By Elizabeth Prata
The author challenges the claim that Titus 2 limits older women to teaching homemaking. Examining context and the Greek term “teacher of good,” the piece asserts that Paul calls women to transmit sound doctrine and practical holiness, intertwining orthodoxy and orthopraxy in intergenerational discipleship, not merely domestic skills.
Continue reading “Not Just Housekeeping: The Deeper Call of Titus 2:3–5”By Elizabeth Prata
SYNOPSIS
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.
Continue reading “Is It Sinful For Single Women to Be in the Workforce?”by Elizabeth Prata
Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife of Twitter’s @godlywomanhood is the negative gift that keeps on giving. She is so prodigious in her errant output, there is a lot to choose from when I write an essay instructing sisters in discernment.
The genius of satan’s false teaching is that false teaching sounds good on the surface. It even has a grain of truth. If false teaching was overtly wrong, everyone could detect it. “The ocean is dry” is something that’s so patently false you know right away it’s wrong.
Satan is subtle and crafty (Genesis 3:1). It’s the first thing we learn about him.
Lori is a King James Onlyist. She agrees with her idol Michael Pearl who claims that only “the King James Bible is the word of God and not the other books“(source) and that all the other translations “are not really translations, they are not preservations of the word of God, they are modern renderings which involve somewhat the imagination of the authors. They are all done for the sake of selling something.” (Source). So, that is the first error from Lori, to reject all other translations. She does not have a handle on how or why Bible translations are done. Some translations are better than others, but to reject out of hand the NASB, LSB, ESV, NKJV and other good translations as not the word of God is a mistake.
Resource: What is the King James Only movement?
The other day Lori posted the following on X (formerly Twitter):
OK, good food for thought, right? Partly, yes. I mean, for one, it is an issue that Lori neglected to include a verse and just stated her opinion. On the other hand, selfie culture is self-absorbed. I mean, it’s right in the name. It makes you think, is taking selfies something God would be displeased with?
But I mention the King James issue for a reason. The language in that particular version is archaic, which means, some of the words have shifted meaning. Words are living, organic. I love certain verses better in the KJV myself, but I have no illusions that it is the ONLY translation worthy of including in the cadre of translations.
For example, in 2 Timothy 3:3 in the King James version we read that in the latter days, people will be “Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,“
The word incontinent is a late Middle English word. It meant a person who is unable to exercise self-control or restraint. Nowadays it means an inability to control the flow of urine from the bladder. The chart displays its common usage over time, which has declined.
The verse Lori alluded to when she wrote shamefaced is 1 Timothy 2:9. I use the NASB and LSB. The link takes you to a page with ALL the translations.
KJV: In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
The word ‘broided’ is not a typo. It is defined as to decorate with needlework or embroidery. We don’t use that word much anymore either. The KJV was completed in 1611. Words have shifted meaning in 400 years. If anyone doubts this, read Shakespeare.
Comparing to the NASB: Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or expensive apparel,
“shamefaced” literally in the Greek means “modestly”. In fact, prior to the KJV that Lori loves so much, the word was translated shamefastness. You see the archaic language and the fact that words change. Using a synonym modestly for shamefaced is perfectly fine, and easier for modern readers to understand.
Secondly, Lori’s insistence on teaching ONLY from the verse in Titus 2:3-5 means she often takes verses out of context. The verse to which she alludes (but doesn’t name) in her post involves the comportment of women in public worship, not taking photos of themselves in other life venues.
Barnes’ Notes explains: The world, as God has made it, is full of beauty, and he has shown in each flower that he is not opposed to true ornament. There are multitudes of things which, so far as we can see, appear to be designed for mere ornament, or are made merely because they are beautiful. Religion does not forbid true adorning. It differs from the world only on the question what “is” true ornament…
However, the concept of self in photographs is one that we should look into. Rather than misusing a verse, rather than taking a half of a verse out of context, rather than using an allusion to a verse as one’s own opinion, let’s take a look at the idea behind Lori’s comment.
Should we be taking selfies? Is it indicative of an untoward self-absorption as a Christian woman?
GotQuestions takes on the issue in this essay What does the Bible say that would apply to selfie culture?
“A “selfie culture” is one in which people take a lot of selfies, of course. But, for the purposes of this article, we will further define a selfie culture as a widespread obsession with self-expression, self-esteem, and self-promotion, evidenced by the proliferation of self-portraits on social media. The Bible was written before the advent of camera phones, but God’s Word still has plenty to say about one’s view of self. While there is nothing inherently wrong with taking a selfie and sharing it with others, selfie culture, as defined above, is steeped in narcissism.”
A woman can decide for herself if she wants to take a photo of herself.
If a woman is consumed with self and posting obsessively all kinds of pictures of herself, then yes, there is a self-absorption issue and she needs to repent.
God’s commands to women are many. ONE is to be modest. Others are to serve others, to be selfless, to take care of her family, and so on. Taking a selfie now and then does not violate God’s commands for women. I mean, obviously not, else Lori herself would be violating God’s commands for her nearly daily selfie videos, right?
Ladies, watch out for the craftiness of false doctrine. It sounds good at first, but like a candy coated cyanide treat, it will eventually kill you. Look carefully before consuming.
By Elizabeth Prata
Lori Alexander is known by her handle The Transformed Wife. Her TwitterX handle is godlywomanhood. She maintains many social media accounts for the express purpose, she says, of teaching women to be keepers at home, as per Titus 2:3-5.
On October 21, 2024, Lori The Transformed Wife, @godlywomanhood wrote-
This is for any of you who think my life is no different than the popular female preachers, influencers, book writers, speakers, and podcasters. I am home full time and always available for my family. I never travel. I’ve never given a speech anywhere. I stopped doing interviews. I donate all the money from my books to a pro-life organization. I just write or do a short video when something comes to mind. I mentor many women privately and on my social media sites in the ways of biblical womanhood as God commands. I stay within the boundary God has given to me to teach in Titus 2:3-5. I am a keeper at home as God commands. 3:06 PM Oct 21, 2024
I am glad she noticed the apparent contradiction of her constant shaming of women who work outside the home compared to her constant work for her ‘ministry’ inside her home. By my count she is on Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, Facebook Private group, Pinterest, TikTok her blog, Instagram, and who know what else. Constantly. These are not dormant platforms. Lori is active. She creates a LOT of content almost every day. She not only works at creating content but manages donations and royalties from her published books, so, she is also working with her finances, too. She is busy.
As I say so often, don’t look at only what these women say, look at what they do. In her defensive posting, Lori unwittingly admits to blogging, authoring, mentoring, youtubing, responding to contacts, interviewing, and managing her finances. Just because she does it at home instead of an office does not negate the fact that she is extremely busy with her work. Anyone seeing the excessive abundance of her output would note the same. She is deluding herself.
I noticed this kind of self-delusion (or outright lie) in an early Beth Moore blog essay. I had read in a 2010 Christianity Today article, where the interviewer of Beth Moore had stated,
“…she insists on maintaining a regular schedule, traveling every other Friday night and coming home the next night. “We walk the dogs together and eat out together all the time and lie on the floor with pillows and watch TV,” Moore says. “My man demanded attention and he got it, and my man demanded a normal home life and he got it.”
No. The maths ain’t mathing. A normal life? Hardly.
I had already noted that year Moore’s heavy travel schedule at the time, her mention of spending 2 weeks secluded in a cabin in Wyoming to write her book, her book tours, her speaking engagements apart from Living Proof, her TV appearances, her IRS tax-return statement that she worked 50 hours per week at her office in Houston. She was busy. What Moore was claiming and what she was actually doing did not match up.
Is she deluding herself? Is she deceiving others? Both.
I noticed the same with Diana Stone. When Diana Stone was writing for She Reads Truth, we read in Diana Stone’s bio that, “You can find her in the mornings with a cup of coffee and her Bible flung open, preparing for the day ahead.” And “With a sweet daughter in tow, Diana clings to God’s Word daily.“
It turns out that Mrs. Stone relaxes with the Bible “flung open” … after she dropped her daughter to daycare. At the time of that writing, in 2014, the couple had employed a part time nanny to care for their daughter in their home so Mrs. Stone could work as a freelance writer. After bumping along with several nannies, (likely not a fun time for the children with personnel coming and going) they put their child in daycare so Mrs. Stone could continue to write at home. So yes, she was at home…while a day care worker took care of her kid. What she tells the public and what is actually going on did not match up.
It was the same with so many others such as Priscilla Shirer, Joanna Gaines, Jackie Hill Perry… If a Christian mother chooses a career and also has children, one or the other, or both, will suffer. No matter how they try to spin it.
It is impossible for a woman to claim undivided attention for the children at home AND have an outside the house career, especially when it’s evident by reading their blogs, seeing their speaking schedules, and just having common sense to see their lifestyle. These women on the speaking circuit are either deluding themselves or their audience, or both. But the main problem is the hypocrisy of saying you live godly as a wife and mom but living your career too.
If a woman and her husband decide she needs to work outside the home, there may be good reasons for that to which the outsider is not privy. Sheerah in the Bible was “a builder.” Rachel was a shepherdess. Deborah was a wife but also a Judge. Lydia ran a business of selling purple but also had her own household. There ARE examples of women in the Bible who worked.
But if she is a mother, yes, then her first priority should be the children. John Mark was blessed with a mom and a grandma who raised him in the admonition of the Law. Don’t be fooled by mothers who have young children at home who try to talk the talk about being totally oriented to the home all the while living a different lifestyle away from the home. We aren’t dumb. We see you.
If you have to work, so be it. There may be good reasons. On the flip side, if you’re ashamed of being a stay at home mom, realize it is a magnificent thing. The point is, there is no room for self-deception and no call to deceive others…unless that is the intent.
By Elizabeth Prata
Last week I wrote a series on discernment in 6 essays. They are below. I called it “Wolf Week” because false teachers are called wolves in scripture. My own version of Shark Week, lol.
Wolf Week Intro: or, We DO know the heart
Wolf Week # 1: My two “starter false teachers”
Wolf Week # 2: Why Wolves?
Wolf Week # 3: Types of false teachers and their different methods
Wolf Week # 4: Has that false teacher REALLY ‘helped’ you?
Wolf Week # 5: Why does God allow false teachers?
A short follow-up series I am publishing contains 5 more essays in short form focusing on 4 influential ‘Bible’ teachers. I have written discernment essays on these four previously in years past, but those essays were longer. Nowadays however, people like to read less lengthy material. So I cut to the chase and made shorter essays showing why these folks are false.
Here they all are in one place:
Cut to the Chase: Priscilla Shirer
Cut to the chase: Six Reasons why Joyce Meyer is a false teacher
Cut to the chase: Five reasons to avoid Jackie Hill Perry
Cut to the chase: Four reasons to avoid Lori Alexander of godlywomanhood
Cut to the chase: Six reasons why you should avoid Beth Moore
Cut to the Chase: Three (probably four) Reasons to Avoid David Platt
Cut To The Chase: Discerning Ann Voskamp
Cut to the Chase: “Experiencing God by Blackaby & King
By Elizabeth Prata
Last week I wrote a series on discernment in 6 essays. They are below. I called it “Wolf Week” because false teachers are called wolves in scripture. My own version of Shark Week, lol.
Wolf Week Intro: or, We DO know the heart
Wolf Week # 1: My two “starter false teachers”
Wolf Week # 2: Why Wolves?
Wolf Week # 3: Types of false teachers and their different methods
Wolf Week # 4: Has that false teacher REALLY ‘helped’ you?
Wolf Week # 5: Why does God allow false teachers?
A short follow-up series I am publishing contains 4 more essays in short form focusing on 4 influential ‘Bible’ teachers. I have written discernment essays on these four previously in years past, but those essays were longer. In articles like that, I include sources, explain the teacher’s errors thoroughly, and provide examples. All this make the essays longer. Nowadays however, people like to read less lengthy material. So I cut to the chase and made shorter essays showing why these folks are false.
Today I look at 4 reasons not to follow Lori Alexander, half of the duo behind godlywomanhood/ The Transformed Wife.
Continue reading “Cut to the chase: Four reasons to avoid Lori Alexander of godlywomanhood”By Elizabeth Prata
A woman named Lori Alexander who goes by the nickname The Transformed Wife, handle of @godlywomanhood, who claims to be a Christian, has an enormous platform across a plethora of social media accounts. When a man or woman is solid in their doctrine AND in his or her lifestyle, this is a good thing. I love that social media has been invented and provides us a way to get the word of God out into the world…To connect with like-minded brethren…To honor and glorify God.
But when the person has a lifestyle that is a horror to God or teaches error, wrong doctrines, or twisted Bible verses, it’s a grief to God. It is also a danger to those who aren’t discerning enough to see beyond the form of a teacher’s godliness. Then followers are drawn into a dark path. In June 2023 I critiqued Lori Alexander’s online work.
In my discernment essay critiquing Lori’s doctrines and teachings, I used sources such as her own words in screenshots, quotes from her own blog etc. and compared her theology to the Bible’s. My essay seemed to have angered her and upset her greatly and that anger has not simmered down in the last 6 months…
How do I know?
Recently a lengthy article was published examining Lori’s online output (I won’t call it a ministry) from a psychological perspective. The author was Daniel Schricker, Ph.D, who is not only known for his music, (@ComposerDan90) but also for his academic work in identifying cults. He should know, he grew up in one. Since then he has dedicated his academic career in speaking and writing about the psychological use of fear in cults- especially against children.
In his article on Lori, Daniel Schricker said that according to Hassan’s ‘BITE’ Model, there are four “sets of criteria by which to define the modus operandi of harmful organisations, Behavior control, Information control, Thought control, and Emotional control.” Dr. Schricker goes through each of these criteria with matching examples from Lori’s online advice. He makes a compelling case.
Most disturbing are Lori’s teachings on behavior, with Dr. Schricker concluding, “All of these represent forms of behaviour control that are based entirely on Lori’s feelings, nothing else,” he said.
We know that Christians must base our learning and teaching on the Bible, nothing else. Red flag # 1 that Lori Alexander is a false teacher.
In her teaching and her behavior, Lori does exhibit the other three sets of criteria that harmful organizations exhibit as well- Thought control, Information control, and Emotional control. As to the latter, Dr. Schricker said:
“Emotional control is central to Lori’s thinking about her faith and is something she cites as a key to making a marriage last. Rather than recognising emotions as a healthy part of the human experience, she seems to believe that they are responsible for many of the problems women face. In the cult of Lori, women must silence and ignore their emotions entirely.”
Dr. Schricker’s article has agonized Lori. She is spending much time on several of her platforms railing against it, as well as dredging up my article from June 2023, which means it still obviously distresses her.
While it is never my intention to purposely antagonize anyone, even false teachers such as Lori, the truth will wound. It will either wound unto a godly sorrow leading to conviction and repentance, or it will lead to a distress that hardens one further into their errant position. Sadly I think the latter is Lori’s case. Her anguish at being called out is hardening her into her errant positions. This is sad to see.
The Lord uses both conviction and time to bring someone to Himself. Of the false teacher in Revelation 2 called Jezebel, Jesus gave her time to repent (Revelation 2:21). But she did not wish to repent. See also Romans 2:4, ‘the kindness of God leads to repentance’. But if the person has a stubborn and unrepentant heart, they are storing up wrath for themselves on the day of Judgment. (Romans 2:5).
BOTH show the glory of God in the end. Both His kindness and His just wrath glorifies Him. While we always pray for repentance for the false teacher, we ultimately pray God will be glorified in whatever the outcome.
I’d like to take a moment to parse Lori’s outrage and defenses. The lesson here is that one can be SO entrenched on one’s position, they literally can’t see. Cannot. So entrenched in sin their thinking becomes futile, doesn’t the Bible say this? (Romans 1:21).
Lori went on to say in that same post: (underlines are mine)
Many female Bible teachers don’t like me simply because I don’t believe women should teach theology. They should stick to teaching the doctrines of biblical womanhood as God commands in Titus 2:3-5.
1.It’s not about personally liking or disliking someone. I dislike Beth Moore’s theology intensely but I believe her to be a very likable person.
2.Theology and doctrine are the same thing. Theology is learning about God. Doctrine is, ahem, learning about God’s ways and teachings.
3.Since Lori restricts herself to Titus 2:3-5 only, I wonder if she knows that King Solomon has advised the following:
Listen, my son, to your father’s instruction, And do not ignore your mother’s teaching; Proverbs 1:8
Or Proverbs 6:20? My son, keep your father’s commandment, and do not forsake your mother’s teaching.
Lori: “I have never aligned myself with false teachers nor have I ever preached in a church”
There is more to being false than simply those two things. It’s comforting to look at one’s self and say ‘I am not false because I never did X or Y’. Yes but what about when you did A or B? See: “Rich Young Ruler”. He thought he was saved because he ‘kept all the commandments since a youth’ but didn’t see that he had a huge hole in his theology, namely, his sin.
Lori said: “All of the commentaries of old agree with me and so do some other great pastors like Voddie Baucham.”
Cherry picking the sources that agree with one’s [unbiblical] stance is called confirmation bias. Psychologist Peter Wason has said this is the “tendency of people to favor information that confirms or strengthens their beliefs or values and is difficult to dislodge once affirmed.”
While it’s great to consult other sources like commentaries and credible pastors and teachers, ultimately, the Bible is the only reliable source. And the Bible disagrees with Lori’s stance that women cannot teach theology to other women or children. Another red flag. Also: see Lois, Eunice, Priscilla.
She said: “I also believe women teaching the Bible and preaching in Women’s Bible studies is what has led to the plethora of female preachers in most churches today!”
Lori likes to blame women for much of what is wrong in Christendom. Yet she never mentions the man’s or the husband’s or the pastor’s part in allowing the woman to preach or fall into error. We didn’t “all fall in Eve.” We all fell in Adam. (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22).
See, that is another example of how her skewed theology skews her mental worldview – thus what comes out of her mouth is error.
I’ve written on the dangers of skewed theology before, and the importance of balance. Yes, I agree Lori is right on some of what she teaches. The problem is the error of omission. Adrian Rogers in his ministry Love Worth Finding speaks of James 4:17 and the sin of omission:
What is a sin of omission? The sin of omission is failure to do what you ought to be doing. James said, “Therefore, to him who knows to do good and does not do it, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). It is a greater sin to fail to do what you ought to do than to do what you ought not to do.
Lori should be learning and teaching the whole counsel of God. It’s like this as an example: In the Bible the Proverbs 31 woman is counted as worthy and one to emulate. In Proverbs 31:16 the woman ‘considers a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard.’
So let’s say a woman with a platform started teaching that women everywhere should buy a field and plant a vineyard. It’s in the Bible, right? This women was lauded for her activity, enscripturated in God’s word forever as a worthy women. Therefore ALL women should buy a field and plant an orchard. Then they will be happy and God will be happy.
And let’s say that is the only thing the woman teaches in her whole platforming career online. Is she right? Yes, the Bible does say that. But is that ALL it says for women? No. Lori makes the error of omission, failing to teach the whole counsel of God. See link below in “Further Reading” for an excellent article about what the whole counsel of God means.
One must be inside the strong fortress, its foundation the entire counsel of God. Every brick being every word of God. Clinging to two verses in the Bible as Lori does, Titus 2:4-5, will not sustain a person in the end. It’s like clinging to a sapling in a tornado. I’d rather be inside the strong fortress!
Why am I writing this? Truth requires a response. Dr. Schricker’s article presented psychological truth. My previous article presented truth of God’s word. To hear truth and to dismiss it or ignore it dishonors the truth giver and dishonors the Lord. It also puts people on a path of destruction.
My hope for Lori is this: that someday she will cease kicking against the goads, repent, and close all her platforms to honor the Lord. She spends much time on her many platforms, and repenting and closing her online work would mean she would have more time to tend to her home, husband, children, and grandchildren. I pray she will cease leading women down a dark path.
Further Reading
Great article by Randy Alcorn on The Whole Counsel of God: He opens the article with an example of what happens when we cherry pick verses to support our position. “If we want to better understand any doctrine or teaching, we must consider not bits and pieces of the Bible but “the whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27, ESV). The Bible features a staggering breadth and depth of truth that selective proof-texting can never reflect.“
TableTalk Magazine: Discernment without Judgmentalism by Eric Bancroft: Today’s marketplace of ideas is tragically filled with lies, distortions, and even heresies. Christians are called to be discerning as they engage with these ideas and the people who present them to us (Heb. 5:13–14). Such maturity of thought and ability to help others is to be modeled by elders of local churches, who are called on to “give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9).
By Elizabeth Prata
*She would be another, better Eve, working in cooperation with the Redeemer, bringing the world back “from its revolt and sin.” 1*
Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife @godlywomanhood posted something the other day on a topic she often posts on: suffragism. Suffragism is defined as the advocacy of the extension of suffrage (as to women). Women who advocated for the right to vote were called suffragettes.
Suffragism arose in the early 1800s as the Temperance Movement gained widespread momentum. The Temperance Movement was a moral movement urging societal change- that people (men) abstain from drinking alcohol. Another moral movement in the early decades of the 1800s overlapping with Temperance and Suffrage, was Abolition of slavery. Women were effective campaigners in the Temperance movement and soon began to campaign for the right to vote. They were effective in this also. They held protests, parades, pickets….
All this female hussy-type activity was jarring to many, and soon an anti-Suffrage movement sprang up. These were women (and men) who opposed the movement to give women the right to vote.
These ‘antis’ wanted to get their position across but do so in a more genteel, ladylike way. So:
“They campaigned at country fairs by distributing bulletins while offering advice on such womanly subjects as first aid. Considered the “Heaven, Home and Mother crowd,” they held teas, fund-raising balls, and luncheons at hotels and women’s colleges, as opposed to the noisy parading, picketing, and public speaking promoted by suffragists. The “antis,” wearing their emblem of pink or red roses, campaigned quietly by circulating antisuffrage literature in the state legislative gallery.” Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture
[As an aside, this reminds me exactly of Phyllis Schalfly’s method she used to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. See: Hulu’s series ‘Mrs. America’]
The antisuffrage movement was the birth of the Cult of True Womanhood. Historians acknowledge that it was based on the 4 moral virtues of piety, purity, domesticity, and submissiveness. This was a real cult and a real movement and historically a fact.
The attributes of True Womanhood, by which a woman judged herself and was judged by her husband, her neighbors and society could be divided into four cardinal virtues-piety, purity, submissiveness and domesticity. Put them all together and they spelled mother, daughter, sister, wife-woman. Without them, no matter whether there was fame, achievement or wealth, all was ashes. With them she was promised happiness and power.” Barbara Welter, The Cult of True Womanhood 1820-1860, see below for source.
“Antisuffrage members alleged that the right to vote would not solve the problems of women and society. They opposed suffrage primarily because they believed in the “cult of true womanhood” (piety, purity, domesticity, and submissiveness) and in the separate sphere of the home. The apolitical association served to educate and to legitimize activism within the traditional female domain.” OKHistory.org
You note that though these ‘antis’ were opposed to women’s suffrage and scandalized by women protesting and marching and speechifying, the antis were hypocritical in their approach. IF they truly embodied “Godly Womanhood” they would have been content to remain at home and leave the anti-suffrage campaigning to the husband.
But they didn’t.
The movement that arose in opposition to women’s suffrage in the latter decades of the 1800s and early 1900s was, as mentioned before, a moral one. It was named. Its name was “Cult of True Womanhood“. It was also called the “Cult of Domesticity”. Part of its ideology included the ‘separate spheres’ concept: that women dwelled on one sphere (the home) and men dwelled on another sphere (the world).
Is this beginning to seem familiar with a certain movement headed by certain females on social media today? It is now known as the Trad Wife movement.
The godly womanhood cultists back in the 1800s were activists just as much as the bolder ‘pro-suffrage’ activists were activists. Their methods differed, but they were ALL activists. The ‘True women’ simply applied a veneer of virtue over their activities and claimed the higher moral ground. Remember, the hallmark of the Cult of True Womanhood was and is “Piety, Purity, Submissiveness, and Domesticity.”
Interestingly, in addition to external pietism, and in addition to the internal hypocrisy in their approach, the Cult of True Womanhood anti suffragists also had at its center an unwieldy quandary. Believers in the cult said women are the moral arbiter of the home, not only capable but commanded to set standards for Christian Godly living, yet at the same time, women lacked the moral intelligence to make proper moral decisions when they vote.
See an example, an anti-suffrage tract from Ohio anti-Suffrage stated:
“It is unwise, unfair, and unjust to force upon a majority of women, a measure which is obnoxious to all their ideals of womanhood, in order that the wishes of a small minority may prevail.”
But that same tract goes on to say the following:
“It is a mistake to presume that all women will vote right on moral issues. Experience proves that many of the worst ills of social life are due to the influence of women of low ideals of right and wrong, or of degrading morals.”
An ideal, these women say, is the wife in the home, never straying outside it, presiding over serene domestic excellence. It is a moral ideal, not a biblical reality. The 1950s picture of ‘prefeminism’ life didn’t exist. If you want prefeminism life, go back before the Fall. The ideal presented by the Godly Womanhood Cultists is a figment. Their version of womanhood was hardly EVER the case then and it’s hardly ever the case now. We read from Jeanne Boydston :
Meanwhile, industrialization also forced free women in northern working-class households to labor for cash, as street vendors, tavern-keepers, boarding-house operators, paid domestic servants, garment workers, prostitutes, and a variety of other occupations. Young women from New England farms provided the nation’s first factory labor force in the textile mills of Lowell, Massachusetts, beginning in 1814. A surprising number of middle-class families also depended on the paid labor of the wives.
Who could adhere to these impossible and largely imaginary eras of domestic perfection? Mostly white upper class women.
Although all women were expected to abide by the standards of true womanhood, in reality, it was predominantly White, Protestant, upper-class women who did so. Due to social prejudices of the period, Black women, working women, immigrants, and those who were lower on the socioeconomic ladder were excluded from the chance to ever be true paragons of domestic virtue.” Thought Co.
A wife should occupy herself only with domestic affairs-wait till
The Lady’s Token: or Gift of Friendship, 1848
your husband confides to you those of a high importance-and do not
give your advice until he asks for it…if he is abusive, never retort.”
History is complicated and our minds want to dispense with some of the more gritty realities-
This [wives’] work was vital to household economic survival. Only among the very wealthiest families were husbands’ incomes large enough to purchase everything a family needed to survive. In the poorest of families, wives scavenged the wharves and alleys for abandoned or unguarded food, fuel, and clothing. Even in middling families, a wife’s labor in keeping a garden, making clothes, economizing with food, and even producing some of the family’s furnishings (ottomans, pillows, mattresses) and equipment (like soap) enabled her household to maintain a comfortable standard of living on incomes that were often otherwise insufficient. Jeanne Boydston
If the middle or lower class wife’s activities seem familiar, it is because they were recounted as the Proverbs 31 wife’s full day of work. Martin Luther’s wife Katy Von Bora also spent hours upon hours a day doing these same activities so the household could survive economically.
Katharina immediately took on the task of managing the monastery’s vast holdings. She bred and sold cattle and ran a brewery to provide for their family, the numerous students who boarded with them, and her husband’ visitors. In times of epidemics, she operated a hospital with nurses, working alongside them. Luther called her the ‘boss of Zulsdorf’, after the farm they owned, and the ‘morning star of Wittenberg’ for her habit of rising at 4 a.m. … She thus assisted her husband with running their estate and directed renovations when necessary. Source
Were the Proverbs 31 wife or Katharina Von Bora not ‘godly women’?
The Bible does call for women to be at home primarily oriented toward the home! The word of God advocates for that. But HOW this plays out varies, and it is not, I repeat, not, the singular, narrow view that the historical Cult of True Womanhood promoted in the 1800s and it’s not the narrow view of ‘Trad Wives’ today. It’s not even the biblical view. Why?
Because Prov 31 woman and Katy Von Bora were Gospel centered, not Morality centered. That is the difference between a cult or trad wife, and a biblical wife. They ministered as whole women, in true service to the King, not in service to 4 ‘true woman’ or ‘trad wife’ virtues of piety, purity, submissiveness, and domesticity. That is the difference. Biblical versus moral.
Lydia ran a business selling purple. Susannah was wealthy enough to support Jesus’ ministry AND travel with him. Priscilla made tents with her husband. Rachel’s job was a shepherdess. The Midwives of Egypt worked, the funeral mourners had jobs (Mark 5:38), Sheerah was a builder. And so on.
The 4 Virtues: Piety, Purity, Submissiveness, Domesticity
If this is beginning to seem familiar to you, this is the exact cult that Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife of @godlywomanhood is part of and promotes relentlessly.
I’ve mentioned earlier that the anti-suffragettes formed a moral movement, or a movement based on virtues. Granted, these morals were lifted from the Bible and are excellent virtues for women to have. But once you unhitch these virtues from the Gospel, they turn into serpents and slither away from context and truth to become external legalistic demands instead of internal virtues enhancing a Gospel-oriented life.
As with anything related to history, first, we always remember things more fondly than they actually were. Our historical memories might be sepia-tinged, flower laden soft memories, but the reality of womanhood at the time the Cult of True Womanhood was born was hardly that.
To the extent that white women from more prosperous households succeeded in embodying “true womanhood” in their own lives, they inevitably did so at the expense of other women, whose labor produced so many of the commodities and services of the perfectly domestic household. Here was the final paradox of nineteenth-century “true womanhood.” Jeanne Boydston
As godly women, we want to raise up younger women to enjoy marriage as a true Godly woman. We do so by teaching the whole woman all the doctrines of the Bible so that she will be stable and assured of her position in life: as a child of the king ministering to Him out of love and gratitude for His sacrifice on the cross. We do not extract preferred virtues from the Bible, turn them into a cult, and place these burdensome demands on women as moralistic ideals separate from the word of God as a movement on its own.
The Trad Wife movement may have a germ of a good idea at the center but like Jesus warned, woes to anyone who substitutes pietism for holiness, and moralistic externals for internal realities.
There is nothing new under the sun. The Cult of True Womanhood existed then and it exists now. Be warned that, as Shakespeare said, everything that glitters is not gold.
Further resources
Thought Co. – The Cult of Domesticity
PBS: The Cult of True Womanhood
Barbara Welter, The Cult of True Womanhood: 1820-1860, American Quarterly, Vol. 18, No. 2, Part 1 (Summer, 1966), pp. 151-174 (24 pages)
*footnote 1, quote at the top: from The Young Lady’s Book: A Manual of Elegant Recreations, Exercises, and Pursuits (Boston, 1830), p. 29.
*Pharishees term coined by Pastor Gabe Hughes
By Elizabeth Prata
I do not recommend Lori Alexander, The Transformed Wife’s ministry
The TRUE transformation of a woman from a non-believer to a believer is the most beautiful miracle of our day or any day. The transformation of a justified woman into a Titus 2 woman, whether married or NOT married, whether she has children or NO children, is also a beautiful thing.
I wrote a critique of Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife AKA @godlywomanhood. It seemed needed.
Looking for doctrinally solid, kind, gracious women’s ministries?
After interacting with Lori a few times and having read some of her recent statements, I also wrote several other essays that were rebuttals to things she has taught. They are listed below.
Critiques by Elizabeth Prata-
Main article: Discerning Lori Alexander, The transformed Wife of @godlywomanhood.
Ken Alexander’s messages to me with my replies
During some interactions with Lori (and her husband Ken), I discovered that though it’s one of the Titus 2 mandated qualities, kindness is not in her vocabulary. Also that she is unteachable (lacks humility). Here, I wrote about the importance of women to engage in humble, self-examination-
We All Have a Ministry
Sadly, Lori’s version of biblical womanhood is a Hyper-patriarchy that’s not biblical and not a good example of how to live a godly, womanly life.
Here, I wrote about how in my opinion, How does ‘hyper-patriarchy’ get born?
I wrote about how Lori’s insistence on not teaching anything except home economics from Titus 2 (a stance which, even then, lacks several aspects of the verse, such as kindness, sensibility, reverence, etc) and this has skewed her worldview to an extent that 2 Peter 3:16 warns about-
Balance in our theology is important
Lori and her too-frequent mentions of the marital bed
The historical fact of the “Cult of True Womanhood” – and the cult is still alive and well today
The Cult of Lori Alexander by Daniel Schricker, Ph.D
LORI’S OVERGENERALIZING
Something that Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife often does, is make a statement that is her opinion, and is so broad-brush that it’s actually an overgeneralization, then she argues within the overgeneralization while never providing a source. She overgeneralizes so frequently this has caused me to look into what overgeneralizing is. It is a cognitive issue. I encourage you to spot these when she makes these broad-brush statements.
Here is a 2 tweet thread on it, with a definition of overgeneralizing. “Overgeneralizing is a distorted way of thinking or cognitive distortion which results in wrong or misconstrued assumptions. Often it’s described as making a broad assumption about something without much evidence or data to back up that assumption.” Quote from Be Well Counseling.
Here is another definition: “Overgeneralizing is a cognitive distortion, or a distorted way of thinking, that results in some pretty significant wrong assumptions.” (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy of LA)
Here is a 2-tweet thread I did on Twitter showing an example of a recent overgeneralizing statement Lori made: “Public Schools were created so women could be in the workforce”. No. This is wrong and so easily provable.
I’d also pointed out that Lori misuses statistics, or she doesn’t understand statistics well enough, and presents flawed arguments to make her narrow points. Here, she had said that “25% of women are on anti-depressants” then argued the point based on her misstatement.
In fact, the study from which she got the number said that 25% of women over 60 (Lori’s demographic) are on the drug. Only 10% of women 18-39 (child bearing years) are on it. She’d made an overgeneralization from the misstated statistic then tied in the fact that the reason so many women are on antidepressants is because they don’t submit to their husbands and they work outside the home.
Here, her overgeneralization is that simply asking someone how many kids they’d like is ‘giving into the birth control mentality infecting the country’. There is no possible way Lori knows the mentality of every person who asks that question in the entire country. Then she ties it in to abortion. Big leaps. Unwarranted, and dangerous.
She overgeneralizes and she misuses statistics. Watch out for that.
OTHERS’ Critiques
Bob Jennings at I’ll Be Honest (associated with Paul Washer’s ministry) wrote this in 2010, therefore isn’t a direct critique of Lori Alexander, The Transformed Wife, but it addresses a falsity Lori insists on advising to women: where Lori says women should not go to college and should remain at home till marriage. Here is the article which Mr Jennings addresses this false notion scripturally: Patriarchy vs. Single Women in the Bible
DebbieLynne Kespert on When the Focus is So narrow You Lose Sight
DebbieLynne Kespert on Women Teaching Other Women Theology?
Tim Challies reviewed Debi Pearl’s book Created to be His Help Meet and Michael Pearl’s How to Train Up a Child. His reviews (below) are included here because Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife has said many times it was Debi’s book that was that catalyst for her transformation. She admires these two as spiritual leaders and identifies them as her formative mentors. She quotes them incessantly. Challies was a strong NO on both books:
Challies Review: Created to be His Help Meet
Challies Review: How (Not To) Train Up a Child Part 1
Challies Review: How (Not To) Train Up a Child Part 2
A Ray of Dawn has a blog titled The Transformed Wife is Dangerous and Wrong. She’s got links and screen shots. I liked her point here: “This is my main issue with Lori – she claims men should be leaders, but doesn’t expect them to actually lead in areas of Godliness. Rather, she insists women coddle their husbands regardless of how they behave, which is the opposite of what the Bible says.”
Gina at Where the Wild Bee Wings has a video series critiquing Lori Alexander The Transformed Wife’s teachings (and more videos on The Duggars, IBLP/Gothard, and the Pearls): (Gina is a nice lady and I agreed with these particular videos, but disagree with Gina’s approach to Christianity, i.e. she’s not attending a church, and recently claimed Jesus appeared to her in a vision. But the Lori/Pearls/Duggar videos are wise).
Alexander: False Teaching
Lori Alexander: Conspiracy Theory?
Lori Alexander: Women Going Mad?
The Pearls: Infamous Honeymoon
This Wiki page gives an overall view of Lori’s life in a bio, and highlights that she has made contradictory statements over the years and that some of her personal stories don’t match up. There’s screen shots. Fundamentalist Wiki: Lori Alexander
In that same vein, This blog highlights the many contradictions Lori has said over the years (with screen shots and links).
CONCLUSION
I am grateful in reverse for Lori, because with my brief interaction with her and her material this May and June, has settled me into a conviction that I, and women who minister, need to be KIND. Kindness is mandated in Titus 2:3-5,
Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. emphasis mine.
Kindness is in short supply in real life, and online especially. Kindness is a refreshing quality, as of course the other Titus 2 qualities are. In my opinion, Lori is unkind, modeling exactly the thing that DISHONORS Christ within the very verse she camps on for her raison d’etre (reason for being). So for that I’m grateful. Seeing how ugly unkindness is, I can work on my own kindness, and look for it and encourage others when I see it.
I will add other links as I discover them or are forwarded them.
By Elizabeth Prata
The past few days has been involved for me with discerning a false ministry, but one that has a quarter of a million followers. Her impact is huge and the negative reverberations of her well-hidden errors will go on to the undiscerning and naïve. For that I feel prayerfully grief-stricken and have a deep concern for young ladies in this ever-darkening culture over whom they follow and what dark webs they may get caught up in.
One thing that caught my attention that I have been pondering in the calming-down aftermath here in my little corner of the world, is humility and teachability.
The more popular a teacher grows, the more chance there is for him or her to become prideful. It’s just the way of human flesh. God knows this. It is exactly why He said for new believing men not to become leaders, due to the temptation to become conceited-
and not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:6).
But the moment people start noticing our ministry is just the moment we need more humility.
So now I can hear the replies in your mind. ‘But I don’t HAVE a ministry!’
My reply to young ladies, married ladies, mothers, older ladies, is that we ALL have a ministry. It might not be codified. It might not have a name. It might not be a 501(c)3. But we do have a ministry.
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 2:5).
We are all priests, working for His name in the spheres in which He has placed us. No matter if the sphere is large or small, we work for His name, aware that our every move, our entire being, is for His name.
Therefore I exhort you, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice—living, holy, and pleasing to God, which is your spiritual service of worship. (Romans 12:1).
The young unmarried woman is a ministry – by example – of her modesty and chasteness and eagerness to learn. The married woman is a ministry – by example – of her unity with her husband and presentation of her marriage as a parable of what the Gospel is like. The mothers are a ministry – by example – of literally presenting your bodies as a sacrifice of praise to Jesus who knit the baby in your womb. Raising children is a worthy calling for both the mother and father. The older woman is a ministry – by example – of ministering to younger women. Grandchildren. Ladies in church and elsewhere. Our own raising of children may be complete (if the Lord had granted it) but there are others to minister to, encouraging them in the admonition of the Lord and exhorting to share the beauty of Jesus.
We all have work to do. We’re all in a ministry.
Now. I was also thinking of a certain someone in a ministry who said people are accusing her of the following: “I am even being called dangerous, legalistic, ungodly, and a false teacher.” She said people are saying those things of her. She is a person who does have a formal ministry. It has a quarter of a million followers, she’s been interviewed widely, she wields a great deal of influence.
None of that matters. None.
What matters is, are we ministering in such a way that the holy and spotless name of Jesus is being upheld by our teachings and our lifestyle? Ministry is about the outworking of doctrinal truths applied to our lives, in His name, for His name. Are we doing it well?
It does a person good to occasionally review one’s life, one’s ministry, one’s teachings. Are we still on the center line of doctrinal truth? Are we speaking and behaving in such a way that would bring glory to Jesus, or bring reproach to Jesus?
You know, we are told to examine ourselves, more times in the New Testament than we think.
2 Corinthians 13:5 – Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves! Or do you not recognize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you—unless indeed you fail the test?
Galatians 6:3-4 – For if anyone thinks that he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. But each one must examine his own work, and then he will have reason for boasting, but to himself alone, and not to another.
2 Peter 1:10 – Therefore, brothers and sisters, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choice of you;
1 Corinthians 11:28 – But a person must examine himself, and in so doing he is to eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
Matthew 7:5 – You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye!
If we are told to examine ourselves so much for that variety of reasons, why ignore the fact that we are to examine ourselves when we are doing ministry? No! Let it not be so!
Let us all, those in formal ministry and those who quietly or informally minister, examine ourselves to see that we are doing and saying things that are pleasing to God. If people are saying to us or about us that we’re dangerous, legalistic, ungodly, or a false teacher the question remains: do we love Jesus first or do we love ourselves first? Our entire attention and focus must be on His name. If I am doing anything that is dangerous or false or legalistic, upon hearing such accusations, is my pride such that I never take the charges seriously and go examine myself fairly? Never let it be so!
Pride is the first sin and the most serious. It is the root of all other sins. God speaks in His word many times about pride. Here are a few,
Proverbs 8:13 – The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way And the perverted mouth, I hate.
Proverbs 11:2 – When pride comes, then comes dishonor, But with the humble is wisdom.
Proverbs 16:5 – Everyone who is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord; Assuredly, he will not be unpunished.
Proverbs 16:18 – Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before stumbling.
It is humbling to publicly repent of something done in sin or taught incorrectly in His name. It is humbling to eat crow. But pride should not be so strong that it prevents us from kneeling down and saying “I was wrong. Forgive me.”
I’ve seen some public teachers do it. Far from making me think less of them, I think MORE highly of them. I myself have been open about my mistake of following Joel Osteen at the start of my Christian life (before I had a blog, thankfully). Also of my newspaper eisegesis and looking at signs according to the news, early on in my blogging career. I was excited to finally have had all the answers in the Bible as to why the world was the way it was, and I’m not apologetic at that first rush of relief and joy and my worldview shifted so rapidly. But I am thankful the Spirit grew me out of that and I didn’t persist and become wayward in doctrine or hopefully not lead others astray.
If you are receiving congratulations for a job well done in ministry, great, but don’t let it go to your head. If you are receiving charges of falsity or error, stop, take a breath, consider the source, and examine yourself to see if it is so. The spotless name of Jesus is paramount to all we do in ministry, and yes we all have a ministry.
the-end-time.org 