A few years ago, a Victorian woman alerted her pastor to the fact that her husband was raping, hitting and verbally abusing her, while taking drugs.

When the pastor told her to pray about it, she asked: "What if he kills me first?"

The pastor's response was: "At least you'll go to heaven."

This is just one of dozens of stories of abuse perpetrated in Australian Christian communities that ABC News has been alerted to over the past few days.

Since we published an essay on domestic violence and the Christian church in Australia last week, we've seen a far-ranging conversation about the way the church responds to victims of abuse in their midst.

Hundreds of stories from Christian women (and some men) who have endured intimate partner violence — some, for decades — have piled into inboxes.

The most senior Anglican figure in Australia has expressed regret for their plight, while senior Baptist, Uniting, Anglican and Presbyterian ministers have apologised to women who have suffered abuse while attending their congregations, and numerous sermons on the subject have been preached across the country.

A conversation has begun.

There has been some confusion about what the research tells us, so we have compiled a guide to how we approached it.

What does the Australian research say?

There has been some confusion about what the research suggests. ( Rocco Fazzari )

There is very little Australian research on the nature and prevalence of domestic abuse in church communities, unlike other countries, and most is dated.

As Australian National University researchers Naomi Priest, Mandy Truong and Nicholas Biddle write in The Conversation: "Comprehensive, independent Australian data regarding domestic violence within churches are long overdue."

But there is clear evidence it exists inside church communities. There are three Australian surveys, and one relevant analysis. These found:

At least one in five husbands who abuse Christian wives go to church regularly.

A 1992 study of 1,704 women who were part of Anglican and Uniting Churches undertaken by Glenys Conrade of the University of Queensland found 3.3 per cent reported they had been abused in the past 12 months.

Twenty-two per cent of perpetrators went to church regularly, and 14 per cent were part of the church leadership; a majority never went. Dr Conrade concluded: "The number of victims who had spoken to ministers of religion about the abuse suggested that the clergy were inextricably involved with this issue."

The only other Australian study shows a higher rate of church attendance among perpetrators than the 1992 study.

In 1993, Dr Conrade studied 766 males and 1,284 females who attended mass in Catholic churches in the Brisbane Archdiocese.

She found about 40 per cent of perpetrators (male and female) attended church regularly and a "very small minority" were part of leadership. (The smaller proportion of domestic abusers in leadership may relate to the fact that in the Catholic church priests are not allowed to marry.)

Clergy are regularly dealing with domestic violence

An anonymous survey of 148 Sydney Anglican rectors by the Sydney Diocese's Domestic Violence Task Force in 2016 asked rectors how many cases of domestic violence they'd seen in the past five years (2.25 per rector), and how many had involved a pastoral response (1.5 per rector).

Rectors reported eight in 10 perpetrators were male.

Analysts assume abuse occurs to the same degree inside the church as outside.

In the absence of quantitative Australian data, one academic, Leonie Westenberg of the University of Notre Dame, suggests we apply the UK model here, based on qualitative research.

In 2006, a study by the UK Anglican Archbishops' Council found that the "incidence of domestic abuse within church … congregations is similar to the rate within the general population".

In a paper titled When She Calls for Help —Domestic Violence in Christian Families, published in Social Sciences this month, Ms Westenberg finds that, "abused Christian women are more likely to remain in or return to unsafe relationships, citing religious beliefs to support avoidance of 'family break-ups' despite abuse."

She outlines the fact that quantitative research on the prevalence of domestic violence is fraught because of definitional and methodological issues — along with, we'd add, confusion about the definition of risk factors and related terms like "sporadic", "regular" or "nominal".

Ms Westenberg writes:

"This failure to provide an accurate picture of IPV is relevant particularly to research on Christian families. For example, Knickmeyer et al. (2016) describe the failure of studies on religious affiliation and domestic violence in Canada and the US to identify the role of patriarchy in IPV, focusing instead solely on denominational relationships, if any. However, qualitative research (see, for example, research by Knickmeyer et al. (2016) with women from different Christian denominations; data collected by Levitt and Ware (2006) in the Memphis, Tennessee area of the US; and Nason-Clark (2009) in Atlantic Canada) supports the findings [that]… the prevalence of domestic violence in Western Christian families correlates with the prevalence of such violence in the general population. What differs, however, is what has been called the added "vulnerability" of Christian women, who speak of both abuse and marriage in spiritual overtones (McMullin et al. 2012). Such women use religious language to describe why they remain in or return to relationships that involve domestic violence, citing the undesirability of divorce, the need to love and honour husbands, and the power of forgiveness and prayer to generate change in the abuser. It is the religious language that perpetuates and/or tolerates domestic violence (Nason-Clark 2009)."

Sorry, this video has expired Julia Baird and Anglican priest Michael Jensen discuss domestic violence and the Church.

Why did you say that a man who goes to church sporadically is more likely to abuse his wife?

We relied on the most recent analysis by respected theology professor Steven Tracy. In 2008 he stated:

"It is widely accepted by abuse experts [and validated by numerous studies] that evangelical men who sporadically attend church are more likely than men of any other religious group [and more likely than secular men] to assault their wives."

As we also wrote, studies find: "Regular church attenders are less likely to commit acts of intimate partner violence."

In 2007, Professor Tracy made the same assertions:

"There is an inverse relationship between church attendance and domestic violence. Conservative Protestant men who attend church regularly are found to be the least likely group to engage in domestic violence, though conservative Protestant men who are irregular church attendees are the most likely to batter their wives." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 2007.)

Professor Tracy's conclusions were drawn from the findings of five papers and a 2004 book by American researcher, W. Bradford Wilcox (Soft Patriarchs: New Men, University of Chicago Press, 2004).

Mr Wilcox reported that a higher proportion of irregular — nominal — Protestant church-goers perpetrated domestic violence compared to other groups. The table is here:

Relying on data from the US National Surveys of Families and Households (1992-94), Mr Wilcox found:

"Some of the worst fathers and husbands are men who are nominal evangelicals. These are men who, have, say, a Southern Baptist affiliation, but who rarely darken the door of a church. They have … the highest rates of domestic violence of any group in the United States. They also have high divorce rates."

But, Mr Wilcox said, evangelical and "mainline" Protestant men who attend church regularly are less likely to abuse their wives.

(On Twitter at the weekend, Mr Wilcox argued that importance and emphasis must be given to the finding we reported that regular church attendance has been found to protect against abuse. He also said US research might not translate to Australia as:

"High rates of domestic violence among nominal cons. Protestants in US might also be tied to class & culture (Scotch Irish)."

This phenomenon, reported by the ABC, has been found elsewhere.

Many churches have responded to the public discussion about domestic violence in a service. ( Rocco Fazzari )

In 1992, a Canadian study, Religious Involvement and Spousal Violence: The Canadian Case, claimed those who attend church weekly are less likely to abuse their wives, but those who go one to three times a month (still often) are more likely than those who don't go at all to abuse.

Do you have a story to share? If you are a survivor of domestic abuse in the Church, or have feedback on our series on domestic violence and religion, please get in touch: ABCIPV@gmail.com

It is a fascinating phenomenon that merits further research to examine whether it is applicable to Australia and to current religious participation — especially given the studies are all from the early 1990s or older.

As Naomi Priest, Mandy Truong and Nicholas Biddle explain, Mr Wilcox's analysis of the available research has limitations:

The studies are all more than 20 years old. Data this old regarding religion and gender relations clearly has limited applicability today.

The studies are all more than 20 years old. Data this old regarding religion and gender relations clearly has limited applicability today. The studies collect data only on physical violence. They do not capture other common forms of domestic violence — including sexual, emotional, psychological, social, financial and spiritual abuse. As a result the studies are likely to underestimate domestic violence substantially.

The studies collect data only on physical violence. They do not capture other common forms of domestic violence — including sexual, emotional, psychological, social, financial and spiritual abuse. As a result the studies are likely to underestimate domestic violence substantially. Two of the studies did not include women's reporting of experiences and relied only on men's reports of their own violence perpetration. This is also well recognised as leading to under-reporting.

Two of the studies did not include women's reporting of experiences and relied only on men's reports of their own violence perpetration. This is also well recognised as leading to under-reporting. All but one of the studies are cross-sectional, and only capture experiences in the past year — rather than lifetime exposure.

All but one of the studies are cross-sectional, and only capture experiences in the past year — rather than lifetime exposure. None of the studies is Australian.

As a result, Dr Priest et al write:

"Inference about any protective effects of regular conservative protestant church attendance on domestic violence perpetration in contemporary Australia is therefore highly problematic. It also runs the high risk of shifting blame and drawing attention away from listening to the experiences of those who have spoken out."

Why are some people talking about a New Zealand study?

In a footnote, Professor Tracy cited as a reference for his findings a study by DM Fergusson conducted in Christchurch in 1986 that found regular religious attendance was a significant protective factor against incidences of domestic abuse. He writes:

"Similar trends were noted in an earlier non-American study which found that the husband's church attendance was an identifiable risk factor for wife assault: 11.2 per cent of husbands who never attended church assaulted their wives. But only 2.2 per cent of husbands who attended church at least monthly assaulted their wives, while 6.2 per cent of husbands who attended church sporadically assaulted their wives: David M. Fergusson et al, Factors Associated with Reports of Wife Assault in New Zealand, Journal of Marriage and the Family 48 (1986) 410."

We did not cite this because it was conducted in 1986 — 31 years ago (using data from a study that began in 1977).

Again, we note a considerable discrepancy in how "sporadic" or "nominal" is defined. By some definitions, sporadic is still "regular" attendance. The Canadian study defines sporadic attendance as one to three times a month.

We stress again: we need Australian research.

We can only glean vague insights from dated research from other countries. This is why last week a Christian women's website Fixing Her Eyes joined The Centre for Public Christianity in calling for a comprehensive independent research study into Domestic Violence within Conservative Evangelical Institutions in Australia, and why Naomi Priest and her colleagues at ANU have argued the same.

Why didn't you talk about Muslims?

We did. We have already reported extensively on Islam and domestic violence.

Why didn't your reporting compare data from Aboriginal communities?

For this series, we are looking specifically at the links between religion and domestic violence. Doing so does not detract from other, equally important conversations about domestic violence in other communities. It should also be noted that many Aboriginal people are also Christians.

Was the premise of the article that churches are unsafe or bad?

Sorry, this video has expired Anglican leader calls for apology

No. The premise of the article was that domestic violence is bad. We wanted to investigate reports about how the church was dealing with it at a causal, practical and pastoral level.

The fundamental question of our series remains: what is the church doing about abused women in their midst, and why do so many women have stories of being told to accept and "submit" to the abuse by their pastors and church leaders?

Why do the accounts of survivors, counsellors and psychologists differ so greatly from the statements of many leaders who argue the church is only ever a refuge?

Many advocates have repeatedly stressed to the ABC that the primary focus of any discussion of domestic violence should be about understanding and protecting women.

It could be argued that any given congregation is more likely to contain a woman being abused than a man committing the abuse, given the greater female attendance of most churches.

Professor Tracy reported in 2007 that a survey of 600 "battered women" in Maricopa County (Arizona, United States) showed 57 per cent attended a church but only 7 per cent felt they could confide in a church leader.

In a second study of 1,000 women, 67 per cent went to church and a third went to their pastors, but most received a disappointing response.

This has been echoed by the findings of the Victorian Government's Royal Commission into Family Violence, and the Queensland Government's Special Taskforce into Domestic and Family Violence before it, both of which highlighted the inadequacy, in many cases reported, of responses of religious leaders to disclosures of domestic abuse.

As we wrote in our essay:

"For many women who sought help from a faith leader, the [royal] commission [in 2016] reported, "the response was inadequate … some faith leaders were uninformed and ill-equipped to respond to such disclosures, 'often the advice given wasn't helpful because the faith leader didn't know what kind of advice to give'."

Examples cited were of religious leaders telling women that their partner's abuse was their fault, or that they should stay in "intolerable" situations.

Is there any other important research we need to discuss?

A 2005 study of the Adelaide Anglican Church by Dr Zoe Morrison found "a culture of hostility towards women was deeply ingrained and ranged from bullying to sexual abuse".

Why don't you report on the good things the church is doing?

Hundreds of Christian woman and men have come forward with stories of family abuse. ( Rocco Fazzari )

We did. This information was compiled over several months. Some great things are happening, and many women have sought and been given excellent care from their church.

However, advocates say many church-developed initiatives to address domestic violence are poorly resourced and none are national or cross-denominational.

We compiled this information both for accountability and for victims; please tell us if there is something we have missed, or not been given in our calls to all dioceses of major denominations.

The details for any church-specific helplines or contacts are especially welcome.

What other resources are you compiling?

For one, a list of sermons on domestic violence. Many were preached last Sunday, July 23, in response to our series, at parishes around Australia including: Northmead Anglican; Oatley Anglican; Kurrajong Anglican; Williamstown Uniting Church, Melbourne; St Hilary's Kew, Melbourne; Crows Nest Uniting Church.

This sermon, preached in October 2016 by Michael Paget, senior minister at St Barnabas Anglican church in Sydney, is getting a lot of attention and a lot of praise from Christian women who have survived domestic abuse.

Here are some links to some others:

Apologies and statements have come in the past few days from the following church ministers and groups, among others:

Editor's note (5/10/17): A reference to data concerning the correlation between irregular church attendance and domestic violence has been deleted from this story.