What is your opinion on this? 1 on 1 friendships.

[McBest]

Hi there,

I was having a talk with a friend, we are both Christians, and he raised a quite different perspective to I.
This led me to question my own thoughts/approach to this type of situation, and it was inconclusive, so I want a larger broader perspective.

I recently moved into a new apartment, and a female friend wanted to see my new place. The plan was she would come see the unit, we would hang there for an hour or 2 until dinner time, then head up to the shops and grab dinner.

My friend objects, saying this is not beyond reproach, and is a potential situation for sexual temptation. (Putting a LOT more emphasis on the not beyond reproach perspective, as he agreed sexual temptation is very very low...). He talks about other people looking in on the situation and not knowing the situation can make false assumptions and ultimately its not beyond reproach.

I sit on the other side of this fence, I debate that we are just two friends who have no interest in each other than friendship, clearly expressed, and she just wants to see where I am now living.

Of course a simple solution is to just have a third person present, but I am interested in people's opinions in 1 on 1 male to female social interactions. Should it be kept 100% purely to public areas? What do you think?

Thanks,

 

[hedrick]

I don't see how you get from Jesus, who was notorious for eating with sinners, to Christians being more concerned about appearance than reality. Similarly, Paul countenanced eating meat sacrificed to idols, against which precisely this "appearance of evil" argument would be made. Indeed Jesus' whole concept of ethics was to go beyond things like the letter of the law to intent. "appearance of evil" turns his teaching on its head. But then, I'm a notorious liberal.

I do believe you should protect against situations that would present dangerous temptation.

1 Thes 5:22 uses a word that can mean both "form" and "appearance". The translations I use talk about "every form of evil." Even the NIV, ESV, and New King James use "form of evil". Wycliffe said "species," which I assume means kind. So KJV seems nearly alone here. Louw and Nida define the word as "appearance as the form of that which is seen", that is every different form in which evil can appear. There's no reason to think it refers to things that aren't evil but which someone else might be suspicious about.

For what it's worth, Calvin interprets 5:22 in the overall context of 5:21, so that it refers specifically to questionable doctrine. He thinks it is saying that we should not hold doctrines that can't be clearly established as true. The Word commentary sees that as a possible meaning.

However you have a practical question. If you belong to a legalistic church, Jesus' actual meaning won't save you from trouble with them. You'll have to make a judgement about what the reaction of people around you is going to be, and whether you care. I'd like to see people get out of such situations, but there are often good reasons to stay.

 

[Mr Dave]

Two good friends spend time together and share a meal... the horror.

Forgive my sarcasm, I really can't see how it should be a problem. You're two friends, because of the friendship you have, she's interested to see your new place, you're likely interested to show your new place to your friend. There is absolutely no reason you shouldn't do that. Nor should you feel that A.N.Other needs to be there watching you like a hawk in case either of you suddenly breaks down in a fit of passion.

You seem alright, I wonder why this other guy struggles with the idea that it is possible to have a female friend and see her as a friend rather than as a potential temptress.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Hi there,

I was having a talk with a friend, we are both Christians, and he raised a quite different perspective to I.
This led me to question my own thoughts/approach to this type of situation, and it was inconclusive, so I want a larger broader perspective.

I recently moved into a new apartment, and a female friend wanted to see my new place. The plan was she would come see the unit, we would hang there for an hour or 2 until dinner time, then head up to the shops and grab dinner.

My friend objects, saying this is not beyond reproach, and is a potential situation for sexual temptation. (Putting a LOT more emphasis on the not beyond reproach perspective, as he agreed sexual temptation is very very low...). He talks about other people looking in on the situation and not knowing the situation can make false assumptions and ultimately its not beyond reproach.

I sit on the other side of this fence, I debate that we are just two friends who have no interest in each other than friendship, clearly expressed, and she just wants to see where I am now living.

Of course a simple solution is to just have a third person present, but I am interested in people's opinions in 1 on 1 male to female social interactions. Should it be kept 100% purely to public areas? What do you think?

Thanks,

Wow, that's pretty ridiculous. One of my best friends is a girl and we have been friends for years.

If you truly want a deep, mutual, platonic friendship to develop, then having a third person present all the time will stop that from happening. One on one interactions almost always have more depth to them than group settings.

And even if it wasn't platonic, that still doesn't mean you can't be alone with the person! Physical intimacy is an important part of any dating relationship; its necessary and its healthy. And just because you're cuddled up on a couch with a girlfriend doesn't mean you're suddenly and spontaneously going to get naked and start having raunchy sex. If you truly believe you are so sex-starved and have so little self-control then I think you might have bigger problems

 

[secondtimearound]

You should ask your friend why he/she hasn't joined a convent yet, after-all, sin and temptation for sin is everywhere.

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT


Closing

The threads in this forum need to be started by non-Christians.