I accidentally stumbled on this transcript from John Piper's radio show. What do you think of this? I'd be interested to hear your views.
Is it wrong for married people to have friends of the opposite sex?
No. For goodness sakes, no. But one wonders, since it came up, if by "friend" you mean something too close.
I hope that my wife considers all of my male colleagues friends. But there are all kinds of logistical dynamics that she would avoid with men that she wouldn't avoid with women.
For example, we as a staff at Bethlehem don't ride in the car alone with any woman, period. If there are two women, yes. A man and a woman, yes. One woman, No!
My wife would do the same thing. She would feel very awkward being taken to the airport, for example, by a young man if they were alone. If our daughter is with her, not a problem.
Every now and then Noel will ask a woman in the church to come clean house for her. It takes her about four hours. If I'm there, Noel stays there. If Noel has to go, I go. I don't stay in my house with this woman, even though she is a friend and a member of our church. I count her as a friend, but we take steps to be careful.
I don't think married Christians should go out to lunch with friends of the opposite sex. This is really tough in the professional world, but I'll say it anyway. Say, for example, there is a woman lawyer who is married, and she's in a firm with fifty others, some of whom are men. And a guy says, "We need to talk about this case. Let's do lunch." I don't think she should do lunch. I think she should go into his office, leave the door open, and do business there. But if he wants to do lunch, she should say, "Can Jane come along?"
So those are the kinds of things that need to be handled carefully. Yes to the friendship. But we need to preserve the whole array of dynamics that cause our spouses to know that we're jealous for saying that we're married to them. And it's right to be that way.
Say, "I'm just eager to make plain to others, 'I'm not available!' I have a man (or a woman) and I'm very happily married. I don't want to compromise you and I don't want to compromise me."
I think we have become very lackadaisical about that in the professional sphere.
4 comments:
I know there are some people who strongly abide by those principles, and maybe it's important for those in leadership positions in churches, but often times it's just not practical. There are plenty of times I've got a ride from my guy friends to church/other event etc. Sure, sometimes getting lunch with a guy is awkward, and I don't go out of my way to do it. Usually in those circumstances I'll check in with Ka-Loon to see if he's ok with it. As for work, well I drove my male boss back from philly a few weeks ago. The last thing I was going to do was leave him there, or acquire some hitch hiker. hahaha
I agree with just about everything Piper said there--those are pretty much the same parameters Scott and I have. It's about both the appearance of impropriety, and about opening the door to emotional intimacy. Driving in a car with someone, when it's just two of you, you talk! You talk about superficial stuff and deeper stuff, and a married person should not be connecting on a deep level to another person of the opposite sex. Every situation I have heard of where a person of good intention (i.e., someone not seeking out an affair) falls into temptation, it is because they allowed themselves to get into deep, personal conversations with someone of the opposite sex. A boundary like not going out to a meal or driving alone together in a car prevents the opportunity to fall into that conversation.
All that said, I do think there are situations that are exceptional. My husband drove alone with a female colleague to an off-site meeting because her car would never have made it that distance, and I drove with my male boss to a meeting in another city, simply because it would have been impractical for us each to take our own cars for that long drive. But those are the only instances where we've compromised that rule in our five years of marriage.
BTW, Mel, glad to see you blogging again! I got tired of seeing that upside down world map every time I checked your blog!
That's very interesting. I think -- at the core -- I agree with his strong desire to protect marriages. We want to be above reproach and make sure our spouses have no cause to question our faithfulness.
For some couples, these ideas might be very appropriate. But to say that these measures must be taken by all married people is too extreme.
For me, if I told my husband I never wanted him to be alone w/ a woman, it would convey a lack of trust. It would say that I don't trust that he could control himself or trust that our marriage is strong enough to survive a 30-minute car ride with a another woman to the airport.
For our marriage, this would be almost a fear-based approach to protecting our marriage; afraid of what other people will think, afraid of what my spouse will think, and afraid how I might react in a one-on-one situation.
If I had to follow these rules, I think that I would easily lose sight of the fact that we are siblings in Christ--brothers and sisters. Would John Piper get a ride from his sister to the airport? Of course! She's family. :) I know that's not a perfect analogy, but you see what I'm saying? We should be loving and supporting one another as siblings in Christ, seeing each other as brothers and sisters, which should allow more freedom of interaction.
Still, the freedom to more liberally interact with people of the opposite sex is exactly that -- a freedom; it might not be shared by every Christian (just like drinking alcohol). This freedom must be exercised with wisdom, prayer, and strong spousal involvement. :) I don't take it lightly.
I won't make an argument about whether it's practical because -- at the end of the day -- you always have to follow the convictions God has given you regardless of the practical implications.
I think it just boils down to trust and where your heart is, and each couple is going to be very different. They need to figure out what is best for them through prayer and conversation; then they can figure out how to practically implement protecting their marriage. Not everyone will need to go to the measures that John Piper states, although I would of course respectfully support any couple who does have these in place.
I agree with the principles behind the examples Piper gave but definitely allow for flexibility with individual couples and situations.
Bernie and I are very big on having accountability with someone in addition to each other and I think that would be helpful for people whose jobs or activities place them in positions where they would have one-on-one time with the other gender. We were part of a church where two staff members, (one married, one not) did not have appropriate boundaries and no one even knew to ask if anything was going on that shouldn't be. It was extremely destructive and the church body never healed from it.
I think it's important to have someone whose role in your life is to ask things like, "Was that lunch meeting absolutely necessary? What did you talk about besides work?" Even, "Is she attractive?" You can write your spouse off as just jealous for hounding you about it but if you have someone else who is invested in your holiness checking in on you, there's an added layer of protection for your marriage.
With Bernie going into the pastorate, you can bet we'll have some boundaries and accountability set up to enable him to work with the women on staff and serve the women in the congregation, yet protecting his heart and theirs and remaining above reproach on the eyes of others.
Post a Comment