Last week, Billy Graham was being talked about on Twitter so often it could have been mistaken for the Bible belt in the ’50s. An article resurfaced the fact that Vice President Pence adheres to the so called “Billy Graham Rule” and doesn’t dine alone with any woman who isn’t his wife. [The official rule, per Graham, is “to avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion … I did not travel, meet or eat alone with a woman other than my wife” and is actually one of four rules – NPR did an interesting, short write up.]

I was surprised to see the various takes on the issue, surprised at how many friends I disagreed with. My friend Matt’s, in particular, interested me – we usually see eye to eye on a lot of things, I respect his ideas and how he gets to them, we were even co-panelists at the Donuts & Dating event a while back. I asked if he, a Marriage and Family Therapist Intern, would be interested in co-blogging with me on the issue. He promptly responded with:

Lucky for you all, he changed his mind. I hope you enjoy our discussion below. I sure did!

What’s the problem?!

The problem is taking a good thing – boundaries – and making it an ultimate thing. It’s taking things way too far, with a mask of good intentions. It’s making women seem like the enemy when actually sin is the enemy. It’s not leaving room for gray areas (innocent friendships, business meetings, professional relationships, etc) – which the world is FULL of – and yet ignoring a lot of other gray areas (emotional affairs, internet porn, email / texting / calling women, etc). It’s cutting out an entire people group to avoid the hint of a scandal. Last time I checked, Jesus embraced scandals.

The problem is women are boiled down to merely temptresses or sexual objects in these situations – not actual people with actual needs. The problem is we’re okay with denying women seats at powerful tables and invitations to important meetings and voices in high level decisions, for the sake of the men involved.

The problem is we’ve allowed scarcity mindsets to take root here. We’re called to spirits of freedom. Spirits of discernment, too, to be sure. But not spirits of fear. We need to be open to where the Spirit is calling, where the Spirit wants to work – not limiting to rigid boxes and small spheres of influence.

The problem is we’re making it seem like non-romantic male and female relationships can’t exist. We’re making it seem like they can’t be professional, can’t be beneficial, and can’t be Christ-like. We’re taking away people’s ability to have common sense or respect boundaries or think clearly in situations. We’re taking all things remotely resembling an issue and automatically condemning them an actual issue.

The problem is that, as a woman, I don’t have the luxury of abiding by the Billy Graham rule. If I did, I wouldn’t have been able to have 3 of my 4 previous jobs. I wouldn’t have been able to do ~75% of the ministry positions I’ve held over the past several years. I’m sure somewhere out there, a woman abides by this rule – but it’s mostly men. And that’s because they can. A man can dine with, network with, work for, work with, and work over solely men – and find himself at the top of a pyramid one day. Women literally do not have that option.

I think it’s important to clarify my specific perspective in this multiverse of infinite perspectives. I’m a marriage and family therapist who has worked with many individuals and couples who have had affairs. I also work with many men who are self proclaimed sex addicts due to their destructive and compulsive sexual behavior. Lastly, my family legacy is filled with extra marital affairs. My dad is one of 3 brothers and between the them there have been 5 divorces and 8 weddings. So when I heard that a married man doesn’t dine out with women who are not his wife, I framed it within the context of taking extraordinary steps to protect himself from potentially ruining his marriage, and my initial thought was “Good for him.”

Now, in this process of dialoguing with others who have shared with me a different perspective, I believe there have been two requests made to venture into a reality and not deny some obvious truths. One request was made by me, the second request was made to me.

My request toward others is this, “Can we not pretend that our culture doesn’t have massively high rates of infidelity?” It’s conservatively estimated at 25% and that doesn’t count the very real infidelity of emotional affairs. So acting like such a boundary like, ‘I don’t eat out with members of the opposite sex who aren’t my wife’ is somehow unwarranted or an overreaction to me is, not living in reality. I think Mike Pence’s social and economic policies are horrible for our nation, but good for him for protecting his marriage.

In response to this, I feel a request has been made to me from a collective other, which is equally valid. That request is, “Can we not pretend that systemic sexism does not exist in our culture, and our churches, and that women are far too often portrayed as ‘stumbling blocks’ to be avoided?” And yes, since my male privilege allows me to not live with a constant awareness of that reality, I do need to be reminded of it. And there is clearly injustice in a rule of the Vice President of the United States not dining out with someone of the opposite sex. Meals are fantastic for networking, displaying your successes, getting career feedback, and more. The fact that women serving under the VP do not have access to such benefits while men do is troubling, and it’s wrong.

So what I have learned is that when there are two valid truths that seem to be in conflict with each other, there is gold in the form of wisdom to be mined out from the middle.

Boundaries? …or legalism?

To be clear, I am not advocating that Mike Pence’s boundary (So called the “Billy Graham Rule”) of not dining out alone with women is a policy which every married person should adhere to.

For just about all of us (maybe swingers aside) the debate is not about whether the existence of boundaries are a good thing, it’s about where those boundaries are. For Mike Pence’s that boundary is dining out, for others it may be not texting or maintaining friendships with ex’s, still for others it could be that everything is in bounds except engaging in a sexual act, and that is the prerogative of each individual couple. There is no right or wrong here.

Where I think we get into trouble in this issue is when we start imposing our perspective on others, that’s when legalism takes over. I can share my perspective on where the line is for my marriage, but my wife and I have our own unique experiences which has yielded its own unique set of principles. All I’m asking is that we respect whatever unique experiences the Pence’s have had that have yielded theirs.

Boundaries are good and healthy and necessary. I am such a fan of boundaries being depicted in the media as normal. Legalism is attempting to use your checkboxes as proof of good behavior instead of your intentions and morals. I am not a fan of legalistic attitudes being passed off as healthy.

Boundaries are healthy guardrails – stronger, taller ones for dangerous turns and high risk areas, and simpler, smaller ones for safe and trusted roads. Legalism is one speed limit for all roads at all times – not taking into account important differences in the terrain.

As a married couple, you should have boundaries – in lots of areas. You should discuss what you’re comfortable with and what makes you feel safe and what creates security in your relationship; you should be respecting what the other person is both thinking and feeling. You should know yourself and your past and your triggers, and avoid doing things that might make you fall back into hurtful patterns.

If you’re an alcoholic, maybe you refuse to go to bars, maybe you don’t have wine in the house. If you struggle with porn, maybe you don’t have internet at home, maybe you’re in a weekly support group. If you’ve crossed the line with infidelity (or even stepped towards the line), maybe you limit your alone time with the opposite sex, maybe you don’t text the opposite sex. You figure out what exactly you need, and you honor that boundary you’ve created.

What you don’t do is write off any and all things that come even the smallest bit close to your vice. It’s perfectly fine to remove yourself from harmful situations that you know are detrimental to you; its not okay to throw a wide net and decide all remotely similar things are detrimental, especially when those “detrimental things” are other people.

A married man not meeting up with me, as a single woman, for coffee once a week is understandable. Not texting me all day long is understandable. Not talking to me about certain personal issues is understandable. Those are great boundaries. Refusing to ever meet up with me to discuss something, whether it be professional networking, a ministry situation, or the like, is not understandable. Refusing to travel to the same place alone together is, frankly, bad for the environment. Refusing to see me and my thoughts and opinions and expertise as just that – valid thoughts and opinions and expertise – is not understandable. That’s not respecting your marriage – that’s disrespecting my humanity.

So where are we, the Church, called?

Christ’s call is pretty clear to us: to see and respect the imago dei in each and every person on earth. That means women just as much as men.

God wants us to have healthy, vibrant marriages. God also wants us to have healthy, vibrant non-romantic relationships. We serve a communal God who continually calls us to each other. Young and old, married and single, men and women.

A lot of my married friends talk about how their marriage is their number one ministry – and I love that idea. Your marriage should be sacred and protected and cared for. I am in no way advocating anything different. But I don’t believe to honor your marriage you should ever need to dishonor another’s humanity.

If 3/5ths of our congregation (statistically women) can’t meet with our pastor (statistically a man) – what does that say? If they can’t come and have an honest, open conversation about their life or their ministry or their hopes for the church – what value are we putting on women’s voices? We aren’t too far off from the time a white man had the right to refuse to sit with a black man. We’re still in the midst of a time where some men feel entitled to refuse women the pulpit. The church has, historically, been so behind on so many social issues. Do we really want to be known for trailing behind in another? Do we really want to be known, once again, for a form of exclusion? 

I believe the Spirit moves in mysterious ways and the Spirit calls us to mysterious places. I think we need to be far more worried about missing His call than worried about what some people might be whispering about behind our backs. Jesus loved causing a scandal. He also introduced the world to a scandalous love. If we are following His lead and desiring what He desires, we won’t find ourselves in compromising situations. If we find our thoughts wandering, our motives changing, our desires shifting – that’s another conversation. That’s not of the Spirit. That’s also something that simply not dining with women is going to fix.

I’m a woman who wants to be seen as a person. Especially in the Church. I don’t want to spend hours upon hours alone with married men, I don’t want to ever get in the way of someone’s marriage, and I really don’t have any desire to have dinner with Mike Pence – but I want to be free to use my gifts and talents as God leads me. That involves praying and dreaming and scheming and vision casting with other believers – men or women, married or single, in groups and – at times – alone.

As Christians we are called to be humbled and aware of our fallen nature. There’s that beautiful hymnal lyric that goes: “Prone to wander, Lord I feel it.” If we as Christians acknowledge our own brokenness and make boundaries guarding ourselves from it then I believe that is genuine humility and wisdom. However the very same boundary, with a heart full of fear of another person being “a stumbling block” is arrogant, misguided, and sexist.

As Christians we are also called to rebel against any force which is complicit with oppressive systems (such as sexism). The hashtag going around the last week was #BillyGrahamRule, I wish we could change that to #FlexibleMarriageExclusivityRespectorPrinciple. It just doesn’t quite have the same ring to it, though. Rules are firm and often times communicate that not adhering to them is harmful or damaging. Principles, though, are malleable. There is a value behind them and yet there is an acknowledgement that they don’t fit in every circumstance. There’s that passage of scripture when Jesus is challenging the legalistic pharisees and asks them if their ox got trapped in a ditch on the Sabbath would they not work to get it out? Translation: No one rule is applicable in every circumstance. Tonight I was talking to my wife Kyleigh about the so called “Billy Graham Rule” and we talked about how we naturally adhere to it in most circumstances but that there are obvious exceptions. Her old male boss bought her lunch prior to her last day, I had a female friend ask to buy me coffee and pick my brain about whether or not she should pursue therapy as a career.

I am resistant to any criticism of Mike Pence which revolves around his boundary being an overreaction and a minimization of the human condition of being broken and capable of betraying our marriage vows. I am also learning to be resistant to oppressive systems of injustice which paint women as stumbling blocks and prevent them from garnering the same career development and advancement opportunities as any man. So the answer to the tension of both of these is found in a principle that allows men and women to protect the exclusivity of their marriage, but that also allows for a bit of wiggle room, not in a rule.

Matt is a Marriage and Family Therapist Intern at The Soul Care House. He lives in North Park with his wife Kyleigh and his dog Monty.

3 thoughts on “Mike Pence, Billy Graham & Dinner Dates

  1. Krysti,
    As in EVERY case, I believe Jesus (and the whole narrative of scripture) is where we must look as we navigate these difficult issues. John Eldridge, in his great book “Beautiful Outlaw”, has a glorious line that says this: “Jesus has a wild freedom born out of a profound holiness”.
    The example he uses is Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. This is scandalous! A Jewish religious leader–a rabbi–all alone with a woman in Samaria. And not just any woman, but a Samaritan woman. And not just a Samaritan, but one with a disreputable past and sexual history, so much so that she is alone getting water in the heat of the day. Talk about what people might think! The whispers, the rumors. And yet here is Jesus. He HAD to go through Samaria. Yes, because of love he did. He pushes through social and religious norms, he acts DESPITE what people might think.
    Now, we must have some perspective as well. Jesus was aware of evil and temptation–he faced it in the wilderness and every day forward. He was NOT naive. He had the accountability of the Father–we must have the same, and others who know us deeply and intimately and are aware of our hearts, our joys, our struggles as well. In my case, I work in full time college ministry and meet with quite a few young women fairly regularly. My wife is fully aware of every meeting, text, and conversation (at least generally). I have a support system that knows me and communicates with me. We have a trust level and nothing to hide in regards to my relationships with females. It is a beautiful thing and I am so very grateful for this freedom. YES! Let’s continue to pursue this wild freedom that is born out of profound holiness! Love for others out of obedience to our Father! Love that pushes boundaries, but in the name of Jesus to the glory of the Father! Eldridge continues speaking of Jesus: “The man is free—free from what people think, free from religion, free from false obligation. People won’t like it, won’t understand it; they’ll draw false conclusions, point fingers, and worse. He is free from that as well. Oh to be so free.” May it be so of us.

    • Daniel,

      It makes me so happy that men like you are in ministry, and college ministry especially – working to make women feel included in the gospel and not awkwardly on the sidelines because men can’t talk to us.

      Thanks so much for sharing! Keep it up!

  2. Towards the end of my Bible college career, I began to realize that my male counterparts, many of whom I outscored in the same papers and projects, would go on to many different sorts of ministries based on recommendations from our professors (and I do recognize that grades are not the end-all measure). I came to the realization that some of my favorite professors–who in writing would praise my insights, critical thinking, and verbal prowess–were meeting up with my classmates (all male) for coffee, meals, and sports-viewing hangouts; I can’t recall a time I was invited to do so. This especially hit home when one of those professors asked me to a small group gathering with young couples from college and church, because they needed a babysitter. I remember sitting despondently in the basement with 7 children running around me, while the grownups upstairs got to have conversations about God, the Bible, and life.
    Despite the bitterness that kind of took root for a bit, I am thankful for what God did in my life instead. My second semester freshman year provided an introduction to a woman who had gone to seminary, traveled the world as a missionary, and hadn’t gotten married until her 30’s; she became my mentor. My job at a bank (rather than at a church, like my fellow graduates) opened space for discontent, which in part drove me to move halfway across the continent to find a church with a much better fit for a single woman. Lacking a preacher for a husband, which would have made me more “acceptable” in ministry as a helpmeet, roads opened for me to joyfully discover what I had to offer the ministries of my church.
    That said, I’m still a little hurt when I think back to that time. There are few college friends from whom I care to hear, nor do I often feel moved to support my alma mater. And I also wonder how much quicker I might have found my footing in ministry if I’d received a little bit more encouragement from those I admired so much.
    Thank you for writing and helping me think through gray issues in life.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *