In the book “A Church called Tov” by Scot McKnight, he gives eight false narratives that toxic churches often tell to protect themselves. In Part one we looked at the first four false narratives. In part two we looks at three more false narratives and in this post we will look at the last of the false narratives as well as make some concluding remarks on how to detox from these worldly ways.
The majority of this content comes from the third chapter of McKnight’s book, “A church called Tov”. All quotes are in italics and quotes other than McKnight are cited below. I have ordered McKnight material into sections: First a description of the false narrative and Second some examples for clarity.
8. ISSUE A FAKE APOLOGY
Description
fake apology, [are] not an apology at all. Fake apologies are not issued out of confession or repentance like a true apology. Instead, they condemn the victim, appease the audience, attach excuses, and try to justify inappropriate behavior.
Types of Fake Apologies
Wade Mullen in a post titled “What I’ve Observed When Institutions Try to Apologize and How They Can Do Better.” He describes five types of apologies that are not up to snuff. They don’t make the cut. 9 out of 10 doctors (of theology) would not recommend them. they are the wrong way to do the right thing.
1. The Condemning apology
“the apology that condemns” the other person. “The classic example of this is the apology that says, ‘I’m sorry you feel that way.’” [1] There is no admission of wrongdoing, only a manipulative suggestion that the other person is either too sensitive or has misinterpreted the situation.
1. The obligatory apology or insincere apology
The next “apology” is one that appeases. “It is not an attempt to do all that is necessary to right wrongs, but an attempt to offer only what is needed to quell [an] outcry. ” [2]
2. The “But And” apology
The “apology” that comes with excuses attached. Mullen calls this an “apoloscuse.” It can take many forms, but they all seek to shift the blame or one’s perception of the evildoer.
3. The Self-promotion apology
“apologies” that are couched in terms of self-promotion. “Many public statements of apology . . . become pitches for why [the organization is] still worthy of continued support and engagement from [its] followers.”” [3] * Mullen adds that organizations should never announce that they are “on the same side as the victims.” That decision, he says, is only for the victims to make.
4. The apology with a hook
non-apologies that attempt to garner sympathy for the institution. This is the “we’re hurting too” type of statement that tends to “displace the pain of the wounded with the pain of the wounder.” [4] ”
Conclusion: Real apologies, a painful promise and the upside to Genocide
As a people with forgiveness as a core tenet of the faith we should be experts in forgiveness. Something like world class forgivers, a people who hold the gold standard in apologizing. Yet when i look around all I find is elite level apologists of our sin. People able to give an reasoned account why that sin is not really sin. The church need to relearn how to apologies.
Components of a real apology include five elements
In Luke's gospel, Jesus gave a painful promise. Jesus promised, “For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.” (Luke 8:17). So when this promise is fulfilled on this side of the judgment day, it is always mercy. A severe mercy that offers a church or individual the opportunity start over the right way. The five aspects to starting over are 1.) Repent Well 2.) Authentically Apologies 3.) Trust the Gospel 4.) Learn to do right the next time 5.) to live more transparently all the time. These five aspects ought to be lived out. We are to walk them out and as we do we experience something of a detox for the worlds ways. Sadly this way is narrow and few find it.
The havoc that these false narratives have inflicted on a church making it impossible in many quarters of the church to know objectively who is telling the truth. Such a sad reality makes me long for the days when the Holy Spirit killed people who lied to the church. These days if the Holy Spirit returned to that practice we would likely have “help wanted” signs on many churches in America. An upside, fear and awe would fill the church at least until our Starbucks order was completed.
If you like this content then you may enjoy our video featuring Dr. McKnight on this subject. [Click here]. Also if you like this blog you will love the McKnight’s book amazon link below:
A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing by Scot McKnight.
Footnotes
[1] Wade Mullen, “What I’ve Observed When Institutions Try to Apologize and How They Can Do Better,” personal blog, Oct 4, 2022, https://wademullen.xyz/2019/07/19/institutional-apologies.
[2] Mullen, “What I’ve Observed.”
[3] Mullen, “What I’ve Observed.”
[4] Mullen, “What I’ve Observed.”
.
Scot McKnight gives Eight false narratives that toxic churches often tell to protect themselves. In Part one we looked at the first four false narratives. In this post, we will look at three more false narratives, leaving the last false narrative for the third post.
All quotes are in italics and come from the third chapter of McKnight’s book, “A church called Tov”. All quotes other than McKnight are cited. I have I have ordered McKnight material into sections: First a description of the false narrative and Second some examples for clarity. We will pick up where we left off with the fifth narrative.
5. MAKE THE PERPETRATOR THE VICTIM
Description:
A narrative that make the perpetrator out to be the victim. In it everything is flipped and the perpetrators become the victims. This self-victimization narrative is a textbook example of flipping the script by playing on peoples emotions. The perpetrator uses all the social capital they have to convince others they are the victim.
The aim of the narrative
Such a narrative is seeks to winning in the court of public opinion by falsely claiming victim status often through emotional means. The narrative aims at causing others to give to the perpetrator the compassion as well as the support people would normally give to those that were wronged. They play on the sympathy and emotions of bystanders thus triangulate and win allies.
Common Tactics
Pain-washing
Bringing attention to your own pain and thus diminishing the the victims experience. The perpetrator claiming, “we are all hurting here” or calming how ‘sad’ it was they were being exposed. Also claiming things like, How hard the ordeal has been on them and especially their family.
False accusations that reverse the moral landscape
“a survivor telling her story to others may be accused of hurtful gossiping or divisiveness. Anger is misdirected and listeners are angry with accusers for their mistreatment of the church or pastor.”
In a larger church context, the primarily the use language games to shift narrative by throwing shade at the victim while polishing the church and the leader.
A.) Subtly smearing the victim
Such smearing is seen in subtle ways and well crafted word choices.
They say things like: The “opinions” of a “few” “disgruntled” “former” members, in this way a church can tries to establish the unfairness of the issue.
They use non-verbals to suggest the accusations lack credibility without actually saying it lacks credibility only intimating by non-verbals and tone that its no big deal thus lower it's credibility. Or hint at the people involved are motivated by malice without outright saying it.
They marginalize the concern by passively implying the victim is alone in there option. They make it sound like the victim is the only person with that option.
Then there is my personal favorite The "he is a good guy but" smear. This one caters tot he biases of the larger group. where you seem to affirm the person but also draw associations with groups seen as suspect to the in-group.They say things like "He is a great guy but he has been known to hang out with "those" people. AND You know they are suspect."
B.) Polish their image
“The church seeks to polish its own image — using phrases such as “carefully expressed viewpoint,” “a happier and healthier church,” “God’s kingdom moving forward,” “we have chosen the high road,” and “grace-filled . . . attempts to reconcile.”
Types of Appeals use by church’s or leaders
1.) Appeal to sympathy
“[An] appeal for sympathy can be seen in the church’s reframing of the harm done to others as “mistakes” that the church has now “owned….these events are then described as something the leadership had to ‘endure,’ revealing a perspective that sees one’s self as the primary object of harm.”
“A pastor may lament his weariness or confusion about attacks against his character and against the ministry he spent his life building—and how wounded he was by his accuser going public with the allegations….. These manipulation narratives are highly effective because they plead sympathy for the evildoer. “
2.) Appeal to biblical protocols (as they see interpret them)
"Voices of authority at the church may explain how accusers are “not behaving biblically” or are refusing to engage in relationship restoration.... Churches also appeal to their commitment to biblical standards as another means of falsely claiming victim status. Church leadership contends the accusers are behaving contrary to biblical teaching. The church claims the high road because they are following the Bible. The accusers are discredited and the church becomes the victim".
3.) Appeal to Protecting Reputations
Leaders may appeal to protecting the reputation of the ministers involved or of the church. In this way, the church is the victim because accusers are harming its reputation and good work.
6. SILENCE THE TRUTH
Sometimes churches create a “silencing narrative” often through legally means. This is the main distortion with the next narrative below, suppressing the truth. Silencing the truth draws most of it’s power from legal consequence.
Description:
The church preserves its public reputation, and its false narrative remains intact. Narratives that silence people prevent the truth from becoming known, create confusion for people who sense something is wrong but can’t put their finger on it, and sow discord between those who try to speak up and others who choose to believe the false narrative.
Aim of silencing narratives
An added layer of Protection by the prevention of “negative information from becoming known.”
Two common kinds of silencing narratives
1.) Members covenant (legally binding contract with a group)
Membership covenants, which have become increasingly common in some American churches, are a way for church leaders to prevent negative information from becoming known.
2.) A nondisclosure agreement (NDA).
“[A] nondisclosure agreements are designed to silence people who know about bad things that happened behind the scenes and who agree to keep their mouths shut in exchange for some type of severance package or other compensation.”
If you sign a NDA you're legally bound under threat of the law to remain silent. They are “incapable of establishing justice by speaking truthfully about what they know or have seen or heard.”
7. SUPPRESS THE TRUTH
Description:
A variation of the silencing narrative is suppression of the truth, Forms of this include shaming, intimidation, threatening spiritual or financial consequences, or destruction of evidence.
There are numerous ways to suppress the truth it is all a matter of finding the leverage needed for the situation. Here are some common ways to suppress the truth:
1.) Leader responds to accusation, or suspicious questioning, by threatening a lawsuit.
Note: Such threats are heavy handed intimidation. It power rises from the economics of the situation. For the collective resources of a church community will always outweighs the the financial ability of an single individual.
2.) They may also accuse the accuser of sowing discord and division, or “bearing false witness” against one’s brother or sister. Social stigma and shame is a powerful tool to suppress the truth. Making speaking up the problem not the actual problem being the problem.
3.) They may state that an independent investigation has been done and found no wrongdoing, and thus cut off any further inquiry. This tactic draws power from the appearance of due diligence to the initial inquiry.[1]
4.) They may also appeal to the pastor’s or church’s reputation to manipulate the victim into silence. They say things like, “Don’t tarnish the public wittiness of the church, you love!” Or don’t tarnish the name of Christ in bringing this to light..
5.) Another way of suppressing the truth is by coercion and intimidation of the witnesses. This one runs the spectrum from heavy handed clarity to implicate but threatening.
“Where there is a lack of transparency, there will always be some suspicion. When the truth is suppressed and silence is maintained, abusers are able to move on and abuse and wound others. The victim and the silencers are the only ones who know what happened. When silence and suppression become false narratives, the story they tell is that victims don’t matter and the abusers’ acts are not worthy of discovery.”
In Part Three, we will look at the last of McKnight's false narratives. If you like this content and you may enjoy our video featuring Dr. McKnight on this subject. [Click here]. Also if you like this blog you will love the McKnight's book amazon link below:
A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing by Scot McKnight.
Footnotes
[1] An independent investigation is support to be unbiased. The investigation is suppose to leave no stone unturned as they look for wrong doing. So that if no wrong doing is found is is justifiable to drop the issue. In today's world transparency is needed at every point of the process. Questions like, How the independent investigators were selected need to be freely answered. As well as the evidence, methods and prodigals uses by the team should be open to scrutiny. Such openness insures the findings of an independent investigation will be above reproach or at least reasonably done without bias.
.
Scot McKnight in his book “A Church called Tov” gives Eight false narratives that toxic churches often tell to protect themselves. The narratives are something like institutional defense mechanisms. When criticisms or crisis arise look for these false narratives. They are signs of toxicity, marks of a toxic church culture. Evidence that there is some poison in the pound-cake.
All quotes are in italics and come from the third chapter of McKnight’s book, “A church called Tov”. All quotes other than McKnight are cited. I have I have ordered McKnight material into sections: First a description of the false narrative and Second some examples for clarity.
1. DISCREDIT THE CRITICS
Description:
“This false narrative is based on an age-old trick: If you don’t want to admit the truth of an accusation, discredit the accuser instead.”
The aim is to undermine credibility by discrediting an accusers motives or character.
Two examples
1.) “[A] strategy is character assassination. Character assassination seeks to get the congregation to question the truth of the accuser’s story by casting doubt on the accuser.”
2.) “Another way of discrediting the critics is to question their motives. If you can’t get ’em on character, try collusion. Everyone loves a good conspiracy theory.”
2. DEMONIZE THE CRITICS
Description:
“portraying the accusers as evildoers who are trying to harm the church and all its good work for Christ’s Kingdom. ..if the critics are evil, they are not to be trusted and one can therefore dismiss what they say about the pastor and the church.”
Example of demonizing language
“What the men are saying is Satanic to the core and must be dealt with very directly.”
“Separate from these false messengers.”
They have been deceived by the enemy
The enemy is using them
3. SPIN THE STORY
Description:
“Spinning a story is a deceitful strategy designed to hijack the accuser’s narrative and create an alternative version—an intentionally false narrative that supports the pastor and the church while creating doubt about the allegations.”
Examples of Spin
1.) When a story is turned around and people are told the accusations are false and just fabricated as a means of pay back for a perceived offense.
2.) When a leader misquotes and misrepresents someone to re-frame the issue in question. That is spin. The poker tell of spin is how difficult it is to believe that such distortions are accidental.
3.) When a pastor tells his congregation a vague explanation that is in the same emotional zip code as the truth. Often what is said sounding vaguely right like yet upon further reflection the statement is hollow or illogical. You realize they have not say anything all. It sounded like a profound insight, the right thing for that moment but in reality they say nothing to avoid saying the real thing.
When a leader speaks gives excuses sees for letting someone go
wanted a bigger challenge
Transitioning out of his position
Leaving “on good terms”
Moved on to pursue other things
4.) When a pastor tells his congregation that a suspiciously absent minister has moved on to pursue other things. When in reality they were fired for clearly unethical behavior.
4. GASLIGHT THE CRITICS
Description:
In practice, gaslighting is “a form of psychological manipulation in which a person . . . sows seeds of doubt in a targeted individual, making them question their own memory, perception, or judgment. . . . Using denial, misdirection, contradiction, and misinformation, gaslighting involves attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim’s beliefs.” [1]
Gaslighting is psychological warfare. In Gaslighting the accuser re-framing the issue then making counteraccusations that contradict the perceived reality of the victim. Such a tactic is a powerful means of psychological manipulation with the aim of messing with someone’s head.
“A counteraccusations is designed to get into the woman’s head and make her question her own account—what she knows happened—and destabilize her to the point of wondering if she is sane….Some victims back down at this point because of the power differential and how much effort it takes to overcome the pain inflicted by gaslighting.”
The practice of gaslighting is intentional strategic lying. It is talking to someone in such a way as to make them feel destabilized, that is like they are going crazy. The result is a person so frustrated confused and destabilized that they to act crazy and so validate the gaslighter’s lies.
McKnight quotes Sociologist Paige Sweet to emphasize the “social characteristics that actually give gaslighting its power.”[2]
Specifically, gaslighting is effective when it is rooted in social inequalities, especially gender and sexuality, and executed in power-laden intimate relationships. When perpetrators mobilize gender-based stereotypes, structural inequalities, and institutional vulnerabilities against victims with whom they are in an intimate relationship, gaslighting becomes not only effective, but devastating. [3]
In churches, gaslighting often comes with the force of the whole community behind it. The social pressure can compound the destabilization. As McKnight explains:
“When an accuser is gaslighted from the platform of a church, by a trusted pastor with leadership support, the destabilization becomes all the more intense because the prevailing narrative now appears to be connected to God’s truth, and it has been broadcast to a crowd of people who accept the church’s story. No wonder many accusers choose not to report abuse or back down once they meet resistance.”
In Part Two, we will look at three of the last four of McKnight's false narratives. Thus leaving the final narrative for a third post. If you like this content and you may enjoy our video featuring Dr. McKnight on this subject. [Click here]. Also if you like this blog you will love the McKnight's book amazon link below.
A Church Called Tov: Forming a Goodness Culture That Resists Abuses of Power and Promotes Healing by Scot McKnight.
Footnotes
[1] “Gaslighting,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting.
[2] Paige L. Sweet, “The Sociology of Gaslighting,” American Sociological Review 84, no. 5 (2019): 852, https://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/attach/journals/oct19asrfeature.pdf.
[3] Sweet, “The Sociology of Gaslighting.”
.
In Jeremiah chapters 37 though 39, it records the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon. In chapters 37-38, just prior to the fall, Jeremiah is imprisoned for speaking about the coming judgment and claiming God's way to avoid such destruction was to surrender to Babylon. Neither the people nor their leaders heeded Jeremiah's words and judgment came upon Judah. From the greatest to the least, Judah could no longer deny that Jeremiah's word was true. Their imprisonment and persecution of him accomplished nothing for them except to give evidence of their continued rebellion. The remarkable thing I noticed in these chapters is the repeated denial of Jeremiah's prophecies. Men like Zedekiah and other leaders operated in denial even as they saw Jeremiah's word fulfilled with their own eyes.
In the world of psychology, such denial is the result of the "normalcy bias." In short: People believe that since something is outside there normal experience, it will not happen. In extreme situations people will do the normal thing rather than the thing that would save their life. People have a really hard time preparing for and dealing with something they have never experienced. When Mt. Vesuvius erupted the normalcy bias likely explains why the residents of Pompeii watched for hours without evacuating. We think. They all died and it was before iPhones and the printing press, so can’t be sure. But we know with better accuracy, when passengers on the Titanic refused the evacuation orders, possibly because they underestimated the odds of a worst-case scenario and minimized its potential impact. The normalcy bias strikes again. In such extremes, the normalcy bias can causes smart people to underestimate the possibility of a disaster and its effects. Another great example is found in Barton Biggs' book, Wealth, War, and Wisdom:
"By the end of 1935, 100,000 Jews had left Germany, but 450,000 still [remained]. Wealthy Jewish families... kept thinking and hoping that the worst was over... Many of the German Jews, brilliant, cultured, and cosmopolitan as they were, were too complacent. They had been in Germany so long and were so well established, they simply couldn't believe there was going to be a crisis that would endanger them. They were too comfortable. They believed the Nazi's anti-Semitism was an episodic event and that Hitler's bark was worse than his bite. [They] reacted sluggishly to the rise of Hitler for completely understandable but tragically erroneous reasons. Events moved much faster than they could imagine."
This is a tragic examples of the effects of the "normalcy bias". Just think about what was going on at the time. Jews were arrested, beaten, taxed, robbed, and jailed for no reason other than the fact that they practiced a particular religion. As a result, they were shipped off to concentration camps. Their houses and businesses were seized. Yet many Jews Still didn't leave Nazi Germany, because they simply couldn't believe that things would get as bad as they did.
The normalcy bias pops up in many areas of our faith. We may have never experienced a miracle but it does not mean they never happen. We may have never heard God's voice but we should always believe he is a living speaking God. We may have never, "done it that way" but if Scripture affirms it then we can't call it “anathema” on the grounds of the normalcy bias.
When the normalcy bias pops up around spiritual matters, it is a smoking gun, undeniable evidence of hidden faithlessness in the heart. Whether you call it, "normalcy bias" or just good old fashion stick your head in the sand denial. The bottom line is such denial places ones experience over the truth of scripture. It disregards the word of God with a flippant “probably not.” In short it is nothing more than faithlessness, hiding behind personal experience. It is a dangerous thing to believe that just because you have never experienced it means it does not happen. This denial is a façade, a thin layer of pretense that can blind us from seeing reality, in the light of scripture. If it is allowed to operate unchecked in our lives both the gifts of the Spirit and/or God’s warnings of judgment are ignored.
We should want to be the type of person who hears clearly when God says, “See, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it?” (Isa 43:19a). As he did in Isaiah’s day. The kind of Christian that responds rightly with obedient courage when God says, “surrender to Babylon”. As he did in Jeremiah’s day. Yet the question is how? How do we become such a people?
The opposite of the normalcy bias is situational awareness. It involves having a real perception of your environment and a comprehension of what may realistically transpire in the near future. A Christian's situational awareness is rooted in a Christian worldview. An awareness guided by the measure of wisdom in the heart and the word of God in the head. We have assurance of our long term future so we can act courageously to respond to situations in the short term. Generally, scripture requires us to be watchful, vigilant in prayer, and always open-hearted to God's leading and exercise clear thinking about the facts of a situation. So whatever comes we can respond in faith, the kind of faith that overcomes our lack of experience. The kind of faith that moves us to act courageously even if you don't like what you hear.
Brought to you by The Remnant Radio, a theology broadcast that exists to educates believers on Theology, History and the Gifts of the Spirit. If you would like to know more about Remnant Radio. Here is a short video.