# Married: Going out to dinner



## blhowes

If you're married now, have you ever been in a situation where it was almost expected that you'd go out to dinner with a member of the opposite sex? Just wondering how you reacted and, if you didn't go out, how you explained it.

Here's why I ask. Last week I was on a business trip with two of my managers, one of whom is a lady. The three of us went out to dinner the first night - no problem. On the second day, the male manager had a fire he had to put out back at the office, so he was asked to fly back home immediately. That left me and the lady manager. On the next two evenings after finishing work, she asked if/where I'd like to go for dinner. I opted not to go, but went to the grocery store to get something so I could eat in the hotel room.

This afternoon, I went in for my annual review with the male manager. After we finished, he said he wanted to ask me a question, and it was fine if I didn't answer. Apparrently, the lady manager was curious why I didn't want to go out. The male manager is the same manager I had at my previous company, and asked if it was for the same reasons I wouldn't at the old company. I told him it was.

He didn't pursue it any further, but if he did (or if the lady manager asked me), I'm not sure how I'd go about explaining it. Have you ever been in a similar situation and had to explain yourself? 

Do you think I was wrong not going out?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

blhowes said:


> Do you think I was wrong not going out?



No. You did the right thing. And if they ask you simply say, "I appreciate the invitation but I'm married and as a rule don't have dinner with women other than my wife." If that ticks them off, then O well. You have to trust that God will reward your faithfulness.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1

Probably you are not wrong in declining.

It's not wise to go out with a member of the opposite gender alone, if they are anywhere close to your age. A child or elderly person might be fine.

Also, I think it is okay going out in groups.

But, always be wise, and communicate with your spouse so trouble doesn't start.


----------



## jwithnell

While on the road, I've had dinner with male colleagues and not thought much about it. As a rule, I'd arrive separately, go somewhere mundane, and keep conversation focused on work. I'd eat like I would anywhere, nodding my head for a quick prayer before eating and drinking little if at all. Quite frankly, the only time I had any trouble was in a large group where the guy to my left tried to hit on me all evening. Bleh!


----------



## JoyFullMom

A different perspective...I have a single female cousin who must travel for business. She has said time and time again how GRATEFUL she is for the faithful, upright men she occasionally travels with because she feels that she can then *safely* go to dinner, knowing they will not come on to her, nor will they allow someone *else* to. She also appreciates that they see that she gets to the restaurant and back to her hotel safely. There are definitely *other* married men that she does NOT trust and some who will not eat with her because she is single and they are married. She respects them, but wishes they could see they she is just looking for their protection. I realize that women like her are likely rare...but...just a different viewpoint to share.


----------



## Montanablue

JoyFullMom said:


> A different perspective...I have a single female cousin who must travel for business. She has said time and time again how GRATEFUL she is for the faithful, upright men she occasionally travels with because she feels that she can then *safely* go to dinner, knowing they will not come on to her, nor will they allow someone *else* to. She also appreciates that they see that she gets to the restaurant and back to her hotel safely. There are definitely *other* married men that she does NOT trust and some who will not eat with her because she is single and they are married. She respects them, but wishes they could see they she is just looking for their protection. I realize that women like her are likely rare...but...just a different viewpoint to share.



Thank you for sharing that, Polly.

I would never want anyone to violate their conscience or do something that would make their wife uncomfortable, so I certainly respect when my male colleagues eat by themselves. But on a few occasions when we've been out of town for business, its nice not to have to lunch alone for the reasons listed by Polly. So, I appreciate men who are willing to accompany me to meal. 

Also, (I'm not accusing anyone on the PB of this, I would be shocked if any of you had done this), sometimes married men assume that a single woman is "after" them - or they make it sound that way when they decline to go to what is certainly only a business meal. That's insulting, ungracious, and should be avoided. A polite, "Thank you, but I'd prefer to eat in tonight" is all that is needed. Long winded explanations become awkward quickly.


----------



## Pergamum

Question: In this age of cell phones and Triple A and well-lit and safe places in the West to eat, is there any need for male accompaniment of a woman before she feels "safe"?

Also, one poster above stated that a man hit on her repeatedly. Under what circumstances would such a thing be tolerated even twice?


Call me jealous, but my wife isn't eating with another man unless he's 90 or a close relative. And if another man knew that she was married and hit on her, I would "hit on" him.


----------



## jjraby

Pergamum said:


> Question: In this age of cell phones and Triple A and well-lit and safe places in the West to eat, is there any need for male accompaniment of a woman before she feels "safe"?
> 
> Also, one poster above stated that a man hit on her repeatedly. Under what circumstances would such a thing be tolerated even twice?
> 
> 
> Call me jealous, but my wife isn't eating with another man unless he's 90 or a close relative. And if another man knew that she was married and hit on her, I would "hit on" him.




Yes there are plenty of places that a light, a cell phone, and triple A aren't going to do anything to stop certain people. I'm just saying, There are places i will not let my wife go alone even if its broad daylight, her cellphone is charged and triple A is 30 seconds away. I say this because a friend of mine was raped, and according to them, it was over within 3-4 minutes. The police in my town have a must longer response time than that. So i can see where a small woman would not feel safe alone.


----------



## Pergamum

It would seem that the statistical probability of being raped if one takes appropriate safeguards while in the US is much less than the number of broken marriages or affairs that begin through unwise decisions or being alone with the opposite sex in contexts that are normally reserved for married or dating couples.


----------



## JoyFullMom

It is not the dinner that breaks the marriage. It is what is already in the heart that would lead to it, dinner or not, In my humble opinion. 

Please don't misunderstand, I am NOT saying that there should not be wisdom used and an ability to discern the other person as well as the atmosphere that is chosen for the meal. But, this is not something that suddenly just *happens* beyond control. Calculated choices are made. 

If a person is someone who would be tempted, or if the counterpart is one who is behaving in a way that you know it would be a problem, then OF COURSE you wouldn't go! If you are already struggling and dissatisfied, then OF COURSE you better not go. But, I do not think it is *always* wrong.

---------- Post added at 07:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:24 PM ----------

I am also assuming this is not a *common* thing with the *same two people*.


----------



## Montanablue

Pergamum said:


> It would seem that the statistical probability of being raped if one takes appropriate safeguards while in the US is much less than the number of broken marriages or affairs that begin through unwise decisions or being alone with the opposite sex in contexts that are normally reserved for married or dating couples.


 
I agree with you. My concern is not so much that I'm going to be raped (especially since whenever I'm out of town its to a local library consortium meeting in another small Montana town). Its frankly just more convenient to not eat alone as a woman. Guys hit on you, they give you appraising looks, make sly comments etc. Part of it may be the ratio of uncouth cowboys to women in the towns I frequent, but I would suspect this happens a lot everywhere?

Like Polly said, I would NEVER want to cause a problem in a marriage or make someone violate their conscience. I'm never offended when one of my male colleagues doesn't eat with me. But it really is nice when we can just have a normal business lunch and I appreciate when its not looked upon with such suspicion.


----------



## he beholds

i would prefer my husband not go to dinner alone with another woman. and it really has nothing to do with me trusting him; instead it's because i know that it'd stir up jealousy in me. and that is less healthy for our marriage than him eating alone. 
sure, it may be my issue, but it's what would happen.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> Call me jealous, but my wife isn't eating with another man unless he's 90 or a close relative. And if another man knew that she was married and hit on her, I would "hit on" him.



Pergamum, I have never agreed with you more! Amen to THAT!

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 PM ----------




Pergamum said:


> It would seem that the statistical probability of being raped if one takes appropriate safeguards while in the US is much less than the number of broken marriages or affairs that begin through unwise decisions or being alone with the opposite sex in contexts that are normally reserved for married or dating couples.



You are on FIRE!


----------



## Scott1

Here's the difficult thing.

We can create an opportunity for sin to get a foothold, if not for the one, for the other. We can create an appearance of impropriety, whether judged by a spouse, or by others.



> I Thessalonians 5
> 
> 21Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
> 
> 22Abstain from all appearance of evil.



Part of a man's responsibility is to protect a woman even from the appearance of impropriety.

While we might wish it to be otherwise, while it might be easier otherwise,

let's not kid ourselves that sin can be self deceiving. Ordinarily, members of opposite gender, at least of similar age, ought not seek to be in intimate settings (like eating together, alone, unaccountable at a restaurant).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I keep thinking, 100 years ago, this wouldn't even be a question.


----------



## Pergamum

Montanablue said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would seem that the statistical probability of being raped if one takes appropriate safeguards while in the US is much less than the number of broken marriages or affairs that begin through unwise decisions or being alone with the opposite sex in contexts that are normally reserved for married or dating couples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you. My concern is not so much that I'm going to be raped (especially since whenever I'm out of town its to a local library consortium meeting in another small Montana town). Its frankly just more convenient to not eat alone as a woman. Guys hit on you, they give you appraising looks, make sly comments etc. Part of it may be the ratio of uncouth cowboys to women in the towns I frequent, but I would suspect this happens a lot everywhere?
> 
> Like Polly said, I would NEVER want to cause a problem in a marriage or make someone violate their conscience. I'm never offended when one of my male colleagues doesn't eat with me. But it really is nice when we can just have a normal business lunch and I appreciate when its not looked upon with such suspicion.
Click to expand...

 
Kathleen,

Are you saying that, in order to prevent guys who are not your husband from hitting on you, that you would go out to eat with a guy that is not your husband (nor 90 years old or a close relative)?


----------



## satz

Assuming she knows this person from work or elsewhere, he has displayed a reasonable amount of good character, and it is a one-off or rare thing, why would this be wrong?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

JoyFullMom said:


> It is not the dinner that breaks the marriage. It is what is already in the heart that would lead to it, dinner or not, In my humble opinion.



This would actually be the biblical understanding of the depravity of man. It isn't the dinner, it's the heart. 

Jeremiah 17:9
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it? 

Matthew 15
15 Peter said to Him, “Explain the parable to us.”
16 Jesus said, “Are you still lacking in understanding also?
17 “Do you not understand that everything that goes into the mouth passes into the stomach, and is eliminated?
18 “But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man.
19 “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 



he beholds said:


> i would prefer my husband not go to dinner alone with another woman. and it really has nothing to do with me trusting him; instead it's because i know that it'd stir up jealousy in me. and that is less healthy for our marriage than him eating alone.
> sure, it may be my issue, but it's what would happen.



I'd say this is the majority view of most women. Well, from my experience of my wife, family, and church. I'd say as well that this would be sin from both sides. The husband is not to cause the wife to sin(by putting himself in inappropriate situations no matter what his intent or mindset is) nor is the wife to become jealous. 

All in all, I would never put myself in a situation with a person of the opposite sex. I would just simply be blunt with them(this is how i am with anyone). I would tell them that I'm married and doing so would be inappropriate. If they get offended or think any different of you, remind yourself that you are part of a "Peculiar" people. You are a pilgrim in this world, on your pilgrimage to the Heavenly Jerusalem. Remind yourself that you are not there to appease other peoples feelings but rather on earth to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever".

(All scripture came from the NASB 1995 update).


----------



## Pergamum

satz said:


> Assuming she knows this person from work or elsewhere, he has displayed a reasonable amount of good character, and it is a one-off or rare thing, why would this be wrong?


 
Mark, 

Statistically, her marriage would be safer if she did eat with a total stranger rather than a work-mate (no pun intended) or someone she knows closely. 

Going out to eat with someone (unless it is a workplace cafeteria) is something one does with a wife or a girl-friend.

---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------

p.s.: I let my wife review this thread and she agrees with me. The only point of disagreement is that she even thinks it is improper to eat with someone else alone in a workplace cafeteria and said she would "have my hide" if I ever did that. I am her property and she's got the papers on me she says. She also points out the impropriety of how this looks to others. Finally, she stated to me the low statistical probability of being raped when being out alone and that most rapes in the West were by people known to the victim anyway, and that the American marriage is in GRAVE danger, about half of marriages ending in divorce... and this poses a much more serious threat then going out alone and eating alone (adding, "Why would you go out alone anyway if you felt unsafe...if you were home, eat at home or order in if travelling or at a hotel."). In short, she says she sees no excuse to eat dinner with anyone not her husband unless part of a very large group. So, my view is not merely the view of a neanderthal traditionalist.


----------



## satz

Pergamum said:


> satz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming she knows this person from work or elsewhere, he has displayed a reasonable amount of good character, and it is a one-off or rare thing, why would this be wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> 
> Statistically, her marriage would be safer if she did eat with a total stranger rather than a work-mate (no pun intended) or someone she knows closely.
> 
> Going out to eat with someone (unless it is a workplace cafeteria) is something one does with a wife or a girl-friend.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 04:06 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:39 AM ----------
> 
> p.s.: I let my wife review this thread and she agrees with me. The only point of disagreement is that she even thinks it is improper to eat with someone else alone in a workplace cafeteria and said she would "have my hide" if I ever did that. I am her property and she's got the papers on me she says. She also points out the impropriety of how this looks to others. Finally, she stated to me the low statistical probability of being raped when being out alone and that most rapes in the West were by people known to the victim anyway, and that the American marriage is in GRAVE danger, about half of marriages ending in divorce... and this poses a much more serious threat then going out alone and eating alone (adding, "Why would you go out alone anyway if you felt unsafe...if you were home, eat at home or order in if travelling or at a hotel."). In short, she says she sees no excuse to eat dinner with anyone not her husband unless part of a very large group. So, my view is not merely the view of a neanderthal traditionalist.
Click to expand...

 
Hi Pergamum

I only mentioned them being work-mates as an example of how she might have at least a basic idea of the man's character, which I think would affect the propriety of the eating a meal with him. The bible says to come not near the door of the strange woman's house, not any woman...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.


----------



## Jack K

I had a few business dinners with my (woman) boss in the last job I had. Business dinners are expected at times, especially among executive-types, and there are both men and women in those jobs. I think if I'd expressed any concerns she'd have been happy to meet in some other setting. But it really wasn't a problem.

Back before I was married, I had lunch and dinner with colleagues all the time when I worked as a TV news cameraman/producer. It was expected that you'd eat with the reporter you were with on the road, male or female. In fact, with the women especially I felt a bit protective and would have thought it wrong to leave them alone for a meal, as they were liable to get pounced on by "fans" or just hit on because invariably they were attractive women. In that business, a female reporter has to trust her cameraman and producer. Of course, a number of them do actually end up having flings with those guys. But nothing close to that ever happened with me. I wasn't that kind of guy, and everyone knew it.


----------



## satz

Andrew P.C. said:


> All in all, I would never put myself in a situation with a person of the opposite sex. I would just simply be blunt with them(this is how i am with anyone). I would tell them that I'm married and doing so would be inappropriate. If they get offended or think any different of you, remind yourself that you are part of a "Peculiar" people. You are a pilgrim in this world, on your pilgrimage to the Heavenly Jerusalem. Remind yourself that you are not there to appease other peoples feelings but rather on earth to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever".
> 
> (All scripture came from the NASB 1995 update).


 
Not sure I would agree that being blunt is the thing to do. Part of following God is also to live as peaceable with all men as you can (Rom 12:18). By all means avoid going to a meal alone with a person of the other sex, but unless there is a opporunity to really explain yourself in-depth, there are wiser and more God glorifying ways to explain yourself than basically accusing the other person of being a temptation to adultery.


----------



## Theoretical

If I was married and in this situation, if I went, I'd first send a text message or call my wife, and tell her to ask me how it went and what went on later that night. But truthfully, I'd be quite uncomfortable with it and speak as one not married. 

I also think there's a big difference between lunch and dinner in social settings. A quick bite at a local cafe while on the lunch hour is more typical and much less eyebrow raising than a long dinner out.

On the other hand, if you both have wedding rings, observant people will assume you're married unless body language is pretty obvious. If the woman only has a ring on, then people will assume married or affair. If the man has a wedding ring on and the woman doesn't (single), they'll assume an affair. If neither does, they'll assume dating. 

*Everyone, observant or not, will assume they're a couple.*


----------



## satz

Theoretical said:


> On the other hand, if you both have wedding rings, observant people will assume you're married unless body language is pretty obvious. If the woman only has a ring on, then people will assume married or affair. If the man has a wedding ring on and the woman doesn't (single), they'll assume an affair. If neither does, they'll assume dating.
> 
> *Everyone, observant or not, will assume they're a couple.*


 
I am honestly extremely surprised to read that. Unless they are behaving in a obviously affectionate manner, if I saw two people of the opposite sex eating together I wouldn't assume anything either way, regardless of their rings (unless the place is some kind of fancy restaurant suited mainly for "special" dinners). Maybe they are a couple, maybe not. I don't think there would be a general assumption that they were, and at least in my experience I think most people I know would share my view.


----------



## JBaldwin

C. M. Sheffield said:


> I keep thinking, 100 years ago, this wouldn't even be a question.



This reminds me of the way things were when I was single working in an established old neighborhood where the married men ate at the local dining club for executives that has been around since the early 1900s. Once, the men invited all the women in the office to lunch for Secretary Day. When we arrived at the dining club, we were ushered into a separate dining room. Our male co-workers did not even come in and sit with us during the meal. That was about 20 years ago, and even today while men and women executives will occasionally dine together there, the women executives usually eat in separate rooms from the men.


----------



## Scottish Lass

satz said:


> I don't think there would be a general assumption that they were, and at least in my experience I think most people I know would share my view.



Unless they're dressed in business attire with work stuff spread out, I assume two people eating an evening meal together to have a close relationship---either family or intimate. But maybe that's just me. Now at lunch, I tend to assume the other way---most couples aren't able to eat lunch out on a work day, I imagine.


----------



## Tripel

If I were to walk into a restaurant and see one of my male, married friends having a meal with a woman other than his wife, I would think it looks very strange. Even if I knew she was a coworker and there was no chance anything improper was going on, I'd still feel weird about it. 

So if that's how I would feel about others, I can only assume some of my friends would feel the same about me.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Pergamum said:


> So, my view is not merely the view of a neanderthal traditionalist.



No, that's me! 

But in all seriousness; married Christians (or non-Christians) should not be eating with people other than there spouse. If a woman is concerned about safety, she needs to plan ahead for that (i.e. plan to eat with a group, alone in a safe place, or in her room). 

Adultery is typically between those who have _some_ kind of a relationship; which makes work relationships particularly vulnerable. We aren't likely to commit adultery with a complete stranger, but with someone we know.

And while the real underlying cause of adultery is in the heart, we needn't afford the corruptions of our flesh an opportunity to act.


----------



## TexanRose

Well, I worked as a server in multiple restaurants. For a long time I worked the lunch shift, and I saw plenty of co-workers eating together. I certainly would not have assumed that a man and a woman eating together were in a relationship. It was usually pretty obvious when it was a business meal--the body language was quite different. However, I will point out that the business meals were usually at lunch time, and that perhaps eating together with someone at dinner time might create a different impression?

That said, I would personally feel uncomfortable eating a meal with someone of the opposite gender, and would probably find an excuse to avoid the situation.


----------



## he beholds

Andrew P.C. said:


> I'd say this is the majority view of most women. Well, from my experience of my wife, family, and church. I'd say as well that this would be sin from both sides. The husband is not to cause the wife to sin(by putting himself in inappropriate situations no matter what his intent or mindset is) nor is the wife to become jealous.



I know, that's why I said it would be my issue, because my husband is beyond trustworthy. However, I still think it isn't good for a marriage to have one half being jealous or accusative or even just feeling vulnerable. In the same way, I'd not eat out with a guy, unless it was during work and I had to or something, because I'd not want to let any jealous thought creep into my husband's head and bother him.


----------



## Jack K

Theoretical said:


> Everyone, observant or not, will assume they're a couple.



I don't think so. I think it depends on the situation, the restaurant, their behavior. When I've done the executive lunch thing, we've been in business suits. Even at dinner time, it looks like a business meal. Would it look better to meet in someone's office after hours or to go home with them, or to talk in a public place like a restaurant?


----------



## fishingpipe

I go on business trips a few times a year, and have some coming up in March, April, and May. It is always with mixed company of varying value systems. One thing I have noticed among folks in restaurant/bar settings is that there are many who couldn't care less if you have a wedding ring on your finger or not. 

I've never been in a one on one setting for meals with a female co-worker or client, but I have walked female co-workers back to the hotel, etc, when asked for their safety. I'm not sure how much it helps in terms of letting the ladies know my situation, but most of my co-workers will tell you how I go on incessantly about my wife and kids, and almost all of them know I am very "religious." In a trip to Charlotte recently two of my co-workers (a So. Baptist and a Pentecostal) sat around a table with me at the Fox & Hound and we discussed theology for a couple of hours over drinks and a ton of food (well, the So. Baptist had a Sprite). Some of our co-workers would float in and out. It was a fun time.

As far as female safety mentioned earlier, I was a beat cop in a mid-size city for 6-years. I saw bad things happen in "good places" and "safe times of day" often. I harp on personal safety for my wife any time of day, anywhere she goes. I cannot think of one place I would consider her "perfectly safe" from danger when away from me, including the church parking lot. I do restrict her from going to some places, mostly at night and in locations such as shopping malls, Wal-Mart, etc. Common sense type of thinking. But I trust in God's good providence and do not hinder her, generally speaking.


----------



## smhbbag

To me, there is more to the issue than simply avoiding temptation to adultery and the appearance of evil. Those are important and valid.

Is there not also what I might call 'inappropriate friendship'? Even if one could establish that there is not a chance in a million of adultery, and that the situation would not reasonably appear as evil, there can still be a problem.

Even with those things in place, it rubs me the wrong way. I don't really want any female friends of similar age, whether from work or church or anywhere else. My desire for female friendship is more than satisfied by one woman. 

I have had long friendships with most of the wives of my friends. With many of them, that friendship existed before they even met their husbands. I can talk, laugh, etc. with them, but without one of our spouses present, conversation just naturally becomes abbreviated. It's not awkward or weird - it's just understood that my friendship with them has fundamentally changed after marriage. I respect them, admire them, and enjoy their company in larger groups. But things are different, and that's not just okay - it's to be celebrated.

I'm quite thankful that the Lord has put me in a 99% male workplace so that this doesn't even come up.


----------



## Edward

A word of warning - guys, if you will go to a restaurant with a male coworker, but not a female, you might draw an EEO complaint that your company will not be happy to have to deal with.


----------



## au5t1n

smhbbag said:


> I'm quite thankful that the Lord has put me in a 99% male workplace so that this doesn't even come up.



Which is pretty much the larger solution to this question on a societal level.


----------



## Kevin

This has been a very interesting thread for me. My wife & I have been discussing this issue for several days.

When I was in sales I ate with co-workers all of the time. Men, men & women, women, etc. And I honestly can not imagine how you could work in that field and NOT eat with women in a resturant. The idea that you could pre-select co-workers or clients based on sex is just, well unimaginable. The idea that you could stay in a city far from home & not eat with co-workers seems far-fetched. I can only imagine what they must think of the "snob from accounting, that thinks he is too good for us"!

I met with female clients 100's of times, possibly more then 2,000 times when were "alone". Only 2 times in all of those years did one of them act "unprofessional".

I honestly never thought twice about it. And neither did my wife. 

Now that I am "in ministry" we have been re-thinking that. Today I drove a woman to Dr's appointments that is from a out of town church that I have preached at. When I talked to her I offered to drive her and to "get some lunch". That was me as a salesman. Just offer a bit more then is expected & the client will be thankful & ready to order. My wife pointed out that a single woman may read more into a offer of "lunch" from a pastor then what I expected. My wife said that since we do not have business relationship the "professional distance" that exists in the world of sales should not be assumed to exist.

She made a good point. So I took two of the kids with me.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I keep thinking, 100 years ago, this wouldn't even be a question.



So true. There were cultural rules of propriety that were simply inviolate, and that was _outside_ the church!

I worked for a company in China where most were single, and the one other guy that was married in the office was a huge flirt. There were many meetings, and some one on one meetings with female coworkers, some of whom were rather flirtatious (and no, they weren't chasing me, but it was simply behaviour that was too familiar to be appropriate). It made me rather uncomfortable most of the time, and I was glad to get out of that job. Elizabeth and I would talk about it, and there were areas of concern, because it was all 'part of the job'. I tried to make a point of not drinking much, because most did not try to hold back at all, and that makes for a bad situation. Even without the alcohol, it was still a very odd atmosphere. It's just not right.


----------



## Tim

he beholds said:


> However, I still think it isn't good for a marriage to have one half being jealous or accusative or even just feeling vulnerable.



Is it not good for one to be jealous for the attention received by their spouse, just as it is good for God to be jealous for worship that is due Him?


----------



## KaphLamedh

C. M. Sheffield said:


> blhowes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think I was wrong not going out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You did the right thing. And if they ask you simply say, "I appreciate the invitation but I'm married and as a rule don't have dinner with women other than my wife." If that ticks them off, then O well. You have to trust that God will reward your faithfulness.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott1

Good, thoughts, reflection and growth.

Some thoughts for those considering the same.



Kevin said:


> This has been a very interesting thread for me. My wife & I have been discussing this issue for several days.
> 
> Very important to consider one's spouse in this. As self centered creatures (all of us), we tend to view things in isolation.
> 
> We must consider real ways to love God (avoid even the appearance of evil)
> 
> and
> 
> love our neighbor (begins with our spouse).
> 
> Fallen creatures that we are, this is often the farthest thing from our mind.
> 
> When I was in sales I ate with co-workers all of the time. Men, men & women, women, etc. And I honestly can not imagine how you could work in that field and NOT eat with women in a resturant. The idea that you could pre-select co-workers or clients based on sex is just, well unimaginable. The idea that you could stay in a city far from home & not eat with co-workers seems far-fetched. I can only imagine what they must think of the "snob from accounting, that thinks he is too good for us"!
> 
> It helps in understanding this, "love they neighbor" in terms of protecting (from innuendo) the reputation of a single, eligible, colleague of the opposite gender.
> 
> Particularly so for a man toward a woman.
> 
> Our focus ought not be controlled by what we might imagine others would think. When we are trying to obey God, imperfect as that may be, we can do the right and must trust God for the results.
> 
> I met with female clients 100's of times, possibly more then 2,000 times when were "alone". Only 2 times in all of those years did one of them act "unprofessional".
> 
> I honestly never thought twice about it. And neither did my wife.
> 
> Now that I am "in ministry" we have been re-thinking that. Today I drove a woman to Dr's appointments that is from a out of town church that I have preached at. When I talked to her I offered to drive her and to "get some lunch". That was me as a salesman. Just offer a bit more then is expected & the client will be thankful & ready to order. My wife pointed out that a single woman may read more into a offer of "lunch" from a pastor then what I expected. My wife said that since we do not have business relationship the "professional distance" that exists in the world of sales should not be assumed to exist.
> 
> (What a blessing you have in your wife).
> 
> There is a higher standard that applies for a church officer (remember the substantial compliance with an exemplary life required by I Timothy 3 and Titus 1, even the wife of an elder or deacon must be examined for some qualifications for her husband to serve.
> 
> Yet, I would say the general, ordinary guideline of not dining alone with members of the opposite gender (using "ordinary" because there might be some sort of exceptional, e.g. emergency situation), would apply to ALL.
> 
> She made a good point. So I took two of the kids with me.
> 
> I think (opinion only) it does change the dynamic completely when there is a group. Not that there is still not possibility for problem there, but it is something different.



On one level, we might say this is all "common sense."

But knowing Scripture as we do, and that indeed it is true, and that our hearts are unfathomably evil, it all comes from loving a wonderful God, and by derivation, His creatures, even to the end of looking out for their and our good.

A God who gives us all things to enjoy, but within that context- and it is not all self-determined.

Tough stuff,
but wisdom that can save much heartache in this world.


----------



## he beholds

Tim said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, I still think it isn't good for a marriage to have one half being jealous or accusative or even just feeling vulnerable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not good for one to be jealous for the attention received by their spouse, just as it is good for God to be jealous for worship that is due Him?
Click to expand...

 
Yeah, I think it is. I think something would be more wrong if I _weren't _jealous. But I don't think it is good for either spouse to create occasions to make the other jealous. Just like we don't think it is right for us to give God occasion to be jealous.


----------



## Jack K

It seems like the responses have a lot to do with how one views restaurants. For some, the mindset seems to be that restaurants are for dates or personal celebrations. This is evident by comments like "if you're seen together in a restaurant _everyone_ will assume a close relationship." Those with such a mindset will rightly be against eating out with coworkers of the opposite sex.

But for those who've had jobs that take them on the road, restaurants aren't seen that way. To them, restaurants are for not going hungry.

And for those who've worked in sales or executive positions, restaurants aren't seen that way either. To them, restaurants are for conducting important business.

I fall into both of the latter categories. So I see that a public restaurant is sometimes one of the _least_ tempting settings to be with a coworker or client. And to behave honorably in those jobs is about much, much more than making a rule for yourself regarding restaurants and how things appear in public. It's about how you behave when the situation is even more private than a restaurant. 

I also see that fairness comes into play. If I do business over dinner with men but refuse to do so with women, or if I privately talk shop with guys who work with me but leave out women, then that may be unfair to the women. Some will complain. And they may be right to do so.

That said, there is still much merit in knowing what tempts us and others, as well as what might be uncomfortable, and avoiding such situations. A few years ago I hired a guy to work in my department. His first day on the job I took him out to lunch as a gesture of welcome and to get to know him in a non-office setting. Then a month or so later, I hired a young woman for a similar job. But I didn't take her to lunch. Instead I told her I'd taken the other guy to lunch and we could do to same, or I could order lunch for us to eat in the (multi-windowed) conference room—whichever she thought most comfortable. She chose the conference room, and seemed appreciative.

My point is that simple do-or-don't rules are often not enough. We need to pursue a complicated mix of fairness, kindness, business savvy and appropriate distance. It takes wisdom regarding the situation, and attentiveness to the individual people involved.


----------



## Scott1

Jack K said:


> So I see that a public restaurant is sometimes one of the least tempting settings to be with a coworker or client.



Jack, you just haven't been to a good restaurant!


----------



## Jack K

Scott1 said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I see that a public restaurant is sometimes one of the least tempting settings to be with a coworker or client.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jack, you just haven't been to a good restaurant!
Click to expand...


Maybe. Or maybe I only go to those with my wife.


----------



## Sarah

Tripel said:


> If I were to walk into a restaurant and see one of my male, married friends having a meal with a woman other than his wife, I would think it looks very strange. Even if I knew she was a coworker and there was no chance anything improper was going on, I'd still feel weird about it.
> 
> So if that's how I would feel about others, I can only assume some of my friends would feel the same about me.


 


Thankfully, neither my husband nor I has a job that requires us to meet over a meal with a person of opposite sex. I'm also thankful that I don't have any big business ambitions, so it's not likely to be an issue with me in the future. It could possibly come up with my husband in the future of his career, though, and that is when I will half-way wish that women were all expected to be housewives again.


----------



## py3ak

I'm with Jack and Kathleen on this one. My job requires me to be alone with various women in various public and private settings, and I don't have a problem with it - nor does my wife. At the moment, work sometimes involves being with people and women are people too. It's not a big deal: temptations to gossip or grumble are present when you spend time with anyone. The public view of a restaurant is probably less potentially damaging to reputation than the quiet of a conference room or the privacy of a van.


----------



## he beholds

py3ak said:


> I'm with Jack and Kathleen on this one. My job requires me to be alone with various women in various public and private settings, and I don't have a problem with it - nor does my wife. At the moment, work sometimes involves being with people and women are people too. It's not a big deal: temptations to gossip or grumble are present when you spend time with anyone. The public view of a restaurant is probably less potentially damaging to reputation than the quiet of a conference room or the privacy of a van.


 
Yeah...I'm not with everybody on the restaurant looking like a date. But I would consider the van meeting to be less than wise!
I may be jealous if my husband's meeting in a restaurant, but I think I'd be livid if he's hanging out in a seedy van with some girl.


----------



## Sarah

he beholds said:


> I may be jealous if my husband's meeting in a restaurant, but I think I'd be livid if he's hanging out in a seedy van with some girl.



Me too!

I think if my husband and a co-worker were going to go out to lunch together, I wouldn't like the restaurant part, but I am more comfortable with that than with their driving alone together to the restaurant. I don't really know why, but that seems worse to me. I guess because they would be truly alone.


----------



## jwright82

I have a new problem to push this discussion into. Back when I was both married and in the airforce I ran into a problem because of my job. I was a manitaner on the B1 bomber's armament, weapons, systems. Our equipment was a a tight fit to get under and I had a female coworker that I had to work with, orders and all. My exwife did not like me working with her but I had no choice, when they order the two of you to go fix something you have to. The problem wasn't there it was when sometimes we would have to fix things that required us to be in very close proximity to oneanother, I mean inches. It was unavoidable becaue of what we had to. So I kept our relationship very professional and so did she. I mean to say no I won't do that can wind you up in jail in the military. I think I handled this ok but as an exstension to this discussion would ya'll agree? And just for the record I never cheated on my wife that is not why we got divoriced so just to get that out of the way. I was never attracted or tempted by this young girl despite her good looks so I wanted to put this question in perspective.


----------



## he beholds

In my opinion, if my husband had to do it (which is really the only way I see him joining a female one-on-one for anything) thoughts _would_ still creep into my head and probably, unfairly, our conversations (so how's _Jane_?), but I'd get that he had to. 
I think there is a huge difference in a married man joining his non-wife for lunch voluntarily, like when there are other options, than when he has to, or virtually has to in order to keep peace, do his job, or appear socially normal if to do otherwise would cause more pain than it's worth. 

My problem scenario would be if my husband always chose to meet with one female coworker for lunch rather than the whole group or the guys.


----------



## py3ak

he beholds said:


> Yeah...I'm not with everybody on the restaurant looking like a date. But I would consider the van meeting to be less than wise!
> I may be jealous if my husband's meeting in a restaurant, but I think I'd be livid if he's hanging out in a seedy van with some girl.



Well hopefully our company van is not very seedy! But when I am asked to chauffeur someone around, or when we go to a meeting together, it still doesn't strike me as an issue.


----------



## jwright82

he beholds said:


> In my opinion, if my husband had to do it (which is really the only way I see him joining a female one-on-one for anything) thoughts _would_ still creep into my head and probably, unfairly, our conversations (so how's _Jane_?), but I'd get that he had to.
> I think there is a huge difference in a married man joining his non-wife for lunch voluntarily, like when there are other options, than when he has to, or virtually has to in order to keep peace, do his job, or appear socially normal if to do otherwise would cause more pain than it's worth.
> 
> My problem scenario would be if my husband always chose to meet with one female coworker for lunch rather than the whole group or the guys.


 
I did not feel comfortable with at all. She was very good at her job and I am sure that she is doing well in the airforce if she is still in but still I had more than one argument over it. To make matters worse she was, and I am not trying to be vulger or anything here so please don't mistake I am saying, well gifted in her genetics so being inches from her was hard not to be physical. Again I was never tempted or anything like that but I can honestly say that I would not be comfortable in that job again, and maybe my ex noticed this and was concerned about it.


----------



## he beholds

py3ak said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...I'm not with everybody on the restaurant looking like a date. But I would consider the van meeting to be less than wise!
> I may be jealous if my husband's meeting in a restaurant, but I think I'd be livid if he's hanging out in a seedy van with some girl.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well hopefully our company van is not very seedy! But when I am asked to chauffeur someone around, or when we go to a meeting together, it still doesn't strike me as an issue.
Click to expand...

 Haha! Hopefully not! Where I come from vans seem to evoke images of kidnappers--sorry! And I'd hate for it to sound like I want there to be a rule, "No private conversations allowed!" That is not the case--I kind of hate man-made, one-size-fits-all rules. I just was [trying] to agree that restaurants are safer than vans.


----------



## Montanablue

Pergamum said:


> Kathleen,
> 
> Are you saying that, in order to prevent guys who are not your husband from hitting on you, that you would go out to eat with a guy that is not your husband (nor 90 years old or a close relative)?



Yes. Because eating a business meal with a man does not mean that he is hitting on me. I would prefer to eat with a female colleague simply because we probably have more to talk about, but Im not worried about my male colleagues trying something with me. It may be difficult for a man to understand, but eating alone as a woman (at least here) is simply unpleasant. If I have to choose between eating alone in a restaurant or skipping a meal/eating a granola bar, I take the granola bar option. I obviously prefer to eat a meal. 

I think I am mainly surprised by the importance people have placed on eating a meal in a restaurant together. I eat lunch with my boss (a male) in our break room all the time. That's certainly more private than than a public restaurant. We also close the library together sometimes - again, no one else is there. Both of these situations seem like they are more "dangerous" than eating in a public place - there are so many witnesses in a restuarant. If I was going to try something untoward, that would be the last place I'd go! When I meet with my pastor, we often go to local diner/coffees shop. I've always assumed this is because it might seem odd for me to go to his office at the church (which I understand and support). I think of a restaurant as being a "safe" place. 

Anyway, I'm done discussing this. Like I've said, I would never want to violate someone's conscience and I'm not offended if a male colleague eats by himself rather than with me. I'm certainly not about to give anyone instruction on how they ought to run their marriage!


----------



## seajayrice

Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.


----------



## he beholds

seajayrice said:


> Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.


 
Now this is one of those man-made, one-size-fits-all rules that I was talking about disliking above! We aren't pharisees. _Adultery_ is adultery. We don't write a list of near-sins (ie NOT sins) around a sin and say these things are almost that sin, so don't do them. There is prudence, to be sure, but that prudence, by the nature of prudence, has to consider the situation. 
What is "nearing adultery?" I think there is adultery and there is not adultery. Having an ill-intent in one's heart is _already_ adultery. Sharing bread, with no ill-intent and no ill-behavior, is sharing bread.


----------



## Scott1

We must all stand convicted before the broad application of the moral law.

And know that we need a Savior, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ alone that can justify us before a Holy God.



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,[767] words,[768] and behavior;[769] and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;[770] watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;[771] temperance,[772] keeping of chaste company,[773] modesty in apparel;[774] marriage by those that have not the gift of continency,[775] conjugal love,[776] and cohabitation;[777] diligent labor in our callings;[778] shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.[779]
> 
> Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[780] are, adultery, fornication,[781] rape, incest,[782] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[784] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[785] wanton looks,[786] impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;[787] prohibiting of lawful,[788] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[789] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[790] entangling vows of single life,[791] undue delay of marriage,[792] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[793] unjust divorce,[794] or desertion;[795] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[796] unchaste company;[797] lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[798] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[799]





> Scripture Proofs
> 
> [767] 1 Thessalonians 4:4. That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour. Job 31:1. I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? 1 Corinthians 7:34. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
> 
> [768] Colossians 4:6. Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.
> 
> [769] 1 Peter 3:2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
> 
> [770] 1 Corinthians 7:2, 35-36. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.... And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
> 
> [771] Job 31:1. I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?
> 
> [772] Acts 24:24-25. And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ. And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.
> 
> [773] Proverbs 2:16-20. To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words; Which forsaketh the guide of her youth, and forgetteth the covenant of her God. For her house inclineth unto death, and her paths unto the dead. None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the paths of life. That thou mayest walk in the way of good men, and keep the paths of the righteous.
> 
> [774] 1 Timothy 2:9. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.
> 
> [775] 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.... But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
> 
> [776] Proverbs 5:19-20. Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love. And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?
> 
> [777] 1 Peter 3:7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
> 
> [778] Proverbs 31:11, 27-28. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.... She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.
> 
> [779] Proverbs 5:8. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house. Genesis 39:8-10. But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand; There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God? And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
> 
> [780] Proverbs 5:7. Hear me now therefore, O ye children, and depart not from the words of my mouth.
> 
> [781] Hebrews 13:4. Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Galatians 5:19. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness.
> 
> [782] 2 Samuel 13:14. Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her. 1 Corinthians 5:1. It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.
> 
> [783] Romans 1:24, 26-27. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves.... For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. Leviticus 20:15-16. And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast. And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
> 
> [784] Matthew 5:28. But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 15:19. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. Colossians 3:5. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
> 
> [785] Ephesians 5:3-4. But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints; Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Proverbs 7:5, 21-22. That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.... With her much fair speech she caused him to yield, with the flattering of her lips she forced him. He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks.
> 
> [786] Isaiah 3:16. Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet. 2 Peter 2:14. Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children.
> 
> [787] Proverbs 7:10, 13. And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtle of heart.... So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him....
> 
> [788] 1 Timothy 4:3. Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
> 
> [789] Leviticus 18:1-21. Mark 6:18. For John had said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife. Malachi 2:11-12. Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.
> 
> [790] 1 Kings 15:12. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. 2 Kings 23:7. And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the LORD, where the women wove hangings for the grove. Deuteronomy 23:17-18. There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. Leviticus 19:29. Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. Jeremiah 5:7. How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses. Proverbs 7:24-27. Hearken unto me now therefore, O ye children, and attend to the words of my mouth. Let not thine heart decline to her ways, go not astray in her paths. For she hath cast down many wounded: yea, many strong men have been slain by her. Her house is the way to hell, going down to the chambers of death.
> 
> [791] Matthew 19:10-11. His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
> 
> [792] 1 Corinthians 7:7-9. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. Genesis 38:26. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.
> 
> [793] Malachi 2:14-15. Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. Matthew 19:5. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
> 
> [794] Malachi 2:16. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously. Matthew 5:32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
> 
> [795] 1 Corinthians 7:12-13. But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.
> 
> [796] Ezekiel 16:49. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. Proverbs 23:30-33. They that tarry long at the wine; they that go to seek mixed wine. Look not thou upon the wine when it is red, when it giveth his colour in the cup, when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a serpent, and stingeth like an adder. Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.
> 
> [797] Genesis 39:19. And it came to pass, when his master heard the words of his wife, which she spake unto him, saying, After this manner did thy servant to me; that his wrath was kindled. Proverbs 5:8. Remove thy way far from her, and come not nigh the door of her house.
> 
> [798] Ephesians 5:4. Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks. Ezekiel 23:14-16. And that she increased her whoredoms: for when she saw men portrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans portrayed with vermilion, Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity: And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea. Isaiah 23:15-17. And it shall come to pass in that day, that Tyre shall be forgotten seventy years, according to the days of one king: after the end of seventy years shall Tyre sing as an harlot. Take an harp, go about the city, thou harlot that hast been forgotten; make sweet melody, sing many songs, that thou mayest be remembered. And it shall come to pass after the end of seventy years, that the LORD will visit Tyre, and she shall turn to her hire, and shall commit fornication with all the kingdoms of the world upon the face of the earth. Isaiah 3:16. Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet. Mark 6:22. And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in, and danced, and pleased Herod and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatsoever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. Romans 13:13. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying. 1 Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries.
> 
> [799] 2 Kings 9:30. And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her face, and tired her head, and looked out at a window. Jeremiah 4:30. And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Ezekiel 23:40. And furthermore, that ye have sent for men to come from far, unto whom a messenger was sent; and, lo, they came: for whom thou didst wash thyself, paintedst thy eyes, and deckedst thyself with ornaments.


----------



## Pergamum

Montanablue said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kathleen,
> 
> Are you saying that, in order to prevent guys who are not your husband from hitting on you, that you would go out to eat with a guy that is not your husband (nor 90 years old or a close relative)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Because eating a business meal with a man does not mean that he is hitting on me. I would prefer to eat with a female colleague simply because we probably have more to talk about, but Im not worried about my male colleagues trying something with me. It may be difficult for a man to understand, but eating alone as a woman (at least here) is simply unpleasant. If I have to choose between eating alone in a restaurant or skipping a meal/eating a granola bar, I take the granola bar option. I obviously prefer to eat a meal.
> 
> I think I am mainly surprised by the importance people have placed on eating a meal in a restaurant together. I eat lunch with my boss (a male) in our break room all the time. That's certainly more private than than a public restaurant. We also close the library together sometimes - again, no one else is there. Both of these situations seem like they are more "dangerous" than eating in a public place - there are so many witnesses in a restuarant. If I was going to try something untoward, that would be the last place I'd go! When I meet with my pastor, we often go to local diner/coffees shop. I've always assumed this is because it might seem odd for me to go to his office at the church (which I understand and support). I think of a restaurant as being a "safe" place.
> 
> Anyway, I'm done discussing this. Like I've said, I would never want to violate someone's conscience and I'm not offended if a male colleague eats by himself rather than with me. I'm certainly not about to give anyone instruction on how they ought to run their marriage!
Click to expand...

 

Most cases of adultery are not with total strangers but with people that we already know and think are pretty decent. 

If eating a meal alone is unpleasant, then this means that the main reason for adding a man who is not your husband at a meal would be for the purpose of social pleasantness. 

Most wives who are mothers can rarely even get out alone without the kids and when my wife does, she is happy to have solitude and takes a book. I sure don't want her, nor does she want me, to be alone in a socially pleasant setting with the opposite sex.

In the US the divorce rate is very, very high and I think the rate of adultery is also very high. Therefore, there are very good reasons for having strict rules about the patterns of social behavior that would be considered appropriate or inappropriate for married couples. 

And maybe this is just a lower socio-economic family-guy standpoint, but going out to dinner is a special thing and not something one does everyday.


----------



## he beholds

Scott1 said:


> We must all stand convicted before the broad application of the moral law.
> 
> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
> 
> A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,[767] words,[768] and behavior;[769] and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;[770] watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;[771] temperance,[772] keeping of chaste company,[773] modesty in apparel;[774] marriage by those that have not the gift of continency,[775] conjugal love,[776] and cohabitation;[777] diligent labor in our callings;[778] shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.[779]
> 
> Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> 
> A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,[780] are, adultery, fornication,[781] rape, incest,[782] sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;[783] all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;[784] all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;[785] wanton looks,[786] impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;[787] prohibiting of lawful,[788] and dispensing with unlawful marriages;[789] allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;[790] entangling vows of single life,[791] undue delay of marriage,[792] having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;[793] unjust divorce,[794] or desertion;[795] idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,[796] unchaste company;[797] lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;[798] and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.[799]



Right. All of these things actually are adultery. They aren't nearing it; they _are_ a breaking of the law.


----------



## seajayrice

he beholds said:


> seajayrice said:
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is one of those man-made, one-size-fits-all rules that I was talking about disliking above! We aren't pharisees. _Adultery_ is adultery. We don't write a list of near-sins (ie NOT sins) around a sin and say these things are almost that sin, so don't do them. There is prudence, to be sure, but that prudence, by the nature of prudence, has to consider the situation.
> What is "nearing adultery?" I think there is adultery and there is not adultery. Having an ill-intent in one's heart is _already_ adultery. Sharing bread, with no ill-intent and no ill-behavior, is sharing bread.
Click to expand...

 
Man made rules, not really; simple common sense, flee temptation. Perhaps you are special and possess some super-human piety. Hope that guy across the dinner plate is equally endowed.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Most cases of adultery are not with total strangers but with people that we already know and think are pretty decent.
> 
> If eating a meal alone is unpleasant, then this means that the main reason for adding a man who is not your husband at a meal would be for the purpose of social pleasantness.
> 
> Most wives who are mothers can rarely even get out alone without the kids and when my wife does, she is happy to have solitude and takes a book. I sure don't want her, nor does she want me, to be alone in a socially pleasant setting with the opposite sex.
> 
> In the US the divorce rate is very, very high and I think the rate of adultery is also very high. Therefore, there are very good reasons for having strict rules about the patterns of social behavior that would be considered appropriate or inappropriate for married couples.
> 
> And maybe this is just a lower socio-economic family-guy standpoint, but going out to dinner is a special thing and not something one does everyday.



Preach it , Pergy!


----------



## Kevin

seajayrice said:


> Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.




Work is not "fellowship". Discussing the advertising budget for the next year while eating pasta is not intimate.

And it is nowhere near adultry.


----------



## kvanlaan

I don't know that it is adultery, but it is certainly not wise. Breaking bread together is actually more than just discussing business, but I don't know that it is or has to be 'intimate'. Maybe we've just moved that far away from previously accepted norms that we don't realise what this really is anymore.


----------



## Pergamum

It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.

If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.


----------



## py3ak

he beholds said:


> Haha! Hopefully not! Where I come from vans seem to evoke images of kidnappers--sorry! And I'd hate for it to sound like I want there to be a rule, "No private conversations allowed!" That is not the case--I kind of hate man-made, one-size-fits-all rules. I just was [trying] to agree that restaurants are safer than vans.



Cool, Jessi, then we're on the same page.


I think what bothers me most in this thread is that the one-size-fits-all "rules of prudence" seem to boil down to a view that women=temptation. How, if that were true, our Lord could have ministered to the Samaritan woman, or Timothy could have been commanded to treat younger women as sisters I don't know. I would suggest that taking such a view contributes to the sexualization of our culture, by fostering rather than refusing the idea that all relationships can be conceived of in sexual, or at least incipiently sexual, terms.


----------



## he beholds

Pergamum said:


> It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.
> 
> If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
> 
> I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.


 

Well, if this were the case, wouldn't it also be "a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant" for a mother to go out socially with friends for dinner? I rarely get to do this, but my husband greatly encourages me to find even more times to do so. I also encourage him to go frolfing or play basketball with his friends when the chance arises. 
(Though my husband doesn't merely "fend" for himself if I eat apart from him. He cooks something, just as I would. Actually, on top of knowing how to feed the children, he also knows how to bathe them, brush their teeth, and put the children to bed.)


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

jwright82 said:


> I think I handled this ok but as an exstension to this discussion would ya'll agree?



You did what was your duty. It's the military's fault for putting the two of you into this inappropriate situation. A place where women don't belong. Our Military has been weakened by the introduction of women into almost every area of the military life. Fornication between service members is at epidemic levels and all the PC and EO people are convinced its a necessary price to pay for equality in the Military. Just tell that to all the illagitamet children which are the by-product of these train-wreck policies. 

I was an Aviation Ordnancemen in the Navy, so my job sounds similar to yours. We had women working with us as well. The only problem was they were never physically able to do the work - So they got to answer phones and fill out forms. We even had to make-up work for them to do. But when it came to lifting a five hundred pound bomb over your head with three other men (the job they were trained and paid to do), they couldn't do it. And its not there fault - the're women. Its the Navy's fault for capitulating to political correctness. Just my


----------



## Pergamum

he beholds said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> It occurred to me that the excuse for eating dinner with the opposite sex was often work-related. That adds a new wrinkle.
> 
> If a woman worked and had to discuss business over dinner while her husband or family were at home, even if the business dinner was all with other women, this would be a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant. Having a stay-at-home mom tending to the kids avoids all of this and a traditional sort of family arrangement keeps up those hedges that traditionally guarded families.
> 
> ---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------
> 
> I'm glad that the major "business" that my wife discusses with a man is mainly concerning home-schooling and the upkeep of the home, and that man is me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if this were the case, wouldn't it also be "a very poor state of affairs since she is not at home and presumably her husband and kids were there fending for themselves for dinner while she is out at a restaurant" for a mother to go out socially with friends for dinner? I rarely get to do this, but my husband greatly encourages me to find even more times to do so. I also encourage him to go frolfing or play basketball with his friends when the chance arises.
> (Though my husband doesn't merely "fend" for himself if I eat apart from him. He cooks something, just as I would. Actually, on top of knowing how to feed the children, he also knows how to bathe them, brush their teeth, and put the children to bed.)
Click to expand...

 
Jessica, 

I assume that you rarely get to do this because your heart is in your home, your priorities are right, and that your family and your husband are your main social investments. 

I would also assume that, though your husband, and other husbands on the PB, can cook and clean for themselves, that most homes would fall into a general trend of the husband focused outward on the world while the wife frees up his time by focusing inward on the home (which means that it would be to her high dishonor if her husband had to "fend for himself" very often at all and that the infrequent occasions of this would be by voluntary arrangement).

It seems that the general principle of Scripture is that a godly woman is "home-based" and is not "out and about" all the time, nor wanting to be. 

Having a woman who is married with kids working a 48-hour work-week (which I hear is average in the US) and then, afterwards, desiring to eat with people (and men, too) that are not her husband or kids, is truly beyond me.

If a married woman demands frequent social stimulation apart from her family, and especially if this includes other men, I believe this to be highly questionable. 

Of course, I also believe that if a family has kids that, unless they are starving, the woman ought not to be working outside the home. Thus, it would be expected that a wife's social outings would be primarily with her family and those not including her husbands and/or kids would be with other mothers talking about those kids or taking the children over to play with other kids.


I believe that for both men and women, after we are married, that the main "social circle" that we must have is our family. This goes for guys, too. If a guy or gal demands weekly meetings with her guy or chic peers away from the family, I believe this is not healthy. Every busy mother needs an occasional outing by herself, but if this is frequent or is demanded angrily, this is probably a sign that she is not getting satisfaction out of her role.

This applies to guys, too. If he is spending large amounts of time getting social fulfillment from his male peers, then this is troublesome. Working hard is one thing, and every man needs some "cave time" away as well, but if those meetings do not advance his career or calling (which supports his family) and he is looking for social stimulation primarily from others besides his wife, I believe this to be troublesome.

Throughout the world, eating out at a restaurant with a member of the oppositie sex for dinner would be treated as an impropriety I believe unless there were significant mitigating factors or unless they were relatives. Only in the West would this be accepted.


These are not rules laid down by Pharisees, but are rather traditional mores and common sense principles.


----------



## seajayrice

Especially to the young people that may be reading this thread, a word of caution; some here profess it fine for a married believers to dine alone with members of the opposite sex, could be in their economy or case by case analysis but very poor advice in general. How will a young man or woman discover temptation in this realm unless it is experienced? Never underestimate our capacity for sin.

Jer 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? 
Pro 16:17 The highway of the upright is to depart from evil: he that keepeth his way preserveth his soul. 
Pro 16:18 Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.


----------



## Pergamum

41% of Babies Born Out of Wedlock - Archive - Fox Nation

If the above link contains statistics that are anywhere near reality, I would say that there are strong reasons to put up very high hedges in your marriage and not to poo-poo such high hedges as needless rule-making.


----------



## Montanablue

Pergamum said:


> If eating a meal alone is unpleasant, then this means that the main reason for adding a man who is not your husband at a meal would be for the purpose of social pleasantness.



Its unpleasant because I get hit on by creepy cowboys, not because I mind eating alone. I eat alone at home all the time.


----------



## Grillsy

Montanablue said:


> Its unpleasant because I get hit on by *creepy cowboy*s



Where are you having dinner the Ponderosa? I know that Hoss can be a handful but he means well.


----------



## Montanablue

Grillsy said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its unpleasant because I get hit on by *creepy cowboy*s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where are you having dinner the Ponderosa? I know that Hoss can be a handful but he means well.
Click to expand...

 
Montana is...a different world... I promise you.


----------



## he beholds

Pergamum said:


> 41% of Babies Born Out of Wedlock - Archive - Fox Nation
> 
> If the above link contains statistics that are anywhere near reality, I would say that there are strong reasons to put up very high hedges in your marriage and not to poo-poo such high hedges as needless rule-making.


 
The funny thing is I'm one of the people who would try very hard not to dine with another guy and I'd not want my husband dining with some other girl; yet I am also the one who is poo-pooing rule making. (Hello, PB, what's new there?)
If you'll notice, I never poo-pooed prudence or wisdom. I just took issue with the idea of near-adultery, and the certainty that the speaker had that eating together _was_ such a thing, not that in some, or even many, cases it _might_ be. But that it is.


> Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.



Also, I think what makes a hedge high would be relative to how high the porch is, right? Maybe in some marriages, there's nothing but a stoop. In others, they've got a top-floor balcony. What's high for the stoop might not be high enough for the balcony. And what reaches the balcony might overcome the other house entirely.


----------



## Montanablue

But I don';t think its just living in Montana. I think if you're a man, its hard to understand what it's like to go to a restaurant alone as a female. 

Anyway, I digress. I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.


----------



## Grillsy

Montanablue said:


> I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.



I don't think anyone took your comments as such. At least I hope not. I didn't.


----------



## Montanablue

Grillsy said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone took your comments as such. At least I hope not. I didn't.
Click to expand...

 
I wasn't addressing you (or really anyone) in particular. It just seemed like a point I should be absolutely clear on.


----------



## Pergamum

he beholds said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 41% of Babies Born Out of Wedlock - Archive - Fox Nation
> 
> If the above link contains statistics that are anywhere near reality, I would say that there are strong reasons to put up very high hedges in your marriage and not to poo-poo such high hedges as needless rule-making.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is I'm one of the people who would try very hard not to dine with another guy and I'd not want my husband dining with some other girl; yet I am also the one who is poo-pooing rule making. (Hello, PB, what's new there?)
> If you'll notice, I never poo-pooed prudence or wisdom. I just took issue with the idea of near-adultery, and the certainty that the speaker had that eating together _was_ such a thing, not that in some, or even many, cases it _might_ be. But that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Breaking bread with another is an intimate affair, to enjoy this one on one fellowship with a woman when pledged to another is nearing adultery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Also, I think what makes a hedge high would be relative to how high the porch is, right? Maybe in some marriages, there's nothing but a stoop. In others, they've got a top-floor balcony. What's high for the stoop might not be high enough for the balcony. And what reaches the balcony might overcome the other house entirely.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. I also poo-poo rule-making and don't really consider myself all that strict in most areas. I just think there'd better be a very, very good reason for any married woman to be eating out without her husband and kids.

---------- Post added at 02:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:08 AM ----------




Grillsy said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just wanted to step in and clarify that I'm not having business meals as some sneaky way of cheating on my fiance. Ugh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone took your comments as such. At least I hope not. I didn't.
Click to expand...

 
Seconded.


----------



## kvanlaan

Preach it again, Pergy! I am not trying to say that we should all be as big a prude as possible to glorify God in our everyday life, and the idea that Kathleen is some sort of Denny's-based seductress is also way wierd. But Common Sense for Christians seems to have died off somewhere along the line...


----------



## Kevin

I think that there is a divide on this issue based on your job experience. If you work @ a static type of job, anything from walmart to an office, then eating a meal in a resturant is something that is exclusivly (?) social. Or almost completly so.

As a person that was in sales for 20 years, I ate 8-10 meals a week out and was often away from home overnight. In one position I hired teams in several cities and had to meet with them weekly. Since we did not maintain offices in those cities all business was conducted in resturants. I interviewed, hired, and had weekly meetings with each team member. IF I did not have these in a resturant my only other option was in a hotel room!

The idea that a sales manager sitting at a table at chili's for 3-4 hours having a meeting every 45 minutes is a form of semi-seduction of female co-workers (and employees!) is laughable to anyone that has lived that life. When you work "on the road" resturants ARE your workplace. You select them based more on cell coverage & wi fi, and how comfortable the chairs are (! no kidding, if you drive 3 hours, then meet for 4hours, then drive home, this is the biggest issue!) then on the ambience.

To call this "nearly adultry" is stunningly naive, In my humble opinion. If that is true, then any person that works with any person of the opposite sex is engaged in "near adultry" every time they clock in.

Now, when your job situation is diferent then the nature of eating in a resturant may change. And a wise man (woman) will use prudence. But it seems to me that the moral pronouncement that have been bandied about in this thread are manifestly unhelpful.


----------



## JoyFullMom

Thank you Kevin. This thread has left me kind of speechless. Shocking how many judge *appearances*.

*edited to add* I have never done this as a married or single woman, I have never been in a position that dictated it. I just don't want anyone who would be so assuming about a meal to assume that I am defending myself on this. LOL!


----------



## Kevin

Chatting with my wife again about this subject and I remembered a case from 15 years ago, or so. I had to fire a (male) employee for making unwanted sexual advances against co-workers. These advances occurred on the job site & after work hours but NOT in a resturant. Although he was part of a team that traveled together & ate together 2-3 days a week. 

I fired him in a resturant! (and yes, I picked up the tab!)


----------



## Sarah

I'm glad to read replies about such a variety of circumstances, but I just want to point out that in my understanding the original post was about going out to a non-business dinner with a coworker without any intent of discussing work. (even though they probably would have talked about it some, of course, since it's what they have in common.) It seems very much like that particular situation would have been purely social or just to avoid eating alone. I think it was wise for him to decline.


----------



## Scott1

Having just returned from a men's retreat, this was one topic of discussion, prayer and concern.

There is more to this.

Being unaccountable with a member of the opposite gender in the kind of settings described in the post alone brings with it a host of temptations, which many, many men struggle with. It presents special dangers, e.g. the broad application of the seventh commandment and controlling our thoughts, etc.


> watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;[771] temperance,[772] keeping of chaste company,[773] modesty in apparel;



It's not sufficient to view this solely from the practicality of one's own convenience, nor from custom in a trade or business.

We are all learning and growing in Christ as we are engaged by the Word- and there are a lot of dangers, and temptations created in routinely exposing one's self to situations, unaccountable alone, with managerial power, over a meal, with a lone member of the opposite gender.

Learning to abstain from the lusts of the flesh is a lifetime process, and it often requires abstaining from or removing things that are potentially tempting, or are unwise, or cause others to stumble.

Nor is its biblical evaluation done on a basis of a relative scale of evil.

It's a very real consideration for a believer to ask if God would have them in a job that requires such.


----------



## TimV

Scott1 said:


> It's a very real consideration for a believer to ask if God would have them in a job that requires such.



That's still more than half assuming women are lust demons who find all men attractive. It would seem 90% of the men here are just hugely more magnetic to the opposite sex than I am, which I suppose is a blessing.


----------



## Pilgrim72

Regarding the OP: First, I read some of the replies but not all. I really don't see what the problem is. I think common sense and wisdom should be used in all areas and decisions in life. 

Are you attracted to this woman coworker? Is she attracted to you? If not, then I see no reason to not go out to dinner with your coworker while on business travel. Does your wife trust you? Is she okay with you eating out with female coworkers? If so, then I see no reason not to go out to dinner with your coworker while on business travel. Do you not like this woman? Does she annoy you? If she does, don't go.

Isn't this all common sense?

I travel a lot for my job, and I eat out with my coworkers all the time. Sometimes they're men, sometimes women, sometimes married, sometimes single, sometimes with just one other person, sometimes with a group... When on business travel, it's almost expected to go out to eat with your coworker (who's also on the trip with you). Unless, of course, you're not on friendly terms with the other person. (Which I encounter sometimes.) It might come off as rude to snub someone like that, if they had expected to go to dinner with you.
Also, if you're sick or tired. These are valid reasons to turn down dinner in this circumstance.

But to say that you're a married man and you can't eat out alone with a woman, is sort of odd. I say this from a Christian perspective. Are you afraid you're going to fall into temptation, there with her, at the dinner table? Is something different going to happen at dinner with just you two, than when the third person was there? How exactly will you fall into sin? Or is that not the problem?

Do you think that others may see you, a married man, and think you are cheating on your wife? How is this possible when on business travel? No one will know you. Usually.
Also, your conscience is clean. Who cares what others think.

Anyway, I just don't understand this line of thinking if you use common sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks.


----------



## Sarah

I disagree with the line of thinking that says you should go if you aren't attracted to her but don't go if you are. Couldn't that get you into more socially awkward situations, like if you always tell coworker A that you don't want to go to dinner but you always go with coworker B? Also, you may not be attracted to your coworker now, but spending more time around someone over dinner could easily change that. When I was in college, I wasn't attracted to this guy I was friends with, but we ended up having breakfast together in the cafeteria 3 times a week for a semester (just as friends!), and now he's my husband. I'm not saying strict rules are necessary, but maybe following a general guideline that isn't dependent upon your attraction level would be a good idea.


----------



## Scott1

Pilgrim72 said:


> I travel a lot for my job, and I eat out with my coworkers all the time. Sometimes they're men, sometimes women, sometimes married, sometimes single, sometimes with just one other person, sometimes with a group...
> It's a different case when one goes out in group, with a different dynamic, but still one must be discerning.
> When on business travel, it's almost expected to go out to eat with your coworker (who's also on the trip with you).
> What's "expected" is not the standard for the believer, though.
> 
> Unless, of course, you're not on friendly terms with the other person. (Which I encounter sometimes.) It might come off as rude to snub someone like that, if they had expected to go to dinner with you.
> Also, if you're sick or tired. These are valid reasons to turn down dinner in this circumstance.
> 
> But to say that you're a married man and you can't eat out alone with a woman, is sort of odd. I say this from a Christian perspective. What's your basis for this Christian perspective? Where in Scripture? Are you afraid you're going to fall into temptation, there with her, at the dinner table?
> There are many broken lives out there who can attest to this. Many, many men struggle with this temptation.
> Is something different going to happen at dinner with just you two, than when the third person was there? How exactly will you fall into sin? Or is that not the problem?
> 
> Do you think that others may see you, a married man, and think you are cheating on your wife? How is this possible when on business travel?
> This can cause problems for spouses, other married workers, nonbelievers watching the witness, as well as the two people themselves.
> No one will know you. Usually.
> The world, the flesh, and devil will often imply that as rationalization. But, even if that were true, God always knows.
> Also, your conscience is clean. Who cares what others think.
> Scripture tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil, a principle drawn from it would be a man's headship and position in the creation pattern would include protecting the reputation of a woman.
> 
> Anyway, I just don't understand this line of thinking if you use common sense. Please help me to understand. Thanks.



Consider a few duties of the seventh command that might be violated:



> Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
> 
> Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, *chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior*; and the *preservation of it in ourselves and other*s; *watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses*; temperance, *keeping of chaste company*, *modesty in apparel*; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and *resisting temptations thereunto*.
> 
> Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all *unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affectio*ns;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; *wanton looks,* impudent or light behavior, *immodest apparel*; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, *unchaste company*; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.



(Just to name a few.)


----------



## satz

Scott1 said:


> ....*keeping of chaste company*, *modesty in apparel*...



Scott, Is any woman, simply by virtue of being a woman, considered unchaste company? Proverbs is full of warnings to stay away from the "strange woman" (Ch 5), the "whorish woman" (Ch 6) etc. It doesn't say stay away from _any_ woman. Likewise, modest apparel may be a big issue today, but not all women dress that way.


----------



## Pilgrim72

First, thank you for responding to my post. It is my experience on the PB to be a "threadkiller"... not sure why. (Most of my posts, throughout the years, either kill the thread or just go unanswered.) So, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you. 

Anyway, on to your post Scott:



> It's a different case when one goes out in group, with a different dynamic, but still one must be discerning.


I agree. This falls under "common sense", though.



> What's "expected" is not the standard for the believer, though.


What is expected for the believer is to not sin, or cause others to sin, to bring glory to God, etc. But your reasoning and your referencing the WCF doesn't prove your point in this instance.



> What's your basis for this Christian perspective? Where in Scripture?


It seems some are claiming that the actual eating dinner with someone of the opposite sex is a sin. I am saying that it is not. If someone is sinning at dinner with someone of the opposite sex, it's not the dinner's fault, or the act of eating with someone, it is a problem with the person himself who is sinning. And as I've stated in my post, it is important to use wisdom. If anything causes you to sin, don't do it. It has nothing to do with eating dinner with someone. You are going after the wrong thing here, in my opinion. This doesn't even fall under Christian Liberty, in my opinion. 



> There are many broken lives out there who can attest to this. Many, many men struggle with this temptation.


Then don't go out to eat with your coworker. It's that simple. These broken lives are because of someone sinning. The dinner didn't make someone sin. I never fell into sin going out to eat with people. This isn't an area where I'm tempted. If this IS an area where you might fall, don't do it. Why even ask if it's okay? To me, this means you have deeper issues than eating dinner with a coworker... Because honestly, if you're gonna fall into temptation at dinner, you'll fall anywhere. What about at work? What about at the store? What about on an airplane? What about when eating out alone and the waitress comes on to you? The broken lives and temptation to sin has nothing to do with the act of eating out with a coworker (which is what the OP was addressing).



> This can cause problems for spouses, other married workers, nonbelievers watching the witness, as well as the two people themselves.


That's why I said to use common sense. If it's going to cause a problem, don't do it. I've found that eating out with non-believers has been an opportunity to be a good witness. We can't hide ourselves away in a closet, because we're afraid we might somehow commit a sin. How do you know when he had dinner alone in his hotel room he wasn't tempted to watch p0rnography on the television? (Not saying he did, I'm just giving a hypothetical situation.)



> The world, the flesh, and devil will often imply that as rationalization. But, even if that were true, God always knows.


If you are sinning... But, this is not a sin. Let's not call something a sin, if it isn't.



> Scripture tells us to avoid even the appearance of evil, a principle drawn from it would be a man's headship and position in the creation pattern would include protecting the reputation of a woman.


The appearance of evil isn't there. At a dinner table at a restaurant. I agree with all that you are saying. But only in reference to sin. Eating out with a coworker is not sin. It's not even the appearance of sin.



> Question 138: What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
> 
> Answer: The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections, words, and behavior; and the preservation of it in ourselves and others; watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses; temperance, keeping of chaste company, modesty in apparel; marriage by those that have not the gift of continency, conjugal love, and cohabitation; diligent labor in our callings; shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.
> 
> Question 139: What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> 
> Answer: The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.


What does all this have to do with eating dinner? I love the quote. But your bolded words seem to imply something that isn't there.
Now, if sin were involved in this dinner, and the man were indeed cheating on his wife with a coworker, that's a different story. But that is not the case. 
And if it was, the restaurant would be a safer place to see them anyway. Because I'm sure the two were staying at the same hotel. I would be more concerned if they ate dinner together in his hotel room...

I appreciate your reply. Don't think I don't agree with what you said in regard to sin. But I don't think what you wrote applies to the act of eating dinner with a coworker of the opposite sex.


----------



## Scott1

satz said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....*keeping of chaste company*, *modesty in apparel*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scott, Is any woman, simply by virtue of being a woman, considered unchaste company? Proverbs is full of warnings to stay away from the "strange woman" (Ch 5), the "whorish woman" (Ch 6) etc. It doesn't say stay away from _any_ woman. Likewise, modest apparel may be a big issue today, but not all women dress that way.
Click to expand...


The passages from the Westminster Larger Catechism summarize the doctrine of Scripture with regard to the broad application of the seventh commandment.

They are examples of how broadly it applies to thought, word and deed (like all ten commandments).

Some that would possibly apply to the original post were highlighted. They would not apply in every case. The original post gives a certain fact pattern, without great detail, but illustrates the temptations and difficulties that can occur. 

There are many situations in the world. For example, in our generation, there are many who are or have lived in serial sexually immoral relationships- a lifestyle pattern. They don't come to the table necessarily with the same commitment that a married person does, or that a believer does. 

Add to that, in our generation, in the United States at least, the common grace that provided strong civil protection of marriage contract has weakened, and is being confused, to the misery and detriment of many.

And, in our day, as in the Apostle's, there often is no consciousness of modesty.

Having heard the real-life testimonies of people who have struggled or are struggling with this, we must acknowledge, as the Scripture does, that this is a structural problem.

A married person (as in the original post) with an eligible member of the opposite gender, who they might find attractive, alone and unaccountable. To believe that will be antiseptically neutral, that the power inherent withing the business relationship cannot create undue temptation- based on the huge struggles being faced in our time with this, cannot be ignored.

I wish it were not so.

He is strong, but we are weak.

---------- Post added at 08:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 AM ----------

Alex,

We might add that what your argumentation is missing is the understanding of the profound effects of the Fall.

"Common sense" does not always rule us, and can be clouded by our own sin. 

We are capable of self-deception.

We cannot even know a situation well enough (or control a situation) to even apply it in some situations.

Consider what the Scripture teaches about the depth of our sin, and our ability to be self-deceived.

No wonder the Psalmist cried out for God to search him.



> Psalm 139
> 
> 1O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.
> 
> 2Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.
> 
> 3Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.
> 
> 4For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.
> 
> 5Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.
> 
> 6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.
> 
> 7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?
> 
> 8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
> 
> 9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;
> 
> 10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
> 
> 11If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.
> 
> 12Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
> 
> 13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
> 
> 14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
> 
> 15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
> 
> 16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
> 
> 17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!
> 
> 18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.
> 
> 19Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.
> 
> 20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.
> 
> 21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?
> 
> 22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.
> 
> 23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
> 
> 24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.


----------



## TimV

Scott1 said:


> "Common sense" does not always rule us, and can be clouded by our own sin. We cannot even know a situation well enough (or control a situation) to even apply it in some situations.



But what you're offering in the place of common sense are broad rules that have to be interpreted through the lens of common sense.

I know a pastor who's a rolly-polly guy. One of my best friends go to his church on Sunday night. The wife is young and pretty, the husband is handsome, upwardly mobile, a good leader and they have 5 kids and a great marriage. Yet, when he calls and she answers he is really abrupt with her. Just "Is .....there?" and that's it. No asking how the kids are. No asking what he can pray for. Nothing at all. 

To me frankly it's a bit of a joke, since no woman in those circumstances is going to try to jump a guy like that pastor and he should have the humility to see reality like it is. And I'm also mildly offended at him for what it implies about the wife, who is very valued friend of mine like her husband.

No one is saying that sin isn't real, or that the devil isn't real. 2 John is a very personal, intimate letter to a woman. And when I compare that Book to what I'm reading here from some and from what I see in my church I admit to a certain level of puzzlement.


----------



## py3ak

TimV said:


> I know a pastor who's a rolly-polly guy. One of my best friends go to his church on Sunday night. The wife is young and pretty, the husband is handsome, upwardly mobile, a good leader and they have 5 kids and a great marriage. Yet, when he calls and she answers he is really abrupt with her. Just "Is .....there?" and that's it. No asking how the kids are. No asking what he can pray for. Nothing at all.



This may be slightly off-topic from the original post, but it raises a really good point. Women are people too; pastors are to shepherd their souls as well as the souls of men. Whether the women are married or single, young or old, stunning or appalling, they do require pastoral care. Indeed, beyond pastoral care they need relationships with others in the church, to be practically a part of the family of God (and of course, men are also in need of these reciprocal relationships). Thus Timothy is to treat those around him as family – as father, mothers, brothers and sisters. And that is how everyone in the church should relate to everyone else.

Would you refuse to take your mother to dinner? Would you only speak to your sister in the presence of your wife?

So to those who think that they have the moral high ground in refusing to ever be alone with a person of the opposite sex, or who conceive of sharing a meal as emotional adultery, let me suggest an alternate line of thought. Fearing temptation or the loss of reputation to the point where you can no longer treat the younger women as sisters or the older as mothers, while no doubt it stems from a commendable desire to keep the Seventh Commandment, in effect results in sisters being treated with suspicion and disdain.

And let me add this. I understand the concern for reputation, whether yours or that of the opposite person in question. But our culture is being progressively sexualized: sex is becoming the lens through which we view everything else (I hesitate to give examples, because they would verge on obscenity, but consider that the adjective “sexy” is one of the highest forms of praise, even though most things when they are good are NOT properly sexy). If we do not resist this sexualizing trend, the day will come when no amount of precautions can safeguard reputation. If all relationships are thought of in sexual terms, then it doesn’t matter who you are friendly with or what you enjoy: male or female, family or stranger, human, animal, vegetable, or mineral – if thought of in sexualized terms all of these things destroy your reputation. We should not further the trend that is turning perversity into the new normal; and in fighting that trend we have to believe in and exemplify the possibility of pure, loving, non-sexual relationships in our families, in our church families, and at large.

Having said that, I do understand that most _social_ (as in voluntary) activities will take place within the circuit of the home, and that it would be quite strange and troubling if husbands or wives preferred to be entertained out, away from one another. But if a friend flies into town, and I'm at work when his flight arrives, I have no problem with Heidi picking him up at the airport.


----------



## Kim G

py3ak said:


> If all relationships are thought of in sexual terms, then it doesn't matter who you are friendly with or what you enjoy: male or female, family or stranger, human, animal, vegetable, or mineral - if thought of in sexualized terms all of these things destroy your reputation.


 
This is what I've been thinking. Two guys eating lunch together, especially "clean-cut" guys dressed in nice business apparel, looks very much like a gay date. Or, for another example, one of my best girl friends in college was petite, feminine, and always wore nice expensive clothes. I was chunky, not as feminine (I grew up with brothers) and never dressed up. Pretty sure we looked like a stereotypical lesbian couple. But that doesn't mean that she shouldn't have been my friend, or that two guys shouldn't eat a meal together. Frankly, when I hear some of the comments in this thread, I think--"You're a Christian! Get your mind out of the gutter! Stop thinking of EVERYTHING in terms of sexuality."


----------



## Pilgrim72

Beautifully articulated Ruben. Thank you.

I would also like to add to Scott. I see your argument and understand where you're coming from. Thank you for your responses. 
I know I am fallen and still susceptible to great kinds of evil. But I think you may have forgotten about the profound effect of God's grace in our hearts. I can certainly spend time (in all diferrent types of random settings) with someone no matter what their gender and not sin. 
But, we need to use wisdom and know where we are weak and not put ourselves in that situation. 
You can't condemn a neutral action (ie. eating dinner), and keep all Christians from it because there's a possibility of sin there. To say eating dinner at a restaurant with a person of the opposite sex is sinful is the same as saying using a public restroom at an airport is sinful. Just because one person sins in that circumstance doesn't mean all people will.


----------



## jw

I didn't even read the Bat's post, just in case someone might get the wrong idea.


----------



## py3ak

I should add that if Joshua flew into town, we would try to not pick him up at all.


----------



## CatherineL

My husband often goes out to lunch with co-workers, and on conferences often dinners as well. There are sometimes women present (although his field is predominately male). He's not overwhelmingly social, so usually he'd prefer to eat alone, but considers it part of the job, as discussion is primarily about work. Usually its in a group, but I can see a situation where he might go to a meal with a female.

I've heard Nancy Leigh Demoss talk at length about setting these kinds of boundaries - specifically never being alone with someone of the opposite sex. While I think its good to be aware of not giving an appearance of evil, I think one can also be taken it a bit far. For example, if we did this I could never have the Air Conditioning repair man in the house when my husband wasn't home - and he would much rather I handle things like that on my own. It would cause needless awkwardness for him as well. He had a female intern last summer who didn't have a car and whom he would often gave rides home. She was younger then him and married, but it seemed like a much more kind and courteous thing to do than to tell her he couldn't for religious reasons and leave her to fend for herself, or send her home with one of the single, non-Christian guys who would almost certainly have hit on her. We have work people over to our home often, so I generally get a chance to meet many of the people he works with. I suppose that if had gotten a weird man-hunter vibe from her, maybe I would have asked him to try to make other arrangements. But she was sweet and was expecting, so we always chatted about babies and such, and even took her out with us when we went to eat as a family. It seems wise to treat such situations on a case by case basis rather and a hard and fast "no alone time with non-wife females ever, period" rule.


----------



## Scott1

It's helpful to remember the original post and the context there.

This post has gone in a lot of different directions.

In the original post, a married man is invited by a female co-worker after hours when all the other workers have gone home, apparently socially, though somewhat as part of a business situation.

The brother felt uncomfortable about it- and for good reason, so it would seem.





Pilgrim72 said:


> Beautifully articulated Ruben. Thank you.
> 
> I would also like to add to Scott. I see your argument and understand where you're coming from. Thank you for your responses.
> I know I am fallen and still susceptible to great kinds of evil. But I think you may have forgotten about the profound effect of God's grace in our hearts.
> 
> God's grace makes one more, not less, aware of their sin and tendency toward it.
> 
> I can certainly spend time (in all diferrent types of random settings) with someone no matter what their gender and not sin.
> But, we need to use wisdom and know where we are weak and not put ourselves in that situation.
> Again, we sometimes do not know our own weakness, and can deceive ourselves. E.g. "Let him who stands take heed lest he fall."
> 
> 
> You can't condemn a neutral action (ie. eating dinner),
> the context of the original post is not neutral, that's why the brother was uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> and keep all Christians from it because there's a possibility of sin there. To say eating dinner at a restaurant with a person of the opposite sex is sinful is the same as saying using a public restroom at an airport is sinful.
> Not sure where you are getting that these situations are analogous at all, they are not. Certainly not with that of the original post. Just because one person sins in that circumstance doesn't mean all people will.
> 
> One can only imagine what that kind of sin that rationalization would produce.


 
The intended points here for the believer have been sufficiently made here so I'll not comment further.

We needs God's wisdom.


----------



## py3ak

Joshua said:


> I prefer not be picked up by such infinitive-splitters anyway!



Then it seems that we to manfully agree are able: you should be left to softly wither away in the airport.


----------



## kvanlaan

Scott, thank you - I truly appreciate that last post.


----------



## py3ak

blhowes said:


> If you're married now, have you ever been in a situation where it was almost expected that you'd go out to dinner with a member of the opposite sex? Just wondering how you reacted and, if you didn't go out, how you explained it.
> 
> Here's why I ask. Last week I was on a business trip with two of my managers, one of whom is a lady. The three of us went out to dinner the first night - no problem. On the second day, the male manager had a fire he had to put out back at the office, so he was asked to fly back home immediately. That left me and the lady manager. On the next two evenings after finishing work, she asked if/where I'd like to go for dinner. I opted not to go, but went to the grocery store to get something so I could eat in the hotel room.
> 
> This afternoon, I went in for my annual review with the male manager. After we finished, he said he wanted to ask me a question, and it was fine if I didn't answer. Apparrently, the lady manager was curious why I didn't want to go out. The male manager is the same manager I had at my previous company, and asked if it was for the same reasons I wouldn't at the old company. I told him it was.
> 
> He didn't pursue it any further, but if he did (or if the lady manager asked me), I'm not sure how I'd go about explaining it. Have you ever been in a similar situation and had to explain yourself?
> 
> Do you think I was wrong not going out?


 
It's hard to answer this question when you didn't supply the most vital information: who's buying? If I'm already out of town, and I have to eat anyway, I might as well go for it, as long as I'm not involved in extra costs. It's a work meal.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

have not read pages 2 and 3 and started skipping around after post 12.

I wish we still had a 'thank' button for posts 1 and 7.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Interesting, all the divergent points of view. But I think the saying, in terms of judgment, that one size doesn't fit all situations is true.

My wife has been overwhelmed in this country taking care of ill relatives (the ill ones have both died, so we're going back to the states soon), but when she was caregiving she couldn't get involved in pastoral care with me. But I would keep her closely apprised of what I was doing and who I was with.

One young woman was in prison about a year and a half for entering the country from Africa with bad papers. A member of our congregation who was locked up there pending deportation (I've since taken a harder stand on illegal status) witnessed to her, and pleaded with me to visit her. So I did, and continued for about half a year, bringing her food, Bibles (in different languages), praying, witnessing and so forth. She was but 17 when she went in. The church advocated with the government on her behalf, asked the Lord for help, and eventually she was released.

I would visit her occasionally to fix something in her apt, take her shopping, and sometimes go to McDonald's for ice cream, where we could talk about her life, and about the Lord in it. Once, when the Baptist pastor and his wife saw me at McD's with her I told him, No, this isn't a girlfriend, this is M....! (If my memory serves me right.) My wife and I are her family, though other church members have since drawn close to her also. When I've been out of the country my wife and her twin sister have helped her out. She regularly attends our church, and professes to love the Lord. She's been out of jail 3 years or so now.

Other women in the congregation we've taken to the doctor's office, and when my wife couldn't come, I'd do the med run on my own. They're my sisters, these women, often marginalized by the society here, vulnerable and away from their families. _We're_ their family. This doesn't mean I'm naive, or careless; any reservation or warning in my heart, I back off.


----------

