Drastic Measures to Avoid Moral Failure

Absolutely agree. When I got married I offended many of my female friends by refusing to go out to lunch with them anymore. My reasoning was that if i was going to be a minister in a church people would see me out with a woman who was not my wife and wonder and probably talk. It would not matter how I felt about the person I was with.

Same here…whenever I'm counseling with anyone I always have an armorbearer nearby especially when it's a female. Sometimes it seems like overkill, but it's worth having the backup to protect your reputation as well as the person you're meeting with.

Thanks for this. Wise council for us all.

This is tricky Jason. It has to still be done with a certain tack and decency so people don't feel devalued. Thanks for your comment man.

Shaun

Thank you Pastor Shaun! This kind of dialogue is needed so much more in the body of Christ; especially amongst young men in ministry. This stance (amongst preachers/pastors) is not very popular in the church culture I was reared in. But, you've given me, a young pastor, some extra measures to put in place. Again, thanks. Keep em' coming…people are reading and being helped!

"The man of integrity walks securely, but he who takes crooked paths will be found out." Proverbs 10:9 NIV

Every male pastor that proclaims he will not meet alone with a woman, but DOES meet alone with men in his congregation, has demoted every woman in his congregation to second-rate status, unworthy of a conversation with her pastor, and evaluating her more on her capacity to tempt, or on others capacity to talk about her, than on any other quality. Ask Ted Haggard if not meeting with women will keep you morally pure. If a person decides that not ever meeting with a woman alone is necessary, then all meetings with individual congregants (male and female) need to be in groups or in public places like the library – and that's a fine rule if you want to make it. Jesus did not make this distinction.

Reay, I'm sure your wife is great. So, does she sit in when you counsel men? If not, why not? And what does that say to the women, about your view of women?
Just to be clear, I'm not just talking about counseling — I recognize that the counseling situation is difficult and there are many ways in which a situation can get out of hand, regardless of gender. I'm not recommending that you do unsafe or unwise things — I'm just recommending that justice should also enter into your thinking. It is possible to make policies about your counseling that are protective and also dignified and fair.
Do you have women leaders in your church? Are there women in your church who would recommend a good book to you? Do these women have any access to you? I am asking everyone to think clearly about what they are saying to women by the ways these things are decided. It's too easy to make rules.
Try imagining applying whatever rule you make for the women in your church, to everyone. That should highlight some problem areas, in my view.

The moral code Billy Graham has walked in for many decades has distinguished him and kept him out of trouble. He has a rule that he never would be willing to put himself in any setting that could be later spun by anyone that was out to malign him with a sexual accusation. He wouldn't get into an elevator with a woman and a couple of his cronies for example. The accusation could later be made that he said something untoward to the woman and his friends were sticking up for him. Such things may sound a little extreme but in our day of intrusive media where you can go from hero to zero in a moment such wisdom is, uh, wise.

Susan, I think that Shaun is saying that it is not women that he finds to be the problem, but rather that he want to be sure that HE does not experince a moral lapse. I think all of us would be wise to insure that
WE don't put OURSLEVES in a position to fail.

I agree with Susan in much of her posts, but I also understand where Shaun is coming from. Sadly, 3FIWhe, it is not just a matter of worrying about our own lapses. We are dealing with the members of the church here and I'm sad to say that, in my experience, Christians are often the first ones to jump to a bad conclusion and gossip. And that kind of gossip has unfairly ended many a ministry.____That said, there are times when a woman might want/need to talk to her pastor privately, no wife, no one else. A window on the door ought to be enough to handle that situation. I agree with Susan, because I have seen in locally in practice, that we run the very real risk of making women feel as though they are somehow "evil" in the sight of God and must be "protected against."

in today's day you can't be too careful. don't meet with women alone.

i used to work in college campus ministry. when the pastor would need to talk to a female alone he would open the blinds to his office (a big picture window facing the street) and make one of the interns or staff members sit on the bench outside facing the window. even that was pushing it since we had no idea what he was talking about, but it's a step in the right direction.

1 thess 5:22 calls us to "avoid every kind of evil" which, in my mind, means that we should even avoid the mere appearance of evil. in today's world people want to cut pastors off at the knees with any imperfection that can be brought to light, true or not. you can't afford to take the chance.

Thank you, PastorK. While boundaries are very important and the potential for moral failure always present, as a young, single woman I've often been made to feel like I'm a threat, more by other single men than by pastors.

Can't we be conscious and careful without being extreme or legalistic? Kudos to Shaun for taking his responsibility of husband and father seriously enough to be careful of relationships with other women.

Right on Shaun. People may not understand, or even criticize, but at the end of the day preserving your marriage and reputation is worth being extreme. Perry's line was a gripper for me, "My wife loves knowing she's the only woman I'm ever alone with."

"It seems Susan cares more about a small percentage of women that would feel devalued by these restrictions and in my ministry I would gladly let them leave. If they don't realize the over sexed world we live in and can't see past there feelings of neglect to see why it is important for men to do this… see ya. Have fun ruining some other ministry."

Actually, I think you may have made Susan's point for her with this statement. She believes that these restrictions are an indication that men who create these restrictions value their ministries, their marriages and themselves over the women in their charge. This is out of step when we follow Jesus – the guy who stood up for the prostitute (what would people think?) and allowed a woman to wash his feet with her hair. So much fear in these posts. What happened to the freedom in Christ that comes from a life transformed?

Shaun – irrespective of the current debate of the attitude being demeaning to women I just wish my (then) pastor had had this attitude. He not only destroyed his ministry, he also destroyed the marraige of good friends and his wife gave up her fight for her life (she was dying with cancer but was believing in a full healing until this). He also, almost destroyed the Church to boot.

God willing though we are still here 6yrs or so later and still fighting the good fight and still trying to get it right more often than not.

Bless you for speaking out and for having the insight to have overseers.

I think you have two very important points. If you cannot speak to leadership (whether you be a woman or not) then the church is suspect in my mind. Leadership has a responsibility to be open and responsive. I also think that it is telling that a woman (or anyone) in a counseling role is known for not being discrete. That would be the quickest way to destroy a counseling ministry at a church. It sounds like the church you were involved in was not appropriately led.

I have not been a leader in a church but I do work with many pastors. An issue that I have rarely heard addressed is that if this was a rule at a business then there would be clear grounds for sex discrimination. Now a church is not a business and I think that we should not try to make them the same, but I would want to make sure that there are clear reasons for doing something that would be perceived as discrimination from the outside.

Thanks for the discussion. Just for the record, I did not say or mean to imply that a pastor's wife can't have the gifts and ministry of co-counseling with any pastor. That strikes me as a detour from what we're talking about. Someone somewhere suggested a pastoral team of counselors, which is GREAT wisdom. Let's have another discussion about the best ways to provide pastoral care. What I am talking about is access to one's pastor. As a young woman who did not understand her call yet, I was completely mystified by the literal closed doors when I wanted to talk to someone who had studied about the things of God – it did not occur to me that there was anything about my thirst to be directed in my study that could be sexual in nature! I DO understand what you are trying to protect yourself from; I am asking you not to be blind to what you are saying, in an unintended way, to an innocent woman who just wants access to her pastor.

I understand your perspective about other sexual orientations Adam. It may be best for a pastor that refuses to meet with a woman alone to also refuse to meet with a man alone in the culture that we live in.

However, I want you and my readers to know that I certainly don't see women as sexual objects. NO WAY! In every way I see them as holistic beings. This precaution comes, in part, as a result of all of the HUGE public moral failures of leaders and is a rather drastic step to eliminate all doubts.

I am, however, open to discussing better strategies my friend! Thanks for your thoughts. This is why I blog – healthy discourse!

I've posted this at other places having this very discussion, but allow me to put it here as well:

Is there ANY example of Jesus meeting with women alone? I don't think so. Every interaction He had was in a group setting or outside where everyone one could see. If I am wrong, please show me.

I mean that there doesn't seem to be a reason why you need structure your life in fear of "moral failure". We are limited beings. Moral perfection is not possible; we all fall short of the glory of God. (Conversely, we are all capable of constant moral improvement.) In any case, to fear "moral failure" is to fear the inevitable, which is irrational.

When you talk about "moral failure", I get the impression – stop me if I'm wrong – that you're really talking about scandals particularly involving a grave breach of trust: stealing, adultery, fraud, etc. If this is the case, then there are 2 treatments: trust & accountability. You seem to have the accountability portion in place, w/ your family & your church. But what about trust?

Not to sound presumptuous, but if y ou & your wife trust each other, why do you need to give each other all your passwords? If there is trust, can't the individuals in a couple have some private spaces? If you trust yourself and your sense of discretion, can't you separate those women – old friends, colleagues or trustees, etc. that you have business with, & so forth – from more problematic situations? (Heaven forbid you were bisexual; you wouldn't be able to meet w/ anyone alone, lol.)

It's reasonable to expect that you will exercise sound judgment & have proper standards of accountability, & that you won't have some colossal screw up . But no congregation, & no family should expect it's pastor/husband to be perfect.

To err is human; to forgive is Divine.

Errata:
. "to" pour perfume
. massage "them" with "her" hair
. in front of a "wide-eye-open"

:0)

I fully believe ministry can be compromised when such procedures are put in place.

In some cases, we're saying the church is not capable of ministry in such arenas, and if a woman needs private counseling, she is best served outside the church. I think failure to minister to 50% of a congregation in such a fashion is a more critical concern than moral failure, albeit there would be no headlines, lawsuits, or loss of income.

I do concede that some churches do not uphold the confidence / safety / sanctity of pastoral counseling, and in such churches private counseling is not assumed to be proper, nor a part of ministry. In those churches, its a non-issue, albeit its likely not all members would agree.

What about youth ministry, where a specific youth may only feel confident with a specific pastor, assuming one has multiple youth pastors of both genders. It takes time to develop trust, must they wait a year or more to talk privately, such that both genders are available? Remember, its no longer a gender issue, same gender private discussions as bad as mixed, and same gender pastoral groups may be of no defense, albeit better than going it alone.

Perhaps its best to look at gifts and location, rather than one size fits all. Just as Billy Graham's policies likely would compromise pastoral care in a small congregation, they have served him exceedingly well as a traveling evangelist. Ie, the need for 1:1 interaction is about nil, the environment is prime for moral failure, and should it happen, the consequences would be huge. Still for the small church, there may not be enough gifts present. Ie respected, trained, credentialed, and ordained pastors to provide counseling across gender, age, and marital status without opening the door to risks of moral failure or other problems.

Hey Jo,

Thanks for your comment. Listen – one thing that I try really hard to do on this blog is be honest. I also allow and promote comments because I want to learn from folk like you that can help me refine my perspective. I honestly don't think I have an ego or lack of confidence (never heard that one before) and don't want ANYONE to ever feel like a second class citizen.

I want to clarify for you that I usually do not meet with women ALONE or without some type of visible access. I meet with women ALL OF THE TIME.

I will consider your comment closely. Does my clarification make any difference for you?

Shaun

Thank you for understanding my motives Jo. This has been an interesting and educational discussion for me as well. I will certainly consider your perspective in the days ahead because we never want anyone to feel subhuman because of our actions. Hope to still meet you in the days ahead. Are you living in Atlanta now?

Come on out and get some free breakfast any Sunday morning: http://FreeBreakfastChurch.com

"Meeting alone with women is just not a good idea because though his intentions are good, he doesn't know who has his best interest in mind and who doesn't, so he has to have a blanket policy for all women. It may not seem "fair" but that's the reality of life and the world we live in."

I think this bit of the post gets to the heart of the challenge. The assumption being made is that the man (in this case your husband) had good intentions and that he doesn't know who (in this case the woman) has his best interest in mind which means he "has to" have this policy to protect him from the wiles of these dangerous women. Your comment then characterizes this fear posture as "reality of life." I was an atheist for most of my life and later an agnostic in recovery before becoming a Christian about six years ago. I am 42 years old and I have never met men so fearful of women as I have in the church. It is uncanny, really.

Great insights Ron. I particularly appreciated your thoughts that what worked for a traveling evangelist may not always translate to a rather stationary pastor. What works in a church with a huge staff may not be possible for a church with a small staff (or only one person on the staff).

My .02 (sorry if this is a repeat of what anyone else has said — I stopped reading comments around the 20th or so one): anyone who works in ministry is a moving target for the enemy, from the seemingly unimportant mailroom clerk to the lead pastor. The warfare that goes on is hella ridiculous so it just makes sense to take the precautions you're taking.

As your wife said, the consequences are just too great. Perhaps I'm jaded, but I just got out of a ministry meeting today and, while I won't discuss specifics, Shaun's (and other pastor's) "rules" may see excessive to some but from the inside looking out, it's a different story. Accountability and transparency are where it's at.

It seems there are two different issues going on here.

1) Real desire to avoid moral failure and appropriate ways to go about it.

2) Real feelings (primarily of women) that are being marginalized in their church. My assumption is that many of the women feeling marginalized are being marginalized in areas other than meeting alone with men.

I think the discussion should be separated. I went to seminary at the University of Chicago Divinity School. I was looking for a different experience in seminary than I got at Wheaton College where I went as an undergrad. There were just over 55% women in the MDiv program at U of C. To the best of my memory all of the women at one point or another talked about having been marginalized by their church prior to their time at seminary. All of the women that were from more conservative background (which was most of the women there) had come very close to rejecting the church completely because their gifts were marginalized and they were rejected by the church. They felt forced to go to a more liberal school because they wanted to be taken seriously. This is not unlike MLK Jr going to Boston because he never would have been accepted at Southern Seminary or other more conservative schools. Heather, Joan and Susan are bring up real issues that should be addressed. How to appropriately validate women in the church and recognize their gifts. They have the feelings that they are being marginalize and discounting those feelings actually proves their point.

The other part of the conversation is that Shaun and many others want to avoid the appearance of evil as well as the reality of it. Evil exists and will continue to exist. He and I and all the rest of us will have inappropriate thoughts throughout our lives, that is a part of sin. But none of us have to act on those thoughts. I am many others are aware of trolls that have sought out pastors and other leaders or famous people and offered themselves up in order to make themselves feel better. I am also away of several false accusations for one reason or another. To ignore that either of these two things happens is just to ignore reality. But these are exceptions, most pastors will never have someone falsely accuse them of having an affair or set them up in another similar way. The fact that we know that it happened to someone does not mean it will happen to us.

Child abuse and abduction is much more likely to occur by a family member than a stranger, but virtually all news and training deals with it as if it were solely a stranger issue. Because we all know that no one in our family could do that.

In the church I think we can avoid the appearance of sin (which is the lesser chance in my assumption) while not preparing for the women that will be marginalized.

Great Discussion. We definitely need to address these types of issues in the church. I certainly understand Pastor Shaun's perspective as well as many others. Here's a question for everyone. Does meeting with someone of the same gender alone (or the same gender depending on your orientation) neccessarily mean that you don't devalue them or look at them as a purely a sexual being and not a whole person? I think that many people attempt to set up boundaries to promote interity in their personal lives' and they are not neccessarily meant to be offensive. Being willing to meet with a woman alone does not mean that the pastor values her anymore. In my opinion it does not prove that he does not look at the woman as a sexual being and not a whole person. I guess my feeling is that the moment that we are not intentional about setting up a system to promote integrity in our lives' because it may be offensive, we take the first step toward "moral failure".

When I speak of the church, I am speaking not just about the local church, but the church universal. We are ambassadors for Christ. Which means that we must at all cost protect the integrity of the Gospel by protecting our own personal integrity. Our ability to be an effective witness must be priority number one. People who are unchurched have an extremely difficult time accepting the word of those who have little to no integrity at all.

I am glad that there are those who challenge the church to come up with new ways of addressing these types of issues, however I believe the principal still stands. Protect the integrity of your witness at all times, because it is not about ego, self confidence, or even sex for that matter. It is about making sure that the Church's voice is still the moral compass for the world, and that can only be done through living a life above reproach.

Lamar,
I work in the public school system, and I can guarantee you there are no safeguards in place between staff members. I may quite easily meet with my male superiors behind closed doors regarding private matters such as evaluations, etc, and no one even considers that I might somehow be a risk to the school system or my principal if I have a private appointment with him.

I am curious too as to why none of the male voices here are willing to discuss the risk of falling into homosexual "moral failure." Here in the US it seems that MOST of the time when you hear about a pastor falling into sin, it was homosexual sin. (Not always, but most of the time.) And if we are talking about the catholic church, then MOST of the time it is pedophilia. So why is the focus on women?

A similar, yet different discussion occurred recently on another friend's blog recently – it might be worthwhile to discuss these two in tandem:
http://zoecarnate.wordpress.com/2008/11/14/cross-…

Actually my wife is a teacher and I know of no policy preventing a child from being alone with a student. She has been a teacher outside Atlanta and in Chicago. She takes children home by herself so they can be involved in extra tutoring and she teaching in a trailer not connected to the building and rarely has another adult in the same room.

I have had several female doctors and never was I asked if I would like another person in the room as I was examined.

I will say one more thing. After reflecting on this over night.
The women that are offended are making themselves the victims and calling themselves "second class." To not acknowledge the need to guard YOURSELF and your pastor from temptation and failure tells me that it's all about you. I have NO ROOM for people like that.
To admit that I am attracted to women and therefore need a safeguard does not equal me viewing them as sex objects, nor is it an admission of weakness. It means that if and when Satan tempts me he will do it with things I like. So I need to take steps and put put safe guards in place to make it harder for those temptations to happen. Besides have any of us heard about an affair of the heart? It may not even be sexual, yet it is still as damaging.

Billy why is this more a sin for the woman that is in need than for you? What I and I think many of the women are saying is not that you need to sin and violate your conscious, but that you need to recognize the reality of how your policy will affect other people. It will affect others. That may be ok, and in your case you seem to have weighed the options and think that the potential offense is worth it. What I am saying is that if you do believe the potential offense is worth it, what are you doing to try to minimize that offense. I think referring people to an outside counselor is fine, but there is a matter of the heart toward women that is important. Are women just as valued in your congregation as men? Are there valid ways for criticism to reach leadership that is healthy and can lead to a more healthy congregation in the long term? These are the real questions for me. The specific policy is less important because it will be different for different situations.

What should not happen is to blame the victim and say any sin against them is their fault. That is true of both a pastor that has a predator act against them, a predator pastor that acts against someone in their church and a person that was not served by the church because of a policy that prevented it.

I was involved in a church where there was an affair between two deacons. There was clearly an inappropriate power issue in the response. The male (about 20 years older and by far the largest giver to the church) acknowledge the sin to the pastor (after being confronted) but refused to allow the pastor to bring it to light or tell the wife. The female (also the worship leader) wanted to confess to an affair (not bring his name up) publicly (she had confessed to her husband) but was prevented by the pastor. She asked for permission to repent publicly for six years and was rejected. It was only after she was pushed out of the church and questions were asked that the male told his wife and the church. It was handled very badly and the church about eight years later has still not recovered.

This is not primarily about women refusing to protect their pastor, this is about the church protecting and encouraging its members.

I am sorry if I am not communicating well. Let me start with the last part. I am well aware as are pretty much everyone on this blog that adultery will bring down a church and no one is in support of adultery. I am speaking from a place of having lived through church crap as well.

I think that it is ok for your wife to be involved in counseling sessions. I think that having an open door policy with both men and women is fine. What you are assuming is that having this rule in place will stop sin. What I am assuming is that having this rule in place will not stop sin. My assumption is that some (but not all) women will see this policy as alienating. And in your case it seems like you are still making an effort. Other women posting here and several that I know are saying that this policy as acted out in their church means that they cannot meet with their pastor at all, whether it be for counseling or ministry discussion.

My point is simple. If this policy, as acted out in a local context, means that women do become second class in the church (because that is how they feel, because they loose access to leadership, because private meetings among men happen, but they can't participate in private meetings, because women are held at arms length for feel of what others will thing) then we are not really living out our calling to be the whole church.

I do not want to attack you or your ministry. I don't know you, you probably have a wonderful ministry. I just want to help Shaun think about the ramifications of his decisions.

I think we are just coming at this in different ways. I don't really disagree with you that strongly. You are concerned about your own ministry because that is where you experience is. I am concerned with the other because that is where my experience is. In the end you are probably right, inappropriate use of these policies identifies something else that is wrong with the church, not the policy itself.

I have 4 drAAAstic things I do as well.
1. I gouge out an eye
2. I chop off a hand
3. I swear an oath by heavem the earth, Jerusalem, and my head
4. I post a plaque on my door that says "Do not handle; Do not taste; Do not touch."

Then after I've amazed everyone with my drAstic approach to this drAstic problem, I'm considering adding one final drAstic measure–that is, I'll call "moral failure" by a drastic new name: ADULTERY. Then perhaps I will toy with the idea of just…not doing it.

If it has pleased the father to give me eternal life, and to give to us the Kingdom, perhaps we should just begin by being content and not making such a big deal of ourselves. Why do big-shots fall? Because they think they deserve one of everything. All of theirs and one of mine.

Supersize someone else. Make mine a small.

So how far do I go to protect my brothers, before you can say that I'm not living for "me" anymore? How many rules will it take to be safe? After a while, we won't really need the Holy Spirit or a Savior, because we've figured out how to keep ourselves pure without needing His power over sin. We just never allow ourselves to be in any position where any sin could possibly happen, and we will seem all white and shiny on the outside, where it counts, and our ministries will flourish. And Jesus will smile.
Forgive me if I sound just a little bit incredulous at your reply.

Perhaps it is school district or county related. But I have worked at both public and private schools, and there is even training done by DHR yearly on how to relate to the children for both their protection and yours. Unfortunately it is not always a matter of adults taking advantage of the children, sometimes children have submitted stories that are false or misleading regarding their relationships to teachers and staff. They training even goes so far as to teach teachers and staff how to hug children in a way that can not be considered inappropriate touch. Perhaps the experience is not the same with your wife, however I would not say that such policies don't exist.

Very interesting discussion. We are free in Christ and if you find these steps helpful then you should pursue them. Part of pursuing them is to explain to people why you take these steps which is also appropriate. From that you of course also take the commentary and perspectives of those who disagree or are upset by them, as was seen in this discussion. Moral failure of a sexual nature is a problem and good steps can help.

Thoughtful Christians have long noted, however, that sin is not so easily dealt with through external constraints, in fact sometimes the way those remedies are pursued in fact tempt us in other ways.
Does the heightened profile of safeguards in this one area create an implicit hierarchy of sin? You take elaborate steps to safeguard from sexual sin, but what about gossip or gluttony?

Some have noted that the contrast of the Sermon on the Mount, for example, was not between the irreligious (younger brothers of Luke 15) and the religious, but rather between the religious (older brothers of Luke 15) and Christ followers. The point of the lesson was not so much to drive followers into tithing salt and pepper, but into realizing the insufficiencies of their resources in beating this enemy and therefore driving them to rely on God's grace. Recipients of God's revelation have had a peculiar history with that revelation. Some thought that devotion to God should best be expressed by hedging that law in order to be extra sure they didn't break it. Jesus didn't follow them into the tradition of the elders (which in fact Jesus contrasted and critiqued in the Sermon on the Mount). Galatian believers undoubtedly imagined that if believing was good, then being very circumspect about the Old Covenant would be better. Paul disagreed.

I guess I don't have a problem with the individual choices we make, and measures we choose as disciples to honor God and shun sin. That's certainly all good. But how do we talk about it? Faith in measures and standards that develop into a contemporary evangelical "tradition of the elders" may find a way of becoming a kind of sin that threatens our relationship with Christ at a deeper level than even an adulterous affair.

my two cents. pvk

Have you ever researched what professional standards are laid out in professional counseling programs. Not only christians have found it difficult to behave ethically at all times, so what might we learn from the counseling field about the emotional vulnerabilities created and encountered in counseling situations? And if there is a question about equality, (i.e. if a man can't counsel a woman alone, then why can he counsel a man alone?) then shouldn't it address the issues of sexual orientation instead of gender? Because the risk is related to attraction… Anyway, I hope these remarks aren't too far off the mark. BTW, in a world where sexual harassment is a real issue, and the church is full of imperfect people, don't let anyone pressure you into a compromising situation where you can't protect yourself from allegations. Something about doves and serpents in there, probably.

Joan,
You read my mind exactly. The above discussion is a big part of the reason I have not attended formal church in several years. I have a ministry background and have been actively involved in church my whole life (44 years) until recently primarily because of the legalism that did anything but nurture a close relationship with God. I found out about the Courageous Church and began reading some of the blogs a few months ago. I was drawn to the church because I have typically been involved with inner-city churches that were considered out of the box, served the least of these, positioned themselves as soldiers in the Lord's army, etc. Just as I have to take a second look at a man I am attracted to (because I often am attracted to relationships that feed my broken flesh), I had to really take a second look at whether or not I wanted to get involved in another "intense" church because it could end up feeding my legalism, need for rules, pattern of having to perform and be perfect, etc. (Not to mention I had a breakdown after going through a trauma that involved church leadership) I believe it was God just telling me to proceed with caution.

I know I am way off the primary issue here, but what I am trying to get at is that Joan is dead on. I also hear so much fear. I actually starting feeling panicky as I read through these blogs. Is our trust in Him, His grace, love and power or in our rules and ability to be perfect? I realized in reading this blog that the main reason I do not want to go back to organized church is because we always make it so darn complicated. I am committed to going back to Sunday School 1 on 1-believing that God loves me and that His grace is sufficient. So much of what we do is cultural Christianity and very far from the person of Christ. Just as you said, Jesus wasn't scared to be seen with a prostitute. Perfect love cast out fear. Are we courageous enough to believe this?

redeemedM,
I think some are more afraid of loosing their family, loosing their ministry, loosing their reputation, etc. Yep, I too have been down the path, and have the battle scars. Risk management is always a concern, and to not be aware of what one is potentially walking into is foolhardy. However, depending upon ones gifts, it is either a risk one must avoid, or one must walk head on into. I think you see it that Christ calls us to sacrifice, and it may mean we could loose everything. Others without the gifts, see to do so would be borderline irresponsible, and barriers are a must.

I know pastors who have been on both sides of this, and yes, some innocent men of God lost everything… but they would do it again if God asked. How many would risk their lives to share the Gospel in unfriendly lands? Not all are called nor gifted in that arena. Some are called locally, and to protect their ministry, their friends, their family. Others are called to potentially give it all, yet each is in service to Christ as they are able. I do concede some of this could be the influence of cultural Christianity, but being the idealist I am, I’d like to think its more an issue of gifting.

By the same token, for those with the barrier approach, consider what happens when a so called troll comes in and makes accusations of homosexual advances, female focused safeguards will make no difference at that point. Is the solution to pull clergy out of all 1:1 roles, and leave counseling to the secular world due to this risk? Granted, its an extreme, but it is part of being wise as serpants to consider.

That being said, I go back to my gift comments from earlier. Not everyone is gifted for counseling, nor 1:1 counseling, nor other than same gender 1:1 couseling for that matter. Not every one has the same faith, same scriptural interpretation, same risk aversion, or even same culture, same geography etc. With the bit of background which was provided, the safeguards proposed make sense for Sean. Be that as it may, if said safeguards are implemented, it is up to Sean and his ministry team to come up with solutions to ensure the entire congregation is served. Fortunately they are a larger org, they will find a way to make this happen. Its a whole different ballgame for the 50-100 person church with a single pastor.

I don't know what to do or how to even begin the process of change. I've been on my knees praying the entire week. I just finished reading the blog drastic measures to avoid moral failure and I can honestly say I am running at full speed into a pit of total spiritual and moral decay. The company I have been working for is in shambles and has yet to pay me for 3 months of work, my roommate's house is getting foreclosed, and another roommate is in the process of killing himself with cocaine and heroin. I would like to think I could be the shining light that is a beacon of hope to these two, but instead I find myself sinking into a mind set of desperation. I have sent over 2,000 resumes out and I was blessed with a job, pt that pays 7 dollars an hour. I have move from this situation because it is tearing my soul to pieces. And of course the first thing my mind runs to is selling drugs. I can barely find a job to support myself, but the dealers believe in me enough to give me a kilo to sell. Do I live comfortably by destroying the lives of men, women, and families by feeding addictions? Or do I reach out and make myself transparent and believe my God is greater than all the forces that wish to see me submit to a life of evil and death? My Father in Heaven will not allow me to fall when I reach out for him and I don't know how I am going to get out of this, but I know I need help from people who's hearts belong to the King of Kings. I need help, I need help now and I am hoping and praying it will begin with this post.

Paul

This reminds me of something that happened years ago when I first became a "participating" member of a church. We were shopping for a new pastor and they had one of those meet and greet with a time for questions. One thing that I had really admired about the pastor who had left was the way he had an open door policy two days a week – the other days were for meetings, appts, prayer, preparing sermons. If you had something you wanted to discuss with him or ask for advise you could drop in on him. He asked if it was going to be longer than 30 mins that you made an appt. So – I asked this pastor what his practice was as far as open door, appts etc. He immediately went into some long diatribe about how he would never meet with a woman alone blah blah blah. I didn't really get my question answered and I felt like I was being treated as if I had made a sexual advance. It was very embarrassing and demoralizing to me. I think a better solution would be to NOT announce that you are not meeting with women alone and if you feel it is necessary you could take some other precautions – meet in a public place like a coffee shop or have a place set up in the lobby of the church where you will be sitting in the open but no one is close enough to hear your conversation (there aren't that many people at church during the day) or glass doors so that people can see in your office when the door is closed. These are things that could be done and the woman would never know the difference and you could be protected. I personally think it seems unneccessary but if this is what you and your wife are comfortable with I think there is a more sensitive way to handle this so that you don't make women feel like they are being thought of as sexual objects and/or deviants. I wonder how you handle women on staff and how you think a woman who is a pastor should handle this situation – what about youth ministers – they are often men who are working with a lot of women volunteers – and then there is the music minister who is often a man working with a lot of women in the choir. It seems that this kind of restriction could really get in the way of doing God's work.

I know I'm late to the discussion…But I personally think it was more courageous of Shaun to acknowledge the potential for SIn and to take a stand that may be unpopular but does the most to guard him from falling into this particular sin….Your replies have been in the vein of 'we're all going to fall into sin..so why try to stop the inevitable'……I disagree…That's what this Christian walk is about…understanding that sin exists and we MAY become participants but understanding we have a redeemer who IS able to keep us from falling…and seeking to walk by His spirit in that type of life…We don't HAVE to accept sin as a way of life…I think the pastor is very wise…the best way to resist temptation is to not be tempted…Don't willingly put yourself in a situation where there is an option to fail….There are too many other areas of life where we don't have such control…why willingly add to that…Pastor Shaun…keep being a man of purpose, walking upright before God and the people!