You may have heard of the Billy Graham rule; the custom, usually practised by men, of never being alone with a person of the opposite sex to whom one is not related. The rule is contentious, particularly when it comes to the workplace, because of the perception that it is women who will miss out on opportunities or be excluded if men refuse to be alone with them, ever.
So, in part prompted by passionate discussion elsewhere, I decided to run an experiment; for a month, I would record every instance in which I was alone with a man, whether one of us would be disadvantaged if it couldn’t take place, and how it might have been avoided. (The detailed breakdown is below. I got more bored and impatient as the month wore on, so later in the month the notes are less fulsome, but the basic data is there).
Now, note, I’m a woman, and I’m in a position of power and influence which has been – and in many places still is – reserved for men. So I’ve also made some notes on times when I was alone with a woman, which would reflect the typical situation of someone in ministry.
But after a month of this experiment, here’s what I concluded: the Billy Graham rule does indeed cause a great deal of disadvantage, but not necessarily just because women were/are excluded or lose opportunities. When the Billy Graham rule is in play, truly confidential conversations between people of the opposite sex become impossible, for a start. (And I’ve recorded several sorts of incidences below where those confidential conversations were highly important).
But more than that, what became clear to me is how much keeping the Billy Graham rule relies on one’s entitlement to others’ time, money, or convenience. Assuming that the person keeping the Billy Graham rule can’t afford a full-time paid chaperone (a reasonable assumption, for most of us), being able to live life this way means expecting other people to always be around, on call, putting aside their own priorities, tasks and desires, to be that chaperone; or expecting other people to be willing to totally reorganise their lives (or miss out on whatever the reason was they were going to be in your presence) in order to avoid being alone in the same space. Whether that’s expecting my spouse to always be at my disposal (I guess the guys who keep the Billy Graham rule don’t encourage their wives to work?), or expecting the plumber to make an appointment at a time when I’m not home alone, (just two examples, see more below), the sense of entitlement that it would take to actually live this way is breathtaking.
Our society is set up on the basic assumption that adults – both men and women – can navigate and interact with our communities independently. Subverting that assumption is not just a matter of adjusting one’s own behaviour, but expecting everyone around you to cooperate with that subversion, often to their own detriment. My conclusion, after a month of tracking my own interactions, is that keeping the Billy Graham rule would harm me, and harm my relationships. It would also weaken the fabric of the local community, as I would wilfully distance myself from some important relationships. If more people practised it, those effects would ripple and multiply through our society. In short, it would be highly detrimental, and ought to be discouraged.
18th July:
Only had one alone-with-a-man encounter today; a chat with a parishioner who had come to do some work in the church garden, while I was also outside working on a Little Free Library. (Side note: Little Free Libraries are a great initiative, and I totally recommend setting one up). Nobody else was around; my husband had gone to pick our daughter up from school. (Note: the church is small and has no other staff).
Who would have been disadvantaged if this conversation couldn’t happen? Both of us, but I’d argue he would be more, because it’s important for people to have friendly conversations with their minister and be able to build the relationship in a low-key kind of way.
How could it have been avoided?
- I could insist that all people work in the church or garden in pairs (It’s a small parish, and we already struggle to have enough people to do things, so this would be a significant logistical challenge. And then what if one rostered person is sick…?)
- I could have been doing my work somewhere else, like my back porch (would have relied on someone else’s labour to make that possible; my Little Free Library is a converted pulpit, and too heavy for me to move by myself)
- I could organise a parishioner/friend/relative to always be on hand, just in case, when I’m home alone (and hope they have nothing better to do!)
- We could home school our daughter, avoiding the need for Daniel to do drop off and pick up (but a) that would be to her severe detriment, and b) even home schooled kids sometimes go places!)
- The church could have chosen a male priest for this parish.
There is no zero-disadvantage option that I can see.
19th July:
Today I had no alone-with-a-man encounters. I do note, however, that I had several alone-with-a-woman encounters, which provide the flip-side to yesterday’s potential solution that the vicar could be a man.
Today also provided me with several things to ponder.
- At what age does a child count as a person, for the purposes of not-being-alone with the person caring for that child? Presumably not a newborn, but would it be the age at which the child would be considered a reliable witness? This has significant implications for those who are primary carers of young children.
- What I consider the most significant time spent alone with someone else was spent talking to the woman who runs the community choir who rehearse in our hall. This conversation covered personal relationship building, community connections for the parish, and outreach events; if I were not able to have such discussions in a casual way (catching her as choir finished) it would be significantly more difficult to nurture the relationship between parish and choir (which is important for us in multiple ways). The parish would lose significantly.
20th July:
My day off. Was not alone with anyone other than family today. My only outings were a trip to the supermarket, and a family picnic in the botanical gardens.
I note that supermarkets, at least, are unlikely to suffer from the Billy Graham rule due to their high level of staffing and custom; but I would think that smaller retailers (with only one staff person on duty at a time), and those who rely on grocery deliveries, might find things significantly more awkward. (I doubt the supermarkets let you specify the sex of your delivery person!)
21st July:
Sunday. Okay; here’s where things get tricky. I had three instances of being alone with a man this morning. Let’s look at each of them in turn.
1). I unlocked the church, and the first person to arrive was a man on his own.
Who would be disadvantaged if that couldn’t happen? What does that not happening even look like? Is it him staying outside the church (in the cold) until someone else turns up? Does it mean me absenting myself from the building and forfeiting that precious time of getting ready for the service? One or both of us would have been inconvenienced, at the least.
How could it be avoided?
- I could refuse to let people into the building until at least two are gathered. (That would not be received well, especially in winter!)
- A variation of the above, but I could bring someone with me to open the building. Usually (given it is the early service) the rest of my household are not even out of bed at this point in the morning, but I could insist my husband and daughter (who don’t even worship in my parish most weeks) get up and come with me until enough others have arrived.
- I’m going to just stop noting the “There could be a man in my role” option and take it as read; but also note that it doesn’t get rid of the problem, because the first person to arrive could just as easily have been a woman on her own.
2). Before the early service, the only server (a man) and I were robing, praying before the service, and chatting together in the vestry.
We’d both be disadvantaged if we couldn’t do this. More than that, given the place prayers before the service have in preparing people who are taking part in leading the worship, I’d argue that if this couldn’t happen it would be experienced as a degree of violation of something spiritually really important to the people concerned.
How could it be avoided?
- We could ask someone else to step into the room. That doesn’t necessarily disadvantage anybody, but it would definitely be weird in our tradition, and I would anticipate that any person so prevailed upon would be quite uncomfortable doing so (especially if they knew why). It also disrupts their personal preparation for worship.
- We could set things up so that there was a window between the vestry and the nave, but that would be liturgically intrusive. The whole reason this happens in the vestry is so that these before-the-service activities don’t intrude on the liturgical space.
3). Between the services, the director of music (a man) and I had a conversation about the day’s readings, my sermon, his hymn choices, and how all of these things related, including to various experiences of the past week. There would have been others “around” on site – dealing with morning tea or other practical matters – but quite by coincidence today, at the point in time we were having this conversation, nobody else was within my lines of sight.
Again, we’d both be disadvantaged if we couldn’t have this kind of conversation; it enriches both of us and helps us to work well together in serving the parish.
The point here about this being between the services is important; having another person around would mean prevailing on someone from the early service to stay, or the late service to come early, just in case such a situation might arise and conversation might happen (assuming we allow that the other people doing things, need to be doing those things and we don’t necessarily know where they are to take ourselves there for the conversation).
What strikes me, looking at today’s list, is that much of what’s important in ministry is not scheduled or planned; it’s what previous supervisors have called “the ministry of interruptions” or “ministry in the interstices.” It’s taking the time to talk and listen to people, to be with them, as the opportunity arises, not having the formality and seriousness of setting a meeting time and all the rest (where one has more advance notice and can give thought to time, place, and the presence of other people).
It also strikes me that something like the Billy Graham rule would be logistically much easier in bigger churches (or other organisations) where there would be more staff, more people “around” in general, and so on. Being a small church means that there isn’t as much organic presence of other people, and there aren’t other staff whose job responsibilities I could manage to prevent me being alone with others (even if I thought that desirable, which I don’t; I think people would find it inhibiting in their relationship with me if others were constantly listening in).
22nd July:
A quiet day of work in and around the office, with no interaction in person with people other than family. Email has probably made propriety much easier than it used to be!
23rd July:
I saw my spiritual director today, who happens to be a man. I could, in theory, limit myself to women as potential spiritual directors, but I’m not willing to do that. My current spiritual director and I are a great fit; we work well together, I find his wise counsel very helpful, and his sex is not in any way relevant to that. I have no discomfort with him, and he seems to have none with me.
I am also not willing to compromise my own confidentiality by having those conversations in some sort of setting where we can be watched/overheard. At times I am talking about personal or sensitive things; I have been known to cry. I am, frankly, angry at the idea that somehow I should have that intruded on or inhibited by a third party.
A refusal to engage in this sort of relationship between sexes would disadvantage both him and me (noting that this is his ministry, which he does for a living); and trying to do this work together while not alone would compromise it irreparably. This, to me, gets to the point where it wouldn’t just be inconvenient to rearrange things, it would actually be unacceptable to me. And while in this instance I’m looking at it from the point of view of the “client” in the relationship, I feel it would be equally unacceptable to place such requirements, for example, on people coming to me for pastoral care.
24th July
My only alone-with-a-man incident today came when the son of an ageing parishioner turned up completely unexpected to discuss his concerns about her with me. My husband was at home but was sick and in no state to provide a chaperone, even if I had wanted one.
If that discussion couldn’t have happened, both this man and his mother would have been disadvantaged, and I’d have been relatively compromised in my ability to care for her well.
Could it have been avoided? Short of me basically refusing to speak to him in person (unthinkably bad pastoral care), not really.
25th July
We had a friend spending some time with us today; (well, really more time with my husband); but when my husband had to go out and do school pick up, that friend stayed and chatted with me for the half hour or so involved.
I hope I don’t, here, have to mount a philosophical defence of the benefits of friendship, but take them as read. This man is an old and dear friend of mine, and the time spent talking with one another was of benefit to both of us.
Could it have been avoided? Sure. We could have ignored one another and stayed in separate parts of the house; I could have sent him on the school run; I could have gone to do the school run. But what a shame to be deliberately working against a friendship like that.
26th July
Was not alone with a man today. I note that I was alone with a woman twice, and that both of those occasions would have been problematic if a man were in my position. (Would a man really turn down the woman offering to volunteer some time in the parish office? Or refuse to talk to the local GP when she popped in about something, strengthening a connection between her and the parish? Both of those would undermine relationships and weaken the parish as a community).
27th July
Was not alone with a man today (was my day off). Was alone with an optometrist while getting my eyes tested. Note that – if I were a man – having to go elsewhere in order to see a man would a) cost the local optometrist business, and b) be seriously inconvenient!
28th July
Similarly to last Sunday, the first person to arrive after I unlocked the church doors was a man on his own.
Also this week, we were having technical issues with our sound equipment, which led to me being alone in the vestry with our most technically-capable person while he tried to get my lapel mic working. Probably could have been avoided with better maintenance of our sound system (don’t get me started on that issue), or by having someone else in the room (although as I think I noted last week, that was awkward for a approach has several drawbacks).
And yes, it would be a disadvantage to the whole church if we couldn’t work together to make sure everybody can hear what’s being said!
29th July
Not alone with a man today. Did make a pastoral visit to someone in hospital which meant considerable time with her on her own. So hospital visits are another good example of a problem area for this rule.
All of the considerations I’ve already noted about the value of pastoral conversations (especially when someone is in hospital!), the need for confidentiality pertain here. It would be completely inappropriate to insist on someone else being present for this kind of conversation, and detrimental to the care of the person concerned.
30th July
Not alone with anyone outside family today. Pastoral conversations conducted in cafes, for different reasons which worked for those particular conversations. This is not a universal answer for pastoral conversations but does work for those where the need for confidentiality is less critical.
31st July
Took a church service, attended a meeting and ran errands, but wasn’t alone with anyone outside family today.
1st August
Various meetings today (for prayer, for collegial support and of a diocesan committee) but none of them putting me in the position of being alone with others.
2nd August
The only time I was alone with a man today was when my tech-savvy parishioner dropped in with a newly-repaired lapel mic. I had no idea he was coming, so short of always having someone on hand just in case, I couldn’t have avoided it.
Again, it would be a disadvantage to the church as a whole if I couldn’t work with a parishioner to look after our sound system.
3rd August
My day off. Took my daughter to her therapy, but was not alone with anyone other than family today.
4th August
Similarly to previous Sundays, a man on his own was the first person to arrive at church. And preparing/robing/praying before the service had me alone with a man. My comments in previous weeks pretty much cover today.
5th August
The only time I was alone with anyone today was when I went to took a service at the local convent, and was alone with one of the sisters for a conversation in the vestry. Not a problem for me, would have been a problem for a man. Very difficult for the sisters if they have to limit men coming to minister in their community, or provide a constant chaperone for every conversation!
6th August
Had a lengthy conversation with my bishop this morning. He came to see me and there was no one else around. We were working together to formulate the way forward with regard to significant issues in the parish, and it would have been a problem were we not able to have that conversation. I suppose in theory it could have been a phone conversation, although I think much would be lost without body language, facial expressions etc. I had no one I could ask to step in – it would have been completely inappropriate to have anyone else privy to this discussion – and on the bishop’s side, he didn’t have anyone either.
To my mind this is a very good example of how ministry and the relationships which underpin it would be completely undermined by a man and a woman not being able to be alone.
7th August
Was only alone with my sacristan today (a woman). Note that this would be tricky if I were a man; we both need to work in the same space to set up/pack up after services, and it’s not reasonable to ask someone else to stay back just to be present. I could, in theory, manage without a sacristan, but that would increase my workload significantly!
8th August
Was alone with a male parishioner whom I visited in his nursing home today. All of my previous comments about the desirability of confidentiality etc. for pastoral visits apply, and of course my male parishioners shouldn’t be deprived of that just because they’re men.
9th August
Was only alone with women today. Again, one was my office volunteer, and the other was the lady who runs the local community choir (who rehearse in our hall). Previous comments about both of these relationships still apply; these are relationships which deserve to be nurtured, not neglected.
10th August
My day off; not alone with people other than family today.
11th August
Was not alone with a man today (first person to arrive for church was a woman, preventing that particular problem). Was alone with women before and in between services, as has been noted before.
12th August
Was not alone with a man today. Was alone with a woman while I visited her in hospital. Previous comments about the need for this kind of pastoral conversation and privacy apply here too.
13th August
An office day. Was not alone with anyone other than family today.
14th August
Was alone with a man today after his mother had died. Technically he is a colleague – minister of the Uniting Church around the corner – but the local ministers try to look out for one another and it felt like pastoral care of sorts. As such the confidentiality of the conversation felt just as important as it would have if he had actually been a parishioner.
15th August
Spent some time alone with the technician servicing our heating system. Turns out he’s a Christian and we had a long talk about all sorts of things other than my heating; but it would have been enormously inconvenient to refuse to let him in because no one else was at home (and probably expensive if we had to get him back at another time).
Hardly reasonable to insist that the technicians work in pairs, or that someone else be around “just in case” he happened to pop in while my husband was out.
16th August
As usual for a Friday, not alone with a man, but was alone with the woman who volunteers some time in the office. Previous comments about that situation pertain.
17th August
Day off. Not alone with anyone other than family today.
And, as a bonus, in case you were thinking that workplaces more segregated along gender lines might be helpful, here’s some more food for thought.
Paidiske 