouldn't help with and be present for their extracurricular activities, shouldn't help feed them or put them to bed. I desperately hope Lori is just poorly communicating her point, but doesn't it seem as though she is pushing fathers to be workaholics and as uninvolved in their children's lives as possible? I suppose this is the result if you arbitrarily define any activity related to the care of children as "feminine." 

       Yes, I work hard all day and would love to relax when I come home in the evening, but much of the time I am able to spend with my children involves dinnertime and getting them ready for bed. If I considered myself too "manly" to be involved in such things, it would be much more difficult to develop a relationship with them. Not only that, but my kids would also get the idea that I'm either incapable or unwilling to take care of them. How is that a good thing? 

Bearing and raising children along with running a household is a lot of work but so it working in the workforce to provide for one’s family. When each spouse knows their role and works hard at it, much good is accomplished. There is beauty in order. Marriages are stronger and children are happier. Men and women weren’t created to do it all. A man who works hard for his family should not have to come home and clean the home and care for the children. If he does, great but if he doesn’t, that’s great too since he’s working hard so his wife can stay home full time with the children to care for them and the home.

Lori makes sure we don't misunderstand her point. Children and housework are nothing but a "nuisance" to men. If a man is a responsible adult and contributes to the household in which he lives and his own children, this should be considered a "bonus", as if he should be praised for going above and beyond, rather than simply being a responsible, normal, loving human being. No, Lori, if a man insists on only working his 40 hours a week and then sits on his butt and plays video games or watches TV every evening and weekend, he is not "working hard." He is a lazy bum who is taking advantage of the other members of his household. 

       Notice how she also says "there is beauty in order." This is one of her favorite false dichotomies. In her mind, there is either her way, or chaos. Unless the roles are clearly defined by her, there are no roles at all. Let me clarify: in my family, there are clearly defined roles. But they were mutually agreed upon by my wife and me, and are based on our own strengths and weaknesses rather than Lori's gender stereotypes. For example, my wife does the majority of the cooking because she's better at it, while I handle the finances because my degree is in business. On the other hand, I used to work for a cleaning company, so I do a lot of the cleaning, while she is more naturally talented at household repairs. And we both involve the other in decisions as well as try to learn in the areas in which we have weaknesses. This, to me, is most efficient, not randomly assigning responsibilities based on gender in a way that completely ignores individuality as well as strengths and weaknesses. I would argue that this results in greater order than what Lori suggests, because it is based on common sense instead of prejudice. 

       To conclude: I'm not an economist, so ultimately I can't comment on what type of household is most economically productive (though it should be noted that the opinion of one economist, singled out by Lori for obvious reasons, is hardly conclusive). But I can't imagine anyone thinking economic output should be the measure of a successful family. I would rather build healthy relationships and make sure I love my wife and kids as well as I can than be obsessed with playing arbitrary roles and maximizing "productivity." 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/traditional-families-are-more-productive-in-the-long-run/

Response to "Her Advice to a New Wife."

       You just know this is going to be a bad one! 

       This blog was guest-written by Celina Eve. I'm not sure exactly who this is, but it seems to just be one of Lori's followers. She shares the advice she gives to new wives based on her 22 years of experience in marriage. There's a little wisdom and a whole lot of the worst possible advice. 

 Never say no to sex. It’s the glue that will bond you together through thick and thin. Even on the days where you’re not into it, put your husband’s needs above your own. You’ll be glad you did in the long run.

Never. Full stop. Not even "make sure you have sex regularly," or "don't withhold sex as a manipulative tactic", but simply "never say no." She allows for no exceptions. Not if you just gave birth, not if you just had surgery, not if you have a migraine, not if the baby woke up 12 times last night and you're exhausted. No, sex is not "the glue that will bond you together." Friendship, love, and respect are far better candidates than sex. Of course, these things are impossible in an intentionally imbalanced relationship in which your partner owns your body. If your marriage depends on sex to hold it together, this is a clear sign of deficiency in the relationship. I'm not saying sex isn't important, and to many people it is very important. But it is not the most important part of a marriage. 

       I would also add that this is a clear example of the one-sided nature of love and care in the type of marriage Lori wants everyone to have. It is a beautiful thing when two people put each other's needs above their own. But this is not what Celina is talking about here. She is saying only the wife should put her husband's needs above her own. This arrangement is designed precisely so that the husband puts his own needs at the top as well. Of course, it also must be said that no true loving husband would ever demand that his wife have sex with him whenever he wants. As much as Lori talks about why women should choose their husband "wisely," her advice drives them toward the self-centered, predatory type! 

       Before moving on, I should note that this is where those who tirelessly defend Lori would say here something like "obviously she doesn't literally mean 'never'" and claim that the words are being taken out of context. I'd love to see someone try to claim that here. It couldn't be more plain. 

 Take a humble place in your marriage and submit to your husband’s headship. Discuss things once and then then let him have the final say. Respect him. Build him up to others. Never tear him down. Be sweet towards him and hold your tongue. Pray daily for him and don’t argue with him.

"Headship", a phrase that cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. When Paul calls husbands the "head" of their wives, he specifically avoids the Greek word that means authority and instead uses one that implies coming alongside her and caring for her. But that doesn't stop these people from starting with their own idea of male authority and then *magically* finding it in the Bible. 

       This case is similar to the last one. Humility is good, but both spouses should have it. She advocates one-sided humility, one-sided respect. There is not a shred of biblical support for the idea that husbands should have the final word. And wives having the policy of sharing their opinion only once and then letting it go might seem to promote "harmony" and "efficiency", but all it really does is create dis-functionality and increase the risk of things going very wrong due to a bad decision. There is nothing about women that make them any less capable of making good decisions than men. Both must have an equal voice. And even in situation in which one clearly has more knowledge or experience than the other, though usually one ought to defer to the other, this doesn't mean they have a right to silence the other or claim some sort of authority that does not exist. 

       She goes on to include several other points, such as keeping the house clean and planting a garden. Of course, there's nothing wrong with these, except the (unbiblical) idea that the responsibility for these things falls on women alone. She also includes advice about keeping in-laws from interfering in your marriage in an inappropriate way, which is great. But the first two points completely ruin the rest. 

       She ends with the following: 

Find an older godly woman who has a biblically healthy marriage and has raised a family. You’ll need a living example as a young wife yourself.

I can't believe it! Lori willingly published an argument against following her own teaching! Lori's ideas on marriage are anything but biblical; they are the centuries-old fantasies of men who thought they were God and that women exist to please them, and found a way (as so many have on so many topics) to twist the Bible to agree with their arrogant, selfish ideas. It is a true tragedy when anyone falls for this, especially women. 

Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/her-advice-to-a-new-wife/

Response to "The Government is Preventing Them from Getting Married!"

       My title isn't technically correct...Lori actually wrote "geting married". Apparently she is just as careful with her proofreading as she is with her biblical interpretation. 

       This blog was written in response to the following comment from one of Lori's fans: 

“Hey Lori! Love your posts! Could you make one about wedding cancellations in light of COVID? I’m supposed to be getting married in nine weeks and we are unsure about whether to cancel or not. (Our state has even stopped allowing people to get marriage licenses.) As a couple who have remained pure for our wedding, we are obviously super against having to postpone/wait any longer. Also, we want to start having children! I know a lot of young women are facing this situation. (I have a few friends in similar situations and we all follow you on here.) Could you do a post about what your thoughts are on getting married and starting to have babies in this situation when the government is trying to prevent us from getting married?”

Lori's response is on topic at first but then quickly falls off the rails. I suspect this is one of those times when she wasn't sure what to write about and had to come up with something in a hurry. She says: 

It reminded me of the verse in the Bible that states that in the last days, they will forbid people from marrying (1 Timothy 4:3).

Once again, Lori reveals how little she knows about the Bible. This verse has nothing to do with the government forbidding people from marrying (and I would argue that the government is not doing this, but that's another topic). In context, Paul is talking about certain religious groups forbidding marriage and teaching people to abstain from certain foods. In other words, Paul is talking about those who try to keep Christians under the Old Testament law when Jesus clearly freed us from it. There were many movements in the early church like this, and Paul spends a lot of time in the New Testament refuting various false teachings such as this. Lori, please remember you can't just pick a verse out of a hat and use it to say whatever you want it to say. It has an actual intended meaning, and you would do us all a favor if you would make an attempt to learn what that is. 

       Lori continues:

My encouragement to all of you who are in this situation is to go to your pastor and have him marry you as soon as possible, especially if you are in a state that has a Democrat as a governor since who knows when they will allow freedom to the people.

I just wanted to say here that it's rather idiotic for Lori to pretend this is somehow limited to Democrat governors. I live in a state with a Republican governor that is on lockdown, and I know we're not the only state. Not to mention the fact that her favorite president, Trump is entirely on board with the lockdowns as well. Of course, there is no mention of Trump's involvement in that decision! 

Have your family and close friends in a backyard or home for your wedding. These will be the witnesses of your vows to each other. God tells us that it is better to marry than to burn and there’s nothing about government involvement in any of this process. You can become one flesh without government approval! Once everything opens up, you can go to the justice and get a marriage certificate and even have a more fancy wedding if you want, although you may be pregnant by then but so what!

Once again, Lori reminds us that she believes it's best to get married as soon as possible to avoid premarital sex. In fact, sometimes it sounds like she believes the primary purpose of marriage is to prevent people from having sex outside of marriage. And the comment about possibly being pregnant at a future wedding ceremony is just creepy...why is Lori so obsessed with women getting pregnant, especially as early in the marriage as possible? 

About having babies, as long as the good Lord is blessing your womb, then keep having babies! NONE of us know what the future holds but babies are one of His greatest blessings! Women have been having them through all of the difficult times since time began. It’s part of being a woman and allowing your body to do as God has created it. Have as many as He wants to bless you with!

To be clear, I certainly don't think this current epidemic is the end of the world, or that we should fear having children. However, there may be some who are hesitant and would like to wait until things settle down, and there's nothing wrong with that. Lori thinks everyone should throw caution to the wind when it comes to having children and just have as many as possible. In many cases, this is not a very loving choice. Children are more than quotas, and there's nothing wrong with waiting until you're ready to have them. (well, now that I have kids, I don't think it's possible to be entirely ready, but you know what I mean!. 

There’s a young woman I know who is pregnant with her fourth. Her oldest isn’t even four years old yet! She LOVES being married and having children. She smiles at the future, because she knows God is in control and ALWAYS will be. There is no need to live in fear but live boldly by faith in Almighty God. Just make sure that you don’t ever neglect your husband. You were created to be HIS help meet first. Enjoy your husband and children, Don’t wait! Life is short. If you have a man who wants to marry you and have children, marry him and have children!

This is a perfect example of what I meant when I said this blog falls off the rails. I'm not sure exactly what her topic is in this last paragraph. She begins with more fantasizing about pregnant women, briefly mentions the need for wives to not neglect their husbands, and then somehow ends up at who to choose for a spouse. And it's here that I will conclude. "If you have a man who wants to marry you and have children, marry him and have children"?!? If her criteria were made more any more broad than this it would include any mammal. Her end goal simply is as many marriages as possible, and the people involved are nothing more than means to that end. It doesn't matter to her whether two people love each other, work well together, have similar goals, etc. Of course, if you view marriage as nothing more than a cold contract most closely resembling an employer/employee relationship, I suppose it really doesn't matter who you marry. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/the-government-is-preventing-them-from-getting-married/

Response to "What He Asked Her on Their First Date."

       Lori begins this blog with one of her "well-supported" claims: 

It seems that most couples who are dating, don’t delve in deeply what they expect in marriage.

Setting aside her compulsive and inaccurate use of the word "most", we must be fair and acknowledge that this certainly can be a problem. I'm not aware of any study that has been done on the matter, but I personally know people who have gotten married only to later discover that one of them wanted children and the other did not. If Lori would just state the problem without pretending to know things she couldn't possibly know (and using such a judgmental tone), I would have no problem with this opening. 

       She goes on to present a list of questions that a woman in Lori's chatroom says her husband asked her on their first date. There are a lot of questions, so I'll only cover the weirdest ones (though, honestly, that's nearly all of them!). 

My husband took me to a wonderful restaurant. After we ordered our meal he asked me…

Will you never use birth control and allow God to bless us with as many/few children as HE sees fit?

Well that's a little...fast, don't you think? Certainly every couple should discuss whether they want children, but this is going a bit further. I'm trying not to dive too deeply into the birth control issue here...despite the fact that the Bible simply does not address it at all, some people feel very strongly about this, and if that's the case it certainly is good to know sooner rather than later. But he didn't say that this is how he feels and then ask how she feels on the matter so they could come to a conclusion together. He simply decided for both of them (even though they're not even a couple yet) and asked her to agree to his edict. If this is something about which he feels strongly, he ought to make his case to her and work so they can be on the same page (if, in fact, they decide to continue with the relationship). Instead, he simply asked her to sign on the dotted line and move on. 

Are you willing to stay home and raise children and not have a career ( I was in college at the time)?

Again, some people feel strongly about this, and who am I to tell them what their preferences should be? In theory, if a man will only marry a blond woman, I may feel that's a bit arbitrary, but the last thing I would do would be to suggest a woman with brown hair date him. However, the biggest red flag to me is the fact that she was in college at the time. He was immediately asking her either to drop out of college, or, if she finished college, to completely waste her degree. If he wanted a stay-at-home-wife, he probably ought to pursue someone who wasn't already in college and clearly indicated that she had no desire to get a higher education. To ask someone to give up all their current plans and entirely adapt their life to yours, on the first date, should ring some warning bells. That does not sound like the kind of husband who would value a wife for her personality and individuality, but merely for the services she can provide him. 

Are you willing to homeschool our children?

Again, great question to discuss. But "our children"?!? Calm down a little, you don't have children yet! How about "if we were to get married and have children, what do you think about homeschooling?" And that's still a bit odd for a first date. 

Do you believe in dressing in the appropriate gender clothing?

I'm not sure exactly what he means here. Is he asking her not to wear pants? A few centuries ago men in the United States didn't wear pants either. The clothing that is appropriate for each gender is entirely culturally determined, a fact that often is lost on this kind of person. And, needless to say, "please don't cross-dress" is not the best opening line on a first date. 

 What do you think is the ideal hierarchy of the household?

At least here he asks her opinion instead of saying something like "do you agree that I rule over you for life?" But he hardly deserves credit, as obviously there is only one answer he would accept. My answer, of course, is that there need be no hierarchy if you're two mature adults. These people will insist a marriage of equals is impossible, but all they prove is that they themselves are incapable of it. 

He ended that conversation with, “I don’t want to date. I am looking for someone to marry. If that is not a goal of yours, please let me know so we can spare one another feelings and time.

After that, we ate our meal and conversed about more light-hearted things (goals, favorite this and that).

Well, at least they got to normal human conversation at some point. As for his disclosure that he was interested only in marriage, not dating, the problem is that this woman was forced to decide right then, on a first date, knowing next to nothing about this man, whether she wanted to commit to spending the rest of her life with him. How is this a good idea? Of course, I agree that it's not good to lead someone on and date them for an extended period if you know you're not interested in marrying them. But can't there be some middle ground? If the woman really would like to marry this man, it's entirely possible he would scare her off simply because she couldn't tell him immediately whether she would commit to marrying him. Or, she would panic and tell him that she was on the same page and committed to pursuing marriage, in which case there would be enormous pressure on her, not only from him, but likely from the community and family of which she was a part, to not break that under any circumstances. It's not enough for these people to forbid divorce; in many cases, they treat even breaking up a dating relationship as if you have broken a covenant, failed in your goal of finding a spouse, and in many cases are "damaged goods" and have less of a chance of finding a spouse. The entire arrangement is as unhealthy as it possibly could be. 

       The woman concludes by saying "I am so happy that he did not beat around the bush and asked these things upfront. Some might find this overwhelming but I found it refreshing!" I do hope things worked out for the best for her and that she has a happy marriage. But if she does, it was only luck. This certainly is not a reliable method of choosing a spouse. Like I said, it's good to discuss certain things sooner rather than later, but we would do well to chill out a bit and take things a little more slowly. These people are so afraid of moving too quickly in the physical sense that they seem to replace it with moving too quickly to make an emotional commitment. 

       A few closing thoughts. She did say they eventually talked about goals, likes and dislikes, etc. But these questions certainly suggest that he's not primarily interested in getting to know her, and frankly, he doesn't seem to care much who he marries. It could be any woman, as long as she knows how to cook. clean, and pop out babies.  

       And a final point has to do with Lori's purpose for writing this blog in the first place. Early in the blog, she states that "it is a wise man and woman who asks deep and important questions before getting emotionally involved with someone they want to marry." While she said "man and woman", doesn't she constantly insist that her blog is directed toward women? If so, isn't the purpose of this particular post to encourage women to ask important questions during the dating process? If so, why does this blog focus on the questions a man asked a woman? Wouldn't it have been better to suggest some questions a woman might ask a man? I'm honestly not sure why she even wrote this blog, except perhaps to put this man on a pedestal, as she is so fond of doing. Even if what Lori teaches were correct, this blog wouldn't have much value at all for her followers. 


Link to the original blog: https://thetransformedwife.com/what-he-asked-her-on-their-first-date/

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/