When White Lies are Pink Flags
In my work studying and assessing situations of abuse in Christian environments, I’ve come across a number of instances in which a survivor recalled sensing early on that “something was off” about the leader who later caused them harm. One of those common cues are odd expressions of self-promotion offered by the leader. When first encountered, these statements of self-flattery seem relatively harmless to others, like white lies, and are therefore largely ignored, but are nonetheless raised as pink flags: significant enough to sow an inner caution but not significant enough to sound an external alarm.
The purpose of a self-flattering lie is to project an image that one wants an audience to have – of being strong, or successful, or intelligent, or any other positive characteristic. This typically requires over-communicating information that improves that image while under-communicating information that damages that image. We can all find ourselves in positions where we might desire to tell a seemingly harmless lie in order to improve our image – perhaps to secure a position during an interview or to gain a promotion or to receive acceptance from a friend. Left unchecked, however, the need to be seen as something we are not can lead to patterns of deception and as the image we present to others becomes increasingly separate from who we actually are, the desire and need to self-promote only becomes stronger.
Keep in mind that self-promotion exists on a spectrum - from the everyday self-promotion that might be necessary and helpful, such as describing your past success in job interview, to the highly deceptive and constant self-promotion that marks egomaniacs. Similarly, Hessel Zondag, a scholar who studied narcissism among Dutch pastors, distinguishes between “subclinical” or “everyday” narcissism and “clinical” narcissism. Clinical narcissism is a personality disorder. Here’s how he defines everyday narcissism:
I understand narcissism to be a strong, psychologically tinted interest in oneself. It can also be defined as ‘mental care for oneself’ So defined, everyone is to some extent narcissistic. A certain degree of narcissism is necessary for a person to have a positive self-image, stability, and a perception of their person as a whole.1
When people who have been harmed by leadership describe how some self-promoting statements seemed off to them, they aren’t typically responding to the self-promotion itself but to the deception attached to the self-promotion: the embellishment, fabrication, or trimming of what’s true. And when leaders in positions of trust travel down this path of self-promoting deception, the end result can be devastating. Erving Goffman observed, “The more there is about the individual that deviates in an undesirable direction from what might have been expected to be true of him, the more he is obliged to volunteer information about himself . . .”2 The person can become a masked performer - always putting on a disguise to be accepted. The people around that self-promoting leader are then viewed merely as audience members needing to be constantly won over by a performance. The leader behaves like certain species of male squid that split their coloration so that the female squid only sees the kinder, gentler side while the aggressive color and pattern is kept hidden from view (See clip below starting at 2:37).
I’ve observed this kind of impression management behavior in leaders who inflate performance metrics in order to appear more successful than they are, who give the impression of having earned a doctorate when it was actually bestowed as an honor or purchased, who casually mention their connections with celebrity status, who slightly embellish the stories they tell, or who boast in feats of intellectual or moral strength.
And like the white lie, these claims can be defended as having been told for the good of the audience. He inflated his credentials to earn respect. He may have embellished that story a bit, but it kept the audience engaged. He may have rounded up those attendance numbers, but people needed to hear some good news.
A recent example of a self-promoting claim that seemed off to the audience, but not significant enough for anyone to challenge it at the time, appears in episode two of the Rise & Fall of Mars Hill Podcast. Near the end of the episode (46:00) a recording is played that captures Mark Driscoll, the founder and former pastor of Mars Hill Church, claiming that he reads a book a day. He told the audience at the time:
I read a stack of books taller than me on postmodernity. I can read a book a day. I have for years. And I sat down and I read them all.
A church leader in the audience at the time that claim was made told Mike Cosper, the host of The Rise & Fall of Mars Hill:
And you’re like, come on. You know, give me a break. Nobody reads a book a day. But he said it with such confidence that people just were like, Oh my God. And, you know, he was so smart and he knew so much and he just talked with such bravado that you almost were like, Oh, well, I mean, maybe he does read a book a day. This kind of thing. But he would just do stuff like that. Now I look back now and I just roll my eyes like give me a break, Driscoll.
I don’t know whether that claim is true. After all, Rick Warren, who is mentioned in the podcast as a former “friend and mentor” of Driscoll, claims that for many years he read “at least a book a day.”3 But the incredulous response to those kinds of claims is normal and expected and it is appropriate for these kinds of statements to be viewed as part of a tapestry of social interactions. And when such claims are accompanied by other questionable conduct, or viewed in hindsight of harm done to others, it is understandable to see how people might register them as pink flags, if not red flags (especially if one knows the person to be deceptive in other areas).
Lynne Sharon Schwartz in her book Ruined by Reading tells of a friend who lied about reading:
I puzzled for years over how a friend, frantically busy at a publishing job, where manuscripts are thrust at you daily for overnight perusal, had read every book ever mentioned. Colossal erudition, I thought in my innocence, and speedy too. Till it struck me, as it might a child suddenly seeing through Santa Clause: it can’t be. She lies. I wasn’t filled with indignation, didn’t even banish her from the ranks of the trustworthy. Simply: aha, so that’s what’s done, a helpful currency of social exchange like the white lie, and equally easy.
The danger with this kind of lie is that it dilutes the actual experience of reading, not to mention that it misleads the audience. She writes:
What has been lost, after all? Only the actual experience, the long slow being with the book, feeling the shape of the words, their roll and tumble in the ear. Still, lying about reading feels too risky, as risky as saying you have seen God or drunk the milk of Paradise when you haven’t – the kind of lie that might dilute the milk of Paradise should it ever be offered you.4
Even if such a claim is true, it is not an example to follow, in my opinion, if one wants to engage in meaningful reading! The larger point is that the risk of lying is a risk not only to the person being deceived, but also to the person who chooses to take the shortcuts afforded by lying. Later in her book, Schwartz argues speed reading isn’t reading at all, but just “eye exercises” (p. 115), and the reader sacrifices the gifts of true reading.
A person may argue that drawing attention to such claims is petty and trifling, like making an issue over a harmless white lie, but I argue that when viewed as part of a larger pattern of harmful behavior, those claims are significant because they demonstrate the need to act on pink flags before one is dealing with the more obvious red flags.
How does one (preferably someone in a position to hold the self-promoter accountable) do this? Perhaps by asking follow-up questions. Where did you get the data that leads you to claim that this many people are attending services? Where did you earn your doctorate? Did you write a dissertation? Can I read it? What books did you read recently? What did you learn from them? How do you read a book a day anyways? In other words, you do a check to see if the claims can be backed up with evidence. The typical response, however, is to allow the claim to go unchallenged in order to maintain tact. If that happens for too long, a deceptive leader can keep gaining more and more ground as questionable behaviors and claims go unchecked.
Those checks for evidence tend to be revealing, and if they reveal a problem with truth-telling, leadership can help keep such deception from worsening and spreading by saying, “We are concerned that you seem to be less than entirely truthful in some areas and it’s important we understand why that is.”
It can be nearly impossible for those under the authority of someone who deceives in these ways to confront that person or to bring attention to it in a manner that will be received with care and consideration. Those in subordinate positions can at least learn to trust their instincts when something seems off – when white lies are pink flags - and perhaps be empowered to set appropriate boundaries without feeling irrational for doing so.
And perhaps a more effective and long-lasting type of reform is needed: a turning away from cultures of fandom, self-promotion, and celebrity that has a hold on too many churches and a turning to the kind of self-sacrificing work among human suffering that marked the life of Jesus. Hessel Zondag has insight in this regard, suggesting that research demonstrates if the pastorate is an “applause machine” then it would draw narcissists, but if viewed as primarily work among human suffering, then it would repel them.5 That’s not a fool-proof approach, of course, as many have been abused by therapists and those in counseling roles, aid workers, missionaries, and others who exploit the suffering of victims, but I think a good start is to unplug the applause machines and to challenge self-promoting lies.
Zondag, H.J. (2005). Between Imposing One’s Will and Protecting Oneself. Narcissism and the Meaning of Life among Dutch Pastors. Journal of Religion and Health, 44, 413-426.
Goffman, Erving. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster: New York. p. 64.
See: https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2017/11/the-strange-habit-that-laid-the-foundation-for.html. See also: https://pastorrick.com/a-journey-of-lifelong-learning-starts-with-a-choice/
Schwartz, Lynne Sharon. (1996). Ruined by Reading: A life in books. Beacon Press: Boston. p. 8.
Zondag, Hessel. (2004). Just Like Other People: Narcissism Among Pastors. Pastoral Psychology. 52. 423-437.