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.
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.
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.
EPrata photo
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,
Legalism is ugly
“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.
Issue #2, Basing your Christianity on just 2 verses
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
*She would be another, better Eve, working in cooperation with the Redeemer, bringing the world back “from its revolt and sin.” 1*
photo source: Thegraphicsfairy.com
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.
The 3 Big Moral/Social Justice Movements of the 1800s
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….
Suffragists parade down Fifth Avenue, 1917.
Advocates march in October 1917, displaying placards containing the signatures of more than one million New York women demanding the vote.
The New York Times Photo Archives
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.
Anti-Suffragists’ Methods
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 Womanhood1820-1860, see below for source.
source thegraphicsfairy.com
“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 Cult of True Womanhood was (and is) a real thing
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.
Activism is Activism, Hypocrisy is Hypocrisy
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.
“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.”
History is more nuanced than our memories allow
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.
source thegraphicsfairy.com
A wife should occupy herself only with domestic affairs-wait till 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.”
The Lady’s Token: or Gift of Friendship, 1848
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
Folks adhering to the Cult of True Womanhood only have ONE narrow view of what a woman is or what she may do. The reality is different. Women worked the cotton fields, the mills, or farmed, for example.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Lori makes a statement that is really opinion but disguises it as fact, and never provides a source.
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
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:
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
the-end-time.org 