The Billy Graham Rule Goes to Court

[Yarddog]

Do you think it sexist or out of the norm for a male Army First Sergeant to require another leader in the same room when counseling a female Soldier?

On the surface it could certainly appear that way. I don't know what the numbers are regarding male sexual assault and the military is trying to get men who have experienced it to come forward.

As far as women, most are assaulted by a man of superior rank and regulations call for counseling not to be done in a closed room when male NCO's are counseling a female subordinate. I personally don't have enough information regarding the issue to say if it is sexist.

 

[Paidiske]

I think the fallout will be bad and men will be worse off because of it. The easiest compromise is to hire a woman to avoid the issues. This won’t hurt the big wigs. They’re safe. But the rest are fair game.

We'll all be worse off. It will limit us in all sorts of ways, in the workplace and in our everyday lives.

Are you suggesting I hire a woman? If we had the budget I'd have pushed for an admin person long ago, but as it is the church struggles to pay me, so... unfortunately not likely to happen any time soon!

 

[RDKirk]

Why would John trust the townspeople to tell the story accurately?
Surely John knows that people can embellish stories.
John could have simply asked Jesus what happened at some point, as well. However, we simply do not know.
It is an assumption (on your part) that John got the story from the townspeople. We really don't know how he was able to record the event. Personally, I don't see that it was likely that he recorded the event via the townspeople. He was one of the core three disciples (i.e. Peter, James, and John). He was one of the sons of thunder who was up on the Mount of Transfiguration.

No, I'm not asserting John got the story from townspeople. Certainly, Jesus Himself could have related it.

I'm pointing out that the story was no secret, and there is no mystery shrouding how John may have gotten the story--which was the question.

 

[RDKirk]

How is that relevant, he worked for the Sheriff's Office for 5 years.

He was fired from the Sheriff's office. So he's having a problem finding another law enforcement job.

Of course he's having trouble finding another law enforcement job--he has been fired from his last one.

 

[bèlla]

We'll all be worse off. It will limit us in all sorts of ways, in the workplace and in our everyday lives.

Are you suggesting I hire a woman? If we had the budget I'd have pushed for an admin person long ago, but as it is the church struggles to pay me, so... unfortunately not likely to happen any time soon!

Everyone will suffer but there’s always a scapegoat. We need only to look at the dark side of #MeToo to get a sense of where it will go.

I wasn’t suggesting help but I remember your recent post and that’s quite a lot for one person! Yes, you need a woman. ;-)

 

[JohnAshton]

The Graham covenant is very easy to commit to, and it can be done with anyone in the chain of command. The dark side of the #metoo has made it necessary.

 

[Paidiske]

How do all these people saying the Billy Graham rule is easy to keep actually manage their lives??? Do you never go anywhere without your spouse? There's so much incidental being-alone-with-people-of-the-opposite-sex in just... living life.

 

[brinny]

How do all these people saying the Billy Graham rule is easy to keep actually manage their lives??? Do you never go anywhere without your spouse? There's so much incidental being-alone-with-people-of-the-opposite-sex in just... living life.

This is exactly what Mr. Torres needed. He cannot be accused of sexual harassment, etc., can he?

From what is indicated, he was in a precarious situation, there at his place of employment. Thank GOD he used that principle. It most likely would've been much much worse for him if he hadn't.

My hunch is that he was being targeted and "set up" in all kinds of ways. An investigation needs to be done, especially regarding a colleague who refused to send back-up when he direly needed it.

There was something seriously a-miss, and he knew it.

THAT is most likely why he was fired.

I'm praying that it ALL comes to light and that he is recompensed and that justice is done.

 

[RDKirk]

How do all these people saying the Billy Graham rule is easy to keep actually manage their lives??? Do you never go anywhere without your spouse? There's so much incidental being-alone-with-people-of-the-opposite-sex in just... living life.

Depends on what is actually in their heads about what it is.

The key is "alone" and what that actually means.

As I mentioned before, Billy Graham had several considerations in what he actually practiced. One is his own self control in the extended situation of being away from home. I can certainly testify that when one is in a situation that sin has become cheaper and easier--that is, less likely to be discovered--temptation can become greater. Why unnecessarily expose oneself to temptation? It's not difficult not to be alone with a woman while on a business trip. And by "alone" I mean "nobody at all around to see what we're doing."

Then there is the consideration of the appearance of sin, which was certainly a consideration for a celebrity like Billy Graham. Being seen having lunch with a woman in a popular restaurant in his home town is a different situation from being seen having dinner with a woman in a distant city. One appears a lot more furtive than the other.

When I was a military leader, it was not a big deal to counsel a female subordinate at the far end of a conference room with an open door. And as a matter of practice, I counselled everyone the same way: At the far end of the conference room with the door open.

 

[bèlla]

This is a no-win situation if you’re viewing it from both sides. If he wins, the argument of discrimination based on gender will be made.

Citing religious beliefs will create an issue that will inevitably lead to homosexuality and other “my religion won’t allow this claims.” You’ll be fighting on several fronts.

If he loses, the ‘religious principle’ takes a hit and precedent is set for future cases.

 

[bèlla]

How do all these people saying the Billy Graham rule is easy to keep actually manage their lives??? Do you never go anywhere without your spouse? There's so much incidental being-alone-with-people-of-the-opposite-sex in just... living life.

I have never met anyone who lives like this which is why I mentioned Billy’s situation. He was in a position to make the rules. He wasn’t expecting his employer to accommodate the principle or risking his livelihood for its stance.

 

[Paidiske]

Depends on what is actually in their heads about what it is.

The key is "alone" and what that actually means.

As I mentioned before, Billy Graham had several considerations in what he actually practiced. One is his own self control in the extended situation of being away from home. I can certainly testify that when one is in a situation that sin has become cheaper and easier--that is, less likely to be discovered--temptation can become greater. Why unnecessarily expose oneself to temptation? It's not difficult not to be alone with a woman while on a business trip. And by "alone" I mean "nobody at all around to see what we're doing."

Then there is the consideration of the appearance of sin, which was certainly a consideration for a celebrity like Billy Graham. Being seen having lunch with a woman in a popular restaurant in his home town is a different situation from being seen having dinner with a woman in a distant city. One appears a lot more furtive than the other.

When I was a military leader, it was not a big deal to counsel a female subordinate at the far end of a conference room with an open door. And as a matter of practice, I counselled everyone the same way: At the far end of the conference room with the door open.

On a business trip, maybe it would be manageable; and I do get the logic of not being alone with a woman in situations which could be misread (intimate dinners and the like).

But that's not the sort of situation we're talking about in the OP, where it was clearly a work situation. And all the other sorts of things that come up - I recently, after another discussion on here, actually kept a record for a month, and there were all sorts of things, from seeing an optometrist (alone with the door closed for ages, getting my eyes tested, the horror!), to having a technician servicing the heater in my house, quite apart from the work-related stuff, which is considerable - it's just all part of the fabric of actually interacting in society.

I think the big difference between, say, the military and my work is that there are no other staff in my workplace. I can leave the door open, but there's no one else there anyway, so that's a bit of a moot point. And that's just normal in my world.

 

[RDKirk]

On a business trip, maybe it would be manageable; and I do get the logic of not being alone with a woman in situations which could be misread (intimate dinners and the like).

But that's not the sort of situation we're talking about in the OP, where it was clearly a work situation. And all the other sorts of things that come up - I recently, after another discussion on here, actually kept a record for a month, and there were all sorts of things, from seeing an optometrist (alone with the door closed for ages, getting my eyes tested, the horror!), to having a technician servicing the heater in my house, quite apart from the work-related stuff, which is considerable - it's just all part of the fabric of actually interacting in society.

I think the big difference between, say, the military and my work is that there are no other staff in my workplace. I can leave the door open, but there's no one else there anyway, so that's a bit of a moot point. And that's just normal in my world.

In this regard, the military isn't different from a corporation. It's just a matter of going to a conference room and leaving the door open.

I don't know how much real impact the #MeToo situation really has, anecdotes not withstanding. I have just retired from a post-military corporate career, and I saw no more problems with that than in the military. Maybe being black I was also missing out on some "alone time" with mentors, so maybe I don't even realize what the white men were getting that neither women nor I were getting. But not much point in going there.

There might have to be some reeling in of the "believe the woman all the time" mentality when there is nothing anyone else can testify to against the man's credibility in any other circumstance.

 

[redleghunter]

As far as women, most are assaulted by a man of superior rank and regulations call for counseling not to be done in a closed room when male NCO's are counseling a female subordinate. I personally don't have enough information regarding the issue to say if it is sexist.

That policy evolved based on like situations I posted in #205 above. And it was not just female-male encounters but also protecting front line supervisors from claims of verbal or physical intimidation, claims of racism and favoritism.

 

[redleghunter]

On a business trip, maybe it would be manageable; and I do get the logic of not being alone with a woman in situations which could be misread (intimate dinners and the like).

But that's not the sort of situation we're talking about in the OP, where it was clearly a work situation. And all the other sorts of things that come up - I recently, after another discussion on here, actually kept a record for a month, and there were all sorts of things, from seeing an optometrist (alone with the door closed for ages, getting my eyes tested, the horror!), to having a technician servicing the heater in my house, quite apart from the work-related stuff, which is considerable - it's just all part of the fabric of actually interacting in society.

I think the big difference between, say, the military and my work is that there are no other staff in my workplace. I can leave the door open, but there's no one else there anyway, so that's a bit of a moot point. And that's just normal in my world.

I think in your case as an ordained minister you have the reputation of being a trusted agent in counseling. Keeping the open door testifies of your good reputation with the laity. Only gossip mongers can tarnish such a bond. Which is perhaps why Graham who traveled a lot self imposed 'the rule.'

When I was serving on the Army staff in the Pentagon, given the job, our section traveled quite a lot. You may be on an assignment with a civilian civil servant or fellow service member who was married (or not) and the opposite sex. Not many folks thought much about it. You traveled, had your own hotel room usually in the same hotel, met the people you were to meet with, conducted business and returned to the hotel. When it was just two people, most avoided one on one dinners together. It was just the Army culture. You avoided potential compromising situations. I guess you could call it invoking the Graham rule by default.

You won't stop the gossipers from their trade no matter how appropriate the situation. My boss recently visited his adult daughter at college. He took her out to dinner and the server gave him glaring looks of why he was with such a younger woman. He and his daughter laughed off the encounter, left a good tip as the service was good. So no matter the situation, there will be people who 'get the wrong impression' and frankly you can't do much about that.

 

[brinny]

As i think and meditate on this, this verse and song comes to mind. Mr. Torres sacrificed much for Christ. It will not be forgotten by the living God. May God bless Mr. Torres, and his wife, and his household in EXTRAORDINARY ways, and grant him EXTRAORDINARY favor, and recompense him in visible and tangible ways. Father may it be so, in the name of Jesus the Christ, the only begotten Son of You, the living God, the God of the living, amen.

"Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house." ~Pr 17:13

Let it rain.

 

[Yarddog]

That policy evolved based on like situations I posted in #205 above. And it was not just female-male encounters but also protecting front line supervisors from claims of verbal or physical intimidation, claims of racism and favoritism.

Yes, it was a wise for the military to do and what should be done in corporate America. That doesn't mean that there are situations where it is necessary of men and women to be alone while on the job. Whether or not the BG rule was appropriate in the deputy's case remains to be seen. It should not be used to keep from doing one's duty.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, I'm not asserting John got the story from townspeople. Certainly, Jesus Himself could have related it.

I'm pointing out that the story was no secret, and there is no mystery shrouding how John may have gotten the story

My first point (to the other poster) is that Jesus was alone with the woman. I got the impression by the other poster that they said that the apostle John was present to record the event live (Which is not the case). The point was that Jesus was alone with the woman at the well. Yes, it was in an open public place, but nobody is recorded as to witness the event live. That's the point I was making to them.

My second point was that Scripture does not explicitly say how John was able to record the event between Jesus and the woman at the well. I did not say it was a secret. How could it be? The story is recorded for us by John and can be read by us today.

--which was the question.

What question?

 

[Brightmoon]

I always thought that the billy graham rule was insulting to men as it implies that they are raving sex fiends that can’t keep their hands off any woman who just happens to be near them . ( thinking of mike pence as a raving sex fiend is risible) If that officer is that dysfunctional then he deserves to be fired as he’s a danger to people he’s supposed to be protecting

 

[JohnAshton]

Common sense need apply.

Certain jobs would be outside of the Graham Rule, such as the police officer we have been studying.

But the great number of professions could handle it without any problem.

The issue is for the covenanter to do it privately with God and spouse, and then conduct him/herself accordingly.

No one else need know.