"But its just lunch?"

Who criticized you?
I asked you a question: one you did not answer, by the way.

 

Originally posted by blackbird:

I agree Brother David. My Pastor is the same way and we all respect him for it! He talks the talk and walks the walk!

The best way NOT to get caught up in temptation or the appearance of evil is: When confronted with it....... RUNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!

 

I guess some Wisdom is needed in all of this. I think a blanket rule will not work. Simply because all of us are different.

For example, there are some people who cannot go on a single date with a beautiful woman without thinking lustful thoughts... while there are others who have absolutely no problem with it.

In the same way, when some of us have a private moment with someone of the opposite sex, some will feel tempted, others manage to stay just good friends.

So we need wisdom. I'll admit that the strongest christian can fall into temptation if he lingers there long enough. But a wise christian will know where to draw the line, knows better than to cross it... and if needed, when to run like crazy

My own experience is this. I go on single meals with friends of the opposite sex from time to time. Usually they are colleagues or church mates. If I bump into a friend on the street and we have some catching up to do, we go grab a coffee or something and chat to our hearts content. I have no problem with this at all, although I do make sure my wife knows about it and has no problems with it.

Where I draw the line is counselling someone of the opposite sex. For me, counselling is emotionally draining, requiring not only the person being counselled to open themselves, but for me to also be open and share. This sort of closeness in the past has led to some temptations. As a result of which, I no longer counsel people of the opposite sex without my wife, or a proper chaperone.

 

I could say the same thing about two men having lunch at the same time in the same restaurant. So your point is irrelevant.</font>[/QUOTE]You could not say the same thing about two men, because the paradigm has changed. However, if the two men eating together is not building God's kingdom, then it also, at best, is vanity.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink ... do all to the glory of God.

But back to the original question, on one hand you admit that it is not wise for a man to entertain a woman alone who is not his wife, and then assert that it is not wrong for him to engage in such foolishness?

 

In short, yes.

The traditional wedding vows included the phrase "forsaking all others." And that's exactly what it meant. Christ said that a man should "cleave proskollao to his wife," Matt. 19:5. Cleave does not mean sex alone, it means intimacy, emotional as well as physical.

 

Aaron said:

You could not say the same thing about two men, because the paradigm has changed.

Not in any way that is relevant to your argument.

Whether therefore ye eat, or drink ... do all to the glory of God.

You have yet to show that two men can eat lunch to the glory of God, but a man and a woman cannot.

But back to the original question, on one hand you admit that it is not wise for a man to entertain a woman alone who is not his wife

No, I said "maybe." Accuracy in reporting is a good thing.

and then assert that it is not wrong for him to engage in such foolishness?

There is a difference between what is expedient or wise and what is morally right, yes. But perhaps the distinction breaks down when one determines right by whether a particular act produces the correct "spiritual" feelings.

 

Whew! It has taken me all morning to read this thread...well...a long time anyway (slow dialup). As to the original question, I prefer to err on the side of caution. I really liked SBCbyGrace's "margin" concept. I don't think this imagined lunch is a sin but, it is definitely a gray area to be avoided and not embraced. I, also, learned a new word, "contumely"

 

Now this is probably worthy of an independent thread! It would be more than possible, I think, to never go to lunch physically with someone but still not be as close to a spouse as one is with other members of a message board.

So while many of us are happy that we would never go to lunch, are we having as good communication with our spouses as we are with other BB members?
And that does not imply anything immoral about the BB or its conversations. Just that the time factor alone can intrude on family time.

Karen

 

Everything being said here rests on the paradigm of a married man having "just lunch" with another man's wife seated by themselves. This is quite obvious to the most casual observer.

Again, the original question was about a married man with another man's wife, and I have shown that quite well, but you have failed miserably to describe one righteous outcome. In fact, that is where you got into trouble, because the moment you tried you had fly in the face of God's express purposes for marriage.

Is it ever morally right to behave foolishly?

It should be clear by now that there is no such thing as "just lunch." When we eat with someone, we are building intimacy, and communicating that fact with those around us.

 

I agree for the most part that married men and women should not be going out to lunch and such. But I feel there are a few exceptions. A few of my friends are brothers and sisters in their 40's and 50's, and in a lot of ways they are like surrogate parents to me. I have been a math tutor to a married woman who has known me since I was a baby. The feelings I have for her could never possibly exceed anything but Christian love.

I could never see a woman socially outside of marriage that I was physically attracted to however. I see no reason to ever give temptation an oppurtunity like that.

 

Amen!

Your spouse is supposed to be your best friend. The person you share your most imtimate thoughts with. If you're sharing "best friend" type closeness with a person who is not your spouse, you disrespect your marriage vows as well as your spouse. And yes, this goes for ladies chatting with girlfriends, and guys chatting with their buddies. If it's something you wouldn't share with your spouse, you shouldn't share it with your peeps. WHen you do this with a person of the opposite sex, it simply tosses another flame on the fire.

This may not be a sin per se, but it could be a slippery slope.

 

Well said !!!
Diane

 

Aaron said:

Everything being said here rests on the paradigm of a married man having "just lunch" with another man's wife seated by themselves. This is quite obvious to the most casual observer.

Well, duh!

What does this have to do with your contention that two men can have a casual lunch to the glory of God but a man and a woman cannot?

Maybe the man and the woman don't experience the appropriate warm fuzzy for it to be sufficiently "spiritual"?

but you have failed miserably to describe one righteous outcome.

Here is a righteous outcome: the man and woman are fed and return to their daily routines. No harm, no foul. Happens a million times a day, as a matter of fact.

In fact, that is where you got into trouble, because the moment you tried you had fly in the face of God's express purposes for marriage.

Whereas you got in trouble by attempting to apply your pietistic, feelings-driven claptrap to the situation and were no more successful in convincing me than you would be on the music forum.

 

I agree with you for the most part, but this statement obviously follows from your legalistic views of music. My sister and I are mistaken for a couple just about every time we go out. I can assure you there is nothing in our body language or demeanor that communicates something of an illicit nature. Your argument here is unscriptural and silly. However, apart from your self righteous holier than thou tone, we're pretty much on the same page. Marriage is serious business, and not to be taken lightly, I'm fortunate to have learned that lesson early on.

 

I got you beat. My 16yo daughter and I have been mistaken for a couple (I know I look young, but hey, I'm still ini my late 30's!!!) We do have some body language that might imply intimacy (she'll put her hand on my shoulder, etc), but it is obviously innocent. So I can definitely attest to mistakes being made on part of the observer.

 

I haven't read the whole thread, but I'm sure it's been pointed out that most Bible versions have "kind" or "form" instead of "appearance" in 1 Thessalonians 5:22. That puts a slightly different spin on the subject. As for having a lunch with a married woman, I would generally avoid it, just to appease the hordes of narrow-minded busybodies who seem eager to think the worst of those around them. There are, after all, a multitude of scenarios in which a person could look "guilty" of something they never even thought of doing. I once lived in a small town where many assumed I was having a sexual relationship with a woman I was dating. The gossip had no basis at all in fact. The most we ever did was hold hands. So, what was I to do, make a formal public announcement of my celibacy? Avoid her completely? Where does it all end? Ultimately, if someone is determined to think badly of you, they will. God knows the truth.

 

Yes, Dina, I think it is interesting!

When I look up the Greek origin and meaning of "appearance" I get the following:

eidov
1) the external or outward appearance, form figure, shape
2) form, kind

derived from eidw
1) to see
1a) to perceive with the eyes
1b) to perceive by any of the senses
1c) to perceive, notice, discern, discover
1d) to see
1d1) i.e. to turn the eyes, the mind, the attention to anything
1d2) to pay attention, observe
1d3) to see about something
1d31) i.e. to ascertain what must be done about it
1d4) to inspect, examine
1d5) to look at, behold
1e) to experience any state or condition
1f) to see i.e. have an interview with, to visit
2) to know
2a) to know of anything
2b) to know, i.e. get knowledge of, understand, perceive
2b1) of any fact
2b2) the force and meaning of something which has definite meaning
2b3) to know how, to be skilled in
2c) to have regard for one, cherish, pay attention to

From this alone I find plenty of support for using the word "appearance" and for its use to imply how something seems to others. In this case, I trust the King James translators to have done a good job of determining the intended meaning of the original Greek text. I also know that translations of individual words are difficult because it so often depends on how they are used with other words in a phrase and the fact that all languages don't have one for one correlation of words with a given meaning. I can attest to this just from my personal experiences with two modern foreign languages. I believe that's why the translators labored so hard to find and communicate the true meaning of the original text. I'm reluctant to second guess their work too much with my complete lack of knowledge of Greek!

I believe that 1 Thessalonians 5:22 is a clear instruction to Christians to avoid any conduct that might be perceived as being evil. It can be rightly applied to a whole range of daily activities far beyond the original subject of this thread. Doing this is more to avoid giving others something to talk about that could be used to discredit the followers of Christ and thereby the Lord's name. That's in direct opposition to that popular song with the lyrics "Let's give them something to talk about." by Raitt Bonnie.

Certainly I agree that there are many cases wherein there is nothing wrong with married men and women meeting privately with others. Just as certainly I agree that some people will find fault in just about anything even when completely innocent regardless what we do. We can list all kinds of "exceptions" and "what if's" to the dangerous situation that should be our concern. This seems like rationalization to render the main concern invalid!

I believe following this instruction involves using good judgment and sometimes yielding our own particular innocent actions to a greater purpose. Further, I also believe, as several experienced people have pointed out, that there are serious risks of escalation from innocent relationships between men and women that are, in the interest of preserving a marriage, are best avoided even when one or both parties believe they can handle it just fine.

Satan's trickery finds innocence an inviting target!

 

WHAT?

Simply making a claim does not validate one’s point, and you never established any “clarity” to support your assertion.

There IS such a thing as “just lunch” and you have failed to prove otherwise. I am currently on the road with a coworker that happens to be female. She and I are working in different areas, but are based in the same hotel, and we had dinner tonight. It was purely platonic, and I actually steered the conversation to that of my faith. It turns out that she and her husband feel that they need to start attending church (they are not Believers), and I invited her and her husband to my church this upcoming Sunday.

Aaron, based on your statement listed above, am I to assume that you deny God is capable of using this situation for His Glory?

Adultery does not begin with anything like a simple lunch. Adultery begins with desire. Read Matthew 5:28 – adultery can even take place without any physical contact.

 

This has been adequately explained, you're just being obstinate. And again it is not simply "a man and a woman," it is a married man with another man's wife having a lunch alone. That is what we are talking about. And in your quotes I will reflect that so that you are kept on track and that the absurdity of your postulation is in clear view.

Here is a righteous outcome: the [married man who met with another man's wife for lunch alone] are fed and return to their daily routines.

You're not saying anything here, you're merely avoiding the primary reason two people meet for lunch. It's not for food. It's as you first suggested, "camaraderie." It's for relationship. But you know that. The primary reason for eating with anyone is to build relationship, hallowed or not. In even in business lunches there is the hope of mutual benefit other than being fed.

No harm...

And here you obstinately disregard (again) the paradigm of a married man meeting another man's wife for lunch and the grave warnings offered by the more wise and mature who see the danger and hide themselves (Proverbs 22:3). In that verse the divine opinion is expressed that at best, it isn't prudent. Why do you cling to your simplicity by relucantly admitting that it only "probably" isn't?

Whereas you got in trouble by attempting to apply your pietistic, feelings-driven claptrap to the situation and were no more successful in convincing me than you would be on the music forum.

I'm not in any trouble at all, and my goal is not to convince you. My goal is to reveal to others the absurd, carnal thinking you attempt to pass off as spirituality. And my views expressed here on the subject are eminently Scriptural.

I'll deal with the flak from your goon squad later.