Boundaries and hospitality

[Paidiske]

I found this piece well worth reading; I know that I would be the poorer if every man who's been significant in my development as a Christian had kept the Billy Graham rules strictly.

I also know that my ministry would be hamstrung if I had to keep them strictly.

Other thoughts?

https://www.missioalliance.org/how-...ut-the-billy-graham-rule-and-love-like-jesus/

 

[St. Helens]

I am finding myself agreeing with this. That rule does hamstring ministry. I did nursing home ministry last year, but that rule hamstrung it to such a degree, that I couldn't continue. I had problems getting a buddy to go with me so I had to give it up, due to that rule that was in place through my denomination. I now found a new niche. I run a game on tuesdays at a Ladies Nursing home.

 

[Dave-W]

Good article. I was raised with the Graham rule (and the story of why he instituted it), but was never really comfortable with it as a doctrine. As the article pointed out, our Lord violated it Himself. And the whole "appearance of evil" He violated FREQUENTLY. He was constantly doing things that looked bad to everyone around Him, including the disciples.

I have seen it taken to some really bad extremes that do nothing more than make me very angry. This verse comes to mind:

Colossians 2:23
These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence.​

 

[seeking.IAM]

This is a thought-provoking thread. Recent accusations and scandals -- whether in Hollywood or the church -- should heighten the concern for all of us in helping professions. How do we protect ourselves from accusations of impropriety? As a psychotherapist, I have spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours over 4 decades alone in offices with adolescent girls, adolescent boys, adult women and adult men. Many of whom, by nature of my job, are emotionally troubled by definition. In the present environment, I realize that any one of them at any time could come forward with an accusation from decades ago. There is a good chance I might not remember them, and the written documentation of our work would have long-ago been purged. Yet my professional experience tells me that false accusations are quite rare.

It is our boundaries that protect us. I find the Graham rules extreme and untenable for my profession and I suspect many others. I have never had an accusation of impropriety. And, so I take a risk on a daily basis. But, there are two kinds of boundaries. For lack of better descriptors I'll call them external boundaries (i.e. won't be alone with a _____) or personal boundaries (i.e. no matter who I'm alone with I won't engage in certain behaviors). I believe our personal boundaries are much more important that the external or artificial ones. I've had to make my personal boundaries clear to clients a few times in my career, and never had a problem because of it.

A colleague was once telling me about anther agency in town where the counseling staff were all sleeping around with each other, even the married ones. I made a comment that no colleague had ever approached me in that manner in my entire career. His reply was, "Of course not, because people see your boundaries and already know what your answer would be."

I sometimes wonder if people who need the external boundaries aren't so certain about the strength of their personal boundaries to resist temptation.

 

[Paidiske]

It occurred to me after I posted this that there is one area now where a variation of the Billy Graham rules is completely strictly required; working with children. I may never be alone with someone under 18 in a professional capacity. No ifs, no buts, no question.

There are times when that is difficult to manage, and it has changed the way we have to do some things. But on the whole I understand why and I accept it.

But the difference to my mind is that between an adult and a child there is always a huge power imbalance. And yet there can be huge power imbalances between adults, too, so do we not need to acknowledge those? And what would it mean if we did?

 

[Dave-W]

But the difference to my mind is that between an adult and a child there is always a huge power imbalance.

That is a huge and important factor.

And yet there can be huge power imbalances between adults, too,

And scripture itself acknowledges that. While it is a different situation than the Graham rules are meant to address, Matt 18 says you are to do a one-on-one with anyone you have a dispute with; but in Timothy Paul says that if you are addressing a problem with a congregational leader, you need at least 2 witnesses. 1 Timothy 5:19

 

[JCFantasy23]

I've never heard of this rule. I can see some common sense backing behind it to avoid potential accusations or else - God forbid, actual things happening between a male and female when they shouldn't - so it's kind of like the extra secure backing with some medical procedures where a woman has to be in the room with the male doctor during some exams.

 

[JCFantasy23]

It occurred to me after I posted this that there is one area now where a variation of the Billy Graham rules is completely strictly required; working with children. I may never be alone with someone under 18 in a professional capacity. No ifs, no buts, no question.

That's interesting too. It was normal at my church to be alone with children in the ministry - they only had one worker for the general children's care at a time for the most part, so the adult was alone with the children during that hour. The Youth Care Management is also alone with them as a group on some of the evening services.

 

[Dave-W]

I've never heard of this rule. I can see some common sense backing behind it to avoid potential accusations or else ...

Somewhere in the very late 1950s or early 60s, Rev Graham was in a high rise hotel (New York I think) and was riding the elevator down to the lobby alone. It stopped on a floor and a young woman got in. She then proceeded to take her clothes off and when the elevator opened in the crowded lobby she screamed “RAPE.”

That is why Graham put that rule in place.

 

[JCFantasy23]

Somewhere in the very late 1950s or early 60s, Rev Graham was in a high rise hotel (New York I think) and was riding the elevator down to the lobby alone. It stopped on a floor and a young woman got in. She then proceeded to take her clothes off and when the elevator opened in the croweded lobby she screamed “RAPE.”

Ugh, I guess there is a reason he applied that rule to himself then.

 

[bekkilyn]

I think common sense should apply here rather than a hard rule that may not work for every occasion, but I hesitate to say it because it often seems so few people have common sense, so I don't know! I do agree the rule should be strict for meeting with minors, but for adults, it just doesn't seem workable. Even if you are strict about not being alone with opposite sex, what about meeting with people who are homosexual or bisexual, or transgender? Even straight people of the same gender could make a claim of sexual abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

That's interesting too. It was normal at my church to be alone with children in the ministry - they only had one worker for the general children's care at a time for the most part, so the adult was alone with the children during that hour. The Youth Care Management is also alone with them as a group on some of the evening services.

I had one day recently where no other adult turned up to help run a children's thing at church; I had to say to one of the parents that either he stayed, or he took the children home with him; he couldn't leave them with me alone.

In the wake of the abuse scandals, this is just not something our church is willing to mess around with any more. Even if I hear a minor's confession, I must do it within line of sight (but not earshot) of another adult.

 

[Chaplain David]

I think that the broad area of proper boundaries can include things like are being called the "Graham Rule." I've never heard of the term before this thread however.

 

[Dave-W]

Even if you are strict about not being alone with opposite sex, what about meeting with people who are homosexual or bisexual, or transgender? Even straight people of the same gender could make a claim of sexual abuse.

A very good point, and one which renders a strict interpretation of the Graham rule unworkable.

 

[Dave-W]

I've never heard of the term before this thread however.

I have heard it since the 1980s.

 

[FireDragon76]

I found this piece well worth reading; I know that I would be the poorer if every man who's been significant in my development as a Christian had kept the Billy Graham rules strictly.

I also know that my ministry would be hamstrung if I had to keep them strictly.

Other thoughts?

https://www.missioalliance.org/how-...ut-the-billy-graham-rule-and-love-like-jesus/

In some contexts the Billy Graham Rule seems wise, even if it doesn't match our ideals of Christian relationships. Even at doctors offices, sometimes a person is there to act as a minder.

We should not confuse Law and Gospel and place unrealistic expectations on ministry. If a religious group thinks having rules like this are helpful, then they should be free to do so.

 

[Paidiske]

Here's an example of how it could hamstring ministry.

I had a young man - not currently connected with any church, but whom I had met socially a couple of times as the new love interest of a good friend of mine - come to me asking me to hear his confession. I am absolutely certain that on the couple of social occasions we'd met he'd been assessing me, deciding if he could trust me and whether I was a "safe" person to ask for that ministry.

If I'd had to refer him to a man, because I couldn't be alone with him, he may well have refused to follow through with a referral to a stranger and avoided confession altogether.

I believe he's better off having been able to receive that ministry, with someone whom he had met and trusted; but if I were following the rule strictly, it would have been impossible.

 

[FireDragon76]

In the wake of the abuse scandals, this is just not something our church is willing to mess around with any more. Even if I hear a minor's confession, I must do it within line of sight (but not earshot) of another adult.

I think that's pretty extreme. Especially because some church architecture makes that almost impossible (and what if the church uses a confessional booth or a room?). Years ago I used to go to an Episcopal church that was one of those older neo-gothic designs and voices carried quite easily.

 

[FireDragon76]

Here's an example of how it could hamstring ministry.

I had a young man - not currently connected with any church, but whom I had met socially a couple of times as the new love interest of a good friend of mine - come to me asking me to hear his confession. I am absolutely certain that on the couple of social occasions we'd met he'd been assessing me, deciding if he could trust me and whether I was a "safe" person to ask for that ministry.

If I'd had to refer him to a man, because I couldn't be alone with him, he may well have refused to follow through with a referral to a stranger and avoided confession altogether.

I believe he's better off having been able to receive that ministry, with someone whom he had met and trusted; but if I were following the rule strictly, it would have been impossible.

Maybe that's a case where it's better to treat it as a guideline, rather than a rule. As you point out, certain Christian sacraments make interaction difficult to avoid.

 

[Paidiske]

I think that's pretty extreme. Especially because some church architecture makes that almost impossible (and what if the church uses a confessional booth or a room?). Years ago I used to go to an Episcopal church that was one of those older neo-gothic designs and voices carried quite easily.

I've never worked in a building where I couldn't have done it. Offices with glass panels on the doors (now standard for us; we went through a phase some years ago where all our doors had glass panels set into them) are a big help.

It's just part of the new reality. Post abuse crisis, nobody is willing to take chances.