Today I read your blog.  My friend Stephanie sent it to me, and I needed to respond.  Let me preface this letter by saying that I love Jesus; I love the Scriptures; and I love serving the Church.  Let me also say that I am not in the custom of responding to troubling things that I read on the “Interwebs.”  But I wanted my sisters to read over my shoulder as I write this.

I am solidly a Pre-Fall complementarian, that is, I believe that Scriptures teaches that God has made engendered humans–male and female, distinct in creation and complementarily distinct in roles.  Eve was created at a different time than Adam, out of different material (Genesis 2:21-22), even–but both were blessed together by God to be fruitful, to subdue the earth, and to rule over it.  (Genesis 1:24ff)  That’s a pretty solid responsibility.  But Adam and Eve’s sin disordered the earth, their responsibility, and God’s blessing.  I think we can agree on those elements.

In this particular post, however, Lori, you wrote:

“Do you know how much more attractive debt-free virgins (without tattoos) are to young men? Unfortunately, there are so few of these types of young women anymore because of the high costs of college (debt) and sexual promiscuity even within those in the church. “

Then you quote a woman’s letter to you about why women shouldn’t go to college (which I suppose you are using as evidence for why young tattooless virgins are more appealing to men).  You list reasons a young woman should not go to college: accruing less debt, forming fewer relationships that lead to broken hearts, living in her parents house, not being able to stay home to raise children, needing to be retaught by her husband, delaying childbearing which leads to infertility, not learning to serve others, and not being able to cook large meals.

Wait.  What?!!!!?

I read and reread your words several times to make sure I wasn’t misunderstanding you.

Lori.  I’m concerned. No, that’s not quite right.  Actually, I am down right angered by  your graceless premise.  To add unbiblical insult to ignorant injury, your list of reasons backing that premise has nothing to do with Biblical mandates, admonitions, or any hints of clarity of the work of Christ in the life a believer.  You tell these young women, “Trust God with your life, study the Word, and take the narrow path that leads to life. Stay virgins until marriage, out of debt, and don’t get tattoos!”  These are good things.  But its graceless work:  please, start with the saving work of Christ which equips men and women to live life so that He is Glorified!  Your equation is No College (/Debt) + No Tattoos – Sex = Marriage. Lori, the work of Jesus in the life of any believer is supreme to the false promise of attracting husbands through financial, sexual, or dermal perfection.  Or, at least, inexperience.

Lori, I read your blog at length this evening.  You claim to be discipling young women.  Rather, your words land more like a heavy load tied up and laid on their shoulders (Matthew 23).  This is not the discipleship Paul admonished older women to provide by walking with younger women.

The God of the Universe has already reversed the tragedy of the Fall in Jesus and made it possible for His sons and Daughters to work together, just as Jesus and Paul both labored together with the daughters of God.

Yes, men and women have different roles, but we have been valued and made equal in Christ.  And we have different gifts that have been given to each of us for the building up of Jesus’ church. For some of us, that might mean decades of serving Jesus and His church as a single person–whether widowed or abandoned or just, sadly, unpursued.  Please, Lori, don’t demean the current gift of singleness (1 Corinthians 7) that God has given your sisters to cram us into your cramped understanding of the good and desirable gift of marriage.  I read in Isaiah that faithfulness to my God in my singleness yields “a name better than sons and daughters.“

And that is a joy full of Jesus’ grace and mercy!

For the King!

Lisa