I'm going to use screenshots this time, as IBLP's statement is more verbose.
If you read Jim Bob Duggar's statement, you will notice a similarity in structure and verbiage.
Both of them lead off with DARVO. IBLP is slightly more emphatic with it.
This is not only DARVO, but a backhanded TRANSCENDENCE.
How so?
By categorizing the documentary as "a reflection of today's culture", they are aligning the victims with the world and themselves with God.
So it would be fair to call this DARVO via TRANSCENDENCE. (@jdahlmd we have another "winner" here.)
Why is it DARVO? It's an implicit Denial of wrongdoing, a flagrant Attack on the victims' accounts, and it casts IBLP as victims, thus Reversing Victim and Offender.
Here is more ATTACKING.
This time, by calling the producers of the documentary "Media story makers", they are accusing them (and the victims by extension) of lying.
It doesn't get more DARVO than this.
More DARVO here. And note that they are imputing ulterior motives on their accusers.
Let's talk about that for a minute.
Yes, media outlets seek profit. So does IBLP. (Hey Bill, how much money have you made over the decades with IBLP?)
But when the media ran favorable coverage of your conventions in the 1970s, was that also for profit on their end? If you benefit from favorable coverage, then why complain at unfavorable coverage?
And if you have 30 accusers of sexual predation, I'd say that meets the "two or more witnesses" standard that Paul gave in the NT.
Don't blame THAT on the media.
Ok...moving right along.
In this one, we have MINIMIZATION via TRIANGULATION.
He is using faint praise for the victims, using their character against them by calling them "manipulated", WHEN HE'S THE ONE DOING THE MANIPULATION.
The end-result: more DARVO.
Here we have MINIMIZATION "IBLP is neither a church nor a religion...", as this implicitly attempts to shield IBLP from accountability to which church elders are Biblically subject.
But we also see TRANSCENDENCE: appealing to the Gospel, & IBLP as a "Christian ministry."
This paragraph is an example of BOLSTERING. What IBLP is doing here is elevating themselves by appealing to the "good" that they've done for decades. This helps minimize the perceived effect of their offenses.
Here we have BOLSTERING (appealing to the work of IBLP to help believers use the Bible as a guide). It is also TRANSCENDENCE in that by appealing to the Bible, they are taking the high road & casting their critics as being on the low road.
This paragraph is textbook MINIMIZATION via attempted INOCULATION by TRIANGULATION. By throwing Bill Gothard under the bus, IBLP is aiming to immunize themselves from further attack.
BUT IT'S GOTHARD'S CULTURE, GOTHARD'S BOOKS, GOTHARD'S STRUCTURE, that is also at issue.
Getting near the end, we have BOLSTERING via DARVO. They are clearly using a DARVO-style attack, while using it to BOLSTER their "ministry".
This is brazen on a large scale.
Finally, we have TRANSCENDENCE. This is an insidious form, as it is also wrapped in an ATTACK. The implicit message: the docuseries producers, and the victims of IBLP, are enemies of the Gospel.
In summary, this response by IBLP is a massive exercise in DARVO and gaslighting. Every other Image Repair tactic they use is in support of a DARVO and GASLIGHTING strategy to dismiss critics as agents of Satan, and present themselves as soldiers of the Gospel.
This is as evil as I've ever seen in a public scandal response. And that's saying something.
*NOTE: this is also an example of using TEMPORAL DISTANCING as a BOLSTERING tactic. In this case, they use it to highlight a long record of "good".
Usually, people use TD to MINIMIZE an abuse they committed "many years ago". But in this case, TD is a BOLSTERING tactic.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Some thoughts on the responses of Jim Bob Duggar and the @iblp
(1) Jim Bob Duggar is a vile excuse of a human being.
(a) He let his son Josh skate with a pat on the butt when he molested at least 4 of his sisters and at least one other woman outside the family.
(b) JB focused on damage control when the news of Josh's molestations became public. All that mattered was keeping the show going. His daughters were forced to put the best face on what was a horrid set of abuses. All for the almighty Benjamin's.
(c) When Josh was on trial, JB flagrantly lied on the stand, claiming he "could not remember".
And yet he had the mental faculties to run for office while his son was on trial.
When a minister (or church eldership team) makes a public statement during a time of crisis, here's what you need to watch out for and why.
1. TRANSCENDENCE
I mention this because it may be the most common IR tactic, and it is very deceptive and arrogating, and can even be an attack against victims, advocates, and other legitimate critics.
Oftentimes the pastor will frame himself as specially anointed, on a special mission, and a devoted servant "fighting the good fight" against the "armies of Satan".
The implication: all critics, including victims, are in league with Satan.
The short answer: a form of crisis communication which can be both natural but can also have levels of sophistication.
To show how it works, let's say you're a prominent senator who just learned that CNN is going to out you as a longtime patron of a local brothel.
Well, you're probably going to get a crisis communication expert. He or she is going to give you a communication strategy. But really, some of this is natural.
I would stop short of calling this 'persecution', as we throw that wors around way too often.
OTOH, it is fair that you have a large faction running a script--against conservative Christians--that isn't supported by the known evidence (which, admittedly, is thin right now) in… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…
As far as we know at this time, this is not a narrative of "really evil fundamentalist Christian parents reject their LGBT child."
In fact, at face value, it seems to be the other way around.
Audrey was 28. She lived w/her parents.
That's a BFD here. I know kids who were kicked out of their homes by parents for being pregnant, "coming out", dressing immodestly, etc. I even know kids who were disowned for receiving Christ.
This is probably the most important takeaway in any discussion regarding abuse issues in the Church: the bad guy ALMOST NEVER "looks" like a bad guy. He's not the creepy pervert who wears a trench coat. He's not the antisocial bum who wears a tank top and shows off tattoos.