Post on 09-Jan-2023
Fidelity and Intentional Wholeness:
An Exploration of the Sixth Commandment and
its Impact on Contemporary Organizational Leadership
MaryJo Burchard
Regent University
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 2
ABSTRACT:
The Decalogue is a relational expression of God’s heart and
values to His people, with each commandment reflecting a
different aspect of His character. This study specifically
examines the sixth commandment, “Do not commit adultery” (Ex.
20:14) as it is applied to organizational leadership. It begins
by illustrating this law as a reflection of God’s nature, and
conceptualizing fidelity as a means to protect and nurture
“wholeness” within a relationship. These insights are then
applied to the impact of leader infidelity upon the leaders,
followers, and organizations. Application and discussion for
contemporary organizational leaders are also provided.
Key words: adultery; sexual conduct of leaders; fidelity; Ten
Commandments
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 3
Fidelity and Intentional Wholeness: An Exploration of the Sixth
Commandment and its Impact on Contemporary Organizational
Leadership
If one commandment could be singled out as potentially the
most celebrated and condemned throughout history and across
cultures, it is perhaps the sixth: “Do not commit adultery”
(Exodus 20:14 ESV). As has been demonstrated in the public’s
response to such scandals as the Clinton-Lewinsky affair
(Williamson, 1999) and the more recent Petraeus-Broadwell affair
(Raddatz, 2012), contemporary society has lost its bearings in
its understanding of adultery’s significance, and this has
impacted public response when leader adultery is discovered. In
an age marked by a culture that is obsessed with sex in media and
entertainment, affairs discovered among our leaders cause the
bulk of the population to either dismiss or minimize the affairs
as irrelevant to the leaders’ capacity to lead, or to unleash
unmitigated judgment for all society’s debauchery upon these
particular exposed leaders. This expression of such wrath often
rivals the ancient Near Eastern ritual of publicly stripping the
guilty to humiliate them in the center of the community
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 4
(McKeating, 1979; Phillips, 1981). All the while, both sides seem
to take voyeuristic pleasure in learning the details of the
adulterous behaviors (Williamson) at the expense of taking a
closer look at the deeper causal issues that create an
environment that discourages fidelity in the home, in the
workplace, and in society at large.
It may be easier to ostracize, condemn, or excuse those
discovered to have practiced adultery as leaders in a community
than to examine the dynamics that imply broader guilt and a need
for change in more than just the spotlighted famous men and
women. Oversimplified, impersonal responses of either extreme are
incapable of producing any restorative capacity for the fallen
leader and the impacted organization, or preventative capacity
for the leaders who remain. Genuine dialogue is necessary if
leaders desire to be constructive and proactive in their
application of this commandment. The purpose of this study is
therefore to (a) examine the significance of the commandment to
avoid adultery as a reflection of the nature of God and His
desired relationship with people; (b) conceptualize fidelity as
protection and nurture of the intended “wholeness” of a
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 5
relationship; (c) juxtapose these insights with an exploration of
the impact of both leader and organizational fidelity upon the
followers and organization at large; and (d) provide application
and discussion for contemporary organizational leaders.
The Law as a Reflection of God’s Character
This study begins with an assumption that the Decalogue (as
well as all God-given Law) was given to the people of Israel,
first and foremost, as a means of helping them understand the
nature of who He is, from the vantage point of their current
condition. Thus, all law from God, when understood in context, is
a reflection of different attributes of His character - designed
to both bring definition to His heart and His relational
expectations with His people (Malachi 1; Matthew 7; Romans 13: 8-
9). While the people of Israel knew that they had been singled
out as God’s chosen people and still cried out to Him for help
(Exodus 2:23-25), they had lived for 400 years in slavery as
foreigners in the land of Egypt, and had lost a comprehensive
understanding of Yahweh. This is demonstrated first in Moses’s
conversation with Yahweh when He called Moses from the burning
bush:
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 6
Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel
and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to
you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ what shall I say
to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said,
“Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to
you.’” God also said to Moses, “Say this to the people of
Israel, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me
to you.’ This is my name forever, and thus I am to be
remembered throughout all generations (Exodus 3:13-15 ESV).
This passage seems to conjure the image of a parent or beloved
friend who was long estranged from a child, returning to say,
“It’s me… the God of your family. You don’t remember me, but I’m
here. I saw you, I heard you, and I am keeping my promises to you
and your family. Let me show you who I AM.” The covenantal intent
of God was unchanged, but on a practical level, Yahweh’s people
did not remember Him or His ways. They did not understand His
essential “Otherness” - nor did they comprehend His values or
motives.
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 7
After Yahweh’s people were introduced to His unequalled
power through miracles and plagues (Exodus 4-12), their familial
association with God was re-established through the dedication of
their firstborn (Exodus 13), the miraculous deliverance of the
entire nation from the hands of the Egyptians (Exodus 14-15) and
divine provision of their basic needs (Exodus 16-17), the
Israelites still only had a surface understanding of the nature
of this God who had pledged Himself to them. The Decalogue was
Yahweh’s formal introduction to the people of Israel in terms of
His values and desires. Yahweh began His introduction by saying:
“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the
house of slavery” (Exodus 20:1 ESV). This was the basis and
foundation for the Ten Commandments. God introduced Himself
relationally, in terms of His expectations of how His people
would value and treat Him (Exodus 20:1-11), and other people
(Exodus 20:12-17), who were made in His image (Genesis 1:27). The
implication here is that as Yahweh’s people identified themselves
as belonging to Him, their values and behaviors should begin to
reflect and reciprocate His own heart and essential nature (cf
Matthew 7:12; 22:34-39).
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 8
The LORD is Ours; The LORD is One: The Shema and the Sixth
Commandment
Deuteronomy 6 further clarified both the nature of God and
drew the connection between His nature and His expectations of
the people with whom He had pledged His alliance and love.
Deuteronomy 6:4, known to Jews as the Shema’, or “Hear,”
describes God as unmistakably One, and undeniably Only: “Hear, O
Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one” (ESV), or “Listen,
Israel: The LORD is our God. The LORD is the only God” (GW). The
other strong message in this passage is that of belonging: “our
God” is the “only God,” the “One.” Yahweh’s self-consistent,
exclusive one-ness is declared to those who belong to Him.
Because God is the unmitigated Other and unsullied Only (Isaiah
6:1-3), He and only He can expect Israel to give Him exclusive
love and devotion as God. He is whole and complete, the self-
existent I AM, and therefore His love is complete and unmarred (1
John 4:7). Yahweh will allow nothing to dilute or compromise Him,
and He expected His people to reflect this holiness to the rest
of the world: “You shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy
nation” (Exodus 19:6 ESV). Israel was expected to demonstrate
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 9
their love for the One True God by (a) allowing His commandments
to become written upon their hearts and minds, and (b) teaching
their children His ways (Deut.6:4-9; Smith, 1992). New Testament
believers were not excluded from an appreciation of the Shema as
the foundation of their relational dealings (Waaler, 2008). The
command in 1 John 4 reflects the message in Deuteronomy 6:
7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God,
and whoever loves has been born of God and knows
God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God,
because God is love…. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also
ought to love one another.12 No one has ever seen God; if we
love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected
in us (1 John 4:7-12 ESV).
Further, Paul challenged believers in Christ that their behaviors
should imitate the God to whom they belong:
Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved
children. 2 And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave
himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to
God.3 But sexual immorality and all impurity or
covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 10
among saints…. 8 for at one time you were darkness, but now
you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light…
(Ephesians 5:1-3, 8 ESV).
God’s commandment against adultery, therefore, is a reflection of
His inherent oneness and cohesive wholeness. God’s desire to
protect the purity and sanctity of the marital relationship is a
reminder that male and female were, together, created in His
image (Genesis 1:27).
The marital relationship was designed to mirror God’s nature
within Himself as well as His unswerving love for His people
(Jeremiah 31:3). Marriage was therefore to be seen as a sacred
and mystical covenant, something to be cherished, a place of
safety for both husband and wife (Genesis 2:22-24; Proverbs 5).
In the New Testament, even more vivid connections are drawn
between the holy (self-complete, unsullied and distinctly
“other”) nature of God and fidelity. According to the Apostle
Paul, the behavior of those who belong to God should demonstrate
an appreciation for and protection of the oneness of the marital
relationship: “…husbands should love their wives as their own
bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 11
hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as
Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body”
(Ephesians 5:28b-30 ESV). The identification with Christ as
believers translates into a mutual identification, an exclusive
“oneness” within the marital relationship.
Fidelity, Love, and Wholeness
The sixth commandment of fidelity is also protection and
nurture of the intended “wholeness” of a marital relationship.
Miriam-Webster (n.d.) states that to “adulterate” is to “corrupt,
debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior
substance or element; especially : to prepare for sale by replacing
more valuable with less valuable or inert ingredients.” This
sheds specific light on the implications of the sixth
commandment. Fidelity protects the wholeness and exclusive
loyalty of a relationship, refusing to allow something else to
come in, debasing the relationship by corrupting it with another
– perhaps even cheapening the original relationship by replacing
it with commitments that may be bought or sold (c.f. Hosea;
Malachi 1; Jeremiah 3:8-9). Fidelity thus reflects honor not only
for the other person or people committed to a shared
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 12
relationship, but honor for the wholeness and value of the
cohesion and integrity of the exclusive relationship itself. A
God who remains above all else, unsullied and unmarred by any
“other” would naturally expect His people to engage in
relationships that reflect this value.
Conversely, Glass (2003) described infidelity as “any
emotional or sexual intimacy that violates trust” (p. 8). Thus,
the concept of infidelity focuses on the mutually anticipated
relational standards for behaviors. Drigotas, Safstrom, and
Gentilia (1999) clarified this concept further:
In delity is represented by the combination of (a) the fi
feeling that one’s partner has violated a relationship norm
regarding the nature of the partner’s interactions with
someone else and (b) the fact that violation of this
relationship norm typically elicits sexual jealousy and
rivalry. In delity, thus, can be differentiated from fi
behavior that is merely extradyadic but does not represent a
violation of relationship norms regarding exclusivity. (p.
509)
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 13
What is emphasized in the construct of fidelity (or the question
of infidelity) is the concept of assumed relational exclusivity,
which requires trust – and mutual vulnerability. Thus, when trust
is broken and the exclusive nature of this relationship is
“adulterated,” significant emotional suffering results from the
sense of betrayal (Thoburn & Whitman, 2004).
While such commitment to fidelity is expected from leaders
who have dedicated themselves to honoring God, the demands of the
leadership role itself can unwittingly cause fidelity to atrophy.
Ironically, leaders who function in nurturing or care-giving
roles (such as pastors) often underestimate how powerful their
own needs for attachment are, an oversight which can make them
vulnerable to infidelity. According to Steinke (1989), the
majority of pastors who reported engaging in a sexual affair also
reported marital dissatisfaction. The sexual affair was typically
preceded by an emotional affair, which enabled pastors to
unconsciously displace their need for emotional nurture with
another relationship over several months. Many of these pastors
also reported self-worth issues that stemmed from unresolved
memories from their childhood (Steinke). Additionally, Thoburn
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 14
and Balswick (1999) found that difficulty to trust others, fear
of rejection, struggles with shame, obsessive sexual thoughts,
pornography, and marital/sexual dissatisfaction with spouse as
other inner-personal and inter-personal variables that were also
strongly predictive of infidelity among pastors (Thoburn &
Whitman, 2004). These findings suggest that relational fidelity
even among religious leaders is necessarily predicated by
personal wholeness and awareness, as well as openness to
intentionally engage with the Holy Spirit in the hard work of
addressing personal brokenness before it perpetuates relational
brokenness (Psalm 139, esp. vv 23-24; Romans 12:2).
On a Broader Scale: Organizational Infidelity
If an “adulterer” is simply one who is willing to “corrupt,
debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior
substance or element; especially : to prepare for sale by replacing
more valuable with less valuable or inert ingredients” (Merriam-
Webster, n.d.), then the role of an adulterer can also be played
in broader relational contexts beyond marriage. Specifically, it
is suggested that the role of adulterer may also be extended to
an organizational context. One who is willing to dishonor the
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 15
shared group identity and degrade established leader-follower
commitment by questioning the legitimacy of the leader(s) and
promoting himself or herself instead may be so defined as an
organizational adulterer. The organizational adulterer is not
interested in the welfare, cohesion, or perpetuated wholeness of
the group, but instead looks for opportunities to illegitimately
meet real emotional and logistical needs of members (through
flattery, manipulation, etc.) to garner competing loyalties at
the expense of the expected relational norms.
Organizational adulterers may be gifted charismatic leaders,
but they misuse their capacity to encourage and empower others by
flattering them and manipulating them to collaborate in ways that
degrade the infrastructure and mission of the group.
Organizational adulterers may appear to want to do members good,
but their ultimate desire is to usurp power. Planting fear and
distrust in leaders and co-workers, organizational adulterers are
skilled at convincing others that they are the only ones who can
be trusted. With the relational integrity between team-mates
corroded, the organizational adulterer then begins to look for
opportunities to seize power.
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 16
A Brief (Partial) History of Organizational Adultery in Scripture
The first recorded incident of organizational or group
infidelity is found in the account of Eve and the serpent in
Genesis 3. The serpent began by planting doubt in the woman about
her understanding of the LORD’s command:
He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not
eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the
serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the
garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the
tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you
touch it, lest you die’” (Genesis 3:1b-3 ESV).
Then the serpent planted doubt in the woman about the
trustworthiness and honesty of God Himself: “But the serpent said
to the woman, ‘You will not surely die. For God knows that when
you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:4-5 ESV). Between planting
these doubts and feeding Eve with flattery that encouraged her to
strive to see herself as a competitor with God, the serpent was
successful in causing Eve to relinquish fidelity in her
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 17
relationship with God and His kingdom, encouraging Adam to do the
same (v. 6).
Consequently, the anticipated relational standard for their
relationship with God was broken, and they instinctively hid,
which is typical behavior following acts of adultery (Drigotas et
al. 1999). The shared relationship and group identity previously
enjoyed between God and this couple was marred by this betrayal,
and the nature of every dyadic relationship in the mix was
substantively altered (vv. 6-20), but significantly the
organizational dynamics within the kingdom of God were altered as
well. Adam and Eve were no longer entrusted as the stewards of
the Garden, and their relationship with the earth became
significantly more labored (vv. 22-24).
Absalom, King David’s son, is another infamous example of an
organizational adulterer. Though Absalom was deeply loved by King
David, their relationship was estranged because of treachery
within the family (2 Samuel 13-14:21). David allowed Absalom to
return to Jerusalem, although the two had no contact with one
another. Absalom was well-known as being stunningly flawless in
appearance (2 Samuel 14:23), and had a reputation for getting his
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 18
followers to do what he wanted them to do, even when it meant
doing harm to others (2 Samuel 13:28-29; 14:29-32), and
perpetually escaping the full weight of punishment for his
actions (2 Samuel 13:34-38; 14:31-33). Absalom flattered and
manipulated David to regain his status as a prince, complete with
chariots and horses, and 50 footmen to run before him (14:33-
5:1). Next, Absalom positioned himself at the way to the main
gate of Jerusalem and began to incite organizational infidelity
among the people of Israel:
…And when any man had a dispute to come before the king for
judgment, Absalom would call to him and say, “From what city
are you?” And when he said, “Your servant is of such and such
a tribe in Israel,” Absalom would say to him, “See, your
claims are good and riht, but there is no man designated by
the king to hear you. Then Absalom would say, “Oh that I were
judge in the land! Then every man with a dispute or cause
might come to me, and I would give him justice.” Thus Absalom
did to all of Israel who came to the king for judgment. So
Absalom stole the hearts of the men of Israel” (2 Samuel 15:2-
6 ESV).
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 19
Once Absalom sensed that his goal to steal the hearts of Israel
from his father had been realized, he sent messengers to all the
tribes of Israel, encouraging them to declare him king (2 Samuel
15:10-12). David had to abandon the palace and flee for his life
from his own son (2 Samuel 15:13-14). Finally, David was forced
to send his trusted ally Hushai to incite organizational
infidelity within Absalom’s inner circle in order to dismantle
their sense of unity and trust (2 Samuel 15:34, 37; 16:15-18). In
an ironic turn of events, the ultimate organizational adultery of
Absalom was thwarted by another person who created an internal
atmosphere of organizational infidelity. Hushai’s conflicting
advice produced compromised loyalties and diminished the
cohesion, trust, and confidence in the identity of Absalom’s
group. Hushai knew that Absalom’s people were vulnerable to his
influence to create organizational infidelity from within,
because Absalom’s followers had already demonstrated their
weakness to infidelity through their allegiance to Absalom (2
Samuel 17:4-15; 18:9-17).
Organizational Adultery in the Early Church
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 20
In the days of the Early Church, organizational adulterers
were still on the prowl. The book of Jude, though brief, provides
a detailed description of and response to such organizational
adulterers that have become embedded within an unsuspecting
group. Jude’s greeting reinforced the group’s true identity,
while reminding them of his own connection to them: “Jude, a
servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are
called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (v.
1 ESV). This greeting demonstrates the bond of love and mutual
allegiance to Jesus and shared sense of belonging, which is the
basis of their relationship to Jude and to one another. This
shared oneness enables Jude to pronounce “May mercy, peace, and
love be multiplied to you” (v. 2 ESV). While he was in the midst
of affirming “our common salvation” (v. 3 ESV), Jude abruptly
changed the subject and began to appeal to his brothers and
sisters “…to contend for the faith that was once for all
delivered to the saints. For certain people have crept in
unnoticed … ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into
sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ” (vv.
3-4 ESV). Jude vividly depicted individuals who have attempted to
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 21
sully the gospel and pull believers’ loyalties from Christ (v.
4). Jude reminded his audience of consequences for people in
Israel’s history who had participated in organizational/group
infidelity, as well as the consequences for the angels who
attempted to usurp authority and compete for power (vv. 5-7), and
drew a parallel between these cases and the organizational
adulterers within their own group:
Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their
dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme …
all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by
all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand
instinctively. Woe to them! For they walked in the way of
Can and abandoned themselves for the sake of gain to
Balaam’s error and perished in Korah’s rebellion. These are
hidden reefs at your love feasts, as they feast without
fear, shepherds feeding themselves…(vv. 8, 10-12a ESV).
According to Jude, greed for personal gain and carnal
satisfaction motivated these adulterers who had infiltrated the
ranks of the church.
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 22
Selfishness drove the organizational adulterers to encourage
rebellion and licentiousness, leading people to their doom, so
they could feed themselves without fear. Jude further described
these false, adulterous leaders as “grumblers, malcontents,
following their own sinful desires; they are loud-mouthed
boasters, showing favoritism to gain advantage” (v. 16). So how
could the Church avoid the same fate as Israel at the hands of
Absalam or Korah? Jude called them back to their loving and pure
relationship with Jesus and one another: “But you must remember,
beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ” (v. 17). Jude called the church “beloved,” reminding them
of their commitment to the teaching of their Savior, of his
apostles, and the trustworthiness of what they said: “In the last
time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly
passions. It is these who cause divisions, worldly people, devoid
of the Spirit” (v. 18 ESV). Here, Jude effectively summarized the
critical characteristics of organizational adulterers: they cause
divisions, they think and act like people who subscribe to the
world’s passions and mindset, and they do not walk in the Spirit
of God. In contrast, Jude challenged the true people of God:
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 23
But you, beloved, building yourselves up in your most holy
faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the
love of God, waiting for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ
that leads to eternal life. And have mercy on those who
doubt; save others by snatching them out of the fire; to
others show mercy with fear; hating even the garment stained
by the flesh” (vv. 19-22 ESV).
Jude’s purpose in this letter, then was to: (a) remind the people
of God who they were and where their fidelity must lie; (b) help
the church identify the organizational adulterers who had crept
in; describe how these false shepherds could be identified; (c)
encourage the members to wage group fidelity towards God and one
another, thus rendering the tactics of the organizational
adulterers useless.
In many cases of organizational/national adulterers,
including Absalom (2 Kings 16), Balaam (Numbers 22-24; 31:8, 16),
Sanballat (Nehemiah 4:1, 6:12, 14; 13:28 ), and the false
teachers in the book of Jude, organizational adultery paved the
way for sexual and religious infidelity as well (cf Hosea,
Jeremiah). Still, as this section has demonstrated, whether
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 24
adultery is committed on only one level or many, every form of
adultery is a direct act of rebellion against the One, Only, True
God of unmitigated holiness love.
Impact of Leader and Organizational Infidelity
Proverbs 25:28 (ESV) states: “A man without self-control is
like a city broken into and left without walls.” This is
especially true when that person is a leader, for not only is the
leader’s life laid open and vulnerable, but the organization or
group that the leader is responsible for has been “broken into
and left without walls.” The impact of both leader and
organizational infidelity upon the followers and organization at
large must then be examined. Schwartz (1991) suggested that
Israel’s struggles for definition as a nation were directly
impacted by the sexual infidelity of its leaders. Noting the
integration of sexual, military, and political events in the
accounts of David and Bathsheba, Amnon, Tamar, and Absalom,
Schwartz proposed that a clear implication of the connection
between leader fidelity and national upheaval and identity crisis
is easily established:
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 25
Simply put, Israel is threatened from without and from
within and in the very midst are acts of adultery, rape, and
incest. This is no accident: Israel's war with the sons of
Ammon is a war of definition, the sexual violations are
tests of definition, for in both, Israel's borders—who
constitutes Israel and who does not—are at stake” (p. 45).
While modern Western thought would attempt to segregate the
fidelity issues from leadership challenges, “these are not
separate spheres, public and private, that have impact on one
another…. instead, politics and sexuality are so deeply and
complexly integrated as to be one, and it is anachronistic to
even understand them as two different spheres of life” (p. 45).
This biblical merging of these spheres is evident in the text,
Schwartz pointed out, when Nathan the prophet pronounced
spiritual, relational, national, and familial consequences for
David because of his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and the
subsequent murder of her husband (2 Samuel 12). Thus, David’s
personal and private infidelity opened the floodgates of
devastating public and private humiliation for the members of his
entire household, but it left more than his own family vulnerable
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 26
to devastation. David’s lifestyle of infidelity caused the
development of a complex and tensely convoluted family tree,
which made room for national identity crisis and civil war, and
left them naturally vulnerable to international war.
Professional Sexual Misconduct and its Impact
On a smaller but no less significant scale, extramarital
sexual infidelity bears more profound consequences when it is
practiced while the leader is functioning professionally in his
or her official role. Thoburn and Whitman (2004) defined
professional sexual misconduct (PSM) as “any sexual activity,
with or without contact, between two people who have a
professional relationship based on trust…[such as]
pastor/congregant, doctor/patient, therapist/client,
teacher/student, and mentor/protégé” (p. 498). According to
Fortune et al. (1992), when these particular trust relationships
are sexualized, it is a form of exploitive or unethical behavior,
because trust is so intermingled with power and control (Thoburg
and Whitman). While all sexual and emotional marital infidelity
is considered immoral, such violations in boundaries within the
context of a fellow church staff , member, or counselees cause
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 27
enmeshed and profound crises and multi-dimensional consequences
for the families and congregations.
As was evident in both the House of David (2 Samuel) and
the house of God (Jude), the spheres in which the infidelity of a
leader takes place will not remain segregated from the other
spheres in the leader’s life. The group’s sense of shared
identity, trust, and safety are all threatened by the leader’s
infidelity. Particularly when the leader is a professing
Christian, leader infidelity impacts many levels, including the
family, the local organization or congregation, the corporate or
denominational communities, and at times, even the general public
may be impacted by a sense of fracturing in their individual,
familial, group, or spiritual identity as a result of the
leader’s infidelity. The “city without walls” often covers
extensive territory when the leader falls prey to infidelity. The
road to recovery is long, and many relationships may be
permanently fractured as a result.
Application and Discussion
This study has described the sixth commandment as a
relational expression of the oneness, essential exclusiveness,
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 28
and committed love and faithfulness of the God of the Bible.
Characteristics of fidelity and adultery were framed in the
context of the need to protect and nurture the wholeness of
relationships, whether spiritual, marital, or organizational. The
consequences of failing to do so can have profound impacts on
families, as well as individual, group, organizational,
spiritual, and national identities. But how can one respond
constructively and restoratively to the fallen, while remaining
intentionally proactive in preventing infidelity in his or her
own life?
The answer, it is suggested, can be summed up in the Apostle
Paul’s exhortation to the Romans:
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the
one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the
commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not
murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any
other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall
love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a
neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law
(Romans 13:8-10 ESV)
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 29
Put simply, the love of God leaves no room for pursuit of selfish
gratification – which is the root of every form of adultery. When
a husband and wife are committed to love one another, they will
refuse to do any harm to that sacred relational bond. When a
leader loves the organization he or she is leading, no amount of
dis-satisfaction with the current leader would be sufficient to
undermine team cohesion and usurp power and loyalty from those in
power. When a pastor, teacher, counselor, or doctor loves the
people he or she is serving, no inclination to exploit their
vulnerability will be acted upon. And when people love their
loving God, they will do all they can to preserve their
relationship with Him.
Further, as Thoburn and Whitman (2004) pointed out, leaders
who are in roles defined by nurture and care must take the
necessary measures to become whole within themselves, remaining
aware of their own vulnerability and profound need for emotional
nurture. This awareness of their own capacity to fall will not
only serve to help leaders to avoid temptation, but empower them
to extend grace to when they observe fellow leaders become
vulnerable to infidelity and fall into adultery, Gaddy (1996)
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 30
challenged: “Miserly withholding of grace from adulterers
communicates a false gospel that is in fact no gospel. A
graceless response to evil becomes another form of evil” (p. 8).
Unleashing judgment rather than facilitating restoration also
makes a statement about a leader’s perception of sin itself: “To
suppose that adultery (or any sin for that matter) stands beyond
the reach of divine mercy, exists as an exemption to God’s
provision of absolute grace” (p. 8). Gaddy proposed that both
redemptive and creative works of grace are needed in cases of
adultery, because both the person(s) in the relationship, and the
relationship itself, have been deeply wounded, if not crushed or
severed. Willingness of leaders who are walking in fidelity are
therefore desperately needed to demonstrate the power of God to
infiltrate, heal, and restore the sense of oneness within fallen
leaders’ own hearts, between their spouses and families, and –
often without the former leader – among the members of the group
or organization that the leader was serving prior to the fall.
Ultimately, the same Shema that calls for fidelity calls for
redemption and hope, just as God continues to extend and model to
us.
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 32
References
Bouhoustos, J.C., Holroyd, J., Lerman, H., Forer, B. R., Y
Greenberg, M. (1983). Sexual intimacy between
psychotherapists and patients. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 14(2), 185-196.
Drigotas, S. M., Safstrom, C. A., & Gentilia, T. (1999). An
investment model prediction of dating in delity. fi Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 509–524.
Gaddy, C.W. (1996). Adultery and grace: The ultimate scandal. William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Galpaz-Feller, P. (2004). Private lives and public censure:
Adultery in ancient Egypt and Biblical Israel. Near Eastern
Archaeology 67(3), 153-161.
Glass, S. P. (2003). Not “just friends”: Protect your relationship from infidelity
and heal the trauma of betrayal. New York: Free Press.
Holroyd, J.C. & Brodsky, A.M. (1977). Psychologists’ attitudes
and practices regarding erotic and non-erotic physical
contact with patients. American Psychologist, 32, 843-849.
McKeating, H. (1979). Sanctions against adultery in ancient
Israelite society, with some reflections on methodology in
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 33
the study of Old Testament ethics. Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament (11), 57-72.
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (n.d.) Adulterate. Retrieved
from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adulterate.
Phillips, A. (1981). Another look at adultery. Journal for the Study of
the Old Testament (20), 3-25.
Raddatz, M. (2012). Petraeus Sex Scandal: Former CIA chief tells
friend he “screwed up royally.” Retrieved from the ABC News
website at: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/petraeus-sex-
scandal-cia-chief-tells-friend-screwed/story?
id=17835234#.ULsGNeRX1IE.
Schwartz, R. (1991). Adultery in the house of David: The
metanarrative of Biblical scholarship and the narratives of
the Bible. Semeia (54). 35-55.
Smith, J. (1992). Principal commandments reiterated: Deuteronomy
6:1-25. The Old Testament Survey Series: The Penteteuch. Joplin, MO:
College Press Publishing.
Steinke, D. L. (1989). Clergy affairs. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 8(4), 56–62.
BURCHARD: FIDELITY AND WHOLENESS 34
Thoburn, J. & Balswick, J. (1999). Demographic data on extra-
marital sexual behavior in the ministry. Pastoral Psychology
46(6), 447-457.
Thoburn, J. & Whitman, D. M. (2004). Clergy affairs: emotional
investment, longevity of relationship and affair partners.
Pastoral Psychology 52(6), 491-506.
Williamson, T. (1999). Monica, Bill, and ethics. Cross Currents
49(2), 153-163.
Whaler, E. (2008). The Shema and the first commandment in First Corinthians:
An intertextual approach to Paul’s re-reading of Deuteronomy. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck.