“Never Be Alone with a Member of the Opposite Sex”: Is the Billy Graham Rule Effective?

This article was first published in French by Point-Theo. Reproduced with kind permission. Vous pouvez le lire dans la langue originelle en cliquant ici. Translated by Mikaela Bell.

In the context of #metoo, where numerous pastors and teachers have been accused of sexual misconduct and adultery¹ and where many others are afraid of being so accused, the “Billy Graham rule” seems like an effective firewall against every sexual temptation and risk of accusation: Never spend time alone with a member of the opposite sex. In his autobiography, the great preacher recounts how he strictly applied this rule; his wife was the only woman allowed alone in his presence.² He never found himself alone with another woman: not in a restaurant, nor in one-on-one meetings, nor as a traveling companion. He encouraged many men to follow in his footsteps, and some still insist on this rule today.

Billy Graham recalls that he got his evangelization team together and invited them to list all the dangers to which evangelists were exposed. The danger of sexual immorality came up second, just after the dangers linked to money. The preacher stressed that sexual temptation was immense when he was journeying and spending time far from his family. The radical new rule was, for him, a way to apply Paul’s recommendation to Timothy to “flee the evil desires of youth” (2 Tim. 2:22). Graham was concerned about protecting his personal integrity as well as that of his team. He also wanted to protect his marriage and the quality of his testimony as a pastor. The intention behind this rule was to protect himself from any chance of trespass by sexual misconduct, but it was also to protect himself from any suspicion or accusation. And Billy Graham is known for having lived out his life without any sexual scandal.

A Rule Built on Shaky Ground

While this line of conduct may seem to be an effective firewall, in addition to being easy to put into place, it rests on some questionable assumptions. It fundamentally presupposes that a personal relationship between a man and a woman is riskier than it is beneficial. In addition, this rule is based on a very contestable view of women, of men, and of the relationships they can live out between them.

• First of all, this rule, read in today’s context, naively presumes that heterosexual desire is the only kind of sexual attraction. Events of the last few decades have shown that homosexual desire can certainly also constitute part of a church leader’s moral life. We should not forget that sexual desire can manifest in surprising ways and does not always appear where we expect it.
  
• As far as the relationship between the sexes goes, this rule assumes that when a man and a woman are alone together in a room, a sexual relationship has a strong chance of occurring. This way of thinking sexualizes the relationship from the start. It minimizes or even voids the fact that a private relationship between a man and a woman can be based on intellectual exchange, collaboration on projects, and the recovery of trusting relationships.

• Finally, this rule supposes that one person is a danger to the other in any relationship without an audience. Is a man weak by nature and incapable of controlling his sexual urges—“the evil desires of youth”—in the presence of a woman? Are women seductresses ready to do anything to make a man fall into their nets? Or are they so weak that they would be unable to resist the charms of a preacher? This rule presumes that a man and a woman are not safe with each other if no chaperone is present. While this may effectively be the case for certain people, those people are suffering from a serious addiction problem. Such a problem should not be generalized to all pastors or to all men or all women. If someone cannot be alone in a room with someone else without making sexual advances on them, that person has no ability to form healthy human relationships in general and is in need of help. Even in cases where this rule is applied out of a desire to avoid suspicion or false accusation, the male/female relationship is still seen from the angle of the danger that it could represent. While we must always be wise in how we navigate our relationships, applying this rule systematically is problematic.

In conclusion, this rule sexualizes relationships in a way that is both excessive and inappropriate. It depicts men and women as beings who are incapable of working together while ensuring that their relationship stays within healthy limits. In doing so, it obscures the majority of the healthy relationships to be found between men and women.

A Rule Whose Practice Inhibits Diversity

In addition to being built on shaky foundations, this rule leads to practices that undermine diversity. It excludes women from the places where decisions are being made and from leadership in the church. If a pastor can never be alone with a woman, that means that women are excluded from numerous fields and collaborative projects. Theological discussions will only take place between men and will only be open to women in a group setting or in the context of a presentation. Personal contact permits a relationship to grow deeper and allows the people in it to pass on their know-how and soft skills, to build confidence, and to include each other in their thought processes and thus, in their decision-making.

It is not for no reason that there are few female theologians and pastors. Women are unfortunately underrepresented in training institutes, including in those circles that are, in theory, more open to them. As long as pastors and theologians are men, what space is left for women to collaborate in pastoral spaces or among the church elders? This rule of separation pushes the few women present into isolation: no private contact with their male colleagues in order to cement a team, no projects carried out by teams of two, no theological debates that can serve to give them a voice on the topic at hand. This rule puts women at a distance, rendering all collaboration difficult, if not impossible. Since women cannot be treated first as sisters, equals, colleagues, and complements in ministry, they are marginalized and put aside under the pretext of safety. Sexualization closes the doors to women who want to have relationships, discussions, and community with their brothers in shared service. This isolation leads to their discouragement and ultimately their disengagement.

Serving Together—An Ecclesiological Question

If the nature of relations between the women and men of God’s people is a moral and ethical issue, it is also an ecclesiological one. As Elyse Fitzpatrick points out, in the Old Testament, women are generally described in terms of their beauty, their husband, and their number of sons, but it is not like that in the New Testament.³ In Jesus, men and women are partners in sharing the news of the resurrection and in caring for the church. Jesus himself didn’t apply the “Billy Graham rule” when discussing personal topics with the Samaritan woman beside the well, when teaching Mary of Bethany who sat at his feet, or in his encounter with Mary Magdalene in the garden after his resurrection.

To build the church, men and women need to nourish their personal relationships. In spite of their frailty, men and women are invited to collaborate. Men and women are sinners and can be tempted. Before God, both are responsible for their own actions, and each is also responsible for the other. This does not involve the sexualization of the relationship, accusing either man or woman a priori. Jesus invites us to first look in our own eyes. He invites us to a culture of responsibility in relationships.

Relationships in Christ redefine relational contours. The image of the family (brother, sister, mother, or father) is used to show these new dependent bonds between members. To become a family is to accept knowing each other well, and proximity is necessary for that. A family leads to a common life in the context of a home. It means sharing gifts and strengths, so that each one can compensate for the weaknesses of the others. The “holy” distance prescribed by the “Billy Graham rule” might be intended as a mark of respect, but in reality, it impedes the flourishing of relationships and the ability to enrich ourselves with different perspectives.

What Do We Do When a Relationship Is Problematic?

The vast majority of interactions between women and men in a church are healthy ones, but sometimes it happens that they can be problematic for one, or the other, or for both. Church leaders should watch over their congregation in this respect and guarantee a safe space for themselves and for the members. It is important that they have the capacity to recognize their limits, that they guard their fidelity in their conjugal relationships or their integrity in celibacy, but they also need to direct the church in an honest and transparent manner. The first goal of a pastor, male or female, is not to protect themself from any reproach, but to accomplish what God has called them to: the service of the church body as a whole. When choosing their pastors, it is to be hoped that church congregations will earnestly study the person to whom they are entrusting such responsibilities: Are they mature enough to be safe in their relationships?

In delicate and potentially dangerous situations for oneself or for another, it is good to be aware of meeting places and the content of interactions. The presence of a third party could be necessary. It is also necessary to know oneself well and to be clear about one’s feelings, attractions, and fantasies. It is a great help to be able to speak with a colleague, a friend, or a spouse about one’s feelings, if the other person is capable of understanding. Opening up to a confidant allows a person to remain accountable for their behavior and not be imprisoned by their desires. This responsibility for vigilance also involves not giving space to a relationship that is potentially dangerous for one or the other party.

A Few Measures to Put in Place to Foster Healthy Boundaries

Pastors are not immune to ambiguous relationships. A few practical steps can foster healthy boundaries, in addition to those discussed above:

• Take care of your own intimate relationships; attraction is more likely to come when there is a void to fill.

• Show wisdom in the relationships and situations to which you are exposed. For example, it is better to meet in public when the feelings between two people are unclear. In this way you take care of both yourself and the other person.

• Set clear limits on the amount of time spent together and on physical contact. Preventative measures allow us to keep healthy boundaries in place: Physical touch should be handled with the greatest prudence in general and avoided at all costs in ambiguous relationships.

• Agree to delegate the relationship to another if it becomes too problematic and its boundaries are in danger.

¹ Meyer, Holly and Peter Smith. “#ChurchToo revelations growing, years after movement began,” Associated Press, June 12, 2022, https://apnews.com/article/entertainment-health-baptist-religion-c7c5f62a5737b3aee20ceaa3f99ab603. 

² See Just as I Am: The Autobiography of Billy Graham for further discussion of Billy Graham’s approach to life and ministry.  

³ Editor’s note: For example, Rachel and Leah are initially described based on physical characteristics (Gen 29: 17–18). Even Deborah and Jael are described as the “wife of . . .” before their story is told (Judges 4–5). Conversely, narratives in the New Testament tend to describe the without these qualifiers. See Lydia (Acts 16:14), Phoebe (Romans 16:1), and Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38–42).

Related Resources

Popular Articles

Moving Beyond the Billy Graham Rule
We Broke the Silence on #ChurchToo. Now It’s Time for #MissionsToo.
Women Pastors Need Not Apply
5 Definitive Signs A Church Is Invested In Women
As a Deer Longs for Flowing Streams, Single Women Long to Be Included at Church
Jesus’ Vision for Masculinity: The (Actual) Best A Man Can Get
How to Find a Church that Empowers Women

Academic Articles/Book Reviews

Why Can’t Women Do That? Breaking Down the Reasons Churches Put Men in Charge
The Single Woman: Vocational (Dis)Advantage in God’s Mission
Book Review: Equal to Serve: Women and Men in the Church and Home
Book Review: We Too: How the Church Can Respond Redemptively to the Sexual Abuse Crisis
Book Review: The Samaritan Woman’s Story: Reconsidering John 4 After #ChurchToo

Audio/Visual Materials