Article: Why Churches Disbelieve Victims and Believe Pastoral Abusers

Welcome to De-Commissioned, a place for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology.

You may read and post, but some features are restricted to registered members. Please consider registering to gain full access! Registration is free and only takes a few moments to complete.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Everything below is taken directly from the following article.  FANTASTIC read.  Explains a lot.

https://mikeinsac.com/2018/04/23/why-churches-disbelieve-victims-and-believe-pastoral-abusers/

Familiarity Bias: Technically, Familiarity Bias is a financial term. When newcomers start investing in the stock market, they believe that companies they are familiar with will make the best investment. They are familiar with the company and their brains think this makes it a good place to put their money.

This is what congregation members do when they think they really know a leader. That leader has publicly revealed things about their life, so we share a false intimacy with them. Most of us believe the story of someone we know over someone we don’t. The victims are often people that very few members of the church know well. Or even if they know the victims, the pastor is often perceived as the best known person in the congregation. Because of this notoriety, the average person will automatically assume the person they know (pastor, principal, etc.) is more trustworthy than a victim they’ve never met.

Over reliance on Personal Experience: Abusers do not abuse everyone. They could not possibly do so. In a previous article, I lay out the blueprint for how pastoral abusers choose their victims. Very few people are actually abused by even the worst sociopathic offenders. That means the vast majority of people in a church have never known the pastor/principal/worship leader to abuse them. Most abusers are Narcissists and Machiavellian in personality. This means they can be tremendously charming to all people, even their victims. They can come across as disarming, warm, confident, nurturing, and intelligent. It is virtually impossible for someone who has never been hurt by the pastor to initially believe the story that the victim tells. It is simple: Pastor X never treated me that way. I can’t believe what this victim is saying. They must be making this up.

A Theology of Leadership Protection: Many churches teach some variation of the idea that the leader of the church needs to be protected from outside attacks. The congregation members feel no compulsion to abstain from criticizing him privately, but as soon as someone brings the criticism into the public eye, everyone becomes his defender. You will hear Psalm 105:15 quoted often: “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” This is interpreted to mean that no one is allowed to touch God’s leaders; they are above criticism from the outside. Other people will hide behind Matthew 18 and the process for dealing with conflict among believers by saying that these victims should have confronted their abuser the “biblical” way. This implies they should have made their accusations in-house and never included outsiders. This adds to the problem because the congregation already believes the pastor more than the victim. The church will rarely side with the victim without an outside entity directing the process.

He Who Controls the Pulpit, Controls the Direction of the Discussion: The Senior Pastor is the voice everyone knows and most people trust. This person is afforded a platform to express his views every week. When the Senior Pastor is an abuser, he is also the one who controls the narrative. When the Senior Pastor is not the abuser but wants to defend the person who is, they still control the pulpit and they can subtly shift focus away from the offense. They can minimize it, shift blame, victim-shame, sin-level the offense, or call for unity to gloss over the offense. Anyone who controls the pulpit during the time of inquiry controls the most important place where the narrative of abuse can be approached. If that person is the offender or a friend of the offender, then it is unlikely the average church attender is going to believe or sympathize with the victim until someone else is given the pulpit. Anyone who has followed the process of recent disclosures of pastoral abuse will affirm that the pastors and elders of those churches have used the pulpit to do damage control. Very few churches use their public platform to help the victims. Most just pay lip service to the victims at best.

Retroactive Reality: The cost entailed with believing a victim involves believing the pastor has always been an abuser. This causes church members to have to re-examine their spiritual walk in light of this information. Victims are revealing to the congregation that the abusing pastor is a deceiver. Therefore, church members fear their own spiritual formation is tainted as a result. Some congregation members have spent their entire spiritual lives in that one church. They begin to think, “what does this say about me?” This comes out so much in one-on-one interviews I have done with congregation members. I said it myself years ago. The man who mentored me in the Christian faith when I was 14, assaulted two other boys sexually. I was about six years into my faith walk when I heard about this. I could not believe it. I would not believe it. If he did this, then maybe everything he taught me about God was wrong. It spawned an existential crisis of faith. Most people hate existential crises and will avoid them. The easiest way to do this is to discount the story of the victim.

Doubling Down: Once you have publicly declared you believe the pastor more than the victim, it is hard to change your story. It has been proven that once people have voted for a candidate or chosen a particular story to believe, they are more likely to keep holding onto that story even when evidence suggests they are wrong. This explains why people can continue to support a political party or candidate even when these are shown to be duplicitous. If a person publicly defends a pastor near the beginning of the discovery process, they are very unlikely to change that opinion no matter how much evidence is revealed.

Maximum vs. Minimum Harm Concept: This is an easy one to understand, but hard to admit to. Even though we love to cheer for the underdog, if we have a horse in the race, we will cheer for him.  Add to that the idea that most people will choose the path of least harm time and time again. In the case of fallen leaders, many congregation members, when they cannot choose whom to believe, will choose the person who will cause them the least amount of destruction. In the case of a church, if the pastor is forced to admit sin and resign, the church will lose members, community standing, financial support, and future opportunities. Though no one will actually say this out loud, the brain always looks for the solution which will cause the least pain. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. This is the underlying emotional reason why some will admit the pastor should be disciplined as long as they can stay on at the church in some capacity.

Misapplication of Grace and Sin-Leveling: These are simply two versions of the same false teaching. Misapplication of grace believes that since God has forgiven all our sins, we should just admit that a sin was committed and allow the pastor to say he is sorry–hopefully with tears and a standing ovation at the end–and then the congregation can move on. Sin-leveling is the teaching that we have all sinned and all sins are the same. But this is not true. Thinking about having sex with someone not your spouse is not the same as committing adultery. They are related to one another, but they are not the same sin. Nor do they have the same consequences, which is the key point. But it sounds good, because all of us carry some shame around with us. It is easy to see our own faults and think that we would want people to overlook our mistakes. But abuse is not a mistake. Abuse pours acid on the soul of another human. God reveals great wrath about those who abuse “one of the least of these”. He says it would be better if a millstone were hung around their necks.

So many churches are wrestling with these decisions. We are cleaning out the septic tank of abusers, and it is going to be messy for awhile until we get rid of all the pastoral abusers.

The pulpit unfortunately attracts some narcissistic individuals and these days their victims are coming forward. But will they be believed? I desperately want to say that they will. But most congregation members won’t believe them.

[Free now]

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

[Janet Easson Martin]

REALLY good article, Rebel In A Good Way!  

Not only is this thoughtful insight as to why some GCx members don't believe Scout and other victims, but why they have difficulty accepting dangerous spiritual abuse reported here by so many.

[Linda]

Very interesting. Thanks.

[Greentruth]

REALLY good article, Rebel In A Good Way! 

Not only is this thoughtful insight as to why some GCx members don't believe Scout and other victims, but why they have difficulty accepting dangerous spiritual abuse reported here by so many.

Because most, not all accusations of spiritual abuse hold water. A couple where addressed early on in the Church, but anything else I see is just pure speculation of distorted and out of context definitions. What is troubling is that a few would try and destroy the whole Church over their misguided or precieved abuse. This has got to be borderline psychotic. I would say normally a person that doesn’t agree with a theology or simply the way a message is presented would move on if not in agreement with the Church.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Greentruth, did you read the excerpts or the article? 

First of all, it's addressing abuse of all kinds, not just spiritual. 

The teachings that are being contested are not like discussing infant vs. adult baptism, whether communion is transubstantiation or simply commemorative, or if hell is eternal conscious torment or a final destruction.  Those are examples of "disagreements" or not preferring someone's teaching.   The teachings I (and others) criticize are the ones that enable control and abuse by leaders and harm people. 

This paragraph from the article addresses exactly why people find some of GCC's teachings problematic.  I have put in the bold the ones that are represented in GCC's own printed materials: 

"A Theology of Leadership Protection: Many churches teach some variation of the idea that the leader of the church needs to be protected from outside attacks. The congregation members feel no compulsion to abstain from criticizing him privately, but as soon as someone brings the criticism into the public eye, everyone becomes his defender. You will hear Psalm 105:15 quoted often: “Do not touch my anointed ones; do my prophets no harm.” This is interpreted to mean that no one is allowed to touch God’s leaders; they are above criticism from the outside. Other people will hide behind Matthew 18 and the process for dealing with conflict among believers by saying that these victims should have confronted their abuser the “biblical” way. This implies they should have made their accusations in-house and never included outsiders. This adds to the problem because the congregation already believes the pastor more than the victim. The church will rarely side with the victim without an outside entity directing the process."

[Greentruth]

Give examples of supposed unethical circumstances, instead of hypothetical generalizations. You could approach any topic and have ten spirit filled Christians right a message on it. Very doubtfuly any would be the same. But on this form you have a few that say, I’m right and your in spiritual attack if you don’t listen to me and change your way.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Greentruth, I shared an article for people to read and discuss if they wish.  Did you read the article?  Without the context of the article it doesn't really make sense to comment on posts.  Since I started the thread I'd appreciate it if you keep to the topic which is about the article.

[Greentruth]

Sorry, I just skimmed the article during lunch. I read the whole article,and my question would be the same. It won’t work to put everyone in your box, as myself, I attended ECC for over twenty years at more than one location.I listened to many sermons by MD. But fact is I could count on one hand how many times I actually talked to MD. This theory that we are blinded by putting a pastor on a pedestal may hold true for some, but the only one I put on a pedestal is our Lord Jesus. Put quite simply, the reason this case with Suzanne is not believed, is because it’s not believable, from so many angles.  I could put a few chapters from some articles I have read, on the attack on the Church. But I KNOW it’s a waste of time. This isn’t the only Church or pastor with false accusations. You have so many variations of abuse, touching,forced kissing,and worse that is criminal, and needs immediate notification to authorities, police. The you have verbal sexual abuse, which I understand is Suzanne claim. I think that is the one that confuses some I believe. Most any female I have talked to has experienced this to some degree, but most deal with it, shut it down verbally. So in our sexualized world we live in, it’s more common than not. To start with, when first hearing of an accusation, I think most first look at who is making the accusations, and next, who against. I then look at the accusations and if you know the people and their character, you can start to form an opinion. And the more information that is exposed reallly tells all. I see Suzanne change her story several times, and the tweet the other day that I think settled it for many. All the while MD can say nothing in his defense, and if his children or congregation don’t believe Suzanne, they are brain washed, groomed, or somehow manipulated by the Church structure, as how I take what you posted. I have NEVER seen any congregation I have been a part of, NOT take immediate action when an accusation has been made.

[Greentruth]

On rebels article that was posted, you need to go to the site and read the WHOLE story. It’s based on a religious school that the pastors son became principal. While in his position he was accused of physically sexually abusing one girl first, and the teacher didn’t notify the police. Happened again to two girls. This is so sad, as these girls where under ten. To say this anything even close to what has been the issue here is absurd. Read the article if Rebels posting caused you to wonder. The case used with these young girls being touched in their private’s, shows ignorance to the law. There is no gray area in this case. Call the cops. To even try and interject this with ECC attenders is way over the top ridiculous.

[Greentruth]

Isthisreal:  I agree totally! I have to spend time in prayer after every visit to this form, sometimes before I leave. It hurts my heart more than I can express. I feel like the Church is under attack here, not just evergreen. This thread in itself is what I’m talking about. So misleading. Goes to show, don’t believe everything you read. There is no end to the trickery the devil will use. It brings me to think of the warning of how the devil will disguise himself as angel. And why when something feels wrong, it most likely is.

[marie]

REALLY good article, Rebel In A Good Way! 

Not only is this thoughtful insight as to why some GCx members don't believe Scout and other victims, but why they have difficulty accepting dangerous spiritual abuse reported here by so many.

Because most, not all accusations of spiritual abuse hold water. A couple where addressed early on in the Church, but anything else I see is just pure speculation of distorted and out of context definitions. What is troubling is that a few would try and destroy the whole Church over their misguided or precieved abuse. This has got to be borderline psychotic. I would say normally a person that doesn’t agree with a theology or simply the way a message is presented would move on if not in agreement with the Church.

If "a few" could destroy a whole church, then maybe that "church" is not worth existing.  A church of followers who follow Christ, not a Pastor, will remain, regardless of whom the Pastor is...  and why should a person "move on", and at not bring up their concern?  If we don't get along with someone do we just "move on"?  Christ calls us to be relational.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I purposely cut out the scenario so that no one would accuse me of equating Mark Darling as a child sex abuser.  Since I included the link I wasn't trying to be deceptive.  I was trying to be respectful given the recent confusion between abuse of young adults and the abuse of children.  The author of the article used that story as an EXAMPLE but his work addresses all kinds of abuse in the church.  The whole article is not ONLY pertaining to that scenario.

Do you purposely try to miss the main points that are brought up?  Do you really not see that the phenomenon described by the author are relevant to any situation where a pastor is accused of something?  I mean, really, really, really?

[araignee19]

Ad hominem attacks and thread hijacking. I'm fed up with it myself.

[Greentruth]

I purposely cut out the scenario so that no one would accuse me of equating Mark Darling as a child sex abuser.  Since I included the link I wasn't trying to be deceptive.  I was trying to be respectful given the recent confusion between abuse of young adults and the abuse of children.  The author of the article used that story as an EXAMPLE but his work addresses all kinds of abuse in the church.  The whole article is not ONLY pertaining to that scenario.

Do you purposely try to miss the main points that are brought up?  Do you really not see that the phenomenon described by the author are relevant to any situation where a pastor is accused of something?  I mean, really, really, really?

Just looking at the situation at hand, and what you brought up only makes untrue stipulations that you try and interject into the ECC congregation

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Again, Greentruth, please keep your comments focused on the article and not about me or what you think I am doing or how the institutional church is being destroyed by people like us. 

The author has experience with abusive clergy involving many scenarios, so you might consider that he has some insight to offer.  You could humble yourself to contemplate new possibilities, or you can continue to think that your 20 years in a GCC church and your own musings about abuse are sufficient.  If that is your choice, you've written about those many, many times on this forum and that is not the purpose of this thread.

Given the many problems in both the Catholics and Protestant churches with abuse (of all kinds) and cover-ups, this article helps answer the question "How could that happen?  How could these things go on for such a long time?"  Because no one actually believes that pastors/priests should abuse/exploit/steal and that abuse should be allowed to continue because the institution fails to stop them.  Yet--because of human nature and our own weaknesses, we fail to comprehend the reality.  As humans we should understand that we are fallible (that is a biblical principle) and this article explains ways in which our infallibility might play out when our pastors have been accused.  Churches are not filled with horrible people who knowingly support abuse and exploitation.  But because it happens, it is naive not to ask why/how?

Please don't respond unless you would like to engage with the article. 

[omelianchuk]

Does the "familiarity bias" (FB) adequately explain why people are prone to trust their pastor? That's the question I'd raise if I were going to dive deeply into this. The bias appears to be quite superficial. Or at least, I am thinking of it this way. According to the FB, if I see an ad on TV for some investment firm and become familiar with it, I am prone to believe that the firm will do a good job with my money as opposed to some other firm I haven't heard of before. The bias is irrational, because merely being familiar with A does not give you a reason to believe in A's competence over B.

Does this bias speak to the issue of a congregation being prone to trust their pastor's denial over the accusations of an accuser? Does the congregation display the bias? I would think not, because the dynamics of their trust (i.e. the story behind it) probably do not track how FB works. Assuming there is a shared history of care and observed good character, I don't see why FB would apply to a congregation. Perhaps they are being unfair in other ways, but not because of FB.

However, I would say someone is displaying FB merely because they have heard of pastor X (say, Bill Hybles) and they haven't heard of victim Y (say Vonda Dyer).

Thoughts?

[Huldah]

Retroactive Reality: The cost entailed with believing a victim involves believing the pastor has always been an abuser. This causes church members to have to re-examine their spiritual walk in light of this information.

This is a big one. It's humiliating to admit that you've been deceived, especially if you have a history of vocally and publicly promoting the deceiver.

[Greentruth]

Retroactive Reality: The cost entailed with believing a victim involves believing the pastor has always been an abuser. This causes church members to have to re-examine their spiritual walk in light of this information.

This is a big one. It's humiliating to admit that you've been deceived, especially if you have a history of vocally and publicly promoting the deceiver.

Humiliation comes from doing something mindfully on purpose that you find to be wrong. Some try and humiliate others with their agenda, but in reality when hundreds of people have been subjected to accusations such as these and don’t agree, who then is humiliated? I think it’s better to expose ALL facts, and let each person make their own decision without the attempts to humiliate

[Huldah]

I think there's an additional reason why victims are doubted, at least until the truth comes out (assuming it ever does).

Scripture is clear that Satan wants to undermine the gospel. When we see a beloved, respected pastor being accused of something contemptible, we automatically flash back to all those verses about roaring lions and those historical stories where the early church was accused of cannibalism and incest. Those are part of the collective Christian psyche. They're the narrative we automatically fall back on when an accusation is made against a pastor we've always admired.