Ken explains why Lori's right and we're wrong

[jerkit]

Someone just quoted Ephesians

"Submit to one another" out of reverence for Christ."

which is Lorkien's favorite verse to Sharpie out of their Bible. Can't wait for the kensplanation.

[Firiel]

Someone just quoted Ephesians which is Lorkien's favorite verse to Sharpie out of their Bible. Can't wait for the kensplanation.

Their explanation is typically that "submit to one another" just means "wives, submit to your husbands."

[jerkit]

Their explanation is typically that "submit to one another" just means "wives, submit to your husbands."

Because that’s definitely the most literal translation possible for that verse.

[Maggie Mae]

Ken certainly is wordy. I wish both Alexanders could be blessed with a writing class. And maybe some sort of conference/speech/lecture on layout & design and why center spacing everything is a bad idea.

[salex]

If what Lori writes is Gospel, and it is BADDDDDDD for women to work outside the home, why is Kens' partner/associate in Europe a woman?

Is she an exception? Is she exceptional? Is it ok for women to sin when it makes Kenny and Lori money?

martinementhonnex.com

profils-auto-entrepreneurs.com/profil/martine.menthonnex

conseil en organisation et en formation en cabinet d'orthodontie.

Optimisation de l'emploi du temps

mise en place des protocoles

Mise en application du système Millenium de Mr Ken Alexander

Déplacements dans toute la France

[moodygirl86]

oh let's face it, lori is ken's mouthpiece, anyway.

I get confused constantly about whether she's his mouthpiece, or vice versa! Either way, they clearly both think they're right and qualified to lecture the rest of us poor ignorant mortals so I feel safe to dismiss words from either of them as BS wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon.

[jerkit]

The Kensplanation was even better than I anticipated

Yes Bill,

Submit to one another is a universal truth and admonition for all within the church. But it is the perfect example of understanding this truth within the context of higher truths, or more specific admonitions. We have dealt with the fallacy of "mutual submission" in marriage that is perpetuated by far too many well meaning pastors. See this post on the subject of Mutual Submission:

http://lorialexander.blogspot.com/2013/02/mutual-...

Imagine if the Secretary of Defense walked into a room filled with all the branches of the service and all levels from Admirals and Generals all the way down to Cadets. In his open remarks he says, "The military of the United States cannot survive and thrive without two main qualities of mutual submission and cooperation. If we do not know how to relate to one another, and we are unwilling to put our own interests secondary to getting the mission accomplished, how can we expect to be successful? Mutual submission and cooperation are vital to the success of any organization, let alone one that is entrusted with the safety of such a great country."

Then he went on and said, "Sergeants submit to your Lieutenants, Lieutenants submit to your Majors, Majors submit to your Generals, just Generals must submit to their High Command. Is this not exactly what Paul is telling us in Ephesians 5:

"submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ." (5:21)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord." (5:22)

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." (5:24)

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right." (6:1)

"Bondservants,(Employees) obey your earthly masters." (6:5)

"Obey your leaders (Church Elders) and submit to them." (Heb 13:17)

"younger men submit to your elders." (1 Peter 5:5)

Submitting to one another is a key and important part of Christian living within the church, and we should know to whom we are to submit to. We don't submit to just anyone, or our children are staying up until midnight and working up with stomach aches from too much ice cream the night before. A wife does not submit to a husband other than her own, and certainly Christ is not submitting to His church in any way.

How do you reconcile that a wife's submission to her husband is to "as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands?"

The church's submission is far from mutual with Christ. It is wrong to understand the "submit to one another" verse as anything more than relating to those within the church with whom we do not have in authority over us. Just as the military has many who are in submission to each other, so too it has many with a special leadership position to whom others are to willfully submit.

[Firiel]

The Kensplanation was even better than I anticipated

Just ask them to get into why the hell "submit" means "obey" for wives but doesn't in the case of young men submitting to older men or people submitting to church authority.

Cabinetman went into a narcissistic rage when I asked him why he didn't submit to his father-in-law and pastors when they felt he was abusing his wife!

[Curious]

Ken certainly is wordy. I wish both Alexanders could be blessed with a writing class. And maybe some sort of conference/speech/lecture on layout & design and why center spacing everything is a bad idea.

I've offered links (nicely) explaining why centering all your text is a no-no several times. It has done no good as you can tell. If they didn't believe me (or the other people that keep mentioning it) all they would have to do is bust out their google tactics[tm][/tm] and do a quick search to find out we aren't just pulling their legs.

As a business consultant, who in this day and age, I assume must discuss web presence with his clients as well, I'm surprised (again) how little Ken really seems to know/understand about the internet.

[DGayle]

My comment wasn't posted:

This post is far too long. I got bored a few paragraphs in.

What kind of loving parent figure never gives you freedom and instead expects to be consulted on all matters? When one adult micromanages another adult's life like this and threatens punishment if the other doesn't obey, we call this abuse. Why then is God's expectation that he have the right to micromanage our lives seen as being loving instead of abusive?

[Mecca]

Ken, here is a statistic you can chew on. Your wife is 100% wrong all of the time, and I did not just make that percentage up. It is true.

[Loveday]

My comment wasn't posted:

It's there now, all but the bit about the post being too long and boring. Ken was probably afraid he'd have to deal with a lot of comments agreeing with you. :lol:

[Firiel]

It's there now, all but the bit about the post being too long and boring. Ken was probably afraid he'd have to deal with a lot of comments agreeing with you. :lol:

Since DGayle's comment was posted, I've been eagerly awaiting the response.

WALL O' TEXT:

I am not sure what you are referring to DaniGayle, unless it is telling a wife she is not to buy a latte a day? There is no micromanaging spoken of in this post, not is it an expected outcome in a one flesh marriage that is trying to please God. Is it abuse to micromanage a wife? OK,if so, abuse with a small "a" as we must leave room for personalities. Some husbands are bean counters, and their wife knew they like everything on a chart and accounted for before they got married. Some wives lack discipline and crave constant accountability. But generally speaking, a husband led marriage should be far from micromanaging.

If a wife has a consistent problem of overspending, or drinks a latte a day, it is fully within a husband's prerogative as the leader of the marriage to call her on it. He should do much like a wife might and simply make his request and drop the subject. If she goes against his will he can bring it up again and drop it. Finally if she willfully chooses to go against his requests he has little recourse but to keep leading and loving "as Christ loves the Church." Will that include some form of discipline? Perhaps, but only if he feels it will be helpful, and not harmful to the marriage and helping to grow up his wife. Telling her that she spent her new dishwasher money on six months of cafe latte's may or may not help her see that she is wasting the family's money, but in the end it is all about harmony and becoming one flesh together, not about either spouse out to get their own selfish way. She does what she wants, and then gets to speak to the Lord about it as he must wait patiently to allow the Lord to work on her heart. Submission to husband's leadership is a willful and voluntary thing, but this does not then mean regularly picking and choosing what I will and will not submit to. That is far from the ideal, "submit to your husbands in everything."

AND that passage certainly was not intended to give license to husbands to micromanage their wives. Wives are indeed adults, equals and to be esteemed "more highly than oneself." They are to be treated with respect and even more, with love.

As much as I love and respect my staff members, I still direct them and tell them what I expect from them. I observe and monitor them to insure that what I have asked is being accomplished, and I withhold bonuses or fire those who do not measure up. Is this micromanaging or simply managing? If I say I want no team member to drink more than three company Krup coffees a day, and no more than two company protein bars, am I being petty, or reasonable? It is all managing, not micro managing.

Ken, it's not even 3 o'clock in California. Don't you have some female co-workers to "manage"? :lol:

[Hisey]

Actually, I think it is really weird to tell your employees how many coffees or protein bars they can eat. If you are paying for them and worried about the expense, just stop buying so many. Trying to control what your employees are eating ("Is that your third one today?") is an exercise in futility. Doesn't even work with kids.

[BrownieMomma]

Actually, I think it is really weird to tell your employees how many coffees or protein bars they can eat. If you are paying for them and worried about the expense, just stop buying so many. Trying to control what your employees are eating ("Is that your third one today?") is an exercise in futility. Doesn't even work with kids.

Mind-boggling that he would even consider telling his employees how much they can or cannot eat or drink. Just wow. Bet he is a real joy to work for.

[RosyDaisy]

Who works in a place that controls what you eat or how many sodas you can drink during your breaks or when you can goto the restroom? I have never worked for such a company.

[salex]

I believe that Ken's office was in his home, based on the address I saw once. I am not sure nor do I know if that is still the case. I think, but am not sure, that his only employees are his son and son in law, though he may have an assistant/office manager, I don't know. That and the consultant in Europe seems to be the bulk of his company-- and I can see him monitoring the powerbars the boys eat.... LOL.

Not that there is anything wrong with having a home office, but it would explain why he's able to dink around with Lori's blog at all hours.

[Grimalkin]

Do you think it would be ok if someone didn't drink theirs to give it to someone else. Could I hoard a whole week of power bars and eat them all in one dAy?

[usmcmom]

am not sure what you are referring to DaniGayle, unless it is telling a wife she is not to buy a latte a day? There is no micromanaging spoken of in this post, not is it an expected outcome in a one flesh marriage that is trying to please God. Is it abuse to micromanage a wife? OK,if so, abuse with a small "a" as we must leave room for personalities. Some husbands are bean counters, and their wife knew they like everything on a chart and accounted for before they got married. Some wives lack discipline and crave constant accountability. But generally speaking, a husband led marriage should be far from micromanaging.

If a wife has a consistent problem of overspending, or drinks a latte a day, it is fully within a husband's prerogative as the leader of the marriage to call her on it. He should do much like a wife might and simply make his request and drop the subject. If she goes against his will he can bring it up again and drop it. Finally if she willfully chooses to go against his requests he has little recourse but to keep leading and loving "as Christ loves the Church." Will that include some form of discipline? Perhaps, but only if he feels it will be helpful, and not harmful to the marriage and helping to grow up his wife. Telling her that she spent her new dishwasher money on six months of cafe latte's may or may not help her see that she is wasting the family's money, but in the end it is all about harmony and becoming one flesh together, not about either spouse out to get their own selfish way. She does what she wants, and then gets to speak to the Lord about it as he must wait patiently to allow the Lord to work on her heart. Submission to husband's leadership is a willful and voluntary thing, but this does not then mean regularly picking and choosing what I will and will not submit to. That is far from the ideal, "submit to your husbands in everything."

AND that passage certainly was not intended to give license to husbands to micromanage their wives. Wives are indeed adults, equals and to be esteemed "more highly than oneself." They are to be treated with respect and even more, with love.

As much as I love and respect my staff members, I still direct them and tell them what I expect from them. I observe and monitor them to insure that what I have asked is being accomplished, and I withhold bonuses or fire those who do not measure up. Is this micromanaging or simply managing? If I say I want no team member to drink more than three company Krup coffees a day, and no more than two company protein bars, am I being petty, or reasonable? It is all managing, not micro managing.

Well, we know Ken hates fat women. It only stands to reason that he monitors the caloric intake of his female staff.

Does anybody remember that movie "What Women Want" with Mel Gibson? He suddenly develops the power to read women's minds. I would love to see the thoughts of Ken's female co-workers as he walks into the office each day.

[formergothardite]

Ken is just weird. :evil-eye:

[salex]

I am not sure what you are referring to DaniGayle, unless it is telling a wife she is not to buy a latte a day? There is no micromanaging spoken of in this post, not is it an expected outcome in a one flesh marriage that is trying to please God. Is it abuse to micromanage a wife? OK,if so, abuse with a small "a" as we must leave room for personalities. Some husbands are bean counters, and their wife knew they like everything on a chart and accounted for before they got married. Some wives lack discipline and crave constant accountability. But generally speaking, a husband led marriage should be far from micromanaging

.

I've started this several times and what I come back to is basically "Jesus Christ, this guy is an asshole."

I married into a family of engineers. The only time any of them started tracking shit their wives were doing was when one of them was being a controlling asshole. I would think that yes, any marriage should be far from micromanaging, but micromanagers don't recognize themselves no matter how many boxes they check off on the "Are You a Micromanager" checklist.

If a wife has a consistent problem of overspending, or drinks a latte a day, it is fully within a husband's prerogative as the leader of the marriage to call her on it. He should do much like a wife might and simply make his request and drop the subject. If she goes against his will he can bring it up again and drop it. Finally if she willfully chooses to go against his requests he has little recourse but to keep leading and loving "as Christ loves the Church." Will that include some form of discipline? Perhaps, but only if he feels it will be helpful, and not harmful to the marriage and helping to grow up his wife.

I am always so confused when he babbles like this.

I know, people have money conflicts in marriage. Some husbands and some wives are for shit when it comes to managing money. Generally, they figure it out and the other person manages the money (male or female) and huge numbers of people either 1) split expenses or 2) if they are old like me, merge funds and each gets xx amount of "blow" or "fun" money per pay period. If that means daily latte, or stashed in the sock drawer, whatever rings their chime. Most couples who are working together to make a life, as opposed to the people Ken and Lori must attract, budget together to buy a dishwasher and still have room for a few treats.

I am going to say, not only is it pathetic grammar, but it is condescending and offensive to suggest that any man would have to help "grow up his wife." Why didn't this man select a woman who was an adult, given that he just advised us that women should put up with micromanagers if they married one because they should have known who they were marrying.

Telling her that she spent her new dishwasher money on six months of cafe latte's may or may not help her see that she is wasting the family's money, but in the end it is all about harmony and becoming one flesh together, not about either spouse out to get their own selfish way. She does what she wants, and then gets to speak to the Lord about it as he must wait patiently to allow the Lord to work on her heart. Submission to husband's leadership is a willful and voluntary thing, but this does not then mean regularly picking and choosing what I will and will not submit to. That is far from the ideal, "submit to your husbands in everything."

AND that passage certainly was not intended to give license to husbands to micromanage their wives. Wives are indeed adults, equals and to be esteemed "more highly than oneself." They are to be treated with respect and even more, with love.

Blather, disclaimer, backpedalling and blather. The bolded bit is one of his basic fall back comments, but based on everything he and Lori write, neither would know how to treat people with respect or with love if they saw it.

As much as I love and respect my staff members, I still direct them and tell them what I expect from them. I observe and monitor them to insure that what I have asked is being accomplished, and I withhold bonuses or fire those who do not measure up. Is this micromanaging or simply managing? If I say I want no team member to drink more than three company Krup coffees a day, and no more than two company protein bars, am I being petty, or reasonable? It is all managing, not micro managing.

I popped out to Linked-in.. if he has many staff members other than his son, son in law and the woman in France, none of them seem to link to his company as employees. I suspect he may have a part time girl friday/office manager who may or may not work remotely and a part time book keeper... this may or may not be two people. My guess as someone whose husband's business has had 5 employees and 50 at different times.

I also think comparing how you love and respect your employees to how you love and respect your wife is lame.... very lame, but probably accurate in his case.

And I'm laughing my ass off about the "company Krup coffee and protein bars" . First off, does he mean Keurig, because I think Krup is just a brand of coffeem makers, while Keurig is the currently famous cup at a time coffee. Secondly, it reminded me of a group we work with. The Executive Director was going nuts (possibly literally) and heard some "thing" about coffee. SO, she banned any one from using the corporate coffee makers after Noon. She banned anyone from bringing in their own coffeemakers to make coffee after noon and banned anyone from making coffee at home or buying any outside the office for consumption in the office after Noon.

According to Ken, she was not micromanaging, she was managing. According to the hundred or so employees who fell under this rule, she was not only micromanaging, she was nuts. The consensus was also that she might have spent the time she spend researching coffee, coffee makers and checking to make sure no one was drinking coffee in the afternoon on something valuable to the organization. I will say this-- Ken,if you have a daily limit on how much coffee each person can drink, you have given your employees a gift-- they have an amusing boss story to tell their friends over lunch or their family at Thanksgiving/Christmas. They can always one-up their old college buds when it comes to bosses who worry about bullshit. Ken, if you can't fund the coffee for your growing company, use an honor jar for both coffee and protein bars.

Until then, the answer to your question-- you are being petty. And it is definitely micromanaging.

But I'm laughing my ass off at the idea of you counting the empty Kureig cups in the trash. :lol:

[feministxtian]

I do not know Ken's deal. I work for a very small company (there's 14 of us in the office). My boss happily supplies us with coffee, goodies and occasionally lunch. He's all about the idea that happy employees means happy office means engaged employees and growing the business. I've worked for micromanagers (including the one who would lecture me on how loud my ipod was). I was miserable. I couldn't work for some jerk like that...

[jerkit]

I'm dying at the idea that anyone, but particular my employer would 1. Care how much coffee I drank and 2. Actually take steps to limit my consumption.

Ken is a control freak. He has to be in complete control and that's what this shows. Down to the amount of coffee his employees drink, he has to be in control. Probably because he is completely controlled by lori passive aggressively.

[cindyluvs24]

Ken , you should clearly try to win them without a word and see if they will reduce their consumption by showing a meek and gentle spirit. And when they doesn't work you can shove it up your arse.

[Koala]

From today's comments:

Ken Alexander

In my 50+ years of attending church I have never heard one hate word against homosexuals, nor have I seen a sermon on TV that was anything more than instructive in what God things about sex outside of the monogamous male/female marriage bed. I think you are throwing out a Red Herring here. Please show me one hate sermon by any reputable minister. These sermons you speak of do not exist except in the minds of those who want to shut down anything that is against the gay agenda.

Dear Ken,

If you really believe that, then you're denser than I thought.

Just for shits and giggles though, Google Steven Anderson. If you don't know who he is, ask Lori. She linked him recently. I am almost certain you'll find a sermon or three on "reprobates" there. You're welcome ;)