DARVO Strategy
A Reaction Pattern that Reveals Intent.
My continuing deconstruction story: I’m an Aussie who grew up Catholic, became a Protestant, spent six decades as an Evangelical Christian, then de-converted.
I’d left a Baptist megachurch in 2013, but friends still attended, so I followed that church’s position closely during the 2017 marriage equality vote. I hoped against hope that my former church would respond with intelligence, empathy, an open and inclusive heart. To my horror the senior pastor put this policy statement on FB.
There have been few, if any, more divisive issues for Australian society in my lifetime than the same sex marriage debate. Some voices from both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ camps have been extremely ungracious in their tone and content, and I encourage a gracious and loving tone from both sides. Good people have drawn divergent conclusions on this matter and neither side deserves to be demonised for the conclusions that they have reached. In this process much harm has been done to vulnerable people on both sides, especially to young people struggling with their sexual identity, and pejorative comments do little to advance either perspective.
As best as I can understand the Bible and from my Christian faith, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition of marriage has served our Australian society well historically. Jesus said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.” The Apostle Paul wrote to a Roman audience, who had same sex marriage and casual same sex unions, expressing that this was not the Christian way. The major world faiths of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, and Indigenous cultures all affirm marriage as between men and women.
It is also worth us realising that the very nature of law is to define inclusion and exclusion. A line is drawn and certain relationships are not called ‘marriage’ even though they have the right to exist and even be celebrated by portions of society. For example, three people cannot experience marriage equality because by definition marriage is only for two. Some relationships between consenting adults cannot be recognised as marriage because the parties are too closely related. If either person is too young it cannot be called marriage. The definition by law excludes some relationships because that is what law does.
I have serious concerns about the impact on freedom of speech and freedom of religion in Australia implicit in the proposed redefinition of marriage. We are a richer society as a result of our capacity to speak freely and exercise our faith convictions freely even though this inevitably causes friction across the board. In countries that have redefined marriage to include same sex unions the law has been used coercively against people of faith and against people’s conviction on these matters. This is not conducive to a free society. Jesus told us we are to love our neighbours as ourselves, love even those who hate us, pray for those who persecute us and bless them. I take these words to heart, and it is with love and respect that I uphold our official position in support of the traditional definition of marriage.
My Initial Response
I recall reading it in shock and disbelief. There was a lot to unpack, like the dubious claim about Abrahamic religions and the ‘traditional’ definition of marriage. Oh boy.
Christians have little praise for Judaism or Islam, unless it suits them. This pastor asserted, without evidence, that all Abrahamic religions opposed marriage equality. Yet when it came to a vote, his coreligionists voted strongly in favour. I can’t speak for other faiths, but I doubt they’re a monolithic bloc on any issue.
Was this assertion a misreading of reality, ignorance, wishful thinking or an outright lie? There was a lot in the policy statement that jarred or didn’t ring true.
I posted a response on Facebook. First, I tried to address the bizarre framing of the statement, then some of its false claims. Here’s the first part of my response:
The statement begins by suggesting this is a divisive debate. Yet it singles out ‘some voices’ that had been ‘extremely ungracious’ (whatever that means) in their tone and content. It then suggests that ‘divergent conclusions’ have been drawn and conflating that with ‘pejorative comments.’ There is a passing reference to ‘young people struggling with their sexual identity,’ who may be hurt by the debate.
I suggest that is debate framing, playing the victim card. SSM is not in itself a divisive issue, it’s the policy position they have chosen that is divisive. They have deliberately put themselves at odds with the LGBTI community, and arguably at odds with the majority of the faith community. Having done so, they now claim false empathy with the very community they are deliberately and systemically attacking using their full corporate power. Such hypocrisy is breath-taking anywhere, let alone a church. They don’t care who they hurt.
Same Sex Marriage is not divisive because it is NOT an issue in the realm of the church, it’s a state issue (churches can exempt themselves from SSM if they wish). It is a legal change that has already occurred seamlessly in 25 other countries, including all English-speaking democracies. It only becomes divisive when a church comes out and argues against it on so-called religious grounds, challenging the state. In other words, this is a deliberate incursion on the rights of the secular state, by a church, in a country where their realms are separate.
What are those religious grounds? What does this church base its opposition on? Surely, they are robust and incontestable? Able to stand up to any scrutiny? Well, no, as we’ll see below.
The church policy quotes the current wording of the Australian Marriage Act: “Marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This definition of marriage has served our Australian society well historically.” Well, no, only since then Prime Minister John Howard changed it in 2004, with no debate. Before that, one man and one woman wasn’t mentioned. So, to suggest a single ‘definition of marriage’ has been around forever, is simply untrue. As Lisa Hunt-Wotton points out in her article “A Brief History of Marriage”, marriage today is radically different from what it was in the past. The definition in the Marriage Act can and has been changed, and can again.
The church then suggests theirs is a ‘best understanding’ of the Bible and Christian faith. In other words, all other understandings are second-best or can’t be supported by the Bible or our faith. Most Christians would disagree with their anti-LGBTI biblical interpretation. I’ve written extensively on that elsewhere, as have numerous others.
Debunking the Biblical Backing
The statement avoided appeals to classic ‘clobber verses,’ but tried to leverage Jesus in the Bible and got the exegesis badly wrong. As a Bible student, I couldn’t let that pass, so I posted a lengthy rebuttal. It’s too long to reproduce here, but you can read the PDF linked at the end. In my rebuttal I concluded:
Jesus might not have a problem with Same-Sex Marriage.
I ended by attacking the policy statement in the strongest possible terms:
The statement is the most simplistic, breathtakingly ignorant, and arrogant public policy position of any church on SSM I’ve ever seen. It is hardly the ‘best interpretation,’ and it needs to be retracted, or heavily revised, and a public apology given to the LGBTI community. The integrity of the church and its future may depend upon it.
My response only proved churches can use the Bible to prove or disprove anything. That’s its power, and its fatal flaw, but I played the game and did the same. I call it the interpretation game: Nobody wins but we all lose. It’s a total waste of time.
The pastor didn’t respond to my rant, let alone admit error, revise or retract his statement or issue a public apology to the LGBTIQA+ community. Nor did I expect a response. He didn’t write it for me, but to perform faith for the bums on pews.
However, in my attempt to debunk the exegesis and theology, I missed the real reason for the statement. I hinted at it by calling out the ‘debate framing,’ but there’s a revealing way to analyse the statement, a ‘tell’ that reveals its true intent.
The DARVO Pattern
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a rhetorical pattern often used to deflect criticism or reframe contested issues. It’s often used when people know they’re wrong but don’t want to admit it. In hindsight, the church policy statement on SSM fits the DARVO pattern perfectly. Let’s break it down.
The policy statement is a bold attempt to reframe opposition to SSM as loving and socially protective. The church claimed, ‘much harm has been done to vulnerable people on both sides.’ However, they deny responsibility for any harm from their policy position by presenting the harm as symmetrical (both sides) and detached from their exclusion policy. By grounding their position in scripture, history, and ‘major world faiths,’ they imply their stance is neutral, inherited, or inevitable rather than a choice with present-day consequences. By attributing harm to ‘the process’ and ‘extremely ungracious’ voices rather than to their own denial of SSM itself, this megachurch cleverly obscured the unequal power dynamics at play.
And by “extremely ungracious voices,” did they mean people like me? Surely not.
The church then attacks SSM by saying it poses a threat to fundamental freedoms, warning that in countries which have redefined marriage ‘the law has been used coercively against people of faith’ (with no evidence cited). The comparison to polygamy, incest, or underage marriage reframes SSM as part of a broader breakdown of moral boundaries. Saying ‘for example, three people cannot experience marriage equality’ functions as an attack by associating SSM with socially taboo or illegal relationships. An attack doesn’t have to be overtly hostile; it can work by painting opposing views as unreasonable, dangerous, or socially destabilising. Like when the church reframes legal inclusion as inherently authoritarian and positions it as incompatible with a ‘free society.’
Wait, isn’t that legal exclusion exactly? Weren’t they leveraging the Marriage Act coercively against LGBTIQA+ people? What’s going on here? Wait for it.
Then the church reverses victim and offender by recasting itself as under threat. They express ‘serious concerns about the impact on freedom of speech and freedom of religion.’ SSM is cast as a disruptive force to be resisted, an agent of social and moral destabilisation. The church reframes itself as a defender of social cohesion, religious liberty, free speech, and historical stability by repeated appeals to tradition, decontextualized scripture, and an assertion that a marriage definition has ‘served our Australian society well historically.’ By appealing to a traditional’ view of marriage,’ they treat tradition as self-justifying, their exclusionary policy as an act of love and moral duty, because they claim to hold it ‘with love and respect.’
That completes the DARVO pattern. Transforming exclusion into protection and masking discrimination with a language of care, faith, love, moral and social order.
Summarising the Megachurch Position
In summary, the policy statement was manipulative and misleading. The church recast itself as a victim while ignoring its role in harming the LGBTIQA+ community. It claimed false moral authority, distorted the history of Marriage, elevated a contestable biblical interpretation as definitive, used scripture stripped of its context, and stoked unfounded fears about religious freedoms never under threat.
They really pulled out all the stops in that statement. It was a command performance, but then my church always did put on a convincing show.
Using the DARVO strategy, intentionally or not, is spiritual abuse. The use of carefully crafted language to conceal its real intent is gaslighting. In this case, it was an unforgiveable refusal to admit corporate malpractice. Naming harm is not attacking the church, but the violence of silence wounds it.
I wonder how many members found the policy convincing and voted accordingly? Will the church ever be held accountable for its flawed and exclusionist policy? For the harm it caused the LGBTIQA+ community? Does it know? Does it care? Their DARVO strategy suggests they do know, but they reject liability and don’t care.
Many of my readers are Christian, so here’s something to consider. Is this a church able to exegete the Bible honestly and transparently? A church able to discern God’s will? A church that imitates the love of Jesus? A church capable of taking part in a reasonable public policy design? One a fair-minded person with a shred of empathy should support? Give their time, money, attention, and loyalty to? After that pathetic policy effort, I answered a resounding ‘No’ to all these questions.
The DARVO strategy was a neat trick. I didn’t see it clearly at the time, but once you see it you can’t unsee it. It’s a way to turn the tables when you know you’ve lost the argument, and it’s used often in religion. Every time, the user knows they’re wrong and wants to turn the tables and not admit guilt. Claiming victim status is strategy 101 for churches, but it thankfully didn’t work in this debate.
DARVO told me the 2017 debate wasn’t about SSM, but about hiding those pesky conceptual contradictions in Christianity. I’ll look at another next time on UNSAVED.
Next: Unconvincing. #HaveAGoodWeekend.
