The Pain of Being Scapegoated in a Church Community

Image by Sasha Freemind, Unsplash.

What is Scapegoating?

Scapegoating is a social process where blame, shame, or responsibility for a group’s problems is unfairly placed on one person or a small group. The term originates from ancient rituals where a literal goat would symbolically carry away the sins of the people. In modern contexts, especially within churches and faith communities, scapegoating occurs when conflict, anxiety, or dysfunction is projected onto one individual, who then becomes the target of criticism, exclusion, or silence. In a sense, the wrath of many people is heaped on one person or group of people.

How Scapegoating Operates in Faith Communities

In church settings, scapegoating can emerge when a community feels threatened by conflict or exposed wrongdoing. Instead of addressing the deeper systemic issues, attention is redirected to a “problem person.” Sometimes this is someone who raises concerns, asks hard questions, or speaks up about unhealthy patterns. Rather than engaging with the truth of what has been shared, the group may close ranks and place the weight of discomfort on the one who dared to voice it.

This often includes:

• Withdrawal or shunning – members quietly distancing themselves rather than staying in relationship, even when strong relationships previously existed.

• Silence from the community – friends or leaders who once offered support may no longer speak up, fearing backlash or conflict.

• Distortion of narrative – the scapegoated person’s story is reshaped or minimised, while the group reassures itself of its own unity and goodness.

For the one who has been scapegoated, the silence can wound as deeply as the spoken attacks. It communicates abandonment and complicity, leaving the individual not only excluded but also disbelieved.

What are some psychological mechanisms that help to explain why scapegoating occurs

There are several psychological processes that explain scapegoating. One is displacement, where collective anxiety is redirected toward a more convenient or less threatening target (Baumeister et al., 1998). In many cases, the person who dares to voice concerns becomes the target. This process can temporarily foster group cohesion, as members unite against a “problem person.” Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) explains how this occurs: groups reinforce belonging by identifying insiders versus outsiders. Scapegoating functions to strengthen unity for the majority—at the expense of the well-being of one individual.

The silence and complicity that often accompany scapegoating can also be understood through cognitive dissonance theory. When harm occurs within a church community that sees itself as loving or godly, members experience psychological discomfort. To resolve this dissonance, it may feel easier to locate the problem in one dissenting individual than to confront systemic wrongdoing, or a spiritual leader being help responsible (Festinger, 1957). At the same time, processes of moral disengagement (Bandura, 1999) allow individuals to rationalise their silence—telling themselves they are “staying neutral”, “not taking sides.”, or “refraining from gossip and disunity”. In reality, silence communicates abandonment to the scapegoated individual and helps sustain unhealthy systems.

Research on obedience to authority (Milgram, 1963) and the bystander effect (Darley & Latané, 1968) provides further insight into why scapegoating is rarely challenged. When leaders signal that one person is to blame, members often comply, even if it goes against their personal values. In group settings, responsibility becomes diffused—each individual assumes someone else will step forward, so no one does. This leaves the scapegoated person isolated, while others reassure themselves of neutrality.

Together, these mechanisms explain why scapegoating is such a powerful and destructive force in faith communities. It allows groups to avoid confronting uncomfortable truths and protects the system in the short term, but at great cost. For the individual, the wounds of exclusion, shame, and abandonment can be devastating. For the wider community, it undermines integrity and corrodes the values of compassion and truth it claims to uphold.

The Psychological Impact of Scapegoating

Research in social psychology shows that scapegoating functions as a defense mechanism for groups under stress, helping them avoid facing uncomfortable truths (Girard, 1986; Volkan, 1988). However, this “unity” comes at great cost: the targeted person often experiences heightened shame, social isolation, and psychological distress.

Studies in organisational and family systems also highlight that scapegoated individuals bear a disproportionate burden of blame, while the system remains unchanged (Karpman, 1968; Bowen, 1978). In faith communities, where belonging and identity are often deeply tied to spiritual meaning, scapegoating can feel like both relational and spiritual exile. Survivors frequently describe ongoing grief—not only from being excluded, but from being silenced and unheard.

Why the Silence Hurts So Much

For those standing on the sidelines, silence can feel like a neutral position—“staying out of it.” But silence rarely feels neutral to the person who has been scapegoated. Instead, it confirms the rejection and reinforces the message that their voice does not matter.

Faith communities in particular are called to be places of truth, compassion, and courage. Breaking the silence and reaching out to scapegoated individuals is not about “taking sides,” but about making space for stories that need to be told. When silence prevails, the whole community loses the chance to learn from what has gone wrong and to embody the healing and reconciliation it preaches.

Moving Towards Healing for the Scapegoated

For those who have been scapegoated in church settings, recovery involves more than simply moving past the exclusion. It often requires:

• Naming the experience – understanding that what happened was not just “personal conflict,” but a systemic dynamic.

• Grieving losses – of community, trust, and spiritual belonging.

• Seeking safe spaces – connecting with supportive relationships and communities where their story is heard and validated.

• Rebuilding trust – for some, this means disentangling faith from the actions of harmful systems, and seeking new places that they can connect with people spiritually and/or relationally.

• Seeking professional support – working with a trusted counsellor or psychologist can help process the trauma of scapegoating, rebuild self-worth, and develop tools for ongoing resilience. Research highlights that survivors of spiritual abuse and exclusion often experience symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress, anxiety, and depression, and benefit from trauma-informed therapeutic support (Cashwell et al., 2017; Oakley & Kinmond, 2013). Professional care can provide both validation of the harm experienced and strategies for healing in safe, confidential spaces.

About the Author:

This article was written by Kylie Walls, a registered psychologist and counsellor in Australia. Through Refuge Psychology, she provides support for adults navigating the impacts of spiritual abuse, scapegoating, and other faith-related harms, as well as those experiencing broader mental health challenges. Kylie has also published research on control, emotional dysregulation, attachment, and their impact on relationships. Kylie is passionate about offering safe, compassionate spaces where stories can be heard and healing can begin.

To learn more or to book an appointment, click here:

Book and Appointment

Find out More

Disclaimer: Any stories or examples provided are an example only and do not describe a specific client, person or event. Some of the information we provide on our website may be information related to health and medical issues, but it's not meant to be health and medical "advice". We provide this information for your general use only. While we try to provide accurate information, it may be historical, incomplete information or based on opinions that aren't widely held. Your personal situation has not been considered when providing the information, so any reliance on this information is at your sole risk. We recommend seeking independent professional advice before relying on the information we provide. Find the full terms of service here: Terms of Service | Refuge Psychology

References

• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), 193–209.

• Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of Personality, 66(6), 1081–1124.

• Bowen, M. (1978). Family Therapy in Clinical Practice. Jason Aronson.

• Cashwell, C. S., Bentley, P. B., & Yarborough, P. (2017). Religious abuse: Implications for counseling. Counseling and Values, 62(2), 155–170.

• Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8(4), 377–383.

• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.

• Girard, R. (1986). The Scapegoat. Johns Hopkins University Press.

• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378.

• Oakley, L., & Kinmond, K. (2013). Breaking the Silence on Spiritual Abuse. Palgrave Macmillan.

• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

• Volkan, V. D. (1988). The Need to Have Enemies and Allies: From Clinical Practice to International Relationships. Jason Aronson.

• Image by Sasha Freemind, Unsplash.