So The Washington Post did a profile on the wife of our vice-president, Karen Pence, and it came out that Mike Pence followed a variation of the “Billy Graham rule,” in that he would never eat alone with a woman who was not his wife, and he would never attend an event where alcohol was served if his wife was not with him. Of course, Twitter then did what Twitter does, which is go off the rails.
Having had an analogous standard for some decades now, I would like to take a brief moment to commend the man and the standard, and to make a few mild observations to the possible discomfiture of those who want to maintain that this is misogyny of the highest order—the man is obviously honoring his wife ahead of all other women. What a poltroon. Not like that paragon of husbandly virtue, Bill Clinton. There’s a man who is willing to mentor pretty much any woman. Or was it mentor much any pretty woman? I forget.
The people who are currently going nuts over all this are the same people who, if shown a photograph of the vice-president having dinner with some other woman in some upscale restaurant, along with an account from that same woman that he, the vice-president, was putting the moves on her, would be the very first people to accept, believe, fall for, place confidence in, swear by, and rejoice in, her account. A man might adopt this standard, in other words, not because he didn’t trust himself, but because he doesn’t trust them. And very wise of him, I might add.
Second, the secularists laugh at this kind of standard, saying that by it religious conservatives are maintaining that the whole world is sexually charged. Well, isn’t it? I have had occasion to walk by your magazine racks from time to time. I know that I can’t watch most of the movies you guys make. I know how you decorate the ad-space periphery of pretty much every web site out there, and who has not heard that the way Bo Derek looks now is amazing.
And, as they say in Jersey, thoid, we also have to deal with secular irrationality on these matters. Mike Pence is clearly an honorable husband but, being a conservative, he is that way all the time. But secularists have a toggle switch somewhere in their psyche, and they flip it back and forth like a three-year-old playing with the lights for the first time. In this position, not only is everything sexually charged, but sexually inflamed. Gender politics gets into everything. If a guy sits with his legs apart on the subway, he is man spreading, a micro-aggression not to be tolerated. If he casually refers to “the girls” in his sociology class, the university goes into lockdown. If a guy in that same sociology class asks one of the girls out, he finds himself down at the Diversity Office explaining that he did not intend to mentally rape anyone. “All I said was hi.” But if the toggle switch goes over into that position, then all the secularists suddenly become worldly wise sophisticates (Like magic. Ta da!). “Oh, you poor babies,” they say to the religious conservatives. “You are clearly buttoned up way too tight.” You need to learn how to respond to every innuendo with a knowing laugh. Like we do. Heh heh. Unless we are talking to our attorney about a sexual harassment lawsuit. One innuendo too many, pal.
I smell a meme contest here!
!nstead of the “Billy Graham rule” what about the:
“Billy Clinton rule”?
“Anthony Weiner rule”?
“Jon Edwards rule”?
“fill-in-the-blank Kenedy rule”?
“Barney Frank rule”?
“Madonna get-out-the-vote rule”?
Can these be articulated? ; – )
Let’s just stay away from the Miley Cyrus rule. Last time I saw her,she was riding a wrecking ball.
Wrecking ball??
You mean that wasn’t Brian Stelter? (of CNN?)
You mean that wasn’t Valerie Jarrett?
You mean that wasn’t Alec Baldwin?
You mean that wasn’t Rachel Dolezal?
You mean that wasn’t Rachel Maddow?
Hey! Did you ever notice that you never see Rachel Dolezal and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time? I wonder if……….
Wow! A fake ethnic person and a fake news anchor all at the same time!
Talk about livin’ the dream! ; – )
; – )
The Barney Fife rule?
In the interest of fair and balanced:
“Rush Limbaugh Rule”
“Denny Hastert Rule”
“Newt Gingrich Rule”
“Henry Hide Rule”
“Mark Foley Rule”
“Mark Sanford Rule”
; o )
1 Billy Graham on the right side of the balance,
vs.
10 kooky liberals on the left side of the ballance?
Yeah, you’re right, that’s still not fair to the libs! ; – )
We could even add Tullian Tchividjian to the left side of the balance and they would still not tilt Billy! ; – )
Since it sounds like Billy actually practiced what he preached about his own “rule”, he avoided having to be lumped in with lounge lizards of any stripe, left or right! ; – )
When it comes to sexual sin, our political beliefs don’t seem to be much of a deterrent.
Though on the plus side, some people’s political beliefs about sexual sin serve as an excellent repellent!
For instance, it’s possible that Madonna’s “proposition” for votes lost the election for HRC! ; – )
Yes, and the same could be said for our religious beliefs.
By the way, your favorite bad boy my be back. I think I spotted him commenting down below as Mark Johnson. Let me know if tone sounds familiar.
I read his comment history, and he appears to be a francophone Canadian. The views about race and the Jews seem pretty similar, but the trademark sarcasm is not as strong!
You’re probably right. Maybe they’re kissing cousins.
Ok, that was funny!????
1 Corinthians 6 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. Croucho, the above is a common, Christian, Word grounded belief about sexual sin. As a God breathed instruction, obeying it has been pretty effective in keeping me from being a lounge… Read more »
A-Daddy-O, my view on sexual sin? I’m agin it. Do you understand that that wasn’t the point of my comment?
Here’s two guys you never saw together at the same time in the same room.
Something that’s really become tragic in the world is that we have changed our cultural definitions of “sexual sin.”
The sinners in the world today are the people we call heternormative who happen to be married.
Barring that, anything goes.
Sex is encouraged,embraced,accepted 24/7 in our culture, just as long as it doesn’t relate to married people in any way. Marriage is supposed to be where sex goes to die. Pence’s “crime” so to speak, was implying that an awareness of sexuality was still alive and well in his married life.
You might be correct in your assertions about sex and our culture. I honestly don’t know. I inclined to suspect that it’s not all that different from the days of old.
I’ve never felt that I’m somehow pitied or looked down upon because I’m a guy who has been faithfully married to the same gal for over 40 years. In my rollicking circle of friends, our sex lives have never been a topic of conversation. Since in most every way I’m an average Joe, I have just assumed that their’s is as active and fulfilling as mine.
Godly religious beliefs are a deterrent against sin, if one obeys the Godly beliefs! ????
I’ve always thought that love is the best deterrent, not a set of thou shalt nots. I think St. Paul would agree. ????
John 14:15 15 “If you love me, keep my commands. John 15:9-11 9 “As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you keep my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commands and remain in his love. 11 I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. Croucho, as some people can walk and chew gum at the same time, so others can love and obey God at the same time! ;… Read more »
Grace, grace is the best deterrent! Love is awesome too, but it’s not really what motivates people to follow the law. We don’t really need more forgiving people, we need people availing themselves of more forgiveness.
All good ideas Memi! Here is how Job kept clear of sexual sin!
Job 31
1 “I made a covenant with my eyes
not to look lustfully at a young woman.
2 For what is our lot from God above,
our heritage from the Almighty on high?
3 Is it not ruin for the wicked,
disaster for those who do wrong?
4 Does he not see my ways
and count my every step?
LOL, amen Adad! And Job said that even while facing a bunch of rotten friends and a wife telling him to curse God and die.
If by “love” you mean an absolute commitment to honoring the spirit and letter of your vows to your wife, that can work–although you still might want to be cautious. Anyone instructed by nuns has a healthy fear of propinquity and a healthy distrust of one’s own virtue. But if by “love” you mean the feeling you have for your spouse (I am speaking in general here, not to you in particular), feelings ebb and flow, wax and wane, and the feelings you have at some points in a marriage can make somebody else–in fact, anybody else–look rather attractive. I… Read more »
I’m thinking of a love that imputes to your Love all that could be hoped and more.
Best deterrent to what? Things we “should not” do, maybe?
Yes. And things we should. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
It should. But we are fallen creatures, and many of us have not come very far in developing Christlike love, especially for our nearest and dearest. I am truly glad that your marriage is so happy. My own experience hasn’t shaken my faith in marriage but it has made me much more aware of the pitfalls that can lead to disaster. I think that most people have no idea what to say to a deserted spouse, and their best efforts inflict unintended pain. Everyone seemed to ask me some variation on “Why didn’t you see this coming?” I was asked… Read more »
By that I mean, a list of do and do nots has never achieved the intended goal.
I’m totally with you there, Clay. Grace and love give us a list of things we should do, and often we are so busy doing them, nobody even has time for the list of should nots.
In marriage, grace really does the trick, too. I don’t need a list of should nots, it’s all inherent, ingrained, instinctual, the fruit of love and grace.
I think it’s wonderful that you have traveled so far along the path of grace. I can’t imagine ever reaching a point where virtue is so deeply ingrained in me that it is completely instinctual. I thought I was a pretty good wife in that I was faithful and never once, in thirty years, raised my voice or threw a hissy fit. But, for me, it took effort sometimes never to be unkind or impatient or to tell him he was totally wrong about something. But for you it comes naturally. Your husband is very lucky!
I always hear anger and spite in your voice, Jilly. If your husband had ever shown you grace, you wouldn’t have had to make such an effort proving yourself to be a good wife. You need to forgive yourself for having married such a lunkhead.
I wasn’t being spiteful, ME. I do think it is wonderful that you have such a good marriage, and I wish I could have done better with my own. He may have been a lunkhead, but he was my lunkhead and I loved him. I guess sometimes love isn’t enough.
” I guess sometimes love isn’t enough.”
Exactly. So at the beginning of this thread I said, “Grace, grace is the best deterrent! Love is awesome too, but it’s not really what motivates people to follow the law. We don’t really need more forgiving people, we need people availing themselves of more forgiveness.”
Hard to know sometimes. He told me that what had motivated him to follow the law for so many years was awareness that this was a community property state and that he realized he would have to pay spousal and child support. So I am not sure where grace and forgiveness entered his thinking! I was prepared to forgive the adultery but not to agree to its being continued. Even my church doesn’t expect that much, I’m glad to say. The only good part is that most of my life is over, so it will not be that difficult not… Read more »
Jilly, in Christ our lives are never over. They are eternal. And there are many ways to make a future with other people. Life is full of surprises. You need grace and mercy, forgiveness and redemption. I’m not sure why, perhaps because you’re still blaming yourself.
A few times “do nots” kept me out of trouble. Do not think you can have an intimate friendship with a married man because, by the time you realize you need to put a stop to it, you may no longer want to. Do not flirt with other people’s husbands; it causes nothing but trouble and it does not make you popular with the wives. Do not think that because a friendship with a married man is primarily intellectual, there is nothing to worry about. If a married man starts writing you poetry, do not stick around to see what… Read more »
“I tended to be a bit oblivious with the result that I sometimes unthinkingly signaled interest when I was sure I was communicating only friendliness.”
Well, if that’s the way it is with women generally at least I can stop worrying about all those hearts I thought I’d broke. :)
‘The expulsive power of a new affection’ came to mind. I think Chalmers would agree with you also, although I, like Jillybean, find it very helpful to have my own set of shalt nots.
As part of seminary training practical advice was given about men counselling women: no closed doors, preferably not alone, etc. A couple of guys were somewhat disparaging saying to others things like this was unnecessary and treating them like children. Some years later they were both in the dog box after having inappropriate relationships.
No closed doors makes sense in some contexts.
By the time you get to “no eating meals together”, there’s clearly something wrong with the culture. I can think of multiple female friends that I’ve scheduled a meal out with for a really mutually enriching time. Didn’t Jesus meet a girl at a well once? The idea that people would spread judgments and gossip based on something as innocent as that is disappointing.
Of course, places like D.C. are certainly those cultures. If I had that kind of public profile there, I can see why I’d want to do something similar.
The idea that people would spread judgments and gossip based on *anything* is disappointing, but the idea that they would do so based on circumstances you are describing should surprise no one. I think that’s the point. No, I don’t believe there needs to be an absolute rule against meals together either. I too have done. However, I understand it can take on an appearance, apart from anything to do with the outlook of a particular culture, and depending on the specifics of the circumstances, I feel a little awkward about it. People aren’t necessarily judgmental (except of course when… Read more »
And none of us are in the public eye like Pence or Billy Graham. I think it’s generally a good rule, and becomes less flexible the higher your profile.
On the other hand, I don’t think anybody is casting a suspicious glance at Justin Trudeau’s candlelight dinner with Angela Merkel!
If the dinner had been with me, however, the news media would be tripping over their cameras and saying “Who is that cougar over there making a public spectacle of herself?”
I don’t think there’s a “rule” so much as an honoring of your spouse and an awareness of having healthy boundaries and steering off potential problems. A meal alone with someone other than your spouse suggests a certain kind of intimacy, if only emotional.
But perhaps you are not a married man? Dinner alone with a woman not your wife is usually not considered wise.
I am certainly a married man, and at times we are both very busy. I can’t particularly remember ever getting dinner with another woman alone, but lunch in the middle of the work day or a snack at a coffee shop after church, definitely. My wife would always know exactly where I was too (not just because I was with a woman, but we pretty much always let each other know everything we will be doing).
I actually think this is a prudent position (remembering it is fence not a law). It can be hard not to see a woman alone, especially if required for work or doing other business. In a public place like a coffee shop, and infrequently, and with others if possible: 2 females is better than one. I hadn’t heard the “no alcohol unless my wife is present” idea. I think that is also a somewhat prudent position, though I would have thought it would be a no-alcohol-to-drink rather than no-alcohol-event. Is this about other females there drinking rather than the guy… Read more »
Would you call this a ‘Pence fence’? And is it a fence for Pence, or would he consider it a law?
I find it amazing that anyone would criticise so sensible a precaution. When a former boss took me to lunch for special occasions, either his wife came along or he included a male junior executive. The gossip mill in the average workplace is busier than most of the employees, and I appreciated not being caught up in its machinery. Very few people go to work intending to start an affair. But you see people in the workplace in an artificial light. The women are well dressed, on their best social and professional behavior, tend to talk intelligently, and don’t whine… Read more »
Dead on, Jilly.
The real problem is that we try to pretend that men and women are no different in the workplace and in public discourse.
Of course if you have ever watched office sitcoms, such as the office or parks and rec you will see our collective id come to the surface. They are much closer to the truth than the corporate world the scolding feminist is presenting.
Perhaps the alcohol rule pertains more to dinner. In my office days many years ago, it was normal for people to order several drinks with lunch. That has really changed for the better.
They’re going to lose this one. This is one of those cases where they get too wrapped up with playing the insult game that they become blind to what they’re actually insulting.
You read too much into it. This is just tribal opportunism, not some fundamental psychological quirk of “secularists” or other boogeymen. That said, Pence is obviously in the right on the first rule. Maybe it’s my repressive red state upbringing, but it seems obvious to me that avoiding the appearance of impropriety is sensible. The alcohol rule I find less understandable–is the idea that he might get drunk and cheat on his wife? I don’t need such a rule myself, but there’s obviously nothing pernicious about it. I’m really having trouble seeing how any of this is “misogynistic”, unless this… Read more »
IMO the fact that they run to “misogynistic” and have an elaborate explanation of why this is scarily unacceptable indicates that it’s more than simple opportunism. On some level, at least some of them truly believe that there is something fundamentally wrong with the idea that an honest man needs to guard his honesty, and if the way he does it involves women, it’s clearly a reflection on the women. For them, it’s all angels and demons — you’re either a good person, in which case you can do anything you darn well please and there will be no danger… Read more »
The argument for it being misogynistic is that it disproportionately negatively effects access for women. That is, by definition the requirements for a male+male meeting to happen are lower than a male+female+female meeting.
I saw that in one of the articles on the subject (after getting over my amazement that anyone would actually write an article about this). And it is true that maintaining rules like these was easier when men and women occupied largely separate social spheres. But still, “misogynist” is a total exaggeration. That word is becoming more like “fascist” every day.
“I’m really having trouble seeing how any of this is “misogynistic”, unless this word has become a catch-all term for anything regarding sex or gender…”
Misogynist really is just a code word for anything sexual.
Yeah, those
Misog-parlors never fooled anyone!????
You have to assume a lot of things not in evidence, however, such as the idea that having dinner alone with your co-worker is essential to your professional function or success. I think enough people and companies, religiously motivated or otherwise, follow this practice for a variety of reasons that it’s a really bad assumption. Taking the assumption as a given so that you can charge misogyny seems politically or ideologially motivated rather than fact-based.
I agree with you and Matt that the claim of misogyny is overblown, and I happen to have a very similar rule. That being said, I don’t think you’ll get much traction with the idea that these types of rules can’t be assumed to have an effect. Why are the meetings happening? Ostensibly because they are a benefit. It is hard to explain why the meeting would happen if it isn’t beneficial to the parties involved. And if access is sexed, so is the benefit.
Pence is Vice President of the United States, he’s not just a cog in a machine. He is capable of structuring meetings any way he wants. He can make meetings happen in ways that benefit everyone involved, while maintaining this policy. Access isn’t sexed, simply exclusive access over food is sexed. There are a million other ways Pence, as a human actor, and not merely a human actor, but an extremely powerful man, can ensure that access is fairly provided. Saying this denies access isn’t much more reasonable than saying that denying employer-paid birth control coverage denies access to birth… Read more »
Taking sex out of the equation for a second, it is easier to orchestrate a meeting between two people than between three. If a party is always required to include at least three members, it has less availability than a party that consists of only two members. So a two member party has more access than a three member party. So returning sex to the equation, if men are allowed a two member meeting, and women are required a three member meeting, the access is sexed in favor of men. That he’s a VP only means that this effect is… Read more »
In some cases it may be difficult to get a third person. In the context of the Vice President’s staff, it is trivial to grab someone from the office to take along to a meeting. You could even have someone whose primary function is “answering the phone and making a third at meetings.” Even without that, he probably has at least one person whose job function is a personal assistant to do whatever he needs within the confines of the job, as needed. That’s why his being the VP makes this a non-issue. It might be harder for a middle… Read more »
I agree, and this is the only place that the opposition to Pence’s position (and mine, I might add) actually makes any sense at all, though it is way overblown by the left. As you said, let’s take sex out of the context. I say, let’s put it back in, but invert it. Let’s say it is, to keep it political, a female governor of some state, and a male political ally. For all who cry foul about Pence, would they also cry foul if this female governor had the same policy, and thus refused a dinner meeting with him… Read more »
Agreed, Mark. There’s a lot of room for hypocrisy here. I think it most likely that some would say a female governor like you described was treated as a victim of internalized paternalism. One possible solution for Pence is to make all dinner meetings three-person-minimum regardless of who it is.
Yes, very true, and applicable to a great many on both “sides” here, as Trump has ably exposed.
But not more power than the P. The names Bill and Monica come to mind for some reason.
I hope I’m never mistaken for someone who thinks highly of Clinton.
The necessary assumption is not nearly so absolute. One needn’t assume such access is essential to success; one need only assume it helps. Which… make sense, don’t you think? Ceteris paribus, taking away barriers to relationships will tend to foster them.
But a man of good will, who believes this principle is necessary to his integrity, will go the extra mile to ensure that working relationships are fostered by alternate means. This rule doesn’t function well all by itself, out of context, with no effort made to compensate for the inconveniences it creates. No rule does, which is one reason that living entirely by rule is a terrible idea. But that’s what I mean when I refer to Pence being a human actor. The rule doesn’t have to rule him, but he can be free to follow it without deserving recriminations,… Read more »
We may not disagree on much. My point is strictly that a society wherein powerful men generally follow this rule or something like it is a society in which fewer women get personal attention and mentoring relationships with their bosses. I happen to think that is okay, and a good reason to limit women in the workplace.
Your first paragraph is unclear to me. I wouldn’t say that Pence has any obligation to mentor or transact business with just as many women as men. Is that what you were talking about?
No, he doesn’t have any such obligation. This is actually a point I’ve been making in other fora where I’ve been discussing this — how it affects non-job-related interactions that may be of benefit of the employee may be real, but it’s not a matter of justice in any way, since mentoring isn’t an obligation a boss has to an employee. Lots of people, men and women, have bosses who for whatever reason invest no time and energy into mentoring type activities, and are not necessarily sinning against them by not doing so. However, if actual working relationships are hampered,… Read more »
The intelligent woman woman will also find a way to compensate, too. Many women are in the same situation. They also have to figure out to operate within whatever constraints they have set for themselves.
When even Salon pushes back on something, you know it’s stupid:
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/30/yeah-mike-pence-is-a-raging-hypocrite-but-not-because-of-his-puritanical-private-life/
I was interested to see the Salon article connected the dots between Pence and Jimmy Carter’s Playboy comment. There was a studied obtuseness about the media reaction toward Carter’s words, too. But he was a Democrat, so it was considered an idiosyncrasy rather than a character flaw. As the article illustrates.
The light has dawned–I think I get it now. The point of many (most?) of your “engaging the culture” posts is to get Christian frogs to hop out of the pot before they are cooked. A little flash of flame to make them uncomfortable, yes?
Yes indeed. I was never the sort of woman to be suddenly overcome with a desire to head off to the local hot sheet motel. For me, it was the dawning awareness that a particular man was much more entertaining to talk to than my husband, and heaven help me if he were funny as well. So the boundaries–don’t be alone with him, don’t look for reasons for private conversations–were helpful. You want to head off the moment at which he says, “Why, Miss Jones, you’re beautiful”–when you may no longer feel like hopping out of the pot.
Not exactly what I meant, although it certainly does apply, as you are saying, to the specific topic of this blog.
DW, who knows his bible better than I, sees the modern cultural morass and insanity as the judgement of God, which you can’t reason your way out of. So why engage? To stir Christians out of the stupor we are in. It’s no fun saying I told you so if you really care about the people getting hurt. Its far better to slap them awake while they still have a chance of escaping the spider.
Two words: Justin Trudeau.
Oh dear. Let’s try that again. “I was almost never the sort of woman…”
I don’t think we should pretend the Pence Fence doesn’t potentially disadvantage women. It clearly limits a kind of access and paradigmatic relationship-building activity (breaking bread together) to men. Rather, I think we should grant the point, but say, “yeah, but so what?” The moral calculus is more complex than a simple binary choice between “disadvantaging females” and “not disadvantaging females.” All things being equal, we can agree Pence should give male & female staffers similar opportunity for access/relationship/whatever. But all things aren’t equal. There are other values potentially in the mix, including but not limited to: protecting against Pence’s… Read more »
Well women shouldn’t be in politics to begin with, so there’s that.
Women are involved in politics and they aren’t going away. Deal with it and move on. This is not the 19th century.
“…which any non-deliberately obtuse person understands.” And there lies the rub.
A bit that I saw of this reaction was saying that Pence is not willing to conduct business with women. Along with everything else in this post the secularists look at life as compartmentalised to the point of being disentigrated.
When it comes to maintaining morality and purity, the left is completely naive and inexperienced.
When are we going to stop being surprised by the increasingly godless standards of liberalism and start doing something about it?
What do you propose? What do those eagle eyes of yours see as the/a solution?
I went to dinner once alone with another man under extenuating circumstances. We are friends and know each other’s spouses. During dinner we both struggled to control our discomfort for this thing that was so foreign. My husband knew we would be going for a meal and when I asked if he was okay with it he said, “oh yes. He is not your type all.” This delighted me because our friend was indeed “not my type” and I really appreciated that my husband understood me well enough to know that.
Just felt like sharing!
The interesting thing for me is that I cannot think of an example of a politician really being led astray by someone of the opposite sex for political gain. I can think of a lot of politicians taking advantage of others for sexual gratification, but not too many where someone actually fessed up to seducing someone as a “honey trap.” Maybe it’s out there and I haven’t seen it, but one might wonder whether the real reason is simple temptation and people seduceable by power. But that said, I’m guessing that political meals (I haven’t had many) are a different… Read more »
Are you saying that you don’t think people in the halls of power use sex as quid pro quo or for blackmail?
No denial of the principle of the honey trap, or that people may have gotten stuck in them. I’m just saying that for something that’s as big a theme in politics as it is, I sure can’t remember very many cases where somebody fessed up to it.
And so I wonder if the biggest hazard Pence faces is not a honey trap, but rather what happens when people see privacy, intimacy, and power, and forget that they’ve got a job to do.
But then it’s not exactly the kind of thing you put in your memoirs, whether you are the honey or the trapped.
Others disgusted by the results might put it in THEIR written works, though. If you go way back, you’ve got Mata Hari in WWI, and JFK is alleged to have slept with a German spy in WWII–that’s why he was on that PT boat. His dad kept him out of prison by sending him west instead of east. But otherwise, not too many examples.
Three cheers for Mike Pence. I wonder how many marriages have been broken up because of inappropriate adulterous relationships between two people who never spend time alone together. I bet not many.
When they make us cover our heads lemme know(comming soon).
We must ban women from the workplace.
He’s back! You naughty boy, how much groveling did you do to rejoin, or did you sneak in the backdoor?
Ol Billy’s sure to have some skeletons in the closet; a wall of pietism is no solution from the tree of temptation.., however-remember when positive things were being done?, like women staying home or protecting your wives and virgins; unics are looking for work-srsly. So now its on the man to not taste apart from his wife/not look etc,?(half the wives’ll be into something random themselves/the other 65%already are) So, Jesus at the well..?!, not well? Aaand those cads hangin’ with Rahab and even enlisting her in combat danger/how unchivalrous!!, bad form. The Near East Church can wait(not prot anyway… Read more »
Speaking of website trash ads, what in the Sam Hill is this nonsense above the comments section?! I am shocked to see it here. Expect it on most so-called news sites, which is why I only visit a few who don’t put these. Can’t even come to dougwils now because of this. Troubled news anchor does the… What?! If things are so desperate amongst blogging Christians that you have to accept these, maybe a blog needs to be rethought. So, the Bible with ads or without?
https://dougwils.com/personal/yes-know-stupid-ads.html