A Ruling on the 'Billy Graham Rule'

You may not be at all surprised to hear this, but I incline towards verbosity. I instinctively use too many words. In fact, just the other day, a friend (yes, Ruth, I’m looking at you) jokingly rebuked me for using too many syllables in my written words. I’m still at a complete loss to know how it is possible for someone to use more syllables than necessary when writing a word. And yet, because I am aware of my verbose tendencies, I have no doubt she is right.

My natural verbosity is one of the reasons I actually like Twitter. Some of the time. A tweet’s character limits force me to keep it brief. Even a multiple-tweet thread requires me to think carefully about how to construct and communicate my argument in line with the number of characters I can use for each individual comment. Writing a tweet forces me to think carefully about what point I’m trying to make and how to make that point clearly, articulately and succinctly.

But with brevity comes risk. Risk of being unable to get your point across as clearly as you would like. Risk of being misunderstood. Risk of not providing enough context. Risk of taking things out of context. The Twitterer has to live with this kind of risk. They have to live with the knowledge that what they have said is almost never everything they could say.

Yesterday, I tweeted about the ‘Billy Graham Rule’.

The tweet was so brief that I didn’t even hit the yellow “you’ve only got 20 characters left so you better make it good” warning, and that almost never happens for me!

I stand by both that tweet and its brevity (hold your horses, I’ll share it with you in a moment). But there are times when the point of a brief tweet can be strengthened by a not-so-brief follow-up discussion. So here we are on my Substack… and sorry guys but it has no character limits.

Questioning the Rule

Before we get to my tweet about the Billy Graham Rule (henceforth, BGR —because we Christians love our acronyms), let’s consider what the BGR actually is. The following is sourced from the Billy Graham Evangelical Association’s website:

Recently, “the Billy Graham rule” has been in the news—a reference to the second of four rules Mr. Graham and his team created decades ago to maintain ministry integrity. This particular rule deals with upholding sexual morality. Read below for background on these four rules, known as “the Modesto Manifesto”: 

The website goes on to explain more about the particular rule that has colloquially come to be known as the BGR. In the words of Graham himself:

The second item on the list was the danger of sexual immorality. We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel. We pledged among ourselves to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion. From that day on, I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife. We determined that the Apostle Paul’s mandate to the young pastor Timothy would be ours as well: “Flee … youthful lusts” (2 Timothy 1:22, KJV).

Now, I already have questions.

Is it OK to assume that daughters and mothers are exempt from the rule? But perhaps more importantly, what constitutes “alone”? Is it being behind closed doors? Is it being in private, but not behind closed doors? Is it being one-on-one with a woman in a public space such as a cafe or a building lobby? Does going for a stroll with a woman along a highly-travelled path count as being alone? Do phone calls between a man and a woman count as “meeting?” Does the age or situation of the woman matter? For example, would a housebound elderly woman also be exempt?

None of these questions are facetiously put. They are all genuine questions that arise from Graham’s own description of his eponymous rule. What are the boundaries of the rule? What is included and excluded? Should we err on being more or less conservative in our interpretation and application? The answer to all those questions is “🤷‍♂️ It’s up to you”.

And that’s the first thing we need to know about the BGR in ministry contexts today. Because it is all in the individual's interpretation and application, we’re not all necessarily on the same page when we talk about the rule and putting it into practice. Some who affirm the BGR will happily meet with a woman one-on-one in a public setting. Some will never meet with a woman one-on-one in any setting. Some will happily have regular phone calls with a woman. Some will never speak to a woman on the phone. Some will happily have a coffee with a woman in the local cafe. Some will never suggest or agree to such a thing.

The first thing to note about the BGR is that it’s not always clear what we actually mean by it.

Context Matters

But the second thing to note about the BGR is that it was a “rule” developed by a particular group of men who were in a particular context. As Graham says:

We all knew of evangelists who had fallen into immorality while separated from their families by travel.

The men who created and committed to this rule were itinerant preachers and travelling evangelists whose ministry was (usually) undertaken in isolation from their wives, their families and their lives back home. The women they were (not) meeting with were often strangers with whom they had no relational, pastoral, or ongoing connection. Their wives usually had no clue who these women were, nor that their husbands were in the potential position to be meeting with these particular women one-on-one.

But the overwhelming majority of adherents to that rule today are not in that same context. Instead, they are typically male church pastors whose ministry is undertaken in the vicinity of (sometimes even inside) their home. The women they are (not) meeting with are usually members of their congregations or perhaps members of their church’s ministry team. Not only are these women most often known to the pastor’s wife, but very often, the pastor’s wife knows the day-to-day meeting schedule of her husband.

The contexts are not at all the same.

Now, that doesn’t mean that the BGR has no legitimate application outside its original context. However, it is incumbent upon us to recognise that Graham et al. developed and practiced this rule in an entirely different relational context, with an entirely different set of pastoral expectations and implications.

In one sense, we might argue that a church pastor’s context makes the application of this rule only more important and urgent. For example, the fact that there is an existing and ongoing connection between a pastor and a female congregant means there may be more opportunity or temptation towards impropriety were they to meet one-on-one. That may indeed be the case.

But a church pastor’s context also means there is more at stake in the application of the BGR, and especially for the women at the other end of that rule. These are not strangers. They are sheep within the flock. These are not women who the pastor will never see again. They are sisters in Christ that they are called to disciple. The man is not an itinerant traveller leaving town tomorrow. He is the pastor of her church, the appointed overseer of the household of God of which she is a valued member. Yes, there is much at stake for him and his ministry. But there is also so very much at stake for her.

Today a male friend of mine shared with me the practice of the senior pastor of a church he had attended many years ago and for whom he had much respect. This pastor had decided to apply the BGR to his ministry and, in fact, to go beyond it. He made it clear that. in order to honour his wife, he would not develop any sort of meaningful friendship or relationship with a woman other than her. My friend mused that, for many years, this pastor faithfully executed his ministry and maintained a strong marriage. But there were consequences. Women in his congregation told my friend they did not feel their pastor loved or knew them.

The Women Behind the Keep-Out Tape

Which brings me back to my tweet.

My tweet was a response to another tweet—actually, a duo of tweets, both written by male Christian leaders. It is my usual practice to redact the names of people whose tweets I interact with here, and this time won’t be any different. I’m not trying to hide my sources (a quick search on Twitter will bring those up for you). But in these posts, I want to engage with the substance of what a person says rather than be seen to launch an offensive against the person themselves.

With that said, here are the two original tweets (from two different men):

And here is my response:

I wanted to take (or rather create) the opportunity to speak a little bit more about why I responded to those tweets in the way I did. To share with you what was going on in my head and heart when I read those first two tweets.

Here is the thing: when it comes to the BGR, we’re used to hearing how much is at stake for the man and why this necessitates the rule being put firmly into place. But what about the women on the other end of the rule?

We hear that the pastor occupies a position of public ministry, and so it is vital that he not just be above reproach in his own behaviour but also never be anything other than this in the eyes of another. He needs to disallow any opportunity for temptation and any possibility for misperception. The best way to do that is to keep out the women.

We hear that the pastor occupies a position of public ministry, and so he is vulnerable to being falsely accused of sexual harassment, impropriety or abuse. He must never allow himself to be in any situation where a false charge could be levelled at him. The best way to do that is to keep out the women.

We hear that the rule exists for the sake of the man. The only woman who ever comes into active consideration in the application of the rule is their wife.

But when do we hear about the women left on the other side of that yellow “keep out” tape?

Here’s the irony. The man puts the rule in place in order to keep his reputation free from stain. But doing so requires him to first of all conceive of that woman as a threat to his godliness. The rule puts him above reproach, while it simultaneously casts her into a default position of stained reproach.

The man puts the rule into place because he is concerned about protecting himself from the possibility of being falsely accused. But doing so requires him to first of all conceive of that woman as someone who might falsely accuse him. The rule puts him beyond the reach of being falsely charged, while it simultaneously perceives her as someone who might charge falsely.

For the rule to protect the honourable man, it must first of all assume the worst of the nameless woman. She is no longer that unique sister in Christ. Rather she becomes a potential threat. She is no longer that unique disciple in need of encouragement and exhortation. Rather she becomes a potential accuser.

She loses her individuality and instead becomes a category.
She stops being one of the sheep and instead becomes a risk to the shepherd.

So should we just ditch the rule?

Does this mean I think the BGR rule has absolutely no place in church (or wider) ministry?

No. It doesn’t. Far from it.

Boundaries, discernment and wisdom, are vital in the area of male/female relationships in the church, especially between a male church leader and female members of his congregation or ministry team.

It is not the “rule” itself that is the problem, but our attitude behind and to the rule.

If we see any particular iteration of the BGR as necessary to protect men from women, we are missing the point that boundaries exist in order to serve others well.

If we see any particular iteration of the BGR as necessary to prioritise the interests of men because of the threat of women, then we are missing the point that wisdom is oriented towards love of the other.

Wise, careful, faithful boundaries between men and women in the church ought to prioritise the fact that people are not categories but individual disciples. They are not caricatures but spiritual siblings.

“Rules” exist to invite people into appropriate, loving, kind relationships with us. Not to keep people out.

Furthermore, thoughtful and informed implementation of Billy Graham-type rules can be of great service to women themselves! On one of my first days serving full-time on a church ministry team here in Sydney (as a women’s discipleship trainer and coordinator), the senior pastor/minister of our church had someone cut a sizeable hole in his office door and insert into it a glass window. He did that so he and I could meet in his office without qualms, concern or suspicion.

I was so incredibly thankful for that kindness. Yes, it demonstrated to me that he took his own godliness seriously. But just as importantly, it demonstrated to me that he took my godliness seriously. It also showed that he wanted me to feel comfortable and safe meeting one-on-one with him. And perhaps most meaningfully to me at the time, it meant that he was committed to meeting with me one-to-one as he did with my male ministry colleagues. The window in that door was a constant reminder that he valued my role and my contribution to our team. It was an ever-present affirmation that he saw me as an individual, not a category.

So by all means, let the rule rule. But let it rule in wisdom, in kindness and in love. Let us speak about it in ways that demonstrate that we respect the women in our churches as the unique, important, individual sisters in Christ that they are. Let us apply it in ways that show them (and remind us) that they are a necessary part of the body and, as such, rightly deserve our honour rather than our suspicion.