Autonomy, Ethics Scandals, and the Madness of Crowds
Image
When faced with ethical misconduct scandals, are churches, or any other organizations, obligated to involve outside investigators? Should the volume and fervor of public outcry guide an organization’s response to ethics scandals?
I hope to be somewhat persuasive in answering these questions, but mostly I want to be clear. With that in mind, I’ve structured my thoughts here debate style.
Thesis
In response to purely ethical scandals, organizations should not view themselves as obligated to involve any third parties; further, they should be wary of attaching too much significance to public outcry.
Definitions
- Purely ethical scandals: situations where it is known to the public that individuals have accused others of wrongdoing, but the accusations do not include any allegations of illegal conduct.
- Obligated: required, mandatory, as opposed to optional (optional meaning the organization may consider it on a case by case basis, evaluating the merits).
- Third parties: individuals or groups other than the organization (including its constituents) and alleged victims. The general public, the press, advocacy groups, and “the Internet” are just about always third parties (or maybe umpteen-million-and-twenty-third parties!).
- Constituents: persons who are part of the organization, whether members, volunteers, shareholders, staff, or executives.
These definitions aren’t offered as authoritative; they are here as explanation of what I mean by the terms I’m using. If it helps avoid distraction, consider them stipulative.
Summary of Arguments
- Argument from the preservation of excellence (you can’t go the extra mile if all the miles are required).
- Argument from the proximity of understanding (contrary to popular belief, those closest to a problem usually understand it best).
- Argument from the inherent limits of authority and responsibility (everything isn’t everybody’s business).
- Argument from disenfranchising of the truly vested (giving votes to those who aren’t entitled devalues the votes of those who are).
- Argument from the risk of feeding a fire (efforts to appease an angry crowd can lead to more demands and more loss of control).
- Argument from unhelpful empowerment (yielding to a third party’s demands can create expectations that increase the third party’s power in the future).
- Argument from the unwisdom of crowds (a stampede must be respected, but not as a source of insight).
Notes on the Arguments
Preservation of excellence: If all best practices are deemed obligatory, what can a group do to be generous toward alleged victims and interested third parties? How does one exceed expectations? Given that tendency, it’s best for an organization to maintain its sovereignty over its own affairs and frame any decision to involve outsiders in that light: “Dealing with ethics violations by our people is our responsibility; we choose to invite this team to investigate to assist and advise us” or “… because it’s our desire to go the extra mile in helping people understand the importance we attach to this matter.”
Argument from proximity: It’s popular in our culture to think that cubicles full of experts hundreds of miles away can best determine what ought to be done locally. History doesn’t bear this out. Other things being equal, those closest to the problem best understand its extent, causes, and remedies. (It’s why the founding fathers supported federalism, why Edmond Burke admired it. Russel Kirk emphasizes local control in the eighth of his ten conservative principles.)
Argument from inherent limits: This argument alone could make the case. It should be beyond dispute that not everything is everybody’s business. We have the acronym MYOB for a reason. That raises the question, how is it decided what matters are who’s business? Since power, in human hands, tends to try to grow itself, both individuals and organizations have to put some energy into protecting their boundaries (a.k.a., autonomy). A matter does not become somebody’s business just because they’re interested and have strong opinions about it. It’s sometimes OK — even wise — to tell the opinionated outsider (preferably with a calm, resolute tone and a smile) to take the proverbial long walk off the short peer.
How do we determine who gets a vote, so to speak, and who doesn’t? A rule of thumb might be this: the less personally invested an individual or group is in an organization, the less entitled that person or group is to influence its affairs. (Again, we’re talking about purely ethical issues here, not matters of law.)
Argument from disenfranchisement: Every organization has constituents who are personally and substantially involved in the organization’s activities. It’s patently unfair for an organization to give an angry Internet or cadre of complaining celebrities the same (or greater) power over its internal discipline than it gives to its own membership or employees. To draw an example from literal voting, does anyone think it would be just to extend the vote to citizens of Mexico and Canada in the next U.S. election? If an organization voluntarily chooses to employ outsiders to assist and advise, the rightful influence of its own constituency is not violated.
Argument from the risk of fire: Sometimes making concessions leads to calm and getting back to business. Sometimes it only adds fuel to a fired-up mob that doesn’t really want anything but destruction. We’ve all seen it happen. Social media has given fired up and uninformed masses more power than ever in matters that are none of their business. Now, more than ever, people who love truth must learn to shutter out the Twitter tempests and Facebook frenzies so that cooler heads can prevail. (Heather Wilhelm has some poignant thoughts on this topic today. Read Only the Strident Survive.)
Argument from empowerment: Giving in to the demands of third parties in these situations can unintentionally legitimize claims of rights where no rights exist. The result is that down the road, the empowered entities believe they are now entitled to expand their say on matters that weren’t their responsbility to being with. It’s like the kid who lets her brother tell her what to do. Once that ground is given up, it can be disproportionately hard to get it back. (Starbucks’ response to events in Philadelphia is insightful. They don’t seem to even know yet how much they have surrendered. The company was already well beyond the extra mile in promoting and protecting diversity.)
Argument from the unwisdom of crowds: This one shouldn’t be a hard sell. A raging stampede has too much destructive power to ignore, but it has nothing to contribute to understanding the best path to follow. Stampedes of humans may involve less dust, trampling, and fleeing cowboys, but they’re at least as loud, emotional, and stupid. In fact, it takes intelligence to be really, truly, foolish. Worked up crowds of humans are unsurpassed in their ability to employ intelligence selectively in pursuit of destructive and self-defeating goals.
Extraordinary Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is old book, but you can still get it on Amazon. It may not have all its facts straight, but the most remarkable thing about the book is that none of its accounts of popular bad judgment are at all hard to believe.
Conclusion
These are seven reasons that no organization should view alleged ethics violations as automatically requiring some kind of third party intervention. They’re also reasons for attaching little weight to public opinion as a factor in the pursuit of truth.
I haven’t argued here that involving a third party to investigate and/or make recommendations is necessarily a bad idea. It’s an option that has much to commend it as an option. Sometimes it’s helpful; sometimes it isn’t.
I also haven’t argued that public opinion should be ignored. Depending on the nature of the organization, it may be dependent on public good will for entirely practical reasons. In these cases, reassuring the public or rebuilding its trust is important for the sake of outcomes — not at all because the public has insight into what the organization ought to do or has a right to influence it. (Note: in the case of government entities, the public does have a right, though I remain skeptical of its insight.)
The secondary thesis that churches have even more reason to safeguard their autonomy is another topic, but all the above arguments apply, with the addition of a biblical mandate to recognize only Christ as their Head.
Aaron Blumer 2016 Bio
Aaron Blumer is a Michigan native and graduate of Bob Jones University and Central Baptist Theological Seminary (Plymouth, MN). He and his family live in small-town western Wisconsin, not far from where he pastored for thirteen years. In his full time job, he is content manager for a law-enforcement digital library service. (Views expressed are the author's own and not his employer's, church's, etc.)
- 33 views
Tyler wrote: “Aaron’s series came from a discussion on this “sexual and physical abuse reporting” issue in another thread.”
Hopefully, I’ve been consistent, but I don’t actually remember that thread at the moment. It wasn’t consciously on my mind when I wrote this piece. Are you thinking of the BJU GRACE one? Another thread I was thinking about was the latest one on Willow Creek/Bill Hybels. I don’t know the details of their case, but I have no reason to believe the church leadership cannot resolve the issue appropriately themselves (along with the congregation of course)… though not necessarily to the satisfaction of all involved. There is often no outcome that can even make 50% of the stakeholders happy. But sometimes there is something that works for a majority.
I would think an organization like Willow Creek would long ago have written up harassment and general ethics policies and, if they practice church discipline at all, procedures for how that works. So members and staff should presumably all be aware of what their process is. But again, I haven’t researched the details.
What I’ve been saying on this is that outside investigation is an option to be considered along with other options, and may or may not be the best route in each case…. and when there are civil or criminal legal issues involved, of course involve the authorities promptly.
(But sometimes folks seem to be so sure I’m saying something else, they can’t seem to hear what I’m actually saying. Oh well. Goes w/being human.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Aaron, I was referring to this comment, from the Hybels discussion. My apologies if I misunderstood the context of your articles, here.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Funny, in the “Thesis” section, I read that (a) organizations should not view themselves as obligated to have an outside investigator and (b) organizations ought not give undue weight to public outcry. Notice that both contentions are profoundly negative, and the end result is going to be that those who begin with this point of view are extremely likely to end with it as well. . In the same way, when one refers to the “madness of crowds”, one is (again) beginning with the assumption that their complaints are not valid and may indeed be a sign of mental illness.
Not a good place to start an investigation, to put it mildly, and this is exactly why I state that this article actually enables those who break the rules. The ground rules are phrased to discourage a good look around.
That doesn’t mean that every allegation is true, or that an independent investigator is always the solution, but let’s contrast that with a positive phrasing:
(a) Independent investigators can be a valuable resource to restore church credibility when evidence exists that church controls have failed, and (b) public outcry can be a valuable, though not infallible, indication of an organization’s need to investigate. It means almost the same thing, but again; it’s positive and will tend to lead towards action.
Another dangerous way to phrase things is “you don’t have all the facts”. Technically true, but only God knows everything, and we need to work on partial evidence. Regarding Hybels, get those 1100 emails, and we all know the full story most likely. It’s also significant that members of WC’s accountability board resigned in protest of the investigation—or lack thereof. Proof of guilt? Not yet, but definitely proof of a halfhearted investigation.
It’s little clues like that that break cases, and it’s little clues like this that non-independent investigators tend to miss because they’re used to looking at it. Churches need to learn not to discourage people from looking.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
“That doesn’t mean that every allegation is true, or that an independent investigator is always the solution”
Doesn’t sound to me like we disagree, then.
I accept that you don’t like how I’m saying it. I’m happy with how I’m saying it, for the time being. But I can’t really think of a positive way to say that there are things we should not do. Sometimes negatives are necessary and more clear. “Thou shalt not kill” is better than “thou shalt let everyone around you live.”
But to each his own I guess.
“Aaron, I was referring to this comment, from the Hybels discussion. My apologies if I misunderstood the context of your articles, here.”
I see now. No, you had it right. It’s not about sexual abuse reporting, though. I don’t think there is any of that alleged in the Hybel’s case… at least not in the Chicago Tribune story I read. If there is, then it’s a mystery to me why the whole thing wasn’t in the hands of police long ago. But in case there is any confusion about how I see that, where civil or criminal offenses are alleged, churches need to take that to law enforcement. In some cases, with the civil stuff, though, it people may choose not to press charges, so a bit of negotiation and peacemaking is in order. But anyway, the discipline process is the church dealing with sin. The legal process is the government dealing with crime. The two are not really in conflict at all (except in cases of direct contradiction of God’s commands as we find in Acts a couple of times..)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
First, a disclaimer: it’s a been long day and I’m tired… I hope this is coherent.
Now, a couple of self-corrections here:
1. I think I can restate the thesis positively, after all. Something like this:
In response to purely ethical scandals, organizations should view themselves as free to find solutions internally; further, they should be wary of attaching too much significance to public outcry.
I didn’t alter the second clause. It’s already positive.
2. I’ve made some erroneous statements in reference to civil law and the church, I think. The law aspect is complex and kind of on the periphery, so I’ve mostly tried to focus on the purely ethical scandals. But my understanding of civil law is that in the case of churches, this is what is specifically excluded in 1 Cor. 6:1 and following — but 1 Cor. 6 seems to assume a member vs. member situation in the same congregation. I’m not sure how it would apply when former members want to sue current members or former staff, for example.
(Accordingly, I have a sentence or two to edit in today’s post, where I lumped “civil and criminal law” together. In the church setting the difference matters.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
The thesis is STILL in a negative tone, and that will set the tone for what we’re discussing. I would further argue that in any ethical scandal that becomes public, an outside investigator should be STRONGLY encouraged if there is any significant evidence that in-church accountability structures have already failed.
I’m going to walk through your arguments as well, as I disagree almost completely. For starters, excellence is not what you do in special cases; it is what you do from day to day. Nobody buys Lindt chocolate or a Lexus because of what they do in special cases; they buy because every day, the whole company comes together to build the best chocolate/car they can. If you reserve excellence for special cases, it will not be there. That’s why companies get certified with ISO, after all.
Going further, I would invert your claim that organizations know better than outsiders what’s going on; the reason I say this is that survival in an organization is often a matter of accepting how that organization works, including its flaws. A well run organization sometimes will come close to what an outside auditor will see, but you’ll see they make a point of getting outsiders in who are not used to how the organization works. Example: ISO certification.
MYOB; OK, when someone like Bill Hybels is allegedly embarrassing the cause of Christ by sexually abusing subordinates and friends, exactly how do we claim that this is not the business of others in the catholic (universal) church? Sorry, doesn’t fly. In the same way, any parent of kids in sports is—or ought to be—concerned about scandals like that of Larry Nassar.
(this really covers your argument of fire, disenfranchisement, and others….sorry, everybody ought to be concerned when Chuck Phelps hides what happened to Tina Anderson by sending her to Colorado, as it could happen to their loved ones, too)
Argument from unwisdom of crowds: you give no examples, I’ve given plenty of the idiocy of groups circling the wagons. I think the preponderance of evidence says that not only is this a claim that is going to deter people from taking necessary and prudent steps to handle problem rightly, but also that the idiocy of wagon-circling groups appears to be more powerful than the unwisdom of crowds these days, to put it mildly.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, the Gospels are full of partial truths. There is nothing wrong with only dealing with part of a subject. One is not obligated to deal with it all (or nothing). This is the logical issue between you and Aaron.
Aaron’s article is fine and it stands on its own. The negative is part of the equation. If he were claiming that his article were the whole truth and it dealt with matters in a full way, that would be a different story.
Balance-phobia is common in the Christian world. It forces us to predicate everything with, “I’m not saying this…but I am saying this.” In a format like SI, with the mature nature of our participants, this should be understood a priori without the constant disclaimer.
"The Midrash Detective"
I am content to rest my case at this point and leave it to readers to decide if they believe it has been effectively countered.
Just one note of clarification. In the materials I have read, no “sexual abuse” is alleged in the Hybels case. But if indeed that has occurred, we’re talking about alleged criminal activity — which I’ve been quite clear calls for law enforcement investigation.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I contend these reason why these issues (spousal abuse, sexual abuse, etc.) are sometimes mishandled by churches is because of poor leadership, which is an umbrella term for a whole host of inter-related problems (e.g. cowardice, resulting in wagon-circling, etc.). I agree with Aaron’s thesis. Congregations must hold their pastors accountable to be good leaders, and the deacons must do likewise. The pastor, deacons and the congregation should provide a mutual set of checks and balances. I’m aware this sometimes doesn’t happen.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
1. RE: Hybels. There are no allegations of sexual * assault *, but there are several serious allegations of sexual harassment - remarks about the poor condition of his marriage to other women, requests for massages and such, remarks about women keeping themselves fit and pretty, etc. I am not following it closely, but there is a lot of smoke there to indicate real issues there that needed to be dealt with a long time ago.
2. As for this:
“In response to purely ethical scandals, organizations should view themselves as free to find solutions internally; further, they should be wary of attaching too much significance to public outcry.”
I seem to recall Paul taking the Corinthian church apart in chapter 5 simply because of this very problem… They were not acting on a very serious blot on the name of Christ and destroying their own reputation. He does not spend too much time on the man’s sin, but does hammer the church repeatedly for not dealing it. There is a principle there we need to pay attention to, especially in cases where the “investigation” is neutered by those in charge or cannot proceed at all for similar reasons. Personally, I think the church of Christ ought to be as open, transparent, and honest with all of these types of matters. Things decided in darkened rooms tend to generate fear, confusion, gossip, and all sorts of other sins.
I don’t think Aaron has been in that kind of situation before, as I and others have, so his advice simply isn’t helpful for people who are trapped in the kinds of situations where the leadership is the problem. Of course most of the pastors/deacons/elders on this site are going to agree with that perspective. I don’t mean to denigrate Aaron in any way, just acknowledge the fact that situation is VERY different when you are the church leader investigating something vs. the accuser/victim who has been offended by the church leader.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Ed, I’ve got to disagree, once again, that Aaron’s thesis is of any use simply because it starts out with such strong predispositions to doubt allegations and to insist on handling things the BJU/ABWE/New Tribes/MSU/Willow Creek way. Keep it inside, let the truth dribble out, pay no attention to the rest of the Christian world that suffers when the world sees that pastors and such are allowed to get away with these things, etc.. This is especially the case when I consider that I can provide counter-examples to each of his points. The factual basis for his claims is just not there.
And as Jay notes, when people who have been close to a situation see that pattern, they recognize it. Like it or not, but Aaron has done a capable job of…..describing one of the big causes of the problems we’ve seen.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Aaron’s method works if you have leaders with integrity and courage. Of course such leaders would know to bring in the law for anything that violates the law.
I view this like church government — about any system works if you have leaders with integrity who value the organization and righteousness above their own preferences. But even Biblical government fails if you have bad leaders with their agendas.
I would go a step further. Coming from Cicero, IL, during the days when the Mafia and corruption controlled the city, the police were themselves corrupt and took payoffs.
I do agree, however, that law enforcement was not typically like that elsewhere, and is one of the most dependable institutions we have. Still, it makes the point.
"The Midrash Detective"
I’m sorry, but Aaron’s method does not work, will not work, and can not work. A great way of summing it up is in the claim that things would be solved with leaders of integrity; OK, let’s parse this out Biblically. Are our leaders greater than Peter, who was rebuked by the outsider Paul for his dalliance with the Judiazers, or David, whose dalliance with Bathsheba and murder of Uriah was rebuked by the outsider Nathan?
Of course not. Smart leaders know that corporate culture eats corporate initiatives and corporate leaders for lunch, including in the church, and hence they need to pay careful attention to the tone that is set in their pronouncements.
Here’s a good picture from this column by Ed Stetzer. If you read it from the perspective of corporate culture, it is absolutely chilling to see what Stetzer describes. More or less, he’s saying that the blind spot is shared by the entire denomination. In other words, organizations very often are the worst judges of their own problems, just like Peter and David could tell you.
And if we think we’re any different, we are fooling ourselves. Outsiders who make complaints are not suffering from “madness of crowds”, and it is not the duty of leaders to downplay what they’re saying. Rather, we know a priori that they care enough about us to bring their concerns before us. We owe it to ourselves to take these seriously, even if in some points they might end up found in error. Anything that tends to create an assumption that we ought not take these things seriously needs to be avoided.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert, show me the written policies of any organization that say all accusations of unethical conduct (with no allegations of criminal conduct) will be investigated by a third party.
A link will do.
If you manage to find one, it will be quite exceptional. But I think you won’t find one.
You have said my “model doesn’t work.” Go ahead and prove that something else works better. (And no, saying it again with more feeling is not evidence.)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Really, Aaron, all you have to do do to better than your plan is to not do what you suggest, more or less. What you’ve suggested, in a nutshell, is that certain testimony is automatically inferior to insider testimony—and that’s simply not true, and it simply boggles the mind that someone who watched his alma mater wander through a GRACE investigation would believe that.
Really, it’s the same thing that medieval judges did; esteem nobles’ and mens’ testimony over that of peasants and women, and it’s no more justifiable. You need to stop talking this way, and making claims about the “madness of crowds.”
Rather, you concede that while an outsider doesn’t have an insider’s view, neither does he have the tendency to accept things simply to remain a member of the group. You’ve got to admit that this is a powerful incentive to downplay very real ethical and moral offenses, seen (again) abundantly at ABWE, BJU, New Tribes, MSU, Paige Patterson’s behavior, and most likely Willow Creek. The outsider is, after all, complaining about your group—often to the group directly—because he cares enough to spend the time to complain. He deserves a straight answer, if not directly to him, to the world.
Finally, in light of the ability of many outsiders to see things that insiders never notice or care about, you’ve got to admit that an outside investigation into serious allegations is not just a good idea when there are criminal charges. Infidelity of a pastor, especially with an unbeliever, generates civil suits and general disgrace to the church as a whole, not just one’s own local body. Hence, if the facts are not 100% clear, why not bring in an outsider investigator who won’t be as tempted to shade the truth? You don’t say “you don’t need to”, but rather “this can be a valuable way of restoring a ministry’s credibility.”
In other words, recognize that BOTH claims in your thesis are negative and will tend to prejudice any investigation, and moreover the claims that you’re using to “back them up” are not only dubious at best in light of modern church scandals, but also as written will tend to prejudice any investigation, internal or open.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion