What is marital abuse? Lundy Bancroft defines abusers as "men who chronically make their partners feel mistreated or devalued" -- a general term that refers to a wide range of controlling, devaluing, or intimidating behaviors. This isn't that great of a definition -- Bancroft goes into far more detail to define abuse through description and anecdotes in his book. A more specific definition is Leslie Vernick's in The Emotionally Destructive Relationship: "relationships in which one person continually seeks power over the other and uses abusive tactics (whether physical, verbal, sexual, or economic) to control and intimidate" (28). My own personal definition as I lived it is: "control over another person, justified by an innate feeling of entitlement, and maintained by emotional, psychological, verbal, physical, and sexual actions showing disregard for the other person's well-being."
Here are Bancroft's statistics on domestic violence:
"2 to 4 million women are assaulted by their partners per year in the United States. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared that attacks by male partners are the number one cause of injury to women between the ages of fifteen and fifty-four. The American Medical Association reports that one woman out of three will be a victim of violence by a husband or boyfriend at some point in her life. The emotional effects of partner violence are a factor in more than one-fourth of female suicide attempts and are a leading cause of substance abuse in adult women. Government statistics indicate that 1,500 to 2,000 women are murdered by partners and ex-partners per year, comprising more than one-third of all female homicide victims…Experts estimate that 5 million children per year witness an assault on their mothers…Abuse of women has been found to be a cause of roughly one-third of divorces among couples with children and one-half of divorces where custody is disputed" (7).
People are horrified by these statistics on partner violence, but the victims of emotional abuse far exceed these numbers. Bancroft asserts that "even among women who have experienced violence from a partner, half or more report that the man's emotional abuse is what is causing them the greatest harm" (7). At the support group in the abuse shelter where I went for counseling, in the support group there was a strong assertion made, and a general murmuring of agreement, that the "ones who get hit are the lucky ones" -- because then the state might take notice and someone might intervene for you. I don't think this is true (I doubt there is any woman who is being hit who is escaping emotional abuse, so they basically are both physically and emotionally abused), and I don't include that to belie the absolute seriousness of physical abuse, but rather I mention that because it highlights the damage behind emotional abuse, which could go on ignored for decades. Even when the victim reaches out for help, often people don't take her seriously enough to intervene -- because he's not hitting her.
With the divorce rate within the church keeping close step with secular society's divorce rate, we in the church must acknowledge that marital abuse is happening within the walls of the church, even among leaders, going largely unacknowledged and unaddressed.
Looking at the rising divorce rates, I recently wondered about something. Why is the divorce rate rising? We in the church usually assume that it's the increasing flippancy with which people marry and divorce today, based on false expectations of romantic love, and certainly that is a problem. But what if it's also increasing because women are not tolerating abuse any more, but trying to escape? The number of abusive men is probably not changing -- which means that as many men, if not more (considering the rising status of women in society) were abusing their wives back then as they are today. Given the high percentage of divorces that cite abuse as a cause today, what percentage of those new divorces happening today represent women escaping abuse -- women who in a previous era would have endured, to the death, decades of abuse because divorce was not an option? I imagine myself in an intolerant society with nowhere to run and no economic prospects out of staying with my abusive husband. I might have been one of those that stayed, simply because I had no other options. Recently I was deeply sobered by the responses of many Korean women in my mother's generation who, rather than condemning me as I'd expected for getting divorced, applauded me for "getting out while I could." It took me a while to digest the emotional background from which such comments came -- women who wished they'd lived in a time and place where escaping their husbands' abuse had been possible. Now, after decades, and with kids and grandkids around, it simply feels too late for them.
If the rising divorce rates are somehow correlated with abused women being empowered to leave, I am actually thankful for the increasing ability of women to divorce their husbands -- not because I celebrate divorce, but because I decry abuse. An abusive marriage that stays together is nothing to rejoice about -- it's no better than a divorce, and perhaps for the well-being of the woman and any children involved, is likely to be much worse. I pray that the rising divorce figures because of abuse will bring the church to attention that we need to do a better job addressing abusive attitudes in men and in young boys who otherwise would grow up to be abusive partners. If our common goal is Christ-centered, mutually respectful and loving marriages, then we should be on the same page about this. Our goal shouldn't be blind statistics of people staying together regardless of what names are shouted and what plates and vases -- and souls -- are getting shattered behind closed doors.
In general, though, the church interprets rising divorce rates as a product of increasing immorality, rather than of women changing their responses to abuse, and you can see that interpretation in how the church reacts. I think the church is doing its best to address the sacredness of marriage -- everywhere I look there are resources on saving your marriage, a Weekend to Remember, Love and Respect, etc. etc. But most of those marriage resources will do nothing for an abusive marriage -- in fact, many of the principles taught for nonabusive marriages are lethal for abusive ones (such as male leadership and female submission), as they arm an abuser with spiritual weapons to further abuse and subjugate his partner. If abuse is truly an issue that affects marriage within the church, church leaders and teachers need to be aware of how their teaching affects an abusive marriage, and to make sure that we aren't doing more harm than good, for victims. It could mean life or death for some women and children.
Here are Bancroft's statistics on domestic violence:
"2 to 4 million women are assaulted by their partners per year in the United States. The U.S. Surgeon General has declared that attacks by male partners are the number one cause of injury to women between the ages of fifteen and fifty-four. The American Medical Association reports that one woman out of three will be a victim of violence by a husband or boyfriend at some point in her life. The emotional effects of partner violence are a factor in more than one-fourth of female suicide attempts and are a leading cause of substance abuse in adult women. Government statistics indicate that 1,500 to 2,000 women are murdered by partners and ex-partners per year, comprising more than one-third of all female homicide victims…Experts estimate that 5 million children per year witness an assault on their mothers…Abuse of women has been found to be a cause of roughly one-third of divorces among couples with children and one-half of divorces where custody is disputed" (7).
People are horrified by these statistics on partner violence, but the victims of emotional abuse far exceed these numbers. Bancroft asserts that "even among women who have experienced violence from a partner, half or more report that the man's emotional abuse is what is causing them the greatest harm" (7). At the support group in the abuse shelter where I went for counseling, in the support group there was a strong assertion made, and a general murmuring of agreement, that the "ones who get hit are the lucky ones" -- because then the state might take notice and someone might intervene for you. I don't think this is true (I doubt there is any woman who is being hit who is escaping emotional abuse, so they basically are both physically and emotionally abused), and I don't include that to belie the absolute seriousness of physical abuse, but rather I mention that because it highlights the damage behind emotional abuse, which could go on ignored for decades. Even when the victim reaches out for help, often people don't take her seriously enough to intervene -- because he's not hitting her.
With the divorce rate within the church keeping close step with secular society's divorce rate, we in the church must acknowledge that marital abuse is happening within the walls of the church, even among leaders, going largely unacknowledged and unaddressed.
Looking at the rising divorce rates, I recently wondered about something. Why is the divorce rate rising? We in the church usually assume that it's the increasing flippancy with which people marry and divorce today, based on false expectations of romantic love, and certainly that is a problem. But what if it's also increasing because women are not tolerating abuse any more, but trying to escape? The number of abusive men is probably not changing -- which means that as many men, if not more (considering the rising status of women in society) were abusing their wives back then as they are today. Given the high percentage of divorces that cite abuse as a cause today, what percentage of those new divorces happening today represent women escaping abuse -- women who in a previous era would have endured, to the death, decades of abuse because divorce was not an option? I imagine myself in an intolerant society with nowhere to run and no economic prospects out of staying with my abusive husband. I might have been one of those that stayed, simply because I had no other options. Recently I was deeply sobered by the responses of many Korean women in my mother's generation who, rather than condemning me as I'd expected for getting divorced, applauded me for "getting out while I could." It took me a while to digest the emotional background from which such comments came -- women who wished they'd lived in a time and place where escaping their husbands' abuse had been possible. Now, after decades, and with kids and grandkids around, it simply feels too late for them.
If the rising divorce rates are somehow correlated with abused women being empowered to leave, I am actually thankful for the increasing ability of women to divorce their husbands -- not because I celebrate divorce, but because I decry abuse. An abusive marriage that stays together is nothing to rejoice about -- it's no better than a divorce, and perhaps for the well-being of the woman and any children involved, is likely to be much worse. I pray that the rising divorce figures because of abuse will bring the church to attention that we need to do a better job addressing abusive attitudes in men and in young boys who otherwise would grow up to be abusive partners. If our common goal is Christ-centered, mutually respectful and loving marriages, then we should be on the same page about this. Our goal shouldn't be blind statistics of people staying together regardless of what names are shouted and what plates and vases -- and souls -- are getting shattered behind closed doors.
In general, though, the church interprets rising divorce rates as a product of increasing immorality, rather than of women changing their responses to abuse, and you can see that interpretation in how the church reacts. I think the church is doing its best to address the sacredness of marriage -- everywhere I look there are resources on saving your marriage, a Weekend to Remember, Love and Respect, etc. etc. But most of those marriage resources will do nothing for an abusive marriage -- in fact, many of the principles taught for nonabusive marriages are lethal for abusive ones (such as male leadership and female submission), as they arm an abuser with spiritual weapons to further abuse and subjugate his partner. If abuse is truly an issue that affects marriage within the church, church leaders and teachers need to be aware of how their teaching affects an abusive marriage, and to make sure that we aren't doing more harm than good, for victims. It could mean life or death for some women and children.