The VP of the U.S. regards himself as a devout Christian worshiper. On more than one occasion he has conveyed that he acts in accordance with his Christian religion, and only in accordance with his Christian religion. So, where does, say, his refusal to have dinner with a woman without his wife present have to do with the Christian religion?
People can practice their religion to the extent of their understanding of it, so long as their understanding is consistent with the Scriptures. But I find it hard to believe that having dinner with a woman you’re not married to is not the same as having lunch with a woman you’re not married to. If the connotation is that if you have lunch with a woman, people think it’s to discuss business, whereas if you’re having dinner with the same woman, at least one of you may have something else in mind, like a prelude to sex, perhaps? Reminds me of a scene in Brian DePalma’s 1980 movie, ‘Dressed to Kill,’ in which an NYPD detective interrogates a person of interest involving a murder that took place in a building in New York City. You can draw your own conclusions about the location, but anyway… It comes out that the person of interest tells the detective about possible suspects who’ve all been having sex in this particular building at lunchtime. The detective says, “Ohhh... what kind of building is this, huh? Everybody's getting laid after lunch!”
My feeling is that the VP didn’t see the movie, because if he did, chances are he wouldn’t have lunch with another woman without his wife present either, even if it’s only to discuss business. Why should it matter, how he interacts with women? Well, he does have the second highest office in the land, and presumably, because of Romans 13:1 his authority is presumed to come from God. In that sense, he sets an example for the rest of the nation. Does God really care about a man having dinner with a woman he’s not married to? Is there any justification in the way the VP interprets Scripture?
Well, let’s see. The Scriptures tell us to avoid temptation. In a sense, dinner, which usually takes place in the evening, thereby being closer to bedtime than lunch, combined with drinks, and a woman in an evening dress, and a well-dressed man…Yes, it’s possible that at least one party may be tempted to induce the other into the sack. But is it really fair to conclude that dinner with someone, whom you may not know except on a professional level, and dinner to discuss business with, would lead to getting laid? Is it fair to either judge the woman as having lustful motivations, or to penalize another person because you are afraid of being tempted toward that direction?
Did Jesus, say that having dinner with “another woman” is an abomination, even if it’s to discuss business? What did Jesus say? He said that he came not to change any part of the Law. Does the Law have anything to say about it? At first glance it seems that Paul, a Jew who became a disciple of Jesus, infers that the Law says that women are to act in a certain manner, different from men. He says in 1 Corinthians 14:34, “The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” This passage is said to be derived, indirectly at least, to Deuteronomy 28:49 which says, “The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand…” Really? While some may say that women speak in a language that men ‘do not understand,’ are all women from ‘a nation against us?’ If that were the case, would it not be sacrilegious to, say, give women the right to vote? This could be another topic, which can be discussed in another time, but to the matter at hand…
Yes, 1 Corinthians 14:34 says that women should keep silent in churches and should be in submission. But scholars have said that this meant that women are to say nothing, and to learn what is being said by men and to draw their inferences by what men do. But that is not to say that a woman cannot tell a man what she has learned, if she doesn’t exert some authority by saying, for example, ‘That’s the way it is to be.’ And in a way, this is an answer to those who believe that if women are to be silent and say nothing in church, they should be silent and say nothing every place else.
The Bible provides an example of women telling a man what they know. This is in Acts 18:24-26 which says as follows: “Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the SYNAGOGUE, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, THEY TOOK HIM AND EXPLAINED TO HIM THE WAY OF GOD MORE ACCURATELY.” They didn’t say to him ‘This is the way it is to be,’ they merely conveyed to the man what they knew.
In that vein, there is noting wrong with the VP having dinner with another woman, without his wife present, to seek her advice.
Seen from another angle, what if the VP actually sees women as being from another nation, like Paul may have believed? Well, on that level, the VP of the U.S. being the VP of the U.S. should immediately distant himself from his wife, who conceivably could have designs to destroy the U.S. if we take it to a certain conclusion! On another level, if the VP feels that a woman at dinnertime may be looking to compromise him, a woman whom he otherwise doesn’t know, then what does Jesus say in the VP’s Bible? He says to judge not that ye be judged, since the same measure you use to judge others will be judged upon you. And what does Galatians 3:28 say, it says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”? It is better not to judge, then, until you can see for yourself in some way?
And we should consider that if a person is so weak in character that he can be easily tempted to act contrary to what the Bible says, then how much of a devout Christian can he really be? And how much of an effective leader can he really be?
People can practice their religion to the extent of their understanding of it, so long as their understanding is consistent with the Scriptures. But I find it hard to believe that having dinner with a woman you’re not married to is not the same as having lunch with a woman you’re not married to. If the connotation is that if you have lunch with a woman, people think it’s to discuss business, whereas if you’re having dinner with the same woman, at least one of you may have something else in mind, like a prelude to sex, perhaps? Reminds me of a scene in Brian DePalma’s 1980 movie, ‘Dressed to Kill,’ in which an NYPD detective interrogates a person of interest involving a murder that took place in a building in New York City. You can draw your own conclusions about the location, but anyway… It comes out that the person of interest tells the detective about possible suspects who’ve all been having sex in this particular building at lunchtime. The detective says, “Ohhh... what kind of building is this, huh? Everybody's getting laid after lunch!”
My feeling is that the VP didn’t see the movie, because if he did, chances are he wouldn’t have lunch with another woman without his wife present either, even if it’s only to discuss business. Why should it matter, how he interacts with women? Well, he does have the second highest office in the land, and presumably, because of Romans 13:1 his authority is presumed to come from God. In that sense, he sets an example for the rest of the nation. Does God really care about a man having dinner with a woman he’s not married to? Is there any justification in the way the VP interprets Scripture?
Well, let’s see. The Scriptures tell us to avoid temptation. In a sense, dinner, which usually takes place in the evening, thereby being closer to bedtime than lunch, combined with drinks, and a woman in an evening dress, and a well-dressed man…Yes, it’s possible that at least one party may be tempted to induce the other into the sack. But is it really fair to conclude that dinner with someone, whom you may not know except on a professional level, and dinner to discuss business with, would lead to getting laid? Is it fair to either judge the woman as having lustful motivations, or to penalize another person because you are afraid of being tempted toward that direction?
Did Jesus, say that having dinner with “another woman” is an abomination, even if it’s to discuss business? What did Jesus say? He said that he came not to change any part of the Law. Does the Law have anything to say about it? At first glance it seems that Paul, a Jew who became a disciple of Jesus, infers that the Law says that women are to act in a certain manner, different from men. He says in 1 Corinthians 14:34, “The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.” This passage is said to be derived, indirectly at least, to Deuteronomy 28:49 which says, “The LORD will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand…” Really? While some may say that women speak in a language that men ‘do not understand,’ are all women from ‘a nation against us?’ If that were the case, would it not be sacrilegious to, say, give women the right to vote? This could be another topic, which can be discussed in another time, but to the matter at hand…
Yes, 1 Corinthians 14:34 says that women should keep silent in churches and should be in submission. But scholars have said that this meant that women are to say nothing, and to learn what is being said by men and to draw their inferences by what men do. But that is not to say that a woman cannot tell a man what she has learned, if she doesn’t exert some authority by saying, for example, ‘That’s the way it is to be.’ And in a way, this is an answer to those who believe that if women are to be silent and say nothing in church, they should be silent and say nothing every place else.
The Bible provides an example of women telling a man what they know. This is in Acts 18:24-26 which says as follows: “Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the SYNAGOGUE, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, THEY TOOK HIM AND EXPLAINED TO HIM THE WAY OF GOD MORE ACCURATELY.” They didn’t say to him ‘This is the way it is to be,’ they merely conveyed to the man what they knew.
In that vein, there is noting wrong with the VP having dinner with another woman, without his wife present, to seek her advice.
Seen from another angle, what if the VP actually sees women as being from another nation, like Paul may have believed? Well, on that level, the VP of the U.S. being the VP of the U.S. should immediately distant himself from his wife, who conceivably could have designs to destroy the U.S. if we take it to a certain conclusion! On another level, if the VP feels that a woman at dinnertime may be looking to compromise him, a woman whom he otherwise doesn’t know, then what does Jesus say in the VP’s Bible? He says to judge not that ye be judged, since the same measure you use to judge others will be judged upon you. And what does Galatians 3:28 say, it says “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and FEMALE, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”? It is better not to judge, then, until you can see for yourself in some way?
And we should consider that if a person is so weak in character that he can be easily tempted to act contrary to what the Bible says, then how much of a devout Christian can he really be? And how much of an effective leader can he really be?
-
1
- Show all
