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.

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 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.

*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…

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?

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.

@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.

“…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.”

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”.

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’m curious what Capps says to support his assertion…?