to know that god’s name—for to know the god’s name was to have power and control over him or her. However, the Israelite God proclaimed Himself to be universal and when queried about his name (Moses kept asking) revealed his name as Yaweh, which roughly translated means the enigmatic I will be who I will be—an enigmatic moniker that did not allow for much control. The Israelites also had a lust for a land of their own where they would know freedom and bounty. Their insecurity was forged in the crucible of hundreds of years of life in the arid wasteland of the desert and in slavery in Egypt. Judges first ruled Israel, acting primarily as representatives of God to the people and the people’s intercessor to God, but the work of the judges was not enough to assuage the underlying fears of the people. When the Israelites finally entered into the promised land, they demanded conqueror kings to ease their fears of losing what they had gained. God had said in Exodus 23:23 that he would essentially act as King for Israel, but the demands for a human king were rooted in the Israelites’ need for someone to physically represent God and His promises to the people. Thus, the role of kings was essentially rooted and grounded in unbelief (1 Samuel 8: 1–4). The children of Israel demanded that their kings be giant killers to soothe their fears as strangers in a strange land, facing enemies who had their own conquering kings. First Saul and then David were forced to act as stand-ins for God—a thankless role that left one king addled and riddled with guilt and the other saddled with longing, lust, and remorse.
David’s story reflects Old and New Testament records of how people tend to rise up, then put their trust in leaders rather than God (1 Samuel 8:5; Ex. 32:1–6; Rom. 1:21–25), and the story is similar today in many ways to what it was back then. Ministers on the whole lament that the Church is supposed to be about the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), but parishioners want a more godly representative than themselves in charge. The result is that Protestant ministers, like Catholic priests, are thrust into an intermediary role between God and congregants with expectations that are often difficult if not impossible to meet. Trust in the clergy arises out of the motif of Jesus as the good shepherd, the protector of the children of God. This good shepherd role is seen to be a hallmark of the Christian clergy who, Protestant theology not withstanding, consider clergy to be stand-ins for the Spirit-led loving work of Christ. Trust leads to an intimacy that defines the Church as the household or home of the faith. When people are at home, they let down their guard. When clergy commit sexual sins, there is a sense of betrayal by all who are in a significant relationship with the minister—his marital partner, children, congregation, the broader community, and the victim of the misconduct who might be a counselee or parishioner. There is a sense that the henhouse has been raided by one of its own and that the offending minister is a wolf who has masqueraded as a shepherd.
Besides being stand ins for Christ, Church communities often have unrealistic expectations for ministers as servants, routinely expecting ministers to work or be on call 24/7. In addition to being masters of many domains, they are supposed to be successful preachers, teachers, evangelists, healers, sacramentalists, administrators, and program managers. It is no wonder that 90 percent of pastors feel inadequate in their jobs and 25 percent have experienced being fired from their positions because they could not meet the high expectations of their congregations (Steinke, 2006).
Denominations have failed to protect ministers or educate churches and church boards about what to realistically expect regarding the role of ministers. Conferences, synods, and presbyteries all have agendas that are composed of both gold and clay. All seek to further the kingdom of God and to see that kingdom life reflected here on earth in the local Church. Unfortunately, the competing agenda often has to do with numbers: how many churches, how many parishioners in each church, and budgets. The denominational conference often finds itself in the most uncomfortable and perhaps untenable position of serving both God and mammon. The result is covert and sometimes overt pressure on the pastor to be both a talented spiritual leader of a community of believers and an experienced manager of a small-business enterprise.
If clergy are seen as the intermediaries between parishioner and God, then they can become a metaphorical fault line that can shake a church to its core when they stumble and fall. Often the conference finds itself thrust into a position of having to choose in Solomonic fashion between the pastor and his congregation. Church polity tends to promote grace and mercy, but praxis is a much grayer area. When the conference leaders have to come down on one side or the other, it is likely they will side with the local Church community.
While denominations tend to promote a policy of grace and mercy, the policy is often in tension with a theology rooted in retribution rather than reconciliation. This is often expressed through expulsion of the pastor when dealing with clergy conduct. Whether the theological form is described as retribution, recapitulation, or ransom, the result is satisfying the requirement of punishment when there has been sin (Miller, 2010). Retribution theology reinforces the very elements it condemns by blurring the lines between sin
Paul asserts that the atoning work of Christ is about the reconciliation of God to humankind and people to each other (Ephesians 2:13–16; Romans 8:1–15). This social theology or theology of relationship is a systems approach and is like new wine in the life of the Church. As Anderson describes, “When the Spirit of God assumes concrete form in the world, He reforms man in the image of the incarnate Son of God; this concrete form is expressed corporately through the incarnational community” (1979, p. 581). The incarnational community represents the fellowship of Christ in its catholicity; that is, each person participates in God’s redemptive encounter with the world in a solidarity of relationship to Him and by extension to others (Anderson, 1979, p. 579). Solidarity with God is expressed in sacrificial love, for God is love. The pastor and congregation must be willing to identify with Christ, empty themselves, and yield to Christ’s spirit of acceptance that puts all people on the same level with the same limits (Anderson, 1990). This sacrificial love on the part of all members becomes a new rubric for relationship between the pastor and his family, congregation, and the Church conference. Sacrificial love becomes a medium through which balance and wholeness can be attained, redefining the role of the pastor; it also offers the community a means for safety and security that every member of the Church community might experience, including the pastor.
The apostle Paul noted in Romans 12:2 that spiritual health is related to being balanced in one’s mind, accomplished through the redemptive work of Christ. On this foundation, a system’s approach to clergy sexual misconduct embraces the fundamental concept that recovery occurs when people are reconciled to themselves, others, and the environment. Essentially, recovery begins through Christ at the core level of one’s internal neurology. Behavioral change, cognitive restructuring, and affective processing only occur when neural pathways are altered. These neural pathways are altered when all elements of the clergy system begin to function in intimate I-Thou ways of relating, rather than the objectifying I-It, which is really at the heart of sexual misconduct (Kramer, 2004).
Health and Wholeness
The story of David, the second greatest leader of Israel, may provide a cautionary tale, but there is another biblical story that is more about health and wholeness. The story of Moses, the greatest leader of Israel, provides us with four principal focus areas for the incorruptible leader:
1.Strong character foundation
2.Spiritual formation
3.Spiritual direction
4.Spiritual
