From the story I’m getting that either you were a teenager of just being treated like a child. It’s a destructive feature of this whole culture in Church that infanalizes women and makes so it’s unsafe for men to be around them.
I'm a single male pastor on staff in a church setting. With all due respect to the author - how is a male pastor ever expected to avoid a lose-lose outcome here?
If he gives you the key and lets you go alone, people can spin that into, "He's discourteous," or "he's lazy," or "he doesn't care about this woman's safety".
If he asks another woman to escort you... "He's too uptight," or "He can't be professional with women", or "How dare he try to assume what will make her feel comfortable?"
If he walks with you 1-on-1... "He's a potential cheater or groomer for walking alone at night with a woman who's not his wife." (Also, if somebody spies him with you and tries to weaponize your interaction into a rumor, he's got no grounds to dispute that.)
And now, if the male pastor invites a third party to come along (on what sounded like a last-minute, spur of the moment decision)... "He's guilty of shaming, objectifying, and making dehumanizing decisions about women"?
He literally cannot win. Period.
To echo Susan's comment, there have been far more tragedies from the **ignoring** the BG rule (or policies like it) than there have been from implementing it. I make no apology whatsoever for applying this rule in my ministry.
I do have a couple of thoughts here, from someone who has shifted positions dramatically from where I was on this issue. But first a question. Can you post a couple documented examples where a man has had his ministry wrecked from unfounded allegations brought by closed door meetings with women? I often hear that there are lots of examples, but I rarely hear specifics that can be verified. To be clear, I once believed this too, but I realized it was something I’d heard rumored and whispered rather than something that I’d verified. Ok… to your post specifically… 1) All of the reasons you stated are from the court of public opinions. “People will think or people will say.” This is the issue with this particular “rule.” We can end up using something that has the potential to do harm to others in order to protect our reputation. 2) I think, to truly live this out we should equally protect ourselves from going into closed door meetings with anyone, ever, one on one. If the reasoning is, “they could say” then they always could. — note— what if a married man said that you tried to molest or grab at him during a closed door session? How would you respond? 3) if on the other hand we do this to protect our sisters (because we are sex charged predators) then this is something to confess and seek counseling for. 4) for me, the answer here more than anything else is wisdom, openness and good judgement. Maybe we don’t go into a closed door meeting with that person… maybe we need to repent of lustful thoughts with that other sister and her husband and work to rewire our mind. Using the same rule for all people at all times, in every situation is rarely an effective measure.
You asked for feedback. I think so much depends on how we view things. I hadn’t heard of the “Billy Graham Rule” being applied in this way. To me this concept of men or women not being alone with someone other than their spouse was something I knew Billy Graham applied to travel, which was a frequent part of his work. I interpret this as a helpful boundary for travel and a way to honor others, not as a demeaning thing towards women. Certainly the way one communicates about something like this matters.
However, I have observed the devastation of infidelity by someone in ministry, and also in another instance for someone in their marriage.
It sounds like you felt shame concerning having a 12 year old accompany you, and you asked thoughtful questions about this situation in retrospect. I think there’s a balance to find but boundaries that are handled respectfully and with kindness can benefit women and men both in some situations.
One very sad situation took place when a man I know who supervised younger women at a camp didn’t have boundaries in place. He made very poor choices and got involved with a teenager. This was wrong and no one blamed the young woman for his actions and bad judgment. But safeguards might have prevented this from happening. Ultimately his family fell apart, he ended up on probation and many lives were impacted. So while I haven’t read your whole story, this post brought to mind the value of some sort of guidelines.
As I read your story I didn't seem to take anything in the same way that you did. I guess I would have assumed he was keeping a commitment to his own boundaries for the sake of himself or his marriage, etc- and not that it meant anything about you.
From the story I’m getting that either you were a teenager of just being treated like a child. It’s a destructive feature of this whole culture in Church that infanalizes women and makes so it’s unsafe for men to be around them.
I was in my 30s, in fact! You're so right - women are infantilized in these unhealthy church cultures.
I'm a single male pastor on staff in a church setting. With all due respect to the author - how is a male pastor ever expected to avoid a lose-lose outcome here?
If he gives you the key and lets you go alone, people can spin that into, "He's discourteous," or "he's lazy," or "he doesn't care about this woman's safety".
If he asks another woman to escort you... "He's too uptight," or "He can't be professional with women", or "How dare he try to assume what will make her feel comfortable?"
If he walks with you 1-on-1... "He's a potential cheater or groomer for walking alone at night with a woman who's not his wife." (Also, if somebody spies him with you and tries to weaponize your interaction into a rumor, he's got no grounds to dispute that.)
And now, if the male pastor invites a third party to come along (on what sounded like a last-minute, spur of the moment decision)... "He's guilty of shaming, objectifying, and making dehumanizing decisions about women"?
He literally cannot win. Period.
To echo Susan's comment, there have been far more tragedies from the **ignoring** the BG rule (or policies like it) than there have been from implementing it. I make no apology whatsoever for applying this rule in my ministry.
I do have a couple of thoughts here, from someone who has shifted positions dramatically from where I was on this issue. But first a question. Can you post a couple documented examples where a man has had his ministry wrecked from unfounded allegations brought by closed door meetings with women? I often hear that there are lots of examples, but I rarely hear specifics that can be verified. To be clear, I once believed this too, but I realized it was something I’d heard rumored and whispered rather than something that I’d verified. Ok… to your post specifically… 1) All of the reasons you stated are from the court of public opinions. “People will think or people will say.” This is the issue with this particular “rule.” We can end up using something that has the potential to do harm to others in order to protect our reputation. 2) I think, to truly live this out we should equally protect ourselves from going into closed door meetings with anyone, ever, one on one. If the reasoning is, “they could say” then they always could. — note— what if a married man said that you tried to molest or grab at him during a closed door session? How would you respond? 3) if on the other hand we do this to protect our sisters (because we are sex charged predators) then this is something to confess and seek counseling for. 4) for me, the answer here more than anything else is wisdom, openness and good judgement. Maybe we don’t go into a closed door meeting with that person… maybe we need to repent of lustful thoughts with that other sister and her husband and work to rewire our mind. Using the same rule for all people at all times, in every situation is rarely an effective measure.
You asked for feedback. I think so much depends on how we view things. I hadn’t heard of the “Billy Graham Rule” being applied in this way. To me this concept of men or women not being alone with someone other than their spouse was something I knew Billy Graham applied to travel, which was a frequent part of his work. I interpret this as a helpful boundary for travel and a way to honor others, not as a demeaning thing towards women. Certainly the way one communicates about something like this matters.
However, I have observed the devastation of infidelity by someone in ministry, and also in another instance for someone in their marriage.
It sounds like you felt shame concerning having a 12 year old accompany you, and you asked thoughtful questions about this situation in retrospect. I think there’s a balance to find but boundaries that are handled respectfully and with kindness can benefit women and men both in some situations.
One very sad situation took place when a man I know who supervised younger women at a camp didn’t have boundaries in place. He made very poor choices and got involved with a teenager. This was wrong and no one blamed the young woman for his actions and bad judgment. But safeguards might have prevented this from happening. Ultimately his family fell apart, he ended up on probation and many lives were impacted. So while I haven’t read your whole story, this post brought to mind the value of some sort of guidelines.
As I read your story I didn't seem to take anything in the same way that you did. I guess I would have assumed he was keeping a commitment to his own boundaries for the sake of himself or his marriage, etc- and not that it meant anything about you.
indeed!