Opinions on Billy Graham

[Cerebrum123]

You're wrong. It's not discriminatory nor unjust. It's used by both men and women in ministry towards the opposite sex. It's not based on a spirit of fear, it's based on being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. It isn't treating all women as pariahs, it's offering people the respect they deserve, and making it known that you expect the same back. You've twisted the whole thing in your head the opposite of what it was intended for. It's not a sad commentary on our society, it's acknowledging that people are sinful by nature, and that accountability should be in place as it is in so many other places within and without the church. You're calling something that's good, evil, and you're completely off base in your accusations that it's says something negative about a church's belief in the confidence or respect of their fellow human beings. You're just wrong, carpedm, and that's it.

He rejects the underlined, and anything remotely like it. I think that is the root of the issue. In a world where people are sinful by nature, it just makes sense. In one where something like sin simply doesn't exist, it just makes everyone look bad. Since he's looking at things through the latter lens, it just makes everyone look bad.

[carpedm9587]

It is all about not putting yourself in any position where salacious gossip can take root. About being, as close as humanly possible, unquestionably above reproach.

That's why he was adamant about having his crusades publicly audited so there was no whiff of scandal. And what I would say is behind the Graham Rule as well.

There is a far cry between having all of the crusades audited - which is a sound financial policy to ensure that donated money is not being syphoned off by anyone, and especially in this age of corrupt and self-serving evangelists - and adopting a policy that treats everyone around you (but especially the women) as untrustworthy and a possible/probable sexual object. They are not even in the same ballpark.

And with that - I don't think repeating myself further is going to get anywhere. So I'll let you folks close it out and I'll practice my "I'm going to shut up now" skill!

[Cow Poke]

And with all due respect to CP, if his 42-year marriage (Which is awesome! Working on 31 myself) is due to this rule...something is wrong.

Please don't dishonor my wife by perverting what I said about her, or my marriage to her....

It's part of why I've been happily married for over 42 years, have had ZERO scandals (and only two potential scandals which were quickly nipped in the bud, thanks to said policy), and my wife thinks the policy is good common sense. I care far more about what SHE thinks than some leftist internet poster* who claims to be a moderate!

That's what I said. I won't talk smack about your marriage, and you do likewise about mine.

[rogue06]

The man is basically saying, "Gee, I cannot be around a woman who's not my wife! What would people think?" That makes the other women basically sexual objects that, apparently, the person either cannot control themselves around, or thinks other people will think they cannot control themselves around.

In a business - it means a male boss cannot have a personnel review meeting with female subordinates, for no other reason than "they're female."

IMO, it's a ridiculous, and potentially harmful rule. I don't find it uplifting in the least. I find it degrading to the women is objectifies, and a pretty sad commentary on the people who feel they need to follow it.

It is all about not putting yourself in any position where salacious gossip can take root. About being, as close as humanly possible, unquestionably above reproach.

That's why he was adamant about having his crusades publicly audited so there was no whiff of scandal. And what I would say is behind the Graham Rule as well.

[carpedm9587]

It honors the Lord.

I cannot possibly see how. It certainly doesn't honor his creation (which I believe you believe in). It assumes the worst of pretty much everyone. It assumes the very people you are counseling need to be protected from - or the very community you serve needs to be protected from. I cannot think of too many policies that would be more disparaging of the people around you.

I'm far more concerned about honoring God than I am you.

I'm sure. IMO, you're not succeeding at either. (that sounds a bit harsher than I mean it - but I don't know how else to write it)

But what do I know - I'm a heathen that is 97.3% wrong

[carpedm9587]

Why not?

It doesn't matter what is dangling (or not dangling) between the legs, Zym. The rule objectifies people. If it is targeted at women - it objectifies women. If it is targeted at men, it objectifies men. If it is targeted at gay men, it objectifies gay men. It turns these people into (primarily) a potential sexual object that has to be guarded against, or against the possibility that other people might not think we want them to think.

And with all due respect to CP, if his 42-year marriage (Which is awesome! Working on 31 myself) is due to this rule...something is wrong.

[Cow Poke]

Dig accepted! And I'm sure it honors your wife. It just doesn't honor anyone else...IMO

It honors the Lord.

But you have the right to be wrong about this... so carry on

I'm far more concerned about honoring God than I am you.

[carpedm9587]

It's part of why I've been happily married for over 42 years, have had ZERO scandals (and only two potential scandals which were quickly nipped in the bud, thanks to said policy), and my wife thinks the policy is good common sense. I care far more about what SHE thinks than some leftist internet poster* who claims to be a moderate!

This policy honors my wife.

*a friendly dig at Carpe, who, quite honestly, I think is more "left" than he likes to think he is or presents himself to be.

Dig accepted! And I'm sure it honors your wife. It just doesn't honor anyone else...IMO

But you have the right to be wrong about this... so carry on

[carpedm9587]

You're wrong. It's not discriminatory nor unjust. It's used by both men and women in ministry towards the opposite sex. It's not based on a spirit of fear, it's based on being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. It isn't treating all women as pariahs, it's offering people the respect they deserve, and making it known that you expect the same back. You've twisted the whole thing in your head the opposite of what it was intended for. It's not a sad commentary on our society, it's acknowledging that people are sinful by nature, and that accountability should be in place as it is in so many other places within and without the church. You're calling something that's good, evil, and you're completely off base in your accusations that it's says something negative about a church's belief in the confidence or respect of their fellow human beings. You're just wrong, carpedm, and that's it.

You're entitled to your opinion, Adrift. I also believe you are wrong. I don't think the intent of the "rule" is to do harm or be condescending or to live in fear. I do think it accomplishes all three.

[Zymologist]

Why not?

[carpedm9587]

If the policy was extended to include gay males, would it cease to be a problem?

Edit: and as for being uncharitable, yeah, I think the bolded clears that up pretty well.

[Cow Poke]

You're wrong. It's not discriminatory nor unjust. It's used by both men and women in ministry towards the opposite sex. It's not based on a spirit of fear, it's based on being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. It isn't treating all women as pariahs, it's offering people the respect they deserve, and making it known that you expect the same back. You've twisted the whole thing in your head the opposite of what it was intended for. It's not a sad commentary on our society, it's acknowledging that people are sinful by nature, and that accountability should be in place between as it is in so many other places within and without the church. You're calling something that's good, evil, and you're completely off base in your accusations that it's says something negative about a church's belief in the confidence or respect of their fellow human beings. You're just wrong, carpedm, and that's it.

It's part of why I've been happily married for over 42 years, have had ZERO scandals (and only two potential scandals which were quickly nipped in the bud, thanks to said policy), and my wife thinks the policy is good common sense. I care far more about what SHE thinks than some leftist internet poster* who claims to be a moderate!

This policy honors my wife.


*a friendly dig at Carpe, who, quite honestly, I think is more "left" than he likes to think he is or presents himself to be.

[Cow Poke]

If you cannot stand the heat...


Seriously...I'm not saying that a person, male or female, should not take precautions if they are dealing with someone where they think there is a likely problem. Most of us can see them coming a mile away. We used to call them "vocation busters" and they came in both genders.

What I AM saying is that a policy that paints all women with the same brush, based solely on their gender and the fear of being accused, is simply discriminatory and unjust. In a spirit of "fear of what might be said," I treat all women as if they are some form of pariah that needs to be kept at hands-length or supervised, or it treats all women as "someone I may not be able to resist myself around." It's a sad commentary on not only society - but also the person who feels compelled to live that philosophy. It doesn't say a great deal about their confidence in, or respect for, their fellow human beings.

In this discussion - I have been accused of being "uncharitable." In reality, if you think about what prompts this philosohy, it is that philosophy that is uncharitable.

You're entitled to be wrong on this.

Next?

[Adrift]

If you cannot stand the heat...


Seriously...I'm not saying that a person, male or female, should not take precautions if they are dealing with someone where they think there is a likely problem. Most of us can see them coming a mile away. We used to call them "vocation busters" and they came in both genders.

What I AM saying is that a policy that paints all women with the same brush, based solely on their gender and the fear of being accused, is simply discriminatory and unjust. In a spirit of "fear of what might be said," I treat all women as if they are some form of pariah that needs to be kept at hands-length or supervised, or it treats all women as "someone I may not be able to resist myself around." It's a sad commentary on not only society - but also the person who feels compelled to live that philosophy. It doesn't say a great deal about their confidence in, or respect for, their fellow human beings.

You're wrong. It's not discriminatory nor unjust. It's used by both men and women in ministry towards the opposite sex. It's not based on a spirit of fear, it's based on being wise as serpents and innocent as doves. It isn't treating all women as pariahs, it's offering people the respect they deserve, and making it known that you expect the same back. You've twisted the whole thing in your head the opposite of what it was intended for. It's not a sad commentary on our society, it's acknowledging that people are sinful by nature, and that accountability should be in place as it is in so many other places within and without the church. You're calling something that's good, evil, and you're completely off base in your accusations that it's says something negative about a church's belief in the confidence or respect of their fellow human beings. You're just wrong, carpedm, and that's it.

[Zymologist]

If you cannot stand the heat...


Seriously...I'm not saying that a person, male or female, should not take precautions if they are dealing with someone where they think there is a likely problem. Most of us can see them coming a mile away. We used to call them "vocation busters" and they came in both genders.

What I AM saying is that a policy that paints all women with the same brush, based solely on their gender and the fear of being accused, is simply discriminatory and unjust. In a spirit of "fear of what might be said," I treat all women as if they are some form of pariah that needs to be kept at hands-length or supervised, or it treats all women as "someone I may not be able to resist myself around." It's a sad commentary on not only society - but also the person who feels compelled to live that philosophy. It doesn't say a great deal about their confidence in, or respect for, their fellow human beings.

In this discussion - I have been accused of being "uncharitable." In reality, if you think about what prompts this philosohy, it is that philosophy that is uncharitable.

If the policy was extended to include gay males, would it cease to be a problem?

Edit: and as for being uncharitable, yeah, I think the bolded clears that up pretty well.