Defenses for Defenses of Abuse (Part 1)
When allegations of abuse are made, some defenses are so commonly used that Julie Anne Smith was able to create an “Abuse Defender Bingo Card.” They’re also all addressed in the resources I have shared. These defenses are so common they almost feel scripted.
But they also can be bewildering. One book on Spiritual Abuse is titled, “Escaping the Maze of Spiritual Abuse.” Another is titled, “Something’s not right: Decoding the hidden tactics of abuse and freeing yourself from its power.”
At some point in life, you may need to defend an abuse victim, maybe even yourself. This series aims to help you see through and respond to these common defenses.
Defenses covered in this first set:
DARVO (Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender)
“They brought the accusation wrong”
“There’s two sides to every story”
“There’s fault on both sides”
“Think of all the good”
“God is at work here”
“That never happened” (Gaslighting)
I’m hoping to crowdsource some of this, so share your thoughts, or more common defenses for defenses on the r/leavingthenetwork subreddit or by contacting me.
Why do they work?
These can be effective defenses because they can:
Be stated confidently by someone in authority, potentially making follow-up questions insurmountably difficult to ask.
Contain truth (though partial)
Most dangerous: It confirms what we hoped to hear - no one wants to find out that someone they know is abusing people. Many people don’t even want to find out that they themselves are being abused. I know I didn’t. These defenses give the hearer an “out” so that they don’t have to wrestle with it. They make the world make sense because they let us stop looking at the part that doesn’t. This is a form of betrayal blindness and is completely natural, but very dangerous.
Thought Exercise
Have you been in a situation where you or someone you knew was abused? Consider how you might respond to these defenses in that case.
The Defenses
The Defense: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO)
This one is so common it has a name and a wikipedia page. Says wikipedia:
“It is a common manipulation strategy of psychological abusers. The abuser denies the abuse ever took place, attacks the victim for attempting to hold the abuser accountable, and claims that they, the abuser, are actually the victim in the situation, thus reversing the reality of the victim and offender. This usually involves not just "playing the victim" but also victim blaming.”
Some possible responses:
Ask questions: Note that the offender is now accusing someone else of fault, so there are now two allegations. They also haven’t actually addressed the original accusation.
Examine motives: What does each person gain? Particularly important in considering the denial - why would the accuser have lied?
Examine character: What do you know about the accuser? Is this consistent with what you know of them?
The Defense: “They brought the accusation wrong”
A special case of DARVO, this one leads into a conversation about whether the allegation was made correctly (or perfectly), bypassing the conversation about whether the abuse happened. F. Remy Deiderich writes in Broken Trust:
If you say nothing, they will say, “If we are so bad, then why didn’t you say something?” But if you say something, they will criticize you for your rebellious spirit, or for not taking the proper steps to state your concerns, often accusing you of gossip and slander. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
My answer to their criticism is, “When a house is burning, we don’t always do the right thing. Our fear can cause us to take missteps. Should we criticize the person trying to escape for using the wrong exit, or should we try to put the fire out?”
I tried to do everything I could before I went public, but many don’t even do that, and that’s ok. Remember that in abuses of power, the victim has frequently already experienced what it’s like to confront their abuser about something else. Deiderich continues, “When people are being hurt, the goal is to stop the abuse as quickly as possible.” Be very careful that you don’t get led to a place where you are:
Giving no grace to the victim, dismissing their account because of how they surfaced it.
And therefore fully acquitting the alleged abuser.
Ryan Ramsey via Instagram:
When it comes to judging the integrity of Christian leaders, I can support a benefit of the doubt approach…
as long as leaders don’t receive all the benefits
while crushed image bearers without prominence or platform receive all the doubts.
To do what Ramsey talks about is called partiality. 1 Samuel 16:7 (ESV): “But the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the Lord sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.’” Note that the exception to this is that leaders are held to a higher standard, to be “above reproach” (1 Timothy 3:2 - ESV). Don’t get fooled by saying that the leaders are just like everyone else - that’s not the bar they are held to Biblically.
The Defense: “There’s two sides to every story”
Meant to cast doubt, it implies the accuser is less than truthful and exploits the hearer’s good will and lack of information. Sometimes we can internalize it to mean, “We’ll never know the truth,” and then act on the side that is least costly to believe. This defense is also frequently said without presenting the supposed second side.
Possible considerations:
Which side does God believe? There is actually only one objective truth. Yes, the two sides may tell the story differently, but that doesn’t mean both are accurate. Hebrews 4:13 (ESV): “And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”
Have you heard both sides? If not, why? Are you afraid to ask? If so, why?
Ryan Ramsey (again) on Twitter (note that “gossip” here is using it the way the abusive leader would, not as truly defined)
With one hand the abusive faith leader says, “there are 2 sides to every story,” elevating his own account.
With the other hand, he persuades people never to indulge in gossip by contacting the other side.
The leader receives a salute & the victim receives a chorus of silence.
The Defense: “There’s fault on both sides”
This is frequently meant to create two effects.
Create a “false equivalence,” in which the faults are seen as the same.
Dismiss one sin by noting another.
Possible considerations:
This defense includes an admission of guilt. Don’t miss that.
Christians have no concept of sins “cancelling out”. If both have sinned, both should repent.
Fault on both sides doesn’t mean equal fault on both sides. While all sin has the effect of separation from God, not all sin is equal. This may surprise you, but see the section by Mike Kruger on “Misunderstanding of Total Depravity” here for an excellent explanation.
Is the victim’s “fault” actually sin? In cases of sexual assault, for example, “What was she wearing?” is a completely inappropriate response.
Even if the victim’s fault it is sin, a pastor is one who is to respond like Jesus, with gentleness and love. Abuse is never justified. Jesus reserved harsh words for those in power.
The Defense: “Think of all the good”
A similar “offsetting” remark. We should never accept abuse just because of some good. Again, this just isn’t how growth and sanctification work. If your leader (or spouse?) tells you that you have sin in some area, you wouldn’t dream of responding, “but I’m already doing so well in other areas!”
Also: confronting abuse would be easy if there were no good. I wrote an “Ode to Joy” about things I loved at Vista Church and Blue Sky Church.
The Defense: “God is at work here”
First, why should that mean that abuse should not be repented of and corrected?
Second, a few tweets. First, Amy Fritz, host of the Untangled Faith podcast, tweets:
I believe this with everything in me:
When we perpetuate the narrative that "all these good things" happened because of abusive people, we tell survivors that the destruction of their souls should be weighed next to the benefit that person caused someone else.
Lauren Thoman responds:
And when this is used in Christian terms, ie “but look at all the good that God did through [an abuser],” it implies that God considers abuse a necessary sunk cost in his line of work.
The final tweet is by me, inspired by Amy and Lauren.
God works everywhere. He uses tax collectors, rapists, and murderers. He works through Judas’ betrayal, Peter’s haste, Paul’s zeal, Lydia’s hospitality, and Tabitha’s hands. He works through fish and donkeys. He works everywhere. (1/2)
We believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent God. Who holds the atoms of the universe in his hands. That God is working somewhere does not mean God approves of everything that happens there. (2/2)
The Defense - “That never happened” (Gaslighting)
Here’s what Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer have to say about gaslighting:
It’s hard to imagine a more hurtful strategy than discrediting a person’s character, demonizing a truth teller, or spinning a story to create doubt about an accusser; but the practice of gaslighting introduces a vicious psychological element to a false narrative.
If you are not familiar, gaslighting is the practice of truly rejecting the facts presented by the victim, with the goal of making them doubt their own ability to recall what happened, or even their own sanity. It is evil, through and through. If someone is telling you that an event simply never happened, consider:
Motives: why would someone make up such a story?
Truth: Is there any way you can determine the truth? Other witnesses? Paper trails? Just be careful not to fall into a trap of believing that anything without a paper trail can be dismissed - this would enable massive amounts of abuse where records don’t exist.
Consider 1 John 1:6-10. Consider this: we know everyone sins. Everyone. If they didn’t sin in the fashion accused of, but have also never admitted any other sin, the Bible itself calls them a liar. A categorical denial of sin and need for repentance is incompatible with the Bible. 1 John 1:8: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”
Tread very carefully when someone issues a categorical denial.