Last summer, when Laura and I were writing Tov Unleashed, the follow-up to A Church called Tov, we wanted to answer at least some of the questions we were asked most often.
Like, why don’t people, when seeing bad behaviors, speak up or speak out? One mysterious issue comes to full disclosure in this question we get asked, Why do some people in fact defend someone who has done something wrong? Why do they believe against compelling facts?
A pastor-friend of ours pointed to his reasons he has observed, and when he told us this we said, “Yes, that’s what we’ve heard too.”
1. Fear of losing a job, a career, a dream vocation.
2. Fear of being abused in turn.
3. Denial: celebrity pastors can’t be wrong, the other person deserved it
4. Status enhancement of being on the good side of the celebrity pastor.
5. Others will not believe bad reports: victimization, gaslighting
6. Calling out the pastor damages the image of the church.
I want to look at three more technical categories, beginning betrayal blindness, which is the decision or compulsion to be blind to an act of betrayal. Developed by psychologist professor Jennifer Freyd,[2] and brought to our attention through Lori Anne Thompson, a survivor of abuse by Ravi Zacharias, the expression refers to an openness to ignoring, or being blind to, a leader’s actions because that leader is a family figure, a father figure, a spiritual mentor.
When such an authority figure in a person’s life does something that betrays Christ and the way of Christ, a person may choose not to believe it because, if it is admitted, it has to be experienced as betrayal. Betrayal is painful for the one betrayed.
So three technical categories can help each of us when considering this discussion.
Defined: Betrayal blindness is the unawareness, not-knowing, and forgetting exhibited by people towards betrayal. The term “betrayal blindness” was introduced by Freyd (1996), and expanded in Freyd (1999) and Freyd and Birrell (2013) in the context of Betrayal Trauma Theory. This blindness may extend to betrayals that are not traditionally considered “traumas,” such as adultery, inequities in the workplace and society, etc. Victims, perpetrators, and witnesses may display betrayal blindness in order to preserve relationships, institutions, and social systems upon which they depend.[4]
Defined: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills. (Wikipedia)
Defined: Stockholm Syndrome is another way of explaining why people don’t speak up and challenge toxicities in the church. As found at Psychology Today,[5]
Stockholm Syndrome refers to the psychological phenomenon often observed in hostage situations where the hostages start to identify with (and sympathize with) their captor, even though mistreated. The captor controls the life source (food, water, shelter, etc.) of the captive, and punishment/reward is received from the same source: the captor.
Because so much of our self-worth in modern times is defined and derived by work, we are at risk for experiencing Corporate Stockholm Syndrome when put into a certain work environment for long enough. Corporate Stockholm Syndrome can be defined as employees of a business beginning to identify with—and being deeply loyal to—an employer who mistreats them (defined in this situation as verbal abuse, demanding overly long hours, and generally ignoring the wellbeing and emotional needs of the employee). As with the captor/captive dynamic, the employer is certainly in control of the employee’s fate (they sign the much-needed paycheck and generally can terminate employment at any time).
These are some of the more significant attempts to explain either why some people who see bad actors choose not to speak out or speak up, or why some choose not to believe that such persons they value are really doing what they are, in fact, doing.
[2] Jennifer Freyd and Pamela Birrell, Blind to Betrayal: Why We Fool Ourselves We Aren’t Being Fooled (Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley, 2013). Also, https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/articles/freyd99.pdf.
[4] https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineBT.html.
[5] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-modern-time-crunch/201403/corporate-stockholm-syndrome
This is so sad for the victim, who takes a back seat alone and isolated in their pain so that others can keep the relationships on a false basis--relationships which are inauthentic. When these victims talk with me, that isolation is one of the greatest aspects of their pain. They can internalize the belief that they do not matter. and often begin to live as if they do not matter. The iatrogenic pain is that their pain is added to by the silence of key people in their lives.
I think one of the reasons is people do not want to lose their families, friends, community, circle etc... This fear of being excommunicated and abandoned by the relationships we built over the years, the very ones that define us. Also in some cultures it's the stigma we bring on our family for even being involved in such a situation. I'm not saying these are good reasons. They are not. But as human nature people don't want to rock their boat and risk loss.