Does God really hate divorce? The short, and very incomplete, answer is, “Yes.” That is, actually, what the Lord says in Malachi 2:16. However, if we want to look further into the question, there are some important points that must be made with respect to this statement. Notably, it does not automatically mean that divorce is sin. As Jesus taught, divorce is an allowable provision that was given in Scripture and was necessitated by hardness of heart. (Matthew 19:8-9)

Some will suggest that the one who is filing for divorce is the one who has a hard heart, but this also is not sound. As with many difficult questions in Theology, the best way to answer this question is to start with the nature of God as that pertains to the question at hand. We know that God cannot sin, and thus, He would not describe Himself using sinful concepts. Also, because we know that God is perfect, we can conclude that any conflict in a relationship with Him would not be because of a fault in Him.

Armed with these truths, we can look to Jeremiah 3, where God describes himself as filing for divorce from Israel, and from this we are able to conclude that divorce, by itself, should not be considered a sin, but rather it is a result of sin, on the part of the one who has broken the covenant.

Others accept that divorce is allowable, but they conclude that the physical act of adultery is the only circumstance in which this is true. The basis for this conclusion is that it is the only exception that Jesus gives, and if we were only reading this story from Mark 10, we would conclude that Jesus doesn’t give any exceptions. Matthew’s account adds the exception, and then we see that Paul includes abandonment as an exception in 1 Corinthians 7. This forces us to include that there is a deeper question at stake: fidelity to the marriage covenant. (For more on this topic see: “More Righteous than God?“)

To extend this idea further, adultery may include far more than simply the physical act. It is a question of the heart, and fidelity to the covenant of marriage. Again, Jesus makes this clear when he said, “Whoever looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery with her already in his heart.” We can see the same reality when we look at God’s relationship with Israel. God repeatedly calls their lack of fidelity to the covenant “adultery,” but their actions were varied. It seems likely that Jesus is referring to a lack of faithfulness to the covenant rather than merely to an act that is the consummation of an illicit relationship with someone other than your spouse.

At this point we can also conclude that when God says He hates divorce, he is not likely hating His own decision to allow for divorce. Rather, God hates the hardness of heart that made it necessary to include it in His law. That allows us to approach this passage and see what kind of behavior God hates so much. He speaks directly to the men, whose behavior is described as: hurtful (vs. 13), prideful (vs. 14), treacherous (the main focus of the passage), and violent (vs. 16).

When we deal honestly with what these men were doing, we can see that divorce was merely the tip of the iceberg. They were doing something that had hurt their wife so deeply that God regarded their offering in the same manner as Cain’s offering. He put it in the category of violence, yet they do not think they have done anything wrong! How could they be so self-deceived? God’s focus on divorce would suggest that they were using the legal provision for divorce as a religious justification to dodge their responsibility to the covenant they had made.

God answers them by telling them what they have done that is so bad: treachery. Rather than a reference merely to the act of divorce, this word speaks to a more sinister evil. It speaks first to something that is a covert action. We can also conclude that their treachery is an act that is against their wife. She is the one who is being hurt. Then, a further implication of this word is that something is being plundered from the wife. That is, she has a right to expect the covenant of marriage to be sacred to her husband, to result in a godly example to their children.

These men are selfishly and callously doing their own thing. They don’t want the hard work of loving their wife and raising their children. Instead, they have used up their wife, gotten everything they want from them, and they they have used God’s allowance for divorce as justification for throwing them away. When we fully consider this passage, we are forced to conclude that God hates the covert treachery and violence of spousal abuse that breaks the covenant of marriage and results in divorce. He especially hates when His word is used to justify it.

When a victim describes their abusive partner's mistreatment to a pastor (or other person), it is not uncommon for them to hear the question, “Have they hit you?” The implication is that if it isn’t physical then it isn’t “that” bad. It is also an ineffective question that will not likely yield any better understanding of the situation, no matter how it is answered. For the person suffering under the oppression of an abuser who manages to avoid being “too” physically abusive, this question will most likely only leave a pit in the stomach.

To make matters worse, many abuse victims will respond “no” to the question, but if we would take the time to gain a better understanding, we may discover that there is actually physical abuse! Perhaps it is pushing them, blocking their movement, threats that include weapons, or other physically intimidating behaviors. None of these will necessarily produce an affirmative answer to the above question, yet they may indicate a situation that is likely to escalate to a lethal outcome. There are many victims have been murdered by an abuser who “never” hit them.

There are a variety of ways in which an abuser justifies or excuses themself, while demanding that the victim do the same. In such a situation, “hitting” may be redefined as “hard enough to leave a bruise” or “with a closed fist.” Within the abusive relationship, it is not uncommon for the victim to be conditioned to interpret all kinds of abusive behaviors as if they are not actually abusive. For example, the abuser saying “I have never laid a hand…” may really mean that the raised fist, veiled references to the ability to kill, or threats to do to the victim what is commonly done to the family pet have all been sufficient to instill the necessary fear. Do not forget that abuse tends to escalate, and more importantly, it can escalate very quickly.

In addition, it is unwise to trust your own judgment of the relative danger that a victim is facing. If the victim believes that they are in danger, you must at least take it seriously and respond accordingly. The fact is that the abusive relational system is often strong enough to hide all kinds of abuse, even very dangerous violence, from your questions. It would be preferable to use a threat assessment tool, such as the Mosaic Method. This is an easy web-based form that can be filled out in a few minutes, and it takes into account many risk factors that need to be considered.

One more significant reason that the question is problematic is that it tends to treat abuse as an event, an occasion of bad behavior, rather than as a relational system. It is important to understand the systemic nature of abuse, and in a previous article we outlined the nature of an abusive relational system and the framework we use for recognizing an abusive relationship.

As always, if we can be a help to your church, please contact us. We would love to be a blessing to you as you serve the oppressed in your community. If you are interested in supporting our ministry and helping us produce more content like this, there are several options for how to donate. All funds go to fund the production of materials to help recognize and respond effectively to abuse and for the operations costs of The Refuge, a place of healing and learning for those dealing with abuse.

Do victims actually have the power of choice in an abusive relationship?

Is the term "abusive relationship" victim blaming?

How can we navigate the world of domestic violence advocacy in a way that both holds the abuser accountable for their actions, and gives victims personal responsibility for their actions without suggesting that they are responsible for the abuse they've suffered?

Is that even possible, or is it a self-defeating and contradictory idea?

In this article we hope to clear up the waters muddied by many well-meaning advocates who in their attempt to absolve victims of all guilt and blame, end up cementing them in their victimhood with no clear path out.

Laying the Groundwork

In order to have any type of discussion in which semantics and terminology is disputed, it is important to define your terms. This section will lay the groundwork for the argument of this article.

A "relationship" is defined by the A.P.A. as:

"a continuing and often committed association between two or more people, as in a family, friendship, marriage, partnership, or other interpersonal link in which the participants have some degree of influence on each other’s thoughts, feelings, and actions"

So by definition, a relationship of any kind requires the participation of two or more parties.  Without participation from both parties, there is no relationship. If one of the two parties severs the connection and withdraws their participation, there is no longer a relationship and each party's actions will no longer have a direct effect on the other.

A relationship "dynamic" describes the state or condition of the association of the two or more parties involved.

"Abuse" is defined by the A.P.A. as:

"interactions in which one person behaves in a cruel, violent, demeaning, or invasive manner toward another person or an animal. The term most commonly implies physical mistreatment but also encompasses sexual and psychological (emotional) mistreatment."

An "Abusive Relationship" is a relationship in which two people are connected to each other in some way, where one party is mistreating the other, taking advantage of their position of power in order to assert themselves as a controlling force in the other's life.

Remember:

• relationship = two or more connected parties or "participants"

• Abuse = misuse of power to take advantage of someone's vulnerabilities.

• "Abusive relationship" means that two people are involved in a relationship where abuse is present.

The term "Abusive relationship" does NOT mutualize the abuse, because the word "abuse" already holds the understanding that there is a misuse of power (whatever form "power" may take in any given situation). It is describing the imbalance of power where two people are connected, in which one person's vulnerabilities are being taken advantage of.

The truth is that every relationship, whether good or bad, requires at least two participants who are engaging with each other with at least SOME degree of willingness. Because being connected to another human is a choice. It may be a forced, coerced, or difficult choice, but it is a choice. It may be a choice made out of fear or self preservation, but it is a choice.

So this article is specifically concerned with the subset of abuse occurring within adult relationships. In this context, absolving a victim of the responsibility of their choices by saying they "had no choice", robs them of their autonomy, placing them in an even more helpless position. If a person  believes they have no control over their choices, then they have no options. If they have no options, they have no way forward. With no way forward, there is no escape from victimhood.

Remember:

• Personal responsibility does not equal blame, and choice does not mean the absence of coercion or applied pressure.

• Taking responsibility for your actions means nothing more than acknowledging that you alone are in control of your own mind and body.

A person might say, "I had no choice but to spend my grocery budget on rent", but this frames it in such a way that suggests there were absolutely no other options available. But it WAS a choice, and there were other options, even if those options had much more dire consequences. They chose to pay rent, because temporarily going hungry was a better alternative to becoming homeless. It's an obvious and painful choice, but it's still a choice.

Never fall for any narrative that attempts to absolve the uncertainty or guilt you feel by erasing your personal autonomy of choice. It's a controlling ideology disguised as self-empowerment.

You cannot be empowered if you have no choice.

No choice = no control

Choice = freedom and personal autonomy

Choices - As Relating to the Victim

A victim may choose to act in a way that appeases the anger of the abuser, because appeasement and submission is safest when there is no support system in place to protect them from the fallout of standing up to the abuser and leaving.

They may choose to comply in any given moment, because they are being coerced by the threat of harm (intimidation).

Emphasizing personal responsibility of choice is crucial to building up a victims sense of empowerment and freedom. Without recognition of personal choice, you undermine their sense of autonomy. If you have no choices, then you have no control. Allowing a victim to believe that they "had no choice" does a disservice to them, and sets them up to be revictimized by someone who has identified them as someone who is able to be controlled.

A victim may be manipulated or coerced into compliance, but their compliance is still chosen by the victim as it is often the safest of any available courses of action. It's important to note, that manipulation is not mind control... No individual is able to climb inside another person to force their movements or thoughts. This is why the idea of choice is so important... Because to eliminate choice, leaves a person susceptible to the belief that someone else can control their mind and actions, removing all individual autonomy. How much more vulnerable can a person be, than to believe that they have no options and choices other than those given to them by an abuser?

Here are some examples of situations in which a victim may APPEAR to have no choice, and ways to reframe the same situation to preserve the victims autonomy:

• "I had to lie, or he would have hurt me" vs "I chose to lie in order to preserve my safety"

• "I was forced to try and keep the house unrealistically spotless, or he would hurt my children" vs "I chose to try and maintain his imposed standards of cleanliness, because not doing so would have put the physical safety of my children at risk"

• "He made me do _______" vs "I chose to do _______ when he demanded it of me, because it was easier and safer to just do what he asked than to have to manage the fallout of resisting"

Here are some examples of choices made out of self preservation instincts, and keep the victim safe.

• "He hit me, so I chose to lie so he would hopefully stop."

• "I decided to pretend that I was having a good time, because when I was honest in the past, he refused to speak to me for days."

This is what it looks like for a victim to "take responsibility for their choices". It merely acknowledges the choice they made in any given moment, and why they made it. It passes no value judgement on them, but helps to reframe their experience in a way that empowers them to see themselves as an individual who is capable of taking control of their life.

Conclusion:

Encouraging a victim to take responsibility for their choices is not done in order to imply blame for the abuse they have suffered- it merely provides an important distinction between the actions of the victim, versus the actions of the abuser.

The abuser may act in a way that compels the victim to choose the safest of multiple actions, but it is still the victims choice.... To comply, or to resist outwardly. The first is by far the safest of the two options when there is no immediate protection... It's often seen as a "non choice" because opposition may mean to die. But in that moment, it's crucial to remember that it is still a CHOICE. Even when faced with a choice as obvious as life or death.

You are responsible for every action YOU take, regardless of the reason or consequence. In the same manner, you bear absolutely NO responsibility for the abuse acted out on you by another person. The abuser alone is responsible for the abuse.

I'll say it again, because there is no ambiguity on this topic: you are responsible for your own actions, and the ABUSER ALONE is responsible for the abuse.

Ps82Rose

There is some standard advice that is given to those who find themselves in an abusive relationship: 1.) Get help and 2.) Leave the relationship. This is sound advice. However, there are some who are unwilling or unable to do the second of these two steps, and this creates a significant challenge for those who have been approached for help.

First, we know that marriage counseling does not help an abusive relationship, because none of the usual matters under consideration in marriage counseling can be effectively addressed in the destructive environment created by abuse. Second, you do not have two well-meaning people (even if it seems that way). An abuser will use any advice given as a way to further bind their victim to themselves and encumber them with a host of impossible demands. Worse, the advice given will inevitably be used to give the impression that the helper is actually aligned with the abuser, even if the opposite is true.

In light of this circumstance, there are two options for the helper: 1.) Refuse to help unless or until the victim has left the relationship or 2.) Offer what help can be given in the circumstance. The first option is doubtlessly the safest, but it risks cutting the victim off from potential help dealing with their circumstances, and it risks giving the impression that they are helpless. Worse, the helper's silence can be taken by the abuser as a sure sign that they are actually in the right and thus the victim can be left without hope.

This reality can create an even more intolerable situation for those who are actually incapable of leaving, for one reason or another. We have seen cases where the victim is trapped, legitimately needing to stay in order to protect the.children. We have seen other cases where the victim is inextricably dependent on the abuser because of debilitating health concerns. Other cases have been in countries where leaving would put the victim in serious legal jeopardy (we consult with cases and advocates worldwide). There are a whole host of other unusual but similar circumstances. The more disturbing reality is that many of our cases come from circumstances where an advocate, whose only tool is "leave," urged that advice and then ultimately left the victim without resources to adequately deal with the consequences of that decision.

Parents have seen their children handed over to their abuser, unable to answer the legal challenges created by the choices urged upon them by an advocate who didn't consider the long-term implications of the actions they advised. We have seen victims, who were unprepared for the realities of life after leaving, return to the abuse that they had escaped and now deal with the increased control.

The advocate giving this advice does not live with the consequences of the choices they urge. They can not or will not usually provide housing, financial support, job training, payment for lawyers, or walk continuously with the victim for the duration of the struggle, which can last for many years. Even if they do all of this, and it goes well, it will usually only serve to transfer dependence and control to the advocate, which is not good for the victim, even if it seems to solve the problem in the short run. Both the victim and the advocate are harmed by this type of effort.

The advocate needs more tools in their toolbox, which is why we have created the 4 Tools Courses. As a student progresses through these courses, the principles they learn will provide a foundational understanding that will enable them to avoid some rather common errors. If the second possibility of offering marriage counseling yields the predictably bad results described earlier and if the victim is unable or unwilling to leave, what help can be offered while the victim remains in the relationship?

Whatever help is offered, there are a few important principles that must be observed. First, it is important to note that all advice, books, articles, and resources (even good ones) can (and usually will) be twisted and used against the victim. We can frequently tell which abuse books an abuser has read simply by observing how they respond to certain circumstances. However, there are a few principles that can be followed so that whatever advice is offered, it will mute the abuser’s effectiveness in doing so. To this end, any help to be offered must:

• Only be given to the one who needs to hear it. (They should never be counseled together, and the advice given should be limited to that person alone, never to be used to correct the other.)

• Always respect individual autonomy and never be offered as a means to change the other party. (This a key idea that binds a victim to their abuser: the idea that if they do better, the abuse will cease.)

• Avoid correcting relatively minor offenses. (These are often heavily influenced by the abusive environment, and when the abuse ceases, they may entirely go away, or they can be dealt with later.)

• Center on matters that keep the victim as safe as possible while they remain. (This advice is significantly different than the advice given once the decision has been made to leave.)

• Always prioritize the victim's freedom and never use fear to urge a particular course of action. (They must act freely and with full knowledge of the risks and likely challenges that they face either way.)

• Be clearly offered in a way that can be provided and sustained, no matter what, for the duration promised. (Don't offer help if you cannot face the resulting danger or financially back up what you have promised.)

In addition, any advice given to deal with abuse generally must be equally true for both victim and abuser. For example: Love always maximizes the other's freedom and diminishes their fear. Love is always recognized by sacrificial service that benefits the other, rather than in flowery words or empty sacrifice. No one can righteously bear responsibility for the sins of another person or assume lordship over them. No one should be given the control that only belongs to the Holy Spirit.

This type of advice will tend to undermine the abuse over time, and while in relatively rare instances this can be restorative, it most frequently results in the eventual dissolution of the relationship. However, where a victim chooses to stay, that choice should be respected and aided as much as possible. Anything less assumes a role in the victim's life that undermines their autonomy. While they choose to remain, any advice given, individually, should follow the above guidelines and help them maintain their internal sense of autonomy as much as possible.

Abuse thrives in an environment of deception and secrecy. It requires being able to convince someone that something is good and right (or at least allowable), when in reality it is destructive and wicked. When religious people are abusers, they are not actually righteous; they only want to appear that way. That is why such people become very good at making spiritual sounding arguments that appear to defend their own position. They are also experts at sounding like they are repentant, when in reality, they aren’t, nor do they believe they should be. They are a modern-day embodiment of the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

Jesus pronounced woe upon these religious leaders by saying they were like whitewashed sepulchers, nice on the outside and rotten on the inside. Jesus called them out for arguing minutiae while ignoring God’s larger priorities: justice, mercy, and faith. In the same way, the abuser perverts justice, acting with malice and cruelty while blaming their victim. The abuser refuses to show mercy, clinging to every minor fault as if it is a major offense that somehow overshadows the perverse wickedness of their own sin, and the abuser denies faith by contending that their heart condition has nothing to do with their own behavior.

They claim to believe God, but they live in a way that resembles the filth of Satan more than the Jesus they profess to be following. These are hypocrites of the worst kind, and they are called by God to repent, but sadly, they will not usually repent. Instead, they will argue their point, and they are very good at convincing others that they aren’t that bad or that their victim is the real cause of the problem. They will minimize their sin, even as they pretend to take responsibility for it. Such apologies are fake and bear no resemblance to biblical repentance.

The second characteristic of repentance in 2 Corinthians 7 reads “clearing of yourself,” and it is translated from the Greek word, “apologia.” It means, “to defend; or to make an argument.” Non-repentant abusers have refined their ability to use arguments in order to deceive others, and sometimes even themselves. They will put up a strong defense for themselves, but they will avoid defending any truth that would expose them or proclaiming the justice that would condemn them. This is the opposite of repentance. Where the abuser gives excuses, explanations, or fake apologies that argue on behalf of themself, a repentant person will actually argue against their own behavior.

Because the repentance that Paul describes starts with a diligence to make things right, the repentant person’s argument will be thorough and searching with respect to their own heart’s deceptions and depravity. They will pull the cover back on their own sin and agree with the truth about it. They will have to agree that they have been cruel, unloving, perverted, and wicked. They will have to get to the place where they can portray their own behavior, and the heart from which those actions sprung (“out of the heart”), as being the perverse and twisted reality that it actually is. That is the confession of a repentant person, and that is what it means to “clear yourself.”

Anything short of should will be obvious to their victim, and it should be soundly rejected. The problem is that from the outside, this can look like the victim is not being forgiving, but that is not accurate and exactly what the religious abuser wants the outsider to think. On the one hand, the victim may have years of dealing with all kinds of cruelty, buried under mountains of lies, and they are now sorting through all of what has happened to them in order to understand the truth. All by itself, we should expect that to take some significant time.

At the same time, we should expect a repentant abuser to be diligently searching themself, but rather than taking the time necessary to expose their whole problem to the scrutiny of truth, the abuser will often try to shortcut the process, make a show of sorrow, and press for the victim to “get over it” quickly. However, by the time a victim has chosen to confront the abuser’s behavior, they have usually endured years of lies, cruelty, self-righteousness, and a whole host of other destructive behaviors. So when the victim removes themself from the abuser’s influence, they quickly begin to see more clearly the depth of the harm that they have endured at the hands of their abuser, and the more they begin to realize that truth. If they are taught what repentance should look like, any attempts by the abuser to minimize or stop short of true repentance will be rightly rejected.

The victim must be supported through this difficult time, and the abuser must be called to this kind of repentance. The church must call the abuser to do the hard work described by this “clearing of yourself.” This will require a full and complete reversal of the lies, hypocrisy, and heart corruption that is found at the root of their sin. A person who is repentant will not defend their sin in any way, nor will they minimize either the wickedness of it or the harm that has been caused by it. Be careful at this point, because fake repentance comes with very real sounding fake apologies.

This is one reason that we do not give an abuser a list of things that they must do in order to reconcile with their victim. Such an action would encourage the opposite of this diligent work required to fully grasp and confess the depth of their own sin. Rather than only doing what is expected regarding matters that have already been exposed, a repentant abuser will show a thorough diligence in searching out the truth, undermining their own lies, and questioning themselves on every point. It is unwise to accept anything less, and the best gauge for this is the victim’s own assessment.

The abuser should be able to detail their sin in such a way that their victim recognizes it as thoroughly and entirely true. It is imperative to understand that any outsider is not in a position to be able to know if the abuser has exposed all that their hypocrisy and lies have hidden from public scrutiny. Only the victim is going to know if a thorough and complete change has occurred. Do not lose sight of the fact that such a change is difficult to recognize precisely because the abuser has been living a lie for so long that it is second nature to deceive you.

Also, you need to know that there is a great danger in calling an abuser to repentance!

If you stand with the victim as they confront their abuser’s sin, it is critical that the victim be educated on what true repentance will look like and that they are completely confident that there has been genuine repentance before even beginning some kind of reconciliation. If the abuser is able to give a convincing but fake apology, the moment the victim is back under their control they will be sure to assert their control and continue their abuse. If that happens, the abuse will almost always eventually escalate, and the victim’s situation will become much worse. It would be better for the victim for you to ignore the abuse than to confront it and then stop short of insisting on full repentance.

(If you would like to contribute to our ministry at The Refuge or to help us continue making materials to help the church deal with abuse more effectively, you can do so here.)

One of the worst circumstances we observe is when God’s people align themselves with the abuser and assume the role of adversary and accuser in the life of the victim, at the same time demanding that the victim try and play the role of savior to the unrepentant abuser. This effectively makes the church a prosecutor in the court of heaven.

Satan is our adversary, who stands continually in accusation against the people of God. He acts as a corrupt official, who is constantly trying to compromise the moral integrity of those who seek to follow Christ, and when successful, he moves in as a prosecutor in the court of God, declaring the guilt of the accused and arguing for punishment. If he cannot find a true accusation, he will just exaggerate or offer a believable accusation instead.

When the accusation is true, it cuts to the heart of the believer, who knows they are guilty. The prosecution demands vengeance. If the accused holds on to this guilt, forgetting the work of Christ, then they may end up punishing themselves in the hopes of atoning for their own guilt. They may even be inclined to accept unjust suffering as a sign of divine retribution. However, this effectively misses the whole point of the cross, where Jesus already paid the penalty. He simply asks us to confess and forsake that sin, accept His forgiveness, and live in hope rather than guilt.

Perhaps the accusation is actually untrue, but it still sticks in the mind of the accused. False guilt can be heaped upon a soul, to weigh them down with unnecessary sorrow. When this happens, insisting on repentance as the remedy for dealing with guilt will be an injustice, since it is a false accusation that cannot be truthfully confessed and forsaken. If it is not identified as such, the justice of God can begin to feel capricious and even malicious to the victim, and if the accusation is believed by the victim, they will carry false guilt that can only be responded to with truth rather than repentance.

When a believer stands as prosecutor against someone else, calling for vengeance, they are actually accepting the role of Satan. When we assign false guilt or exaggerate true guilt, we pervert justice and undermine the soul of the accused. These are not actions that are befitting for those who have tasted and known the grace of the gospel!

While we are called to discern what is true and to address sin in the community, we are not to do so as an accuser but as an advocate. In this role we speak truthfully, but without malice. We accept justice, while we ask for mercy. We counsel repentance and patiently seek the good of our enemies. We leave vengeance in the hands of God, where it belongs. This describes the posture of an advocate, rather than that of an accuser.

In contrast, the abuser acts as accuser with respect to their victim. They adopt the role of judge and they act with vengeance. They mimic Satan, but if we want to respond effectively, we cannot pick up the Satanic mantle and fight fire with fire. Rather, even when dealing with the Abuser, we should adopt the role of an advocate, arguing for justice while looking for opportunities for mercy, insisting on repentance and hoping for their good. 

Most importantly, we must not allow advocacy for the abuser’s good to enable their continuing destruction of their victim. This is never good for either party, and it is decidedly destructive to the victim. Instead, we must stand with the victim and in truth against the abuser’s accusations, just as Jesus stands as our advocate before the Father. We must insist on truth and responsibility, even while we call for repentance, but we dare not pervert justice by joining Satan and the abuser as prosecutors in heaven’s court.

Another characteristic of repentance is an interesting word that can be translated in a variety of ways such as: revenge, vengeance, acquittal, or vindication. The range of possibilities is context dependent, but most importantly, the central idea is centered on doing justice. For those who have been falsely accused, doing justice is vindication, and for those who have done harm, doing justice is retribution.

When we consider repentance with respect to an abuser, we must understand that they have a dangerously perverted sense of justice. The abuser asserts themself as judge over their victim, punishing whatever offenses that they have decided warrant it. As long as the victim can be made to believe that this abuse is the result of their own faults, they will be less inclined to confront it, and the abuser will interpret the victim’s silence as acceptance of their absolute right to rule. As a result, they will also conclude that the victim agrees with them and that their actions are justifiable.

To make matters worse, the abuser’s sense of justice is usually both unpredictable and disproportionate. Relatively minor offenses can be treated severely, and other offenses, that might be seen as worse, can be handled with a foreboding silence. In so doing, the abuser may see themself as merciful, when the reality is that they are just storing up offenses to justify their later cruelty. When their anger breaks, a flood of previously ignored offenses will pour out on the victim.

The abuser further believes that they are owed the level of control that they have demanded. This sense of entitlement is so twisted that if the victim questions or resists the abuse, that resistance may actually be interpreted as being abusive! It is not at all uncommon for an abuser to accuse the victim of being controlling when they are simply refusing to be subject to the abuser’s control.

This tendency is exacerbated in religious contexts where there is a defined authority structure, and where that authority is seen as a “power over” those who are to be submissive. Christianity actually undermines this pattern of authority, but many in Christian contexts pervert the patterns that Jesus established in order to perpetuate a satanic form of power and control.

In Mark 10:42-45 James and John wanted to be seated at places of authority in the kingdom, “But Jesus called them to Himself and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers over the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. And whoever of you desires to be first shall be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.’”

The pattern that Jesus established forbids such power dynamics in Christian leadership. There are no “great ones” in Christ’s kingdom, only those who serve. There is leadership and authority, but those who want to be in leadership will be doing so as a slave, serving those who follow. Jesus, the King of the universe, is their example. He humbled himself to the point of death, sacrificing Himself for the benefit of those who were his enemies, and He gave us an example of humility and sacrifice that provides the foundation for all Christian leadership.

The abuser has two tendencies here that both mangle the Scriptural teaching on this matter. On the one hand they want to take the satanic patterns of dominance that are part of the curse and elevate them as an ideal for a Christian relationship. On the other hand, the abuser will attempt to use Scripture in order to give themself the authority of Jesus in the life of their victim. If this is accepted, it amounts to a form of forced idolatry. In contrast, Jesus came to reverse the abusive patterns inherent in the curse and establish a kingdom of true justice.

No matter how much it may seem to be so, there is no room for the abuser’s authoritarian nonsense from a Christian perspective. The bottom line is that the abuser has a very warped sense of justice. They believe their abuse is right, or at least justifiable.

You can tell a lot about a person by how they justify things that are obviously wrong, and abusers will use all kinds of arguments to portray their cruelty as rational. They will attempt “sin-leveling,” where the victim’s faults are exaggerated and their own abuse is minimized in order to create the impression that both parties are at least equally responsible. If they can manage it, they will try to portray the victim as being the chief problem. In the abusive relational system, this is not difficult for the abuser to accomplish because the victim may actually believe this lie. Even if the victim doesn’t believe it, they may go along with it because the cost of resistance is too high.

Another means that an abuser may use to justify their abuse is to “flip the script.” Here they take whatever complaint is offered by the victim and flip it into an accusation against the victim. A basic example of that might look like this:

Victim: you are being destructive.

Abuser: YOU are being destructive!

Victim: how am I being destructive?

Abuser: you are trying to keep me from leading the family.

Victim: I am trying to keep you from hurting the family.

Abuser: NO, I am trying to keep YOU from hurting the family. You ALWAYS do this. You have to be in control, and you demand everything YOUR way. Why can’t you just let me be the leader, like God says, and just do what you are told…like when you…and when you… etc.(The argument can circle in this way, over and over, until the victim gives in.)

This behavioral pattern can also be used to flip the counselor’s advice into tools of abuse. Here is a generic version of this kind of exchange:

Victim: I am feeling like I am not loved.

Abuser: The counselor said we shouldn’t be self focused.

Victim: The counselor told you that, and they also said we should be able to communicate our own feelings.

Abuser: FINE, then I FEEL that you are self-centered and whining.

Victim: Wait, the counselor said we should only deal with ourselves.

Abuser: Then QUIT telling me I don’t care about you. I don’t understand you at all. You demand we go to the counselor and then you ignore what they tell you. You blame me for everything, and you can’t take responsibility for your own inadequacies. It is no wonder the counselor told you just to worry about yourself. You definitely need a shrink. Don’t bother me with your problems; I am not responsible for your feelings.

The abuser may aggressively play the victim, but they are definitely not being victimized. If, on top of the direct abuse, the victim can be made to believe that the church, legal system, or counselor will side with the abuser (or at least remain neutral), the victim will only anticipate injustice. Under this kind of deceptive oppression, the victim feels a deep sense hopelessness.

A pastor or counselor will not get reliable information from either party. As long as they are counseled together, the power imbalance in the relationship will be difficult to see. As in both of the above examples, the abuser’s behavior tends to put the victim on the defensive and deflect attention away from the abuse. Then, because the victim is acutely aware that abuser will punish any perceived disloyalty, both the abuser and the victim may appear to believe that the victim is the main problem. If the abuser presents as having a problem at all, it will likely be that they struggle with the victim’s problems.

If the signs of an abusive dynamic are missed, it may reinforce the sense of inevitable injustice that has trapped the victim in oppression. Eventually, abuse tends to escalate, and if the oppression is so destructive that the victim is willing to risk a cry for help, it is imperative for the pastor and church to come alongside the victim. That is the whole point of Psalm 82, and passages like it. We cannot follow God and ignore the oppression of those who need our help.

God calls us to “do justice, and love mercy.”

If the abuser is called out for their abuse, their entitlement may manifest itself in a whole host of lame justifications and slippery deflections. They will not usually accept responsibility, but that is exactly what repentance does. A repentant abuser does not seek to avoid justice. Instead, they will turn themselves in, make a full confession, and accept the just consequences of their sin. They will accept full and unqualified responsibility. They will give as much time as needed, even to the loss of the relationship, to demonstrate that they understand the damage that they have done. They will certainly not try to coerce mercy.

The religious abuser, who has been caught, begins playing for this result almost immediately. Demanding forgiveness and mercy from the victim is how they hope to avoid responsibility. Sadly, many pastors and churches have perverted justice by accepting the abuser’s lies as fulfilling this provision. Then they join the abuser in calling the victim to lay aside justice. The victim is shamed and coerced. Police reports are not made, and the burden of dealing with the abuser’s sin has been placed squarely on the victim’s shoulders.

The victim is expected to suffer silently, because if they insist that the abuser be held accountable, then they aren’t merciful or forgiving, and along the way the abuser is given yet another tool for their abusive toolkit. Once the show of false repentance has been accepted, the abuser may refuse to address anything in the past. They may assert that their “repentance” means that the victim should just “get over it.” In such a situation, forgiveness has become a devastatingly abusive perversion of justice.

This is a cruel perversion of Scripture. Justice is not optional, and mercy cannot righteously be coerced or demanded. We are commanded to “do justice, and love mercy.” We are not called to do mercy and love justice! It is a cruel injustice to use mercy and forgiveness to insist that the victim overlook the abuser’s lack of repentance and passively accept the church’s inaction. That is a horrendous dereliction of duty on the part of those who should be holding the abuser accountable.

The word for “vindication” that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 7 has two prongs. On the one side, a repentant abuser recognizes that the cruelty and abuse they have inflicted on the victim cries out for justice, and they accept the consequences for their sin. On the other side, the victim is vindicated as the repentant abuser tells the truth and acknowledges that the victim is just in their complaint against them.

Beyond this, there are many victims who deserve to be vindicated by the repentance of their pastors and other church leaders, and there are many pastors and church leaders that should confess and forsake their part in assisting or amplifying an abuser’s cruelty toward the victims who have come to them for help.

Was Paul slandering Hymenaeus and Alexander when he described them as those who have rejected faith and a good conscience? He was warning others who were at risk of being harmed by them. How about Alexander the coppersmith, who harmed him personally? Was it wrong for Paul to warn Timothy about him? What about John, calling out Diotrephes as loving the preeminence and refusing to receive brethren and excommunicating those who did receive them? Was he guilty of slander? 

In the first example, we see a warning about behavior that poses a potential risk to those who are being warned. In the second we see a report of a wrong that was experienced directly by the one who is exposing it, and in the third, we see behavior that is actively causing harm. None of these are either gossip or slander, for a variety of reasons. These were true and necessary warnings about those people’s behavior.

Slander is something untrue that is designed to cause harm or undermine another’s reputation. Since neither Paul nor John were speaking falsely, that means it was not slander, but if it isn’t slander, would it qualify as gossip? No! While gossip is similar to slander, in that it is also designed to undermine another person’s reputation or cause harm, it is different in that this is exposing things that are secret and should be kept secret. Warnings about another person’s harmful behavior is not gossip, since it is not something that should be kept secret from those who may be harmed by it. If the reports of harmful behavior are false, then it would be slander.

“Talebearer” is the word for gossip in Scripture, and it refers to someone who goes about to reveal secrets. Both the slanderer and the talebearer are using secrets or lies to harm one person while gaining favor with another. Thankfully, Scripture has some great instructions for how to recognize these types of people in Proverbs 26:17-28.

First, a gossip / slanderer will invite others to join in a conflict that is unrelated to you, and they will tend to cultivate insider relationships to get you “on their side.” This often comes with comparative flattery. It sounds like, “You are a good friend, unlike [name], who is [insert derogatory comment here].” Sometimes the derogatory information can be couched in framing language, “I love and care for [name]…but they [insert derogatory information].” If this information has no bearing on you and serves to undermine the other, it is slander or gossip.

Sometimes gossip comes disguised as humor, a pernicious kind of humor that comes with barbs and poison. They deceive and if they are called out on it, they respond with some variation of, “I am just joking.” The comment may prove hurtful, and the gossip / slanderer may try to shift the blame by saying that the one who is hurt doesn’t know how to take a joke. This is extremely destructive. Proverbs describes it as casting firebrands, arrows, and death. Conflict follows them, but when you disengage, the strife dissipates. This is because they gain social advantage through drama, fanning the flames, and feeding the fire.

The words spread by the talebearer are like poison that hurts deeply. The combination of an evil intent with this kind of verbal tactics will give a wound that is difficult to heal. This is the kind of person who hates another but conceals that hatred behind words that can sound good but are dripping with poison. Such a person is always exposed eventually, and they leave a wake of broken relationships behind them. Eventually they become a victim of the very same kind of behavior, and nobody is more vigilant to call out gossip and slander than those who are guilty of gossip and slander. They will try to preserve their own reputation by controlling the spread of the truth, but their flattery and deceit will catch up to them and invite ruin. 

These kinds of people should be avoided.

Here is how you can avoid becoming (or falling victim to) a slanderer / gossip:

1. Speak only necessary truth

2. Do not allow information to capture your attention / loyalty

3. Avoid conflict where you are not involved or able to mediate

4. Get very good at understanding how easy it is to be deceived

   1. Don’t trust third party information

   2. Don’t trust demands for loyalty

   3. Don’t trust those who tend to hurt others verbally

   4. Pay attention to your own cognitive bias

   5. Pay attention to those who use cognitive bias

   6. Pay attention to what will be edifying / helpful

Lastly…if you want to shut down gossip and slander, use this one simple rule: If a person is brought up in a way that harms them or their reputation, commit to bringing the content of that conversation directly to them. You will not be a fertile place for gossip and slander to grow.

For the Christian, confronting abuse is spiritual battle. The bottom line is that you are bringing the light of the gospel to bear on a very dark situation. You are speaking the truth into a world that depends on deception. You are genuinely confronting a dangerous situation, and you need to be prepared.

Power

Harmless

Wisdom

Trust

Whether you realize it or not, at least 30% of your church is dealing with some kind of abuse, and great care must be exercised in handling these matters. The potential for destructive actions is high, even when the actions taken seem relatively harmless and minor. One of the most important things for a pastor to do is to act responsibly, within their own level of competence, and contrary to the popular book title, everyone is not competent to counsel every situation. 

1. Prioritize Safety and Stability for the Victim
2. Provide Information and Support to the Victim
3. Protect the Autonomy and Privacy of the Victim

1. Insist on Responsibility and Accountability for the Abuser
2. Ignore or Oppose Any Attempt to Rush or Coerce Reconciliation
3. Do the above for the Victim…that IS the best thing you can do for the Abuser.