Hello again, everyone! Evidently, the rumors of my demise were somewhat exaggerated.

I said I was stepping away from Christian writing, and I intend to hold to that. However, I am making a dramatic reappearance to speak to a controversy that has up and brewed: the debate over the Pence Rule* and whether Christian men and women can and/or should be friends. I do so with a heavy sigh, because this is not my favorite topic. Much like baptism, the regulative principle of worship, guns, and immigration, I’ve found it to be one of those discussions I should avoid if I hope to remain sane.

The reason I am choosing to write now about a topic that has been debated for much of the past year is that my friend Aimee Byrd has a book called Why Can’t We Be Friends? coming out on June 29. Perhaps you’ve heard something about it. It has been the subject of some preemptive negative reviews and one rather ill-conceived attempt at poetry. I did my graduate work at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, so I know all about preemptive attacks. Conclusion: good for Israel in the Six-Day War, not so good for books.

Aimee has previously written about the Pence Rule and cross-sex friendships in blog articles and a guest post for First Things. It is therefore reasonable to respond to those things she has already said publicly. The error comes in reading too much into these more limited explanations, which will undoubtedly be further developed in the book. There have been places in Aimee’s articles where I thought to myself, “I’m not sure if I agree with that. It will depend on exactly what she means by x, y, or z. I better wait for the book.” It seems that many have abandoned this more gracious approach and constructed straw men (or women) that they can easily demolish, appealing to the most extreme examples in order to discredit anyone who questions the Pence Rule for any reason. This may be appealing to some, but we should not mistake such works for good, logically sound arguments.

I plan to review Why Can’t We Be Friends?, but I want to first examine some of the factors that impact our understanding of male/female friendships and may therefore influence our opinions on things like the Pence Rule. These articles are my attempt to step back and consider some of the issues within an issue. They do not make a single, sustained argument, but are the product of much thought on the subject that has taken me down different mental paths. I hope it will be useful to someone.

These are not the opinions of an expert or perfected saint, but a pilgrim seeking God’s truth and stumbling along the way. Accept them to the extent that they increase your sanctification.

Understanding Ezer

It has become increasingly clear to me that we need to discuss brother/sister relationships in the Church alongside our understanding of female identity as rooted in the book of Genesis. In the narrative of Eve’s creation, we read the following: “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.’” (Genesis 2:18) The Hebrew word translated as “helper” is `ezer. It has deep connotations that have been analyzed by numerous scholars. Many have noted that this term is applied to God Himself in the Old Testament. The meaning is usually said to be aid, helper, succor, or help meet. Byrd has borrowed from the work of John McKinley and speaks of an ezer as a “necessary ally”. (e.g. No Little Women, pg. 25)

Complementarians and egalitarians alike champion the notion of woman as ezer, but their interpretations vary. As I am no expert in ancient Hebrew, I dare not make a definitive statement about the precise implications of the Hebrew word. I am more interested in how we choose to apply it. Is ezer part of a woman’s fundamental identity, such that a woman is necessarily an ezer in one form or another, or is it a role that she plays specifically within marriage, and thus rightly understood in relation to her husband and no other male? The way we answer that question will undoubtedly have a major effect on how we approach the issue of male/female friendships.

Most discussions about the Pence Rule focus on how to avoid potential negatives of cross-sex friendships. Less attention has been given to positive aspects of these friendships that can be lost through outright avoidance. To even suggest that there are ways that a woman could benefit from platonic friendship with a man (as opposed to a woman) is enough to trigger some Christians’ notions of propriety. I believe that such people see all the talk of friendship between the sexes as a kind of loophole for sinful behavior, the way that some unmarried Christians convince themselves that it is permissible to do anything and everything leading up to (forgive me!) sexual penetration without sinning or harming their relationships with God and their significant other. If advocates of male/female friendships have such motivations, then we should certainly be wary, and I do not deny that there are people looking to get as close as possible to the fire without being consumed.

But what if many advocates of cross-sex friendships are actually motivated by their understanding of human ontology? I believe that any thorough inspection of the arguments being made by writers like Aimee Byrd that is conducted in a halfway charitable manner will force us to conclude that their advocacy is based on their understanding of how gender differences are meant to glorify God. This ought to affect how we interpret and respond to their arguments.

Consider for a moment the complementarian movement, which is built upon the notion that males and females were made different for a reason. As the name suggests, they complement one another. There is something fundamentally different about men and women that is rooted in Creation and not simply our psychological projections. It is not even limited to our biological differences, although we are certainly embodied creatures. There is something ancient and foundational that allows us to benefit one another through our distinct identities.

Many complementarians are only too happy to promote these ideas, particularly in opposition to transgenderism. Some have gone further and taught notions of manhood and womanhood that extend beyond marriage to all of society. Perhaps you have heard people argue that all women should submit to all men precisely because of their ontological differences. The passage that is often brought forth to support this argument is in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ.” (1 Corinthians 11:3) The Greek words for “man” and “woman” can also mean “husband” and “wife”, and this was likely Paul’s intention, as he refers to marital relationships in the verses immediately following. The ESV translates the same phrase as “the head of a wife is her husband”.

Now, here’s the rub: if you use that passage to argue that all women submit to all men, and you root the complementary nature of the genders in the notion that men graciously lead and women humbly submit, then you have in effect endorsed the idea that a woman’s identity within the marriage relationship is little different from her relationships with all men. You are not restricting the notion of male headship but expanding it, even as you are saying that the woman’s complementary nature applies to all men.

It would therefore make sense to hold that a woman’s role as ezer extends to her relationships with all males. Even as she submits to all men, she can also benefit them in many positive ways. However, the people who make the “all women submit to all men” argument are not typically the loudest advocates of cross-sex friendships. Instead, they tend to empty the term ezer of much of its rich meaning and restrict it to one activity: obedient submission. (Restricting it to child bearing is another historical possibility.) Ironically, it is those who state that the command to submit only applies to the marriage relationship (and certain authorities like elders and governors) who seem more likely to argue that a woman can serve as a beneficial ally beyond the marriage relationship. This means that a woman who is not presently married can still fulfill the ezer part of her identity as she supports and encourages the men around her, building them up in faith.

I am not exactly sure what to make of all this, but it seems clear that our understanding of the word ezer affects how we think about the Pence Rule. If there is little to be gained from cross-sex friendships, then it does not seem wise to take the risk of sexual temptation. Segregation of the sexes would be the best approach according to this mindset. However, if God intended for us to benefit one another through our gender differences—not only in the marital relationship, but through God honoring friendships—then we are truly harming ourselves by segregating excessively.

Further exploration:

“Necessary Allies: God as ezer, Woman as ezer” – Lecture by John McKinley at the Evangelical Theological Society’s 2015 meeting ($4 mp3 download)

* The term “Pence Rule” refers to comments made by the current vice president of the United States, Mike Pence. In a 2002 interview with The Hill, he stated that he does not eat alone with women who are not his wife and does not attend events featuring alcohol unless she is with him. It is somewhat similar to the so-called Billy Graham Rule. In discussions about this topic, the principle is often expanded to include any extensive one-on-one interactions with a person of the opposite sex; however, interpretations of the Pence Rule vary. The issue received widespread attention when Pence’s principle was mentioned in an article by The Washington Post last year.

All scripture quotations are from The New American Standard Bible, copyright The Lockman Foundation.