During my last semester of seminary, I took a class called Pastor as Person, and one of the books we read was “Sex in the Parish” by Lebacqz & Barton. It really should be on everyone’s reading list if they are planning on going into parish ministry. It’s an old book – came out in 1991. At the time of the printing, there were some pretty sobering numbers: 23 percent of clergy engaged in some sort of sexual behavior with someone from their church, and 12 percent had sex with someone other than their spouse. The numbers are scary because I’m sure they’re higher today, and the statistics don’t discriminate: it seems that anyone is susceptible to this.
The book isn’t all doom & gloom though. 44 percent of clergy experienced feelings of attraction to members of their parish, but were just able to acknowledge the feelings and never act upon them. Much of the book focuses on intimacy and vulnerability, pastoral “power” and the responsibility that comes from that. They argue that the power differential is far too great between pastor and parishioner for there ever to exist a time when it is appropriate for sexual relations between the two. In addition to “Sex in the Parish” we also were reading Don Capps’s “Giving Counsel.” There was one quote in his book when he was speaking about sexual issues within the parish that really stood out to me:
“…the ones who are most likely to become involved in an affair are those who are trying to reduce the power differential between the pastor and the parishioner.”
It stood out to me because after reading the line, I realized that is what we’re trying to do with emerging ideas of leadership.
In the emerging church circles, and in conversations with the Presbymergent folk, we often talk about the way leadership in the church needs to change. The top-down, pastor-on-a-pedestal, hierarchical forms of leadership have to go. We are all talking about flat leadership, starfish, collaboration and shared leadership. Doesn’t that sound like reducing the power differential…?
I have issues with people who put pastors up on super-high pedestals. I have issues with pastors who take advantage of people because of their position. And I am one of those who wants to move toward a more flattened idea of leadership in the church. But I’m also not so naïve to think that people in churches today don’t view their pastors as having “power” – I just wish it wasn’t the case. Perhaps this is an understanding/ethos that is going to be with us for some time. And since we can’t get rid of that social construct, when we try to reduce that power, perhaps we are putting ourselves at risk as Capps believes.
Now, before you say that I’ve turned my back on my emergent-sensibilities, I’m not saying we should throw away the starfish and go back to a spider model of leadership in the church. I’m not saying pastors should fully embrace the “power” they’re given by congregants and run with it and let it go to their heads (like so many have in the past). And I’m certainly not saying that while the world is flattening, we should find ways to fight against that.
What am I saying is that those of us who are called into leadership are called to lives of integrity, including sexual integrity. And I guess the question I have is “What does that look like?” I think many Presbymergents would want to argue for new models of leadership, and many would use words and phrases like flat, open source, collaborative and shared. And I think that’s the direction we should be moving. But is Capps right? Does that effectually remove or reduce the power differential that – regardless of whether we want it to or not – exists in churches today?
Can we move toward more open source models of leadership in the church and not place ourselves in jeopardy for sexual indiscretion or inappropriate relationships between pastors and parishioners?
Related posts:
- Riverside Church Pastor Resigns: Thoughts on Compensation & Stewardship
- Guest Blog: What If a Church Had an Expiration Date?
- Anchored + Emerging…really?
- An Open Letter to Church Marketing Sucks Defending Rick Warren
Share This Post:
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Interesting question. I’d have to say no, I don’t see how/why a flattened leadership structure would lead to more extramarital affairs. Given the (near-)absence of the power differential, one could argue that it makes such affairs *less* likely where the differential was a contributing factor to falling into the affair in the first place.
I’m curious what Capps says to support his assertion…?
i really do not think it matters what kind of leadership model/structure you have as sexual indiscretion happens because of something going on with the individual people. If it’s going to happen, it does not care what leadership model exists. i hope i make sense.
Adam, out of curiosity, did the statistics have numbers on women pastors versus male pastors?
@Sarah-Ji – there may have been additional information about the statistics in the book, but I’d have to check again.
I suspect that his assertion is based on the idea that people who try to reduce the power differential can’t actually do that. They might act as if they have reduced it (which would lead to more inappropriate relationships), but the differential is still there, and is now hidden (or ignored).
I’m not sure I would buy the claim, Adam, that emerging models of the church would change the inherent dynamic between a pastor and a parishioner. Because inappropriate sexual relationships don’t happen just because someone is an organizationally powerful person–like a bishop or whatever–(although those do happen too), but because of the power that is inherent in the role of pastor. Maybe “power” is the wrong word to use in this discussion, because it seems to imply political authority or structural hierarchy. Perhaps the word to use is just “relationship”.
Whenever or wherever I encounter someone from my congregation, I am their pastor. Whether that is on the church grounds, at the mall, or on a soccer field. I never walk away from that relationship. And while I do spend time socially with people from my church, I am still always their pastor. It isn’t about authority or power, it is just the nature of the relationship. And while I’m sure nobody would call me ‘emergent’ (or emerging), I suspect that the pastoral relationship is much the same in emergent circles.
So, I think I might agree with Capps. If you are going to deny the relationship differential, you’ll be more likely to find yourself in trouble. Good questions, though. I’ll have to look up that “old” book. (You really should be careful about what you call “old”, my young padawan.)
I think to best answer that question, we would have to examine statistics regarding “sexual indiscretion or inappropriate relationships” among parishoners. If what we’re moving toward is a flattened leadership structure, with everyone bringing their gifts and abilities to the table, then I agree with Brother Maynard that we are loosing the lure of the power differential. The question then becomes, what is the potential for sexual indiscretion for Christians in general, for co-workers on equal footing toward a common purpose?
Capps would be right only if those who reduce the power differential do so for their own political gain. It’s possible to change the form of power for one’s own political gain. So the pastor gets everyone on board with his or her agenda, and the leadership becomes the voicebox of a person. The form looks flat, but really its a dictatorship. One would hope that flattening leadership out would create more transparency and greater freedom , but oftentimes I think it can be used as a smokescreen for consolidating power. The real issue has to do with what mission the church believes it to be called to, and the culture of the church will give form to leadership. If this mission is self-serving, then sexual integrity will be compromised, as well as all integrity. Honestly, I think that missional churches (i.e., those churches and their leaders who are fundamentally seeking to listen to the voice of Jesus Christ in Scripture and to be shaped by the Spirit as humble servants to the world) will stand a better chance of maintaining sexual integrity than those who continue in a inward-focused mode that seeks to please the parishioners. Indeed, the pastors who are people-pleasers (and whose job descriptions mandate that they be so!) are the ones who really need to watch out.
I’m with Bro. Maynard. I want to know why Capps thinks it is the case that
The only think I can figure is maybe a pastor who gets off his or her pedestal a little bit might actually spend more time working alongside their parishoners and thus might have more opportunities to form relationships with parishoners of the opposite sex. But hey, ministry is about relationships. If that increases temptation, then maybe the solution is not to avoid the relationships, but to make sure they are all transparent and “public”.
People who are working to reduce the power differential often fool themselves into thinking that no such power differential exists. There’s you’re problem.
@Adam WC: good thougths. you don’t hear emerging types critiquing their own very often (probably becuase it is so hard to define what an “emerging” type is) but very interesting post.
@brother maynard: aggreed
@existential punk: agreed.
here are my thoughts. according to this article, the risk for sexual encounters hightens when a pastor is trying to release some of his “power,” maybe churches start our structured and communicating in such a way that the pastor feels a tremendous sense of power.
what if a pastor worked very hard in many aspects of his life to relinquich his power (remaining silent during board meetings, not being the only voice on Sunday mornings, lifting up lay leadership)? I think this would definitely less the need to give up power during those critical moments.
now does this mean that moral failures will cease to happen? no. but does it mean that congregations will be able to continue to move on in a sustainable way even if 1 person has a moral failure? yes.
if 1 person’s failure can ruin the congregation, that 1 person is too powerful.
There are two kinds of “flattened” structures: the open source/starfish kind and the immature “libertarian” kind. Open source structure assumes some accountability through transparency, but the more libertarian fare is of the “I can do what I want to and no one can say otherwise” variety. What Capps isn’t acknowledging is that even though the pastor and other person enter an affair due to a reduction of the power differential, what actually allows them to enter it is a older, continuing structure that does not also enforce the kind of transparency that would normally be associated with an “open source” power structure.
Reduction of the power differential is key to intimacy (our spouses would agree), but whether or not transparency is built into the equation will determine more about behavior than anything, IMO.
Adam,
I agree that “those who are called into leadership are called to lives of integrity, including sexual integrity”.But I think this is true of every Christian. It is a true community of Christ whose sexual life becomes more than personal integrity, it becomes a way of life, a politic of faithfulness. As I see it, those leaders who set themselves high above the church, isolate themselves as some sort of icon of what a Christain is supposed to be, are doomed to moral failure in these and other areas. I hate to mention haggard, but his interviews reveal a man caught up in his own isolation.
Thanks for the post, and peace!
Affairs happen for a host of reasons, and I agree with others that the power structure probably has little to do with it. Taking it out of the church environment and into the business place, are people more likely to have affairs with a co-worker (an equal/peer) or with someone under/above them on the corporate ladder?
I don’t know that there is data on this… but from what I know from our clients, people have affairs with those with more “power” than them, less power than them, and equal power.
As Existential Punk alluded, I think this is a ‘people’ problem more than a ‘structure’ problem.
Another thought, what about the instances of abuse in the Catholic church. Wasn’t the hierarchical structure a huge part of the problem? Or am I confused?
Okay, now I am thinking about this in a different way…
*If* there are more “sexual issues” when the power structure is flattened, perhaps that is an insight into the poor ability of many in the church to understand cross-gender friendships, to understand their own sexuality, to handle their sexual anxiety, etc.
I work with people every day who have cut off their sexuality from the rest of themselves (or who have tried to do so). When churches are full of people who don’t have sexual wisdom, it’s not surprising that being in closer community could lead to more situations where there’s a lack of integrity.
Does that make sense?
I guess that’s why I am such an advocate for sexual knowledge. If I can do a better job of educating people, maybe there will be fewer clients calling for crisis intervention, affair recovery, etc.
As a mentor once told me, regarding sex, whatever is repressed is bound to get expressed eventually…
Thanks for raising the questions… do you have any evidence for your assertion “I’m sure they’re higher today”?
Interesting how this post touches on similar lines asone of Little whitakers latest uberpost
http://www.ragamuffinsoul.com/2009/03/please-dont-boomchikawahwah-on-the-clock/
interesting conversations coming from both blogs
-
my two pence worth
if a leader is still the holder of power but act’s like they’re not is anyone asking them difficult questions or holding them accountable for their actions
-
is anyone actually treating them like their not high and mighty and above reproach – maybe the problem is that the leader is trying to close the distance but the leadones still expect more of the leader and don’t feel the need to expect the same weaknesses that the rest of them may have, therefore they’re more damaged than if it was just their pew neighbour who did the same but also less likely to care for the leader as if they we as likely to sin as their pew neighbour
I’m down with those here who suggest that it’s a “people” problem. This [stuff] happens plenty in any organization that involves people. Power dynamics exist in all human social relationships, and I’ve always balked more than a little bit at the pastor-almighty vision of the structure of the church.
I think Adam’s got a really good point about the impact of the ethic of servant leadership. If you’re an egomanaical-I’m-the-Jesus-shiznitz sort of pastor, and have a congregation that is expected to follow you no matter what you do, the potential for abuse is far higher. If a congregation places it’s pastor on a pedestal…say…by conceptualizing them as a Minister of Word and Sacrament and not just a teachin’ elder…then a power dynamic is established that can potentially lead to abuse.
That’s not to say that starfish congregations can’t involve sexually inappropriate behavior, but that behavior is less likely to involve a pastor abusing their position within the Body.
It seems to me that the quote is referring to those in ministry who are aware of the “power” differential, who are uncomfortable with the idea of being in that position of power (whether perceived or actual), and who try to ease their discomfort by trying too hard to prove their “I’m just like you” status. Instead of finding healthy ways to deal with the boundaries that the differential sets up, they instead try to blur the boundaries, and once those boundaries are blurred, there is an increased risk of inappropriate behavior – sexual or otherwise.
In a group that is intentional about shared leadership and that is both aware of and thoughtful about power (and aware of and thoughtful about how to diminish power differentials), I’d think that the risk might actually be lower. Transparency, honesty, and intentionality with respect to the power question are key – if pastors were more honest about their comfort or discomfort with the perceptions that come with their role, they might be less likely to try to alter those perceptions in inappropriate (though potentially subconscious) ways.
I don’t think “leadership” models point to affairs in the church. We are born into sin. We have a sin nature, we crave the desires of our flesh (Rom 6:12-14). What leadership model is going to “cure” our sin nature? The model that needs to be enacted is strong accountability in the church, where someone isn’t affraid to “call out” their fellow brother for their actions or behavior. And I hope their is enough love and respect for one another to receive those strong words being spoken. Just because you have power means you can live outside of the “sin” in which you were born into and make it justifiable? Does one blame their infidelity and LUST on “the leadership model of the church” and one’s “power” given in the position? It appears the OP is begging the question, if we change the leadership model in the church it will reduce sexual sin? So what your saying is sexual sin is “positional lust” in the church? What happens when a parishioner hooks up with another parishioner…? Will a new leadership model help to reduce p-to-p sexual interactions? I find this idea or thought tough to digest of new leadership models and power given to a pastor having a direct affect on sexual interactions within the church.
Tim.
I don’t think affairs are just “sexual sin.” Though they end n a sexual act, i don’t think lust of the flesh is the only reason that “sexual sin” happens. Power distribution can lead to leaders who might not otherwise be controlled by sexual sin to fall into inappropriate relationships.
In church settings, an emotional affair often happens before a sexual affair does so I think it is obvious that sexual “lust” isn’t solely to blame, but a myriad of forces can lead to a “moral failure.”
So, will new leadership models lead to the eradication of sin? Nope, but they could definitely help battle some of the other forces which lead to extra-marital sex of church leaders.