- Home
- A Theoretical Model of Spouse Abuse by Christian Fundamentalists
- Home
- A Theoretical Model of Spouse Abuse by Christian Fundamentalists
A Theoretical Model of Spouse Abuse by Christian Fundamentalists
- By James Alexander
- Published January 23, 2009
- ,
- Unrated
James Alexander
James Alexander, Ph.D. is a professor of elementary education and a minister. Chapters of his new book on fundamentalism, Stories of a Recovering Fundamentalist, may be read at www.therecoveringfundamentalist.com . His blog is found at http://repentantfundie.blogspot.com .
View all articles by James Alexander
Some time ago, I decided to conduct a study to determine if Christian fundamentalist men represented a population with an increased likelihood of engaging in domestic violence. I had determined to complete a literature review and then proceed to interview counselors from a crisis center offering help to women experiencing abuse. It seemed like a good “plan of attack,” and was straightforward and could be easily interpreted.
Two problems, however, stood in the way of my research. I teach at a college and had easy access to many psychology and sociology databases. The first problem I encountered was that the literature was sparse and inconclusive at best. In general, little difference could be found in abusive patterns represented by the liberal religious, the nonreligious, and fundamentalists. Second, what little interviewing I did resulted in no “clear cut” pattern of religious affiliation among abusers. In fact, I found that variable often to be unaddressed or indeterminate—i.e. in general, it could only be “guessed at” or inferred.
I found this puzzling, as I could certainly think of a theoretical model of abuse at least somewhat fueled by fundamentalist belief. The variety of fundamentalism I had in mind was not the more “cultic” variety, but that represented by many folks’ neighbors and coworkers—a biblical absolutism and literalism that lead to an authoritarian and hierarchical view of marriage, decidedly male dominated. Examples of abuse of both children and spouses already existed in more extreme groups. (For a chilling account, read Under the Banner of Heaven). Further, as has been discussed on many on-line forums and in responses to my blog (where I have posted much of the evidence gathered from my earlier literature review), as well as support groups and other venues, there is much anecdotal evidence that supports the prevalence of spousal abuse among fundamentalists.
In saying that my literature review produced inconclusive results, I want to expand on what I think "inconclusive" means and doesn't mean. First, my review DID NOT deal with fundamentalism of the more cultic variety. I think there is little doubt about that one. As has been stated crazy, sectarian, fundamentalist religious groups (such as polygamous Mormons) are clearly wife abusers. They seem to be unrepentant about it. They think it's just part of life. Men in such groups seem to believe that they have the prerogative to abuse women.
But, my interest is elsewhere. My work related to fundamentalism has always dealt with fundamentalism as it is represented in popular culture. My attempt is to paint an accurate picture of everyday, garden-variety fundamentalism-- like that of the Christian radio “family life experts,” the many popular televangelists, or maybe "the little church down the road" where your next-door neighbors attend. I have always been interested in that population, likely because I was once a part of it.
So, here is the evidence, as I know it:
1. In fundamentalism, men are seen as authority figures.
2. Women are expected to "submit" to their husbands-- a promise my wife wrote into her vows when we were married 32 years ago.
3.
Women are, for all practical purposes, second-class citizens.
4. Men are encouraged to "take charge."
5. Fundamentalist churches can hardly be called bastions of the principles of non-resistance and non-violence. They don’t support a “gentler way.”
6. Fundamentalists are quick to support coercive and lethal means of punishment such as corporal punishment for children, punitive civil justice, and, ultimately, the death penalty.
7. Fundamentalists tend to support a position of civil retributive justice as opposed to distributive or restorative justice.
8. Fundamentalist churches take passages concerning a wrathful God at face value.
9. Many of these principles are preached on a regular basis from fundamentalist pulpits.
10. Sadly, somehow, fundamentalist churches, husbands, boyfriends, and preachers manage to brainwash women into thinking this system is from God and that it is in their best interest.
11. All of this points to a subculture that is male-dominant, rigidly authoritarian, obedient to religious leaders, and fairly accepting of violence as a method of social/personal control.
Taking the above observations as reasonably accurate, it is easy to construct a theoretical model of wife abuse at the hands of a fundamentalist husband. In fact, a simple example illustrating that model can be given in just a few short paragraphs. Imagine that a wife doesn't go along with a husband’s decisions. Or, imagine that she stops believing in the male authority point of view. You can see how that might cause a quandary for a fundamentalist husband.
He's been told repeatedly that he is "in charge." He has been told that this position is given to him directly on the authority of God. Likely, the wife has agreed to be submissive, if the marriage took place when they were both fundamentalist adherents. Also, he is probably getting regular "booster shots" of the authoritarian dribble at church and from coreligionists on a regular basis. Divorce is taboo, or close to it.
Might not such a husband become very agitated, frustrated, and angry? Additionally, might he not view his anger as a type of righteous indignation? In such a case, is it not possible that something just "snaps" and he lashes out at his wife? Perhaps physically, but if not, certainly with all kinds of psychological pressure and abuse?
This may be a phenomenon very difficult to document empirically because it depends on self-report regarding both behaviors and religious beliefs. I believe that this was the downfall in my original methodology. Since my original decision to study this phenomenon, I have been devising a different way to go about things. It just stands to reason that research to this point would tend to be inconclusive. It is likely that many men (and women) would be rather guarded and reticent to "come clean" about it all. How much are fundamentalist adherents, either abusers or the abused willing to disclose? The approaches taken thus far have relied, at least in large measure, on precisely on such self-report.
Still, I do know from my history among the fundamentalists that abusive scenarios have been played out in tragic scenes spurred on by pathological religious devotion. I do not say that such abuse is frequent. I do, however, believe that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.
Two problems, however, stood in the way of my research. I teach at a college and had easy access to many psychology and sociology databases. The first problem I encountered was that the literature was sparse and inconclusive at best. In general, little difference could be found in abusive patterns represented by the liberal religious, the nonreligious, and fundamentalists. Second, what little interviewing I did resulted in no “clear cut” pattern of religious affiliation among abusers. In fact, I found that variable often to be unaddressed or indeterminate—i.e. in general, it could only be “guessed at” or inferred.
I found this puzzling, as I could certainly think of a theoretical model of abuse at least somewhat fueled by fundamentalist belief. The variety of fundamentalism I had in mind was not the more “cultic” variety, but that represented by many folks’ neighbors and coworkers—a biblical absolutism and literalism that lead to an authoritarian and hierarchical view of marriage, decidedly male dominated. Examples of abuse of both children and spouses already existed in more extreme groups. (For a chilling account, read Under the Banner of Heaven). Further, as has been discussed on many on-line forums and in responses to my blog (where I have posted much of the evidence gathered from my earlier literature review), as well as support groups and other venues, there is much anecdotal evidence that supports the prevalence of spousal abuse among fundamentalists.
In saying that my literature review produced inconclusive results, I want to expand on what I think "inconclusive" means and doesn't mean. First, my review DID NOT deal with fundamentalism of the more cultic variety. I think there is little doubt about that one. As has been stated crazy, sectarian, fundamentalist religious groups (such as polygamous Mormons) are clearly wife abusers. They seem to be unrepentant about it. They think it's just part of life. Men in such groups seem to believe that they have the prerogative to abuse women.
But, my interest is elsewhere. My work related to fundamentalism has always dealt with fundamentalism as it is represented in popular culture. My attempt is to paint an accurate picture of everyday, garden-variety fundamentalism-- like that of the Christian radio “family life experts,” the many popular televangelists, or maybe "the little church down the road" where your next-door neighbors attend. I have always been interested in that population, likely because I was once a part of it.
So, here is the evidence, as I know it:
1. In fundamentalism, men are seen as authority figures.
2. Women are expected to "submit" to their husbands-- a promise my wife wrote into her vows when we were married 32 years ago.
3.
4. Men are encouraged to "take charge."
5. Fundamentalist churches can hardly be called bastions of the principles of non-resistance and non-violence. They don’t support a “gentler way.”
6. Fundamentalists are quick to support coercive and lethal means of punishment such as corporal punishment for children, punitive civil justice, and, ultimately, the death penalty.
7. Fundamentalists tend to support a position of civil retributive justice as opposed to distributive or restorative justice.
8. Fundamentalist churches take passages concerning a wrathful God at face value.
9. Many of these principles are preached on a regular basis from fundamentalist pulpits.
10. Sadly, somehow, fundamentalist churches, husbands, boyfriends, and preachers manage to brainwash women into thinking this system is from God and that it is in their best interest.
11. All of this points to a subculture that is male-dominant, rigidly authoritarian, obedient to religious leaders, and fairly accepting of violence as a method of social/personal control.
Taking the above observations as reasonably accurate, it is easy to construct a theoretical model of wife abuse at the hands of a fundamentalist husband. In fact, a simple example illustrating that model can be given in just a few short paragraphs. Imagine that a wife doesn't go along with a husband’s decisions. Or, imagine that she stops believing in the male authority point of view. You can see how that might cause a quandary for a fundamentalist husband.
He's been told repeatedly that he is "in charge." He has been told that this position is given to him directly on the authority of God. Likely, the wife has agreed to be submissive, if the marriage took place when they were both fundamentalist adherents. Also, he is probably getting regular "booster shots" of the authoritarian dribble at church and from coreligionists on a regular basis. Divorce is taboo, or close to it.
Might not such a husband become very agitated, frustrated, and angry? Additionally, might he not view his anger as a type of righteous indignation? In such a case, is it not possible that something just "snaps" and he lashes out at his wife? Perhaps physically, but if not, certainly with all kinds of psychological pressure and abuse?
This may be a phenomenon very difficult to document empirically because it depends on self-report regarding both behaviors and religious beliefs. I believe that this was the downfall in my original methodology. Since my original decision to study this phenomenon, I have been devising a different way to go about things. It just stands to reason that research to this point would tend to be inconclusive. It is likely that many men (and women) would be rather guarded and reticent to "come clean" about it all. How much are fundamentalist adherents, either abusers or the abused willing to disclose? The approaches taken thus far have relied, at least in large measure, on precisely on such self-report.
Still, I do know from my history among the fundamentalists that abusive scenarios have been played out in tragic scenes spurred on by pathological religious devotion. I do not say that such abuse is frequent. I do, however, believe that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.