Secular Ideology or Biblical Obedience?

The Claim That Must Be Answered

From time to time the claim is made that Breaking the Cycle or Hear Believe Act teaches a secular message. We are told that we have imported worldly ideology into the ecclesia. We are warned that we have displaced biblical principles with contemporary frameworks. The concern is framed as a defence of Scripture and of covenant faithfulness. Often the accusation is vague and unspecified, but sometimes critics within our community have more to say, even if it is still usually rather vague. As examples, I will use the concerns two critics express plainly.

One writes that our work has a “Basis in Feminist Activist Model.” He warns that we are using “secular frameworks with feminist origins alongside biblical language” and invokes Paul’s warning about “philosophy and vain deceit” that is “not after Christ.”

Another similarly argues that once a situation is labelled domestic violence, “you no longer have to apply any biblical principles to try and restore the marriage.” He goes further and suggests that in this approach “the Word of God is being disregarded.” Those are serious accusations. If they were true, repentance would be required. The only faithful way to answer them is not with defensiveness but with Scripture itself.

The Priority of God: The Oppressed

Any biblical response must begin where God begins. Scripture consistently reveals the heart of God toward the oppressed, the crushed, the powerless.

“The LORD executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed.” Psalm 103:6

“He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.” Psalm 72:4

“The LORD is a refuge for the oppressed, a refuge in times of trouble.” Psalm 9:9

The prophets intensify this emphasis.

“Seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” Isaiah 1:17

“Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees… to turn aside the needy from judgment.” Isaiah 10:1-2

God measures covenant faithfulness by how His people treat the vulnerable. Worship without justice is rejected. Amos records the divine verdict: “Let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream.”

Oppression in Scripture is not abstract suffering. It is harm inflicted through power. It is the strong crushing the weak. When abuse occurs within marriage, the biblical category is not mere disagreement. It is oppression.

Christ and the Protection of the Vulnerable

Jesus did not dilute this priority. He intensified it.

“Whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:5-6

This is not mild language. Christ places the protection of the vulnerable above the preservation of reputation or position. The warning is directed at those who misuse influence and cause harm.

In Matthew 23:23 he rebukes religious leaders for omitting “the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.” Judgment and mercy stand together. Protection and compassion are not secular additions. They are weightier matters.

In Luke 13 he publicly defends a woman bound for eighteen years, describing her as one whom Satan had bound. He looses her despite criticism. Christ does not preserve religious order at the expense of the afflicted. It would be foreign to Christ’s teaching to suggest that the structure of marriage is more important than the safety and dignity of the people within it. Marriage was made for covenant faithfulness, mutual good (heirs together of the grace of life), the development of a godly seed and the reflection of Christ’s love for the ecclesia. A sham marriage marked by fear, coercion and cruelty does not fulfil that purpose.

Marriage in Biblical Context

Genesis presents marriage as two people becoming “one flesh”. Adam and Eve’s intimacy is described as “Adam knew his wife Eve”. The Hebrew word יָדַע — yādaʿ functions as a euphemism, but is much richer. It is used 900 times in scripture and carries the meaning of personal recognition, covenantal relationship, experiential knowledge and mutual vulnerability. All of these things are part of what we value about marriage, and why young people, generally, seek to be married.

Ephesians 5 presents it as a living parable of Christ and the ecclesia. But the analogy clarifies rather than obscures moral duty. Christ’s headship is self giving, sacrificial, protective.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.”

Colossians 3:19 commands, “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.”

Peter adds, “giving honour unto the wife… that your prayers be not hindered.”

Harshness, intimidation, humiliation, coercion, financial deprivation, isolation or threats are not distortions of secular culture. They are distortions of biblical headship.

God rebuked Israel’s shepherds because

“with force and with cruelty have ye ruled them.” Ezekiel 34:4

When force and cruelty are present, the covenant language cannot sanctify the behaviour. A covenant corrupted by abuse is not fulfilling its divine design.

Restoration and Repentance

The fear is often expressed that naming abuse abandons restoration. Yet Scripture never treats reconciliation as automatic.

“If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.” Luke 17:3

Repentance is required. Paul describes godly sorrow producing change, indignation, fear and zeal in 2 Corinthians 7. Jeremiah condemns those who say, “Peace, peace; when there is no peace.” Superficial harmony without repentance is not biblical reconciliation.Christ would not teach that a fraudulent marriage sustained by intimidation is of greater value than the people suffering within it or devastated "by it". The Sabbath was made for man. Institutions serve God’s purposes. They are not ends in themselves.

Using the Tools of Expertise Without Surrendering Scripture

The charge of secular influence often arises because we use terminology developed by researchers who have studied patterns of abuse. Yet we routinely use tools developed outside our community in every other domain.

We consult medical experts to understand disease. We rely on engineers to build safe structures. We use legal frameworks to define theft and fraud. None of these replace Scripture. They help us apply Scripture wisely.

When observers identify patterns such as coercive control, financial manipulation, isolation, intimidation and cyclical violence, they are describing behaviours that Scripture already condemns as oppression, deceit and cruelty.

To use the descriptive tools of careful research is not to adopt their authors' worldview. It is to observe reality carefully so that biblical commands to protect the oppressed can be obeyed more faithfully. It does not mean we are adopting the worldview or ideology of the researchers themselves. We can use their material and tools with Christian discernment. Colossians 2:8 warns against philosophies that displace Christ. It does not forbid careful observation of human behaviour. The test is scriptural. Does the tool or framework deny sin, repentance, accountability and divine authority. If it does, it must be rejected. If it helps identify harm so that justice and mercy can be enacted, it serves obedience rather than undermines it.

The Fruit of Teaching

Christ gives a practical test. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” If teaching produces communities where victims are believed, protected and guided toward safety, and where perpetrators are confronted and called to repentance, the fruit aligns with Scripture. If teaching results in minimising harm, silencing victims, or prioritising appearance over safety, then the fruit must be examined carefully. James defines pure religion as visiting “the fatherless and widows in their affliction.” Care for the afflicted is not activism. It is covenant fidelity.

Conclusion: A Biblical Imperative

From The Law of Moses to Prophets, from Gospels to Epistles, Scripture consistently condemns the abuse of power and commands protection of the vulnerable.

Calling abuse sin is not secular. Insisting on accountability is not secular. Seeking safety for the oppressed is not secular.

Christ would not teach that marriage as an institution is more important than the image-bearing people within it. Nor would he affirm a counterfeit marriage sustained by fear and coercion as fulfilling God’s purpose or that it should be perpetuated.

The question is not whether descriptive tools originate outside ecclesial circles. The question is whether our theology and practice are governed by the Word of God.

When the oppressed cry out, Scripture commands action. “Seek judgment. Relieve the oppressed.” That is not secular ideology. That is biblical obedience.