Don't Act Surprised!

       This is a follow on to an excellent post elsewhere, by a friend, a married female  lead pastor of a large progressive Protestant congregation, related to the recent  Willow Creek megachurch scandal involving multiple incidents of sexual abuse, and the Church consistory's (eventual) response. That response was their mass resignation, probably because they had known, but resisted acting on that knowledge for too long. One excellent point she made was that having met the individual (male Senior Pastor, sexual predator) in the center of all the controversy, she was relatively unsurprised. It made me wonder how prevalent this sort of thing really is and the results of my brief research were revelatory, but not particularly surprising to me. 

                        Don't Act Surprised!

        Some 15 years ago, a scholarly study by a moderate religious seminary concluded that: 10% of all psychologists have had an affair with a client; while 30% of all pastors have had an affair with a member of the congregation. Four, more recent, (2007) self-reporting surveys of pastors (“High Risk Factors in Pastoral Infidelity,” by Carder, D., Christian Counseling Connection, 2007) were summarized thus: “14-18% of pastors admitted to an affair and an additional 18% admitted to an emotional affair.” But because 14% of the pastors admitted that they lied on the survey, the surveyors assume the rate of either physical or emotional infidelity among pastors is at about 40%.

         The shocking (to some, not so much to others, including myself) numbers would seem to be borne out by the current frequency of “outing” of poor pastoral self-control nationally. In too many cases, initial reports have been pigeonholed by Church hierarchies unwilling to confront the inevitable attendant publicity. (Note: this is not a study of priests (another, perhaps even more sordid, tale) , but of major non-celibate Protestant clergy, and does not include anything which would be classified as pedophilia).

       This issue has recently re-risen to national  notice because   one of the growing numbers of large congregations known as “Megachurches,”  Willow Creek Community Church which had already agreed to pay more than $3 million to settle lawsuits over the sexual abuse of two developmentally disabled boys by a church volunteer, was revealed by the Chicago Tribune to have made a second settlement,  for $1.75 million, in February, before the Tribune revealed that the evangelical megachurch’s founder, the Rev. Bill Hybels, engaged in inappropriate conduct with women, eventually leading to his early retirement and, this month, the resignation of the church’s two leading pastors and its entire board of elders.  

       Back to the statistics: we may be able to account for the difference between the 10% and the 30% in this way: Psychologists have to take a course in ethics, which includes teachings on how to draw boundaries with clients, how to seek counseling for themselves in order to understand their how to gain victory over personal flaws, how to avoid temptations in the office, how to make appropriate referrals, learning professional consequences of inappropriate behavior (losing one's license), grasping the importance of "doing no harm" to a client, learning about the requirement to report another psychologist that you hear about that's having an affair, and other important ethical and legal teachings. Perhaps a more meaningful query would be to determine why intensive bible study and seminary training would leave the recipient in need of ethics training.

        If one studies the principal role of a “real” pastor, meaning one who actually deals with parishioners as a spiritual counselor and mentor, it is far different than that of the televangelist frauds whose contact with the faithful revolves around having staff open the envelopes, save the checks and throw away the prayer requests. (Robert Tilton’s fraud exposed by ABC News in 1991). As bad, are the many “business opportunities" hyped by these men and women such as Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell, another megachurch pastor, a United Methodist yet, (former advisor to Bush 43) and a business partner, Gregory Smith, who sold millions of dollars of worthless Chinese bonds, telling investors to "remain faithful and that they would receive their money," and of course Jim Bakker the shill supreme. In fact, when scanning the dials for televangelists it’s more likely that you’ll find frauds than righteous men.

        Like most of the televangelists and perhaps as great a percentage of mainstream evangelical pastors (if that’s not self-contradictory), many pastors are undereducated for their chosen field by comparison. This is especially troubling when, in truth, much of a pastor’s principal job is in loco mental health counselor. A Psychiatrist would have at least 8 years of job specific training, a  licensed counselor would have a minimum of a master's degree (6 years post secondary education). 

        This is not an indictment of most principal protestant seminary programs, but of those Evangelicals who seem to feel a $100 haircut hair and a fake smile are all it takes to minister to a congregation. (see: Osteen, Joel, studied Communications at Oral Roberts, did not graduate, has no seminary training or divinity degree).  Two years of seminary and three years of “Bible College” just don’t cut it. If any Fundamentalist/Evangelical seminaries and Bible Colleges presently even provide such real courses (as in practice based and justified by current Medical and Psychological theory) in Counseling and ethics, I'd be mildly surprised.

        So, what do we know about these clergy offender characteristics? Unsurprisingly, the one universal trait that has been found in prior studies pertaining to both sexual misconduct and abuse is that the overwhelming majority of known offenders are male (Studies in: 1998; 2004 and 2010). This, of course, shouldn’t be considered surprising since most Christian denominations (88%) only allow males to assume leadership positions within the church. The “best” estimates that exist are from faith-based insurance companies that have released data on claims paid for religious institutions. Specifically, three faith-based insurance companies that provide coverage for 165,500 churches—mostly Protestant Christian churches and 5500 other religious-oriented organizations—reported 7095 claims of alleged sexual abuse by clergy, church staff, congregation members, or volunteers between 1987 and 2007 (Seattle Post-Intelligencer 2007).

        Another key characteristic found regarding clergy who have been known to have engaged in sexual misconduct is that most have had significantly higher-than-normal levels of narcissism when using Raskin and Hall’s (1979) Narcissistic Personality inventory.  Narcissism is seen as a key trait that can amplify instances of sexual abuse for individuals in positions of power. Obviously, this power/narcissism connection has ramifications for the human race as a whole and is not limited to clergy, as the current US political atmosphere would indicate. Unfortunately, the clergy, to a greater extent than most are seen as “safe”, “trustworthy”, “moral” (and other reassuring adjectives) by most of their flocks.

       Findings also revealed several key characteristics pertaining to offender characteristics being mostly white males. Offenders being male should not be a surprise since the majority of known adult sex offenders are male (Rennison and Rand 2003) and males occupy 88% of all Lead Pastor positions in US Protestant Christian churches (Cooperative Congregations Studies Partnership 2010). Thus, women in most congregations may not be in positions of power that can influence the propensity to engage in sexual abuse. That offenders are mostly white also mirrors what is known about most sex offenders (Ackerman et al. 2011) and those who identify as Protestant Christians (Pew Research Center 2007). With the average offender age at 40.4 years, these findings are considerably younger in comparison

        As categories of the final offender characteristic measured in the present study of offender-role, there were several individual roles represented - volunteers, non- clerical employees, etc. However, nearly two-thirds of all offenders held the roles of Pastor or Youth Minister (a clerical position in most churches).  

       To summarize, I feel it relatively unsurprising that persons with fairly little accountability and a large pre-assumption of moral fabric on the part of their charges, coupled with far too little actual preparation for the “real” job of day to day pastoring, take advantage of that position or allow themselves to exert that implied power through bad behavior. It may be that those in the primary position of power and control in the church are those that are the most likely to offend in this environment. It is also possible that those in the primary position of power within their church view sexual offending as a mere extension of their power and control over their environment and their congregants. (the narcissism factor) This is especially probable since power and control have been identified as key traits for male rapists with female victims.

        In any event, don’t act shocked that clergy are no better and perhaps even worse than the average person in the area of personal sexual responsibility and moral behavior. Remember, as Admiral H.G. Rickover used to say, (I paraphrase only a bit) “Personal integrity or lack of it, is exemplified by what you do when no-body’s watching!”