A guest post by Kelly Edmiston How the Billy Graham Rule Ruins Relationships: The over-sexualization of women in the Church. Disclaimers: Up to this point and with the facts that are known, I do not think Matt Chandler sinned by having a friendship with a woman in his Church. I believe an issue that has been overlooked and is significant is the over-sexualization of women in this situation.
I am 74, and first encountered the Graham rule about 40 years ago. I thought it was absurd then and still feel that way. I have had 3 amazing and effective mentors in my life, one of whom still speaks into my life experience on a regular basis. They have all been women. What I got from each of them would never have come to me from a man, and God used them powerfully to shape my character and professional skills. Thank you for giving Kelly a platform for her story and research!
This article was so on point. “I have experienced being overlooked and ignored, not mentored, not coached, and not cared for because of “Billy Graham Rule” boundaries.”
-> Me, too, and I am also weary. And, “How is your husband/where is your husband/can I meet your husband?” (He often works on Sundays, and I’m not sure this is a reasonable response to the theological question I just asked you, Pastor.)
As a fellow Vineyard female pastor, I have to say “Well done, Kelly.” I’ve been active as a mentor for nearly 20 years in our movement and I believe the decades of cross-gendered mentoring I’ve participated in has been immensely fruitful. Setting aside the BG rule means we set aside patriarchy and walk the path of loving our brothers and sisters well and teaching and encouraging them regardless of their gender. While I respect Billy Graham so deeply, I will quote a Wimberism about Pastor Graham’s teachings… “Eat the meat and spit out the bones.” His “rule” has never been in alignment with how Jesus modeled cross-gendered situations. But alas, yes. Sometimes you must sleep in the bed you’ve made. Bummer indeed for Mr. Chandler and those in his life affected by this situation, teaching and policy.
Kelly - so grateful you are part of our tribe! Again, well done!!!
Thanks for putting this on the table today, Scot. Kelly Edmiston has given voice to an issue that has relegated women to a limited place in "leadership" despite a calling or a gifting for ministry. As a consequence women come to be seen as a threat rather than as a comrade in God's ministry. So many losses follow from this, not just for the woman, but for the men deprived of her perspectives - what she hears from God through Scripture, for starters. And of course, a sidelined woman must deal with multiple issues around calling, gifting, and God's purposes for her. AAUUGGHH! - don't miss the devil's fingerprints on this one....
Thanks for this post. Our denomination traditionally ordains and assigns women as pastors. But patriarchal leaders have risen in influence and squelched it. In my early years as a pastor I chose to ignore the Billy Graham rule for the reasons stated on this important article. Women were important leaders at every level in our church, as board chair, on the preaching team, etc. But in all this time I don’t know if I’ve ever read an article quite like this. Thanks for being frank Kelly, for calling us men to an even higher standard: dignity, mutual respect, Christian love.
This is so good. In another Facebook thread re The Billy Graham Rule on a pastors page, I asked a question and made a few comments:
“Serious question… if Jesus followed the rule, would the Samaritan woman have come to faith and evangelized the whole town? Is there anything instructive here?
“Jesus often transgressed norms and scandalized the religious yet was completely sinless. The meeting in John 4, Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet, the woman in Luke 7 transgressing several cultural norms and Jesus allowing her to do this. People were scandalized, but it seems to me that this aspect of Jesus’ life is also an example for us to follow. Precisely what that means in our cultural context requires quite a bit more reflection and discussion. It *is possible to become ridiculous — yes, to be too “careful” — and risk failing to do ministry when and where people need pastoral presence.”
I’d add here that what you say about properly honoring our female colleagues by refusing to exclude them based on a fear of failing to be “above reproach” is also on point and important. I think your contribution here, Pastor Kelly, is excellent, insightful, and is a necessary corrective.
Kelly, great post. I’ve long agreed with the sentiment that the BG rule is flawed. However, I do think Matt should be receiving the outcome he’s receiving, and here’s why… in the same way we become what we worship, we get bitten by the monsters we feed.
Firstly, he has willfully and intentionally fed the monster that is the religious system that holds women down. I was deeply confused by Matt’s inclusion as a primary speaker at the MLK 50th anniversary, precisely because of his views on women. I didn’t understand how he was seen as a champion for civil rights or someone that should be elevated in that way, when he feeds a system that holds women down.
Secondly, because he has created a public persona and an internal system that requires all private conversations to match that public persona perfectly… I’m not a vindictive person, so it sounds harsh, but this is very much the bed he made and is having to sleep in. He did something “wrong” in the system he created.
And so, lastly, it is possible, this response, this process, like other subjects Matt has softened on, will cause him to change his mind, and speak out about this in the future, to normalize these kinds of friendships. The personal pain he’s feeling because of this overreaction may lead him to change how he leads and how he leads others/systems.
And lastly lastly… I can’t shake the question of why the person’s friend a) knew about the DMs, b) knew their content or thought they crossed a line, and c) felt compelled to confront Matt about them.
Amen! I've written books about the Jewish context of Jesus, and many pastors want to meet with me to discuss preaching issues. When both sexes are involved in ministry, the Billy Graham rule becomes an enormous problem.
The rule turns all women into potential prostitutes and sets a very low bar of expectation of men in the church. It cuts off healthy relationships and makes men even more focused on unhealthy thoughts about women. It's like how Arab women must cover all surfaces to keep men from lusting. So whenever a woman is not shrouded, what do men think about??
Consider that Proverbs 7:4-5 says,
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
and to insight, “You are my relative.”
They will keep you from the adulterous woman,
from the wayward woman with her seductive words.
The Bible seems to think that gaining wisdom should be like talking to a sister. It sounds like men should look to sisters to find wisdom, and this might even guard them from adultery! But sisters can't do that if you're not allowed to even talk to them.
Amen and amen! I am so tired as being seen, passively, as a potential threat. But also I am so tired of foregoing friendships with men that I would consider mentors and spiritual brothers for fear of what the friendship might do to their "reputation" or how it could be misconstrued.
While I agree with much here, I’m sad you used the title you did. I put proper appropriate boundaries up in my relationships honoring the essence of “The Billy Graham Rule,” yet still having great “familial” relationships with everyone. Because the SBC went Pharisee on it demeans the intent of Billy Graham.
I held a position in leadership at my local church. I was a leader in the women’s ministry and met regularly with our senior pastor. Our meetings together provided me with encouragement, assistance in resource materials and guidance with how to engage and strengthen new leaders. He was also my friend and I’m here to say it’s possible for men and women in church leadership to be friends without strings attached. I’ve experienced it.
I have to wonder if jealousy might have been a motivating factor for the friend who reported the personal messaging going on between Mark Chandler and the anonymous woman? Just an idea.
This was an excellent contribution on this topic. As someone who works closely with females and males, in the addiction and recovery community, I see the importance of engaging with and learning from both. Two of my most cherished relationships are with women. And I am the better for it.
Excellent post and one folks need to hear. I'm a retired educator whose colleagues were mostly women. I have frequently met with them for lunch or dinner for casual conversation, and I consider many of them close friends. My wife of 34 years is well-aware of these gatherings, although she knows few of them personally. Yes, it raises some eyebrows in my Christian circles (and folks have asked me if doing this is "wise"). Fortunately, I don't deal with the stigma that a pastor may encounter, but the Billy Graham rule plays an implicit role in the way many Christian friends view the way male/female relationships should be handled. No doubt "the rule" is well-intended and offered to protect folks in these relationships from "a cloud of suspicion" or from actual sin. But it has become (for some) "the" litmus test for healthy male/female friendships, and if your friendships with the opposite sex don't measure up, well, you're raising questions for them about your motives (and theirs), etc. And in a highly sexualized culture, we know where that goes. Thanks, Kelly!
Yeah . . . but. Let's not kid ourselves, Kelly. The rare incident like the one you discuss herein is avalanched by all of the mental and physical adultery that exists in our society and, even, in the supposed-to-be-spotless Bride of Christ, His Church. Older men should mentor younger men, and older women should do so with younger women. THAT is what the Bible, not Billy Graham, prescribes. And I don't think that the Bible objectifies women or makes them second class. On the contrary, the Bible's description of men and women is spot on, I think, and even revolutionary for the cultures in which it was written. I also think that it's safest for avoiding the sexual and other temptations that are so common to all for couples to befriend couples and, for that matter, for couples to teach children. I'm almost sixty-seven years old, and I've been an elder in the churches in which we've been members, as well as a prosecuting attorney in the community in which we live. I've seen things that would make you hair curl and your skin crawl. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my perception is skewed. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy. I am, but that's beside the point. I understand that it's cool to be hip and hip to be cool, to be an iconoclast with the tried-and-true things that we often love to loath. Maybe that's what you are proposing. Maybe it's not. Anyway, "Good luck." Let me know how it all works out.
I am 74, and first encountered the Graham rule about 40 years ago. I thought it was absurd then and still feel that way. I have had 3 amazing and effective mentors in my life, one of whom still speaks into my life experience on a regular basis. They have all been women. What I got from each of them would never have come to me from a man, and God used them powerfully to shape my character and professional skills. Thank you for giving Kelly a platform for her story and research!
There is so much truth and wisdom in this post. May God give us more godly female pastors.
This article was so on point. “I have experienced being overlooked and ignored, not mentored, not coached, and not cared for because of “Billy Graham Rule” boundaries.”
-> Me, too, and I am also weary. And, “How is your husband/where is your husband/can I meet your husband?” (He often works on Sundays, and I’m not sure this is a reasonable response to the theological question I just asked you, Pastor.)
As a fellow Vineyard female pastor, I have to say “Well done, Kelly.” I’ve been active as a mentor for nearly 20 years in our movement and I believe the decades of cross-gendered mentoring I’ve participated in has been immensely fruitful. Setting aside the BG rule means we set aside patriarchy and walk the path of loving our brothers and sisters well and teaching and encouraging them regardless of their gender. While I respect Billy Graham so deeply, I will quote a Wimberism about Pastor Graham’s teachings… “Eat the meat and spit out the bones.” His “rule” has never been in alignment with how Jesus modeled cross-gendered situations. But alas, yes. Sometimes you must sleep in the bed you’ve made. Bummer indeed for Mr. Chandler and those in his life affected by this situation, teaching and policy.
Kelly - so grateful you are part of our tribe! Again, well done!!!
Thanks for putting this on the table today, Scot. Kelly Edmiston has given voice to an issue that has relegated women to a limited place in "leadership" despite a calling or a gifting for ministry. As a consequence women come to be seen as a threat rather than as a comrade in God's ministry. So many losses follow from this, not just for the woman, but for the men deprived of her perspectives - what she hears from God through Scripture, for starters. And of course, a sidelined woman must deal with multiple issues around calling, gifting, and God's purposes for her. AAUUGGHH! - don't miss the devil's fingerprints on this one....
Thanks for this post. Our denomination traditionally ordains and assigns women as pastors. But patriarchal leaders have risen in influence and squelched it. In my early years as a pastor I chose to ignore the Billy Graham rule for the reasons stated on this important article. Women were important leaders at every level in our church, as board chair, on the preaching team, etc. But in all this time I don’t know if I’ve ever read an article quite like this. Thanks for being frank Kelly, for calling us men to an even higher standard: dignity, mutual respect, Christian love.
This is so good. In another Facebook thread re The Billy Graham Rule on a pastors page, I asked a question and made a few comments:
“Serious question… if Jesus followed the rule, would the Samaritan woman have come to faith and evangelized the whole town? Is there anything instructive here?
“Jesus often transgressed norms and scandalized the religious yet was completely sinless. The meeting in John 4, Mary sitting at Jesus’ feet, the woman in Luke 7 transgressing several cultural norms and Jesus allowing her to do this. People were scandalized, but it seems to me that this aspect of Jesus’ life is also an example for us to follow. Precisely what that means in our cultural context requires quite a bit more reflection and discussion. It *is possible to become ridiculous — yes, to be too “careful” — and risk failing to do ministry when and where people need pastoral presence.”
I’d add here that what you say about properly honoring our female colleagues by refusing to exclude them based on a fear of failing to be “above reproach” is also on point and important. I think your contribution here, Pastor Kelly, is excellent, insightful, and is a necessary corrective.
Kelly, great post. I’ve long agreed with the sentiment that the BG rule is flawed. However, I do think Matt should be receiving the outcome he’s receiving, and here’s why… in the same way we become what we worship, we get bitten by the monsters we feed.
Firstly, he has willfully and intentionally fed the monster that is the religious system that holds women down. I was deeply confused by Matt’s inclusion as a primary speaker at the MLK 50th anniversary, precisely because of his views on women. I didn’t understand how he was seen as a champion for civil rights or someone that should be elevated in that way, when he feeds a system that holds women down.
Secondly, because he has created a public persona and an internal system that requires all private conversations to match that public persona perfectly… I’m not a vindictive person, so it sounds harsh, but this is very much the bed he made and is having to sleep in. He did something “wrong” in the system he created.
And so, lastly, it is possible, this response, this process, like other subjects Matt has softened on, will cause him to change his mind, and speak out about this in the future, to normalize these kinds of friendships. The personal pain he’s feeling because of this overreaction may lead him to change how he leads and how he leads others/systems.
And lastly lastly… I can’t shake the question of why the person’s friend a) knew about the DMs, b) knew their content or thought they crossed a line, and c) felt compelled to confront Matt about them.
Amen! I've written books about the Jewish context of Jesus, and many pastors want to meet with me to discuss preaching issues. When both sexes are involved in ministry, the Billy Graham rule becomes an enormous problem.
The rule turns all women into potential prostitutes and sets a very low bar of expectation of men in the church. It cuts off healthy relationships and makes men even more focused on unhealthy thoughts about women. It's like how Arab women must cover all surfaces to keep men from lusting. So whenever a woman is not shrouded, what do men think about??
Consider that Proverbs 7:4-5 says,
Say to wisdom, “You are my sister,”
and to insight, “You are my relative.”
They will keep you from the adulterous woman,
from the wayward woman with her seductive words.
The Bible seems to think that gaining wisdom should be like talking to a sister. It sounds like men should look to sisters to find wisdom, and this might even guard them from adultery! But sisters can't do that if you're not allowed to even talk to them.
Amen and amen! I am so tired as being seen, passively, as a potential threat. But also I am so tired of foregoing friendships with men that I would consider mentors and spiritual brothers for fear of what the friendship might do to their "reputation" or how it could be misconstrued.
While I agree with much here, I’m sad you used the title you did. I put proper appropriate boundaries up in my relationships honoring the essence of “The Billy Graham Rule,” yet still having great “familial” relationships with everyone. Because the SBC went Pharisee on it demeans the intent of Billy Graham.
I held a position in leadership at my local church. I was a leader in the women’s ministry and met regularly with our senior pastor. Our meetings together provided me with encouragement, assistance in resource materials and guidance with how to engage and strengthen new leaders. He was also my friend and I’m here to say it’s possible for men and women in church leadership to be friends without strings attached. I’ve experienced it.
I have to wonder if jealousy might have been a motivating factor for the friend who reported the personal messaging going on between Mark Chandler and the anonymous woman? Just an idea.
Well said, We'll done
Keep on keeping on... A relentless task since for centuries some of our feet seem to be set in stone.
This was an excellent contribution on this topic. As someone who works closely with females and males, in the addiction and recovery community, I see the importance of engaging with and learning from both. Two of my most cherished relationships are with women. And I am the better for it.
Excellent post and one folks need to hear. I'm a retired educator whose colleagues were mostly women. I have frequently met with them for lunch or dinner for casual conversation, and I consider many of them close friends. My wife of 34 years is well-aware of these gatherings, although she knows few of them personally. Yes, it raises some eyebrows in my Christian circles (and folks have asked me if doing this is "wise"). Fortunately, I don't deal with the stigma that a pastor may encounter, but the Billy Graham rule plays an implicit role in the way many Christian friends view the way male/female relationships should be handled. No doubt "the rule" is well-intended and offered to protect folks in these relationships from "a cloud of suspicion" or from actual sin. But it has become (for some) "the" litmus test for healthy male/female friendships, and if your friendships with the opposite sex don't measure up, well, you're raising questions for them about your motives (and theirs), etc. And in a highly sexualized culture, we know where that goes. Thanks, Kelly!
Yeah . . . but. Let's not kid ourselves, Kelly. The rare incident like the one you discuss herein is avalanched by all of the mental and physical adultery that exists in our society and, even, in the supposed-to-be-spotless Bride of Christ, His Church. Older men should mentor younger men, and older women should do so with younger women. THAT is what the Bible, not Billy Graham, prescribes. And I don't think that the Bible objectifies women or makes them second class. On the contrary, the Bible's description of men and women is spot on, I think, and even revolutionary for the cultures in which it was written. I also think that it's safest for avoiding the sexual and other temptations that are so common to all for couples to befriend couples and, for that matter, for couples to teach children. I'm almost sixty-seven years old, and I've been an elder in the churches in which we've been members, as well as a prosecuting attorney in the community in which we live. I've seen things that would make you hair curl and your skin crawl. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe my perception is skewed. Maybe I'm just an old fuddy duddy. I am, but that's beside the point. I understand that it's cool to be hip and hip to be cool, to be an iconoclast with the tried-and-true things that we often love to loath. Maybe that's what you are proposing. Maybe it's not. Anyway, "Good luck." Let me know how it all works out.