In the Weeks Following a Crisis: What Institutional Betrayal Looks Like

What Research Shows—and What Healthy Responses Require

When institutions face internal crises, especially those involving harm, power, or broken trust, their responses may vary, but they tend to follow recognizable patterns. Some move toward honest examination of the systems and leaders involved, with a focus on repair—both for individuals and for the institution as a whole. Others move toward controlling the narrative, narrowing responsibility to individuals, and shifting attention away from the systems that allowed harm to occur.

Over time, researchers and clinicians have identified consistent patterns in how organizations respond under pressure. These patterns are not unique to churches. They appear across schools, nonprofits, corporations, and religious institutions.

This is why terms like institutional betrayal, systemic harm, and spiritual abuse exist.

They describe what happens not only when harm occurs, but when systems respond in ways that deepen that harm.

What Is Institutional Betrayal?

The term institutional betrayal was developed by psychologist Jennifer Freyd to describe the harm that occurs when an institution fails to prevent wrongdoing, responds inadequately to reports of harm (including sexual abuse), prioritizes its own protection over the well-being of those it is responsible to care for, or creates environments where people do not feel safe coming forward.

Institutional betrayal is closely connected to betrayal trauma—the harm that occurs when a person is hurt by someone or something they depend on for safety, stability, or care.

Betrayal trauma typically occurs at the level of personal relationship or dependence. Institutional betrayal extends that harm to the systems people trust, particularly in how those systems respond.

These forms of betrayal are not limited to what happened. They include how it is handled. Often, the response becomes as significant as the original harm. This is why institutional responses matter so deeply. They can either begin repair or deepen the harm.

“Systems are not neutral. They either protect the vulnerable or they protect themselves.” — Diane Langberg

What Should Happen in the Weeks Following a Crisis

Across research and Scripture—through trauma-informed care, organizational psychology, safeguarding frameworks, and biblical standards for leadership and justice—there is consistent agreement on what should happen in the weeks following a crisis.

These are not competing perspectives. They consistently reinforce one another.

1. Clarity Should Increase, Not Decrease

In healthy systems:

• information becomes more consistent over time

• timelines are clarified

• communication is direct and transparent

  
  

As new information emerges, understanding should stabilize, because clarity builds trust.

Breakdowns in clarity, especially shifting narratives, are widely recognized as contributing to institutional harm (Freyd, 2018; Smith & Freyd, 2014).

Scripture reflects this same principle: "Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to your neighbor, for we are all members of one body" (Ephesians 4:25).

2. Focus Should Expand to Systems, Not Narrow to Individuals

Best practices in safeguarding emphasize that harm is rarely only about an individual. It reflects system-level failures.

(Doyle, 2017; GRACE)

“Abuse is rarely about one bad actor; it is about systems that enable, conceal, or protect harm.” — Wade Mullen

Healthy systems ask:

• How did this happen?

• What processes failed?

• What safeguards were missing?

• Where were we underprepared or insufficiently trained?

• What red flags were missed or ignored?

• What power dynamics made this difficult to report or challenge?

• Were previous concerns raised? And how were they handled?

• Who had oversight, and where did accountability break down?

• What incentives or pressures may have discouraged transparency?

  
  

Shifting focus away from systems and toward individuals, especially those raising concerns, is a documented institutional defense response.

3. Independent, Trauma-Informed Support Should Be Engaged

Trauma-informed care frameworks emphasize:

• safety

• transparency

• empowerment

• and independent support

(SAMHSA Guidelines)

In crisis situations:

• outside professionals should be engaged

• independent investigation should be pursued

• leaders directly connected to the situation should not be the providers of care

Because trauma-informed care requires:

• training

• neutrality

• and awareness of power dynamics

Scripture speaks to this as well: "Where there is no guidance, a people falls, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety" (Proverbs 11:14).

4. Leadership Should Create Space for Questions

Research consistently shows that voice and agency are critical in recovery from institutional harm. When individuals feel silenced or dismissed, harm is compounded (Freyd & Smith, 2014).

Healthy environments:

• allow questions

• invite dialogue

• and respond with clarity and kindness

Discouraging questions or reframing them as harmful, accusatory, or even spiritually wrong undermines trust and increases emotional and psychological impact. Throughout Scripture, godly leadership is marked by humility and accountability, with clear warnings for those who misuse their authority or fail to care for those entrusted to them.

"To the elders among you... Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are wiling, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:1-3)

“Silencing questions is not spiritual maturity—it is control.” — Scot McKnight

5. Communication Should Not Induce Self-Doubt

One of the most studied outcomes of institutional betrayal is confusion and self-doubt.

When:

• information is inconsistent

• responsibility is unclear

• or messaging is indirect

“Deception is not always the presence of lies—it is often the absence of truth.” — Wade Mullen

Individuals may begin to question their own perception of reality. This dynamic is closely related to what psychologists describe as institutional gaslighting (Freyd, 2018).

One pattern often identified in both interpersonal and institutional harm is what Freyd describes as DARVO—Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender. In this dynamic, wrongdoing is minimized or denied, those raising concerns are criticized or questioned, and responsibility is shifted in ways that portray the institution or its leaders as the ones being harmed.

Another common institutional pattern related to communication is pressure to “move on” before clarity, accountability, or repair has taken place.

While often framed as unity, healing, or even grace and mercy, this dynamic can minimize harm and silence those still seeking understanding or needing to tell their stories.

When individuals are expected to resolve their concerns on a timeline set by the institution, rather than the reality of what has occurred, it can lead to increased confusion, self-doubt, and isolation.

Healthy leadership works to reduce confusion, not increase it. It does not rush resolution, but recognizes that trust is rebuilt through clarity, accountability, and time.

6. The Role of the Pulpit (or Platform)

In religious contexts, the pulpit carries unique authority.

Experts in spiritual abuse and church dynamics, such as Diane Langberg and Wade Mullen, note that spiritual language can be used to clarify, or it can be used to control perception

During a crisis, best practice includes:

• pausing standard teaching

• addressing harm directly

• creating space for lament

Scripture, when used rightly, should:

• comfort the hurting

• protect the vulnerable

• and call leaders to account

“When leaders misuse Scripture to protect themselves, they turn the Word of God into a tool of harm.” — Diane Langberg

This standard is not new. Scripture consistently calls leaders to care for those entrusted to them and warns against those who use their position for self-protection. When leaders misuse Scripture to blame the innocent or deflect accountability, they place themselves in serious spiritual danger.

In Ezekiel 34, shepherds are rebuked for feeding themselves instead of the flock, failing to strengthen the weak, heal the sick, or seek the lost. The indictment is not only for what was done, but for what was neglected.

“The church exists to protect the vulnerable, not the reputation of the powerful.” — Scot McKnight

7. Patterns Should Be Examined, Not Contained

Institutional research consistently shows: When patterns are not examined, they repeat.

(Royal Commission)

Healthy systems ask:

• Is this part of a larger pattern?

• Have similar concerns been raised before?.

As Ecclesiastes reminds us, “What has been will be again…” (Ecclesiastes 1:9), reinforcing the reality that unexamined patterns tend to repeat.

8. Policy Must Be Matched by Practice

Many institutions have strong written policies.

But research shows: Policies alone do not prevent harm.

Implementation, transparency, and accountability do.

(Doyle, 2017; GRACE)

Trust is built not on what is written, but on what is demonstrated.

Scripture reflects this: “Do not merely listen to the word… Do what it says” (James 1:22), emphasizing that integrity is demonstrated through action, not intention.

The Central Question

Across all research and disciplines, the core question should be:

Are the people being cared for?

Because that is the responsibility of pastoral leadership.

Care does not look like confusion, shifting narratives, redirection, or pressure.

It does look like clarity, honesty, accountability, and protection.

Final Thoughts

The weeks following a crisis are telling. With even a basic understanding, and the wisdom to apply knowledge with discernment, it becomes possible to recognize whether people are being genuinely cared for or further harmed, and the direction a system is moving.

The call to care for people with integrity, protection, and accountability is not only supported by research. It is a consistent biblical expectation of those entrusted with leadership.

“The test of a system is not how it performs when things are going well, but how it responds when harm is exposed.” — Diane Langberg

This article draws on research from institutional betrayal theory, trauma-informed care frameworks, and organizational accountability studies.