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.
You’ve got a good point: when I was younger I didn’t have any of those seductresses show up. I don’t think it’s more likely now…
Maybe we’re trying to defend against something that’s not as common as we were led to belive. And additionally: how many of the “well, that temptress showed up and took him down” stories we were told actually engaged her viewpoint? How many of those were the self-defense stories of men we trusted and couldn’t bring ourselves to believe were just unfaithful to their wives?
“Maybe we’re trying to defend against something that’s not as common as we were led to believe.” Ya think?
My wife and I apply the Rule not because of what the other person might tempt us to do, but because we know humanity’s depravity extends to us as well. “What sins might I commit?” drives us more than, “What will that person tempt me to commit?”
Our second reason is to protect our reputations from third party observers. What rumors might abound if we’re seen too often in violation of The Rule? What damage might be done? We cannot avoid all rumors, but wisdom says, “Do what you can, if possible.” I’ve never really understood those who interpreted this rule as being an implied critique of the supposed bad character of one gender or another.
That is still an insult to women Ethan and if you can hold yourselves back from alcohol, I am sure we won’t tempt you either. Women make great friends(just ask Wade, or William or many others who have managed not to be animals around women).
It’s always great to hear from you, Debbie.
When I said,”My wife and I apply the Rule..” I meant she and I both apply it to ourselves. I thought that statement communicated more clearly than it did. That is, she avoids being alone with men just as surely as I avoid being alone with women.
I fail to see how viewing myself as being depraved is insulting to women, I truly do. I know the depths of sin in the human heart not because I’ve see yours or anyone else’s, but because I’ve seen my own. My wife, for her part, knows the degree to which sin still occupies her own life, and behaves in a way to avoid being alone with men for both of the reasons listed above.
As for friendship, that’s a separate question. I am friends with many women, and I enjoy their intelligence, their wit, their insights into politics, theology, technology, art, literature; even so, I know (again) the sin of the human (mine!) heart well enough to apply some wisdom to our interactions. And by “wisdom” I don’t mean some sort of absolute notion that applies to all people – just something that seems to be a good idea when applied to us.
Ethan, your statements here are quite wise. This is the right perspective and is in no way disrespectful to others.
Been in the ministry for 26 years…the Billy Graham rule for my part, has always been in place and interpreted as a protection from third party false accusations. I will not be alone with another woman other than my wife, not primarily because I don’t trust another woman, or me, but the propriety of some outside individual misconstruing, or misinterpreting something they may see. – to make every effort to be unblameable in the ministry.
Ethan, You are exactly correct. The Billy Graham rule is not about women. It is about wisdom.
“The Billy Graham rule is not about women.”. Eh? This one won’t fly.
How about, “It is not about being sexist toward women. It is about wisdom.” I shouldn’t have assumed that a simple abbreviation would be clear to you.
I was single when I was saved and entered the ministry at age 39. Before that, I was a heathen, and chasing women was high on my heathen list. I was never really good at “catching” them, but it wasn’t from a lack of trying, lol.
I wasn’t interested in dating my first 4 years in the ministry, God was doing a work in me. But at 43 I felt the desire again, this time though to find a Godly wife. That presented more of a challenge than I expected, especially in doing so in a Godly way.
I was serving in a fairly large church, 600 or so, but there weren’t many singles my age, and none were interested in me. So a friend recommended going on-line to a Christian dating site. I did, and it was like I was Brad Pitt. Now I’m an overweight, hardly stunning guy. But women were lining up to go out with me. I went on 6 dates with 6 different women, all of whom made it very clear they wanted to sleep with me on that first date. In my previous, heathen life, this would have been a dream come true. But here I was looking to do things the right way. It was eye opening.
The last woman of that group was by far the most beautiful woman I’d ever gone out with. I came very close to falling, but did not. I realized I could not place myself in that position of temptation. The 7th woman, my wife now, I made it crystal clear from the beginning. She agreed. We dated 15 months and were married. We did it God’s way, and still it wasn’t easy to do so.
I’m not saying this to contradict your point, just that we’re all human, and vulnerable to temptation. Men, and women. The best answer for me at least was/is to avoid any situation where temptation could arise
The Billy Graham Rule is a good rule to follow. Satan is no respecter of persons. He can temp you, Preacher, and he can temp a woman also.
No CB it’s not. It puts women in a class we don’t want, need or deserve. It also leads more toward sexual abuse than away from(700 plus-Houston Chronicle). Church men are such jerks. There I put you in a class too as well as all men. It’s wrong here(except for a few) and it’s wrong to place the Billy Graham rule above the Bible(see Jesus)
I’m sorry, Debbie, but that is the most incongruous statement I have ever seen on SBV.
You obviously haven’t read Debbie’s other comments.
(Sorry, Debbie. Couldn’t resist. You know we love you.)
Ha ha thanks Dave. I love you guys too. And I admittedly had to look up the word incongruous. 🙂
AMEN cb!!!
Absolutely it is. It i wise godly counsel to protect a man from his baser instincts and ensure he takes no improper advantage of vulnerability. Despite what MSNBC/New SBC Social Consciousness says, it is wise counsel grounded in biblical wisdom.
Yup!
Being a man, I know temptation. I work to treat women and men with respect, I sometime have failed. I would encourage all to hear a caution, be careful about situations in which you are alone with particularly members of the opposite gender.
I do take exception to someone suggesting that caution in the circumstance, is equivalent to casting stones or judging character.
Robin Shoemaker
I don’t think the Billy Graham rule is a bad thing. The key is that we men not put the blame on the seductiveness of women but the lustfulness and weakness of men. It is not a biblical rule or requirement, but there is some wisdom in it.
That’s my point. Neither men nor women are above temptation. The Billy Graham rule is a good rule. We are a fallen people. Temptation is real for both genders. That’s my whole point. I really don’t understand Debbie’s response.
CB: I hate the Billy Graham rule with a passion. I always have. Thus my response. It is insulting to women. Karen Swallow Prior tells a personal story or stories related to the Billy Graham rule which left her with 1. A mouth open and 2. In the rain with a non running car.
I have never applied it legalistically, to where I would leave someone in the rain because of it. BTW, I am aware of at least one instance where following the rule really saved my reputation, and not because I was ready to commit adultery. CB is right on this.
The problem here is the context of the discussion. It takes a long time to get past things we accept and become used to doing just because its the way we do church. It was hard for me to see until I started working in an organization among Christians in the northeast who were of other Evangelical backgrounds besides Baptist. I picked up really quickly on their perception of Baptists, particularly Southern Baptists, as being arrogant and cocky, far too convinced of their own rightness and of everyone else’s mistakes and shortcomings and most notably an impression that most Baptist men are chauvinistic and dismissive when it comes to women, particularly in their role in the family and in the church. And the fact that most of these discussions and attempts to resolve the problem still take place among men who still continue to value their position and opinion more than they do that of any women, including their own spouses is evidence that these other Christians may be on to something, especially when it comes to their impressions of Baptists and how they treat women.
Many of the discussions here, especially regarding this issue, are mostly made up of men, mostly pastors from the jist of the conversation and are either subtly or openly dismissive of the views that the few women who venture to comment offer. It’s almost like an automatic response, a woman makes a comment and a man has to set her straight. Or “break her down.”
I can tell you that I value the opinion of my wife over any person I know, man or woman. We have both seen chauvinism in spades in the church. It is something I don’t tolerate, and I have the scars to prove it. And we both agree the Graham rule is a very good idea, both for the ministry and for our marriage. If others don’t agree with me, that’s fine, but some of the insults in this thread have been disappointing.
I don’t know that the Billy Graham classifies all women as shameless, seductive hussies. Never has; still doesn’t.
It does not classify women as anything. It is simply a code of conduct to help people, men and women, walk circumspectly and not be fools. The Graham rule contains wisdom for both sexes.
CB: Sure it does. It puts us in a class of avoidance by all men who follow this rule. It puts us in embarrassing situations. If men cannot just be sociable and friends with women, it does put us in the seduction class.
If men are that tempted that they have to follow a rule(and maybe there are some who are) then maybe going to an all male church is the answer. I hear Monks are an in thing now. The key is to teach that we are equal and worthy of respect and honor. Teaching that all women are valuable, as valuable as men.
Debbie,
I don’t avoid the women at my church. I minister to them in public settings and privately with my wife present. One reason I have always followed this is that frequently the topic of discussion is the woman’s marriage. Satan frequently tempts people to infidelity when their marriage is in trouble. This the boundary. Surely you can see wisdom in this without taking it offensively. Especially in the environment we now live in, with so much discussion about clergy abuse. Please don’t fault people for trying to do it the right way.
Let me ask all those nonsensing me(John R) 🙂 this, could you be alone with a whiskey bottle or a piece of chocolate cake? If you can’t be alone with a woman in your office, that is a problem and it’s not the gender either.
It’s not a matter of not being able to be alone in a room with a woman or putting man’s rule above God’s Word. It’s about establishing boundaries in your life in an effort to be “above reproach”. The rule in question is a single tool that is helpful if used with humility and love. Just trying to apply God’s Word. If that means I have a problem, I plead guilty. I have been a pastor for 18 years and I have never had a woman tell me they were offended by the policy. Most have expressed appreciation and are glad to hear my wife’s point of view.
I apply the Billy Graham to my own ministry. I won’t be alone with men because I think they are shameless hussies who are out to seduce me. LOL
Seriously, I think it is a good rule that individuals (regardless of gender) who are in ministry to be on guard lest they fall into temptation (and not blame the other person for it). However, and to answer the question at hand, I think it is wise that women be careful.
My mother and sister know this story and so I am not telling anything out of hand. I have even told the ex-wife of the person involved. When I was 13, I was groomed by a staff member (my dad was on staff as well and never trusted the guy) but thankfully it was stopped before anything happened. We need to be aware and cautious of where our daughters/sons are in the world today.
I am female and completely understand anyone who chooses to apply the Billy Graham rule. My thought is: no offense meant, and none taken; reasonable exceptions understood.
The Billy Graham Rule is actually part of the Modesto Manifesto. When Billy Graham and his team (Cliff Barrows, T W Smith, and others) began to have success in the early 1950s, they covenanted together to demonstrate integrity in all things. They also committed to financial integrity and honesty in reporting results (statistics). By these commitments they meant to avoid mistakes made by earlier evangelists and common perceptions (think Elmer Gantry). I believe the rule is a good rule of thumb and I teach it to my students. I never thought of it as besmirching the character of women; rather, it just helps a minister avoid compromising situations. I advise my students to avoid even the appearance of evil. C B is right on this one.
Mark Terry: How about just saying that you agree with CB on this one. To say ” CB is right on this one” shuts down conversation that is needed.
I don’t think he is right, I don’t think anyone for the Billy Graham rule is right, it has not deterred, it has alienated from my experience and opinion as well as others who would disagree. Geesh. Conversation among men and women in church life, especially IFB and Southern Baptists is impossible. It’s why it took over 30 years to confront sexual abuse in our churches. Come on Mark. Wise up here.
Shock of all shocks….
Debbie is wrongly apoplectic About something….
Dave C: I am not angry, more frustrated. That is another stereotype of women that you need to think about changing however Dave. If a man were to say it as I have said it would it be construed as anger by you?
I didn’t say you were angry – but I will rephrase.
Debbie is unnecessarily all outraged, again.
And yes….if a man had said “I hate _____________ (completely reasonable position like the billy graham rule) with a passion. I always have…”. I would think him too to be unnecessarily fired up (outraged) as well.
Perhaps you need to check that stereotype your projecting of men doing what you’re accusing me of.
Debbie,
Please help me…..it seems to me that, in every case where a pastor has abused a woman in the church, it would have been prevented if the “rule” in question had been followed. And if the woman were aware that the pastor had that policy, it should clue her in if he were to ignore that policy while preying on her. I can’t see how this could possibly lead to further abuse (you seem to imply that above – I apologize if I misunderstood). In my view I would think churches would encourage this policy as a way of guarding against abuse.
We’re getting deep into strangeness here. Brent posits that if men and women were never alone in a church setting then abuse, adultery and other crimes and sins would be totally eliminated. Quite an insight.
And the sentence that begins “If she were aware…” is pretty close to blaming the victim as in “she should have known better”.
I doubt that is the intent but when men discuss these things, the same stuff eventually comes around.
William,
Not “should have known better.” I’m talking “maybe set off alarm bells” to clue in potential victims (and those around the church who have the power to prevent something) that a wolf is in their midst. That’s a major difference.
For the record, I started following SBCV last year during the Patterson blowup at Southwestern. I’ve found myself largely agreeing with the main bloggers here, especially surrounding sexual abuse issues. Our church is doing the Caring Well challenge, and we have been very serious about protecting the vulnerable for years. One thing I have noticed which may prevent any real reform — arrogance and condescension on both sides. Abuse survivors themselves have been attacking each other. People and churches who share the same goal don’t need to be attacking one another.
Insulting people who hold to the so-called Graham rule is counter-productive. We’re on the same side in this. It is not an end-all, be-all, but it is a valid tool to use in building a culture of respect and protection for women in the church. I’m fairly surprised that is being questioned here.
What insult are you referring to? I’m not seeing it looking at the way the thread is arranged.
I took exception to the way William characterized one of my comments. I’m over it – just didn’t think it was helpful. I think I agree with William on most aspects of these issues.
I don’t think there’s a major difference. It might be helpful to look at this differently. I do commend you for leading your church in the caringwell curriculum. That introduces some new thinking on a subject where SBC churches and pastors have been tone deaf for a long time. Not saying there is a direct equivalence but some of the mixed up thinking is the same.
I have just returned from Greece in which I participated in an “In the Footsteps of Paul” tour so this comment is late. However, in the corporate world, far removed from the rarefied air of the clergy/church, the application Billy Graham rule would get someone fired. Actually it already has. I was required to travel with men and to take men to dinner as part of my position in a pharmaceutical company.
It has surprised me to read that some people would judge the act of a man eating a dinner alone with a woman as shocking and somehow worthy of gossip. In fact, it almost sounds humorous. What in the world do you think is going to happen at that restaurant in front of all those people? Such judgmental people have obviously not participated in the wider secular business world in which the majority of dedicated Christian work. I can just imagine what a company would do if a boss declined to meet with a subordinate woman unless his wife could run on over to the headquarters and sit in on the meeting.
It does feel like such a different world in the church versus my life outside of the church. I also work in a pharma related industry, where my company leans female and there’s a balance of genders in leadership. I can run things and be trusted to make logical decisions without ppl worried that I’ll be emotional or incapable. I can lead teams of men who respect me. I can meet with male superiors or people under my leadership without anyone thinking theres something going on.
Then it is so incredibly frustrating to be in the church world that seems like it wants to reduce me to some mold of a person that I don’t feel like I fit with chafing restrictions.
Great comment. Thanks.
Thank you Kimberly, this sums it up perfectly and thus my frustration.
There’s a modicum of 19th century thinking still alive in the SBC on this.
Dee,
I have a lot of respect for your work at TWW. I’ve been reading it the last several months trying to increase my understanding of the abuse issues in the church. Thank you for educating me.
I’ve lived the consequences of the BGR when I worked in a corporate office for 15 years while I was also pastoring a small church. I would say that I had good friends who were women during that time, but I always maintained respectful boundaries. I didn’t go to lunch with women except in a group. The friendship was professional. When I was promoted to supervisor, I angered those above me at times with my polite refusals to go to lunch with my boss, who was a lady. Looking back, I am fine with those decisions and the stress it caused. I would argue that most of the emotional investments made by others in those after hours sessions would have been better spent on their spouses. That’s not an overall indictment on everyone, but I just saw a tendency from both genders to invest too much energy in everything but family, especially in management.
I hope you acquit me of complete chauvinism, but I’m Ok if not. ?
If that is how you wish to conduct your life and your church. that is fine.
However, most of your congregation is not involved in the employment of a. church.They work for secular companies. They cannot adhere to your particular code of ethics in this area. Imagine the company Joe listening to your standard of conduct as a good Christian thing to do. How in the world is he supposed to apply this to his company and professional life in which this BGR standard cannot be practiced and might even lead to his dismissal for attempting to do so?
As a pastor, your standards are important to your congregation. So, can you imagine how they might feel if you say “I won’t go out to dinner with a woman unless lots of people are present.” What if they cannot apply this in their world? Your role as pastor is to guide your congregation as they continue to live out their lives as Christian in the outside world. They can’t do what you do. So how do you guide them to work with the rules within their environment.
This has little to do with chauvinism and everything to do with reality. You can do what you want to do as the pastor of a church. They cannot do the same. How can you help them?
I hope this makes sense. I’m experiencing some jet fog.
Do women seduce men? Of course, just read Proverbs 6.
Do men seduce women? Of course.
We should all be cautious. Heed the wisdom of Billy Graham and C. B. Scott.
No need to go to the extreme.
But don’t spend time alone with one individual of the opposite sex. My preacher dad once drove by a lady in his church whose car was broke down. She saw him. He stopped and gave her a ride home, then immediately called mom and informed her of what happened. He believed in being cautious and never had a moral problem.
Keep a door open when you’re counseling.
Be aware of appearances.
Listen to your wife. She will usually see a woman’s interest in you before you see it.
Otherwise, this is one of the quickest ways to end your ministry.
David R. Brumbelow
We’ve had several thousand words on David and Bathsheba, most of them being superfluous. Thought it might be good to offer some irony. I’d ask my male colleagues what constitutes the greater risk, you being in a compromising position with a woman not your wife where you can be falsely accused or a woman or girl being abused by a pastor? And what pastor would be the first to say that they aren’t going to be alone with another man because of the same thinking? Why not consider any communication with a woman not your wife by private means, text or online, to be the same as being physically proximate?
I’m not against the BGR but it is two generations old and dealt with honesty in evangelism crusade accounting and reporting, not just women. It was groundbreaking and striking in contrast to the typical practices of the day. Moral risk has moved to where being alone with a woman not one’s wife is way down the list, sexism aside. Internet porn, phone sexting, anonymous online lives are much greater risks. I’d be with Debbie here in asking if there is any pastor who is afraid to be left alone with his computer or phone. That might be the policy that would protect more men/pastors than the BGR.
I think several of my colleagues here, and we’re about the same old codger age, have my respect and appreciation even if I think they would benefit by a different look at things in the 21st century.
There is considerably more to be scrutinized here. Maybe someone else can do it better.
I imagine that most of us who hold to the Billy Graham rule would also agree with Internet accountability, allowing our spouse access to our electronic devices, and other means to avoid compromise in the electronic realm as well. I would also add that this goes both ways. This forum, by its nature, is predominantly made up of male ministers, but, if I were a betting man, I would guess that every married man on this blog who follows the Billy Graham rule has a wife who follows it as well. This has nothing to do with sexism or disrespect for women. It does, however, show a healthy respect for the reality of sinful human nature.
Completely agree. BGR is but one item to consider. Yes, internet/phone accountability should be part of it also. And I’m in favor of accountability, not just bgr. I absolutely view bgr as keeping pastors honest, with the added benefit of preventing false accusations.
On a side note, I’ve learned over the years not to worry so much about my reputation. Act honestly and lovingly with people is the best you can do. I can’t make everyone like me.
It a bit of a non sequitur but it’s always been obvious that male pastors have an endless capacity to discuss how to protect themselves from wimmen who might wonder of the same energy would be available if the subject were protecting women. The caringwell is a start at that.
You are right. Men have no standing to speak as to how other men and women might live and walk wisely and not as fools.
Guess that whole thing about “avoiding even the appearance of evil” was just a male chauvinist spouting off… And therefore should be ignored. We have better sensibility in the 21st-century…
False Accusations are not even necessarily even the primary reason for the Billy Graham rule – It is to me more about avoiding rumors and innuendo that probably don’t come from the lady a pastor spent time counseling alone (for example)… But will come from other people who are privy to only a part of the story or dark not know part of the story… Or already don’t like the pastor and are looking for something to latch onto.
“or already don’t like the pastor and are looking for something to latch onto.”
Don’t underestimate this.
Yeah just to make sure everyone knows though… That was in the context of trouble makers wanting to create trouble for the pastor by spreading false rumors… Not There is a vixen looking to accuse an innocent pastor.
Understood
The BGR, rightly and wisely applied, actually does both. It’s a false argument to say we have to choose between the two.
I have mixed feelings about the Billy Graham rule.
In a way, it can prevent both the guy and the girl from both falling into temptation or from false accusations. Call me jaded, but if something did happen or is accused of happening, it’s just as likely (maybe even more so) that the woman is going to be blamed and torn down than the “man of God”. I mean who is gonna buy her side of the story?
But if one is going to employ this rule, put some real thought into how you are going to manage to still let the opposite sex have fair and respectful access to ministry, counseling etc. Don’t be lazy about it and assume you’re safe and the rest will all work itself out. Actively make a way to ensure the rule doesn’t unnecessarily hinder growth and input and working relationship with the other sex, and keep a check on whether the rule is giving unfair advantage to certain members of a church (men or marrieds) vs (women, esp singles).
Good and helpful thoughts, Kimberly.
Thank you.
I think I have reviewed all the comments on this particular blog on this post to date and have not seen what I consider a strong reason why the Billy Graham position is not the correct one.
And it’s not whether there are man haters or women haters or aggressive men and aggressive women. I see the issue as a gossip problem. Can anyone deny that if a man, for instance, were to enter a situation where they are alone with a woman who is not his wife or children, tongues would be wagging a mile a minute, and the result could easily lead to the wrongful defamation of either party’s character. And, the same would be for a woman who acted accordingly.
So, my personal thinking is that a man would commit a stupid act if he participated in unchaperoned meetings with another woman, no matter how virtuous his intentions were.
I know I would never due it unless there was a life and death situation involved.
Well Ken, don’t color me shocked by your response. Cause I’m not.
More and more I am beginning to see that the problem is that we are not being new creations in Christ. We are not putting on the new man. For far too long, Christians, especially leaders, have not acted any different than the lost souls around us. Leaders were committing adultery, and some even committing sexual abuse on minors. This led people to not expect anything different from Christians.
We should be able to have a conversation with a sister in Christ without sexual thoughts. If we can’t, we have a major problem. We should be able to talk to sister in Christ as their pastor without gossip firing up.
As a whole, we need to grow up in Christ!
Correct, Mark. And I and the vast majority of pastors are able to have those conversations without sexual thoughts. It should be expected of all men, especially pastors. But there’s a minority of wolves who will take advantage of these situations, as we unfortunately have a great deal of proof. I still say the BGR mindset (mainly setting boundaries) is overall a net benefit here, unless someone can prove otherwise.
And regarding the gossip issue, whether we like it or not, it’s very real and destructive. I’m very much a realist here.
Having said all that, the BGR is no replacement for having a heart set apart for the Lord.
I have thought a lot about this discussion and the application of the BGR. I was taught the principle in seminary and had it modeled by the 2 pastors I served under. It was never presented to me (stressing simply my experience) as being used because of fears of women or seduction but simply to avoid any appearance of impropriety and to avoid any compromising situations. While serving on a church staff, when I was a senior pastor and now in leading a Christian ministry I have seen and used the BGR (never calling it that) as a guideline for decision making about conduct, meetings and travel.
I think that Debbie is right in the aspect that if we preach the BGR as a defense against the wiles of seductresses then we are ignorant and wrong. Especially if we assume that strict adherence to it will keep us from sin. Only a transformed heart and daily dependence on Christ will keep us from sin.
I believe that the purpose of any rule or guideline should be around serving as a set of guardrails for all involved. As a pastor I did not meet with women alone or counsel them alone just like I did not meet alone with children or teens regardless of gender. With that said I work in a field of ministry and social work that is predominantly served by women. There are times that I have conversations with women or attend meetings with them because of the nature of our work and duties but I endeavor to be careful. I would not work at my office late while it was just myself and another woman at the office and that would be to avoid any misunderstandings.
I think that the most salient point I have seen here is from William around what rules or guidelines should look like in light of our modern and technology obsessed culture. The BGR may have been fitting for its time but what questions should we assess today, i.e. pastors and cell phones, social media accounts, pastors and other men meeting alone (gender is no longer a safe guard as it may have been when the BGR was written).
Hopefully this discussion will prompt all of us to assess where we need guardrails in our lives and not just arbitrarily apply a rule thinking it will keep us from sin.
Amen, well said.
At our church (and I believe it’s pretty standard practice), we don’t let people count the money alone (or be in a room alone with the money). That isn’t because we assume that half of our money counters are scheming to steal money but because it protects all of them in case of a discrepancy.
Yes, and I doubt anyone considers this to be antiquated thinking. It is intended to protect all parties involved.
This is comparing apples and oranges. Horrible example. But what else is new among Southern Baptist men? Not much.
Debbie,
I’m sorry to hear you say that. I’m sure I have blind spots, but I like to think I’m continuing to grow. I commit to listening on issues like this. Please commit to not assuming the worst, even if you have seen the worst. I don’t think we’re enemies here.
I can’t do that Brent. I think we are enemies here in the sense that many still don’t get it. I don’t say that lightly. And assuming is hardly the word I would use. The facts are we as Southern Baptists are a mess. To not be a mess, I think more listening and less talking would be the key. I take that back, I am not a mess, but our denomination is. Mess is an understatement. Over 700, closer to 1,000 or more boys and girls are molested by church leaders, more showing up each day. Changes need to be made. Radical ones. Scripture rightly interpreted instead of the horrible exegesis that has been passed down from generation to generation.
If you always do what you have always done, you will always get what you always got. Scripture has been grossly misinterpreted. Tom Ascol, Josh Brice, Owen Strachan, Founders has gone beyond abusive, trying to do a takeover, Beth Moore is plummeted with horrible emails, twitter by those who call themselves Christians, I see the worst. This is not an assumption. It has to stop. Women and men are of equal value in the sight of God. No gender problems with God, Christ, Paul, or anyone in scripture. The scriptures are clear when interpreted properly. No one avoided women in Christ’s ministry on earth. He gravitated toward them and used them mightily in his ministry. Elevating them where they were never elevated before. The New Covenant changed everything for women.
The answer is simple. Look at women differently. With respect, honor, knowing we have a lot to contribute and are fully capable. Don’t cheat on your wife or husband. It’s wrong. If a man or a woman cannot look at the other gender without lusting, the problem is deeper than a Billy Graham rule that just deepens the wrong view of women.
Until Southern Baptist men and women value women and children on an equal playing field, knowing that God does not differentiate when giving these Spiritual gifts, it is going to be the worst. It already is. This is not a game. This is real life.
Debbie,
I find myself frustrated. Most of these pastors who employ the BGR do not understand what the majority of their congregation encounters while working at a secular company with their own set of rules. Women professional take male professionals to dinner and even travel together.How do these pastors who’ve found the *solution* relate to the average company Joe? Are they somehow more godly for applying the rule and the vast majority of their congregation less godly because they cannot apply the rule without getting fired?
I feel like there are two types of people in this discussion. The godly church leaders who can apply the BGR and the rest of us poor slobs who work in the secular world and seem to get along just fine without being allowed to apply the BGR.
I’ve been writing for 10 years. Let me make an observation. There are a bunch of pastor types who spout the BGR who have been caught in adultery, pastor abuse, etc .If someone wants to break it, they can and do. And that is before discussing the prevalence of pornography even within the pastoral ranks.One of the very first stories I covered as a blogger was a pastor in Georgia whose internet fixit guy discovered pornography on this computer.That pastor was a BGR type. His fixit guy was thrown out of the church when he tried to get people to pay attention.
Dee: Thank you. This is so well written. So glad you chimed in friend. I think I can quit banging my head against my desk…..for now. 🙂
Dee,
I was a “poor slob” in a secular job for 15 years while also pastoring a small church. As I commented above, I faced a good deal of pressure for not doing lunches with other women. It was something my wife and I agreed on even before marriage. I would counsel anyone, man or woman, to come up with a plan with your spouse on how you maintain boundaries and faithfulness in in your marriage. I will note, though, that every company is going to push for you to give all time, energy, etc.to them completely. At least most will. You don’t have to adhere to BGR to have good boundaries. And I have told churches many times… nobody was ever accidentally faithful to God or their spouse. Anticipate potential temptations and stategize together. We determined together where lines would be, both lived by them, and we’re willing to accept consequences. All Christians have to do that in any setting. Not putting BGR as Scripture, so I don’t preach it from the pulpit.
Not surprising that wolves use BGR to build an image. But not every abuser is a BGR advocate, I’m sure. And a comprehensive approach for clergy accountability should include phone/ internet. Really don’t think we are enemies, as Debbie mentioned.
Thanks for responding.
Great example of how this type of thing is (and should be) standard practice, Rick.