Brian McLaren to Take Legal Action Against *This Woman*

In a rather stunning development, Brian McLaren, friend of Tony Jones and Emergent leader has stated he will take legal action against …Well, read it for yourself. Here is a link to the full statement.


…children are involved, and when the character of religious leaders are involved, allegations should be handled with the greatest possible diligence and care. But allegations should not be considered facts until they are verified in light of all available evidence through responsible processes. That’s why law enforcement, the courts, and other responsible professionals should be consulted to distinguish factual from false allegations. This woman’s disputes with her ex-husband have been under the jurisdiction of the courts and related authorities for years, and I understand that those proceedings are matters of public record. Her accusations against me and others, however, have not yet been adjudicated by proper authorities. For this reason, since she has refused repeated requests for mediation and professional third-party review, I am pursuing legal action so my testimony, email archives, and other evidence can be evaluated fairly in an appropriate setting. People who know me will know that I would not take this step unless I felt it necessary and right to do so

It is my hope that the years of repeated harassment, false accusations, threats, and defamation of character many of us have experienced can soon come to an end. I also hope those who are supporting the woman in question will continue to do so, but without spreading false allegations on her behalf. I hope that deep and lasting healing for all those involved can soon begin.

Suggestion: This is about to go spinning out of control. Surely Julie and Tony have trusted friends who could mediate on their behalf. Why not have each party appoint a trusted friend/supporter and have those two meet together and try to hammer this out? The Emergent crowd claims that they have different ways of doing things. Well, put that creative thinking to work and figure it out. Everyone can do far better than has been done. Please, please, please do not use the children as a means to an end. Allow everyone a voice. Above all, pursue peace, mercy, and love.

Comments

Brian McLaren to Take Legal Action Against *This Woman* — 738 Comments

  1. Michaela wrote:

    @Mirele,

    In case you missed the developments, folks in the US and Canada (such as David Hayward at the Naked Pastor) are receiving pressure from Tony Jones & Company including Brian McLaren.

    That explains a lot of the recent Naked Pastor cartoons.
    NP is getting Leaned On by ToJo & Co and is responding with both barrels.

  2. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    @Mirele,

    In case you missed the developments, folks in the US and Canada (such as David Hayward at the Naked Pastor) are receiving pressure from Tony Jones & Company including Brian McLaren.

    That explains a lot of the recent Naked Pastor cartoons.
    NP is getting Leaned On by ToJo & Co and is responding with both barrels.

    H.U.G.,

    David Hayward at the Naked Pastor in Canada reports that he has ‘been warned’ by this U.S. group of Tony Jones’ cohorts and that they have wanted him to change his blog etc about covering this story of the Jones’ marriage/divorce.

    Since I’ve worked in law for years, and my former bosses are considered to be the winning-est civil rights litigators in the U.S., I spent most of my Saturday contacting our nation’s top First Amendment legal experts, top notch law schools who do same, First Amendment legal advocacy groups, journalism groups and journalism think tanks. (I’ve already heard back from some of the top First Amendment attorneys in the U.S. and the response has been FANTASTIC!)

    Brian McLaren, Tony Jones and the rest of them are public figures in the U.S. They are pastors/writers/authors/bloggers who have freely exercised their First Amendment rights and yet they want to silence the rest of us.

    Under the First Amendment we can widely discuss all aspects of their lives.

  3. The server on which nakedpastor.com resides is located in Chicago, IL. That could subject him to US jurisdiction should these threats be followed through with.

  4. KRT wrote:

    The server on which nakedpastor.com resides is located in Chicago, IL. That could subject him to US jurisdiction should these threats be followed through with.

    I am not the least bit worried about any of that. I have worked for the attorneys who are considered to be the winning-est civil rights attorneys in the U.S., and I spent this weekend contacting top free speech legal experts in the United States and Canada. So the Canadian legal team is on it and so are US First Amendment legal experts (attorneys, First Amendment groups, top ranked law schools, journalists, and journalistic think tanks).

    Uhhh, no…the First Amendment didn’t get tossed out the window, and our rights, because Tony Jones and Brian McLaren ‘said so’.

    They are public figures in the U.S. and they don’t have the legal grounds that they claim that they have.

  5. McLaren and Driscoll should go on the road together. Obnoxious 2015 could be the name.

    These Emergent guys are as ugly as any of the fundamentalists I have ever met.

  6. KRT wrote:

    The server on which nakedpastor.com resides is located in Chicago, IL. That could subject him to US jurisdiction should these threats be followed through with.

    @KRT,

    Here is information from the Digital Media Law Project about public figures v. private figures for purposes of defamation and libel.

    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

    the chart explaining the legal difference between a public and private figure:
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures

    I am sure you have been in the grocery store or the convenience store and seen tabloid magazines with juicy stories about famous people. And the reason you see those magazines and stories is because they are protected under the First Amendment.

    Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and the rest of their group are public figures in the U.S. They are nationally known, write, blog, speak, publish and enjoy their First Amendment rights. They just don’t think the rest of us should practice our First Amendment rights. Too bad.

  7. Anonymous wrote:

    McLaren and Driscoll should go on the road together. Obnoxious 2015 could be the name.

    These Emergent guys are as ugly as any of the fundamentalists I have ever met.

    The spry, funny, thoughtful Gram3 who posts here said that she wanted to come up with Gospel Glitterati Action Figures (Driscoll, Piper, and Mahaney). Now we can add Brian McLaren and Tony Jones to the GGAF line-up.

  8. Michaela wrote:

    Now we can add Brian McLaren and Tony Jones to the GGAF line-up.

    Don’t think the Emergents are compatible with the GGAF, and I just don’t see good things like gospel friendships happening inside the container on the trip from China to Long Beach. Better stick with characters from T4g, TgC, CBMW, Acts29 etc. After all, Acts29 came up with the idea of Action Points or whatever silly thing it was.

  9. dee wrote:

    My take: chance of lawsuit against any blog in this matter is slim to none.

    That does not seem like a good strategy for them to pursue. Let’s pray they do what is wise and good for all, especially the kids.

  10. Gram3 wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    Now we can add Brian McLaren and Tony Jones to the GGAF line-up.

    Don’t think the Emergents are compatible with the GGAF, and I just don’t see good things like gospel friendships happening inside the container on the trip from China to Long Beach. Better stick with characters from T4g, TgC, CBMW, Acts29 etc. After all, Acts29 came up with the idea of Action Points or whatever silly thing it was.

    So you think, Gram3, they will bite and devour one another in the cargo container?

  11. Michaela wrote:

    I forgot to mention that I received a thank you from David Hayward in Canada for my efforts given the ‘warnings’ and ‘strong suggestions’ this U.S. group has been giving him in Canada.

    OK, let me make myself crystal-clear. You’re not the client. Julie would be the client. If you do not have her involved, IMHO you need to back off.

    Sorry to be so blunt but I’ve seen this before with Scientology lawsuits and it never ends well.

  12. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That explains a lot of the recent Naked Pastor cartoons.
    NP is getting Leaned On by ToJo & Co and is responding with both barrels.

    From the day last September that Julie posted on NP’s blog, he’s been harassed by the emergent camp. They wanted Julie’s posts DOWN. It hasn’t stopped since then.

    I very much appreciate David Hayward for standing up for the abused!

  13. @Mirele,

    Sorry you may have had problems with Scientology.

    I really don’t appreciate the tone you’ve taken with me. I’ve worked in law for decades and I personally changed California law and my bill was passed into law. I am not a novice. Even if I was, it’s a free country and people can contact whomever they wish to about whatever legal questions they have.

    I know all about clients.

    This is a larger constitutional issue about the First Amendment in the US and free speech issues in Canada.

  14. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Didn’t some study find that the most common characteristic of a Sociopath is the ability to do an about face, play the Poor Innocent Victim, and get everyone back on his side by making them feel guilty and sorry for him?

    I don’t know about it being the “most common trait” but I remember reading an especially striking story about H.H. Holmes being confronted by a dozen or more men whom he had swindled. They tricked him into a meeting that he didn’t realize was a confrontation. One of the participants later said it was like Holmes had magical powers…he came into room full of people who wanted his head, and by the end of the meeting he left smiling and shaking their hands. I believe I read that in Devil in the White City.

  15. @ Beakerj:
    I think your point it very far from being a distraction, it gets to the heart of the matter.

    Scripture itself and our understanding of it are two separate things (v. important not to confuse the two!). Where I disagree with you is although there are differing interpretations (predestination, millenium …) the thrust of what God wants us to do, how to behave, is clear. We can suffer from interpretative ‘analysis paralysis’ if we are not careful.

    The other issue is, taking scripture at face value in what it instructs, we in the West in particular imo try to negotiate whether we will obey it or not, and I think sometimes this hides behind a false humility of not being sure how to interpret the text.

    As far as RHE is concerned, I’m trying to avoid personal attacks – and I’ve read one or two. I don’t think I’ve claimed she is dishonest, rather vulnerable to deception due to a deficient view of scripture. Her views on homosexuality, for example, show she does not understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, something Paul specifically warned us not to be deceived about.

    I have lived in religious deception, and it was other Christians bringing the light of scripture to bear on it that set me free, but if you are minded to pick and choose which bits you want to accept, this becomes difficult if not impossible, and you are liable to continue being hoodwinked by false doctrine or behaviour. My initial reaction btw to these ‘other Christians’ was anger.

    I didn’t mean to imply earlier that only the emergent church is prone to deception, all ‘liberalism’ can/will lead to this, as can wooden fundamentalism where one truth is overemphasised at the expense of another, or the bible is made to fit a ‘system’.

    I have changed my understanding of scripture over the years with more reading and thinking, for example, on the complex issue of divorce and remarriage. Talking of which, to echo Bridget, Tony here by his behaviour has surely disqualified himself from any ministry if we take Paul’s apostolic list of qualifications seriously. This again is leading to deception by a defective view of scripture and/or an unwillingness to obey what it says.

    I don’t (except when speaking ex cathedra) have any problem with you pointing out if you think I’ve lost the plot on any issue. Gram3 does! 🙂

  16. @BeakerJ
    @Ken

    Between the two viewpoints you all have put forth you have gone quite to the heart of a matter that is huge in today’s christianity, and you have both stated your viewpoints well. I say this not to contribute anything substantive to that conversation but rather to say that it is good that this has been mentioned.

    There are indeed those who twist scripture to their own purposes and do so skillfully and who may or may not be personally deceived while they do this. Some of the notable persons doing that have been the subjects of prior posts here. And there are indeed those who “see” things in scripture which leave me asking how they got there from here but who seem to be neither deceived not malicious (NT Wright for example). To this extent I think both of you have legitimate things to say.

    I am thinking, from my personal experience, that things go better for us when we adopt the attitude that we are absolutely required to be absolutely obedient to whatever is absolutely clear in scripture. Don’t let the word absolutely throw you. I use the term loosely, not equivalent to some mathematical infinity. If we do not require obedience of ourselves, then it is easy to get off track and then deceive ourselves as to how that happened. (I have a personal history of that, sad to say.) It goes much better if we first do what we know to do and only then venture into the unknown and difficult areas. Even then it is not easy.

    So, I basically stand with Ken in the principles involved though I probably disagree with Ken on some details.

  17. Michaela wrote:

    KRT wrote:
    The server on which nakedpastor.com resides is located in Chicago, IL. That could subject him to US jurisdiction should these threats be followed through with.
    @KRT,
    Here is information from the Digital Media Law Project about public figures v. private figures for purposes of defamation and libel.
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
    the chart explaining the legal difference between a public and private figure:
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures
    I am sure you have been in the grocery store or the convenience store and seen tabloid magazines with juicy stories about famous people. And the reason you see those magazines and stories is because they are protected under the First Amendment.
    Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and the rest of their group are public figures in the U.S. They are nationally known, write, blog, speak, publish and enjoy their First Amendment rights. They just don’t think the rest of us should practice our First Amendment rights. Too bad.

    I understand the whole public figure thing. That’s not what I was saying by mentioning that his server is located in the US. Whether or not anyone can WIN a lawsuit, as you certainly know, is entirely different than whether or not they can bring a suit or not. Regardless of the outcome, being sued is not a picnic. All I was saying is that the material they would be protesting that David allowed to stay on his site “lives” in the US. That would mean they very likely could bring suit in the US, and not have to work transnationally. That would also likely put David in the position of having to travel to the US to deal with it.

    His being Canadian keeps being repeated as if that makes him untouchable. It doesn’t. Again, that doesn’t mean they would win, but they can certainly bring grief.

  18. @ KRT:
    I highly doubt that they will try to sue a blogger. Bloggers consistently win lawsuits since the ‘must know it was a lie AND posted it to cause harm to another person.” People have a right to choose who to believe. In nasty divorces, there is a lot of he said/she said. I have chosen to believe Julie.

    If the Emergents attempt to sue Julie, they will lose in the court of public opinion. Most people who follow Emergents do so because they care about those who have been abused. Suing a single mom who raised 3 kids while her former husband married his new “love of his life” will not play well.

    They are all smarter than this. They need to find a solution and Brad and TWW has offered one idea which Julie has agreed with. She wrote she did in the comment section.

    This week, Julie is going to court to try to get Tony to give her back her son. This was another boneheaded move on Tony’s part. He should have waited and tried a bit harder to get this worked out so he could return to making home cooked meals for Courtney in peace.

  19. Ken wrote:

    Her views on homosexuality, for example, show she does not understand the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God, something Paul specifically warned us not to be deceived about.

    Do you think that this was only for homosexuals? For examples, if someone is a pastor who loves all the doctrine put forth by proper theologians but he covers up a pedophile situation and never apologizes to those who were hurt-does he get to inherit the kingdom of God.

    Let me put it this way-all of us in one way or another- have some unrepentant sin in our lives. That makes us unrighteous. So, who gets in and who doesn’t get in based on this?

  20. mirele wrote:

    From the day last September that Julie posted on NP’s blog, he’s been harassed by the emergent camp. They wanted Julie’s posts DOWN. It hasn’t stopped since then.
    I very much appreciate David Hayward for standing up for the abused!

    I appreciate Dave as well. He is developing a “members only” site in which people can address their abuse without fear that the *boys* will come after them. I have asked him to sed me the details so I can refer our readers to this new site.

    I can truthfully say that we have not receive one threat at TWW on this issue. Perhaps it is because I vowed that I would post the name of anyone who tried it.

  21. Gram3 wrote:

    Let’s pray they do what is wise and good for all, especially the kids.

    This is about the kids. Bit, it is also about the ministry of these folks. They have already received quite a bit of pushback from their readers. They know what I am talking about. They must get creative here and resolve this. Brad has challenged them and julie has agreed to his solution. Now we get to see what they will do.

  22. Michaela wrote:

    I am sure you have been in the grocery store or the convenience store and seen tabloid magazines with juicy stories about famous people. And the reason you see those magazines and stories is because they are protected under the First Amendment.

    Has ‘The Court’ ruled that since the first amendment permits that sort of thing then therefore one should or even must do it? Is there consensus in christianity that for christians, the implications of the constitution trump the implications of scripture? Or is there still freedom to disagree in these areas both as citizens and as believers?

    Even the most committed of the second amendment rights activists do not suggest that the second amendment requires that people do what they believe that the second amendment permits. So why would the first amendment be understood to be taking a stance from the rah-rah balcony much less a stance of encouragement for tabloid trash? I think it does not. To permit is not the same thing as to encourage much less require. Regardless, I think that christians need to do better than that. I think that Paul was saying don’t haul it out in public if possible.

  23. Anonymous wrote:

    hese Emergent guys are as ugly as any of the fundamentalists I have ever met.

    This is the problem for them. They have always taken the position that they are opposed to abuse and churches that abuse. They were the ones who were going to do it differently. Many people were attracted to them precisely because of their position.

    Now, they have exposed an ugly side. TWW has received a number of emails from former Emergents who have said that this has caused them to question the whole Christian thing. One woman said she had been barely hanging onto her faith. The Emergents had given her a place to go. The treatment of Julie has caused her to finally leave the faith.

    If they try to sue Julie, I believe that the Emergent movement will be finished for all intents and purposes. They will be no different than those the criticize. They will demonstrate that they are just another ho hum, tedious group that cannot take care of their own problems so how can they help others.

  24. @ dee:

    They are also proving it was more about celebrity and income streams. They are simply not practicing what they preach to others.

  25. Lydia wrote:

    Tony Jones is an adjunct Prof at Fuller Seminary? Oy vey.

    Make me wonder how many naive and poorly educated ‘minds’ (aka seminary students) have drunk from that poisoned well.

  26. dee wrote:

    Elizabeth Lee wrote:
    This was posted on 2/27/2007?!? When he barely knew the woman? Right.

    I guess he just really liked her blogging style or whatever…

    He liked the way she adored him and the way she made him look fabulous. That’s how narcissists roll.

  27. Ken wrote:

    I don’t (except when speaking ex cathedra) have any problem with you pointing out if you think I’ve lost the plot on any issue. Gram3 does!

    Actually, we disagree in our Other Discussion, but the only time I ever thought you lost the plot was the comment you made in praise of Grudem and kephale. And that was just because he has been taken down on that, and I wanted you to know that there was more to the story. You and I agree and most things, and you and Nick have helped me work through the charismatic issue!

  28. @ Nancy:

    well Nancy, I live at ground zero and have met quite a few poisoned wells from SBTS. One day, when my daughter was about 5, we were driving past SBTS and she said, ‘Mommy is that the cemetery’?

    Out of the mouths of babes!

  29. Lydia wrote:

    I live at ground zero and have met quite a few poisoned wells from SBTS.

    I do so hate that. I used to live at ground zero back when Crescent Hill was the ‘seminary church’ and John Claypool was pastor at CH. Things were good enough back then that it was not unusual for me to get off the night shift at 7am, catch a couple hours of sleep, and show up at church because I needed to hear what they had to say to help me make it though the week. JC eventually became an episcopal priest and professor and the seminary climbed into its own self made hand-basket. Imagine that.

  30. dee wrote:

    So, who gets in and who doesn’t get in based on this?

    The apostle has a representative list of behaviours that exclude men from the kingdom, including but not just homosexuality. Some Corinthian members had formerly practiced these things, but had been forgiven. Since any Christian can succumb to temptation, I don’t think this excludes them from the kingdom, rather practicing such things as a way of life will do so. Whether they could lose their salvation or whether they never had it in the first place (you know the arguments on this!) the end result is the same.

    Now none of us is perfect, but to answer your question on this, I think 1 John 1 : 9 comes into play “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness”. I’ve understood this as if you walk in the light and so confess sin you are convicted about, all the stuff you are not aware of, you sinned unwittingly perhaps, is also dealt with – you are cleansed from all unrighteousness.

    I’m aware of the danger of introducing justification by works through the back door on this subject, but something I have come to see more recently is the need to stop giving evangelicals (in particular) a false assurance that come what may, if they once ‘believed’ they have their ticket to heaven. I think this has resulted in complacency when it comes to the toleration of serious sin. The idea that God condemns sin in the unbeliever but is willing to condone it in the believer has got to be false.

    Unrepentant child abusers are excluded from the kingdom, they fall well and truly into the list. They would hate to be there, their actions could hardly be more unloving toward their neighbour.

    Those who knowingly cover this up have committed a grave sin. They are not as guilty as those who perpetrated the abuse, but they are party to it. Would you mind if I said I don’t know exactly where they stand as far as the kingdom is concerned? I’ve not had reason to think this through in the past, and it is too serious a subject for an off the cuff or glib answer.

    In the end, God alone knows where each of us stands, we can only go by our limited knowledge of how people behave and treat each other compared with what they say they believe. Our judgement on this can only ever be provisional and imperfect.

  31. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    BTW: We might also be seeing more and more of “Poor Tony with NPD mental illness and no one is giving him grace because he cannot help what he does”. It would not surprise me

    Didn’t some study find that the most common characteristic of a Sociopath is the ability to do an about face, play the Poor Innocent Victim, and get everyone back on his side by making them feel guilty and sorry for him?

    Yes, which is exactly why one should never reflexively take the side of the person who is most aggressively positioning themselves as the victim.

  32. Ken wrote:

    In the end, God alone knows where each of us stands

    Yes.

    Homosexual behavior is a tough nut to crack, because clearly in the evangelical zeal to declare what is sinful, we have managed to cause a great deal of pain for people. Some people who even struggle to figure out what they are supposed to do with their sexual desires have been made to feel like garbage by people supposed to be identified by love.

    I don’t struggle with homosexual behavior. I do not feel that my identity is tied to something the scripture labels as sinful. So I don’t know what it is like to walk in a homosexual’s shoes.

    I know what I believe about homosexuality, but it hardly matters too much since I don’t struggle with it. It’s an abstract question for me. If a homosexual invites me into that conversation, I’ll have it, but with humility because what is abstract for me is very real for him or her.

    I agree that we don’t want to pass over sin, but the big difference between abuse and homosexual acts, is that (assuming consent) the latter does not violate the rights of an innocent party. Since the greatest commands in scripture are relational and with Jesus’s great emphasis on how we treat others, I would say we speak a lot more than is necessary when it comes to homosexuality and sins that are largely about private behavior that does not hurt anyone outside of the participants.

    If I had a friend who claimed to be homosexual and a Christian, I would accept the latter identity and hope that the former is an area of struggle; but ultimately I know that the truth is in God’s hands and that if homosexual acts are a sin and the person is a believer, that the Holy Spirit will be at work in that person’s life, even if I don’t see the timetable.

    As far as emergent doctrine and practice goes, those embracing homosexual marriage would have to ask the question: are they embracing it because they have a love for people and hate the pain that has been inflicted upon the homosexual population, or is it because it is radical and provoking? For some, the latter is an end to itself. I’ve always seen RHE as the former. I don’t know about TJ, but the little exposure I’ve had to him makes it seem like the latter.

    Full disclosure- I support legalizing gay marriage. I would not attend a gay wedding nor provide services for one.

  33. Jeff S wrote:

    Full disclosure- I support legalizing gay marriage. I would not attend a gay wedding nor provide services for one.

    I know this is not my conversation, but let me say this anyhow. I believe it is perfectly legitimate to have one set of secular civil laws for the nation while at the same time have varying religious practices as the various religious groups believe. I would not attend a gay wedding if it could be avoided, but I have attended the baptism of the children of gay couples at my new (episcopal) church. And I/we in health care would provide health care services to anybody who walks in the door, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the problem. As we all deal with this we will all have to make allowances for each other’s conclusions at to what to do and how to respond in this area. My bottom line: nobody should take it out on the kids regardless of what they think or how they feel.

  34. @ Nancy:

    It wasn’t really my conversation either. 🙂

    I would certainly go the baptism of children of gay couples, as well as pretty much any other activity. Weddings are the only exception in mind, thought I don’t want to derail this thread any more by going into my thinking there.

  35. Nancy wrote:

    I believe it is perfectly legitimate to have one set of secular civil laws for the nation while at the same time have varying religious practices as the various religious groups believe.

    That is my view. I am libertarian so it makes perfect sense to me!

  36. Mr.H wrote:

    I don’t know about it being the “most common trait” but I remember reading an especially striking story about H.H. Holmes being confronted by a dozen or more men whom he had swindled. They tricked him into a meeting that he didn’t realize was a confrontation. One of the participants later said it was like Holmes had magical powers…he came into room full of people who wanted his head, and by the end of the meeting he left smiling and shaking their hands.

    H.H.HOLMES, THE CHICAGO WORLD’S FAIR SERIAL KILLER WITH HIS CUSTOM-BUILT “MURDER MANSION”?

    Though that DOES sound like a textbook case of “shining his Stupid Ray on them”.

  37. Anonymous wrote:

    McLaren and Driscoll should go on the road together. Obnoxious 2015 could be the name.

    Maybe they could join Charlie Sheen’s “Winning Tour” and make it a threesome.

  38. Michaela wrote:

    David Hayward at the Naked Pastor in Canada reports that he has ‘been warned’ by this U.S. group of Tony Jones’ cohorts and that they have wanted him to change his blog etc about covering this story of the Jones’ marriage/divorce.

    Like I said, sounds like he’s getting Leaned On.
    What’s next, a horse’s head in his bed?

  39. @ Ken:
    Ken, I used to be where you are now on these issues, but I am no longer there. It’s partly a result of much study and prayer.

    Those who are supportive of LGBTQ folks are not necessarily off the rails by any means, though I realize that you and others here might well see it that way. It is very, very hard to not change “sides” once you find out more (as I did) about the way so many LGBTQ people have been harassed and persecuted for simply *being* – by the church. The more you know about others’ lives and what they’ve endured, the harder it is to accept the default position that many in the evangelical church (and in other kinds of churches, too) take toward gay people. There is a great deal of injustice, and there are many, many LGBTQ couples who are more committed to each other than many straight married couples I’ve known. For many of them, the ability to be married in the eyes of the law (with all the rights and legal protections that come with it) is *not* something they can or will ever take lightly, due to having been discriminated against for so very long.

    I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth on this, just to note that I do *not* think that RHE’s views on LGBTQ people make her any more (or less) “open to deception” than anyone else on this planet, Christian or not.

  40. @ Ken:
    Just wanted to add that I agree with beakerj’s other points, which I think are well-made. And I would recommend the authors she mentions, for simple reference to other points of view, if nothing else. They’re good writers and make some cogent arguments – whether one agrees or disagrees with those arguments isn’t the point.

    I think there are a wide range of issues that need to be discussed more openly in evangelicalism, and these gentlemen are both thoughtful and clear in making their points. I don’t think they’re convinced that they’ve got a handle on *all* of the truth, which is particularly refreshing for folks like me, who were dictated to re. what to think/believe in authoritarian churches. (In my case, evangelical/charismatic churches, not Lutheranism, though of course, abuses can and do happen in all denominations – in all religions/belief systems, in fact. Nobody is immune, imo.)

  41. Nancy wrote:

    whatever is absolutely clear in scripture.

    An honest question: how do you determine what is “absolutely clear”?

    There are the 10 commandments, Jesus’ 2 “greatest commandments,” and a few others that I think are the most far-reaching and broadest “clear” statements, but SO very much comes under the heading of “love your neighbor as yourself” that I think it overshadows many supposedly “clear” readings (interpretations) held to by folks who see their views as inviolable. That was and still is true re. issues like slavery and peonage, the treatment of children, the elderly and all of those who cannot fend for themselves (such an enormous heading, with so many people of all kinds who fit into it!)… and those who are abused.

    I think of cases like Loving v. Virginia – the case where the Supreme Court effectively struck down all anti-miscegenation laws – as an example of this in action. The people who were after the Lovings probably saw themselves as godd xtians, too, which makes what they did (including trying to catch them in flagrante delicto) even worse, imo. But again, that’s a whole separate issue to the primary points being made in this post and thread, and I don’t intend to derail things. Fwiw, good material on the case in question is easily available online, and there is an award-winning documentary on them that can, iirc, be streamed online at several different TV/movie sites.

  42. numo wrote:

    An honest question: how do you determine what is “absolutely clear”?

    Easy. If one has to determine whether or not something is clear, then it is not clear. But not everything has to be determined, it seems to me.

    I will give one example: some 20 years ago, and in a presbyterian church, I sat in a small group which was approximately half full of presby lay elders or SS teachers. How I got there is not part of the story. One woman wanted to bring up the question of can you be a christian if you don’t believe in Jesus. Only two of us said, no, christianity at its core is about Jesus. All the rest assured her that one did not have to believe in Jesus to be a christian. I think it is as clear as it gets in the NT that there is no christianity without Jesus.

    Okay, one other example. Jesus made all kinds of claims about himself especially recorded in the gospel of John. I think that it is crystal clear that he ( and/or John) did not consider him to be just another prophet or teacher. He also claimed the right to be called Lord and Master and the right to issue commands and expect to be obeyed. One can argue what all he meant by that, but it is clear to me that he took it (and himself) very seriously and therefore so should we.

    And in the realm of specifics be not drunk with wine wherein is excess pretty much rules out tying one on over the weekend as a christian virtue.

    On the other hand, I think that it is not clear what all Paul was saying in the great discussions of law and grace and that trying to turn any of that into theological set concrete at this stage is unwise to say the least.

    I do not think that there is nothing which can be understood in scripture and therefore nothing at all which we are under obligation to believe and/ or do. ( I did not say that you said that–obviously not–but that idea is floating around.) Nor do I think that believers are free to ignore portions of scripture which they do think that they do understand by saying that, well sure the bible says that, but the Holy Spirit has not specifically spoken to me about it and so therefore it does not apply to me until I get my own personal word from God.

    These are the sorts of things I am talking about.

  43. @ Nancy:
    “Absolutely clear” can be very murky, though. Consider what many early missionaries to polygamous (one man, more than one wife) societies told the people – get rid of all wives but one. And they did. And the wives who were turned out no longer had anyone to help support them (or their children), and quickly became impoverished, with many having to turn to prostitution in order to eke out some kind of existence for themselves.

    So… perhaps it’s more like “Be a good husband to all your wives, and provide equally for them and their children, but teach your children that marriage should be one man married to one woman”?

    There are *lots* of similar examples. So many things are neither simple nor clear-cut.

  44. @ numo:
    Neither simple nor clear-cut in many contexts.

    See, it is interpretation and context, so very much of the time.

  45. This is the part of McLaren’s statement that is the most troubling:

    “she accuses her ex-husband of physical abuse back in 2008, but I have an email from her in 2008 in which she tells me of a single physical altercation between them which
    she admits to initiating.” from McLaren’s statement.

    “she admits to initiating” is in ITALICS! It’s tantamount to saying, “Yeah, he hit you but you provoked him!” Or “He raped you, but you were wearing that short skirt and flirting with him so…” That is the final straw for me. He is a total hypocrite. From now on I consider him as being in the exact same league and level as CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. Only “a single physical altercation”. Ugh.

  46. Sarah K wrote:

    “she admits to initiating” is in ITALICS! It’s tantamount to saying, “Yeah, he hit you but you provoked him!” Or “He raped you, but you were wearing that short skirt and flirting with him so

    This is why I hope they respond to Julie’s willingness to meet with Boz Tchividjian. This is not going in the right direction. Julie has agreed to this. She did so on this blog and on Twitter. Now, let’s see who does NOT want to do this.

  47. @ KRT:

    Yes. You’re right about the issues raised by the location of the servers. Michaela is wrong about several of the legal assertions she’s made.

  48. Sarah K wrote:

    This is the part of McLaren’s statement that is the most troubling:

    “she accuses her ex-husband of physical abuse back in 2008, but I have an email from her in 2008 in which she tells me of a single physical altercation between them which
    she admits to initiating.” from McLaren’s statement.

    “she admits to initiating” is in ITALICS! It’s tantamount to saying, “Yeah, he hit you but you provoked him!” Or “He raped you, but you were wearing that short skirt and flirting with him so…” That is the final straw for me. He is a total hypocrite. From now on I consider him as being in the exact same league and level as CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. Only “a single physical altercation”. Ugh.

    I don’t think McLaren was saying that since Julie admitted provoking him Tony was justified in shoving her. That would certainly be disgusting.

    I think he’s saying Julie admitted “initiating” the physicality or violence itself. I have no idea if she did so, or if she admitted anything of the sort, but I think you’ve misunderstood what McLaren claims.

  49. Xianatty wrote:

    but I think you’ve misunderstood what McLaren claims.

    Has she? It seems McLaren isn’t communicating clearly. It is up to the communicator to make sure he is being understood.

  50. Bridget wrote:
    It is up to the communicator to make sure he is being understood.

    True, but sometimes the myriad of ways in which something can be misunderstood is not apparent until after the fact. And sometimes people are vague for their own benefit. I’m not faulting Sarah K. Just pointing out an alternative reading.

  51. Xianatty wrote:

    I don’t think McLaren was saying that since Julie admitted provoking him Tony was justified in shoving her. That would certainly be disgusting.

    Back around 2009 or earlier, Bruce Ware preached a sermon at Denton bible church where he stated that “unsubmissive wives trigger abuse”.

    I do not see any foundational difference in what Ware asserted than what McLaren asserted. In both cases the woman “provoked” the reaction. Neither one stated emphatically that is was ok to respond in a wrong way. However, both of them made assertions that are wrong and very cliché in Christendom, ironically.

    And remember, we are dealing with an NPD. Many people wish they had dealt with them differently in hindsight because no matter what you do it is twisted.

  52. Nancy wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    I am sure you have been in the grocery store or the convenience store and seen tabloid magazines with juicy stories about famous people. And the reason you see those magazines and stories is because they are protected under the First Amendment.

    Has ‘The Court’ ruled that since the first amendment permits that sort of thing then therefore one should or even must do it? Is there consensus in christianity that for christians, the implications of the constitution trump the implications of scripture? Or is there still freedom to disagree in these areas both as citizens and as believers?

    Even the most committed of the second amendment rights activists do not suggest that the second amendment requires that people do what they believe that the second amendment permits. So why would the first amendment be understood to be taking a stance from the rah-rah balcony much less a stance of encouragement for tabloid trash? I think it does not. To permit is not the same thing as to encourage much less require. Regardless, I think that christians need to do better than that. I think that Paul was saying don’t haul it out in public if possible.

    Hi Nancy,

    I was discussing the legal point of what a ‘public figure’ is under the First Amendment and how they can be written about. I wasn’t discussing the ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ of what Christians should participate in.

    Brian McLaren doesn’t want people to write about him or discuss him and he wants to shut them down if they oppose him in any way. He can’t. He’s a public figure under the First Amendment.

    Here’s some helpful information from the Digital Media Law Center:

    1. Public And Private Figures Chart for purposes of libel/defamation under the First Amendment
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures

    2. Proving Fault/Malice/Negligence
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence

  53. KRT wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    KRT wrote:
    The server on which nakedpastor.com resides is located in Chicago, IL. That could subject him to US jurisdiction should these threats be followed through with.
    @KRT,
    Here is information from the Digital Media Law Project about public figures v. private figures for purposes of defamation and libel.
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence
    the chart explaining the legal difference between a public and private figure:
    http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures
    I am sure you have been in the grocery store or the convenience store and seen tabloid magazines with juicy stories about famous people. And the reason you see those magazines and stories is because they are protected under the First Amendment.
    Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and the rest of their group are public figures in the U.S. They are nationally known, write, blog, speak, publish and enjoy their First Amendment rights. They just don’t think the rest of us should practice our First Amendment rights. Too bad.

    I understand the whole public figure thing. That’s not what I was saying by mentioning that his server is located in the US. Whether or not anyone can WIN a lawsuit, as you certainly know, is entirely different than whether or not they can bring a suit or not. Regardless of the outcome, being sued is not a picnic. All I was saying is that the material they would be protesting that David allowed to stay on his site “lives” in the US. That would mean they very likely could bring suit in the US, and not have to work transnationally. That would also likely put David in the position of having to travel to the US to deal with it.

    His being Canadian keeps being repeated as if that makes him untouchable. It doesn’t. Again, that doesn’t mean they would win, but they can certainly bring grief.

    I am not worried. I spent the weekend contacting top legal experts on free speech in Canada and the US over the weekend. The whole weekend. So Brian McLaren and Tony Jones & Company have bought themselves now the attention of the best attorneys in Canada and the US, the nation’s top law schools which advocate regarding free speech, the top free speech groups/legal advocates, and journalists and journalistic think tanks.

  54. I think It is possible Brian is trying to walk a very narrow tightrope between trying to save his reputation (Julie has made some very serious accusations against him) and trying not to trash a person he sees as acting destructively from a place of great pain. I don’t know if that’s the case, but it would be consistent with his reputation which, as far as I know, has been good with regards to integrity and understanding power differentials. He has to speak very carefully, because his experience with Julie, according to him, has been way beyond difficult, but he does not want to process that in public.

    OTOH, I think, as others have pointed out, he has not seemed aware of how some of his behavior is coming across. I think he would have been better off calling again publicly for a neutral, third party investigation in his statement, rather than jumping right to court action.

    If even half of what he says is true in his statement, then he has sat on documentation that places Julie in a bad light for a long time, while trying to settle their dispute out of the public eye. Apparently now, he thinks the amount of public attention paid to those accusations has posed enough of a threat to release that documentation to the courts and try and show publicly that her accusations are false.

    If he does have that documentation, that is going to be ugly. I sincerely hope it doesn’t come to that. A third-party, outside of the courts, can carefully decide what needs to be publicly shared and what doesn’t.

    Can an attorney comment whether documention submitted in a libel case is a matter of public record?

  55. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    David Hayward at the Naked Pastor in Canada reports that he has ‘been warned’ by this U.S. group of Tony Jones’ cohorts and that they have wanted him to change his blog etc about covering this story of the Jones’ marriage/divorce.

    Like I said, sounds like he’s getting Leaned On.
    What’s next, a horse’s head in his bed?

    H.U.G.,

    So I contacted the best Canadian free speech experts in law over the weekend and told them about these disgraceful Emergent pastors in the U.S. Ditto for all of the First Amendment rights legal advocates in the US (lawyers, top law schools, top 1st Amendment legal advocacy groups, journalists, and journalistic think tanks).

    Brian McLaren, Tony Jones & Company have freely practiced and enjoyed free speech as public figures in the U.S. They don’t get to shut down everybody else’s rights under law and throw a hissy fit because they said so.

    Sooooo many more people know about this than used to know about it.

  56. @ Beth:
    So you think he could be trying to “protect” Julie. Strange way for someone who belives in a ‘generous orthodoxy’ to go about it.

  57. @Beth,

    So whom do you know in the Emergent Movement? Have you been hired by them to come post here? You keep getting in digs aimed at bringing Julie down and scaring everybody else. It’s not working. It’s really easy to see through.

    Do you know who Brian McLaren’s attorney is? He said he had one. If “yes” and you know that information could you post it here. I’d like to know how Brian McLaren went to an attorney, was told he could sue for libel, and the attorney didn’t tell Brian McLaren, “Oh you’re a public figure under the First Amendment and your entire life is a wide open book for public discussion and no you can’t sue for libel.” If the attorney didn’t do his/her job, they failed in legal ethics and can be disciplined for disbarred. Lawyers are required to know the law.

    I also have some Biblical questions about Brian McLaren:
    1. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to go back to his wife and family and to fix it, and to step down from Christian ministry? The Bible actually requires that Christian leaders step down when their family life needs attention.

    2. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to step down from Christian ministry entirely when Tony Jones divorced his first wife and married his second wife? That Biblically disqualifies Tony Jones from serving in a Christian leadership position. Why doesn’t Brian McLaren know that and why hasn’t he followed the Bible.

    3. I think a lot of these problems could have been avoided if Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and others had done what the Bible says in the first place!

  58. Xianatty wrote:

    Sarah K wrote:

    This is the part of McLaren’s statement that is the most troubling:

    “she accuses her ex-husband of physical abuse back in 2008, but I have an email from her in 2008 in which she tells me of a single physical altercation between them which
    she admits to initiating.” from McLaren’s statement.

    “she admits to initiating” is in ITALICS! It’s tantamount to saying, “Yeah, he hit you but you provoked him!” Or “He raped you, but you were wearing that short skirt and flirting with him so…” That is the final straw for me. He is a total hypocrite. From now on I consider him as being in the exact same league and level as CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll. Only “a single physical altercation”. Ugh.

    I don’t think McLaren was saying that since Julie admitted provoking him Tony was justified in shoving her. That would certainly be disgusting.

    I think he’s saying Julie admitted “initiating” the physicality or violence itself. I have no idea if she did so, or if she admitted anything of the sort, but I think you’ve misunderstood what McLaren claims.

    I think Brian McLaren is a mighty poor pastor. He had a Biblical responsibility, as did Doug Pagitt, to tell Tony Jones to step down from the Christian ministry and to go take care of his wife and children and his family matters.
    The Bible actually does say that. And Brian McLaren doesn’t know that?
    Seriously? This guy is a pastor?

    Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and their other friends had a responsibility to tell Tony Jones to step down entirely from the Christian ministry when Tony Jones divorced his first wife and married his second wife (and any other issues of immorality that disqualified Jones). That too is in the Bible.

    Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, and the rest could have adverted much of this if they simply followed the Bible for dealing with it!

  59. @Beth:

    “OTOH, I think, as others have pointed out, he [Brian McLaren] has not seemed aware of how some of his behavior is coming across. I think he would have been better off calling again publicly for a neutral, third party investigation in his statement, rather than jumping right to court action.”

    Brian McLaren knows exactly how he’s coming across. It’s not a mistake.
    When the Emergent crowd can threaten writer/blogger/cartoonist/former pastor David Hayward in Canada at the Naked Pastor and tell him he’s been ‘warned’ they do know what they are doing.

    That inspired me to contact the best free speech advocates/legal minds in the U.S. AND Canada!

  60. Xianatty wrote:

    I don’t think McLaren was saying that since Julie admitted provoking him Tony was justified in shoving her. That would certainly be disgusting.

    I think he’s saying Julie admitted “initiating” the physicality or violence itself. I have no idea if she did so, or if she admitted anything of the sort, but I think you’ve misunderstood what McLaren claims.

    I have to disagree. By putting that line in italics, he is absolutely putting the onus on her as being responsible for the physical altercation. The entire section is there to make her look bad, but my point is that it is the same line of argumentation as that abusers use to justify their behaviour. But regardless of his intention in writing that, the fact that he did was in poor taste at best and victim blaming at worst.

  61. Beth wrote:

    Can an attorney comment whether documention submitted in a libel case is a matter of public record?

    Generally, documents that are “filed” in court file are public (though some courts now require redaction of SS#s & the like). There are also options/procedures for filing certain highly sensitive documents “under seal” so that, even though they are part of the official record, they are not publicly available without further court order. But, litigation has a discovery phase and a trial phase. (Though, the vast majority of lawsuits settle before trial.) Confidentiality is different in each stage.

    During the discovery phase, parties can negotiate a confidentiality agreement/order so that documents exchanged between the parties are kept confidential to just those involved in litigation. There are many many variations. But, those exchanged documents are not formally “filed” in the court file unless one party needs the court to review some of them for some pretrial legal issue. Even then, the judge might review them “in camera,” which means without putting them in the court file. Family courts may have some different procedures, but any suit filed by McLaren won’t be in family court.

    At trial, documents that are part of each party’s case have to be shown to the jury. Sometimes there can be a big pretrial fight about whether certain documents must be made public so they can be shown to the jury. Sometimes cases settle to avoid that. Laws/rules vary by state but generally the legal burden is on the party who wants the documents kept secret to demonstrate a legal basis for doing so. Though I’m sure this varies by state, in my area, at the end of trial the court asks the parties what they want done with the documents entered into evidence and often times they are returned to the respective parties rather than kept in the court files.

    ps Beth, I agree with your suggested analysis of McLaren.

  62. Michaela wrote:

    Sooooo many more people know about this than used to know about it.

    This may actually help McLaren make his point that he is being harassed and that his only recourse is in the courts.

  63. Michaela wrote:

    Brian McLaren knows exactly how he’s coming across. It’s not a mistake

    yep. he has tried to build in some plausible deniability into his clever threat. it is about “business”

  64. Sarah K
    By putting that line in italics, he is absolutely putting the onus on her as being responsible for the physical altercation.

    I think he’s saying she *admitted* being responsible for the physical altercation, as in, she admitted that she got physical first. That doesn’t make anything or everything that follows OK, but it can make her both an aggressor *and* a victim (assuming she got hurt).

  65. @ Xianatty:
    I hear what you’re saying, but he still comes across as an a$$. And I’ve been a fan of his and bought many of his books. He is painting her as an agressor, not a victim at all.

  66. @ Xianatty:
    Oops! Messed up formatting in response to Sarah K. First sentence is my quote of her. What follows is my response. iPhone phumble. Sorry.

  67. @ Sarah K:
    McLaren is speaking from a position of privilege with thousands of followers. He has a market share to consider for books and conferences. blech. it is just embarrassing because of what he claimed he believed about victims and spiritual abuse. evidently he buys into the spiritual/legal wife thing.

  68. Michaela wrote:

    @Beth,

    So whom do you know in the Emergent Movement? Have you been hired by them to come post here? You keep getting in digs aimed at bringing Julie down and scaring everybody else. It’s not working. It’s really easy to see through.

    Do you know who Brian McLaren’s attorney is? He said he had one. If “yes” and you know that information could you post it here. I’d like to know how Brian McLaren went to an attorney, was told he could sue for libel, and the attorney didn’t tell Brian McLaren, “Oh you’re a public figure under the First Amendment and your entire life is a wide open book for public discussion and no you can’t sue for libel.” If the attorney didn’t do his/her job, they failed in legal ethics and can be disciplined for disbarred. Lawyers are required to know the law.

    I also have some Biblical questions about Brian McLaren:
    1. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to go back to his wife and family and to fix it, and to step down from Christian ministry? The Bible actually requires that Christian leaders step down when their family life needs attention.

    2. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to step down from Christian ministry entirely when Tony Jones divorced his first wife and married his second wife? That Biblically disqualifies Tony Jones from serving in a Christian leadership position. Why doesn’t Brian McLaren know that and why hasn’t he followed the Bible.

    3. I think a lot of these problems could have been avoided if Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and others had done what the Bible says in the first place!

    I don’t know anyone is the Emergent movement. I’m offering my opinion that things might be considered in a different light. I know no more than anyone else who has spent way more time than we should reading about it on the internet.

    I’m not an attorney, and my knowledge comes from google, but it is my understanding that public figures can sue for libel, but their standard of proof is much higher than private figures. I think a case could be made that McLaren is a “limited-purpose public figure” and this dispute involves alleged misconduct in the area he is a public figure for, so he would need to prove malice which is often difficult to do.

    Regarding your theological questions, I know Christians have varying opinions on the appropriateness of divorce and remarriage. Maybe what Tony did doesn’t violate their theology. I don’t know enough about Emergent theology to say.

  69. Beth wrote:

    I don’t know anyone is the Emergent movement. I’m offering my opinion that things might be considered in a different light. I know no more than anyone else who has spent way more time than we should reading about it on the internet.

    I’m not an attorney, and my knowledge comes from google, but it is my understanding that public figures can sue for libel, but their standard of proof is much higher than private figures. I think a case could be made that McLaren is a “limited-purpose public figure” and this dispute involves alleged misconduct in the area he is a public figure for, so he would need to prove malice which is often difficult to do.

    Regarding your theological questions, I know Christians have varying opinions on the appropriateness of divorce and remarriage. Maybe what Tony did doesn’t violate their theology. I don’t know enough about Emergent theology to say.

    Sorry, first sentence should read “anyone IN the Emergent movement. I should also add that I meant that third sentence tongue in cheek and am speaking more for myself then anyone else. I have spend too much time, but I’m not saying everyone has. I reread that and thought it sounded critical and that wasn’t my intent.

  70. Xianatty wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    Sooooo many more people know about this than used to know about it.

    This may actually help McLaren make his point that he is being harassed and that his only recourse is in the courts.

    So how much are you being paid to come here?

    Remember it’s a free country and the best legal minds in two countries are working on it.

    Brian McLaren is a public figure under the First Amendment and his entire life is open for discussion.

    He needs to lighten up and be open instead of throwing hissy fits!

  71. Beth wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    @Beth,

    So whom do you know in the Emergent Movement? Have you been hired by them to come post here? You keep getting in digs aimed at bringing Julie down and scaring everybody else. It’s not working. It’s really easy to see through.

    Do you know who Brian McLaren’s attorney is? He said he had one. If “yes” and you know that information could you post it here. I’d like to know how Brian McLaren went to an attorney, was told he could sue for libel, and the attorney didn’t tell Brian McLaren, “Oh you’re a public figure under the First Amendment and your entire life is a wide open book for public discussion and no you can’t sue for libel.” If the attorney didn’t do his/her job, they failed in legal ethics and can be disciplined for disbarred. Lawyers are required to know the law.

    I also have some Biblical questions about Brian McLaren:
    1. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to go back to his wife and family and to fix it, and to step down from Christian ministry? The Bible actually requires that Christian leaders step down when their family life needs attention.

    2. Why didn’t he tell Tony Jones to step down from Christian ministry entirely when Tony Jones divorced his first wife and married his second wife? That Biblically disqualifies Tony Jones from serving in a Christian leadership position. Why doesn’t Brian McLaren know that and why hasn’t he followed the Bible.

    3. I think a lot of these problems could have been avoided if Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and others had done what the Bible says in the first place!

    I don’t know anyone is the Emergent movement. I’m offering my opinion that things might be considered in a different light. I know no more than anyone else who has spent way more time than we should reading about it on the internet.

    I’m not an attorney, and my knowledge comes from google, but it is my understanding that public figures can sue for libel, but their standard of proof is much higher than private figures. I think a case could be made that McLaren is a “limited-purpose public figure” and this dispute involves alleged misconduct in the area he is a public figure for, so he would need to prove malice which is often difficult to do.

    Regarding your theological questions, I know Christians have varying opinions on the appropriateness of divorce and remarriage. Maybe what Tony did doesn’t violate their theology. I don’t know enough about Emergent theology to say.

    McClaren writes in national magazines and is all over the American media. He is a public figure and no different than writing about Mark Driscoll.

    No he is not a limited public figure under the First Amendment.

    He biblically failed the Jones Family and it is coming back to bite him!

  72. Beth wrote:

    @ Xianatty:

    Thanks for your answer. Like everything having to do with the law, the correct answer is, it’s complicated, right?

    And why legal briefs are nothing of the sort.

  73. Xianatty wrote:

    Beth wrote:
    @ Xianatty:
    Thanks for your answer. Like everything having to do with the law, the correct answer is, it’s complicated, right?
    And why legal briefs are nothing of the sort.

    I am married to an attorney, so I understand. I’ve been known to say, “Counselor, a simple yes or no will suffice.” It kills him, but he loves me and so he tries. He’s the best!

  74. @ Michaela:
    You’re simply incorrect about some of the legal positions you’ve stated.

    – Cases that meet the standard for federal diversity jurisdiction do *not* “have to be” brought in federal court as you claimed.

    – Carol Burnett did not prevail in her libel case because, as you asserted, the court applied a different standard than that in New York Times v. Sullivan. In fact, that appellate court *did* apply NYT on the issue of liability and upheld the trial decision on that point. It applied other law on another issue (damages).

    – Someone like McLaren may well be considered a “limited public figure.” Read your own link, which gives examples, including a baseball star who might be public for sports but private for his personal life.

    “I contacted some of the best first amendment lawyers in the country and free speech lawyers in Canada” is not at all the same thing as “the best legal minds in two countries are working on it.”

    So, it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t understand the legal issues you might be creating with your effort to recruit attorneys.

  75. Xianatty wrote:

    @ KRT:

    Yes. You’re right about the issues raised by the location of the servers. Michaela is wrong about several of the legal assertions she’s made.

    Xianatty,

    I am not going to quibble. The top free-speech attorneys in Canada and the United States are now working on this case.

    Brian McLaren will probably lose his career when all is said and done. He should have carefully reflected about all of his behaviors and asked himself, “Do I behave like the Rev. Billy Graham?” He should have been able to measure up to Rev. Graham’s impeccable behavior: Being above reproach with both believers and unbelievers.

  76. Xianatty wrote:

    Don’t worry yourself. Top Canadian attorneys and U.S. attorneys who work on Free Speech issues in both countries are working on this. I just nutshelled the case for them. Of course they are intrigued!

    I know precisely what I’m doing. My former bosses are considered to be among the winning-est litigators in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court even heard one of their cases.

  77. ^ (correction: I omitted erasing the “wrote:”
    This post is mine to:

    Xianatty:

    Don’t worry yourself. Top Canadian attorneys and U.S. attorneys who work on Free Speech issues in both countries are working on this. I just nutshelled the case for them. Of course they are intrigued!

    I know precisely what I’m doing. My former bosses are considered to be among the winning-est litigators in the U.S. The U.S. Supreme Court even heard one of their cases

  78. Xianatty wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    Sooooo many more people know about this than used to know about it.

    This may actually help McLaren make his point that he is being harassed and that his only recourse is in the courts.

    You went to law school and never heard about legal research or the First Amendment?

  79. @ Michaela:
    Look, you seem to be misinterpreting what’s being said. Perhaps it is hitting nerves because of what you’ve been through? Because I’m not seeing what you’re seeing.

  80. Michaela wrote:

    You went to law school and never heard about legal research or the First Amendment?

    It’s not my research that’s proven bad here. I know some great paralegals, but your research is not well-founded. It’s not quibbling to point out that your legal assertions have mostly been the opposite of true.

    Another one of your legal misstatements is that lawyers can be disbarred for giving bad advice. To the contrary, that’s what court sanctions and malpractice suits are for. The Bar only steps in in the most extreme of cases, usually when a judge refers a matter to the Bar. I’ve only seen that happen once and it wasn’t for “bad advice.” It was because the lawyer’s conduct was so erratic that the judge believed he had serious psychological problems.

    BTW, if all those famous lawyers are actually “working on the case,” as you’ve claimed, who is their client?

  81. @ numo:
    Nancy wrote:

    If one has to determine whether or not something is clear, then it is not clear

    Very good! I was going to answer numo’s point in a post of 16 paragraphs replete with quotes from ancient authorities and the Danvers Statement, and you’ve managed to do this better in 16 words. It’s most irritating … 🙂

    b>@ numo:

    There is a proverb “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him”. I think you are right to avoid confirmation bias by only reading those you are likely to agree with/those who will not disturb you. This has to be balanced with falling for ‘faith destroying conversations with faith destroying people’, or in this case reading too much literature from those who are actually leaving the faith or are actually hostile to it or have some personal agenda on the go.

    It’s interesting how our different backgrounds affect us. You come from a culture of being told what to think, whereas my early experience was in churches too porous to contain a conviction about anything – evangelical mush garnished with theological liberalism if you like!

  82. Beth wrote:

    I think It is possible Brian is trying to walk a very narrow tightrope between trying to save his reputation (Julie has made some very serious accusations against him) and trying not to trash a person he sees as acting destructively from a place of great pain.

    Oh. Puh-lease. BriMcL is a public figure. He could totally defuse the situation for himself by issuing a simple statement that says he loves and cares for Julie and hopes she will get help. It would make her look like a nutjob and make him look gracious and caring for the mentally ill. Instead he threatens a lawsuit against a single mom?!? Dudebro is NOT walking a narrow tightrope.

  83. Elizabeth Lee wrote:

    Beth wrote:
    I think It is possible Brian is trying to walk a very narrow tightrope between trying to save his reputation (Julie has made some very serious accusations against him) and trying not to trash a person he sees as acting destructively from a place of great pain.
    Oh. Puh-lease. BriMcL is a public figure. He could totally defuse the situation for himself by issuing a simple statement that says he loves and cares for Julie and hopes she will get help. It would make her look like a nutjob and make him look gracious and caring for the mentally ill. Instead he threatens a lawsuit against a single mom?!? Dudebro is NOT walking a narrow tightrope.

    Maybe. But I think it is more likely he would have been accused of using his power to smear her by insinuating that she “needed help” without being clear about it. Or accused of not supporting her by being so vague. Or avoiding things by not addressing the situation with Tony. Or that it is very interesting that he doesn’t deny the accusations. Or being silent in the face of abuse.

    I think Doug Pagitt released a statement similar to what you said, although he included denials of her accusations. What are your thoughts on Doug’s statement?

    Yes, there is a big power disparity between a public figure and a single mom. But that doesn’t mean a single mom is unable to act in unfair ways and still cause unfair damage. If (big IF) her accusations against Brian are untrue and yet they are widely seen and believed, he is in big trouble. He cannot take her on publicly without being perceived as using his power to crush and silence a victim. He can’t let them stand unchallenged given that a large number of people are hearing them and accepting at least part of them. They were serious allegations. I do see it as a tightrope.

    I’ll say again, I don’t think McLaren should have jumped to official legal action without making a *public* offer to address their dispute with a non-court neutral third party. I think it is understandable that he thought it was useless after being rejected repeatedly before (assuming that is true), but things change and what didn’t work before might now. He fell off the tightrope on that one, and he needs to climb back on and try again.

    I think there is more he can do to help the situation rather than ratchet it up, and I hope he does. Dee had some great ideas. I think he sounds frustrated with his experiences with Julie and threatened by the way people are believing her accusations. He thinks he has acted with care for years in the face of unfair treatment, but he needs to dig deep and do even more. However, I don’t see that he deserves the harsh interpretations he is getting yet. Time may very well show that they are justified, but I don’t think we are there yet. If what he says is correct, Julie has treated him very poorly. That’s his version though.

    I think there are things those commenting can do to help too. Don’t assume we know more than we do. Support those who are calling for a more measured tone. Julie is being heard and people are taking her accusations seriously. Now hopefully justice can be done without too much collateral damage.

  84. I want to say a little more about McLaren and power disparity. It is my understanding that his base tends to be more in touch with victim rights. They are more aware of the structural issues around power in our society and are able to recognize those structures more easily than your average Joe.

    When I say he has to worry about being perceived as using his power to silence a victim, that is with his base. Overall, I think our society tends to be more blind to those in power using it to silence than they are aware, and outside his base he probably would be more free to do so, should he want to. It is his base that matters though, not society in general.

    I just want to clarify that, lest anyone think I’m saying, “Poor powerful people; they just can’t catch a break.” Usually powerful people catch every break and more, but sometimes their power makes things more tricky for them – as it should IMO.

  85. @ Ken:
    Ken, I think people need to be free to read, think, ask questions and decide for themselves.

    As I was raised Lutheran, I hold to the importance of the Apostles and Nicene Creeds as well as the Chalcedonian statement (often referred to as a creed, but it isn’t, really). I think most things not addressed under the 10 commandments/Jesus’ summation of them in his “two greatest commandments” + the creeds are pretty well non-negotiable. Beyond that, I’m not prepared to accept proscriptions, as many of them are founded in social mores/customs and inadequate translations/insufficient study/translation errors/words we cannot really define clearly in modern languages (Greek or otherwise).

    Aside from that, there are some interesting “holes” in Scripture that many use to harm others. A real-life example: the incest prohibitions in the Torah do *not* include parent-child incest. (I know, I know – common sense tells me that it’s obviously banned, but it literally is not mentioned anywhere.) I know people whose parents used this supposed loophole as a justification for their molestation of their children.

    See… this is a case where you have to build an overall picture of sexual ethics (as well as the ethics of caring for children and others who are at the mercy of those in power, in whatever form) and *then* come to a conclusion based on that overall picture. You cannot simply say “it is written,” because there is no specific rule book-type verse for every situation, very much including parent-child incest/sexual abuse. There is nothing about sibling incest, either.

    So, that leaves us not only with zero specific commandments/prohibitions, but with something that is truly subject to interpretation. Just like things we ignore and assume to be irrelevant, like mixing two kinds of fibers in a single piece of clothing, or following ritual purity laws as outlined in the Torah, and… do you see what I’m getting at? I DO think sexual ethics are vitally important, and would never, EVER want to be seen as advocating for any kind of sexual/emotional abuse, but there are people who have interpreted the Bible to justify it. It is heartbreaking.

  86. @ numo:
    Err, I meant to say that I think the 10 commandments/2 greatest commandments are non-negotiable, and that I believe the Apostles, Nicene and Chacedonian creeds to be foundational to xtianity. But there is SO much they do not cover, and I think that is part of what we’re dealing with re. the acceptance of sexual orientation as well as sexual/emotional attraction, in both straight, gay and “other” folks.

    I mean, there is nothing in the Bible about intersex people, yet intersex conditions are medical/biological realities and are something that much of the church has avoided dealing with. I would want to err on the side of love and compassion, rather than the other way around.

    You might see the whole “interreacial” marriage (actually marriage between human beings with differing appearance/background, since there is *no* scientific basis for “race”) as irrelevant, but your home country isn’t dealing with the horrible longterm effects of widespread chattel slavery. We are. That the “one drop” rule and antimiscegenation laws were still in effect during my lifetime (and I’m not that old!) says a lot, imo, about us still being on unproven ground here. For several centuries, many “committed christians” argued passionately against “race mixing” – here in the US, there’s a significant minority that still does. (There’s much more to it than that, not least the whole notion of equal rights for the descendants of enslaved people, but I’m derailing this thread enough as is.) We are by no means anywhere near a “post-racial” society, and I think the same kinds of things are going on with the acceptance (or hatred toward/prejudice against) LGBTQI folks.

    I was relatively young during the Culture Wars here, yet I was going to a church that was entrenched in them, and I had to learn to hide many f my real feelings and beliefs – to the extent that I took on some of the prejudices (against gay people) of those around me as protective coloration. And you know what? They were wrong, and I was also wrong to follow them in that regard. They had a VERY distorted picture of what it means to be gay (they did not understand orientation, did not understand how sexual attraction and emotional affinity works, just *nothing*). Their views were like a Jack Chick-style distortion of reality. (If you don’t know his work, Google “Jack Chick” and see what comes up.) In my experience, a lot of their ideas are focused on thinking about *nal sex itself (which is not exclusive to gay men, nor is it something all gay men do) rather than seeing gay people as people. Once you’ve dehumanized/”Othered” a whole group of people, it’s entirely possible to go right into “hate the sin, love the sinner” mode without missing a beat. Sadly, you know how that comes across to the very people who are the Other? As hate, because there is a rejection of them as fellow human beings at a very fundamental level. Just like racial intolerance and hatred, anti-semitism – you name it there’s always some group that we humans want to look down on and kick around.

    Gay people are *not* the enemy, although they were scapegoated like crazy during the height of the Culture wars, and still are by many. What the Culture Wars did, sadly, was to turn those with whom the Culture Warriors disagreed into Public Enemy No. 1. I do not see *any* justification for that in the Gospels. Do you?

  87. numo wrote:

    They had a VERY distorted picture of what it means to be gay (they did not understand orientation, did not understand how sexual attraction and emotional affinity works, just *nothing*). Their views were like a Jack Chick-style distortion of reality. (If you don’t know his work, Google “Jack Chick” and see what comes up.)

    The Chick Tract in question is titled “Gay Young Blade”.
    (Another example is a minor sculptor character/Minion of Antichrist somewhere in the first Left Behind dodecalogy, Guy Blaze (“Guy Blaze” = “Flaming Gay”, get it?). Mincing, swishing, lithping, like he was trying to win some sort of Paul Lynde impersonator contest.)

    In my own experience, it doesn’t help when the first self-outed Unpronounceable you encounter is a flat-out sexual predator who seemed to be using the Chick Tract above as a how-to manual. Bad Craziness.

    In my experience, a lot of their ideas are focused on thinking about *nal sex itself (which is not exclusive to gay men…).

    Anyone remember a Celebrity ManaGAWD named Mark Driscoll?

  88. numo wrote:

    Gay people are *not* the enemy, although they were scapegoated like crazy during the height of the Culture wars, and still are by many. … Public Enemy No. 1. I do not see *any* justification for that in the Gospels. Do you?

    Apart from the Catholics, the church in the UK has tended towards compromise on the homosexual issue. There is a very real risk of getting into serious trouble over it, and there is no Constitution to protect religious freedoms.

    The only references I have heard to homosexuality in UK churches has beeen when I have downloaded a sermon or two from my favourite preachers. It’s not been a high profile issue, and I take the accusations of harrassment from gays largely with a pinch of salt.

    From my own observation of homosexuals in the UK such as it is I think there are two things to look out for: one is self-pity, and the other is the working of guilty conscience. There may well be churches and individual Christians who have lost the plot on how to deal with gays, but the couple of sermons I have heard on this emphasise that in dealing with its sinful nature congregations are also going to have to learn how to show real compassion. This isn’t necessarily going to be easy. The doctrine is one thing: applying to real human beings who may well have suffered already is another.

    The church wherever it is found may have to examine its attitude to gays, but I don’t think going to gays to try to judge this is wise, they often have too much of an axe to grind. Some criticism may be justified, but they are hardly disinterested parties giving objective information.

    I have come across Chick booklets, and my verdict for what it’s worth is: they were absolutely awful!

    This thread is probably done now else I would have headed over to the general discussion page. I’m not sure there is such a huge difference between how you and I see things, but I do think the US and the UK have differing cultural baggage from their histories to deal with, and this has left its mark on how the church copes with things in each country.

  89. @ Ken:
    Ken, most gay people are not part of “gay culture.” You probably sit in the pews with a fair number of gay and lesbian folks without actually knowing. As for harassment and attacks, I think you might need to do some research. You don’t seem to realize that LGBTQ people are frequently beaten up, sexually assaulted and worse. (Murdered.) You might not be aware of that, but threats of physical violence are very real and seldom reported in mainstream media. I think it’s partly because people tend to want to look the other way.

    I know people who have suffered horribly – people who go to (or used to go to, more accurately) churches like yours, simply for being gay and admitting to it. IN many cases, they were entirely celibate and had no intention of getting into sexual relationships, but the way they were treated just because they are LGBTQ is beyond awful. I really need to stop writing at this point, because some of these incidents are in my head (recalled by your comment) and they are extremely upsetting. I cannot discuss them in a public form because they were told to me in confidence.

    You are looking at the media, but I think you need to look to actual people, many of whom are fellow xtians, to see what really goes on and just how bad it can get.

  90. @ Ken:
    i have a comment in reply to you that’s on the back burner at the moment. Please do check back for it.

  91. Ken wrote:

    numo wrote:

    Gay people are *not* the enemy, although they were scapegoated like crazy during the height of the Culture wars, and still are by many. … Public Enemy No. 1. I do not see *any* justification for that in the Gospels. Do you?

    Apart from the Catholics, the church in the UK has tended towards compromise on the homosexual issue. There is a very real risk of getting into serious trouble over it, and there is no Constitution to protect religious freedoms.

    The only references I have heard to homosexuality in UK churches has beeen when I have downloaded a sermon or two from my favourite preachers. It’s not been a high profile issue, and I take the accusations of harrassment from gays largely with a pinch of salt.

    From my own observation of homosexuals in the UK such as it is I think there are two things to look out for: one is self-pity, and the other is the working of guilty conscience. There may well be churches and individual Christians who have lost the plot on how to deal with gays, but the couple of sermons I have heard on this emphasise that in dealing with its sinful nature congregations are also going to have to learn how to show real compassion. This isn’t necessarily going to be easy. The doctrine is one thing: applying to real human beings who may well have suffered already is another.

    The church wherever it is found may have to examine its attitude to gays, but I don’t think going to gays to try to judge this is wise, they often have too much of an axe to grind. Some criticism may be justified, but they are hardly disinterested parties giving objective information.

    I have come across Chick booklets, and my verdict for what it’s worth is: they were absolutely awful!

    This thread is probably done now else I would have headed over to the general discussion page. I’m not sure there is such a huge difference between how you and I see things, but I do think the US and the UK have differing cultural baggage from their histories to deal with, and this has left its mark on how the church copes with things in each country.

    Ken, this sounds like you have a lot of thoughts about gay people but that you don’t actually know any well, nor love them. There are too many things in your reply that I think are mistaken/wrong/unfair that I don’t know where to start. ‘Homosexuals’ for example are actually human beings who feel or express some level of same sex attraction. It is not their ontological identity. It is one facet of who they are, & I find this global labelling really difficult & reductionistic.

  92. Beth wrote:

    I think Doug Pagitt released a statement similar to what you said, although he included denials of her accusations. What are your thoughts on Doug’s statement?

    Doug voiced no care for Julie. Neither did Brian or anyone else on WhyTony. No one said they loved her or asked what could the do to help her. No one said that they could understand why she was in distress. Because after all, no matter who is to blame, or what combo of blame is actually accurate, it is apparent that Julie has had the three kids all along as well as ongoing legal fees and schooling.

    If Christians don’t love their neighbor and make some attempt to love their enemy, what makes their faith worth anything?

    In fact here is Doug’s actual recurring theme in his post: “Julie…has sought to spread provably false statements and misleading stories about me on the internet….”they are without merit and are inappropriate for public comment….false claims about her ex-husband…false accusations are no longer only directed towards me but being used to attack…the reputations of many of my colleagues….I am hopeful…that these false accusations will cease.”

    Your neutrality has a bias, I’m afraid, Beth. I wish you could see that.

    But McLaren did take up someone’s suggestion about mediation in the NC thread. But he chose to do it himself, without asking, and without saying who he was going to get. As you can see, Julie did not feel she could trust that at all, but is willing to trust the Deebs and GRACE.

  93. @ Beakerj:
    For what it’s worth – to me, quite a lot, but clearly, most of what i said wasn’t addressed in the reply. I suspect it will be the same for you.

  94. Beakerj wrote:

    ..this sounds like you have a lot of thoughts about gay people but that you don’t actually know any well, nor love them. … ‘Homosexuals’ for example are actually human beings who feel

    I know this can be an emotive subject, but I would by way of reply draw your attention to two things I wrote in the post:

    From my own observation of homosexuals in the UK such as it is I think there are two things to look out for:

    … congregations are also going to have to learn how to show real compassion. This isn’t necessarily going to be easy. The doctrine is one thing: applying to real human beings who may well have suffered already is another.

    I’ve not had a great deal of contact with homosexuals, but not none at all, hence the qualification in the first sentence. I wasn’t really aiming to get at the arguments over orientation, that’s a subject in its own right.

    I don’t see where being unloving comes from in the second sentence. Neither unremitting condemnation nor unconditional acceptance are loving, the tricky thing is to get the balance.

  95. numo wrote:

    As for harassment and attacks, I think you might need to do some research. You don’t seem to realize that LGBTQ people are frequently beaten up, sexually assaulted and worse. (Murdered.) You might not be aware of that, but threats of physical violence are very real and seldom reported in mainstream media.

    I am aware this kind of thing happens, you have misunderstood what I was getting at, which I probably didn’t make clear. The point is that in church I have never once heard any exhortation to hate, mistreat, be violent towards homosexuals, not in any hymns or songs, or in prayer, and I don’t think I have ever heard the subject mentioned in sermons except possibly in passing. It’s not been an issue. Therefore, when gays blame religion in general and Christianity in particular for the rough time they have, this doesn’t add up. Everyone knows of the Westboro cult and individual pharisaical Christians, but I’ve not encountered “hate speech” from “homophobic religious bigots who are only ever judgemental”.

    This is an issue that the church is going to have to deal with, and the couple of sermons I have listened to on this to get a biblical approach from men I trust have emphasised the need for both compassion and not to abandon the bible.

    A society like the UK that rejects the truth about God will indeed see an increase in homosexuality, and that society will also be filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. In short, this is a description of how man’s relationship with his fellow man begins to break down, such a society is unloving. This is the ultimate source of the problems you find in society for all members of such a society; the ruin of man and society.

  96. @ Gram3:
    My understanding from Julie was that after she begged the group who was with Tony in Dallas to help save their marriage, they responded with a “spiritual discernment” meeting in Dallas – without her there, evidently a big no-no for a “spiritual discernment.”

    The outcome was for two men from the group (not Tony) to fly to Minneapolis and tell Julie the only way to save her marriage was to commit herself to a mental institution voluntarily.

    Doug Pagitt was one of the men and was with Julie in her house when she got on the phone with one hospital. That’s when the admitting nurse told her she wasn’t qualified to be admitted and that what she did need was a good lawyer.

    Julie said that, when Doug Pagitt heard that, he started yelling for her to pack a bag & get in the car, that he would find a hospital that would admit her.

    In the meantime, other Emergent people had taken the 3 children without telling Julie where they were taking them or when they would bring them back. The children came back 10 hours later. Sounds scary for the kids.

  97. Michaela wrote:

    Dee,
    Can you tell me what state:
    1. Julie lives in; and
    2. What state Brian McLaren lives in? (If you have that information.) Brad posted that McLaren lives in Florida.
    I am writing many of the well-known First Amendment litigators and groups this weekend about Brian McLaren’s threatened lawsuit against his buddy’s ex-wife.
    3. I’d like this information (jurisdictions) so that a First Amendment group in Julie’s geographic location could assist with this.

    Julie lives in Edina, Minnesota.

  98. @ Bridget:
    My understanding from Julie is that Tony was gone about 220 days each year, or about 7 months.

    She stayed home and took care of the kids. She’d just had their 2nd or 3rd child when he was accepted to Princeton and left her entirely because Princeton. Doug Pagitt was her “pastor.” Uh huh.

  99. Serena wrote:

    Michaela wrote:

    Dee,
    Can you tell me what state:
    1. Julie lives in; and
    2. What state Brian McLaren lives in? (If you have that information.) Brad posted that McLaren lives in Florida.
    I am writing many of the well-known First Amendment litigators and groups this weekend about Brian McLaren’s threatened lawsuit against his buddy’s ex-wife.
    3. I’d like this information (jurisdictions) so that a First Amendment group in Julie’s geographic location could assist with this.

    Julie lives in Edina, Minnesota.

    @Serena,

    Thanks for the response. I was able to figure that out from doing a court records search.

  100. Serena wrote:

    @ Gram3:
    My understanding from Julie was that after she begged the group who was with Tony in Dallas to help save their marriage, they responded with a “spiritual discernment” meeting in Dallas – without her there, evidently a big no-no for a “spiritual discernment.”

    The outcome was for two men from the group (not Tony) to fly to Minneapolis and tell Julie the only way to save her marriage was to commit herself to a mental institution voluntarily.

    Doug Pagitt was one of the men and was with Julie in her house when she got on the phone with one hospital. That’s when the admitting nurse told her she wasn’t qualified to be admitted and that what she did need was a good lawyer.

    Julie said that, when Doug Pagitt heard that, he started yelling for her to pack a bag & get in the car, that he would find a hospital that would admit her.

    In the meantime, other Emergent people had taken the 3 children without telling Julie where they were taking them or when they would bring them back. The children came back 10 hours later. Sounds scary for the kids.

    The Bible is very clear about the course of action that should have been followed:

    1. Tony Jones should have been confronted about leaving his wife and children and he should have been told to step down from ministry and to attend to his marriage and children;

    2. Tony Jones should have been told (by Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and the rest of their group) to step down entirely when he left his wife for another woman.

    3. This group — Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt and rest – also had a Biblical obligation to confront the other woman that Jones was seeing, whom it is my understanding from what I’ve read was married herself (boy do I feel sorry for her ex-husband too) about her immorality.

    4. None of that was done. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones and the rest have repeatedly been accused in national Christian circles of being ‘false teachers’ and of dispensing with the Scriptures. I now see the point that those well-known Christian authors have made.

  101. @ Ken:
    I think you greatly underestimate the amount of prejudice and even outright hatred that is, sadly, present in many churches. People who are consistently treated as “less than” have every right to pin the blame on those who belittle and mistreat them. Unfortunately, many religious people – not just xtians – have a strong tendency toward this kind of judgementalism.

    Ws for overt homophobia and lies about gay people, this is a commonplace from the pulpit and in society in general in far too many countries. Russia and Jamaica are two of the places where very egregious vilification and ill-till-treatment of gsy people (including torture and murder) have become commonplace. Uganda, with its militant faction of evangelicals who have bern fighting for years to have homosexuality made a capital crime is yet another – with much American involvement there, btw. Nigeria is yet another country where the groundswell of evangelicalism and Pentecostal and charismatic churches is resulting in draconian laws and a backlash against gay people.

    Perhaps everything looks fine in your corner of the world, but i believe it would be very helpful for you to look further. And i suspect that not all UK xtians are as benign toward gay people as you think.

  102. @ Ken:
    Do you mean that all of UK society “rrejects the truth about God”? Ken, that sounds very extreme, and i find it somewhat hard to believe.

    I have heard the same thing over and over, ad nauseam, from Culture War types over here since the early 80s. They complain about society constantly, and say they’re being persecuted, over the airwaves, on TV, on the internet and (to borrow a 90s cliche) yada yada yada. it seems to me that you don’t realize how much your sector of evangelicalism is parroting the dated rhetoric of these Americans.

    Funny thing: Canada legalized same-sex marriage about a decade ago, and i have yet to hear that the country’s moral, social and cultural fabric have collapsed. The rumors of its demise were greatly exaggerated, Chicken Little-sLittle-style.

  103. numo wrote:

    Do you mean that all of UK society “rejects the truth about God”? Ken, that sounds very extreme, and i find it somewhat hard to believe.

    As a generalisation this is true. The UK has had the Christian gospel for centuries, though never was a Christian country as such. The country started to turn away from this significantly after WW1, especially the men who had seen the misery of the trenches. This turning away accelerated with WW2 followed by the 60’s social/sexual revolution. Faith has been replaced today by shopping.

    My quote came from Rom 1 as you know. My opinion is that Rom 1 is an inspired commentary on Gen 1 to 3, and is the diagnosis of man’s condition as alienated from God and universally applicable. I heard a series on this from Dick Lucas, a thoughtful and gifted teacher in the Anglican church that had a profound effect on me, especially seeing Rom 1 as a description of how society goes wrong, and by implication, how it may be improved.

    I don’t think Dick Lucas’ application of this in any way implied this was specific to the UK (or the US) where Christianity is in decline. But it does ring true, and as the church has waned in numbers and influence what is described in Rom 1 has increased. Sin is no longer being restrained in ways that it used to be. This is not all the bible has to say on the issue, and I don’t want to exaggerate it either. But it is very much a ‘word in season’ for the British as the remaining Christian facade further crumbles.

    It is commonly thought in Christian circles that the increase in homosexuality in a society will bring God’s judgement, but the frightening thing about Rom 1 is that this is the judgement. Greed is another thing that is unprecedented in modern Britain.

    I’m not sure Britain has ever had much in the way of a culture war analagous to the States. By and large, the church as an institution has tended to hoist a white cross on a white background as its flag.

    I don’t believe in an imminent collapse of British society, but the bitter harvest for example of the 60’s sexual revolution is only just coming to light in terms of child abuse from some very well-known public figures of whom you would not have dreamt they were capable of such things.

  104. Ken wrote:

    but the bitter harvest for example of the 60’s sexual revolution is only just coming to light in terms of child abuse from some very well-known public figures of whom you would not have dreamt they were capable of such things.

    But these issues have always been with us. ISTM that people are simply more willing to deal with them publicly instead of suffering silently. The advance of technology has also increased the awareness/reality of abuse. The abused, who are often the young and tbe vulnerable among us, are no longer considered expendable. If you think powerful people throughout history did not abuse the vulnerable, you are mistaken. The “bitter harvest of the 60s sexual revolution,” as you call it, did not create anything new that is now coming into play. We are simply more aware of what has always been. Thankfully, abuse is being exposed and the vulnerable are being protected. Hopefully, this is happening more often than in the past when the vulnerable had no voice.

  105. @ Ken:
    I have a reply to you that’s on the back burner. Please check back later today. It addresses your statements about gay people.

  106. @ Ken:
    But my point is that you are using US Culture War rhetoric, so clearly, it’s had more influence in your part of the church than you might realize. It doesn’t jhave much pertinence to soviety at large, but it is clearly important to the church circles you’re in.

  107. @ numo:
    You even word things the same way i heard them worded in the 80s and 90s, and your pov on the things you often post about is identical.

    I know for a fact that there are more than a few English charismatics who have close ties to culture wars types over here. That’s partly because the head honcho at the church that booted me is English, and there was a steady stream of guest speakers and visitors from Blighty who said the same things that were being said here and who had/hhave close ties to some of the usual suspects and organizations and publications here.

    That said, i think this is a relatively small subset of UK evangelicals/ccharismatics, but one that has more influence than you might guess – cf. Holy Trinity Brompton and similar.

  108. numo wrote:

    You even word things the same way i heard them worded in the 80s and 90s, and your pov on the things you often post about is identical.

    Ouch!

    Dick Lucas is in the Anglican evangelical tradition of John Stott, and others I have heard or read I wouldn’t have thought were overly affected by US evangelicalism though I could be wrong. I visited Holy Trinity Brompton only once, it was nothing out of the ordinary.

    There was more cross-fertilisation with the US in the so-called house church scene (restoration). You didn’t happen to get the left boot of fellowship from Terry Virgo by any chance? I left that sector a long time ago. From being very radical charismatic they seem to have settled into being souped up baptist churches in the meantime.

    I’ve read a lot of US stuff online – Pyro, Mohler, Doug Wilson etc. Some of which I have liked, some not, some I have at least found thought-provoking and a change from European thinking. I’m afraid I have recently significantly curtailed this, I’m more aware of the celebrity status of some of these worthies, there is sometimes a tendency towards being pharisaical, and I want to be free of following other men’s opinions – I’m going to stick a short bit of testimony to that later on the general page. My sojourn on here has shown me if anything that the evangelical church really does need to get its own house in a bit more order before speaking too directly, let alone self-righteously, to the world around.

  109. @ Ken:
    No, nothing to do with Terry Virgo. If anything, they probably dislike him.

    I didn’t mean to sound too harsh, and am sorry if i did, but truly, it’s what i eee in many of your posts. People tend to absorb the ideas of others and then present them as their own – which i think the people you are around and/or wjwhose work you read clearly seem to be doing. It’s a bit uncanny in this case – or msybe surreal is a better word?

  110. @ Ken:
    John Stott’s work was pretty well-known here a few decades ago. Not sure about now, as I’m out of touch with these trends. It has been 13 years since i got booted out of That Church (obviously not its resl name!), and i am no longer evangeliical.

  111. numo wrote:

    I didn’t mean to sound too harsh, and am sorry if i did, but truly, it’s what I see in many of your posts.

    Thank you for that … but I didn’t think you were being harsh. The ouch was because I have read a lot of evangelical stuff in the Pyro mold over the last few years, and I have appreciated the straight talking as opposed to so much lukewarm fuzziness of contemporary evangelicalism, especially on its left. But there is a fine line between being blunt and being rude or insensitive or rigid and doctrinaire. Puffed up is the biblical expression I suppose. I fear that might have rubbed off on me a bit, and I’m starting to sound like that, it’s easily done.

    I have in my time deferred far too much to big names or ministries in the Christian scene. Learning from them is fine, but not at the cost of failing to think for yourself or submitting to group-think.

    In the end as I’ve said before I’m only little old me. Strong feelings about some aspects of the faith, less so on many others, and a firm believer in Christian liberty, which is what happens when the Holy Spirit is present. There is a place in the Christian life for relaxing in the grace and love of God and not worrying about getting everything right; and allowing others the same freedom. Treating the bible as a life book rather than a law book.

  112. @ Ken:
    Thanks, Ken. I wasn’t at all certain if you were aware of this, and really appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply.

    It’s easy for any of us to fall into this trap, i think, and i know that i did it myself, back when. I worry that we are all much too concerned about being “right,” rather than thinking things through before we speak or write. I went to a church where gay people were regularly denounced from the pulpit (this was in yhe mid-80s), and i used to wonder how a gay person would feel if they walked in and heard that – but was afraid to say anything to that effect to the powers that be. The next church i went to was somewhat toned down, but still made no secret of whst they thought.

    And in that case, there most definitely were gay and lesbian folks in the pews. I really cannot begin to imagine the fear and self-loathing – just for existing and not being straight – that all of these comments inspired. I know that i went through my own personal hell about never being good enough for the god they served, and i wasn’t dealing with the kind of stigma that gay people are. It had only been since leaving that i have bern able to learn to start setting aside the kind of “worm theology” that was their raison d’etre (or so it seems to me). They are, afaik, still touting the same thing. I think thst a LOT of people have been harmed by that, and even though my exit was involuntary and extremely painful, i am now glad to be well clear of them and their ilk. Nothing could induce me to go back to that kind of church, ever. I would rather err on the side of compassion than pay homage to the angry, wrathful “god” that they profess to be the only deity. i do not believe their religion has any room for Christ in it, though certainly, many of the people i knew were kind. But all contact ceased, because i was shunned.

  113. @ Ken:
    Hey – briefly, thanks for this. I have a much longer reply that’s currently on the back burner, so please do check back later.

  114. Indeed, you can’t blame the 1960s sexual revolution for child abuse. Child abuse, including in churches has been going on since antiquity. Ever heard of the Liber Gomorrhianus?