Breaking: Transition Statement for Why Christian? 2015

UPDATE 8:08 PM 2/27/15

I just received this email from Rachel Held Evans. 

See also http://tonyj.net/blog/2015/01/27/statement-tony-jones-regarding-allegations-abuse/
I will not be speaking further about the situation. 

 

I just received this statement from Rachel Held Evans. I am still recuperating from a routine medical study today but wanted to get this posted.

Q. Who is Producing the Event?

Nadia, Rachel, and their Team. 

When Nadia Bolz-Weber and Rachel Held Evans announced their plan to partner with the The JoPa Group to create a conference featuring women of faith telling stories about what gives them hope for Christianity, the response was overwhelming.  Hundreds of registrations for “Why Christian?” came pouring in, and along with them, a growing sense of excitement among men and women alike at the prospect of doing something truly new. 

The buzz also generated some unforeseen speculation because of social media claims regarding the first marriage of a member of The JoPa Group.  In order to protect and keep the focus on the event’s participants and its thirteen speakers, JoPa offered to help transfer production of “Why Christian?” to Nadia and Rachel and their team.

Q. I already have tickets does this change affect me?

No. If you have already purchased a ticket for “Why Christian?” this change will not affect you. The event is still scheduled for September 18-20 in Minneapolis, Minnesota and your ticket is secure. Check the Web site between now and the fall for updates regarding venue, schedule, and other details.

Comments

Breaking: Transition Statement for Why Christian? 2015 — 695 Comments

  1. @ numo:

    I do agree with concerns about the kids. Concern for my own son is why I’ve always stayed very ambiguous about happenings in my own past marriage, because I know any time he’ll have the opportunity to come back and read this stuff and I want him to have the freedom to make his own decisions about his mother. I’ve become more willing recently to be open about my identity because I think I’ve treated my ex-wife respectfully when posting on the internet, not saying things my son could one day read and feel like will force him to “pick a side”.

    The problem in this case is that this stuff is already out there for the kids to read, and they will have to contend at the least with whatever Tony has said about Julie. Whatever is/was going on with her, her back was up against a wall against a man with power and a platform, so I don’t fault her for wanting to speak up. When your world is turned against you and you have no supporters, it’s a very lonely place to be. I’ve experienced that.

    Beyond those concerns, I think a lot of good has come out of this conversation. First, people are aware of Tony and can be careful. They also can see that RHE is not someone to be trusted to handle allegations of abuse well and create safe environments for the powerless.

    But beyond even that, I believe a lot of people commenting and posting here have been more educated about the nature and tactics of NPDs, and how truly frightening it can be. The fact that Tony can admit to having that diagnosis and so many people just blow right past it is evidence that we as a church don’t really understand what NPD means and how it affects us. In a very real sense, even on TWW where people are aware of abuse and have had multiple conversations about it (which is different from the average Christian who lives in a bubble where abuse is hardly ever discussed), it appears to me there is still the pull to believe an NPD when he says he’s sorry and innocent (or at the least, throw up hands and say “we won’t get involved” which has the same net effect). This is revealing, and means there is so much more work to be done in abuse awareness (not all abusers are NPDs, but many are).

    I cannot recommend enough people check out Jeff Crippen’s book “A Cry For Justice” and the blog that he and Barbara run. The evangelical church needs to wake up and understand abuse, because we are the ones people should know they can come to and be treated well.

    Anyway, I believe these conversations are important. And I do believe we as a church are called to make the greater body aware when someone like Tony is in positions of power. And I also believe we are called to empower the powerless, which means giving a voice to someone like Julie. That doesn’t mean we are saying Julie was perfect, or even a good person. Very few of us know her and can make those judgments. What we can say is “you have a voice and you, as someone created in the image of God, are worthy of love and belonging”.

  2. Patrice wrote:

    was given several sessions of EMDR a long time ago at Menninger and was very disappointed that it only made me worse. Later, I tracked down an EMDR specialist in my area. After hearing me out, she said she knew only one person in the state who might be possibly be able to use it for my treatment, but she doubted he’d be willing because my story was too complicated and long. I was grateful for her wisdom, and found a specialist in war PTSD, and she helped me tremendously.

    I am so sorry to hear this! You got worse? That is so horrible and I apologize for promoting something that did not help you.

    I have been researching it for a few years and know some with PSTD that it helped tremendously. I think a good way to explain it is that their PSTD was keeping them from functioning effectively daily and EMDR helped them there the most. Still lots of work to do on dealing with long term effects of abuse. Perhaps a starting point where even discussing something is not so much of a trigger they shut down?

    I am no expert obviously. Have read several books, done some seminars and talked with quite a few people who have used it effectively to simply start functioning again. I am not so sure people fully understand the effects PSTD has in every day life. It can make the victim seem like a flake. And that helps them be victimized over and over. People don’t have a lot of patience for it.

    This is going to sound wrong but I have to say it: One of the things I liked about it is that the Therapist is only the facilitator. In CBT, too often for my taste, the therapists leanings, bents, etc come into play no matter how objective they claim to be.

    The process of finding and affording a good therapist is a nightmare for so many victims. And CBT takes years. I know one survivor of horrible abuse who has been with same therapist for 18 years. To hear her talk about him, the relationship comes off as co dependent to me. She has her children there, too, so I am not suggesting anything untoward. He is 80 so not sure how long it can go on. She is going to fall apart. I fear he should have sent her to another therapist long ago. Her situation is horrible in that she had to have 7 operations to fix the abuse from her husband. The church told her she had to take part of the blame for all of it. So you can imagine her choice of therapist is pretty important.

    Again, I am so sorry it was not of more use to you. In comments you always sound quite “healthy” (and smart) to me. The wisdom that comes from hard work. God Bless.

  3. Jeff S wrote:

    The fact that Tony can admit to having that diagnosis and so many people just blow right past it is evidence that we as a church don’t really understand what NPD means and how it affects us. In a very real sense, even on TWW where people are aware of abuse and have had multiple conversations about it (which is different from the average Christian who lives in a bubble where abuse is hardly ever discussed), it appears to me there is still the pull to believe an NPD when he says he’s sorry and innocent (or at the least, throw up hands and say “we won’t get involved” which has the same net effect). This is revealing, and means there is so much more work to be done in abuse awareness (not all abusers are NPDs, but many are).

    So true, Jeff. What a beautiful comment.

    When NPD is involved, it colors everything. Can you imagine what the results would be for Julie without that official NPD diagnosis? We can imagine just from seeing how bad it has been for her WITH the diagnosis? And we see the NPD continue with gaslighting in public and has lots of big names helping him do it.

    There is another downside to all this. What about all the victims who won’t come forward in that tribe because of how progressive Christians have responded? They adored their leaders and personalities. I expect this from the fundys, Neo Cals and comps, but not from them. But they (the leaders) have proved themselves unsafe, too.

  4. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Since XianAtty is gaslighting in defense of TJ, could he actually be TJ under a pseudonym playing his mind games on us?

    I thought the same thing. Knowing how these things work, I do believe there will be a subtle but organized effort to deflect from Tony’s NPD and to try the moral equivalency tactic. Never forget how Tony makes his money. As Tony Jones,
    “Theological Provocateur”

  5. @ Nancy:
    Hahahhahahaha!!! The “ENFP from another planet” is HILARIOUS!!!
    I’m an ENFP. My husband is an INTJ. My kids are ENTJ, ISFP, and ENFP. We are quite the statistical anomaly for having so many “N”s and only one “S” but that sensor/intuitive variant is what makes you look & say, “Dang, is that kid from another planet?”

    We’ll be having these deep, meaningful conversations about life, the universe, and everything (lol) when suddenly the sensor will start giggling and moon us all. Seriously.
    Since your ENFP is from another planet here are some fun Pinterest boards I like that may give you a giggle.
    http://www.pinterest.com/dottyjyoung/enfp/
    http://www.pinterest.com/dottyjyoung/intj/

  6. Julie tweeted a few hours ago that Tony has filed to take away the son he refused to return after visitation. This is exactly an NPD tactic. He will now be the big hero (to himself) for trying to save his son from her. And of course, his followers will say that it is a personal matter and should not be discussed. You are seeing NPD in action.

    she is being punished for going public and the NPD uses what is at his disposal–his own kid. I can imagine what the poor child has been told. It might work, too.

    How in the world does this express love for his kids? Please someone tell me.

  7. Lydia wrote:

    @ @XianJaneway:
    Please be careful with this. I am a certified MBTI facilitator and used it for years in organizational development. It is hard to convince people that a Dictator and Mother Theresa can have the same type preference. But it is true. You might share a very close result with Charles Manson. What would that tell you?
    Xtianatty, if an ISTJ, could have chosen to use his preference results to analyze Tony Jones 12 page statement (that looks to be prepared by lawyers) in the same way and found gaping holes and omissions that others here have found. But he chose not to. Instead he chose to analyze court documents and focus on Julie. Why?
    So please do not fall into that trap. MBTI does not measure character, integrity, honesty, virtue,etc. And we also fall into a trap of assigning what we think are proper “emotions” to MBTI preferences. The most cold calculating murderer is operating off “emotion”.
    People tend to conflate virtues and character with preferences to explain away behavior. This is a huge mistake. The preference only informs the method.

    That’s why I said nothing about what motivates XianAtty to check the details. According to Kiersey, ENFP’s tend to be laser-accurate in their perceptions of people, but wildly wrong about perceiving the *motivations* of people–wrong up to 50% of the time.

    Don’t assume that, just because I ask a narrow question, that I don’t have a broad context to pull from.

  8. @ @XianJaneway:

    I don’t agree with Kiersey concerning motive. And I have huge concerns with contemplating motive. I think it is a dead end and a land of smoke and mirrors. We can only deal with outward patterns of behavior and words and any mental or physical diagnosis that could inform behaviors. So what happens when long time patterns of behavior do not match with a person’s declaration of motive? That is why I don’t go there. It is like my teen whose defense might be: you don’t know my heart. But patterns of behavior, sans a diagnosis, inform me of what is in his heart. :o)

    I don’t mean any offense. I just saw this happen all time in facilitating MBTI. It became a huge cause for concern. It has it’s uses but….

  9. Nancy wrote:

    We physicians get sued for that sort of thing. The dropped detail in court can be a serious matter. A very few times I have testified in court as an expert witness and you should hear the degree of detail and specificity they wanted from me.

    Just to clarify, I believe that details are important in some contexts and not in others. After the fact, litigation details are simply not important. They can be a distraction from things that are more important. We are no longer at the litigation phase of this situation, and these details that XianAtty brings up are trivial *in the overall context* of where we are now.

    Totally agree about a physician’s attention to detail and also about the personality types. Attention to detail is important in the industry I was in as well. Lots of people could die as a result of inattention to detail. A physician is not concerned with *every* detail regarding a given patient, and is not even concerned with exactly the *same* details in another context. It is the context and which details are receiving the same attention. I don’t want the OR nurse worrying about my manicure because it is trivial in the context of what she should be focusing on.

    I am the last person to ignore details. But I have also have filters that pick up certain details. That is why I noticed that Tony had *not* actually said Julie had BPD but had said things in his statement which implied that and which could lead people to conclude that. He admitted he was diagnosed NPD. With that in mind, I strongly suspected that he did not have evidence of mental illness or he would have explicitly stated that. That’s how NPDs roll. I know that because I’ve seen that. That detail was significant to me, and I believe it is also significant to the overall picture of what is going on. He didn’t bark when an NPD would almost certainly have barked.

    The question is not details or no details but which details.

  10. Lydia wrote:

    she is being punished for going public and the NPD uses what is at his disposal–his own kid. I can imagine what the poor child has been told. It might work, too.

    So has she mostly gained or mostly lost by going public? I mean in the real world of good and evil. Would she have been better off to not stir the pot, knowing that the kids are at risk?

    And before the ruckus starts about my taking sides, indeed I do. The side of the kids. So, what do you think? Has this been a good thing?

  11. Lydia wrote:

    There is another downside to all this. What about all the victims who won’t come forward in that tribe because of how progressive Christians have responded? They adored their leaders and personalities. I expect this from the fundys, Neo Cals and comps, but not from them. But they (the leaders) have proved themselves unsafe, too.

    I hope that this can be awakening that it isn’t about tribes, but people. No one gets a pass because they can cite the proper creed.

    To get a little personal, back when I stopped commenting on TWW and SpritiualSoundingBoard it was because I couldn’t take the heat of the anti-Reformed folks. I’ve always felt that abuse exists in all quarters, and so did those who “got it”. From my own experience, it was Reformed churches and a Reformed ministry that gave me the most empathy and compassion after my divorce. So to see Reformed churches labeled as inherently abusive by many was tough, and too much for me to take at the time. Dee actually encouraged me to be strong and stick it out, but it was too much for me.

    But I’m stronger now, and the time away from blogs has done me well. I know there are still people who believe Reformed is inherently authoritarian and abusive. I think I can take it now. Perhaps my church and my experience is an anomaly. I see my theology the way I do, and I may be wrong, but it makes sense to me. If it doesn’t make sense to others, well, I’m OK with that (now).

    But I still believe that no tribe is going to offer sanctuary from the abusers- abusers will seek out any platform they can get and anyone they can manipulate, and platforms and manipulatable people exist everywhere, inside and outside of the church. I do what I can to speak for victims in my tribe, and I hope and pray that everyone else will do what they can where they are too.

    And if you think that Reformed churches are irredeemable and inherently abusive, I believe I’m strong enough to handle that now, even from friends. Because I know, in my soul, that my hope isn’t found what I believe about Reformed theology, but truly in Jesus, and if you are following him then we are brothers and sisters who should stand together, against the world and against abuse.

  12. Nancy wrote:

    So has she mostly gained or mostly lost by going public? I mean in the real world of good and evil. Would she have been better off to not stir the pot, knowing that the kids are at risk?

    Nancy, Being married to an NPD means the kids are at the same risk whether one goes public or not. Anything can be used to trigger such an event. I know of an NPD right now who is refusing to pay child support because the kid did not call him at exactly 7:30 pm on a specific night.

    So the mom has to go through the whole time consuming process of filing with the county attorney for payment. It takes months and is extremely time consuming and she works full time. And guess what? The only thing the county atty will do is try to collect. They cannot fix the NPD and there WILL be a next time.

    People just don’t get it.

  13. @ XianAtty:

    My terrible experiences are not relevant except to the extent that I have learned from them and try to apply them. This isn’t about me, thankfully, and that is yet another distraction.

    What are the mistakes that Tony made in litigation? In your exhaustive study of the record, did you find any of those?

    You still have not cited your view of the issues of the Kingdom that are the greater issues. Now that we have beaten the litigation details to death, what do you think as a Christian about the things Christ would be concerned about? I care about Tony and Julie and Rachel and Nadia and Courtney. I especially am concerned about the children who had nothing to do with this mess. Do you have any ideas as a Christian what to do about that? How to turn this into a redemptive moment rather than nitpicking litigation? How to dismantle the celebrity culture in the church that distorts and disfigures it, regardless of the tribe?

  14. Nancy wrote:

    So has she mostly gained or mostly lost by going public? I mean in the real world of good and evil. Would she have been better off to not stir the pot, knowing that the kids are at risk?

    This largely depends on how those on the outside respond. Many a woman has regretted going public because it has only intensified the abuse and she has been punished dearly by the community. But that doesn’t mean she was wrong to go public, but that the community failed her.

  15. Lydia wrote:

    MBTI does not measure character, integrity, honesty, virtue,etc. And we also fall into a trap of assigning what we think are proper “emotions” to MBTI preferences. The most cold calculating murderer is operating off “emotion”.

    Very true. Personality types and speculation about them are another distraction from the weighty matters.

  16. @ Jeff S:

    Very well said. Thank you, and I hope that many will take what you have said to heart. If someone has not seen an NPD over a period of time and during different circumstances and especially when the NPD is challenged, much of what we are talking about would be unbelievable. That is one reason so many NPD pastors are able to keep their positions, IMO.

  17. Lydia wrote:

    the moral equivalency tactic

    That is the go to, and for some reason people don’t see the fallacy. I don’t get it.

  18. Lydia wrote:

    Julie tweeted a few hours ago that Tony has filed to take away the son he refused to return after visitation. This is exactly an NPD tactic. He will now be the big hero (to himself) for trying to save his son from her. And of course, his followers will say that it is a personal matter and should not be discussed. You are seeing NPD in action.

    This was predictable after he made the video exploiting his son for his own purposes. That video, to me, was very revealing. He was setting the stage already for this move. People do not understand the NPD game at all. They want to win everything, but if they can’t win absolutely then they will make their target suffer as much as possible for as long as possible. The impact on the boy is not a consideration in Jones’ calculus. He is a means. Instead of being cheerleaders for their hero/heroine, people should be calling him to account for dragging the kids through more disruption. Kids need stability and a father who considers them first.

  19. I wrote a post and deleted it because I really shouldn’t be talking about an ongoing case- but this stuff with Tony going for custody is hitting very close to home because a friend of mine is going through something very similar. Ex really didn’t seem interested in the kids, and then all of the sudden an emergency hearing battling it out in court and accusations of unfit motherhood.

    It’s a crushing thing to go through.

  20. Nancy wrote:

    So has she mostly gained or mostly lost by going public? I mean in the real world of good and evil. Would she have been better off to not stir the pot, knowing that the kids are at risk?

    I think that going public would ordinarily not be a good thing. HOWEVER, Tony took their private marriage and introduced another party and then slandered Julie *publicly* and denied her a voice. A mother needs all the strength she can muster, and a single mother’s needs are way beyond that. Because of the support she has received from the Christian community because a few were willing to take on Jones and to question RHE’s actions, I think Julie can begin to heal. There was no place for her to rest and no support from her community. I think it is a good thing for her that she knows that someone supports her and has heard her.

    IMO, when Tony took action to slander her and deny her a voice while he had a large audience, he almost made this public spectacle necessary. Without the NP thread, we would not be talking about it and Julie would be at his mercy, if he had any. As it is, and as bad as it is, I believe it would have been much worse.

    At least with some public awareness, there is the possibility that Jones *might* behave better, if only for purposes of image management. That is contingent on how his fans react, and RHE’s actions are not encouraging on that front. But at least many more people have been put on notice about what his character is.

    WRT stirring the pot, I would say that Jones will do what Jones will do regardless, except now he will have to do it with a lot more scrutiny. Hopefully his followers will decide to hold him accountable to be a decent father or at least not to obstruct Julie in being a good mother.

  21. Jeff S wrote:

    But I still believe that no tribe is going to offer sanctuary from the abusers- abusers will seek out any platform they can get and anyone they can manipulate, and platforms and manipulatable people exist everywhere, inside and outside of the church. I do what I can to speak for victims in my tribe, and I hope and pray that everyone else will do what they can where they are too.

    Amen to that. Perfect theology is not a vaccine against sin, and the idea that one has perfected theology is an invitation to sin. We need to take out our own garbage.

  22. Lydia wrote:

    Julie tweeted a few hours ago that Tony has filed to take away the son he refused to return after visitation. This is exactly an NPD tactic. He will now be the big hero (to himself) for trying to save his son from her. And of course, his followers will say that it is a personal matter and should not be discussed. You are seeing NPD in action.
    she is being punished for going public and the NPD uses what is at his disposal–his own kid. I can imagine what the poor child has been told. It might work, too.
    How in the world does this express love for his kids? Please someone tell me.

    The old divide and conquer strategy, pick the kids off one at a time. If she’s such a terrible mother why not all three? Strikes me as a despicable revenge tactic with absolutely nothing to do with the welfare any one or all of the kids.

    And BTW, attempting to have your wife committed while in the process of divorce is downright satanic.

  23. Jeff S wrote:

    This largely depends on how those on the outside respond. Many a woman has regretted going public because it has only intensified the abuse and she has been punished dearly by the community. But that doesn’t mean she was wrong to go public, but that the community failed her.

    That is well said. But knowing all this, and knowing that many a woman has lived to regret it, and knowing that if the outcome of something depends on how the community responds that is thin ice, I am wondering if the old adage of don’t poke a snake with a stick might not be the better part of wisdom.

    Something lingers in the back of my mind that is troublesome, and that is what Reuben Mills said on an earlier comment here. If I understand what he has said about the parenting agreement, she had the opportunity to distance herself and the children from him more than she chose to do. I am not speculating here on why she chose that, but RB does seem to show that she was the one who chose the outcome and Tony agreed.

    So we have been saying that Tony agreed to leave his children with someone he considered guano goofy, and perhaps we need to also say that she chose to have Tony more involved with post-divorce parenting than apparently the court was going to force on her. And we note that neither of them just walks away from a lot of this at this time.

    That said, I think that those in this conversation who have advised us to let this be may be the wisest among us.

  24. Nancy wrote:

    So has she mostly gained or mostly lost by going public? I mean in the real world of good and evil. Would she have been better off to not stir the pot, knowing that the kids are at risk?
    And before the ruckus starts about my taking sides, indeed I do. The side of the kids. So, what do you think? Has this been a good thing?

    Do you think that he wouldn’t have done this if Julie hadn’t gone public? Is it right for him to hold her and the kids hostage to the threat that he might drag her back into court? Seriously…

  25. Nancy wrote:

    Something lingers in the back of my mind that is troublesome, and that is what Reuben Mills said on an earlier comment here. If I understand what he has said about the parenting agreement, she had the opportunity to distance herself and the children from him more than she chose to do. I am not speculating here on why she chose that, but RB does seem to show that she was the one who chose the outcome and Tony agreed.

    What Julie said was that he originally offered her full legal and physical custody. She pushed him to take joint legal while she retain full physical. This does not mean a difference in parenting time, but that he retains a voice (equal to hers) in where the kids go to school, religious decisions, medical decisions, and extracurricular activities. She states her reasons for doing this was to keep him responsible in the lives of the children.

    If this happened as she tells it (I believe Tony claims that he never asked for her to have full physical and legal), then it was a well intentioned, but ill conceived idea. But it’s consistent with the email that Tony posted of hers in which, at the time of the divorce, she still seemed to believe that peace was possible with him.

    I can say from my own experience that I had a lot of noble thoughts when leaving a marriage, and not all of them were safe. The langue that Tony posts about her regretting her errors and how she treated him and wishing him the best sounds a lot like things I said in the early parts of my divorce. It wasn’t until later that I saw things a lot more clearly.

    As a parent myself (who has full physical and joint legal), I can say that it’s difficult to navigate co parenting. In my case I feel that my ex does not pose a threat to my son (though there are those in my family who disagree), and even if I thought she did I would be hard pressed to remove her completely from his life. The courts would see such a play as vindictive and combative. And they would see that doubly if a woman tried such a move (women are more easily seen as vindictive and combative than men). And on top of all of this, I have to consider the emotional well-being of my son. If I make the choice FOR him to never see his mother, then he will never be able to make the determination on his own if he can have a safe relationship with her, and he can easily resent me for making that decision. In some cases, you have to make that decision; in mine, I believe it’s best to let him decide when he is old enough and mature enough to understand. In the meantime, I provide a safe environment and pray for him when he is away (which is infrequent since my ex lives 12 hours away).

    Nancy wrote:

    That said, I think that those in this conversation who have advised us to let this be may be the wisest among us.

    We may not have much of a say in the matter- but right now a diagnosed NPD is going after full custody of a child he didn’t want prior to now. If everyone just “let’s it be”, it going to be a tough road for that child. Especially when that man has financial resources way beyond hers.

  26. Nancy wrote:

    I am wondering if the old adage of don’t poke a snake with a stick might not be the better part of wisdom.

    Such “wisdom” has kept many abused women bound in marriage to their abusers, and many of them end up dead.

    The key is that Julie didn’t just “poke a snake”. Her sin is that she stood up for herself- not engaging means accepting the judgement of the community that support her ex against her. Telling her that standing up for herself wasn’t wise is to be OK with people cowering in fear as powerful people abuse them. That may be pragmatic, but it isn’t Christian.

  27. mirele wrote:

    Is it right for him to hold her and the kids hostage to the threat that he might drag her back into court? Seriously…

    Right or wrong that is how the system works. Therefore, why give one’s opponent weapons to use against one when it happens? Look what she did–said–accused me of in a public forum–tried to turn not only the children but the whole world against me, and she knows I need a public persona to earn my living. In NC the 14 year old is old enough to testify in court. Dad is a guy and so am I, dad has lots of money and buys me stuff, dad is not on my case all the time, dad lives in an intact family and his wife treats me well, and I don’t have to compete with younger sibs at dad’s house.

    I am thinking she needs to have a spotless record and, if what they told us at the time of our recent disaster is true, she would at least have an argument for getting a decent amount of time with the lad.

  28. Jeff S wrote:

    That may be pragmatic, but it isn’t Christian.

    It is pragmatic. It may not be christian but it was apparently jewish because it is consistent with Matthew 5: 25-26.

  29. Nancy wrote:

    I am thinking she needs to have a spotless record and, if what they told us at the time of our recent disaster is true, she would at least have an argument for getting a decent amount of time with the lad.

    Sigh. So Julie just needs to STFU, you’re saying?

    This hits close to home because a family friend, who has full legal custody and shares physical custody with her ex has to put up with the guy badmouthing her to their 12 year old son. He is a lawyer and keeps telling the boy that when he is 14, he can come and live with him. However, he doesn’t care a whit for their daughter, because he didn’t want a daughter and that was one of the reasons for the divorce.

    I’ll state it again: Tony is holding Julie and their children hostage and I’m annoyed that some people believe the only solution is for Julie to shut up and say nothing.

  30. @ Nancy:

    That passage is about reconciliation. There is no reconciling with an NPD. Only bowing down and obeying, which was not what Jesus was talking about at all.

  31. Gram3 wrote:

    This was predictable after he made the video exploiting his son for his own purposes. That video, to me, was very revealing. He was setting the stage already for this move. People do not understand the NPD game at all. They want to win everything, but if they can’t win absolutely then they will make their target suffer as much as possible for as long as possible.

    And now after a bit of preliminary gaslighting to all his followers and online friends (not saying she’s got BPD, but…) TJ makes his move. “I. WIN.”

    Just he seems pretty hasty in this. From my Sweet Innocent Widdle Brother’s example, someone like him normally takes a LONG time to set up for the kill, grooming ally after ally, moving chess piece after chess piece into position over months to years before screaming “CHECKMATE! I WIN!”

    I wonder if outside circumstances (like all the publicity from this blog and others) are forcing his hand and speeding up his timetable? (Which opens the possibility of a screwup on his end — takes time to position all the pawns just so on the chessboard.)

    And if TJ’s going to take away all three kids (“MY DNA!” animate possessions?), I’d expect him to do it one at a time, letting things return to normal (except for his behind-the-scenes chess moves) before the next hit. This stretches the process out to as long and agonizing as possible — Julie loses not one but THREE times in a row. (And probably goes over the edge for real, vindicating TJ before God and Man as the Poor Innocent Victim — “SEE? I TOLD YOU SHE WAS CRAZY!!!!”)

    Now for XianAtty — notice how after my last post he pretty much played the “GAWD! GAWD! GAWD!” Card?

  32. Jeff S wrote:

    @ Nancy:
    That passage is about reconciliation. There is no reconciling with an NPD. Only bowing down and obeying, which was not what Jesus was talking about at all.

    I can describe the drill, from encounters with not just NPDs but other types who always have to dominate: “Once you bend the knee to ME and your tongue confesses *I* am LORD, once you Agree Completely With Me, We Won’t Have A Problem, Will We?”

  33. Nancy wrote:

    I am thinking she needs to have a spotless record and, if what they told us at the time of our recent disaster is true, she would at least have an argument for getting a decent amount of time with the lad.

    She WON’T have a spotless record. The NPD would have gaslighted her to the point she would have compromised herself in public before this.

    I don’t know what the formal psych name for it is, but I call in “needling” — little covert-gaslighting abuses and provocations without letup, day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, until the victim finally snaps in public and (as planned thirty chess moves ahead) attacks the Poor Innocent NPD, thus vindicating the Poor Innocent NPD and alienating all the victim’s potential allies. “I. WIN.”

  34. Jeff S wrote:

    She pushed him to take joint legal while she retain full physical.

    This might need to be flipped unless I read it wrong originally. I thought she wanted him to have joint physical and she retained all legal because she thought it was important to the children, and TJ, that TJ have some responsibility and involvement in his children’s lives.

  35. Gram3 wrote:

    Very true. Personality types and speculation about them are another distraction from the weighty matters.

    Like swerving into parsing semantics. This is a common trick of abusers who have a gift of gab — sidetracking the matter into pure abstract semantics where they have THE home-field advantage. (I experienced this from a former UC Berkeley debate team type regarding the Intellectual and Moral Superiority of Communism.)

  36. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    Jeff is the one talking about reconciliation, not I. I am talking about not giving one’s opponent weapons to use against you. I am talking about containing the damage as much as possible.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    She WON’T have a spotless record. The NPD would have gaslighted her to the point she would have compromised herself in public before this.

    That is quite the point. First that compromising herself in public is not a good idea. It is to his benefit not hers. But and also, I think that everybody in her situation has to do the best they can. Public compromise is surely quantitative. Did it happen once or is it an ongoing pattern of behavior. Regardless of how it plays out in court those children will come to their own conclusions over time. She has a chance of winning that war, I am thinking.

  37. @ Nancy:
    I brought up reconciliation because of the context in which that Matthew passage was written.

    Coming to terms with an NPD means letting them own you.

  38. mirele wrote:

    Sigh. So Julie just needs to STFU, you’re saying?

    I have no idea what STFU means. But as to the rest of your comment we have lived this at my house. The family friend that I previously cited (the guy up on my roof) has lived it also. It is some kind of terrible to live with. However, when no reply was made to various accusations the opponents became more desperate to both accuse and cause damage including trying to use the children as tools. The more desperate the opponents got the more people saw it for what it was. We had phone calls to that effect. No way would ongoing battle and accusations and denials and such have had nearly as good a result as this other approach. We went with return good for evil (even if it makes you vomit to do it) and had better results that we would have otherwise. I know that some people cannot do the thing about knock yourself out while I will just stand here and listen impassively until you go slap nuts for as long as it takes if I have to, but for those who can it can be useful.

  39. Jeff S wrote:

    I can say from my own experience that I had a lot of noble thoughts when leaving a marriage, and not all of them were safe. The langue that Tony posts about her regretting her errors and how she treated him and wishing him the best sounds a lot like things I said in the early parts of my divorce. It wasn’t until later that I saw things a lot more clearly.

    Bingo. The deadly mistake–thinking the NPD is reasonable and not realizing that every word and every syllable will be twisted and used at some point. They will actually feign reason in order to get you to respond then use it against you at later date. Seen it. They are evil. Period.

    Who saw the video of him making his announcement for a conference audience as to why he could not attend the conference? It is deleted now but the folks who were meant to see it (his followers) now see him as a hero for being such a great dad. Talk about chess moves.

  40. Jeff S wrote:

    Coming to terms with an NPD means letting them own you.

    Coming to terms with the situation (NPD) means walking away. I am thinking that in the illustration Jesus used there was a way for one person to get out of the situation while minimizing the damage to himself and Jesus advised that such be done that rather than stand there and fight to the end.

  41. Gavin White wrote:

    Finally, just because someone demands that you answer a question, it doesn’t mean that anyone has to answer, particularly when the question asked is to diminish the relevance of what was being said, or to cast aspersions as to their motives.

    I only asked XianAtty to explain the relevance of the trivial points he/she kept flogging. I also kept asking XianAtty to answer what he/she believes are the real Kingdom issues in this spectacle. No answer unless I’ve missed it as I did your comment. I *am* concerned about the children and their relationship with a diagnosed NPD, and I want people to know how NPDs operate and why. People do not understand how this works and what really motivates NPD behavior. And that is exponentially magnified among Christians.

    I believe that XianAtty’s repeated insistence on the importance of legal details is an intentional distraction from the real Kingdom issues as well as a deflection of Tony’s NPD onto Julie’s supposed moral failures evidenced by a court record. It is right from the PR manual and is situation normal for NPD.

  42. Bridget wrote:

    This might need to be flipped unless I read it wrong originally.

    IIRC she wanted him to have joint legal while she had sole physical.

  43. Nancy wrote:

    I am talking about not giving one’s opponent weapons to use against you. I am talking about containing the damage as much as possible.

    Anything can be used as a weapon. NPDs are masters at the double-bind. Their motivation is not the same as ours nor is their reasoning the same as normal people.

  44. Nancy wrote:

    Coming to terms with the situation (NPD) means walking away. I am thinking that in the illustration Jesus used there was a way for one person to get out of the situation while minimizing the damage to himself and Jesus advised that such be done that rather than stand there and fight to the end.

    you can’t just “walk away” when you share children with the NPD. You are forever bound to that person, and he WILL use your children to wage war.

  45. Nancy wrote:

    Coming to terms with the situation (NPD) means walking away.

    I have another short comment in moderation, but there is no walking away from a NPD person. They will pursue you until you are destroyed *unless* others who are perceived as more powerful than the NPD intervene or unless the NPD falls under the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

    Chamberlain vs. Churchill. Hope that didn’t offend Godwin.

  46. @ Nancy:

    All “Christian” abusers and their enablers (spiritual, mental, physical) trot out Matthew 5 because it benefits them. This would mean we cannot hold professing Christians to any standard of behavior. And this is not a popular interpretation but who was Jesus talking ‘to’ and who was he talking “about”. My view is that He was speaking about the Roman occupiers who they despised. He was not saying hey, treat your fellow Jew horribly because they have to turn the other cheek and you won’t be held accountable.

    I hesitate to say this because it is easy to be twisted since Julie’s behavior has become the focus and is on trial here (this is how it always works for victims) but her going public has some advantages for her and ultimately for her children. They need a healthy, strong mom. Not understanding how years of gaslighting works on people and the after affects of PSTD and such, most won’t get this. It is part of her healing. It is part of connecting those parts of the brain that shut down. Those who live with NPD’s live in a fight or flight existence of adrenalin which is extremely unhealthy. There is NO rest. It is a horrible lonely existence and one is constantly trying to protect their children emotionally and mentally within that existence.

    Not being heard or believed (hers is one of the worst I have seen because of his ministry friends/fans and police connections) is another layer to deal with that is horrible. You are dealing with a master manipulator with RESOURCES.

    Yes, someday her kids are going to get this. What sort of mom are they going to remember? A mom who finally figured it out and stood up for herself or a mom who went along with it because everyone claims bowing to the NPD is for their sake? In another way, she is teaching them to stand up for themselves.

    The whole children thing is a bigger question that must be addressed. They are being manipulated by the NPD whether she goes public or not. Read up on how NPD’s view their children–as extensions of themselves and tools. It is chilling.

  47. @ Gram3:

    To answer this question, here is the quote from Julie:

    “I was actually awarded sole physical and legal. Tony proposed I have sole/sole and he was down in Dallas with Courtney apparently ready to wash his hands of his family and start his ‘do over’ life. I actually countered with ‘shared legal’ to keep him on the hook for being a dad.”

  48. @ Nancy:

    You cannot walk away from an NPD. Even the NPD who moves away and starts a new life will often use his old life as a manipulation tool for the newer folks in his life to gain empathy and trust. They will actually contrive situations to make themselves look like victims to the newer people in their lives. “She is alienating the children from me” and so on and so forth. So the newer people actually get on board with helping the NPD do more damage!

    Look at all the people who helped Tony: Police, ministry leaders, etc, etc. Now, they need to “save face”.

  49. Nancy wrote:

    mirele wrote:
    Sigh. So Julie just needs to STFU, you’re saying?

    I have no idea what STFU means. >>

    STFU=Shut the F*** Up. (I’m not telling anyone here to do that, I’m just explaining what the abbreviation means.)

  50. Lydia wrote:

    Look at all the people who helped Tony: Police, ministry leaders, etc, etc. Now, they need to “save face”.

    The secret to a successful con is to get the marks so involved in the con — financially, legally, and emotionally — that they can’t back out, even after they KNOW they’re being taken to the cleaners. Because backing out means they have to admit to themselves they were conned and lose face.

  51. Lydia wrote:

    Not being heard or believed (hers is one of the worst I have seen because of his ministry friends/fans and police connections) is another layer to deal with that is horrible. You are dealing with a master manipulator with RESOURCES.

    And carefully-cultivated, carefully-groomed allies and supporters, preferably in positions of Authority and Power.

  52. Lydia wrote:

    Who saw the video of him making his announcement for a conference audience as to why he could not attend the conference? It is deleted now but the folks who were meant to see it (his followers) now see him as a hero for being such a great dad. Talk about chess moves.

    Come to think of it, wasn’t chess an obsession of the Soviet Politboro, above and beyond the usual Russian cultural mania for the game?

  53. Tina wrote:

    Nancy wrote:
    mirele wrote:
    Sigh. So Julie just needs to STFU, you’re saying?
    I have no idea what STFU means. >>

    STFU=Shut the F*** Up. (I’m not telling anyone here to do that, I’m just explaining what the abbreviation means.)

    Commonly pronounced “stuff-oo” for short. As in this famous World of Warcraft machinima:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHOKTVc1gC0
    “STFU, Noob! Can I have gold?”

  54. Gram3 wrote:

    I believe that XianAtty’s repeated insistence on the importance of legal details is an intentional distraction from the real Kingdom issues as well as a deflection of Tony’s NPD onto Julie’s supposed moral failures evidenced by a court record. It is right from the PR manual and is situation normal for NPD.

    Sidetrack the argument onto your home turf (legal minutiae or parsing abstract semantics) where you have the home-field advantage, then steamroller over the enemy. You also see this in trained debating team types, where truth gets kicked under the bus in favor of Winning At All Costs.

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Sidetrack the argument onto your home turf (legal minutiae or parsing abstract semantics)

    That is largely what the practice of law is, as a practical matter. The legal system is an intentional game designed to get to as close an approximation of justice as is humanly possible when viewed as a whole. The successful players are the ones who have learned to play the game and win. That is not to disparage the legal system we have. The problem for Xian Atty is I’ve seen the tactics deployed lots of times and am neither impressed nor intimidated. That and I have also learned to make every effort to keep my eye on the main things.

  56. Jeff S wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    To answer this question, here is the quote from Julie:
    “I was actually awarded sole physical and legal. Tony proposed I have sole/sole and he was down in Dallas with Courtney apparently ready to wash his hands of his family and start his ‘do over’ life. I actually countered with ‘shared legal’ to keep him on the hook for being a dad.”

    Thanks for looking that up, Jeff. You remembered better than I 😉

    The bigger issue is that he was willing to give up all rights 🙁

  57. From Julie’s Tweet it appears that TJ is hot on this new idea of ‘custody’ for his son. Interesting the timing. He had the son for the usual visit, then he kept him beyond the time, now he is threatening full custody.

    It would appear that TJ is having a hissy fit because Julie went public. He even gave up the Phoenix Conference ‘to stay with his son’—how touching—hmm. Appears that he is intent on creating havoc for Julie, to de-stabilize her and appear to do the ‘caring Dad’ scenario. His tactics come across as being vindictive, spiteful, calculating, and controlling. Again, interesting ‘the timing’.

    I trust that Julie has her support team rallying around her to give her encouragement and thoughtful advice and that her attorney is busy at it in order to bring some immediate resolve.

  58. Gram3 wrote:

    @ XianAtty:
    How to dismantle the celebrity culture in the church that distorts and disfigures it, regardless of the tribe?

    And that, as I’ve suspected from the beginning, is exactly what this is about. It’s almost laughable (as in SAD) how clear this is to some outsiders like myself.

    The good news is that stories like this illuminate just how dangerous it can be for everyone to toss all reason and judgement aside just because someone makes a claim of abuse. It also certainly makes clear that bullies can just as easily take the side of the alleged victim as they can the alleged abuser.

    I came into this not believing Julie. And then I convinced myself that she was probably telling the truth, and that I should accept her story just in case (even though my opinion of her story will never affect her in any way). But the more I read and the more I read of HER OWN words, and the more inconsistencies there are, the more convinced I am that if anyone in the relationship is abusive, it is her. Not him. She’s the one who fits the profile. She is extremely aggressive in her attempts to bring people to her side. She has been unnecessarily aggressive in some of her interactions with people who question her. She’s made claims of PAS (PAS being the brainchild and a favored tactic of abusers in court). She’s got the abuser/victim terminology just a little too perfect. She’s obviously had the presence of mind and is calculating enough to gather evidence against him. Etc., etc., etc.

    Not that I think she IS, but it’s been a bit interesting to watch all of her supporters twist themselves through mental wringers to excuse many of her actions while decrying every single move that her ex makes as OMG SO TYPICAL FOR NPD. Really? If you understand NPD, you should know how easily those who have it flip reality right on its head in order to make their partners look like the crazy ones. A cursory understanding of it should dictate a closer look into the dynamics of a couple before taking sides simply because of how manipulative NPD people are. There is nothing wrong or bad or evil or abusive about wanting to have *evidence* before taking sides, or about questioning the alleged victim, or even about *disbelieving* him/her. Yes, in her marriage she was the one who had less power than her husband. Doesn’t automatically make her a victim of abuse just because she says so, though. And it doesn’t mean everyone is required to believe her. There seems to be an element of thought-policing in this whole saga in that we all ARE expected to blindly believe her and it’s frankly a little creepy.

    I’ve been a lurker at TWW for years and it’s one of my favorite blogs. Sad that this is the story on which I chose to out myself because I am going against the grain by daring to question something that is obviously sacred here, and in doing so I’ve certainly not made many friends. But again, I am shocked by the increasing vitriole towards those who question Julie, and so I suppose the feeling is mutual. Oh well. The lurking was fun while it lasted.

  59. Gram3 wrote:

    @ Miranda:

    I guess you wrote this to me, but I won’t be able to reply until tomorrow.

    My apologies Gram. I was so upset that I forgot to add that my comment wasn’t directed at you but to the commetariat in general. I was quoting you because I think what you said about dismantling celebrity power structures in the church is far more relevant to this whole story than some might believe at first glance.

  60. Lydia wrote:

    Julie tweeted a few hours ago that Tony has filed to take away the son he refused to return after visitation. This is exactly an NPD tactic. He will now be the big hero (to himself) for trying to save his son from her. And of course, his followers will say that it is a personal matter and should not be discussed. You are seeing NPD in action.
    she is being punished for going public and the NPD uses what is at his disposal–his own kid. I can imagine what the poor child has been told. It might work, too.
    How in the world does this express love for his kids? Please someone tell me.

    He does not love his children. Someone with NPD is not capable of love.

    While my ex-husband does not have a diagnosis, I’m fairly certain he also has NPD. Narcissists only see people as tools, toys, or obstacles. Right now, the child is a tool and Julie is an obstacle.

  61. Miranda wrote:

    There seems to be an element of thought-policing in this whole saga in that we all ARE expected to blindly believe her and it’s frankly a little creepy.

    I’ve been a lurker at TWW for years and it’s one of my favorite blogs. Sad that this is the story on which I chose to out myself because I am going against the grain by daring to question something that is obviously sacred here, and in doing so I’ve certainly not made many friends. But again, I am shocked by the increasing vitriole towards those who question Julie, and so I suppose the feeling is mutual. Oh well. The lurking was fun while it lasted.

    I think you misunderstand at least me, so I’ll speak for myself. I don’t like thought policing or silencing, and in general the better approach IMO is to present facts and information that counters the narrative. Then those counter-facts can be countered and so on. More good information that has been tested is better.

    Speaking only for myself, the reason I give more weight to Julie’s account is for the simple reason that I’ve walked through a very messy divorce with a diagnosed NPD and diagnosed BPD Christian couple. As a result I’ve consulted with at least one psychologist who specializes in high-conflict resolution that is not limited to divorce. His experience cuts across cultures, and he is by no means a fundy. My goal was *not* to take sides except if one considers the goal of a healthy marriage and undamaged children a *side.*

    Because of that interaction over a long period of time, more than 15 years, I have observed several patterns. That is the reference for my assessment of the situation. My experience is only my experience, but I think if you look at the responses by people who have been through a divorce from a PD, you will see that we tend to assess things from basically the same POV. I know that before I was able to observe a NPD in action, I would *not* have believed someone would behave the way that they did. It was not in my range of the reasonable.

    Certainly I welcome good questions of both sides. The problem is determining what is a good and well-motivated question and one which is designed to deflect and distract. My method for doing that is informed by seeing the tactics used over time. One of the things I always try to do, while not always succeeding, is to understand what is going on. Another piece of this is that I have been trained to deploy propaganda or PR techniques in order to influence opinion and motivate action. That helps me to spot it as well.

    When it comes to questions like yours and numo’s, for example, I see people trying to work through what is known and trying *not* to jump on a bandwagon or join a “lynch mob.” And by the way, that term itself trivializes a truly hateful thing to do. A group of people who agree does not constitute a mob who desires to torture and kill someone out of blind rage. In fact, invoking lynching imagery is not unlike invoking Hitler. It is a thought-stopper and a sign of having a weak position. It is much better to address faulty thinking than to lob ad homs at people.

    Now, when it comes to people like Beth who presents herself as a therapist or Xian Atty who presents him/herself as Christian and an attorney, I do not automatically yield to assertions of expert authority. I probe and test. In the case of Beth, her comments seemed vague and not particularly helpful while she left out important elements which I would have expected. For example last night she mentioned the incident where Julie supposedly called Tony and threatened suicide and demanded he come home immediately. Beth said that it would be reasonable for the group to attempt to have her committed. The problem is that Beth left out the part about the criteria for involuntary commitment and the legal constraints on that. In my view that is a significant omission that a therapist would know and which would be germane to her point. So I ask myself why she left out important information which bears on her scenario and which might inform us better. That doesn’t mean Beth was definitely trying to distract from the issues, but what she posted was what an “orchestrated” and “coordinated” PR campaign would include when we are discussing psychological diagnoses. That is why I probed her comment. Not to discredit it but to see what she was trying to communicate and possibly why.

    With Xian Atty, I thought it was very curious that he/she focused on legal matters which do not bear on the situation at hand unless they cast doubt on Julie’s credibility. In my view and experience with the legal system, the points the XianAtty was flogging did not *necessarily* reflect on her credibility. There were other explanations. For example, why did her attorney participate in that? Either he/she was foolish and tried to snow the judge or there was a good reason to attempt it. I actually cited an attorney who was demolished by a judge because the attorney did a foolish thing.

    In addition, XianAtty was laying out implication after implication from which it seemed to me he/she wanted us to draw inferences. That is why I spent considerable effort pointing those out. What XianAtty posted is *not* the kind of thing I would expect a Christian attorney to post *regardless of the POV* of XianAtty. Focusing so much on legal inside baseball while steadfastly refusing to even offer an opinion about any of the overarching moral and Kingdom issues is telling, IMO. So I ask myself if an attorney who is primarily concerned with morality and the Kingdom would post what he/she did.

    I’m sorry that you feel that you cannot participate because that means denying the rest of us an opportunity to benefit from your insights. I hope you will reconsider leaving TWW, and I hope you will at least consider why people are reacting so strongly about this and why some of us weight Tony’s NPD so heavily. I, for one, am still in shock at the responses from Rachel because of what I knew about the stands she has taken in the past. I still hope that she reconsiders and that the Emergent leaders do the right thing for the Kingdom and the name of Christ.

    Apologies for so much Gramsplaining, but you deserved a thoughtful response. If it means anything, I’m frequently in the position of going against the grain because I try very hard to make decisions according to Kingdom principles.

  62. @ Miranda:

    Miranda, I have a very long comment to you in moderation. I hope you will not leave TWW and will read my reply. Thanks.

  63. Jeff S wrote:

    I can say from my own experience that I had a lot of noble thoughts when leaving a marriage, and not all of them were safe. The langue that Tony posts about her regretting her errors and how she treated him and wishing him the best sounds a lot like things I said in the early parts of my divorce. It wasn’t until later that I saw things a lot more clearly.

    Yeah. This.

  64. Miranda, I am an outsider too. I had never heard of any of these people except for Rachael and then only because of one of her books which I liked. I don’t care one way or the other about celebrity Christians as a group. I respect Billy Graham, but not Pat Robertson, for example, and am quite a fan of NT Wright.

    I have read everything I could find about this situation and just as it is so clear to you that Julie is a villain, it is equally clear to me that Tony is abusive. His account does not ring true to me and in fact there are documented lies in it such as when he says that the issue of abuse was never raised by Julie is court proceedings. It was.

    A man who states that he waited until after the divorce filing before pursuing his married girlfriend (AKA his sacramental wife) does not recommend himself to me. And that is really the crux of the matter to me. Tony looks bad and he knows it. A number of people have come forward and apologized for spreading gossip that Julie was ‘batshit crazy’ when they had never met her and had only heard this from Tony and his followers.

    No one can ever fully know what goes in in a marriage. Seldom is one person entirely at fault (although it does happen) and maybe neither are, maybe they are just incompatible. So I look at Tony’s story that he was right to leave Julie (and not fight for custody)

  65. because she was mentally ill and he had found his sacramental wife as a way to save his Christian celebrity. I would have more respect for him if he simply said he left an unhappy marriage.

  66. @ Marsha:

    Cheating on your wife is a horrible thing to do. Making her out to be the ‘crazy’ one, even worse. I would never dispute those things. But to

    a) call this abusive behavior and compare it to the SGM saga and

    b) use this situation as the brush for which to paint progressivism as a whole as just as bad as conservatism

    well that’s just ridiculous.

  67. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    A related tactic (though less sophisticated — more schoolyard bully than master manipulator) is camouflaging the abuse/provocation as humor. “Can’t You Take A Joke?”

    Ah, yes. That particular line is such a “nice” sounding excuse. First, you are savaged by said bully, & then he whines, “Can’t I even kid? Why can’t I kid?”

  68. Patrice wrote:

    I hope that you simply are a person who is focused on the integrity of the narrow. I hope that you are merely not great at stating your meanings/intentions transparently and wholly. I hope you are just feeling a little cranky, as we all do feel at times.

    As do I.
    But, I feel I must confess, that I am anything but sanguine.

  69. XianAtty wrote:

    The idea that I’m some sort of a shill for Tony or Rachel is ludicrous

    Piffle.
    Pshaw!
    PFUI!!!!!
    If it walks like a duck & quacks like a duck, don’t you know. For that matter you could BE Tony. (Or his [cough, cough, choke, choke]”spirit wife”).

  70. dee wrote:

    @ Marsha:
    Welcome to TWW.
    Do you have a date for Courtney’s divorce by any chance?

    I did some Googling. Courtney separated from her husband Christopher Hamilton on August 6, 2007. She filed for divorce October 10, 2008, and the divorce was final the following January. There were no children.

  71. Miranda wrote:

    But to

    a) call this abusive behavior and compare it to the SGM saga and

    b) use this situation as the brush for which to paint progressivism as a whole as just as bad as conservatism

    well that’s just ridiculous.

    Hmmm…well, if gaslighting your wife and getting to friends to spread the lie that she is crazy (which can have serious consequence when trying to get a job, etc.) is not abusive, what would you call it? And as to the abusive behavior, him filing 35 court motions against her in the span of 7 years is, in itself, an abusive thing. There are many forms of abuse. For that matter, there is the fact that she claims he threw her against the wall and damaged her shoulder. Is that sufficiently abusive enough for your definition?

    As to painting the progressive movement with this ‘brush,’ well….Mr Jones and Mr McLaren are two of the main leaders in this movement and per the claims of Ms McMahon, the whole group that was in leadership of this movement participated in the gaslighting / trying to have her committed thing. In this, they painted themselves. And the manner in which these leaders are circling the wagons and refusing to address the fact the Mr Jones is a documented NPD is very much like the circling of the wagons around Mr Mahaney when stories began to come out about SGM.

    So to me, not ridiculous at all.

  72. @ Miranda:

    His behavior certainly has been abusive, and I don’t understand why you are questioning whether there has been abuse. Pray that you are never in a close relationship with a NPD person.

    I am conservative. I have responded to those who believe that it is about being progressive. It may be, and it may not be. For whatever reason, nevertheless, the Emergent/Progressive leaders have decided to behave exactly like the conservative leaders at T4g and TgC did with Mahaney, and for that matter, what the leaders at CLC and SGM did before that for years.

    Please do not be like the conservatives who refused to see what was happening. It hurts when it is people who are like you who are behaving this way. We need to call things by their name, regardless of religious affiliation.

  73. Gram3 wrote:

    His behavior certainly has been abusive, and I don’t understand why you are questioning whether there has been abuse. Pray that you are never in a close relationship with a NPD person.

    I’ve been going through the comments and a lot has been written about NPD. Can you (or anyone else) help me with this –

    Does the Axis II diagnosis of NPD allow for a spectrum of NPD such that one person documented with NPD may diagnosed as a “mild case” and another person as a “severe case” with the mild case being less manipulative or skillful than a severe case? This is important because comments about Tony lead me to conclude that on such a spectrum he would have been diagnosed as a severe case.

  74. Joe2 wrote:

    Does the Axis II diagnosis of NPD allow for a spectrum of NPD such that one person documented with NPD may diagnosed as a “mild case” and another person as a “severe case” with the mild case being less manipulative or skillful than a severe case? This is important because comments about Tony lead me to conclude that on such a spectrum he would have been diagnosed as a severe case.

    Based on what I’ve read psychologists are reluctant to give a diagnosis of NPD. If there IS this diagnosis, then the case is severe.

  75. @ Joe2:

    Most psychologists are extremely reluctant to give a PD as a diagnosis, because of the seriousness and stigma associated with PDs.

    As Elizabeth Lee mentioned above, any PD diagnosis is serious. No such thing as a “mild” case – that would simply be a different diagnosis.

    That having been said, PDs occur on a “spectrum” and so individual cases will look different. The DSM lists a group of criteria, with a patient needing to meet a minimum number of those criteria.

    Using BPD as an example (it’s also Axis II and very similar to NPD – all of the PDs are closely related), the diagnostic criteria are 5 of 9 from the following:

    http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=44780

  76. @ XianAtty:
    My understanding from Julie – in another thread here, I believe, is that initially, Tony wanted her to have sole legal and physical custody of the children. Against her lawyers’ STRONG recommendations (knowing Tony was NPD & the litigation hell that was to follow), she insisted on shared custody because she wanted their father to be forced to have contact with his children. She said she has regretted her decision and so wishes she had taken her lawyers’ advice.

  77. @ Mr.H:
    Julie has said that she was diagnosed with “acute stress” and that she and the children have weekly therapy sessions with a therapist skilled in treating victims of NPD.

  78. Even though I have strong theological disagreements with Rachel Held Evans, I still read her blog periodically to see what she has to say. I just went over there and the site requested a password. This old clip of Arte Johnson from Laugh-In sums up my reaction quite nicely:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krD4hdGvGHM

  79. @ Miranda:
    Does ToJo throwing Julie against a wall in their house and dislocating her shoulder, as confirmed by an MRI & acknowledged in court records, qualify as abuse?

  80. Serena wrote:

    @ XianAtty:
    My understanding from Julie – in another thread here, I believe, is that initially, Tony wanted her to have sole legal and physical custody of the children. Against her lawyers’ STRONG recommendations (knowing Tony was NPD & the litigation hell that was to follow), she insisted on shared custody because she wanted their father to be forced to have contact with his children. She said she has regretted her decision and so wishes she had taken her lawyers’ advice.

    Serena – Yes, I saw Julie’s comments. My problem isn’t so much with the terms of the custody arrangement. My dispute is that Julie has repeatedly claimed that the court “granted” or “awarded” her custody when, to the contrary, as the appellate court order states, the terms of the final divorce decree that covered such issues were actually negotiated between the parties. The court docket, which is available on line, shows that the evidentiary hearing that had been set by the court was cancelled after the parties filed their agreement or “Stipulation” in court.

    I wanted to believe Julie too, in part because I almost always believe claims of abuse, but there are too many things in the court records available on line that to me, as an attorney, appear to call into question some of the things she’s said.

  81. Serena wrote:

    @ Miranda:
    Does ToJo throwing Julie against a wall in their house and dislocating her shoulder, as confirmed by an MRI & acknowledged in court records, qualify as abuse?

    Serena – I don’t believe any of that has been “confirmed by an MRI & acknowledged in court records.” I would appreciate it if you would provide links or direct me to a source.