Forget and Suffer vs Remember and Reject

Remembering how other individuals treat us is an important part of making decisions and of staying out of danger. Yet many Christians throw human interpretation of forgiveness at people. By insisting that they forgive and forget, Christians abuse them yet again and cause them to put themselves in harm’s way.

This is especially so for wives who suffer abuse from their husbands. The ultra pious pressure wives to forgive and forget. They tell a wife who is still grieving the loss of her marriage, still trying to accept that the man she married doesn’t cherish her after all, that she SHOULD forgive and maintain relationship with her abuser. They tell her if she holds him at arms length, she hasn’t really forgiven him.

So she takes a phone call from him, and he berates her for half an hour. She hangs up, feeling shaky, confused, and scared. But she focuses on forgiving and forgetting. She blames herself for not handling it better.

This is contrary to scripture. Titus 3:10 “Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.” Abusers tend to be divisive. Their repeated reviling creates conflict and splits up marriages.

2Timothy 3:1-5 “But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God—having a form of godliness but denying its power. HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM.”

This passage describes many abusive husbands. Instead of controlling themselves, they put all their focus on controlling their wives. Their behavior is pure treachery. They led their wives to believe they would love and cherish them, but instead they turn on them and attack them.

How does the Bible say we are to respond? HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. There is nothing about forgive and forget. There is no exception clause saying “except when you are married to him.”

When a married man chooses the above behaviors, HE is the one who has broken the marriage covenant. Without loving behavior there is no covenant. It has become null and void. Unless he repents in sincerity and truth. And few abusers do.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Is Forgive and Forget Biblical?

Those who place emphasis on forgiveness often say one must forget for it to be real forgiveness. This week a woman told me about her struggle to forgive her abusive ex-husband. As soon as she decided to forgive him, the memories of all he had done overwhelmed her. She thought that meant she had not forgiven him. She said it took 2 years for her to be able to forgive and forget. (Yet, she must still be remembering, or she wouldn’t have mentioned it to me—not even from the forgiveness angle.)

I want to know the book, chapter and verse that tells us to forgive and forget.
I checked the concordance, and did not find those words together anywhere. In fact, I find principles that suggest it is unwise to forget. Proverbs 22:3 and 27:12 “A prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it.” Even though we forgive, it may be stupid to forget.

Consider this unlikely situation: While at work, your boss tells you and a coworker to go to another area of the building. You get on the elevator with your coworker, and she walks in front of you presumably to punch in the number of the floor you are headed for, and with all her weight, steps on your foot with her spiked heel. She apologizes and you forgive her, even though your foot hurts, and when you check it later, you have a bruise. But you put the incident out of your mind.

A week later the boss sends you and your coworker on another mission, and she does the same thing, and again apologizes, calling herself a big klutz. You forgive her again, and berate yourself when you can’t put it out of your mind the first 2 days. “It was just an accident,” you scold yourself, “forget it!”

Two weeks later during another elevator trip with her, you again get your foot nailed by her spike. This time, she apparently lost her balance and fell against you, and her spike landed on the very spot that is still hurting from the last time. You forgive her again.

Now, if you are too stupid to see that this is a pattern you need to make sure you do NOT forget, and that you either need to ride a separate elevator or keep a large briefcase between you and the spike-lady, and that you need to report her to the boss (or to whoever deals with assaults at your workplace), and to the police, you will keep getting hurt by your coworker.

Remembering how other individuals treat us is an important part of making decisions, of staying out of danger. Yet many Christians throw human interpretation of forgiveness at people, and by insisting that they forget, influence them to put themselves in harm’s way.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Forgiveness, Trust, Restitution, and Reconciliation

The truth about forgiveness is that it does not erase our pain. Instead, we choose to bear the pain and release the one who caused it by no longer demanding payment from them and by letting go of our anger and refusing to seek revenge.

Consider a person whose loved one is killed by a drunk driver. Will forgiveness actually take away the pain of loss? Will the person stop missing their loved one? Hardly. That pain will be there for many years. Forgiveness in this case means the person is not going to try to get even, but chooses to let go of all anger, resentment, bitterness, and malice against the person.

Does forgiveness mean the person is going to try to protect the drunk from the consequences of his behavior? No. To do so would actually be a disservice to the drunk, and may result in another unnecessary death at his hands. However, testimony against the drunk must be truthful and neither understated nor embellished. It is the responsibility of those who administer the law to punish the drunk.

Therefore, while forgiveness does not seek revenge, neither does it protect from consequences. Further, although a person who forgives may have to distance herself from or even divorce the one who wronged her, she will not administer punitive consequences by her own hand, unless that is actually the harmed person’s responsibility because she is the offender’s parent, or otherwise carries the responsibility to punish the wrong-doer.

How does forgiveness look in real life? In the case of unpaid debt, the wronged party may choose to stop associating closely with the one who did the harm, and may even take steps to hold the wrong-doer accountable by reporting him to the authorities and testifying in court if needed. However, the wronged person will not slash the wrong-doers tires, spray paint hateful words on his garage, nor leave key scratches in the paint on his car. Instead the wronged person will pray for his/her trouble-causer, and with a loving attitude do what he/she can to restore him to right thinking/behaving if opportunity arises and if it is safe to do so. Here I add that what is safe for one person, may put another at risk. For example, it may be safe for a large man to associate with an abusive husband, but totally unsafe for the abuser's wife to associate with him.

When the person says he is sorry, the wronged one can express forgiveness and cautiously offer relationship if it is safe to do so, leaving room to back away again if the repentance is not genuine. However, in some cases, especially when there has been repeated harm done as in domestic abuse, a person can accept a statement of apology, extend forgiveness, and remain distant until such time as trust is reestablished through the offender’s restitution and long-term trustworthy behavior.

In the case of domestic abuse, the abuser is often the first to point out that if the abused party does not take him back into her full good graces, she has not forgiven him. This is totally false. In actuality, the ball is in the abuser’s court. Because of his repeated trampling on his wife, he must not only show that he will no longer stomp all over her, he must take responsibility for his behavior by paying restitution.

Lundy Bancroft, in his book “Why does he DO That?” puts it this way. (I repeat this in my own words without looking it up recently, so I may miss some points and add thoughts that are my own.) The harm done by domestic abuse is similar to the harm done when a man cuts down his neighbor’s beautiful shade tree. Most abusers think an “I’m sorry” will make the relationship OK again. But it does not. How does the neighbor know if her prize rose bush is safe from her neighbor’s chain saw? In fact, although it is impossible for him to restore the shade tree, he must do his best to restore as much as he can. He must buy as large a shade tree as he can find to replace the tree he cut down, it must meet with his neighbor’s approval, and he must hire a tree moving service that plants large trees to plant it. He must water and feed the tree faithfully for several years to make sure it survives and grows. Since even this does not restore his neighbor’s property to its original condition, he must look for other ways to make amends, to beautify his neighbor’s property or benefit his neighbor in a way that the NEIGHBOR deems appropriate.

This obviously requires genuine repentance, humility, loving concern for his neighbor, and an attitude of selflessness. When these qualities and actions are missing, it is impossible to restore the type of trust that brings true reconciliation.

Only when the abuser makes full restitution and shows himself trustworthy over a long period of time—at least a year—can he expect his wife’s pain to begin to diminish and her physical and emotional ailments to begin to heal, which will allow her forgiveness to grow into trust and then into reconciliation.

Instead of pushing the wronged party to forgive, trust, and reconcile, it is high time we push the offender to take responsibility, pay restitution, and BE consistently trustworthy for the rest of his life.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Forgiveness—What it is and Isn’t

Christians say much about forgiveness. They teach it is the eraser that cements all kinds of relationships. People often believe forgiveness erases offenses, restores trust, brings reconciliation, eradicates emotional pain, heals illnesses, and makes everything hunky dory.

But is this true? Can forgiveness do all of the above?

Well, what IS forgiveness? There is so much conflicting information about it, that I have struggled to know what it is, let alone how to apply it. I finally came to a conclusion based on biblical teachings about money. Using a concrete item makes it much easier for me to understand the concept, which also clarified for me what forgiveness can and cannot do.

Jesus told a parable about forgiving a debt, so I, too will tell a parable.
Imagine that you came to me, jobless and wanting to invest in a business that would provide for your family, and I loaned you $100,000.00 (One hundred thousand dollars). It took me 40 years of scrimping and self-denial to save this money so I could set it aside for retirement. It is also all I was able to save. But seeing your distress, I loaned it to you so that your family would not go hungry, and with the agreement that you would pay me interest so that I, too, would benefit from the exchange.

The first year was interest and payment free, per our agreement, and the second year you made two monthly payments, and then stopped paying altogether. It soon became clear that you had used up the whole $100,000 and now your fledgling business had failed to get off the ground. Then I find out you squandered the money, using most of it for “research” that was actually self-gratification and entertainment. You never did open your business. And now you not only had no money left, I also understood that you didn’t have the morals to be able to work enough to repay it. I could choose to forgive you or choose to remain angry and frustrated the rest of my life as I keep hounding you for payment or telling everyone what a horrible person you are. (I do believe there is room for sharing our grief with a few trusted confidantes, but it is important that we do not emebellish the wrong that was done to us.)

What does it mean to forgive? It means that I do not expect you to repay the debt. It is forgiven. Therefore, I let go of the anger and frustration I felt toward you. However, I may need to take some time to grieve my loss.

Does it mean I trust you? If you have shown yourself untrustworthy, absolutely NOT! Does it mean I am reconciled with you? No. Does it mean I do not deal with emotional pain? NO. In fact, I will have to deal with major emotional pain because I have just suffered a HUGE loss. My entire retirement savings are gone and cannot be recovered. Because of this, I will be unable to retire—ever. My income was low enough in my working years that my social security will never be enough to live on. I will live in pain, still working hard years after I am too frail or ill to keep working. Or I will stop working and constantly be scraping the bottom of the barrel for the rest of my life, forced to choose what needed items I must do without.

The pain I suffer will be so severe I may end up grieving my loss for the rest of my life. It will always be a factor in my life circumstances. Even at a tiny 2% interest on the $100,000, I will bear the loss of $167 a month for the rest of my life. That hurts! It is not small change to me.

Yet Christians teach that if I forgive you, my pain should be gone, and I should be your good friend. They seem to deny that friendship requires trust—a trust that is earned. In fact, they would urge me to be so foolish to loan you money again, if you are still in need and I am able to save enough to loan. This, my friends, is not forgiveness, it is stupidity and foolishness.

The forgiveness pushers fail to understand that it is each person’s responsibility to BE trustworthy—to earn trust. I take that back. They fail to understand that it is each MAN’S responsibility to BE trustworthy. They have very little problem demanding trustworthiness and perfect submission from women.





Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Authors of Fireproof Seem to Claim Forgiveness Would Save Abusive Marriages

Another comment by the Kendrick brothers, that Catherine’s “bitterness” is the result of her failure to forgive Caleb on a daily basis, seems to suggest that the marriage of Caleb and Catherine would not have degenerated if Catherine had forgiven her husband daily. This belief is frequently voiced in the Christian community and needs to be examined. Does a spouse’s forgiveness stop her abuser from escalating his abuse as is commonly believed? Many people quote Proverbs 15:1 “A soft answer turneth away wrath; but grievous words stir up anger.” Is this verse always the case?

Now, don’t get me wrong. I think forgiveness is great and necessary, and a soft answer does turn away wrath in many cases. But is this true in abusive marriages?

To find out, I want to follow through on what their reasoning would produce. Remember, I personally have been abused and for years did my best to forgive and believe the best of my husband and also responded with a soft answer. Other abused women report experiences similar to mine. Yet none of us claim to be perfect. Thus, I want to imagine what the results would be if a wife WAS able to forgive her abusive husband every day.

Let’s start with Caleb saying he wants to withhold a third of his income to save for his boat and that he pressures Catherine into agreeing to this. According to Brothers Kendrick, Catherine should forgive him for being so self-centered and for not seeing her needs. So let’s say Catherine sacrifices her needs and even tries to help him save for his boat. She forgives him, loves and serves him, while she sees him in the best possible light as an unselfish man.

Caleb sees her love, service and forgiveness as his due, and takes his 2 days off doing whatever brings him pleasure. (This has been his pattern for 6 years of marriage, according to the writing of the Kendrick brothers.)

Catherine comes home from work on his second day off, picks up Caleb’s mess, buys groceries, cooks his dinner, dares to take his clothes to the dry cleaners while the food cooks, all the while thanking God that she has such a wonderful husband and again forgiving him for leaving all the work to her. At the dinner table, Caleb complains that the roast is tough and the lettuce hasn’t been cut fine enough. Catherine forgives him, and brings out the dessert, which he tells her is not to his liking, either. After dinner, she struggles with resentment, but chooses to forgive him. She sweetly gives herself to him that night, and he uses her, giving nothing in return. Catherine cries herself to sleep, and when she wakes in the morning, again chooses to forgive her husband and love him unconditionally.

This becomes a normal part of Catherine’s life. Her husband puts her down and expects special service every day, justifying his behavior by emphasizing how much he contributes with his pay check and with saving people’s lives. Catherine forgives him, and acts like a normal wife would by telling him how her dad has to work so hard to help her mom because the wheel chair and bed are not right for her mom, but Caleb dismisses Catherine’s concern, saying it is their problem, so Catherine drops the issue as a good Christian wife is taught to do.

Catherine tries to do all the little things to encourage her husband, to raise his self-esteem, and he continues to get nastier. (Bruce Ware and followers would blame Caleb’s nastiness on Catherine because she is not submissive enough, but in real life once abusers get what they want, they soon raise the bar and increase their demands. This seems to be caused by a mix of believing they are entitled to get special service and special privileges that their wives do not have and by a desire to feel a sense of power over their wives.)

After a year goes by, Catherine is secretly crying herself to sleep every night, while Caleb is getting everything he wants, and becoming discontented that he doesn’t have more or get even more service from his wife. He would like her to stay at home so she can do more for him—especially on his days off, but he also wants her to continue bringing in her paycheck, so he can buy his boat sooner. He asks her to cook meals for him to eat while she is at work, and she complies with that request, too.

Catherine keeps forgiving her husband, and doesn’t keep a record of all the things he does to hurt her every day, yet her inner pain keeps growing. She makes a bigger effort to forgive him, thinking that is her problem, but she ends up bursting into tears at work. She tries to control and hide her tendency to cry, but it slips out at times.

When Gavin makes his overture at work, she tells him how wonderful her husband is, which results in Gavin leaving her alone. Everyone thinks Caleb and Catherine have a wonderful marriage.

After another year, Catherine stops going to sleep after being intimate with Caleb, but instead gets up to finish all the tasks she is expected to do, trying to be as quiet as possible so her beloved husband can sleep soundly. She uses this time to pray for her husband, focusing on seeing him in the best possible light. These extra hours of work result in her getting fewer and fewer hours of sleep. Less sleep plus the stress of being continually trampled on by her husband makes her prone to “catching” every cold and flu that goes around, and she develops physical diseases as well. (In a recent study women who had suffered recent domestic abuse were more likely to have been diagnosed with a wide range of diseases and disorders:

The women who reported violence were nearly six times as likely to have been diagnosed with substance use disorders, the researchers found, while they were at nearly five-fold greater risk of "family and social problems." Their risk of depression was more than tripled, while anxiety diagnoses were nearly three times as common among these women.
Other diagnoses that were more common among recently abused women included low back and neck pain; sprains and strains; sexually transmitted diseases; lacerations, bruises and scrapes; urinary tract infections; chest pain; and gastroesophageal reflux disease.

See http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/life/2009-10/13/content_8783419.htm
to read the entire article.) She goes to the doctor for her many maladies, and the doctor recognizes symptoms of depression and prescribes anti-depressants.

Caleb thinks the anti-depressants are not necessary and refuses to pay for them, which leaves Catherine with yet another expense she can ill-afford. She tries to cook more from scratch to save at the grocery store, but time is an issue, so she tries buying cheaper cuts of meat so she’ll have funds to buy some precooked meals. Caleb complains about the cheap meat, so she is forced to skimp on clothing for herself, wearing them until they are noticeably worn out, and getting fewer haircuts. Caleb gripes that she is letting herself “go to seed,” so she tries to find other ways to stretch her income.

There never is a solution. Catherine is always viewed as the problem, and over time she also believes if she could be more perfect, Caleb would be happy with her.

The prescription doesn’t help. One day when Catherine’s heart is breaking because of her husband’s recent “verbal unkindness,” (John Piper’s term) she focuses so hard on trying not to cry and on trying to get rid of her anxiety and the fear she still feels because Caleb overwhelmed her by threatening her with his fists and screaming in her face that she steps in the street without thinking and a car hits her and kills her. Everyone thinks it was an accident. No one suspects suicide, since they believe her marriage to Caleb is so happy. A few blame the anti-depressants. But no matter, Catherine is dead and everyone feels so sorry for her husband who “adored” her.

A second possible ending is that one day threatening her with his fists wasn’t enough, and Caleb gets his bat and hits her with the same viciousness he used on the garbage can. Caleb either breaks her jaw and fractures her eye socket, or hits Catherine so hard she falls and hits her head on the counter, killing her or putting her in the hospital for a long time.

The point I’m making is that in both Fireproof and in the Love Dare and in the Kendrick Brother's commentary there is a complete lack of teaching about a wife confronting her husband and holding him accountable for sin. Instead they say when Catherine confronted Caleb she may have been disrespectful. In other words, they suggest wives shouldn't express anger or disgust to their husbands concerning their behavior. With their repeated comments about Catherine's “bitterness” and lack of forgiveness and trust, they apparently would have us believe an abusive marriage will become healthy if the abused wife will just forgive and love unconditionally. If she will get rid of her bitterness and completely die to self. But they picture Caleb being REJECTED when he "dies to self," not TRAMPLED on, screamed at, threatened, punished, and assaulted—perhaps even killed.

Indeed, it appears to me the life they picture for abused wives is a life-time of degrading slavery and cruel punishments, neglect, overwork, and imprisonment, coupled with a spirit of forgiveness and service on the part of the abused wife which amounts to voluntary self-degradation. The Kendrick Brothers compound this by neglecting to clarify that it is the abuser who must use the Love Dare.

Once again, the focus is on finding yet another way to condemn the abused wife. When are Christians going to hold abusers accountable, instead of transferring that accountability onto abused wives?

Think about it: Does forgiveness stop emotional pain? Does forgiveness heal a person who is a paraplegic because of being hit by a drunk driver? Does a victim's forgiveness stop an abuser from abusing? Are marriages that end in assault and murder (till death do us part) more righteous and godly than those that end in divorce to avoid assault and murder? Is divorce a bigger sin than murder and spousal abuse?



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

Fireproof, What’s Right About it, Part 6, Conclusion

The main problem with Fireproof is the interpretation of those who view the movie. For the most part, the necessary and correct details ARE in the movie, but they are either too subtle for most Evangelical Christian viewers who know little about domestic violence, or they are downplayed by the screenwriters. Keep in mind, the screenwriters knew their audience would largely be Evangelical Christians, so I’ll leave it up to you as to whether the fogging-over of the issues was intentional.

First, notice that the word “submission” is not used once in the movie. Perhaps this is because the couple does not claim to be Christian, even though they have Christian values. The writers got it right when they left “submission” and “authority” out of the movie. They rightly do NOT indicate that Catherine’s “non-submissive” behavior, her forthright and truthful comments, and her confrontive speech is the factor that is destroying the marriage and driving her husband to porn addiction, lack of love and respect for her, and trampling on her. Instead, it is clear that her behavior is a RESPONSE to her husband’s selfish use of her and his lust after other women.

Next, notice that the writers deal compassionately with Catherine’s responses to the doctor who is wooing her. There is some truth to the counselor’s words that if a husband treats his wife right, she will bloom, but if he mistreats her she will wilt. We can see that in the scene where Catherine wilts when Caleb abruptly slams the cupboard door, turns on her with his savage words, and threatens her by punching the air with his fists stopping just short of her nose. We also see where she blooms with the positive attention of the doctor.

The writers use the “on-the-job flirtation” to show abusive husbands that they are literally driving their wives into another man’s arms, rather than to blame it on the abused wives. I commend them for this compassionate stance. Although the abused wife is accountable to God for her behavior, the writers show that when a husband mistreats his wife, he also carries the responsibility for putting her in the position to be seriously tempted to become an adulteress.

Another thing they got right, is when they refer to Caleb’s parents’ marriage. Caleb’s impatient and contemptuous attitude toward his mother seems unwarranted, until a viewer puts it together that she was the abuser up until 2 years ago. She was so hard to live with, that her husband was planning to leave the marriage. Because she was the abuser, SHE had to be the one to implement the Love Dare. If her husband had used it, she would have continued to walk all over him.

Next, notice that the word “abuse” did not appear once in the movie. Not once. Why? I would guess it is because their target audience had largely rejected that word. The writers replaced it with the word “trample” when Caleb confesses to Catherine that he has trampled on her for 7 years.

Replacing the word “abuse” with “trample” has at least 3 consequences, some positive, and others detrimental for their audience.

1. The movie would not be rejected by those who reject the veracity of the claims of wives who say their husbands abuse them in non-physical ways.

2. Because the word “abuse” is not used, many viewers are unaware that the story is about a couple whose marriage is being destroyed by Caleb’s abusive behavior and porn viewing. They can consider his actions to be “verbal unkindness” as John Piper has labeled non-physical abuse. This downplays the seriousness of the abuser’s sin, making it very easy to blame the wife for non-submission, which, as mentioned above, the writers did not do. However, since respected Christian leaders, like Bruce Ware, have told huge audiences it is the wife’s non-submission that causes husbands to get angry, it would be easy for viewers to draw the same conclusion.

3. Those who do not recognize the abusive behavior of Caleb, and the abusive behavior that is inferred about Caleb’s mother’s previous behavior, nor that Catherine has already been loving for six years, assume the statement toward the end that either gender can apply the Love Dare, means that either spouse—even the abused spouse—can successfully and safely implement the Love Dare. This is very dangerous.

The result is that the Evangelical community pushes abused wives to apply the Love Dare, which further damages marriages that are already close to beyond repair, and puts abused wives and their children at serious risk for their mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical health.

Considering that it was Caleb and his mother, the trampling, abusive ones, who used the Love Dare, the movie DOES tell viewers that the person who has been violating his spouse is the one who must use the Love Dare.

Besides these assumptions made by viewers, there are two major problems with the storyline itself. One is the assumption that a person who becomes a Christian and uses the Love Dare will stop trampling his or her spouse. As I pointed out in an earlier post, men who choose to abuse, often see scripture as permission to increase their abuse. There are some men, however, (like Gary Smalley, Paul Hegstrom, and Joel Davisson) who have seen their sin, and taken steps to cherish, sacrifice for, and honor their wives.

A second problem is the assumption that the abuser’s heart-change will be fairly quick, or within 40 days, and does not need to be time-tested for a year or more. Even though Caleb says “you can have all the time you need,” the story still has Catherine making up her mind in a very short time. This, however, may be because it is fiction. To hold the interest of the viewers, writers frequently have to condense the time-line of the story. Indeed, I had to do the same thing with my novel, “Behind the Hedge,” and will likely have to do it again with the sequel. Like the writers of "Fireproof", I, too, have to hope my audience will gain enough truth and insight from my story that they will refrain from forcing a compressed time-line on hurting people.

A third problem arises after the church gets it right and pushes the abuser to try the Love Dare. Although the story does show Caleb trying to use the Love Dare manipulatively and without genuine love, which is typical of abusers, a problem arises because of the church’s emphasis on forgiveness and reconciliation. Many pastors and Christian counselors would join the abuser in pressuring the spouse to accept the abuser’s/trampler’s half-hearted change as genuine and urge her to forgive and forget, instead of first making sure the abuser has a genuine heart transformation, and that he will stick with it. They fail to understand the necessity of making the husband deal with the consequences of his sin, by making it HIS responsibility to WIN her trust and respect, instead of HER responsibility to forgive and take him back without proof of his trustworthiness.

In Conclusion, it is important for Christians to understand that the Love Dare is to be applied by the spouse who has been nasty and “trampled on” his or her partner, NOT by the abused spouse. It is also important that church pastors and lay people, educate themselves about domestic abuse, including behaviors and thought patterns that are typical to abusers, and stop pushing the wrong solutions on hurting people.



Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel,"a story about a woman who grapples with her husband's demands that she submit--no matter what. Please visit www.wanetadawn.com

The Badmouthing Ex-spouse and His Children

The experts advise divorcing parents to refrain from bad-mouthing the ex-spouse. On the surface this sounds like great advice. If both parents follow it, the children will be spared oceans of emotional pain, will be (relatively) free from adult troubles and be able to develop normally as children.

But what if one of the parents tells the children slanderous things about the other? And what if the slanderous parent is so successful, the child(ren) begin to believe what their parent is saying, even though their own experience is the opposite? I have heard a number of stories of fathers who spew hateful things about their wives or ex-wives to their children, the wives don’t defend themselves or help their children sort through the misinformation, and the children at first begin to believe what Dad says, and eventually hate their mother and want nothing to do with her.

I’ve heard tales of children maintaining that hateful attitude until they themselves are middle-aged and beyond. And even if they finally catch on that Dad was lying, the relationship with Mom is never very close because the lies cover nearly every area of their relationship with Mom and it will take the children the rest of their lives to sort through all the untruths. As issues come up, item by item, and they face one painful belief after another about Mom’s horrible neglect or mistreatment of them or their dad, and they find that Mom actually did not do what Dad said she did, or if she did it was because he did something to misinform or block her, it can be very difficult to let go of “truths” that are not truth at all but have become a part of the child’s self-concept and beliefs about the family history. Because of what Dad said about Mom, the child now believes he or she is not worthy of Mom’s love or is not loveable.

This is tragic. Life will always be extra difficult for that child who mistakenly thinks her mother doesn’t love her and/or is inherently bad. In addition to that, she will have missed out on a relationship that is usually more closely bonded than that of father/child. (When the mother is the badmouthing parent, the children also suffer loss, but the loss may be different.) Without a bonded Mother/child upbringing, children tend to be unable to develop close relationships with others for the rest of their lives. And if the hateful attitude of their dad is the daily “bread” for the family, the children learn to despise others (especially women) and any reaching out to others tends to be for selfish purposes and lacking in genuine caring and compassion. Because of this, I cannot agree with the experts in cases where one parent continually tells the children hateful and untrue things about the other.

However, for the maligned parent to join in the hateful talk only adds to the children’s distress and further impedes their ability to experience a “carefree” childhood and develop normally. Furthermore, if both parents badmouth, the children feel confusion and don’t know who to believe. So neither staying silent, nor badmouthing the children’s father with exaggerated tales or twisting the truth, nor vicious hateful talk will have a positive effect on the children and their relationships with their parents. The mother in this case must walk a very fine line of correcting the misinformation, but keeping all negative talk about their father to a minimum. She can appeal to the experiences of the children to help them sort through the conflicting stories. For example: Even if Mom said that to Dad, is she actually having nothing to do with the children? Does she act like she hates them? Is she being hateful when she helps them with their school work or expects them to abide by rules aimed at helping them develop to their full potential?

Children cannot be expected to sort through hurtful information by themselves; they do not have adequate reasoning skills to perform the task. And there is far too much to lose to allow one parent to drive a wedge between Mother and child.

But even if Mother does defend herself and appeal to the child’s own knowledge of truth, the end result may be less than healthy for the child because of the conflicting messages and accompanying emotions. The child loves both her parents. When Dad uses vicious verbiage to downgrade and disrespect Mom, he has set himself up as the primary parent who has the right to define the person and behavior of every person—especially those in the family. Even if the child has concluded Dad is wrong, his love for Dad is likely to cause him to retain a part of Dad’s message—disrespect toward Mom. Indeed, disrespect toward Mom has been planted, and then with the repeating, disrespect is watered and tended, and is likely to flourish in spite of the child’s conclusions. It is Dad’s example toward their mother that is easily copied, especially in moments when the child wishes to rebel or discount what Mom says.

For the parent who would rejoice with that outcome, the monster will come to roost on your doorstep. A child who knows her parent is capable of being so obviously wrong about her other parent that even the child can see it, loses her respect and trust in the disrespectful parent. She will be unable to bond with the parent that lies to her. In addition, she will feel conflicted about that parent, and by extension, she will be conflicted about herself. She wants to say both her parents are good. If they are good, she can assume she is good, too. But if one of them bashes and lies about the other, how can she conclude the bashing parent is good? And if one of them bashes, can she be certain without a doubt that the bashing was not deserved? So she has to live with the possibility that both of her parents are bad.

If one of the child’s parents is unacceptable, is that true of him, too? Or perhaps his conclusions are wrong, and the bashed parent is actually the bad parent. Even worse, what if the bashing parent is partially correct (not all bad) and Mother is almost as bad as Dad says? With two bad parents, does that mean the child is terrible, too? If his mother is partially bad according to Dad, and he, himself knows Dad is partially bad for his vicious and untrue statements about Mom, the whole family, including him are probably bad and undeserving of respect. In other words, the bashing brings confusion to a child’s thoughts. It’s a confusion that never quite goes away and affects the child’s sense of who he is and how much respect he deserves from society.

The child then begins to either copy Dad and pick on others, or begins to assume a worth beneath everyone else, resulting in getting picked on.

Children rely on their parents and other adults around them for a sense of what is true and the difference between fantasy and reality. When one parent distorts truth by resorting to vicious lying about the other parent, the child has to take on an adult job and discern for herself what is truth. But because the person she naturally turns to to help her discern her world cannot be relied upon, she has to rely on the person the first person has made clear is secondary. And because that person is secondary in her mind, she can never be quite sure if her conclusions are correct.

This confusion will always be churning at some level in her brain, which steals some of her concentration, resulting in the likelihood of creating difficulty in getting good grades in school or of succeeding in life. The child is likely to either believe he or she is less than others, and then the stress of that belief brings the belief to fulfillment and results in poor achievement at nearly everything. Or conversely, the child is likely to believe he or she is super-important (like the bashing parent) and without any effort is entitled to privileges others can never attain no matter how hard they work, which also results in poor achievement at nearly everything.

The prognosis for children with one badmouthing parent is not good. What can the non-badmouthing parent do to reduce the damage, besides help the child to know the truth? I don’t pretend to have all the answers, but I do have suggestions.

First, use the reports of badmouthing as an opportunity to teach the children to pray for those who persecute you, as the Bible teaches.

Second, acknowledge to the child that this behavior is hurting both you, the child, and any siblings, and that all of you need to go to God for healing. Search for resources on how to accomplish this.

Third, don’t be in a hurry to force forgiveness, unless forgiveness is taught as something apart from reconciliation and trust. It is not appropriate to teach a child to behave as if it never happened. He or she may need to keep an emotional distance from Dad for awhile as a way to let him know the bashing is unacceptable to the child, and that there will not be a payoff for Dad.

Fourth, do not talk to your children about your own painful emotions about your (ex)spouse, except in areas where they are already involved as a way to show them you are available for them to talk about these things with you, and to model behavior that seeks healing rather than stuffing emotions inside. In those cases, use your difficulties as examples of how to deal with the pain, rather than as spouse-bashing opportunities.

Fifth, always double check your own motivations. Are you doing the right thing for the right reason? Are you helping the children discern absolute truth and keeping your bias (whether protective or accusatory toward the spouse) out of the discussion?

Sixth, if there is anything good you can tell your child about the other parent, do so. Some folks say there is good in everyone. But I have discovered the so-called good in some people is evil in motivation, and therefore I cannot call it good. It may be the only “good” that is to be found is in meeting minimal human expectations. (He fed and clothed the child, even if it was poorly done.)

Seventh, absolutely do not forget to find good things about your child and to comment positively to your child about them. In your effort to affirm your child, do not lie. The child will conclude you think he is so bad you cannot find anything to compliment him about, or will learn to negate what you say which will start a pattern of negating nice things about himself—even when they are true. And your whole effort is to keep your child solidly connected to truth and reality.

Lastly, accept that healing and mopping up after a badmouthing parent will take time. Especially, since badmouthing is not the only damaging thing he is doing.

Never forget: with God’s help there is hope—even for children of a hostile, verbally abusive parent, and also for their non-abusive parent who is suffering along with them. And although it doesn’t excuse the parent inflicting the damage, God is very capable of turning your woundedness and your child’s woundedness into something that blesses all of humanity and brings forth beauty and light to everyone it touches.


Waneta Dawn is the author of "Behind the Hedge, A novel" Please visit www.wanetadawn.com