Clergy Sexual Misconduct. John Thoburn Thoburn
and approaches need to be grounded in both truth and grace. These treatment or therapy modalities must accommodate the pastor in stopping his denial and honestly acknowledging his poor choices and behaviors. A shame-reduction treatment approach is important, because shame, often rooted in trauma, is the driving force behind sexually problematic or addictive patterns. Effective treatment environments address problematic behaviors and mind-sets with effective intervention and accountability measures, while not attacking the person. Meaningful shifts in the pastor’s mind-set and behavior involve understanding, acknowledging, and perhaps appropriately grieving his inappropriate and harmful choices and behaviors. Then, he can be guided in how to make appropriate shifts that encourage healing and progressive growth. Such goals for recovery and restoration are best accomplished within safe individual and group treatment dynamics, most often facilitated by a trained professional. These contexts can provide the relationship and bonding experiences essential to healthy development that was often missing in the person’s family of origin (Carnes, 2005.)
A care plan that attends to the needs of the pastor’s spouse and family can be provided by experienced practitioners as well (see chapters 7–10 for more information). Their losses are profound and often traumatic. Appropriate trauma and loss therapy is vital for those impacted by the pastor’s sexual misconduct. In terms of restoring the clergy marriage, it is important to evaluate and determine an appropriate care plan early on, once each spouse’s specific care plan has been initiated. From this foundation, they have more of the grounding that is essential for thoughtfully addressing the dynamics of their marriage relationship. A conjoint marital therapist, in coordination with the team therapist, can evaluate the status of the marriage, clarify the couple’s goals, and develop a care plan accordingly.
Oversight
To achieve meaningful recovery and restoration for all parties, intervention and treatment need to take place in an environment of trust. Confidentiality throughout this process is essential. At the same time, those providing oversight serve two primary purposes that are in dynamic tension. This tension may occur because the denomination, informed by the Oversight Team, has the role of approving and overseeing the plan of treatment for the clergy individual and his significant others. This role includes making recommendations about his reinstatement to ministry. The denomination also has a responsibility to serve the interests of the larger systemic constituency of the community, denomination, directly impacted parties, and the Church and its parishioners. The relationship between the denomination’s dual roles and the pastor needs to be clearly documented in denomination policies and agreed upon by all parties at the outset of the intervention process. Establishing agreements and clarifying the nature of the governing relationship also provide the essential grounding of trust necessary for meaningful restoration. The Oversight Team routinely consults to evaluate the status and progress of the treatment and care plans. Consultation and summary progress reports, along with any new recommendations, would be forwarded by the team denominational liaison official to the regional superintendent.
With regard to the pastor’s restoration to a ministry position, the team will provide an in-depth evaluation of the minister’s compliance and progress in fulfilling his treatment goals and plan. This comprises a Restoration Plan. The team also provides evaluation measures regarding the progress of the restoration, health, and stability of the pastor’s marriage and family. The Oversight Team ultimately determines if the pastor has fulfilled his comprehensive treatment plan and makes recommendations regarding his reinstatement to pastoral ministry.
If the pastor is approved to return to the ministry according to the criteria in the Restoration Plan, specific guidelines and accountability protocols are established to monitor his ongoing progress with recovery. As referenced previously (Carnes, 1991; 2005), holistic integration of a treatment plan can take between three and five years. Therefore, a local Church support and accountability committee can be scaffolded into the infrastructure of the Oversight Team’s clergy Restoration Plan. The composition of the local committee would include a senior professional clergy staff leader who would be the liaison to the denomination oversight team. Other committee members would be a local mental health professional who specializes in clergy sexual misconduct and sexual addiction treatment and at least one lay leader who has experience with sexual misconduct and recovery dynamics.
The committee responsibilities also include conducting an accountability and support orientation session that sets forth guidelines and protocols for monitoring the clergy Restoration Plan. This orientation also clarifies how ongoing oversight is to proceed, with the focus on two primary goals. First, they serve to support the ongoing restoration and growth of the clergy and his significant others. Second, they assure the safety and well-being of the Church and its parishioners.
To fulfill these goals, the local Church oversight committee convenes periodic review sessions with the clergy person to monitor his ongoing progress, provide input, and make recommendations. The committee liaison submits summary reports and recommendations regarding the status and progress of the clergy person to the denominational Oversight Team’s leader. The denomination team leader will review these reports with the Oversight Team, eliciting any input before submitting a summary report to the denomination leadership. In some cases, periodic polygraphs may be done to support and confirm program compliance.
The elements of this Restoration Plan, along with the protocol expectations, need to be set forth in contract form and signed by all parties—the individual, the Oversight Team, the local Church accountability and support committee, and the denominational head. Oversight of the Restoration Plan would remain in place for a minimum of five years. This is consistent with the recommendation that an individual commit to a lifelong plan for restoration and growth (Carnes, 1991).
The oversight for treatment of sexual misconduct requires a daunting investment of time, energy, and finances, not only for the individual pastor but also for his family, the congregation he has served, and the conference or denomination for whom he works. Key factors that must be considered and addressed include the following:
1.What does the denomination/conference/congregation consider to be its responsibility toward a pastor who may not return to the pulpit or to professional ministry? Does the conference or denomination have a responsibility to provide for those who may no longer be under their care?
2.What is the motivation for the pastor regarding assessment and evaluation? If it is simply to avoid losing his job, then the prognosis will be poor.
3.What are the guidelines for determining whether or not a pastor can remain in the pulpit while going through treatment? For example, some experts recommend that if the misconduct is noncontact with another, such as Internet pornography, then he can remain in the pulpit (see chapter 12). Other experts recommend that pastoral sexual misconduct always involve stepping down from the pulpit while in treatment.
4.What are the available financial resources of the denomination, conference, or congregation for assessment, evaluation, and treatment of its clergy? Time as well as money is a resource; what kind of time commitment is the denomination or conference willing to make in the remediation of one of its pastors?
Prevention and Education of Clergy Sexual Misconduct
The process of restoration, recovery, and reconciliation is long and arduous. The problem is daunting just in terms of the sheer numbers of clergy battling sexual misconduct. If there are 600,000 clergy and 10–14 percent are acting out, that is 60,000 to 75,000 clergy who need intervention (Thoburn & Balswick, 1998). Add to that the reality that recovery is resource intensive in terms of labor, time, and money. The proverb “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is particularly apropos to the issue of clergy sexual misconduct. The key to dealing with this problem cannot lie solely in treatment, since clergy sexual misconduct is both a personal and systemic phenomenon. A comprehensive model must provide for prevention and education measures regarding sexual integrity and health throughout the Church system.
Prevention of clergy sexual misconduct is, at its core, a spiritual and relational issue, although other significant contributing factors need to be considered. These factors include the pastor’s neurological wiring, personality for