I don’t
write nearly as much as I used to only because there is insufficient time (or
maybe I’m just too much of a perfectionist and too lazy – weird combination, I
know). Yet, a storm erupted on Twitter recently
after a writer at the Federalist (a woman no less) literally commended
Mike Pence for his decision to never eat alone with a woman not his wife and to
avoid alcohol when his wife is not with him.
(You can read the article HERE). Leave out the alcohol portion and you have
the Billy Graham rule, which, paraphrased, says never be alone with a woman who
isn’t your wife. This rule came out of
the Modesto Manifesto which Graham and others in his group (George Beverly Shea
for one) worked up some basic rules for their evangelistic endeavors.
Here’s the
point that any Christian man knows: he is a SINNER. It doesn’t mean, as some commenters
suggested, that Mike Pence is assuming every woman wants to have sex with
him. It does mean that you never know
when a man and a woman who are alone together might find themselves becoming
attracted to each other to the point of having sex. So Mike Pence, knowing that he’s a sinner
and, here’s the point, not wishing to compromise either his wife or the other woman, let alone himself,
chooses to avoid even putting himself in a position to be the temptee or the
tempter. What an awful, nasty, vile,
contemptible human being – seeking to avoid putting himself in a position that
could create all kinds of problems for everyone involved.
Some
commenters suggested this was a lack
of discipline on Mike Pence’s part because if he were self-controlled and
self-disciplined he wouldn’t have sex with a woman who isn’t his wife. Oh, so it’s NEVER happened, EVER, that a man
and a woman, either or both married to someone else, neither of whom were
considering having sex with the other, found themselves in a circumstance that
resulted in the time and opportunity and then . . .GASP. . . sex. No, that never happens when people just
exercise self-control and self-discipline.
Yeah, right. And the moon is made
of green cheese, pigs fly, and dogs never bark.
Do people
who want to lose weight keep donuts around them constantly? No, they don’t buy donuts. Someone who really has a problem eating
donuts might even drive to work by a different route to avoid the temptation of
stopping in at Dunkin Donuts or Krispy Kreme.
We don’t turn this into a claim the person lacks self-control. Rather,
we commend them for taking necessary steps to avoid putting themselves in a
position to fail. We argue they’re, in
fact, exercising self-control by avoiding the temptation. Isn’t Mike Pence doing a similar thing?
More
bizarre is some commenters suggesting this kind of action by Pence was
anti-woman. I don’t get the argument at
all, so I refer you to Soraya Chemaly at the Huffington Post: Mike
Pence is why we should stop excusing religious sexism. This article attempts to explain Billy
Graham’s rule in purely secular and feminist terms. Ms. Chemaly, put bluntly, is clueless. She assumes the Graham rule is all about male
domination, as if it’s impossible this rule could have other motivations. A three minute search on Google would tell
her the “rule” is part of a broader understanding by Graham and his friends. She has no understanding whatsoever of
Christian theology, and apparently looks at the world through a hyper-feminist
lens that assumes anything a man does is “out to get” women. It’s as if late night dinners between men and
women, alone, or meetings, alone, or whatever, alone, are the ONLY ways women can ever
get ahead in this world. Really, Ms.
Chemaly? You really believe this? Is that how you got published at the
Huffington Post and other venues? Or did
you get there on merit? Doesn’t that
imply that somehow women are unable to move ahead without a man helping
them? Doesn’t that contradict everything
you claim is true about women? Kind of
weird.
Ironically,
if prior to this report occurring, had Ms. Chemaly, or any other writer at the
Huffington Post, been aware of Pence having dinner with a woman not his wife,
they’d be the first to scream “hypocrite” and launch into a diatribe about how
he’s just another Christian “faker.” Ms.
Chemaly wouldn’t commend him for helping a woman “move up in the world” or
write about how he was showing his “self-control” by going out to dinner with a
woman who wasn’t his wife but not having sex with her. No, she’d lambaste him for taking advantage
of his power as Vice President and would almost certainly accuse him of all
kinds of dishonorable conduct.
Even more
ironic is that the many of the same people who defended Bill Clinton (it’s his
private life) when the sex scandals rocked the White House in the mid-90’s are
the very same people arguing just the opposite with Pence – that it’s NOT just
about his private life. Gosh, I don’t
know for sure, but that seems somehow inconsistent and, dare we even speak it,
hypocritical? I don’t know where Ms.
Chemaly was on the Clinton thing (a few minutes on Google revealed nothing) so
I won’t assume she defended Clinton on the “private life” grounds. Nevertheless, she certainly makes clear she
doesn’t think this is a feature of Pence’s “private life” or at least that it
ought not to be.
Jesus was
very clear that Christians would face this kind of persecution (and yes, that’s
what it is – you don’t have to be beaten to be persecuted). The truth is this “outrage” exposes the
complete lack of consistency among the liberal intelligentsia. It really doesn’t matter what Mike Pence
does; he’ll be skewered because they hate all there is about Christianity,
don’t understand Christianity, and are not interested in really trying to
understand Christianity. If Ms. Chemaly
wanted to report honestly about the Graham “Rule” a few minutes on Google would
clarify. But if she did that, she’d
actually have to care what it means and why Billy Graham did what he did, and
she’d have to actually think about his motives.
In turn, she’d have to consider what Mike Pence is actually thinking and
doing rather than relying on her own caricature of what’s going on here. It’s so much easier to caricature, because
then you get to say whatever you want and all your arguments work perfectly
because you’ve made it so. Mike Pence is
bad because Christianity is bad and, moreover, my arguments, which start with
the assumption his motives are bad, prove he’s bad because there is no other
possible outcome since I’ve set up everything to prove my premise without
having to resort to any actual reality[1]. For this reason, Ms. Chemaly can’t be taken
seriously.
It is worth
noting other writers have suggested that Jesus’ example with the Woman at the
Well suggests being alone with a woman is acceptable. Two problems here: first, neither Jesus nor
the woman were married. Second, the guy
with this woman was Jesus, the sinless God-Man – he didn’t need to worry about
whether he might sin. It’s not an apples
to apples comparison, although it’s not a bad effort. I would have lauded Ms. Chemaly if she had
been willing to think of it, but she can’t because she won’t because she almost
certainly has no idea what the story of the Woman at the Well even means. The bottom line of this story is that Jesus
treated this woman with respect and dignity, despite her grossly sinful
lifestyle (serial marriages and now living with a man not her husband). But it doesn’t signal anything about how
married men ought to behave when around women not their wives. The upshot of this narrative isn’t that it’s
okay for men and women to hang out together – that’s trivializing what’s going
on here. It was Jesus treating her like
he treats all sinners who are willing to repent and believe, with dignity and
respect – man, woman, black, white, straight, gay – Jesus was an equal
opportunity dignifier.
So Mike
Pence should continue to adhere to the Graham Rule in order to protect everyone
involved from even a breath of scandal.
He’ll leave office his conscience intact, his marriage intact, and his
Christian witness intact. Whether Ms.
Chemaly ever understands is on her not him.
[1]
Ms. Chemaly does cite numerous statistics to back up her claim that women don’t
make as much money as men – which is true on the whole. Even here, however, she neglects to put the
numbers into any kind of context. She
string cites numbers as if the numbers themselves prove her point. There are numerous factors that play into
this reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment