Aimee Byrd gets perturbed when men say they won't ride alone in a car or go out to dinner with a woman who is not his wife. In Why Can't We Be Friends: Avoidance is Not Purity, she expounds on Christian friendship and the sibling nature of the body of Christ, but I'm not sure she gets any closer to bringing down the "Billy Graham rule." Graham said he would not "travel, meet, or eat along with a woman other than [his] wife."
Byrd's problem is that the Billy Graham rule, followed by many others, pastors and laypeople alike (including Vice President Pence), sexualizes relationships according to the Billy Crystal rule. In the movie When Harry Met Sally, Crystal's character says that "men and women can't be friends because the sex part always gets in the way." Byrd argues that this idea that "all women are reduced to a means of sexual gratification for men, that a man cannot control himself from thinking about conquering every woman he is 'friends' with" has taken over culture and should be rejected.
The strength of Byrd's argument is that we are brothers and sisters with our fellow Christians, and should relate to each other as such. Certainly the love and support of our siblings, as well as the permanent nature of our relationship, speak to the importance of intimacy and companionship that do not include sexual relationships or conquests. But I'm still not comfortable with where she wants this to end up. If I'm hundreds of miles from home on a business trip, a quiet dinner alone with my biological sister is perfectly appropriate. We might even share a hotel room if we're on a trip together. But with my sister in Christ--no way. (I checked with my wife. She does not want me to share a hotel room with any women from church.)
Similarly, Byrd talks about the importance of table fellowship, and the centrality of meal time to Christian fellowship, to friendship and to community. She rightly points out that meal time has been used as a time to exclude others, and that Jesus used meal time to welcome others, for which he was criticized. But I don't agree that choosing not to have a private meal with a person of the other sex reflects the same kind of prejudice or ignorance that other exclusions do. We can eat meals at a church fellowship or with a group, sitting with and enjoying the company of people of the other sex, but one-on-one dining is a different thing.
Byrd doesn't completely ignore the reality of temptation that may arise when spending time along with a friend of the other sex. She writes that "some adults are not in a good place to interact well within friendships. . . . Even people in your church may have become so caught up in sin and lust that they need pastoral care and accountability in their lives--maybe for a long period of time." So if you're going to be friends with someone of the other sex, before you spend time alone with them, be sure to vet them, making sure they are not "caught up in sin and lust." (Let me know how that works out for you.) Again, I'm going with Billy Graham. Byrd is right to say, as she does in the book's subtitle, that simply avoiding the other sex does not equate to purity. But that doesn't mean that avoidance is sometimes appropriate.
Look, I have good female friends, at church and at work. I enjoy conversation and interaction with them as my sisters in Christ. But I'm not going to call one of those women up and ask her to meet me for dinner, or go camping for the weekend, or meet for drinks after work, just the two of us. Byrd has some good material here on friendship and Christian community. I agree with her that the Billy Crystal rule is absurd and should not guide our relationships. But I (with my wife's support and insistence) will abide by the Billy Graham rule. I think my Christian sisters, as well as their husbands, would agree and appreciate the boundaries and respect that engenders.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for the complimentary electronic review copy!
No comments:
Post a Comment