We are called to care for so many, and we are called to do it with compassion and grace. We are called to care for our world. We are called to care for our country. We are called to care for our state. We are called to care for our city. We are called to care for our whole congregation. We are called to care for the individuals that make up that congregation. We are called to care for our families and close friends. And, finally we are called to care for ourselves. None of these “calls” are easy. The hardest, I believe is the last one–caring for ourselves.

As Christian clergy, part of our work involves actively building relationships with others. But, if we haven’t cared for ourselves and provided for our own circle of support, our boundaries can get wobbly as we try to have our own needs met, while also meeting the needs of so many others. Roy M. Oswald states, “Who and what we are as persons is our most effective tool in pastoral ministry” (Oswald, [1991] Clergy Self-Care: Finding a Balance for Effective Ministry). If we are not careful and always on our guard to maintain our boundaries, we become less effective in our ministry. There is no wiggle room with our boundaries. Our minds may tell us that we can always return, but we can’t. Once we cross that line, even in thought, we cannot go back.

Thirty-six denominations now have official policies that identify certain relations between congregants and clergy as sexual misconduct leading to disciplinary responses. (Mark Chaves and Diana Garland, [2009] “The Prevalence of Clergy Sexual Advances Towards Adults in Their Congregations,” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 48(4):817). With this many denominations setting official policies about clergy sexual relations, denominational authorities must suspect boundaries are being crossed, perhaps unintentionally. Despite what our congregants may think, we clergy are not perfect (and may be vulnerable to our feelings and, sometimes more so because ours can be a lonely profession. Conversely, we may feel so powerful that we have the right to exercise power over others. Neither of these extremes is healthy, Since ours is a sacred trust we must never use our position to take advantage of our congregants or anyone else.

What these policies may not include is other sexual misconduct beyond physical sexual “relations.” Whether it is using inappropriate language, gestures, or innuendos, clergy must be keenly aware and sensitive to the use of any kind of sexual conduct as a part of “caring” for their congregants. Sexual misconduct affects not only the person, upon whom the conduct is aimed, but their family, and potentially the entire congregation. Caring, as one of God’s people called to serve as an ordained or lay minister, requires us to stop before we ever get close to anything that might even give the appearance of being sexual misconduct. We must do everything we can to guard from this happening. Perhaps that means having a security camera in our office to record everything that happens, or doors with curtainless glass windows, or always keeping our office door open–it is extremely important that we protect those whom we are called to serve. God expects nothing less from us. Taking these or other precautions protects us as well from false accusations.

There have been several studies on clergy sexual misconduct, but the responses have produced “wildly different percentages of clergy reporting sexual relationships with parishioners.” Baylor University, in 2009, did a random study about clergy sexual misconduct (CSM). One part of the project involved a national survey to determine the prevalence of CSM with adults. There were 3,559 respondents, representing seventeen different Christian and Jewish religious affiliations. Clergy sexual misconduct was defined as: “Ministers, priests, rabbis, or other clergypersons or religious leaders who make sexual advances or propositions to persons in the congregations they serve who are not their spouses or significant others.”(Chavez and Garland, 818). Here are the results of those surveyed:

• More than 3% of women who had attended a congregation in the past month reported that they had been the object of CSM at some time in their adult lives;
• 92% of these sexual advances had been made in secret, not in open dating relationships; and
• 67% of the offenders were married to someone else at the time of the advance.
• In the average American congregation of 400 persons, with women representing, on average, 60% of the congregation, there are, on average of seven women who have experienced clergy sexual misconduct.
• Of the entire sample, 8% report having known about CSM occurring in a congregation they have attended. Therefore, in the average American congregation of 400 congregants, there are, on average, thirty-two persons who have experienced CSM in their community of faith.

This project showed “the widespread nature of CSM and refutes the commonly held belief that it is a case of a few charismatic and powerful leaders preying on vulnerable followers.”

In follow up interviews with those who had experienced CSM (self-identified survivors who had been objects of CSM, family or friends of survivors, and offenders who had committed CSM), six themes emerged:

• Family members, friends, and victims ignored warning signs. Religious leaders acted inappropriately in public as well as private settings, but in a culture that has no cognitive categories for understanding or explaining clergy misconduct as anything other than an "affair," observers mistrusted their own judgment, perhaps considering themselves "hypersensitive," particularly since the behavior was committed by a trusted leader. First indicators of CSM were thus ignored.
• Niceness culture: American culture expects persons to be "nice" to one another, particularly those we know and respect, and particularly in a congregation. "Nice" means not being confrontational, giving the other the "benefit of the doubt," and overlooking social indiscretions in order to avoid embarrassment. Even when family members, friends, and victims knew about or suspected CSM or behavior leading to CSM, they did not speak about their observations.
• Ease of private communication: E-mail and cell phones have replaced mailed letters and phone calls to the family household. An intimate relationship between leader and congregant can develop via e-mail and cell phones with complete invisibility to family and community.
• No oversight: Religious leaders often answer to no one about their daily activities and are free to move about the community and to maintain an office that is isolated from observation.
• Multiple roles: Religious leaders engage in multiple roles with congregants in addition to their role as leader including counselor and personal friend. They obtain knowledge about congregants’ personal lives and struggles that can make the congregant vulnerable and dependent.
• Trust in the sanctuary: Congregations are considered sanctuaries, safe places where normal attentiveness to self-protection is not considered necessary. Because of this perceived atmosphere, congregants share life experiences and private information with religious leaders that they would not share with others.

One of the areas that was stressed on the evaluation of this study is the dual relationships that clergy often face. “Because clergy provide for the spiritual needs of their congregants both in and outside the wall of a church (e.g., church sanctuary, public spaces, private homes, etc.) religious leadership often involved dual relationships between pastors and congregants.( Clergy Sexual Misconduct: Awareness and Prevention–Dual Relationships when Clergy Counsel Congregants. http://www.baylor.edu/clergysexualmisconduct/index.php?id=67408). Clergy are often considered “friend, teacher, spiritual advisor, shepherd, and sometimes even co-worker…they [clergy] must be able to quickly adapt to different social expectations, circumstances, and levels of intimacy.” This shifting of roles is not always easy for our congregants, and it certainly can be difficult for us as well. If we are not sure of ourselves and which role we are in as those circumstances change, we can find ourselves in trouble.

As a follow up to the study, Baylor recommends that clergy, in addition to the code of ethics we are required to sign by our denominations, have a code of ethics similar to that of social workers and professional counselors. They make the following recommendations:

1. Religious groups should establish ethical codes of conduct that give clear guidance to the roles that religious leaders should and should not assume with those they lead (a sample code follows this article).
2. Religious leaders should limit their professional roles to that of pastor, even if they have clinical professional credentials, with those they serve as pastor, teacher, or religious colleague.
3. Congregations should develop clear accountability structures for their leaders that provide the leaders guidance and consultation in the navigation of their multiple roles and responsibilities on a regular, scheduled basis.
4. Religious leaders should treat congregants with dignity, respect, and compassion and lead their congregations with humility and integrity, remaining aware of their influence over congregants and of their personal struggles.
5. Religious leaders should identify available resources in the community to help provide referrals for the various physical and mental health needs of those they lead.

We are not always aware of the power of our position and the influence we wield; hence we can take advantage of people without really realizing it. Therefore, we must constantly be aware of the dynamics that are going on around us.

The Baylor researchers end their research paper by suggesting that “All things considered, sexual advances by clergy towards their adult parishioners are prevalent enough, and potentially damaging enough to individuals and congregations, to warrant additional attention by scholars and religious leaders (Chaves and Garland).”

As those called out by God to care for all of God’s children carefully, are we willing to ensure that those who attend our churches are cared for in a respectful and appropriate manner? And, are we willing to ensure that our fellow clergy do not cross those boundaries and bring harm to our congregants and our churches? Let the “care” that we are called to provide be no less than the care that Jesus would expect us to exercise in caring for those who are seeking to be among Jesus’ followers.

A Sample Code of Ethics:

Congregational Leaders should:

1. Provide spiritual guidance and teaching for congregants, congregational staff members, and members of the larger community.
2. Treat staff and congregants with dignity and respect.
3. Uphold integrity through honest communication.
4. Nurture their personal religious life through prayer, meditation, and study.
5. Maintain healthy boundaries with congregants by nurturing family relationships and/or friendships with others whom they do not also serve as religious leader.
6. Refrain from making sexual overtures and engaging in sexual relationships (other than with one’s spouse), or sexually harassing congregants, whether or not the leader and/or congregant is married.
7. Be accountable to an identified supervisor or group of peers that conducts regular performance reviews, seeking input from members of the congregation.
8. Avoid disclosing private information about congregants.
9. Recognize the power dynamic in their role with congregants, using that power to seek the well being of those they serve and never for their own personal ends.
10. Limit their professional role to pastor, teacher, or priest to avoid dual relationships and arbitrary boundaries with congregants.
11. Provide time-limited pastoral care during times of crisis but avoid entering counseling relationships with congregants.
12. Provide referrals to community agencies and professionals for congregants who need mental health or social services.

http://www.baylor.edu/clergysexualmisconduct/index.php?id=67410

About the author

Martha Jacobs wrote one article for this publication.

The Reverend Doctor Martha R. Jacobs, a chaplain, is Sabbatical Pastor at Briarcliff Congregational Church. As adjunct professor at New York Theological Seminary, she coordinates of the Doctor of Ministry in Pastoral Care. She is the author of A Clergy Guide to End of Life Issues and offers workshops on that topic.

• Blog