It’s time to amend the ‘Modesto Manifesto’

Growing up, I was somewhat sheltered from more extreme forms of purity culture. I dated, I showed my shoulders in public and, with extreme gratitude, I can say I never even knew about the bizarre world of purity balls. The extremes of American evangelical purity culture didn’t creep north of the border much, and even less so in my tiny Christian Reformed community in Alberta.

This made it a little eye-opening when I started my work with a prominent evangelical organization in Canada and learned about what is typically called “The Billy Graham Rule” – created to “protect” women and men from opportunity, accusation or risk of sexually deviant behaviour, which presumably can occur when they are left unsupervised.

The Billy Graham Rule is part of Graham’s “Modesto Manifesto.” I think the name is a lot more fun than its application. Despite my assumption that the term “Modesto” might be some Italian translation of modesty, the title was simply derived from a 1948 meeting between Billy and a couple of pals in Modesto, California. This homogenous group of gents got together to craft solutions to the biggest risks to ministry and to make plans for avoiding the potential pitfalls of public pastoral life. The mission was reasonable. There was obvious wisdom in the manifesto’s calls to financial integrity, church partnership and ego avoidance. There was also wisdom in the desire to avoid sexual scandal, as we’ve seen much chaos and catastrophe caused by sexual abuse within the church. However, as is often the case, their short-sighted strategy on how to avoid modesty malfunctions may have caused as much harm as it has sought to prevent. In their manifesto, Billy’s crew pledged to “avoid any situation that would have even the appearance of compromise or suspicion.” This meant that throughout his ministry, Billy did not “travel, meet or eat alone with a woman,” apart from his wife.

‘Crotch Christianity’

It is a common practice for Christians to whittle down issues of morals and ethics to those that have to do with sex. American pastor and author Skye Jethani calls this “Crotch Christianity – the view that what matters most to Christianity are the morals that involve your crotch, so gender, sexuality, abortion, all that stuff.” This pattern continues with the Modesto Manifesto. I have often heard organizations talk about their implementation of sexual integrity elements of the Billy Graham Rule, but those same organizations rarely emphasize the financial and egotistical integrity components of the manifesto. The hyperfocus on just one portion of the manifesto brings about much of the same harm that we see resulting from the strict rules of purity culture. It reinforces false narratives about men and women, it disproportionately disadvantages minorities and it is binary in its assumptions about gender attraction.

Purity culture

In her book, Recovering from Purity Culture, American clinical psychologist Camden Morgante outlines the harms of the purity movement. But her warnings about purity culture also apply to the Billy Graham Rule. She states, “while the goal of a biblical sexual ethic for Christians is a noble and necessary one, the core message of the purity movement is steeped in fear: we are to remain pure or else.”

In her book, she discusses the five myths of purity culture. One of these myths, “the gatekeeper myth,” is one that underpins Billy’s rule. The gatekeeper myth suggests that all men have high sex drives for which they can’t be held responsible. Their masculine wiring naturally sexualizes women. Women become dangerous objects, and therefore, they are the ones held responsible for preventing immoral sex. They must do all that is necessary to avoid tempting men: modest dress, modest behaviour and avoiding situations that might cause men to fall.

As the manifesto suggests, if left alone with a woman, a man can’t be trusted to tame his inner beast and a woman, seductress as she is, won’t be able to keep his advances at bay. If they surrender to temptation, he has simply fallen to his nature, while she is a disgraced harlot who has failed her one job.

Another problem with the Billy Graham Rule is that its practical implications can lead to disproportionate harm to women, singles and others, as it requires impractical logistics. Consider planning for organizational leadership. Christian organizations and churches in Canada are most often led by men. If you have a man at the helm, and you can’t allow men and women to be alone for travel or dining or in other unsupervised spaces, how can you mentor a woman as part of your succession plan? It’s simply much easier for men to work with men or to have married couples on the team.

Impractical rules

I recently encountered this problem in conference planning. We wanted to book a male and female speaker from another Christian organization. I voted for a black female speaker with a great bio and applicable skillset. I felt it was important to show my racially diverse community that the church wants to hear from diverse voices. However, because we wanted both a male and female speaker, we were forced to bring in a white couple. They were the only male-female pair who could travel together. If we wanted to bring in the black woman, we had to bring in three speakers because, alas, she couldn’t travel with another male speaker alone. Budget constraints didn’t allow for three. I wonder how often the practical implications of this rule mess up what is truly best for ministries and minorities.

Finally, the heteronormative nature of Mr. Graham’s rule has left many – typically males – vulnerable to abuse while the church is busy looking the other way. The Michael Tait disaster provides clear evidence of this. If we train ourselves to only shelter women and men from opportunities to act on lust, we forget that some men have sex with men, and some women with women. Did Ted Haggard follow the Billy Graham Rule while paying for sex from his male masseur? Would the multitudes of boys allegedly or actually harmed by prominent Christian serial abusers Michael Tait, John Smyth or Paul Pressler have been better protected with a focus on general integrity or use of power, instead of our current rules that assume these boys were safe? The number of boys sexually abused within and outside of the church is staggering. We fail these boys when we set up rules that only serve to protect grown men from scandalous female relationships.

So, what’s the church to do? If we deconstruct the Billy Graham Rule, we need to do some reconstructing. The church isn’t served by blanket removal of all modes of accountability when it comes to sex. We’ve seen far too much sex abuse and scandal for that. The answer, however, must include some nuance, be thoughtful and be more effective in protecting victims than perpetrators.

A good sexual ethic

As we look for a new approach, we need to start by defining what a good sexual ethic is. The call to love God first and neighbour next can be applied to a healthy sexual ethic. Rather than selfish sex that uses and abuses, good, healthy sex happens when it is part of a generous and intimate, committed and consensual relationship. A great sexual ethic reflects God’s self-giving love and Christ’s generous passion for his church. So, maybe we Christians start our manifesto by defining God’s original and wonderful intent for sex.

If the church works to recognize the goodness of sex, perhaps we can let go of some of the shame around it. Shame devalues personhood. Shame doesn’t motivate us to treat ourselves or others better. Christians must stop pointing fingers and perpetuating sexual shame and instead humbly address our own guilt. We should consider the broken ways porn and our self-gratifying culture have often morphed sex into something ugly and harmful, and express empathy for those caught up in addiction and the wrong side of a beautiful thing. When we choose humility and transparency, we break the stigma and encourage others to get help.

Power and pride

Teaching a consistent, whole-life ethic also helps remove shame from sex. Sexual brokenness must stop being elevated as some ultimate, unrecoverable sin. This is critical. Because harmful sex is rarely about sex. Sexual abuse and scandal are often tied to other sins the church tends to ignore, such as problems of ego and pride. Sexual abuse is about power and control. As seen south of the border, powerful men like Jeffrey Epstein and his associates used their connections and wealth to control, cover up and conceal.

If we called out inappropriate pursuit of power as much as sex, we’d likely prevent more cases of exploitative sex than we do with Billy’s rule. Our manifesto needs to remove sex from its single focus and revive the manifesto’s original calls for ego checks and humility.

As we improve our messaging about sex, our manifesto needs to turn its focus to organizational systems that improve accountability and transparency. We spend much time preventing sexual scandals, but when they happen, the church tends to clam up. This makes the church safer for abusers than victims. We need consistent and effective open-door and whistleblower policies. Those with power must view transparency and integrity as essential to protecting their organization and its people. You don’t protect an organization by protecting abuse of power. Cover-ups affirm abusers and allow the damage to carry on. The church needs to make space for true restorative justice. This means admitting mistakes, evaluating where things went wrong, believing, apologizing and caring for victims, and appropriately disciplining the perpetrator.

A new Manifesto

– Teach a positive and healthy sexual ethic.
– Remove shame from sex and encourage healthy spaces to address guilt.
– Teach a positive and consistent whole-life ethic.
– Value transparency and accountability, prioritizing the protection of victims over abusers.

Implementing this list will be a pile more work than following a blanket rule that requires men and women to avoid sharing spaces. If Christians could muster the energy and effort to do this “new manifesto” effectively, we would do a much better job of showing the world what it means to love God and our neighbours well.

Further reading
– “Justice delayed isn’t justice denied: An update on The Meeting House sexual abuse and assault cases,” by Ivanna Iwaskykiw. May 29, 2025. Jellinek Ellis Gluckstein Lawyers.
– “Liberty University fined $14 million for mishandling sex assaults and other crimes.” March 5, 2024. The New York Times.
– “The FAQs: Report reveal sexual abuse cover-up by the Southern Baptist entity,” by Joe Carter. May 23, 2022. The Gospel Coalition.
– “Shame vs. guilt,” by Brené Brown. January 14, 2013. brenebrown.com