Photo by Trym Nilsen on Unsplash

Last week, news broke about former Pastor Aaron Ivey's firing from The Austin Stone (The Stone). I wrote an article based on my experience on staff at the church, discussing how the church should also be held culpable for the culture and environment cultivated by The Stone's leadership, which enabled Ivey's behavior.

Since posting the article, I've heard from numerous folks. The spectrum of conversations has been with current and former church members and staff.

Many of the stories I heard simultaneously stirred within me various emotions. I found myself regularly apologizing. Not so much because I did something wrong, though as a former staff member, I own I have been complicit in some capacity, but because I didn't have better words to offer comfort.

I don't want to lose sight of the harm inflicted upon a child through Aaron's actions. At the same time, I naively didn't realize the pandora's box of church trauma I would open by sharing my thoughts publicly on the church's role in the situation. I'm glad I spoke out, and I've heard from numerous friends and former congregants who felt heard and validated by my words. The last seven days have taught me what I thought was unique to my experience is not, and the handful of 'newsworthy' stories that have come out about abuse and trauma caused by The Stone is only the tip of the iceberg.

5 Reasons People Give to Justify Staying in a Toxic Church

What stood out to me the most in my conversations was how people I connected with shared their rationale for remaining or having stayed at the church for as long as they did. What's most interesting is that I didn't ask or say anything to prompt these folks to justify their reasoning.

Based on the reasons people shared, this article aims to highlight the top 5 archetypes and their rationale explaining people's justification for staying in a toxic church. My intention is not to shame or judge anyone for their decisions. Instead, I intend to help give language to those wrestling with their church trauma as well as provide warning signs for those who find themselves in questionable churches.

1. The Savior Complex - I can change the system from the inside.

At the outset, let me start by sharing all five archetypes share in common that the person knows and sees the abuse and trauma that exists within the church but still chooses to stay. Some folks are too new to see the underlying hardship or are so fixated with the church brand or particular leader that they cannot see beyond their rose-colored perspective. These five archetypes don't address this group.

The Savior Complex is someone who is, for the most part, sober-minded in seeing the shortcomings and dangers present within the church. Though in public settings, they'll often put on a good face and remain optimistic, behind closed doors, they're usually willing to concede that there are deeper-rooted issues with the church culture and leadership.

Despite this person's clarity in seeing the problem, they naively believe their remaining can bring about healthy change. Now, there are times when healthy change can be brought from within an unhealthy church. However, most of the time, change comes through tragedy and outside influences. In reality, a person can bring about healthy change from within a toxic church if they have the following:

The power and position to enact sweeping changes.
The trust of staff and congregants to move in a new and what often feels like a scary (because we fear what's different) direction.
The humbleness and ability to let go of the 'brand' and all the financial incentives that come with it to rebuild the culture from the ground up.

Here's my problem with every person from The Stone who has used this reason for staying: they have none of the three keys outlined above. In all transparency, this was the excuse I used to justify staying three years longer than I should have. I've seen firsthand some leaders possess one or even 2 of the three areas, and they still couldn't bring about needed change. Especially in a place like The Stone, where the senior leadership is a closed group, and the point of entry into that group is unquestioned loyalty to the leader, it's almost impossible for anyone but the person on top to possess the keys to all three areas. To be clear, even the top guy likely doesn't possess all three keys; he's the only person who could realistically do so.

2. The Addict Excuse - Every incident is 'the one' that'll bring change.

If pressed, I would argue that most people fit into this or the Spiritual Warrior archetype that I'll unpack below. Having grown up with an alcoholic, I'm intimately familiar with the twisted hope that comes with watching someone you love spiral into deeper addiction.

Every DUI, public outburst, or domestic violence situation comes with the hope that this is the incident that's going to lead to my loved one's change. This public intoxication charge is the one that's going to wake the person up and get their attention to make the necessary life changes they desperately need.

Within the church context, this looks very similar. As a staff member or congregant, you see this is the 'X' time a situation like this has happened; surely leadership will make changes now. In the case of The Stone, Aaron Ivey's situation is the 3rd incident that is publicly known involving harm to a child. Yet, there are still folks optimistic that this situation will lead the church to change.

When your top leadership is a 'brotherhood' (read good ole' boys club), loyalty and protecting the brand's image are all that matters. The financial benefits and power that come with loyalty to the leadership and protecting the brand is the alcohol leadership is addicted to.

Let me explain. In The Stone’s statement to their partners about Aaron’s dismissal they use 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 in their second paragraph to justify Aaron’s termination.

You can read the full statement here: Partner Message Concerning Aaron Ivey’s Dismissal

Here’s the problem, those texts are only justified and authoritative when needed to prove loyalty to the leader or protect the brand. For example, while still on staff, another staff member who was then an elder candidate got drunk, went to another staff member's house, and cussed their co-worker out while trying to fight him in front of the man's wife.

Obviously, the candidate was removed from the elder process per the same 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1 passages leadership used to justify firing Aaron, right? Right?! Well…no. The entire situation was swept under the rug. The staff member whom the candidate tried to attack ended up leaving the church (great guy, btw), and as far as I know, the candidate is still an active elder at The Stone. How's that work, you may ask. The candidate is loyal to leadership and is committed to protecting the brand.

3. The Martyr Complex - People I care about are staying, and I must be there for them.

The people who make up the martyr tend to be the most naturally others focused and desire for everyone to feel seen and cared for. The martyr is usually fiercely loyal to those they care about and are highly protective.

Though this person's motives are admirable, they usually become some of the most wounded and traumatized. Because they try to take on other people's burdens and their own, they become twice as hurt, twice as tired, twice as traumatized, etc. When people tell me they are staying to care for others, I can't help but think of the oxygen mask illustration on airplanes.

As caregivers, if a plane is experiencing an emergency that requires you to put on your oxygen mask, our inclination is to get the one under our care masked first. The problem is what can end up happening, though, is the caregiver passes out before entirely masking the one being cared for, which ends up hurting both parties. This is why flight attendants emphasize putting your mask on before helping the person next to you.

In the same way, my encouragement for these folks is to care for your community by leading the charge in getting out of the toxic church. Get yourself in a healthy place so you’re better able to help get others to safety. You're no good to anyone when the people you stayed to care for have to carry your emotionally and spiritually broken self out of the church.

4. The Spiritual Warrior - These are attacks from Satan that God is using to test my faith.

Candidly, I have a tough time empathizing with this archetype. I think it's because, in my mind, the spin used to turn a toxic culture into God testing our faith through Satan is a low-key litmus test to see 'who is willing to go through hell to prove their trust in God and who is not?' I don't have the patience or the imagination for that.

The other issue I have with this argument is that it tends to shift the blame from those who built the toxic culture and committed the abuse and lays the blame on Satan. By switching who the cause of the problem is to something spiritual, you essentially let the actual guilty parties off the hook and functionally lay the blame on no one.

Let's pause for a second and think about this. Suppose Satan is leading your church to emphasize loyalty to a leader and a lack of accountability and transparency around leadership conduct. How do you address the root issue and make necessary changes? How do the victims of those leaders hold Satan accountable? If it's Satan pulling the strings that drives religious leaders to hurt minors, can we even hold those leaders accountable? How do we protect other children from Satan's influence on other leaders in the future? You get the point.

5. The Sunk Cost Fallacy - I've been here so long and don't want to start over elsewhere.

This last archetype hurts my heart the most. It's because these folks have functionally quit caring or become so consumed by their comfort that they'd rather stay in a toxic situation than start over somewhere else. These folks hope for the best but have concluded that there's nothing they can do to change the situation.

What's most tragic with this group is they're often some of the most tenured staff and congregants at the church. They have the potential to carry substantial sway in at least raising issues to leadership so problems aren't swept under the rug. However, they most likely won't. Because they've invested too much in the church, they'll remain content to ride the ship, make sure people know they see the problems, make a case that they're not part of the problem, and hope people believe them.

As I was thinking about how to write this article, a thought kept coming to my mind. I kept thinking of the origin story of the people of Israel found in the Hebrew Bible. The origin story for Israel was God's saving the Hebrews from slavery inside of Egypt.

As a Hebrew raised in the Egyptian royal court, Moses would have been the perfect person to bring about change from within Egypt. Yet, that's not what God does. Instead, he uses Moses not to reform Egypt but liberate the Hebrews.

Maybe in Israel's origin story, there is a point to be made that leaving toxic cultures is more potent in bringing lasting change than trying to reform them from within.

_______________________

Thanks for stopping by and reading this article! If my work has served you or you want to contribute to creating authentic faith connections, consider becoming an Authentic Faith Advocate.