I posted this statement and meme on Facebook—and got an interesting comment (below):

[original post] Too many churches still teach that divorce isn’t allowed in cases of abuse, essentially giving abusers a free pass under the banner of “Christian marriage.”

Churches: When you refuse to allow victims to divorce on grounds of abuse, you teach that abuse is just a normal part of Christian marriage.”
—Brenda Linn

——

I shared this quote on my domestic-violence awareness page because it’s true: some churches still treat divorce as the ultimate sin while quietly tolerating cruelty, deception, coercion, or violence inside the marriage. Instead of defending victims, they defend marital status at all costs. That’s how Christian abusers keep power—by hiding behind their own theological interpretation. The post got a good response.

A man jumped into the comments section and proved exactly what I (and meme author Brenda Linn) warned about. He used shame, spiritual gaslighting, and abuser logic to scold survivors for wanting safety. His comment was long, angry, and full of common tactics we see in abusive relationships—and in abusive church cultures. He is trying to preserve a system where wives are blamed, stigmatized, and shunned for divorcing abusive husbands & where abusive men never face accountability.  So, yes, his views do suggest that abuse is just a normal part of Christian marriage.

Here is a screenshot of his comment (name removed for privacy):

Let’s look at each of his 16 arguments below—one at a time.

A Point-by-Point Breakdown of His Rhetoric

1. “Divorce is a man-made doctrine… Christ abolished it.”

This is simply untrue. Jesus did not “abolish” the Old Testament law but fulfilled it (Matt. 5:17). Jesus acknowledged that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people’s hearts—a recognition of human cruelty. He also acknowledged legitimate reasons for divorce—specifically betrayal and unfaithfulness. Paul expanded that teaching by saying believers are “not bound” when a spouse destroys the marriage through abandonment (1 Corinthians 7:15). Abuse is a form of abandonment and betrayal.

This is a classic tactic: erase biblical context and substitute a personal belief as if it were divine command. This is exactly the distortion Linn warned about: theology twisted to shield abusers.

---

2. “Abuse isn’t an excuse… you’re not a Christian if you believe in divorce.”

This is spiritual intimidation, not theology. It’s a purity test designed to shame victims into silence.

Accusing someone of not being Christian because they disagree is spiritual abuse. There are many Bible verses about abuse—telling victims to avoid and get away from such people, even suggesting that abusers be thrown out of the church.  Christians have debated divorce for 2,000 years. Reformers such as Martin Luther and John Calvin and the Puritans did not interpret Malachi 2:16 as “God hates divorce.” No one gets to weaponize salvation to force a woman (or man) to remain with someone destructive.

This accusation shows he doesn’t care about truth—he cares about control.

---

3. “Your first go-to is divorce because you’re lazy or stupid.”

Research shows Christian marital abuse survivors stay far too long, not too little. They agonize over the decision. They try counseling, prayer, fasting, church intervention, separation, and personal sacrifice. Divorce is the last resort, not the first thing they consider—not when the stigma against divorce is so great.

Here the commenter uses insults instead of evidence. Anytime someone pivots to character attacks, it is a red flag. Their argument has collapsed. Calling victims “lazy” or “stupid” is belittling and degrading. It’s the same language abusers use: You’re the problem. You’re overreacting. You just need to try harder.

Abusers often accuse victims of being the problem, rather than addressing their own harmful behavior.

Insults are a distraction meant to shame victims into silence.

---

4. “You can leave temporarily and remain celibate until the abuser changes.”

Here he admits it’s sometimes necessary to leave for safety, but then demands lifelong celibacy for the victim if the abuser doesn’t change. (The same doesn’t apply to the abuser, apparently, because they can simply claim they’ve been abandoned and divorce.) This is another threat that isn’t supported biblically. Does God routinely punish victims and reward perpetrators? Why should the victim pay for the abuser’s actions? It’s not their fault. Remarriage for victims is biblical.

His view is cruel and unbiblical. Scripture does not command lifelong celibacy for the sinned-against spouse. There is no biblical command requiring a person to stay legally married to someone violent or unsafe. Paul explicitly says believers are not bound when a spouse destroys the marriage through abandonment—and abuse is a form of abandonment of vows (1 Cor. 7:15). Abusers who don’t care for their own family are worse than unbelievers according to 1 Timothy 5:8.

And the Bible certainly does not require someone to wait indefinitely for an abuser to “change”—especially when research shows most abusers don’t. 1 Corinthians 5:11 teaches victims to cut ties and never associate with or eat with the abuser. No need to leave the door open or look back.

His comment is about control, not holiness.

---

5. “Get mental-health help to fix your spouse.”

This line exposes a dangerous misunderstanding of abuse dynamics. Abuse is not a communication problem or a misunderstanding. It’s an issue of power and attitude. Abusers choose to abuse because they like the results: “my way or the highway.” Abuse is 100% their own responsibility to change. The victim cannot help them to fix something they don’t see as a problem.

Attending marriage therapy often makes abusers better at manipulating. Couples therapy is unethical and may be illegal where there is abuse. And victims cannot “fix” what they didn’t “break.”

Shifting responsibility for an abuser’s rehabilitation onto the victim is classic blame-shifting. It keeps the abuser comfortable and puts the entire weight of the marriage on the victim’s shoulders.

Decades of research show that abusers rarely want to change enough to actually change.

---

6. “Call on the state or community to heal your spouse.”

Notice again: every solution he offers suggests that everyone  and everything—even the government—must work to change the abuser. Not the abuser himself or herself. The victim’s safety really doesn’t matter. The goal isn’t healing and protection and safety; it’s keeping the marriage intact at any cost—even the victim’s wellbeing.

Communities, states, pastors, and courts cannot “heal” someone who doesn’t want change. Most abusers deny everything, explain anyway everything, and blame others for everything. Suggesting that outsiders will magically fix an abuser is magical thinking dressed as theology.

---

7. “You can help heal the abuser and stop the abuse.”

This is explicit victim-blaming: If you were better, they wouldn’t hurt you.

Survivors hear this all the time from abusive partners: “You provoked me,” “You made me angry,” “If you’d just do your part, everything would be fine.”

His comment echoes that exact logic. It erases the abuser’s responsibility and assigns it to the victim. This tactic keeps victims trapped in cycles of self-blame and hopelessness.

---

8. “Your divorce argument is cowardice.”

Calling survivors “cowards” for wanting safety and relief from hostility is manipulative shaming. Leaving abuse requires enormous bravery—often more bravery than staying. Scripture is full of people fleeing danger: David fled from King Saul, Paul fled cities when persecuted, Joseph fled with Mary and Jesus.

God never commands people to stay where they are unsafe.

When someone uses the word “coward” to control your choices, it exposes their agenda.

---

9. “You accepted the union, so don’t complain now.”

This is the “you made your bed, now lie in it” argument. It ignores the fact that many abusers hide or excuse or explain away their behavior. It also misunderstands biblical covenants. A marriage covenant is conditional. It takes two-way vows to enter it, and when one spouse breaks the vows through cruelty, betrayal, or harm, the covenant is already shattered. Filing for divorce merely updates the legal record.

He’s not defending marriage. He’s defending the abuser’s right to behave however they want without consequences. It’s a “get out of jail” free card for a self-centered remorseless person.

---

10. “Why complain to God when you asked for it?”

This is spiritual cruelty. Scripture is full of people crying out to God about suffering inflicted by others. God does not rebuke the oppressed for complaining—He defends them.

Blaming the victim for crying out to God is further evidence that this commenter is likely more concerned with silencing victims than seeking truth.

---

11. “If you can’t handle it, you shouldn’t have married them.”

This argument requires supernatural foresight. No one knows on their wedding day that their spouse will later become violent, controlling, or destructive. Many abusers are on their best behavior until after commitment. They don’t show their true selves until they believe the victim is “locked in.” Even if they showed a bit of entitlement, who could have imagined how bad it would become?

Again, this blame is misplaced. The person who broke the vows is responsible—not the one who trusted.

---

12. “Jesus said two shall become one until death.”

This is cherry-picking Jesus’ own words. It leaves out Jesus’ statements about infidelity and divorce, and Paul’s statements about abandonment. Abuse is both betrayal and abandonment. The covenant cannot be maintained by one person alone.

Selective quoting is a form of manipulation.

(For more on Jesus’ statements, see the excellent book by Dr. David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Church.)

---

13. “Abuse isn’t a reason to break God’s law.”

Here the commenter sides openly with the abuser. He ignores that abuse is the breaking of God’s law. It is treachery, deception, cruelty, and violence—all condemned in Scripture. The victim is not the one “breaking” anything.

This man’s theology shields abusers and blames victims—which is the problem Linn named in the first place.

---

14. “You can stay single forever—nuns and priests do it.”

Comparing domestic violence survivors to celibate clergy is nonsensical. Clergy choose celibacy joyfully and voluntarily. Abuse survivors are not choosing a vocation; they are escaping harm. Remarriage is allowed after a valid divorce. And abuse is a valid reason for divorce.

This argument only serves one purpose: to discourage victims from leaving their abuser.

---

15. “When things get rough, don’t abandon your duty.”

Abuse is not “a rough patch.” Marriage vows cover shared hardship — illness, job loss, grief — not intentional harm, betrayal, cruelty, or abuse. No covenant requires enduring someone’s destructive choices.

The phrase “For better or for worse”
means ‘no matter what life throws at us.’
It does not mean ‘no matter what you do to me.’

And abuse is destructive. It can cause PTSD, anxiety, depression, and long-term physical harm. Minimizing abuse as just a “rough spot” is gaslighting—and common among abusers themselves.

This language reframes cruelty as an inconvenience the victim should quietly endure.

---

16. “Fix it using other solutions.”

He offers dozens of “solutions,” but none that protect the victim. None acknowledge safety. None are rooted in research, Scripture, or practical wisdom.

His list boils down to:

• Try harder
• Endure more
• Take responsibility for the abuser
• Never leave
• Never hold them accountable

It’s not guidance. It’s bondage.

---

Conclusion

This man didn’t refute the original point. He proved it. He is trying to preserve a system where wives are blamed, stigmatized, and shunned for divorcing abusive husbands & where abusive men never face accountability.  So, yes, his views do suggest that abuse is just a normal part of Christian marriage.

Is that what we Christians want?

Finally, how does this attract anyone to Christ? What outsider looks at a marriage model where victims must endure cruelty, stay silent, and carry the entire burden of the relationship—and thinks, “Yes, that’s the faith I want”? It looks terrible.

---

What Can We Infer About this Man?

Here are reasonable, responsible inferences—not diagnoses—based solely on his words and how he argues. These patterns show up again and again in abusive, controlling, and spiritually coercive people and environments, so they’re strong indicators of his mindset and motivations.

He prioritizes domination and control over decency.

His arguments consistently defend authority and “marriage permanence,” not the wellbeing of real humans. There’s no compassion for domestic violence victims. When someone automatically sides with the institution over the individual, it suggests:

• He values control more than people
• He is threatened by the idea of victims having choices
• He sees marriage as license to abuse, not a loving partnership

This mindset is extremely common among those who enable abuse.

He has a rigid, authoritarian religious framework.

He speaks in absolutist terms, suggesting that he believes he speaks for God:
“You are not a Christian…”
“It is a law of God…”
“You must…”

This suggests someone who:

• uses religious language to validate his abusive worldview
• doesn’t emulate Jesus where it comes to rescuing the vulnerable and setting captives free
• treats disagreement (with him and his ideas) as rebellion, not a difference of opinions based on biblical interpretation

This is a hallmark of authoritarian religious thinking, not wise, mature faith.

He shows signs of misogyny and entitlement.

He attacks victims (mostly women) as “lazy,” “stupid,” and “cowards,” while offering endless empathy and support to abusive spouses. That is a red flag:

• He views women’s suffering as unimportant
• He believes women owe lifelong service to harmful men
• He minimizes abuse because he doesn’t take women’s safety seriously

This is extremely common in some church cultures where women’s wellbeing is secondary.

He lacks understanding of abuse dynamics or actively ignores them.

Nothing he says aligns with:

• psychological research
• domestic violence science
• trauma-informed care
• pastoral counseling best practices

This suggests either willful ignorance or a deliberate refusal to consider evidence because it would dismantle his worldview.

Either way, he shows zero curiosity, compassion, or interest in truth.

He uses classic abuser or abuser-enabler tactics.

His language mirrors the tactics documented in thousands of survivor stories:

• minimizing abuse (“things get rough”)
• victim-blaming (“fix your spouse”)
• shaming (“coward”)
• isolation (“remain celibate forever”)
• burden-shifting (“you made your bed”)
• spiritual gaslighting (“not a Christian if…”)

This doesn’t prove he is personally abusive, but it strongly suggests he has absorbed abusive patterns—whether from his own behavior, family background, or church culture.

He needs a world where victims have no exit.

He lists every possible option except the one that gives the victim autonomy. Why?

Because if victims can leave, his worldview collapses.

Abusive systems require permanence to survive. Anyone who fiercely defends permanence at the expense of safety is protecting the abuser’s power, not God’s truth.

He views marriage as a contract for life-service, not a covenant of loving partnership where each person’s wellbeing matters.

He speaks of vows as a trap you can never escape, no matter what the other person does. This is an upside-down concept of biblical covenants. The Bible shows us that God made two types of covenants with his people, conditional and unconditional.

• Conditional covenants are more like contracts today. You promise to pay your rent. Your landlord promises to keep the apartment habitable. If you don’t pay your rent, you get kicked out.

This suggests deep confusion about biblical covenants and a possible idolization of marriage itself.

He sees suffering as a virtue—when it’s someone else’s suffering.

He romanticizes endurance, sacrifice, and silent suffering, but only for victims. He doesn’t hold abusers to equal standards. This is a spiritualized double standard common among extremists, emotionally immature Christians, and people with no conscience and no remorse.

He is comfortable demanding lifelong suffering from others but not himself.

He may be projecting personal issues.

People who defend abusers often:

• witnessed abuse in their upbringing
• committed harmful behavior themselves
• fear accountability and are note motivated to improve themselves
• cannot tolerate the idea of being “at fault”
• cling to strict rules to avoid confronting their own actions

His defensiveness and aggression suggest the topic hits close to home.

He shows no pastoral instinct, no empathy, no humility.

A healthy Christian response might show:

• grief over suffering
• caution
• nuance and wisdom
• concern for safety
• compassion

He shows none.

He embodies the exact culture that keeps victims trapped and protects abusers—a culture your Jesus directly challenged when He stated He came to set the captives free.