Lori Alexander at The Transformed Wife continues to advocate that there is no room for divorce for a spouse experiencing physical abuse.
A commentor at her post, For Those Considering Divorce – Stop!, speaks about her mother’s best friend who would show up with bruises and black eyes. With valid reasoning she questions Lori about not divorcing due to physical abuse.
I’m a bit torn on this issue issue (sic) while I do not like divorce and I believe you should do everything in order to avoid it there are times where I believe it is warranted. Growing up my mother’s best friend husband physically abused her and their children. There were many times where she would show up with bruises and black eyes and she in (sic) the children would stay few days until she went back home. The abuse got so bad she and the children moved away and I never saw them again. So while I believe that marriage is forever I just can’t condone marriages in which one partner is physically abusive.
Lori’s response is that physical abuse is no reason for divorce.
I understand your sentiment, Monique, but it’s not biblical for a woman to divorce her husband because he is physically abusing her. Yes, she needs to seek help and may even have to get the police involved, then separate for a time until he repents of his evil deeds, but there is nothing in God’s Word that says this is a reason for divorce. We must always base our opinions and actions upon the Bible and not what we feel is right.
Here is a post I have put together for women in difficult or destructive marriages:
I continue to remain concerned about Lori’s hard-line approach that divorce is not an option for spouses experiencing domestic abuse. Lori repeatedly heaps on spiritual abuse as she uses the Bible to convince spouses (in this case, women) to stay in their abusive marriages.
She is correct in that literally, the Bible does not address divorce due to physical abuse. The problem is that Lori’s literal interpretation does not allow any room for growth in the word. Hebrews 4:12 tells us: “For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.”
I hope that those who experience domestic abuse and follow Lori’s teachings see the error in this message and find the help they need.
*If you are experiencing domestic abuse and need help, please email us and we will assist in finding resources in your area. Or, please reach out to the National Domestic Violence Hotline for support at 800-799-7233 or thehotline.org.
Lori Alexander, The Transformed Wife, Divorce, Physical Abuse
140 thoughts on “Lori Alexander, Advocate of Women Staying Married to Their Abusers”
There is (((NOTHING))) about you that reminds me of the man (Jesus) who I was raised to respect and worship.
Hi Christianity hurts,
Thank you for sharing.
I’m very sorry that you endured abuse that I can’t even measure.
I do feel as if sharing verses that justify a woman to separate herself from an abusive husband has created a push back I didn’t expect on this Christian Site.
I really get it, a non-Christian contributor by and large doesn’t feel the need to include scripture as a way to accept separating from an abusive husband.
This creates a little dilemma for the Christian wanting to share bible verses as he/she are at risk of offending the non-Christian contributing on a Christian site.
Furthermore, if I noticed a biblical mis-quote on the earth being flat and send a couple of verses that says otherwise, I’m accused of being judgmental.
Does this mean there is no room for me to quote a bible verse on this Christian Site, if a non-Christian follower is going to rebuke Christians for sharing a verse?
I’ll have to dig into Lori’s site further. From what I’ve read so far I fail to see her knowingly advocating a woman to go back into a home where she will get her brains knocked out. She is against Divorce and advocates marriages to heal but is weak on talking about marriages that don’t heal after abuse Or biblical justifications.
If it was my daughter, it would be difficult for me, to avoid taking a baseball bat to the abusers head, to even the score, actually that might be scriptural in the OT but maybe in not so many words.
I think abuse should be dealt with harshly, but our society is getting soft, cops are afraid to do their jobs, for fear of being accused of discrimination on account of a few bad cops.
I’m torn by the physical abuse, I don’t understand why a man would put his wife in the hospital. Nothing good comes out of abuse.
Truthfully, we live in a society where many of our own parents didn’t mentor us how to emotionally connect, how could they? Many of them didn’t get married or got a divorce themselves, while others live in a loveless marriage. So that leaves society to mentor kids (men and some women) to be surrounded by a locker room/aggressive/porn like mentality in how to treat others or how to treat a woman.
Even the way people communicate to one another, is combative. Rather than discover compromises in a caring, polite and civilize way, so we can hear or read what the other person is saying, the knee jerk reaction is to get angry and verbally retaliate.
I’m beginning to wonder about those that suffered abuse if they have become a verbal abuser, needing an outlet to vent the pain they suffered.
“I see more non-Christians who pick and choose. . .” Seriously, David?? Not Christians? Hmmm. ..I am wondering why there are over 35,000 different sects of Christianity, then? Another obvious point – there are Christians picking and choosing scripture on this thread — and applying individual interpretation.
Oh, and I have not been abused, by the way. I think that is an assumption you have made about me. One does not need to have been abused to empathize with others who have been. It’s called being a compassionate person.
And the Bible says the earth is flat. It also says it’s round. And both sides of the slavery issue used – guess what? – as their ‘inspiration’. My point was, and IS, that one cannot reliably use the Bible for anything other than an ancient manuscript. Historical fiction would be the most flattering term I’d use.
Thanks for sharing.
Yes, because the bible is interpreted in many ways, it makes sense as to why there are many denominations. I do stand by my statement as I believe globally there are more that don’t embrace the Bibles teachings than those that do. I know the church I attend we aren’t picking and choosing which verses should be in the bible and which shouldn’t. Or which to believe.
In my view, most Christians believe what is in the bible, though it is very difficult to understand at times. To a non-Christian the bible is a fantasy and writing of false teachings and in some cases hypocrisy.
Of course we know there are those that profess to be Christians that are abusing their wives/families and even some heavy handed preachers verbally abusing their Congregations, if they struggle to embrace their doctrine or abusive methodology.
I spent a lot of time reviewing the earth is flat theory and found numerous scriptures that say the earth is round. There is some reference about the 4 corners of the earth (sphere) that has caused debate among scholars. But on a compass dial and me being a seaman, I would interpret that to N, E, S, W on the compass.
I’m sorry I offend you.
We can agree on one thing, society as whole over the history of the planet, hasn’t been harsh on physical abuse of woman. Even our nation looks the other way at Middle East Countries who treat woman like crap if they don’t embrace their customs, some of whom donate big bucks to both political parties to and to its leaders within both parties.
I wish you all the best.
Can you please show me where the Bible says the Earth is flat? (Hint: it never said that.)
The Bible is pretty clear on the Earth being round. Isaiah 40:22 for example….
David, the issue I have with your comments is that you seem to focus more on legalities than relationship. Yet Jesus emphasized that the heart of the law was love of God and people. Everything, everything, everything goes back to relationship, not law. The legalist stuff that the church focuses on often defies the relational values Jesus taught in Matthew 5. He powerfully condemned the Pharisee’ appearance of godliness when He could see their motives and the way they had twisted the law. (Matthew 23) Jesus also deliberately “violated” the law, deferring to the higher value of relationship. Similarly, with regard to marriage, lawful divorce and remarriage, Jesus emphasized heart issues. He condemned the Pharisees for “putting away ” their wives without cause and/or without a writ. This is the part the church still fails to get, that our Lord was defending the wives who had been compelled to re-marry and were technically “committing adultery” because they were still married to the men who had not properly released them! Jesus said, “… but I say to you that everyone who “puts away” his wife, except for the reason of unchastity [premarital sex, in which a writ was unnecessary] MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY; and whoever marries a “put away” woman commits adultery,” because those women were still legally married! Jesus was condemning the men here, not the women. And if you’d like to talk about the marriage covenant, then please read on: http://www.hurtbylove.com/defining-the-marriage-covenant/
I can see why you get the impression that I’m stuck on legalities, after all the basis of Lori Alexander’s recent post, it appears as infidelity is the only reason why a divorce is granted. And though I’m under the impression she doesn’t want to persuade a battered woman to go back endure physical abuse, the rest of it is pretty foggy.
Where I’m being technical is I believe scriptures doesn’t allow physical abuse and does permit a woman to separate. The non-Christian contributor in this thread feels there doesn’t need biblical truth to permit separation,
No man can say they are emotionally connected with his wife if he is mentally and physically abusing her. It wouldn’t surprise me is half of married couples are emotionally connected to each other whether there is abuse or not.
My wife and I weren’t emotionally connected when we got married at age 20, 38 years ago. We had no mentors both our parents bickered and dysfunction existed in both and so we never even heard of “connection”.
Emotional Connection is everything in a relationship. (I may have mentioned it earlier) The problem with society and churches is they didn’t mentor my generation or my kids generation, so that leaves it up to schools and churches to give their relationship opinions.
So society and churches need to figure out what they are doing wrong to define what it really means to be in love, instead of passing out the pill/ condoms or getting married for sexual purposes.
Many failed and abusive relationships start off filled with infatuation, attraction and intimacy that is camouflaging the meaning of true love. Then after marrying they realize they didn’t embrace the same wants, interest and goals and end up either force feeding their will or rebelling and saying mean things against each other instead of trusting one another to say “oops, we are raising our voices” or “lets calm down”
Now it may sound hard, but trust me it is easier to remain calm as lovers navigate through a conversation and discover a compromise without either getting upset. It actually stimulates the mind.
Instead, society mentors us with a locker room/aggressive/porn like mentality and churches encourage young couples to get married if they are having sex, even if the young couple isn’t even in love. I would say the opposite, if a couple isn’t in love, then don’t get married as they will eventually break up and save themselves from mental abuse which must be the case for most men and women who are married but don’t love each other.
In the end, it really comes down to how couples communicate and how they are able to merge and accept their unique differences together when they become one.
Even if they discover they don’t love each other, doesn’t mean they can’t be sensitive to one another’s feelings without degrading one another. I’m talking common decency.
Christianity hurts @KAS
There is (((NOTHING))) about you that reminds me of the man (Jesus) who I was raised to respect and worship.
That’s the perfect reason for me to point you to him and away from me.
I hesitate to say anything really. I noticed on the Fred Butler discussion you don’t see what I am getting at or where I am coming from, as though you had not read anything I have said. Mark (not alone) has been doing the same thing both there and here, which is why I responded to him above, I finally got fed up with it. Do you still think I am the sort of person who would send a battered wife back to her abuser despite having said the opposite 4 times?
We are all against abuse and wish to work against it. I’ve seen its devastating effects close to home.
You do this by pointing out how evil men can bully whilst professing some kind of Christian belief.
I seek to undermine this by saying, although a complementarian, The kind of language the NT writers use to describe how a husband should do this is: loving your wife, where love means putting her interests first; not hating her, giving, nourishing, cherishing, living considerately with her (knowing her, her needs and aspirations and taking these into consideration), bestowing honour on her as the weaker sex. This is for at least the fourth – and last – time of asking.
Who knows, someone who supports ‘extreme’ complementarianism of the sort Lori appears to be touting just might read that and think twice before trying to force their wife to submit to them. Start concerning themselves with what they as a husband should be doing.
They won’t listen to egalitarians, often with good reason.
They won’t listen either if they see three comments later that claiming to live out this biblical instruction as I do is considered ‘misogyny’. They will write off much needed criticism of their behaviour as being irrational and the result of prejudice.
“Do you still think I am the sort of person who would send a battered wife back to her abuser despite having said the opposite 4 times?”
Can she divorce him with your blessing? Are do you have to give her a marriage speech?
“as though you had not read anything I have said.”
I read everything you have said. I have heard conservative Christian men complain about it my whole life. You have not said anything new. You all say the same things. You hate women who won’t agree to be trapped slaves for men. You hate Hollywood. Everybody else in the world is bad and conservative Christians are the only good people in the world. It is kinda like you need Christianity to make you feel superior to all other people.
“They won’t listen to egalitarians, often with good reason.” What good reason? Women’s right to tell men like you no. As an egalitarian I believe a man can tell me no anytime he wants to and I can tell him no anytime I want to.
Complementarian men, like Ariel Castro, ISIS, and Keith Raniereand need to have a woman be submissive to them. They need to be boss and dictator a woman. They cant live in a world where women can tell them no. The comp man who sexually abused me could not live in a world were women could tell him no. I could not tell him no. I had to be submissive to him, like a dog. He needed that because he was comp. My father was comp, he told me when I was a little girl he was boss of my mother. What kind of man is so insecure about women that he has to tell little girls he is boss of his wife? A comp man.
I do not believe you are a Christian because you love and respect Jesus Christ. You do not talk about what a good man he was. You complain about what most misogynistic bitter insecure comp Christian men complain about. Sex, feminism, Liberals, Hollywood, marriage. Meanwhile, your ilk is heaping magnitudes of pain on women and children. Making them wish they have never been born. Making them believe God is a pro-rape sky tyrant, and Christian fathers are embarrassing sadistic thugs.
You complain about people doing things that you don’t want them to do. As if it is any of your business. People washing their hands of Christianity, as if they should not have the right to freedom. Your ilk is raping children and telling children not to tell the police. Because in comp world MEN are always to win and children and women are always to lose. Comp and rape are both about male power. It is no wonder that child rape is so rampant in your ideology.
You are the stereotype Christian that makes people run from Christianity. Just like the Taliban and ISIS are the kind of Muslims that make people think Muslims are heinous people. The Taliban and ISIS are pro-female slavery, don’t hate rape, and are comp also. They hate all the same things you hate.
In comp is a wife allowed to tell her husband no? If not then she is nothing but a trapped child slave. Comp men are terrified to have sex with and be in an adult relationship with a grown woman. They need their wives to be in a child sex slave state. They do not want to be married to an empowered adult. Scary scary for the comp man.
When you have some time, we want to encourage you to read the book Boundaries by Dr. Cloud and Dr. Townsend.
There are so many problems with what Lori is teaching that there’s no way to fit all that information into a comment on a blog post. But that book will really open your eyes to how she disobeys Scripture right and left. Lori’s teaching is very dangerous for many reasons not only because she’s totally clueless about abuse.
David, I wrote extensively on this above and you did not address it. You want a bible verse that is more like an if/then statement. I am looking at general principles on how to treat other people, which are rooted in scripture. The NT is not an if/then statement. It doesn’t cover every circumstance.
Excellent comments Cindy Burrell, Christianity hurts, and Avid Reader.
One of the most stunning things that I learned while faithfully attending (and giving big bucks, too, the tithe thing was heavily taught there) my former Abusive conservative baptist church was this……..”when a believer in Jesus Christ, who holds the authority of Him over the authority of men/women, tells the complementariuan man or women the word “NO” with regards to anything within their church institution, there will be a secret campaign to destroy you as they gather like wolves in a den, to plot evil against you.
I don’t remember where I read this quote to give credit where credit is due, but it goes something like this: “The nature of a person’s true character comes out when you tell them the word “NO.” ” The end result of that simple word “NO” is usually anger, hatred, and revenge…..especially with those who claim to know Jesus better than you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
CH, I have to say I found these two definitions here interesting:
Someone shared this article at TWW and it is fantastic and relevant to this discussion, linking the biblical defenses of slavery in the past and the current defense of hierarchical gender relations in the present.
“The nature of a person’s true character comes out when you tell them the word “NO.”
It looks like Conservative churches cater to childish spoiled brats. They are anti-freedom and disturbing just like Kim Jong-un is.
As a child, my number one dream was to one day have the right to tell any man I wanted to NO.
These vile men are trying to arrange it where they always have women in their lives who can not tell them no. Just like Ariel Castro did. These men are scared they are the kind of men women want to say no to the most. They have their trapped meek brainwashed daughters and wives telling them everything they want to hear because they are not tough enough or man enough to know the truth. My father never knew what I really thought of him. I had to be fake and pretend. I knew he was too selfish and too feeble for the truth. He wanted people to think he was a manly man, a real man. He was an overindulge, know-nothing, little boy, who did not believe in other human being’s rights to tell him no. What a baby.
It has been said within visible Christian circles, that it is not appropriate for a Christian man to work under a woman in the workplace. Depending on the definition of “workplace,” many of us have had the privilege of hiring men and boys to work under us on our farm/agriculture. Now according to some theologians, this would be considered a “sin,” and an insult to the authority of men. As I have said before and will be preaching it until the cows come home, Jesus’ authority rules supreme, for if He instructed women to do His Will in the Gospels, so too, women should be held in high esteem per Jesus’ Way.
The men/boys that worked under me, did not rebel against my authority, but treated me with respect, for our end goal was “getting the work done on time.” Recently I had the privilege of visiting with one of the men at a social gathering and he stated, “I sure enjoyed working with you and consider that one of my many good memories in farming.” This statement is not penned here to boast and brag of my “leadership skills” for there is much “work” to be done in my heart as well. In reproving a point, he stated that he enjoyed working “with” me, instead of saying, “working under me.”
There is a difference here, for I believe that true, clear and concise so called leadership with regards to my faith in Christ alone for salvation, means this……..
“My faith allows me to trust Jesus enough that I serve the people I work with and include them in on the decision making skills all the while loving their individuality in the way Jesus/Father God created them in His image.” When people are treated as equals as opposed to lordship, there is more bonding which leads to a greater respect for everyone……end result is getting the job done more efficiently with very little chaos and controversy……and no anger. There are also no power struggles for when a worker points out my errors or shortcomings, I listen and work to correct/better myself so that I can “get my work done/get the job done!” more efficiently. I apply this same concept when I work under men’s authority, although I will say, that not all men apply the same philosophy towards working, for most men that I have dealt with are complementarians and are far more emotional than myself. So with regards to working with men, as a woman, I have learned to “hold my own.” Because longer believing in the “worm theology” my abusive Baptist church taught me (with an AOG pastor man), some of the men I currently work with have “learned” to respect me as a human being, with skills and intellect equal to their own, although it seems like I have to work a thousand times harder to earn that.
Due to my life experiences, I believe complementarians still have those same scales over their eyes as Saul, transformed into the Apostle Paul, had, those many years ago. I find it fascinating and odd that our churches pave the way/lead the way, in reviling, hating, seeking vengeance against the gifts of the Holy Ghost, that reside in women as well as men. As churches fall away from the life saving Gospels, regardless of whether a man, woman, or a donkey/ass (OT times) delivers it, the ensuing apostasy which has engulfed the church is now relegated to the “gender wars” that we see a foolish religious system worshiping.
No longer is Jesus, the Christ, the center of organized church religion, but instead, the complementarian verses egalitarian debate; replacement theology of sorts. Oh, how our LORD, Master, and Savior must be weeping for His lost sheep, who are desperately seeking to “be somebody/leader” within the institutional 501c. 3 church, when at the end of the day, our LORD literally bent down and washed the grubby feet of His disciples. The image of that in our minds should speak volumes as to the true nature of a mature Christian, who is called to serve in “getting the LORD’S work done.”
Hopefully I can respond in order…
David, “I agree that certain theologies like Hyper-Calvinism, is law and sin center based and can imprison the minds of their victims (congregations) comparable to what the Pharisees did.”
That is a typical blame-shifting response, and the kind of response I would have given when I was a legalist and Pharisee. Yeah, THOSE PEOPLE might have that view, but I’m just fine. If we don’t have the proper understanding of the gospel, we go one way (liberalism) or the other (pharisaism). That’s why we have letters recorded to the Corinthians (liberals) and Galatians (Pharisees). Just because we may not be as hate-filled and legalistic as the Pharisees of Jesus’s day doesn’t discount the true damage we can cause.
“scripture quoting”. What exactly was Lori’s point in bringing out “love bears all things”? If there was a purposes, the purpose was to tell the wife to “bear all things” in the name of “love”. Guess what she’s talking about? ABUSE. So, you are completely ignoring that quoting scripture OUT OF CONTEXT is Lori MIS-using scripture to tell battered wives to return to their husbands.
“I don’t see Lori is advocating battered wives to go back into a marriage if she thinks they are going to get their brains knocked out.”
First of all, you’re moving the goalposts. Second of all, there are multiple studies that show that a significant red flag in wives being murdered by their husbands is… a history of domestic violence. So, maybe she just got some red marks on her neck, but the Loris send her back to “bear all things” and there is a significant possibility that the thing she will bear is her own death. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/which-domestic-abusers-will-go-on-to-commit-murder-this-one-act-offers-a-clue/2017/11/16/80881ebc-c978-11e7-aa96-54417592cf72_story.html
“A better way for me to say this, Lori isn’t going to stay in a the same house if her husband was beating her.”
No, we’ve already established that the burdens she lays on her followers, she is not willing to burden herself with.
“It is a true to the word of God and again Lori isn’t against separation when the wife is in danger and abuse is putting the wife’s life in danger.”
Understanding how to interpret scripture is a difficult challenge. For example, I could quote:
blockquote>Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.
Answer a fool as his folly deserves,
That he not be wise in his own eyes.(Prov. 26:4-5)
Without understanding the heart of God, this is completely absolutely contradictory advice, yet it is given absolutely. They are two rules that are contradictory. So, now, you get pastors who try to explain how they are NOT contradictory, which always involves situations in which one or the other is the preferred approach. So, they bring in other passages that exemplify someone using one approach or the other.
So, let’s say you see a Christian blogger go on a rampage against an Atheist and at the end, said blogger justifies the rant by quoting vs. 5 above. Is that valid simply because it’s a scripture quote? Or does it have to be quoted in the right context?
I used to think of the Bible as a rule book. I could or couldn’t do this or that because the Bible said it was okay or not. But Jesus didn’t come to create new rules. He came to explain the purpose behind the rules, and that the rules were merely point interpretations of the purpose. The clearest example I can give you is David and the showbread. The RULE is: DON’T EAT THE SHOWBREAD UNLESS YOU ARE A PRIEST! David broke that rule, yet Jesus says it was okay. Jesus doesn’t say WHY it was okay, just that it was. Then Jesus says, priests BREAK THE SABBATH, but are innocent. This is in justification of his disciples breaking the Sabbath to eat grain from a field.
Now, you and KAS are so mired in the rulebook mentality that you can’t comprehend that I and possibly others here still believe in Biblical inerrancy. KAS wants the rule to be “marriage permanence” and apparently thinks that women ought to sacrifice themselves to permanent separation without remarriage because apparently God is more concerned about marriage than women having fulfilling marriages to non-abusive husbands. But, interestingly, what did Jesus tell the Samaritan woman? “for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband” Did Jesus believe in marriage permanence? Apparently not, because he would have said, “you have had one husband and five adulterous relationships!”
And that is why you two are arguing past everyone. We’re not even on the same plane. Essentially, you’re arguing “what did Jesus say” and we are arguing “what did Jesus mean”. I think the difference a significant stumbling block in the Bible.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I responded to Cindy Burrell at length as she felt that I was being a bit technical. Which I didn’t deny. I do believe there is scriptural justification for a woman to separate when there is abuse. There are those that don’t think there needs scriptural justification.
Lori’s article that Kathi talked about, exposed Lori’s desire for marital healing but didn’t discuss biblical justification for permanently separating. Lori didn’t proclaim that a woman should put herself and her kids in danger at least that is what I read in that article.
I never heard of Lori Alexander until 2 days ago from reading Kathi’s post.
I think much of the push back I’m getting was my lack of knowledge from not following Lori, as some of the responses I was getting was from other previous post’s that Lori has written.
If I have been rude to you or anyone else, I apologize.
Mark, Thanks for the opinion and the capital letters,
If you haven’t heard of or read Lori’s posts, then I understand what you are seeing. Please understand my perspective. I have studied and worked in the field of abuse for years. I currently am a volunteer advocate for our police department. The majority of the calls I respond to are domestic abuse related. I don’t understand how someone can use the Bible and tell a victim who is afraid for her life that divorce is not acceptable. Use of scripture to keep a victim in a harmful relationship is spiritual abuse.
Yes, Lori will state that women should seek help from the police or from her church if her husband is being physically abusive. However, I think these words offer very little meaning when she says that there is no room for a wife to divorce her abusive husband. My opinion is that Lori cares more about her theology than she actually does for victims of abuse. She has also said that she believes the word abuse is used too often. I don’t think Lori really understands the dynamics of abuse.
Lori has a habit of deleting comments that do not follow her narrative. She has deleted information for the National Domestic Violence Hotline and Suicide Prevention Hotline. She has deleted women’s comments of the abuse they have experienced. She deletes comments from people who are trying to help victims.
Lori will not address that the spouse who is abusive is the one with the problem. If it means that a woman is experiencing abuse, she will not address that the issue is with the husband, because she says she will not teach men. She will simply tell a wife that she needs to pray more, trust in God more, and submit more. Domestic abuse is not the victim’s fault, but Lori will tell women to look and see what they did to cause the problem. Were you argumentative? Did you not follow your husband’s leadership? Did you undermine your husband in any way? A wife simply cannot win in this situation.
I am very passionate about issues of abuse. I am very passionate about how some in the church misuse scripture to keep victims in abusive relationships. I think it grieves God that this is done and it should grieve those within the church.
Here are some other posts I have written about Lori’s continued negligence when it comes to addressing domestic abuse. I write about her because I think she is a false teacher and she potentially causes harm to those who follow her:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank You Kathi for sharing the different feeds.
I did notice that Lori is a bit technical with her theology when it come to justification for Divorce and never really uses verses that justifies physical abuse.
When I entered my responses to offer biblical justification for divorce, it never occured to me that there are non-Christians that contribute to this thread that would take offense of me offering biblical justification for seperating with physical abuse.
To the non-Christian female who follows SSB, the bible means squat and they don’t need or desire to hear verses that justifies divorce with physica abuse, well at least verses coming from a man.
I also didn’t realize that much of the push back was as a result of previous things Lori has posted as I was isolating the post you were writing about.
As for her deleting, I did notice on a post dated May 12tI read of hers I recently read sent a response to, it was never posted (I used Ephesians 5, to suggest Husband’s are to love their wives like Christ love the church,, hint Christ served the church)
I am not your father.
I am not remotely like your father.
In fact I can say with clear conscience before God despite my many faults and weaknesses I am the precise opposite of your father (and grandfather).
If the horrible word ‘complementarian’ triggers you, I’ll happily ditch it and say I believe in ‘traditional marriage’, Church of England 1662 Prayer Book style, where sensible men tried to create a marriage service honouring the bible, and which was written before America existed (and therefore not influenced by anything American).
If I were like the person you say I am (You hate women who won’t agree to be trapped slaves for men), which I am not, you would be absolutely right to say I am not a Christian. By the same token, as you say this is what your father and grandfather were like, we are agreed that they were not Christians either, despite how much bible they may have spouted.
You can and should continue to criticise the hypocrisy of religious men and I will join you in doing so, but as I have had a daughter who has suffered at the hands of someone under the influence of American religion, I think it fair to say I’m no longer going to take any notice of what you say if you continue to accuse me of such things, there is no point, and you will be wasting your time.
I am sorry you have suffered at the hands of hypocritical American religionists, but you are not the only one – it gets exported round the world.
Why don’t you answer the questions?
Do you support a woman divorcing her husband for hitting her without you giving her a marriage speech?
Can a wife say “NO” to her husband anytime she wants?
“but you are not the only one” I know I am not the only one. While you are blaming everything on liberals, feminist, and Hollywood; “traditional marriage’” preachers like Doug Wilson, C. J. Mahaney, and so many others like them are protecting child rapist and making the raped children’s lives worse.
“I think it fair to say I’m no longer going to take any notice of what you say if you continue to accuse me of such things”
You ignore most of the women here who speak to you as you say and promote all the toxic slop that has hurt them. You can ignore me KAS. Most of the people who post here listen, think, and care like Jesus Christ. You just preach your Jerry Falwell preferences.
“I am not remotely like your father.” You hate all the same things he hated. You complain about the same things. You promote the same things. You preach the way he preached. You ignore the pain your self-serving ideology causes women and raped little girls.
David, no one objected to you posting bible verses, they objected to you demanding everyone else post the bible verses you want them to post! And judging them for not posting what you expected.
Separating is different from divorce. Unless you accept divorce is acceptable for abuse, you will leave people in bondage. Period.
I did write “this is suppose to be a Christian Blog where contributors should be using scripture to back up what they are writing about.” I don’t expect every response to have a bible verse, heck I don’t even do that.
I appreciate reading the comments of non-Christian contributors,(provided I’m not being verbally attacked) and I don’t feel or expect at any junction for non-Christians to use scriptured.
I do think if we read a post written by a Christian, in a Christian blog and is critical of a post by self proclaimed Christian like Lori who is using scripture to justify one thing,, but ignores scripture justification for abuse, this gives us opportunity to say “hey Lori, what about verses in Ephesians, Corinthians?”
Instead all I saw, was contributors giving me the impression that Lori expects battered wives to go back to their husbands’ even in fear and not able to be in the same room, which I never read in that particular post written by Lori.
I also question how a man who proclaims to be a believing Christian who repeatedly beats his wife, He certainly isn’t loving her. He is essentially walking away or deserting his vows.
I did read a biblical explanation from Barbara Roberts when she referenced a verse in a Restored Relationships blog dated 1/11/2016 and wrote:
“I believe the Bible allows divorce for domestic abuse, and the key text for this is 1 Corinthians 7:15 – “But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. For God has called us to peace”.
She wrote a lengthy explanation on that verse,
Dear Kathi and Friends, it’s the pharisee-ism of folks like Lori Alexander and Debbie Pearl that run people off. So many people think that being a follower of Jesus Christ means having to take crap from (wicked) people again and again and again… No wonder people want nothing to do with the Bible, sermons, hymns…Jesus Christ.
Very true, Sue! Lori and those like her clearly care more for their theology than people.
I agree! There isn’t a wall big enough for all of us, who have been misguided, to post each lie and accusation hurled at us by the likes of Lori, et al.
What are your thoughts on this?
Click to access Divorce%20&%20Unfaithfulness.pdf
I would be very concerned for anyone who sits under those teachings. In fact, to be that extreme would make God out to be a bully who doesn’t care about abused wives. Is that the God that you serve? I hope not!
Furthermore, in the case where a husband is the adulterer or abuser, do you notice who gets the short end of the stick? The wife. If you look through the WHOLE of scripture, not just a few select verses on divorce, what does God and Jesus say about women and children? Who does He want to protect? The oppressed. So, are you trying to tell me that God is okay with keeping women in an oppressive environment when ALL THROUGHOUT SCRIPTURE He says to protect them? If that’s the case, then God is a hypocrite? Now . . . which one do you want to believe . . . a few select verses that make God out to be a bully? Or a loving, compassionate God who always protects women and children? Which God do you want to serve, the bully God, or the one who cares? Make sure your religion is correct and that you are not acting like a Pharisee!
Thank you so much, Julie Anne!
We are also seeing this…..
This is new to us…..
never seen anything like this before……….
Small Group Covenant
Click to access Small-Group-Covenant.pdf
God bless you, Julie Anne!
You are a blessing to many!!!!
Keep up the good work!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t these guys ever realize how ominous this sounds? I suppose if you wait till your spouse kills you it’s A. O. K? At least they can remarry with God’s blessing /s
When I read the kind of legalist tripe with which so many here are familiar, I get that sick, something-is-terribly-wrong feeling in my spirit. I know in those moments that the gracious, relational heart of God has been grossly misrepresented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought I would mention that I have written to Lori Alexander in the past, outlining my reasons for disagreement to a couple of her blogs. I also sent my article, “Defining the Marriage Covenant,” which I copied below. (Feel free to delete it if it violates any rules here.) Of course, all comments on her site are “subject to moderation,” and my comments disappeared. She doesn’t accommodate any views that conflict with her own. http://www.hurtbylove.com/defining-the-marriage-covenant/ And isn’t that how legalists operate? Isn’t that why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus?
This comment from Lori is in response to something very different that was posted on her FB page, but her tone of banning people who do not agree with her resonates on everything she posts.
@FreeAtLast – This is what specifically bothers me about the small group covenant: “I will maintain confidentiality of the personal information that is shared within
my Small Group. I understand my small group leader may communicate appropriate information to those in leadership as necessary and I trust his or her discernment in this.
• I will be accountable to my small group concerning my personal and spiritual goals.”
My current church had a small group covenant, and I think it was mostly a knee-jerk reaction to people signing up for a group and then making maybe one or two. They decided to have a six-week commitment where members signed up. I never signed, but I still attended every week.
My specific problem is that “trust” is first and foremost earned, and second, a two-way street. If things in the group are to be held in confidence, then they are to be held in confidence. If a leader is struggling with something, they should say, “I don’t know how to answer that, can I talk to the leadership about it?” And if not, then it should be held in confidence. I have a problem with leadership assuming that they are always acting out of the best interests of all simply because they are leaders, and somehow it’s not gossip because they’re leaders. I was pretty upset about what was said about me behind closed doors that “leaders” were not willing to say to my face.
Regarding marriage, in the Old Testament, marriage was used to trap women outside a loving relationship. That is, their husbands would not love them and provide for them, but they also wouldn’t divorce them to allow them to be love by someone more righteous. So, likewise, the legalists and modern-day Pharisees take Jesus’s teaching and use it to trap women, but this time it is IN an unloving relationship. The end result is the same. Women are trapped by the legalistic traditions, which is NOT what Jesus was trying to say. He was answering a very specific question.
Lea: quoting article: “that the marriage commitment ends at death ”
But it doesn’t. Paul was expounding on the law when he said that a Christian wife of an unbelieving spouse was FREE TO REMARRY if he left. If the #1 priority in marriage was “till death do we part”, then Paul would have said no such thing. He would have said that the Christian wife must remain single and celibate unless the unbelieving spouse returned.
I’m a small group leader at a church with a fairly mild group covenant, but it does have the confidentiality clause between group members, but nothing public about the group leader taking concerns to leadership. I prefer it that way. If you really need to take something to leadership it is because you fear for the safety of the group, emotional and/or physical. So, someone threatening to harm themselves or someone else always needs follow-up, but that is very different from being a tattle-tale group leader.