I asked a close acquaintance, ministry colleague, if they liked Ravi Zacharias. “Not any more,” was the quick and laconic reply
Dave Miller’s article of last week lumped the whole sordid matter under “The Ravi Zacharias Problem” and I’ll presume that readers are familiar with that squalid and deplorable mess.
One aspect of it that has arisen is that the BG Rule, the man of God (pastor, evangelist, or other male Christian figure) will not be alone with any woman not his wife, Billy Graham and his team establishing that practice early on in his evangelistic ministry.
The rule has been adopted by many of the brethren (it was recommended to me as a ministerial standard when I was ordained decades ago) and is held up as a shield against the wiles of the devil and all those devilish women who would “take a pastor down.” The phrase with quotes is the way I’ve often heard it described.
If a brother wants to pattern his relationships and interactions with females in this manner, he may do so. But he might be apprised that such is highly sexist, presumes all women to be potential steamy seductresses, and makes it appear that he, the pillar of male rectitude, is powerless to resist; thus, the hard and fast rule about ever being with any woman alone other than his beloved wife.
Zacharias, as you probably know, was a BGR follower, except when he needed those medical massages. One can see how that played out with numerous victims, accusations of rape in some cases, and a lifetime of ministry totally undermined by his own decisions and choices.
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.
I was a single staff guy most of my ministry. If my church had an administrative assistant, always a woman, it was impossible to always have a third person at the church at all times. It’s also a brazen and thoughtless insult to all women to be treated thus.
NAMB has a Code of Conduct for church planters and employees (it is dated 2017):
Code of Conduct
I will conduct myself in a way that reflects positively on Christ and the North American Mission Board.
I will be a tithing member of record and in good standing in a Southern Baptist or Canadian National Baptist Church.
I will abstain from the consumption of any alcoholic beverage or illegal drugs.
I will not view pornography.
I will maintain financial integrity.
I will not show affection that could be questioned.
I will be careful in answering cards, letters, and email notes from the opposite sex.
If married, other than my spouse or another family member, I will not be at a residence alone, have a meal alone or be in a car alone with the opposite sex.
I will pray for the integrity of other missionaries and staff members.
Looks pretty sensible to me. The sentence in bold is as close to the BGR as this comes. Even that is difficult. If I followed the NAMB code it would have ended my shut-in ministry, all those widows living alone. But, the young hipster church planters don’t do that ministry anyway.
The bottom line for all this is: You can’t formulate a rule or write a code of conduct that covers it all. Maybe the mighty pastor, elder, overseer, evangelist, planter, missionary should just be above reproach and do what is necessary to maintain a good reputation in the church and community.
Meals. How do you handle this? If you go out to eat with male members of your group to get to know them and direct them, but you don’t with women, aren’t women being denied access to you? This is especially the case when you are a group leader. How do you handle this without denying opportunities to women in your group?
This applies not just in the church, but out in the business world as well.
Have another person there with you, preferably your wife.
I think the point of the rule is to “avoid the appearance of evil,” and I always assumed it was to avoid the rumor and gossip mills. It was never about the Pastor or the woman, it was about the busybodies in the Church and otherwise.
Mark, I handle meals with my left hand, but you make a point often heard. I don’t dispute it.
Call me a modified practitioner of the BGR. I avoid being alone with a woman who it could reasonably be thought I may “get” involved with. Around same age, or younger. Have no issue in public places. Have no issue with shut ins 20-30 years older than me meeting them in their homes or assisted living apartments. Church is fully supportive of this.
A Bible professor told me that the only woman I should ever be alone with is my wife, direct family, and a woman old enough to be my grandmother. I have followed this rule for almost 20 years and will continue to do so period!
Wise
There is one thing about the BGR that makes it difficult to apply in most situations. Billy Graham was a traveling evangelist. He was not a local church pastor making home visits and counseling members. He was not meeting church members for lunch. He did not work in the business world and work with or have to meet clients in various settings. This makes it a challenge to apply the BGR unless you are a traveling evangelist.
I agree with your sentiments in the post. The way the rule gets explained is demeaning to women.
The BGR isn’t just useful because there might be certain unholy women after the man of God. It also helps the man of God [pastor, elder, brother] avoid his own internal temptations to act unbecomingly with a younger woman.
More often than not, at least lately, I hear of the minister grooming the younger lady.
The BGR helps him by helping him “flee” from lusts and sexual immorality.
Well said!
Sexual predators groom, Mr. White. BGR is useless to them. Except, of course, in the way that Ravi used it – merely as a mask to give the appearance of godliness and moral integrity. Predators do not wish to flee from “lusts” or sexual immorality.
NO, it protects women. It is not demeaning to them. A lot of people thought they would never be tempted, but found out to their dismay, people are only human. Also, there are always people who will talk about a Pastor and try to make an innocent situation appear wrong. Billy Graham was Wise!
“The changes since the 1940s are considerable: females in the workplace, including church staffs; the manner business is conducted;”
There in lies much of the problem.
Our goal as pastors should be to protect the integrity of our ministry regardless of what the culture does. And I truly believe godly women understand that. Prideful women see it as demeaning. Godly women do not. The women of my church have never been affronted when I refused to be alone with them. It protects reputations on both sides, not just mine.
BTW, a applied the same rule in my secular job as a teacher. I never met with a student male or female, alone. And I never met or ate with a female teacher or administrator alone.
I did have a female principal who gave me grief over it. I refused to meet with her unless another adult was in the room. She hated me for it but I held my ground.
It was hard working for somebody who cursed me and cried at the same time. Thank God I retired from all that.
I would guess that women that met J. Bakker, J. Swaggart, Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, RZ, and many other predatory man wish that the BGR was in effect when they met these men. Common sense and no fear of being branded legalistic and old fashioned should rule any ones decision. How hard is to avoid a situation that may be questionable? not very hard. Common sense goes a long way in the world.
Amen, Brother.
These discussions go the same route every time. Partly a generational thing. But one might consider the situation where a female congregant wants a private meeting with her spiritual leader/pastor. She is informed that there can be no such meeting unless the pastors wife is present; thus, either the woman has no pastor or she is in a church with co-pastors, the rev and his wife.
Let the hard comps chew on that.
When it comes to counseling a church member it’s usually a deacon or another pastor that joins me. My wife doesn’t get involved in that.
My wife never takes on the pastor’s role. Though she will at times teach to other women in a case such a Kimberly mentions above.
Some people though will use any excuse to take a soft comp approach. Usually because they fear the feminist culture, not because they think it’s right.
She is only “in a church with co-pastors” if merely sitting in a room is a pastoral function. If that’s how low the bar for pastoring is, then the BGR is the least of the church’s worries.
In a church where a private in person conversation with the pastor is prohibited. Maybe a woman, not a man, would offer an opinion.
Sensible and prudent pastors have windows in office doors or leave their solid door partly open, hold all private conferences in a public place, or similar measures.
Let the local church be informed if they want a pastor who holds to such strict personal policies as their pastor.
BTW, I’m not aware that the BGR was aimed at “young” women.
And I would call that insensible an imprudent.
I was open and upfront with the pastor search committee in both churches I served regarding this and both churches called me without reservation. In fact, I believe most churches appreciate a pastor who applies this “rule.” And most of the women within the church feel the same way.
DE, you don’t know how most churches or women feel…but keep on writing. BTW, wear a mask and you can go to the natural history museum where there are a lot of old fossils like yourself. Might have been motivational at the time but it was a bad move as a coach to do all that head butting with your helmeted players.
So now instead of logical argument you’ve turned to personal insults.
Very big of you.
I’m 59 years old. Not quite as old as you, I believe.
But maturity is a much different matter than physical age, don’t you think? And Spiritual maturity is another issue altogether….
Time to grow up.
Personal Insults again. Just stop it
Ok, you’re a younger fossil than I. You lost me when you got to lecturing on what most SBCers thought. Name a football coach who hasn’t had too many licks on the noggin.
Come on. I’m well noted in my church for a fairly long sermon. One statement based on personal experience is hardly a lecture.
As to the bumps on the noggin most of them were delivered by parents, not players.
She’s a Baptist, not a Catholic. Our preachers are discreet, but don’t take any vows about confession.
If it has to be kept secret from every living soul, it’s probably out of the preacher’s job description.
Glass in the door of the Pastor’s study solves the problem
Why would applying the NAMB/BGR rule close down your shut-in ministry? Just take somebody with you?
As best I can remember all of Paul’s admin. assistants were male.
I’ve never been blessed to have one of either sex but when I did have a secretary as Athletic Director she had a a desk in an office with three other ladies and I always went out to her. Never spent a minute with her alone.
BGR forever! I don’t care if you don’t like it! Karen and Jesus do!
Brother, how does your answer square with scripture-specifically that Jesus followed or liked the BGR. In John 4:7-27 we see the interaction of Jesus and the Samaritan woman and it seems that the lengthy interaction between those two was void of any other persons (the disciples had left the scene and her husband was nowhere to be seen). Had Jesus followed the BGR the dear woman may have never experienced Jesus. Isn’t holding to a fast and strict rule nothing more than legalism? Furthermore, isn’t our God big enough to enable us to overcome any temptation we are faced with? It’s when we allow satan to influence our thoughts and actions rather than Jesus that we fall into sin. God help us to rely on Him rather than some man made rule e.g. the BGR.
Did you just use “Jesus sitting at the well in the center of town” as an example of a private meeting?
You carving out a woman-at-the-well exception to the BGR that permits the BGR pastor to meet with women privately in a public place? Several here have declared their specific rejection of this.
Give me a logically consistent definition of “privately in a public place” and I’ll answer. 😉
Ask the guys who take the position that to have a private, just the two, lunch in a public restaurant with a woman not their wife is across the boundary.
No definition, but I can think of personal examples where a married man met with a married woman in public – such as the public library – as they pursued a relationship that developed “in plain sight” into an affair.
I base my practice of the BGR on verses like 1 Thessalonians 5:22 where the written Word of God teaches us to avoid even the appearance of evil. If I’m at a restaurant alone with another woman, it can easily appear to be a date. I want anyone who recognizes me in public to know I am a one woman man. Also, Jesus prayed “lead us not into temptation” in Matthew 6. A married man socializing privately with a woman not his wife can reasonably be considered as such.
This is not legalism, for I’m not pharisaically placing a burden upon anyone else. To be clear, I think it’s a Romans 14 disputable matter. But for me, I’m just saying that both Karen and Jesus are very happy with my decision not to meet privately with any woman other than my wife.
As for the specific woman at the well scenario you mentioned, let me simply say that Jesus was Jesus, and I am not. He may not need to follow the Billy Graham Rule, but for me to wisely practice valid biblical principles, I do.
It’s not an expressly valid biblical principle however mystical you may wax about Jesus’ state-of-mind over it. You find it personally workable and profitable, so did RZ when he crafted a workaround. I’m ambivalent about the boundaries you set for yourself in this area.
1 Thess. 5:22 does not say to avoid every appearance (i.e., everything that may look like evil or that someone may construe to be evil), but to avoid everything that actually is evil. See NIV translation and also the Greek. The word “appearance” in the KJV is misleading.
I don’t think it to be a Biblical comparison. Jesus is the sinless Son of God. He had no need to protect His reputation before men. That’s not true of the local pastor.
Show me a scripture where Paul, Timothy, Titus or even Peter or John meet with a women in private and then you might get my attention.
Wasn’t that encounter in an open, public place?
Jesus was Jesus, you are not.
The BGR rule is fine if you want to follow it. But it’s not a scriptural rule. Let’s not forget that.
Way too many Evangelical men are infantilized when it comes to sexual responsibility. Women and culture are to blame. Teen boys and men need to be taught to own their sexuality; to respect women; to treat women as their sisters; to learn self control and personal responsibility. No codes are needed if sexually aware teens and men take responsibility for their behavior. And when they don’t? They should be held accountable, and, if warranted, prosecuted.
I write a series titled “Black Collar Crime.” This series, which contains 800+ stories, focuses on Evangelical clerics accused and convicted of criminal behavior — mostly sex crimes. I am not an Evangelical, though I was a pastor for 25 years. I play for the other team now, but I despise those who prey on others in the name of God.
William, I really appreciated your final two paragraphs here, the shut-in/widow comment and the paraphrase of 1 Timothy 3.
Maybe this is one of those cases where every pastor needs to do what he feels best.
I firmly disagree with what William has written here. I believe it’s bad advice. That’s nothing new, I find I disagree with almost everything he writes.
But, he is right that there is no specific BGR equivalent in scripture. But there’s no Biblical statement against it either. So let each pastor take it or leave it as he sees fit. I for one will always use it. No matter how much others may protest.
My advice was “ to be above reproach and do what is necessary to maintain a good reputation in the church and community.”
If that’s bad advice take it up with Jesus.
“have a meal alone .” That is a rule which a pastor might be able to follow although I can think of a number of problems. However, if one is involved in the business world, it is next to impossible to avoid. I took out a number of medical investigators to dinner to discuss studies since it was an efficient way to get them to speak with me undisturbed. It was expected of me. I was also told to report any untoward behavior to my boss and they would deal with it. I had no problems at all.
The BGR is useless if a person has no fear of God or no intention of obeying the seventh commandment. Joseph (Genesis 39) did not need the BGR and managed just fine.
Perfect example. Joseph didn’t have a problem as long as other people were in the house. It was after Potiphar’s wife sent everyone away so she could be alone with Joseph that problems started. The result was Joseph being thrown in prison because he didn’t have any witnesses to counter her lies.
Great example for why the BGR rule should be used.
We have a policy at our church that I as a pastor do not counsel any woman alone–even if the door is open and there are other staff members present in the offices. When a woman calls or wants to set up a counseling appointment I usually try to have her meet with my wife or another qualified woman in the church. If she wants to meet with me, I tell her that there will be another woman in the room present. This is to protect me as a pastor and also to protect her. I have not had any push-back and most women understand. I have trained my female ministry assistants who sit in to be discreet and to not break confidentiality issues. This may sound extreme, but I know of too many fellow pastors who have been accused of wrong-doing. One dear friend was falsely accused and it nearly crushed him
I hope those women really are qualified because I have gotten some supremely bad advice from wives and leaders.
In my experience of SBC churches we value and reward the women who can “get things done”. We are Martha rich and Mary poor.
Makes all the females in your church to be latent seductresses. Care to find out which is the greater problem? pastors preying on women on their church or women who seduce or falsely accuse their pastor? When men, especially clergy, discuss this, why does it end up being so degrading and demeaning to women in general and women in the church specifically?
We don’t have a huge scandal in the SBC of women falsely accusing their humble and selfless pastors but of pastors abusing women and children.
The absurdity and lack of awareness of some of these comments is astonishing.
Ministers see themselves as Joseph in the story of Potiphar’s wife and want to be the wise man in Proverbs 7. Men are told to watch out for seduction in the Bible, to flee it at first opportunity, not test whether it’s actually friendship.
Now, as with Ravi, we’ve made fools of ourselves and harmed women by accepting flimsy excuses and apologies when men are caught. “She seduced me” is no excuse; I’m still of the one-strike-and-you’re-out camp.
But I don’t think you’re getting rid of some level of the Billy Graham rule given the Bible’s warnings. The church ladies I grew up with were fairly Old Testament about Jezebels and vixens that might waylay their sons and husbands.
Thank you, William.
Yep. Here’s what I get from a lot of the comments:
*Protect yourselves by avoiding women.
*Protect women by avoiding women.
Just an off the wall thought: what do men to to protect themselves against accusations of homosexual accusations?
Or for that matter, temptations since that seems to be a problem for some I’ve been hearing about in the news…..
Do the rules of two adults in the room working with children make all children’s workers potential pedophiles? Does it demean our workers when we require this?
That’s a fair question to ask. There are sufficient, glaring differences in the two that I’m sure you would recognize. There is a population of pedophiles, criminals and deviants, who prey upon innocent children who lack the power to defend themselves. Churches are target rich environments for these predators and church policies should be designed with the safety of children as the priority; thus, the two adult rule. The situations are not comparable.
When men discuss this, the obvious is regularly ignored in favor of the obscure.
I totally disagree that the two aren’t comparable. Implicit in the two adult rule is that anyone could be a child predator. That is why a lot of churches who try to implement these policies get a lot of pushback. That’s just not debatable since it is required for everyone. They also get it when they try to place rules on the handling of money. Implicit in the rules is that the treasure could be a thief. Why not just admit that the complaints are just not consistent. We tell the treasurer and the children’s/youth worker to get over it but the not the women who want private meetings with the preacher. What is the root difference that these are treated differently by some?
We disagree. I don’t think you build a credible case. Pastors can implement any policies they want in regard to women. Women in the church can get over it or maybe leave for a church where they are treated like Christian adults and where they have a pastor who isn’t infantilized by ridiculous and ineffective rules. I’d say let the pastor meet with the women but take away his phone, tablet, and computer.
Get as many women here to weigh in as we have men. Many of my ministerial colleagues are all about protecting their reputations. Protecting women and children, not so much. Let me get an IT guy to collect all your devices and examine them. Then we would see how well the BGR works in 2021.
As a young (25) administrative assistant in a SB church, I do appreciate the “never alone” rule. My parents always taught me to never be alone with a man because then you can enter into a “he said/she said situation. Of course, this rule ive applied was to protect my reputation and not the other way around. I think the SBC is far more concerned with protecting the men than the women in their churches. The misogyny and sexism within the SBC is astounding. The entire structure of the organization lends to powerful (re: narcissistic) men with little to no accountability and the lack of women/input from women only further enables the narcissism and misogynistic attitudes that are prevalent within SBC culture.
So, while I appreciate the rule, it does appear to be more about protecting the men (who more often than not are the actual predators, abusing their role as a spiritual advisor/leader to prey on vulnerable women) than it does protecting women.
Some Pastor’s wives are better counselors for women, anyway.
Women’s gifts should definitely be used in the church. But women’s gifts and their ability to use them shouldn’t be based on the gifts and role of their spouse.
As a young seminary student several years ago I was told to stay away from the check book and the women and all would be fine. It’s worked out so far, makes life easier for some and harder for others I suppose. I don’t do a lot of counseling one on one as it’s not really my strong suit. Like ol Vance havener I’m just a preacher. I follow the rule with few exceptions. I’m 41 so visiting shut ins and older people is not a problem of course I’ll get old I suppose one day. Most other types of one on one can be done on a phone call.
I don’t meet with crazy people ever women are men if I can help it. Most pastor know can sniff out trouble and know when to take extreme caution I would think
“Most pastor .. can sniff out trouble” …. the massive failure in the SBC to be able to recognize and call out abusers says otherwise.
I am not going to hate on anyone who decides that, foe their own sake, they need to abide by the BG Rule. But I think that those who do also need to not condemn and have some grace for those who do not practice it.
I’m a bi-vo pastor and my secular job is in an industry that is 70% female. And a lot of the people I work with are not Christians and have very little respect for Christians.
My first boss at my job was a woman. My last two CEOs have been women. I don’t have the option to tell any of these amazing ladies that I won’t meet with them one on one. Two of my co-workers are women as well as one of the people I collaborate with from another department.
I work with multiple outside agencies, including federal agencies. Most of the people I work with outside the company are women. Some of these women control close to $2M in finding to my org.
I knew, as I learned the job, that keeping the BG Rule would not be an option. So I established my own code of ethics that I use and my church leadership is aware of. When I am meeting one on one with a female co-worker in public I simply tell my wife. When I travel (pre pandemic) I meet female co-workers in the lobby never in a hotel room. And I don’t let people know which room I am in. I have run into church members multiple times with while meeting with a female co-worker over a meal or coffee. It’s never been an issue.
1 Tim 5:1-2 “Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.”
As seen in the text above the requirement is purity, and that requirement never changes. People’s individual circumstances vary and change over time, so one rigid “rule” may not work for everybody. Whatever “rule” one follows should be based on Biblical principles and the end result must be all purity.
The Gospel Coalition published an excellent piece today by Melissa Kruger that pretty much sums up all my thoughts on this issue in a clearer and more concise way than I ever could.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/women-not-problem/
“ Let us not confuse the avoidance of evil with an avoidance of women.”
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Thornton.
Mr. Thornton was my father, ma’am, but age did get me to near the front of covid vaccine line. William is fine and I’m all vaxed up.
May have missed it in all of the comments, someone may have already said this… But I have always understood that one of the major principles behind the BGR was to keep “other” people from making false accusations. For example someone disconnected from either party “see” the Pastor and a woman together in complete innocence, yet “make something out of it.” In that case the BGR serves as a protection for BOTH the pastor and the woman. The world is saturated with “false accusers” that are on the outside looking in.
I know how much people enjoy bashing lawyers (sometimes for good reason!) but one good rule we learn as lawyers: avoid an appearance of impropriety. Simple rule that elegantly covers a multitude of situations without being overly rigid. Maybe another way of putting it: avoid situations that you would be embarrassed or ashamed to tell someone about.
To me, the BGR is like a proverb: it isn’t categorical, but it frequently applies and is wise.
As a fellow (former) lawyer, I would add to that excellent thought, that as Hannah noted above, two people alone in a room creates a tie. Who to believe? Perceptions differ, memories differ. Just try reminiscing with your spouse about an event. Both of you truly believe your version of events, but they are so different that you’ll end up calling someone else to find out who is right!
Karen: Sometimes we lawyers actually add some value to these kind of conversations! I would also agree wholeheartedly with you about memories – I’ve done hundreds of depositions over the years and it’s amazing how differently people will remember the same event, sometimes even to the point of me wondering if it was the same event at all!
Let’s try again. Just scripture. My son, do not lose sight of these—
keep sound wisdom and discretion