- Pence will not go to an event where alcohol is being served unless his wife goes with him.
- Pence will not dine alone with a woman who is not his wife.
When these statements came out, naturally there was significant criticism that boundaries such as these were a detriment to women. Nicholson, in her piece, draws similarities between Pence's boundaries and the Billy Graham rules and how this impacts the ministry. I am going to dissect Pence's rules a little further and discuss whether these boundaries are detrimental to women and argue that it will depend on how they are applied.
Starting with Pence's first rule. This one is good practice regardless of your spiritual beliefs. In my field, physics, which largely secular, I have met a few individuals who make a point of bringing their spouses or partners with them when alcohol is being served. The consumption of alcohol lowers inhibitions and sometimes unprofessional actions are taken and words are said. The presence of a partner gives a measure of accountability, while it can protect from unwanted sexual situations, it can also and perhaps, more importantly, shield from actions that could be taken in harming a career. Further, Pence only impacts himself by having this boundary. If he chooses to abstain from an event where his wife is unable to attend, he loses on the networking opportunity.
In Nicholson's article, she was talking about the implications of the boundaries Pence has put in place in regards to those in pastoral positions. I believe that would be in an agreement that it is a good idea for a pastor to have his/her spouse present with him/her at events where alcohol is served. I myself, try to do the same in my own field and it has served my marriage well.
Now on to Pence's more contentious boundary. He will not dine alone with a woman who is not his wife. This is a softer version of the Billy Graham rules. I will write more on Billy Graham's rules here in a bit. Pence has been criticized that this is gender-based discrimination and that he is disadvantaging women. Now, this could be true, but this depends on how this rule is applied. Firstly, if he frequently taking his male colleagues out from individual lunches and dinners then this is problematic. However, if he is reserving business over food to group interactions, then this boundary only affects his personal life. There is no mention that he was refusing to meet individually with women in a professional context in a non-dining context. Given the media outrage over his boundaries, that would have come to light if that were the case. So, as long he was giving time in his office to mentor and develop the men and women under him, then the dining issues become irrelevant. We do not have sufficient information to truly judge this.
Further, one aspect that must be recognized about both Pence and Graham is the public nature of their job/ministry. This simply requires a greater level of discretion in terms of interactions. There are more eyes watching them and more people to spread rumours. Now this does not apply to all individuals and assessing the popularity of oneself is something one must approach with great humility and likely with another discerning prayer partner in terms of boundaries need to be in place.
I would like to end on something which I fully agree with Nicholson on. Pastors must accommodate ministry despite personal boundaries. Pastoral offices should have large windows and be clearly visible. If a pastor cannot meeting privately with members of a particular sex, then staff should be hired to ensure that these individuals can still be served. I have read of one case where a conservative pastor mentored an unmarried woman and involved his wife in the processes. The mentee benefited by have access to two godly individuals. I would also put forth that pastors must evaluate their boundaries that their motives are in based in God and not simply wanting to appear righteous. Not every pastor needs the same boundaries, though every pastor should always exercise caution. In all cases, we should always approach these issues with love, understanding and compassion.
Starting with Pence's first rule. This one is good practice regardless of your spiritual beliefs. In my field, physics, which largely secular, I have met a few individuals who make a point of bringing their spouses or partners with them when alcohol is being served. The consumption of alcohol lowers inhibitions and sometimes unprofessional actions are taken and words are said. The presence of a partner gives a measure of accountability, while it can protect from unwanted sexual situations, it can also and perhaps, more importantly, shield from actions that could be taken in harming a career. Further, Pence only impacts himself by having this boundary. If he chooses to abstain from an event where his wife is unable to attend, he loses on the networking opportunity.
In Nicholson's article, she was talking about the implications of the boundaries Pence has put in place in regards to those in pastoral positions. I believe that would be in an agreement that it is a good idea for a pastor to have his/her spouse present with him/her at events where alcohol is served. I myself, try to do the same in my own field and it has served my marriage well.
Now on to Pence's more contentious boundary. He will not dine alone with a woman who is not his wife. This is a softer version of the Billy Graham rules. I will write more on Billy Graham's rules here in a bit. Pence has been criticized that this is gender-based discrimination and that he is disadvantaging women. Now, this could be true, but this depends on how this rule is applied. Firstly, if he frequently taking his male colleagues out from individual lunches and dinners then this is problematic. However, if he is reserving business over food to group interactions, then this boundary only affects his personal life. There is no mention that he was refusing to meet individually with women in a professional context in a non-dining context. Given the media outrage over his boundaries, that would have come to light if that were the case. So, as long he was giving time in his office to mentor and develop the men and women under him, then the dining issues become irrelevant. We do not have sufficient information to truly judge this.
Further, one aspect that must be recognized about both Pence and Graham is the public nature of their job/ministry. This simply requires a greater level of discretion in terms of interactions. There are more eyes watching them and more people to spread rumours. Now this does not apply to all individuals and assessing the popularity of oneself is something one must approach with great humility and likely with another discerning prayer partner in terms of boundaries need to be in place.
I would like to end on something which I fully agree with Nicholson on. Pastors must accommodate ministry despite personal boundaries. Pastoral offices should have large windows and be clearly visible. If a pastor cannot meeting privately with members of a particular sex, then staff should be hired to ensure that these individuals can still be served. I have read of one case where a conservative pastor mentored an unmarried woman and involved his wife in the processes. The mentee benefited by have access to two godly individuals. I would also put forth that pastors must evaluate their boundaries that their motives are in based in God and not simply wanting to appear righteous. Not every pastor needs the same boundaries, though every pastor should always exercise caution. In all cases, we should always approach these issues with love, understanding and compassion.
No comments:
Post a Comment