THE LAW OF THE JUNGLE
THE COST OF STANDING OUT
Lions camouflage themselves against their environment, blending in almost undetectably against the long dry grass. Zebras, on the other hand, stand out against any background and can be easily spotted from a distance. Curiously, though, zebras are no less camouflaged. One form of disguise is to merge with your surroundings, another is to camouflage yourself against the enveloping herd in order to become indistinguishable. When lions try to attack zebras, the zebras disperse and, because they all look so similar, the lions often lose track of the specific zebra they were targeting and fail to make the kill. It’s not without reason that the collective noun is a dazzle of zebras.
Observing this phenomenon, the neurological researcher Robert Sapolsky thought it might be interesting to measure a zebra’s stress levels before and after an attempted attack. His assistants duly attached a cattle-clip to one of the zebra’s ears to measure its heart rate. They also used a dot of red paint in order to find that same zebra and measure it again after the lions had attempted their hunt.
Guess what happened?
It’s fair to say that things didn’t go according to plan. Almost immediately, the lions found that specific zebra and killed it!
Why?
Because it is easy to isolate and kill that which is identifiable. If you make yourself colourful and stand out from the crowd, there will be those who are only too pleased to drag you down.
STANDING OUT ANYWAY
As humans, we often share a safety in the herd mentality. We give up our individuality for fear of being conspicuous. Jordan Peterson uses the illustration above to explain modern academic conformity as a form of intellectual camouflage for the purpose of protecting positions and tenures in higher education establishments. As freedom of thought is increasingly threatened, academics make themselves indistinguishable from each other in order to thwart a potential intellectual attack isolating any one of them. This culture of conformity makes any discrimination as difficult as attacking the entire academic herd.
Whilst it has its broad-and-easy-road appeal, such thinking poses a problem for the Christian. In some senses, we’ll want to blend in with non-believers to form genuine loving friendships. Yet, we are also called to reject a culture of conformity and mark ourselves out by our contrasting witness in those same relationships. Moreover, each believer has been uniquely designed to play a distinctive part in building up the body of Christ, his Church, whatever the adverse effect standing out like a sore thumb may have on our future career prospects. There’s supposed to be a healthy friction between our unity in Christ and our diversity as individuals, where ‘iron sharpens iron’ and ‘profuse are the kisses of an enemy’. This tension can be intensified immeasurably for those who are denouncers of a sub-Christian culture or informers regarding abuse.
BITING BACK OR BACK-BITTEN?
Group conformity is often overemphasized in unhealthy church cultures, so constructive criticism or whistleblowing means metaphorically marking yourself with a dot of red paint. In the cultural hegemony of some polite, UK conservative evangelical circles, you are most likely to be imperceptibly pounced upon through the slurs of unseen opponents, who variously charge you with being: different; difficult; disloyal; disgruntled; disobedient; deranged; dangerous; and, ultimately, deceitful like the devil.
Wade Mullen explains the effectiveness of this strategy:
“There’s a great gap in character between the courageous whistleblower and the deceptive false accuser. So when a community condemns their whistleblowers they are suggesting that those who may be the most ethical and courageous among us are actually some of the worst among us.”
An unhealthy, hierarchical culture of conformity, pharisaically obsessed with form over substance, doesn’t take kindly to being confronted with its failings, and certainly won’t give answers easily to its critics. Instead, its dominance is often reasserted by marginalising as prey those who dare to ask the uncomfortable questions. Thus, we hear the polarizing accusations of “biting the hand that fed you”, “doing the devil’s work” and “having the slime trails of the snake” – alongside ad hominem attacks and an appeal to motive – in the place of joined up explanations or specific apologies. One leader even managed to check most of these boxes in a recent prayer letter, whilst simultaneously complaining that “kindness [was] in short supply” from the social media herd.
MASS MIGRATION OR MAKING A STAND?
Cultural hegemony is anti-biblical both as a means and an end of gospel ministry, but it is a happy hunting ground for domineering bullies and abusers.
Take a self-assessment test. If your Christian leadership circles resemble a homogenous club rather than a mixed multitude, that is something of a red flag. If unquestioning obedience is regarded as a test of loyalty, then you have every reason to be anxious. If there is a culture of fear, which means standing out from the herd puts you at risk of attack, then you will either need to confront the dominant culture alongside others or vote with your feet en masse. Unfortunately, generic calls for lions to resign are unlikely to be particularly effective.
Wade Mullen reasons well:
“Isolating truth-tellers is a primary goal of abusive systems. A river of voices is much more difficult to resist and ignore than a lone voice dripping in a distant corner.”
Away from the herd, zebras often form defensive pairings as one stands head-to-tail or looking over one another's shoulder. Likewise, recent voices speaking out effectively against an abusive culture have increasingly done so together, both publicly and privately. Our safety is not in numbers. The King of the jungle is spelled J-E-S-U-S and our refuge is found in him alone. And yet, according to the Jungle Book, God often uses two or three witnesses to stand with the vulnerable and powerless in order to challenge and support the proud, whilst shrewdly watching each other’s back. Much better than keeping a low profile and blending into the background, if more and more stood out and stepped up, together, then that really could be a dazzling response.
