The Billy Graham Rule Goes to Court

[brinny]

Actually, most definitions I've read seem to list all three equally without giving weight to one over the other.

But what about the appearance of discrimination?

And wasnt this a rule meant for church Leaders?

(i edited my post, Raymond)

 

[com7fy8]

I would think it could be good for the man to talk with the lady, and feel each other out. Without discrimination being involved, they might find they would not be right for training with each other . . . anyway. I would think admin people would evaluate which officers are right to be partners.

"Feel each other out?"

yes

In my opinion, this can mean they talk and see how well they communicate and how readily they understand each other. The man might talk with the lady about her life, to see if she is in a solid commitment with someone, for example, to see if she is stable to be with her spouse or companion, and won't be getting interested in him. And she, of course, could be wise to check out how he is committed in his marriage. See if his claim to Christianity is cultural or deep enough so he will stay good with her. They would not be checking each other out, only morally, but how they relate and communicate and understand each other, for being together for hours in a car.

Oh yes, and a good thing would be to test each other, about how well they can handle being tested and held accountable. See if they are good with being mutual, in this, how readily either one can welcome bringing up issues and talking about them >

"swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (in James 1:19).

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

But, of course, we are not Jesus.

But Jesus says,
"The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master." (Luke 6:20).

Christ is our example:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps" (1 Peter 2:21).

"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1 John 2:6).

But it is clear to me that the disciples were indeed accusing Jesus, when they came back and asked what He was doing with her!! And He did not worry about how they might judge by appearances.

And they would be wrong for doing so. Jesus was a man who perfectly had to live as a man without no fault. If Jesus did something that we would consider sinful, then He could not be perfectly sinless so as to be our substitute. So Jesus had to be blameless as a man in this instance.

My opinion is the "appearance of evil" is when evil is making an appearance . . . not only when false accusers say what you do looks bad. But it is wise to watch our reputation. There are both men and women who I will not arrange to spend time with, alone. But, in passing, at any time, I will stop to talk with them. But this is not for an extended time. This is partly for their own good, so they don't have time to get going with evil stuff in themselves about me.

I don't disagree that we should prefer to stay away from situations that may make it appear like it is evil to others. But again, Jesus was speaking alone with the woman at the well, so obviously this is not all instances. Jesus sets the standard of morality by whom we are to follow. It is not our own standard of morality we follow, but we follow Jesus. My point here is that the Billy Graham rule does not exist in God's kingdom. If it did, then Jesus would be condemned by Billy's rule because Jesus was a man and He set an example for us to follow. Again, I am not arguing that we should not be careful in being seen alone with a woman, but the point here it is that while it may be good to not be around a woman alone in certain instances, this is not a rule or command in God's Kingdom. Surely there are many cases where this is not an issue. Have all instances of a man being alone with a woman (even in business or job related matters) equates with major problems on a sexual level? Surely not.

There are people who clear things with their spouses, and then spend time with someone. I see how this could happen if two officers got in a good relationship; their good relationship, though, would likely include sharing with their spouses. And possibly they have been together enough, already, so they know they have control and love one another strongly enough so they know they would not betray anyone. You can't love and betray, at the same time, I would say. So, there can become a strong relating so you are safe, in love.

Right, which proves my point. A man can be a round another woman alone without it being some kind of sexual thing or without it causing problems with their spouse.

What if a man had to take a two hour drive to the airport with a Lyft or Uber, and it was a woman? Should he cancel the ride? What if it was a bus driver, and everyone else got off the bus? Should the man get off the bus if the bus driver was an attractive woman? Surely not.

 

[RaymondG]

I'm not a Mike Pence fan, but he is also wise to abide by this principle.

Yes, is it would be wise for cheaters to avoid being alone with women. But just because some cheat, doesn't mean that all men need to be abide by these rules. It should not be push as a religious norm, but a suggestion for those predisposed to negative behaviors around women.

This is like saying that because some Christians have a problem with drinking.....all Christians should keep all wine out of their house , lest they get drunk too, or appear to be a drunkard to others who see the wine bottles. Such blanket rules or statements are unnecessary.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I like all the people subtly blaming the woman for this. The woman isn't Jezebel for wanting a police job. Sounds like the sheriff oversexualizes women if he can't be alone with one without seeing her purely sexually.

 

[brinny]

com7fy8 said: ↑
I would think it could be good for the man to talk with the lady, and feel each other out. Without discrimination being involved, they might find they would not be right for training with each other . . . anyway. I would think admin people would evaluate which officers are right to be partners.

brinny said: ↑
"Feel each other out?"

yes

In my opinion, this can mean they talk and see how well they communicate and how readily they understand each other. The man might talk with the lady about her life, to see if she is in a solid commitment with someone, for example, to see if she is stable to be with her spouse or companion, and won't be getting interested in him. And she, of course, could be wise to check out how he is committed in his marriage. See if his claim to Christianity is cultural or deep enough so he will stay good with her. They would not be checking each other out, only morally, but how they relate and communicate and understand each other, for being together for hours in a car.

 

[public hermit]

It's too bad Billy Graham isn't here to settle this thing he started, once and for all.

 

[brinny]

Yes, is it would be wise for cheaters to avoid being alone with women. But just because some cheat, doesn't mean that all men need to be abide by these rules. It should not be push as a religious norm, but a suggestion for those predisposed to negative behaviors around women.

This is like saying that because some Christians have a problem with drinking.....all Christians should keep all wine out of their house , lest they get drunk too, or appear to be a drunkard to others who see the wine bottles. Such blanket rules or statements are unnecessary.

What has your response got to do with my post that you responded to, Raymond?

 

[RaymondG]

What has your response got to do with my post that you responded to, Raymond?

Maybe it was meant for others to read......feel free to ignore that which you do not understand.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Risk getting sued for sexual harassment or risk getting sued for discrimination. The poor guy can't win.

 

[brinny]

Maybe it was meant for others to read......feel free to ignore that which you do not understand.

Thanks Raymond.

Would you care to respond to what i posted?

Regarding Mike Pence, he is very wise for adhering to this principle.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I love Billy but I never really understood this rule. I mean all my life about 90% of my friends are girls/women. Sure when I was younger I though some were cute. But I never had sexual feelings per say. And as an adult I don't have any feelings period aside from normal friend feelings. I'd think the only reason you can't be with a woman is if you feel that you yourself have issues with having romantic/sexual feelings for them. And vica versa.

Now, as a married adult my best friend is a guy. But the rest of my friends are women. A ton of them. My wifes fine with it because she knows I don't think of them as anything else but friends.

Maybe I am the exception. I never was "manly". I don't care about sports. I don't care about talking about cars or lifting weights. I don't care about drinking. Which is why I gravitate towards women more because most times they are easier to hang around with.

Though I have had some husbands get annoyed because I talk to their wife more then I do them when we (my wife and I) visit. It's nothing personal men. I just don't know what to say with your testosterone-filled conversations. I'm also more touchy feely. So my emotions are more open then most guys. And yes I know this is bordering on gender stereotypes, but it makes it easier to explain.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's too bad Billy Graham isn't here to settle this thing he started, once and for all.

How or why should his own personal rule be enforceable by others, though?
Who called it "The Billy Graham rule"; is it something his family gave a name to, or is it national law?

 

[RaymondG]

Thanks Raymond.

Would you care to respond to what i posted?

Regarding Mike Pence, he is very wise for adhering to this principle.

Can you tell me why you believe He should follow the rule and how this relates to the former police officer refusing to train a female?

 

[public hermit]

How or why should his own personal rule be enforceable by others, though?
Who called it "The Billy Graham rule"; is it something his family gave a name to, or is it national law?

I don't think his opinion would make a bit of difference. I'm not sure how it came to be called that. Good question. It's not national law. It's a particular approach towards keeping one's self beyond reproach. And, I think some guys are simply scared.

 

[brinny]

Can you tell me why you believe He should follow the rule and how this relates to the former police officer refusing to train a female?

It's a wise practice for both of them. One of the posts in this thread addressed that it's not simply a matter of a police officer "refusing to train" a female. He asked for flexibility that would align with his beliefs.

 

[JohnAshton]

brinny, the more I think about this, I am coming to believe that the Franklin Covement cannot be used as a religious exemption in the work place.

It has to be used privately and carefully by the believer to professionalize the work place for her or him.

Be very careful the very extreme of the 'me too' movement and the male dominists do not catch on to what you are doing.

 

[brinny]

brinny, the more I think about this, I am coming to believe that the Franklin Covement cannot be used as a religious exemption in the work place.

It has to be used privately and carefully by the believer to professionalize the work place for her or him.

Be very careful the very extreme of the 'me too' movement and the male dominists do not catch on to what you are doing.

See post #75 John.

 

[JohnAshton]

That is why it needs to be private and not as an exemption.

 

[usexpat97]

The metoo movement needs to stop when it turns into anti-male Mccarthyism. "Protecting women" never gave anybody the right to do guilty-until-proven-innocent on men.

Most likely, the officer and the female DID meet and talk some stuff out. And after that talk, either he or his wife didn't trust something about it. At that point: no harm, no foul. But cops have noses. They know when something doesn't smell right. She could have easily trained with someone else--even another guy. But no, it had to be HIM. Or he's fired. I can even smell that.

 

[Yarddog]

The Billy Graham Rule Goes to Court

Aformer North Carolina sheriff’s deputy may be the first to file a lawsuit alleging he faced discrimination for his commitment to the “Billy Graham Rule.”

Manuel Torres, 51, claims in a federal lawsuit that he requested a “religious accommodation” from the Lee County, North Carolina, Sheriff’s Office, where he was employed from 2012 to 2017, after he was ordered to train a female deputy. The training included “the requirement that he spend significant periods of time alone in his patrol car with the female officer trainee.”

A deacon at East Sanford Baptist Church in Sanford, North Carolina, Torres “holds the strong and sincere religious belief that the Holy Bible prohibits him, a married man, from being alone for extended periods of time with a female who is not his wife,” according to the lawsuit filed July 31 in US district court.

The practice of not being alone with a member of the opposite sex other than one’s spouse is called the Billy Graham Rulein honor of the late evangelist, who adopted the policy early in his ministry to avoid temptation and accusations of sexual immorality. While some say the practice demonstrates integrity and protects marriages, others claim it can be discriminatory.

According to Torres’s lawsuit, the Lee County Sheriff’s Office allegedly vacillated between granting and denying the requested accommodation for weeks before terminating Torres “without an explanation.” Torres also claims a colleague “failed to respond” to his call for backup at a “multi-vehicle accident in an unsafe area” because of the requested accommodation.

Howard Friedman, a University of Toledo law professor who blogs about religious liberty at Religion Clause, said he is unaware of any other court cases involving the Billy Graham Rule but noted Torres’s lawsuit “is part of the growing number of cases in which religious freedom clashes with non-discrimination norms.”

More at link: The Billy Graham Rule Goes to Court

If the man cannot train a female officer because he fears the appearance of sin, he needs spiritual help.