The venerable “Billy Graham rule” has served many ministers well over the years. The rule is a simple concept: not being alone with another woman not one’s wife. I suppose there are variations and exceptions but those who follow it do not arrange private luncheons with another woman and some go to the extent of not ever being alone with another woman. The latter is impractical, perhaps impossible to follow for some single staff churches with a secretary. The pastor may well be in the building alone if he maintains any office hours at all.
I’m curious if the rule which is in its seventh decade now, is still applicable, useful and practical. The changes since the 1940s are considerable: females in the workplace, including church staffs; the manner business is conducted; the ubiquitous use of social media for relationships and contacts.
While I haven’t seen hard data on it, my speculation is that more clergy are caught by pornography, sexting and other inappropriate social media contact. I can name several forced resignations and terminations locally from such sins. No furtive assignations where adultery is involved, just emotional and mental adultery. If a pastor’s resignation or firing is described as being because of “an inappropriate but not physical relationship with a woman not his wife” is this the code phrase for exchanging texts or email with photographs and/or lascivious talk?
So, wouldn’t the new Billy Graham rule, the one that would work for the 21st century connected minister this: “My phone, computer, and other devices are available to any deacon (elder) or staff member for examination at any time”?
Perhaps overlaying the “new” rule on the old one would be a shield against emotional and physical adultery?
I’m curious.
There is an entire book written about such rules. It’s called Galatians.
Just kidding. Sort of.
From a practical standpoint, especially for someone in the public eye, a highly protective rule might make sense. Not because of the rule’s ability to keep you pure, but because of the hostility toward some in leadership and the targets they become.
I could not have practiced law for over 30 years in today’s world with such a rule.
But I still hear people quoting it (they don’t mention Graham usually) as if it’s scripture. That’s the attitude we need to get away from. Actually, the church is about 30 years late in this discussion.
I suspect that most people who have to operate in the business world just roll their eyes when they hear this rule spoken in church. Like I said. The discussion is really 30 years late.
But those who are able to manage their business in such a way that they can keep such a rule, or the rest of the folks who really have no meaningful experience except in limited social settings, say “Amen.”
And you end up with where we are.
Jesus’ teaching ministry lasted 3 years. If He wanted to lay down a bunch of rules, that’s what Christianity could be. But He did not. There are actually very few rules in Christianity.
We would do well to stay away from fashioning such rules of general applicability.
I agree that transparency in digital communications like you’re describing here would be a welcome & important accountability step for pastors, even if it involved some inconveniences. When I arrived at our current church, I offered my email password to our elders so they could check at any time. I’m not aware than any actually have – and now with two step verification on many accounts it’s not as easy as sharing a password in many cases.
But I’ve seen Christians, including pastors, run into trouble with online communications and in most cases the presumed privacy of the exchange is a major factor in the temptation to unfaithfulness. Certainly our wives should have access at any time, which I think even includes a second device that she can examine at any time. For me that’s an iPad that stays at home but all communications are synced between devices.
As a woman and a parishioner who was a young single church going woman in the 70’s, a married young woman in the 80’s and 90’s, I was always offended by that rule, as if all women were out to have an affair. That is how we were treated, or it seemed that way.
I had both male and female friends at work and of course while affairs happened, it was not the norm. I certainly adored my husband and would never even entertain the thought of an affair, I was just a friendly person and my husband rightly trusted me. But at church (not my current church) it was as if I was a threat simply because I was young and a woman. Nothing could be further from the truth. My husband did not check the mileage on my car(which checking all communication and not being with a woman alone was akin to IMO), all that I did not was have an affair. Simple. Even when I was single I did not date married, engaged or even a man going steady with another woman. It was just a line I never crossed. I also did not date men that my friends had broken up with.
I think it’s pointless to have these “rules” when self control is something that needs to happen. If a man is prone to affairs, just as someone would be prone to molesting children, they should not be in ministry. What has happened that self control and setting limits for ourselves is unattainable? It’s crazy.
BTW: I think it would fall under the heading of “Man looks on the outside but God looks on the heart.” Christ said that the law says thou shalt not commit adultery, but that thinking about a man or woman in that way is the same as committing the act. So it’s not the outer that should be examined but the inner, and only we and God can know this and change it.
Please don’t take it so personally. It’s not an existential issue as much as it’s an epistemological one. The issue isn’t a matter of self-control except to observe that people, including ministers, struggle with sin and need help resisting temptation. But the issue with regard to their ministry is how everyone knows that the minister is being faithful. Half of the ministry is leading by example and it’s the open testimony of a minister’s life that lends weight to his counsel, teaching and admonition. A minister can’t do that unless it’s apparent that he has sought to be held accountable in every way possible.
I know these things because I’ve had to walk our church in Venezuela through a difficult time where their pastor committed adultery. It was the second pastor who has done it in less than two decades. It’s the kind of thing that can ruin the whole church and this church still has a bad reputation among their neighborhood because of it and has damaged their ability to minister where they are.
It’s also to prevent even the appearance of inappropriate behavior. People love to gossip and jump to conclusions about the motives of others, and pastors are a favorite target.
Jennifer, good observation. Thanks.
The rule would be just as true for women. If I found that my wife was dining alone with a man, I’d be less than thrilled. However, since we are talking about ministry here, the focus is on the biblical concept of men being careful in avoiding the appearance of evil.
Well, had almost completed a post of several paragraphs before my PC “happened”. Here’s a little of what I was thinking:
Important stuff-electronic device accountability has its place in today’s world, for pastors, and spouses in general.
I think it’s important to consider that a pastor will have communications that are private, and should legitimately remain that way. Also, church communications are more the church’s business than family communications. That is the pastor’s wife’s business.
Perhaps pastors could consider accountability partners, and find a different means of communicating those things that are to remain private.
Also, I don’t like the “available to any deacon at any time” idea. Too many deacons have tried to oust pastors in the past, and used things like this inappropriately. You can have accountability on a more limited level,
My first post was much better, but I’m signing off now before these bits get lost, too. 😉
We have Covenant Eyes installed on all our family’s devices. It has different setting options for content and sends an update email on a weekly basis. It also allows you to view anything viewed by providing all the websites and content viewed or downloaded. It is well worth the money. You can choose who has access to your browsing history and receives the weekly update. It does not offer a phone or email list showing who you speak to privately, but than can been probably set-up through your carrier. I think if a church wanted, they could ask members to approve loading this onto all computers and phones provided by the church. Potentially, they could also require pastors, staff and deacons to download it on their personal devices. I think the problem with phones and email communications would be that someone could know very private information not intended for them. Theoretically, these same people would never divulge any of this information and it shouldn’t be a problems anyway. But, there remains the factor that we should trust everyone until proven guilty, realizing fully we are all sinners.
My husband and I attended Prestonwood Baptist for a few years when we lived in that area. Jack Graham was the first pastor to put it to us that we should never be alone with someone of the opposite sex not our spouse, not just clergy and staff. We have practiced this in our lives and I know it can be difficult. Always having a witness is sometimes inconvenient, but it saves marriages and keeps our walk with God right in this area.
I know many churches that do not practice this rule, but Baptists seem to do a better job than most.
Debbie,
I am glad to hear you express your feelings on this.
I note the statements from others about email communications. But keep in mind that fashioning a “rule” in that area (such as, your wife must have access) is also hopeless.
My business, law, does not allow me to give access to my email others.
I suspect HIPPA compliance would affect doctors and other healthcare professionals.
Ministers should maintain the confidences that people share with them. Ministers’ wives knowing everything is a bad idea. Say a person confesses are murder to a minister. In the past, the minister was required to keep that confidence. Can’t tell your wife that, guys.
How about we just have a rule that we are people of integrity. If you can’t behave yourself, censure yourself.
Don’t go about creating rules and regulations for everyone else.
And for the “appearance” of evil, eating lunch with a person, or being with a person, is not evil or an appearance of evil.
I think there is a lot of truth to what Louise says. The fact is that a person could put in place lots of “accountability”, but if they wanted to hide some communication or a relationship, they could still find a way to do it.
…while at the same time ministers need to protect themselves from obvious situations that could lead to either temptation, or suspicion. Here’s a few thoughts:
-I, as a youth pastor, am never alone with a teenage girl…I won’t take them home, I won’t meet with them alone to discuss their feelings (my wife is better at that anyway). If they are the last one picked up from a youth event, I ask another adult to stay around until they leave.
-As a music pastor, I try not to schedule any music practices with just me and a young woman in the church together, I plan for there to be others around.
-My wife and I share a google account, so she sees what I have searched for, even on my phone…
-Here’s one for thought…as a relatively “young” man…I WILL visit an elderly widow in her home alone.
Andrew,
I think it’s great that you are careful, and you should be. Some of these things sound like good practical applications.
Where we get into trouble is taking what you have done and suggesting it is mandatory and that everyone, regardless of context should do it.
I also think it is good that you visit elderly women. If you were to announce that you don’t and it’s because of your concern for purity, that would create more issues than if you continued to visit (imo).
Amen
As a newcomer to my city in 1975, I was 24, single, and visiting the church where I now have been a member for 40-plus years. Sunday after Sunday, I kept checking a box on the visitor’s card that said I would like someone to contact me to tell me about the church. The phone number I gave was the SBC entity where I had just begun a new job. I was seriously considering membership in the church I was visiting but had questions before I joined. I waited weeks but never heard from anyone. I finally called and requested an appointment with the pastor so I could learn more about the church. The first available appointment was six weeks out. (The church is now a mega church, but was very large for its day back then.) I finally met the pastor and asked my questions. One was about Cooperative Program giving and the church’s involvement in missions. The appointment went well. I liked what I heard and joined the next Sunday. Much later, I found out that the reason no one contacted me from the visitor’s card had to do with the fact that I was female, young, and single. The church’s method for reaching out to visitors involved deacons making Sunday afternoon visits. However, they decided it was wise to not visit or make phone calls to single, young women, for appearance’s sake. However, they did not have an alternate plan to contact single female visitors.
I really don’t have a problem with the Billy Graham rule in most situations and am grateful that he has lived a scandal-free and above-reproach life. However, male church leaders need to come up with a Plan B for dealing with female members and visitors instead of just ignoring them. Perhaps a team of qualified female leaders to deal with situations that involve one-on-one interactions with other females? It would be good to communicate about personal and/or church policies ahead of time in a non-offensive way to cut down on misunderstandings.
Mary Ann, that is really sad to hear. We are by no means perfect at follow up in my church, but we do call on elder and deacon wives along with some non officer wives to follow up on females. Sometimes it’s a single woman and often it’s a married woman visiting without her husband.
On another note, our elders make home visits throughout the year for our members and regular attenders. Each elder has what we call a “fold” or shepherding fold made up of the families in the church. We require elders to absolutely take their wives if the visit involves a single woman. Our elders can go alone if husband and wife will be there for married couples.
Deacons handle our mercy ministry and meet with people to assess their situation. No deacon meets with women alone. Deacon wives are required to be there with her husband. They lovingly serve along side their deacon husbands.
Great care needs to be taken.