Velour wrote:

@ Darlene:

I think the discussion of the Billy Graham Rule is important. Many evangelicals are taught to adhere to it and are not taught the repercussions, to an employer and to colleagues for example. And frankly in most places it’s a poor witness. Another whacko Christian who can’t get along with others. By the way, I’m not saying this at all about Vice President Pence.

I, a Christian woman, have had a Christian man from another team who follows The Billy Graham Rule not step foot in a workplace kitchen if I am the only woman there and he wants more coffee. He will do the same to other women if they happen to be in the kitchen by themselves and he wants coffee. It’s ridiculous. We don’t have The Plague.

Yikes. Lord have mercy! I had no idea this was a widespread Thing.

Well, yes, that sort of thing would chap my grits. But as I said, I’m not a highly placed politician under the media microscope. I think that makes all the difference. 🙂

Lea wrote:

girl, I adore my kjv. I don’t care if it’s a ‘bad’ translation, it is by far the most beautiful one. I like it when the bible sounds like Shakespeare.

Tee hee …… like “The Taming of the Shrew”?
“Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance; commits his body
To painful labor, both by sea and land;
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou li’st warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience-……”

@ Daisy:
That was not the point I was making which was about risk management. Pence’s stance can be considered a risk management stance, and he is not alone which you can see if you read the comments on the Atlantic article I linked above. Those are comments from people in the workplace who understand the risks under “hostile workplace” rules. Litigation can be very, very expensive even if it does not go to trial and even if it is not true.

Velour wrote:

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 was not talking about ordinary workplaces. I thought I had made that clear. I was talking about the very specific situation of guys in prominent public roles — e.g., Pence and BG. I think they feel that they must be like “Caesar’s Wife” lest they give the appearance of hypocrisy. I think that is understandable.

Several folks here claim that Pence’s position will foster lunchtime sex segregation in ordinary workplaces. I think that’s just plain silly. Men and women will continue lunching together at companies all over the planet. And working together as well. Pence’s rule is for Pence, not for the rest of us. It is a very practical rule designed to avoid any hint of scandal for a very public figure. IMHO it is entirely understandable given the fact that Pence *is* a highly visible public figure…and especially given the media’s relentless hostility toward him.

FWIW I agree with Darlene, Okrapod, and several other folks whom my geezeress brain has just blanked on. This is not about Oppression of Women. And I say that as a longtime professional woman with feminist instincts.

@ Daisy:
Daisy, that is an opinion piece with a decidedly negative, even haughty bias. It interprets their beliefs and then declares that the interpretations are what their beliefs are. That is exactly what is regularly decried here at TWW.

Lea wrote:

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.

Yes, they most definitely should for their own employees if that is what they believe and if that is what the people who give the money for the employee’s salary believe. It is called stewardship of money. If #3 does not believe it then, like I say, ‘the episcopal church welcomes you’ as do many others. But no, employee #3 does not have the final vote on what the job requirements are. Not as long as his is, in fact, an employee.

Nancy2 wrote:

Tee hee …… like “The Taming of the Shrew”?
“Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance; commits his body

Ha. Maybe not that one.

I do think there are definitely some passages that read snarky a la ‘but brutus was an honorable man’ in JC.

okrapod wrote:

Yes, they most definitely should for their own employees if that is what they believe

But what if what they believe is wrong? What if it is harmful?

@ Christiane:
As Okrapod pointed out, a vote for/against a particular bill cannot be construed simplistically as a vote for/against equal pay for women.

Friend wrote:

However, some US hospitals restrict removal of an undeniably dying unborn child until the mother has a certain level of medical distress, such as sepsis.

Wow! Sepsis can be deadly!

Nancy2 wrote:

The intention is not the oppression of women, but it can and sometimes does result in the oppression of women (or a woman).

So, I had a conversation with a coworker the other day about some crime issue locally. His comment was that people shouldn’t go out alone ‘after dark’. I told him that although this is somewhat possible in the summer, it is impossible in the winter, especially if you are single. Because all errands are pretty much done alone. I’m not locking myself in the house at 5pm, because dark.

So what we have is Billy Graham, in a specific situation (famous religious person and constantly on the road) in a specific TIME period making a rule. And then we have a bunch of other people deciding that this is the only ‘godly’ way to be and trying to apply this rule in completely different situations AND trying to force it on people as a condition of employment (because that is what groups like NAMB are doing, even if you think that’s totally ok and they could just jump ship and become Episcopalian if they don’t like it).

So what are the repercussion of that rule? I think it promotes distrust between sexes, specifically a distrust of women, and it promotes a lack of maturity in adult Christians. And I think it’s a good time to talk about it, because in certain church cultures it is traveling with a host of other issues with the relationship between the sexes.

Which gets down to…is it a good rule. Is it a just rule. Is it, if strictly applied, even a good Christian rule. Many would argue that it is not, including myself. I don’t know how much of this is generational, but just as younger people don’t see tattoos and automatically think ‘thug’, maybe we don’t see people having lunch and automatically think ‘affair’. I don’t know.

Nancy2 wrote:

But, I like Greek mythology.

I like greek mythology too, but not for the language. Maybe it’s better in greek.

Lea wrote:

Which gets down to…is it a good rule. Is it a just rule. Is it, if strictly applied, even a good Christian rule. Many would argue that it is not, including myself. I don’t know how much of this is generational, but just as younger people don’t see tattoos and automatically think ‘thug’, maybe we don’t see people having lunch and automatically think ‘affair’. I don’t know.

In one school where I taught, a male teacher and I were asked to organize an educational school trip for some of our math students. That can’t be done during school hours…. and I did after-school tutoring and he coached. So, we hammered out the trip details in alone my classroom, after dark (January), over burgers and fries. It seems like what we did would have been far more suspicious than meeting at a public restaurant. But a restaurant would have been very distracting, our workspace would have been limited, and we had student files that really shouldn’t have been taken out of the building. If we had both lived by the BG rule ……..

Lea wrote:

So, I had a conversation with a coworker the other day about some crime issue locally. His comment was that people shouldn’t go out alone ‘after dark’

Because …… people don’t work 2nd and 3rd shifts, and crimes are not committed during daytime hours?
Well, at least he said “people” and not “women”.

Nancy2 wrote:

Well, at least he said “people” and not “women”.

He was referring to himself as well. I was just pointing out that this is pretty much impossible sometimes.

But yes, shift work obviously is an issue. I know when I closed at several retail jobs we would all walk each other to our cars at night.

Max wrote:

If we didn’t have so many “preachers” slinking around with their “A” uncovered, we wouldn’t need CYA rules.

That is exactly why BG and his friends decided to make their Modesto Manifesto. They had seen too many evangelical preachers fall for the reasons covered in the Manifesto.

okrapod wrote:

They can think what they want

But they are not allowed, by their employer, to act on these thoughts even if they are morally motivated (giving someone a ride who is in distress).

I am not saying they are exempt, I am saying this should not be the rule. I think you understand me on this, even if you disagree.

Velour wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I was not talking about ordinary workplaces. I thought I had made that clear. I was talking about the very specific situation of guys in prominent public roles — e.g., Pence and BG

Employment laws still apply to public officials, including ones in high places.

There are employment laws that dictate whom one lunches with?

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.

I have heard comments like this fairly frequently about such things as a sign on the bathroom door. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on:

1) Children who are of the age when they still need help in the bathroom do not have a sense of privacy to be violated (Different if it is an older child with needs for help due to disability of some sort). Therefore, leaving the door open takes nothing from the child. It does however protect the child.

2) This is the “day we live in” to the extent that we now recognize and acknowledge that people do and *always* have violated children–even nice nursery workers can and have done it. The difference between now and “back in the day” isn’t that the ugly quotient of the world has increased but rather there has been an increase in willingness to acknowledge that ugliness and take steps to prevent it.

@ Max:
I know! Showing my age tho.

And while we are on the topic I also think that one can and must go through life with the realization that we ourselves are apt to do something really dumb at any moment. Misguided. Act on inadequate information. Be persuaded by some good emotion misapplied to the wrong situation. Be distracted; fail to pick up on the clues; let ourselves be persuaded by somebody we admire too much; let our priorities get confused; feed our own damaged ego; not know when to cut our losses; gamble on the wrong thing. Just for a short starter list of human frailties.

Nancy2 wrote:

That is exactly why BG and his friends decided to make their Modesto Manifesto. They had seen too many evangelical preachers fall for the reasons covered in the Manifesto.

Yes, itinerant evangelists of that day had a particular problem keeping their pants on. Of course, they were charlatans not evangelists … as some are who have pulpits today (without them, TWW wouldn’t exist).

Darlene wrote:

Yep, not everyone. But there are some bad apples in society. That’s why we have locks on our doors, our automobiles, and places of business.

And dogs and mace and pepper spray and alarm systems and motion detectors and licenses to carry concealed ………
But, few bad apples, or fear of what other’s may think of me, isn’t going to prevent me from giving a ride home to some man that I know and trust when his truck up and quits on one of our rural roads.
Lea wrote:

But they are not allowed, by their employer, to act on these thoughts even if they are morally motivated (giving someone a ride who is in distress).

Most trucking companies will not allow their drivers to have passengers in the trucks for any reason – not even spouses, unless they also work for the company.

Lea wrote:

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.

It’s good to hear that you were able to control yourself as a 19 year-old. Many 19 year-olds have proven otherwise. For example, there is a park in the city where my husband grew up that was a popular place for young people in that 19 year-old range to hang out doing all sorts of unsavory things. And I’ve heard it said – by folks much younger than I – that there is this hook-up culture among that age range. The Friends with Benefits thingy.

Self-control is a good thing. It’s a shame lots of folks don’t choose self-control when it comes to the hanky-panky. There’s be a lot of tabloids out of business.

okrapod wrote:

Velour wrote:

If he applied the rule across the board to men, “I don’t meet with anyone – man or woman – unless a third person is present” than that would be a fairer rule.

Actually in the world of politics that just might be an excellent idea.

Yeah. Imagine if somebody had been hangin’ out with Billy in the Oval Office when Monica was around. 🙂

Nancy2 wrote:

Tee hee …… like “The Taming of the Shrew”?

Doesn’t “Taming of the Shrew” include McClintock-style Domestic Discipline?

Muff Potter wrote:

The King James Bible is the one of choice for me too. I love the lilting Elizabethan prose. The newer ‘translations’ just don’t have the same ring, romance, and provenance.

KJV sounds like it’s evolving into a Liturgical Translation in archaic language, eventually to be used only in English-language liturgy.

Nancy2 wrote:

Max wrote:
If we didn’t have so many “preachers” slinking around with their “A” uncovered, we wouldn’t need CYA rules.

That is exactly why BG and his friends decided to make their Modesto Manifesto. They had seen too many evangelical preachers fall for the reasons covered in the Manifesto.

Which is why it made sense for BG and his friends.
And by extension public figures in today’s “GOTCHA!” media environment.
Especially if said public figures have enemies who would try to smear them.

But today’s control-freak preachers extend that BG Rule to EVERYBODY, laying Heavy Burdens but not lifting a finger to help.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

But today’s control-freak preachers extend that BG Rule to EVERYBODY, laying Heavy Burdens but not lifting a finger to help.

IMO it is about controlling people and helping people to feel self righteous.

okrapod wrote:

The rest of us have to do that on occasion. What exempts the professionally religious from job issues?

Don’t you know they’re the Priestly Caste, God’s Speshul Pets?

Robert wrote:

And a woman does not have to work with Mike Pence in order to be a professional or secure advancement. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

Oh dear. Here is where we start going awry, you know…

Many religious groups have done this, really, which is why this is about the only place this rule is reliably practiced. They have pushed women out of most ‘advanced’ positions.

This is also why it doesn’t really work in the real world.

Lea wrote:

Many religious groups have done this, really, which is why this is about the only place this rule is reliably practiced. They have pushed women out of most ‘advanced’ positions

The women are not allowed to usurp the authority of a man. A woman can not be a pastor in the SBC because of what happened in the Garden of Eden. I do not remember the holy scriptures saying Eve made Adam eat the apple and also I thought we were in the New Testament days. I guess for some it us just what suits their agenda. Those poor men around those evil women.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Robert wrote:

So can somebody please give me one woman who was demonstrably harmed by not being allowed to be in one-on-one meetings with Mike Pence. One. Name and facts please.

I see we have a Pence-ista here….
“Touch Not Mine Anointed”?

I dunno, HUG. Maybe he just has a different opinion than you. And maybe, OTOH, he likes the guy.

I still don’t get all the hubbub over Pence. But that’s just me.

Caveat:. I’m not a Pence fan and I have disagreements with some of his political views.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Doesn’t “Taming of the Shrew” include McClintock-style Domestic Discipline?

No, not in the original play. Some more modern adaptions have included that.

Robert wrote:

Well, this may be true, although “pushing” women out is a bit overstated.

They are explicitly making rules that says they are not allowed to hold positions of authority over men because ‘god says’, and you think ‘pushing’ them out is overstated?

Robert wrote:

If the “Pence” rule doesn’t work and isn’t applied in most situations, why be so bothered by it?

First of all, it is applied in some very specific places where I think it is a problem.

Second, read literally the entire thread why someone would be bothered by these rules (which did not start with Pence and opinions about such for me have nothing to do with him really).

Third, is it really ‘complaining’ to talk about why we don’t like a rule that is being forcibly applied in many Christian circles and DOES affect many women who work in churches or even attend with men who have decided this is the only ‘Christian’ way to be and thus practice it ruthlessly?

I repeat, this is not all about Pence or politics. This is far more widespread.

Nancy2 wrote:

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.

If that unchurched person doesn’t join a 9Marks, Neo-Calvinist church, I’m thinking that’s a good thing. If enough people get the message, their ranks just might dwindle significantly. Me thinks the only solution for the NAMB and others like them, to change – is to see a large decrease in membership and financial contributions.

OTOH, they could become like the Shakers. Dig in and double down. Either way, the end result is the same.

@ Darlene:
“GOOD” times

@ okrapod:okrapod, I really like you! And your comments!

I fear a cage wrote:

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

The IFB…. now they take Patriarchy to a whole nutha level. They may actually be worse than the 9Marks, Neo-Calvinist churches. I recently watched a documentary on the Tuna Anderson case. Appalling the way the IFB church treated her.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I, a Christian woman, have had a Christian man from another team who follows The Billy Graham Rule not step foot in a workplace kitchen if I am the only woman there and he wants more coffee. He will do the same to other women if they happen to be in the kitchen by themselves and he wants coffee. It’s ridiculous. We don’t have The Plague.

Did it EVER even occur to these ‘men’ that a Christian man would never insult ANY woman in this way? It’s just another form of men turning their backs on a woman speaker at a Church. It is intended to hurt and insult, and there is NOTHING ‘pure’ about that, is there? This very personal form of ‘shunning’ is meant to be noticed and cannot ever be mistaken as a ‘courtesy’ to the victim of the disrespect. It makes her look like something unspeakable and it makes him look like a stupid A$$.

Darlene wrote:

*Tina* Anderson. This darned phone.

I was dying to know who Tuna Anderson is!

Ken G wrote:

These are individuals where photos and comments can have a devastating effect on their careers or on their business.

When is the last time having a public lunch in public and nothing else had any affect on someone’s career or business?

It seems like we can’t get men out of ministry who are caught red handed (sometimes two or three times!) or sitting in jail on charges. Somebody on my facebook feed keeps sharing that clayton person’s videos and he was having a lot more than lunch.

Nancy2 wrote:

Lea wrote:

girl, I adore my kjv. I don’t care if it’s a ‘bad’ translation, it is by far the most beautiful one. I like it when the bible sounds like Shakespeare.

Tee hee …… like “The Taming of the Shrew”?
“Thy husband is thy lord, thy life, thy keeper,
Thy head, thy sovereign, one that cares for thee,
And for thy maintenance; commits his body
To painful labor, both by sea and land;
To watch the night in storms, the day in cold,
Whilst thou li’st warm at home, secure and safe;
And craves no other tribute at thy hands
But love, fair looks, and true obedience-……”

Ah, I should post this Shakespeare quote over at Lori Alexander’s blog, The Transformed Wife.. She and Ken would love it.

Robert wrote:

And a woman does not have to work with Mike Pence in order to be a professional or secure advancement. There are plenty of other jobs out there.

OK Robert, that’s unlawful sex discrimination. And that won’t fly.

Has Mike Pence repeated this evangelical Billy Graham Rule without giving a thought in the world to its implications? When I went to an evangelical, NeoCalvinist church we heard this all of the time and were spoon fed it via church events, books, pamphlets, Bible Studies,
and even Christian radio programs. And come Monday morning it didn’t work in the real world at real jobs. Christians need to grow up, put on their critical thinking caps, and quit being so weird and wanting ‘special treatment’.

Name me jobs in the real world that don’t require meeting with the opposite sex, Robert.

Max wrote:

@ Joe Reed:
Joe, in my humble (but accurate) opinion, being the old-fashioned prude that I am, you have framed this issue well.

Max, you’re cute.

No, I’m not flirting with you. 🙂

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I see we have a Pence-ista here….
“Touch Not Mine Anointed”?

I don’t think that is fair, HUG. He asks a fair question regarding actual harm which no one has actually claimed in the media or elsewhere that I’ve seen. What I have seen is a man and woman who have been married a very long time without scandal. He has employed female staff, and I don’t think any of them have complained. We can have different opinions can’t we?

Robert wrote:

Can anyone name one woman who has been demonstrably hurt by Pence’s rule for himself? It’s easy to be real vague

I haven’t attacked Mike Pence. I have only stated that his ‘rules’ in the workplace are a form of illegal sex discrimination against women. What he does on his own time is his business.

Having two sets of rules — one for the men to go by (and advance) and another for the women (to be kept at bay) — is unprofessional, immature, and unlawful.

I have to wonder if Mike Pence ever thought through this (Billy Graham) rule or if he’s like the majority of the people I knew in evangelical churches who were spoon-fed this nonsense and parroted without ever, ever thinking about it.

Gram3 wrote:

What I have seen is a man and woman who have been married a very long time without scandal.

The same can be said for our former president and his wife. And he didn’t subscribe to the Billy Graham Rule.

Velour wrote:

Name me jobs in the real world that don’t require meeting with the opposite sex,

They exist but I am thinking they are far between. A couple weeks ago I had a mammogram at a large breast clinic here. All the technologists and the office staff were female, as was the nurse facilitator and as was one of the radiologists, but there was one male radiologist at that site. This even though there are male radiology technologists at the hospital and in the radiation oncology department, so this female only situation was obviously intentional. Personally as a patient I appreciated that. I have never seen the necessity or the practice of radiology technologists meet with anybody in private except possibly HR if they were in trouble. It is just not part of the job. And in this particular female only setting there would be no need for anybody to be in private with anybody ever-male or female at all.

So, yeah I guess it would be the norm in this setting to have no private meetings at all including no mixed gender meetings. I went to a post-mastectomy prosthetics store which was all female and of course all the customers were all female, so that would probably be another. Salesmen would be possibly male but nobody would need to be off in private in that case. So, I guess the breast cancer industry would be one place where mixed gender business lunches or private conversations could be avoided if some female was looking for such a situation.

I can’t think of anything else just off the top of my head. But then, I was never looking for that kind of job, so I am no expert on what is available for those who are.

Darlene wrote:

Ah, I should post this Shakespeare quote over at Lori Alexander’s blog, The Transformed Wife.. She and Ken would love it.

I think Lori should have called her blog “The Tamed Shrew”.

Men & Women in Ministry working together: Saint Jeanne de Chantal (1572 – 1741) and Saint Francis de Salle (1567-1622).

Close friends and partners in ministry, St. Jeanne eventually founded the Congregation of the Visitation in Annecy, France, with the goal of public outreach. During WW2, the town of Annecy took refuge at Visitation, and they were not attacked. All lives saved.

Velour wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
Velour wrote:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
I was not talking about ordinary workplaces. I thought I had made that clear. I was talking about the very specific situation of guys in prominent public roles — e.g., Pence and BG
Employment laws still apply to public officials, including ones in high places.
There are employment laws that dictate whom one lunches with?
If you’re having business lunches with men and not with women, then yes you can be sued for sex discrimination.
If you’re eating on your own…you can do whatever you wish.

Presumably these are not business lunches, in Pence’s case? I mean, can we give him the benefit of the doubt? If he was violating employment laws, wouldn’t the media be all over it like a dust cover?

I worked in ad agencies and corporate creative departments for 37 years. I recently retired from Huge Corporation and started freelancing (love it!). In all my years in Agency/Corporate World, I seldom went out for strictly business lunches…and when I did, it was usually in a group. But then, I never made it beyond peonhood, so that may explain it. 😉

@ Gram3:

I am not good at remembering as much as I used to be, but there is an older and formerly popular sociologist I think who also preached and who had quite a following–now if only I could remember his name. Anyhow, he came out with the brilliant statement that if some young woman in some church chose to be a nurse when the church had decided that she had the potential to be a doctor instead that the church should excommunicate her. Actually, that is what he is reported to have said.

Now, having done both, I of course frothed with righteous indignation. But there is the attitude out there in places that women should not only be encouraged but pushed, possibly shamed, and in the mind of this @#$% excommunicated unless they went whole hog career whether they wanted to or not. This is sheer idiocy and worse it is some level of hatred for all things female, or so it looks to me.

So when people do studies of how much money who makes, just think, the nurses and the teachers are pulling down the comparison with the men because-well-because they are nurses and teachers-usually by choice. But, nobody has any right on the face of the earth to try to force people to devise their lives solely on their paycheck. Doctors are not better than nurses. Preachers are not better than teachers. And women have the right to make their own choices.

If somebody remembers that man’s name please tell me. I might want to pray one of the imprecatory psalms against him some time

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Velour wrote:

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 was not talking about ordinary workplaces. I thought I had made that clear. I was talking about the very specific situation of guys in prominent public roles — e.g., Pence and BG. I think they feel that they must be like “Caesar’s Wife” lest they give the appearance of hypocrisy. I think that is understandable.

Several folks here claim that Pence’s position will foster lunchtime sex segregation in ordinary workplaces. I think that’s just plain silly. Men and women will continue lunching together at companies all over the planet. And working together as well. Pence’s rule is for Pence, not for the rest of us. It is a very practical rule designed to avoid any hint of scandal for a very public figure. IMHO it is entirely understandable given the fact that Pence *is* a highly visible public figure…and especially given the media’s relentless hostility toward him.

FWIW I agree with Darlene, Okrapod, and several other folks whom my geezeress brain has just blanked on. This is not about Oppression of Women. And I say that as a longtime professional woman with feminist instincts.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Nancy2:
I say that any woman or man needs to act in a prudent way according to the circumstances. Not making rules for anyone else or criticizing the rules other people make for themselves and their spouses.

Yes, Gram3. You saved me the trouble of having to come up with Gram3 wrote:

@ Nancy2:
I say that any woman or man needs to act in a prudent way according to the circumstances. Not making rules for anyone else or criticizing the rules other people make for themselves and their spouses.

Yes, Gram3. You saved me the trouble of​ having to come up with a cogent response.

@ Lea:

And then there are the unofficial business meetings where business gets done. Which is also very much a part of the dc culture (and many others).

I don’t know how that posted twice and why it looks like that. Commenting someone’s iPhone is frustrating at times.

okrapod wrote:

So, yeah I guess it would be the norm in this setting to have no private meetings at all including no mixed gender meetings.

So this is an example of how they meet with patients (same sex employees and same sex patients, mostly) but it’s not an example of how they meet with each other, which as you state d includes a man employee. And yes, you can bet that they do meet one on one with members of the opposite sex, discuss work, etc. It’s just the nature of the workplace.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Must one participate in that culture in order to function in DC?

I’m not saying you have to drink or anything, I’m just saying that every function you go to will have alcohol.

As for business lunches, that is very much the culture. Of course, when you’re the head honcho you can make the rules bend to you, which is probably what he will do. If he says we are doing X, people will do X. I’m guessing.

I am much more concerned with this rule as applied on a larger scale in churches, groups like NAMB, and by self righteous super Christians all across the land than I am a couple of famous men.

Nancy2 wrote:

Max wrote:

If we didn’t have so many “preachers” slinking around with their “A” uncovered, we wouldn’t need CYA rules.

That is exactly why BG and his friends decided to make their Modesto Manifesto. They had seen too many evangelical preachers fall for the reasons covered in the Manifesto.

Well there ya go. It wasn’t pious postering on Billy Graham’s part, as someone claimed up thread. Rather, a CYA rule so that they wouldn’t ever get in a situation where he’d have the pants sued off of him. And be tarred as just another one of those hypocritical preachers.

Lea wrote:

As for business lunches, that is very much the culture.

Sure. And three-Martini lunches were “the culture” back in the Mad Men era and beyond. That didn’t mean everyone had to go out and gulp down three Martinis at lunch.

Presumably Pence has no objection to group lunches where both men and women are present? Isn’t this more usual anyway, even in DC?

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Presumably Pence has no objection to group lunches where both men and women are present? Isn’t this more usual anyway, even in DC?

Depends on what kind of business you are talking about.
Darlene wrote:

It wasn’t pious postering on Billy Graham’s part, as someone claimed up thread.

I don’t know if anyone said it was pious posturing by Billy Graham (did he tell the world about this? Honest question), but it certainly is by some who are advocating for it now. Even on this thread, it’s been presented that way at times.

okrapod wrote:

And while we are on the topic I also think that one can and must go through life with the realization that we ourselves are apt to do something really dumb at any moment. Misguided. Act on inadequate information. Be persuaded by some good emotion misapplied to the wrong situation. Be distracted; fail to pick up on the clues; let ourselves be persuaded by somebody we admire too much; let our priorities get confused; feed our own damaged ego; not know when to cut our losses; gamble on the wrong thing. Just for a short starter list of human frailties.

Lea wrote:

Darlene wrote:

It’s good to hear that you were able to control yourself as a 19 year-old. Many 19 year-olds have proven otherwise.

1. That was not a brag that was a mere comment on the fact that

Lea, I didn’t think you were bragging. I sincerely meant that it was a good thing that you knew how to be chaste as a 19 year-old. 🙂

I think that one of the reasons that Pence got chosen for VP was because at the time two lines of talk were being put forth. For one thing people were saying, and I believe that the current president claimed that his family was saying, that there needed to be some balance on the ticket, someone who was not all that similar to the current president. The other thing that was being discussed by conservatives was whether it was even right for a christian to vote at all in the last election. Some prominent leaders published some stuff encouraging people to goodness yes vote. I am thinking that Pence was a good choice for balance and to keep the conservatives voting.

@ Velour:

Okay my reply was probably confusing. The technologists are employees of the hospital. The radiologists are not-they run their own business. Thre is no ‘business’ as such for them to talk about. Hence no ‘meetings’ much less dinners.

Now like I said of course people have heir own private lives, but I am talking about job related stuff, which is what I though your original question was.

Lea wrote:

It wasn’t pious postering on Billy Graham’s part, as someone claimed up thread.
/
I don’t know if anyone said it was pious posturing by Billy Graham (did he tell the world about this? Honest question), but it certainly is by some who are advocating for it now. Even on this thread, it’s been presented that way at times.

He wrote about it in his autobiography, but it was quite late in life. Like many things in Christendom, Christians took a formula and tried to make it a rule for all Christians. What he wrote is reposted on his website: https://billygraham.org/story/51705/

I have not yet since anyone answer my question as to why reputation should be important to a Christian? A few others asked it, too. Why do people call a ministry “their” ministry and get offended at the idea of anyone else taking it over? Do they really deserve to own it? If they didn’t have it, they would never be able to do anything else ever again? Do they really think God can’t give someone else the same gifts?

Do we really believe that God couldn’t “make” 1,000 or 1 million people with the same evangelistic gifts as Billy Graham? All Billy Graham did was travel and talk. God’s Spirit did the real work.

I think this idea that someone has ownership over a ministry or job completely cultural. I also think our identities are not in our jobs, and Christians have to stop thinking of them as such.

okrapod wrote:

Um, no. It was a male radiologist. I was talking about job related meetings which has been the topic of this post. Now of course people have personal lives. I thought you asked about jobs.

Not at you okra – your comment just made me wonder ……..
“Not dining with a woman other than my wife” …….. I wonder if that would include eating in the hospital/company cafeteria?

Lea wrote:

And they’re usually off in their own spot, doing the readings right? Sometimes we even have them reading from off station.

That is correct. At one point there was a group in Israel who were reading films from emergency departments in the US during our night time. They advertised themselves as being awake while it was night here based on their location and alleged that they were more readily available and also more accurate because they were not sleepy. I don’t know if they are still in business, but the technology is certainly there to do that. But yes, films are certainly not necessarily read on site.

okrapod wrote:

I don’t know if they are still in business, but the technology is certainly there to do that.

That’s funny about the awake business, but true. Definitely the technology is there to read remotely and it happens, although I can’t say what percentage of the time. If you are in a rural area, some specialties can be hard to recruit and remote technology can be a lifesaver.

Darlene wrote:

No, I’m not flirting with you.

Well it wouldn’t have done you any good anyway. Between Jesus and my wife, I can’t get away with anything!

Nancy2 wrote:

“Not dining with a woman other than my wife” …….. I wonder if that would include eating in the hospital/company cafeteria?

Referring back to the man of the other non-christian religion that I worked with, if someone were doing what he was doing then I would think that eating in the hospital cafeteria would be really problematic for him.

But speaking of hospitals, in some countries the people prefer for the women patients to be treated by women physicians, so it is sort of a heyday for women physicians. I have no idea how they eat lunch.

Ken G wrote:

we shouldn’t conclude that it doesn’t have any application in today’s society

The Modesto Manifesto, or some form of it which will cover the same things, is still relevant today. Ministers and ministries can still fall into the same snares of money management, moral purity, and mouthy exaggeration. Exercising sound fiscal management, living without moral failure, preaching what the Word says, and cussing only what needs to be cussed 🙂 are all noble enterprises for successful ministry. Whether they be written on paper or inscribed on the heart, guidelines for Christian character in word and deed ain’t a bad thing. Keeping your walk within bounds, aligned with the Kingdom, by agreeing to do some things and rejecting others is wisdom. But if any manifesto is used to control the lives of others outside of God’s plan (e.g., New Calvinist church covenants re: female subordination), it is not only irrelevant in today’s society but in the Kingdom of God.

Nancy2 wrote:

Raise your hand if you want two doctors to discuss your medical procedure over lunch, with one or both of their spouses present…… Or, your lawyer and his assistant discuss your case …… Or two of your child’s teachers discuss how to deal with your child’s behavior problems……
Hey…… It wouldn’t bother me that much, but some people have real problems with privacy issues.
BTW – discussing a student in the presence of people not directly involved in the child’s education without the expressed permission of the parent/guardian is illegal in KY.

In law, it’s a violation of legal ethics to discuss clients’ cases/matters in front of others.

That said, there are perfectly legitimate business-related topics that don’t violate attorney-client confidentiality that are discussed in business lunches.

Lea wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I mentioned business lunches because I thought that was what we were mostly talking about here.
I mean, I’m going to assume we’re not talking about him asking anyone out on a date and that in his personal life it’s easy to manage this sort of rule. Business is mostly where uncontrolled reality would crop up.

I think you may have missed my point. Maybe I was unclear, so I’ll try again.

I was making the distinction between business lunches in general and one-on-one, male-female business lunches in particular. The latter are a subset of the former. Does that make any sense?

Business lunches do not have to be one-on-one, male to female — in DC or anywhere else. In fact, quite often they are not. I would venture to suggest that most business lunches (anywhere) involve more than two parties. Not all. But many, if not most.

Therefore, it is entirely possible for Pence to participate in the business-lunch culture of DC without violating his self-imposed rule. He does not need to avoid all business lunches. Just those that are one-on-one, male-to-female. I would suspect that this is relatively easy to do. Even in DC.

Lea wrote:

When is the last time having a public lunch in public and nothing else had any affect on someone’s career or business?

My comment addressed the use of the Billy Graham rule as a risk assessment tool. I can give several examples 9in my community) where it has been applied to reduce risk of adverse impact.

1) A car dealership has all sales people interact with customers at desks that are out in the open in full view. The salespeople can be male or female and the customers can be male or female. There are no private one on one meetings. This is done to reduce the risk of a potential customer, who didn’t get the deal they wanted, from claiming the salesperson made an inappropriate comment, etc.

2) A well known medical group specializes in sports medicine and injury. There are female and male doctors on staff. A male patient has a choice of seeing a female or a male doctor, but the female doctors will not examine certain areas of the male anatomy and will call in a male doctor, as necessary. I don’t know the rules in place for a female patient.

I believe these examples are in keeping with the spirit of the Billy Graham rule.

Gram3 wrote:

Not making rules for anyone else or criticizing the rules other people make for themselves and their spouses.

I think criticism is fine when the rules one makes for themselves bleed into the work environment and effect the workplace.

Ken G wrote:

Lea wrote:
When is the last time having a public lunch in public and nothing else had any affect on someone’s career or business?
My comment addressed the use of the Billy Graham rule as a risk assessment tool. I can give several examples 9in my community) where it has been applied to reduce risk of adverse impact.

Neither of your answers addressed harm from public business lunches, though. They are just rules. I know rules exist, that’s why we’re talking about them.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

But whatever its provenance, I think Pence is applying it to himself because of his very sensitive, highly visible public position, wherein he is under the media microscope.

I don’t think that’s where it comes from. People in high-profile positions can and do conduct themselves with professionalism, ethics, and class. It’s a choice. Like someone mentioned here the other day…it’s about character.

Trust me, the Billy Graham Rule is shoved down evangelicals’ throats all of the time, and many people repeat it by rote.(I say this from experience in the evangelical world.)

Vice President Pence didn’t invent this rule on his own. He learned it from the church. And in real life it doesn’t work and the universe is simply not going to implode if you don’t adhere to this legalistic rule. In fact, you’ll probably be more respected for just being a normal person.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Can the poor guy buy a break?

I think you misunderstand me. I don’t have a problem with VP Pence. I have a problem with the legalistic rules that the evangelical world is constantly inventing and shoving down Christians’ throats. And so many – the majority of them I think – buy it and parrot it.
And they never stop long enough to question it.

Been there. Done that.

@ Robert:

The one thing that is not being mentioned is that he also said he would only work overtime/ with male aides never female.

Darlene wrote:

Gram3, can you post that link again? There thread is so long I didn’t even see that.

Article in The Atlantic with comments regarding “hostile work environment” impact:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/pences-gender-segregated-dinners/521286/#article-comments

Darlene wrote:

McClintock-style?? I have no idea what that is. None whatsoever. I must be out of the loop.

Oh, dear …… That loop is more than 40 years old. John Wayne as McClintock spanks his wife in view of the whole town.

Ultimately it’s exclusion cloaked in morality.
For what it’s worth, I don’t Pence or Graham ever stuck to the “rule”. But let’s say they were serious and not just playing to the house.
This means the good pastor could never meet with a female congregant and the good representative with a female constituent. Unless their wife or the husband of the congregant/constituent was present.
But in the case of the pastor, what if the problem is the husband?
This places everything on the woman. She is excluded from confidence.
If you can’t be trusted alone with a woman who is not a wife or relative then what the heck kind of pastor are you? What kind of elected representative?
How high opinion do you have of yourself that every woman is a potential Jezebel?
And don’t bring up “black widows” and other such nonsense. I’ve been working since the age of 17. Never seen it happen. Sure many workplaces have issues but silly rules like this don’t help.
This has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s 2017 not 1917.

okrapod wrote:

And women have the right to make their own choices.

Yes, I believe we do. The problem is that choices (and even unchosen circumstances) involve outcomes which are not equal due to controllables and uncontrollables. And a great many people are very uncomfortable with that reality for a number of reasons. What is the legislative or regulatory formula that is adequate to address all of those variables to arrive at “equality?” And I am being totally serious.

Jack wrote:

Ultimately it’s exclusion cloaked in morality.

Exactly, Jack. Thank you.

Ken G wrote:

A well known medical group specializes in sports medicine and injury. There are female and male doctors on staff. A male patient has a choice of seeing a female or a male doctor, but the female doctors will not examine certain areas of the male anatomy and will call in a male doctor, as necessary. I don’t know the rules in place for a female patient.

So a male patient chooses a female MD, but she will not look at certain parts of the patient without a male MD in the room? And it’s a workplace rule? What insurance company allows this?

Both my husband and I have been examined by male and female doctors, nurses, and technicians. Typically there’s a witness called an escort in the room. All medical personnel leave the room whenever the patient is changing into or out of a gown. They knock before entering. They uncover just one area of skin at a time. They explain what they are doing. It’s a completely predictable and dignified procedure.

Jack wrote:

Ultimately it’s exclusion cloaked in morality.

We have a winner!!

Friend wrote:

So a male patient chooses a female MD, but she will not look at certain parts of the patient without a male MD in the room? And it’s a workplace rule? What insurance company allows this?

That doesn’t sound like a good use of resources money wise. Docs are expensive. If you had said a nurse had to be in the room at the time, that I could buy as reasonable. I think my doc does that with Pap smears.

But you would pay a doctor to not be a doctor!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

And corporations, at least, make allowances for employees’ personal preferences all the time — whether it’s time off for Rosh Hashanah or train travel for execs who suffer from crippling fear of flying.

Correct, corporations do those things because to do otherwise would be a form of unlawful discrimination based on protected characteristics such as being Jewish (and celebrating their religious holidays) or being disabled (suffering from a crippling fear of flying).

Nancy2 wrote:

Okie dokie. I just did a little ‘splorin’. Pence says he is an “evangelical Catholic”, whatever that is. He went to a parochial school and was an alter boy.
The church he was attending, at least up until T&P took office, is College Park Church in Indianapolis.
I explored the churches website. It is all-male, elder led and all-male staff. It offers Biblical counseling. It library contains books by John Piper, Tim Keller, Martha Peace, and Paul Tripp. That was enough ‘splorin’ for me.

Good research, Nancy2. Thank you.

Gram3 wrote:

so that someone else is excluded or harmed in any way.

…not excluded or harmed in any way.

Lea wrote:

okrapod wrote:
A couple weeks ago I had a mammogram at a large breast clinic here. All the technologists and the office staff were female, as was the nurse facilitator and as was one of the radiologists, but there was one male radiologist at that site.
How interesting. There are certainly a number of workplaces that would be all female (I know when I worked at a womens clothing store that was true) but often this is by happenstance not design. Side medical question, I know that sometimes men get breast cancer. Do they do a mammogram when this is suspected or is there a different procedure? (of course, mens breasts are not considered to be private, so that isnt’ a factor).

Interesting comments about the mammogram facility. A couple of years ago I had to go for a mammogram. During that process, I told the female nurse that I appreciated a woman doing that procedure on me. And that I wouldn’t want a man touching me like that. She told me that they only hire females to work in that capacity. Now, how about that? I think that’s great. So, when will that hospital be confronted with a lawsuit from a male who feels disenfranchised and marginalized because he can’t work around women’s breasts?

What is it with this thread? I’ve had so many comments go into moderation it isn’t funny. It must have something to do with the subject matter. There must be some key words that go through the time-out filter before approved. Maybe the DEEBS want to make sure we’re all behaving. 🙂 Love ya, DEEBS! I’m trying to be good, but it’s hard to avoid the S word when talking about the BG rule.

Velour wrote:

Friend wrote:

Jack wrote:
Ultimately it’s exclusion cloaked in morality.
We have a winner!!

Yes, Jack wins the Bingo prize for the day, or whatever we are awarding.

Congratulations, Jack!

Great phrasing, JACK! perfect imagery for what is REALLY going on

Christiane wrote:

I would say he might be more comfortably placed somewhere along the lines of a ‘conservative Christian evangelical Republican’, rather than ‘Catholic’

I’ve known catholics who fit quite squarely into that definition, actually.

Lea wrote:

Christiane wrote:

I would say he might be more comfortably placed somewhere along the lines of a ‘conservative Christian evangelical Republican’, rather than ‘Catholic’

I’ve known catholics who fit quite squarely into that definition, actually.

I’m thinking Paul Ryan, but I see him far more like a devotee of Ayn Rand in his economic social thinking, far more to the right than most evangelical folks even. Ryan certainly doesn’t fit into the group that embraces the social doctrine of the Catholic Church as it applies to preferential treatment for the poor, no.

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:
It is all-male, elder led and all-male staff. It offers Biblical counseling. It library contains books by John Piper, Tim Keller, Martha Peace, and Paul Tripp. That was enough ‘splorin’ for me.
Good research, Nancy2. Thank you.
Sadly, not surprised by these facts.

Me neither, Mot. It goes with the territory. Sigh. So glad to be free of that bondage.

Velour wrote:

No thanks. But print out a copy and we’ll shoot it to bits when we have target practice at Camp Backbone in Kentucky!

(Smile). There’s a photo of the pastor.

Velour wrote:

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:
It is all-male, elder led and all-male staff. It offers Biblical counseling. It library contains books by John Piper, Tim Keller, Martha Peace, and Paul Tripp. That was enough ‘splorin’ for me.
Good research, Nancy2. Thank you.
Sadly, not surprised by these facts.

Me neither, Mot. It goes with the territory. Sigh. So glad to be free of that bondage.

It is bondage. I live in the Southern Baptist world and do not understand why women tolerate this bondage?

@ Max:
I’ll say

@ Lea:

I dontknow why that showed up as a reply to mot! Should have been catholic gate crasher.

@ Lea:
Would they honestly be accepting of THIS teaching?
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

Lots of disagreements and misunderstandings here, myself included. I just want to remind everybody that communication is difficult when all we have is keypads/boards.

@ Christiane:

I’m not reading that right now, I’m just saying you don’t get to decide, based on literally nothing except me telling you that someone is conservative, that they aren’t catholic.

Nancy2 wrote:

Lots of disagreements and misunderstandings here, myself included. I just want to remind everybody that communication is difficult when all we have is keypads/boards.

I feel very strongly about this issue and it has brought out a different mot than has commented in the past here.

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:

Pretty sure i said pence would have zero problem avoiding lunches with women, due to being vp.

Pretty sure I said many, many times that this is more of a general issue for me than a specific issue with pence. My problem is more the widespread use of this rule and its implications.

Pretty sure I said I have no problem with others disagreeing, but I still have my own opinion.

Pretty sure that’s still ok.

Nancy2 wrote:

BTW – discussing a student in the presence of people not directly involved in the child’s education without the expressed permission of the parent/guardian is illegal in KY.

It is illegal in the state of PA as well.

Nancy2 wrote:

The church he was attending, at least up until T&P took office, is College Park Church in Indianapolis.
I explored the churches website. It is all-male, elder led and all-male staff. It offers Biblical counseling. It library contains books by John Piper, Tim Keller, Martha Peace, and Paul Tripp. That was enough ‘splorin’ for me.

Well, buckle your seat belt … “Lead Pastor” Mark Vroegop “has written articles that are published in Leadership and 9Marks Journal.”

Good Lord! They are everywhere!!

Fortunately, VP Pence doesn’t have the same arrogant spirit characteristic of the New Calvinist movement. Hopefully, he got away from it just in time!

Max wrote:

Well, buckle your seat belt … “Lead Pastor” Mark Vroegop “has written articles that are published in Leadership and 9Marks Journal.”

Wow. They are everywhere. But, alas, we know them to be cowards. Because they won’t take comments and permit rigorous debate of their articles.

Our Deebs (Dee and Deb) are made of stronger stuff! Look at the hundreds of comments on this article.

mot wrote:

I feel very strongly about this issue and it has brought out a different mot than has commented in the past here.

Been there. ……. Facial expressions are a big part of communication for me.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I think criticism is fine when the rules one makes for themselves bleed into the work environment and effect the workplace.
As far as I can see, no one has yet provided any evidence that Pence’s self-imposed rules have done this. It’s all speculation.

This is my take on this too, CGC. I just don’t see the evidence of anyone being harmed by Pence’s self-imposed rule. A lot more women were harmed by Slick Willy who didn’t have any rules in mind when dealing with the opposite gender.

So, I’m still of the opinion that this fuss over Pence is much ado about nothing.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

@ Lea:
But there’s the rub. Must one participate in that culture in order to function in DC? I hope not. I’m actually fond of a glass of wine with a meal, but I don’t think I’d enjoy the DC Scene you describe.
I entered the advertising business at a time when the three-Martini lunch was still common. (Yes, I’m that old.) But I never felt pressured to participate in that lifestyle. Just because it’s pervasive, that doesn’t mean it’s mandatory.

Here’s something to consider. What about a recovering alcoholic who does not want to put himself/herself in harm’s way and so declines business lunch meetings where there is alcohol being served? Should they be able to have that right to decline? Should his/her employer make adjustments for this person?

Darlene wrote:

Here’s something to consider. What about a recovering alcoholic who does not want to put himself/herself in harm’s way and so declines business lunch meetings where there is alcohol being served? Should they be able to have that right to decline?

My friends who are recovering alcoholics know how to handle these situations just fine.
They go. They order a non-alcoholic beverage. At many business lunches here in California
people don’t order booze with lunch and have sodas.

If they are having difficulty, or are newly sober, they book-end these situations with their A.A. sponsor, meaning that they call their sponsor before and after the event. Or they have other A.A. members that they make program calls to.

mot wrote:

Darlene wrote:
A lot more women were harmed by Slick Willy who didn’t have any rules in mind when dealing with the opposite gender.
Who is slick willy?

Bill Clinton. 🙂 By the way, I did not come up with that nickname for him. It’s been around for a long time.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=slick%20willy

Nancy2 wrote:

Lead Pastor CPC. ….. It’s really getting interesting now…… The Gospel Coalition, vision casting …..
https://www.cedarville.edu/Event/Healthcare-Ethics-Conference/Mark-Vroegop.aspx

If anyone would like to read his lengthy sermon on “The Beauty of a Submissive Wive”, I’ll paste a link!

Sure, my kind of read!

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Velour wrote:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:
That’s exactly what’s going on with VP Pence. He is following his religious convictions (i.e., “protected characteristics”).
No it’s not the same in law. If he wanted to take off for a religious holiday, just like a Jewish person who wanted to take time off for one of their religious holidays, that would be ok.
A person is not permitted under anti-discrimination laws to use their religious beliefs to unlawfully discriminate against another person because of their protected characteristic (i.e. sex, race, etc.).
How is not going out to lunch discriminatory??

As I posted up the thread earlier, not going out to lunch is fine.

Okay, I think I’ve read just about every comment on this thread. So, I want to take some baby steps here.

1. Can we agree that the Billy Graham rule was not originally established from sinister motives toward women?

2. Is the BG rule egregious to its core for everyone, in every place. for all time, amen?

3. Is there not one situation, one circumstance in anyone’s life where the BG rule might be a good thing?

Darlene wrote:

3. Is there not one situation, one circumstance in anyone’s life where the BG rule might be a good thing?

We call this common sense, not a rule.

@ Lea:
I have no knowledge of these people you speak of, or what they believe or do not believe. I asked if you thought they were ‘Catholic’ in their understanding of the Church’s social doctrine and I gave a reference. So that’s an end to it, then, as I accept that you choose not to respond to my question. No problem. 🙂

Darlene wrote:

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.

Perhaps. Swing the pendulum all the way to the right. But white-knuckling rarely lasts long.

However the majority of sexual issues in the dozen or so fundie/evangelical churches I have been part of were NOT about formerly promiscuous people but men damaged by an unnatural and erroneous view of sexuality during their upbringing. This sexual repression would lead to secret pornography addictions, molestation, incest and abuse being the outflow of that repression.

@ Darlene:

Darlene,

I guess one of the other issues that’s been going through my mind about the Billy Graham Rule is this is precisely how the abusive, authoritarian, cultic Shepherding Movement started in the 1970’s. It started with the Florida Five and ‘accountability’ because one of them had fallen into sexual sin. The accountability morphed into control of other people, and ended up being incredibly destructive.

While a couple of the Florida founders of The Shepherding Movement have repented of its abuses, and seen the error of their ways and are horrified that Shepherding is now spreading across the land, a few of the Founders have not repented.

Accipiter wrote:

However the majority of sexual issues in the dozen or so fundie/evangelical churches I have been part of were NOT about formerly promiscuous people but men damaged by an unnatural and erroneous view of sexuality during their upbringing. This sexual repression would lead to secret pornography addictions, molestation, incest and abuse being the outflow of that repression.

this comes to mind
http://www.tmz.com/2016/09/10/tlc-willis-family-arrested-toby-raping-child/
Willis makes Josh Duggar look like a choir boy by comparison ….. very ‘controlling’ father of his daughters ….. a sad family tragedy and a product also of sick patriarchal perversion

Nancy2 wrote:

Darlene wrote:
McClintock-style?? I have no idea what that is. None whatsoever. I must be out of the loop.
Oh, dear …… That loop is more than 40 years old. John Wayne as McClintock spanks his wife in view of the whole town.

Oh my, I remember that movie. Maureen O’Hara was his co-star. All the townsfolk – male and female – were laughing when McClintock was spanking his wife. None came to her aid. And that was supposed to be humorous. Cary Grant also used to have some very sexist roles that he played. Actually, quite a few of the male actors from those days now that I think about it. Very strange thinking permeated the culture back then as to what men thought women wanted and deserved.

Velour wrote:

Darlene wrote:

Here’s something to consider. What about a recovering alcoholic who does not want to put himself/herself in harm’s way and so declines business lunch meetings where there is alcohol being served? Should they be able to have that right to decline?

My friends who are recovering alcoholics know how to handle these situations just fine.
They go. They order a non-alcoholic beverage. At many business lunches here in California
people don’t order booze with lunch and have sodas.

If they are having difficulty, or are newly sober, they book-end these situations with their A.A. sponsor, meaning that they call their sponsor before and after the event. Or they have other A.A. members that they make program calls to.

But shouldn’t they still have the right to decline? Since when are lunches mandatory?

If your teetotaling friends went along and sipped ginger ale, bully for them. But since when is that a requirement?

This is surreal. I remember “command-performance” meetings and conferences that some colleagues nonetheless skipped because they had crazy deadlines or whatever. IOW such scenarios are always flexible. The way y’all are portraying the business world, it’s like: “You VILL attend this one-on-one lunch or else.” This does not match reality IMHO. Reality is messy and flexible. And…diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks.

Max wrote:

Old-fashioned and fuddy-duddy as he may come across, he appears to be the real deal.

Dining habits aside, he has more power than the typical fuddy duddy. And many Christians might see his positions as a mixed bag. Here is a summation from the National Catholic Reporter:

https://www.ncronline.org/person/mike-pence

For those of you who are obsessed with Pence not wanting to be alone with any woman other than his wife let me just say that you can take comfort that JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton had no problems with that. Barney Frank loved the young boys. We have Pastors hooked on pornography and hookers. There are child molestors in the church and out of the church. One can hardly turn around without falling in the sewer which is an equal opportunity hell hole. This confirms what I’ve always though about those who want unlimited choices to be the most intolerant, opinionated nasty people.
Give it a rest about Pence.

Gram3 wrote:

okrapod wrote:
And women have the right to make their own choices.
Yes, I believe we do. The problem is that choices (and even unchosen circumstances) involve outcomes which are not equal due to controllables and uncontrollables. And a great many people are very uncomfortable with that reality for a number of reasons. What is the legislative or regulatory formula that is adequate to address all of those variables to arrive at “equality?” And I am being totally serious.

Gram3, your comments reminded me of an orientation that I had to endure (yes, it was OCD to the core) at a former place of employment. All the do’s and don’t’s so as not to harm, offend, upset, worry, insult, etc. etc. etc. clients and co-workers and anyone else that ventured on to the premises of where I worked. All to prevent lawsuits.

And this discussion has me wondering if our government will become so obsessed with controlling people’s behavior that freedom will be squelched in the name of not offending anyone, anywhere, any time. As I said up thread, folks should read the Gulag Archipelago (if they haven’t already) – to get an idea of what it’s like to live in a country where the government controls every facet of citizen’s lives. That’s how life was in the Soviet Union under Communism.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

If VP Pence were actually violating anti-discrimination laws, somebody outside of this combox would have figured it out by now. And presumably filed suit. Or at least made a formal accusation.

Not necessarily. It’s hard to file lawsuits against powerful people, or employers in general, and not pay a price.

But again, as I’ve said up the thread that I didn’t have a problem with VP Pence himself.
I, like Lea and others here, have a problem with the wider implications of the Billy Graham Rule being implemented.

Darlene wrote:

Oh my, I remember that movie. Maureen O’Hara was his co-star. All the townsfolk – male and female – were laughing when McClintock was spanking his wife. None came to her aid. And that was supposed to be humorous. Cary Grant also used to have some very sexist roles that he played. Actually, quite a few of the male actors from those days now that I think about it. Very strange thinking permeated the culture back then as to what men thought women wanted and deserved.

Yeah … McClintock was filmed in 1963. I was born in 64. I was thinking about it ….. the Billy Graham rule was was 15 years before McClintock. Makes me wonder what the general consensus on women was in the send-Rosie-the-rivitor-back-to-the-kitchen era.

Velour wrote:

But again, as I’ve said up the thread that I didn’t have a problem with VP Pence himself.
I, like Lea and others here, have a problem with the wider implications of the Billy Graham Rule being implemented.

My main concern: Will certain evangelicals (9Marks, Acts 29, SBC, EFCA, etc.) use try to Mike Pence, his national political position, and his church to further their male headship/submissive women cause?
I’ve heard more than I want to hear from Russell Moore about Donald Trump……… waiting with baited breath to see if he has anything to say about Pence. Pence may be Moore’s perfect storm.
Am I exaggerating? I hope so.

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:
We don’t need the Billy Graham Rule to be people who have good character and conduct ourselves as such.
I do not understand praising people for doing what they are supposed to do.

Yep.

Short off topic announcement.

Shauna and her son Billy in Texas are in a very tight financial situation. Shauna’s part-time job at a grocery store was cut to 13 hours a week. They have no money to pay their rent ($700). Any donations to their GoFundMe account that Dee set up would be appreciated.
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

Velour wrote:

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

If VP Pence were actually violating anti-discrimination laws, somebody outside of this combox would have figured it out by now. And presumably filed suit. Or at least made a formal accusation.

Not necessarily. It’s hard to file lawsuits against powerful people, or employers in general, and not pay a price.

But again, as I’ve said up the thread that I didn’t have a problem with VP Pence himself.
I, like Lea and others here, have a problem with the wider implications of the Billy Graham Rule being implemented.

Nonetheless, if Pence were really violating the law, presumably somebody outside of this combox would have at least noticed that. I know the media are ripping Pence to shreds over this issue right now, but if they are claiming that he broke the law, I must have missed it.

As for lunches and similar scenarios “arising” — with all due respect, so what? Just because something arises, that doesn’t mean one has to handle it a certain way.

I get your concern about widespread “implementation” of the BGR, but I just don’t see this as an immediate threat. I totally believe you that the BGR is commonly enforced in certain highly controlling churches. But I doubt it could ever spread to the wider society, much less be “implemented” there. Maybe I’m wrong (it’s been known to happen :)), but I just don’t see any evidence for the impending imposition of the BG Rule across corporate America.

Anyway, as Gram3 observed, why can’t we just use our own prudential judgment and allow others to use theirs? If BG and Pence want to avoid lunches alone with women not their wives, they have every right to do this, and who am I to judge? I would not follow their example, but that’s OK. We are all different. Variety makes the world go ’round. 🙂

Christiane wrote:

ishy wrote:
All Billy Graham did was travel and talk. God’s Spirit did the real work.
Yes. BG preached Christ Crucified and Risen From the Dead as though he meant it …. with an authority that comes from the fire of the Holy Spirit working through him …. Catholics LOVE this man
Franklin is not a man like his father, no.

I grew up in an atheist/agnostic home. I used to watch Billy Graham with my atheist grandmother. For some reason, she loved to watch Billy Graham preach. Go figure.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

I would not follow their example, but that’s OK.

On that we can agree.

Something just came through my Twitter feed tonight. An Ask A Manager article.
In this case a woman was promoted to a senior position that requires some travel every quarter. ( a few days) Her husband won’t allow her to travel now as the job requires and she is supposed to “obey and submit to him” as she told her employer.

So the employer asked Alison at Ask A Manager what to do. http://www.askamanager.org/2017/03/my-employee-is-refusing-to-travel-because-her-husband-said-she-cant.html

Sigh. And we wonder why so many Christians have such a bad reputation in the work place.

@ Darlene:

I think you’ve heard me tell this horror story before, Darlene. But at my ex-gulag (cough, splutter aka *church*) the first godly Christian man I saw be ordered to be excommunicated and shunned was a doctor in his 70’s. Faithful and loving husband for nearly 50 years. Loving father to grown children.

The good doctor had bought expensive resources — books and DVDs — with his own money to start the church lending library.

The good doctor also invited and paid for the senior pastor to join the doctor and pastor John MacArthur on a trip to North Carolina to meet the Rev. Billy Graham at his log cabin home (just a few years ago).

And for all the good doctor did for our church and for the senior pastor, this was the thanks he got. To be lied about before hundreds of church members on some trumped up charge and to have have hundreds of church members (including students from the elite Stanford University) told to never speak to him again!!

Just outrageous. All of it.

Velour wrote:

Darlene wrote:
3. Is there not one situation, one circumstance in anyone’s life where the BG rule might be a good thing?
We call this common sense, not a rule.

So, that would be a ‘Yes’ then. 😉

Darlene wrote:

I grew up in an atheist/agnostic home. I used to watch Billy Graham with my atheist grandmother. For some reason, she loved to watch Billy Graham preach. Go figure.

well, I figure it is the work of the Holy Spirit Who goes where and to whom He will and helps them, like your grandmother, that don’t have ‘the words’ in her head, but something far more valuable to God in her heart perhaps 🙂
” 26In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know how we ought to pray, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groans too deep for words. 27And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit” (from Romans, Chapter 8)

surely, if your grandmother loved to watch Billy Graham preach, she must have had the grace-given virtue of ‘hope’ ….. there is a ‘hope’ they speak of that resides in the human spirit, and some say that it is ‘in hope, we are saved’

“Hope is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart; it transcends the world that is immediately experienced, and is anchored somewhere beyond its horizons . . . It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out.”
(Vaclav Havel)

@ Darlene:
it seems wrong and cruel somehow that any pastor could take something as beautiful as hope, and twist its meaning so that corrupt and evil men can ‘use’ that definition to continue hurting women

I think that the place where ‘the inerrancy of the Bible’ goes wrong is in not realizing how very errant some pastors’ ‘vision’ of what the Bible is saying can be …… men see through a glass darkly, DARLENE, and some see a darker glass than others

if your grandmother loved to watch Billy Graham preach, that is a ‘hopeful’ sign that something in her was responding to the message at an even deeper and more meaningful level than she may have been aware of in her mind 🙂

Darlene wrote:

The Deebs, or someone, should do a critique on this sermon, because this is the dangerous message being taught at Neo-Calvinist churches across the country.

Darlene, if you click on the top right of the black secion under the picture marked ‘Contact Us’, it will give you their e-mail addresses and a phone number to call

It sounds like something they might want to investigate, yes.

Lea wrote:

They are explicitly making rules that says they are not allowed to hold positions of authority over men because ‘god says’, and you think ‘pushing’ them out is overstated?

So the real beef is that this rule is followed in complementarian churches, and you don’t like complementarianism. Okay, that is fine. This is a free country. There are many churches who are happy to ordain women.

mot wrote:

Heaven forbid you try and ordain a woman in Southern Baptist circles even she has the same credentials as a man.

Don’t be a Southern Baptist if you don’t like their practice.

Christiane wrote:

if your grandmother loved to watch Billy Graham preach, that is a ‘hopeful’ sign that something in her was responding to the message at an even deeper and more meaningful level than she may have been aware of in her mind

Here is an example of how one can be influenced by being in a situation where there could be temptation. In the case you mention the person might be ‘tempted’ by the gospel. In a different sort of situation the person might be ‘tempted’ by evil. Either way, this illustrates why some people preach and practice that it is important to stay away from situations which may look harmless but which can be a place of temptation. If an atheist is tempted by the gospel, well and good as I see it, but if a man whose wife does not understand him is tempted by a woman at work who does, not good at all.

This is part of the thinking behind the BG rule. Some situation may look harmless, it may actually be harmless at the moment, but you never know and it may end up being a temptation-for the man, for the woman, for the gossipers. This is what I heard preached way back in the day. And the advice was to cut yourself a wider margin of safety if you were serious about staying out of trouble.

This gets more complicated in dealing with the culture of today. In BG’s peak era it was easier because the cultural expectations were different. Not better-just different.

IMO, people need to use common sense, which will vary from person to person and situation to situation as they see it. I plan to be tolerant of people however they choose to deal with these sorts of things.

@ ishy:

I agree with you in theory. But it’s so much harder to live out in practice.

Personally, it’s hard to distance yourself from your ministry. There is a lot of work that goes into it. When you spend 40 hours a week studying and preparing a sermon on top of all the other church stuff that comes up, it’s hard not to be proud of the work put in. It is a constant battle of pride and every now and then God knocks you down a bit and a sermon that should have been good suddenly flops. It’s also very hurtful when people take credit for the things you’ve done. Especially the things you’ve fought for and lost sleep over. It’s equally hurtful when people blame you for things out of your control, or worse, things that were obviously someone else’s fault. Nobody really prepares you for how abusive people can be, and how much more it hurts when it’s done by the people of God. So no, we don’t own any ministry and God gets all the glory, but we have suffered for it and there is some pride in that.

As far as CYA rules, churches and religious institutions have fewer employee protections than other jobs. We can be fired for our religion – so if my husband preaches in favor of using an organ in church, he can be fired. (he can be fired for any reason and they can say it’s for religion too it’s hard to prove anything) Not only that, he can be maligned to other churches so finding a new job is really hard. Now if you’re single with no outstanding debt, it’s demoralizing but not tragic. If you’re married with kids, student loans, a mortgage, and ministry is what you’ve been trained in and qualified for, than it’s a bigger deal. So yeah, reputation is important. Maybe we aren’t good Christians because we are concerned about the future and about our reputations. But our entire life is wrapped around ministry, it’s hard to compartmentalize it.

okrapod wrote:

And the advice was to cut yourself a wider margin of safety if you were serious about staying out of trouble.

And this kind of thinking borders on paranoia. It is unbecoming for Christians to live in such a fear-induced state. And when Christians practice this nonsense in the workplace, they look like buffoons and bring a reproach to the cause of Christ and to The Gospel. Because even unbelievers have a lick more sense.

Robert wrote:

The premise of the thread is that the rule isn’t good for today’s society, or at least we should talk about whether it is is or isn’t. From there, a lot of the comments have descended into “This rule is evil because it holds women back from advancement.”

There is nothing wrong with a legitimate discussion of the issues, Robert.

Congratulations you’re a man so you won’t be impacted by the Billy Graham Rule in places such as the work place when some conservative Christian wants to foist this on their colleagues. It is harmful, destructive, immature, unprofessional and selfish behavior.

Velour wrote:

when some conservative Christian wants to foist this on their colleagues. It is harmful, destructive, immature, unprofessional and selfish behavior.

Some of these men will have to let you know how righteous they are.

Christiane wrote:

So that’s an end to it

Yes. Because they told me they were Catholic and I believe them. Which is the same reason I believe you are catholic.

Christiane wrote:

‘subordination

According to these men women will still be subordinate in Heaven.

Nancy2 wrote:

Makes me wonder what the general consensus on women was in the send-Rosie-the-rivitor-back-to-the-kitchen era.

This topic came up a lot when I was a child. Women in our family believed they had a patriotic duty to give the men’s jobs back, after all the men had endured in wartime. But there was unmistakable anger at the scoffing notion that the women had not done these jobs well. The disdain of women in the workplace applied also to women’s traditional jobs as teachers, nurses, secretaries, and phone operators. Family pressure to stop working after marriage caused misery. Meanwhile the kitchen and diaper pail were not always so interesting.

Velour wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Velour wrote:
Darlene wrote:
3. Is there not one situation, one circumstance in anyone’s life where the BG rule might be a good thing?
We call this common sense, not a rule.
So, that would be a ‘Yes’ then.
My vote would be a “no” because the Billy Graham Rule is for all situations, not just a few circumstances.
Common sense, on the other hand, is implemented on an as-needed basis.

This is why I do not like the BG rule.

Avoiding lunch with Susie may be wisdom. Avoiding lunch with Sally may be foolishness and in some cases actually harmful to you or to Sally. The BG rule does not allow you to distinguish between wisdom and foolishness.

@ Robert:

What you’re missing from my point is that this is not about advancement at all in these churches, because women are not allowed to advance. It is about the way women are treated.

And many have fled from such churches, because of how men see them. As liars, temptresses, or less than. That is my issue with the rule, it promotes such thinking. It does not promote seeing women and men as brothers and sisters in christ.

Friend wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
Makes me wonder what the general consensus on women was in the send-Rosie-the-rivitor-back-to-the-kitchen era.
This topic came up a lot when I was a child.

Nancy/Friend, for a different perspective, my grandmothers father encouraged all of his children to get an education and have a career, include the girls. They all were educated right during this late 40s/early 50s time period and all the girls had teaching careers, because he believed they would always be able to get a job with it. I think this attitude came from them losing money during the depression? But that is the one I remember growing up hearing about.

So these women must stay at home people would put stricter rules than my family had imposed 70 years ago and they all managed to live good lives and were strong christians. My grandparents were married over 60 years.

Question: If someone practices the BGR for himself but doesn’t impose it on anyone else, is that OK? I mean, chacun a son gout, right?

I’ve already mentioned the guy I worked with who practiced the BGR. I thought he was being silly. But it never remotely crossed my mind that he was oppressing me (or any other woman).

Again, I get that it’s presented as a requirement in certain churches, and I agree that this is a Bad Thing. But outside of those churches it’s merely an option…and a seldom chosen one at that.

Why object to an idiosyncratic option that few people actually choose? Isn’t America all about options? Land of the free, and all that?

Velour wrote:

OK, Robert. Knock it off.
Mot is a pastor.

I believe we know that. And did we not just have a conversation on TWW about whether or not it is okay to criticize a pastor? Or whether a pastor is somebody special who may not be criticized? I think that the very fact that he is a pastor makes it all the more necessary to be sure that he knows how people feel and think, including those, perhaps especially including those, who disagree with him.

Kind of like what some people are saying that public prominence is all the more reason to critique somebody; they were talking about the VP at the time I think.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Nonetheless, if Pence were really violating the law, presumably somebody outside of this combox would have at least noticed that. I know the media are ripping Pence to shreds over this issue right now, but if they are claiming that he broke the law, I must have missed it.

The crazy Fundies over at Bloomberg don’t seem to be as upset as the commenters at TWW over the Pence’s convictions. Megan McArdle who knows a thing or two about economics and female employment opportunity opines:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-03/the-pences-prophylactic-approach-to-infidelity

Velour wrote:

OK, Robert. Knock it off.
Mot is a pastor.

I did not know that, but I’m also not sure how it is relevant. I have an MDiv and a ThM, and am on track for ordination, but I’m not sure how that’s relevant to the discussion either.

The Southern Baptist line of treating godly women with gifts of teaching and preaching like they are some kind of three-eyed dragon who are heretics is unconscionable.

The gifts of the women in question have nothing to do with the SBC rule. If you look at the qualifications for elders, only one of them is the ability to teach.

Maybe a denomination that was founded to protect slavery should take a good hard look in the mirror about how they still try to enslave people.

This is a genetic fallacy. It’s also quite preposterous to suggest that not allowing women to be pastors in a denomination that they can freely leave is in any way parallel to the kidnapping of men, women, and children from Africa and forcibly keeping them on the plantation.

@ Gram3:

Good article. Thanks for the link.

IMO, everybody needs excuses, so I did not get the promotion because I missed out on the the burgers and fries may be accurate, or may be just one more whine. It needs investigated certainly, but it does not need to be accepted at face value.

okrapod wrote:

I believe we know that.

Okay. My mistake. I knew that, and mot has mentioned it before. Robert did not know that.
Because mot is a pastor and is in a position to do either good or harm is one reason that I believe he must stand and answer just like the rest of us.

Lea wrote:

What you’re missing from my point is that this is not about advancement at all in these churches, because women are not allowed to advance. It is about the way women are treated.

Okay.

And many have fled from such churches, because of how men see them. As liars, temptresses, or less than. That is my issue with the rule, it promotes such thinking. It does not promote seeing women and men as brothers and sisters in christ.

I’m not sure it necessarily promotes such thinking. I could claim that churches wherein there are no strictures promote the view that sin is not an abiding problem in Christians and that we are all so sanctified that there would never be any temptation when in close quarters with the opposite sex.

I appreciate the point about developing integrity as a way to avoid problems, but every one of us who is married could end up in an adulterous relationship, and if you don’t think that is possible, consider that hardly anyone who ends up committing adultery goes into marriage thinking, “Gee, one day I’ll cheat on my spouse.” Go through a rocky patch in a marriage, deal with other issues, or pick your environment and then boom, with the right situation, adultery becomes a real temptation for people who might not otherwise think of it.

The fact also is that while my wife is my sister in Christ, she is not the same sister in Christ to me that you are and there are reasonable precautions that all wise married people take to guard that relationship. Now perhaps you think Pence’s practice is unreasonable, and in some cases it might be unreasonable. But again, I don’t think he’s saying “This is the only way to be Christian.” And for that matter, the complementarian churches I know don’t make it a rule for membership. It is only a guideline for pastors.

And in the pastoral setting or for anyone with a public face, it’s quite a wise rule. It can help safeguard against infidelity. It also protects the public figure from being liable to false accusations. All it takes is one accusation to ruin a career and a life, and even if one is vindicated, it can be quite costly in terms of time and money to secure the vindication. Sometimes it’s better just to minimize the risk.

In a slightly different context, if you’ve ever worked with children, then you know that a children’s organization worth it’s salt will have policies not to allow an adult to be in a one-on-one setting with a single child. Two adults have to be present, generally, or at least another witness. The policies protect the child and the adult. Why aren’t people complaining that these policies break down the trust between adults and children or hinder the ability of an adult to see a child as his/her brother/sister in Christ? Because we recognize the wisdom of the policy to protect both parties.

Well, the church (and society) is full of sinners and adults can sin against each other as well. Pence’s policy is intended to help put safeguards against this.

Velour wrote:

There is nothing wrong with a legitimate discussion of the issues, Robert.

Indeed, but how legitimate is the discussion when I keep asking for tangible proof that Pence has hurt anyone with the rule or even how the rule has hurt women in the church. The rule is followed in churches, generally, where women cannot be ordained anyway, so it isn’t impeding them. Now your complaint may be that the churches don’t ordain women in the first place, but that’s a different discussion.

Congratulations you’re a man so you won’t be impacted by the Billy Graham Rule in places such as the work place when some conservative Christian wants to foist this on their colleagues. It is harmful, destructive, immature, unprofessional and selfish behavior.

Still looking for proof of these accusations. The fact that you feel like it is harmful, destructive, immature, etc. doesn’t necessarily make it so. And the only workplaces I know where the rule is applied is in complementarian churches, where women cannot be ordained anyway so if that’s your beef join another church, and in some parachurch organizations. And at least in the parachurch organizations I have seen that apply the rule, the rule hasn’t kept women from attaining high positions.

Is there a way to apply the rule that legitimately hurts women. Sure. But it isn’t necessarily the case that the rule is always bad for women. That’s part of my point.

Darlene wrote:

This is the stuff of Conspiracy Theories.

The piece at Rolling Stone about the current Russian Hysteria in the media (yes, Rolling Stone!) is pretty funny and enlightening about the way that the media can generate hysteria if you read it from that angle.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/taibbi-putin-derangement-syndrome-arrives-w474771

Robert wrote:

And in the pastoral setting or for anyone with a public face, it’s quite a wise rule. It can help safeguard against infidelity. It also protects the public figure from being liable to false accusations. All it takes is one accusation to ruin a career and a life, and even if one is vindicated, it can be quite costly in terms of time and money to secure the vindication. Sometimes it’s better just to minimize the risk.

I’m so glad that my Christian male therapist does not live his life or conduct his ministry based on fear — or he would never have agreed to take me on as a client. God has used him powerfully in my life. It was especially healing for me to receive genuine, unconditional love from a male who had no reason and no agenda in loving me. It was such an example of Christlike love.

I would find it troubling if therapists restricted their practices to same sex, heterosexual clients only. If we expect therapists to conduct themselves with integrity and not to give way to prejudice or fear, why do we expect less of pastors?

@ Rebecca Prewett:

Exactly so.

Note: it would have been highly unprofessional and unethical for my therapist to have insisted on dragging a third party into our sessions.

Also, not all church secretaries are competent to counsel.

When a pastor will meet with men one-on-one, assuring them privacy and confidentiality, but will not do the same for women — out of fear — that in itself can lead to problems no matter what the church size, structure, or form of government.

dee wrote:

@ Lea:
Well said! Women are too often put into the same category as children in some of these churches. “never be alone with a child” leads to “never be alone with a woman.”

Another thing about that argument…rules made about children are made to protect the children. Rules like the BG rule are meant to protect the pastor. So it’s a complete reverse of motives!

Rebecca Prewett wrote:

When a pastor will meet with men one-on-one, assuring them privacy and confidentiality, but will not do the same for women — out of fear — that in itself can lead to problems no matter what the church size, structure, or form of government.

Yes it can. And when a pastor will meet with women one-on-one assuring them privacy and confidentiality that also can lead to problems. Just different problems.

There is no perfect answer.

Well, if all the male pastors are required to get one-on-one with any woman in the church that wants to get one-on-one with him, then that solves the problem of not needing women on staff. If the guys are required to do it all, then who needs women in either pastoral or counseling positions?

Great idea. Run off the women staff. Save the salary money. Why didn’t I think of that? I guess I was too busy trying to see why the women can’t function unless they can get the pastor into some one-on-one situation where nobody else will do except the male pastor. Now I know. Rules. Rules that say that both he and she have to get one-on-one with each other. So, like somebody said, the required ‘love’ can go from the pastor to the woman. Because, I suppose, the male pastor has a lock on ‘love’ and is the requisite dispenser of it? For me, this gets crazier by the minute.

My father was a pastor for many years, finally retiring in his early 80’s. One memorable summer years ago, I was his church secretary.

My father is a man of great integrity (his longest, closest friends affirm this) and also of compassion. He believes strongly in pastoral confidentiality.

Most of the churches he pastored were not constructed in such a way as to have the secretary’s office adjoining or right outside his door. In older churches, the pastor’s office was often situated where it would afford the most privacy. Although counselees often (usually? I’m not sure) came through my office as secretary, as it was the only door unlocked most of the time on weekdays, they then walked through the fellowship hall, down a hallway, etc., to reach my father’s office. I was instructed to never breathe a word about whether my father was in a counseling session, meeting, or otherwise occupied (I could only say he was unavailable) and I was certainly never, ever to let anyone know who he was meeting with, even if it was a husband frantic to know his wife’s whereabouts.

Confidentiality was considered extremely important in those days, and especially by my father. So was protecting the vulnerable. My father considered himself a pastor to his entire flock and refused to sacrifice principle and ministry out of fear.

There was never a hint of scandal. My father is a gentleman, gracious and proper.

He also is humble…and was one of the most scholarly Bible teachers I’ve ever heard. He set the bar so high for pastors that I’ve struggled finding a “church home” all my adult life.

Obviously I wish far more pastors were like him.

And before someone says, “Times were different” — sin was always around. My father went through a lot, including being held at gunpoint by an intoxicated man, being targeted for death by an extremely troubled and violent man, and all sorts of other dangers I don’t even know about. Plus, ever since I was in my teens, I became aware that there were women in the church quite smitten with him, but he managed to graciously ignore that and discourage them while still ministering to them.

My father tends to rely on prayer a lot…God has promised wisdom to those who seek it.

Rules are often a shortcut. Who needs the Holy Spirit when we can just stick ourselves in a box? (Says the former legality who relied far too much on supposedly “common sense rules” and not enough on God)

Another thing: doesn’t Scripture tell men to treat women as sisters and mothers? Do pastors following the BG rule also refuse to ever be alone with their actual sisters, daughters, and mothers?

okrapod wrote:

@ Christiane:
About who is or is not to be understood to be catholic and what criteria are to be used to determine that. And whether that criteria are to be full adherence to all catholic teaching…
A certain powerful and high profile woman in the US House of Representatives repeatedly declares herself to be a Catholic, but she is staunchly ‘pro-choice’. Politically actively pro-choice. Is she a Catholic because she says so? Is she a Catholic because she is still permitted to receive the eucharistic sacrament? Is she Catholic because her church has chosen to look the other way on this every time it has been brought forth in the media?
I think she is Catholic because she says she is and because her church has not declared that she is not.

Okrapod, I agree that it is a scandal that some bishops will admit Pelosi to Holy Communion. (Others will not.) However, the Church need not formally excommunicate her: As a prominent pro-abort politician, she is self-excommunicated “latae sententiae.” I still think her bishop should formalize it, though. But there’s a lot of confusion in the Church right now. However, this too shall pass. If we survived the Borgia popes, not to mention the theological chaos at the time of I Nicaea, we can survive anything. Even San Fran Nan. 🙂

Lea wrote:

@ Friend:
I love that Robert took my comment and ran with it in a totally different direction! And added the ‘if women don’t like it, they can leave’ element. (Phil Johnson levels of Pastoral right there)

Well, let’s talk about that issue of if you don’t like it you can leave. The real question is who gets decide what the policies are. Do individuals get to decide for themselves? Does the church have some system in place like a board of elders or a vestry or a bishop who can be called in? And mostly, what is the consensus if there is a congregational form of church polity? Who gets to ‘get it their way’ when differences surface? And what is a person to do if their position loses out when the decision as to policy happens? Stay and complain and be unhappy and perhaps cause as much division as possible? Go somewhere else where they are happier? What if nobody much else agrees with me-what should I do in that situation?

What I did do was I just left-moved on-not over this issue but over issues and doctrines. I actually highly recommend it, and I think it is the honorable thing to do.

mot wrote:

Those of us that are upset about Pence at TWW are not upset about his convictions.

Then what is the issue I’m missing? Because I’m missing something.

Gram3 wrote:

mot wrote:

Those of us that are upset about Pence at TWW are not upset about his convictions.

Then what is the issue I’m missing? Because I’m missing something.

You will just have to figure it out yourself. It is just too obvious.

okrapod wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
That is very unkind.

It probably is, but what he is advising is exactly what I did and it has proved to be absolutely the right thing to have done.

I have done it too. Not because I wanted to be a pastor (they did ask me to join a different office recently and I almost turned it down), but because these negative attitudes about who women are, and what they are, what they can do tend to travel together and I was pretty much over it.

So yes, I hope many women do take his advice, but goodness isn’t it just a reflection of his heart. What ARE they teaching in seminary these days? I’m afraid we see it reflected all over the place.

Robert wrote:

I have an MDiv and a ThM, and am on track for ordination

And if you are a Complementarian, then perhaps you can provide us with the missing verse(s) from Genesis 1-2 where God explicitly ordains that males shall have authority over females. Because I cannot find it. And D.A. Carson cannot find it. And Ray Ortlund can only find whispers of it. As a conservative, I would appreciate it if you could help me out. My former elders could not help me find it, and RMBW didn’t help.

Lea wrote:

Rules like the BG rule are meant to protect the pastor.

Interesting, since by the numbers of what really happens, women, by and large, need protection. Where is that set of BG rules? BG’s own grandson, for instance.

JYJames wrote:

Interesting, since by the numbers of what really happens, women, by and large, need protection.

This is why the ‘no public lunches’ thing blows my mind. That seems like pretty much the safest one-on-one meeting possible. Public place. Well lit. Full day. To think of THAT as dangerous is difficult.

Gram3 wrote:

And if you are a Complementarian, then perhaps you can provide us with the missing verse(s) from Genesis 1-2 where God explicitly ordains that males shall have authority over females. Because I cannot find it. And D.A. Carson cannot find it. And Ray Ortlund can only find whispers of it. As a conservative, I would appreciate it if you could help me out. My former elders could not help me find it, and RMBW didn’t help.

Males don’t have authority over females in any unqualified way. Paul is quite clear that wives are to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord, not to all men, and that both men and women in the church are to submit to church elders, the office of which is open only to men. And nobody but Christ is owed unqualified submission.

The closest you can get to a possible argument for authority in Gen. 1–2 is in Adam’s naming of Eve, but even if one accepts that reading, it would just refer to their marriage. But I don’t need Gen. 1–2 to say anything about the topic, and I think that most complementarians go astray when they try and read too much into those chapters. Paul says for women to submit to their husbands, for only men to be elders, and for all of us to submit, but not in any unqualified, unthinking way, to the church’s elders.

I realize I’m probably in the minority here, but I think that you have to go to an excessive amount of exegetical twisting and turning to get female elders/pastors. But I don’t think that means women should never teach men in any setting or even in every church setting.

Gram3 wrote:

You know, Robert, I agree with you on this issue on this thread because I basically believe in the freedom of conscience, but your attitude in this comment is really not helpful. I am a very conservative, inerrantist (!) mutualist who was dis-affirmed, keyed out, dis-fellowshipped, excommunicated, or whatever you want to call it from a 9Marksy church. Not because I wanted to be ordained. Not because I was a troublemaker. But because I asked too many questions *in private.* Think about that before you snark at someone about “find another church.” That is very unkind.

Not attempting to be snarky. Just pointing out the obvious. If you were disfellowshipped for an inappropriate reason, then I’m sorry that happened to you. But many of the complaints here on this thread are from people who don’t like the fact that complementarian churches even exist, and the BGR rule is being used to press that agenda.

All I am saying is that people are getting upset about Mike Pence’s rule, which will never apply to them or anyone they know personally, and that seems rather strange. People who think women are somehow being slighted by this rule won’t even want to be a part of those churches to begin with, so find a place where you feel more welcome. That’s all I’m saying.

FWIW: Karen Pence was married and divorced before she and Mike Pence met. I wonder if that might have some bearing on why Pence lives by the BG rule?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Pence

OK, I am being baaad, and I really should get back to my freelance project. But something keeps nagging at me.

In the wake of our big, huge sex-abuse scandal, my Church has implemented some practical changes. E.g., most traditional confessionals now have a window (either clear glass or entirely open) in the central box where the priest sits. And all “reconciliation rooms” (also used for Confession) must have doors with clear glass windows.

The reason is obvious. It’s so that anyone can see inside, to ensure that Father’s not up to something. (Obviously, it can also protect Father from false accusations. Which do happen.)

I think that’s called “transparency.” Might the folks who practice the BGR (without imposing it on others) also be motivated by a concern for transparency? If so, how is this a Bad Thing?

Again, I’m not saying it’s my cup of tea. But, in those cases where someone (like my former colleague) practices it without imposing it on anyone else, might the BGR be at least defensible? Might it not reflect a laudable concern for transparency?

The key here is “without imposing it on anyone else.” Can we at least agree that, when it’s NOT imposed on anyone else, the BGR might not be the Greatest Evil Threatening American Society At The Present Moment? 😀

dee wrote:

This has nothing to do with ordination. It has to do with churches who exclude women from having an input into the church functions. When men will not meet with women, it is possible that the pastor may not have adequate input from women in the church.

I agree. But we’re not talking about men not meeting with women, but meeting with them alone.

Secondly, if the pastor is taking on a counseling role, then having other persons present in the counseling session is a violation of that person’s confidentiality. Many pastors bemoan people going outside the church for counsel. I think it is a good idea since in many of these churches, pastors cannot or will not maintain confidentiality.

That may be true. A better compromise might be to have a window put in the office that opens out to the secretarial area.

I have come up with a proposal for complementation churches. Why not have a group of women, who are elected akin to elders and deacons, whose job is to advise the male leadership on issues that are important to women in the church? There is nothing in the Bible that says this cannot be done. The bible just says they cannot be elders. Why hasn’t male leadership come up with a structure that give women an input into the church?

It is my contention that if more women had input, child sex abuse and domestic violence in the church would be dealt with expeditiously. I am unimpressed with the leadership of complementation churches in this area.

This is a very wise idea and actually my complementarian church practices something akin to it. There is a female staff member who helps with counseling and runs the women’s ministry, and I’ve seen elders deal with church discipline situations where the first goal is always to protect the woman in an abusive situation. Church policies are not enacted without receiving advice from at least some of the women in the congregation.

Any church that is not talking to its women is foolish and sub-biblical.

Robert wrote:

And for that matter, the complementarian churches I know don’t make it a rule for membership. It is only a guideline for pastors.

Nope. It is not a “guideline” within the SBC’s IMB and NAMB church planter structure. They require both church planters and their wives to sign code of conduct contracts.
Not eating alone with a member of the opposite sex other than spouse …… not being alone in a vehicle withe a member of the opposite sex other than spouse ………

Robert wrote:

All I am saying is that people are getting upset about Mike Pence’s rule, which will never apply to them or anyone they know personally, and that seems rather strange.

I must say I agree.

dee wrote:

@ Robert:
Why not have the rule apply to pastors meeting alone with men? There are a number of pastors who are same sex attracted so shouldn’t we be just as concerned about them.
To be absolutely sure that the *tule*. is correct applied, no one should meet with anyone alone, ever.

If a man is same-sex attracted, the rule should be applied to men if a church adopts it.

But the fact is, at least in Protestant circles, it is far more likely that among adults any abuse, false allegations, harassment, etc. is going to take place in the context of a male-female situation. Heterosexuality is the norm and a iron-clad rule cannot be devised for every situation. Which is why even I will say that the BGR is not necessarily the best solution. It think it is wise for pastors and for other prominent figures, and I would reverse the rule to apply if it is a prominent woman we are talking about—it’s not wise for her to spend time alone with a man who is not her husband. Rules can become legalistic, and that’s a problem, but there’s also wisdom in having them if they are wisely applied.

@ Nancy2:

But planters are generally pastors, are they not?

Rebecca Prewett wrote:

Robert wrote:
Women I know who were slighted by these rules (not allowed to meet with the pastor alone, not visited while a shut-in or in the hospital) either had no choice in the church they were attending (due to holding to complementarian teaching placing the husband in charge of such decisions) or they did not wish to be part of a non-complementarian church. None of these women desired ordination.

Well that is very tragic, and I’m sorry to hear that. But the problem is not the rule in question but in its nonsensical, overly rigid application. There has to be allowance for some flexibility in the rule, especially in the situations you mention. The fact that some church leaders are stupid doesn’t make the rule a bad one.

It’s real easy to stand at a distance and tell a young woman on a hospital bed, or a battered wife seeking her pastor’s counsel only to be turned away, “If you don’t like feeling slighted, go to another church.”

Of course, I would never say that in such situations. We’re talking generally here, and the people who are complaining the loudest are the people who are saying the rule is holding back women from advancement, not the people who are saying this rule is being used to keep women being abused or not to do hospital visitation. I don’t even know how one could employ the rule in a visitation, since hospitals are very public places.

I know women who, in a time of extreme crisis, were told exactly that. It only added to their devastation.

My comment is to people who are upset because they can’t be a woman elder because of this rule, not people who are being abused or anything else.

Do pastors and elders treat their sisters and mothers this callously and lovelessly? What makes them think they can ignore the Scriptural admonition to treat women in the church as sisters and mothers, in all purity? What happened to the commandment to love? Why hold up as a standard the opposite of Christlikeness?

Nobody is trying to ignore the admonition. Jesus tells us also to be as wise as serpents. The fact is that there is sin in the church, that men and women can become attracted to one another without meaning to, that false accusations are made, that our litigious society can bring people and institutions down, etc. Part of being wise is figuring out ways of navigating all that so that you can be loving. Without wise boundaries, a whole lot of lives can be ruined. Have none of the abuse scandals taught us this?

If anybody cares, I don’t see anything wrong with the Pence rule for certain situations. One-on-one counseling, for example. But there are ways to adopt the intent of the Pence rule without being so legalistic. Put a window in the office door. Having lunch meetings in public restaurants. Have a third party in the room. Etc. I understand the concerns some have about it being legalistic. I don’t get the “This rule keeps women from advancing” kind of complaints.

Robert wrote:

And the only workplaces I know where the rule is applied is in complementarian churches,

Wrong, Robert.

Brain-washed evangelical Christians, and more and more of them are NeoCalvinists, are parroting The Billy Graham Rule and Complementarianism like they are on par with The Gospel are exercising their inappropriate conduct in the work place. Yes, they stand out like sore thumbs. And yes it is inappropriate and unprofessional. It’s out of line when a BGR won’t step foot in a workplace kitchen, well he starts and then stops, to grab a cup of coffee because I a woman am by myself while getting a cup of coffee (or another woman). It makes Christians look like freaks in the workplace.

Ditto the refusal to meet with colleagues for team projects, meetings, etc. It expends a lot of energy on tired supervisors who’ve got enough on their plates and don’t need these nonsense in the work place. But the Billy Graham Rule adherents feel that the world will implode if they don’t follow it, and it has a chain reaction that is negative.

Robert wrote:

I keep asking for tangible proof that Pence has hurt anyone with the rule

We have been discussing the wider implications of the Billy Graham Rule in our society.
It started with his original statement.

Robert wrote:

Rules can become legalistic, and that’s a problem, but there’s also wisdom in having them if they are wisely applied.

The problem is that they aren’t wisely applied rules under the Billy Graham Rule.
BGR governs ALL situations.

As I pointed out up the thread, common-sense on the other hand is applied on an as-needed basis.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Again, I’m not saying it’s my cup of tea. But, in those cases where someone (like my former colleague) practices it without imposing it on anyone else, might the BGR be at least defensible? Might it not reflect a laudable concern for transparency?

First, many churches’ insurance companies have written information about safety plans that includes windows in the rooms where children are at church, locking all doors, closet doors, several escorts for children using the restroom, doors open, etc. No secrecy.

I really think you are using the wrong phrase, however, when you keep coming back to the Billy Graham Rule. The BGR rule applies to ALL situations — church, work, home, socializing, etc. It is legalism, it makes no use of discernment in a variety of situations, and it is iron-clad and inflexible in its imposition.

I really get the idea that you haven’t been to a church that truly espoused The Billy Graham Rule and you don’t comprehend how restrictive and terrible it is. It’s like
having separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites. But in this case males and females, in which females are treated as second class — in all situations.

Lea wrote:

Rules like the BG rule are meant to protect the pastor.

And also the organization and the reputation of Christ’s name. That is supposed to be what church discipline was about before it got hijacked for control freakery.

There are predatory people of all kinds and there are weak people of all kinds and both kinds of people can cause wreckage in marriages and organizations of all kinds. Not all people are weak or predatory, but it does not take very many of them to do a a tremendous amount of damage. That’s why there are personal policies and HR policies and organizational policies. ISTM that aspect seems to be getting lost in the discussion.

okrapod wrote:

I believe we know that. And did we not just have a conversation on TWW about whether or not it is okay to criticize a pastor?

OK, Okrapod, did you even read Robert’s snark, or are you just shooting from the hip?
Robert was rude to Mot, telling him to leave his denomination (Southern Baptists), which Mot has been in all of his life.

That’s not the solution. And that’s rude.

Quit enabling bad behavior.

Rebecca Prewett wrote:

Why hold up as a standard the opposite of Christlikeness?

Isn’t that a good question.

For all the people who are mad at me for talking about lunch, this rule applies to much more than lunch obviously. The reason that one keeps coming to my brain because there is all this talk about how men and women cannot be ALONE. Lunch in a public place is not alone. So that is the ‘wait a minute, they are not saying what they said they were saying here’ sticking point for me.

What this actually works out to is that you cannot be in public OR private spaces together, without a chaperone. And yes, in modern times that seems quite strange.

Velour wrote:

Robert was rude to Mot, telling him to leave his denomination (Southern Baptists), which Mot has been in all of his life.

I’ve been in the Southern Baptist world for 43 years. I too think it is cruel for Robert to tell me to just leave.

Lea wrote:

For all the people who are mad at me for talking about lunch, this rule applies to much more than lunch obviously. The reason that one keeps coming to m

This deacon that I tutored alone at my home …… it’s quite obvious that nothing happened between us. 2 reasons:
1). The deacon did not have to be hospitalized.
2). I didn’t have to call anyone to bail me out of jail.

mot wrote:

I’ve been in the Southern Baptist world for 43 years. I too think it is cruel for Robert to tell me to just leave.

mot didn’t change. The SBC did.

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:

Robert was rude to Mot, telling him to leave his denomination (Southern Baptists), which Mot has been in all of his life.

I’ve been in the Southern Baptist world for 43 years. I too think it is cruel for Robert to tell me to just leave.

it seems to me that a LOT of Southern Baptists are being confronted by incoming neo-Cal ‘lead’ pastors who imply ‘my way or the highway’ ….. and there is a cruelty in that which is partly intended, as ‘stealth’ is being used in ‘takeovers’ and innocent people wake up to a new theology (soterology especially) that is hyper-Cal and therefore alien to what they have known in the past. ‘Robert’ sounds like the same level of ‘sensitivity’ as these stealth incomers ….. which is to say, he’s telling you where to go, in so many words

Cruel? oh yeah

mot wrote:

Velour wrote:
Robert was rude to Mot, telling him to leave his denomination (Southern Baptists), which Mot has been in all of his life.
I’ve been in the Southern Baptist world for 43 years. I too think it is cruel for Robert to tell me to just leave.

So do I, Mot.

If the young pups can’t be civil…well let ’em leave!

Nancy2 wrote:

Lea wrote:
For all the people who are mad at me for talking about lunch, this rule applies to much more than lunch obviously. The reason that one keeps coming to m

This deacon that I tutored alone at my home …… it’s quite obvious that nothing happened between us. 2 reasons:
1). The deacon did not have to be hospitalized.
2). I didn’t have to call anyone to bail me out of jail.

LOL!

I would never get work done on my house if contractors went by these rules. They are so incredibly impractical.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Is there a wall here I can bang my head against?

There surely is: the wall they have constructed between male and female.

@ Christiane:

Christiane, we need to take this to another thread (would it be permissible on the Open Thread??)…but our Church clearly teaches that there is a hierarchy of social issues, and abortion and euthanasia are right at the top of the hierarchy. They are non-negotiable. I recognize that many politicians (like the one you describe) are hypocrites, and their actions are noxious and evil, but that does not alter Church Teaching. Even the USCCB has rejected the “Seamless Garment” argument. All social / moral issues are important. But destruction of innocent unborn life is the most important of all. Both St JP II and Pope Emeritus Benedict have clearly stated this, and it’s right there in black and white in the Catechism.

Now, in deference to the Deebs and our fellow comboxers, I will cease and desist from the Catholic Inside Baseball…but I just wanted to point this out. I wish there were another forum where we could take stuff that we really shouldn’t be clogging up these threads with. 😀

Wow, we’ve just reached 1,000 comments on this thread.

Take that boyz at Together 4 the Gospel and their ilk who are such cowards they won’t permit comments on their articles!

mot wrote:

You will just have to figure it out yourself. It is just too obvious.

I am being sincere because I am clearly missing something. It may be something as simple as coming from different life experiences. Or something else. For me maybe it was the teenage Gram3’s memory of the deacon of our church running of with the pretty young thing and leaving his wife and four children. That was an awful experience. Would the BGR have made a difference? Does it shape how I emotionally think about these issues? Yes. Note the term Emotionally Think. People do think emotionally a lot more than we think that we do. 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

Would the BGR have made a difference? Does it shape how I emotionally think about these issues? Yes. Note the term Emotionally Think.

I like that term!

See my personal experience and possibly my ’emotional think’ says the BGR is a sideshow. The real question is always how a man thinks and feels in his heart. If he is looking to have an affair, he will have one, rule or no rule. He will lie, cheat, and quite possibly all the while pretending to be pious in public. Technology makes this quite easy.

And later, when caught, he will say ‘Oh it was an accident. Oh that young thing she enticed me. Oh, it’s just a lie’. No rule is going to change that.

Hi All,

An off-topic announcement from Shauna (Billy’s mom in Texas). Dee wrote about their story.

******
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Thank you for lifting us up in your prayers. I meet today with human resources.
Bills are due this week and I will have a little over 100. Please pray I can stay in our home
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

Robert wrote:

That’s all I’m saying.

Respectfully, if you plan on being a pastor, that is not the way you represent our Lord to people. The men who dis-affirmed us did not represent him well, either, with their blatant disregard for the Word of God despite all their Gospel affiliations. Bereans are no longer welcome, which came as a huge surprise to us.

Lea wrote:

The real question is always how a man thinks and feels in his heart. If he is looking to have an affair, he will have one, rule or no rule. He will lie, cheat, and quite possibly all the while pretending to be pious in public. Technology makes this quite easy.

IMHO, we should follow Paul’s advice and examine ourselves…….Male or female, complementarian or egalitarian. ……Pastor, deacon, elder, Doctor…… Whatever. Look inside our own hearts. Examine our feelings, emotions, distractions …… If there is any doubt in your ability to behave professionally and uphold your marriage vows or respect another’s marriage vows …….If you suspect you may be too weak to stand your ground, decline the position and find something else to do.
No offense to anyone. I’m a little hardheaded, opinionated, and whatever else goes with it. I’m okay with agreeing to disagree. I’ll live my way, you live yours. Maybe we can meet in the middle and do lunch {with a third party ; ^ ) } occasionally!

Christiane wrote:

a noticeable change in tone.

I have noticed that also and have asked myself about it. I think it is because of what I see in the world at large and how this twangs something in my brain left over from WW II. I keep thinking, been there and done this, only this time it looks worse.

I think that the time for any idea of ‘salvation by nice alone’ is over and that we all need to quit playing any games we may have been playing and just get dead serious about whatever it is that the Spirit and the Word and current events seem to point us to, and just go for it.

I did not plan this, it just has happened to me.

Or it could be dementia or demon possession. You never know about this sort of thing. But I appreciate that you noticed and asked.

okrapod wrote:

One way to do that is to look at cultural context, and some people do that.

That’s me.
Love thy neighbor as thyself, do unto others as you would have them do unto you…..
I believe that Jesus was speaking to all people, without time or cultural restraints. I believe Paul was speaking to people at a particular time, with consideration for cultural/societal/governmental restraints. (Paul’s writings were letters to certain people/local churches. Head coverings, holy kisses and so on…)

@ okrapod:
You are among people here who care very much for your well-being and who are grateful for all you contribute, as I myself have benefited much from your shared wisdom.
I wish you well.

@ Gram3:

What’s fun is when you realize the passage where they are talking about the ‘elder’ females teaching the younger uses the same word as when they are talking about ‘elders’. Because it literally just means older person.

Since they are basically talking about the same thing, I don’t know why elders who are women and elders who are men doesn’t make a whole heck of a lot of sense.

dee wrote:

@ Velour:
Whoa- I didn’t notice that.

Maybe you could update the GoFundMe page for them, requesting help with their needs.
Thanks.

Robert wrote:

But I don’t need Gen. 1–2 to say anything about the topic,

Oh, but I think you do, because otherwise there is no logical grounding for Paul’s reason in 1 Timothy 2. Work out the logic of his argument for male-only teachers. If, as it is supposed, Paul is grounding male authority in Creation, then such authority must have been ordained in Genesis 1-2, right? So where is it? That is the textual and logical problem.

Gram3 wrote:

That is the teaching that women, by nature, desire to overthrow male authority. That women are, by nature, rebellious. This teaching is toxic to relationships, particularly marriages.

That turns Male-Female interactions and Marriage relationship into Power Struggle. At which point, the Zero-Sum rules of Power Struggle are in effect — Top or Bottom, Win or Lose, Hold the Whip or Feel the Whip, nothing in between.

@ Robert:
The text for “office of elder open only to men” is where? My understanding is that elders were common in the culture of the day and were typically literally older persons that persons in the family or community who were respected and respectable. That does not translate into office which I believe was adopted in a later and era of the church.

Katia wrote:

They won, and she served as lieutenant governor until resigning for reasons that are still not clear

Really? Well, that is odd and interesting.

Katia wrote:

I think he’s smart for following the Billy Graham rule. One can’t be too careful when people hate you and you’re in a high position.

Katia wrote:

Besides, what is so horrible about loving and respecting your wife so much that you don’t want to lunch alone with other women?

The first is a CYA reasoning and the second is a ‘having lunch with someone else is dishonoring your wife’ reasoning. These arguments move all over the place. Frustrating.

I don’t know Pence and I have nothing against him personally, so thank you for your perspective.

@ Katia:

Thanks for sharing your story, Katia.

I for one don’t ‘hate’ Vice-President Pence. I do however reject the Billy Graham Rule which is taught in many evangelical churches (including NeoCalvinist churches), books, and radio and is usually parroted by followers by rote, without any critical thinking skills.

As Nancy2 pointed out up the thread, VP Pence is surrounded by the Secret Service so he wouldn’t have to apply the Billy Graham Rule anyway to women.

@ Katia:

Thank you, Katia!

Katia wrote:

Given the number of people who hate Vice President Pence

How do you know that? That is a straw man if there ever was one.

Lea wrote:

Not for nothing, but I worked in Washington, in politics, for years. If I were still in that world it could have easily applied to me or someone I knew personally.

Yes, the people who work in Washington are actually people. A little more than half are female. Handy reminder…

Lea wrote:

Because it literally just means older person.

Except when it needs to mean “Office” with all the weight that carries. When you get to pick and choose what the rules are then you get to pick and choose who the winners are.

@ Katia:
Thank you for a first-hand account. It is refreshing.

Thoughts from Christians for Biblical Equality:

https://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/why-christians-can-do-better-billy-graham-rule

Rebecca Prewett wrote:

Years ago, a pastor convinced me that it wasn’t enough to never be alone with a non-relative male, or never socialize without our spouses. Apparently this pastor and I — in my youthful arrogance — had an exaggerated sense of my desirability, and he managed to persuade me that I should not converse with a non-relative male for longer than two minutes, even in public, unless one of our spouses was also part of the conversation.

Eeesh. What if he told that to a police officer who had been assigned a partner of the opposite gender? Airplane pilot/co-pilot? Lab researcher/assistant or co-researcher? Surgeon/assisting nurse? How about a teacher or professor trying to explain something to a student who just doesn’t get it, or the reverse? Patients of one gender and doctors of the other?
I can think of all sorts of problem that could cause!
I think this pastor had some serious problems!

Nancy2 wrote:

Eeesh. What if he told that to a police officer who had been assigned a partner of the opposite gender? Airplane pilot/co-pilot? Lab researcher/assistant or co-researcher? Surgeon/assisting nurse? How about a teacher or professor trying to explain something to a student who just doesn’t get it, or the reverse? Patients of one gender and doctors of the other?
I can think of all sorts of problem that could cause!
I think this pastor had some serious problems!

The irony — that escaped me at the time — is that this pastor did not apply such a rule to himself.

@ Max

@ Nancy2

I listen to Anne Graham Lotz on Sunday mornings on one of our local Raleigh radio stations. I believe I heard her say in recent weeks that her dad has to have the Bible read to him as his vision is now very poor. You may know that he’s been in a wheelchair for some time and has been very frail for years.

My grandmother and I watched his crusades on TV together for many years. What sweet memories. When I was 15, I volunteered with the Nicky Cruz organization here in Raleigh. Remember David Wilkerson, The Cross and the Switchblade and Run Baby Run? I first saw Nicky Cruz in a Billy Graham Crusade and not long after (1971) was attending church with his family and people in his organization. They were all wonderful.

Again, sweet memories. God bless Billy Graham and family.

@ Robert:

“It’s also quite preposterous to suggest that not allowing women to be pastors in a denomination that they can freely leave is in any way parallel to the kidnapping of men, women, and children from Africa and forcibly keeping them on the plantation.”
+++++++++++++++++++++

that is not the parallel.

the parallel is sacrificing people on the altar of principle. the principle is no longer preserving white power, but rather preserving biblical inerrancy, tainted with preserving male power.

Max wrote:

Velour wrote:
Wow, we’ve just reached 1,000 comments on this thread.
I hope Brother Graham didn’t read most of them! The faithful evangelist is 98 years old now.

Bless him for his ministry.

I think he’s a fair man and would have never realized how people would misuse his own rule for his own life and ministry. That it would be used as a tool against women and cause all kinds of fear-mongering.

Billy Graham, after all, practiced racial integration when others did not.

Velour wrote:

people would misuse his own rule

Yes, and to think that the New Calvinists are using it! They despise the man – in their world, there is no preaching of the Cross of Christ … there is no evangelistic outreach to ALL people. None of them will ever preach the Gospel to over 200 million, with 15 million decisions for Christ.

Velour wrote:

These guys are nuts. Absolutely nuts.

There heartlessness and what her husband allowed to happen to her are unconscionable. These are not godly men IMO.

@ mot:

“The leaders of the SBC used the ruse of innerrancy to destroy the lives of many good people”
++++++++++++

the ruse of inerrancy…. consolidation of power in disguise, right?

BC wrote:

I think this has been mostly a political attack on Pence

I would very respectfully disagree. He’s a new figure to millions. People are trying to figure out who he is, what he wants to achieve, and whether he can bring his values into play as VP. He contrasts strongly with his running mate. For these reasons, the story touched a nerve in a large number of people in our rather anxious country.

Christiane wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
no need to continue ….. I am not obligated to support people politically who say one thing and do another that shows me they are NOT ‘pro-life’ in all of its considerations

I am not a pawn of any political party. The Church does not command me to embrace evil that good may come, no.

Christiane, when did I ever say that you should embrace evil that good may come?? I’m sorry, my dear Catholic sister, but this a classic strawman.

However, now that you’ve opened the door (as Perry Mason used to say to Hamilton Burger), ISTM that the height of “embracing evil” would be voting for an ardently pro-abort politician like Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi. Hillary ghoulishly championed late-term abortions, for Heaven’s sake. Abortion was her freaking sacrament.

No, that doesn’t mean one had to vote for Trump. One could always vote third party or write somebody in. (I was sorely tempted to write in Nick Saban. :D)

Look, I’m just quoting the Magisterium here (as opposed to the Blogisterium). All social issues are important, but abortion trumps them all. (No pun attended.) As Pope St John Paul clearly taught, the right to life is the foundation for all other rights. If the unborn baby is butchered before he/she even leaves the womb, then how can he/she possibly enjoy any other rights — e.g., to food, shelter, education, or health care?

It is simply untrue and un-Catholic that all social issues are equal. Please don’t take it up with me. Take it up with the Magisterium and Catechism.

Sorry for hijacking the thread, Deebs. I just couldn’t let this go unanswered.

elastigirl wrote:

the ruse of inerrancy…. consolidation of power in disguise, right?

Target subjects: moderates and women.

BC wrote:

I think this has been mostly a political attack on Pence and has little to do with anything else.

You may think this, but you have know way of knowing that Dee wrote this post as a “political attack.” Your assumption is especially uncharitable due to the fact that Dee and Deb try to keep this blog out of the political arena.

@ Velour:

that would be a very satisfying outcome.

Ken G wrote:

Nope, I can’t agree with you on this. For a man looking to have an affair, there has to be an ample supply of willing females waiting to have an affair with a man.

You don’t need an ample supply, just one.

Some men just lie and say they are not married. Problem solved! The others I guess have some variant on ‘my spouse doesn’t understand me’.

You are the one who is foolish if you do not know this happens. Do you disagree that men looking for affairs go out and seek them? Or are you implying that they only have affairs because women are throwing themselves at them?

mot wrote:

Katia wrote:

Given the number of people who hate Vice President Pence

How do you know that? That is a straw man if there ever was one.

Good grief. The guy was savaged from the actors on stage when he attended a performance of Hamilton. (Later the same cast coddled Hillary.)

And the media jumped right into the feeding frenzy.

The guy was savaged for attending a freaking musical.

How much more empirical evidence do you need?

a thousand + comments, and i’ve read ’em all.

here’s my contribution:

mike pence is not the issue. reserving meals out exclusively for his wife is not the issue. politics is certainly not the issue.

this is the issue: impressionable nincompoops who are too insecure to be able to think for themselves, and too frightened to embrace their common sense asset, which they exchange for celebrity-endorsed sets of rules instead. rules that give them power makes this all too easy a transaction.

it’s what these nincompoops do with these rules, in community with other nincompoops cheering them on. this is the issue.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Good grief. The guy was savaged from the actors on stage when he attended a performance of Hamilton. (Later the same cast coddled Hillary.)
And the media jumped right into the feeding frenzy.
The guy was savaged for attending a freaking musical.
How much more empirical evidence do you need?

Savaged!! Is that language to enflame the conversation?

Pence was not strung up and quartered. He was not skinned, or beaten, scalped, or buried in sand to fry.

People used words to express their disagreement with Pence. That is not savagery.

mot wrote:

They are anatomically lacking IMO.

Synonym for donkey fits them just fine.

Nancy2 wrote:

mot wrote:
Cowards they are. They are willing to let their wives be bullied. They are anatomically lacking IMO.
At least the woman was “man” enough to stand by her beliefs and do what she has to do. Kudos to her!

Indeed, Nancy2.

But the price they made her pay for it. And then a good doctor. And then me.

Christiane wrote:

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I am not asked by my Church to become a pawn for a political party. For that reason, I am able to maintain my integrity. Too many have thrown their lot in with a political party claiming to support ‘the right to life’ and now are learning just how shallow those waters are.

What does it matter, a group in power is ‘anti-abortion’, yet gives a powerful chemical company the green light to use pesticides that are known to cause birth defects and to harm children??????

Integrity is key ….. if you want to avoid becoming a pawn in the culture wars, yes.

Um, the Deebs have cautioned us against political stuff. But if you are seriously saying that it’s OK to vote for an ardently pro-abort politician, then God help us. This has ZERO to do with the Culture Wars. It has everything to do with Church Teaching.

Christiane, I keep citing the Catechism. You come back with this stuff about Culture Wars. Who said anything about Culture Wars? The Catechism, authoritative for Catholics, says that the preeminent right, before all others, is the right to life. Why do you keep evading that?? I am seriously puzzled.

Have I advocated what this chemical company has done? Of course not. It is horrible. But it pales beside the butchery of 4,000 unborn babies every single day in their mothers’ wombs. This is not Culture Wars. It is not even politics. It is Catholic Church Teaching as clearly enunciated in the Catechism and by Pope St JP II and Pope Emeritus Benedict. NOT Culture Wars. Church Teaching. So please do not take it up with me. Take it up with the Magisterium.

And now I am bowing out completely. This is all too depressing for me.

Oh, and when did I ever advocate being a pawn for a political party? I specifically cited voting third party or writing in whomever one wants. But I guess responding to what people actually say doesn’t serve other people’s rhetorical and polemical ends. Whatevs!! Outta here. Real Life is beckoning anyway. And I don’t want to trespass further on the Deebs’ forbearance.

@ Gram3:
Sorry I messed that up. Everything after “From the Deebs” was from Gram3.

Thank you to the two people who made recent donations totalling $300 to the GoFundMe account for Shauna and her son Billy in Texas. (Dee wrote about their story.)
Shauna and Billy are in a dire financial situation. She is a single parent and her part-time job at a grocery store was reduced to 13 hours.
She is overdue on the rent ($700). Anyone else who can afford to contribute to these two dear people, please do so. Any contribution, large or small, would help. Many thanks.
*****
Hi All,
An off-topic announcement from Shauna (Billy’s mom in Texas). Dee wrote about their story.
******
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk
Thank you for lifting us up in your prayers. I meet today with human resources.
Bills are due this week and I will have a little over 100. Please pray I can stay in our home
https://www.gofundme.com/pxs5dk

Robert wrote:

And the only workplaces I know where the rule is applied is in complementarian churches, where women cannot be ordained anyway so if that’s your beef join another church, and in some parachurch organizations. And at least in the parachurch organizations I have seen that apply the rule, the rule hasn’t kept women from attaining high positions.

Oh, this is so not true.

I first went to work in the financial industry at Tiny Regional Bank in Utah back in the late 1990s. Now, the dominant religion in Utah also has the Billy Graham Rule, in spades. In my very small department of this bank, we had less than 20 people. All the men were lay priesthood holders in the dominant religion and three of them were lay bishops. And you couldn’t hardly get anything done with these guys or have any contact because these guys had to “avoid any appearance of evil.” Thankfully my job was in servicing, so I only occasionally had to hunt down one of the bishops to get some paperwork that was necessary for those multi-million dollar loans they were selling. I felt sorry for the women who worked with them, who did a lot of the spadework on these deals, but who couldn’t be in the same room or office with these guys alone because It Would Look Bad.

Thankfully, after the merger with That Other Financial Institution Founded By Brigham Young spectacularly failed, the Evil Too Big To Fail Bank swooped in and gobbled us up. Evil TBTF Bank may be callous and indifferent as an institution, but it was secular in orientation and a lot of weirdness, such as sidelining women in the name of avoiding the appearance of evil (and more than a smidge of religious discrimination) went by the wayside with the acquisition.

(I still remember the night my boss and I, after having looked at the composition of the proposed top tiers of leadership in the Bank Arising from the Merger of Two Banks Founded By Brigham Young and we wrote an anonymous note asking if there was room for women and minorities in the leadership of New Name of Merged Bank. The merger office was down the hall from our office and they left earlier than we did because they didn’t have to run a day-end batch like we did, so we slid it under the door after they left for the day. Our question never got answered in the merger newsletter. Perhaps it was a sign of how the merger was doomed to fail. I don’t know.)

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

But if you are seriously saying that it’s OK to vote for an ardently pro-abort politician, then God help us. This has ZERO to do with the Culture Wars. It has everything to do with Church Teaching.

I will weigh all the issues during an election and vote accordingly. And believe me, voting for a candidate who says he is ‘pro-life’ and then supports an economic policy that hurts poor women and working women is NOT my idea of supporting an honest candidate: the person is conflicted and without integrity. Knowing a person is without integrity, how can I believe and support him/her when they ‘say’ they are ‘pro-life’??????

I reject your arguments, yes. But I appreciate you sharing your opinions. One thing for sure, we need to STOP this conversation as it is not appropriate in this setting which is hosted by the Deebs. This is not our blog to use for this purpose. Let’s return to the topics of their posts, yes.

okrapod wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
That is very unkind.
It probably is, but what he is advising is exactly what I did and it has proved to be absolutely the right thing to have done.

Ditto on that one. I left Evangelicalism and I’m better off for it. I couldn’t be in that stifling environment and be at peace with myself or others. I suggest that many others here who are struggling within their particular church environment take the necessary course of action that brings them the most peace and contentment, both with themselves and others. I know how hard that first step can be, but once you take it there just may come a time when you look back and say, why oh why didn’t I do it sooner?

Gram3 wrote:

and RMBW didn’t help.

What is RMBW again? All these acronyms to keep up with!