The Scourge of Domestic and Family Violence
I was grieved to read a report, commissioned by the Australian Anglican church, that claimed that members of Anglican churches are more likely to experience domestic and family violence than those outside it. The report found that:
1. The prevalence of intimate partner violence among Anglicans was the same or higher than in the wider Australian community.
2. The prevalence of intimate partner violence among church-attending Anglicans was the same or higher than among other Anglicans.
3. The prevalence of intimate partner violence was higher among women than men.
4. Most Anglican victims of domestic violence did not seek help from Anglican churches.
What was particularly disconcerting is how perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) twist Christian teachings to justify their abuse or the perpetuation of an abusive relationship by reiterating the following:
• Marriage is a lifelong commitment and a covenant that cannot be broken in any circumstances.
• Being the perfect wife.
• A man has control in a marriage and a wife must submit to her husband.
• Being faithful involves suffering and total self-giving.
• Forgiveness must be unconditional.
As to why this happens, according to the testimony of one Anglican woman, there is a simple explanation. A big emphasis on male headship:
At the clergy wives’ conferences I used to attend as the wife of an Anglican minister, the high-profile Sydney Anglican leader, the Reverend Phillip Jensen, preached to us repeatedly about the cornerstone doctrine of male headship and female submission to male authority. The topic recurred year after year, with excruciating detail – about submitting sexually, about prioritising our minister husband’s “needs” in every way, about taking on all the household and family load, without expecting it to be shared – because that would be taking our husbands away from the important work of gospel ministry.
The report is sad and sobering and reflects a failure of Anglican leaders to nourish a culture of goodness, love, and proper practice for Christian marriage in our churches. It must also lead us to question the theology and practice of complementarianism insofar as it can be twisted or used to support this kind of domestic violence.
My Ridley colleague Andrew Judd has written his own reflection piece on the report, finding reasons to lamentas well as some cause for hope.
I would urge my fellow ministers everywhere to avoid the temptation to see this as something ‘out there’ — rather than in your own pulpit. It doesn’t matter whether you’re complementarian or egalitarian, high church or low church, from Sydney or Perth. Abusers aren’t picky about which theology they weaponize. The research confirms what we’ve been hearing anecdotally from survivors and DFV specialists for years. Uncontroversial and (frankly) beautiful Christian teachings — faithfulness in marriage, grace and forgiveness, the example of Christ’s sufferings — can and will be co-opted to control. They can also — and I really want my fellow preachers to hear this — be taught and heard by you in unhelpful ways, that are then internalised by victims, and thus extend the cycle of IPV.
As depressing as the reality is, I find in this report a few glimmers of hope that I want to share with you. Of the very small number of Anglican victims of IPV who did seek help from the church, most found it positively changed their situation, or helped them feel supported. The interviews with victim-survivors suggest that, just as poor teaching can make it harder to leave an abusive relationship, good biblical teaching on marriage as covenant, the equality of men and women, God’s mercy and love can also empower them to get out. Even just acknowledging that FDV happens can make a difference. The church community, at its best, can offer victims practical, emotional and spiritual support — combating isolation and helping them recover and rebuild.
The commissioning of the report was a good first step forward, but more needs to be done. We should treat DFV as an existential threat to the vitality of our churches. Recently, the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne put on a great symposium about preventing violence against women that I warmly commend to you.
Thank you for sharing this. The findings are horrible, depressing. But necessary to know. When I read your comment: "They can also — and I really want my fellow preachers to hear this — be taught and heard by you in unhelpful ways", I wanted to weep. For the many victims and for this observation being true of other difficult doctrines. The Word must be presented with extreme care. Sounds obvious but it's too easy, I think, to become so used to the teachings 'we know' from the 'scriptures that teach them', to not think about how they might sound or be heard by someone with a different knowledge and experiential framework to our own.
Please read David Robertson’s comments on his blog “The Wee Flea”. The data is inadequate to draw the kind of conclusions the egalitarian commentators have been drawing. They have a pre-disposition to find support for their perspective. With a subject like this, initial neutrality is necessary in order to analyse the data adequately.