At the recent news of a famous minister’s fall into the sin of adultery, two laments immediately surfaced: 1) grief over the stain on Christ’s name, the damage done to spouses and children, and the harm done to the church; and 2) a predictable chorus of Christian voices recommending a foolproof remedy to prevent this tragedy from happening to others: the “Billy Graham Rule” (BGR). The BGR posits that in order to thwart temptation, or to avoid the appearance of evil, a man should never be alone with a woman who is not his relative. However well-intentioned this practice may be, it is not a biblical command. Rather, this is a cultural dogma that has become ingrained in many of our churches.
How do we know this practice is not biblical? A brief survey of the life of Christ—the author and perfecter of our faith in whom all the Scriptures find fulfillment—yields our answer. Our Lord met with women alone, as well as interacted with them publicly, which caused scandal (John 4:27; Luke 7:36–39; Mark 5:25–34). His approach towards these women was not to surround them with police tape and to caution men to keep their distance. Rather, he draped these women with his love. He drew near to them. He opened himself to their personhood and invited them closer. He ignored the risk to his reputation by a pharisaical culture that prioritized man-made holiness made of “fences” surrounding the truly biblical prohibitions. Just as he verbally rebuked his disciples for preventing children from coming to him, so his actions also rebuked those who would keep women from coming to him.
One might object that Jesus’s actions cannot be a guide to ours by noting Christ is God after all. He is perfectly holy. He has access to powers we mortal men do not. Yet, we know that he was tempted in every way that is common to man (Heb. 4:15). During his earthly ministry, he was fully God and fully man. Church officers should find great strength in the knowledge that their elder Brother went before them in perfect obedience and has fully equipped them for every good work.
Several unintended consequences of this standard are stifling and potentially damaging. Concerns specific to the application of the BGR to church officers include: 1) implicitly communicating to women and girls in our congregations that they have an inherent dangerousness, 2) withholding the full rights and privileges of shepherding that belong to all members of the church, 3) fostering an underdeveloped and deficient relationship between males and females that falls short of our biblical calling to be siblings in Christ, 4) propagating an unnecessary cultural barrier to our unbelieving neighbors, and 5) breeding the pride that often comes from cultural, man-made rules.
We live in an oversexualized culture that objectifies women. The church should not engender a culture that does the same, albeit with different goals. The world, through illicit pornography and licit media, teaches that a woman is first and foremost a physical/sexual body that should be consumed for the gratification of men. Likewise, there is a current of Christian cultural gestalt that functionally communicates that a woman is first and foremost a physical/sexual body that should be protected against. These are two poles with the same message: women are primarily physical/sexual objects. From a worldly perspective, a man is to exploit these objects; from the distorted Christian perspective, a man is to avoid these objects.
Is it any wonder that, even in our churches, some girls want to become boys? Is it any wonder that many women believe themselves to be “less than” in our churches? Is it also any wonder that many of our sons give themselves over to the allure of porn, where they are trained in the darkness that women are pixelated objects who exist for their titillation?
Recognizing this reality and attempting to redress it is not a capitulation to feminism. Rather, doing so is a recognition that God created both men and women as body and soul, bearing his image. Christ himself reveals to us a third, better way: women are to be viewed as whole human beings, worthy of honor, respect, and love. Doing so places the physical/sexual characteristics of human nature in proper perspective, and the godly man is to conduct himself accordingly.
One understandable objection to allowing church officers and women to meet alone is the possibility that an affection may develop that transgresses into a romantic affection. This is a real possibility, especially in counseling situations where vulnerabilities, difficulties, and even marital struggles are disclosed. It is natural to develop deeper bonds over time in such contexts. An affection should develop between the two, but it should be a filial affection, not an erotic one. Such a risk is not unique to a church officer, however. The risk is inherent to any professional counseling relationship. The answer to this risk is not to prevent women from meeting with male therapists. The answer is to hold therapists to a code of ethics. If one cannot maintain this standard, then one should not be a therapist. If one transgresses this standard, then licensing boards exist to discipline. Although these transgressions do occur, it is not the norm, and it is not a necessary consequence of mixed-gender therapeutic relationships (estimates of sexual boundary violations by health care professionals range from 1–10%).
Furthermore, our call in the church is to be Christlike. Being Christlike means striving to have the heart of Christ. It is the heart, after all, that is the fountain of life. If an officer of the church has a heart that is so vulnerable to sexual temptation that being alone with a woman will necessitate unbridled adulterous fantasies or behavior, then such a man should not be an officer. The problem is with the man, not with the woman. An elder should be above reproach, self-controlled, disciplined, a lover of good, holy, and upright (1 Tim 3:1–7 and Titus 1:6–8). If a man is not these things, the man should not be a church leader.
We cannot avoid the possibility of temptation. Our broken world is besotted with it. God has blessed us with the means of grace and the Holy Spirit that we may navigate such a world. We should not live within the ethic of the Muslim or the Mormon that seeks to draw hazard zones around women, lest men fall into temptation. Why stop at the BGR? Why not cover women in burkas from head to toe? Both the BGR and burkas reflect the same foundational assumption: women are objects of temptation that must be guarded against. No, we are Christians, and as such, we should view women as sisters in Christ, made in his image (Gen. 1:27; 1 Tim. 5:2; Gal. 3:28). We should cultivate an ethic that is centered around this biblical reality with hearts that are constantly recalibrated to this ethic.
Another unfortunate consequence of the BGR, and of “purity culture” in general, is a distancing of women from their God-ordained right to have full access to his under-shepherds in the church. Women should have the right to meet with an officer just as any man should have the right to meet with an officer (Mark 10:13–14; Luke 13:10–16; 1 Pet. 3:7; 2 John). They should not fear that their femininity is a stumbling block or a threat through the implicit actions or explicit teachings of the church. To be sure, wisdom in some circumstances may dictate prudence and contingencies in such meetings, but the same may apply for certain circumstances for meeting with men.
Some argue that, whenever possible, it is best practice for two officers to meet with members rather than one officer alone. This seems to be a biblically justifiable and wise course for a host of reasons that benefit both the officer and the member. However, this is not always possible given the size of a church, number of officers, schedules, etc. Regardless, there should not be blanket policies that, universally, prohibit or discourage a woman from meeting alone with a church officer. One potential problem in requiring two people to meet with an individual may be a reluctance to share sensitive information (such as past or current trauma) or confess sin. It is difficult enough for most people to work up the courage and humility to confess sin (or disclose trauma) to one person. Confessing to a multitude could be excruciatingly hard. The practical effect would be that fewer sheep will come to know the freedom and grace of repentance or protection.
Furthermore, we should not send the message to women in our church that it is permissible to meet with a professional male counselor (or doctor or lawyer or accountant) alone, but not with her pastor or elder. Nor should we be sending the message that meaningful therapy or spiritual oversight can only be found with another woman. In our Reformed tradition, we follow the biblical mandate of male ordination, and a woman should not be left without full access to her under-shepherd. Rather, she should be assured her God-ordained, male spiritual-overseer will behave in a manner that is consistent with Christ, and which is for her good.
Yes, there may be wolves in our midst who do not have her good in mind. This leads to another reason why a woman should be free to meet with a godly officer. In the course of counseling, spiritual or secular, a woman may develop romantic feelings for the counselor that should be properly reserved for a husband. This is a well-known and common phenomenon in psychology that is referred to as transference. A godly officer should be able to recognize and manage this transference. The officer should wisely bear both the discomfort and potential stroke to his ego for the sake of his sister (such wisdom-bearing may include sharing the fact of the transference with a fellow officer for the purpose of accountability and guidance, etc.). By doing so, and treating her as a sister in Christ, she can work through these feelings and learn how to properly relate to a man in authority who treats her with kindness, love, and respect. The officer could also help her redirect these feelings towards her husband and help her husband evoke these feelings from his wife (and be worthy of these affections). If she is not given the opportunity to pour out her heart to a godly officer, there is a danger she will find herself with a wolf who will exploit her vulnerability, capitalize on her affections, and devour her.
While a husband may (and should!) delight in his wife’s sexuality in a manner that is exclusive to the marriage bed while cultivating a delight in her whole person, an officer of the church should foster relationships with other women such that a sacred trust is forged analogous to that between a brother and a sister or a father and a daughter. The foundation of this trust is a commitment to view each woman as a fellow image-bearer whom God has solemnly charged the elder to protect and love as a member of Christ’s holy family and not a body to use for sexual gratification. An officer should model this Christlike relationship for all the men and women in the congregation. Our boys and girls should see such relationships lived out in the life of the church and know the body of Christ as a nurturing family that neither exploits nor ignores her members.
To be sure, to jettison the BGR does not mean wisdom and prudence should be tossed along with it. Meeting with members of the opposite sex requires discernment and propriety. An officer meeting alone with a woman in a hotel room, for instance, should be taboo. A man (or woman) could certainly use the absence of a BGR for nefarious purposes. The aforementioned wolf, for example, in keeping with his lupine nature, will pounce upon any opportunity to capture his prey. The church should be on guard against an officer who insists on meeting with a woman alone without any contingencies. Such contingencies should include, at a minimum, making others aware of the meeting, including the officer’s wife. Likewise, no woman should be required to meet with an officer alone. A woman who is uncomfortable with doing so (such as may be the case in a history of abuse) should not be made to feel like she has to meet with an officer (or several officers) without the presence of another woman. By eliminating the BGR, we would not want to give the impression that there should be no guardrails. The point is that the BGR is too restrictive in application and undergirded by a deficient view of our relationship to one another in the church.
There are evangelistic implications of the BGR as well. If we truly want to reach our unchurched neighbors, we need to recognize the cultural oddity of this rule. For those of us living in the West, the free interplay of male and female interactions in social and occupational contexts is a given. There is nothing unusual (or inherently wrong) with a male coworker having lunch with a female coworker. It is generally understood and assumed that a female employee should have the right to meet with her male supervisor. A male student has the right to meet with his female professor. Do transgressions ever occur? Of course! Yet, the fact that transgressions exist should not, by necessity, deprive people of the privileges and benefits of various social contracts.
Christian politicians and celebrities are mocked for publicly assenting to the BGR. If they were mocked for the gospel, the world’s mocking would be to their glory. However, I fear these well-meaning brothers and sisters are unnecessarily placing themselves in the proverbial line of fire. They are also contributing to a narrative that Christians are more concerned with upholding Victorian purity principles of a bygone era than truly engaging with the blessings and pitfalls inherent to our sexual differences. This practice has consequences and has arguably limited the church’s outreach to the lost. Many of our neighbors, especially professional women, have been reluctant to engage with the church on account of a practice that appears out of touch with perfectly normal relations.
Finally, a word about pride. The following quote is making the rounds on the heels of the current adultery scandal: “You will not have sex with a woman not your wife if you are never alone with a woman not your wife.” This is true. This also utilizes a type of “fence building” legalism that our fundamentalist friends employ to avoid drunkenness: “You will not be a drunkard if you never drink a drop of alcohol.” Yet while many believers understand the freedom we have in Christ when it comes to discernment in consuming alcohol and other like matters, many still fall prey to legalism when it comes to male-female relationships. We must remember that transgressing man-made boundaries does not equate transgressing the law of God. The Pharisees were experts at drawing lines in the sand to differentiate their presumed holiness from the sin of others. One cannot read the gospel accounts without recognizing that Jesus’s fury was hot against such behavior. Why was he so intent on dismantling this norm? Because it oppressed his sheep and kept them from God. In the puffing up of their own pride, the Pharisees placed millstones around the weak and vulnerable who suffered on account of their standards. Jesus hates this.
Whether or not one believes in the biblical authenticity of John 7:53–8:11, the episode is in keeping with Christ’s character and mission. Here Jesus drew his own line in the sand when the Pharisees brought the adulterous woman to him in order to shame and stone her. He flipped the territory of Holy and Unholy, of God and Satan, of Light and Darkness. With Jesus on the side of the adulterous women, one by one, the Pharisees had to drop their rocks in spiteful recognition that they were not on the side of the angels. They were, in fact, children of the devil. As a result, they conspired to murder him.
This should stop us all in our tracks. This should be a warning to those who are convinced that their way is the Right Way and who heap shame on those who trespass against their man-made law. We must not insist on perpetuating unbiblical purity principles. The church needs to train and encourage godly officers to navigate these difficult waters, not place anchors in “safe” harbors. Our sisters deserve better.
