Mediaboss Marketing

Even though Ive dwindled down my Facebook time to almost nothing, its easy to see folks have been in a bit of a frenzy concerning Mike Pence and his practical application of how best to love and be faithful to his wife. When I say folks, I am speaking of all folks, Christian and not Christian. But since this is the Patheos Evangelical Channel, and since I am particularly saddened at some Christian responses to the situation (as I believe Christians should support rather than tear one another down), lets discuss Christians only.

What is the right response, the Christian response, to hearing the news that Mike Pence will not dine with women to whom he is not married?

Romans 14 talks about Christians judging other Christians. More specifically, how they shouldnt judge when it comes to eating or not eating meat offered to idols. In the Pence case, we are talking about eating with a woman who isnt a spouse vs a woman who is a spouse. But though the situational specifics are a little different, the command is the same:

Dont judge.

There is a time for making judgment calls. For instance, we are told we will know Christians by their fruits, and there are situations where it is necessary to judge whether someone is truly in the faith. But then there is a time to allow for Christian liberty. In the case of Mike Pence choosing to abstain from all evil and guard his heart with all diligence, it is not time to judge. Its time to allow a fellow brother in Christ to make his own choices about whether to abstain or not abstain from eating with a person of the opposite sex, which we can only assume has been chosen as a safeguard in response to thorough and thoughtful self-examination.

Are there better ways? Should the Vice President choose, as Karen Swallow Prior noted in her article, virtuous living over living by a set of man-made rules? Perhaps! But what if Pence recognizes within himself a significant lack of virtue in the area of sexual purity? What then, is he supposed to do? Put on a show as though he is virtuous and dine with women with whom he is not wed? Or enforce a man-made rule in an effort to do what God has commanded (that is, to remain a one woman man)?

Virtue, as Prior noted, is the better practice. Rules say dont be bad and do not touch when virtue says be good and touch what is good. So we are looking at a negative reinforcement of sorts versus a positive reinforcement of sorts. But if theres anything my forty four years of life and twenty-six years of parenting has taught me, its that different types of reinforcement work for different types of people, personalities, and temperaments. Perhaps Pence responds best to negative reinforcement rather than an encouragement to do what is right out of a sincere, virtuous heart.

Christians should eventually get to the point at which virtue rules in their hearts (and therefore actions), rather than rules determining their actions. But each Christian is in a different place in their sanctification. And Pence is in a different place than the rest of us, in that he has been placed one notch down from the highest political office in the country, which no doubt comes with an excessive opportunities to ignore virtue and follow ones own heart (which is not a virtuous practice, as the world would have us to believe). So who are we as fellow Christians to judge another by what boundaries he has set up to protect the sanctity of his marriage? If the boundary has been established because he recognizes a lack of personal virtue and cannot see any way but a rule to help guide and protect him, who are we to say Chuck the rule. Grow up! Be virtuous!

If he is in a place where rules help him best, then so be it. Or if he simply wishes to not have the added burden of temptations to the already rigorous demands of political office, then so be it. He is at liberty to flesh out the command to be a faithful husband however he and the Lord choose.The Bible is adamant about what we should do when sexual immorality becomes a temptation. It says to flee. Run! Find the nearest EXIT sign and scram. So while Mike Pence, according to some, should not have the need to flee, the fact is that clearly, he does have a need to flee. And we should not despise him for it.

To be clear. Karen Swallow Priors article was a helpful clarification of the differences between rules and virtue, and what the more noble option is when dealing with sexual temptation. There was no judgment being passed, and I appreciated her excellent effort to clarify the differences between virtue-based and rule-based obedience. I am simply adding that for those of us Christians who cannot, for whatever reason, bear Pences methods of ensuring fidelity, Romans 14 instructs to not judge a fellow Christian:

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person only eats vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

It would seem that no matter what stand a politician takes regarding sexual morality, frustration and anger are expressed. But I say if a man is being faithful to his wife, he is to be commended and honored. Pence is in the process of practically working out his own salvation. As am I. As is every Christian. We should be allowing him the freedom to do that, even if it doesnt mirror the practical working out of our own salvation. The Lord is helping us to stand, and hes helping Mike Pence to stand. Pence may require a bigger (or different) crutch than we do, but there is no sin in that. There is, however, sin in belittling a fellow Christian for using a different type of crutch than our own. Or for using one at all, until he can walk without constant assistance.

Being a virtuous person will always be better than being a person who simply knows how to follow rules. But rules, and the obeying of those rules, can and often does pave the road to genuine virtuous living. Once a man has remained faithful for any length of time, it would not be uncommon for that man to see the value in remaining faithful, to reap the positive benefits from it, and to eventually be motivated out of virtue to continue in marital faithfulness.

Ill close with this:

Rule keeping for the sake of rule keeping is not a place we want to stay, or where we want to see our brother stay. But rule keeping is a better place to be than say sleeping around or having emotional affairs with someone other than ones spouse. The heart of the matter is always a matter of the heart. But if ones heart is not in it, its still better to do the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing than to not do the right thing at all.

Additionally, who is to say that Pence, though he still follows the Billy Graham Rule, does not also obey out of virtue? Its possible he is indeed virtuous, and yet chooses to practice the Billy Graham rule by way of doubling up on safeguards, because he knows that pride goes before a fall, and to trust in his own virtue would be disastrous.Man sees the outward appearance, but God sees the heart. (I Sam. 16:7) and we would do well to recognize that though weve seen some outward appearances, we dont know the Vice Presidents heart.

I commend him for doing the right thing, whatever his reasoning. I also pray that, at some point, virtue may rule in his heart (if it is indeed absent), more than the Billy Graham rule. Still, if I was his wife, Id be grateful for his sheer determination to remain faithful, no matter the method he uses to attain that faithfulness. Karen Pence is blessed. For she has what too many American wives, and especially American wives of politicians, do not have: a husband willing to do whatever it takes to remain faithful.

Continue reading here:
The Proper Christian Response to Mike Pence's Safeguards - Patheos (blog)

Mike Pence's dining preference is 'rape culture'? MercatorNet (blog) But Csanady went totally off the polemical grid when she wrote: At its core, Pence's self-imposed ban is rape culture. Her reasoning is that if Pence is too scared to be alone with another woman, then he is perpetuating a superannuated sexist ...

See the article here:
Mike Pence's dining preference is 'rape culture'? - MercatorNet (blog)

A Washington Post profile about Karen Pence revealed that Vice President Mike Pence won't dine with a woman alone other than his wife.

The VP wont go to events that serve alcohol without his wife, either.

Originating from evangelical minister Billy Graham, these rules have sparked a slew think pieces on the VP's dining protocols. Detractors slammed Pence's conduct as sexist, arguing that it restricts female staffers' access to him and creates a toxic dichotomy, but women who had worked for Pence havedefendedthe Veep, saying that he is merely doing so to avoid any perception of inappropriateness.

Do you think the "Billy Graham rule" is sexist or a valid strategy to marital longevity? Have you experienced employment barriers because of restricted gender access to your higher-ups? Do you have any similar negotiations within your marriage?

Call 866-893-5722 to weigh in.

Go here to read the rest:
Mike Pence won't dine alone with women who aren't his wife - sexism or marital preservation? - 89.3 KPCC

Graham set out strict rules to keep his ministry from having any whiff of impropriety. That broad philosophy could be useful to White Houses. Stephen Chernin/Getty Images hide caption

Graham set out strict rules to keep his ministry from having any whiff of impropriety. That broad philosophy could be useful to White Houses.

The nation learned this week that Vice President Mike Pence and his wife, Karen, have had some unusually strict boundaries around their marriage.

That's something The Washington Post's Ashley Parker dug up in writing a profile of Karen Pence this week. As Parker tweeted on Wednesday, "Mike Pence never dines alone [with] a woman not his wife, nor does he attends events [with] alcohol, w/o her by his side."

This practice, of avoiding alone time with another woman, is what some Christians call the "Billy Graham Rule," after the famous evangelist. And the revelation that the vice president has practiced it made for a fiery (and important) debate about the function of gender in the halls of power.

Perhaps the rule is purely a couple's private decision for protecting their marriage, some said. But then, others countered, it could easily enable discrimination. After all, it was created by men, in a male-dominated profession. (And virtually all references to the rule refer to men, not women, practicing it.) And it's easier to practice in a profession that's male-dominated like, for example, Washington politics. Were a woman to act similarly, it would probably be tougher, perhaps even impracticable, in a heavily male Congress or White House. Congress, after all, has about the same share of women right now as the clergy.

Fortunately, the Internet is hard at work debating all that, so we can get to something different here: the other rules that Graham set for his ministry.

Graham knew something about leadership; during his career, he was one of the most (if not the most) influential evangelists in America. Indeed, he has been close with presidents of both parties, and met with all the presidents from Truman to Obama (President Trump has met him, but before Trump was president). Trump won four-in-five evangelicals in November, but his actions have, to a remarkable degree, run counter to the strictures Graham set out, in part to keep his ministry running smoothly.

At a 1948 meeting, Graham and his ministry team came up with what was called the Modesto Manifesto, a set of four guidelines (including the no-alone-time-with-women rule many evangelical men follow).

Here's an abridged rundown of the rules, as Graham described them in his autobiography (emphasis ours):

"The first point on our combined list was money. ... [T]here was little or no accountability for finances. In Modesto we determined to do all we could to avoid financial abuses and to downplay the offering and depend as much as possible on money raised by the local committee in advance.

"The second item on the list was the danger of sexual immorality. We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel. We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife. ...

"Our third concern was the tendency of many evangelists to carry on their work apart from the local church, even to criticize local pastors and churches openly and scathingly. We were convinced, however, that this was not only counterproductive but also wrong from the Bible's standpoint. ...

"The fourth and final issue was publicity. The tendency among some evangelists was to exaggerate their successes or to claim higher attendance numbers than they really had. ... In Modesto we committed ourselves to integrity in our publicity and our reporting."

Ironically, the current president's actions have at times quite brazenly run counter to these rules that Graham set out for himself, and that the vice president at least partially seems to follow closely.

That first guideline, about money, Graham described as being about "accountability."

Money and accountability is one area where the Trump White House has run into heavy criticism; all presidents since Nixon have either released their tax returns or summaries of those returns. Trump, however, has not. In addition, big questions still loom about the degree to which he has separated himself from his businesses, as well as how much those businesses benefit from his presidency.

On the sexuality rule, as many pointed out this week, Pence follows a rule designed to help men serve their God by avoiding temptation, while the president he serves has in the past spoken quite explicitly about embracing that temptation ("I'm automatically attracted to beautiful I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. ... Grab 'em by the pussy. You can do anything."). Trump later apologized for the remarks.

As far as Graham's third item, Trump has no "local churches" to speak of. Still, there are echoes here of the Republican "11th commandment," which is heavily associated with Ronald Reagan, whom the GOP has all but canonized. This week, Trump vowed to "fight" Freedom Caucus members.

And then there is the rule about inflating attendance numbers. The White House ran into trouble on this from Day One, literally.

Of course, the White House is not a religious organization and does not have to (and, plenty would argue, should not) follow the exact rules of an evangelical preacher.

However, much about Graham's rules isn't strictly biblical. Yes, the ideas are tied to the Christian idea that people are fundamentally sinful and therefore easily tempted. But many people who aren't Christians can still get behind ideas like financial accountability and honesty, for example.

After all, a lot of what Graham was aiming for here was not only keeping himself spiritually pure, but also keeping his organization from being derailed by scandal.

The degree to which Graham's sexuality rule could reinforce gender discrimination is troubling and important to examine. But that one bigger aim of Graham's rules helping keep an office beyond reproach could be applied to White Houses, too.

(Of course, even some presidents who relied on Graham for advice didn't always live up to his standards.)

For Graham, those close to him say that strategy paid off.

"In hindsight, Billy Graham and people close to him would say, 'Whatever inconvenience these practices might have involved, it was worth it to protect his reputation and the reputation of the ministry, and that for 60-some years, there was no hint of scandal surrounding him,'" said Mark DeMoss, Graham's spokesman. "So I think it paid good dividends.'"

Read the original post:
Beyond The Mike Pence Misogyny Debate, The 3 'Billy Graham ... - NPR

In the Washington Post this weekend, my former colleague Mary Vought wrote an importantpiece about working for our former boss, Vice-President Mike Pence. Mary and I worked together for Pence when he was chairman of the House Republican Conference, so I resonated with what she wrote.

When the media went crazy last weekabout the2002 comment Pence made about never dining alone with women, I wasnt sure what all the fuss was about. I had heard of Pences rule when I started worked for him in 2009 and thought nothing of it. It seemed like a great way to avoid the perception of inappropriateness. With gossip and reporters floating around every corner of Capitol Hill (and elsewhere), extra precaution seemed prudent.

As Mary so eloquently wrote in her piece, being a woman didnt hold her back at all while working for Pence and I can confidently say the same. From the piece:

Pences personal decision to not dine alone with female staffers was never a hindrance to my ability to do my job well, and never kept me from reaping the rewards of my work. In fact, I excelled at my job because of the work environment created from the top down, and my personal determination to succeed.

The Vice-President never treated me with anything but respect and I found him to be a warm, genuine man who truly valued his staff and more importantly, his family. From my vantage point, he madedecisions thoughtfully and prayerfully in a way that should make you glad hes now sitting in such an influential role with President Trump.

The many strange reactionsto the Pences personal boundaries on and respect for his own marriage are unwarranted. As Mary wrote:

This is by no means a partisan issue. Whether youre a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or couldnt care less, if you choose to prioritize your marriage and esteem your family while faithfully carrying out public service, you should be praised. If the only woman you want to dine alone with is your spouse, you should be commended. With his choice about how to divide up his time, Pence made a strong statement about work-life balance, the importance of family time, and respect in the workplace: values we can all get behind.

Im glad I got the opportunity to work for Mike Pence. Its done nothing but great things for my career.

Read more:
I'm a Woman Who Benefitted Greatly From Working For Mike Pence - National Review