Opinions on Billy Graham

[carpedm9587]

Wait, what do you think we're discussing if not the groupie phenomenon? That's precisely the reason the rule is in place. Also, this rule isn't typically in place for staff who work together. My mother, a church counselor, spends many hours alone with her male colleagues (Pastors, and others working at the church) and no one thinks a thing about it. That's not typically when the rule is engaged, at least, not at her church. Nor is the rule engaged in because of this bizarro notion you made up about Christians thinking that everyone is debased. Where in the world did that come from? That's clearly a perverse and twisted understanding of the Christian conception of sin nature. In the Christian worldview, acknowledging that people have sin nature isn't to see everyone debased, wicked, corrupt, and evil. Rather, it's simply to acknowledge that no one is perfect. That even though people are generally wonderful, even the best of us sometimes don't live up to the standards we ought to, and that even the mightiest of us sometimes have weak moments, and that all of us are in need of a savior. Nor is the rule based in fear. People in ministry are not running around wrenching their hands, sweat on their brow fearing that they're going to give in to some great lust, or that people will point at women walking into the Pastor's office and think "slut". Again, you've totally misconceived the entire notion of the concept and how people in ministry perceive it. It's simply a guideline that's followed for accountability purposes. The pastors and ministers and counselors I've seen use this rule don't jump up in fear when a man or woman comes into their office, they just ask them to keep the door open, or if it's a private issue, they'll have another pastor or counselor in the room to help take notes, or will have males counsel males, females counsel females. That sort of thing. It's all done very matter of factly. Very routine. It makes a very practical sense, especially in the churches I go to, which tend to be large-ish, with lots of new people in weekly, lots of people from inner city neighborhoods, to have accountability in one-on-one situations.

You know, you say that you're familiar with this rule from past experiences, but nothing you're saying this thread seems to make that clear at all. As a matter of fact, some of the views you have about Christians and the Christian worldview are so at odds with anything I've ever encountered in a Christian before that it's not at all surprising that you eventually left the church. I'm reading a lot of what you seem to think about these things and thinking to myself "what in the world is he talking about?"

I've actually written a response to this several times.

First of all, I did not introduce the "sinful nature" into the discussion. I, like you, accept that people aren't perfect. I do not use the term "sinful nature" because I don't use the term "sin," for obvious reasons. I have seen the term "sinful nature" to be used for everything from "we're not perfect" to "we're morally debased, corrupt, hopeless beings completely dependent on god for any smidgen of goodness." I had no idea which way it was being used, and the Graham rule, IMO, doesn't make sense unless your view is closer to the latter than the former. So I made the assumption that, on a conservative christian forum, there was a good possibility the latter was implied. If not, and the former was meant, then I return to my position that the Graham rule makes no sense.

Second of all, what you are responding to and what I am responding to do not appear to me to be the same thing. My response was to the absolute position "I will not be with alone with a woman who is not my wife." You have narrowly constrained it to "in counseling situations, in ministry." So your version of it does not appear to be so absolute/universal. But even then, I have to wonder why this rule is necessary. As I said, I do not know a single priest/minister (granted that was 30 years ago), who accepted/endorsed/lived that rule, or thought it was a good one. Psychiatrist and professional counselors do not use that rule. Most doctor's will not use that rule (unless they are giving a physical examination).

You say the rule is not based in fear - but what else COULD it be? I don't have images of people tearing their hair out - but there is fear of either a) what the other person will do/say, b) what I might do/say, or 3) what others might do/say. Leaving a door open for a casual discussion is a non-issue. Insisting that someone else be in the room when I have no cause to question the integrity of the other person? That's fear. And when it is explicitly about a specific type of person (a woman, a man, etc.), that is objectification.

I'll forego the rest of my points, because I have made them already too frequently, and so far have not heard anything that makes me think they should change.

I have no idea why you are in a regular state of "what is he talking about?" You made reference earlier to the fact that I do not appear to be the same as I was 10 years ago. Indeed, I am not. 10 years ago I was much more ready to get down into the muck, and did so frequently with Pixie, MM, DE, and JP (to name a few). I cannot say, 10 years later, that I am no longer going "down into the muck," because I clearly have with MM a couple of times. But not so deeply and for only brief times - so I'm getting better

But you also seem to have changed. I frankly don't remember you being so personally confrontational, and so quick to accuse of dishonesty, verbal trickery, and unreasonableness. I have the distinct impression that my presence here is some kind of affront - more often than not. I have no idea why. Nor do I have any reason to believe there is much I can say to change that perspective. I do know I came to escape what I perceived as a bubble (mission accomplished). I enjoy a brisk discussion/debate. I believe in treating people respectfully (though have not always been perfect on that one), and simply disengaging when nothing I can say seems to alter the disrespect coming in the opposite direction (haven't been perfect on that one either).

You're not disrespectful, per se. But you sure do personal attacks on a regular basis. I'd really like to know why.

[Adrift]

Yes - I agree with the groupie phenomenon. To me, that would be "just cause." I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it, because I don't think I'll ever have BG's crowds. But I DID catch CP winking at me in another post...so we'll be using a chaperone from now on!

Wait, what do you think we're discussing if not the groupie phenomenon? That's precisely the reason the rule is in place. Also, this rule isn't typically in place for staff who work together. My mother, a church counselor, spends many hours alone with her male colleagues (Pastors, and others working at the church) and no one thinks a thing about it. That's not typically when the rule is engaged, at least, not at her church. Nor is the rule engaged in because of this bizarro notion you made up about Christians thinking that everyone is debased. Where in the world did that come from? That's clearly a perverse and twisted understanding of the Christian conception of sin nature. In the Christian worldview, acknowledging that people have sin nature isn't to see everyone debased, wicked, corrupt, and evil. Rather, it's simply to acknowledge that no one is perfect. That even though people are generally wonderful, even the best of us sometimes don't live up to the standards we ought to, and that even the mightiest of us sometimes have weak moments, and that all of us are in need of a savior. Nor is the rule based in fear. People in ministry are not running around wrenching their hands, sweat on their brow fearing that they're going to give in to some great lust, or that people will point at women walking into the Pastor's office and think "slut". Again, you've totally misconceived the entire notion of the concept and how people in ministry perceive it. It's simply a guideline that's followed for accountability purposes. The pastors and ministers and counselors I've seen use this rule don't jump up in fear when a man or woman comes into their office, they just ask them to keep the door open, or if it's a private issue, they'll have another pastor or counselor in the room to help take notes, or will have males counsel males, females counsel females. That sort of thing. It's all done very matter of factly. Very routine. It makes a very practical sense, especially in the churches I go to, which tend to be large-ish, with lots of new people in weekly, lots of people from inner city neighborhoods, to have accountability in one-on-one situations.

You know, you say that you're familiar with this rule from past experiences, but nothing you're saying this thread seems to make that clear at all. As a matter of fact, some of the views you have about Christians and the Christian worldview are so at odds with anything I've ever encountered in a Christian before that it's not at all surprising that you eventually left the church. I'm reading a lot of what you seem to think about these things and thinking to myself "what in the world is he talking about?"

[carpedm9587]

Says here that leads to dancing.

[Juvenal]

But I DID catch CP winking at me in another post...

Says here that leads to dancing.

[carpedm9587]

I liked BG. I don't know anything about what he said on the Nixon tapes, and I'm not going to rake up that muck, either. Out of respect for BG, I'll withhold my less laudatory opinions of his offspring. The crusades were weird, and they attracted even weirder camp followers, but all in all, I'd say his legacy includes more good than harm, by my measure of whether he inspired courtesy and kindness.

As to the Graham rule, sounds good to me for anyone who speaks to that many people at once. Large audiences attract groupies, and there's a need for active defenses when they show up.

Yes - I agree with the groupie phenomenon. To me, that would be "just cause." I don't think I'll ever have to worry about it, because I don't think I'll ever have BG's crowds. But I DID catch CP winking at me in another post...so we'll be using a chaperone from now on!

[carpedm9587]

As a woman, if a man who is not my husband suggested that he and I spend time together alone, I would vehemently oppose the suggestion out of suspicion.

If I knew a man who was known to have spent time alone with women other than his wife, I would suspect him of having an affair. Even if I personally saw him interacting respectfully with others, that would not, in itself, be enough to dispel the suspicion. "If men speak ill of you, live so that no one will believe them". - Plato

I don't think anyone here (certainly not I) was talking about the first. I would be suspicious of such an exchange as well. Assuming it was "let's spend time alone." If it was a colleague and she stopped by my office at noon and said, "want to do lunch?" I would think no more about it than I would if a male colleague did the same. If a female colleague said to me, "can I talk to you about something, privately?" again, I would grant the same request unless I had cause to think their might be a problem (e.g., previous flirtation, uncomfortable gifts, etc.) My wife tells me she feels the same way. But if someone said, "let's spend some time alone together," I'd be suspicious.

Your second is troubling. It is, IMO, far too broad. Again, if we were talking about a priest hearing confessions, I wouldn't think twice about it. If we were talking about a counselor or psychiatrist seeing a woman patient, I wouldn't think twice about it. If it was a minister who counseled anyone who wanted it, I wouldn't think twice about it. If it was a male or female doctor seeing a patient of the opposite sex, I wouldn't think twice about it. I am a man, I have spent time alone with women who were not my wife. Sometimes it was in the school kitchen preparing a meal for the scout troop that was to arrive later in the evening. Sometimes it was at work, going over courses and plans for projects. Sometimes it was simply getting together with an old friend. I would never think to demean any of these people by insisting we have a chaperone so no one would think I was "having an affair," or so I wouldn't be "tempted and lose control."

I think it comes down to fear. Long ago, I decided I would not live my life in fear of what MIGHT happen. I live my life according to my conscience, and the rest can take care of themselves. But it also comes down to trust. The message "I cannot be alone with a woman/man" communicates "I don't trust myself to be moral" and "I don't trust the rest of you to trust me!" It sows the seeds for a suspicious community. It is not something I would ever do, without just cause - and "because you're a woman" is not "just cause."

But I DO understand (though I disagree with) the perspective brought up earlier - that human nature is "implicitly sinful" - and the impact that has on trust and the need to protect oneself. After all, if everyone is debased, then this rule makes perfect sense - and there is no one being disrespected because no one really deserves respect. This point of view is one of the many, many, reasons I am no longer Christian.

[QuantaFille]

As a woman, if a man who is not my husband suggested that he and I spend time together alone, I would vehemently oppose the suggestion out of suspicion.

If I knew a man who was known to have spent time alone with women other than his wife, I would suspect him of having an affair. Even if I personally saw him interacting respectfully with others, that would not, in itself, be enough to dispel the suspicion. "If men speak ill of you, live so that no one will believe them". - Plato

[Juvenal]

I liked BG. I don't know anything about what he said on the Nixon tapes, and I'm not going to rake up that muck, either. Out of respect for BG, I'll withhold my less laudatory opinions of his offspring. The crusades were weird, and they attracted even weirder camp followers, but all in all, I'd say his legacy includes more good than harm, by my measure of whether he inspired courtesy and kindness.

As to the Graham rule, sounds good to me for anyone who speaks to that many people at once. Large audiences attract groupies, and there's a need for active defenses when they show up.

[Juvenal]

I will not post what I was going to you said what I was trying to with more grace then I was going to. thank you.

Bartender? Times two, please.

ETA: Fourth time through, it finally parsed.

I will not post what I was going to.

You said what I was trying to say with more grace than I was going to.

Thank you.

The original was far more amusing.

[RumTumTugger]

Yes, I can read. He say's I think it can be phrased respectfully. I think it can be phrased respectively as well, but that's not a request that we necessarily do so. And since when is not following such a request against the rules?

this is the wrong area for you to be disrespectful JimL this spin off was put in General Theistics instead of Apologetics for a reason the op wanted a respectful discussion. if you can't voice your opinions in a respectful manner then dont' post at all here in this thread or any thread in General Theistics.

[RumTumTugger]

There is a huge difference between a person that conveys a message, by book and word, that people want to hear and want to pay for, and a man who tells people that they have to donate because god wants them to have a jet or is threatening to "take them to heaven."

If I reject B.G. for being successful preaching a message I don't happen to agree with, then I have to reject every self-help expert, every motivational speaker, and every post-career politician that ever existed. When someone sets out to dube the gullible, they deserve our disdain. When they are just preaching something they believe in that you do not happen to agree with, IMO, they do not.

I have to admit I am MORE impressed by men who preach this message and maintain a humble lifestyle (e.g., Ghandi, M.L.K., Mandela, etc.). But I do not begrudge someone their success.

I will not post what I was going to you said what I was trying to with more grace then I was going to. thank you.

[carpedm9587]

I don't believe you.

You've made that much clear several times. You and Jedidiah have some significant trust issues


(actually - I did feel concern at one point - when it seemed to me that CP thought I was disparaging his marriage or his wife.)

[carpedm9587]

I'm to the point where, if I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably be a straight-up nihilist and a misanthrope. (I might be those things anyway)

People suck. The varieties of our screwed-up-ness are never-ending.

Then I'm glad for you that you're a Christian. I would hate for anyone to go through life with such a negative view of everything. Most of the people I meet and engage with every day are awesome. Sometimes quirky (like CP), sometimes acerbic (like Adrift), sometimes borderline certifiable (like MM), but each one has something unique to offer, and each one brings something to the table. The truly evil people of the world are comparatively rare. But we do have a tendency, these days, to paint those who do not agree with us in the colors of "the enemy" or "evil" or "bad." That much is a bit disappointing.

[Adrift]

(though I have to admit to being a bit perplexed about the "emotion" part. I think I have felt frustrated a couple times, irritated once, laughed my butt off with CP more than few times, but mostly this is an exercise in discussion and debate. I don't typically feel all that emotional about it. If you were reading "emotion" into the posts I made here...then it didn't come from me.)

I don't believe you.

[carpedm9587]

For as irritating as he could be, I found robrecht far more...I don't know...rational? And maybe emotionless? I hate to say it, but carpe is not the person I remember him being 10 years ago. At all. But I'm certain the same could be said of me.

(though I have to admit to being a bit perplexed about the "emotion" part. I think I have felt frustrated a couple times, irritated once, laughed my butt off with CP more than few times, but mostly this is an exercise in discussion and debate. I don't typically feel all that emotional about it. If you were reading "emotion" into the posts I made here...then it didn't come from me.)