Lori Alexander 81: It's All the Fault of Women

[feministxtian]

umm...beaches and "scantily clad" women. I don't think my sons noticed the women until their teen years. Even then it's not like a very natural physical reaction is wrong, ya know? Helps the little shits learn self-control as far as I am concerned. I mean, I'm not here to police what women wear around my husband or sons (husband never noticed, I swear to god). I can teach my sons not to turn into slobbering idiots at the sight of a woman, and I did. Maybe that's what I did wrong...taught the boys self-control instead of yelling at the hussies that were "tempting" my sons. 

Regarding Eileen Gray. I read about her and have nothing nice to say about GCC or its leadership. GCC will never "make it right" nor ever release her from their membership rolls. However, who cares...their "discipline" holds no weight in the context of the larger world, they have no real authority. Screw 'em. 

I think Lori needs to shut the fuck up and let the rest of the world do their thing. She wouldn't know reality if it bit her right square in the ass. 

[onemama]

14 hours ago, Loveday said:

I don't understand why they won't remove her from membership. It's been twenty years, right? Let her go. Or do they expect her to eventually 'repent' and return, all contrition and submission, showing up in the pews every Sunday and putting her tithe in the collection plate? 

 

She asked to be removed from GCC 20 years ago and they declined her request because they considered the church responsible for helping her (their version of helping, of course).  I'm guessing she's no longer a member. 

[Loveday]

7 hours ago, onemama said:

She asked to be removed from GCC 20 years ago and they declined her request because they considered the church responsible for helping her (their version of helping, of course).  I'm guessing she's no longer a member. 

I hope you're right. 

[HoneyBunny]

This lady is batshit crazy. Of course, her post-Super Bowl rant is like death and taxes. Personally, I thought the all female jet fighter crew was amazing. Everyone in the halftime show was covered up and I scarcely even noticed the commercials.

Of course, I don’t go through life looking for things to be aggrieved about.

Edited February 13, 2023 by HoneyBunny

[kpmom]

Lori and her fake outrage. 🙄

Interesting how she tells women not to be entertained by these things, and yet knows everything about the fighter pilots, the half time show and something about Damar’s jacket.
 Why wasn’t she busying herself darning socks, or some other womanly thing,  instead of watching?

 And what was it about Damar’s jacket?  I saw him on the field pre-game, but couldn’t see what was on his jacket .

 

[usmcmom]

I only watched the halftime show and thought Rhianna did amazingly well. Lori might like to be reminded that Rhianna was more covered than any of her daughters and daughters-in-law ever are. 
 

The last time I tuned in to one of Lori’s “You Tubes” she made a comment about the room she was in and said that some people just look for things to criticize (referring to comments made on her location.) She then went on to criticize all the leggings she see on women in public. So, just like with the Super Bowl, LORI ALWAYS LOOKS FOR SOMETHING TO CRITICIZE. I wonder if her family gets tired of her negative attitude. 

 

 

[SongRed7]

1 hour ago, usmcmom said:

So, just like with the Super Bowl, LORI ALWAYS LOOKS FOR SOMETHING TO CRITICIZE. I wonder if her family gets tired of her negative attitude. 

yes...she pretty much hated on everything in that video from women pilots, the halftime show (Rhianna couldn't have been more covered up) the Chargers moving from San Diego to LA, TV movies that show women with jobs, commercials, women on the beach, football players SAYING they worship God, but it's NOT THE GOD OF THE UNIVERSE...

I thought women were supposed to dwell on the good and the lovely. She sure was focusing on everything she hated. She look physically not well and weary from all her constant outrage. 

The only thing she thought was OK was the male country singer w ho did the national anthem. She couldn't remember his name, but he was alright. 

[HoneyBunny]

3 hours ago, SongRed7 said:

The only thing she thought was OK was the male country singer w ho did the national anthem. She couldn't remember his name, but he was alright. 

And all I could think of when I saw him is that he was appealing to the Ted Nugent fans. Did nothing for me. 

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori has been humble bragging lately that one of her children is having a 6th child. Cassie?

Sounds quiverfull to me as it seems she just had # 5.

[Loveday]

14 hours ago, Red Hair, Black Dress said:

Lori has been humble bragging lately that one of her children is having a 6th child. Cassie?

Sounds quiverfull to me as it seems she just had # 5.

Very quiverfull. And Lori seems to be collecting grandchildren like I collect vintage Pyrex. 😏

Today she's digging in her heels to defend John MacArthur and the elders of his church. She's throwing around the phrase 'witch hunt' and claiming that the woman who wrote the Christianity Today article has a vendetta against MacArthur. On Facebook Lori comments: "She is a godless woman whose sole goal in life is to take godly men down. All she writes is slander [no, Lori, the correct term is LIBEL. Slander is spoken]. I have many who do the same about me." 

Most of the following blog post is written by someone else, and for once she actually credits properly at the top of the post. 

https://thetransformedwife.com/the-john-macarthur-witch-hunt/?fbclid=IwAR18trjjFrxvBccbuKM0AsvPLngdWoOtJSpbzEyxCdsph4V9nIofaqwxTlQ

[Pammy]

Here are some answers to Lori's laughable list of questions regarding the MacArthur Church, in case anyone is interested...

"1) What does “abuse” mean? This is a word that is being used in multiple ways throughout this discussion."

Abuse has a multifaceted but clear definition in the medical, psychological, and social work fields. Just because you don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's a big mystery. It means that you shouldn't be trying to "help people" in a field where you lack qualifications.

"2) Is “abuse” a legitimate grounds for divorce?" and "3) Is “abuse” a legitimate grounds for separation?"

Yes. Abuse, including verbal abuse other forms of mistreatment, are ongoing unrepentant sins, in direct violation of *many* Biblical commandments. An abuser, as such, is to be treated as one would an "unbeliever" (Matthew 18:17). -- Meaning that separation and divorce can be perused on the grounds of "unwillingness to live together peaceably by an unbeliever" (1 Corinthians 7:15)

"4) Is the world neatly divided up into victims and villains or can both a husband and wife be sinners simultaneously?"

Yes, of course they can both be sinners. In fact, almost certainly they both are. However, not all sins are equally damaging, nor are they all equally evil in their intent or in their outcomes. Sins should be assessed and stopped with respect to their severity, not imagined to be an equalizing factor between an abuser and someone who is being abused.

"Can women even sin?"

Yes, of course they can. What a silly thing to suggest.

"Can a spouse provoke another spouse to sin?"

Yes, provocation is a part of many stories of sinning, especially sins within families, but that doesn't mean that a person is responsible for the sins they allegedly "provoke" in others, nor should this toxic dynamic be considered a reason to continue in an abusive marriage.

"Is there a way to acknowledge the reality of shared sinfulness that doesn’t reduce to blameshifting?"

Yes, there is. You might try it sometime. In the meantime, stop blameshifting.

"5) Is it an elder’s job to protect his sheep from all scary/uncomfortable situations?"

Of course not. Most people are capable and willing to protect themselves from the things they fear or find uncomfortable. An elder could provide support and comfort in such situations, if they are called on to do so. At very least they should not be encouraging people to endure such things unprotected, nor undermining their agency and willingness to protect themselves if they can. When they are welcome, they should be involved in strengthening people who are weak, not tearing them down. When they are unwelcome, they should mind their own business.

"6) Is it wise to form dogmatic conclusions about distant events when listening to one side of the story?"

No, dogmatic conclusions are rarely wise -- but provisional and personal conclusions are perfectly fine. In this case the 'side of the story' we are hearing is credible, logical, unselfish, and has a ring of truth. The defenses are smarmy and self-serving. It doesn't take a genius to make an educated guess here.

"7) Are elders mandated to share private counseling information to an angry mob?"

Certainly not. They could simply say, "The disclosures of (xyz) are consistent with (or not consistent with) the church records of the matter." Or, "The church was unaware of certain features of the situation at the time, and will be reconsidering its approach in light of new information." Or, you know, something. A statement can be impersonal are respectful of privacy while still showing compassion and perspective on a situation.

"Whose business are these situations to handle? Who has a right to this information?"

The people involved, the professionals involved, and the professional supervisors of the people involved all have rights to the information. (Assuming the people involved have professional supervisors and a licensing or oversight structure. Which they very much should!) The right to share the information lies with the people involved, including the right to share that certain practitioners are practicing harm.

"8) If church elders could be shown to have handled a single case of church discipline poorly, should they resign from ministry?"

Not necessarily, but maybe: depending how poor the judgement was, and how systemic the problem seems to be, and how the elder themself feels about the degree of trust that has been broken. Resignation seems pretty reasonable in most cases. Some cases, however, might involve open repentance, restoration and amends made to the person who had been misjudged, and some degree of completed re-training, including commitment to a specific, clear new approach to similar situations.

"9) Is a church discipline case fairly judged as handled poorly if new information comes to light, after the case, which is unrelated to anything discussed during church discipline, which if known at the time would have provided a justified reason for separation?"

Yes. A lack of relevant information is a form of poor handling. Apologies, amends, and retraining should happen immediately.

"If such information is discovered, how do we judge its reliability?"

In the same way a reasonable person would have assessed it in the first place.

"Assuming that it is judged to be reliable, then does that absolve the individual of wrongdoing, who made decisions which were deemed to be sinfully motivated because they were not motivated by said unknown information?"

Poor handling does not have to be 'sinfully motivated' in order to be wrong, and need to be made right.

Not seeking (or not crediting, or not creating enough safety to welcome disclosure) relevant information, or not trusting people to make godly decisions unless they tell you every detail of why -- are all forms of wrongdoing. In addition, many systemic sins, like misogyny, do impact people's motivations unconsciously -- this too should be carefully examined.

Nobody cares if the 'individual' (the one in power) is absolved of wrongdoing. We care if they are capable of, and willing to, make it right.

"10) Is there any room for disagreement over how to handle difficult church discipline scenarios in a culture that despise marriage and knows nothing of biblical expectations for marriage?"

There is lots of room for disagreement in nuanced situations like the end stages of marriages. "Church discipline" itself is inherently debatable. However, in the end: it is the individuals who decide. They need to how they stand before God on the topic of separation and divorce. It's not the elder's job to grant or withhold consent for these things. That's up to the individual and God. Disagreeing with your elders is not grounds for expulsion from your faith community.

(Also, 'the culture' does not 'despise marriage' and they tend to be quite familiar with 'biblical expectations'. They just have a variety of perspectives on that information.)

"11) What does due process look like in church discipline scenarios?"

I don't know. If you want to have legalistic discipline, you should probably write out some procedures and processes to follow -- so at least you are consistent and people know what to expect. Then they can decide in advance whether they want to subject themselves to such things.

"12) What is biblical forgiveness?"

Forgiveness is the release of someone from their just moral obligation to you that results from them having sinned against you.

"What does biblical reconciliation look like?"

Reconciliation in the Bible is about God and humanity. The breaking and mending of human relationships is a minor topic at best, and a clear answer is not provided. Not all 'forgiveness' leads to 'reconciliation' among humanity.

"13) Should we even practice church discipline?"

Yes, I think so. Sin sometimes requires this community response. For example, unrepentant abusers of their spouses should be (eventually) excluded from their faith community.

"14) Is it reasonable to expect perfect justice in this life? Or, are there some situations where we must await a final verdict in the last day?"

No, it's not reasonable to expect perfect justice in this life. But it is reasonable to expect a reasonable approximation of justice. The law of the land seems to be able to manage it most of the time. Why would a church stand with abusers and call that an "imperfection" of their justice role? And if they do so, an know it, why wouldn't they try to change it going forward, at least?

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

Lori, who's husband makes big bank, has been ranting quite a bit lately about living on one income,  Lori, who buys $14/ lb organic butter, says it's easy peasy, nice and breezy. Just be frugal and trust in God.

Several fangirl leghumpers chimed in that it's no big thing to sometimes have to choose between rent and food. Of course they didn't specify which they chose.

One of her leghumpers wrote this. I think she's serious:

Quote

My husband earns $477 a month (that's above the min wage here), would cutting back make that workable. Just wondering.

Assuming she means $477 after taxes, and dear Lord I hope she really means $477 per week -- they are either living on $5724/ year or $24,804/ year assuming hubby works 52 weeks/ year.

If they are indeed living on less than $6000 per year I cannot imaging where to cut back except pitch a tent in a field, wash in a bucket of water from nearby stream, cook  over an open fire. 

If it's the nearly $25k figure, depending on how many are in the family, it might be possible.  

Back in the dark ages straight out of grad school my first job paid $15,000/ year (pre taxes). It was just me and my cat. I paid everything myself, cheap rent on a rather rundown tiny house (cheaper than an apt), car payment, car maintenance, car insurance, all utilities (including water), cheap groceries ( remember the boxes of generic mac n' cheese). $90/ month student loan payment.

I was not floating in extra cash at the end of the month. I wasn't buying clothes as it was still cheap to sew.  Other than ditching the cat I have no idea where I would have cut back.

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Red Hair, Black Dress

[Loveday]

@Red Hair, Black Dress, I saw that comment. I think she's posting from South Africa. I know nothing about the exchange rate between SA money and US, but I'm going to hope that her husband's $477 is a bit more there than it would be here! 

My favourite reply on this morning's 'stay at home or you're sinning!' post:

Quote

 how about you send all these ladies some money. Maybe you need to be God’s provision for them. Just a thought….

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

That comment seems to have disappeared. God forbid Lori actually help someone in need.  Neither her church nor she and Ken support widows and orphans.

I remember years ago Ken saying, when asked directly what charities they supported, that they spent their money on investing in the future by educating their children.

Well the children are all grown now LoriKen.

I'm sure you have some extra cash to help out the widows and the poor. Lori could be more frugal living on your salary alone.  Stop buying expensive organic butter and all that woo,  Get rid of the internet and her cell phone.  Do all the things she tells the leghumpers to do.

Unless of course  you two are really the hypocrites you appear to be

[ManyGoats]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:08 PM, Pammy said:

Here are some answers to Lori's laughable list of questions regarding the MacArthur Church, in case anyone is interested...

You make excellent points which, of course, she will not read because she allows no dissenting voices on any of her posts. 

[samurai_sarah]

Here's your new playground: