Why James Dobson’s Article Is So Useful to Predators

Many people wonder why Jeffrey Epstein would recommend a James Dobson article to one of his victims.

For audio summary in multiple languages

The answer isn’t mysterious—and it has nothing to do with Epstein “twisting” Christian teaching.

Dobson’s advice does something predators need done for them: it minimizes cruelty, redirects blame, and places the burden of emotional and moral adjustment on the victim who was harmed. That is why it works.

And that is why abusers recognize it immediately.

What Predators Need from Christian Counsel—and Why It Works

Predators don’t need overt permission to abuse. What they need is a trusted voice to do the following:

• • A way to neutralize the victim’s anger
  • A way to redirect responsibility away from the predator
  • A way to recast harm as “misunderstanding” or brokenness
  • A way to frame self-protection as immoral or unspiritual

Any counseling framework that accomplishes those goals becomes useful—regardless of the counselor’s intent.

James Dobson’s article, “Resentment and Anger Toward a Father,” does exactly that.

How Dobson’s Article Does the Work for Them

Dobson responds to a woman whose father was neglectful and cruel—so cruel that he skipped the funeral of her infant child.

Instead of naming abuse, danger, or moral responsibility, Dobson reframes the situation:

• Father’s cruelty described as emotional blindness
• Harm becomes a “handicap”
• Father’s ongoing rejection becomes unfortunate limitation
• Daughter’s anger becomes the primary problem to be solved

The father is no longer someone who chose to wound. He is someone to be understood.

The daughter, meanwhile, is counseled to:

• Lower expectations
• Manage her exposure
• Suppress hope
• Shield herself emotionally
• Adapt to harm

Responsibility quietly transfers.

This Follows a Classic Abuse Pattern: DARVO

What Dobson does is not accidental or unique. It follows a well-documented abuse response pattern known as DARVO: Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender.

D — Deny / Minimize

Dobson never names the father’s behavior as abuse. Instead, he uses softening language:

• “emotional peculiarities”
• “unpleasant incidents”
• a permanent “handicap”

Cruelty is minimized. Moral agency disappears.

A — Attack (Redirect the Problem)

The focus shifts to the daughter’s inner life:

• You are still hoping
• You will be less vulnerable
• It hurts less to expect nothing

Her longing—not his cruelty—is treated as the problem.

RVO — Reverse Victim and Offender

The father becomes the sympathetic figure:

• wounded
• emotionally blind
• damaged in childhood

The daughter becomes the one who must change.

That is DARVO. And it is the psychological move predators rely on.

---

You Don’t Have to Teach Forgiveness This Way

It’s important to say plainly: Christian teaching does not have to minimize abuse in order to promote forgiveness.

Within conservative Christian spaces, there are voices who speak about forgiveness while still naming evil clearly and prioritizing protection.

For example, Jennifer Greenberg, writing for The Gospel Coalition, explains that honoring an evil father does not mean silence, endurance, or submission:

“An honorable response to sin is confronting it… and reporting crimes to law enforcement.”

She also states directly:

“Keeping the fifth commandment means refusing to submit to evil parents.”

That is the kind of clarity victims need.

Forgiveness does not erase accountability.
Honor does not require access.
Compassion does not cancel protection.

Christians are not forced to choose between forgiveness and safety. Scripture never demands that trade.

---

Related

How we Learned of Epstein’s Use of  Dobson’s article. 
Focus on the Family’s victim-blaming, father-excusing article.
A Better Article on Forgiving Bad Fathers (Gospel Coalition)

---

Why Dobson’s Article Is So Useful to Abusers

This framework accomplishes several things at once:

• It trains victims to doubt their instincts
• It elevates empathy for offenders over self-protection
• It reframes danger as dysfunction
• It spiritualizes endurance
• It discourages escape

Abusers do not need to distort this theology.
It already functions as a control mechanism.

Which is why Epstein recognized it immediately.

---

This Isn’t Just “Old Dobson”

Some will argue this is outdated. It isn’t.

The same logic appears today in Christian counseling spaces, including Focus on the Family—especially when abuse becomes undeniable.

When confronted with child sexual abuse, Focus on the Family may offer surface-level safety steps, but quickly pivots to:

• “God hates divorce”
• therapeutic language that softens predatory behavior
• pressure toward confrontation or counseling
• concern for preserving marriage over eliminating danger

What’s missing is just as telling:

• Jesus’ fiercest warnings about harming children
• His explicit permission to sever relationships marked by sexual immorality
• Any acknowledgment that some marriages are already destroyed by predatory sin

The pattern remains intact.

What Jesus Never Did

Jesus never reframed cruelty as tragic limitation.
He never asked victims to adapt to harm.
He never demanded forgiveness without repentance.
He never prioritized institutions over people.

In Scripture:

• People flee danger to preserve life
• Accountability precedes reconciliation
• Protection comes before restoration
• Endurance is never demanded of the violated

That is not weakness.
That is wisdom.

Why This Matters

When Christian teaching consistently:

• minimizes abuse
• moralizes divorce
• elevates empathy for offenders
• and burdens victims with adaptation

…it produces predictable harm.

This is why predators find it useful.

And this is why the church must stop defending frameworks that function this way—even if they were originally well-intended.

The question is not whether James Dobson meant to help abusers.

The question is whether his advice does.

And in this case, the answer is painfully clear.

---