In college and before I was a Christian, I lived with a male and quite pretty female friend for one year. My “rule” was to never touch her, and it worked out well. But you should ask what our clearly very religious neighbors thought of us.

I think for a highly prominent figure public with ideological enemies, the Billy Graham rule is sensible. We don’t know what goes on in elite DC society. And would you rather have Christian leaders holding themselves to seemingly silly supererogatory moral standards, or Al Mohler cracking jokes about CJ Mahaney covering up child molestation? But now, all these average churchgoing joes coming out to say they too need to follow some very special protocols to hold back the throngs of adulteresses beating down their doors, oh puh-leeze.

However, I think the no parties with alcohol unless she is there rule is asinine. What he’s really saying is that anyone who would, is as bad as an adulterer. My company (company of Stan) has multiple offices in town, and the architecture office invited all the employees, but not spouses, for a happy hour on Tuesday. I’m so bummed I didn’t find the orgy that was going on!

Finally, I wonder if Pence has any rules about being around Melania.

Below is a section of the North American Mission Board (SBC) Code of Conduct that church planters must currently sign. (They do not specify, but only men can be church planters.). ……. The Billy Graham rule – new, improved and expanded version.
”
• I will not visit the opposite sex alone at home, other than my spouse.
• I will not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office.
• I will not counsel the opposite sex more than once without the person’s spouse.
• If married, I will not have lunch alone with the opposite sex, other than my spouse.
• I will be careful in answering cards, letters and email notes from the opposite sex.
• If married, I will not be in an automobile alone with anyone of the opposite sex, other than my spouse.
• I will not show affection that could be questioned.”

Pence is always going to be surrounded by aides or Secret Service or someone. It can’t be that hard for him to live by these rules — and he has never once said he would impose these rules on anyone else, only that he sets this standard for himself. In the political world where scandals are a dime a dozen, I think it’s admirable. It doesn’t mean everyone has to do things his way. But a little caution on Christians’ part in today’s world (whether you go as far with us as Pence or not) can’t be a bad thing.

What has been interesting to me are the strange comparisons some people are making between Pence and Islamic cultures which force women to wear burqas. Pence is not forcing his view on anyone else. Apparently he values fidelity in his marriage, which I think is a laudable. I can think of so many politicians who haven’t been faithful in marriage.
If he’s erring on the side of caution, well, good for him.

Nancy2 wrote:

Below is a section of the North American Mission Board (SBC) Code of Conduct that church planters must currently sign. (They do not specify, but only men can be church planters.). ……. The Billy Graham rule – new, improved and expanded version.
”
• I will not visit the opposite sex alone at home, other than my spouse.
• I will not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office.
• I will not counsel the opposite sex more than once without the person’s spouse.
• If married, I will not have lunch alone with the opposite sex, other than my spouse.
• I will be careful in answering cards, letters and email notes from the opposite sex.
• If married, I will not be in an automobile alone with anyone of the opposite sex, other than my spouse.
• I will not show affection that could be questioned.”

Yep, the SBC does not need women, but they gladly use the name of Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong to raise money for missions. The SBC leaders are a bunch of hypocrites who twist God’s word to treat women like sub-humans.

“…men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women because they might find them attractive, distracting and, from a marital perspective, disruptive. This equation was central to a 2013 Iowa Supreme Court case in which the all-male court reaffirmed the firing of a woman because she was too pretty and her employer viewed her as an ‘irresistible attraction.’ In 2010, a woman sued Citibank for firing her for being ‘distracting’ to the men in her office.” – from Chemaly today, writing on this topic for the Huffington Post.

Maybe these working guys need to live their lives between their ears with their brains at the office instead of between their legs, their distraction being their own anatomy.

When Jesus talked about being distracted by a woman, he did not tell the men to toss the woman into the fire or wood-chopper or unemployment line:

Matthew 5:27 ff “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.”

JYJames wrote:

“…men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women because they might find them attractive, distracting and, from a marital perspective, disruptive. This equation was central to a 2013 Iowa Supreme Court case in which the all-male court reaffirmed the firing of a woman because she was too pretty and her employer viewed her as an ‘irresistible attraction.’ In 2010, a woman sued Citibank for firing her for being ‘distracting’ to the men in her office.” – from Chemaly today, writing on this topic for the Huffington Post.

Men like Pence make it sound like they are being so righteous, but at the same time come across as making women such seductress.

If women can’t be in the company of a man/men because religious restrictions, then it limits women’s growth and advancement. It seems to me, dee, that is exactly what many proponents of the various versions of the “Billy Graham Rule” are actually aiming for. They don’t want women in positions of authority. If you say that a woman can’t be in the same room as a man, then it says that a woman’s place is not in the workplace, which fits rather nicely with the idea that women are supposed to be keepers at home, raising the children and homeschooling them. (If that’s something a woman WANTS to do, more power to her. But having it forced on her or made the only choice available is quite a different story.)

I should note that I’m one of those evil Jezebels who works in an office alone with a man or men, on the days of the week that I go into the office at my evil too big to fail employer. Why, my office is behind a badged/locked door where security doesn’t generally go, and there are men there *all the time* (it’s a 24×7 monitoring center). And even if I did work at home all the time (which is a possibility open to me), I’d still have to work closely with men and even lead phone calls with men on them. Why, I’m such a strumpet! In fact, a week ago Thursday, I had lunch with my boss’s boss, who came into the office to work that day! Quelle horreur! (Does it even matter that this guy is gay and has a partner?)

Seriously, though, the whole thing is about women’s position in society, and while the Billy Graham rule may have worked to keep Billy Graham above reproach, general application does hurt women in public, whether working, or in education, or volunteering, etc. In that way, it’s really no different than the rule in Saudi Arabia where women can’t be alone with some male they’re not related to (unless it’s the driver they employ, then it’s perfectly OK).

@ Nancy2:

Pence seems more like the best Trump could get. I imagine there’d be a different field for any of the other Republican candidates. It is interesting to speculate if any Republican man would really be willing to be Fiorina’s first fella.

Did Pence actually say this?
JYJames wrote:

men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women because they might find them attractive, distracting and, from a marital perspective, disruptive

quote wrote:

men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women because they might find them attractive, distracting and, from a marital perspective, disruptive

Dunno about Pence, but there is this, from 2015:

Why Some Male Members of Congress Won’t Be Alone With Female Staffers

Numerous women who work on the Hill say they’ve been excluded from solo meetings and evening events, a practice that could be illegal.

In an anonymous survey of female staffers conducted by National Journal in order to gather information on the difficulties they face in a male-dominated industry, several female aides reported that they have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.

Follow-up interviews with other Hill aides make clear that these policies, while not prevalent, exist in multiple offices — and they may well run afoul of employment discrimination laws, experts say. Because of the sensitivity of the issue, and the fear of retribution, many of these women and some of their male counterparts spoke with National Journal on the condition of anonymity and declined to publicly name their bosses.

More at the link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/05/why-some-male-members-of-congress-wont-be-alone-with-female-staffers/449367/

I’d note this is not the norm at the evil, too big to fail financial institution. In fact, people might give you the side-eye.

Pence’s Lt. Governor in Indiana was Sue Ellspermann, his current chief of staff is Jen Pavlik, Kellyanne Conway worked for Pence when he was a congressman. There are more.

bonnie knox wrote:

Apparently he values fidelity in his marriage, which I think is a laudable

Having lunch or dinner meetings with someone of the opposite sex when you are married “does not equal infidelity.” The presumption these men are making is that you can’t possibly be true to your marriage partner if you are at a meal with another woman. If Pence and other men have such a problem being around women in a work environment,maybe they should not be in public service

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
“queen bees don’t drive”

To which I ask: Are queen bees supposed to work outside the home? :-).

You are putting words in his mouth that he did not say.

@ Bridget:

I can agree with Dee completely on the “Thoughts for debate”. I can’t count the times that I have been alone with a man not-my-spouse because of various reasons ……. alone at work, alone in a barn “booking” tobacco, alone at my home doing private math tutoring, alone at my home with repair men or satellite installers, etc. As a farmer’s daughter, a math teacher, or a soldier’s wife it would have been impossible for me to have a “babysitter” every time a man was around.
I even tutored a church deacon through a 14-week college math course while my husband was deployed part of that time. (If I had known what a misogynist he is at the time, I would have told him where to stick his Calc text book! I guess he was desperate to pass the course, and I’m the only person he knows personally with a math degree. Before I tutored him, I tutored his daughter through 2 courses.)

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

That whole list only has 13 items. Nine of those items have to do with sexual issues. I’d say the NAMB is obsessed.

Oh, how I wish I could find the contract that planter wives are required to sign! I don’t think they list it on the website anymore. I can’t recall it word for word, but it is the same “code of conduct plus a wife must agree to be her husband’s helper with the church plant in whatever way the husband deems necessary!

There’s another dimension to this whole thing that I haven’t seen addressed.

I have a (married) long-time male friend who has served as a corporate lawyer, personnel director and CEO, among other roles, in the corporate environment. He’s not a Christian. And he is VERY careful about being alone with any woman not his wife because of the very real possibility of a false accusation of sexual harassment in the workplace. He told me he always holds one-on-one conferences in a room with the door open, or a room with windows into other parts of the office.

So it isn’t just the scenario of the man avoiding temptation. It’s also avoiding any possibility of being falsely accused of inappropriate behavior. Especially in today’s society where an awful lot of people are looking for ways to be offended.

Darlene wrote:

Some people are weaker when it comes to the opposite sex so for them the Billy Graham rule makes sense.

This doesn’t take into account there are two people involved.

Among the many things I find annoying about the Billy Graham Rule is that the men who adhere to it is that they assume I find them sexy and want to do The Nasty with them.

It takes a huge ego for a man to assume that any and every woman he may meet alone with would find him attractive and want to “get it on” with him.

I’m not the kind of woman who’d get it on with a married dude, even if I did find him really attractive, because I’ve got great morals.

The Billy Graham rule, though, assumes all women, including me (who has great values and self restraint), are harlots.

So the man in question may find meeting with a woman tempting, but if the woman in question is me, ain’t nothing going to happen, and I don’t appreciate the dude acting like something will. He may be a floozie willing to get it on and cheat on his wife, but I am not.

StillWiggling wrote:

Especially in today’s society where an awful lot of people are looking for ways to be offended.

and yet the real Christian model was ALWAYS that of a person who is not easily personally offended, but who carries Christ’s peace within themselves in the presence of the storm ….. it’s that kind of inner strength that is not understood much by them what gets mad over a ‘happy holidays’ or a plain red cup at a Starbucks

And it’s that kind of inner strength that doesn’t do things according to a ‘rule’ that, if broken, you might not ‘look good’ in front of others.

Our Lord Himself was alone with the woman at the well. I don’t think He worried about how this ‘looked’ to others.
Actually, I doubt He ever worried about ‘how things looked’ to others.

Nancy2 wrote:

I can’t count the times that I have been alone with a man not-my-spouse because of various reasons ……. alone at work, alone in a barn “booking” tobacco, alone at my home doing private math tutoring, alone at my home with repair men or satellite installers, etc. As a farmer’s daughter, a math teacher, or a soldier’s wife it would have been impossible for me to have a “babysitter” every time a man was around.

I am so glad to be out of a NeoCalvinist/Patriarchy/Complementarian/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church with all of these insufferable rules, backed up by admonishments, womens’ tea lectures, books, Christian radio programs and the like. They act like the universe is going to implode if we’re alone with a member of the opposite sex. We’re old enough to know how to handle ourselves and each other.

StillWiggling wrote:

So it isn’t just the scenario of the man avoiding temptation. It’s also avoiding any possibility of being falsely accused of inappropriate behavior. Especially in today’s society where an awful lot of people are looking for ways to be offended.

This is why I think it’s completely wrong from a Christian perspective. We hold on way too much to our “positions”, and any argument about “My position might be compromised” really means we are holding much too tightly to it, and our reasoning for doing so is really about us and not about God. Even in ministry, it’s not “ours”.

So what if we are falsely accused?

I was kept out of a ministry position because of a very ridiculous reason. The overt reason was that I have some health issues, so I must not have had enough “faith” for God to cure me. Note, this wasn’t a charismatic organization, and only one person’s opinion counted. I think the real reason was that I was single and female. According to the organization, that was perfectly fine, but this person who made the decisions seemed to talk more about that than my health.

Was God not in that? Even though that person did not do the right thing, was that position “mine”?

We are so status and position-driven now, and that is all cultural. It’s not from God. And people who really want to destroy you will find another way, if God lets them. There’s thousands of ways they can do so, probably millions and billions.

I think the Billy Graham rule actually displays a giant lack of faith, yes, even from Billy Graham. By adopting such a rule, you are saying God can’t protect you, and blaming it on the opposite sex. And if you fall that easily into sin, and are in a position that is that high-profile, you are likely not deserving of that position. You are holding onto it for your own benefit, not to serve God.

@ Christiane:

True, but Jesus didn’t have to worry about what a sexual harassment suit would do to him. Or worry about his livelihood if someone started a whisper campaign.

Being alone with the opposite sex isn’t a big deal to me, but my husband (who worked for a civil defense firm in between preaching jobs) is much more cautious. When he counsels women its either with the door open, somewhere where there are cameras or with me. It’s not that he’s afraid of being tempted, or even that the woman would ever falsely accuse him, but so that some other third party with a bone to pick won’t have any unnecessary ammunition. It’s the same with children or teens. It’s more of a CYA policy than a “Billy Graham Rule.”

Just an observation, but when we’re talking about children we want all sorts of rules and regulations about what is appropriate – cameras, no one should be alone, full disclosure, background checks ect. But when it comes to adults we are outraged? When I insist that my young daughter should not be alone with someone (particularly a man) in church, it’s not that I think every single man is a potential child molester. I’m just being extra cautious just in case. When I taught high school I was never alone in the classroom with one of my students unless the door was open, but it’s not because I was tempted by teenagers. I think reasonable boundaries and precautions are okay. It’s been said many times on this site that when a preacher has an affair it’s an abuse of authority, so what is wrong with a preacher taking the same precautions other people in authority take?

Christiane wrote:

it’s that kind of inner strength that is not understood much by them what gets mad over a ‘happy holidays’ or a plain red cup at a Starbucks

When the red cup ruckus erupted from the obnoxious Arizona “pastor”, a man on Twitter had the perfect comeback. He said that he was going to boycott the Bible because it didn’t say “Merry Christmas”. I laughed. There’s a man who “gets it”.

I don’t think it’s been mentioned so far… in Britain we have a number of tabloid newspapers known for sensationalist and muckraking. I guess the National Enquirer is the American equivalent. If I was a high-profile Christian, the last thing I would want would is my picture with someone other than my spouse appearing in one of these, with headlines suggesting an affair.

So I think the Billy Graham rule does still have a place today for public figures.

Christiane wrote:

Hi VELOUR,
reminds me of a church resolving not to sing any hymn that did not mention Jesus Christ by Name….. until the choir director pointed out that this would include banishing ‘Be Thou My Vision’

[OFF TOPIC]

Some versions of the lyrics have “Christ of my own heart, whatever befall” in the last verse.

But famous hymns like “O worship the King all glorious above”, “Praise, my soul, the King of heaven” and “Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation” would fall foul of this.

And I wonder what hymns Jesus and the early disciples sung? None that mentioned Him, I would suggest.

Ian wrote:

A few people in the US are burning the midnight oil, I see

Ahoy from across The Pond (and a rock), here in California.

Just made a donut and hot coffee trip to a 24-hour donut shop.

Christiane wrote:

Be Thou My Vision

Fav.

Ian wrote:

Velour wrote:
And what Bibles did they read?
The King James Version, of course. Everyone knows it was good enough for the apostle Paul.

Ian,

I thought they read the Patriarchy-promoting ESV Bible?

Ian wrote:

And I wonder what hymns Jesus and the early disciples sung? None that mentioned Him, I would suggest.

forgot to add:
The hymn was called ‘The Gentle Light’ (Phos Hilaron)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFU3LojPuM4

Ian wrote:

Velour wrote:
Ian,
I thought they read the Patriarchy-promoting ESV Bible?
Sorry, I forgot. I’ll read Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood as penance.

LOL.

Don’t feed the trolls over there at RBMW.

Godith wrote:

The Huff Post article says “I’ve often heard men like Pence” …so Pence didn’t say that at all. Quite a different story. People who make an effort to avoid sin or the appearance of it should be praised. Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

It is not that these men should not be praised, it is what they are indirectly saying about women and IMO it is more wrong than their righteous position.

Some people are making thoughtful comments here. I do want to disagree with one thing, and that is the emphasis on ‘that generation’. Dee’s mom is 88 and I am 83. That would be the same generation, but apparently Dee’s mom and I grew up in different generations if one is to make that call based on ideas like the one cited. Or else, people are the products not just of their ‘generations’ but also of the homes they grew up in and the places they went to church and the individual personalities of the persons involved. Apparently, and not to be too far fetched, Dee’s mom and I grew up in different ‘worlds’. Except it was not just the ‘world’ of generation, it was also the world of the multiple variables in play in making people who they are. I believe this to be an important aspect in consideration of this and many other ‘issues’.

And I think we all know that this is true, since in this matter of the BG rule we see different people coming to different conclusions while being of the same generation as each other. And wanting to throw down and fit about it.

I make this distinction not just because I dislike being characterized based on age (and there is a lot of that sort of thing in our culture) but also because I think that the people who have commented with ideas which can all come under the heading of ‘it depends’ are on the right track. It depends on the people, on the circumstances, on what all is or is not at risk, and even on how one decides to order one’s own life choices for whatever reasons. We are not-not-all part of the borg-not yet. We do not-not-all have to make the same choices or live the same way.

I think that Darlene’s comment comparing John the Baptist and Jesus the Christ is spot on. Whatever you do will be harshly criticized-always and maliciously.

There is a wonderful amount of freedom in that, of course, since it leaves one free to make one’s own choices without giving a rip about who likes what. Just like Jesus and John the Baptist did. Follow your own calling, just like they did. Do what is appropriate for your own calling, just like they did. Be led by what you hear the Spirit saying-not what you hear other people saying one way or the other-just like they did.

The man who said that queens don’t drive, to me is a very controlling man. He doesn’t want his wife to succeed. He has to be in control of everything in her life. She needs to get away from him.

I can’t drive much now because of health reasons. It’s very hard on me to have to rely on my husband to take me every place I want to go. He doesn’t exactly like going shopping. Walmart is about the limit for him. But then I have learned that I really didn’t need to go to the shopping places as much as I thought I did.

My husband, before he retired, was in the professional world. He often had meetings one on one with females, and went places with them. I never once was jealous. If he wanted to have an affair, he wouldn’t choose any of the ladies he worked with or had meetings with. We both worked for the same company and in the same division of the company. My husband also knew that I had male friends at work. He never had a problem with it. I would often go out to lunch with both single and married friends of both sexes. Not a problem. To me, if you are that insecure in your own marriage or singleness that you can’t be around people of the opposite sex without it being a problem, then something is really wrong.

Stan wrote:

However, I think the no parties with alcohol unless she is there rule is asinine.

You can’t go anywhere in dc without her if you’re following that rule!

A lunch just seems so public. It’s baffling to me that they are so afraid of that. I guess they think every lunch is a date. That’s all I can figure.

Then they extend it to cars and elevators and so on and so forth and it gets to be sheer lunacy. My boss drove me to the dealership to pick up my new car a few months ago. We seem to have managed.

Joe Reed wrote:

His ministry to women has never been questioned, either, so it wasn’t hampered by this rule. The assumptions many are making that such a rule would hinder ministry is a stretch.

Please elaborate.

Billy Graham + John Piper = avoid being alone (in a car, eating lunch, etc.) with members of the same sex.
Why aren’t men who evoke the Billy Graham rule, evangelicals in particular, afraid of being accused of being homosexuals if they are seen dining alone or in a car alone with another man?

@ miot: that is so lame! To me Pence and Graham are saying more about themselves.

@ miot:

I’ve yet to hear anyone say “Graham could have done so much for for women if he’d only met privately with them.”

StillWiggling wrote:

So it isn’t just the scenario of the man avoiding temptation. It’s also avoiding any possibility of being falsely accused of inappropriate behavior. Especially in today’s society where an awful lot of people are looking for ways to be offended.

My late father was a huge proponent of women in the workplace. His favorite salesperson was a woman and he was always holding her up to me and my sister as a go-getter in a “You should grow up and be like Lee” sense.

That said, at his last job before retirement one of the employees was a woman the other employees called “the Black Widow” behind her back. Dad was her ultimate supervisor in the office. The reason she was called “the Black Widow” was because she’d leveled not one, but two successful sexual harassment complaints against men in the office. Well, that really put a chill on things–she’d been pretty much exiled to a working space away from everyone else because my father wanted the office to hum like a well-oiled machine. Having his employees worry that they might be next was really affecting office morale. (Since I never worked in the office, I have no idea about the dynamics there, but I know it *really* gave my dad agita.)

Godith wrote:

miot

What is so lame?

Ken G wrote:

Mike Pence was Governor of Indiana and elected to the United States House of Representatives. There is no indication that he has a “problem being around women in work environment” and has an admirable record in public service.

Yet, he voted against equal pay for women 3 times, and spent campaign funds on his home mortgage, his wife’s car payments, and groceries.
Selective ethics.

Nancy2 wrote:

Why aren’t men who evoke the Billy Graham rule, evangelicals in particular, afraid of being accused of being homosexuals if they are seen dining alone or in a car alone with another man?

Perhaps they are not as ‘homophobic’ as their detractors like to claim? Perhaps they fancy themselves to appear so hetero that they never imagine that anybody would think otherwise? Perhaps the men that they are seen with do not have husbands at home who may get the wrong idea and come looking for trouble with both fists? Perhaps because society has had much to say about ‘male bonding’ which has been rather described differently than male/female ‘bonding’ and perhaps they think that society will not be raising an eyebrow? Perhaps because the ad industry has used male/female sexuality to sell everything imaginable and this has so colored people’s thinking that any hope that society as a whole with think of anything male/female in non-sexual terms is a tad toward futile?

Ken G wrote:

ishy wrote:

I think the Billy Graham rule actually displays a giant lack of faith, yes, even from Billy Graham. By adopting such a rule, you are saying God can’t protect you, and blaming it on the opposite sex. And if you fall that easily into sin, and are in a position that is that high-profile, you are likely not deserving of that position. You are holding onto it for your own benefit, not to serve God.

Your comment is 100% pure baloney or as the Irish would say, malarkey. Today, especially today, we live in a litigious society. Yes, there are women out there who will make a false allegation in an attempt for a quick settlement. It’s not about falling into sin, but all about not becoming a victim of some scheming woman.

Oh, those scheming women. LOL! Surely you are better than this comment.

For normal people in normal jobs, this rule just doesn’t work. I meet one-on-one with men frequently in my job, and have occasionally gone to lunch with just one man. Yes, we need to be aware of risks to our marriages and make smart decisions to protect them, but blanket rules about meeting alone with a person of the opposite sex for completely legitimate reasons don’t make sense.

I can understand why a person in a very public position might follow this rule. But if it’s widely applied to real jobs and real life, the effect is to perpetuate the idea that women are a “problem” that must be “dealt with,” which is, in fact, what many Christian “leaders” seem to believe.

I think a lot of this fear of women comes from not having women as equals and superiors in one’s life. Let’s take a Calvinista preacher we’ve all heard of–Matt Chandler. From looking at his public biography, there doesn’t appear to have been a time when he was an adult where he ever had a woman as a superior over him. (He *may* have had a woman as a professor when he was at Hardin-Simmons College.) But he was in a church organization where women definitely played secondary roles while he was pastoring a small church or leading an interdenominational Bible study.

Matt has been pastor of what became The Village Church since 2002. He’s now 42 years old. You can do the math–since he was 27 years old, he’s been lead pastor of what is now a megachurch. He’s been king of the mountain. There is no woman in his life who can tell him what to do. And I am pretty sure from the Karen Hinkley mess that this isolation from women absolutely played a role. I’m sure it plays a role now–he may not have to deal with women as equals and superiors in his job, but I’m certain there are at least a few men in his pews on a Sunday that do.

I am personally of the opinion that these megachurch pastors like Matt Chandler need to be temporarily evicted from their current positions and reassigned to work at low-paying jobs with women as their supervisors. That would teach them two things–no, your boss and female coworkers are not trying to jump your bones (and “no, you are not all that”) and perhaps some empathy for the men and women who work those low-paying jobs and yet are exhorted to tithe, tithe, tithe, tithe, tithe….

I will say this, though, I don’t know if we could put up with a Matt Chandler type at my employer. Everyone I know is very busy and absolutely not in the mood for any drama llama behavior. Billy Graham rule? We’d give you a serious side-eye. We literally don’t have time for that.

@ miot: suggesting that Pence and Graham are impugning women.

mot wrote:

Oh, those scheming women. LOL! Surely you are better than this comment.

You said it better than I could have, mot.

Ken G wrote:

Better safe than sorry.

Yeah, apparently all women might be Jezebels, lying in wait to attack a poor, innocent, helpless man.

@ mot:
Apparently not.

Ken G wrote:

Better safe than sorry.

If you had to fly to another town or state alone, and take a taxi or uber to a hotel, would you wave off a female driver?

mot wrote:

Oh, those scheming women. LOL! Surely you are better than this comment.

I lived a very obvious life in a small town. From my work place I could, metaphorically, look out my window and see a whole fence row of lawyers perched on the fence like vultures hoping to pick the meat off my bones because not I but rather my malpractice insurance carrier had deep pockets. And what would fuel all that? Animosity. Greed . Opportunism. Crazy religion married to crazy politics. Example: a middle aged male pediatrician told me that he would never sit at a public table where there was alcohol in this town, though he would when he went back to his home city for CME, because there were so many people just hoping to catch him at something.

I am sure it is true; I heard enough gossip in that town to ruin my disposition for life. So, I lived a life that would have made St. Benedict of recent discussion look like a playboy in comparison. What I am saying is that indeed there are schemers, vultures, people who are jealous or avaricious or just don’t like you, and one has to exist against that backdrop-or at least some people do and some situations require that.

But not all.

Godith wrote:

@ mot: who said it is the woman’s fault? Did it occur to you that men have failings as well? I know it has, so why make a big deal about women being accused?

You do not get it in the current “Biblical” world it is always the woman’s fault. She is to be submissive to men. She is subordinate to men know and if she is married she will be in heaven. If Eve had not eaten the apple, we would not have all of these women problems. Poor old Adam he just could not say no to Eve when she offered him the apple. Men just don’t stand a chance when a woman is around.

My short answer is the Billy Graham rule is no longer practical and I don’t think it ever was.
Both my parents were nurses. My Dad worked as a social worker and his partner for many years was a woman. They would often go for lunch together to discuss client cases they were responsible for.
Someone at church took my mom aside and revealed that she had seen dad at a local restaurant with “another woman”. My mom always thought that was funny.
It comes down to trust. An person will have an affair with or without so called rules in place.
This is just another way that some Christians put up walls to keep the world out.

okrapod wrote:

mot wrote:

Oh, those scheming women. LOL! Surely you are better than this comment.

I lived a very obvious life in a small town. From my work place I could, metaphorically, look out my window and see a whole fence row of lawyers perched on the fence like vultures hoping to pick the meat off my bones because not I but rather my malpractice insurance carrier had deep pockets. And what would fuel all that? Animosity. Greed . Opportunism. Crazy religion married to crazy politics. Example: a middle aged male pediatrician told me that he would never sit at a public table where there was alcohol in this town, though he would when he went back to his home city for CME, because there were so many people just hoping to catch him at something.

I am sure it is true; I heard enough gossip in that town to ruin my disposition for life. So, I lived a life that would have made St. Benedict of recent discussion look like a playboy in comparison. What I am saying is that indeed there are schemers, vultures, people who are jealous or avaricious or just don’t like you, and one has to exist against that backdrop-or at least some people do and some situations require that.

But not all.

I hear you, but for so many people the schemers must always be the womin folk.

Jack wrote:

Someone at church took my mom aside and revealed that she had seen dad at a local restaurant with “another woman”. My mom always thought that was funny.

I personally know a man ( actually, his whole family) who’s job required him to have business dinners with clients and potential clients. He was never seen alone with a woman, other than his wife. No. He left his wife for another man,

dee wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:

Why aren’t men who evoke the Billy Graham rule, evangelicals in particular, afraid of being accused of being homosexuals if they are seen dining alone or in a car alone with another man?

Yes!!!!! That is one of the points I was trying to make. There are men attracted to men, women to women, so why don’t they just ban eating out ever with anyone. In fact, If you are not married, ups should only eat alone in public.

ARRGGHHH! I can’t stand this stuff.

Dee: As you can tell I am in rare form this morning. I am D A M N tired of the way women are treated by “Biblical” men.

mot wrote:

Dee: As you can tell I am in rare form this morning. I am D A M N tired of the way women are treated by “Biblical” men.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…..” unless you’re talkin’ ’bout dem wimmenfolk.

Nancy2 wrote:

mot wrote:

Dee: As you can tell I am in rare form this morning. I am D A M N tired of the way women are treated by “Biblical” men.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you…..” unless you’re talkin’ ’bout dem wimmenfolk.

I am being as honest as I know how to be. If God had not called me to pastor the church I amcurrently ,I believe I would be a DONE. The way women are treated by most “Biblical” men is totally un Jesus like. We are not living in the first Century.

mot wrote:

I am being as honest as I know how to be. If God had not called me to pastor the church I amcurrently ,I believe I would be a DONE. The way women are treated by most “Biblical” men is totally un Jesus like. We are not living in the first Century.

Mot,
IIRC, you are a little older than me, and we both are/have been involved in SBC churches. Have you seen a down grade in the way women are treated in the churches over the past 20 years or so?

Nancy2 wrote:

mot wrote:

I am being as honest as I know how to be. If God had not called me to pastor the church I amcurrently ,I believe I would be a DONE. The way women are treated by most “Biblical” men is totally un Jesus like. We are not living in the first Century.

Mot,
IIRC, you are a little older than me, and we both are/have been involved in SBC churches. Have you seen a down grade in the way women are treated in the churches over the past 20 years or so?

Nancy, it is absolutely awful what I have observed over the last 20 years or so in SBC churches. The whole issue of women pastors has been used to severely limit the roles of women. Even the women with the a strong biblical call are so afraid of being called a feminist, they just choose to be a part of the church and not use their gift or they know they will not be allowed to use their gift.

Nancy2 wrote:

I personally know a man (actually, his whole family) who’s job required him to have business dinners with clients and potential clients. He was never seen alone with a woman, other than his wife. No. He left his wife for another man,

“Wife” or “Beard”?

Janey wrote:

I would be willing to have dinner one-on-one with almost every Christian man I know. (And in fact, I would be willing to have dinner one-on-one with almost every non-Christian man I know.)

And if one tried to rape me, I am perfectly capable of defending myself.

Does that mean you’re a (gasp, with fluttering hands) MUSCULAR Woman?

okrapod wrote:

No, afraid not. Total black with long leg pants, black shirt of some sort with an actual Roman collar-nothing short of that. Of course, that would not automatically drops the guy’s T level to pathological lows, but it might improve his image if that is what he is worried about. And, IMO, he has a right to be worried about his image. I just don’t actually believe he is really all that worried if he stops short of public clerical garb. I think some of them are just pulling one.

Okay. Flip side. What should preachers’ wives wear? My husband does preach occasionally. ; ^ }

Well, I’ve been reluctant to comment on this piece because I’m an old fuddy-duddy. I agree with Dee when she says “it is a rule that has limited application in the world of today.” Well, I’ve certainly had trouble over the years with “the world of today” … I guess I come across harsh and critical sometimes on TWW as I speak on topics of the day. I would dearly love to see the clock turned back on some things. But the world is what it is.

As a child in the 1950s, I have vivid memories of our family gathering around our black & white TV to watch Billy Graham crusades. We had a tremendous respect for Dr. Graham and his ministry. We lived in small town America that had a population of 400, with over 500 attending the Southern Baptist church. The church influenced everything there, keeping bars, pool halls, and other unrighteous living at bay for several years. I would dare say that every home tuned into those Billy Graham crusades. Perhaps it was viewing the world through childhood innocence, but things seemed so much more … well, innocent … on every front.

We all establish rules we live by. Some of the rules you follow, I would not … and vice versa. There’s a lot of hype about being culturally-relevant these days and I confess that I have had trouble adjusting to the culture around me. I guess I have held onto nostalgic memories of another time, hoping for a return to some things but realizing that will never happen. I’m a dinosaur of another era, stuck somewhere in time between there and here, but I still hold onto some rules that have worked for me.

Now, to the point, Billy Graham’s rule did indeed work for him in the world of his day. I have tremendous respect for the man and his ministry. He conducted over 400 crusades in 185 countries on six continents. It has been estimated that he preached the Gospel to over 200 million people, with over 12 million folks making decisions for Christ. The rules he established for himself and those who ministered alongside him escaped the scandals that brought the end to so many others. His ministry guidelines seem so archaic and unbalanced in today’s world, but there is no doubt that Brother Graham stayed faithful to his calling with a Christian integrity in word and deed that spanned several decades of ministry. I suppose Christians need to measure these things not by the world and age in which we live, but by the Kingdom in which we are called to live.

@ Nancy2:

Seriously. I don’t see a biblical ‘office’ of preacher’s wife. So I think that preacher’s wives should do what the rest of us all ought to do, the best we can with what we have to do with.

okrapod wrote:

Seriously. I don’t see a biblical ‘office’ of preacher’s wife. So I think that preacher’s wives should do what the rest of us all ought to do, the best we can with what we have to do with.

Good! I like my skinny jeans. They make me look …. well …. skinny.

Velour wrote:

I am so glad to be out of a NeoCalvinist/Patriarchy/Complementarian/9Marxist/John MacArthur-ite church with all of these insufferable rules, backed up by admonishments, womens’ tea lectures, books, Christian radio programs and the like. They act like the universe is going to implode if we’re alone with a member of the opposite sex.

MALE Sexual Predators projecting a Rule 63 genderflip?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

“I THANK THEE, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOORD, THAT *I* AM NOTHING LIKE….”

It’s not that Pence “avoids sin and the appearance of it”.
It’s that he’s Church Lady about it all. “SEE HOW RIGHTEOUS *I* AM?”

I think it says in the Holy Scriptures–““But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Wonder what Pence and others that wish to follow the Graham rule would say about this verse as it applies to them?

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Very, very well said, or as Velour would put it, “This!”.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

The Billy Graham Rule DOES make sense for a public figure, especially in today’s “GOTCHA!” tabloid culture.

To an extent ……. But, having a meal with a member of the opposite sex in a public place, in full public view??? How far does it go? Can a man not have dinner with a sister or other female family member who is visiting from out of state for fear of damaging his public image?
And, Pence won’t go to a party where alcohol is being served without his wife? What’s the diff between alcoholic and non-alcoholic parties??? Why not just avoid parties altogether if his wife can’t come? Haters gonna hate, whether there’s alcohol involved or not. Does he not trust himself? Does he need a designated driver?
Do the men who practice those restrictions hamstring their wives by demanding that they do the same?

mot wrote:

say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
Wonder what Pence and others that wish to follow the Graham rule would say

Flip a coin. Heads – burqas, tails – blindfolds. (It may be a two-headed coin.)

Max wrote:

I suppose Christians need to measure these things not by the world and age in which we live, but by the Kingdom in which we are called to live.

Yes. Easier said than done, but yes.

Continuation of previous post: Having some external guardrails to prevent oneself from running off the road seems like a sensible idea. We do it all the time in other areas of life: Smokers quitting are encouraged not to hang out with their smoking buddies or to tell their buddies in advance to please not let them bum a cigarette. People trying to lose weight may choose to avoid buying certain foods altogether because once in the house, their ability to make the choice their better self would prefer is weakened. One does not have to be a sex addict to anticipate that there may be times when some external control is helpful to one’s true desires.

Though I am in favor of external guardrails as help for individuals wanting to make it more likely that their choices will be in line with what they would choose if fully of sound mind and heart, I also think there is an issue to consider in terms of equal access to both genders so that women are not discriminated against in organizations dominated by men (such as many churches.) Also, not every is sexually tempted by the opposite sex. If a pastor will not meet with a female staff member alone for lunch, then he shouldn’t meet with male colleagues in that setting either. Lunch meetings have a distinct advantage over office meetings in building friendship and food can make disagreements easier to work through. Having a window in his door prevents a pastor having a meeting with either gender from becoming secret and inappropriate. The key is to treat it as a matter of wisdom not as a rigid rule. Rigid rules only tend to provoke the behavior they are supposed to be keeping down; wisdom, on the other hand, does tend to prevent it.

@ Muslin, fka Dee Holmes:
Good for your dad. Rather than a rule for everyone because there is one problem person, he dealt wisely with the problem person in isolation, to protect everyone else.

Problem people need extreme measures. But not everyone is a problem person.

There was a guy in the church singles group that was into porn in his private life, he confessed. He seemed off. Very uncomfortable to be around. Ladies did not want to be alone with him.

Working in business, one senses when another party is getting off topic, veering away from business into a side venture, and that is when boundaries come down fast and sure.

Supposedly in the BG narrative, after he found a lady in his hotel room bed waiting for him, another practice they instituted was to have his hotel room scoped out before he entered for the night. That would be a sensible practice.

When it comes to the sexy young and restless preachers in the skinny jeans, gooked up hair, heavy cologne, 365 tan, half buttoned shirt, chest hair hanging out, etc., who evoke a come-on from the get-go, personally, I would never want to have anything to do with that guy. He’s got issues that preempt working together in ministry.

I imagine guys can sense the same with some Christian women, and again, those women have issues that need to be addressed perhaps by a loving, mentoring older woman (Titus), rather than jumping into ministry in a mixed group.

There are problem people, everyone has some problems, but not everyone is a problem person.

George Müller was a thief, robbing everyone he came into contact with – family, roommates, friends – until he spent three days in jail. He was a problem person. Through Christ he later turned this around – not perfect, but he could then be trusted with money, and many donated to his work – no longer a problem person.

JYJames wrote:

And Jesus Himself said told the men with lustful thoughts to deal with themselves, NOT the women.

So if ‘men with lustful thoughts’ deal with that problem by distancing themselves from women except their wives, how is that not a good idea? Even a biblical idea. Like men distancing themselves from the lustful stuff on their computers. Or from alcohol or drugs. Or from money management if they are tempted to be untrustworthy with money. Why is distancing one’s self not a good idea for areas of temptation? If the biblical understanding of ‘flee temptation’ does not mean flee why does it not mean flee?

I just want to point out a couple of thing concerning the “Modesto manifesto”. Those rules, including what we now know as the “Billy Graham” rule, were concocted in 1948 by a handfull of traveling evangelical preachers who chose to use them for their own protection – not as new commandments for everyone. Billy Graham was on the road, staying in hotels a lot, while his wife stayed home with the kids.

@ Abi Miah:

Well said and I think strikes at the heart of the “rule.”

Ken G wrote:

Your comment is 100% pure baloney or as the Irish would say, malarkey. Today, especially today, we live in a litigious society. Yes, there are women out there who will make a false allegation in an attempt for a quick settlement. It’s not about falling into sin, but all about not becoming a victim of some scheming woman.

So what if you get sued? Say you live a perfectly righteous life? Will that save you?

Oh wait, no–Jesus died on the cross doing exactly that.

There’s no point in living your life in fear of what other people might do or think. Christians shouldn’t be cowards, and shouldn’t blame others for the fact that they are cowards and not trusting in God to see them through life.

Nancy2 wrote:

Billy Graham was on the road, staying in hotels a lot, while his wife stayed home with the kids.

I remember Ruth Graham telling a story once about young Franklin getting up one morning and asking who that man was in bed with her. She responded “Daddy.” Franklin asked “Daddy who?”

@ Max:
That’s messed up, imo. A little more than just appearance of evil, obviously. Glad your SIL found a church that actually cared about biblical stances. Crazy.

dee wrote:

I am an open and naturally gregarious person. I cannot imagine life in which I had to be subject to some *rule.*

Same here. If someone starts imposing rules as to who, when, and where I can or cannot talk to certain people …. eh ….. I’d feel the same level of comfort and safety being locked in a small cage.
Will Rogers: ” A stranger is just a friend you haven’t met.”

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

True, but Jesus didn’t have to worry about what a sexual harassment suit would do to him. Or worry about his livelihood if someone started a whisper campaign.

I see that as being irrelevant. If you’re a Christian, Jesus is supposed to be your role model, and Jesus met with women, sometimes met alone with them, and even allowed “unclean” ones to touch him physically (which was a big no-no in his era).

Jesus did actually have to worry about “sexual harrassment.”

The people of his day (mostly the Pharisees) doubted him and his morals because he was willing to meet alone with women, including women thought of as having dubious morality of that time.

The text says over and again things like,
“When the Pharisee who had invited him [Jesus] saw this [the woman of questionable morals hanging out with Jesus], he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is…”

Jesus was not facing law suits for meeting with women in the day, but Jesus’ qualifications and virtue were constantly being questioned, or was under suspicion, by these guys, because he chose to talk to or associate with prostitutes and divorced women.

I’m pretty much opposed to any C.Y.A. rule or Billy Graham Rule that limits women unfairly or unnecessarily, or treats women like objects and potential traps for men (it’s very insulting and tends to isolate single women).

Having said that, I don’t mind so much a procedure where a married or single guy (or married or single woman) wants to keep an office door open during a meeting with another person.

But many who adhere to the BGR won’t even really do that, and they won’t even meet with a woman in a public venue such as a restaurant, where they are in plain site of other people.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

True, but Jesus didn’t have to worry about what a sexual harassment suit would do to him. Or worry about his livelihood if someone started a whisper campaign.

Being alone with the opposite sex isn’t a big deal to me, but my husband (who worked for a civil defense firm in between preaching jobs) is much more cautious. When he counsels women its either with the door open, somewhere where there are cameras or with me. It’s not that he’s afraid of being tempted, or even that the woman would ever falsely accuse him, but so that some other third party with a bone to pick won’t have any unnecessary ammunition. It’s the same with children or teens. It’s more of a CYA policy than a “Billy Graham Rule.”

I understand, Preacher’s Wife. And that’s why I said up thread that application of the rule depends upon the people and situations involved. In other words, I don’t think it’s a black and white issue. In the case of your husband, I believe he is using discretion and good common sense.

That pastor that I mentioned up thread – who kept his door opened while I spoke with him. Someone did try to drag his name through the mud. And it had to do with him being with another woman. Turns out the person was trying to get him removed from the church as pastor. So it all depends on the circumstances as to what the best course of action is to take.

Velour wrote:

When the red cup ruckus erupted from the obnoxious Arizona “pastor”, a man on Twitter had the perfect comeback. He said that he was going to boycott the Bible because it didn’t say “Merry Christmas”. I laughed. There’s a man who “gets it”.

I think that some Christians can over-react to stuff which makes them look ridiculous, but one thing I can say in defense of Christians on the Starbucks coffee cup fiasco that took place a year or two ago:

Liberal media blew that one up. I started reading several articles about the incident at the time it was going on.

What happened was one guy on Twitter or Instagram did a public post complaining about the Starbucks coffee cup lacking the phrase “Merry Christmas” on the cup or something.

That one guy. Just that one guy. A single guy. It was not hordes of Christians blowing up in anger over it, but a single guy.

Some left wing sites picked up on that guy’s post and reported on it on their sites. From there, other liberals, including on progressive Christian sites, started poking fun at Christians (all Christians) over it as proof that all Christians (or conservative ones) are looney tunes.

All the left wing sites were making it sound as though 90% of Christians were ranting against Starbucks coffee cups, when in reality, the whole thing could be traced back to ONE guy, maybe two at most.

I am all for critiquing Christians in general when they do stupid or goofy stuff, but on this one, the coffee cup controversy, this was a blown- out- of- proportion incident by left wingers who love to ridicule all Christians.

Godith wrote:

The Huff Post article says “I’ve often heard men like Pence” …so Pence didn’t say that at all. Quite a different story. People who make an effort to avoid sin or the appearance of it should be praised. Let him that thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

I am a right winger, but I am not going to defend Pence on this at all, for various reasons which I’ve outlined in a few posts above.

I think it’s okay for an article author to use Pence as a template for what she’s referring to – men who refuse to meet other women in a professional capacity over their sexist ideals. I don’t regard BGR as being godly, or entirely wise, but based on sexist ideas about women.

Ultimately, there’s this underlying assumption that men are sexual creatures, given to lust after beautiful women, and they can’t help themselves. These men are told not to trust themselves. In the Middle Ages, it would have been the women who were sexual creatures, given to lust, being unable to help themselves. They were told to believe that God ordered the higher, holier men as an authority to reign in the women’s insatiable appetite because women were too emotional to do so for themselves.
Billy Graham was raised in a world of the former, where he was told that he can’t trust himself around women, that if given half a chance, his sinful, lust-filled coveting heart would lead him down the road of adultery. In a lot of ways, we still live in that world and that’s why men and women can’t be friends, they’d be too busy cheating, being “friends with benefits”, that sort of thing. First we have to tackle this lie before a true friendship can form.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

Just an observation, but when we’re talking about children we want all sorts of rules and regulations about what is appropriate – cameras, no one should be alone, full disclosure, background checks ect. But when it comes to adults we are outraged?

Children are one thing, the BG rule involving adults, and it’s expansion is a whole different matter.

If an NAMB church planter sees a female church member with a broken down car on the road, he cannot give her a ride to her home, or a safe place. The contractual code of conduct he had to sign says he cannot be alone in a vehicle with a woman other than his wife. (What if she’s a 16 yo girl and her cell phone battery is dead? Oh, too bad.). Yet, if it’s a man ….. “Sure, hop in!” Outraged??? You betcha.

How about each of us not expecting everyone else to abide by our thinking on this matter? How about we give each other some slack? You don’t like the Billy Graham rule. That’s okay. You think there are times when the Billy Graham rule should be applied. That’s okay too.

Are there times when the BGR is taking things to an extreme or demeaning to women? I’m sure there are. Are there times when the BGR is used appropriately? I’m sure there must be.

As Okrapod said up thread, we are not The Borg here. We can have the freedom to hold differing opinions on this topic without getting riled up. Flexibility can be a good thing sometimes.

Joe Reed wrote:

I’ve yet to hear anyone say “Graham could have done so much for for women if he’d only met privately with them.”

Maybe he could have.

I’m not the sort who would think,
“BG met alone with a woman once, I bet that meant only one thing: AFFAIR!”

My mind doesn’t automatically go to the gutter and assume the worst of people in every context.

Maybe there were women who wanted to meet with BG for pastoral care, or to give him valuable professional input on some topic or another, but he refused to meet with them.

We don’t know, unless maybe a woman who tried meeting him decades ago and was impeded, cares to jump into this thread here to share her personal experiences and explain how his rule was a total bummer for her.

But I think your comment may be missing the point. One of the points is, how does this rule impact women? Answer: it’s impacted them negatively, not only in the church, but in workplace environments as well.

Daisy wrote:

I think I wondered something similar on another thread here the other day. These guys tell women not to have close friendships with other women,

The whole order to women not to be close friends with other women is what cults do.
Cut people from having ties that can help them think independently and get out.

bonnie knox wrote:

Pence is not forcing his view on anyone else. Apparently he values fidelity in his marriage, which I think is a laudable. I can think of so many politicians who haven’t been faithful in marriage.

Exactly. AFAIK, he did not say anyone else should do that and no one is proposing legislation or an executive order or regulation about this, so who cares what any individual decides to do *unless and until it impinges on his function as Vice President.*

The whole kerfuffle seems manufactured to me because My-Goodness-Look-How-Backward-These-Religious-Hicks-Are. It is Elite Culture virtue signaling, IMO. I cannot see who exactly is harmed by Pence’s position and why it has generated all of the outraged pearl clutching by the media. To me it is reverse legalism: You are not allowed to have your own private restrictions on your own life! You must do things our way or else!

Corporate HR has a *lot* to say about the who/what/where of meetings. Many, many, waaaay too many hours of “training” have been spent on topics of behavior between colleagues and between employees and clients. Because (rarely) Stuff Happens and then very expensive Legal Stuff Happens. But it does happen. Policies and Procedures are in place because it does happen.

That said, our culture does make it difficult to make friendships with the opposite sex because everything is so hyper-sexualized. I have no idea what the cure for that is. I am very interested in ideas.

Ken G wrote:

There is no indication that he has a “problem being around women in work environment” and has an admirable record in public service.

Is Pence willing to meet a woman co-worker over lunch, or alone in his office, for professional purposes?

Has he done so, since he’s been in office as VP, or in other political or job contexts?

I do worry that his personal rule about his private life may cross over into his professional life, and it may say something about how he views all women in general, whether in his personal or professional life.

How does a guy like Pence neatly cut off the “don’t eat lunch with a woman rule” from his professional life?

If Pence, or a guy like Pence, thinks he might have an affair, or he worries folks may suspect him of having one, should he eat lunch with a non-wife woman, how does that mindset instantly change in his job, in a job setting?

That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

If he’s concerned about eating lunch with women in his personal time in his personal life, one would think his worries and assumptions would also hold true for female colleagues, and for women workers during job time, or for job- related issues as well.

JYJames wrote:

men like Pence openly describe not hiring capable women

Was that a quote from Pence or just an attribution of an attitude to him by the author of the article. I think that was not something that Pence actually said, and the way the author wrote it is misleading if Pence did not actually say that he did not hire capable women because they were attractive.

Darlene wrote:

So it all depends on the circumstances as to what the best course of action is to take.

Here are the circumstances. Behold I send you out as sheep among wolves, so be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. (Jesus according to Matthew)

I am making certain assumptions: that He was correct about the wolves comment, that He actually meant both the wise as serpents and the harmless as doves statements, that He had some idea what people would think He meant, and that He could have said something different if He had wanted to.

The passage goes on to describe absolutely horrendous things which the disciples could anticipate. I see nothing in that passage that even hints that God is going to offer us absolute protection from the wolves. Quite the opposite in fact.

So, there are wolves out there, be clever/ keep you wits about you, and if/when there is trouble (as there is sure to be) don’t you be the one who caused it. (Translation by Okrapod)

dee wrote:

Darlene wrote:

As Okrapod said up thread, we are not The Borg here. We can have the freedom to hold differing opinions on this topic without getting riled up. Flexibility can be a good thing sometimes.

I agree with you. The thing that worries me is that certain rule makers out there will want this to be proscriptive for all *moral* Christians.

I agree too, both to Darlene and Dee. I have been watching this debate on several websites and it is getting kind of tiresome, especially when people demonize one another for holding a differing opinion. I have an opinion, which I will not share, and I have also done some thinking about the issue and some differing ideas/opinions too instead of just firing off incendiary comments (btw this is my first and last comment about this issue on ANY website).

Thanks Deebs for this site!

dee wrote:

Darlene wrote:

As Okrapod said up thread, we are not The Borg here. We can have the freedom to hold differing opinions on this topic without getting riled up. Flexibility can be a good thing sometimes.

I agree with you. The thing that worries me is that certain rule makers out there will want this to be proscriptive for all *moral* Christians.

I agree, Dee. Not a good idea when Christians try to impose their moral codes on others. And then when they don’t comply, those Christians are labeled as promiscuous or foolish. I think it comes down to the freedom in Christ that we have, and therefore, allowing for that freedom for others to have. It is to God that we will answer for our actions.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

If women can’t be in the company of a man/men because religious restrictions, then it limits women’s growth and advancement.

This is the best argument, IMO, for finding a win-win solution for both workplace and religious situations.

Muff Potter wrote:

From the main article up top:

“Men and women who want to have affairs will have them, regardless of rules.”

As true as the setting sun. Consenting adults have been doing the hanky-panky since the beginning of time. No amount of rule making or hand wringing is ever gonna’ change it.
Reminds me the old Bob Seger song The Fire Down Below.

Be that as it may, I can still respect Pence and other devout Christian people who swear by the the Graham rule. If that works for them, far out, I can dig it, just don’t say that all others are obliged to follow it too.

Well said, Muff Potter. And now I’ve got to go listen to that Bob Seger song.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

I think a lot of this fear of women comes from not having women as equals and superiors in one’s life.

I just saw an article a few weeks ago that sort of discussed this.

It was about how the United States military (I am not anti-military, several of my family members have served) have sexual harassment problems precisely because they segregate the sexes.

I think the article cited a study or two that showed that the military, while well-meaning, would create sexism, as they would separate the genders.

I guess they felt separating the two would cut down on sexual harassment and so on – but it actually created or maintained detrimental attitudes.

What the page said was the more the sexes in the military were segregated, the more the rank- and- file men got the message (intended or not) that either:

1. women were too weak and delicate to defend themselves, or
2. women in general were too inept, weak, etc, to be warriors.

The end result of these views (due to the segregation and limited contact) was either:

1. Men were distracted.
Men were so busy being “knights in shining armor,” defending and protecting women on the actual field, or in battle simulations, that they would get blown up, or make mistakes.

The men should have been working WITH their female counterparts to accomplish a mission against the enemy, but were too “hung up” in playing protector.

(The men were choosing to do this, the women were not asking or expecting the men to do this.)

2. The stereotypical gender views resulted in disrespect towards the women by the men.
They would treat female co-workers as sex objects, molest them, or not give them a fair shot at tasks.

One of the points of the article was that if you have men and women regularly enter-act with each other, men are less prone to fall into sexist views or stereotypes of women, or to harass women.

According to the study in the article, women actually get treated better by men when men are forced to deal with women on a regular basis, and-or, have women as co-workers or as leaders/bosses.

I guess the men who worked steadily with women got to see for themselves that women are people just as they are, and not some exotic “other” that needs to be handled totally different.

I can see how some of this study on the U.S. military could be applicable to churches, workplaces, etc.

I am unable at the moment to find a link to that exact article, and I cannot remember what site it was on, but here is a somewhat similar one:

A Purple Heart Warrior Takes Aim At Military Inequality In ‘Shoot Like A Girl’
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/517944956/a-purple-heart-warrior-takes-aim-at-military-inequality-in-shoot-like-a-girl

Daisy wrote:

they assume I find them sexy and want to do The Nasty with them.

It isn’t that they assume that you want to do anything inappropriate, it is that they cannot know which encounter might result in inappropriate behavior by either or both parties. It isn’t personal.

In the case of Tullian, I think the BGR would have been a really good thing for those women. And I think that is what BG had in mind. Not Daisy.

Ken G wrote:

Better safe than sorry.

So 99% of women have to be sorry to keep men safe from the one percent. Something is really wonky with that.

mot wrote:

You do not get it in the current “Biblical” world it is always the woman’s fault. She is to be submissive to men. She is subordinate to men know and if she is married she will be in heaven.

A real life example:
5-Year-Old Allegedly Raped, Then Forced to Confess to Church
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/alleged-rape-victim-accuses-trinity-baptist-church-deacon/story?id=10806348

The teen girl got raped by a church guy, the church blamed her, she has to apologize of her sin (of being raped), and the pastor’s wife asked the girl if she “enjoyed” the rape.

A grown adult man rapes a teen girl and the church blames the girl. Totally backwards.

Daisy wrote:

So 99% of women have to be sorry to keep men safe from the one percent. Something is really wonky with that.

Not wonky – sexist. Girls got cooties! Doncha know?

@ okrapod:
Yup, you are so right!

Godith wrote:

there will be those who make a rule against making a personal rule

You beat me to it. Exactly.

Nancy2 wrote:

He was never seen alone with a woman, other than his wife. No. He left his wife for another man,

Wow. He was on the down-low.

This was also a minor plot line in the movie “You Got Mail.”

Tom Hank’s character’s wealthy father in the movie said his nanny ran off with his wife to have an affair (two ladies).

The whole “down low” thing was a story line on that TV show several years ago, Law and Order SVU. Apparently that was a thing with some married men years ago – dudes who were married to women but who had affairs with other men on the side.

Daisy wrote:

A Purple Heart Warrior Takes Aim At Military Inequality In ‘Shoot Like A Girl’
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/517944956/a-purpl

I wear eyeglasses. I usually shoot like a girl. But if I take my glasses off, I’m afraid I might shoot like a boy.

Seriously, as both a wife of a retired soldier and a farmer’s daughter, I have seen that kind of treatment in action. Respect is earned, regardless of gender. (PS – I also worked at Walmart for a while. I helped unload trucks on the night shift. I was the only female on the loading dock. I was one of the “boys”. The women who worked In the front of the store were treated very differently than I was by the men.)

@ Daisy:
The man I met in the church singles group (and ended up marrying) turned out to be a pedophile. Now, years after the divorce, he attends a mega-church nearby. He has admitted to having more than 50 victims. But no one at church knows. He’s got a nice job and a nice car. (Yes, the authorities know about him.) Good luck out there.

Being Christian doesn’t mean you’re a good person.

Being an unbeliever doesn’t mean you’re a bad person.

Ian wrote:

Here’s a question – would people be as critical if Anne Graham Lotz chose not to be alone with other men (in the years before her husband died) ?

I don’t know but I think the question is missing the mark.

The assumption under-girding BGR is that women are sex objects (who are intentionally out to bed men, especially married ones), men are not sexual objects, and that men are incapable of self-control.

Your gender swap scenario or hypothetical would have to assume that many in our culture, and in Christian culture, have for years viewed men as the sexual temptresses or sexual threats, but that’s not been the case, at least not in the last century or so in American culture.

I think one can make decent arguments both for and against the BG rule. But the real rule that may be needed these days is never being alone with pastors/elders. Always bring an ally to those meetings – for lots of reasons…

Nancy2 wrote:

planter wives

At a glance, thought you meant these wives are potted plants. The rules seem to give them about that much power…

Nancy2 wrote:

Okay. Flip side. What should preachers’ wives wear? My husband does preach occasionally. ; ^ }

To get serious for a moment, I did see a thread or two elsewhere by women who work as pastors, and they say they get scrutinzed a billion times more for wardrobe than their male peers.

They said no matter how properly they dressed, no matter how conservatively, some man would approach them after a service to tell them they were showing too much skin.

One woman preacher who told of this said she didn’t get this at all, because the only skin visible with the outfit she was wearing that particular day to deliver her sermon showed only her face, part of her neck, and her hands. The rest of her was covered by clothing material.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

She was convinced that every male she encountered was a rapist who was trying to rape her;

My mom was a worry-wart. She pretty much raised me in one sense that a rapist is behind every tree and bush. She really did not want me going out alone in public, not even to pick up tooth paste at a local Wal-Mart.

Speaking of the 1 on your list, the Right Said Fred “Too Sexy” Song.

Here’s another like that (it’s been years since I’ve listened to this one, so I do not remember if it contains “adult” material or not – I think it’s PG- rated, but don’t totally remember):
I’m Sexy And I Know It – by LMFAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyx6JDQCslE

“Girl look at that body. I work out! I’m sexy and I know it.”

I’ve just re-watched about half of that video. Largely harmless, unless you are a total Puritanical type. The men in the video are in Speedo’s thrusting their groins around.

miot wrote:

It is not that these men should not be praised, it is what they are indirectly saying about women and IMO it is more wrong than their righteous position.

Men are necessary, women are optional and hazardous? That’s the message I pick up.

Daisy wrote:

There was some dippy page at Christian magazine “Relevant” a few weeks ago, where some 20- or- 30- something guy said married people should not text opposite gender people on their cell phone, because it may lead to affairs.

As someone on another blog said, if that were always so, single (unmarried) people should not text other singles, because that would always lead to fornication.

Do these Christian Guardians of Our Morality read/watch anything other than pornography?

Because THAT SORT OF STUFF “ALWAYS” HAPPENS ONLY IN PORNOGRAPHY!

Gram3 wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:

How about embroidering “Touch not God’s anointed!” on a hip pocket of all of those skinny jeans?

Need to get that visual out of my head…

Brain Bleach.

Daisy wrote:

When I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, at least in Christian culture, it was just a “given” you would marry young and have kids and be a good, little submissive thang to your husband.

I grew up in the 1960s and that “given” was also a given OUTSIDE of Christian culture.
In the mainstream, that “given” gradually got “ungiven” in the 1970s.

It was rough on all of us who grew up with that sort of “Everybody Does It This Way” and by the time you got old enough that it was your turn for the spouse and house with the white picket fencs, the rules had changed completely.

Gram3 wrote:

Need to get that visual out of my head…

So, I was on target!!! Direct hit! BOOM! Hahahahaha.

Godith wrote:

The article is just scurrilous nonsense.

What do you think about the Washington Post profile of Karen Pence?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/karen-pence-is-the-vice-presidents-prayer-warrior-gut-check-and-shield/2017/03/28/3d7a26ce-0a01-11e7-8884-96e6a6713f4b_story.html?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.422f64d403ff

Some of my concerns about modern applications of the Billy Graham rule:

• In some churches, it is as if the pastor is pastor to the men only. A woman cannot receive confidential counseling.

• Women being abused by their husbands can receive no help from the church. The pastor will believe the husband, whom he knows, over the wife with whom he has never had a conversation. That’s if the pastor will even allow the wife to tell him her plight.

• Therapists and counselors can only counsel those of the same sex. I’m thankful my therapist didn’t abide by this rule!

I don’t think we should encourage following extra-biblical rules that may have been wise and prudent for some Christian leaders, no matter how well-respected the leader. Nor should we criticize said leaders if they adopt personal standards we find too strict for our tastes.

Each marriage is different and goes through different seasons. I know one husband who made a “rule” that he would not do “more” with other women than he was doing with his wife. This had the effect of making his marriage a priority, since he enjoyed good working relationships with his women colleagues. He had several areas that he was careful about: not being more intimate in conversations with other women than with his wife, not doing more fun activities with other women, not having more restaurant meals out, etc. He never wanted his wife to think, “Well, he doesn’t do that with me!” or to worry that he found his colleagues more interesting and more fun to be with. That seems a much more practical, marriage-building idea than simply avoiding women like the plague.

Nancy2 wrote:

How about embroidering “Touch not God’s anointed!”

Keeping in mind that God’s anointed ones were WOMEN– specifically Sarah and Rebekah.

This…

Divorce Minister wrote:

The problem wasn’t the rules. It is that rules are a poor substitute to character.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Yes. When you have to legislate because the rule in not ‘written on the heart’, it is a shallow thing indeed as a substitute for the ‘character’ of a man or a woman

Daisy wrote:

married people should not text opposite gender people on their cell phone, because it may lead to affairs.

http://bit.ly/2onVZJV
Recent Tim Fall post: Affairs Don’t Start With Texts

Daisy wrote:

I think that some Christians can over-react to stuff which makes them look ridiculous, but one thing I can say in defense of Christians on the Starbucks coffee cup fiasco that took place a year or two ago:
Liberal media blew that one up. I started reading several articles about the incident at the time it was going on.
What happened was one guy on Twitter or Instagram did a public post complaining about the Starbucks coffee cup lacking the phrase “Merry Christmas” on the cup or something.
That one guy. Just that one guy. A single guy. It was not hordes of Christians blowing up in anger over it, but a single guy.

Yeah, that one guy was named Joshua Feuerstein and he lives in the Phoenix area. If you look him up, you’ll see that he’s a right-wing publicity hound.

On November 5, Christian internet evangelist Joshua Feuerstein fired back at the coffee giant in an anti-Starbucks video, eloquently titled “Starbucks REMOVED CHRISTMAS from their cups because they hate Jesus … SO I PRANKED THEM … and they HATE IT!!!!”

I could say a lot more about Feuerstein, but I’m just pointing out that Feuerstein was not the mild and meek guy you’re making him out to be. He was definitely plotting for the publicity.

http://www.eater.com/2015/11/10/9705570/starbucks-red-cups-christmas-donald-trump

Here’s his Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_Feuerstein

Nancy2 wrote:

Granted, neither of my grandmothers had jobs. But both of them milked cows, fixed fences, worked in the tobacco fields, split firewood, etc. with the men. They also cooked, canned, sewed, raised gardens……. But everything the did, they did out of love and concern for the best interests of the family – not because my grandfathers told them what to do.

so beautifully written, thank you
reminds me of this gorgeous film:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Wish+You+Well++trailer+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Daisy wrote:

The Billy Graham rule, though, assumes all women, including me (who has great values and self restraint), are harlots.

I don’t think that follows. It’s not about all women being this or that – it’s about maybe one woman along the line over the years. Maybe he falls for her, maybe she falls for him, maybe they fall for each other, maybe she wants to make trouble – it happens. He is a famous preacher, and wants to eliminate some possibilities.

I still think his rules are ridiculous in this day and age, but maybe for some people whose image is everything, they feel a need.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

Whatever happened to people–men and women–being responsible for our own … – [everything]?

Found in Jesus’ teaching – i.e., Matthew 5, etc. Would that we hear it from the pulpit, in contrast to the Garden of Eden Excuses still in wide circulation today – she made him do it, he made her do it.

The only way to overcome it is to own it.

roebuck wrote:

I still think his rules are ridiculous in this day and age, but maybe for some people whose image is everything, they feel a need.

True.

The AAA folks do not imbibe, it is not a sin, and they deserve respect for doing what works for them.

Is there a record of BG preaching this rule to the GP? Or, was it limited to a policy for their group in ministry?

Both Romans 14 and James 4 discuss the individual Christian doing what is needed to be victorious AND the Elect being respectful to differentiation.

Divorce Minister wrote:

The problem wasn’t the rules. It is that rules are a poor substitute to character.

A good word. Rules are also a poor substitute for Holy Spirit conviction – it’s the Spirit that keeps Christian character in check. Rules can govern the flesh, but a Spirit-led life will keep you on the straight and narrow. Instead of the “Devil made me do it”, we need more testimonies from both pulpit and pew that “The Spirit kept me from it.”

Pardon me if this has already been brought up, but there’s too many posts to read first 🙂

It occurred to me that with cell phones, Facebook, etc. it can be just as easy to get into a wrong relationship with someone without even meeting with them face to face. The same kind of intimate, confessional exchanges or flirtatious joking that can lead to trouble, can happen in writing as well as in person, and it may be easier to hide. One needs to honor one’s committment to a spouse in every area of life.

JYJames wrote:

The AAA folks do not imbibe

Whoops – LOL – laughing at the writer of this comment.
Hope the AAA folks do not imbibe, as they are DRIVING.
Meant to write: AA.
Sometimes one doesn’t know what they are talking about – and that would be me.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

I think reasonable boundaries and precautions are okay.

The thing we are generally discussing is actually what is reasonable.

I do not think there is anything dangerous about a public lunch. I would meet in public for lunch with total strangers without fear. That any supposed christian man is in deep fear of having lunch with a woman 20 years older he has known for years seem insane to me.

I’m also with ishy that at a certain point CYA is less important than actually being a christian and loving your brothers and sisters and at that point you need to ask yourself what is actually important here. We may differ on where that line is, although I would say the ‘leave that woman on the side of the road in the dark and rain because you don’t have a chaperone’ is pretty far over it.

okrapod wrote:

I think that the people who have commented with ideas which can all come under the heading of ‘it depends’ are on the right track. It depends on the people, on the circumstances, on what all is or is not at risk, and even on how one decides to order one’s own life choices for whatever reasons.

This is my exact problem with the billy graham rule itself as applied. IT does not look at circumstances. Strangers are treated the same as close friends, if female. Circumstances are not considered. Relationships are not considered. Individuals are not considered. People are not considered. And in it, because it is directed at women specifically, women are not treated as individual people but solely as temptresses, potential liars and accusers, and temptations. And that is all they are treated as, regardless of who they actually are.

Christians are supposed to be treated with love, as brothers and sisters. This is not what this rule encourages.

Christiane wrote:

do you remember the ‘change’? was it sudden and jarring? or was in done slowly in increments over time? Or did you simply move to a different church where all the patriarchy male-headship was already in place? What was it like for you at the time?

I’ll use churches that I am familiar with as examples. I don’t know the history of church A, but I do know that the treatment of women in the other churches has changed since the CR – not for the better. All of the churches I speak of are small. Attendance runs between 25 and 120 each Sunday.

Church A, where we are now members, I don’t know for sure. But I get the distinct impression that it has always been patriarchal, or at least it has been since the CR. It is in a neighboring county. Given comments and jokes I’ve heard there by preachers, deacons, and even a few male members, I refuse to attend anymore. I’ve hit the tipping point. One more snide remark, and it ain’t gonna be pretty. I can tell the spirited women there just roll their eyes and ignore it. I’ve been through too much. I can’t ignore it anymore. Avg attendance – 100

Church B, where I have visited and where my brother and family attend changed suddenly, with the arrival of the current pastor. Avg attendance – 25

Church C, where I spent my teenage years changed with the arrival of a new pastor some 25 years ago. I was a member there from 1978 until ’96 or ’97? When I was there, I was a SS teacher’s aide at age 14. At age 15, a young man and I spearheaded a youth group that met on Tue. nights. Even at that age, I was treated like an adult, on the same terms as the young man I worked with. Women could not preach or pray in assemblies, but they could speak at assemblies and read and quote the Bible, etc. avg attendance- 70

Church D where we went from Jan. 07 til Apr. ’11 gave women the most freedom – anything except pastor. The pastor who was there would ask women to pray aloud in services. They have a new pastor now, so I don’t know what it is like. But, I know this pastor’s father, and he is very “traditional”, if you know what I mean. Thinking about visiting ther to see what it’s like, but I’m a bit leery. Avg attendance 120

Church E is the church with which I am most familiar. I went there as a child and worked there in VBS in my late teen years when they were short handed (I served as both treasurer and teacher for VBS). I was a member there twice, transferred to another church, then went back as an adult. Up until the arrival of a new pastor in ’06 women could speak in business meetings and serve as officers. The new pastor agreed with a deacon who had been whining about “women shall remain silent” and slammed all the doors shut for women. That same pastor still asked me to teach a mixed-gender teenage SS class because, apparently, not a single one of the men was man enough to handle teenagers! I was a member there from ’96 or ’97 until Jan. ’07, then again from Apr. ’11 until Jan. ’14.
Avg attendance – 50

Sorry, that’s probably way more than you wanted to know. Excuse me for venting, please.

Church E had serious tornado damage in ’06 and had to be rebuilt. When the proposal for ther new building was presented at a business meeting, I caught an error in calculating the position of the building in relation to the highway right-of-way. No one would let me speak. I tried to tell my husband, but he shushed me. At that point, I decided they could just bite me. The proposal was approved, and then rejected by the county building commision and the plan had to be completely redone.

@ Nancy2:
do you think the patriarchy situation is a lot more toxic in a small ‘family’ Church ?

BTW, this is ‘classic’ karma: “Church E had serious tornado damage in ’06 and had to be rebuilt. When the proposal for ther new building was presented at a business meeting, I caught an error in calculating the position of the building in relation to the highway right-of-way. No one would let me speak. I tried to tell my husband, but he shushed me. At that point, I decided they could just bite me. The proposal was approved, and then rejected by the county building commision and the plan had to be completely redone.”

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

I also know her husband recently took away her car because “queens don’t drive.” He drives her to and from work every day. When he arrives to pick her up, which is early every day, she gets really antsy until she’s released to leave because she can see his car from her desk window.

Women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia either.

Christiane wrote:

do you think the patriarchy situation is a lot more toxic in a small ‘family’ Church ?

It can be. Most families ignore it, I think. But there are a few families where the dynamics are obvious. I know a certain couple very well – the wife is my dad’s cousin. The man is big into patriarchy – not physically abusive, but very controlling and condescending. The wife is on a lot of “nerve” meds and has debilitating migraines. My aunt grew up with this woman, and I am 13 years their junior. We were all very close. I have no doubt that at least part of this wife’s mental instability is due to her husband’s behavior towards her. She is nothing like the person she was when she was in her 20s.
At our current church, only one of the deacons will ever shake my hand. The others shake hands with my husband and forget that I exist. Three of the deacons are cousins. (One of them went on a Jezebel rant in class) Two of the wives barely speak to anyone outside of the family circle. Wife # 3 is MIA – she does not attend services at that church. I’ve never seen her, and I attended ther regularly for over 2 years.

Nancy2 wrote:

I have no doubt that at least part of this wife’s mental instability is due to her husband’s behavior towards her. She is nothing like the person she was when she was in her 20s.

what a sad mess …. of COURSE she is medicated because of his cruel behavior: her nerves are doing the screaming for her

I can see more and more of the harm this patriarchy system does to people’s souls … to the women who are abused and the men who are abusing them

that is one ‘system’ that has really gone wrong

Lea wrote:

Oooh! Was it all an all male chorus? My cousin has a theory…

No, sorry Lea. Women do get to sing in the volunteer choir. Too many of our beloved old gospel song have split choruses with alto and soprano parts ……. And, too many men are busy straining themselves trying to sing bass. They don’t mess with the fellowship meal or the singing!

I used to sing alto, but an illness damaged my vocal chords back in ’09. I miss it……. so many songs I love.
Did you listen to the song on the DEEBS e-church??? My chains are gone ………. I love that song the first time I heard it several years ago!

Velour wrote:

They didn’t let the woman math major Nancy2 speak? Wow. Just wow. Serves them right that their plans were rejected by the county.

Here’s the kicker – small church, everyone knew I had a math degree and was teaching. I was not only teaching a Wed. night class at church, I was also tutoring three of the church kids in math. One in 4th grade with fractions, one in 8th grade with geometry, and one in college with college algebra, level 2. Yeah. Bite me. So it cost’em a few thousand dollars and caused a 9 month delay in construction. Do I care? Not.any.more!

OutsideLookingIn wrote:

single women (either unmarried or divorced)

Not sure what this means. However, single women can be: never married, widowed, or divorced, I believe. All treated the same, my observation, just as you have stated. Lower class, not quite human, they did something wrong, misfortunes, don’t belong with the other adults.

At church after my husband died, a woman ministry leader immediately said, “Let me pray for your healing.” My response – “No, actually, no need for healing prayer. My husband was sick and died, and I’m well and here, now.” Didn’t really get her point. Very strange, indeed.

Christiane wrote:

what a difference from Israel which is now training women soldiers to be tank commanders ….. thing is, Israel needs every able-bodied young person to be prepared to defend their country against attack,
so they recognize the reality that women make darn good soldiers

Women are and always have been some the most ferocious warriors humankind has known. The Wehrmacht learned the hard way on the Eastern front (1941-1945).

I was doing some work in a church (non-reformed large church, just to set that straight up front) nursery the other day, and saw this sign on the bathroom door:

“Door must be left open if you are assisting a child in the restroom.”

This is the day we live in. Loss of privacy for child using the toilet because of protection for same child. Be nice if that wasn’t necessary, but it’s an ugly world, and ugly things happen, so precautions are taken.

I see the Graham rule as essentially the same thing. Generally unnecessary, but it’s the exception that requires the rule.

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

I don’t normally eat fish but I do know I deliberately walked by the signs on the way back to my locked/badged office holding a carton of a fish dinner at least once.

LOL

Joe Reed wrote:

I was doing some work in a church (non-reformed large church, just to set that straight up front) nursery the other day, and saw this sign on the bathroom door:
“Door must be left open if you are assisting a child in the restroom.”
This is the day we live in. Loss of privacy for child using the toilet because of protection for same child. Be nice if that wasn’t necessary, but it’s an ugly world, and ugly things happen, so precautions are taken.
I see the Graham rule as essentially the same thing. Generally unnecessary, but it’s the exception that requires the rule.

No, it’s not the same thing.

Preventing child sexual abuse is very important for churches because it’s the No. 1 reason why they are sued every single year and children must be protected from predators. (Cite: Attorney Richard Hammar, Church Law & Tax website.)

A lunch or dinner with a colleague of the opposite sex, or a cup of coffee, is not going to end in sexual assault (in most cases).

Joe Reed wrote:

I see the Graham rule as essentially the same thing. Generally unnecessary, but it’s the exception that requires the rule.

Yeah. Exactly. Extreme measures do need to be taken to keep A countless number of evil Jezebels from taking advantage of every man, because we know men are helpless little creatures who aren’t able to defend themselves. (Sarcasm off)

Joe Reed wrote:

Anyone who interprets Grahams Rule as intended to discourage sexual assault doesn’t understand it’s primary intention.

The “Billy Graham rule” was part of the 4 rule Modesto manifesto. 3 men, one of who was Graham, got together in 1948 and discussed/compared ideas on how to protect their own reputations and resist temptations while traveling far from their homes and families evangelizing.
It was their own private manifesto. It was personal. They did not attempt to force their rules on others.

Nancy2 wrote:

It was their own private manifesto. It was personal. They did not attempt to force their rules on others.

no, it was not ‘private’ in the sense that now, it is openly being discussed among them what do not honor the dignity of women as human persons

if it was private, we all wouldn’t be discussing it and knowing how it came about

somebody talked …… perhaps the intention was to further their reputations?

Joe Reed wrote:

about perception and accountability.

The Graham Rule was fine for Billy Graham. It is nonsense that it is parroted by everyone in the evangelical church as though the universe is going to implode without it. It treats adults like children. I am so glad to not be a part of a NeoCalvinist church anymore where this rule was constantly talked about.

But my life is still impacted by it. At my house (which I rent), the repairman goes to an evangelical church which abides by the Graham rule. This means that needed repairs in my home from an oven to plumbing repairs don’t get timely repaired because he has to bring one of his children with him. Sigh. Trust me, he’s safe and I need working appliances.

I have never had a problem having lunch or a meal with the women, in my line of work it is sometimes required. I and never bothered by it and have never broken any type of decorum at all. Now where I exercise great caution is being around professional Christians, especially some types of pastors/leaders of ministries. I find that need is whatever you say will always be used against you and your motives will always be questioned and you will be retaliated against if need me. For instance, I would never go to any of the churches we discuss here especially places like Grace Community or Driscoll’s church or any of them. I would fear being retaliated against or even being arrested. I would never do anything such as protest or raise a seen but I do not trust these types of places, and never will. I don’t to house bible studies even if invited, I won’t go to a church dinner in a private home for the same reason, I have had it used against me. I mean I don’t raise my voice, never accuse etc but I have had it used against me taken out of context etc. Non-evangelical homes and groups such as Catholic, EO, LDS and even a few mosques I have no problem, evangelical churches nope, I don’t trust them. I admit much of that is on me and that is one reason I don’t post names of old churches. I just don’t trust those groups and it has protected me on many occasions. The scars run very deep and they still hurt.

I consider myself a liberated woman. I am over educated and in my personal, professional life have pretty much gone and done what I wanted to do. Having said that I ask “so how many of you other liberated undaunted fearless ladies have waltzed confidently into a situation only to find yourself being hit upon by a boss, co-worker, pastor, friend, etc etc.?” I for one could tell you some true stories from my life.

I for one would feel more comfortable with Pence or B.G., and would not view that as thinking less of me but rather of being respectful for both our sakes. Isn’t this just like the church to shoot a Christian man who is in the public eye and is trying to walk the walk?

At first, I too thought that sexual assault wasn’t the real issue. But, there’s already been someone here that said women were just out to get men, implying that men just can’t help themselves around women. So, while sexual assault may not have been the inspiration, it is what some people are using to define it now. Modern Christian culture tells men they can’t control their lust, so they should be afraid of everything. I saw a lot of that especially in Christian college.

However, the men who probably use the rule to mean this are the ones living in fear of everything and never have mature, productive relationships with even people like their wives. They use control to solve all problems, instead of the Spirit. And as we know, there are a lot of those men in the church right now. They cause bigger problems like protecting other men who sexually assault minors, or they financially abuse their positions.

Bridget wrote:

And Pence holds to the Billy Graham rule which effects women who work with/around him.

I think Pence is wanting to publicly present a sharp contrast.

“These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Col. 2:23

@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

And the other side of that coin:

He must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he doesn’t fall into disgrace and the trap set for him by the devil. 1 Tim 3:7, International Standard Version

mot wrote:

And would that trap include just women??

Why no, if he were an alcoholic and were seen in a pub, well there you go. And heaven help him if he had even a phone call from another country-lots of traps. So how does that make hanging out with women in the public eye suddenly a safe thing to do?

okrapod wrote:

mot wrote:

And would that trap include just women??

Why no, if he were an alcoholic and were seen in a pub, well there you go. And heaven help him if he had even a phone call from another country-lots of traps. So how does that make hanging out with women in the public eye suddenly a safe thing to do?

Wow! I think women should just leave the United States. Men just can not be safe with them here.

mot wrote:

So how does that make hanging out with women in the public eye suddenly a safe thing to do?

Them evil women folk. Poor Spence–NOT!!

JYJames wrote:

OutsideLookingIn wrote:
single women (either unmarried or divorced)
Not sure what this means. However, single women can be: never married, widowed, or divorced, I believe. All treated the same, my observation, just as you have stated. Lower class, not quite human, they did something wrong, misfortunes, don’t belong with the other adults.

You’re right, of course. My parenthetical clarification was added right before I hit submit because I didn’t want others to think I only meant “never married” singles. After submitting it, I realized that I had accidentally excluded widowed from the list.

Single women anywhere near married men is suspect, period, in many circles. Then, of course, there’s that married woman that spends more just a couple of minutes talking with someone else’s husband before Sunday school. Very suspicious! (eye roll). It can’t be healthy to spend one’s life so suspicious of other people and the outside world.

Over on the Spiritual Sounding Board FB page, Julie Anne posted an article critical of the B.G. Rule. It was followed by a slew of comments from upset SSB readers that were upset that anyone would criticize such an obviously wise rule. Many of them don’t see how it’s based on a view of all women as “temptresses.”

More on this from NPR this morning:

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/02/522247794/beyond-the-mike-pence-misogyny-debate-the-3-billy-graham-rules-you-havent-read

@ mot:

I do think that there is the prevalent idea in this country that adult heterosexual males are sexually attracted to females. Now, apparently there is an epidemic of ‘low T’ in the adult male population, and that explains all the guys running around with those patches on. Literally. But, no, I do not think that the prevailing opinion has become that sexual attraction has ceased. And I do not think that there is a majority opinion that it should cease; at least the advertising industry has made a fortune with the idea that sex sells stuff.

I have not seen in my actual experience over the years many women who are offended at thinking that men desire them. A few, yes, but not many at all. I have seen more use of tanning beds and cosmetic surgery to include boob implants and more and more skin showing on and on in the female pursuit of desirability. I am thinking that those women who do not want to be desired are far and away in the minority. But, it is becoming more popular to declare one thing (the men just won’t leave me alone no matter how hard I try, how bad of them to be like that) instead of saying (I know how to do when it comes to men and I find that helpful) which has become somehow deprecated as a values position. It is not too wise to believe what people say; watch what they do and that is a better indicator of what they actually think.

So what do people actually do? Women paint up, fix up and refurbish while men go get T patches. How silly to think there is nothing sexual/gender about this. Political correctness changes; biology stays pretty much the same. And somehow we all have to work in the same work places and deal with all this. All of it. The whole spectrum.

Am I biased? Of course. I think that sex/gender is a good thing, but a powerful force which has to be controlled. Like, for instance, one of the characters in ‘The Great Divorce” (Lewis).

JYJames wrote:

Place a hierarchy in the Christian world, and women need men for access and opportunity, and hence may sell themselves, be desperate, settle for less than who they are created to be

I believe it even goes beyond that. It denies women access to God to an extent. It insinuates that God keeps women at a distance. God doesn’t have that much use for women and women can’t be a close to God as men can…… just, well, because……..

okrapod wrote:

What Pence is doing is less restrictive that what that Muslim man was doing, but none the less they are both being different from what most people do. IMO, don’t anybody think that this type of work place issue is not there to be dealt with.

I think that one religion is considered the majority religion and therefore privileged, and one is considered a minority religion. Therefore one will be protected and accommodated and HR will have a lot to say to the other. Double standards.

It is not outrageous if a President has a relationship with an employee who is not his wife in the Oval Office but it is huge news if a man takes affirmative steps to avoid having a relationship with a woman who is not his wife. The first man gets a pass while the second gets the sexism charge. I do not get it. Double standards.

I understand that we need to figure out how to make wise and reasonable judgments and not have rigid rules, but I do not see either Billy Graham or Pence making laws for anyone else. This honestly reminds me of the “binders full of women” outrage when there are women being subjected to horrors beyond description.

If a woman decides not to walk alone late at night, it is not because she thinks every man is a killer or a rapist. It is because she is wise enough to know that a few are and she cannot know who they are in advance. So she does not put herself in that position. That is not making a statement about all men.

DebWilli wrote:

More on this from NPR this morning

From the article “… for 60-some years, there was no hint of scandal surrounding him …”

Few folks thought negatively about the BG Rule in the last century. In this new century, it is a matter of criticism, both in and out of the church. Any hint of righteous living gets raked over the coals. As a people, we’ve changed – for better or worse based on personal perspective. The world demands us increasingly to call evil good and good evil. While we may still call our land “Christian” and thank Him for the Christian principles which guided it for so many years, true Christians are now a minority group in a pagan land. Sadly, as the blog title says “The Billy Graham Rule Doesn’t Work for Most Who Participate in Today’s Society.”

okrapod wrote:

Political correctness changes; biology stays pretty much the same. And somehow we all have to work in the same work places and deal with all this. All of it. The whole spectrum.

Also math. Math wins every time, magical thinking to the contrary.

BC wrote:

I consider myself a liberated woman. I am over educated and in my personal, professional life have pretty much gone and done what I wanted to do. Having said that I ask “so how many of you other liberated undaunted fearless ladies have waltzed confidently into a situation only to find yourself being hit upon by a boss, co-worker, pastor, friend, etc etc.?” I for one could tell you some true stories from my life.

Liberated, educated, undaunted, fearless woman here – also a country girl with a little mean streak. I am a retired soldiers wife. In my experiences, it seems that deployed soldiers’ wives are considered to be easy prey by unscrupulous men. Back when my husband was still in the army, I was basically stalked twice. Once by a co-worker, and once by a sub-contractor. Both men were married.
I caught the co-worker and had a little private talk with him. I won’t repeat what I said, but he left me alone. With the sub-contractor, a male co-worker knew what was happening and insisted on escorting me home ….. to protect me. I told him the sub-contractor would be the one who needed protection if he tried to follow me home. My supervisor found out about the sub-contractor, called his superiors, and he was relocated. I found out later that the sub-contractor had gotten into some trouble with some 101st soldiers over women when he was working at Ft. Campbell.

One man did try to follow home me once. I had my daughter and one of her friends in the car with me at the time – they were teenagers. (Made me more irate than afraid.) I simply detoured, and doubled back to a police station. I said I was willing to go to jail to keep that man away from me, my daughter, and her friend. What was he willing to sacrifice? ……..Nothing.

Sure, given a choice, I would prefer to only be around only decent, moral, upstanding people. But we don’t always have that option. If we had that option, the Billy Graham rule would be obsolete. Sometimes we all have battles to fight, in one way or another. And just to be clear – their are immoral predators out there in both genders.

Bridget wrote:

Having lunch or dinner, or any kind of business meetings with someone of the opposite gender,

Ya know, if this is a bad thing ……… going on a plane ride alone and being stuck seated beside someone of the opposite gender on a 5 hour flight must be a real doozie!

Nancy2 wrote:

AMEN!
I believe there is Biblical evidence that math is God’s favorite subject. Is there a book in the Bible called Grammer, or Phycical Science, or Biology, or English Lit …..? NO! But there is a book called Numbers!

There is always Genesis. Numbers keeps records of what happened, but Genesis talks about how it happened. Be fruitful comes before multiply. Math counts but biology generates.

Bridget wrote:

Unlesss we are saying that a business relationship with someone of the opposite gender is off grounds as well? If so, that does not work in the business/political​ world of today.

Since when does ‘business’ require steak & lobster, wine and a candle at a quiet little table in the corner, just the two of us? Context. Circumstance. Alternatives. Resourcefulness would maybe help business relationships more than a large enough tip to ensure the requested silence from the wait staff.

And since when is it fair that he gets to do that with pre-tax dollars since it is ‘business’ while the rest of us scrabble around for enough change for McDonald’s fries? But that is the way it goes in the world of money and sex and power. Surely I am not the only one who sees this.

And here I thought name calling was not allowed on this site. Or bullying. Silly me.

Now, if an individual does not want to work for a company that adheres to the rule of three, that is their right of course. And if one owns a company and does not want it for a rule that is their right of course also.

In the oilpatch, however, the employer sets the rules. And one firm rule generally is that the stranded person cannot abandon their vehicle. Good night nurse, some of those chemicals are highly sought after by drug makers (illegal) and other nefarious folks. So no, if your boss says you cannot leave the vehicle, I won’t transport you. If my cell phone will get your help and yours won’t, or if I leave you, call for help, and bring you back water or supplies, where on earth is the sin in that?

Read INTO my comments what you will, but the simple truth is that like it or not, there is nothing inherently sexist, anti woman, or job limiting when a corporation exercises the “rule of 3” NOR is it insulting to anyone when an individual decides for themselves to adhere to the BGR.

Accipiter wrote:

This notion that conservative old white dudes are in danger of getting seduced the moment they leave their wife or (mother’s) side is the stuff of the fevered fundamentalist, over sexualized brain. These are the guys that are obsessed with your genitals and what you do with them. They are the ones fabricating these scenarios in their mind. They freak out about an old school patriarchical set of rules and let the molesters and pedophiles have a pass.

So well stated! This was the timbre at my former evangelical church. My husband worked with actresses in Hollywood all the time, and he was never tempted, and I never doubted him. They had a job to do and that was the focus. The constant men’s groups at church discussing the dangers of women seem to have resulted from the guilt these men had over normal sexuality in their early years. The conservative focus on sexuality stems from repression.

@ Bridget:
Do we actually know any harm that has been done to women due to Pence’s personal rule? Or is it merely conjecture about what might have happened if women could have had a private dinner with him or he could have been at a function with alcohol without his wife present? How could we quantify that? Are we prepared to question female office-holders who might prefer female staffers? Where does this all end? How does it end?

My illustration was a risk assessment perspective. Low-probability but high impact event means taking seemingly extreme precautions like never doing it. An ordinary business meeting is not that. I was trying to shift the discussion away from sexism and toward thinking about reasons for why someone might have such rules or policies and why they might by rational. Or why they might not by rational.

Bridget wrote:

Max wrote:
Any hint of righteous living gets raked over the coals.
The truth is that righteous living can still take place when you have a meal in public with someone of the opposite gender even if one, or both of you, you are married.

Even if you are a male Jew, alone, at the local watering spot, with a woman of ill repute apparently . . . I believe Jesus rebuked the disciples for reprimanding him about “appearances” as well.

@ Bridget:

I am not accusing your husband of anything. But I can tell a few names and places and players in the game from my long years in the world of work. So, yes, this sort of thing does happen. Of course it does not always happen. Always, or its equivalents, is not a good counter argument since I did not say always.

And probably my thinking is influenced from those years of working for the federal gov which had rules that they just better not catch it happening. Except, it did happen, or so a couple of the women said from personal experience, but administration was happy in that they did not catch it I suppose.

However, I have been fed steak et al in a job interview when it was not necessary in the least-because the guy could do it with pre-tax dollars and wanted the chance to go someplace nice, or so he said. And my husband I were were good with that-on his dollar. There was no sex on the table. He did offer us (my husband was part of the deal) a job, and we refused the job(s) for other reasons. But the food was good. But this is one reason why I believed what the women on the gov job claimed.

IMO, if BG or Pence or Santa Clause wants to make sure he is not accused of anything by merely taking his wife along, then more power to him. It is his life, his call.

Gram3 wrote:

Do we actually know any harm that has been done to women due to Pence’s personal rule?

Even beyond that ……. We are talking about our VP. If there is a crisis, or a potential crisis, will Pence refuse to meet with another country’s rep to discuss a solution in a secured, high-level, private meeting because that other country’s rep is a female?
As far as Pence’s rules apply only to his personal life, I have no problem. It’s his life. If those rules reach beyond his personal life and has a affect on our country’s security and the safety of our soldiers, I have a big problem with it.

One time someone said to me they saw me walking with some guy somewhere. I had been alone. Now what would the Billy Graham rule-keepers do with that? Add “keep 6 feet from strangers” to the rule?

Another thing: I have often been mistaken for someone else. People have said to me numerous times that they saw me somewhere I wasn’t or asked if I went to a certain school or lived in a certain part of the city. What do Billy Graham rule-keepers do about the situation of mistaken identity?

okrapod wrote:

So let me try this: Would people be upset about the behavior what the current VP is doing if the current VP adhered to a non-christian religion?

The answer is of course not. He would be highly esteemed as a man of virtue and principle.

@ OutsideLookingIn:
Which laws in Indiana forbid men to meet with women in private?

Nancy2 wrote:

If there is a crisis, or a potential crisis, will Pence refuse to meet with another country’s rep to discuss a solution in a secured, high-level, private meeting because that other country’s rep is a female?

I cannot imagine that circumstance occurring. However, if it came to the point where Pence was the only person left standing to represent the USA and a female was the only person left standing to represent the other country, I cannot imagine that he would refuse that meeting.

Nancy2 wrote:

He wants to outlaw abortion ……. not just abortion on demand, but.abortion.period……. Completely, regardless of the reason.

Does that include a D&C (called an abortion) because the fetus is not viable and the woman is at risk because her body did not “miscarry” the baby?

Nancy2 wrote:

Bridget wrote:

Having lunch or dinner, or any kind of business meetings with someone of the opposite gender,

Ya know, if this is a bad thing ……… going on a plane ride alone and being stuck seated beside someone of the opposite gender on a 5 hour flight must be a real doozie!

I guess if a man really follows this rule and is traveling alone and ends up sitting beside a lady either he or she will have to move.

Let’s stop this nonsense. It is more about making women 2nd class citizens IMO.

Nancy2 wrote:

AMEN!
I believe there is Biblical evidence that math is God’s favorite subject. Is there a book in the Bible called Grammer, or Phycical Science, or Biology, or English Lit …..? NO! But there is a book called Numbers! ; ^ )

I believe it too.
Gauss said that math is the queen of the sciences.
I believe that too.
She’s beholden to none, toes no line but her own, and has 100% internal consistency.
No other science can make that claim.

Gram3 wrote:

I would like to see the actual quote.

I don’t remember where I read it. It was in quotes. I am telling the truth about what I read.

Gram3 wrote:

And I would want to make sure that every female officeholder did not make a similar statement about not hiring male assistants or staff.

I completely agree. Female officeholders are, and should be, held to the same standards. Have you seen or heard where every female officeholder is not held to the same standard?

Max wrote:

It’s much easier for them to control their ministries by the flesh than to enter the Kingdom of God by the Spirit … and, in so doing, they prevent others from entering in as well.

Spot on. Romans 8.

kBridget wrote:

I am telling the truth about what I read.

I believe you. I would like to read the context, etc. because it is very easy to frame things to suit a certain narrative, as we have seen so many times her at TWW. I have not heard where any female officeholders have not been held to the same standards. It would make for an interesting study, assuming verifiable data could be produced magically. 🙂

@ Bridget:
@ Gram3:
“Work Wife”? Bush & Condi?

ION: Tennis

Those of you who follow the sport have undoubtedly noticed the rapid emergence this year of a young Swiss laddie by the name of Federer. If he keeps this up, he could be a future world #1…

Dee, thank you so much for addressing this! Quick correction: the author you quoted above is a friend of mine, & his name is Dan Brennan, not Brenna. He wrote a book on the topic, “Sacred Unions, Sacred Passions.”

Another great book on the topic is “Forbidden Friendships” by Joshua Jones, which I was given a free reviewer copy of, and adore.

Gram3 wrote:

Which laws in Indiana forbid men to meet with women in private?

Probably none at the moment. But I’ll wager there are sincere souls in Indiana who’d love to craft such laws (maybe even Pence himself).

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

ION: Tennis

Heretic. This is Masters Week.

Nancy2 wrote:

Bridget wrote:

Does that include a D&C (called an abortion) because the fetus is not viable and the woman is at risk because her body did not “miscarry” the baby?

I don’t know what his view is about D&Cs. In the case of a high risk pregnancy, Pence did say that the infant comes first, regardless of the condition of the mother. If doctors believe a pregnancy will cause the death of a woman …. still no abortion, regardless of how far along she is. He also believes that the remains of an infant, whether the result of an abortion or a spontaneous miscarriage or the term of the pregnancy, should be buried or cremated.
My daughter miscarried at 8 weeks. I’m sorry, Mr. Pence …… were we supposed to have a funeral?

People, especially women better wake up and realize what Trump and Pence are going to do to women’s rights and it will take them back to the 1950s in my opinion.

Nancy2 wrote:

My daughter miscarried at 8 weeks. I’m sorry, Mr. Pence …… were we supposed to have a funeral?

My daughter lost a pregnancy at about that stage. There were no ceremonies of any sort, much less a funeral. Not even prayers at church. They were Baptists at the time. She grieved for a long time, had to undergo chemo for residual trophoblastic disease, and could never get pregnant again. This is why I have two grandchildren who were abandoned Chinese girls. She loves her children to pieces, but it would have been easier then, and even now, if there had been some sort of recognition of the death of her only biological almost-child.

Please do not ridicule people’s feelings if this is what they feel.

mot wrote:

I do not think that is the point. Women’s rights have been and are being taken away.

For you, the issue is what you have stated. For me the issues are far more complex than that. I am not trying to change your mind about what you believe the issue(s) to be; and it would be futile for you to try to change my mind about the issues. Perhaps look at in these terms, that I am exercising my ‘right’ to see things differently. And since I am female, and given your position about women’s rights, does that mean that you now have to defend my right to see things differently or else betray your own position about the female right to have rights? Okay, that was ugly and I apologize. But I do retain to myself the right to define what I see as a right for myself, and I see myself as having a right to come to my own conclusions even when they may be disturbing to other people.

Bridget wrote:

Why the double standard here?

“TOUCH NOT MINE ANOINTED!”?

Max wrote:

Any hint of righteous living gets raked over the coals. As a people, we’ve changed – for better or worse based on personal perspective. The world demands us increasingly to call evil good and good evil. While we may still call our land “Christian” and thank Him for the Christian principles which guided it for so many years, true Christians are now a minority group in a pagan land.

So are you going to go Benedict or Republic of Gilead?
Or just go up the chimneys of the LGBTQ Diversity Re-Education Center as a Martyr?

(I’ve heard this same decline narrative from so many pulpits…)

Nancy2 wrote:

were we supposed to have a funeral?

I am very sorry for your daughter’s miscarriage. If you have the strength to read it, here is part of the digest entry about the law that Gov. Pence signed:

“Provides that a miscarried or aborted fetus must be interred or cremated by a facility having possession of the remains. Requires a person or facility having possession of a miscarried or aborted fetus to ensure that the miscarried fetus or aborted fetus is preserved until final disposition occurs. Specifies that: (1) a person is not required to designated a name for the miscarried or aborted fetus; and (2) information submitted with respect to the disposition of a miscarried or aborted fetus that may be used to identify the parent or parents of a miscarried fetus or a pregnant who had an abortion is confidential and must be redacted from any public records maintained under the burial permit law. Specifies that miscarried and aborted fetuses may be cremated by simultaneous cremation. Excludes the final disposition of a miscarried or aborted fetus from the law governing the treatment of infectious or pathological waste.”

https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2016/bills/house/1337#digest-heading

This is neither new nor unique to Indiana. Over time, some clergy have insisted that grieving families name and hold burial services for stillborn babies. That should be offered, but not required.

Max wrote:
Few folks thought negatively about the BG Rule in the last century. In this new century, it is a matter of criticism, both in and out of the church. Any hint of righteous living gets raked over the coals. As a people, we’ve changed – for better or worse based on personal perspective. The world demands us increasingly to call evil good and good evil. While we may still call our land “Christian” and thank Him for the Christian principles which guided it for so many years, true Christians are now a minority group in a pagan land. Sadly, as the blog title says “The Billy Graham Rule Doesn’t Work for Most Who Participate in Today’s Society.”

A couple of things:

I’d like to note that the BG Rule is a very middle class thing. When you’re poor, you work with who you have to, and where you have to, to make ends meet. One of my grandmothers was a sharecropper after her divorce and she had to work with men. The other grandmother (my mother’s stepmother) was a secretary and she had to work with men as a matter of course, but of course she wasn’t paid as much and she wasn’t given the opportunity to advance the way men were because she was a woman. And that’s the way it was in the 1940s and 1950s. That’s the world Billy Graham was in.

We don’t live in that world anymore and it’s a darn good thing, IMHO.

Now, let’s talk about “true Christians being a minority in a pagan land.” Every time I read this sort of thing, where somebody claiming to be a Christian feels put upon because her rules are no longer being followed, I have to laugh. The country is overwhelmingly Christian. A 2015 Gallup poll says 75 percent of Americans “identify with a Christian religion.” The stat site 538 has this article from two months ago:

A Third Of The U.S. Says Being Christian Is A Key Part Of Being American

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/a-third-of-the-u-s-says-being-christian-is-a-key-part-of-being-american/

Of course you give yourself an out by saying “true” Christians. Well, how are you supposed to determine who is a “true” Christian? And, to be perfectly blunt, I have known and still know a lot of non-Christians, and I’ll tell you, they’re at least as nice or nicer than the people who call themselves “Christian” here in America.

I object strenuously to the idea that some form of Christianity (I would call it “imperial Christianity” perhaps to get its political flair) doesn’t pervade American society. Maybe you should ask a *real* minority, like a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist, an atheist, whether this country favors Christianity.

And finally, swinging back to the topic, I stopped by a friend’s place after church to pick up a few things. (OMG a woman alone in an apartment with a man!) We talked about the BG rule and he said he thought the BG rule was selfish. BG cared more about his reputation than about helping women. And so do the other groups that have similar rules, like the North American Mission Board. It’s a selfish, selfish rule.

JYJames wrote:

Would that we hear it from the pulpit, in contrast to the Garden of Eden Excuses still in wide circulation today – she made him do it, he made her do it.

The Garden of Eden Excuse sounds one small step away from The Geraldine Defense.

Friend wrote:

This is neither new nor unique to Indiana. Over time, some clergy have insisted that grieving families name and hold burial services for stillborn babies. That should be offered, but not required.

To make it required is beyond the pale IMO.

Gram3 wrote:

@ mot:
I mean that I would like to see exactly what he said and what he was talking about when he said it. I would like for people to extend that courtesy to me.

If you are speaking of Spence, I think what he said and is doing smacks of self righteousness IMO. What courtesy do you want people to extend to you in this regards. I find his position anti-woman and I am a man.

@ Nick Bulbeck:

Actually, the whole comment was nonsense. You were, of course, in geosynchronous orbit. I can offer no real excuse for this schoolboy error.

okrapod wrote:

it would have been easier then, and even now, if there had been some sort of recognition of the death of her only biological almost-child.

And there should have been recognition. I have heard of efforts to help parents of miscarried and stillborn babies. Sometimes people have a private chapel service, even long after the fact. A few sewing groups make tiny gowns. This is off topic but close to several hearts here, including mine… the pain is real, and lasting, but people often grieve alone.

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

dee wrote:
I was 30,000 miles over the Atlantic…
In geostationary orbit? Now that’s impressive flying.

I think maybe the pilot was going to be sent “to the moon”* if he kept up his banter with Dee…

*credit Ralph Kramden

Lea wrote:

Then they extend it to cars and elevators and so on and so forth and it gets to be sheer lunacy.

Again, “More Moral/Righteous Than Thou” meets “Can You Top This?”

@ Friend:

That sounds reasonable. Don’t just throw them out with the waste from the lab but rather cremate them. As to what churches and individuals do that is up to them. It is very easy to get very callous in medicine. Partly that may be due to familiarity and partly it may be a defense mechanism because just a lot of stuff is too heart rending to think about. Unless I have misunderstood that excerpt from that law it sounds very reasonable and humane to me.

@ Nick Bulbeck:
Beg to differ. Drive Chip Putt was today. That is the *new* beginning of Masters Week. The kids are so amazing.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

When they look in the mirror, Right Said Fred looks back at them singing “I’m Too SEX-ay for My Shirt…”

Or My Syrup Bottle…

http://www.theonion.com/article/mike-pence-asks-waiter-remove-mrs-butterworth-tabl-55661

Gram3 wrote:

I would like to see exactly what he said and what he was talking about when he said it.

I’ve been looking around for the Pence interview with The Hill in 2002, but have not found it. Searched The Hill’s online archive, found nothing with his name before 2005.

Friend wrote:

the pain is real, and lasting, but people often grieve alone.

This is true. Some people also prefer to grieve alone, which is why “a law” to determine​ how people deal with the issue is not warranted in my humble opinion.

Friend wrote:

This is neither new nor unique to Indiana. Over time, some clergy have insisted that grieving families name and hold burial services for stillborn babies. That should be offered, but not required.

I know these questions sound callous, but I do not mean them that way. It just that making it state law seems to me like overreach.
Who pays for the cremation or burial? Are the parents or the taxpayers required to pay? If cremation, what is done with the ashes? If burial, where – and it it a marked grave?

When my daughter miscarried, she ran around for over 3 weeks after her first obgyn appt., excited ….. thinking she was pregnant. Then the dr. discovered that the embryo had not been growing. She miscarried at 8 weeks, but didn’t know it until she was almost 12 weeks along. The fetal tissue did not expel itself, and it had begun to degrade ……so, D&C. What would the state of Indiana done in her case?

Nancy2 wrote:

mot wrote:

Why not have Spence and others move out of the cave man era and not have to require them to hire women?. They should simply hire women,

How about just hiring the applicant that is most qualified …………. but I know that rarely happens in crony politics.

Nancy, you said it better than I did. The point I was making was it is wrong to exclude an entire gender just because they are sexist.

okrapod wrote:

Unless I have misunderstood that excerpt from that law it sounds very reasonable and humane to me.

It looks like a judge issued a preliminary injunction against the law after Pence signed it:

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/30/judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-indiana-abortion-law/86556662/

The law is mainly about restricting abortion, with miscarriage included in certain specifics. There was some fear that miscarriages would be investigated as suspected abortions, if women who miscarried did not comply with the cremation requirement.

@ Bridget:
You’re right. That is not the same thing.

@ Bridget:

It is required for accreditation that hospitals have regulations as to what to do about everything under the sun. So whether it was throw the dead body in with the lab waste and into the biological trash, or it would be turn it over to a facility for either cremation or burial, either way there are regs. There is no option that anything any hospital does is not governed by regs, including whether or not there are disposable plastic liners in the waste cans in the potty. And there are inspections that are a nightmare-been through a heap of them. Nightmare is an understatement.

So, don’t have a ‘law’ is not an option, if you mean don’t have any official regulations at all. If you mean that not the state but the people who accredit the hospitals should be the ones who write the regs-I can’t see much difference if it comes to an issue of individual freedom or something.

And then you have Christian bloggers making these rude statements:

Matt Walsh ✔ @MattWalshBlog
“If you laugh at Pence for respecting his marriage, it’s probably because you’ve never been in a healthy one”
4:45 AM – 30 Mar 2017
531 531 Retweets 2,341 2,341 likes

Here, at least, no one is laughing about Pence respecting his marriage. We are questioning the logic of the decision for someone in Pence’s position and how that effects women in his environment.

And then Walsh insults people about their marriages probably not being healthy if they disagreed with Pence.

@ Friend:

Yes, I can see where that would be unworkable. I was thinking about what goes on in hospitals. But when the law said ‘simultaneous cremation’ I read that to mean not individual but en masse; just a step above just slinging it into the trash. There must be more to the story though if that is not what they meant.

Bridget wrote:

Here, at least, no one is laughing about Pence respecting his marriage. We are questioning the logic of the decision for someone in Pence’s position and how that effects women in his environment.

In a sense, the separation of men from women does give the impression that both are capable of being over-ruled by their passions in the face of severe temptations. But the truth is, women must work. And women with children and no spousal support have no choice but to seek employment in work places that will pay them less than a man gets for the same work, limit their hours so they cannot get benefits, and require of them often that which is demeaning to any human person. It’s the women who are ‘trapped’ in today’s American work place more than the men, I would say. And in ways that more often than not make them victims of abuse.

When I was teaching, a young mother shared with me that her husband could not work because of sickness and they relied on her income and her benefits for the whole family. Her employer, knowing this, had made sexual overtures, insinuating that if she wanted to keep her job, she should ‘cooperate’. This woman was terribly upset.

I suppose any person in power can set their own parameters for what they can handle. But when what they decide impacts the dignity of another human person, a line has been crossed.

If the VP publicly places women in the role of ‘temptresses’ and himself as a possible victim even in the most casual and harmless of circumstances;
that DOES reflect on the dignity of ALL women;
including the dignity of his own wife, whom he sees as HIS wife and not as a human person in the same category as all those potential hussies he is avoiding OR at least making a public show of avoiding.

It’s like theater, this behavior. It sends messages inside of messages. It throws average innocent people who happen to be women into disrepute by implication that even public contact with them is to be avoided.

Velour wrote:

We’re talking about the work world, not the religious one. Do you have a job in the real world? Do they employ women? This is outright silly that you can’t be alone with a member of the opposite sex to get work done.

It is outright discrimination. Men would scream bloody murder if this was done to them.

Velour wrote:

It is outright discrimination. Men would scream bloody murder if this was done to them

It is outright discrimination. Men would scream that this was so unfair if this was done to them.

Off-topic announcement.

There are a list of folks here who need prayer on the E-Church.

Also, David/Eagle’s mom died in California and he his heartbroken.

Friend wrote:

I’m sure a lot of us would love to read it.

I cannot find a quote where he said he would not hire a female, so I think we should not assume that he said that. Here’s a recent article from the Atlantic regarding his meeting with females policy with some very interesting comments from folks whom I assume are neither rigid fundamentalists nor readers of TWW. It provides some perspective, I think.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/#article-comments

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

And you’re entirely right, I think, that it makes us look both weak and obsessed with sex.

Ya gotta’ wonder though, did Graham and crew craft these rules to keep the drives of their nether regions at bay, or was it more in keeping up appearances?

@ Gram3:

Good article. Interesting comments. I was getting bored with nothing to talk about but which country had hacked which and with what secret ability to make it look otherwise. The very intensity and passion in the issue of who eats green beans with whom, and if not then why not, is so much more vital.

When we remember that we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life is explained. Mark Twain.

Honestly, I don’t understand the ruckus over this. It’s a personal rule that Mike Pence has adopted. Has he said all men must follow this rule? You might think he’s being too cautious, but so what? Who is he hurting by not meeting alone with women who are not his wife.

There are bigger problems in the church than this.

Here’s a telling question. And it’s rhetorical. Not to be too political, but how many people who are all upset about this rule actually voted for Trump/Pence? Because the people I see complaining the loudest about this on other sites very clearly voted for Clinton.

@ Christiane:
I do not mean to be harsh, but you do not serve the interests of women by not dealing with facts and with reason. We cannot ask for fairness if we are not willing to grant it to others. I speak as one who is guilty of not being fair, and I appreciate those of you who have called me on it.

Joe Reed wrote:

@ Nancy2:
I don’t see who is forcing it on anyone.

If groups like NAMB are requiring it then it is absolutely being forced on some people who may think it’s stupid or unnecessary. IT’s certainly not their private choice.

dee wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

dee wrote:
I was 30,000 miles over the Atlantic…

Egads-I meant feet. That makes me smile.

I assumed she hit one of these:
http://www.sciencealert.com/supersonic-plasma-jets-have-been-detected-in-earth-s-atmosphere-for-the-first-time
Wheeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!

ishy wrote:

At first, I too thought that sexual assault wasn’t the real issue. But, there’s already been someone here that said women were just out to get men, implying that men just can’t help themselves around women. So, while sexual assault may not have been the inspiration, it is what some people are using to define it now. Modern Christian culture tells men they can’t control their lust, so they should be afraid of everything. I saw a lot of that especially in Christian college.

I think the ‘reasons’ described for this type of behavior changes constantly. If you make the point that a public lunch is hardly going to be an assault problem, they say it’s about reputation. IF you make a different point, it’s suddenly about assault again. Etc.

In all of it, the end result is treating women as a problem, and the solution is to stay away from them.

Muff Potter wrote:

did Graham and crew craft these rules to keep the drives of their nether regions at bay, or was it more in keeping up appearances?

Charting a course to model and maintain Christian integrity before a watching world was their goal. As Dr. Graham said in his autobiography “In reality, it did not mark a radical departure for us; we had always held these principles. It did, however, settle in our hearts and minds, once and for all, the determination that integrity would be the hallmark of both our lives and our ministry.”

They accomplished that goal.

Nancy2 wrote:

Gender was an issue for me and a few of my female classmates in college. I took a geology class that included a lab as an elective. The professor that had been hired refused to speak to females.

Seriously?

I had a class where the professor openly advised female students not to go to one specific TA (I think). Because he would be creepy/hit on them/what have you,iirc.

Lea wrote:

If groups like NAMB are requiring it then it is absolutely being forced on some people who may think it’s stupid or unnecessary. IT’s certainly not their private choice.

I’m going to post this thing in its entirety. It’s the North American Mission Board’s Code of Conduct. I want people to see how completely sex-obsessed it is.

• I will conduct myself in a way that reflects positively on Christ and the
North American Mission Board.
• I will not visit the opposite sex alone at home, other than my spouse. **SEX!!**
• I will not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office. **SEX!!**
• I will not counsel the opposite sex more than once without the person’s
spouse. **SEX!!**
• If married, I will not have lunch alone with the opposite sex, other than my
spouse. **SEX!!**
• I will be careful in answering cards, letters and email notes from the
opposite sex. **SEX!!**
• If married, I will not be in an automobile alone with anyone of the
opposite sex, other than my spouse. **SEX!!**
• I will not show affection that could be questioned. **SEX!!**
• I will be a tithing member of record and in good standing in a Southern
Baptist Church.
• I will abstain from consumption of any alcoholic beverage.
• I will not view pornography. **SEX!!**
• I will maintain financial integrity.
• I will pray for the integrity of other missionaries and staff members.

https://www.namb.net/Resources/NAMB_Code_of_Conduct.pdf

And I must correct a statement I made two days ago. I said that nine of 13 of these items were sex-related. I was wrong. It’s only eight, but that’s still 61 percent.

okrapod wrote:

Since when does ‘business’ require steak & lobster, wine and a candle at a quiet little table in the corner, just the two of us?

You go to way more expensive business lunches than i do!

Robert wrote:

Not to be too political, but how many people who are all upset about this rule actually voted for X? Because the people I see complaining the loudest about this on other sites very clearly voted for Y.

Dude. You have know idea who I voted for.

I think this rule is stupid and should stop being promoted in evangelical circles. Has nothing to do with politics for me.

Robert wrote:

Honestly, I don’t understand the ruckus over this.

The media are in full outrage mode over a story that appears to be over a decade old and the outrage concerns female opportunity. One could reasonably expect that the issue would have been raised well before November of last year considering that was probably the main issue of that campaign. So, one could reasonably ask why now and why so much outrage? In view of the political context, I suggest that the answer lies in the need to distract the attention of the public from something on the other side. That is just politics as usual. But that’s just me looking for a sufficient cause for the really big kaboom we are seeing in the media.

That said, the issue of how males and females should and can properly and profitably relate to one another in mutually beneficial ways is an excellent one to discuss, IMO.

@ Jack:

Great comment, Jack.

dee wrote:

Dee’s Motto to Live Buy_ I have a plaque that I keep in my kitchen.

Live should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, latte in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming, “Whoo Hoo, what a ride.”

This motto, I love!

Jack wrote:

I think the Billy Graham rule was concocted so Billy Graham can let everyone know how pious he is. I think Pence is the same way. I doubt either of them applied the rule 100% of the time.
Just pious posturing. If I recall, Jesus wasn’t by that baloney either.

I agree with Pence presenting as ‘pious’ publicly. And I also believe he is setting up a dramatic stark CONTRAST to the words and actions of a specific colleague.

I do not know the man’s heart. But it seems to me that rather than walking away from the misogyny of his ‘colleague’, Pence has just chosen a parallel journey in the ‘war against women’ that is ‘acceptable’ among his relgious base …… as I said, ‘it seems to me’, yes, as an observation.

I think I’m right. There is no honor towards the dignity of women expressed in Pence’s stand, if you look at it one way;
and there is no honor expressed towards the dignity of men either.

What comes from the ‘BG/Pence’ brouhaha is another way of putting women ‘in their place’. If a man has a PRIVATE preference for how he conducts himself personally in moral matters, that is HIS business.
Once a man has entered public life, Church or state, his words and actions MATTER and take on implications for how he wishes to be SEEN by the public.

I don’t think Pence would see himself as someone who did not ‘honor’ women because I doubt in his world that many men would have the sensitivity to understand the negative implications of concerns over appearances.
But in the time of Our Lord, the disciples did not question His motives when they saw that he spoke alone to the Samaritan woman. They had no need to question His judgment. (27Just then, His disciples returned and were astonished that He was speaking with a woman. But no one asked Him, “What do You want from her?” or “Why are You talking with her?” John 4:27)

I think manipulative people can force innocent men into ‘distancing’ behaviors from those the manipulative people see as ‘lesser’ in dignity. Yep. That is how I see it. It speaks to the man’s insecurity over his own public image when he is fearful of scandalizing those who see women as ‘temptresses’. It’s an old, old story with its roots in the perversion of Eve’s role in Eden towards the ‘innocent’ Adam. Nothing new here.

Nancy2 wrote:

It’s about how difficult it would be for most people to function in today’s society while trying to apply the Billy Graham rule to their own lives. So many women would be hamstrung, career wise.

With some of these guys pushing the Billy Graham Rule (among other things), that’d be Feature, not Bug.

I’m late to this party but FWIW…

I think the BG Rule makes perfect sense for prominent public figures like Pence, who are under the media microscope. For us ordinary folks, it doesn’t make much sense. But if you live in the DC fishbowl, with hostile media training their sights on you, then, yeah, it makes sense IMHO.

I honestly don’t get the outrage. The guy is trying to protect his marriage and his reputation. How is that a bad thing? Is he imposing it on others? No. Is he excluding women from jobs or from public office? No. He is making perfectly legitimate choices WRT his own dining choices. This is his prerogative. How is it anybody else’s business?

End of rant. 😉

Lea wrote:

It’s not about making blanket rules, it’s about having character.

But if you don’t have character, there’s always the Checklist.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I honestly don’t get the outrage. The guy is trying to protect his marriage and his reputation. How is that a bad thing? Is he imposing it on others? No. Is he excluding women from jobs or from public office? No. He is making perfectly legitimate choices WRT his own dining choices. This is his prerogative. How is it anybody else’s business?

End of rant.

his very PUBLIC stance sends ‘dog whistles’ to some of his base that you apparently did not pick up on

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

No. Is he excluding women from jobs or from public office? No. He is making perfectly legitimate choices WRT his own dining choices. This is his prerogative. How is it anybody else’s business?

In the real world, in real workplaces, we have to have conversations (short or long) and even meals with members of the opposite sex to get work done.

It is unprofessional and immature that a grown man can’t see professional women in the same light that he sees professional men and treat them the same.

Wouldn’t there be an uproar from the men if he had made a rule that he wasn’t willing to meet with men unless a third person was present?

I just wanted to say (brag on myself) I really hated the Billy Graham Rule before it was trendy to hate it as of this last week.
If y’all will recall, I’ve been occasionally snarking on the Billy Graham Rule for the last year or two on this blog. 🙂

Remember the Barbara Mandrell song, ‘I was country when country wasn’t cool.’ That’s kind of like me, but with the Billy Graham Rule. 🙂

I haven’t had time to read through any posts since I was last here or reply, but I may do that later… tomorrow or later in the week, I don’t know.

Barbara Mandrell on You Tube,
I Was Country, When Country Wasn’t Cool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRHjl3xMB3o

Gram3 wrote:

okrapod wrote:
What Pence is doing is less restrictive that what that Muslim man was doing, but none the less they are both being different from what most people do. IMO, don’t anybody think that this type of work place issue is not there to be dealt with.
I think that one religion is considered the majority religion and therefore privileged, and one is considered a minority religion. Therefore one will be protected and accommodated and HR will have a lot to say to the other. Double standards.
It is not outrageous if a President has a relationship with an employee who is not his wife in the Oval Office but it is huge news if a man takes affirmative steps to avoid having a relationship with a woman who is not his wife. The first man gets a pass while the second gets the sexism charge. I do not get it. Double standards.
I understand that we need to figure out how to make wise and reasonable judgments and not have rigid rules, but I do not see either Billy Graham or Pence making laws for anyone else. This honestly reminds me of the “binders full of women” outrage when there are women being subjected to horrors beyond description.
If a woman decides not to walk alone late at night, it is not because she thinks every man is a killer or a rapist. It is because she is wise enough to know that a few are and she cannot know who they are in advance. So she does not put herself in that position. That is not making a statement about all men.

Thank you, Gram3, for bringing a balanced view to this discussion. Sometimes, a person can win for losing. Trump is a disgusting, sexist, bigot. And Pence is a disgusting, sexist, bigot. Go figure.

I might make one or two posts before I turn in for the night…

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I honestly don’t get the outrage. The guy is trying to protect his marriage and his reputation. How is that a bad thing? Is he imposing it on others? No. Is he excluding women from jobs or from public office? No

Pence is making it easier to do all that stuff, though, to limit women.

The rationale behind the “don’t dine with women who aren’t your wife” thinking is that men have no self control, and women are dangerous sex objects to be avoided.

Pence doing this sort of thing continues this type of thinking and makes it easier for other men to go along with it.

It’s not just the concrete action that bothers me – that a guy like Pence would not have lunch with me at a diner sans his wife – but with his underlying assumptions and attitude behind it, his assumptions and attitudes towards men, women, friendships, sex, marriage.

I am not a sexual temptress. I am not a harlot. I don’t even find Pence attractive. He’s got some nerve or huge ego assuming I would want to do ‘the nasty’ with him. I would never have an affair with a married guy, because I have decent morals.

I don’t really see how declining a lunch with a woman is will protect his marriage, or how it’s a guarantee.

If a married guy wants to have an affair, he can find other places and ways to do it – doesn’t have to be at a restaurant.

Didn’t Tullian use twitter, his cell phone (messaging) and gyms (which he went to in order to work out) to groom and hit on women? Tullian didn’t have to meet with these women over lunch or at a diner.

Gram3 wrote:

If a woman decides not to walk alone late at night, it is not because she thinks every man is a killer or a rapist. It is because she is wise enough to know that a few are and she cannot know who they are in advance. So she does not put herself in that position. That is not making a statement about all men.

In the United States, how many rapists and muggers are men vs. are women?

I think just about every article I’ve seen on crime states that men are usually behind most violent crimes, not women.

I’m also not sure how this fear or caution some women have around men when out and about in the city would translate to jobs, career?

In other words, while I may move with caution walking down a city street by myself at 2 A.M., especially if I see a man I don’t know walking down the street, that didn’t stop me from meeting alone with male co-workers at the office at my job or at a restaurant to discuss work related matters over lunch.

Max wrote:

Few folks thought negatively about the BG Rule in the last century.

I think that’s because the culture (in the U.S.) was still heavily patriarchal during that time, and even a lot of women bought into sexist ideas such as BGR, the way they buy into complementarianism.

Christian gender comp sounds so biblical and godly, and it used to sound that way to me, until I really re-examined it as I got older and realized not only does it lack biblical support, but it’s actually pretty sexist (while its proponents claim all the while it’s really not sexism, but it’s God-ordained and quite good for society).

You said,

In this new century, it is a matter of criticism, both in and out of the church. Any hint of righteous living gets raked over the coals.

As a people, we’ve changed – for better or worse based on personal perspective. The world demands us increasingly to call evil good and good evil.

While we may still call our land “Christian” and thank Him for the Christian principles which guided it for so many years, true Christians are now a minority group in a pagan land. Sadly, as the blog title says “The Billy Graham Rule Doesn’t Work for Most Who Participate in Today’s Society.”

I’m not sure if I’m understanding everything you’re saying there, is you are arguing that the BGR is “righteous” and it’s “good”?

I don’t see the B.G.R. rule as being righteous or good but as being bad, detrimental towards women (even “true Christian women”), and as the sort of legalism about women practiced by the Pharisees
(e.g., “Men, don’t look at women, avert your gaze if one walks past! Avoid women, don’t touch or talk to, but stay away from”) that Jesus sometimes addressed and correct in the New Testament.

okrapod wrote:

Since when does ‘business’ require steak & lobster, wine and a candle at a quiet little table in the corner, just the two of us? Context. Circumstance. Alternatives.

The business meetings I used to have with male coworkers (some married, some single) generally took place at “Pedro’s House of Tacos” or “Joe’s Burger Shack” in the middle of the day in a crowded restaurant. There were no romantic candle-lights on the tables or what not.

That’s generally how co-workers go out to lunch or dinner with each other.

There was no hanky-panky or footise under the table. We either talked about work- related stuff over our meals, and/or our favorite TV shows, nothing romantic or flirty.

Bridget wrote:

They don’t have lobster in candlelight and pay the waiter to be quiet. That is not what a meal in public looks like when it is on the up and up. There is a lot of middle ground between NO MEALS with a woman I’m not married to and lobster and candlelight in a corner . . . don’t you think?

Yes. I was just saying this in a post or two above.

None of the lunches I had with male (or female) co-workers were ever romantic.
The lunches with co-workers usually took place at Tex Mex restaurants that had fake turtles or sombreros on the walls.

Bridget wrote:

The truth is that righteous living can still take place when you have a meal in public with someone of the opposite gender even if one, or both of you, you are married.

Jesus met alone or was seen talking to or hanging out with women, including prostitutes or thrice or more divorced women, which was quite scandalous for his era, and he got criticism from the Pharisees for it.
And Jesus is not a “special exception” here, that “well it’s OK for Jesus to do that but not normal men”.

Jesus is supposed to be the role model for all Christians to follow on how to navigate life.

Nancy2 wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Also math. Math wins every time, magical thinking to the contrary.
AMEN!
I believe there is Biblical evidence that math is God’s favorite subject. Is there a book in the Bible called Grammer, or Phycical Science, or Biology, or English Lit …..? NO! But there is a book called Numbers! ; ^ )

Ah…but I think God just might have an affinity for the law profession. Because there is a book called Judges! 😉

mot wrote:

dee wrote:
I will say I cannot imagine me wanting to travel and share a motel room with a male friend, or he with a woman friend.
No one here is suggesting that. Good night!
Dee: There is no cure for ignorance like Linda showed in her comment.

Wow. That was uncalled for, especially from someone who is a Christian and a pastor.

Bridget wrote:

okrapod wrote:
Since when does ‘business’ require steak & lobster, wine and a candle at a quiet little table in the corner, just the two of us? Context. Circumstance. Alternatives. Resourcefulness would maybe help business relationships more than a large enough tip to ensure the requested silence from the wait staff.
Honestly, I don’t know why you assume that this is what the meal in public looks like?
My husband is in a management position in business. He has met with women at lunch and dinner to interview for positions for his place of business because the business has not yet dismissed the person whose position is being filled. My goodness! They don’t have lobster in candlelight and pay the waiter to be quiet. That is not what a meal in public looks like when it is on the up and up. There is a lot of middle ground between NO MEALS with a woman I’m not married to and lobster and candlelight in a corner . . . don’t you think?

Good material for a Harlequin Romance novel. Better make sure that waiter can be trusted to keep his mouth shut. 🙂

Laura wrote:

Accipiter wrote:
This notion that conservative old white dudes are in danger of getting seduced the moment they leave their wife or (mother’s) side is the stuff of the fevered fundamentalist, over sexualized brain. These are the guys that are obsessed with your genitals and what you do with them. They are the ones fabricating these scenarios in their mind. They freak out about an old school patriarchical set of rules and let the molesters and pedophiles have a pass.

The constant men’s groups at church discussing the dangers of women seem to have resulted from the guilt these men had over normal sexuality in their early years. The conservative focus on sexuality stems from repression.

Well, there’s also another scenario. It’s the one where those men once lived sexually promiscuous lives. That was the kind of evangelical culture of which I was once a member. Both the guys and the gals came from the free love lifestyle, where having s_x was like eating candy. Very licentious. So when they became Christians, they wanted no part of that former lifestyle.

okrapod wrote:

mot wrote:
And would that trap include just women??
– – – – – – – – – – –
Why no, if he were an alcoholic and were seen in a pub, well there you go. And heaven help him if he had even a phone call from another country-lots of traps. So how does that make hanging out with women in the public eye suddenly a safe thing to do?

I spent a large chunk of my life as a codependent person, made worse by my southern mother (who was very codependent and encouraged me to be as well),

And having grown up in the south over much of my life, where my mom and the southern culture emphasizes always thinking about and guarding your public persona, your reputation, and questions like,

“But what will everyone think?” or,
“What will the neighbors think if you do this, do that, wear that dress, don’t dry your hair before going out, x, y, z?”

I no longer am consumed living my life in such a way as being concerned with what other people may think of me, not in that manner.

It’s very tiring and not authentic to live life constantly worried about how every action you take may come across to other people.

There is a good proverb that illustrates that principle. It’s about a man who takes his son and a donkey into town. Here is a copy of it:

The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey
http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html

By the way, if I saw a guy who I knew was an alcoholic, and I saw him walking into a bar, I would not necessarily assume he was going in there to drink.

I am a teatotaler. My sister, who used to drink alcohol a lot, used to drag me along to bars and night clubs with her for companionship, and so that I could listen to the live bands at the bars (I like music), not for drinking (she would drink but I would not).

Some pubs and bars serve food, like burgers or appetizers.

In high school, when I was 18 years old, I went with some buddies of mine to a bar, but I didn’t order alcohol. I ordered a soda and a hamburger with fries while I was in that bar.

When I see a man and a woman walk into a restaurant, especially during a work day (M – F), especially around noon (lunch), I do not automatically assume anything about them.

I don’t assume they are married or not, or co-workers or not.
My mind does not automatically jump to the idea, “A-ha, it’s a married guy and that is his mistress, this meal they are going to is obviously a preclude to a tryst in the motel down the street! This guy is not following the BGR, he must be a cheating McCheater, that dog!”

mot wrote:

It is more about making women 2nd class citizens IMO.

all the excuses about women in the military ….. and most bought them until it became public knowledge that private companies will readily hire retired military with certain skills and training, which, you guessed it, had been restricted to ‘men only’

male hubris was not the reason for the restricting of women in certain rates in the military at all ….. it was simply the old ‘the men need the jobs, not the women’

Mike Pence May Be Extremely Close to His Wife Karen, but That Doesn’t Mean He Respects Women
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/03/29/mike_pence_s_tight_relationship_with_his_wife_doesn_t_mean_he_respects_women.html

From the page:

As Elizabeth Spiers, a writer and entrepreneur who was raised as an evangelical Christian, put it, living this way would mean someone wouldn’t be able to have much of a working relationship with any woman, and furthermore, “I also wonder if, taken to a logical extreme, Pence could argue that he shouldn’t have to hire women on a religious freedom basis.”

Christiane wrote:

I think manipulative people can force innocent men into ‘distancing’ behaviors from those the manipulative people see as ‘lesser’ in dignity. Yep. That is how I see it. It speaks to the man’s insecurity over his own public image when he is fearful of scandalizing those who see women as ‘temptresses’. It’s an old, old story with its roots in the perversion of Eve’s role in Eden towards the ‘innocent’ Adam. Nothing new here.

“WHEREAS, While Paul commends women and men alike in other roles of ministry and service, he excludes women from pastoral leadership to preserve a submission God requires because the man was first in creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall”

okay …. ‘because the man was FIRST in Creation and the woman was first in the Edenic fall’….. the year is 1984, and this particular resolution of the SBC focuses on one man-made interpretation of sacred Scripture which may be a base for much of the misogyny being acted out under religious/political auspices

of course the roots go back into the millenia, but not to Christ Himself, no …. He respected women as persons and individuals, but those verses are not celebrated in misogynistic circles, no

Kind of related:
Why Can’t Men and Women Be Friends?
https://kaleidoscopechristian.wordpress.com/2015/08/19/male-and-female-friendships-the-billy-graham-rule-segregation-of-the-sexes/

Muslin, fka Dee Holmes wrote:

BG cared more about his reputation than about helping women.

In Billy Graham’s case, if he didn’t care about his reputation and implement the BG rule, his reputation very well could have been ruined. And he would have looked like a hypocrite and no longer able to preach. That is how he, and those who traveled with him saw it. Those were the times that he lived in. I won’t condemn him for it any more than I will condemn those dead white men that wrote the Constitution who also had some glaring problems. Those were the times they lived in as well. Sometimes, people can’t see what they can’t see. We’re evolving. It would be nice to think that we could some day evolve to a place of the Universal Law of treating others the way we want to be treated.

*This is my opinion and I own it as a strong, free-thinking woman.

Friend wrote:

Nick Bulbeck wrote:
dee wrote:
I was 30,000 miles over the Atlantic…
In geostationary orbit? Now that’s impressive flying.
I think maybe the pilot was going to be sent “to the moon”* if he kept up his banter with Dee…
*credit Ralph Kramden

Ralph Kramden was a sexist, misogynistic bigot. People should call their legislators to have such programs outlawed on t.v. What a disgrace to ALL women that such a show should still air on television in the 21st Century!!!!! Outrage. Outrage. Outrage.

Darlene wrote:

Ralph Kramden was a sexist, misogynistic bigot. People should call their legislators to have such programs outlawed on t.v. What a disgrace to ALL women that such a show should still air on television in the 21st Century!!!!! Outrage. Outrage. Outrage.

His ‘to the Moon, Alice, to the Moon!’ still resounds:
https://pics.onsizzle.com/wro-renerbers-wiat-tais-its-alice-kramden-4833985.png

tLea wrote:

Joe Reed wrote:
@ Nancy2:
I don’t see who is forcing it on anyone.
If groups like NAMB are requiring it then it is absolutely being forced on some people who may think it’s stupid or unnecessary. IT’s certainly not their private choice.

Wait a minute. If NAMB is following some form of the BG rule they have every right to do so as a religious organization. And I would think that those who are signing on the dotted line to agree to NAMB’s rules are doing so of their own volition. I certainly don’t think anyone is holding a gun do their head, sign or else! I’m sure that at any point before they sign on the dotted line there’s an option to say, FUGGEDABOUTIT and walk away. All religious organizations have their guidelines and rules. Case in point. The Catholic Church requires that certain ecclesiastical positions be filled by single people alone. No marrieds. When they sign on the dotted line, they do so willingly and with full knowledge of what those regulations and rules mean.

Now, many of us here at TWW may not like NAMB’s rule – count me in. But that is something altogether different than saying folks are being forced to sign on the dotted line.

Max wrote:

Muff Potter wrote:
did Graham and crew craft these rules to keep the drives of their nether regions at bay, or was it more in keeping up appearances?
Charting a course to model and maintain Christian integrity before a watching world was their goal. As Dr. Graham said in his autobiography “In reality, it did not mark a radical departure for us; we had always held these principles. It did, however, settle in our hearts and minds, once and for all, the determination that integrity would be the hallmark of both our lives and our ministry.”
They accomplished that goal.

Thank you for that quote, Max. Some folks seem to what to impugn dubious motives to Billy Graham for his BG rule. I just don’t see it that way. Not for his unique set of circumstances. Should it be for all Christians, all the time, forever and ever, amen? Of course not. But I don’t think it’s necessary to condemn Billy Graham for following his rules, even when we wouldn’t follow those rules in our lives.

Velour wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Can someone show me some facts?
Fact: In my state California this behavior constitutes unlawful discrimination and not only can an employer be sued for it but the state’s powerful California Fair Employment and Housing Department can take action against an employer. We have yearly training to prevent unlawful discrimination. We have legally required training every six months for supervisors.

Also, are you saying Pence has broken the law? If so, how?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I’m late to this party but FWIW…
I think the BG Rule makes perfect sense for prominent public figures like Pence, who are under the media microscope. For us ordinary folks, it doesn’t make much sense. But if you live in the DC fishbowl, with hostile media training their sights on you, then, yeah, it makes sense IMHO.
I honestly don’t get the outrage. The guy is trying to protect his marriage and his reputation. How is that a bad thing? Is he imposing it on others? No. Is he excluding women from jobs or from public office? No. He is making perfectly legitimate choices WRT his own dining choices. This is his prerogative. How is it anybody else’s business?
End of rant.

And again, another opinion from a different perspective. Is this just much ado about nothing. From what you say, Catholic Gate Crasher, it seems Pence only applies this rule in his private life. If that is the case, big deal. It’s better than the rules, or should I say, Lack Of Rules, that Trump has applied in his life with regard to women.

Again, I don’t follow the BG rule in my life and many here at TWW don’t. But why criticize a guy like Pence who his constantly being watched by the media to slip up? Some folks are darned if they do, and darned if they don’t.

*This is not a Public Service Announcement promoting Pence. 😉

Jack wrote:

Reading the comments make me so glad I’ve left religion.
Men & women are equal. In every single way.
Was traveling for business this week. Had dinner with not one, but two, count’em two! Women who were married to other men. And I’m married too. And we were all sitting at the same table. If God does exist, he must have had a lightening bolt ready for all of us.
And get this! One of the pilots on the flight home was a woman. Locked in a cockpit with her male co pilot. What shenanigans must have occurred once the autopilot was turned on.
I think the Billy Graham rule was concocted so Billy Graham can let everyone know how pious he is. I think Pence is the same way. I doubt either of them applied the rule 100% of the time.
Just pious posturing. If I recall, Jesus wasn’t by that baloney either.

So, you know the spiritual condition of Billy Graham’s heart and Pence’s heart?

I love TWW, I really do. But this thread is beginning to sound frantic and judgmental.

@ Darlene:

Indiana law regarding sex discrimination: http://www.blr.com/HR-Employment/Discrimination/Sex-Discrimination-in-Indiana#

Sorry I can’t answer the rest of your questions.

@ Darlene:

There are links in Dee’s article to the Washington Post. The WP sites the Indianapolis​ Star which described Pence’s rules during his 12 years in congress.

This thread has been discussing how these rules play out for women and men in the workplace and what the rules (touted by some Christians since BG) assume about all women and men.

Friend wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

I would like to see exactly what he said and what he was talking about when he said it.

I’ve been looking around for the Pence interview with The Hill in 2002, but have not found it. Searched The Hill’s online archive, found nothing with his name before 2005.

Ditto, Gram3. I am so tired of the polarization in our country. And BOTH sides are to blame for it.

Bridget wrote:

Velour wrote:
@ Darlene:
Indiana law regarding sex discrimination: http://www.blr.com/HR-Employment/Discrimination/Sex-Discrimination-in-Indiana#
Sorry I can’t answer the rest of your questions.
Makes me wonder if Pence broke his state laws by refusing to work with female aides after hours, etc. Female aides would be at a disadvantage in that environment.

Yes, that’s my concern too. It’s one thing to do [name of personal belief] in one’s personal time. It’s another to carry it into the workplace and to harm other people.
And he hasn’t come out with a rule for all people such as, “I won’t meet alone with a man or a woman. A third person has to be present.”

Darlene wrote:

Although I must say I’ve been taking a break from reading about politics because it has become toxic to my soul.

I completely understand!

Darlene wrote:

Thanks, Bridget. I’ll be reading up on this issue from a variety of sites.

The Indianapolis Star article seemed to be written by someone who supports Pence. I also referenced an article to Gram3 earlier that seemed positive toward Pence. Both articles referred to Pence’s rules. So the Pence rules/guidelines seem to be public knowledge. They don’t appear to be just personnel​ as they were applied throughout his 12 years in congress which make them current and applied in his work environment.

As mentioned earlier, my husband could be sued and fired for making statements and rules like Pence has made.

mot wrote:

Darlene wrote:
mot wrote:
dee wrote:
I will say I cannot imagine me wanting to travel and share a motel room with a male friend, or he with a woman friend.
No one here is suggesting that. Good night!
Dee: There is no cure for ignorance like Linda showed in her comment.
Wow. That was uncalled for, especially from someone who is a Christian and a pastor.
You obviously have not read any of Linda’s comments before. I stand by my comment. Just because one is a Christian and a pastor does not mean you just ignore and do not call out ignorant comments like hers.

Yes, I agreed with Mot’s comment. He was addressing Linda’s over-the-top statement and her straw-man argument.

Lea wrote:

If groups like NAMB are requiring it then it is absolutely being forced on some people who may think it’s stupid or unnecessary. IT’s certainly not their private choice.

They don’t have to work for the NAMB. That is their choice. it should not be anybody’s choice to insist on getting a certain job like church planter and at the same time insist that the rules be changed to enable them to get that job if-if-if at the same time the other people in that job and the people who give money to support that work and the people who are entrusted with overseeing both that work and the money tht finances it believe that things as they are is the best way to go. There are scads more people involved in that decision making than merely the disgruntled wanna-be church planter.

Nancy2 wrote:

What would it do to our society and our business world if most Americans lived by the BG rule?

Real therapists could not do their job if they worked by this rule, male or female.

okrapod wrote:

They don’t have to work for the NAMB. That is their choice.

The point is, this is not a personal choice made by a certain person. It is imposed on them, if they choose this profession.

Daisy wrote:

The rationale behind the “don’t dine with women who aren’t your wife” thinking is that men have no self control, and women are dangerous sex objects to be avoided.

I am a bit concerned that grown men in ministry consider themselves to have less self control than my boyfriend and I did at 19.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Bromance = Gay without any “knowing in the Biblical sense(TM)”.

Off-topic, but is this by any chance a quote from Not The Nine O’Clock News?

Darlene wrote:

And indeed some folks will say that other folk’s ideas and solutions are outdated, or wrong, or sexist, or ineffective, or fill-in-the-blank. But sometimes a man or woman has gotta do, what a man or woman has gotta do. And it will always offend someone, somewhere. That’s how this crazy world rolls.

Yet, we can’t go through life assuming that everyone we cross paths with is out to sully our reputations, or take advantage of us. If we do, we can’t function.

Darlene wrote:

Ah…but I think God just might have an affinity for the law profession. Because there is a book called Judges!

Nah, Judges were necessities. If the people of Israel had just behaved themselves, there would have been no Judges! ; ^ )

Lea wrote:

I am a bit concerned that grown men in ministry consider themselves to have less self control than my boyfriend and I did at 19.

Orders from Captain Bonerhelmet cannot be disobeyed.
Even from the pulpit.

I wonder if this is the result of a culture of obsessive sin-sniffing? You start seeing (Sexual) SIN SIN SIN everywhere like Witchfinders-General did Witches?

Nancy2 wrote:

Yet, we can’t go through life assuming that everyone we cross paths with is out to sully our reputations, or take advantage of us. If we do, we can’t function.

And yet, in the seminars I went to my malpractice carrier urged precisely that supposition, not only when it came to patients (we already knew the ethics rules about patients) but when it came to ‘the nurses on the floor and the people in your own front office’ (their terminology) who will try to turn the patient against you if they feel that you have been unkind to them-so watch yourself.

Now nobody should be unkind to anybody, but in a situation in which somebody calls some shots that others may not like then problems can arise when people do not get their way about something, I think the malpractice insurer had some good risk control advice based on their own first hand experiences and I think it is wise to listen to what they had to say.

I do not enjoy that the world is like this, but I do believe that it is.

Bridget wrote:

opinionating

Hee.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I wonder if this is the result of a culture of obsessive sin-sniffing?

I think it must be. If 19 year olds can controls themselves (when hormones are raging and your brain is not even fully cooked yet), so can grown men. They do not CHOOSE to. So they make dumb rules (which the ones who wish to have affairs just don’t follow, or they DO follow them and do what they want anyways), or they act as if women are required to control THEM.

Daisy wrote:

Remember the Barbara Mandrell song, ‘I was country when country wasn’t cool.’

Yep, I confess that I’m old enough to remember that song. I even remember when she sang with the Mandrell Sisters before launching out on her own.

Another song from my younger days that has been coming to mind lately: “Living Life Upside Down”, by the Christian group Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Okz0g-6Og

@ Bridget:

I don’t skip any of your comments. You are a kind and thoughtful commenter who almost always makes me feel better about life. I need that. Thanks.

Lea wrote:

Which is not what I said. I said it was not their PRIVATE CHOICE. IT was something imposed on them in order to get this employment. Someone said above I think that his church more or less required this too.

Yes, the code of conduct for NAMB and IMB are part of the SBC. Most people who follow their callings for mission work are not even aware of the codes until they are in neck deep and it’s difficult to change course. Not only are the church planters required to sign, wives are also required to sign – this means thousands of people cannot answer the call without signing on the dotted line.

And, yes, Darlene is right. It is a religious organization. Yet, the SBC prides itself on local church autonomy. IMO, the contracts church planters are required to sign voids autonomy and institutes lock-step thinking and practice. (Heads of the NAMB and the IMB are both neo-cals …… could they start requiring planters to sign TULIP contracts?)

If a church planter was trying to get an unchurched person to attend the church plant, and their car broke down on out on the road, and the planter or his wife refused to stop and help …….. or if the person is alone and obviously upset in a corner booth at Mickey D’s, and the planter or his wife refuse to stop and try to lend comfort ……..because, well …… Sex…… What are the chances that person would join the church when reputation trumps human decency.

Nancy2 wrote:

And, yes, Darlene is right. It is a religious organization. Yet, the SBC prides itself on local church autonomy. IMO, the contracts church planters are required to sign voids autonomy and institutes lock-step thinking and practice. (Heads of the NAMB and the IMB are both neo-cals …… could they start requiring planters to sign TULIP contracts?)

Just like Calvary Chapel.
Totally independeint “Christian Fellowships” when that was to CC’s advantage; a monolith under Papa Chuck when that was to CC’s advantage.

If a church planter was trying to get an unchurched person to attend the church plant, and their car broke down on out on the road, and the planter or his wife refused to stop and help …….. or if the person is alone and obviously upset in a corner booth at Mickey D’s, and the planter or his wife refuse to stop and try to lend comfort ……..because, well …… Sex…… What are the chances that person would join the church when reputation trumps human decency.

Which will be explained away with the Geraldine Defense:
“SATAN Hath Hardened Their Hearts.”

Velour wrote:

Ian wrote:

Velour wrote:
And what Bibles did they read?
The King James Version, of course. Everyone knows it was good enough for the apostle Paul.

Ian,

I thought they read the Patriarchy-promoting ESV Bible?

Oh no. Lots of good patriarchal IFB churches adore their KJV

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Bottom line: I don’t think the BG is realistic for most of us. But I think it may be crucial for a high-level public figure under constant, hostile media scrutiny.

Random Staffer #3 at the 3rd Baptist church down is also not a high level public figure under constant media scrutiny, but is still required to follow these rules in many cases.

That is why we’re discussing it. Yes, Darlene, religious institutions may be allowed to implement these rules (although I would argue that some aspects are impossible in a regular job) but should they? That’s the question.