My current view is that God can and sometimes does give abusers regeneration, but I think this occurs rarely.
Someone can profess to be a Christian but not be born again. That person may have what William Tyndale called Story Faith, but not have genuine faith. Go here to learn about Story Faith blindness.
In this sermon, Keith Ford explains how churches misapply the love your enemies principle and how this causes grave injustice to victims of abuse. Keith sets out why an enemy cannot be a Christian. He argues that if an enemy calls himself a Christian, he ought to be put out of the church. The sermon distinguishes between persecution for righteousness sake which is done by those outside Christ who want to stifle and crush the gospel message, and enemy behaviour which is done by those who simply want to be disrespectful and cruel to others for their own selfish reasons.
Barbara,
You are a good writer and I agree with some of what you say about abuse. Other things you say about abuse, I disagree.
One of the things that drives me crazy about abuse literature from a Christian / biblical counseling perspective, is the subjective nature of the definition. As with anything in the Bible and theology, definitions are vitally important. For instance, the definition of justification and sanctification splits Protestants from Roman Catholics. The church bought and split over a phrase and the spirit in the Nicene Creed. My point: definitions matter.
So, your views help bring clarity to the issue of abuse, because you have two very objective markers: 1. You say that abusers are not Christians. 2. You say that an abuser knows what they’re doing is abuse.
These objective “tests” could be very helpful in helping people diagnose abuse.
Am I misunderstanding you? Do you care to elaborate?
LikeLike
Hi Sara, sorry for taking a little while to reply to your comment.
Basically you have not misunderstood me. I say that 1) abusers are not Christians, and 2) an abuser knows what they’re doing is abuse.
I elaborate point 1 here: God can and sometimes does give abusers regeneration, but I think this occurs rarely.
I elaborate point 2 here: The abuser sees; he just disagrees. He knows he is doing wrong; he just doesn’t care.
You wrote:
I wholeheartedly agree! Without a proper definition of abuse, the conversation about abuse quickly goes pear-shaped. You may like to read my Non-Negotiables for Effective and Biblical Abuse Ministry.
LikeLike
Thank you for the confirmation and information.
In reading your “non-negotiables”, I believe you’re a missing a key point. The point is the method or way that an abuser is substantiated.
So, for example, if a spouse is married to an unbeliever, and claims abuse, abuse might indeed be present because [the] spouse is an unbeliever.
But what if you get to a situation where both parties claim to be Christians. Perhaps both are even members of the same church. How would one go about establishment of abuse? I suppose you could say the Matthew 18 process needs to be followed. And if the believer does not ultimately repent, then he is removed from the church and considered an unbeliever. But what if the believer spouse “repents” of abuse, how can that even be possible if a believer cannot be an abuser?
Or, consider another possible scenario where spouses are members of different churches. How does “abuse” become substantiated in these cases, especially if the churches are not part of the same denomination where mutual accountability / fellowship occurs?
I know I could [add] multiple scenarios because real life is complex. I think you understand my basic question: how is abuse substantiated?
My question is important because, while I think abuse needs to be brought to light in the evangelical church, it’s almost like the pendulum has swung too far, and any spouse can claim abuse when they feel sinned against by their spouse. It would seem to me like biblical wisdom and prudence would call for time (with the exception of physical or sexual abuse) and witnesses for abuse to be established. (In any kind of physical abuse, the abused should seek safety immediately, even though accusations are made, they have to be proven.) I’ve seen too many situations where basic rule of law (innocent until proven guilty) is not followed, to the detriment of all parties involved.
LikeLike
Hi Sara,
You asked,
And you said,
I do not believe the Matthew 18 is the appropriate scripture to use in cases of abuse. I explain why in this post: Church discipline for domestic abusers who claim to be Christians: 1 Corinthians 5:11-13
Here’s another post that may be relevant: Can someone be an abuser and be a Christian?
I agree that it can be difficult to substantiate abuse. Here are some guidelines:
Defining domestic abuse by a list of behaviors is never going to capture it
The language of abusers who portray themselves as victims — Vagueness & Contradictions
Signs of an abusive relationship — where the abuse is hard to recognize — read the comments thread, not just the post!
However, I know that many churches (and many non-abused Christians) are presumptuously claiming that church leaders and / or biblical counselors have the authority and the right to decide whether abuse has really occurred. Many leaders are insisting that abuse has not occurred, when it has occurred. This presumptuous and prideful attitude in church leaders and biblical counsellors is more of a problem, in my view, than the supposed problem of false or unsubstantiated reports of abuse being made by genuine victims.
If a person is not a genuine victim of abuse, yet claims to be a victim of abuse, that person is doing wrong. Most, if not all, abusers claim to be victims of abuse. Given the corrupt state of the institutional churches, we are unlikely to stop that kind of wrongdoing by giving church leaders and biblical counselors the casting vote on whether or not abuse has occurred.
LikeLike
Barbara,
Your thoughts on abuse are a breath of fresh air to the so-called “biblical counselor movement” and historical orthodox Protestant churches.
The final question I’ll raise on this topic is that if the churches (and church leaders) and biblical counselors don’t have the deciding vote, who does? Are you saying that it should be a combination of people that have the deciding vote?
Thank you for the dialogue. I’ll leave this comment as my last.
LikeLike
Hi Sara, thanks for you kind and encouraging words! :)
You asked:
This is an especially important question when there are allegations of marital abuse (aka marital abandonment).
In light of the fact that Christians don’t agree what the biblical basis of divorce is, I believe that decisions about divorce should be left to individual conscience.
I believe victims of abuse may judiciously ignore the Pharisaic directives of church leaders who are less than competent on domestic abuse and who use language that even hints at victim-blaming.
If church leaders refuse to discipline a ‘c’hristian abuser, or only give him a slap on the wrist while putting expectations on the victim to reconcile, then we don’t have to respect their rulings, because they have shown themselves to be like the false prophets who called evil good, and good evil.
If church leaders or biblical counsellors demand that the victim present herself for a Matthew 18 process and it’s clear (from how they have already been mis-handling the situation) that this process is just going to oppress the victim more and give extra power to the abuser, I believe a victim is not only permitted to disregard the counsel of the blind-guide leaders, but would be wise to disregard it for her own health and safety.
If a Christian victim is unsure about her own judgement, she may consult with those who understand the dynamics of domestic and spiritual abuse well. But it’s patently obvious that few Christians understand the dynamics of domestic abuse, and even fewer can recognize and resist abusers’ invitations to collude with them.
I often encourage survivors of domestic abuse to give more weight to their gut feelings, intuition, and common sense. I do this not because I promote reliance on the flesh, but because I know that there has been so much mis-teaching on marriage, divorce and domestic abuse that very often a survivor’s common sense and intuition (a.k.a. guidance from the Holy Spirit) give more biblical direction than the bad counsel which she has absorbed from ‘c’hristian tradition.
Let there be no blame on victims who make the decision to divorce solely between themselves and God, without being able to locate wise Christians who have sufficient understanding of the dynamics of abuse to give them an outside opinion.
If victims are having difficulty finding Christians who properly understand abuse, then the onus clearly falls on the church to take off its blinders, learn a whole lot more about abuse, cast off erroneous ideas about how to deal with it, and be brave enough to act on the Bible’s teaching wholeheartedly so as to discipline abusers and vindicate victims.
In accordance with the priesthood of all believers and the liberty of the individual Christian’s conscience, we may make our own Bible- and Holy Spirit-influenced choices about who is (and who is not) a wise counselor with whom we might want to consult when making a big decision like divorce. By seeking guidance from Christians (and non-Christians) who understand the entitlement, manipulation and deceitfulness of abusers, and the risks of staying versus the risks of leaving an abusive relationship, the victim of abuse can make godly choices while not doing so in a vacuum.
The victim may be unable to influence the fact that her abuser might still be passing himself off as an eminent Christian. She may have to divorce him even though his church has not declared that he should be treated as an unbeliever.
PS — I copied, slightly modified, and pasted this from my post Church discipline and church permission for divorce — how my mind has changed.
LikeLike
Spot on, Barbara!
LikeLike