Here’s a hot button issue for you…
I haven’t thought all this through completely. I’ve pulled it out of the oven, but I’m not sure the toothpick comes out clean yet. So bear with me.
Tonight was my second to last presbytery Uber-Committee meeting. Of course, I finally located the optimum route to the church in which we meet. Superb timing.
Anyway, we had a very interesting presentation from the team responsible for responding to accusations of clergy sexual misconduct. They are not the disciplinary arm of the presbytery, but the support and pastoral folks, who serve as resources for the various parties involved. It is a good training that brings up lots of really important stuff. The training really isn’t for so-called predators. Their issue is too huge to be addressed with PowerPoint slides. The training is to help the rest of us make good decisions on boundaries and self-care. Good people can make poor decisions when they are burned out and burdened with loneliness, resentment and a lack of support. Could not agree more.
One of the assumptions of the training is that there is an inherent power differential between clergy and laity. There is an authority we are granted by virtue of the office. I would agree with that. I can’t tell you how many people ask me for my prayers for a situation because I’ve “got a direct line.” It is about 5% cute and 95% troubling theology. I do NOT have a direct line.
And the pastoral role grants us power of access. With a clergy collar or a “visiting clergy” name badge, a pastor can walk into a hospital’s ICU outside of visiting hours. We are granted access to places that are normally restricted—physical spaces and psychic spaces. Some years ago I dropped in on an octogenarian in the hospital just as her daughter was down in the cafeteria taking a break. The woman needed help getting to the bathroom and taking care of business while there. You bet I helped her, and I realized that that event granted me a certain power simply by virtue of her being vulnerable. I don’t know that my actions were by the book. Perhaps I should have called a nurse. But I’ve had the experience of waiting on nurses in the hospital. So I helped her and was glad to do it. Would I have done the same if it had been a 35 year old man? Probably not. And part of that is self-protection—not even allowing for the perception of something weird going on.
However, one of the training slides took this power/authority idea even further to say that when it comes to relations between clergy and laity, mutual consent is simply not possible. The issues of authority are such that the parishioner is the victim in such cases, and the minister, as the one in power, has the onus on him or her to put a stop to it.
I’m not saying that a sexual relationship between a clergyperson and a member of the congregation is a good idea, but… [Gulp] I question this categorical statement.
There are many factors that confer status and power in our culture. Money. Gender. Physical attractiveness. Social position. Physical strength. And as the number of unchurched and non-religious people grows, the idea of an inherent authority granted to the clergy is way less prominent than it used to be. I also think that the increasing numbers of women in the pastorate are changing how we view the office of pastor. I don’t think we’re the pillars of the community anymore. We’re like nurses and teachers—respected as part of a helping profession, but not the one to whom others automatically defer.
So for the sake of argument, picture a single 25 year old female associate pastor, making the minimum salary, taking up with a single 40ish male elder in the church who is a CEO of his company and has two homes. She’s lonely and going through some stuff. He’s lonely and going through some stuff.
Is it sexist of me to say that I’d have a hard time with the blanket statement that she was the one who abused her power?
It might very well be.
What do you think?
39 Responses to “power dynamics and clergy sexual misconduct”
- 1 Pingback on Jan 31st, 2008 at 5:16 am
Leave a Reply
Search
Asides
» It’s National Procrastination Week (who comes up with these things?), and in honor of people like me who like to celebrate NPW all year long, here’s a good article.
» Best packaging. Did your headphones come in a sweet case? See a bottle of tea in another country that stood off the shelves? Well, that’s kind of a silly question, but I’ve come this far with the blog challenge… I did get this Gelaskin for my laptop. If you see me in the coffee place, say hi.
» When did you get your best rush of the year? Here.
Links
Join | List | Prev | Next Random | Prev5 | Next5
Skip Prev | Skip Next
Join | List | Prev | Next |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.
Hmmmm. Interesting question.
And why it is so hard to use absolutes.
Normally. Should. Good Presbyterian Words.
Hopefully they also leave room for God.
Like, I can’t tell whether the reason for their categorical “It’s always the minister’s fault” statement (not quite that but close) is because they want to communicate, “When in doubt, just don’t go there. Don’t even try to rationalize it, it’s wrong.”
Or whether they really do believe that the power of the clergy trumps all other kinds of power in this day and age. I guess what I’m saying is I just don’t think it does.
Let’s put it another way. The married President of the United States takes up with her married chaplain. Who’s guilty of an abuse of power?
I know what you’re talking about. and I’m not sure. maybe it’s not always so black and white. oh, and you’re last one, is both of them are abusing their power. aren’t they?
I’m so taken with the thought that the married President could have “her” chaplain…what was the question again?
Oh yeah…schtupping the congregation. Bad idea, but your example shows how it is not always black and white.
you also need to put gay/lesbian relationships into this mix when deciding what is/is not appropriate.
at the top of the mix is that clergy need to get their deep personal needs met outside of the congregation. . . in a revgals group or in anoter type of clery-clergy small group or wherever.
in a former church where a pastor had to leave the church (and the ministry for a considerable period of time) for sexual misconduct, the presby pastoral care-givers explained that before a pastor can step over the line into sexual misconduct s/he has been “mis-conducting” her/himself for some time by way of looking for deep personal care in a place where s/he should be giving but not receiving such personal care. boundaries matter!
also near the top of the page on this issue is to do self-care things that will forestall burnout. in several cases of sexual misconduct that i have some knowledge of, it was obvious to those in the church that the pastor was burned out BEFORE it became known that the pastor was mis-conducting. it almost seemed that the pastor chose to get caught in sexual misconduct as a way out of an untenable situation. that self-care needs to be proactive rather than reactive.
I agree that “Victim” can be slippery language in these situations and the examples you give probe the issue at precisely the right place. Once it is pre-determined who is the victim before the incident occurs it makes it difficult to perceive other possiblities in circumstances that are murky at best. Your example of the young unsettled AP with the older settled man is a good one and worth conversation.
All that said, I think the message to clergy in these murky areas of sexual
“wandering” really does needs to be “don’t even go there”; talk to a trusted friend, a therapist, a spiritual director immediately, get out while you can because you are about to walk off a cliff. If a clergyperson is so out there as to risk walking off a cliff with a parishioner, there’s a problem Houston.
How about substituting the word “responsibility” for “power?” I hear what you are saying about power, but the key here for me is that as clergy we are responsible not to consider our relationships with parishioners to be mutual, and to take a step back when they seem to be headed in that direction.
The young pastor in your example needs to look elsewhere for her support, not because she has worldly power over the CEO but because her church confers authority on her that includes an expectation of personal and spiritual responsibility.
For me that’s true no matter the ages, genders, orientations or worldly prominence of the players involved. However, if the chaplain is in the employ of the President, there’s another dynamic of trust and power involved, and President She-Ra would be in creepy violation of same, in my opinion.
As you point out in the example from your own experience, people in a caring profession such as nursing hold a kind of power and a definite responsibility in their caring roles, so I’m not sure how being in the same category would diminish the power/authority/responsibility of clergy, regardless of the perception of the world at large.
It’s easier to make blanket statements about boundaries between clergy and lay. You don’t have deep meaningful relationships with congregants. You are not their bestest buddy. You don’t get physical with congregants. You are the pastor not their bed buddy.
Whatever the current cultural temperature is for clergy status, solid trustworty boundaries between clergy and lay people remain.
No excuses, even if you just LOVE the congregant and feel so wonderful and understood when you are with them.
This is a particularly personal issue considering people I love have been on both sides of this. I agree that there are (many?) times when “the victim” was actually not such a victim at all. Don’t know how to deal with this in terms of generalizations.
You are right — things have changed and clergy are not now considered (in many/most places) to be The Powerful. Yes, we are basically respected like nurses, teachers. But we have lost that “the seas part when we enter the room” thing. Which is not a bad thing.
Songbird, the language of responsibility makes very good sense.
In talking to R about this earlier, I realized there is a distinction between the culture’s perception of ministerial power and authority vs. the average congregation’s perception of same. My personal theology of preaching, for example, does not put a high premium on my personal power as such. But as R put it, “You obviously don’t hear the comments that I hear.”
He also saw it as a prudent legal CYA thing, sort of like saying grace’s “Just don’t even go there” comment. A jury will likely be convinced by the “ministers are in a position of power” argument regardless of the demographics involved.
Make no mistake, I am a big believer in boundaries. I have warm relationships with many in the church but they are not my source of emotional support.
At the same time, it is just not a simple thing. It just isn’t. Our ministry benefits from our authenticity, our ability to be real. Of course there is a difference between authenticity and emotional dependence. But I haven’t yet found a foolproof distinction between the two.
That’s what I got out of BBT’s Leaving Church. Remember the baptism in the pool story? She was so utterly walled off that it killed her ministry over time. That is a cautionary tale. Is it possible to take clergy misconduct seriously while not being paranoid? We live in a very paranoid society.
Edited to add that someone last night said, “You’re never not a pastor.” Yes, though the comment reminded me of the Alan Arkin character in the West Wing who provided emotional counseling to President Bartlet. He said, “All I can offer you is this: I’ll be the only person in the world, other than your family, who doesn’t care that you’re the president.” We need people like that.
The responsibility word works well for me, too. I do know of a sexual harassment case where the “victim” was the previously described well-heeled businessman who ALSO chaired the personnel committee. He had a lot of “power” over this particular young pastor. He could have killed her career very quickly. But he did not have responsibility over her. And that, I think, is a phrase that would have cut 45 minutes off the discussion.
I think it is possible to be the pastor and not have the power. I don’t think it’s possible to be the pastor and not have the responsibility. (though I still think he was guilty of harassment, I’d say she was guilty of misconduct.)
Oh man. The “killing the minister’s career” thing is a whole ‘nother dimension I hadn’t even thought about.
Great last paragraph, PPB.
Here’s another interesting hypothetical (that isn’t hypothetical): What about two people who are on staff (either ordained or not) “messing around” with each other. Who is responsible for that? Whose career will be killed because of it? I am aware of a couple variations on this scenario, either what you might term “emotional adultery” or actual physical activity. I know of one of these where both persons were female and both married. Another variation: the male Sr. Pastor being attracted to the younger female Assoc Pastor, who does not return the attraction. These are actual cases I am intimately aware of — and none of them fit the paradigm of victimizer/victim. Bottom line: I’m agreeing with you RM, in saying that the easy packaging doesn’t get us very far. And yes, female clergy are creating another “pink ghetto”. That’s a whole ‘nother post!
Ruth, how does the Male Sr/Female Assoc not fit obvious categories of sexual harassment and abuse of power? Again, it’s not the gender that matters to me here, or the orientation. It’s the unwanted advances from the person with authority.
Hmm Songbird, I guess you’re right. Maybe I didn’t want to see it that way. It’s a little too close to home.
I agree w/PPB (as I often seem to do). I think with female clergy there can be other dynamics at play that could fuzzy things up. If I am alone in my (hypothetical) office, and a male members comes for something, hits on me, I tell him off, and then he makes my life a living hell…what is that?
It’s a similar concern I have about categorical white privilege statements…that if I feel nervous if a black man is walking towards me on the street, then that’s my white privilege and even racist.
Uh, could it be that it’s because I’m a female, and feel nervous when any color of man walks towards me on the street??
The word that comes to mind for me is “expectation.” Congregants have a number of expectations of their clergyperson. Some of these expectations are unreasonable (I can call my clergyperson at any hour of the day or night and expect him/her to rush to my house and comfort me because my parrot died; my clergyperson will always look spiffy; my clergyperson will take my side in an argument and agree with me politically) and sometimes they are reasonable (my clergyperson will care about me and my spiritual, emotional, and physical well-being; my clergyperson will be a teacher and advocate as well as a preacher; and my clergyperson will have boundaries that define our relationship in a way that will further my relationship with Christ.)
Gender and age do make a marked difference in terms of the power dynamic (oh yes, what about the really cute young male pastor and the dowager empress who has chaired the finance committee for umpty-ump years and underwritten many projects for the church and wants him to join her for drinks and dinner at her club? True story that ended badly…) but I think focusing on that last good expectation can be a bright line. Is what one does with a congregant something that furthers our mutual relationship with the Divine One or not?
That said, the isolation of ministry is a painful problem and it seems to be the abcess that causes some of us to find an inappropriate healing balm. It’s one thing to be pastoring a church in an urban or suburban setting where there are options for assuaging that loneliness, either through clergy colleagues or other activities in our vast spare time. But what if you are serving yoked congregations out in a rural area where time and distance work against such self-care?
I wonder how much an outlet like the dear RevGals helps…
Great and troubling and challenging question, RM, as usual.
Another good shift of terminology.
I wonder whether any members of the response team read this blog. I wonder whether it would be helpful for them to hear this discussion.
More thoughts here:
I agree with PPB too.
It is very possible - as power games have limitless variations - for the clergyperson involved (especially if she’s a woman) to be as much as victim as the non-clergy character in the story. As RM said, clergy are not as “powerful” as we once were.
One situation I know involves someone who admits to misconduct, who admits to abusing congregation’s trust. And yet “abuse of power” seems heavy handed.
But was “mutual consent” not possible because of a pastor’s “power”? An older guy with more money, personal power, political power, gender power, and status in the worldly sense than that pastor could ever dream of having, plus with the capacity/power to decide that pastor’s fate in that congregation, including salary, benefits, etc.? Hmm.
PS - Yes, RM - I’d share with the committee.
In the case you state, Jan, the responsibility comes in the response to the action, and whether or not the clergy person is perceived as powerful in worldly terms does not matter. Are you suggesting that the clergywoman being pursued by an older parishioner is blameless for engaging in an intimate relationship because she is somehow powerless? Is this not one of the reasons we have response teams, Committees on Ministry and denominational executives, by whatever name?
As a Church and Ministry Chairperson, I would hope the young pastor would turn to someone — let’s not say someone in authority, but someone charged with accountability, responsibility and trust — and tell his/her story. Yes, there are broken systems in which such honesty would not turn out well, but must we assume they are broken?
Perhaps I am misreading your example.
Whether the person is perceived as powerful matters a great deal, if that’s how the discussion is framed. And in these kinds of trainings, that’s how it has been framed. “Did the person abuse her power?” It’s not that simple.
Let’s say a person is in the throes of a serious mental illness and has a terrible, tragic lapse of judgment. Does that exonerate him or her? Absolutely not. He or she had a responsibility (SB’s good word) to seek help in appropriate ways. At the same time, to frame an incident of misconduct on the part of such a person in the very same terms we use to describe a persistent and unrepentant predator is not helpful. Or pastoral. And if that’s the best the structures can do, then yes, I’d say the system is broken.
I don’t speak for Jan, although we have spoken about this issue in the past.
when i took clergy misconduct training all of two years ago, i remember thinking that it was still not so subtly based on the assumption that the pastor was an older male and thus oversimplified in terms of power dynamics.
in some ways, it would have been more helpful for me as a young almost clergy woman, if someone would have said, “look, people look at you as a symbol bearer for the divine, and you have to be really, really careful with that. really.” i can buy that i have that (quite large) responsibility, like other wise ppl above have said. i find it difficult buy that i always have the power trump card with every parishioner i interact with, though. authority is multivalent, not one-dimensional. if you would somehow share some of the above thoughts with the committee, if you want, that would be great.
As a total lay person this was my gut reaction - Would it make a difference if the pastor was not of your parish, but took up with a person from your parish? Is the “power” dynamic still applicable? And where in the quotiet is the human side of pastor? Are they still not men and women who have the right to experience love - but just not here?
Personally, I don’t think you should mix “business and pleasure” but can you really help where a connecton is made? What about the whole well maybe God lead me here for a reason angle?
It seems to me the catagorical statement took the whole human side of the person out and just made them thier job. I feel that in a position such as a pastor where a lay person has a greater feeing of trust, love and friendship, you definately need to toe a fine line, but your still a human being.
RM, what if you were not married when you took this positon and Mr. RM was a member of the congregation…..
B
I think in that case there is an expectation that the situation needs to shift such that there is no longer a minister/member dynamic. Here is what one of the handouts we received last night says:
“Do not enter into a dual relationship in which you are both minister and lover/partner to a congregant… (If you both decide to pursue an intimate relationship, end the ministerial relationship.)”
Now that I look at it, this is inconsistent with another statement of the training, which says that a parishioner is not capable of giving true consent by virtue of one’s authority as minister.
I think I will share this conversation with a member of the team, and as I do I want to take this opportunity to say that the training is overall very well done and necessary. Obviously it is thought provoking as well, otherwise we wouldn’t be on comment #25. I just think some of the categories need some nuancing.
Ms Rev., I have been thinking this topic might make a good article for the Young Clergy Women’s e-zine.
That’s “Fidelia’s Sisters,” coming soon to a computer screen near you! End of commercial.
RM, your comment about the need for clergy to have folks in our lives who say, as Alan Arkin did, it doesn’t matter that you are a clergyperson is right on. And you’ll recall the conversation about friendships with congregants being frowned upon, a principal that I think warrants a whole lot more conversation. Can a pastor be a friend and a pastor? I think yes. Can a pastor be a friend with congregants and not a pastor? I think not. Whenever I have engaged this subject with the response team, it has been met very cooly with a huge amount of skepticism.
What troubles me about the pre-determined set of answers approach is that any reply to the contrary is judged harsly to be either naive, stupid or suspect. I’ve been down this road many times with the same response.
Which is why your insistence that this is not as simple as it seems makes sense to me. (I’m also curious about how the gender perspective is playing out in this conversation just now.)
In response to Ruth’s example of a sr. pastor attracted to female associate pastor who doesn’t return the attraction. In my book, I’d say clearly outside the bounds and a good example of power being abused by the sr. pastor. For me, this is variation the Bill Clinton paradigm even though both are clergy. Supervisor with supervisee is off limits.
SG, I didn’t get a chance to tell you last night—you said you were taught in pastoral care training not to sit on a parishioner’s hospital bed. I thought that was fascinating. I never heard that in my training, though I realized that when I do sit on the bed (when there is no chair available) I will sit waaaaaay down near the feet. People are touchy about their feet but they’re usually covered by the sheet.
I feel there is also a power issue with standing looming over someone who is bedridden. It seems like it’s preferable to get on their level if possible. Well, not totally on their level. Lying down would probably be a no-no
Yea, the whole bed thing is interesting. Mostly I try to imagine how I would feel if I were the person in the hospital being visited by a pastor - male or female. Would I want either one to sit on my bed, especially if I’m feeling really sick? I doubt it especially if I didn’t know the pastor very well. If my pastor was a woman whom I didn’t know too well, especially in this kind of vulnerable setting, and I was feeling lousy and barely dressed, her sitting on my bed might just be a bit too strange for comfort. I suspect it would be same if the pastor were a man.
For me the bed is an electric zone when a person is vulnerable already. I try to stay clear of it mostly for the comfort of the patient.
I’m sure people have different opinions and experiences with this as we’ve already disovered. Sort of like the boundary discussion; beds are boundary zones protecting the vulnerable, I don’t cross unless it is very, very clear that no discomfort will be felt or mixed signals communicated.
What you say makes a lot of sense. I need to have my antennae out about that.
I don’t do a lot of pastoral care, and have mainly visited elderly folks and moms who have just given birth. I may be deceiving myself, but as a young clergy woman I think I have a bit of granddaughter mojo with the first demographic and been-there-done-that empathy with the second.
The other side of the idea of “electric zone” is, you also don’t want to give the impression that the person is somehow untouchable as a sick person. Rachel Remen alludes to this theme in her books from time to time. Knowing you, I can’t imagine you give off that impression. But such a respectful boundary could backfire if one misread the situation, when what they really needed was to feel connected to humanity in the midst of their illness.
Yes. I know something about this from my experience as a partner and care giver of one with breast cancer.
Another reason why pre-determined answers just don’t work in real life. One has to be be very present to the Spirit and the person and the situation.
RE the bed thing, we were taught in CPE not to sit on beds not because of misconduct potential (or allegation potential) but because it makes the bed uneven or changes its shape in ways that can be uncomfortable at best and damaging at worst, even for those who are in the hospital for seemingly “benign” conditions. I loosened this a bit when I moved over to Childrens because of the size of patient compared to bed, but with adults I tended to stay away. Honestly, I didn’t really even think about the weird factor until just now. hmmm….
ONe of the interesting parts of these discussions is the question of what about the legitimate mutual relationship between single pastor and single parishoner?
MArie Fortune and those who follow her insist that such things do not exist, that any romantic reltionship between pastor and parishoner is clergy misconduct. But the reality is that to be that strict assigns many many clerfy to lives of singleness. ANd of course many many (then male only) clergy were ordained in singleness and the first congregation saw themselves with a responsibility to “marry him off”.
I think such relationships can happen but carefully and intentionally. IF you first meet with the person in a pastoral counselling role–then no way. If you meet him/her at the door shaking hands after service–maybe. ANd if the relationship does move “to the next level” then be open about it, and remember that the other will need another person to be her/his pastor now.
I don’t usually comment on people’s blogs whom I don’t know very well..but this issue is too important not to.
A few years ago (4) when I was a senior in college I had to file charges of sexual misconduct against a professor who was having a relationship with my best friend. He took advantage of her in a time when she was emotionally distraught, severely distressed (bordering on manic-depressive.) He was also married and is a UMC pastor. (and 32 years older than she)
He was given early retirement and is now serving as a pastor again. I still have nightmares about it.
I understand the delicacies and nuances of this issue because trying to explain what happened between these two people is almost impossible. I cannot make it sound as horrible and manipulative and controlling as it was. It’s hard to show or tell people where that line is that is crossed so easily and so fluidly in our society.
Yes there are probably exceptions when a professor with a student MIGHT be okay. Yes there is probably a way to do it that is aboveboard and healthy and good for both parties and is mutually consented upon. But the truth is that we do not have perimeters set up for this to happen. That also means that we often don’t catch it quickly enough when something is wrong about it because we are too busy ignoring it.
My other question-how do we as a church respond to those people who have been “perpetrators.” I’ve been struggling with that myself in this situation. Did I do the right thing? he’s still serving a church? Is that okay? Is there room for change….for grace?
Sorry this probably doesn’t make much sense….but it feels good to post it anyways.
Hi Reverend Mother,
I’m a longtime Revgals lurker and have been blessed by the spirit of your community of faith; I only wish that back in the early ‘80’s when I was a young pastor such a place of wisdom and support had existed. I must thank you for this ministry.
Please know, however, that I have lived through multiple incidents of clergy sexual misconduct and their aftermath in several churches in two different mainline denominations, PCUSA & ELCA. I have walked my own journey, the journeys of families and congregations involved in horrific circumstances not of their own making, and have over the years come, prayerfully, to the opinion that clergy sexual misconduct is an evil.
Yes, I know this sounds, perhaps, harsh, overly dramatic, overly judgmental, less than “Christian” and all the rest. However, the pain and suffering inflicted not only by the errant pastor but also by the inept way local judicatories have handled, and continue to handle, this matter last for years and years in the lives of individuals and congregations. If evil is the absence of good then clergy sexual misconduct is simply that. The webs of pain and suffering runs deep in the lives of people and it is just too easy for judicatories to ignore the damage and blame everyone, but the errant pastor, in an effort to protect themselves and prevent law suits.
As I read the Gospel, Jesus preached against the hubris and the unwillingness of the Temple authorities of his day to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with their God. As I have seen these incidents play out over the years, there is little justice, kindness or humility in the way clergy sexual misconduct is handled. I pray fervently for the day when this evil like the evils of racism and homophobia is confronted with justice, love and humility by all denominational judicatories.
Sorry to sound a bit “preachy” this first go-round, but this is an issue about which I have strong feelings.
Interesting thread. I am such a noob that I had not really pursued some of these to their logical conclusion. A great education here…
deb
There is so much here. However, I will share the advice my mother gave to any number of seminarians about to go off onto internship. “Do not sleep with any member of the congregation that is not your spouse.” It was a little strange having your mother as the Assoc. Director of Field Ed at your seminarian. But her advice still stands.
It is hard to know who holds the power or what kind of power they’re holding unless you know the details of the situation. We have access to lots of kinds of power. Parishioners can have their own layers of power that even trump ours at times.
Bottom line, it is never okay to do the flock.
I’ve dealt with this issue from the other side. I dated an Associate Pastor at my church for a while. Well, about 8 years later I’ve got a Pastor’s Husband Blog, and 2 kids.
Dating was interesting - mostly because we didn’t want a whole church full of people watching us & giving advice. We did it all by The Book, of course. Even the appearance of immoral actions would have been devastating to her job and reputation.
That’s the happy, healthy side of things. In the case you’re describing - ugh. I’d think that since leaders (preachers) are held to a higher standard, more of the blame goes there. It might be argued that someone in a pastoral/leadership role should be emotionally mature enough not to fall into ugly relationship trouble - doubly so for sexual issues, given recent scandals.
Even so, that’s a hard one. I’m thinking that all such issues really need to be delt with on a case-by-case basis.
Issues like these make me glad I’m married to a pastor, and I’m not in that field myself….