Much has been made about the so-called “Billy Graham Rule” in recent years, due to the acknowledgement of many public figures (such as Vice-President Mike Pence) who adhere to it.  When Billy Graham was beginning his ministry, he and his team understood that all of their Kingdom efforts could be undermined and discredited by a single accusation of sexual impropriety.  Therefore, all agreed that they would never allow themselves to be in a position in which they might be seen with “even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.”  This meant that they would not travel, dine, or meet alone with members of the opposite sex who were not their wives.  (In fact, the team applied this principle to finances, relationships with local churches, and publicity, as well).  Much of the public reaction to the Billy Graham Rule has been openly hostile, and a recent piece in the Washington Post by one of that paper’s Style section writers demonstrates the point.  Monica Hesse published two pieces in the Post, the first discussing a situation in which a Republican gubernatorial candidate in Mississippi refused to allow a local reporter (who happened to be female) “shadow” him without a male colleague present and the second responding to the many emails she received as a result of the first article.

Hesse’s article argues that any man who adheres to the Billy Graham Rule doesn’t truly care about his wife or daughters (or those of others), but rather he is actually demeaning them.  In order to underscore her point, she quotes a sports journalist on a Buffalo, NY radio station named Jeremy White, who said, “[The rule] presumes either: A) you can’t be trusted or B) women can’t be trusted. Everyone invoking that rule should be prepared to answer which is true.”  Of course, this is a false dichotomy, suggesting that these are the only two things that may be presumed about the Rule.  Even so, as Christians we can “be prepared to answer” by affirming that the combination of our sin natures and the deceptiveness of sin itself are enough to cause us to be cautious with both ourselves and others in these situations.  By exercising this biblical wisdom, we are indeed protecting and honoring all of the parties involved.

Although Hesse opened her article by saying that we ought to assume the best about other people and their positions, she concludes by assigning a malicious motivation to those who seek to apply the Rule to their lives:  they are actively and deliberately seeking to keep women “out of the room.”  What’s worse, these nefarious men hide behind their faith in order to enforce their discriminatory efforts.  We ought not be surprised when the world ascribes to us unrighteous motivations when we are trying to exercise wisdom that honors Christ.  Our Christian forebears endured the same accusations in the Roman Empire, when they refused to offer a mere pinch of incense on the altars dedicated to emperor worship.  Indeed, those who seek to live out a consistent Christian witness will not be understood by a world that cannot understand spiritual truths. 

Reputations are notoriously difficult to build and ridiculously easy to destroy.  Our cultural context has shown us two distinct issues here.  First, when we refuse to take sin seriously, we become lulled into a sense of complacency that makes us dangerously susceptible to its snares.  How many lives, marriages, careers, and ministries have been destroyed because both men and women thought they were immune to the temptation of sexual immorality?  Second, just the accusation (what we might even call the appearance of impropriety [cf. 1 Thess. 5:22]) of these kinds of sins is enough to derail a believer’s witness to the world.  Even if a person is cleared of the accusation, it will always linger in the minds of those who know that person.  Taking great caution in protecting our ability to share the Gospel is not detrimental or demeaning to women; it’s honoring of Christ and holding women in the highest of esteem.  Just something to think about…