Lori Alexander, Domestic Violence, Biblical Submission
-by Kathi
There is nothing new under Lori Alexander’s sun. She still writes about submission, and I’m sure she always will. Every once in a while she will write a post that gives us an extra glimpse about how her teachings may keep women in abusive relationships. In “Sweating Bullets While Teaching Submission,” Lori tells us why she does not write about abuse.
Lori will write about submission and never mentions abuse because:
If you read other biblical marriage blogs, you will see that most of them have warnings all over them about abuse and what submission doesn’t mean. If you notice, my blog doesn’t have this. I have written many posts about submission and never even mentioned the word abuse on most of them. I do this purposefully because abuse and submission don’t go together as many today try to do by twisting and perverting the beauty of submission. (Yes, I have a post on my side bar for those who are in marital crisis but it has nothing whatsoever to do with submission since even wives who aren’t submissive are physically abused.)
On purpose, Lori will not discuss abuse because she believes that “biblical submission” is not abusive. Those that think submission leads to abuse are merely “twisting” the definition of submission. She allows a caveat with her added link to a post (about living with an angry husband) in which a wife should seek help from the authorities or church leaders if she is being physically abused. However, divorce is never an option according to Lori, and a wife should always try to restore her marriage. Why would a woman even bother seeking help if she is taught that submission means never leaving her abusive husband?
Women say that what I teach is “dangerous.” No, living in rebellion to the Word of God is dangerous; for we reap what we sow.
Lori would rather not talk about abuse because she believes “biblical submission” is what makes a marriage great and abuse does not exist. If abuse happens to a non-submissive woman, then she reaps what she sows. So, why even bother talking about abuse?
It is obvious that Lori would rather not talk about abuse when she allows comments such as Dave’s to stay on her blog:
I am left to assume that Lori is complicit with the thought that women have no rights in their marriage. After all, a wife’s main purpose is to please her husband.
Lori would rather not talk about abuse because wives have an incredible responsibility in the marriage:
We are responsible for loving our husbands according to God’s definition of love: long-suffering, kind, bearing all things, enduring all things, hoping all things, and believing all thing; for love never fails. It’s obeying Him even when we don’t feel like it. These are hard teachings in today’s feminist “hate the truth” environment in which we live but they hated Christ, so they will hate all those who teach the hard truths of God’s unchanging Word.
Lori places a heavy yoke on women who are in an abusive relationship. Even though she never mentions the word “abuse,” she is telling women: keep loving your abusive spouse, keep bearing the abuse, keep enduring the abuse, believe the Lord will change your abusive husband, and believe God will get you through the abuse. Lori would rather blame feminism instead of talking about abuse.
This entire post screams of why Lori should be talking about abuse. I agree that submission in itself does not lead to abuse. However, the way Lori describes what a wife should do is an abusive partner’s dream come true. Abusers are manipulative and controlling. Abusers may hold to strict gender roles and isolate their victims to solely depend upon him. I have seen comments on The Transformed Wife’s Facebook page from women who fear for their life, and Lori will tell them to pray harder and submit more. Then she deletes the comments.
It is a shame that Lori is not willing to address abuse on her blog. She needs to realize that abuse is a behavior issue, not a marriage issue. Lori states over and over that she writes to women and she does not have authority over men. There is nothing a wife can do that will change controlling, abusive behavior by her husband. That change lies solely on the husband to make.
It would be more helpful for Lori to talk about what abuse looks like and how a woman can protect herself. That will never happen, though, because that would mean that Lori would have to admit that sometimes abuse happens in “godly” submissive marriages. Sadly, I have a feeling that acceptance will never happen. Once again, Lori will loudly defend her teaching than defend victims of domestic violence.
P.S. – I offer the screenshots above that Lori used on two separate posts, one about angry husbands and one about angry wives. Notice the stark contrast between the two. The angry husband picture is white, flowery, and almost pure. The angry wife picture is, well, angry. It’s dark and in your face bold. This makes me wonder if Lori even likes women.
Spiritual Sounding Board 
The reason “Aunt” Lori doesn’t talk about abuse is because she herself is abusive – verbally with others and physically with her kids when they were young – read through her posts on her old blog, Always Learning (at least where she hasn’t scrubbed or deleted them). Plus, she’s a great fangirl of the Pearls – abusive practices personified.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! Lori actually quotes from both Michael and Debi Pearl when giving advice to women in abusive relationships! Dont get me started on those two!
Debi Pearl was heavily influenced by Elizabeth Elliott who loved the Elizabeth Rice Hanford book Me? Obey Him? That’s the book that tells people to sin—–just go ahead and disobey God because the only thing that matters is submission.
Look at how Jesus responded when the devil told him to submit. (Matt 4)
LikeLiked by 2 people
And very FEMININE.
A typical Christianese Women’s Book cover; I can feel my testicles shriveling up from the estrogen overload just by looking at it.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Imagine what would happen if all these Christian marriage blogs/books would start teaching the concept of “preferring one another in love” instead of the constant emphasis on submission, as if the Bible never talks about anything else!
Best marriage advice ever—comes from Jesus who taught us to treat others the way we would want to be treated.
We need more emphasis on “preferring one another in love” (i.e. putting our spouses needs ahead of our own) and less of the damaging teaching that is drowning out everything else in the church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
That absolutist comment from Dave is horrifying. And the fact that Lori didn’t remove or correct it is incredibly dangerous. Even most of the complementarians I know (and whom I disagree with) draw the line at obeying a husband’s direction to sin, or participating in abuse.
LikeLike
So…Dave is pro-child molester? Basically?
Insane. Nobody should list to a WORD these people say. What is wrong with Lori? Even as bad as she is, to allow that stuff is worse.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Husbands are asked to love their wives according to all these things. They are also told not to be ‘harsh’. The problem with complementarians/never leave your marriage types is that they refuse to address the problems that come when men do not do these things. They refuse to accept that some things cannot be fixed by the one decent person in the marriage. God never asks us to put up with abuse. Quote me THAT verse.
LikeLike
What these writers, leaders and, unfortunately, their followers fail to understand is that some policies not only help allow for abuse, they actually foster it. There are three such policies used regularly in megachurches like this right now: Submission, Moses Model Eldership and NDAs. These policies are so one sided that even folks with great character and the best of intentions can succumb over time, to this system which fosters abuse daily by creating an absurd imbalance of power.
All humans have a need to push boundaries. When a man marries a woman who follows Lori’s teachings to the letter, there are no boundaries. What starts out as “you made this sandwich wrong”, with her immediately apologizing, begging for forgiveness and make it over 10 more times till she gets it exactly right, can end up like the Stanford Experiment.
None of those Stanford students came into that experiment with evil intentions or were misanthropes at the onset. The gross imbalance of power basically turned the “prison guards” into monsters – monsters they would have never been outside of this artificial construct where guards had unlimited power and “detainees” were hopelessly powerless. Those interested in the topic of how blind submission and unbridled power can turn nice people into horrible tyrants in a short amount of time should look up this experiment.
The next is the Moses Model. Julie Anne has been covering this issue and the rotten to the core fruits of it vis-a-vis the Bob Coy case. What a nightmare that is and it fostered by the complete lack of independent oversight. The Moses Model of oversight is NO oversight. Spiritual authority is considered so powerful it used to be called the First Estate. Laws are still made that single out clergy on sex abuse, because some states recognize the seriousness of the power imbalance. Head Pastors must have independent oversight. The Moses Model is what ARC, the largest church planting org in the USA, pushes. We are going to continue to see more and more abuse like Bob Coy under this system.
Narcissists are drawn to the clerical profession in disproportionate numbers. Once the millions of dollars start rolling in and the head pastor realizes no one gets to see how money is spent/wasted, well, that can warp any person’s values. Bob wasn’t worried about being caught as a serial adulterer or a kiddie raper because he was the king of his universe and no one challenges the king. The reality is that very few police departments will open serious investigations against powerful mega pastors. The Chiefs/Sheriffs of those departments are either elected officials or appointed directly by an elected official and serving at his or her pleasure. They fear public backlash from their 80% Christian populations. Investigations are discretionary, so Bob may very well walk on all charges.
When you look at these mega pastors with incredibly seedy pasts, with sex addictions, drug addictions, drug dealing and lives of crime, most set their church up under the premise of the Moses Model so they can avoid any authority or scrutiny. They remember how “limiting” that can be. The untaxed, unaccounted for million$ perverts their values even further. The Lord already told us in Jeremiah that men like this do not change. Yet people line up to attend the “me too” church where sin is actually elevated as a sign of character and true conversion.
Then there’s the NDAs. We are seeing with all of this sexual abuse how one-sided these agreements are and how valuable they have been for keeping the secrets of evil, nefarious men. Why do these top megas need draconian NDA and Non-Disparage agreements? Why do they need to keep scores of attorneys on retainer? Laws need to be changed on NDAs. The fact that the men at the top fully understand they have no real Elders holding their feet to the fire, coupled with the fact that no one who witnesses the worst of the worst behavior can legally talk – that is how you get all of these abuse stories you read on these blogs. That is how a little girl can be repeatedly raped as a four year old for over a decade with no one stepping in or holding the man accountable.
One sided power is absolute power and absolute power does corrupt absolutely. Lori Alexander lays the groundwork for these mini-Stanford experiments with every post she makes. Information is the only antidote. Let’s continue to shed light on these tools of the Enemy, so that there will be fewer victims in the future. Thanks for doing this Julie Anne.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She’d also have to admit that a Christian woman is allowed to have some agency in her own protection, safety and well-being, and in that of her children. I doubt we’ll ever see that admission from Lori, either.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think we have to understand Lori’s definition of abuse. Interestingly, Calvin opposed the “Divine Right of Kings” definition of abuse, which is that the authority (husband/pastor/elder) is solely answerable to God for his commands to the subordinate, and that the subordinate is never “sinning” when obeying a command even when that subordinate knows it to be sinful.
This has crept back into Evangelical circles, such that Piper avoids the elephant in the room when he counsels a couple where the husband requires his wife to seek permission to use the bathroom. Piper tells the husband he’s being abusive, but avoids the obvious question of whether the wife is still required to obey his abusive command. That suggests Piper has returned to the Divine Right husband and despite how abusive he is, the wife is still required to obey without question.
So, essentially, there is no such thing as abuse by Lori’s definition. The wife submits to all commands, whether lawful or unlawful, and submits to all physical, emotional and spiritual punishment, because it is not her “place” to question her husband’s rule. Instead, she calmly seeks help from the authorities – the church and state – to deal with the husband.
That’s why Dave’s comment fits right in. Even a command to MURDER is to be obeyed. It apparently isn’t the wife’s place to question whether abortion is right or wrong, but to obey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
And anyone asking someone to make a sandwich 10 times is already abusive.
The other problem here is even decent, kind men can’t read minds and if a woman doesn’t actually speak up when her husband/boyfriend does something he may do it repeatedly, without meaning any harm. That’s a recipe for resentment over time. Better to head things off at the pass, so to speak.
Of course, people like Lori think women aren’t allowed to have real feelings about stuff like that, which is a whole separate problem and speaking of which, I hope a post happens about Gary Thomas’s crazy recent post about ‘narcissism’ because wow.
LikeLike
At this moment we see the secular world exposing a dark, pervasive culture of sexual harassment, sexual assault and workplace abuse. Contrast this revelation with Lori’s view that abuse is not something to be exposed or rejected within the home, but rather it is to be tolerated with a commitment to eventual spiritual change. While she might contend that these are not the same, all forms of abuse continue because of bystanders’ complicity and victims’ bondage to secrecy, fear and shame. In marital or household-related abuse, Lori is similarly complicit.
In this vein, I would ask Lori how she feels about sexual abuse in marriage? If a man has a right to his wife’s body, is she okay with husbands who insist on having sex immediately after childbirth, or requiring a wife to engage in acts that make her feel shameful or cause her pain? Is it okay for a man to grope his wife whenever he wishes to? Is it okay for him to curse at her, shame her, or isolate her from family or sources of emotional support?
What Lori refuses to acknowledge is that there are wolves among the sheep in our homes and our churches. Her premise is that submission to the wolf and prayer for him are the only options, even if the wolf continues to abuse his wife and children and creates a toxic, unsafe environment.
Finally, Lori’s understanding and teaching of Scripture is skewed and incomplete. Scripture urges us to be subject to one another “in love,” not fear. And Ephesians 5 calls husbands to love their wives and nourish them as they would themselves, for “no one ever hated his own flesh.” And before “’til death do us part,” both commit to “love, honor and cherish.” These vows do not leave room for abuse in marriage.
Lori has closed her heart to this truth. She is too committed to her one-note doctrine – a false doctrine that enables abuse and keeps victims in its grasp, a doctrine for which I trust she will one day be held accountable.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mark,
Once again you have a really powerful insight. Yes, that’s the root of where Lori is getting this from.
Here’s the background. The KJV translation was created because King James didn’t like the Geneva Bible—the most popular Bible translation of that time. The Geneva Bible had too many footnotes about the believers conscience and why resistance to tyranny was necessary. So King James responded by producing the KJV to justify his theory of The Divine Right of Kings. That meant that he could do whatever he wanted. No one could question him because questioning him was questioning God. Sound familiar?
The KJV changed what Paul actually wrote in the NT. Paul NEVER told wives to obey. He told children to obey and both husbands and wives to Hupotasso.
LikeLike
@LT:
80% commonality is also the threshold where Groupthink locks in and all dissidents and heretics are Purged.
LikeLike
@AvidReader:
So into Divine Right that his barons treated him to a little attitude-adjustment session behind closed doors.
And when it comes to “he could do whatever he wanted”, remember King Jimmy was also said to be Flaming Gay.
LikeLike
@Mark:
Is that where the old German bureaucratic tradition of “Ich habe nur meine Befehle ausgefert” (“I was only following Orders”) came from? Because in that bureaucratic tradition the superior giving the order was always responsible, NOT the subordinate following orders — as long as the subordinate could produce a paper trail as proof that he had been ordered, he was off the hook completely. So subordinates CYAed by Documenting EVERYTHING. (Unfortunately for the subordinates, the prosecutors at Nuremberg came from a different tradition.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Geneva is in Switzerland, not Germany and Germany was more in line with the Lutheran tradition. I’m not up as much on where Luther would stand on that, but he was raised Roman Catholic, so I suspect that he would be more in the Catholic tradition of obeying your Priest/Pope. Calvin’s beliefs apparently had more effect on the Netherlands where their military is not so authoritarian.
LikeLike
This makes me wonder if Lori even likes women.
I fell down the rabbit hole of her blog a couple days ago out of innocent curiosity… I’d venture to say that Lori doesn’t like ANYONE.
@cindy burrell
In this vein, I would ask Lori how she feels about sexual abuse in marriage? If a man has a right to his wife’s body, is she okay with husbands who insist on having sex immediately after childbirth, or requiring a wife to engage in acts that make her feel shameful or cause her pain? Is it okay for a man to grope his wife whenever he wishes to? Is it okay for him to curse at her, shame her, or isolate her from family or sources of emotional support?
Judging by said blog… yeah, probably. I’m not sure if she’s aware that women are even PEOPLE.
I grew up around the more fascinating side of the homeschool // conservative bubble. LA is Something Else, period.
LikeLike
Octavia – A few months ago Lori had a post titled, “Women are Not Created in the Image of God.” She received some questions on that, so she changed the title to “Women are Not Created in the Image of God?” She received a lot of backlash and ended up deleting her post. I have a screen shot of her stating that she doesn’t care if she’s created in the image of God because that isn’t necessary for her salvation – because Jesus died for everyone.
Why would Lori care if a woman is abused by her intimate partner when she doesn’t value that women are created in the image of God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Avid Reader – I own an original, somewhat battered Geneva bible, published in 1597 in London. It gives the owner in 1737 – I often wonder if a genuine believer, or whether it was just a bible gathering dust on the shelf all that time ago.
It consistently translated hupotasso as submit, in Eph 5 for example, also in Titus 2 : 5 where the KJV does have the word ‘obedient’. I assume the latter is where ‘love honour and obey’ originated from in the 1662 Prayer Book wedding service of the Church of England.
As far as Dave’s comment quoted above goes, here is a man in the very depths of religious deception. What kind of bible does he read if he cannot see that indeed wives should submit to their husbands, but they are also in submission directly to Christ, and his word, and apostolic teaching. Where there is a conflict between obeying God and a lesser authority, government, elders, husbands ‘we must obey God rather than men’. It’s not difficult and complicated.
There is no command for a man to enforce submission from his wife, imo the commands to love and cherish preclude this. Perhaps Dave should be a bit more bothered about what God tells husbands to do, and less bothered about what wives should do. You could be forgiven for thinking ‘wives obeying husbands’ is actually his religion and his God, he gives it such authority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS,
That’s cool that you own a piece of history. That original Geneva Bible is probably worth something as they are so rare.
Yes, you are correct that Paul chose “Hupotasso” in Titus 2:5. The KJV changed Paul’s words there. If we take the time to really study what the Apostle Paul wrote in the Greek, we find a lot of surprising things.
1) Paul actually taught BOTH husbands and wives are to Hupotasso to each other as equals. Not as one superior and one subordinate. In the original Greek, Paul was very careful to use language avoiding putting one person on a higher level of authority than the other.
2) Whatever you want to define Hupotasso as for women—that exact same definition applies to men as well. Here’s where the double standards happen. If Hupotasso means total submission— then the men have to fulfill total submission to everyone else according to verses like 1Peter 5:5 (“All of you submit to one another”). Of course no one would ever teach that—so right there they are contradicting their own argument. Can’t have it both ways. Yet so many leaders keep changing the meaning of words to fit their personal bias.
3) What the Bible is actually emphasizing is “preferring one another in love.” We seem to be losing that message in the church as a whole.
Now if you want the indepth study on how Paul very carefully chose language describing “Hupotasso” to be done on an equal level, there’s a great study on the literal Greek in the book Man and Woman One in Christ by Philip Payne. He shows how Paul’s actual words were obscured by the English translation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
KAS, the Bible nowhere tells us to obey where it does not also give our superior the power to enforce that obedience. The state has that power, the church has that power, parents have that power. Husbands and wives do not and neither do fellow Christians, although we are told to submit to one another.
We need to understand that the NT apostles were responding to churches that were seriously messed up. Just as Moses gave the Israelites the divorce law for the hardness of their heart, could it not be that Paul and the apostles did not directly confront the patriarchy and women/children/slaves as property notion because the culture of that day was hardened?
The example my pastor used was, what would you say if you saw a man yank a woman by the hair and pull her back? Abusive, right? But, what instead if you better understood the context and saw she was falling into the path of an oncoming subway? Wouldn’t you have a different interpretation? We are pushed into a certain interpretation of the passage because those who have been in power since the Fall have always wanted that interpretation. It’s the Gentiles who lord it over and the church is supposed to be different, yet, don’t our church leaders and our parents and even our husbands lord it over us? How is that novel and different than the way of the world?
LikeLike
Yes, do people think in modern times this ‘hardness’ suddenly went away? I mean, they know better! Why would they think there should be no provisions.
Common sense is not common with some.
LikeLike
Yesterday, Lori addressed NEVER encouraging a woman to get a divorce.
https://thetransformedwife.com/never-encourage-women-to-divorce-their-husbands/
“Yes, they are married to disobedient, unfaithful, and difficult husbands but they understand the cost and are willing to obey God instead of listening to those around them encouraging them to take the “easy” way out and get divorced. Several women in the chat room are standing strong in the gap for their husband’s soul and their marriages even though many have told them to divorce their husbands. It is a beautiful thing to witness.”
Yes, even if you fear for your life, you must stand in the gap for your husband’s soul. Because a husband’s soul is the wife’s responsibility. (SMH) A woman who decides to leave her abusive husband is taking the “easy way out.”
LikeLike
Including potentially death, illness, children in harm, etc.
Not God. Find me the quote where God says to sacrifice yourself and your children and the peace potentially even of your childrens children, on the altar of an unfeeling, uncaring, evil man. Find it. (Also, she said ‘unfaithful’! We have actual text saying it’s ok to leave unfaithful spouses. Sheesh.)
This quote that she quotes below is so sad, though. This person has some legitimate concerns mixed in with thinking their children seeing an utterly broken example of ‘covenant’ will help them function better in life!
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, Lori, watching abused women listen to your false teaching is NOT “a beautiful thing to witness”. It is heart breaking and gut wrenching. They cannot “stand in the gap for their husbands souls”. There is only one mediator between God and man… Jesus. And even Jesus does not cross the boundary of free will. He allowed the rich young ruler to walk away. He allows abusive husbands free will and they must suffer the consequences of their choices. If more “Christian” husbands suffered consequences perhaps there would be a lot less abuse in the church.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree, Mary27. Lori’s teachings and ideas are destructive on so many levels, and for her to kick abuse victims who reach out to her seeking help while they’re down is despicable. The people who are helping her delete comments and cries for help are just as culpable in this.
To those of you who are currently following Lori’s blog and are currently suffering abuse in whatever form, know that I am sorry for what you’re going through. Nobody deserves to be abused, and what’s happening to you is wrong. Create a safety plan with someone safe that you can trust, even if it’s someone on any one of the domestic violence hotlines. No matter what Lori has to say about it, you have the right to safety and security, and leaving your abuser is your ticket to getting that. You aren’t taking the easy way out. You’re drawing that line. Have the courage to take that next step and walk away from Lori, if for no other reason than in support of your fellow survivors. You can do so much better than her. Quit her blog, quit her book, and quit her social media pages. Consider it feedback she needs to hear. While you may not be able to recognize Lori’s toxic, cruel ideas and behavior for what it is right now, you will as you get further away from what happened to you. You don’t owe Lori or her followers a damn thing.
To those of you helping Lori delete comments and cries for help from current abuse victims or survivors of historical abuse, I know you probably think you’re fulfilling a beautiful duty to Lori and the higher power you believe in, but you’re not. What you’re doing is enabling. I want you to think long and hard about all the heinous crap we survivors have to go through because of the way our society is. Do you really want to add to all that? Because that’s what you’re doing to the survivors and victims who are following Lori on social media. You’re telling them you just don’t care, and you’re silencing them. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I will go with the assumption that you didn’t know better until now. Now that you know better, what will you choose moving forward? Will you walk away from Lori and end all contact with her? Or are you ride-or-die instead, willing to continue enabling her? The choice is yours at the end of the day.
LikeLiked by 1 person