sex rules!!
March 14th, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
ok, married people, sex does rule (cue 80s lingo flashback…now).
but that’s not what we’re going to talk about.
i’d like for us to discuss THE sex RULE.
“the rule” (for lack of a better term) that most churches have which states a married woman and a married man cannot be alone (car rides, office time, counseling, meals, travel, etc.) with a member of the opposite sex that is not his or her spouse.
all of the churches i have been employed by have “the rule.”
yet, i was talking with a friend who is also on staff at a church who does not have the rule. he thinks it’s a little legalistic.
another friend said,
“you know that whole theory where people live up to the expectations set before them? to me, this rule says, ‘we don’t trust you to make wise decisions on your own, so we’re enforcing a rule that might help keep you out of trouble.’ of course people are still having affairs and getting involved inappropriately. they’ve already been told they can’t be trusted!!”
one church i was on staff at a while back had the rule, and yet within a couple of years, four staff members, including three in public leadership, had affairs. and this happens all the time. to churches with “the rule” in place.
so…what do you think? is “the rule” necessary? should husbands and wives involved in church leadership set “their rule” instead of the church? does it really prevent anything? or is it a darn good idea that protects leaders? what do your “rules” look like if you have any??
Church · Leadership · Marriage · Sex
Molly said,
March 14, 2008 at 12:59 pm
I know that alot of church’s have that rule for their employee’s…my husband and I have that rule for ourselves. There is never an occassion where one of us needs to be in the company of someone of the opposite sex outside of an occassional doctors appointment.
I don’t see it as being legalistic. I see it as honoring my spouse.
Blake said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I think the rule is less of “staff members cannot be trusted” but more of “the general public’s perception cannot be truested.” Like if someone saw two staff members of the opposite sex (married or not) getting into a car together, sadly some people are going to raise their eyebrows at it.
I wish it wasn’t true. But for our church is it more guarding against rumor and perception than actual behavior.
But what about a man and woman meeting for lunch or coffee at a very public place and arriving on their own? How does that fit in the “RULE”?
Paloma said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I’ve been a “lurker” here since your Uganda trip…and thought i’d introduce myself and comment at the same time! So, Hi. I love your blog.
Anyways. Being that I’m not married, nor employed by a church I may have a limited view of this rule. BUT, I see it a few different ways.
I know that part of the reason behind the rule is the possibility that being with someone of the opposite sex, other than your spouse/family, might “suggest” something. If you know what I mean. And churches don’t want to imply anything bad.
Also, you never can be too sure of the mental state of others. Spending alone time with them, in any way, could lead them to believe false things. This is dangerous.
Also, with “the rule” in place, it protects agains accusations of improper behavior.
All of those are good reasons, as long as the person/people/staff in question actually apply the reasons behind the rule to their lives. Their whole lives. Living out of respect and honesty towards others…especially their spouse and those they minister to.
And, like Molly said, there is not often a “need” to be alone with them. Although, if the rule is applied to counseling it could become diifcult for women, being that churches mostly employ men.
It all comes down to the individual for me. But guidlines are good. Setting a standard is good.
joshua said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:10 pm
i actually just posted about this very subject on my blog… here are the rules we have to follow at cedarcreek church. i hated them at first, but now they don’t really bother me and i am quite ok with them. we adopted the list from saddleback church.
Thou shalt not go to lunch alone with the opposite sex. *
Thou shalt not have the opposite sex pick you up or drive you places when it is just the two of you.*
Thou shalt not kiss any attender of the opposite sex or show affection that could be questioned.*
Thou shalt not visit the opposite sex alone at home. *
Thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex alone at the office, and thou shalt not counsel the opposite sex more than once without that person’s mate. Refer them.
Thou shalt not discuss detailed sexual problems with the opposite sex in counseling. Refer them.
Thou shalt not discuss your marriage problems with an attender of the opposite sex.
Thou shalt be careful in answering emails, instant messages, chatrooms, cards or letters from the opposite sex.
Thou shalt make your co-worker your protective ally.
Thou shalt pray for the integrity of other staff members.
* The first four do not apply to unmarried staff.
(more info about this, check out my post that i recently wrote on the topic… http://www.loveisgreaterthan.com/wow-my-heart-breaks)
Jeff M. Miller said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:12 pm
I second some of the comments above. I don’t see the rule so much as a preventative measure for the staff, as it is a perception control for the general public/church membership.
Unfortunately for most church cultures, having a staff that lives above reproach is not enough. There is the need to also “look” like you’re living above reproach, even if that means going to some extra measures in relationships.
Linda Sue said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Even the appearance of evil taints a ministry - if it was good enough for Billy Graham - it won’t hurt anyone else. We have had agony in a couple of churches over what LOOKED LIKE a sin of the flesh - whether it was or not didn’t matter once it reached the point of being seen and remarked on by school kids from the school associated with our church. I accompany my husband on repair calls (we manage property) simply to give him the protection of having his wife present. In this world people are accused unjustly ALL the time. I’m not cynical or bitter. I trust and love most of the men in my life - but I have one Lord and one reputation as a follower of Christ - being old and not so hot helps me a lot in avoiding the appearance of evil! Also no longer working as church staff lifts some of the burden. I’m not making light of this - it is deadly (as in marriage killin’ church ripping up death) - but we have to laugh at some of it.
From your link to Deadly Viper - Character Assassin
john in colorado said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Molly, Blake and Paloma are all right on the money. Perceptions, wrong signals, honoring, suggestions. The church where I work does not have the rule. I have the rule for myself. If I need to break the rule, I call my wife and tell her so that she knows what is going on and does not have suspicions.
Paloma said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:17 pm
one more thing…I think it also has to continue into physical behavior and affection. not just who is what room etc.
Body language and the way you interact says a lot about the reason for meeting…
I think someone’s life must back up the “rule” in the way they respond to others in order for it to be taken seriously. Even the way a woman responds to, lets say, a Pastor in public can be a total issue of lack of respect. Just like anyother interaction, people in ministry come across people who are innapropriate and I guess the “rule” helps with that.
West said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:18 pm
I need the rule…I think.
Anyway, I think it should be up to the person and his/her spouse. (Depending on his/her history, of course) The church shouldn’t place the rule…like others have suggested, it automatically makes one feel like they’re being treated like a child.
But then again, there are situations like reggaemuffin mentioned in his blog about that guy from Long Beach….and then there’s the former worship pastor from Crossroads in Corona……I can see how a church would “want” to do it, I just don’t think they “should”.
Nate Hov said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I believe if you are going to have “the rule” that it should be self imposed not mandated by the Church, Paul was clear about out lack of ability to control our selfs in 1 Corinths who knows what someone is going through at home ect…
I think it is possible that this could lead to temptation but thats a personal choice we have to make to no put our selfs in those situations not Church rule.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:21 pm
as the male spouse of an LC staffer I love this rule. my wife is the only female staffer and it is an absolute must - also, as a former personel/fiancne church guy let me tell you why.
there is a verse somewhere that goes “even the appearance of evil” (theologians, help me out) - that’s the perception part.
i know our staff totally trusts each other but
- (i also know that my wife is hot and the other staff spouses (females) are totally jealous of her looks - plus she’s 20 yrs older than any of them, she also shaves BOTH of her legs at one time, but I digress) -
the rule is to protect any and all - even an unproven accusation will kill a minister’s ministry - he said vs. she said, that’s why they have the rule
Dan said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:23 pm
From the very beginning God gave Adam & Eve a choice.. To me having rules like this is definitely legalistic. When leadership makes any decision for you, they have taken away the God given desire that we make our own decision. This is why things happen behind closed doors even within churches having “the rule”… Even then, we still have a choice.
That being said, we can’t throw caution to the wind and put ourselves in a compromising situation simply because there isn’t a rule. The key is to walk in the spirit always. Gal 5:16
Phil Thompson said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:24 pm
We have “the rule” at Legacy Church for married couples,but again, it comes down to a heart issue. If our hearts get off base we are capable of anything, right? I know i am, so my wife and i keep each other accountable, not because we don’t trust each but because we want to protect each other and we are aware of the tremendous spiritual attacks on our relationships.
Jenny867-5309 said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:26 pm
We’ve worked in churches that get a little carried away with the rule. Maybe it feels a little carried away since it’s tied in with other churchy “rules” that seem to get in the way of you just doing your job. How do you do what you’re called to do with this rule? (meaning with male pastors)
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:32 pm
when there is an accusation you will wish you had followed the rule
Kenyon said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I agree with what Nate Hov has to say about this. However, after scanning through some of the responses one thing that bothers me is a seeming inconsistancy with its application. Why should “the rule” apply only to married staff? That makes no sense to me…IMHO singles are MORE susectiple to this than married folk simply becuase loneliness issues seem to more of a problem. (I am not saying that single people are incomplete, simply that as a single loneliness is a more issue and vulnerablity.) I think the rule should be self imposed…encouraged by the church leadership and talked about…but not imposed. I would take the same approach toward the use of alcohol as well.
Amy said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:34 pm
It can protect you from false accusations.
Greg Atkinson said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Good post. I’ve always been at churches with “the rule”. Though I agree that whether you have “the rule” in place or not, people may still have affairs, etc.
I’ve always viewed the rule as protection against false accusations. If I’m never alone with a woman, she can’t say that I came on to her, etc. It protects the church staff member from that potential danger. There are people out of the ministry just because of an accusation.
david said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I agree with joshua’s “thou shalt not”s to a degree… The counseling aspect is just good ol’ common sense. If my pastor is counseling a female, he’s got his wife at his side if the door’s got to be closed. If his mate is unavailable, he’s got me or one of the other guys in leadership with him, and the door is open, open, open WIDE. My pastor would never in a million years, etc. and so on… but like Anne said in her emotional affair articles- we’re all flawed humanity. Besides- who wants the “chatty cathys” (no offense to anyone named ‘Cathy’) having something to gossip about- no matter how ridiculous.
As for me, I’ve been approached by well-meaning-but-invasive people questioning my integrity and the whole “abstain from all appearance of evil” misquotation. And then I do my best to check my heart (1) because I’m naturally going into defensive mode, and there may be some truth to the confrontation, and (2) evaluate my interactions with the gal in question to make darn certain I’m keeping my head clear.
And if there’s really no issue (which is typically the case) I file the caution, deal with the defensiveness, and ignore the misplaced criticism.
Anjuan said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm
I don’t think it makes sense to argue that a rule is invalid just because people choose to break it. If we only supported rules that no one violated, then could have no rules.
I think that churches should be able to make rules as needed in order to “avoid even the appearance of evil” among the their members. Leaders should “have a good reputation with outsiders” which I think also is a good characteristic of everyone in the church regarding the perceptions of non-church members. So, this rule helps avoid “raised eyebrows”, as Blake said, from believers as well as unbelievers.
I hate to overly emphasize current events in the secular world when it comes to discussing church business, but think about how Eliot Spitzer’s life would be different right now if he implemented “The Rule” in his life. The church has seen it’s fair share of Spitzer-like scandals resulting in extreme wounds to church effectiveness as well as near-mortal blows to our credibility as believers.
My church does not have this rule, but I do implement it in my own marriage. I think it is wise to “build hedges” around marriages as Jerry B. Jenkins suggested, and these hedges setup boundaries that protect the sacredness of the husband-wife relationships. Churches would do well to build such hedges around their members as well.
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Because, as my husband would agree, I LOVE PLAYING DEVIL’s ADVOCATE…please take the following as such:
Why SHOULD “the rule” apply to only married people? Single people can get it on too…
“Avoiding the appearance of evil” What about people who can say… I drive a nice car…should I not? Does it give the appearance I am materialistic? I am overweight…am I evil? Because I don’t take care of my body? I speed…am I evil? Because I am breaking the law.
You have to wonder who says what “evil” is…now, I worked in corporate America before I was married and having lunch with a guy was almost necessary to do my job. A friend of mine’s wife would pretty much lose her job if she didn’t spend time alone with men because of her industry. What about cops whose partners are the opposite sex?
Avoiding the “appearance of evil” is important, yes…but is (hypothetically speaking) having coffee with one of my best friends who I haven’t seen for years evil in appearance? Who’s judging that? This social event is a commonplace happening for “outsiders”…. Will people naturally assume we’re sleeping together because we spent 30 minutes at a Starbucks?
I think this has little to do with appearances and much to do with our hearts…
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:42 pm
so what about drinking a little bubbly and being alone with a member of the opposite sex that’s married when you are single
i would also bet a lot of $ that most of the bloggers on here are under 30, dreamy eyed with ministry opportunities and have not experienced much of what we’re discussing - i.e. ‘you made a pass at my wife in the church office’
you have to write a novel to cover all situations - try this one - you can’t be alone with the opposite sex
Douglas said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Wow. Just, wow.
Maybe my church has this rule. I wouldn’t know. It wouldn’t change my opinion of such an antiquated mindset being codified.
How about this rule: Don’t cheat on your spouse.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:46 pm
douglas - one does not have to cheat to be accused - you’re totally missing the point
Douglas said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“Will people naturally assume we’re sleeping together because we spent 30 minutes at a Starbucks?”
Do they have a backroom for making-out at Starbucks now? I only use the drive-thru.
kari said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm
I was listing to a great message by Andy Stanley the other day about setting boundaries in work relationships with women. HE sets them for himself. I think that’s great. The only thing I wrestle with is as a woman being thought of as a “temptation” rather than an intelligent, equal counterpart. So he doesn’t ride in cars alone with women or eat lunch alone with them. As I listened I wondered how his business relationships with female counterparts stack up with the guys. Unfortunately, in the message, he didn’t address how he reconciles this challenge, which I’m sure he somehow does. (Just so I’m clear, nothing against Andy. He’s a strong supporter of women in ministry.)
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:49 pm
On a side note…at another church…I broke the rule…twice…in one night. My only ride in LA was a guy. And I had coffee with a friend, also a guy. Who was on staff. At a church.
!!!
All with my hub’s trust and permission.
And once, when I wasn’t on staff at a church (a short sabbatical if you will…) I had coffee with another male friend.
All okayed by my man.
Communication…trust…key.
When we have had issues and struggles we talk about them. I never have to wonder if he isn’t telling me something and vice versa. We set this precedence in our marriage and will continue to.
I realize the importance of submitting to the authority so if a church I work for has the rule, I will abide to the best of my ability.
West said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm
gets out the popcorn and a coke.
jenny said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm
I’m sure churches all have this rule among many others that I don’t know about for their staff. To be honest, especially for a man, I believe this is a good internal rule to have when working with members of the opposite sex.
My dad was in management for years and he never went anywhere alone with a woman or closed his door/shut the curtains in his office when meeting with a woman - or anyone. That way, he could never really be charged with harassment or any other horrible allegation.
This rule won’t stop the ones who want to get involved beyond friendship, but it’s good for those of us who want to keep a clean nose in the workplace, church or no.
It’s sad, but that’s how it goes. I spend a lot of even innocent alone time with a colleague out of respect for my husband. Period.
Douglas said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:53 pm
No I’m not.
Having a rule like that is an insult to trust and expectation. It’s the same as wearing a burqa.
It implies that I can’t trust my wife nor she me. And that neither she nor I can trust you to think we’re not cheating with someone else when we ride or go somewhere with another person.
Avoid the evil; appearance of evil is in the eye of the beholder.
lynse leanne said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I think the rule is a safety….it is the apperance.
I personally am uncomfortable alone with men, except Chad. that was one way that i knew he was the one. For me it is a great rule that i can fall back on.
and apparently i am jealous because i dont like Chad having coffee or doing things with one other woman that is not me. If asked i would let him, but i dont want to find out about it later.
I think that the rule is needed…sometimes it is legalistic when you dont have any other rides and have to be inconvienced….but i htink it is a good rule.
jenny said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Whoops - I meant to write that I DON’T spend a lot of time alone with a colleague - especially male ones.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:54 pm
you guys/girls are still missing the point
i trust my wife - totally
but if one of your rides (anne) or *bucks (douglas) friends say that you made a pass at tehm or told them they were hot - you are simply sunk. in fact, i have fired staffers because a church member saw them together and believed they saw inappropriate behavior
you’ll still have your spouse, no doubt - you will be right, no doubt - you will be unemployed, no doubt.
Linny said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I agree with Molly. My husband and I ahve taken that “rule” to be our own, because we want to honor one another. The only man I will spend time with alone is my husband (of course besides other family members, but even when it comes to my brothers-in-law, I would rather have someone else present when alone with them). I think that it just reiterates that I am his only, and he is only mine. There is not temptation, not only for us, but for the person we may be alone with, that person will not be tempted to do anything, sometimes things happen that aren’t one person’e fault. I would just rather be alone with my own husband anyday.
Joe Louthan said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I am single and I live by this “the rule(s)”.
I don’t know a lot of things but I do know I have a lot of young adults who look up to me at my ye olde age of 32.
Half of those adults are females so I always have to be mindful, respectful and appropriate. While I am not in vocational ministry, I still give Godly advice, encouragement and direction when needed. So again the rules still apply to me.
Above it all, whether it be these kids, younger kids, married couples or guys who have been or going through a divorce, they are my flock and I have been charged to take care of them, watch over them and keep them.
Everybody knows that perception is everything. If any of my kids perceived that I was doing something not right, then that could be a done deal in their eyes. When will I have the chance to explain the situation? Better yet, how about I just avoid being in a compromising position to begin with.
I rather do the latter.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:57 pm
douglas - simply read the Word, my friend, read the Word and you will see you just stepped in it big time
telll you what - give me your #, i’ll have a church member call your wife tonight and tell her they saw you up close with Brenda, the church secretary, at the mall. let’s give it a try
yeidy said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm
are there any rules that protect you frm “Emotional Relationships”? You dont need to be alone to develop those and as Christians we can become quite experts at it…
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 1:59 pm
devil anne says:
i may be sunk and unemployed, but i know God’s protection is much bigger than all of that.
people can make accusations without being alone with you, too.
great thoughts, yeidy.
Douglas said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:07 pm
@tony - I am sad to hear you’ve fired people for reasons I suspect are litigious.
If my wife gets a call from a well meaning busybody regarding my trip to the mall with Brenda I suspect the caller will get more of an earful than I would.
Best of luck on the remainder of the comment thread y’all. I’m gonna duck out now.
ashlee said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Hmmmm.
Perhaps this dialogue does not sit well with me because of my single status.
One cannot legislate the heart (see Old Testament), and it seems like the more we try the harder we fall…. Perhaps it is due to the fact that ‘we’ begin to put our faith in the rules instead of the Holy Spirit’s leading and guiding in our lives….
On a practical note, most of these rules seem to prohibit a married male pastor from
-visiting a married woman in a hospital room alone
-assisting a married woman while husband was out of town with things that may arise (moving furniture, family crisis, child issue, etc.)
-sitting in waiting room with a married woman while husband was in surgery
All of these situations have presented themselves to me in the last couple of weeks, and although I am a single female (on a church staff) I did all of these things without ever thinking of the appearance/perception of impropriety…
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:11 pm
don’t be sad douglas - they broke the rule and I had no problem firing them for it
anne - if you break the LC rule you will be indeed
kari said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm
If my husband told his boss he couldn’t have private meetings with women because he might be tempted or someone might think he’s having an affair? He would get fired. I trust my husbands heart and, thankfully, he trusts mine. Furthermore, I’m not too concerned about nosy people who may feel the need to spread rumers about my starbucks lunch meeting. I trust that the truth will prevail.
Chris from Canada said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Guys, I think we’re missing a very important question here and, frankly, I’m quite disappointed in all of you church staffies not remembering to ask it.
What would Jesus do?
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I’ll bite - what would He do?
Crystal Renaud said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm
horribly unnecessary.
as is the drinking rule. and the wearing flip-flops in the office rule.
Mamaof2boyz said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Chris from Canada…you rock!!
I think ever sitution is on a case by case bases.
In my church we have that rule and the two people responsible for creating “The Rule Book” break it every time they have a meeting.
Do as I say not as I do right…
Reese said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:35 pm
I’ve always thought rules like that were really weird. Different forms of 2 questions always come to mind: Where is the trust? (meaning both between husband and wife and worker and church) and What is the risk? Especially in meeting in a public place.
I couldn’t follow that rule as I have more male friends than female and I would feel awkward marrying someone who had that rule.
I also view it as similar to the situation where you see a big red button labeled “do not push.” You really want to push it, and hey if you push it you might as well push it good.
ashlee said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Crystal…great examples! I agree with you that all three rules are horribly unneccessary…
candyce said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:37 pm
i’m a volunteer worship leader in a church plant. the church that ’sent’ us had a version of ‘the rule’. staff members weren’t supposed to meet (or ride) with the opposite sex one-on-one while away from the church campus. (on campus, they could meet in the atrium or in an office if doors/blinds were open.) off campus (ie–restaurants or starbucks), you could meet together if there was a third party present (ie–a married male youth pastor might take his wife or another leader along to meet with a female volunteer). i’m not really sure how this worked with single staff members; i’m pretty sure they were allowed to date. :)
our church plant doesn’t have a ‘church campus’ to speak of, though we have a coffeehouse that happens to be where we meet on sunday. i don’t think we’ve really discussed ‘the rule’ up to this point (we launched almost 2 years ago). we’re pretty small still with a small leadership team, most of whom are volunteers…
i think the rule is pretty good. it’s hard to apply practically in certain situations. i’m a single female worship leader. most of the volunteers i serve with are guys. our lead pastor, whom i meet with on occasion, usually in our coffeehouse, is a guy. when i was still involved in our ’sending’ church, i was mentored by the male worship pastor. i’m not even sure what ‘the rule’ would look like in our current situation. but in principle, i like the rule. i’ve been in situations where emotional boundaries were crossed between myself and a leader i served with (we were both single). so i’m ever-mindful of how i’m relating to guys i serve with.
hmm… maybe it’s not so much the rule-specifics that’s important but the mindfulness, the commitment to guard oneself and others. that’s important.
Crystal Renaud said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:38 pm
a few more thoughts: as a single woman on a church staff this rules make me feel like some sort of slut. like i am going to cause some married man to stumble because we’d be in the same car, room, office, elevator, whatever alone. are these married men really THAT weak? or further more that i can’t control MYSELF?
i’d say that’s an issue with their character and if takes drastic measures like keeping the marrieds and singles apart to keep it in their pants, then there are bigger issues involved than the geography between them.
yeidy, yes, you are absolutely right. it begins with the emotional affair. is never as easy as simply being alone together.
Crystal Renaud said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:42 pm
oh and maybe you’d like to clarify that the rule is not just for married people. it is hung over the heads of singles too.
joshua said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:47 pm
wow, i never really thought about it from the angle of a single female worker.
the rules we follow at cedarcreek that i listed above, clearly state the first four don’t apply to single people, but i never really thought about what it must feel like to be the single in the equation of single and married.
John Ireland said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm
man, was i slow to reply to this one!
now, back to our programming:
i am not on staff at my church, but i do know that is not a policy. to me, that is how it should be. it strikes me as micromanaging and sets a low bar of trust in the folks who likely have the capacity to set more effective means of establishing boundaries and accountability.
my wife and i have not made this “rule” part of our marriage and do not intend to do so. here’s the deal, though - we have full trust of one another AND we also share about our days; we talk about meetings we have had or will have. we truly would not think twice if one us returned home and said we went for a starbucks meeting with mr. or mrs. so-and-so.
so…is it “bad” to implement this? i suppose not, though i suspect it does not help much. people who choose infidelity will find a way, sadly.
Tyler said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I don’t think the rule is necessary because anyone who is married should have a rule of that in their head. A church shouldn’t need to impose anything because you are only putting yourself in a compromising situation by doing so.
Crystal Renaud said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:51 pm
kenyon, i am horribly offended by your statement that “singles are MORE susectiple to this than married folk simply because loneliness issues seem to more of a problem.”
some of the most lonely people i know are married.
i have seen 4 married people experience affairs on my church staff. not one example of these people were single or fell as a result of single people.
careful in your accusations.
Amy said,
March 14, 2008 at 2:53 pm
This rule was always applied for singles as well.
People can accuse you even without being alone with you, but if you know you never were and there are lots of witnesses to your interactions with said person, if they bring a lawsuit against you, it’s just going to go better for you.
Honestly, more than being a rule, I just think of it as being good common sense.
I work in a job that is not a church where I am behind a closed door with men at times.
I’ve tried to do things like leave the door open, but because I’m a reading tutor, they often don’t want anyone to hear.
I just hope for the best.
Anjuan said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I think one key point that is not being made is not being a stumbling block to others. This is probably a side effect of the spread of “narcissistic Christianity” in our culture.
Paul said in I Cor 8:13 that he would never eat meat again if it caused a brother to stumble. He was talking about immature Christians who had a problem with eating meat sacrificed to idols. Paul knew that he had complete freedom to do so as a Christian, but he submitted to how those young in the faith would view his freedom.
So, yes, many of you may able to be in a room full of nude members of the opposite sex and not full one iota of lust. However, I don’t think the nightly news (or, the “Chatty Cathy’s”) would have good things to say about it. So, yes, we do need to be aware of appearances and how they affect others even though we know we are not doing anything wrong.
Also, yes, I think it would be wise for single people to follow these rules as well. I can speak for myself and admit that I would have had a much more pure single life if I had done so. I am sure that many of you can say the same.
Regarding what Jesus would do, we have to understand that Jewish culture in the first century was completely different from today. Men and women lived completely separate lives unless you were married or closely related. This applied to all aspects of life. That is why Jesus’s disciples were so shocked to see Him talking alone with the woman at the well. I saw that gender based separation this carries over into the modern world when I went to the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem and saw that men and women had to gather in separate areas. The mixing of non-related men and women that we see today is a relatively new phenomena. The only time it happened before the modern era was during extra-marital affairs or visits to prostitutes.
Zak White said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:06 pm
The SEX RULE rocks! It “backs the line up” so far away from anything questionable…that’s why I love it.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:10 pm
crystal who uses phrases like ‘keep it in their pants’ is offended - wow just wow
i’m offended that she is offended
kari said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Jesus broke the “Sex Rules” of his culture and had close relationships with men and women.
Mike said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Tony - You said one does not have to cheat to be accused. Well, to take it one step further, one is not immune from accusations just because there is a “rule”.
I think Mega-Churches have made things like this necessary. When I was a kid at my little backwoods church there was no way that this could happen without someone knowing, and everyone would know if an accusation was false, because the staff knew each other intimately. But at many mega-churches sometimes the equivalent of divisional VPs don’t know half the people working under them. It is more a corporate atmosphere than a church one (I recently experienced this trend first hand).
Also for those of us in Youth Ministry, we are used to “rules” like this. For example, even talking for too long to a girl or group of girls, only side hugging, the list goes on and on. But with consenting adults I think it is a bit much.
The rule is not to protect the people, it is to protect the church itself. The fact is if someone wants to find some inappropriate behavior in a church they will. You can not prevent it. So we might as well give up with this being the reason behind it.
Where should we stop? Should women dress covered from head to toe so that men in the church will not have impure thoughts about them? After all if women didn’t wear tight jeans, skirts, revealing blouses like they did at the church I worked at, men wouldn’t have these thoughts in the first place.
Mike
West said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Anne, you hit the nail on the head. Trust between spouses….the heck with the public. If they want to gossip, that’s their sin.
Phil Thompson said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:17 pm
We have another rule that if you’re on staff at our church you MUST DRINK…just kidding. Beware of women who shave their legs!
West said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm
thanks yeidy for this one….being alone…by myself in my own head is what caused it.
you don’t have to be alone “with” someone……just in “hiding” emotionally and spiritually.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“Tony - You said one does not have to cheat to be accused. Well, to take it one step further, one is not immune from accusations just because there is a “ruleâ€.”
agree 110% - that’s why there is the rule. it’s much harder to accuse one of bad behavior when they are not seen together - no proof exists. the rule is made as a rational safeguard - i’ve told many a busy body to show me the proof or further, any indication that it ever could have happened - and it all goes away
“to heck with the public” now that’s a great ministerial quote - they will have your head on a ministerial platter
plus - even though all of your spouses are perfect, so were the ones that cheated, before they cheated….but yours are all exceptions I’m sure, just like Falwell, Gregory, etc. etc
Blake said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Did Jesus ever meet alone with a female for any purposes be they social or ministry?
Kristi said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We only have one rule that is similar - there must always be more than one adult present with children from our ministry.
Mike said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Wow Tony. I could never marry someone I felt that way about.
But to ask you, what “proof” could someone show you even if two people were together? Did they video tape them? Take a picture? Also what proof is there of wrong doing just because two people are seen together.
I recognize the need to protect the church, but lets call this what it is, an effort to protect the church. It has nothing to do with the people.
Yes Blake he did. I can think of the Samaritan woman off the top of my head. I am sure there are others.
Mike
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Kristi - this is an honest ?
is the rule in place becasue you don’t trust the adults or the kids?
anon said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:51 pm
i had to get “69″ comments off the page to avoid the appearance of this blog being evil. so here is comment 70.
(grin)
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:54 pm
who said anyone married someome that they felt that way about? who would rationally marry someone that they knew would cheat? the point is that they DIDN’t feel that way about them - and their trust was shattered, it happens on occasion you know
totally agree with the “protect the church’ thing - yes, yes, yes - that’s the point i was trying to get across. you absolutely cannot protect people from themselves, much less others. but you can build some small fences around major land mines
cathi linch said,
March 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Although I’m openly not a huge fan of “the rule,” I do understand the reasoning that it protects us from public perception - and from ourselves.
While this may be a little off-topic, pair “the rule” with your last post about being a woman in ministry–a field dominated by men. In that context, the rule presents some very unique challenges for women.
- I cannot step into a peer’s office and say “wanna run across the street for lunch?”–something that my peers (and superiors) do all the time with one another…
- If one of my peers and I need to attend the same meeting across town, we have to drive separate cars (at double the mileage).
- If one of my peers and I need to be at a conference or another out-of-town event, we must rent separate cars.
…all of the above are true UNLESS I work to find a third party (affectionately termed a “chaperone”) to go with us.
I’m not complaining. I understand The Rule. And I appreciate what The Rule is trying to defend. I also understand that The Rule presents some unique challenges to women in ministry, that I think (generally) men in ministry simply cannot fully appreciate.
candyce said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm
having served in kids-related ministries (youth and children), the sort of rule kristi refers to has to do with both protecting kids from potential abuse (priest abuse scandals, anyone?) and with protecting adults from accusation. it also protects the church from liability.
kid safety rules (along with background checks for those working with kids) are essential. there’s way too much crap out there, and you wouldn’t want the church to be the place where a kid got violated.
Tim Stevens said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:02 pm
It’s not about trust. It is all about perception. For many, perception is reality. It is truth. They already don’t trust churches or pastors or church leaders. They already think you are up to no good. When a married pastor gets in a car with his hottie assistant…he just put ammunition in the gun of the public.
Our mission is too important to get derailed into having to defend a baseless claim because of perception.
It’s an easy rule. At least we don’t have to wear ties or drink kool-aid.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:05 pm
canyce - bingo, thanks
douglas - this is what litigous means, be careful not to use big lawyer words to lawyers
John Ireland said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:06 pm
too bad this thread seems to have dissolved into jabs between various commenters…
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm
aye…
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:10 pm
By the way, Cathi Linch is my hero. And I will chaperone’s you any day!! :)
Yonas said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I’m a single person. I have a (married) friend of mine from church who has been helping me with decorating my place. We had to go shopping for materials, furnitures and things together all the time, normally about a few hours on the weekends..sometimes in the evening. I am also friends with her husband. THREE of us play on the worship team at our church. She helped me painted my living room one time till 10:30 at night.
No sins were ever committed (except I overspent on my sofa..but that’s different kinda sin), but people who might gossip about us…poor those people, they got their own issues to deal with.
It’s all about respect and love (either as one christian to another or as husband/wife).
I don’t read the bible often like some of y’all…the ignorant me can only say, I try to live my life as a freed Christian based on the New testament…with freedom and protecton from God Himself, not by rules of the old testament.
Hypothetically: If I were to be at a church practicing music at night..everybody left and I was the only person left with this woman (and say her husband is late picking her up), just to maintain the rule, I guess I should just say ‘bye’ to her..let her wait at the church by herself? Just another dysfunction/passive aggresive social rule nonsense.
(anybody want to borrow my soap box now???)
Kamsin said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’m neither married nor in ministry, but have been involved in ministry when this sort of rule was in place and when it hasn’t.
I have a couple of thoughts first one with regards to car rides isn’t it better to share a car in situations where two cars don’t need to be used (if you see what I mean) or if the female in the situation would otherwise be forced to walk alone at night.
The other thought is that by having this sort of rule it seems to imply that men and women cannot spend time in each others company without sex being implied somehow. Which seems to be reinforcing the sexualisation of the opposite sex which is so prevalent in the wider society. So rather than encouraging people to find ways to respect each other and relate to people beyond their sexual nature, the opposite actually happens.
Derrick Henslee said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I say that when people seem to push the boundaries and look for ways around “the rule,” THAT is cause for concern.
Frankly I just think it looks weird when people that are married or single and married travel together. I think people are kidding themselves if they don’t think it looks weird.
Part of this “Rule” is to protect what people might say about you and your character too.
I say, welcome whatever measures your church puts in place to safeguard your marriage.
bobby said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm
So many thoughts.
I was also painting my place recently. Went to buy paint rollers with a male friend. As we were leaving, I realized the guy at the counter probably thought we were gay (something VERY common in my town). Dang. Perception of evil. lol.
I’ve set the rule myself that I won’t be in my house alone with the opposite sex. Honestly, not just because of perception but I don’t trust myself that much sometimes. Do I think I would cheat? No. but I’ve seen too many others mess up and I don’t want to make it that easy.
However, I never understood the can’t be alone in public part. I mean…we’re in public. That’s the best part. Kinda hard to make out unnoticed in the middle of Starbucks.
At my last church we had a very clear never alone with the opposite sex in cars or public. Now the (ex)pastor is in an open affair.
And the funniest part to me. We couldn’t be alone in public, but there were lots of times, sometimes even late at night, that I was in the office with a female and no one else was there. We weren’t breaking the rules, but easily could have done the deed right there, but we better not go to coffee together! I even found myself having to drive somewhere separately from women old enough to be my grandma. Now that’s just kinda weird too.
Crystal Renaud said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:44 pm
amen, cathi linch.
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“too bad this thread seems to have dissolved into jabs between various commenters”
is this not a jab my friend?
it is too bad that people cannot discuss passionately w/o feelings on thier sleeves - aye
John Ireland said,
March 14, 2008 at 4:59 pm
tony…i actually tried to choose my words carefully; genuinely apologize for any offense taken
CJ said,
March 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm
i find it curious that we are having such an in-depth conversation about the “rule” but no conversation about the frequency of the rule failing. what does that say about about the church and it’s leaders? is it just that we are all humans who make mistakes? or that churches with all their rules are creating an environment where freely discussing marital problems or immoral desires is not encouraged?
this rule just seems like a band-aid approach to an issue that deserves more attention.
jess said,
March 14, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Ok, so I didn’t read ALL of the comments but I feel like I should say something since I’m the one who has to tell people about this “rule” when they first come to LC.
When I explain this to people I let them know that this is something that is inherent in our core values here. And that really it is for their own protection. The Bible talks about not giving any oppertunities to the devil. Not even a foothold. By having this “rule” we are protecting our staff and our ministry here. Has it always worked? No, not always. But I think we’ve had more times that it has worked than not. Everyone is VERY aware of this and does their best to uphold it. Accountability and integrity are HUGE and it is always coming down from leadership how important it is.
Bottom line for me: I’m just doing what God said. NO FOOTHOLD FOR THE DEVIL HERE. (It’s in Ephesians. You can look it up.)
John C said,
March 14, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Honestly, I find it cumbersome. I have female staff that work for me and we need to be able to go to multiple campus sites to do work. Its a big hassle to have to drive seperate. If people want to make some outlandish accusation because they were to see me in a car with a woman not my wife, then I think they need a life. I undestand all the protection issues and see why churches implement the rule, but in reality, if someone is going to have an affair, then riding in a car or having coffee in a public place will not be the way it happens.
I also understand the perception issue, but again, get over yourself. If you can’t trust your church staff then find another church.
nicky said,
March 14, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I agree with you CJ. It’s totally a band aid just like so many “christian rules” are.
I’ve never worked for a church but it would have been impossible to do my job as a social worker with this rule. Thankfully, my husband and I openly share the activities of our day, our emails, schedule, etc. He knew all my co-workers that I spent time with as well. I agree that trust and communication are central to protecting your marriage. More so than any rule.
Paloma said,
March 14, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Not sure if this has been suggested/covered yet, but my eyes hurt from reading more recent comments..so sorry if I’m repeating something…
Anywho…
It almost reminds me of the need to state outloud, for all to hear, that things said in confidence within a bible study/accountability group/recovery meeting etc will not be repeated elsewhere. Of course you trust them (or atleast I hope so if you’re being that open) but it’s still helpful to state it, and to hear it. Then there is no question.
And I still really think it is a matter of individual convictions and hearts, but when working with that many people, it is helpful to set ground rules…otherwise it’s unclear can be inconsistent.
Your pastor would probably not announce to the entire church that your family is looking for a new home for your puppy…because if he did, the person who wanted him to announce that they are looking for a new husband would probably cause a fuss. (weird example, but it kinda works right?)
Not that it’s entirely wrong to have people cause a fuss…people do that regardless. But it helps, it protects, it evens the (for lack of a better word) playing field.
Jesus was able to do everything without sin, so of course Jesus could be alone with women…He’s Jesus.
Also, I’m not saying everyone who spends alone time blahblahblah is gunna have an affair. Just to get that out there.
You guys all make good points. We’ll never all agree. That’s why we’re people, living out this Faith together…opening our eyes and trying to see how God desgined it all. Amen!
Yonas said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:00 pm
The fact that we have 90 people commenting on this and only 22 comment on leg shaving post that shows the real problem right there!!
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:03 pm
jess - let me first say i agree, which means nothing, i know.
my ? is - do you ever get pushback from the LC staff, specifically Anne Jackson, on this issue?
only kidding!
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:08 pm
yonas - i shaved my left leg in honor of the leg shaving post and feel well, kinda………………….weird
Yonas said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:16 pm
lol you too??
Los said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:19 pm
It is necessary.
Plain and simple.
Men and women can’t be friends.
One of them always wants the other in bed.
At least a little.
Los
Mike said,
March 14, 2008 at 6:54 pm
*lol* Nice Los.
Mike
In the end this is about the perception of the church. But to those who are unelect, they will always find something about the church to criticize. Not that we should not be aware of how we are perceived, but if we are always living in fear of giving people a reason to criticize the church, then we will be hog tied in our ministry.
steven.russell said,
March 14, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I just don’t see the point.
The rule seems to be in place so that people in the workplace “won’t get the wrong impression.”
Here is an idea. Stop the gossip.
I think the rule is needless.
And the idea that a guy and girl cannot be friends without it being sexual is silly.
steven.russell said,
March 14, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Another point was brought up by the previous poster.
At what point does the church stop caring about what people are saying about it and do what they do?
People are always going to criticize. And people within the church are going to continue to have affairs, struggle with porn, struggle with alcohol, etc.
To think “rules” are going to stop staff from doing it is as silly as the “rules” in te first place.
But alas. I have never worked in a church.
Tara said,
March 14, 2008 at 7:44 pm
It’s not a matter of appearances. It’s a matter of protection.
At the churches we’ve been at…it’s never been in the “by-laws” per say…but it was a personal decision that my husband…and most of the other pastors…made/make themselves.
Should the church dictate it? I don’t know how I feel about that.
I believe it’s necessary….men and women not being alone together. And, my husband and I have placed this “guideline” in our marriage.
In regards to it being a church guideline…the church already dictates so much of our lives…and it can get a little old after awhile. Our lives are secluded enough as it is. And…I can’t believe I just said that. :-)
tony said,
March 14, 2008 at 8:11 pm
100
Bobby Gruenewald said,
March 14, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I completely agree that this rule can be unfair for anyone whose gender is in the minority on a team (male or female). Unless of course, they don’t like going out to lunch…then I suppose it is a benefit :)
I’ve also found the rule to be significantly inconvenient at times.
“The rule” itself will not eradicate inappropriate relationships, eliminate the possibility of false accusations, or prevent everyone from a having negative perceptions, and I think it is extremely naive to assume those perfect results would be the outcomes of it. Whenever humans get involved…things tend to be full of imperfect results. It’s also naive to think that spending significant alone time with someone from the opposite sex (or same sex in some cases) won’t ever lead ME to an inappropriate relationship or false accusation because God is protecting me.
All-in-all, I really appreciate the rule. It stands a conscious reminder of the importance of appropriate boundaries. Even with it’s occasional inconvenience and times where it may be unfair, we have been so fortunate as an organization.
And a quick note about rules in general…Contrary to popular belief, Jesus did not come so that we could have a life without any rules. And…it would be legalism if it was somehow implied that this rule was required to be a follower of Christ…but I don’t think that is the case here.
Cathi and Anne…let’s go to lunch next week :)
Anne Jackson said,
March 14, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Bobby…
Cathi and I already had a lunch planned…but maybe we’ll bring you next time… :)
Cindy Beall said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:00 pm
From someone who has endured marital infidelity, trust me when I say this: Very few people PLAN to ever do anything with someone other than their spouse. The lofty idea that some of you are saying about “I trust my wife” or “It’s like saying that we’re going to do this or that” is a little bit on the naive side. When my husband stood in front of our family and friends over 15 years ago stating his undying love and devotion for me, he will tell you for certain that he would have NEVER been unfaithful.
Yet he has. And it nearly killed us.
There is nothing in me that thinks the rule is legalistic. It’s a smart rule that our leaders put in place because they’ve seen how unexpected infidelity is. The people who typically have an issue with this rule are people who think they’d never do “something like that”.
Does anyone ever PLAN to commit adultery? Not usually.
It just happens. And the Enemy has a hay day when it does.
My two cents.
jill said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:23 pm
(First off, I admit to not reading all the previous comment so I may just be redundant.)
While I don’t think there necessarily needs to be a “rule,” I like it. I like it as a married woman and I like it as the wife of a married man. I, personally, think it’s silly for any married man or woman to have a problem with the “rule.” Why would a married person care to be alone with a member of the opposite sex? Not to assume the worst, but why put temptations into place that don’t need to be there? Do I think that the “rule” makes it so no one ever has an affair - obviously not. But do I think that it doesn’t hurt anything - yes. I’m okay with any “rule” - be it personal or church - that leads us out of temptation.
Jenny867-5309 said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Jesus had an incredible ability to navigate, disregard or disobey some cultural/spiritual(man made) rules. He often did this when he wanted to bring the focus back on a relationship with God or his soveriegnty. There could possibly be situations, though rare they may be, that the Christ-like thing to do would be to give a ride. As a senior pastor you must evaluate the caliber of the leaders you have to determine their ability to navigat this thing we call life. Like our children rules are to protect them from their lack of wisdom or immaturity.
Jen’s husband - Jay
Los said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Yea. My heart has fluttered a few times for women who are not my wife. And the second men say that they dont, they are a step closer than I to the hanky panky.
Put your right foot in, put your right foot out
Tim said,
March 14, 2008 at 9:53 pm
What if your church struggles with homosexuality? The rule would have to encompass not being alone with anyone? I think the bigger picture is avoiding any view of impropriety.
Mike said,
March 14, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I had another thought along the lines of the perceptions of the “unsaved” of the church. At some point we begin to care so much about what they think it leads us to things like removing religious symbols from our buildings, to become “seeker” sensitive and water down what we do, because Heaven forbid people might get the wrong impression.
Maybe what people need to see is us not being so worried about what they think, but us doing our thing regardless of what they think. To see us worshiping in a way that is not comfortable to them. To see us trusting our spouses and co-workers in a way that they do not. Seeing us not responding to their criticism and still being who we are.
Perhaps they need to be uncomfortable in worship. To see that we are plainly different than they are. We do things differently and we interact with our world differently. We are not beholden to a reactionary public, we do not change who we are because people who wish us harm “might” gossip about us.
Heaven help us if the worst persecution we experience is someone gossiping about us.
Mike
PS As far as it being a rule in marriage that is a to each their own things. I know Sarah and I have discussed it and we will not have a rule like that. We are both completely comfortable with each others friends and trust each other totally. But I would not hold it against anyone who had this rule in their marriage either.
This is a rule to protect the church. Lets not fool ourselves into believing it is any more or any less and in this it will always fail.
BUSH said,
March 14, 2008 at 10:33 pm
great questions anne. i think it should be up to the couple to have their own rules. my wife & i try to stick to some kind of version of this rule. when i do photoshoots…especially if it is a woman that i’m taking pictures of i will have someone there with me as as assistant. it’s just a safeguard that i like to have in place…for myself & for my client.
i appreciate cindy beall’s comment & her honesty. no one sets out to cheat on their spouse. it’s a gradual thing that sometimes takes place. my parents went through this…so as cindy knows, i also know how someone can slip into having an affair. it doesn’t even have to be sexual…it can even be so much as an emotional attachment that is inappropiate.
should it be a set in stone, no exceptions to the rule??? not so sure. i think people should use their better judgement. to make them sign these modern commandments is about as silly as having a staff member sign a no drinking policy. it’s up to the person. of course that’s another blog post you can start. haha…as for me i’d probably work else where if i had to give up all things fermented.
Shanda said,
March 14, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I thought I would just throw out my own personal experience.
I have had several emotional affairs in my lifetime, some even as a church staff member. These men never even knew I felt anything, I could keep it hidden. But I found myself comparing my husband to them, wondering what it would be like to be married to them. I thought for a long time that I was the only woman who ever felt this way until I came across Shannen Ethridge’s Every Woman’s Battle. For me, the rule isn’t so much a rule as it is me safeguarding my sexual and emotional integrity. It’s all about my desire to guard my heart and the hearts of those I come in contact with. Proverbs 4:23
Shanda said,
March 14, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I forgot to say that I am now single, but I still follow this plan to maintain my integrity. I have to be very diligent in safeguarding my heart and keeping Christ my primary focus. If I find myself veering off the plan, I have people who will call me on it. Having a support system is key to my ongoing success. By the way, I didn’t cheat on my husband and have him leave me, he went home to Jesus four years ago.
Mike said,
March 14, 2008 at 11:04 pm
By the way, does anyone else see how this rule makes us sound JUST like modern day Pharisees?
After all what did the Pharisees do? They took God’s law (Do not commit adultery) and because they knew the people would not follow the rule they expanded the rule a bit. Soon the 10 commandments were over 600 “laws” and an outrageous number of “suggestions”.
Christ chided the Pharisees for drawing their own box around God’s Law so that although the people might break the Pharisees “laws” they would not sin against God.
Isn’t that exactly what we are doing here? Making “rules” that are not in Scripture in order that people won’t sin against God?
Instead of these “rules” shouldn’t we just say “don’t cheat on your spouse”?
Does this disturb anyone else?
Mike
Jeremy said,
March 14, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Quite honestly, the chances are…if I cheat on my wife, I have made that decision before I decided to be alone with a person of the opposite sex in the office, or go out to lunch with them, or ride in a car with them.
After all, Douglas MacArthur said, “Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind.”
John Ventry said,
March 14, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Here is a bit of irony on this rule. I was on church staff that had this rule in place. However, the lead pastor traveled a great deal and by himself all of the time. Guess what, the lead pastor had been having an affair for many years with a woman outside of the state when he was traveling on church business. In my opinion, rules cannot keep people from making mistakes if they really want to. It is almost like having a locked car, it keeps people out. However, if someone really wants to break into your car, they will do so if it is locked or not. It is kind of the same way with sin. If a person really wants to sin, they will find a way around it.
I generally think it is a good idea and it does help protect the organization from any lawsuits that may arise from a he said she said sort of thing.
Scott Williams said,
March 15, 2008 at 1:04 am
I agree w/ Bobby that the rule is inconveient at times…
Nice title “Sex Rules” I think I might be comment #115.
Carol said,
March 15, 2008 at 5:36 am
Anne, you have a such an amazingly incredible way of getting dialogue going! Being in the ministry as long as I have -35 yrs., I’ve seen hostility arise between couples….hence, the wife DOES NOT want her husband in the room with “another woman” and vice versa. I like what Yeidy said “emotional relationships” - hey call it what it is…yes, ladies do get emotional dependance on another man instead of their own husband. And the question is, if a husband has a kind, emotional support for the ladies instead of your wife, then that’s a train-wreck for your marriage. How about the scripture “Abstain from the very appearance of evil…” My take on this is why would you want to cause chaos in your marriage? If you both agree, then stick to your own iron-clad rules and boundaries!
Jason Boucher said,
March 15, 2008 at 7:34 am
The challenge often lies in whether it is an arbitrary “rule” or whether the intent of it becomes a matter of the heart.
In other words, if it simply stays as a rule - then it is only usefulness is compliance.
On the other hand, if your team has a talk about “the rule” and you can drill down to issues of the heart and how these things can effect one’s character, then that is probably more productive then just “sending out the policy” when it comes to relationships, appropriate or inappropriate with the opposite sex.
Blake said,
March 15, 2008 at 8:07 am
With this rule in place, how can single people ever date to find their future spouse? Or is the rule to “not be alone w/ another staffer of the opposite sex”? Is the rule limiting staffer aloneness or being ‘anywhere’ with someone of the opposite gender?
Linda Sue said,
March 15, 2008 at 9:30 am
Ya know - seems that a very good topic quickly goes to nit picky exceptions - you can find arguments about the Ten Commandments (not saying a church rule is the word of God - work with me people) - you know - is voting for American Idol making an idol (honestly have read that on a blog). Amen and HOORAY for los - he is right on - going back to the Billy Crystal Meg Ryan - movie When Harry Met Sally - men and women have inherent differences (hooray) and especially in the realm of friendships. Anne mentioned the problem of police people who have opposite sex working partners - that is absolutely a problem - talk honestly with police officers and most will say their spouses hate it when they ride with opsex. Our human nature is to push the limits of rules - one of the problems of legalistic churches (or jobs or marriages) is we want to see if we can put our little teeny finger in the fire and NOT get burned. Love the discussion - be gentle with one another - being passionate doesn’t disguise being combative. About the dating question - it is forever and has been a problem in any work situation - dating someone at work - it either gets hot or it goes cold - THEN how do you relate at work? Whew this is fun - Anne - you give the BEST parties. Thanks - sweet friends -and not so sweet people too - when in doubt - read the BOOK. One of our more rational pastors spoke on fruits of the spirit as a hierarchy - that you don’t gain the whole fruit bowl at one time - but once you have love - you get joy - then peace - and interestingly enough - the TOP banana is self -control. Funny how the Creator knows His creation so well. ’nuff said
jill said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:18 am
After finally breaking down and reading all the comments, I gotta say an “amen” to what Los and Cindy Beall said.
And I think the whole point of this “rule” isn’t to avoid those isolated moments when you might be alone with a member of the opposite sex but to avoid situations where you are repeatedly alone with a member of the opposite sex. However, what constitutes “repeated” - should we set a number? “Thou shalt not be alone with a member of the opposite sex more than 3 times a month.” That is where a generic “rule” just makes more sense.
My mother once told me that any time a woman has a close relationship with a man outside her marriage, she’s most likely looking for things in that man that she SHOULD be looking for in her husband. At the time, that statement didn’t sit well with me but now I totally get it. Like Linda Sue said, it’s all about the “When Harry Met Sally” syndrome!
ferris bueller said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:19 am
I didn’t follow the rule. When the accusations came, I had no protection after i admitted that I had broken the “rule”.
I was fired…and told to leave our community asap. I was now a liability.
I have children and a spouse who’s lives have been forever altered because I neglected the protection the “rule” afforded me.
Tony may piss you off, but he’s right,
It’s not hypothetical for me; it’s what’s left of my life.
Mike said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:40 am
I am sorry to hear that Ferris I really am. But an honest question.
Even with the “rule” in place would you have been protected? Couldn’t your accuser just as easily say you broke the rule and they saw you alone with such and such anyway?
The point is if someone wants to make accusations the rule does not protect the individual, either from accusations or from actual infidelity. I the church wishes to take action on these accusations they will, regardless of whether this rule is in place or not. The only purpose of the rule is to protect the institution of the church because they can then say (if an affair had happened) “Well we aren’t to blame, we did everything we could to prevent the affair, see, we have this rule, but they broke it and that is why they had the affair. The church is blameless in the matter.” The rule affords no protection to anyone except the church itself.
Your circumstances are tragic. But the rule would not have prevented it (you see in fact that it did not).
In the end it just turns us into the Pharisees. Aren’t the rules handed down from our glorious creator good enough?
Mike
Mary DeMuth said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:46 am
Part of this may be cultural. These rules would not fly in Europe. When we tried to do a men’s bible study and a women’s bible study, they balked. They absolutely did not understand the separation of genders like that.
This carried over into their personal lives too. Spouses going out with people of the opposite sex, etc. In a fraternal way. When I brought it up, I was one of those “rigid Americans.”
It made me think through everything. Now I’m more prone to enforce my own standards (which reflect my husband’s too). But, the thing is, I’m in an industry with men. My editor is a man, many publishing folks are men.
The best boundary I’ve experienced is simply stating that you’re wildly in love with your spouse. It draws a terrific line, both ways. There are times I have to be with other men in the industry, but we are always careful to be in groups, and do the “I love my spouse” talk to keep things up front.
I think it’s a little unrealistic to always say you’ll never be alone with someone of the opposite sex. It almost feels like everyone expects you to sin if you do. You can absolutely have integrity in those situations.
Anne Jackson said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:47 am
it’s been said a few times on here, “why would anyone married want to spend time alone with someone who isn’t their spouse?”
because i have friends that are of the opposite sex that i rarely get to see, and sometimes circumstances like location and time and travel could easily put me in an area to meet with them quickly (like, at an airport or a starbucks) to catch up.
most of the time when i travel, my husband does not go with me. we don’t have the money to make that happen.
and situations have come up in the past when i was away from home, and with my husband’s thumbs up, have met with a guy friend. he knows most of them to some extent anyway.
does this mean my friends fill a void in my life my husband should? no. they’re my friends.
do i appreciate the rule? yes. do i agree with it in all circumstances, no. do i think i am immune from cheating on my husband? no. i am perfectly capable of it. in fact, i wrote about it once here.
ferris bueller said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:49 am
don’t want to hijack this post, but Mike you raise an excellent question about the overall health of the church.
If our churches were healthier then we wouldn’t necessarily need all the rules. But they aren’t.
To your comment. I think the rule would have afforded me more protection simply because I could have denied ever being wherever and hopefully been able to prove that. Admitting that i broke the rule, game over.
I do agree that the church is the one primarily benefitting from the rule, but at least you have the hope of some ancillary coverage by following it.
ferris bueller said,
March 15, 2008 at 10:55 am
mike, i also think thhe rule is not so much about protecting you from some one saying that thaey saw you with so-and-so, but rather when the one you were alone with makes accusation. That’s harder to do if you are never alone with them.
I do think a lot of this stems from the fact that our churches are more institutional than organic and that we rarely if ever get a glance at real Biblical community.
John Ireland said,
March 15, 2008 at 11:20 am
agreed, anne…
and, here’s the deal: in those situations (for you or me), it is not the case that i want to see those folks ALONE; i simply want to spend time with them and make the most of an opportunity that might be rare.
why else would i want to spend time with someone of the opposite sex? because they are dear friends! remember that english does a poor job with the word “love”. the greek is much better - agape, philia, eros, and storge. it often is out of agape and philia love that i would want to spend time with someone who is female. again - alone may only be a necessity, not a choice. and, my wife would always know about that time together (and likely knows the person).
whooo…nuff for now!
Carole Turner said,
March 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm
As a 40 year old married for 14 years, I can only say, it’s a GREAT rule. Every couple thinks they can handle it, they are so inlove and so commited that they don’t need this rule or any others to protect their union. But I can say from having serveral friends suffer through infidelity as church staff members that it’s a good rule.
I’m sure you can live without that alone time with that male staffer,go to lunch with your husband and the guy staff member or just step back and try thinking about how this will effect other people, not just yourself.
It’s not living in fear or anything else,this and other things we do to protect our marriages are just wisdom plain and simple.
Yonas said,
March 15, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I have to add what I had said earlier about my friend. Interior design is her business and we have actually talked about this topic, based on a post on our church staff’s blog. So my friend, coming over to help me, was part of the business and I DO agree though with one comment that Anne posted (wow..I agree with Anne!) about the question “why would anyone married want to spend time with someone who isn’t his/her spouse” ESPECIALLY for dinner for two. I’ve experienced this watching an acquaintance going out with a married man for dinner and something in me is saying there’s a not-so healthy spirit in that situation.
Granted..that among other things, I do not wish to see that acquaintance (if you even can all it that) anymore.
Mike said,
March 15, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Again, if you want to have this rule in your message then I am all for it. But I don’t think it is a rule that should be applied blanketly to the community as a whole. Sarah and I will not have a rule like this. We don’t need it. But we have other understandings that I am sure some of you would find a little strange or unnecessary.
I think the person who made the comparison to a church rule against drinking was spot on.
Does it seriously not bother anyone that we sound exactly like the Pharisees of Christ’s time?
Also Ferris even with the rule in place, if you had obeyed it, what is to keep the same person from making the same accusation? What “proof” would you have that you didn’t break the rule besides your word? You see how the rule isn’t really any protection at all (either from sin or even the appearance of sin or to stop gossip), it accomplishes nothing except to insulate the church and give the church plausible deniability. If that is the point, then fine. But lets not fool ourselves into believeing that it is anything more.
But again, why is God’s rule not good enough?
Mike
Anne Jackson said,
March 15, 2008 at 2:15 pm
there are about 15,000 words in this post. that is amazing.
John Ireland said,
March 15, 2008 at 2:20 pm
how many will be in mcd? :)
amy said,
March 15, 2008 at 4:11 pm
It’s like shoving a plate of cookies in front of an otherwise occupied child and saying, “DON’T TOUCH!” If you hadn’t put it out there, it might never have been an issue.
But I also feel that there are some things about “the rule” that have validity. 1)Being from a small town, it’s a darn good way to protect yourself from idle gossip. 2)I really don’t like the idea of my husband spending random amounts of time alone with another woman. Married or not. Because I can be a jealous punk… right or wrong, it’s who I can be.
My rule is, if I even have to wonder how my spouse would feel about the issue, I talk to him. I respect his feelings. It’s an individual thing for me.
Hope any of that makes sense.
saralee said,
March 15, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I don’t think our church has a rule, but once I asked a married guy friend for a ride somewhere and he was shocked. As if…
Tami said,
March 15, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I am a single woman who is on staff at my church. We don’t have any official rules on this, but I have personal boundaries set up in this area. An example would be if I have a group of people over, the last one to leave my house is always a woman. For the same reason when we have childcare workers at our church…they work in pairs. Why? Protection. Unfortunatly in todays world, perception needs as much protection as reality.
I think its using wisdom. I don’t ever want to get to the point where I am so sure that I would never have a moral failure that I am a sure target to have one. Ask the majority of people in ministry that have had them — they’ll tell you the same thing, “It started like a web that I got caught up in, I can’t believe I was so stupid.” Be alert - the enemy delights in a ruined testimony.
Janet Fraser said,
March 15, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Weighing in. (42, married, female, ministry