In this relationship, one person is in a position of trust (the congregation trusts the leader to maintain him/herself as an example). I would probably go to that person, in private, and explain things I had seen or heard firsthand, telling that person how those actions were being perceived, and then ask for an explanation. One of three things would happen, I think: she/he would refuse to answer and would deflect to another subject, he/she would choose to tell me a lie, or she/he would tell me the truth. Unless I have seen irrefutable proof of the unacceptable affair firsthand, I would not know whether I was hearing the truth or a lie in the second two cases. I could proceed no further.

We hold our leaders, especially our leaders of morality and behavior, to a higher standard. What we might excuse in a friend becomes inexcusable when someone is holding themselves up or being held up by others as an example of how to live a morally correct life. Yet these people are also human, subject to the same foibles and temptations as everyone else. Still, people in such positions have a choice as to whether to continue in their position or step down.

Perhaps, by communicating my concerns, the leader would re-evaluate their actions and how those actions could be interpreted. Even if there was no wrong-doing, the leader might change behavior in order to cast no doubt.

Does your religion say that ministers cannot have relations with members?

From the sounds of it I'm presuming so.

Are both he and the member single?

You're always going to have problems like that insolong as the ministers and members are human, and about the only way to minimize it is to make it a rule that your minister has to be married.

If they're both single, frankly, I'd leave it alone, because it might lead to a marriage, unless you're of a faith that says that ministers can't be married, in which case maybe keeping it discreetly between singles is the only way for them to handle their lives without going insane.

Are either of them married and therefore cheating? Now you've got what I would call a problem.

Personally I think it's a nuisance the way humans, wired up for sex, have to let their sex drives become an issue of faith. It's almost like saying that you can't eat food to be a member of a faith, and if it were possible for humans to survive without food, as delicious as it is, I bet someone would come up with a faith saying you couldn't eat, but there's sex, and then there's the issue of whether either is married to somone else, and that makes for a real problem...

In fact, it's such a problem that I'd stay even *further* away from it!

You see, to me, the issue is, I'm not Jesus, and He never told me specifically that I could make judgements as an envoy in His name, and if He ever did appear to me and say, "Okay, I want you to speak in My name", then I'd still not want to unless along with that came a seriously vast thwack of wisdom.

However, I *can* make personal judgements in my own name, and my judgement is to stay out of it, because it's another one of those dumb things that make people human and that can only get worse if you stir it up.

To me, the important question would be, how good is his ministering? If it was bad I would have left long ago, and if it's good, then I'd probably look the other way, but if I wasn't sure, well... in that case, discovery of such would probably tip me into finding another congregation.

I would only get involved if it was non-consentual, or with someone under-age... but in *that* case... I would get *so* involved... it would be very total and would go far beyond any li'l ol' "talking to"!

No. It is never right to "confront" people over their personal lives. If you think the leader of your church is a hypocrite then change your place of worship. It's a little different if the person is an employee of the congregation which is run by a board of directors or similar, then it would be appropriate to make your feelings known to members of that board.

I've personally seen a situation like this occur, and the right course of action is to take it to the church's board first. Not only is it the proper procedure, it's also a lot less uncomfortable for you as you get to avoid a direct confrontation. I think the concept of leaving his personal life alone is an outdated one; everyone's work life (yes, leading a religious group still counts) bleeds into their personal life and it works the other way around as well.