"But its just lunch?"

[Ransom]

On the contrary, I am quite serious. The question was asked, "Is it wrong?" That is an over-generalization; you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Furthermore, it is a moral question, and questions of a moral nature are decided by the Bible.

Is lunch between two married people not married to each other wise? Possibly not, depending on the circumstances. but you can't make a blanket judgment.
Is it appropriate? Could very well be. Maybe their motives are sinful, maybe not. Depends on the people; again, you can't make a blanket judgment about two people who eat lunch together.
Is it wrong, i.e. sinful? Not without Scriptural prohibition, it isn't.

 

[dianetavegia]

If I had been out Christmas shopping and Bro. David was eating at McDonald's and I walked in... I'd sit probably greet him and sit at a table close enough so that we could speak but I wouldn't go and sit right across from him so that our voices and conversation could be misconstrued as anything but friendly.

I've seen these quick lunches with co-workers turn into leisurely dinners and then adultery. You probably ALL know someone who had a work place affair.

Matthew 12:43 "When an unclean spirit goes out of a man, he goes through dry places, seeking rest, and finds none. 44 Then he says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when he comes, he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and takes with him seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man is worse than the first. So shall it also be with this wicked generation."

 

[All about Grace]

Is it wrong? No
Is it best? No

I recently finished a sermon series on creating "margin" in your life. One of the areas with which we dealt was moral margin. I think this issue is simply a matter of margin. I choose not to live life close to the line in this area. That way if something happens and I cross my margin line, I am still far from the cliff of immorality. However if I live life so close to the cliff w/o margin then I am in danger of falling off. And the ramifications of falling off the cliff morally are severe. Why not go to drastic measures on this side of the cliff instead of having to take drastic measures to try and salvage something I have lost???

I made it clear to the church that this was my margin choice & personal preference and they would have to set their own margin parameters.

Some legalists might turn this type of teaching into a right/wrong matter. I simply challenge people to define their margin and make it a better/best matter.

For me, margin means no alone time with members of the opposite sex (whether it be counseling, eating, car rides, etc.).

Just my 2 cents.

BTW the margin series I preached was the most requested series I have ever delivered. This issue is extremely applicable.

 

[blackbird]

Evidently---David's "margin" didn't gee-haw with God's margin!

God drew the margin at the battlefield and David wasn't there!! It cost him "Four Fold!"

 

[donnA]

My husband and I deciede a long time ago neither of us would be alone with someone of the opposite sex. Not in a room, car, or at a resturant table. Althugh we trust each other, we do not want people talking and it ruin our christian witness. Thats what staying away from the appearence of evil is about.

 

[Dina]

Originally posted by Ransom:
On the contrary, I am quite serious. The question was asked, "Is it wrong?" That is an over-generalization; you can't answer it with a simple yes or no. Furthermore, it is a moral question, and questions of a moral nature are decided by the Bible.

Is lunch between two married people not married to each other wise? Possibly not, depending on the circumstances. but you can't make a blanket judgment.
Is it appropriate? Could very well be. Maybe their motives are sinful, maybe not. Depends on the people; again, you can't make a blanket judgment about two people who eat lunch together.
Is it wrong, i.e. sinful? Not without Scriptural prohibition, it isn't.

I'm with Ransom on this one. One of The BEST friends I EVER had was a co-worker who was a married male, while I was a married female. We were also 2 of 4 Christians in our dept. We OFTEN had lunch together alone, and sometimes had lunch with my husband. And yes, there were some that we worked with who thought there was "more to it" then there really was. But, our actions proved otherwise and they got the picture that it was a close FRIENDSHIP, and nothing more.

BTW, both spouses knew about the friendship and had NO issue with it whatsoever. And, it NEVER bacame physical, other than a good bye hug when I left the co to move to a different state.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by blackbird:
Evidently---David's "margin" didn't gee-haw with God's margin!

God drew the margin at the battlefield and David wasn't there!! It cost him "Four Fold!"

Can you show me where it says that God demanded that David be on the battlefield? I don't think you can.

 

[blackbird]

2Samuel 11:1, "And it came to pass, after the year was expired, AT THE TIME WHEN KINGS GO FORTH TO BATTLE, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel, and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and beseiged Rabbah. BUT DAVID TARRIED STILL AT JERUSALEM."

Now, note several things----First, General Joab was gone forth! The servants were gone! All Israel was gone! Nobody there but David! By himself!----a married man---by himself----a woman there named Bathsheba---a married woman---by herself----deception becomes a decoy! David's mind is being "probed" by the devil's "LRRP!"---Long Range Recon Patrol! And if he can find David's weakness in a short time----what about yours???? Don't sit there and say you "know better" than Israel's King!!!

Plane as day from nite---David, not being on the battlefield---was living in disobedience to God. David's tarrying proves direct disobedience to God's command to be on battlefield.

When soldiers get off the battlefield for God---they're gonna mess up every time!!!!! When a man/woman starts getting lazy for God---they're gonna mess up every time!!

Say what you want to, Brother! I'm stayin' on the battlefield---safer there than lunch with a married woman!! Better to eat "Battlefield Dust" than a burger with a married woman---or man, ladies!!

Brother David

[ December 05, 2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: blackbird ]

 

[Caretaker]

Major B;

Very wise counsel.

Well said Dianetavegia.

Brother Blackbird Amen.


A servant of Christ,
Drew

 

[All about Grace]

Evidently---David's "margin" didn't gee-haw with God's margin!

Which is the point. David's lack of moral margin (not his decision not to go to battle) cost him severely.

 

[Ransom]

SBCbyGRACE said:

David's lack of moral margin (not his decision not to go to battle) cost him severely.

To be precise, it was David's inability to control his libido that got him in trouble. Blaming his circumstances is making excuses.

 

[All about Grace]

To be precise, it was David's inability to control his libido that got him in trouble. Blaming his circumstances is making excuses.

If you don't put yourself in the circumstance (moral margin), you do not have to worry about the control issue.

Margin is a biblical concept. It is not some type of legalism (even though it can be turned into that). As I stated earlier, I don't expect everyone's margin to be mine. But if David had clearer margin, he would not have had to deal with the issue. No one is blaming the circumstances but neither are the circumstances irrelevant in these matters.

 

[Daniel David]

Originally posted by blackbird:
2Samuel 11:1, "And it came to pass, after the year was expired, AT THE TIME WHEN KINGS GO FORTH TO BATTLE, that David sent Joab and his servants with him, and all Israel, and they destroyed the children of Ammon, and beseiged Rabbah. BUT DAVID TARRIED STILL AT JERUSALEM."

...

Plane as day from nite---David, not being on the battlefield---was living in disobedience to God. David's tarrying proves direct disobedience to God's command to be on battlefield.

Again, you have not shown from Scripture where it says David was disobeying anything. The Scripture simply reveals the time of year and what David was doing.

For all you know, he just penned one of the Psalms a week earlier.

The problem is with that woman of the night, Bethsheba.

 

[blackbird]

Bathsheba?? A woman of the night??? You go down to the local "Red Light" district and you ain't gonna have to wait on no "Woman of the Night" to "purify" herself----2Samuel 11:4. Tell Uriah that his wife was a woman of the nite----I'm afraid you'd have probably learned what the tip of a sword felt like against your neck and "Adam's Apple!" I've come closer to showing you the disobedience of David not being on that battlefield with Joab than you will ever come to showing me that Bathsheba was a woman of the night!

CAREFULLY examine Psalm 51----against Thee, Thee only have I sinned. Wash me!

David hooks no blame on anyone else but himself!

 

[dianetavegia]

The problem is with that woman of the night, Bethsheba.

Bathsheba was a lonely young wife who was flattered by the attention of a powerful man. If only she had never allowed herself to be alone with David... Oh, Wait... that's what this original post was about!

Diane

 

[Daniel David]

The Bethsheba comment was satire.

You haven't even come close to demonstrating that David was in disobedience. It is just one of those preacher points.

- All right everyone, it says right here that kings went to war at this time. David wasn't there so he was in sin.

Point no. 1, be in the right place at the right time Christian.

Point no. 2, don't be afraid of the fight. Stand strong...

Point no. 3, don't stay behind. Be man enough to be a leader...

Point no. 4, it is best to stay home at night. If you wander, you will just get into trouble...

Point no. 5, forces of evil are out there so put on the whole armor of God... -

There it is, right from the text. A five point sermon that has nothing to do with the text that gets preached all the time.

Btw, Bethsheba could have covered herself or done her bathing behind a curtain or something. Do you really think she didn't know she was in the line of sight for the palace?

 

[Dina]

Ok. I see nothing wrong with 2 married people-not to each other-having a lunch together.

The reason given so far that I have seen is mainly for the purpose of avoiding the appearance of evil. OK. I understand that point. Really, I do. But here is where I "get fuzzy" about it.

I am not "picking on anyone" just wanting some clarification.

Major B said in one post that >>It is dangerous to have a CLOSE PERSONAL FRIEND of the opposite gender unless that person is related or unless you and the person of the opposite gender are moving in the direction of being related (i.e., you are both eligible and you are courting).<<

The statement that confuses me is "unless the person is related". Ok, But how does the public KNOW you are related to the person you are having a lunch with? Some might see a brother and sister, who look nothing alike, eating alone at a table and think something is going on. Some might see Father and Daughter, or Mother and Son and think the same thing.

Diane said >>If I had been out Christmas shopping and Bro. David was eating at McDonald's and I walked in... I'd sit probably greet him and sit at a table close enough so that we could speak but I wouldn't go and sit right across from him so that our voices and conversation could be misconstrued as anything but friendly.<<

Ok. here again. I see how this can be looked at differently. If you are close enough to talk without yelling across the whole McD's can't there still be people who might think *something* is going on?

Donna posted >>My husband and I deciede a long time ago neither of us would be alone with someone of the opposite sex. Not in a room, car, or at a resturant table. Althugh we trust each other, we do not want people talking and it ruin our christian witness. Thats what staying away from the appearence of evil is about.<<

Does that take into account the phone repair guy? the cable guy? the schwans man? the heating/ac guy? I am a stay at home mom, my kids are in school. Earlier this year, my AC condensation pipe bacame blocked with algea, and I had to call out AC dude. While here he also did a general inspection and cleaning of the coils. He was here about an hour or so. Did it give the neighbors the wrong idea? Do I care? If I don't, should I?

Part of me really thinks that the "public" is going to think what they want about what they see and percieve, so why I should I be held accountable for someone else's mind/thinking the worst.

I could be having dinner with my father, who is 70. I could hold his hand, hug him, we could be talking about something in the family that is very private, so our voices are lowered. There will be people who will think what they will.

I could also be having dinner with a close male married-not to me-friend, no lowered voice, no physical contact and people will think the same things.

So...where does my innocence end and my guilt begin? Why I must I be responsible for someone else's reprobate mind? Am I supposed to be avoiding this type of situation for the *secular* population or church people?

 

[Gib]

I agree that we should always be careful with mixed company. IMO go to lunch. I have a working relationship with several ladies. I've been there 6 years and they are my friends. Sometimes we take a work lunch. Go to Cracker Barrel and talk about work.

My sister came into town for a few weeks. On a day off we went out for lunch. Afterwards we went to the mall to do some shopping.

Several weeks later a friend of mine from church came to me and said he wanted to squash a rumor. For there to be a rumor, someone had to start a rumor.

He had heard that Cheryl and I were having problems and that there was another woman. Of course I asked what he was talking about. He explained that several persons had seen me with the other woman at a resturant and we seemed very happy to be with each other.

Staying away from the appearance of evil is a 2 way street. John 7:24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgement. These folks made a judgement call without consulting me. They assumed they knew everything. They spread their lies throughout the church and community. They were closer to the evil than I ever was.

I should have wore a shirt saying "sister", with an arrow pointed at her. Folks need to keep their minds out of the gutter and restrain their mouths with a muzzle.

 

[Tonya R]

I think it is very close to being wrong.
An interesting note on Romans 7:3, the greek word for married is not the same as in other passages which is gamos. In 7:3 it is ginomai. Which has the extended connotation of consorting with or associates with.

Tonya

 

[Thankful]

I think it is very difficult to have a strict rule about being alone with a person of the opposite sex.

I have a funny story. When I was working (several years ago), I flew on the Department plane to one of our Hatcheries. The Hatchery Manager met the plane and while I was there, we, the pilot, the manager and another person had lunch. Before I got back to the home office, someone from that area had called the Director (CEO) and told him that a woman was in a Department vehicle and also went to lunch in a Department vehicle.

The crime.....the public didn't think that women should be in a State vehicle. As I said, this was years ago. They thought that the manager was driving his wife around in a state car. (Which was against the law at that time)

Of course, the Director could explain to the person because he had been the one that had sent me on the trip.

As to answer your question, I do not think that it is wrong for a man and woman to have lunch, dinner, but I want my husband to take me along.