Today I critique Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife, highlighting her legalistic teachings and their harmful effects on women in faith. I assert that Alexander propagates self-created, unilateral standards about women working outside the home that contradict biblical examples, lack grace, and puts burdens on women. I urge readers to reject Alexander’s burdensome doctrines and instead seek supportive ministries that align with true biblical teachings. Recommendations at the end.
Though the internet affords opportunity for anyone to come forth with a blog, a Youtube or TikTok channel, to tweet or comment on Facebook boldly, not all content should be absorbed. Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife’s should not.
But first, a defense of discernment
Jesus praised the folks at church at Ephesus doing discernment properly. It’s in Revelation 2:2 and 2:6-
‘I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot bear with those who are evil, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;
Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.
Critiquing a ministry is appropriate. “Going to them” personally is not required. Public teachings can and should be publicly assessed. Evaluation is noble. (Acts 17:11)
Discerning Lori Alexander
If you take Lori Alexander’s tweets individually, if you read them occasionally or one-by-one, they seem good. Like this one:
I agree with this one as well:
Nothing bad there. It’s good advice. Firstly, the tricky part comes when she also mixes in things that are not biblical. Secondly, the damaging part is consuming a steady diet of her material. Over time you see an accumulation of tone and thought: that almost every tweet disparages women, wives, and marriage in some way. Worst of all, the advice you see over time, is extra-biblical because it’s legalistic.
Ligonier definition of Legalism: “Legalism is, by definition, an attempt to add anything to the finished work of Christ. It is to trust in anything other than Christ and His finished work for one’s standing before God.“
To that end, The Transformed Wife’s cumulative posts reveal a constant pointing to a wife’s works as the measure of a marriage, her standing with God, and her soul. It’s trust in Debi and Michael Pearl, not Christ of the cross. It’s trust in the idol of submission Lori has made it for herself. Husband’s responsibility is not mentioned. Grace is not found. Charity, fruit, prayer, or scripture is not evidenced. Only legalistic, negative-Nellie warnings in confident absolutes. Dire and dour. For example, “women destroy everything”, see screenshot below.
Her focus is as she states here- is usually on Eve alone. She’ll accuse Eve like here- “The devil deceived Eve, “and Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression”(II Tim2:14)” but not include Romans 5:12-13, stating that Adam also sinned.
Biblical concern # 1, Lori Disbelieves in Original Sin
In a post now scrubbed, Lori wrote in 2016: “Your children are born in the flesh. It’s not sinful yet since they haven’t sinned, just as Adam’s flesh wasn’t sinful before he sinned“. (Source). And in 2022 or 23 The Transformed Wife replied to a woman asking Lori directly about original sin. Her reply was completely unbiblical. (Source: Lindsey Davis-Knotts)-
I asked Lori about her stance on original sin in May 2023 but she refused to answer and blocked me. Later, Lori came out with a weak affirmation of original sin but I suspect its sincerity, because it was issued under cloud of the growing scandal that her stance had generated when it resurfaced.
Disbelieving in our sin nature from the womb and at birth going forward in life is a big doctrine to get wrong. This heresy is actually called Pelagianism after Pelagius who promoted it. This doctrine was condemned as heresy in 418 by the Council of Carthage.
Biblical concern # 2: Lori teaches that women should not teach doctrine to other women, thus her view of scripture is skewed
My conviction that women shouldn’t be teaching women doctrines other than the doctrine of biblical womanhood, as commanded in Titus 2:3-5, has given me a lot of criticism from many places. I am even being called dangerous, legalistic, ungodly, and a false teacher. Women’s Bible studies are the pathway that has led to many female preachers/pastors, women speaking in the churches, and lukewarm churches. If women can preach/teach Scripture in a church, how is this any different than the men who do this on Sunday mornings?
The first issue with this stance, is that it is wrong. We are not saying Titus 2 urges women to preach in church. The verse is urging older women to teach the younger. That’s all. Lori tends to make straw man fallacies and argue them when they in fact don’t exist.
Teaching what is good means teaching about God – who is the only Good. (Mark 10:18). She got this ‘no teaching doctrine or theology’ from Dale Partridge, who is a man who fell below reproach due to serial plagiarism, and should not be teaching or pastoring. This shows that Lori displays a lack of discernment. More on Partridge on another day. She elevates Michael and Debi Pearl and Dale Partridge’s teachings as if they are Gospel words from Jesus Himself. But when challenged, won’t take anyone else’s words, research, or experience into account.
The apostle Paul tells Titus, in verse 3, that older women must first of all teach what is good. What could possibly be better than the Lord Jesus Christ? Doesn’t being a godly wife, mother and housekeeper flow out of knowing Him? Surely women without the Lord are fully capable of teaching those basic skills!
Only a Christian woman, however, can teach her sisters Who Jesus is. And obviously she can’t do so unless she teaches sound doctrine. Theology lays the groundwork for having godly marriages, raising children by godly principles and maintaining a home that reflects godly order. Theology deepens our understanding of who God is and what He values. So when a woman teaches right theology to other women as a supplement to the pastor’s preaching, she assists their abilities to be wives and mothers that bring glory to God.
DebbieLynne is wise.
Lori Alexander’s self-imposed strict legalism about not teaching women other doctrines than the one doctrine Lori deems acceptable to teach, that is, biblical womanhood, has resulted in her skewed view of scripture. 2 Peter 3:14-18 can be applied to her, particularly where the unstable distort God’s teachings. For example, several times she has said the following:
Legalism will take one verse and camp on it to the exclusion of other verses and to the exclusion of the authorial intent and context. This is what is meant by the unstable twisting God’s word.
Her version of submission is one way only and she doesn’t to my knowledge teach young women what to expect from a husband according to Ephesians 5 or any other pertinent verses.
Ephesians 5:25 urges believers “Just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”. Ephesians 5:28–29 says “So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself”. This is sacrificial love. Not submissive love per se, but a gentle leadership love that sacrifices for the wife. There is none of that kind of teaching in Lori’s world.
Husbands lead. Yes they are the ultimate decision-maker, but leading means leading in kindness and grace, remembering what Christ has done for His church and mimicking the same in sacrificial love.
Submission is Lori’s ‘tithing of mint’. “But woe to you Pharisees! For you pay tithe of mint and rue and every kind of garden herb, and yet disregard justice and the love of God; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.” Luke 11:42
3. Lori is a King James Onlyist
Lori said in a blog post she agrees with Michael Pearl who teaches KJV-Only. Pearl had said in that video, “I believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God and not the other books” (Michael Pearl). Pearl has also said,
“The others are not really translations, they’re not preservations of the Word of God. They’re modern renderings which involve somewhat the imagination of the authors, and they’re all done for the sake of selling something.” (MPearl)
This shows a lack of discernment on Lori’s part. It again demonstrates her total acceptance of what Michael and Debi Pearl teach, a stance she has repeated many times in affirming the Pearls’ ministry and defending their teachings.
Rebuttal: Dr. James White spends a few minutes with Todd Friel of Wretched (Wretched is a ministry Lori quotes and speaks well of), on the fact that while the KJV is good, as the centuries have passed and as more archaeological finds have occurred giving us original documents of the original Bible, there are better versions nowadays.
That video with Friel and White was 9 years ago and lately the Legacy Standard Bible has been issued. This new version is a spare updating of the original NASB 1995. The translators went back to the original languages of the Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. Alan Hunter spends 3 minutes explaining it, here.
It is of biblical concern she promotes KJV-onlyism which again I say, displays a lack of discernment. She wrote that she likes it, besides the fact that Michael Pearl taught that it’s the best and only version that is acceptable, but because homosexual is a recently made up word but the KJV uses sodomite and that is a way better word, Lori says. Oy.
One of the saddest signs of legalistic Christianity is the tenacious defense of the KJV as the only legitimate English-language translation. Almost as sad is that countless hours of scholars’ and pastors’ time must be diverted from the larger priorities of God’s kingdom to point out the numerous historical, logical, and factual errors of KJV Onlyism — even though these errors have been repeatedly exposed in the past.
4. Lori is unteachable. She resorts to victim status when challenged or corrected
Every teacher and every person with a ministry, has both a responsibility to be as correct as possible, and has a duty to be accountable to their own overseers and to those whom they teach. In ministry, we’re talking souls, we’re talking of eternal truths from the Bible, and we’re talking of our Sovereign King. Heavy stuff. Though we do not kowtow to trolls, and though we should have a fair amount of confidence in our own settled convictions that we teach, no one is above error. As Lori says constantly when defending the indefensible (more on that below) she overlooks and ignores error by constantly replying to challenges of Gothard or the Pearls or Hannah Pearl Davis, “no one is 100%”.
Well, that seems not to apply to her, because when she was asked about original sin by me, I was blocked right away. Others report the same, blocking rather than engaging. She never seems to give her teachings a fair evaluation when many, MANY who have pleaded with her to do just that. Nor does she give an evaluation of the terrible teachings of the Bill Gothard of IBLP or the Pearls (Debi & Michael) though constantly asked by many to do just that. Her reactions are knee-jerk defenses. Often they don’t make sense or she contradicts herself within the same posting.
A minister of the Gospel should be teachable, fair, and humbly allow correction when wrong. Lori does not. Rather than seek truth, she retreats behind a blocked wall, scrubs content, deletes tweets, hides comments, and carries on with error. Proverbs 12:1 applies here, which I’ll share in the KJV since Lori likes that version so much-
Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.
And then out comes the victim status. After asking about her stance on original sin, she messaged me, saying: “I can’t believe you’re scouring through my writings to find things against me that was stolen from my private chat room by trolls!”
There is no need to ‘scour’ writings since she has been on blogs and other social media since 2011, and all of them public. I asked about nothing that wasn’t public. ‘To find things against me’ is typical victimhood. In her mind, a person asking about the basis for her theology and lifestyle choices is actively trying to bring her down. She wants 100% agreement all the time, when in fact, questions about what a teacher has written is called reasoning together to find mutual understanding, or to enact repentance and correction.
And you say, “How I have hated discipline! And my heart spurned reproof! I have not listened to the voice of my instructors, And I have not inclined my ear to my teachers! I was almost in utter ruin In the midst of the assembly and congregation.”
What one expects of a teacher is right belief within orthodoxy, and the fruit of the spirit- two of which are teachability and humility. When a person lacks those, their doctrine becomes skewed, as well as their ability to discern.
5. Lori Alexander defends alleged instances of marital rape & engages in child beating, under the names ‘submission and ‘discipline’
This is a serious charge. I will back it up.
Lori gave advice on a video to a woman who said that her husband had asked her for sex and the wife had said no thanks, but the wife awoke to her husband in the middle of the night having sex with her anyway. The question the wife asked Lori was, ‘is this rape?’
In the video, Lori replied,
“I said well do you feel like you need to call the police and have them locked in jail because if true rape is when you’re assaulted and against your will by some stranger and you you feel like he’s worthy of being put in prison.”Here, time stamps 2:33, 2:51.
She received a lot of flak for that (rightly so) and in unteachable fashion, didn’t take fair look at her reply but doubled down instead. She said in a defensive-rebuttal blog post-
I told her that no, this wasn’t considered marital rape. Marital rape is when a husband forces himself upon his wife on a frequent basis while drunk or high on drugs or is simply an abusive, mean man. If there is true marital rape, there is physical abuse that comes with it. … It’s not that big of a deal!” source.
Wait, a woman has to be raped a bunch of times for it to be rape? Or he has to be high for it to be rape? It’s not rape if it only happened once, or if he was sober when he did it? If no physical evidence of your refusal can be seen, it’s not rape? (That’s an outdated 1980s rape culture philosophy that harmed and silenced many women). Lori said nothing about Jesus’ charge to the husband to exhibit self-control, or as Ephesians 5:29b says ‘he should nourish and cherish her just as Christ also does the church’.
She has extremely troubling views on consent and boundaries (which include positive mentions of husband swatting his wife on the behind? Corporal punishment of the wife?!)
Legally, most states consider it rape when the victim is unconscious. Further, regarding consent laws, “Researchers who have spoken to husband-rapists conclude that they rape to express anger, and to reinforce power, dominance, and control over their wives and families. • Stereotypes about women and sex such as women enjoy forced sex, women say “no” when they really mean “yes,” and it’s a wife’s duty to have sex continue to be reinforced in our culture. Such stereotypes mislead into believing they should ignore a woman’s protests. These stereotypes also mislead women into believing they must have sent the wrong signals. Women blame themselves for unwanted sexual encounters, believing they are bad wives for not enjoying sexual encounters, or believing they are bad wives for not enjoying sex against their will.”
With Lori Alexander, you begin to notice that everything is always the wife’s fault. She has a dim view of marriage, a joyless outlook, and dispenses advice filled with lots of legalism and blame. Like this screenshot.
Worse, when I read this account of her approach to ‘discipline’ I had to walk away and calm myself down. I grew up in a not-safe household where things like this happened or were threatened to happen. Lori Alexander, following the Pearls’ advice, beat her children in the name of godly submission and obedience.
Christmas is a time to celebrate the wondrous incarnation of Christ, to gather with family and prayerfully and joyfully speak and sing of His love, share gifts in that spirit. It isn’t to focus on the opportunity to abuse your children by hitting them in anger (severe lack of self-control to hit babies in anger!) for a totally appropriate child-like reaction to Christmas. Please note that there are many mentions of her hitting her children for being children, even crawling babies, urging women to hit them hard enough to make them feel pain so they won’t crawl off the blanket or display unwanted negative emotions.
It isn’t just about locking them outside on a cold morning. The act of closing your home’s door against your babies and toddlers should enrage even the most strict disciplinarian. All that “teaches” them is that you can be tossed out at a moment’s notice and that your home is NOT SAFE and it’s NOT PERMANENT. It just shows the kids that ‘home’ could be lost for the most trivial of reasons.
Here is a link to a Christianity Today Article from 2011 “When Child Discipline Becomes Abuse which notes several children have died under this cruel and abusive method that Lori encourages moms to use to this day. Yet she defends her actions of hitting babies with belts or a switch to this day.
Here is a page of 34 screen shots showing her stance on physical punishment of under-three-year-olds. The one where she says make sure you’re in a state that allows you to use an instrument like a belt or a rod rather than just a hand…smh. And advising women to ‘break the child’s will’? Where is the nurturing and loving admonishment?
She kicked her cat, too, hard enough to break its ribs if she’d actually connected. She smacks her babies in anger, why not the cat? (Source)
“Blanket Training” is a technique in the Pearl’s book that involves putting a 6 month old baby on the floor on a blanket, putting a few toys just off the blanket, encouraging the baby to crawl off the blanket to get the toy, then and then hitting the child with an implement like a wooden spoon or a stick if they do so. Repeat until the child remains on the blanket despite temptations.
This is a practice Lori Alexander enacted and approves of. I’d show you recent screen shots from Twitter but she has deleted them. Nevertheless, here is one reply to one of Lori’s now-deleted tweets approving of blanket training,
@jannabstil: Blanket training is holding power over the powerless. Putting out toys that they can’t have, and then hitting them when they reach for it..you are tempting them to sin. Something Jesus never did and says not to do. Obedience should never be taught using fear. This is abuse.
Tim Challies is a book reviewer, author, blogger, and pastor. He reviewed Debi Pearl’s book and Michael Pearl’s books books negatively. This is the method Lori says completely transformed her and which she follows to the letter. Tim is Canadian and known to be an even more polite Canadian than most Canadians. Even if a book review is negative, it’s usually softly presented. Not this time. He reviewed both the Pearls’ books severely.
Throughout the book, Pearl shows that she is a poor and unwise mentor. In place of the wisdom and the fruit of the Spirit that ought to mark a mentor, she displays a harsh and critical spirit, she offers foolish counsel, she teaches poor theology, she misuses Scripture, and she utterly misses the centrality of the gospel.
A student will go no higher than her teacher, and thus, Lori is exactly the same as Challies described Debi Pearl above.
Michael Pearl’s book How to Train up a Child, a review titled by Challies “How (Not to) Train up a Child” had so much to say he made his review into two parts. (Part 1, Part 2). About Michael Pearl’s book, Challies said
But the fact remains that the weight of the book is driven by an unbiblical view of human nature which in turn leads to the wrong emphases. In place of the gracious, loving mercy of gospel is the harsh justice of law.
And that is the same spirit that touched Lori Alexander so much that it ‘transformed’ her, and sadly, which she displays in her online persona via Tweets, Youtubes, TikToks, blogs, Facebook, and Instagram posts. Remember, it was Debi Pearl’s book that she says transformed her, NOT the Holy Spirit’s illuminating truth to her mind. THAT is why her advice is twisted and legalistic, because it’s not based on God’s book, but on her idol’s book.
Lori Alexander’s dependence on the KJV only, the Pearls, and to a lesser degree Bill Gothard’s teachings, along with a limited view of scripture has drawn her into a sphere where she dispenses seemingly surface good advice but comes from a very cultish place.
“It’s a culture of fear, is what it is,” says Veinot, who wrote a book about Gothard and IBLP. “If you [follow] these rules, you make God happy and thereby will be protected. If you violate the rules, then you will be punished: Your car will break down and your washing machine won’t work and your kids will rebel.” The charismatic leader, the authoritarian control, the isolation of members, the severe punishments, the demand for absolute and blind loyalty—all those elements outlined in the lawsuit add up to IBLP being “cult-like,” he says.
He was speaking of the Gothardites but I find his assessment can and should be applied to Lori Alexander, who is a kind of Gothardite herself.
Ladies, don’t be so relieved you found someone online who refreshingly teaches biblical womanhood that you overlook the serious flaws from the Transformed Wife’s ministry. She’s wrong on not teaching doctrine to other women, she’s wrong on the Pearls, she’s wrong on the Duggars, she’s wrong on Bill Gothard, she’s wrong on KJV-only, she’s wrong on her version of wifely submission and the husband’s role.
Yes, she pushes back against culture but does it so far and so hard far that she enters legalistic, pharisaical territory. Many of her teachings are in absolutes, as in these paraphrased attitudes-
‘No wife should EVER work outside the home’, ‘higher education for a woman means she is a feminist’, ‘anyone who critiques me is a hater Jezebel,’ and this a direct quote- “Our culture sure isn’t turning out many great children now; that’s for sure.”
I’d encourage women to watch these two videos, and compare against the tone and content of Lori’s teachings. The first is a short video of a mom listening to her boy after he’d been thru the consequence of his disobedience and had a tantrum. He had calmed down and was talking it through. Can you envision Lori gently speaking with her son this way? Or does the picture of Christmas morning and in fury smacking her son with a slipper come to mind? It’s just 1:18 long.
This next one is a marvelous Titus 2 woman from ‘across the pond’. She is Sharon Dickens, who has been in Women’s Ministry for 25 plus years, written books on biblical womanhood, and has a loving approach to being a Titus 2 woman. Think of the end goal here. Lori’s end goal is always telling women to submit and that everything that goes wrong in a marriage is her fault. That is her only mantra. And because she has restricted herself from speaking of Jesus, her mantras are devoid of love.
Here Sharon is interviewed by Exposit the Word’s UK leader, David Knight. David asked her about her church’s ministry program, “20 schemes” (a scheme in Scotland is akin to a lower middle-class neighborhood or ‘the projects’).
She said, “Growing up the next generation and [unintelligible] leaders that’s what I get excited about. I mean God saving people and then investing in them and seeing them moving to become all that God has meant them to be. So, women’s ministries, yeah I love I love the ministry. My role in that as Director of Women’s Ministries is I love seeing God save and transform and then I love seeing our new believers fulfill their full potential.“
Wow. What a breath of fresh air, taking joy in salvations, attributing womens’ sanctification to God, and reveling in ladies growing in His likeness. And Sharon puts her money where her mouth is, teaching the whole Bible to whole women, enjoying Christ and being transformative via His word shared in real lives.
Friends, rather than simply taking Lori’s words at face value, look at what she says AND does. I’d heard somewhere that “When someone shows you who they are, believe them.”
Conclusion
Lori Alexander has a lot of influence. Here is an article from 2018 describing her influence:
She has a massive following of over 232,000. This is concerning to me. She is on Facebook, Administers a private chat room, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Gab Social, Youtube, and has a blog probably with subscribers and for sure, readers.
I urge women, especially younger women who may be relieved to discover a conservative and traditional older women, to avoid Lori Alexander. And I haven’t even gone into the hypocrisy and contradictions, of which there are many. (The Wiki link below has them, so take a look).
In delving into her videos, posts, tweets, books, and influences, I have come to the conclusion she is completely unedifying. In my opinion she is a rigid, joyless, emotional miser, mindlessly defending the cult of Gothard and Pearl, and promoting unthinking, soul-shrinking capitulation, not joyful soul-expanding submission.
Her entire ministry is one of berating, warnings, and loveless unconcern for the many women to look to her for advice. Rather than exhibiting joyful submission in honor of the grace bestowed by a compassionate savior nurturing his sheep, she advises dour duty and plodding legalism heavier than a weight around one’s neck. Lori Alexander IS a millstone, and she will weigh you down and bring you down if you follow her.
My conclusion is based on the unbiblical view she has of doctrine, of her narrow interpretation of Titus 2, of her own words regarding marital sex (not lovemaking, and btw a subject she discusses way too frequently for a discreet godly woman she alleges to be), and her own words regarding her spiritual gurus Gothard and Pearl.
What did Jesus excoriate the most? The rigid legalism of the Pharisees. Remember, He pronounced WOES upon them for doing what they did to the helpless sheep. Woes represent his deepest anger. I weep for young ladies who get drawn into Lori’s sphere. There are more wholesome and balanced women’s ministries out there.
The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses. Therefore, whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all, but do not do as they do; for they say things and do not do them. And they tie up heavy burdens and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as their finger. And they do all their deeds to be noticed by other people…(Matthew 23:2-5a).
My discernment radar is off the charts with this ministry. Her influence is vast, the danger is real. I found this entry below to be fair and is saturated with links to original words or screen shots.
The following is a critique of Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles (IBLP) by well-respected journalist Don Veinot. Lori vehemently defends alleged child abuser Bill Gothard, summarily rejects accusations of his alleged cult, and vigorously defends the Duggars, rejecting allegations of child abuse & molestation in the family. She has come out with several blogs affirming the Duggars in the face of the documentary exposing the abuse and cult-like atmosphere, and published another one today, claiming it is the evil ‘globalists’ agenda’ behind the doc.
As I said, Lori lacks discernment and is so invested in her own system she won’t entertain even an iota of mention that it is false. To her, wifely submission is more important that rightly regarding Christ.
Sharon Dickens is a good role model:
I am certainly not the first person to critique Lori Alexander. Many have been saying these things for years and still do to this day. I am a Johnny Come Lately. But here are a couple of other critiques I found that I think are accurate:
I listened to two videos from Gina at Where the Wild Bee Wings critiquing Lori Alexander/The Transformed Wife. I just found Gina today. I am not familiar with Gina’s videos except the two I watched on Lori and one on morning coffee.
I find her gentle and honest and spot-on. I was impressed, for two reasons. First because the first video I watched began with an explanation of why Gina had deleted her original video critiquing Lori Alexander. A commenter had made a gentle rebuke and asked Gina to think about it. Gina did think about it, agreed with the rebuke, and then deleted her entire video and remade it in better fashion. I was impressed with this and it made me want to listen to her more. That is being teachable and humble!
Secondly, because Gina makes insightful comments. Here is another video from Gina rebutting the blog essay Lori wrote about not expecting the husband to fulfill emotional needs (here). And a video about Lori’s reaction to Shiny Happy People docuseries and Lori’s defense of the Duggars. (here).
Disclaimers
Yes, I have ‘gone to Lori’ personally. It didn’t last long. I asked the one question about original sin, and she complained I was out to get her like the rest of her trolls, blocked me and misstated on her blog what had happened. Secondly, going to a person privately when critiquing her public ministry is not necessary. It’s nice, but not mandated.
No, I’m not “jealous” of Lori’s marriage, her following, or her life. Why would I be jealous of someone Jesus is probably going to pronounce woes upon? The question is, are you concerned for thousands of young women who cling to her awful advice, which includes mishandling scripture, bad psychiatry, untrained medical pronouncements, hypocrisy, and child abuse?
I am a member in good standing of a local, elder led, expository church and I believe in the God-ordained role for women: The older to minister as Titus 2 says to the younger, and for the younger, to become wives and moms IF the Lord grants a husband and/or children. I believe the Bible is patriarchal, and that husbands lead families and men lead churches.
I believe that women especially if married should make home their primary orientation and that is what I teach and encourage, BUT that each husband and wife come to their own decisions regarding women’s work outside the home and anyone who makes generalized absolute pronouncements upon others with no knowledge (like Lori Alexander does) is a legalist and an ignorant busybody.
Recommended women’s ministries- they teach online and in real life with grace and humility, and with these ladies, Christ is central, not just “submission”.
Women’s Hope: A podcast: Join Dr. Shelbi Cullen and Kimberly Cummings as they bring hope and encouragement through 25 years of combined experience in biblical discipleship.
I have written about Beth Moore’s legalism in the past (2011). It’s hard to believe that was 7 years ago. Here is a refresher course on how, while seeming to speak a Gospel-infused sermon, Beth Moore’s speeches are really just a ‘try harder’ legalism. This is a lesson in discernment.
You have to listen carefully and do a lot of note-taking because Moore speaks so fast, or if you listen online, use the pause button a lot. Her ‘try harder’ theology is also in her books as you will see, so the issue is not just her speaking style, but her theology. You will hear that Beth Moore shapes the scriptures away from pure faith and toward legalism. She splits sentences, putting a crowbar between words and inserting things you’ve ‘got’ to do. There is a lot of ‘do this or else’. There are also lots of warnings about the dire conditions of our walk, without real explanations. Like this from a few days ago.
It seems she is trying to say that we shouldn’t be too busy. Too busy for what, she never says. Yet after more than three successive tweets (yes, it went on) she never got to any clear point. Milk meaning from graffiti? Huffing and puffing? And what does it mean, exactly, that we are ‘blowing our houses down’? A teacher is supposed to be “able to teach.” (2 Timothy 2:24). Not vaguely warn. Or be so in love with her writing that plain meaning is obscured…
Our precious Lord gave salvation as a gift. No matter how we stumble, or no matter how many times we enter a sin-repent-forgive cycle, we are saved and effective for His glory. He gave us a GIFT of salvation. It is the gift of redemption, a gift of imputed righteousness. Here are some examples of how Moore diminishes the gift of the Gospel and makes it a confusing, burdensome, treacherous walk among the heavy stones of the Law.
Her contemplative prayer quote: “[I]f we are not still before Him, we will never truly know to the depths of the marrow of our bones that He is God. There’s got to be a stillness.”
According to Moore, we will “never” “truly” know who God is UNLESS we are still. Beware of Bible teachers who frequently use absolute words.
In one study, Beth Moore is speaking of ‘confidence and competence’ that Christ gives us. The study is based on Hebrews 10:19-20 but her interpretation of the verse is wrong from the beginning. Once the basic interpretation is wrong it is no surprise that what follows falls into even worse error. Watch carefully as she inserts conditions to salvation. She even outlines the effect of not believing the new add-ons that she includes.
…but what can happen is this … If we receive Christ as our Savior but we never recognize and by faith believe Him to also be our healer and our restorer then we just stay just as cracked as when we got here.
The Gospel is now Law. According to Moore, we have to believe some things above and beyond what the Bible says we need to believe for salvation. According to Moore, we must believe in a different Christ than the Jesus presented in His Word. I certainly don’t see anything in His word about having to believe that Jesus is our Savior AND our Healer AND our Restorer or else we stay “cracked”. And what does cracked mean, exactly? This is some vague warning of looming disaster, the kind of warnings Moore loves to issue.
Now as for this cracked business, the Bible does speak of being cracked:
For My people have committed two evils: They have forsaken Me, The fountain of living waters, To hew for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns That can hold no water. (Jeremiah 2:13).
The cracked ones were the ones who forsook God. They were the evil ones.
But when Jesus saves us, we are sealed! “Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and has anointed us is God, who also has sealed us and given us the Spirit in our hearts as a guarantee.” (2 Corinthians 1:21-22).
There is no in-between in the New Testament, being saved but leaking through a crack.
…it [confidence] just bleeds out everywhere, we can’t keep any confidence in there. Because we have never trusted Him to put three pieces of our lives back together. Is this making any sense to anybody? We have all these cracks and all these pieces. … And we’re supposed to be effective here on earth. … Salt and light and profoundly effective, but we can’t be any of that unless we have our God-confidence.
Again with the “we can’t…unless”. Note those words.
As to Moore’s addition of confidence as a necessary condition of keeping our salvation or being effective or something, Jeremiah wasn’t confident. His first worry was that he was too young for the job. (Jeremiah 1:6-8). By any standard, Jeremiah was an effective man of God.
Moses wasn’t confident. He worried he wasn’t eloquent enough to be a spokesman. (Exodus 4:10-12). By any standard, Moses was not too confident, but he sure was effective.
So far, from just three of her teachings we learn that —
1. Unless we accept Jesus as savior AND Healer AND Restorer, His work is not sufficient.
2. Unless we get some God-confidence, we are not effective.
3. Unless we believe certain things about Jesus, we will stay cracked.
4. Unless we are still, we will never truly know God.
Moore’s book Breaking Free: Making Liberty in Christ a Reality in Life was reviewed by Paige Britton.
Britton says, “One rather ironic element of Moore’s teaching is her definition of “legalism,” one of the roadblocks we must remove if we want to journey on to authentic freedom. According to Moore, legalism occurs whenever one studies the Word but fails to enjoy God; it is the absence of relationship, passion, engagement of the heart (pp.75, 77). This definition is fine as far as it goes, but it effectively obscures the fact that Breaking Free is all about applying new rules in order to gain what God meant for us as a gift in Christ.
Isn’t that ironic. A book called Breaking Free is really just a new way to enslave you. Moore makes up and applies new rules to gain what was given as a gift says Britton, and I have noticed this too. So we have issues with new rules in Moore’s speaking ministry and in her tweets and in her books. Her theology, no matter where it’s publicly proffered, is a problem.
Once you start hearing the “got to” and “must do” and “unless you” you will hear her new rules permeating her teaching everywhere.
What does the Bible say about new rules for salvation? It says that adding an unbiblical load kills us.
“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load. (Luke 11:46).
Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10).
Don’t listen to Moore or any teacher who imposes conditions on your walk that are absent from the Bible. Or who uses absolute words like unless, can’t, always, never, all the time, and so on. The Father loves us with an enduring, everlasting love that is perfect. Moreover, He is our priest who prays for us. He sends angels to minister to us. He gave us the Spirit to grow us. We are not cracked, leaking, unconfident, missing out on what we need, ineffective, on the verge of disaster, or any of the things Moore says we are. Moore’s world must be dark and heavy indeed.
Our world, though a mindful one and filled with obedient striving, is one of light and freedom from the very conditions Moore seeks to impose. This is because we are in Christ, and He met all the conditions necessary on the cross and broke that chain, in order to set the captives free.
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not be encumbered once more by a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1).
Of late the secular world has mocked a Christian. It’s not news.
Except that the Christian they mocked was the Vice President of the United States, which tends to be news. Further, the mocking ensued because Pence had said he chooses to honor his wife by not spending time alone with women, including eating in restaurants alone with them.
Gasp. Yawn.
This week Vice President Mike Pence was called everything from crazy to bizarre to employing ‘benevolent sexism’ to being a misogynist. In one of the more tame news articles about the issue was the UK Guardian. I chose The Guardian over CNN, NPR, Time Magazine etc. specifically because the media outlet is not American and hopefully they would have some objectivity. Author of the article, Jessica Valenti, opened it this way:
One conservative blogger questioned where there was ever a good reason for a married person to eat out alone with a member of the opposite sex; the former CEO of the blog RedState chimed in to answer: “Planning your spouse’s surprise party or funeral and that is it.”
Left, VP Pence with wife Karen at Pre-Inaugural dance. Source
So far, so good. Valenti ended her article this way:
Pence is a misogynist. We know it from his voting record, we know it from the things that he’s said about women’s rights and now we know it because of his odd personal rule not to dine with women alone. But let’s not let one man’s sexism distract us from his whole party’s sexist agenda.
OK, so maybe the objective perspective I was hoping for isn’t there after all. But are we surprised? No. Alternately, The Baptist Press wrote:
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary President Daniel Akin responded that he has made the same commitment to his wife Charlotte … Akin, author of two books about marriage based on the Bible’s Song of Solomon, told Baptist Press, “The day I married Charlotte I made the same pledge to her that Mike Pence has made to his wife. I have never broken it. I promised her I would never be alone with any woman other than she. I did not make this promise because I am afraid of women or think they are of lesser value and worth than men. I made it because I know the sinfulness of my own heart.
“The Bible teaches us that King David was a man after God’s own heart,” Akin said in written comments. “But because he was at the wrong place, at the wrong time and with the wrong person, he lied, committed adultery and murdered. I doubt I love God more than David. If something like that could happen to him, then it could happen to me. My goal is to go to my grave being faithful to Charlotte. I really don’t care what the world thinks when it comes to this issue.”
Akin’s explanation goes to the heart of Godly conduct. There is a difference between loving God and wanting to honor Him through our behavior, and men who want to appear sincere because they seek man’sglory and applause.
In the late 1940s and 1950s, the Rev. Billy Graham became the
‘primary engine of America’s Cold War religious revival.’ Source
Courtesy of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association BY TIM FUNK
Mike Pence’s vow comes from what’s colloquially called “The Billy Graham Rule.”
In 1948 when the famed traveling evangelist was starting what became his itinerant global program, Graham realized that certain problems had consistently plagued previous traveling preachers. At that time, Graham was also grievously affected after reading the 1927 book by Sinclair Lewis, Elmer Gantry.
Gantry is an incendiary indictment upon huckster preachers. Author Lewis exposed the fictional character’s hypocritical mindset from the inside of the huckster’s conscience and showed the true evil of religious charlatanism. The book infuriated America. Here is Wikipedia with a synopsis of the book’s reception:
The result is a novel that satirically represents the religious activity of America in evangelistic circles and the attitudes of the 1920s toward it. On publication in 1927, Elmer Gantry created a public furor. The book was banned in Boston and other cities and denounced from pulpits across the United States.
Elmer Gantry had a profound effect not just on America, but on the young up and coming traveling evangelist Billy Graham, who urgently and vocally stated he wanted to avoid any perception of similarity to the scurrilous Gantry.
Adding insult to injury, Graham was particularly stung after seeing an Atlanta Journal Constitution photographic array that juxtaposes one photo of a smiling, hearty, waving Graham with another photo of men carrying away two huge bags of money after the Crusade’s love offering in that city. Graham wrote,
The day after the closing meeting on December 10 [1950], the Atlanta Constitution, accompanying its wrap-up story of the Crusade, printed two pictures side by side. In the first, I was grinning broadly and waving good-bye as I stepped into a car for my departure to South Carolina. In the next, two Crusade ushers, with a uniformed police sergeant between them, could barely wrap their arms around four bulging money sacks. “GRAHAM ‘LOVE OFFERING’ COLLECTED AT FINAL SERVICE,” read the caption. I was horrified by the implication. Was I an Elmer Gantry who had successfully fleeced another flock? Many might just decide I was.
Graham wanted at all costs to avoid that perception. Graham’s main concern, as he wrote in his autobiography and stated in interviews and press conferences, was public perception. Obedience to Biblical precepts were not mentioned nearly so often and never as the main reason Graham instituted his Rules, one of which involved the ‘never alone with women’ vow. There are actually 4 “rules” the then-group created for themselves as a boundary of their personal conduct while away from home. One was the aforementioned “never eat alone/be alone with a woman”. Also, never to inflate attendance numbers and always report honestly. Third, be scrupulous and transparent in finances. Last, they would avoid criticism of local churches.
According to Graham’s autobiography Just As I Am,the magazine Christianity Today has a short recounting of how this ‘rule’ began:
“Sinclair Lewis’s fictional character Elmer Gantry had given traveling evangelists a bad name. To our sorrow, we knew that some evangelists were not much better than Lewis’s scornful caricature. One afternoon during the Modesto meetings, I called the team together to discuss the problem. Then I asked them to go to their rooms for an hour and list all the problems they could think of that evangelists and evangelism encountered. When they returned, the lists were remarkably similar, and we soon made a series of resolutions that would guide us in our future work.”
I make the point that it is good that men (and women) want to conform to God’s standards of behavior with respect to personal piety. It’s good. However where the sticky wicket comes in is the motivation for doing so. Is the person doing it to please God, or men? (Galatians 1:10).
Graham says of the issue, “There is always the chance of misunderstanding. I remember walking down the street in New York with my beautiful blond daughter, Bunny. I was holding her hand. I heard somebody behind us say, ‘There goes Billy Graham with one of those blond girls.'”
Graham and his associates also charted a careful, if rather unusual strategy to ensure the evangelist would not be tainted by the suspicion of sexual impropriety. From that point on, Graham would not to travel, meet, or dine alone with any woman other than his wife Ruth — even his very own daughters when they came of age.
~Source, Billy Graham, Elmer Gantry, and the Performance of a New American Revivalism, a dissertation by Kurt A. Edwards
The favorable side of adopting “rules” are that they can be a personal stamp on biblical precepts, applied to life. Following rules is to be done unto the glory of God to the praise of God. Personal piety is an act of worship, it’s not an external performance. The danger with man-made “rules” are more numerous. You have the danger of hypocritical piety. You have the danger of elevating your rule over the Bible. You have the danger of the rule becoming codified into tradition. You have rather than upholding God’s precepts, disobedience of them. In Graham’s case, if Mr Edwards’ quote is correct, Graham chose to sacrifice his relationship with his adult daughters so as to avoid perceptions of impropriety and man’s disapproval.
The Bible says in Ephesians 6:4, “Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.” And in Colossians 3:1 we read, “Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.”
The most proximate cause of the Pharisees’ antagonism toward Jesus, however, lay in His ignoring of their hundreds of elaborate but petty rules that they had devised for interpreting the law of God. Not only did they devise these hundreds of man-made rules, but they had also elevated them to the level of Scripture, so that to break one of their rules was to violate the law of God itself. And yet these rules not only obscured the true intent of God’s law, but also, in some cases, actually violated it (see Mark 7:9–13).
Are Billy Graham’s four “rules” God-honoring, or Pharisaical? Again, it depends on the reason for creating the rules and it depends a few other things, too. Here, Cameron Buettel’s recent series at John MacArthur’s site helps. He wrote that there were several biblical earmarks of these corrupt [Pharisaical] characters. One of them is:
The Pharisees were far more fixated with enforcing their own pharisaical legal code than they were with administering God’s law. They did this by adding mountains of unbiblical fine print to biblical commands as well as inventing their own doctrines apart from Scripture:
Thankfully, we don’t have to live under the oppressive minutia of pharisaical rules. Nonetheless, many Christians do live their lives in bondage to a similar strain of legalism—one where their Christian identity is largely defined by man-made rules.
That was certainly the case in my earliest experiences as a new Christian. The church I attended had roots in the holiness movement, and the pastor was certainly old school. He believed that salvation was solely by God’s grace, but maintaining that salvation was another story altogether.
My early Christian education primarily revolved around what not to do. Drinking, gambling, dancing, and close proximity to the opposite sex were all strictly taboo. Maintaining that code of conduct made me a member in good standing at my local congregation. Admittedly, I believe following those rules spared me from a lot of personal grief as a young man. But trying to live out those prohibitions was detrimental to my theology—I developed an inverted view of sanctification, believing that good works were the requirement rather than the natural fruit of spiritual regeneration. Source
Establishing our own rules bounding our personal godly conduct can be good. However, they can easily morph into external appearances for man’s approval. As I read numerous and voluminous primary and secondary sources in Graham’s case, Graham had primarily instituted the rules known as the Modesto Manifesto due to his intent to avoid public perception as an Elmer Gantry huckster-type character. And that’s not a good enough reason. (Matthew 23:5).
If one plans to institute rules for one’s life along biblical lines, I believe President Akin’s intent proves the more eternal one. It is an intent grounded in the question, ‘Do I love God more than I love the applause and regard of men?’ It is, ‘Am I being faithful to His precepts and carrying them out in life, to His glory?’ Only the individual man or woman knows their most secret temptations, and appeals to the Spirit might have resulted in their decision to establish personal rules. Others deal with temptations a different way. Ultimately, don’t let the rules become all.
As Buettel stated, we need to be wary of ‘adding mountains of unbiblical fine print to biblical commands as well as inventing our own doctrines apart from Scripture’ in order to pursue holiness. Though personal rules might help. It’s the Holy Spirit who conforms us to Jesus, through our resistance to temptation and mortification f sin, not how well we appear to others.
For you did not receive a spirit of slavery that returns you to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!” (Romans 8:15).
Left, VP Pence with wife Karen at Pre-Inaugural dance. 
the-end-time.org 