Fidelity and Wholeness: The Sixth Commandment and Organizational Leadership

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


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


(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


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:


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.


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).


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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.


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


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


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).


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


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


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.


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:


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


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:


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


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


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,


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)


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)


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.


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


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.


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.

Fidelity and Wholeness: The Sixth Commandment and Organizational Leadership

Documents

Transcript of Fidelity and Wholeness: The Sixth Commandment and Organizational Leadership