Forget the Billy Graham Rule. You know, the one that classifies all women as potential, shameless seductresses.
I can think of a few pieces of advice and counsel I was given early and often as a young seminarian and pastor. One of these is that you have to watch out for women in the church because some of them are looking to seduce the pastor, that shining example of male rectitude and exemplary spiritual maturity. Yeah, all oslost, ministry ruined, when some shameless hussy enchantress sets her sight on him. Call me ugly, obtuse, tone deaf, super spiritual, lucky or unlucky but I never found one of these in several decades as a pastor. Maybe because I wasn’t looking?
Women make up the majority of every church’s attendees and do most of the work. How much sense does it make to lay out the broadest of broad generalizations that while women might be good workers and supporters, ya better watch out for all of them and be wary around them. I’m trying to think of examples where general wariness is warranted but can’t come up with much other than male staffers acting against female counselees and staff members and abuse of girls.
And, sure, I heard (several thousand words and endless comments) about that wily woman Bathsheba in this context. Maybe we should go with women being covered, separate doors and sides of the church for men and women.
Just asking.
_________________
Photo is from TripAdvisor of the old [Methodist] church at Cades Cove in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Two of the three churches I pastored originally had separate entrances for men and women. Each was later remodeled and a single entrance constructed. Nothing in the church minutes about a rise in immorality after the change was made.
The title is only semi-serious and, since I am male, I can’t answer it anyway but I know some women who have good reasons for answering it, “**** yes!”
But…there’s football today and other subjects fall short of the goal line.
