Married: Going out to dinner

[Scott1]

....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.

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]

"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]

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]

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.

 

[Joshua]

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.

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]

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]

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.