Stolen Sovereignty: Abuse and the Denial of Agency

By Nathan D. Croy

Abuse thrives in the shadows of stolen sovereignty.

Thomas Jay Oord work on free will and relationality sheds light on abuse. When abusive people misuse their power, they usurp the God-given right of others to choose. This isn’t about a tyrannical God controlling every move. It’s about respecting the inherent agency God instilled in each person.

Imagine a dance. In a healthy relationship, partners move freely, responding to each other yet retaining their individuality. Abuse turns this dance into a one-sided power struggle. One person dictates the steps, leaving the other no choice but to follow or face consequences. This stolen sovereignty is the root of suffering. When people are robbed of their ability to choose, they lose a fundamental part of themselves. It’s a denial of their humanity, a forced performance devoid of genuine choice.

But there’s hope. Recognizing abuse for what it is—a theft of agency—is the first step towards healing. It empowers victims to reclaim their right to choose, to break free from the controlling dance. Oord’s emphasis on God’s relentless love suggests a path forward. This love doesn’t force, but empowers. It respects the agency of creation, including the freedom to choose good or evil. It’s a model for our own interactions, encouraging us to build relationships based on mutual respect and freedom.

For all Oord has contributed to the field of theology through amipotence and essential kenosis, there has been one omission: The absence of a meaningful and useful definition of “abuse.” After working with trauma survivors for more than a decade, it became apparent that too many people, both perpetrators and victims, had little to no awareness of what behaviors constitute abuse. Many people struggle to differentiate between a boxing match and abuse aside from the vague idea that “you’ll know it when you see it.” Unfortunately, this idiom has not proven to be true. A clear definition of abuse can help increase awareness, inform accountability, and instruct approaches to future policy creation.

A formal definition of abuse is any nonconsensual violation of the free expression of agency (or sovereignty), through behaviors and/or systems, intended to reduce a person’s ability to make, and enact, adequately informed choices. However, that’s a bit of a mouthful and can be difficult to implement in the moment. At its essence, abuse is any behavior that seeks to reduce or control a person’s choices. There are exceptions to this (people we have responsibility for like children, employees, citizens, etc.), but that is outside the limits of this chapter. For simplicity and space constraints, please consider the idea of abuse being applied to independent, healthy, and autonomous adults.

Within the framework of amipotence, forcing another person to engage in an action, against their freewill, is seen as antithetical to love and, therefore, the true essence of God. Without defining abuse, however, Oord creates an opportunity for trauma, accidents, or laws to be misinterpreted as “abuse.” Though some of these terms are clarified in other chapters or books, having a unifying definition of abuse applied throughout amipotence will help avoid incorrect applications of the term “abuse.”

Generally, abuse will occur in three broad categories: Covert, Overt, or Negligent (CON). Abuse is covert when the means of controlling another person are subtle and indirect. Manipulation, omission of pertinent details, or by emotional punishment when expectations aren’t met; even if those expectations were never directly communicated to others. This type of abuse, when consistent enough, can be one of the most nefarious and impactful forms of abuse because it is so elusive and difficult to prove. It’s been compared to dying from a trillion paper cuts. Taken one at a time, each injury/papercut isn’t really an issue worth discussing or addressing.

A client once told me they tried to explain their covert abuse to friends and all but one were dismissive. The one friend that believed the client was someone who had been through a covertly abusive relationship before and knew the signs and because they had shared similar experiences. Covert abuse can happen when the threat of shame, rejection, or some other powerful emotion hangs in the air with the implied threat that if the abuser doesn’t get what they want, then no one will be happy. Covert abuse can occur by withholding pertinent information to sabotage the success of another or to encourage a wrong conclusion to avoid taking accountability.

Abusers who favor covert forms are usually very intelligent, seem to be deeply caring for other people in need, and often have dozens of friends who believe in the abuser. But the image quickly changes behind closed doors. When at home, these family members change from the long-suffering martyrs to emotional terrorists who hold everyone hostage until their demands are met. The desire to avoid punishment, emotional alienation, rejection, or shame is entirely understandable. This avoidance, however, will reinforce and reward covert abuse by seeking to over-function for the abuser in an attempt to preemptively appease them; and their anger. Silence, designed to appease the abuser, becomes tacit approval of the abusers power, and passively rewards this cycle. People can remain in covertly abusive relationships for decades and be entirely unaware of the abuse they’re experiencing.

The next form of abuse is overt. This is the type we generally think of when speaking about intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual abuse, or elder abuse. This form of abuse can be physically violent, loud, and easier to see because it often leaves physical marks. The aftermath of overt abuse can clearly be seen with holes punched in walls, bruises, scars, and broken homes. These relationships tend to not last as long as covertly abusive relationships because the trauma can be so much more severe.

In this one regard, overt abuse is slightly more preferential to covert abuse. That may sound strange, but it can be so much easier to spot. Not always, but frequently, the overt abuser is one most people can see coming from a mile away. They tend to be loud, demanding, and obvious. It’s as if I’M A THREAT is their entire identity, and they work diligently to project it out into the world. While this type of abuse, like all abuse, can start with powerful and intoxicating overtures of love. Eventually though, they show their true colors.

The last general form of abuse is neglect. Neglect occurs when someone withholds from another person, either through restricting access or means to access, something necessary for healthy human functioning. Not allowing someone in your care to have access to food, water, shelter, or other physiological needs is neglect. Abusive neglect can also occur within covertly or overtly abusive relationships; but abuse can be restricted to neglect.

When evaluating foster homes, I would check to ensure children had access to clean food and water. If there were locks on cabinets or refrigerators designed to keep even adults from accessing food, I would immediately raise questions assessing for neglect. People have told me stories of parents requiring their children to eat moldy or rotten food while the parents were able to eat healthy and fresh food in the same meal. Even though the children were being provided with food, the food was inadequate and therefore neglectful.

There is a form of neglect that can occur that is not seen as abuse. Neglect isn’t abuse if a family simply cannot afford to provide someone with adequate food, shelter, or otherwise meet their basic needs. This is not abuse, but poverty. When working with a people struggling with poverty, it is better for social services to connect them with meaningful resources, help provide access to government assistance programs, and/or refer them to their local church/food pantry for support. Neglect arising from poverty is the reason why intentionality is so pertinent to deeming a behavior, or person, as abusive.

When speaking about abuse, people regularly talk about power imbalances. For overt and neglectful forms of abuse, this is entirely reasonable. But what about covert abuse? Does there really need to be a power imbalance for abuse to exist? I do not believe this is the case; at least directly. The story of Cain and Abel is a prime example of covert abuse occurring against God.

When Cain killed Abel, Cain effectively stole God’s sovereignty by removing Abel as an option to receive God’s favor. The first born, Cain likely believed he was entitled to God’s favor. Maybe this manifested in Cain giving less effort to his sacrifice. Maybe God didn’t like bestowing His favor on someone who thought they were automatically sanctioned to be the favorite. What is distinctly pointed out is God favored Abel’s sacrifice above Cain’s. Some interpretations of this scripture specify God’s favor was for Abel, some say it was for Abel’s sacrifice. Either way, God had the ability to choose because the options existed. This power did not lie entirely within God because external choices had to exist. When Cain violently disposed of one of God’s choices, Cain chose to abuse God.

One of our greatest powers is the ability to choose. This power is not supernatural; we will never know all our choices. Even if we could, we would likely get so bogged down in the minutiae of the possibilities, we would fall into analysis paralysis and try to never make a choice. It’s also not possible to know all outcomes of a decision we make. The rightness or wrongness of most choices will come down to intent and the information we had at the time. If we intentionally choose to truncate an adults access to choices and the expression of their freewill, we have engaged in abuse. The only real alternative is to allow people to make their own choices, help them if they ask, and continue to try our best to trust others, ourselves, and God. Learning to trust is a life-long lesson.

If you find yourself wondering if you are an abuser, there are some things to consider. First, have you been aware that you were trying to control another person? This is why the word “intentionally” is critical in the formal definition of abuse. Almost everyone has engaged in abusive acts within their relationships. However, that does not make that person an abuser. The key element, as demonstrated by Cain, is how we respond when someone who has been hurt or harmed by our actions brings them to our attention. Responding with defensiveness or deflecting responsibility when we are made aware we have done something abusive is a sign of an abuser.

Beyond accepting responsibility without defensiveness, is a genuine apology. This is what scripture calls remorse. Remorse is more than apologizing. Listen to what people say but believe what they do. If they apologize but make no efforts to reflect on their intentions or motivation, the earnestness of their apology is in question. If they do identify their behaviors, empathetically understand how those behaviors may have harmed someone, commit to a concrete plan of how they will change those behaviors, and begin implementing changes in a consistent way over time, then their remorse is genuine.

Every relationship will experience some abuses. Each person in the relationship must decide how much abuse they’re willing to accept. This may sound pessimistic, but it is about providing informed grace that allows for acceptance, safety, and growth. Everyone has the capacity to grow, learn, and improve. Unfortunately, not everyone will choose to engage in the painful work required to obtain these results. If someone says you hurt or harmed them, try not to defend yourself, listen, seek wise counsel, then decide if you are willing to change those behaviors. If you tell someone they hurt you and they refuse to listen, are not willing to change (despite what they say), and blame you, you may want to reconsider your commitment to them.

Bio: Nathan D. Croy is a therapist in Kansas City exploring the intersectionality of theology and therapy at Existential Family Therapy (ex-ft.com).

OORD’S DRABBLE* RESPONSE

Nathan Croy highlights the importance of respecting the inherent agency God grants to every creature. Abuse, he argues, can be a theft of that agency. Amipotence offers a theological lens to understand God’s respect for creaturely agency as an act of love. I found Nathan’s mention of neglect as a form of abuse particularly thought-provoking. We often view abuse as overt but it can also involve neglect. An amipotent God never abandons us. Croy’s essay powerfully underscores the value of creaturely freedom and the profound respect even God has for it. Nathan reminds us of the inherent connection between love and agency.

For more on Oord’s view of creaturely freedom, see this article.

* A drabble is an essay exactly 100 words in length.