Ostracism and Scapegoating
Humans have many needs, some of which are quite strange. Many of our physical needs are obvious: food, shelter, basic care. Then there are the needed skills people must develop for survival and advancement.
Less obvious but equally important are the social needs of human beings. People have a deep-seated need for belonging, human interaction, and comparison. We learn by observing others and by how we’re treated. Our growth and development are shaped by the societies and groups to which we belong.
One obscure social need is for scapegoating. This may sound strange, since the main connotations of the word “scapegoating” are quite negative. But hang with me.
When something goes wrong because it’s our fault, we need the humility to admit it and learn from it. But sometimes things go badly or get out of balance for reasons beyond our control. Often when this happens, people seem to need someone or something to blame. Oddly, this is part of what knits social fabrics together and helps individuals cope with hard times.
The ancient citizens of Athens held a vote each year to see if anyone among them posed a threat to their democratic society. If the vote was “yes,” they would take another vote to decide who was responsible for the threat. They would scratch the name of the supposed offending party onto a shard of pottery. The shards, called ostraca, were then gathered up and counted. The winner – well, loser actually – would then be banished from Athens for ten years.
This is the root of our modern English word “ostracism.” Scapegoating is a constant part of our existence. It’s never fun to be the one who is cut out or ostracized, but broadly speaking, societies need such practices to maintain order. It’s obviously a practice that can turn ugly, but from a human perspective, it has a legitimate function in protecting societal norms.
Ashley Goodall argues in The Problem with Change (Little Brown Spark, 2024, p. 55) that gossip is a key part of how we attend to the need for scapegoating, that is, maintaining boundaries by identifying and calling out wrong behavior among ourselves. He suggests it’s a key part of how people groups operate. Humans are so focused on protecting their groups that they can’t help but regulate one another by sharing juicy tidbits. This sharing or gossiping then reinforces how things work in the group. He quotes from R. I. M. Dunbar’s article “Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective,” (in the Review of General Psychology, 8, no. 2, p. 109): “The cognitive demands of gossip are the very reason why such large brains evolved in the human lineage.”
What about this from a church perspective? While the term “scapegoating” is probably too negative for a church context, the concept behind it is still crucial for the social cohesion of a congregation. I realize you may feel it wrong for Christians to name common enemies and then bond together over that enmity, but this instinct is deeply embedded in the human brain.
Instead of trying to reprogram the human brain, church leaders might want to find ways to hijack people’s natural tendencies – for the good of their churches. When we look at the broader culture, we can see that staunch conservatives already do this very effectively. Their sense of moral revulsion over things like transgender rights, abortion, etc., allows them to easily and effectively “rally the troops,” so to speak.
Preachers in these staunchly conservative churches don’t often need to say much to create the needed cues that speak to the group ethic. They can simply refer to “men in girls’ bathrooms” or the need for “prayer in schools,” and their church members bind together in affirmation. This kind of uninformed fear-mongering, as I would call it, is something I disagree with. But I also have to tip my cap to their savvy use of human psychology.
So here’s my wondering. Why are moderate or more progressive church leaders seemingly so unwilling to use similar tools for their own advantage? This concern, albeit not about church leaders, is voiced by Jonathan Haidt in his book The Righteous Mind. Backed up by outstanding, thorough research, he argues throughout the book that conservatives are simply better equipped and more adept at using tools that appeal to the way most people’s brains operate.
Moderate and more progressive church leaders often bemoan their inability to attract new members and then mobilize them for mission. As odd as it may sound to say, perhaps they need to pay attention to the basic human need for identifying and calling out bad behavior. Some church leaders naively act as if people just ought to be nice and sing “Kum-ba-Yah” together. I realize this does sound wonderful, like the peaceable kingdom of Jesus, but it’s a rather idealistic way of operating in a world where people rarely act in an ideal manner.
What if we were more willing to identify the people and issues against which we stand together? This is what lies behind my use of the term “scapegoating.” Jesus said that his followers ought to be “as wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16). Too many moderate Christians have forgotten the first part of this admonition.
I understand why moderate or progressive church leaders are leery of this, and they’re right to be cautious. Tools such as “disfellowshipping” or “excommunication” have been used in ways that were deeply scarring and hardly just. Some churches choose – knowingly or subconsciously – to ostracize people simply because of their skin color, ethnicity, socio-economic level, or gender, and to demonize those who are “different.” These bigoted behaviors may solidify the camaraderie of the majority group, but they run counter to the good news of Jesus.
It’s also just plain unhelpful and pollyanna-ish, however, to tell a Christian community they must treat all equally. The work of loving your congregation demands you occasionally stand against those who threaten it. Jesus dismissed Judas from the Last Supper. Peter rejected the duplicity of Ananias and Sapphira. Phillip ostracized Simon the magician for his effort to buy the gift of the Spirit. Churches need counter-examples and villains – even if slightly stylized – in order to bind them more closely together.
Some church leaders instinctively understand this. In recent weeks, I have seen pastors writing social media posts and open letters against a candidate for state-wide office in Texas who made racist posts that have been widely condemned. I see other ministers deriding the apparently calloused positions of certain government officials or business leaders.
This could easily sound like an invitation to be political. That’s not my point. And unquestionably, this behavior can quickly veer off into unhealthy territory. But it’s helpful to realize that there’s a natural human need to “scapegoat” those who do not meet the norms of our communities. I would argue that strong congregations know who they are, and this in part stems from understanding what kinds of behavior are out of bounds. Healthy churches and constructive church leaders ignore this need at their peril.
Speaking for myself, this means paying attention to my church’s urban context. It means advocating for the needs of our neighbors as we engage them to build Christian community. As I do this, I see neighbors living in fear of ruthless immigration crackdowns: one neighboring parent was just taken into custody. Also, our nearby school and city infrastructure are underfunded, yet the city government is trying to annex a huge swath of undeveloped land so that developers can build new homes, an initiative that will steer city funds away from revitalization and into the pockets of developers. Speaking against these things, even if only in passing, helps draw our church together as we lean into God’s mission for us.
It’s in this limited sense that the human need for “scapegoats” might actually strengthen our churches. Preach and practice love, of course. But also love your congregation enough to occasionally point out those things that run counter to God’s mission for your church.
