Women in Ministry, Leadership Integrity, and the Billy Graham Rule
When I opened Dr Anna Morgan’s “Growing Women in Ministry: Seven Aspects of Leadership Development,”[1] it was more than just another book on leadership for me. I know the church context from which she writes. While I have never met Anna, her husband and I have been friends for many years, we share the same denominational journey (I, too, have an Egalitarian Theological Perspective), and many of the names she references are not distant scholars or abstract leaders but familiar colleagues in the global movement I serve. That alone makes the book feel personal, a conversation happening within the family table of ministry.
Morgan’s credentials are good. She pastors alongside her husband, John, teaches leadership at Fuller Seminary, and serves as Vice President of Academics at Ascent College. Her doctoral work zeroed in on the development of women in ministry leadership within egalitarian church settings, producing research that now undergirds this book. This isn’t anecdotal musing; it is evidence-based, the product of research combined with pastoral practice. Her voice deserves careful hearing, not just because she is a practitioner, but because she is a scholar who has listened, analysed, and distilled the lived experience of women leaders in ministry into a practical and theological framework.
Morgan outlines seven aspects of leadership development for women, three internal (spiritual formation, cognition, and emotional intelligence) and four external (home life, ministry environment, leadership relationships, and communication development). These represent dynamics that either empower or hinder women in ministry.
Now that I have established that I am mostly on the same page with her in her writing, I recognise that the next part of the book is a tangent from its main tenure, but I was interested when the author engaged the so-called “Billy Graham Rule,”[2] which she mentions by name 9 times. This is where her reflection intersects with my own long-standing practice of ministry ethics and boundaries.
The Billy Graham Rule, in simple terms, is the practice of a male leader avoiding being alone with a woman who is not his wife (or daughter). Billy Graham himself adopted it to ensure his ministry would be above suspicion, particularly in an age when evangelists were sometimes accused of impropriety. While culture has shifted dramatically since the mid-20th century, the principle has endured because it speaks not only to morality but also to integrity and accountability. In Morgan’s discussion, she is candid about how such boundaries can be perceived as limiting or even exclusionary for women in leadership if practised legalistically. But she also recognises the reality that leaders operate in a world of power dynamics, perception, and, especially in a #MeToo era, the need to remain above reproach.[3]
I admit to practising this rule myself, but not in a militant way. Our offices all have doors with windows. If I meet with a woman, the window is open to the world. I am never the last person in the building with a woman who is not my wife or daughter. I do not travel alone with a woman. These practices are not motivated by distrust, neither of myself nor of the other person, but by a biblical conviction: “Now the overseer is to be above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2, NIV). The principle is not suspicion, but protection, of reputation, of integrity, of witness. In the cultural climate we now inhabit, perception is often as powerful as reality. An accusation, even if unfounded, can do untold damage to a leader, a family, or a congregation. By adopting transparent boundaries, we communicate that ministry is not just about what we do in private but how it is perceived publicly. Earlier this year I was interviewed by Britain’s leading Christian magazine,[4] where I was asked why I follow the Billy Graham rule.
Critics argue that the Billy Graham Rule unfairly restricts women’s access to mentoring and opportunity.[5] There is validity in that concern. If male leaders use the rule as an excuse to exclude women from spaces of influence, then it becomes less about integrity and more about power preservation. That is not how I interpret or apply it. personally, the Billy Graham Rule functions as a guardrail, not a wall. It does not exclude women from leadership pathways. I meet with female leaders, coach them, invite them to the table, and ensure they are fully part of decision-making. The difference is that I build the meetings with transparency and accountability: doors open, windows visible, meetings in team settings, and travel arrangements made to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.
I think of Marcus Warner and Jim Wilder’s work in RARE Leadership, where they insist that emotionally mature leaders cultivate trust and joy.[6] Trust is not only about what is true but also about what is seen to be true. Emotional maturity embraces boundaries not as a fear response but as a proactive way of sustaining credibility. Equally, Jordan Peterson has written at length about the fragility of reputation and the way a single accusation, true or false, can dismantle years of credibility.[7] Leaders live in the reality that character is both an internal virtue and an external perception. To ignore that reality is naïve; to navigate it with integrity is wisdom
The danger with the Billy Graham Rule is legalism. If it becomes a militant law, it diminishes relationships and reduces women to risks rather than co-labourers. That was never Billy’s intent. His intent was to model a life beyond reproach, one that would never hinder the message of the gospel. Personally, the practice is not about fear but about freedom, the freedom to minister without distraction, without rumour, and without unnecessary suspicion. It allows me to fully engage in ministry with women in my church, not by excluding them but by including them in ways that are transparent and safe.
As I reflect on Morgan’s work, I am grateful. Her book is not only about the empowerment of women in ministry, which I wholeheartedly endorse, but also about the evident complexities in doing so. Thank you Anna.
[1] Anna R. Morgan, Growing Women in Ministry: Seven Aspects of Leadership Development (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2024).
[2] Ibid, 126, 127, 138, 139, 140, 144 and 145.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Sam Hailes, “Glyn Barrett: The !Audacious Church Leader Causing Traffic Jams in Manchester,” Premier Christianity, January 29, 2025.
[5] Katelyn Beaty, A Woman’s Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the World (New York: Howard Books, 2016), 153–54
[6] Marcus Warner and Jim Wilder, RARE Leadership: 4 Uncommon Habits for Increasing Trust, Joy, and Engagement in the People You Lead (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2016), Ch7.
[7] Jordan B. Peterson, 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (Toronto: Random House Canada, 2018), 63–64
About the Author
Glyn Barrett
I am the founding & lead Pastor of !Audacious Church in Manchester, England. I was born in Manchester, but moved to Australia at the age of two. My wife and I were married in Australia and began married and ministry life in England 29 years ago. After serving as youth pastors for 12 years, we moved to Manchester to pioneer !Audacious Church. As a church we now have 7 locations. 3 in Manchester, Chester, Cardiff (Wales), Sheffield, and Geneva (Switzerland). In 2019 I became the National Leader of Assemblies of God in Great Britain. We have over 650 churches in our movement and have planted 98 new churches since May 2022 with a goal of planting 400 new churches between May 2022 and May 2028. I am the Global Chair for Church planting for Assemblies of God which currently has 420,000 churches and also chair Empowered21 Europe. I'm happily married to Sophia, with two children, one dog and two motorbikes. I love Golf, coffee and spending time with friends. I love to laugh, make friends and create memories!7 responses to “Women in Ministry, Leadership Integrity, and the Billy Graham Rule”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Glyn,
I decided to read your post before I wrote mine… ChatGPT directed me to quote you…
I was particularly wondering how you would address the Billy Graham rule and I appreciate the way that you did so. It is hard to navigate that line, especially as a leader in your position. The “Billy Graham” rule was created by a leader who fell towards a complamentarian perspective. How might a leader who falls towards “Mutuality” but still wants to remain above reproach write a rule? If we were to coin a new phrase, “The Glyn Barrett Rule” based on an egalitarian view of women what would it be?
Haha. Ok let’s give it a go. If I were to frame what you’re calling “The Glyn Barrett Rule” from an egalitarian and mutuality-based perspective, it would begin with the same heart as Billy Graham’s intent, integrity and witness, but it would express it through the lens of shared trust, inclusion, and transparency.
Here’s how I might articulate it:
The Glyn Barrett Rule: “Lead with integrity that protects both character and equality. Build transparent environments where accountability and opportunity coexist, ensuring women and men can lead, learn, and labour together with mutual respect, visible trust, and Spirit-led wisdom.”
Where the Billy Graham Rule focuses primarily on avoidance (not being alone with someone of the opposite sex), this reimagined version focuses on presence, creating open, accountable spaces that allow full participation without suspicion.
What do you think Adam?
Glyn,
This is amazing and well thought out. You should lead an international organization! Seriously. I liked it so much I already put it in a frame.
https://chatgpt.com/s/m_69029c4c5a7481918a49bb99825be352
Thank you for your post Glyn,
In what ways might emotionally mature leadership practices like those described in RARE Leadership, help navigate the tension between integrity and accessibility in ministry relationships?
Thanks Shela. Emotionally mature leadership, as described in RARE Leadership, helps hold integrity and accessibility together by using boundaries to strengthen relationships rather than avoid them. Instead of operating from fear or suspicion, mature leaders remain relational, secure in identity, and committed to transparency, choosing practices like open-door conversations and shared mentoring spaces that protect credibility while still offering real access. This approach ensures integrity isn’t maintained by distance, but by character, accountability, and a culture of trust, allowing men and women to serve side-by-side with honour and confidence.
Thanks, Glyn. Great post mate. What would have made it even better is finishing your third-to-last paragraph with some punctuation.
Hey, I think the optics of inter-gender meetings have contextual dynamics to how they are perceived. This requires leaders seeking to be above reproach to think about modelling, naming, and operating but also teaching and explaining their guardrails. When I was taught pastoral theology and practice in the early 1990s, the ‘Billy Graham rule’ was still taught, but culturally there was guidance to also meet in the church building rather than out in a restaurant or cafe with a woman, because of how a public one on one could more easily be misperceived. Through the years, the tables have almost flipped. Now, in my context, and in an era with increasing virtual office realities, it is more comfortable and socially acceptable to meet in public third-space environments than in one’s own office or board room.
As a leader who travels the world, and has likely been in gender-separated environments such as I have in Tanzania, as well as those where anything goes, what are some of the contextual nuances that inform your Glyn Barrett rule?
Thanks Mr 367, and punctuation is duly noted 🙂
You’re right: context shapes perception, and wise leaders pay attention to how their environment interprets their actions. I guess my approach can’t be a flat rule; it’s a principled posture that adapts to culture, space, and season. In conservative or high-honour contexts (like parts of Africa or Asia), maintaining visible guardrails, shared-space meetings, public environments, or team-based interactions communicates integrity and respect within that culture’s framework. By contrast, in Western urban settings, meeting in a café can actually increase perceived transparency more than meeting behind a church-office door. Add to that hybrid work and global travel, and relational wisdom becomes not just about where we meet, but how we frame it: communicating boundaries, practising transparency, and prioritising environments where dignity and safety are visibly protected for everyone. In every setting, my goal is the same: not to limit access, but to lead in a way that preserves trust, honours culture, and ensures that integrity and inclusion travel together wherever ministry takes us.
NB: Please check the punctuation!