I’ve been thinking about it a lot and, even though I already answered the question, I think I’ve figured out a more concise way to explain it. I’ve had trouble explaining how it works to my therapist too, so this was helpful to think about and sort of get a clearer sense of.
So
It’s all about categories of what is justified and what isn’t. Actions that cause physical damage can be divided up into a lot of different categories, and extreme fundamentalist anabaptists have different categories than people from other cultures might have.
I feel like most people, more or less, agree with those categories. But what actions fall under each category was different in the radical communities I was raised in vs. the general secular world that I’m in today.
The secular way files a lot of what my family categorizes as discipline under abuse. My family’s way files under self sacrifice a lot of what the secular way categorizes as self harm.
If a woman was raped by her husband, that would not be categorized as rape by the communities I was raised in, it would be categorized as sex. Marriage, for a woman, was considered consent.
If a kid’s arm was broken by a parent as a part of a discipline session that got out of hand, the communities I was raised in would probably categorize that as abuse BUT they probably wouldn’t really hear about it and there probably wouldn’t be real consequences if they did. The culture and power structure (google the umbrella of authority, it’s really easy for people in these communities to abuse people lower than them on the umbrella) is conducive to covering up abuse. This means people who abuse other people pretty much just can, which sucketh majorly for pipsqueaks like myself.
It’s complicated. But on a case by case basis, most of the things that you might consider physical abuse could be explained and justified by the church if needed. Not all! But most. And, due to the emphasis on forgiveness and redemption and not being vengeful, an apology is generally all that’s required to return someone who did heinous things to good graces.
There are also a few categories that the secular world deems justified and the communities I was in deemed unjust.
This is where you hear about those non-violence and non-resistance doctrines. The ideas and traditions behind those doctrines are complex but a basic intro to them is this:
Military violence is wrong because God told us in the Bible to love our enemies and pray for those that despitefully use us, etc. and also “Vengeance is mine, saith the LORD, I will repay.” And also there is a general idea that we should be missionaries by example, and fighting in wars is not a good example of a loving God. There’s also concern about the many innocent parties that get hurt in wars. There is some old old history of persecution from Catholics to Anabaptists and those stories are retold a lot, really impacted my psyche as a kid. The violence was horrific. Tbh I still kind of get sick thinking about wars and the violence in them. I have a difficult time even conceptualizing the military as a positive thing in any sense.
Self defense is wrong because of the ‘gotta be a good missionary and example of God’s love’ bit again and also because, on a more nitty-gritty note, if you were to kill someone who is hurting you they would be sent to hell for their obviously sinful state and you would go on living even though you have assurance of eternal salvation. So, the loving thing would be to let them hurt/kill you so you go to heaven, and hopefully they will use their extra time alive to convert and also go to heaven. (I endured a LOT of hurt while under this principle. I’m done with it. I don’t think it’s loving to let anyone get hurt if you can stop it, and that includes the self. I differ with this doctrine because my understanding of what gives humans intrinsic worth has changed. I disagree strongly with the “I’m nothing without God” and “people who don’t serve God should just burn in anguish for eternity” idea.)