NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
Post Reply
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by USN_Hokie »

lol, more nutjobbery. She completely "forgets" that this rule isn't there to prevent infidelity, but rather, to prevent any appearance of infidelity which could be used as leverage later. She says that men need to hold each other accountable when it's really women who need to hold each other accountable.
A Christian Case Against the Pence Rule
By KATELYN BEATY
NOV. 15, 2017


When Harvey Weinstein’s decades of sexual predation came to light last month, one could hear the soft din of schadenfreude from many evangelicals. Conservative Christians have long considered Hollywood to be a hotbed of moral libertinism wrapped in obnoxious moral superiority. Mr. Weinstein’s behavior was seen as an excess of an industry that celebrates sexual freedom, consequences be damned.

In light of Mr. Weinstein and other members of the Hollywood elite now being exposed for sexual assault, some Christian leaders have advocated that we recover the Pence rule: Vice President Pence has said he doesn’t meet alone with a woman who isn’t his wife. People may accuse him of being prudish and misogynist, but at least he will never be accused of Mr. Weinstein’s sins.

“The very same left-wing activists and Hollywood stars now running away from Harvey Weinstein were assailing Mike Pence for having a rule of not dining alone or taking meetings alone with women,” said Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger and radio host. “The media and the left savaged Mike Pence for his principled stand, but they will never run stories about Mike Pence sexually harassing women.”

The Pence rule or some variation of it is common, though not universal, among evangelicals, but it’s often known as the Billy Graham rule. Early in Mr. Graham’s ministry, he and his team signed the “Modesto Manifesto.” They agreed not to eat, travel or meet alone with any women who weren’t their wives. Mr. Graham ended his decades-long public ministry with nary a scandal.

Today, many ministry leaders follow Mr. Graham’s example to avoid “the appearance of evil,” as the New Testament puts it. Indeed, the Bible says a lot about humans’ proclivity to sin. Many Christian men believe it’s better to limit interacting with women altogether than open the door to temptation. As Mr. Graham’s own grandson and other pastors prey on women in Christian circles, there’s a comforting clarity about the rule.

Continue reading the main story
I know many Christians who keep some version of the rule. These men have good motives. Their stated intent — marital fidelity — is noble, and one that I respect. But the Pence rule is inadequate to stop Weinstein-ian behavior. In fact, it might be its sanctified cousin. It’s time for men in power to believe their female peers when they say that the rule hurts more than helps.

Last year, a ministry leader in the Chicago suburbs asked if I would join his organization’s board. I agreed to meet him at a popular breakfast spot to learn more. Upon arriving, I scanned the crowd to find the man who matched the website photo — and another man was sitting next to him.

Immediately, I knew what was going on. Both men were warm and complimentary. We share the same faith and read the same Bible. But a decade into my career, I’ve rarely had a more alienating meeting. I was made acutely aware that my existence as a woman was a problem that needed to be managed in a public setting. I did not join the board.

The Pence rule can manifest in ways that are strangely un-Christian. A former colleague at a Christian nonprofit threw her back out while on a business trip. Lying in pain in her hotel room, she asked her co-worker to carry her suitcase from her room. He refused to enter the room. One wonders what he thought was going to happen. In this and other cases, personal purity seems to take precedence over the command to love your neighbor.

Jesus condemned the teachers of the law for fastidiously keeping religious traditions while neglecting the greater law — “justice, mercy and faithfulness.” Religious leaders of his day would show great care to strain insects from their wine. Yet in straining out a gnat, Jesus said, the men “swallowed a camel.” In other words, one can follow personal codes of morality down to the iota while neglecting camel-size moral imperatives like loving your neighbor as yourself.

To be sure, there’s wisdom in married people avoiding settings that naturally cultivate attraction. Even men far outside the Christian world, and plenty of well-known liberals, including Ta-Nehisi Coates, keep some version of the Pence rule. Alcohol and isolation put otherwise honorable people in precarious situations, and one needn’t be religious to acknowledge moral vulnerability.

But reasonable people know the difference between a business meeting over breakfast and drinks at a hotel bar at night. And what the Pence rule fails to grapple with is that the Weinstein story wasn’t, at its root, about attraction but abuse of power. The producer’s behavior wasn’t fundamentally about lust gone wild. It flowed from male consolidation of power in Hollywood, and the lack of opportunity and influence that women have there and in many other industries. Mr. Weinstein could prey on women because of his undue influence over actresses’ careers. He knew they would have little recourse if they spoke out. Those women wouldn’t have been helped by greater isolation from men. They needed a stronger voice in the industry and greater agency over their careers.

The Pence rule arises from a broken view of the sexes: Men are lustful beasts that must be contained, while women are objects of desire that must be hidden away. Offering the Pence rule as a solution to male predation is like saying, “I can’t meet with you one on one, otherwise I might eventually assault you.” If that’s the case, we have far deeper problems around men and power than any personal conduct rule can solve.


Most female Christian leaders I know find the Pence rule frustrating. (All the people I know who keep the rule are men.) Imagine a male boss keeps some variation of the rule but is happy to meet with a male peer over lunch or travel with him for business. The informal and strategic conversations they can have is the stuff of workplace advancement. Unless there are women in senior leadership positions — and in many Christian organizations, there are not — women will never benefit from the kind of advancement available to men.

The answer is not to ask women to leave the room. It’s to hold all men in the room accountable, and kick out those who long ago lost their right to be there.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by awesome guy »

Women can pitifully twist anything into victimhood. Sorry sister, we're not setting ourselves up for a career and marriage ending attack just because you got passed over for a promotion and so are grasping at explanations other than the obvious of you simply not being as good.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
BigDave
Posts: 8011
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 11:20 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Republican

Re: NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by BigDave »

I would not look to the NYT to provide a "Christian case" concerning anything.
Posted from my Commodore 64 using Tapatalk
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by 133743Hokie »

The author misses the point. It's not that men have lustful urges that they can't control in private. It's that society has become so litigious that any he said-she said that arises from a closed door one-on-one meeting can ruin a mans career and life. It isn't worth the risk.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

133743Hokie wrote:The author misses the point. It's not that men have lustful urges that they can't control in private. It's that society has become so litigious that any he said-she said that arises from a closed door one-on-one meeting can ruin a mans career and life. It isn't worth the risk.
Yep. This is not just a "Pence rule." The problem is so pervasive, that male doctors now require that another female (nurse) be present when examining a woman. Doctors do not want to put themselves in a position where a woman can accuse him of sexual assault. It's called covering your backside, but in today's culture where accusations are flying around, this is what is required.
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: NYT: "The Christian case against the Pence rule."

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:The author misses the point. It's not that men have lustful urges that they can't control in private. It's that society has become so litigious that any he said-she said that arises from a closed door one-on-one meeting can ruin a mans career and life. It isn't worth the risk.
It’s both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
Post Reply