Did Jesus Say That?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

newton3003

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2017
437
42
28
#1
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?
 
Apr 8, 2019
46
75
18
#2
I'll take a crack at this why not. First off I am Canadian so I do not have a strong opinion on American politics, I do not support one side over the other in your country.

I think part of it may be how these days any man who runs for public office gets accused of some sort of sexual misconduct. If he never spends time with other women then his opponents will not have ammo to use against him.

Also there are many traditions and small things that Christians all over the world do yet were never mentioned in the bible as things we must do. My belief is if doing these small things makes one feel closer to God then what is the harm in it, (obviously so long as what you're doing is not a sin) so if your VP feels that this makes him closer to God then I say let him be.

Just a few thoughts from me, interesting topic though. God bless.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#3
I'm also Canadian, though I do have opinions on American politics. That aside....

What the VP does is apply biblically sound wisdom. As JustinTime noted, the issue is protecting himself against accusations. He is avoiding both the actual sin, and the appearance of sin, which Paul clearly addresses. The lunch/dinner issue is irrelevant, unless the VP has specifically stated that he would have lunch alone with another woman, or that he has done so. Did Jesus address this issue directly? No, nor did He address a million other scenarios that arise in the lives of believers.

Frankly, I find your comment about his character just silly, and I think you're making mountains out of bumps not even large enough to be called molehills.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#4
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?
Let's put this in context.

You really dislike the VP...
so you want to go after him by making a big doctrinal argument of some TEENY TINY INSIGNIFICANT THING that nobody is concerned about in the least, and which isn't a doctrinal issue at all.

If you dislike the VP that's fine.
Fine.
I really don't think anyone cares.

Just say you dislike him, and we can all move on.

It isn't necessary to blow tiny mole hills up into mountains.

..



.
 

newton3003

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2017
437
42
28
#5
Let's put this in context.

You really dislike the VP...
so you want to go after him by making a big doctrinal argument of some TEENY TINY INSIGNIFICANT THING that nobody is concerned about in the least, and which isn't a doctrinal issue at all. .
The issue is, can a person who expresses his Christian belief act in a manner not supported by the Bible and still call himself a Christian?

Or, to put it another way, some may assert that the Bible's telling us to avoid the appearances of sinful behavior justifies a person's acts to that end. Is that more important than loving thy neighbor, judging not, and regarding everyone as equal?
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#6
The issue is, can a person who expresses his Christian belief act in a manner not supported by the Bible and still call himself a Christian?

Or, to put it another way, some may assert that the Bible's telling us to avoid the appearances of sinful behavior justifies a person's acts to that end. Is that more important than loving thy neighbor, judging not, and regarding everyone as equal?


Now you're actually CHANGING THE ISSUE you originally brought up in the OP... and trying to hide and obscure your original point.

The issue you FIRST BROUGHT UP in the OP is that of attacking the doctrine and character of the VP because HE'S CAREFUL ABOUT HIS DINNER COMPANIONS.

That is the issue you raised.

And it's a ridiculous issue to raise.

It's petty and ridiculous.

If you want to go after the VP about something substantial, go right ahead.
Go ahead.
Go get him.
But to attack him because he's mindful of his dinner companions... is just ridiculous and petty.

Why don't you "man up", admit you just don't like him, and try attacking him for something that's actually substantial.
I always assumed, since Pence was a political insider, there were probably a lot of things wrong with him, but if his adversaries can't come up with anything more substantial than this... his adversaries have renewed my confidence in him.


Conclusion:
1.
You've attacked the VP over something entirely ridiculous and petty... proving nothing more than YOU are being ridiculous and petty.

2. You've completely missed the fact that Pence, at least in this particular matter, is properly employing a host of biblical principles: a.) being vigilant toward temptation b.) being vigilant toward adversaries and their traps c.) being repectful toward your wife by avoiding any appearance of evil.
This all adds up to show YOU know nothing about the Bible.

3. You've gone back and deceptively attempted to revise the whole point of your argument, because it wasn't holding up in debate.

* A wise person, after making so many errors, and showing complete ignorance of scripture, would just walk away, and hope everyone forgets.

..
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,173
113
#7
Meh he could have had good reason maybe that particular woman that he was asked to have dinner with was an unbeliever/idolator and Jesus says not to eat with idolators.

I corinthians 10.

I dont think you should make a huge issue of it or question his faith after all its his own decision whether or not to go. Maybe he just prefers his wifes home cooking.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#8
The issue is, can a person who expresses his Christian belief act in a manner not supported by the Bible and still call himself a Christian?

Or, to put it another way, some may assert that the Bible's telling us to avoid the appearances of sinful behavior justifies a person's acts to that end. Is that more important than loving thy neighbor, judging not, and regarding everyone as equal?
Hypocrite much?

Your argument is a demonstration of ignorance with regard to scriptural teachings. You don't love your neighbour by allowing them to dictate how you live your life. You don't love your neighbour by abandoning your own sense of right and wrong. You don't "judge not" by tossing discernment and vigilance to the wind. You don't regard everyone as equal by overlooking the reality of gender and sex.

As for "a manner not supported by the Bible", that is just ridiculous. The Bible does not even begin to articulate every behaviour we are to adopt or avoid. As a Christian, the VP has the Holy Spirit within, Who gives him guidance appropriate to his situation. You aren't being asked to act like the VP does, and you aren't authorized to sit in judgment over him.

It's time to drop this and move on to something meaningful.
 

TM19782017

Active member
Dec 15, 2018
256
158
43
#9
Trying to analyze and understand another Christian’s walk from the view of our earthly eyes is only gonna see SOMETHING that appears to fall short of perfection.....We all fall short.
Only God can see ones heart and learning to not judge another’s path is essential to keeping our own sense of self(EGO) down.

I use to do this all the time....Look at others worse than me in order to feel better about my current state......What I could not see was, the same people I may have saw below me, God had the ability to bless them and shoot them miles ahead of me in an instant.
 

NotmebutHim

Senior Member
May 17, 2015
2,917
1,589
113
47
#10
If the VP really feels that it would be sinful to be with a woman other than his wife under certain circumstances, then if he were to go ahead and do it anyway, he would be accountable to God for that. Whereas a man who doesn't see an issue with it ( hopefully he would have discussed it with his wife before or after the fact), he wouldn't be accountable in that way because he wouldn't be sinning.

As Paul also said in Romans 14, "To his own master he stands or falls".
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,555
13,320
113
#11
The Bible does not even begin to articulate every behaviour we are to adopt or avoid.
Point overstated. The Bible does begin to do that; it just doesn't get anywhere near articulating every behaviour.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#12
If the VP really feels that it would be sinful to be with a woman other than his wife under certain circumstances, then if he were to go ahead and do it anyway, he would be accountable to God for that. Whereas a man who doesn't see an issue with it ( hopefully he would have discussed it with his wife before or after the fact), he wouldn't be accountable in that way because he wouldn't be sinning.

As Paul also said in Romans 14, "To his own master he stands or falls".

Good point; we are accountable to obeying our conscience.


1. There ARE many principles in the scripture about being cautious, prudent and vigilant, which we need to take seriously.

2. But regardless of those, we ALWAYS have an overriding principle of a genuine necessity for obeying our own conscience.

3. I'd really prefer not to defend Pence, since I'm a bit skeptical of ALL politicians... but it's ridiculous to attack a man when he actually says something wise and prudent, lol.

.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
7,417
3,468
113
#13
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?
This is just a wise policy for men to adopt in this #Me Too age...

Any woman can accuse any man of sexual abuse and in this age the policy is to always believe the woman who is making the accusation.. So if a man is wise he will do everything he can to avoid any situation where he will be alone with a woman.. The Me too witch hunt can destroy any man if he cannot prove himself innocent of the accusation.. So a policy to avoid having dinner with a woman in private is a understandable and wise precaution for any man ( especially a man with wealth or social status, thus a target for false allegation ) to take..
 

newton3003

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2017
437
42
28
#14
1. There ARE many principles in the scripture about being cautious, prudent and vigilant, which we need to take seriously.
.
Yes, among the behaviors the Bible articulates is to be cautious, prudent and vigilant. The Bible also infers that we be cautious, prudent and vigilant WITH CAUSE. This is where the wisdom that is discussed in Proverbs comes in, i.e., the wisdom in fearing God to know whom to be cautious, prudent and vigilant against, and whom to accept as a neighbor.

To be cautious, prudent and vigilant against people just because of their gender is what is really silly in the least, and destructive at the worst. It’s also a form of prejudice, as in PRE-JUDGING people, and it goes against Galatians 3:28.

Does an officeholder carry out God’s authority by being prejudice?
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,261
2,386
113
#16
Yes, among the behaviors the Bible articulates is to be cautious, prudent and vigilant. The Bible also infers that we be cautious, prudent and vigilant WITH CAUSE. This is where the wisdom that is discussed in Proverbs comes in, i.e., the wisdom in fearing God to know whom to be cautious, prudent and vigilant against, and whom to accept as a neighbor.

To be cautious, prudent and vigilant against people just because of their gender is what is really silly in the least, and destructive at the worst. It’s also a form of prejudice, as in PRE-JUDGING people, and it goes against Galatians 3:28.

Does an officeholder carry out God’s authority by being prejudice?


Again, you just show a complete lack of Biblical understanding.


1. Christians are called to be vigilant at ALL TIMES toward ALL THINGS, and ALL PEOPLE... and for good reason.
* 1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
We are told to test, and prove, and check and verify ALL THINGS... this is referring to both people and situations.
Why?

* Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
* Rom 3:10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one;

ALL PEOPLE ARE SINNERS!
God, in HIS wisdom, tells us to test and check EVERYTHING and EVERYONE because ALL people are sinners; ALL people are sinners, and therefore we have to tread carefully at ALL TIMES.


2. If you think gender isn't an issue in our "vigilance", then you are ignorant of both God's word and of human nature.
A.
In just the Book of Proverbs alone, in just that one book, God tells men over 20 TIMES to beware of bad women, because they'll destroy a man.
* Pro 5:3-5 For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil, but in the end she is bitter as wormwood, sharp as a two-edged sword. Her feet go down to death;
* Ecc 7:26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets,

B. God tells men over and over to beware of bad women, because women are a man's greatest weakness.
Pro 6:25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart; neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
C. Desire for a woman destroyed some of the greatest and strongest men in scripture... read the stories of David, and Solomon, and Samson. For that matter, start with Adam right in the Garden.
A woman is always a man's greatest weakness.
2Sa 11:2 And it came to pass in an eveningtide, that David arose from off his bed, and walked upon the roof of the king's house: and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon.


3. If we don't know which women may be bad, shouldn't we just let out guards down, and naively assume ALL women are virtuous, and ALL women will do us only good, and never harm?
No.

A.
Because we don't just magically "know" a person's heart or character, if we are to protect our own integrity, and obey God,
we are FORCED to remain vigilant at all times, and slowly use the principles of testing till things are proven out.
* 1Th 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
* 1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
* Psa 119:110 The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts.
* * Rom 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,

B.
We are told over and over to be "prudent"... this means to ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.
* Pro 14:15 The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.
* Pro 22:3 The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it.

God tells us over and over and over, to be prudent, to be vigilant, and to be watchful... because ALL humans are sinners, and because we do NOT know everyone's intentions.

4. Finally: to be vigilant is not equal to being unloving.
"Vigilance" does not mean to be unloving or unkind, it only means to employ prudence and caution.

You WRONGLY equate these things, and try to claim that because Pence wants to be CAUTIOUS and VIGILANT, he is also UNKIND and UNLOVING - this is a false dichotomy, and a false accusation.

It is ignorant to think "vigilance" must negate "love" and "kindness".
In our own daily lives, we prove this ourselves, over and over.

YOU would probably say you love your neighbors, especially your tangible neighbors who actually live next door to you.
However, you don't give your own neighbors the key to your home, and the key to your car, and the passwords to your email accounts and social medial, and your bank account numbers, and your checkbook, and your credit cards, and your wallet.
Why not?
Because YOU DON'T TRUST YOUR OWN NEIGHBORS IN EVERY POSSIBLE WAY.
You'd be stupid if you did.
You LOVE your neighbors, but you are still VIGILANT IN APPROPRIATE WAYS.
YOU have both love, and vigilance, toward the same people!
Stop being so hypocritical.
YOU don't trust everyone.
If YOU don't trust everyone, then why should Pence?
Stop being hypocritical.


If YOU are both loving and vigilant at the same time, and you are...
then anyone else can do the same.

Stop being a hypocrite and attacking Pence for using the same two principles YOU use.





Conclusion:

1. It's fine to dislike Pence; dislike him all you want.

2. However, trying to find fault based on your own complete ignorance of scripture... well, that just shows your own complete ignorance of scripture.

3. I won't even mention the hypocrisy again, it was covered thoroughly in point #4.
..
..
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,167
12,764
113
#17
So, where does, say, his refusal to have dinner with a woman without his wife present have to do with the Christian religion?
Read the book of Proverbs for starters. Mike Pence is perfectly correct in refusing to have dinner (or any kind of meeting) with a woman all by himself.

That would simply be opening up an opportunity for Satan to attack him through false accusations about impropriety, sexual harassment, sexual assault, and all kinds of nonsense to smear his reputation. The media and the Left-Liberals hate Christians, and would love to attack him regardless of what he does.