牧師、葛培理原則、與智慧Pastors,The Graham Rule, And Wisdom

作者:  R. SCOTT CLARK   譯者: Maria Marta

https://heidelblog.net/2018/07/pastors-the-graham-rule-and-wisdom/

https://plus.google.com/u/0/106695469993489516884/posts/FuuDfi9BsRK

本周宣布另一位牧師最近被免職。這類事件以前發生過，可悲的是，會再次發生。我寫此文時，一系列案例在我腦海中浮現，而將它們連接在一起的是這一題目：「牧師作出愚蠢的選擇，將自己置於危險之中」。在陳述我的理由之前，讓我們先思考一些對「葛培理原則」（Billy Graham rule）的批評，該原則規定：男人不應與不是他們妻子的女人單獨相處。有爭論說，這原則對女性不公平，因為女性在男性所接受的同一教牧關懷中被隔離開來。這原則也被批評為不切實際，因為在晚期現代」（late modernity）生活中，作為同事，男女常在一起工作，包括一齊出席私人聚會、晚宴等等。第三種批評傾向於把女性塑造為誘惑者。第四種，對我們來說也是最後一種批評，說這原則判斷錯誤，因為問題的癥結不是男女獨處，而是動心動情。假如男人的心是純潔的，那麽沒有理由男女不能私下會面。

在回應上述批評之前，讓我們思考導致原本富有成效的教牧職事走向終結的其中一種情況。一位抱怨遭丈夫虐待的婦女，聯系一位婚姻幸福的牧師，請求輔導。他們先是電話聯系，然後是視頻聊天，再然後就見面了。幾個月後，他們開始婚外情。之後被發現，其後果對女方家庭和牧師家庭來說都一樣是毀滅性的。想一想一位年輕牧師，在他第一次真正主持的輔導講座中，認識一位年輕妻子，她的丈夫被忽視了，而事實證明，她和牧師的秘書有婚外情。在一次情緒激動的會議上，一位牧師對另一位女士的遭遇深表同情，她哭，他也哭。有時候情緒會有些失控——不是因為性，而是情感上的原因。會議一結束，牧師幾乎立刻就意識到自己是多麽的愚蠢，事態是多麽的容易失控。此後，他立志絕不再與女性單獨見面，絕不將自己和女士置於這樣的危險境地。

類似的個案多不勝數，牧師們也知道我所說的是真實的。 這是智慧的問題。 一位已故的牧師朋友在60多歲時向我承認，「我過去常常精挑細選我認為有魅力的女性。現在她們似乎對我都很有吸引力。」牧師仍然是男人。 他們成為牧師，因為他們確信他們既有牧養的內在呼召，也有來自教會，確認他們的呼召感的外在呼召。大多數時候，牧師常會憐憫他們所接觸的人。教牧職事是助人的職業。傾聽人承認他們的罪、恐懼、與掙紮，必然會產生一種親密感。我們傾聽人最黑暗的經歷和恐懼，聽後不起憐憫、共鳴、同情之心，這種人大概不應該事奉。

問題是:  同情的界限可能因為各種原因很快就模糊了。上帝只呼召罪人作教牧職事，而教牧職事往往是要求高、壓力大的工作。牧師的婚姻時常成為事工的犧牲品之一。牧師與女性建立起輔導的關系後，有時還可維持健康的婚姻，但並非總能如此。當牧師的婚姻不完美，當他和他的妻子因為昨晚醫院來的緊急電話，和今早的輔導會發生爭吵時，情況會怎樣呢?  他何時有時間陪她和孩子們？在輔導會後，女受輔者輕輕握著牧師的手，感謝他的接待，傾聽她的心聲——她的「懶丈夫」似乎從來沒有這樣做過——而且有一瞬間的電光、一種火花，還有一種理解的眼神、一瞥、一絲聯系。當時什麽也沒有發生，但當他回到家裏、辦公室時，他回想那一刻，她也一樣。你知道這個故事的結局是怎樣的。

這就是葛培理原則存在的原因。也許它太僵化。 當然，此原則必須與恩典、仁愛、與智慧一起應用。 人可能想象利用這原則來證明虐待的合理性。當然，這種濫用並非我腦中所想的。 此外，自從葛培理開始事工以來，世界在不斷變化，這原則的應用亦變得更加覆雜，但就我所知，從來沒有任何關於葛培理不道德行為的指控。此文的按例調查都集中在輔導方面，因為這是牧者常常出現不謹慎行為的地方和渠道。所有我聽說的個案幾乎都涉及輔導。當然還有其他案例，如牧師和他們的秘書，牧師和他們的同工 (例如，詩班的音樂家或兒童事工部主任)，即便這些個案與輔導無關，但也與輔導的個案有共同之處:  獨處時間過長；發展親密、同情的情感；感情誤導。

葛培理原則是否對女性受輔者產生負面影響？可能會。但有一些方法可以緩解這個問題。一位我認識的輔導員只有在他的妻子在場時才與受輔者會面（不是在房間，而是在房子裏）。另一種方法是利用現代視頻技術。就像警察訊問要攝像記錄那樣，牧師的輔導室裏也要安裝攝影機，遠距離存儲會面情況，好叫他和她受到保護。另外一些牧師只在公共場所與受輔者見面，例如咖啡館或餐館。聖經有如此指導：「老年婦人舉止行動要恭敬，不說讒言，不給酒做奴僕，用善道教訓人，  好指教少年婦人愛丈夫，愛兒女，  謹守，貞潔，料理家務，待人有恩，順服自己的丈夫，免得神的道理被毀謗。」（多二3-5）。有一個受過高等神學教育的年長姐妹擔任輔導員也許能解決這些問題。也許牧師會和這位年長女輔導員一起與受輔者見面。所有這些解決辦法都不是理想的，但它們總比私下會面更可取，因為私人會面播下罪惡和毀滅的種子。

在我們的晚期現代文化中，也許葛培理原則的確令人尷尬，但離婚和被解除職務至少也可以說是尷尬之事。葛培理原則假定所有女性都是波提乏的妻子嗎（創卅九7-18）？根本沒有這意思。 相反，規則的意圖是承認歷史和現實。男女關系不同於同性（非同性戀）關系。 男女關系不同於男人與男人的關系或女人與女人的關系。

第四種反對意見是最有力的，但最終也是不足夠的。坦白說，我們生活在墮落的世界。自墮落以來，男女關系已變得複雜，直到新天新地才會回復簡單。誠然，所有的人際關系都很複雜，但男女關系是特別的複雜。如上所述，通奸關系（特別是在牧師和受輔者之間）並不總是以性關系開始。他們的關系通常以情感關系開始，如果放任不管，就會變成性關系。第四種反對意見有一定的說服力。但問題在於心，牧師的心是敗壞的，受輔者心也是敗壞的。是的，牧師需要省察他的心，但種反對意見（至少據我的理解）似乎忽略了化學反應在男女之間所發生的作用，此種化學反應通常不會在兩個異性戀的男人之間或兩個同性戀的女人之間發生作用。很難對這種化學反應進行量化，但一般認為所有30歲以上的人都有足夠的經驗認識它。

問責制是一種解決辦法。實際上牧師需要自我監督是理所當然的。他們行使職責有如自雇員工。許多人在戶外進行一部分的工作，但也會與教區居民和其離家在外的人見面。他們每周都與他們的監督(治理長老)見面。但實際上在治理長老的照管和監督下，治理長老幾乎不可能監督牧師的日常工作。然而，他們可以求助於定期 (甚至每周)的輔導預約和聯系記錄。翻查牧師與誰聚會，有何目的，在何種情況下等記錄。增加輔導員 (如上文所建議的) 也可緩解一些挑戰。當然，如果牧師決心繞過護欄，那就沒什麽可做的了，但接下來我們要看第四種反對意見所預見的那種基本的動心問題。

我們需要重新思考聖經對教牧職事的資格要求。在提摩太前書3章2節，保羅說監督(ἐπίσκοπος) 必須是「無可指責」(ἀνεπίλημπτον)。他在提多書一章6-7節也是這樣說的。保羅告訴我們這意味著：「若有無可指責的人，只做一個婦人的丈夫，兒女也是信主的，沒有人告他們是放蕩不服約束的，就可以設立。監督既是神的管家，必須無可指責，不任性，不暴躁，不因酒滋事，不打人，不貪無義之財。」有些資格要求比另一些資格要求更高。一夫一妻制似乎不是很高的要求。但「頭腦冷靜」和「自我控制」是更難達到的要求。放蕩很難察覺，但通常有會眾(如教會秘書) 知道，出於恐懼或不恰當的忠誠，知情者一般不會說出來。暴躁和酗酒也是一個人不合資格的表現，或者如果他已經被按立和事奉，他會嚴重跌倒，並且很快會完全出軌。無可指責不是對西班牙宗教裁判(中世紀天主教審判異端的宗教法庭)的要求，而是對在現實主義之下，在某些情況下重新參與事工的日常生活而要具備敬虔智慧所作的要求。

牧師的跌倒，讓我們有機會去反思、省察、重新思考投身事工的方式是否明智、敬虔。

Pastors, The Graham Rule, And Wisdom

It was announced this week that another pastor was recently removed from ministry. It has happened before and, sadly, it will happen again. As I write, a series of cases are running through my mind but one of the themes that unites them is that ministers put themselves in jeopardy by making foolish choices. Before I make my case let us consider some of the criticisms of the Graham Rule, which says that men should not be alone with women who are not their wives. One argument says that the rule is unfair to women since it segregates them from the same pastoral care that men receive. It also is criticized as impractical since, in late-modern life, men and women frequently work together as colleagues including private meetings, dinners, etc. A third criticism is that it tends to cast females as seductresses. Fourth, and finally for our purposes, it is criticized for misidentifying the problem, which is said not to be men being alone with women but in the heart. If men’s hearts are pure, then there is no reason why men and women should not be able to meet privately.

Before responding to the criticisms let us consider one of the situations that has led to the end of otherwise productive pastoral ministries. A pastor, who is happily married, is contacted for counseling by a woman who complains that her husband is abusive. They meet first by telephone, then by video chat, then personally. After a couple of months, however, they begin having an affair. It is discovered and the consequences to the woman’s family are as destructive as they are for the pastor. Consider the young pastor who, in his first real counseling session, meets with a young wife, whose husband was neglectful, and, as it turns out, having an affair with his secretary. It is an emotional meeting. The pastor feels empathy for the woman. She is crying. He is crying. It might lead to something untoward—it does not—not for sexual but for emotional reasons. Almost as soon as the meeting is over the pastor realizes how foolish he had been, how easily things might have spun out of control. Thereafter, he resolves never to meet alone with another female, never to place himself and a woman in such jeopardy.

Similar cases could be multiplied. Pastors know that what I am saying is true. It is a matter of wisdom. A now-deceased pastor friend confessed to me in his 60s, “I used to be more selective about the women I find attractive. Now they all seem attractive to me.” Men who pastor are still men. They become pastors because they become convinced that they have an internal call to ministry and that sense of calling is confirmed by an external call from the church. Most of the time, pastors are moved with compassion for those with whom they come into contact. Pastoral ministry is a helping vocation. Listening to people confess their sins, fears, and struggles necessarily creates a kind of intimacy. We hear people’s darkest experiences and fears. Hearing those things does not move one to compassion, sympathy, and empathy, one probably should not be in ministry.

Here is the problem: the line between empathy and inappropriate feelings can become blurry very quickly for a variety of reasons. God only calls sinners to pastoral ministry, which is often a demanding, high-stress vocation. The pastor’s marriage can too often become one of the casualties of ministry. What happens when the pastor’s marriage is not perfect, when he and his wife just had an argument because he had an emergency hospital call last night and now a counseling meeting this morning? When is he going to have time for her and for the children? After the counseling session, the female counselee reaches out to touch the pastor’s hand softly to say thanks for meeting with her and for listening to her so attentively—something her “slob of husband” never seems to do—and there’s a little electricity, a spark. There is an understanding look, a glance, a connection. Nothing happens right away, but as he goes back to his home office he thinks about that moment and so does she. We know how this story ends.

This is why there is a Graham rule. Certainly it has to be applied with grace, charity, and wisdom. One can imagine ways the rule could be used to justify cruelty. Of course, such abuses are not what I have in mind. Further, the world has changed since Billy Graham began ministry, thus making the application of the rule more complicated, but as far as I know, there were never any allegations of immorality against Graham. The scenarios surveyed here have centered on counseling because this is where and how ministerial indiscretions often happen. In just about every case of which I have heard counseling was involved. There are other kinds of cases, e.g., pastors and their secretaries, pastors and a member of their staff (e.g., a musician or children’s ministry director) but even these cases share commonalities with the counseling scenarios: too much time alone, the development of emotional intimacy, empathy, misdirected affection.

Does the Graham rule adversely affect female counselees? It may. There are some ways to mitigate the problem. One counselor I know only meets with counselees when his wife is present (not in the room but about the house). Another way is to make use of modern video technology. Just as police interviews are recorded on video, some pastors have a video camera in the counseling room where the video is stored remotely for his and her protection. Other pastors only meet in some public place, e.g., a coffee-house or a restaurant. We have guidance in holy Scripture, which says, “Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled” (Titus 2:3–5). Having an older woman with some advanced theological education, who is equipped as a counselor, might resolve many of these issues. Perhaps the pastor and an older female counselor might meet together with a female counselee. None of these solutions is ideal but they are preferable to private meetings which sow the seeds of sin and destruction.

Perhaps the Graham rule does create awkwardness in our late-modern culture but divorce and being defrocked is also, to say the least, awkward. Does the rule presume that all females are Potiphar’s wife (Gen 39:7–18)? Not at all. Rather, the intent of the rule is to recognize history and reality. Male-female relationships are different than same-sex (not homosexual) relationships. Relationships between men and women are not the same as relationships between men or relationships between women.

The fourth objection is the most powerful but also ultimately insufficient. To say the obvious: we live in a fallen world. Male-female relations have been complicated since the fall and they will not become simple again until the new heavens and the new earth. It is true that all human relationships are complex but male-female relations are especially so. As suggested above, adulterous relationships (especially among pastors and counselees) do not always begin as a sexual relationships. Often they begin as emotional relationships, which, left unchecked, can become sexual relationships. Objection #4 has some weight. The problem is the heart but the pastor’s heart is corrupt and so is the counselee’s. Yes, the pastor needs to check his heart but the objection (at least as I understand it) seems to underestimate the chemistry can develop between a man and woman that would not ordinarily develop between two heterosexual men or between two heterosexual women. It is hard to quantify this chemistry but one would think that anyone over 30 would have enough experience to recognize it.

One solution is accountability. In the nature of things, pastors are practically self-supervised. They function as if they were self-employed. Many work partly out of their home but meet with parishioners and others away from home. They see their supervisors (the ruling elders) weekly but in the nature of things it is almost impossible for ruling elders to supervise the day-to-day work of the pastors under their care and supervision. Yet they can help by keeping a regular (even weekly) record of counseling appointments and contacts with whom is the pastor meeting, for what purpose, and under what circumstances. Expanding the counseling staff (as suggested above) might also alleviate some of the challenges. Of course, if the minister is determined to get around guardrails, there is little that can be done but then we are looking at the sort of fundamental heart-problem envisioned in objection #4.

We need to reconsider the biblical qualifications for pastoral ministry. In 1 Timothy 3:2 Paul says that the Episkopos (ἐπίσκοπος) must be “above reproach” (ἀνεπίλημπτον). He says the same in Titus 1:6–7. Paul tells us what this means: “the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable” and “his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination…he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain.” Some of these qualifications are easier than others. Monogamy would not seem to be too much to expect but “sober-minded” and “self-controlled” are more difficult. Debauchery can be hard to detect but typically someone in the congregation (e.g., the church secretary) knows about it but does not say anything out of fear or a misplaced loyalty. A quick temper and drunkenness are also symptoms that a man is not qualified or if he is already ordained and serving, is stumbling badly and about to go off the rails altogether. This is not a call for a Spanish inquisition but it is a call for godly wisdom, for realism, and in some cases, for re-engagement with the daily life of the minister.

When a minister falls it is an occasion for reflection, for self-examination, and for reconsidering whether the way we are conducting our ministry is wise and godly.