brad/futuristguy wrote:

Hi BethanyAnn,
I’m wondering what unanswered questions/remaining issues do you have about Tony? About Julie? About Brian? Maybe you said them already and I missed them …

I think the Xiannty person is the one who has more questions. For now, I am seeking to hold everything I’ve read and heard from all parties thoughtfully and openly. I am open to new information from all parties. But ultimately, I personally (and this is just me, it doesn’t work the same way for everyone) don’t place the emphasis on my own questions or understanding. I don’t think *I* am central to this story or to discerning it. I don’t live in the area where these things unfolded, I don’t know them all personally, I haven’t been an eyewitness to any of the events here, and I am not part of the mediation efforts. I am a person who supports a safe space and who seeks to be wise in not rushing to opinions even if doing so might support my own causes.

I think some of the people who have questions might also just not have the time to delve into all the documents and testimony that is available, which may be why they have questions or partial information still.

@ lydia:
I too have great respect for Julie’s stamina, and I worry about her thinking she has more than she actually does. Sympathy flows!

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Okay, thanks BethanyAnn. Thought you might have questions/issues I could respond to from what I’ve researched, but I guess not. Back to book editing I go …

Thoughtful of you. Thanks! I have a personality that really seeks out all information (to a fault), so I have read your contributions–trust me!

New post from David Hayward:
Tony Jones’ Story and Julie’s: are victims still guilty until proven innocent?

I was in communication, and still am, with the alleged abused. I tried to stay in communication with the alleged abuser and friends, but I have either been told explicitly to stop attempting contact, or my contact has been cut off with them by them, or they’ve made it clear they will have nothing to do with me ever again. You see, controlling the story has worked up to the present. However, now the story is out of authoritative control and is in the hands of the people.Yay internet!

http://nakedpastor.com/2015/02/tony-jones-story-and-julies-are-victims-still-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

@ Xianatty:

What I understood was that she was asking us to believe that he did bad things to her, for people to apologize for calling her crazy and justifying his divorce of her on that basis, and to expose Tony as someone who is dangerous to be in a position of power and influence.

The reason that I’m uncomfortable with what you’ve said in this thread is then when documentation proving just how horrific her life was with this man came to light, your focus was on finding problems with her. It hurt my heart that you could find no room in your analysis to express distress at the things she lived through.

This is triggering because so many women go for help after being severely abused, and often the first question they are asked is “OK, but what about YOUR sin”. If you have no idea how devastating that it- well, it is. It’s one of the most harmful things you can say to someone. Often because they feel like they don’t have the right to question their husband’s behavior, and this just reinforces that.

I know you’ve now said Tony did bad things, but you almost always bring it up in the context of problems you have with Julie. It makes it sound like there is an equal problem, when there can be no equal problem here as long as there is a power imbalance.

There is a time and place for asking questions and probing deeper. But if your first reaction to seeing documented evidence that a woman lived constantly in a state of controlled emotional abuse is “let me see where she screwed up”, you are either not reading carefully enough, not understanding what is being said, you have no heart, or you have another agenda. I hope in your case it is one of the former two.

Gram3 wrote:

My entire purpose of engaging his/her nonsense yesterday and the day before that was to expose clearly the agenda he/she was/is working.

Surely a he? I might have to stand corrected on this, but the lack of apparent empathy for the victim, and obsession with appellate courts etc etc sounds like a man. Women are usually more sensitive than this.

Beth wrote:

So, when I read both of their diagnoses, I filed it away as interesting information that might very well explain certain things. I am not convinced that he got an accurate diagnosis because I see things that don’t fit. I also am well aware that no one gets slapped with a diagnosis like that without having at least strong traits and I am well aware that the psychologist making the diagnosis was actually with him. I have no illusions that he was an easy person to live with. Was he bad enough to considered an abuser and/or be unfit to serve the role he is serving? I don’t know yet. I know having that diagnosis makes it more likely that the answer is yes, but for me, the answer isn’t yes yet.

Thanks, Beth, I appreciate the info.

If I understand you correctly, you think it quite possible that one could be married to a person who has “strong traits” of narcissism, and not be abused. And that a “moderate” narcissist might simply not be an “easy person to live with”.

What would the spouse of such a personality need to do to make that kind of marriage workable? In your view, could such a marriage could work even if the narcissistic-type spouse had no clue of his moderate disorder?

Given that everyone is different, which of the criteria for narcissism do you see as disqualifying for leadership? Which could you possibly find acceptable? It does take a certain amount of ego and aggression to want to be a leader, and to pursue it until in hand.

What was your métier, as far as therapies go? Cognitive behavioral is big these days—was that your foundation?

One last one, if you are willing. What did you find that you think doesn’t fit full-NPD for Tony? I am curious because I had a father who I am certain had the whole enchilada (tho undiagnosed), and a husband who seemed to have many traits but not all.

Patrice wrote:

Beth wrote:
So, when I read both of their diagnoses, I filed it away as interesting information that might very well explain certain things. I am not convinced that he got an accurate diagnosis because I see things that don’t fit. I also am well aware that no one gets slapped with a diagnosis like that without having at least strong traits and I am well aware that the psychologist making the diagnosis was actually with him. I have no illusions that he was an easy person to live with. Was he bad enough to considered an abuser and/or be unfit to serve the role he is serving? I don’t know yet. I know having that diagnosis makes it more likely that the answer is yes, but for me, the answer isn’t yes yet.
Thanks, Beth, I appreciate the info.
If I understand you correctly, you think it quite possible that one could be married to a person who has “strong traits” of narcissism, and not be abused. And that a “moderate” narcissist might simply not be an “easy person to live with”.
What would the spouse of such a personality need to do to make that kind of marriage workable? In your view, could such a marriage could work even if the narcissistic-type spouse had no clue of his moderate disorder?
Given that everyone is different, which of the criteria for narcissism do you see as disqualifying for leadership? Which could you possibly find acceptable? It does take a certain amount of ego and aggression to want to be a leader, and to pursue it until in hand.
What was your métier, as far as therapies go? Cognitive behavioral is big these days—was that your foundation?
One last one, if you are willing. What did you find that you think doesn’t fit full-NPD for Tony? I am curious because I had a father who I am certain had the whole enchilada (tho undiagnosed), and a husband who seemed to have many traits but not all.

Again, I can’t imagine there are many people who would follow someone if they have a real NPD diagnosis that has been made this public. So it seems like the problem, if it is as described in the released notes, will take care of itself.

dee wrote:

@ JR:
JR
I was out last night and I have just returned after leaving the house at 9AM to take my elderly stepfather to the doctor and to buy some valentine cards. Every new person that visits this blog goes into moderation for a certain number of comments. Since i was out, I could not approve comments. I just returned to see 10 comments in moderation and I rapidly approved all of them.
If anyone’s comment is not approved, I put a note in the comment stream to that affect. You will know if you are not approved. That does not happen very often. I also put a note if I ban someone from the blog. I do my best to keep up but on days like this, I am going to be late in approving.

Thanks for the explanation, Dee. That makes perfect sense. Just wondered because it had been a while since I commented. I myself am going out soon though and won’t be available for a bit so I understand the time lapses. Thank you again. Appreciate you hosting this conversation.

Ken wrote:

Women are usually more sensitive than this.

Not necessarily, I’m sorry to say as a woman. Some of the hardest people I’ve known have been women. Some have been men.

Thanks for the Moderation update

Gram3 wrote:

Ken wrote:
Women are usually more sensitive than this.
Not necessarily, I’m sorry to say as a woman. Some of the hardest people I’ve known have been women. Some have been men.

@ Gram3:
Agreed, Gram. Women can’t be equally manipulative. They can know how to use trigger language and alliances for evil as well.

But thanks for crediting our gender rather than dismissing it, Ken! I’ll take it. 😉

@ Xianatty:

I think she has been well aware of the negative pushback she would receive and that many would not believe her and would try to marginalize her. She has been dealing with the progressive/emergent Christian movement for a long time so she knows what it is really like. I am proud of her.

JR wrote:

I have been watching the conversation unfold here for a few days. It’s scary to try to say anything when you know that many of the people who are voicing their opinions share the same side. I hate to donate more blood to the water.
But I’d like to say something.
To start with, I respect this forum. I have seen TWW engage abuses in very admirable ways in the past. While it isn’t a site I frequent every day, I do check here periodically to see how you all are weighing in on abuses that reach the public eye.
It’s very hard to watch sometimes, particularly this time though, because a few (NOT ALL) of the people commenting speak as if they are experts on Tony and Julie’s history. They reference others’ testimony who agrees with them as if it is fact, and they ignore the testimony of others who disagree with them.
IMHO, the only expert on Julie’s personal history, what happened behind the closed doors of her life, is Julie. The rest of us can say, we find Julie credible, but we can’t say speak as if we ourselves are eyewitnesses. The same is true of Tony. Those who support him can say they find him to be honest, but they can’t claim to know things they weren’t there to observe personally. An equal standard has to be applied to both.
I actually know this family. While I like many others who had spoken out wanted to jump in earlier back when the Naked Pastor post went up, I refrained out of an effort to protect their family from the sorts of analysis that is happening here (not by everyone, as some are trying to stick to silencing issues, while others are repeatedly revisiting the details of the divorce).
As someone who has observed this for a long time, it’s so hard to sit back and watch while some who don’t know either of these individuals outside social media and online interactions. Some of the most vocal speak as if they have 100% certainty about the most private details from their positions hundreds and thousands of miles away.
But the truth of it is, many of us who are in it and who have been in it just can’t have certainty about some facets of this which people here (far removed from the situation) are portraying as certain. All any of us can credibly do is lift up our own stories, we can speak from what we have seen in our personal observations and listen well and look at documents on both sides. And that is all anyone else can speak from too. Those documents agree and give us a clear picture about some things. On other things, a fuller look at documents show there are additional details or disputed details. And in most of the personal matters raised here and elsewhere on the internet, they don’t give us a clear picture about every matter being raised here.
I appreciate the chance to speak. It has been hard to feel like anywhere I speak up, I will be pounced upon and be putting new blood in the water just because I know Tony and am not willing to crash a gavel online based on hearsay. I am hoping this is a place where I can speak safely.

I for one will work hard not to treat you like “blood in the water” even if we disagree. I hope that’s not the impression we give here. That goes against our desire to give everyone a voice. Welcome. Just PLEASE be respectful. And don’t silence or shame anyone.

I suspect you’ll say things I disagree with as well. Sometimes I have low tolerance or a short fuse for those who argue with me. I will consider Bethany Ann’s comments encouragement to be fair-minded and respectful as I welcome everyone the chance to be human and be heard.

Gram3 wrote:

@ lydia:

So is the Alternate Narrative of the day “Julie is resisting mediation?”

And oh so subtly.

It is very hard for folks to understand that not everyone has positive intentions even when they claim to be neutral. Like you have said, what is consistently “omitted”? that is a good place to start. To act as if ….an NPD diagnosis, recruiting your ministry colleagues and followers to the “my wife is bat s**t crazy” and I need help having her admitted, to the “spiritual wife/legal wife narrative…is NOT germaine to the issues at hand is insidious. And enabling more evil.

BethanyAnn wrote:

just think that the thing we are fighting for here is everyone having a platform on which to share their stories. A natural consequence of all the stories being shared here is that Julie’s legal team will have the ability to use anything Tony or his people post and that in turn, Tony’s team would also have access to Julie’s story

Tony, Brian, RHE, Nadia and others have had very public platforms for years. People tend to equate their public platform persona with who they are and often people are very wrong about that. Tony has deleted quite a few pertinent things in the last 2 weeks and I think for a good reason. He is smart enough to know it did not bode well for him.

Tony also has the scribd site showing “ministry” personalities supporting him. Julie has us nobodies.

I am not really sure people are understanding the long term imbalance of power here. Julie story got traction in Sept 2014 in blog comments on nakedpastor. Tony and the others have had a public platform in the realm of speaking gigs, conferences, books, social media, events, etc to gain followers and public credibility for how long now?

Brent wrote:

If only Julie and Tony know the truth, I would think you would be critical of these people with positions of power weighing in as you are critical of people on this board.

And a number of us (beginning in 2010), though ‘hundreds and thousands of miles away’ have interacted ON THIS ISSUE with both Julie and Tony directly while you chose to stay silent, JR.

JR wrote:

I hate to donate more blood to the water.

Are you referring to Julie’s blood? She’s the only one I’ve seen consistently vilified beyond the known evidence.

Are you referring to XianAtty’s blood? If so, then you need to understand that he/she has been engaging in precisely what you are ostensibly protesting.

I, too, have been a close observer to an NPD marriage. I’ve seen friends join sides. I’ve seen difficult facts. I’ve seen complexities in relationships. I’ve seen a messy and prolonged divorce and custody process. I get all that. What I don’t get is willful blindness and obfuscation and minimization of what is known.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I’m hearing a form of moral equivalence in your comment.

zooey111 wrote:

Actually the meanest, nastiest behaviour is on the part of women lawyers who bill themselves as “men’s rights advocates

Lawyers are paid to be aggressive advocates *for their clients* and Truth is not the client. To his/her professional credit, XianAtty has done a good job with bad facts. Those facts are really bad when viewed in a purportedly Christian context. And it is odd that professed Christians cannot or will not see things which clearly are wrong here.

JR wrote:

And in most of the personal matters raised here and elsewhere on the internet, they don’t give us a clear picture about every matter being raised here.

Well, yes, this is a human story and no one knows the whole story. And no one, not even Julie or Tony, can get enough information to make a complete and thorough decision as to what’s fully truthful.

But that lack of certainty is the nature of life. We make decisions to the best of our ability, understanding that we could be wrong, partly wrong, mostly right, or essentially correct.

That is why the greatest is love. “…if I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge….but have not love, I am nothing.” Love involves patience, kindness, protection, trust, hope, perseverance. It isn’t rude, self-seeking, easily angered, envious, boastful, proud.

When we examine each side based on their demonstrations of love, we can get a better idea how to proceed. Where is love being shown most clearly (of course, not completely because that doesn’t happen anywhere with humans)?

How do we ourselves love best? It seems obvious to me that love requires we support Julie, since she is the one who has been maligned, sidelined, gaslighted, left in poverty, and has, until the NC thread, been completely alone. I add my own past experiences with abuse. Having found Julie’s tale to be internally consistent with my own, I make my decision.

This doesn’t mean I hate those who I don’t throw my support behind. I am angry though, which is fine.

You make your decision, JR. No decision is without cost and will include fault-lines. If you decide not to decide, that is a cost too. This is life.

@ Xianatty:

I actually do not disagree with your interpretation of what may have happened between Julie and McLaren. In fact, I have a lot of hope for a good outcome between them.

Xianatty wrote:

Regarding the new information at Stollar’s new post, please remember that, as I said at the time, my very first response was based on just the first document I read because it struck me as such a significant contradiction to what I understand Julie to have repeatedly claimed. I am “not looking to see where she screwed up.” I was looking to see what the new evidence showed.

I understand that; however, is desiring to speak before getting the whole picture, especially when the picture was claimed to be proof positive of how Julie was hurt.

In fact, the evidence presented didn’t surprise me in the least. It’s a story I’ve read over and over again- sadly, there is nothing new under the sun. But when dealing with abuse, I think it’s a reasonable expectation that empathy must come first.

Xianatty wrote:

We’re now in the next phase where, as Boz has described it, (paraphrasing) a reasonable investigation of the facts should be made.

I’m not sure that is our job. Our job is to hold the public person accountable and equalize the power balance so that real justice can take place. But we are not investigators or judge and jury.

In fact, I did feel that the documents themselves were unnecessary; however, since no one has taken the time to learn the truth, I guess it had to happen. For me, the important thing was that Julie’s allegations be taken seriously and responded with great care. This did not happen, and so all of this ended up exploding.

Jeff S wrote:

@ Xianatty:

I actually do not disagree with your interpretation of what may have happened between Julie and McLaren. In fact, I have a lot of hope for a good outcome between them.

I hope so too!

@ Val:

Val, there is much I can agree with you about how making stars of spiritual leaders is a disaster.

I wanted to respond very carefully to some of the questions you asked of me. I am deeply uncomfortable being in the role of questioning the “Tony is the abuser, Julie is the victim” narrative and yet here I am. I’ll try and qualify as much as possible, but I humbly ask that you give me the benefit of the doubt that I am not ignorant of abuse dynamics, spiritual abuse dynamics, power dynamics, and PD dynamics. I am a feminist to my core and my thesis and dissertation were on domestic violence. I understand, I really do.

I want to stipulate up front and throughout that Julie is clearly in pain. I see her posts as one long cry of pain. She has been deeply wounded by Tony. I do not see any of this as, “well Julie is not the victim, Tony is” because I question aspects of the narrative “Tony is the abuser, Julie is the victim”. However, I also think there is evidence that she has acted destructively and unfairly from that place of pain. I question the truthfulness of her statements because I think it is possible she remembers the pain, but doesn’t remember the reality of what happened. I don’t see these as little misremembered details either.

I am going to try and explain what I think might (MIGHT) be going on bringing in why I have given the Emergent leaders way more benefit of the doubt than others. To try and keep it from being a dissertation, I will keep my qualifiers to a minimum, but please understand I am not saying I think this is the true narrative. I think it might be, enough that I question the “Tony is the abuser, Julie is the victim” one.

Let me start with the commitment fiasco. Julie stated repeatedly on the Naked Pastor thread that the Discernment team tried to get her committed in order to cover up an affair and/or because they were duped by Tony. She said no one tried to get her input, they just decided she needed to be locked up. I think that is a very serious charge. Then I saw Brad and Danielle come on the thread and say that wasn’t the case at all, that they were concerned for her mental health because she had contacted them saying things that led them to be very worried for her. McLaren followed up with more info in his statement, concluding that she has made false accusations against him (and others) for awhile. I took McLaren’s statement very seriously and here is how I understand it might have gone.

People handle deep emotional pain in different ways. Julie was obviously in deep emotional pain. As RL Stoller put it so well, this can be a sign of abuse. Spot on. But the way she framed the story wasn’t that she was in pain and they tried to help but didn’t do a good enough job. She told the story like they were acting either from malicious or naive motives – either maliciously trying to make her seem crazy or naively doing Tony’s bidding to lock her up. That is very, very different from her reaching out to them with suicidal threats and them trying to get her help. It is a false and destructive accusation to try and portray them that way if that wasn’t what happened.

Brian says she has made false accusations against him and others. He says this in part because she has done it directly to him, not just because he has been listening to Tony.

So when I read that Brian and Brad and Danielle say she has been making false accusations, I in no way think that that means Tony is the victim here. I do think that if it comes to light that Julie made that false accusation against them and refused until now to work it out with Brian, and if it comes to light that there have been other situations where she has portrayed people or situations unfairly or falsely, then those involved are going to be less inclined to see her as a victim. They are not going to trust what she says because they know they were wrongly accused, and if they were, others might be too.

When someone acts out destructively from a place of great pain, damage is still done, even though it isn’t malicious. I think some of the Emergent leaders see her as not just untrustworthy, but destructively so if I look at the example I gave and read between the lines some. I am going to take a guess that Rachel and Nadia want no part of this because they don’t want to be falsely accused of anything either. Tony may very well have played up a narrative that she was mentally ill, but her own behavior, again, coming from a place of pain, might have contributed to that.

Again, that does not mean Tony is telling the truth and he’s a good guy and she is lying and is the bad guy. In no way is it that simple. I think at the very least someone who is self-centered, intellectual, and emotionally distant, paired with someone who is emotionally volatile and expressive is a marriage made in hell. Someone who is a full fledged NPD paired with someone who is emotionally volatile is even worse.

I hope that explains some of my thinking.

@ Xianatty:
What do you think of this?

http://nakedpastor.com/2015/02/tony-jones-story-and-julies-are-victims-still-guilty-until-proven-innocent/

In the comment thread, John Stonecypher points out something the Law struggles to do, but Christians should do as a matter of course:
“David, can you share more about your idea that you can believe the victim while not necessarily disbelieving the alleged abuser? I feel like that is getting at the heart of the issue — that yes, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, but the accuser needs to be similarly presumed innocent of lying. Yes, it means holding contradictory stories in your mind for a time, but we owe it to victims to presume their honesty from the beginning. Am I understanding you?”

I believe Julie, because nothing has proven (not court documents, etc.) her unworthy of belief. Details may be murky, somethings may not be accurate and she may have behaved in ways that some took to mean “crazy”, but I am a teacher. Over the years I have witnessed some marital breakdowns. Some are smooth, others are awful to witness, even in the small part we see at school. Still others are just baffling – sometimes the mother is protecting the children from any contact with the father only to have the whole situation reverse and the father is now protecting the children from the mother. Some parents act “crazy” as some would define it, some parents fight in the hallways of the school, some are terribly vengeful (one couple was taking a week on/off at the family home so the kids could stay in their own bedrooms, and one parent, on their home week, bought a pet for the kids the other was allergic to. All this to say, none of these parents were ever diagnosed as mentally ill due to their behaviours during the divorce. Some were already suffering, but none were diagnosed in the middle of a divorce as “bat shit crazy” I mean what is that? Schizophrenia? BiPolar? what is Tony talking about??? But Julie acting outlandish in the middle of a marital breakdown doesn’t excuse what happens next. Go read the Naked Pastor’s other post (the one about Tony’s take on Mark Driscoll’s theology). Julie just comes by and comments at some point and out of nowhere (I never saw Brian or Doug on his comments before) all these Tony-buddies pop up and they start going after Julie. In a comment thread. If that wasn’t red-flaggy enough, then David Hayward says they were threatening legal action against him (good luck with international borders and free speech laws there). Red Flags going ping, ping, ping!!! And suddenly it was all out “this is private” in every quarter. RHE, MPT, people on this blog, people on Brian’s blogs, on and on. Next the “why tony” on Scribds all come out exonerating him (for what, it’s all private????) and in there, Brian is threatening legal action if Julie doesn’t what? stop commenting on public forms?

Well, thank goodness David Hayward and Dee don’t shut up. Because through it all, we get to hear and see what victimization looks like when one has the power and the other has nothing. Even if you took out a scale and measured and weighed every action, counter action and nasty or untrue comment made by either part, and the scales balanced perfectly, the problem is the silencing of Julie. Julie says Tony was wrong, Tony says Julie was “bat shit crazy” (but no diagnosis or actual condition). My view is “typical bad divorce situation’ and as a lawyer, you likely think so too. But this is one step into the Bazzaro world where Julie is immediately written off by many popular and well liked writers and bloggers, all lobbing doubt of her sanity and truth telling into any comment thread she dares enter. When we go to those blogs to confront these writers, they are closed or we are erased, shut down because now it is all magically private. Not if they take her down publicly on blog threads, it’s not. And I love how David is a Canadian and doesn’t need to worry about lawsuits over free speech having much traction across boarders, so he makes an even stronger point about their actions towards Julie in the his next post. David’s blog will stand and the thread of their ridiculous over reactions will stay. It will bear witness to the imbalance of power going on. Until you effectively address this, you aren’t getting much credit on this site.

Tony abused his power and ganged up on Julie on comment threads 6 or 7 years after they were divorced! He did it in the past too. Maybe spend some time going over all these years of public tear downs of Julie online before you get into the mess divorce antics that were played out. I have never seen an ex and a pile of his buddies pile onto someone on a comment thread before, certainly not years after they have broken up. Not just red flags, red flares are blasting here. Who carries on 6 years past a divorce as if it was last week? If his reputation is so breakable, maybe he needs to work on that rather than trying to silence the woman he abandoned 7 years ago to run off and sew his wild oats in the land of “Spiritual Marriage”.

@ Beth:
Beth, I hear what you are saying and if this was simply a he said/she said then your points might have more merit. However, you are ignoring not only the court documents but also the court decisions on custody issues. The court decided that Julie was fit to have sole physical custody of her three children. You are giving more weight to Brian and Brad’s comments on a blog than you are to the court.

@ Brent:

I don’t follow- I didn’t think the court had weighed in on anything between Julie and McLaren.

Beth wrote:

I hope that explains some of my thinking.

Yes, it certainly does. That is quite a counter-narrative you have put together, and you seem to have considerable information and interest in promoting it. IIRC, you have already brought up the commitment issue. On what basis do you give the Emergent leaders such credit beyond your speculation that things “MIGHT” have unfolded as you speculate? Do you know any of them? Your thoughts might have more weight if the leaders had shown any public gesture of reconciliation during the NP thread or since then. Why should a person who has been traumatized by a NPD trust his close friends and business associates?

Why must the Emergent leaders be given the benefit of the doubt WRT perceptions of Julie’s behavior, but Julie must not be given the benefit of the doubt WRT her perceptions of their behavior? Isn’t that backwards? Or are you subtly pushing the “Julie is hysterical and out-of-control” angle?

I would love to see them do something to undo what has been done. Brian and Rachel could take the first step and acknowledge you did not have all the facts or you chose to ignore them. Or they could say that they did not handle things the way they should have respecting the power differential. People would respect them for stepping up.

Blaming the victim is Never OK. Especially for a therapist.

@Beth and @Brent.

Just so readers here don’t get confused, I assume both of you are talking about *Brad CECIL* on the NakedPastor thread and/or elsewhere, and not me (usually listed as *brad/futuristguy* or *Brad SARGENT* on that thread).

@ Gram3:

I’m not following- if the narrative is that Julie came off as hostile to people who didn’t understand what was going on, that makes sense and it doesn’t make her look bad. And it’s certainly no defense of Tony. In fact, it’s just one more thing Tony is responsible for.

If McLaren does come to the table and meet with Julie, Beth’s narrative (as I understand it) is pretty much what I’d expect to come out.

@ Beth:

Beth, your take on the commitment to a mental ward issue, as it unfolded in the moment vis a vis people who Julie only contacted via email or phone, sounds plausible and I admit that’s a scenario I have already come to view as a likely one in my own mind, pretty much since reading that whole Naked Pastor thread.

But none of that changes my belief that the core of Julie’s narrative about the infidelity and mental/spiritual abuse is true. Nor does it excuse any of those leaders for continuing to shut Julie down over time even (in most cases) continuing through the present day, while continuing to support and work with Tony. I tend to think that rather than knowingly being part of a big Emergent/progressive conspiracy against Julie they’ve mostly been duped by an NPD – they wouldn’t be the first or last. And I think it’s been easy for them to be duped because the NPD’s narrative allows them to keep on with business pretty much as usual rather than upsetting their apple carts. I can understand how, being on the receiving end of it, Julie might feel like it was intentional on ALL their parts. But even if some of their reactions to Julie’s behavior were reasonable in the moment, they have had years to listen, to reconsider, to get Julie’s story, to evaluate whether Tony was a person whose books they should continue blurbing and whose ministry they should continue supporting and/or collaborating with.

@ Banannie:

Well said. I do like peanut butter and banana sandwiches. 😉

Xianatty wrote:

I think that once Julie comes and asks to be believed, and also asks for consequences to happen, such as asking that other leaders remove Tony from his leadership positions or that other Christian authors, etc., refuse to work or appear with him, she makes it our business.

No- this is where I definitely disagree. There are enough facts no matter what Julie has said or done, to show that Tony should not be in a leadership position.

Let me get a little more personal here.

I am divorced. I am divorced because I CHOSE to divorce my wife in order to protect myself and my son. I believe it was that bad and divorce was necessary. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

Now how did my family and I treat her? She couldn’t afford a lawyer, so my mother paid for one. I have never once called her a nasty name, nor encouraged others to do so. I have been quite heistent to air specifics of our marriage online, because I did not feel that would be fair to her or my son. I have worked with her so that she can have visitation as much as she wants, assuming I am comfortable with the arrangement. I did not fight with her over money, even though I believe I could have worked out a “much better deal” based on the facts and that I could have *won* if we’d gone to court.

Now, this is someone who I believe behaved badly enough that divorce was justified. I’m not trying to exalt myself here- to me this is how any good Christian man should have acted in a similar situation. And my wife was guilty- yet if I’d drug her through court, called her names and encouraged others to do so, and had an affair while still married to her- none of that would be OK. And if I did all of that and were a public leader in ministry, I’d have every reason to expect TWW to come knocking on my door and exposing my treatment of her.

The point is, I was the victim in our marriage, but if I did all of that and treated her that way, then she would have been a legitimate victim and TWW would have every reason to expose my sin as a public minister building a ministry. Someone could expose everything she ever did, but it would still not be right for me to lead other people or stay in the public light. The shorter point is- Tony is accounstable for his actions despite Julie’s.

Thankfully, I am neither a public minister nor the kind of man who treats his ex-wife the way Tony has.

Jeff S wrote:

I’m not following- if the narrative is that Julie came off as hostile to people who didn’t understand what was going on, that makes sense and it doesn’t make her look bad. And it’s certainly no defense of Tony. In fact, it’s just one more thing Tony is responsible for.

The point of the Beth’s proposed alternate narrative is to generate an excuse for the Emergent leaders to do what they did or did not do. It places the blame for any “misunderstanding” which might later come to light on her, the one under emotional and financial stress, rather than on them, the purported spiritual leaders to whom she appealed.

Does that make more sense? Instead of focusing on the responsibility of the spiritual leaders to act in whatever way they could to minister to a family and then to a single mom, the narrative is shifted to a “misunderstanding” of Julie due to her “volatile” and emotional reaction. That way, whatever comes to light regarding their involvement can be explained away. It is PR battlefield prep.

I will repeat that I think the best PR strategy as as well as the best Christian move would be for the Emergent/Progressive leaders to take the lead publicly on reconciliation. We all make terrible mistakes, and we all do things that are wrong and fail to do things that are right. They have a chance to turn this in a redemptive direction if they choose to do it.

Xianatty wrote:

That’s not to say, at all, that the number of motions filed is anywhere near as substantively important as the psych report.

How fascinating that you say this buried in a comment on the day *after* the Stollar news!

We have all known about the NPD diagnosis for awhile. It’s the elephant that you dare not name because Appellate Court! Nice to see you characterize it as a substantive matter. And now you can proceed with instructions about the difference between a diagnosis admitted by a NPD person and the report of that diagnosis. Whatever.

I am again making a formal protest against Xianatty retrying Julie on inconsistencies on the long-finished divorce proceedings.

A couple of days ago, he made a handful of interesting minor points but since then, it has been simply subterfuge. I wish very much that people would stop letting him lead them around by the nose, because that could mean they’ll be going in circles for eternity. 😉

Val wrote:

She claims, but I haven’t seen it, she still has a letter they all signed and sent her ordering her to a mental institution. That is a funny way to show concern if true. She claims to still be in possession of it. If it does come to light, is this why they are freaking out 6 years later?

She does not claim they all signed it, but they are all mentioned in it — which was acknowledged by a number of them on the NP Thugology post. I’m looking at a photo of the letter as I type this.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

@Beth and @Brent.
Just so readers here don’t get confused, I assume both of you are talking about *Brad CECIL* on the NakedPastor thread and/or elsewhere, and not me (usually listed as *brad/futuristguy* or *Brad SARGENT* on that thread).

Yes, thank you for that clarification!

Gram3 wrote:

The point of the Beth’s proposed alternate narrative is to generate an excuse for the Emergent leaders to do what they did or did not do. It places the blame for any “misunderstanding” which might later come to light on her, the one under emotional and financial stress, rather than on them, the purported spiritual leaders to whom she appealed.

This presumes to know Beth’s motives, cast in the worst possible light, and thus dehumanizes Beth, which is the very behavior so many here are rightfully trying to stand against when it comes to those who have dehumanized Julie.

It is hypocrisy. It is wrong. From everything I’ve read, Beth has graciously provided nuanced insights, from her perspective.

I had to quit participating here recently because to be honest the comments section on this blog the past few weeks made me sick to my stomach. And I finally realized why. They remind me of Doug Wilson’s comment section.

If Beth can’t be heard and respected here alongside Julie, this site isn’t really safe for anyone.

btw, I’m a survivor of abuse and the daughter of an NPD father. I’ve lived this crap. Just because some of us see nuance doesn’t mean we don’t get it.

@ Val:

You make some good points. I think that Beth’s proposed narrative should be evaluated in light of the guest post at Stollar’s blog today that, IIRC, Brad Futurist linked upthread.

Neutrality in cases of abuse is likely to be furthering the abuse.

Ready. Set. Pounce.

Lydia wrote:

Did they not understand it was for professionals to decide?

Please note that the “Discernment Group” (their name, BTW) consisted of Tony, Pagitt, Brad Cecil, Danielle Shroyer (Courtney’s pastor) in Dallas with McLaren & Mike King appearing by phone, Do note that TONY, the admitted NPD was part of the “Discernment Group”.

Xianatty wrote:

But, it is important to note that this is one example of a place where Tony could have put Julie and the kids through the proverbial wringer by forcing them through the trauma and financial expense of a full-blown trial, and, for whatever reason, chose not to do so.

Because Tony’s such a swell guy, right?

And now you have done a full 360 back to the Appellate Court gnat-straining and terminology school-marmimg schtick about a “court decision” vs. a “stipulation” vs. an “agreement.” We are not lawyers, but we’re not idiots, either. Shame on Julie for not using the legally precise language and for offending your sensibilities. She should probably be disbarred for such misconduct.

@ Lydia:

Beth knows this or certainly should know it. Great comment about the pastoral wisdom, too.

Blaming the Victim is Never OK.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Did they not understand it was for professionals to decide?
Please note that the “Discernment Group” (their name, BTW) consisted of Tony, Pagitt, Brad Cecil, Danielle Shroyer (Courtney’s pastor) in Dallas with McLaren & Mike King appearing by phone, Do note that TONY, the admitted NPD was part of the “Discernment Group”.

Thank you for that very helpful information. And thank you, too, for being an early voice against this. For those of us coming into this later, it is difficult to keep up with the who’s who.

Of course the NPD would want to have his posse to intimidate her and make her feel like she was all alone. That’s how they roll. Actually had someone try that on me, and the first time it was somewhat disorienting. The next time, not so much. But I also was not coming out of a marriage to a NPD husband, so I cannot imagine how she must have felt with the Wall of Friends he brought to bear.

@ Bill Kinnon:

“Discerning” just like a Charles I Star Chamber. Sheesh!

Xianatty wrote:

Julie repeatedly claimed both that Tony was abusing the process

I’m sorry, I don’t have the know-how or access to really look this up, but you seem to:

How many times has Tony filed/motioned/whatever for full custody of the children since they were awarded to Julie?

You don’t have to count the time he went to the Minnesota legislature to lobby that fathers have a stronger position legally.

Patrick O wrote:

But in that thread all I saw were people in that circle, who should have been encouraging the right decision for a husband to make, instead protecting their own status, their own roles, their own kingdoms, not admitting influence in that situation or apologizing. Just aggressive protection. That’s not pastoral, that’s anti-pastoral. They defended the oppressor, and justify the oppression.

Thank you for this, especially for your portrayal of we should have expected to see from Christians but did not see on the NP thread. They have an opportunity to make it right, and I hope they will.

@ Bill Kinnon:
Bill Kinnon wrote:

Lydia wrote:
Did they not understand it was for professionals to decide?
Please note that the “Discernment Group” (their name, BTW) consisted of Tony, Pagitt, Brad Cecil, Danielle Shroyer (Courtney’s pastor) in Dallas with McLaren & Mike King appearing by phone, Do note that TONY, the admitted NPD was part of the “Discernment Group”.

A correction to what Bill noted, plus some additional information:

Mark Scandrette was also part of that group.

The meeting occurred in Dallas, July 18, 2008, during when Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Mark Scandrette were there on the cross-country “Church Basement Roadshow” tour promoting their books.

If recollection serves correctly, Mark offered an apology to Julie sometime before the NakedPastor thread, which was September 5-December 15, 2014.

Patrick O wrote:

Anyone who knows people, who responds to people as people rather than targets, would understand why someone might appear desperate and highly emotional if their husband is everyone but home, with everyone but his wife and kids. But in that thread all I saw were people in that circle, who should have been encouraging the right decision for a husband to make, instead protecting their own status, their own roles, their own kingdoms, not admitting influence in that situation or apologizing. Just aggressive protection. That’s not pastoral, that’s anti-pastoral. They defended the oppressor, and justify the oppression.

Well said.

Gram3 wrote:

thank you, too, for being an early voice against this

Thank you. That means a lot to me.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

If I didn’t have any empathy for Julie from the beginning I wouldn’t have bothered to try to understand her story.
_____
I suppose that depends on the meaning of empathy.

You are the one who refused, after multiple attempts by others here, to state forthrightly how you disagreed with Boz’ statement. In reply to those queries, you denied you had said what you plainly had said and which I quoted back to you in response. You failed your own standard that you want to hold Julie to.

I’m bringing all this back up so that people know where you are coming from and so they can evaluate the credibility of the one on this thread who is so determined to fabricate a destruction of Julie’s while ignoring the magnitude of Tony’s credibility gap.

Blaming the victim is Never OK. Even if you are a “neutral” attorney.

That’s simply false. Not only did I *not* deny what I said, I repeated it back to you, in full, several times. I also separately explained my point of disagreement. That you choose to ignore it doesn’t make it go away.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

A correction to what Bill noted, plus some additional information:

Indeed. Mark was the one who signed the letter to Julie — I didn’t look to the bottom of the “discernment” letter as I included the names. Thanks, B-rad.

Val wrote:

@ Xianatty:
Can you answer these questions from David Hayward’s blog?:
So here are my 7 questions:

Are we still not going to believe victims until all the facts are in?
Are victims guilty until proven innocent?
Are women’s stories automatically held in suspicion?
Are we still more impressed with power than the victims of it?
Are we going to believe the first official report of events?
Are we enamored by leaders to the point of moral blindness?
Are women the most reliable witnesses of their own lives?

These are for Christians to think about, not from a Law perspective, but from a Christian perspective.

No, no, no, no, no, no, almost always.

Carl A wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

such as asking that other leaders remove Tony from his leadership positions or that other Christian authors, etc., refuse to work or appear with him, she makes it our business.

Carl A. wrote:
I’m sorry, do you have a link to where she’s asked that? I was under the impression she’s just asking for apologies.

Sorry, just making sure this didn’t get lost in the chatter – do you have a link for this claim?

Bridget wrote:

While Tony and Julie’s marriage is falling apart and Julie is in distress, the pastors are travelling about promoting books? Why is Courtney’s pastor present?

Danielle Shroyer, Courtney Perry’s pastor at that time, pastors Journey Church in the Dallas area. So, as she indicated on the NakedPastor thread if I remember right, had the meeting been held elsewhere in the 32-city Roadshow tour, she probably would not have been there.

http://journeydallas.com/leaders/

If I remember correctly, the tour presentation was to be held at Journey Church that evening of July 18, 2008, but was cancelled and this meeting was held.

Sara wrote:

If Beth can’t be heard and respected here alongside Julie, this site isn’t really safe for anyone

Sara, I ask this in sincerity. Is your idea of “respect” being agreed with?

And as to nuance, living with an NPD is nothing but manufactured chaos presented as nuance …they make sure you know that you cannot possibly understand.

Banannie wrote:

Uh oh. This comment thread is now so long that don’t remember things I’ve said in it previously. I’m almost certain I didn’t say that, it sounds too noble for my patented snark. On the other hand, sometimes I’m in that kind of mood, so it’s possible. Can you give me more context?
Lydia wrote:

Banannie wrote:

It is never a rush to judgment to fall on the side of safety when it comes to protecting the vulnerable.”

And who would be the “vulnerable” in this scenerio? Tony with his “Wall of Friends”? (TM’d for Gram)

The first sentence is taken from Boz’s comment (the very last sentence) that xtianatty quoted to “prove” his stance of a need to invesitgate Julie with a lice comb. He was trying to show that Boz would agree with his tactics and strategies here. (I am not a big fan of appealing to authority, anyway)

The second sentence is mine where I stoled Gram’s “Wall of Friends” phrase. It was confusing because I was piggybacking on your comment. Sorry.

@ Lydia: okay, got it.

I think it’s not just having a messy situation that is a key issue. Lots of people have messy situations. Everyone has a messy life at one point or another. How we encounter and deal with mess says a lot about a person. It certainly says a lot about a pastor. Which I think was Paul’s key point in his guidance about who is to be an elder. Being pastoral doesn’t mean having a perfect life, or perfect reactions, or everything in order. It does, however, suggest a method of response, one that prioritizes and personalizes people in ways that reflect Christ’s love. This is no more true than in marriage, which Paul explicitly uses as an analogy for the church. A person who deals with the mess, who is willing to prioritize and shape their life so as to seek resolution in love is one approach. Life is hard, we get that. We can see love go even deeper during these times, love of God, love of neighbor. And who is closer of a neighbor than one’s own spouse?

A person who rejects, blames, responds with fury when their own territory is threatened or their whims are protested, that’s another way. That’s not the way of love. A person is free to do this, but if they can’t live out the way of love in their own closest relationships they have no business talking to others about pastoring, Christian leadership, theology, or such. It’s just words, and untrustworthy words at that if they don’t themselves take it seriously enough to put it into practice when it becomes difficult.

dee wrote:

You are the Emergent crowd’s Wenatchee the Hatchet. You are so good at getting the facts.

Although that’s a role I seem to have ended up in, it’s one that places a huge burden on me to be as circumspect in what I post.

I try to be accurate as possible, and complete as possible, and source the material whenever possible — in part because the more coherent the set of facts, the better the possibility we have for reconstructing the context of what has gone on (or is now happening), asking relevant questions, and interpreting it.

For instance, it’s one thing to know there was some kind of “discernment meeting.”

It adds to the information to know who was present — and who was NOT present [Julie was not present; and Brian McLaren and Mike King were phoned.] — and where and when it was held [And if not in Dallas, would Brad Cecil or Danielle Shroyer been present? Probably not.], and apparently why, and whose perspective(s) were setting the narrative.

It starts altering the significance and setting of the context when you know that it was held in the middle of a 32-city promotional tour, on three 10-day periods that took place between June 13-August 4, 2008.

Was this such a great idea for fathers to be on the road that much, given the larger picture of their overall work schedules?

Who were these men accountable to?

Did meeting participants and/or accountability partners have conflicts of interest that could have skewed their processing?

Does it shift our trust level and tentative conclusions now to back-read into that situation what we know from Tony Jones’ recent public statement which included his acknowledgment of a clinical diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

How does the entire “gestalt” of the situation reflect on leadership qualifications related to biblical mandates of must-have and can’t-have character and theology and behaviors?

Layers and layers. It’s why I find myself commenting less and less, because there is more and more work just to track what is unfolding and trying to document it while also attempting to understand it as best I can, especially if it is outside areas of my expertise, and to expand/course-correct my interpretation of both the trees and the forest of the situation.

So there’s that, FWIW.

@ Patrick O:
Beautifully said. A Christian leader should be known to be like Christ. Not perfect, but pursuing Christ-likeness. That is why I have hope that, if these friends of Tony’s are believers, the Spirit of Christ will move them toward peace and reconciliation. It isn’t too late.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Tony’s and Julie’s intimacy issues. And Tony had already admitted his NPD diagnosis, giving the exact reference/coding number so that anyone could easily find a very detailed description of it.

Of course. Sum up your comment by resurrecting the Private Matter Between Two Adults narrative or the Messy Divorce narrative. And wave off objections to your ignorance of a “substantive” matter by saying people can look up a description of NPD. It would make your commentary as a neutral Christian attorney more helpful and believable if you would include all the salient information instead of being such a transparent advocate.

Blaming the victim is Never OK.

Distorting someone’s words is Never OK.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

How does the entire “gestalt” of the situation reflect on leadership qualifications related to biblical mandates of must-have and can’t-have character and theology and behaviors?

Yes.

I’m fascinated that, having exhausted the only detail that could even remotely be construed as challenging Julie’s veracity, you’ve now moved on to other supposedly dishonest or false details. I really don’t think this is a smart move for you. If the thing about when Tony and Courtney started up is your very next best argument you are already sunk. I mean, I just wouldn’t try armed with details don’t that only serve to dramatically underscore that Tony’s a lying sack of…peanut butter sandwiches.

Of course, what Tony says is that he and Courtney never communicated before he filed for divorce. Which is demonstrably untrue. And the way we know it’s untrue is that some of the proof was scrubbed from the internet, but retrievable via wayback machine. Which, of course, you know, XA.

He should have made up a more believable lie, that they were business acquaintances prior to him filing for divorce, but he didn’t. He went with the demonstrably false “never spoke to her” line. Alas.

Xianatty wrote:

Jeff S wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I think that once Julie comes and asks to be believed, and also asks for consequences to happen, such as asking that other leaders remove Tony from his leadership positions or that other Christian authors, etc., refuse to work or appear with him, she makes it our business.

No- this is where I definitely disagree. There are enough facts no matter what Julie has said or done, to show that Tony should not be in a leadership position.

Let me get a little more personal here.

I am divorced. I am divorced because I CHOSE to divorce my wife in order to protect myself and my son. I believe it was that bad and divorce was necessary. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

Now how did my family and I treat her? She couldn’t afford a lawyer, so my mother paid for one. I have never once called her a nasty name, nor encouraged others to do so. I have been quite heistent to air specifics of our marriage online, because I did not feel that would be fair to her or my son. I have worked with her so that she can have visitation as much as she wants, assuming I am comfortable with the arrangement. I did not fight with her over money, even though I believe I could have worked out a “much better deal” based on the facts and that I could have *won* if we’d gone to court.

Now, this is someone who I believe behaved badly enough that divorce was justified. I’m not trying to exalt myself here- to me this is how any good Christian man should have acted in a similar situation. And my wife was guilty- yet if I’d drug her through court, called her names and encouraged others to do so, and had an affair while still married to her- none of that would be OK. And if I did all of that and were a public leader in ministry, I’d have every reason to expect TWW to come knocking on my door and exposing my treatment of her.

The point is, I was the victim in our marriage, but if I did all of that and treated her that way, then she would have been a legitimate victim and TWW would have every reason to expose my sin as a public minister building a ministry. Someone could expose everything she ever did, but it would still not be right for me to lead other people or stay in the public light. The shorter point is- Tony is accounstable for his actions despite Julie’s.

Thankfully, I am neither a public minister nor the kind of man who treats his ex-wife the way Tony has.

I hear what you’re saying and though you weren’t asking let me commend you for the way you dealt with your ex-wife.

As to Tony, I’m not sure we know the things you say in the way you say them. You may well be entirely correct, and I’m certainly not suggesting you’re intentionally distorting anything.

For example, Julie claims she has proof Tony started his relationship with Courtney before the divorce. She always makes it sound like she means before he *filed* for divorce. Tony claims the relationship didn’t start until after he had filed for divorce, at a time when the marriage was irretrievably broken. I understand those who require fidelity to the marriage until it is legally dissolved. (I know others require lifetime fidelity even after a divorce, but that’s a whole separate theological debate.)

I think there is a big difference between (1) someone who, while still actively in a marriage, cheats and decides to dump the spouse for the honey, and (2) someone who, because of a toxic marriage, files for divorce and, while the divorce is pending begins a new relationship. In the first example, I would agree the cheater has disqualified themselves from further leadership unless and until they repent and make whatever real amends are appropriate, including humbly seeking forgiveness from the former spouse. (Here’s what I mean by way of example: A man in my church -a leader in the choir- ran off with his secretary, terribly hurting his wife and kids. Many months later, he saw the error of his ways and sought his wife’s forgiveness. She didn’t give it immediately, and made him, essentially, court her all over again. A year or so later, they remarried and he came back into his role in the choir, and oh what a glorious tenor voice he had! Twenty years later they are still married. Even if they had not gotten remarried, it is this level of humility and forgiveness seeking that I mean when I say “real.”)

In the second example, I think it’s a much closer call. I don’t think we have enough information to know whether Tony falls into category 1 or 2.

The psych evaluation and the custody evaluation also raise significant issues, and they show Tony to have treated Julie shabbily, but they are almost six years old. He has also admitted and apologized for some of the things he did wrong, though it certainly was non-specific and insufficient. If there were a denominational structure, I certainly agree that there’s enough for a thorough investigation. I’m not totally convinced yet that we outsiders know enough yet to reach a definitive conclusion.

Again- the real interesting thing is that having beaten the point about that appellate court doc into the ground, from every angle, and heard all the elements of disagreement, you’ve now moved on to another point to see how it will work in arguments. I’m more convinced than ever that you are practicing arguments for court.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

But, it is important to note that this is one example of a place where Tony could have put Julie and the kids through the proverbial wringer by forcing them through the trauma and financial expense of a full-blown trial, and, for whatever reason, chose not to do so.

Because Tony’s such a swell guy, right?

And now you have done a full 360 back to the Appellate Court gnat-straining and terminology school-marmimg schtick about a “court decision” vs. a “stipulation” vs. an “agreement.” We are not lawyers, but we’re not idiots, either. Shame on Julie for not using the legally precise language and for offending your sensibilities. She should probably be disbarred for such misconduct.

As usual, even when you cut and paste an excerpt of my comment, your commentary bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

Distorting someone’s words is Never OK.

Crap! Now all wise, cautious, and neutral people who care only about Truth(tm) will know never to believe anything I say ever again!!!

Gram3 wrote:

Banannie wrote:

Can we be friends? I want to be friends.

You shouldn’t say “friends.” Friends over the internet are acquaintances. You did not specify Facebook friends, therefore I question your credibility for using such imprecise terms of endearment. You were clearly trying to mislead me. I think even the slooooooowwwwwww learners among us learned that lesson from XA’s scores of references to that egregious behavior.

Xianatty wrote:

As usual, even when you cut and paste an excerpt of my comment, your commentary bears no resemblance to what I actually said.

Please tell me we are not back to the Implication-Inference game. People who care about this can determine if my commentary on your comment is a distortion or if you were actually subtly pushing the narrative that Tony somehow did something noble, or at least something uncharacteristically non-NPD, in all this mess.

This is not about you and me or legal abstractions and words in an appellate document. It’s about some real people who are really hurt by other people and further hurt by still more people who support them with specious diversionary tactics and apologetics. I’m sure you object to that characterization of what you have said, but that is certainly what it looks like you are doing. To some of us, at least.

Blaming the Victim is Never OK.

dee wrote:

Banannie wrote:

Now all wise, cautious, and neutral people who care only about Truth(tm) will know never to believe anything I say ever again!!!

I highly doubt that! I think you really care about the truth.

Thanks Dee!
I was teasing Gram3 about how, per XA’s standards, my misuse of the word “friends” is dishonest and calls into question every other thing I have said or will say.

OK–I don’t comment much, and I have been trying to stay out of the Xianatty sideshow, but here goes.

I was married to a diagnosed narcissist for a long time. (The diagnosis came after our marriage, and he has told it to friends and to our children.) Julie’s story of gaslighting, denigration, accusation, lies, deflecting blame, emotional distance, and mind-bending loneliness and confusion is intimately familiar to me, minus the religious and institutional element. My former husband, though well-known and admired in his field at the time, was not giving others advice on how to live. And we did not take our troubles public, beyond a few blog posts on his part.

Following this saga takes me back to my younger self, and the truth is, I think I would have welcomed a fact-checker like Xianatty. I was so bewildered and off balance that I had all kinds of trouble evaluating my own actions. Was I the awful villain? The mistreated saint? Living with a narcissist, you don’t get to be just a garden-variety fallible person doing her best. Someone else is hijacking your own experiences and history and reframing them for their own benefit. I used to wish some neutral person could just tell me what had really happened.

I wanted to take responsibility for the wrong actions (I’m not a Christian and tend not to think in terms of sin) that were mine. Having someone who empathized but wasn’t half-paralyzed by grief and frustration go through the record and give me a reality check would have been great. I didn’t need every single person who heard my story to believe every word of it.

Strong emotions can warp your reality, and I knew that even when I was in the grip of them. In my case, most of our friends stayed friends with my former husband for a long time, and that was ok. It wasn’t what I would have liked for short-term gratification, but in the end it was better. The bridges he eventually burned with them, he did on his own, and we all–especially our children–were saved some unnecessary drama.

Someone said upthread that at some point we have to choose sides, and that is where Xianatty’s statements become de facto support for Tony. In the realm of the personal, I disagree. My ex-husband didn’t have to be demonized for me to look good. My overreactions or exaggerations didn’t have to be glossed over for him to look bad. The trajectory of our lives over time has provided plenty of proof, with less pressure on our children to choose sides themselves.

And it’s not as though having people take my side would change his thinking. It just entrenches his role as a victim. I’m assuming that’s the same, on the personal level, with Tony and Julie. Julie’s freedom will come from getting emotional as well as financial independence. Part of that process is not being too scared to hear about and face up to one’s own mistakes. When you’ve been attacked unreasonably, by someone who doesn’t actually want you to be whole, that can be very hard to do. But the inability to even try is what keeps a narcissist from ever growing up. Narcissists are cowards as well as bullies. I’m betting that Julie is neither.

So in my mind, the choosing sides is more an institutional matter. Tony is a public figure who, in the words of his own therapist, quoted in his own blog, gets up in the morning and tells other people how to live. http://www.redletterchristians.org/narcissistic-yet-well-balanced-world-changer/

The evidence is strong that he should not be doing that and that his theological pals should stop enabling him. Maybe that is the sense where choosing sides is essential and the side that needs to be publicly chosen is Julie’s. (I only say “maybe” because of my outsider status in relation to religious groups in general and the Emergent folks in particular, not because I think “maybe” Tony’s a worthy leader.)

If I’m right in this separation between the personal and institutional (and perhaps I’m missing some jetliner size points flying low over my head), it’s unhelpful to respond so personally to Xianatty. She–I’m going with “she”–really isn’t harming Julie’s personal standing, and the public issue needs strategy and strength of numbers more than it needs the dissection of one lawyer’s motives. To me, it feels like a distraction from the bigger issues, and as I say, I would have appreciated someone like her when I was lost in the he said/she said wars.

And let me add my appreciation to the Deebs for allowing heated discussion that is still discussion rather than rants.

@ klickvic:

Your perspective carries a lot of weight. May I suggest, however, that XianAtty has not approached the matter neutrally but rather his/her neutrality has been exposed as not much more than a pose. The best indication of that is that his/her initial approach–never mind the tone change from yesterday–has not been directed toward helping anyone get a clearer perspective. We can be fairly confident of that because it is only today and possibly yesterday that XianAtty has made any significant acknowledgement of Tony’s NPD.

Every person, including Tony, needs good friends who will speak the truth to them and force them to test and adjust their perception of reality. In my personal experience as a non-attorney and non-therapist what XianAtty has been doing is nothing like helping someone understand reality as it is rather than how it is mis-perceived. XianAtty is playing the part of a PR operative perfectly even if that is not his/her intent.

It is encouraging to learn that you have come through that experience. You make a very important point about taking the long view, and I hope that everyone concerned, and especially the most powerful, will do exactly that.

@ brad/futuristguy:
An excellent list, Brad! Here are a few more, and if you think any are useful, take them:

–With the privilege of celebrity (even mini) comes the inevitable price of being in a glass house. One still does need privacy but it cannot be expected to be the same as it is for those who aren’t celebs.

–Money issues should always be transparent.

–Humans need time to gain experience and wisdom before assuming spiritual leadership.

–In the church especially, money should not be directly tied to celebrity. The combo of money and power is too much for all but a very few humans. In fact, the combo is a recipe for ineffectiveness because it shields the celeb from regular life with others.

–Leadership in the church needs to be understood as the ultimate in servanthood, and that can never be so unless the leaders are deeply bedded in a normal community (not a community of like-minded followers).

–Book writers and seminary profs are also christian leaders. When a decently-paid pastor is also a book writer, all profits should go to charity.

–The position of leadership is always a bit lonely, not the loneliness of being at a pinnacle, but the loneliness that arises from carrying the burdens of many. And if the latter is true, spiritual direction from mature others will be paramount.

–In the church, leaders with family must have somewhat altered priorities, and they ought to be delineated. The recalcitrance of PKs and MKs is notorious, and for good reason. 🙂 Moreover, the privacy of the family is that of other regular people, not the glass house of the leader.

–Nepotism is never a good idea.

–Every Christian leader should have a court jester on staff, who accompanies him/her on all public trips, and entertains the leader’s family at least one evening per month. The jester will function as a constant reminder that leader doesn’t actually know all that much and is quite often, just plain silly. Plus better jokes for sermons, conference and lectures.

Ken wrote:

What you euphemistically call a new relationship Jesus calls adultery, and when it started doesn’t change that, nor the reasons for the breakup of the first marriage.

This at the very least puts Julie’s imperfections and mistakes and even wrongdoing into some perspective. She has been grievously sinned against.

Well said, Sir Ken.

Carl A wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

such as asking that other leaders remove Tony from his leadership positions or that other Christian authors, etc., refuse to work or appear with him, she makes it our business.
_____
I’m sorry, do you have a link to where she’s asked that? I was under the impression she’s just asking for apologies.

Here’s what she said at the original Naked Pastor thread on 9/12/14 @ 12:55 –

“Becky Garrison…nailed it. It’s mental illness. If you have a known and documented serious personality disorder (NPD) that has been diagnosed through exhaustive testing by an experienced and highly regarded clinical psychologist…then you need to stop down, and shut up.

** step down”

A few minutes later at 12:51, said:

“Hypothetically, if you KNOW you have a serious mental issues….step down. That’s my point. I’m sure people have given feedback somewhere along the lines to these individuals and they know that they are “difficult,” “hard to work with,” “rageful,” “arrogant.” To pretend none of that has any correlation with you and your own untreated issues, and to let “bad behaviors” go unchecked, is what I find disgusting. Others riding on the coat tails of these “minor celebrities” in a very small fish bowl of life…say and do nothing because of their own self interest. book deal. speaking gig. it’s rather disgusting. the closest thing I ever got as an apology was from a SF, CA EC leader who treated me reprehensibly said, “some of what you said may be right.” walk the talk or don’t talk and certainly do not point a finger when your hands are filthy.”

On 9/17/14 at 12:35, she said:

“So, when I had the psychological evaluation I went back to the 6 expecting full apologies and I THOUGHT they would ask the mentally ill leader to step down from leadership. No such thing.”

In 9/19/14 at 4:52, she said, in response to an offer from Dee to tell her story here:

“Thank you, Dee. You know what I would like the outcome to be? Simply this, by Doug Pagitt, Brad Cecil, Mark Scandrette, Danielle Shroyer, Brian McLaren and Mike King (and the other is incapable). “Julie, I am sorry. We handled that poorly. It was wrong and for that I am sorry.”

I’m sure there are more, but you can search them out for yourself. I read her as asking for both. Certainly she has weighed in and interacted in comment threads where these other things are being discussed and has said, IIRC, nothing to dissuade her supporters from demanding these things.

Xianatty:
Thank you for providing some quotes. Your original statement:
“…to believe that Tony’s conduct has disqualified himself from any leadership role, is a request that we believe *her.””

So in your opinion is someone who has (self-admitted) a documented case of NPD a person who should be in a church leadership role in any scenario?

Why is it necessary to believe Julie in this scenario? Tony has admitted himself that he has been diagnosed with NPD. Nobody with NPD should be in a church leadership position. Do you disagree?

I am also still awaiting a tally of the number of times Tony has filed for full custody of his children, since you seem to have access to those types of details.

Xianatty wrote:

asking that other leaders remove Tony

and

Xianatty wrote:

ask the mentally ill leader to step down from leadership

…aren’t actually the same thing, now are they Monsieur Christian Attorney. And you will find that even I, on that thread, responding directly to Tony, suggested he should have “simply exited stage left “years ago.””

You twist words with ease, Xianatty and always to ToJo’s advantage.

Karl wrote:

JR wrote:

I appreciate the chance to speak. It has been hard to feel like anywhere I speak up, I will be pounced upon and be putting new blood in the water just because I know Tony and am not willing to crash a gavel online based on hearsay. I am hoping this is a place where I can speak safely.

JR, I hope you feel like you get a fair hearing. I hope also, that you will do some honest and sincere investigation (if you haven’t previously) into what a diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) means and what its ramifications are.
NPD’s are often the nicest neighbors and among the most loved people in their circle of friends.
Allow me to briefly share my personal experience with someone who I am pretty sure is an NPD and who I’ve been told by a psychiatrist in his congregation is a likely NPD: he was a pastor, and he and his wife (now ex-wife) were about the same age as my wife and me and we became friends in our late 20’s, were good friends for a couple of years but then kind of drifted in different directions. We are now all in our early 40’s. Even after we stopped interacting with them much I still thought VERY highly of him. Super-smart, likeable, funny, interesting, engaging. He was ‘one of the good guys.’ I would NEVER have guessed what was going on behind the scenes in their relationship. But when news of his multiple affairs finally came out and my wife told me about his wife’s weeping report to her of years of slow-burn gaslighting and mental/spiritual abuse and being made to feel like SHE was the problem, and his continued behind the scenes vindictive words and actions to her even post-divorce determined to make her life a living hell until their kids are 18 and beyond if possible . . . and then I looked again at him . . . still portraying himself as the wronged victim who had just made a few (admitted, repented-of) mistakes, doing a social media blitz to portray himself as an involved and loving perfect father to their kids . . . I felt like I was looking at the face of evil. But there are still people from their old circle who don’t get it. Who don’t buy his wife’s story, or who kind of “don’t blame him” for cheating on such a poor wife as (he claims that) she was, who pity him and admire him. Because he is oh so slick but doesn’t come across as slick – just very sincere – in public. So even some of their friends and neighbors buy his version rather than hers. Because he has successfully gaslighted her. And that is even with evidence and admission of at least TWO affairs with church members while he was a pastor!!! (of course most of the church had/has her back and he was put out on his can, but among their non-church friends and even with some of the church members it’s a closer split). If he can pull THAT off, then I have no doubt that someone like Tony who has a full fledged NPD diagnosis could pull the wool over the eyes of most of his friends and neighbors, and stand back while emotionally volatile (and emotionally abandoned and goaded) Julie looks like the problem.
My personal experience with that former-friend NPD is what makes me find Julie plausible. I appreciate your acknowledging that our own experience colors how we view these things. Just don’t underestimate the significance of someone being diagnosed NPD, the severity/seriousness of that diagnosis, and the ramifications it has for their believability and the likelihood that pretty much everything you’ve ever seen or heard from them is a carefully crafted PR move thinking several steps down the road. It’s hard to admit we might have totally read someone wrong, we figure more alarm bells would have gone off in our head if what she is saying was really going on, etc. Not necessarily.

I appreciate what you’ve said here. My background is not in counseling, so this is not my subject of expertise, but I HAVE taken the time to not only read extensively on this diagnosis, but to consult a psychologist friend. I try not to over-state my own expertise, but these facts and your encouragement are all things I am weighing. Yes.

Patrice wrote:

JR wrote:
And in most of the personal matters raised here and elsewhere on the internet, they don’t give us a clear picture about every matter being raised here.
Well, yes, this is a human story and no one knows the whole story. And no one, not even Julie or Tony, can get enough information to make a complete and thorough decision as to what’s fully truthful.
But that lack of certainty is the nature of life. We make decisions to the best of our ability, understanding that we could be wrong, partly wrong, mostly right, or essentially correct.
That is why the greatest is love. “…if I can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge….but have not love, I am nothing.” Love involves patience, kindness, protection, trust, hope, perseverance. It isn’t rude, self-seeking, easily angered, envious, boastful, proud.
When we examine each side based on their demonstrations of love, we can get a better idea how to proceed. Where is love being shown most clearly (of course, not completely because that doesn’t happen anywhere with humans)?
How do we ourselves love best? It seems obvious to me that love requires we support Julie, since she is the one who has been maligned, sidelined, gaslighted, left in poverty, and has, until the NC thread, been completely alone. I add my own past experiences with abuse. Having found Julie’s tale to be internally consistent with my own, I make my decision.
This doesn’t mean I hate those who I don’t throw my support behind. I am angry though, which is fine.
You make your decision, JR. No decision is without cost and will include fault-lines. If you decide not to decide, that is a cost too. This is life.

Patrice, I really appreciate not only what you’ve written–there are many good insights here–but also the tone in which you wrote it. The principles you are citing are also ones that direct me.

I think love is an excellent quality to take into consideration here. I see quite a few evidences in both the incidents cited here and in the resulting discussions across the internet (and to be fair, in my own life as well) that fall short of the noble qualities you described. By that same token I want to be mindful of the amount of good and kindness that I have personally seen over and over again in some of the parties vilified here.

zooey111 wrote:

BethanyAnn wrote:

I don’t think Xiantty has crossed the line here though.

You’re absolutely right. XA hasn’t crossed the line. S/he arrived, firmly entrenched in Tojo’s camp, where s/he has remained up to this very minute.. Except, of course, for getting louder & shriller in Tojo’s defense with every tick of the clock..

Spot on. And no matter what XA claims about not being paid, etc., XA very evidently has alliances to this group.

Additionally, I have worked in law for decades and XianAtty’s posts are something that attorneys don’t just do and XianAtty would be the laughingstock of the legal community for this unprofessional conduct/posts. It’s just NOT done.

Brent wrote:

@ Beth:
Beth, I hear what you are saying and if this was simply a he said/she said then your points might have more merit. However, you are ignoring not only the court documents but also the court decisions on custody issues. The court decided that Julie was fit to have sole physical custody of her three children. You are giving more weight to Brian and Brad’s comments on a blog than you are to the court.

Xianatty wrote:

Brent wrote:
@ Xianatty:
Can you tell us what that conduct of Tony’s was? I see lots of parsing of Julies actions but don’t see you tell us what this conduct was.

It’s pretty well laid out in the portions of his pych evaluation and the custody evaluation.

I do think there is content in these excerpts that is concerning. It would be foolish and dishonest to pretend otherwise. Many of the portions of the psych evaluation that were shared relay the therapists retelling of Julie’s testimony however. They do not represent all the existing findings of therapists and other professionals who were similarly court ordered or otherwise employed on the family’s behalf.

While I think those documents are relevant and must be weighed, I don’t think it’s realisitic to think excerpts from a document compiled by one person in short window of time tell the full story of a person’s conduct.

@ Xianatty:
Honestly, this is the thread that will not die, primarily becaybecause you and a couple of other people keep going on and on and on about things that you made your respective points about 500 +ccomments ago.

Don’t be surprised if you find out that a lot of us stopped listening to you a long time ago. Your refusal to even take a break, evet, makes you suspect. You have, imo, convinced nobody except yourself, and any shred of plausibility re. your arguments is long gone.

Jeff S wrote:

Xianatty wrote:
I think that once Julie comes and asks to be believed, and also asks for consequences to happen, such as asking that other leaders remove Tony from his leadership positions or that other Christian authors, etc., refuse to work or appear with him, she makes it our business.
No- this is where I definitely disagree. There are enough facts no matter what Julie has said or done, to show that Tony should not be in a leadership position.
Let me get a little more personal here.
I am divorced. I am divorced because I CHOSE to divorce my wife in order to protect myself and my son. I believe it was that bad and divorce was necessary. It was the hardest thing I’ve ever done.
Now how did my family and I treat her? She couldn’t afford a lawyer, so my mother paid for one. I have never once called her a nasty name, nor encouraged others to do so. I have been quite heistent to air specifics of our marriage online, because I did not feel that would be fair to her or my son. I have worked with her so that she can have visitation as much as she wants, assuming I am comfortable with the arrangement. I did not fight with her over money, even though I believe I could have worked out a “much better deal” based on the facts and that I could have *won* if we’d gone to court.
Now, this is someone who I believe behaved badly enough that divorce was justified. I’m not trying to exalt myself here- to me this is how any good Christian man should have acted in a similar situation. And my wife was guilty- yet if I’d drug her through court, called her names and encouraged others to do so, and had an affair while still married to her- none of that would be OK. And if I did all of that and were a public leader in ministry, I’d have every reason to expect TWW to come knocking on my door and exposing my treatment of her.
The point is, I was the victim in our marriage, but if I did all of that and treated her that way, then she would have been a legitimate victim and TWW would have every reason to expose my sin as a public minister building a ministry. Someone could expose everything she ever did, but it would still not be right for me to lead other people or stay in the public light. The shorter point is- Tony is accounstable for his actions despite Julie’s.
Thankfully, I am neither a public minister nor the kind of man who treats his ex-wife the way Tony has.

If the people who knew Tony and Julie during the course of this divorce tried their best, if they found in their best judgment that there were a couple incidents of violence and harmful behavior on both sides, a lot of stubbornness and pride and selfishness and so on, and and they sadly failed to help support the couple in staying married, is there any point at which you would suggest that both Tony and Julie could move on from their past and have a redemptive future? I’m not sure what your worldview or faith background but am wondering if you would share how you would respond to this scenario?

@ JR:
One further thing. The odd thing about humans is that they simply are not all evil or good. My pastor-father sexually and physically abused me and my sibs, and yet there were times when he was kind and generous. Not to us all that often, tbh, but quite a lot to others. And people loved him for it. I wouldn’t say that it was all simple power-maneuvers on his part, either. I found out by accident of a couple of his kind actions that were otherwise completely secret.

So I would just be careful, ok? We want to be friends with people who are mostly decent and to avoid those who with hidden pools of filth. We cannot always know whether someone carries the latter, so simply stay aware. I can usually smell one a mile off because I’ve lived with one, but most people don’t have those antenna.

@ Patrice:
I don’t offhand know anyone who has written about it by itself. Though, it does show up in certain collections like in The Apostolic Fathers edited by Michael Holmes, and has good introductions to it.

Older translations and introductions are online and free free online, though I really do recommend the Holmes book for a very readable translation and because it includes a number of other very important post-Biblical writings that really reflect the emphases and focus of the early church.

JR wrote:

But it’s just not that simple. It really isn’t. I can’t tell you how to weigh your experiences or your readings, but I have a responsibility to weigh these pieces in the context of my own experience and other documentation I’ve seen which doesn’t all point to the same exact conclusions.

No, it isn’t simple, and some details are unclear. Certainly no one should demand anything from you, and you must make your own judgments. What is helpful, I think, is to triage the information. Not all facts are equally significant. Other facts, like the NPD and the physical abuse, may explain details and they may not.

What is the big picture, though, and what are the big issues? When we keep the big picture in mind, the process of sorting through the various details becomes more productive. There will always be messiness, and nothing is always either black or white. That does not mean that we cannot assess anything or make some recommendations, either positive or negative.

If you are one of Tony’s friends who is not famous, then I encourage you to help him to do the right thing in every respect with regard to the children and to Julie. He would not have the bio he has without her contribution to their marriage. He is the one who left her and the children and married another woman. That is not insignificant in the Big Picture.

@ Banannie:
What is wrong with a demand, anyway? Is there something unchristian about one, or are they essentially illegitimate?

I feel fine making demands of pedophiles, abusers, murderers, thieves, etc. I feel fine making demands of my house, too, that it keep me dry and warm. When I had employees, I certainly made demands on their time. Any job I’ve ever had, came with a set of ’em.

I wouldn’t demand anything of an intimate other because the rules for a relationship are not the same as in other areas of life. But dang, especially politically, demands make things move.

And they can also be counter-manded. Or ignored. Or shouted down. Whatever.

Patrice wrote:

@ JR:
One further thing. The odd thing about humans is that they simply are not all evil or good. My pastor-father sexually and physically abused me and my sibs, and yet there were times when he was kind and generous. Not to us all that often, tbh, but quite a lot to others. And people loved him for it. I wouldn’t say that it was all simple power-maneuvers on his part, either. I found out by accident of a couple of his kind actions that were otherwise completely secret.
So I would just be careful, ok? We want to be friends with people who are mostly decent and to avoid those who with hidden pools of filth. We cannot always know whether someone carries the latter, so simply stay aware. I can usually smell one a mile off because I’ve lived with one, but most people don’t have those antenna.

Thanks for sharing your story. I am sorry that you experienced this abuse. A good childhood friend of mine experienced something similar and their family was one I knew extremely well my entire life so I believe the principle you are sharing is true.

I think there is likely much hidden here. Even though it is starting to feel in certain moments like a tell all, I think there are a lot of hidden things that we cannot know. That’s why I am trying *TRYING* to only speak and act from what I can know. The great thing is there are ways I can encourage health and healing and justice from those things. There is also enough in my personal experience to lead me to exercise great caution in being too quick to follow any one person’s hand-selected story or papers to a simple, one-sided conclusion. My own judgment, which may some day be proven wrong, is more complex than that. But I am striving to honor your story and my friend’s story, as well as hold my own experiences and exposure, with special seriousness and consideration/care for victims.

Gram3 wrote:

JR wrote:
But it’s just not that simple. It really isn’t. I can’t tell you how to weigh your experiences or your readings, but I have a responsibility to weigh these pieces in the context of my own experience and other documentation I’ve seen which doesn’t all point to the same exact conclusions.
No, it isn’t simple, and some details are unclear. Certainly no one should demand anything from you, and you must make your own judgments. What is helpful, I think, is to triage the information. Not all facts are equally significant. Other facts, like the NPD and the physical abuse, may explain details and they may not.
What is the big picture, though, and what are the big issues? When we keep the big picture in mind, the process of sorting through the various details becomes more productive. There will always be messiness, and nothing is always either black or white. That does not mean that we cannot assess anything or make some recommendations, either positive or negative.
If you are one of Tony’s friends who is not famous, then I encourage you to help him to do the right thing in every respect with regard to the children and to Julie. He would not have the bio he has without her contribution to their marriage. He is the one who left her and the children and married another woman. That is not insignificant in the Big Picture.

Please be assured, I am very much trying to be supportive of the well being of all involved in the practical, everyday ordinary ways a real-life face-to-face friend can be. I hear your encouragement to stick with the BIG, I would call them “Meta” issues, and to focus on the significant facts. This, too, is what I am trying to do. As you can see, I am not spending much time arguing trivial details or trying to fact-check people. Nor am I trying to write things off as simply “all divorces are messy.” These situations and these allegations and the harm to this family is all but ordinary and all but simple. But I honestly believe, even though I know it’s unpopular, that some of the ways these “big picture” issues and “significant” details are being packaged are misleading. I have to be responsible to try to assess the big picture and most significant pieces fairly. I try not to give anyone, including Tony, a free pass on anything. I am asking questions, getting into details, and fact checking even my own memories and reading. This is a process, but every day my prayers and weighty nighttime reflections lead me to say again and again that this scenario is just not as simple as it is being painted here.

I am one to believe the best in people so I don’t necessarily think people are purposefully trying to over-simplify things to serve their agenda. I don’t think that speculation of the worst would be helpful. I just think many of us are doing our very best to work through what is in front of us. And I think what we can accomplish online is often limited and bogged down and easily sidetracked, but I just wanted to be allowed to bring the voice of the non-famous to the table and say that my experiences are valid too even if I am not famous.

Karl wrote:

Dee, I am not sure I agree with your suggestion that this situation will signal the demise of the emergent movement. First, that term as such is hardly used any more as far as I can tell. There are many former evangelicals (and some like RHE at least until recently who would still call themselves evangelicals) who have embraced a more liberal or progressive theology. Some of them may use the term emergent but many don’t. I doubt that even all the people who have been TJ supporters or defenders would self-identify as “emergent.” NBW for example is mainline – she’s a lutheran.
But even for those who might still self-identify as “emergent” it’s not an organized “movement” or denomination-like entity with a hierarchical leadership structure. “Emergent Village” which Pagitt and Jones were involved with was a little more organized and once a fairly influential hub for some folks but I’m not sure it even really exists and to the extent it does or those voices are still speaking, they are much less influential and a much smaller subset of the more diffuse and loose coalition of folks who are progressive mostly white, mostly ex-evangelical or ex-fundy types who have embraced a slightly watered-down version of late 20th century liberal theology laced with some late 20th/early 21st century postmodernism and identity politics. THAT as a theological option, isn’t really going away IMO regardless of what happens with the TJ/Julie thing. The platforms of these particular leaders may suffer or go away entirely and that might affect a subset of folks for whom they were particularly influential. But unlike with scandals in more conservative or hierarchical organizations that brought the whole edifice crashing down this is a much more flat, leaderless group or confederation of people too diffuse to come toppling down over something like this. Many of the people you or I might think of as “emergent” or at least as progressive ex-evangelical young folk, might not have even HEARD of Tony Jones. So if one celeb-voice or even multiple such voices espousing that theology falls (or even if all of RHE, NBW, Phyllis Tickle, Pete Rollins are discredited) I don’t see it as fatal to the movement by some folks out of fundamentalism and evangelicalism toward a more progressive (but not exactly the Mainline) faith option. It just isn’t that organized.

Well, there are at least two people who still want to define “emergent” as a movement, probably because it sells books:

About the Author
Doug Pagitt is widely known as primary cofounder (with Tony Jones) of the emerging church, a movement that responded to stasis in the traditional church. He is pastor of Solomon’s Porch, a congregation in Minneapolis that focuses on addressing human needs in the neighboring community and facilitating a more personal encounter with God. He is also host of Doug Pagitt Radio and the author of several books, including A Christianity Worth Believing, Body Prayer, and Evangelism in the Inventive Age. Pagitt and his wife, Shelley, live in Minneapolis.

http://www.amazon.com/Flipped-Provocative-Truth-Changes-Everything/dp/1601426372/

Xianatty wrote:

Certainly she has weighed in and interacted in comment threads where these other things are being discussed and has said, IIRC, nothing to dissuade her supporters from demanding these things.

Does Julie have a duty to “dissuade her supporters from demanding” anything of anyone? That seems like an odd duty to be required of a person. How could a human being ever avoid breaching that duty? Under what theory am I, for example, liable in any way, legal or moral, for what one of my “supporters” might “demand” of a third party?

She weighed in on a comment thread where the mess with Tony was being discussed. This is a violation of what, exactly? What marginal damage could she have done to his reputation by commenting on a thread that was presumably accessible to him as well?

Are you licensed in Florida? Are any of these acts of omission or commission torts under Florida or Minnesota law? Do not throw out the red herring of defamation.

@ Michaela:
Let’s celebrate when everyone involved joins in a restorative and redemptive process that moves everyone toward peace and Christ-likeness!

Yeah I’m not surprised Pagitt would be one to hold onto the term, as would some others of those who were influential in it a decade or more ago or who wrote books heavily using that terminology.

But the larger sociological/theological camp of newly progressive Xian, disgruntled ex fundies or ex evangelicals, isn’t going to topple just because a few of its minor celebrities got embroiled in something ugly IMO.

@ Tim Wilson-Brown:

Jeff S wrote:

@ Xianatty:
I actually do not disagree with your interpretation of what may have happened between Julie and McLaren. In fact, I have a lot of hope for a good outcome between them.

I also have a lot of hope that some of this can be resolved peacefully with better feelings and care prevailing.

JR wrote:

I just wanted to be allowed to bring the voice of the non-famous to the table and say that my experiences are valid too even if I am not famous.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. IMO the non-famous voices who are working behind the scenes are vital. Your experiences are certainly as valid as a famous person’s, and they may be more authentic because you don’t have the stuff that comes along with being famous.

Not to be repetitive, but my husband and I walked through a very messy separation/reconciliation/separation/divorce with a NPD/BPD couple. I well understand at least some of the complexities of that marriage configuration. In my experience, few things were black and white. But there were some things, particularly involving inappropriate extra-marital relationships and issues surrounding the children’s welfare which were very clear. In this case, there were little people working toward a common goal. Saving the marriage was impossible, but ultimately things worked out as well as they could, IMO. It did not involve a Christian leader, and that factor introduces other very important issues for Christians.

Again, I hope that you will do what we did which was to strongly encourage anyone who would listen to do the right thing. Ultimately your influence may be quite significant.

@ Gram3:
Just to clarify, Julie is not BPD, and I do not want to leave that impression by referring to our experience with a NPD/BPD couple.

@ Michaela:
With God all things are possible, so let’s pray!

Will do, Gram3.

Patrice wrote:

Beth wrote:
When someone acts out destructively from a place of great pain, damage is still done, even though it isn’t malicious. I think some of the Emergent leaders see her as not just untrustworthy, but destructively so if I look at the example I gave and read between the lines some. I am going to take a guess that Rachel and Nadia want no part of this because they don’t want to be falsely accused of anything either. Tony may very well have played up a narrative that she was mentally ill, but her own behavior, again, coming from a place of pain, might have contributed to that.
But the strange thing, here, Beth is that we all know that. Of course Julie has also made mistakes! How could she not—she is human like the rest of us and also was in terrible straits.
This is why I enquired about your understanding of narcissism and the ability of someone to live with someone who has the disorder.
In therapy with someone who has been abused, it is first of all vital to help the client (may be boy/man) understand that the abuse was not her fault. She was not abused because she made mistakes or because she somehow deserved it because she was inferior.
When that is thoroughly understood, the client can move forward to address the ways that people respond to abuse, of which some are better than others, and the ways that her own personality/actions contributed to both further destruction (negative) as well as preservation (positive).
Many of the people here have gone through abusive situations (as you have recognized with sympathy) and ALSO have gone through the long arduous task of healing. We know that you are putting the cart before the horse when you reserve opinion because Julie also did some things wrong.
We also know that until the readers on this topic set the priorities in order, they will not be able to clearly understand what abuse is and how it works itself out in the people around the abuser. Many are now on a learning curve, esp people like RHE and company, who have made some bad mistakes. They need to learn about the cycles of abuse in a coherent fashion or they will simply make the same serious mistakes again.
Moreover, this tactic of focusing on the abused’s mistakes/faults is one that every single intimately-abused person has received from her abuser. It is a classic diversionary technique. That is why the abused person submits to it far too long, and comes to therapy with self-concept in tatters. I think you might be aware of that?
And that’s also why, when the same upside-down&backwards approach comes from a self-acknowledged therapist on a site that is devoted to supporting the abused, it will not be received well.
tldr: we all know that Julie made mistakes. It is a foregone conclusion. We focus on the abuser because that is what looms largest and that is what needs to be dealt with first.
When you were a Christian, had you done some training in nouthetic or biblical therapy? That would help explain some of your current perspective.

I agree with everything you said there. Everything! I think where we see it differently is you have enough info to conclude that she was abused. I can see why you would conclude that (and I mean that sincerely, not snarkily). There is so much that fits. I firmly believe she was badly hurt by Tony, and if I was her therapist, I would absolutely take the steps you mentioned and I’d want to throttle the me questioning her.

I am not wearing my therapist hat though, I am wearing my “What is the truth?” hat. I want to know what the truth is to the best of my knowledge, and I want to know if it is fair that people’s reputations and careers are being threatened. I am not ready to conclude she was abused, maybe partly because to me it signifies that Tony should step down and be publicly labeled as an abuser. I am not ready to do that yet. I do believe it might very well come to that though.

I think Julie is very capably represented now. I think she has been heard, I think she has been believed, and I think she is currently wielding a lot of power. She does not need me to advocate for her, so I feel more free to pursue the questions that are nagging me.

I’ve never heard of either of those therapies, but I’m off to google and I’m guessing I’m going to be appalled!

dee wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

don’t know, though, whether these are folks who believe Julie has been harassing them and if so whether there’s any truth to that.

Jesus would say to turn the other cheek. That is very hard. Sacrifices need to be made for a greater good.

True, but IMO up to a point, depending on the level of any actual harassment. But litigation or threats of litigation should only be the very, very, I can’t get any part of my life back unless this stops, last resort.

dee wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I was hoping there would be an update on the mediation front. (Obviously you can’t post one unless the parties themselves make progress!)

I am in a position that I cannot comment on this but I can say that there is a reason for very cautious optimism.

I am not emergent but I am a person who understands that there are people within the movement who have had great hope for change. Many wanted to help those who have been hurt by the church. That is a goal with which I have great empathy.

But, I fear that if things progress (minus the particular mediation thing I am involved with) as it is going now, the Emergent movement will never be able to recuperate. Some people who hold to a more conservative theology might rejoice in that result. I, on the other hand, prefer reasoned debate on theological differences so people make their decisions based on thoughtful dialog.

It would be sad if the Emergent movement died, not due to an inability to present their theological distinctives but due to a horrible and painful situation that was handled poorly. In other words, a small battle would be won but you could lose the entire shabang.

I believe that if things do not change quickly, that will be the end result. And I will be sad.

Cautious optimism is good! I have no idea what any of the Emergent leaders are doing, except what McLaren has said and you’ve reported he’s said, but if he’s open to moving toward mediation, I hope they will support those efforts and not add any fuel to the fire in the meantime.

Patrice wrote:

JR wrote:
That’s why I am trying *TRYING* to only speak and act from what I can know. The great thing is there are ways I can encourage health and healing and justice from those things. There is also enough in my personal experience to lead me to exercise great caution in being too quick to follow any one person’s hand-selected story or papers to a simple, one-sided conclusion. My own judgment, which may some day be proven wrong, is more complex than that. But I am striving to honor your story and my friend’s story, as well as hold my own experiences and exposure, with special seriousness and consideration/care for victims.
And that is all any of us can do: our best with what we know, with as much courage, patience and compassion as we can muster. Then, in the end, even if we are wrong, we won’t have lost everything by it.
And anyway, I doubt the fullest truth lies in any one of us but rather in the chorus of our various voices together.

I agree that the fullest truth doesn’t lie in any one of us. I want to remember that myself. And I pray that all of us speak with that in mind whenever we can. Thanks for that reminder.

Beth wrote:

I want to know if it is fair that people’s reputations and careers are being threatened. I am not ready to conclude she was abused, maybe partly because to me it signifies that Tony should step down and be publicly labeled as an abuser. I am not ready to do that yet.

I hear you, but it’s a little late for that concern. Several people have already repented of spreading the guano-crazy slander, so Julie’s reputation was not an issue to Tony and the others who were spreading that narrative. Surely you are not disregarding her reputation that has been attacked by that narrative, are you?

You have said that you are not a Christian, so the idea that he might be required by Christian doctrine to step down from Christian leadership due to abandoning his wife and children probably doesn’t make sense. However, I don’t think that concern over his career prospects is something that should influence how we see things one way or the other when we are discussing moral issues. That would be very pragmatic and even possibly utilitarian in some respects.

Biblically, he is disqualified on a number of counts. Morally, I believe he is disqualified on a number of counts. That doesn’t mean he can’t be forgiven, but that entails some positive actions on his part.

WRT abuse, some of us who have had close contact with a NPD person find it hard to imagine a scenario where there was not abuse. I suppose it is possible to over-ascribe abusive behavior, but I think that is unlikely here given what we already know. Not impossible, but certainly very unlikely in my estimation. That would require disregarding the report of the child(ren) and/or dismissing behavior like shoving someone to the ground as non-abusive.

There are people who are not willing to call sexual predation by a female teacher on a male teenage student abuse, too, but I think it is abusive. So, really, individual opinions are just that.

Michaela wrote:

Patrice wrote:
JR wrote:
That’s why I am trying *TRYING* to only speak and act from what I can know. The great thing is there are ways I can encourage health and healing and justice from those things. There is also enough in my personal experience to lead me to exercise great caution in being too quick to follow any one person’s hand-selected story or papers to a simple, one-sided conclusion. My own judgment, which may some day be proven wrong, is more complex than that. But I am striving to honor your story and my friend’s story, as well as hold my own experiences and exposure, with special seriousness and consideration/care for victims.
And that is all any of us can do: our best with what we know, with as much courage, patience and compassion as we can muster. Then, in the end, even if we are wrong, we won’t have lost everything by it.
And anyway, I doubt the fullest truth lies in any one of us but rather in the chorus of our various voices together.
It’s not that complicated a story to write about and to summarize. Ex-husband was a bum of a man/husband who had an affair and abandoned his wife and three kids. (The ‘other woman’ was married to.)
When thinking of the ‘kind of guy’ you’d like your daughter to marry, a guy who will cheat and leave shouldn’t be anywhere on the ‘check list’ of qualities as ‘a keeper’.
There are good men who sacrifice for their wives and children, and for that they will have my respect.

Respectfully, Patrice, as someone who considered covering this story, I don’t think a journalist could ever describe this story as NOT that complicated. I 100% agree with you that there is troublesome behavior that no parents would hope for their children’s marriage. However in researching the possibility of an investigative story, it quickly became apparent that much of the facts being presented by many parties online are being intertwined with opinion to drive simple conclusions that do not hold up under the scrutiny of evidence available. It was INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT to even find a story angle that could be supported with so much conflicting evidence and testimony.

Erika Burkhardt wrote:

Michaela wrote:
Patrice wrote:
JR wrote:
That’s why I am trying *TRYING* to only speak and act from what I can know. The great thing is there are ways I can encourage health and healing and justice from those things. There is also enough in my personal experience to lead me to exercise great caution in being too quick to follow any one person’s hand-selected story or papers to a simple, one-sided conclusion. My own judgment, which may some day be proven wrong, is more complex than that. But I am striving to honor your story and my friend’s story, as well as hold my own experiences and exposure, with special seriousness and consideration/care for victims.
And that is all any of us can do: our best with what we know, with as much courage, patience and compassion as we can muster. Then, in the end, even if we are wrong, we won’t have lost everything by it.
And anyway, I doubt the fullest truth lies in any one of us but rather in the chorus of our various voices together.
It’s not that complicated a story to write about and to summarize. Ex-husband was a bum of a man/husband who had an affair and abandoned his wife and three kids. (The ‘other woman’ was married to.)
When thinking of the ‘kind of guy’ you’d like your daughter to marry, a guy who will cheat and leave shouldn’t be anywhere on the ‘check list’ of qualities as ‘a keeper’.
There are good men who sacrifice for their wives and children, and for that they will have my respect.

Respectfully, Patrice, as someone who considered covering this story, I don’t think a journalist could ever describe this story as NOT that complicated. I 100% agree with you that there is troublesome behavior that no parents would hope for their children’s marriage. However in researching the possibility of an investigative story, it quickly became apparent that much of the facts being presented by many parties online are being intertwined with opinion to drive simple conclusions that do not hold up under the scrutiny of evidence available. It was INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT to even find a story angle that could be supported with so much conflicting evidence and testimony.

This is hard for me to believe based on Stollar’s documents. Look. I don’t want to put you down but I am wondering if you think there is a journalist out there or even a team of journalists who would be able to do the level of research you think this requires.

@Erika,

I don’t think it’s that hard of a story to write about. Scraping off the veneer of the family law issues and public relations spins, it’s a very commonplace story: ex-husband was a bum who cheated with another woman (who was also married). Both of those unfaithful spouses – incredibly selfish – hurt many people in the process (her ex-husband, his ex-wife, children, family members, friends).

Seriously, is *this* the kind of guy you’d want your daughter to marry? Yikes!!!

@ Gram3:
You wrote:

“We can be fairly confident of that because it is only today and possibly yesterday that XianAtty has made any significant acknowledgement of Tony’s NPD.”

— No. On 1/28 I posted a linked to the exact NPD diagnosis code Tony gave and noted how bad it was.

Michaela wrote:

@Erika,
I don’t think it’s that hard of a story to write about. Scraping off the veneer of the family law issues and public relations spins, it’s a very commonplace story: ex-husband was a bum who cheated with another woman (who was also married). Both of those unfaithful spouses – incredibly selfish – hurt many people in the process (her ex-husband, his ex-wife, children, family members, friends).
Seriously, is *this* the kind of guy you’d want your daughter to marry? Yikes!!!

I have a hard time believing that this is that complicated given Stollar’s post. Do you think there are other journalists who could cover what you can’t?

klickvic wrote:

Thanks for hearing me out, Gram3.

No one has all the answers. I don’t need to be right, though of course I always am 😉 Seriously, I sure hope some people make things right, whoever they are. They know who they are, and they know what to do. They just need to do it.

JR wrote:

I do not think that there is going to be a simple solution that provides some sort of one-sided vindication for either Tony or Julie. I think they are both going to be scarred and injured by this for a long time. I think whatever good can be fostered rather will come through a combination of actions and a lot of patient support.

Yes, they will have scars and injuries, but in the scarring and injurious experiences God can work to produce growth and maturity. The main thing on a human level is that the children need to be protected as much as possible, and folks like you can come alongside to encourage them in that process. The sooner that the adults–all of the adults whether famous or no–start focusing on the three young people who are blameless, the sooner this will be on the road to a good resolution. Or at least as good as it can be.

@ Carl A:
Wasn’t ignoring you. I wrote an even longer answer and then edited it fieCarl A wrote:

Xianatty:
Thank you for providing some quotes. Your original statement:
“…to believe that Tony’s conduct has disqualified himself from any leadership role, is a request that we believe *her.””

So in your opinion is someone who has (self-admitted) a documented case of NPD a person who should be in a church leadership role in any scenario?

Why is it necessary to believe Julie in this scenario? Tony has admitted himself that he has been diagnosed with NPD. Nobody with NPD should be in a church leadership position. Do you disagree?

I am also still awaiting a tally of the number of times Tony has filed for full custody of his children, since you seem to have access to those types of details.

First, I did answer your question about the number of times Tony has sought custody. I can see that it posted.

Re an NPD person being in a position of leadership, I’m not sure, primarily because I’m uncertain of whether there are levels of NPD or how any different levels might manifest.

Re Tony’s NPD diagnosis, I looked up the specific code he provided and posted a link to it, weeks ago, noting how bad it is. But, Tony’s diagnosis was 6 years ago. He claims to have gotten counseling. I would be curious to know whether he would be given the same diagnosis today. I don’t really know what kind of change is possible.

As I’ve said before, my training is not in the area of mental health, so I am hesitant to make definitive declarations. As I also said, though, if there were some sort of denominational structure, I believe there is surely enough basis for an investigation.

@ Xianatty:

Been to Marco lately? The weather is nice there. Lots of sunshine.

Michaela wrote:

@Erika,
I don’t think it’s that hard of a story to write about. Scraping off the veneer of the family law issues and public relations spins, it’s a very commonplace story: ex-husband was a bum who cheated with another woman (who was also married). Both of those unfaithful spouses – incredibly selfish – hurt many people in the process (her ex-husband, his ex-wife, children, family members, friends).
Seriously, is *this* the kind of guy you’d want your daughter to marry? Yikes!!!

I want to be clear I’m not trying to correct your interpretation, Michaela. Everyone is entitled to their own personal assessment. I am just trying to represent the difficulty a journalist has in trying to make this story fit the criteria to be published on a national scale.

While the story you told IS common place as you say, and while I agree I wouldn’t want this story for my daughter, this telling of the story cannot be documented based on existing evidence. I believed it could when it started and I even worked to force the pieces to fit for three days straight.

I think there IS a story that could be written here eventually, but it will be a much more layered and multi-faceted one than the commonplace one many expect.

Patrice wrote:

Erika Burkhardt wrote:
Respectfully, Patrice, as someone who considered covering this story, I don’t think a journalist could ever describe this story as NOT that complicated. I 100% agree with you that there is troublesome behavior that no parents would hope for their children’s marriage. However in researching the possibility of an investigative story, it quickly became apparent that much of the facts being presented by many parties online are being intertwined with opinion to drive simple conclusions that do not hold up under the scrutiny of evidence available. It was INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT to even find a story angle that could be supported with so much conflicting evidence and testimony.
Well, Michaela wrote that but yes, I agreed with her.
I am not a journalist. I am an older woman artist who went through a similar situation in my life. All the patterns feel very familiar. Even its complexity is familiar because my primary abuse came from my pastor-father which immediately makes it multi-dimensional.
But investigative reporting requires documentation and it is the very lack of that which makes domestic abuse so very hard to cover. It is a private activity and much of the time, the abuser makes sure his tracks are covered. That Julie has as much as she does is a minor miracle, and yeah, even that is not enough for a rigorous investigative story. You’d have to cover it differently.
IMO that’s also, partly why domestic abuse thrives—good reporting is, after all, one of several social deterrents to bad behavior

Sorry if I misattributed the comment to you, but I am sort of glad I did because it led to your great comment! Once I realized how the existing documentation made it impossible to solely reinforce either Tony or Julie’s story, and how it wasn’t possible to establish timelines to support the affair allegations given the date and definition of legal separation, I actually began considering a story angle that would capture the experience you’re describing. Of terribly bad things happening in families’ worst moments in ways that cannot be documented and leave many parties fighting over what happened and longing for vindication that never comes. It is truly one of the only angles that could be discussed with journalistic responsibility here, but I do think it would lend insight to this overall conversation.

If I write that story ever, perhaps I will have Dee contact you so you can add your own insights.

@Erika,

The ‘existing evidence’ came about AFTER the heated family law problems. The marital breakdown is quite simple. And Tony Jones should have been told point blank, by many people around him (including men like Brian McLaren and Doug Pagitt) to step down from Christian ministry. Their failures grew this in to an epic problem as they enabled Tony Jones’ bad behavior for years.

I’ve had to tell people point blank that they are being stupid and to go back to their spouses and their children. It’s shocking how few people are really willing to be ‘a friend’ and tell someone when they’re being an idiot and to make a 180 degree change!

Having worked in family law, I’m not as confused as everybody else by the other information that is presented.

@Lydia,

Just a note that you’re spot on correct about these two. I’d also like to say that while they both claim that they are licensed professionals, their conduct is UNHEARD of for licensed professionals to do – EVER – in being here and posting the way they have been. XianAtty would be the laughingstock of the legal community if XA’s real name ever came out. It’s simple ‘not done’ — EVER.
Ditto Beth claiming to be a therapist.

Beth wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

@ Xianatty:
Been to Marco lately? The weather is nice there. Lots of sunshine.

I don’t understand this. It sounds like you are trying to let this person know you know things about them which is scary. I haven’t felt unnerved at all on this blog until now. Please tell me I am misunderstanding.

I think you are confused and unnerved, Beth. I understood it perfectly. What’s not to understand?

@ Gram3:
Should have said I don’t know that I don’t know XianAtty since I do not know who XianAtty is. It is not outside the realm of possibility, certainly.

Gram3 wrote:

but neither is Sanibel, either.

Blech. Forget the “either.” Hasn’t been the same since they built the bridge. Those were the days…

Okay, it sounds like I completely misunderstood, and so I apologize for suggesting something that wasn’t your intent. Thanks for clarifying.

And yes, I’ve been to both Marco Island and Sanibel, but my favorite memories are vacations when my kids were small at Siesta Key. Love that place.

@ Erika Burkhardt:

I am one who seems to have been called to “write longform” instead of short, for instance case studies instead of articles. (My writings in 2014 on the meltdown of Mars Hill totaled 50,000 words.) I think the most potentially helpful “short piece” I’ve written on the Emergent/Progressive situation was my attempt at an overview that represented the core of issues from Julie’s perspective — so somewhere there would be a 1,500-plus-word summary that linked to relevant online materials in Julie’s own voice.

FWIW, for the rest of the case study, the main angle I chose to write from is a “systems time capsule” approach. I’ve combined my own insider experiences in church planting and social entrepreneurship in the “emerging ministry movement” starting 20 years ago, plus my research writing since 2008 about surviving spiritual abuse, plus continuing to watch Julie’s story unfold after I first encountered it in 2009. Together, these provided an entryway into:

* Tracking the trajectory of the emerging ministry movement as it split into multiple streams.

* Comparing and contrasting the development of Emergent with what happened in Resurgence/New Calvinism, and how it mirrors in some ways the liberal/conservative paradigm split of a century ago.

* Tracking some dramatic developments and radicalization in the spiritual abuse survivor communities over the past 7+ years, paralleled by significant changes in its social media usage from 2009 until now, and why the social media push-back in 2015 (apparently by both insiders and outsiders to Emergent/Progressive) has been unexpectedly strong and even shocking.

* How this all seems to intersect with other cultural currents in post-Christendom institutional Church, such as questioning Christian consumerism, and the relationship of this and other kinds of triggers that relate to the rise of “nones” and “dones.”

* System breakdowns in processes of leadership qualifications and certification, authority and accountability, oversight and personal support, etc. — and how those flaws have influenced all other interconnected layers.

Not exactly the kind of stuff publishable in the press, but those are the kinds of issues that are practical in my world of trying to address and prevent toxicity in the Church. So, it’s my attempt at a three-dimensional gathering of relevant information to give some detail to the macro-setting for their personal micro-story.

These multiple intersecting storylines didn’t happen in a vacuum … so I’m trying to glean as much as I can while I can, and process it as best I can like @JR talks about in comments upthread. I’m not neutral in this; I start from a similar prime directive as The Deebs here at TWW. But I’m trying to process and post materials when I can. Here’s that archive:

https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/

P.S. I still wish that G.R.A.C.E. would’ve been available to do an in-depth independent investigation and interviews because there are (I believe) so many layers of complexity to this that influenced how the personal story was told, untold, and unfolded. But I’m still cautiously hopeful that some kind of conflict resolution or mediation could happen through facilitated face-to-face meetings between Julie and others (though probably not wise between Julie and Tony).

Xianatty wrote:

@ Gram3:
Not what I said. Not taking the bait.

It certainly seemed like you were asserting an affirmative duty for Julie to keep people from making demands on third parties. What were you trying to say? I’m confused if we are on the “Distorting what I Said” game or the “Implication-Inference” game.

At least Beth and I like Marco. Have you visited recently? Captiva is also interesting. Oh well, it’s late.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

@ Gram3:
Not what I said. Not taking the bait.

It certainly seemed like you were asserting an affirmative duty for Julie to keep people from making demands on third parties. What were you trying to say? I’m confused if we are on the “Distorting what I Said” game or the “Implication-Inference” game.

At least Beth and I like Marco. Have you visited recently? Captiva is also interesting. Oh well, it’s late.

Man! Those goalposts are practically motorized at this point!!

Erika Burkhardt wrote:

And I also agree that it would be helpful if some organization, if not Grace another professionally qualified, non-religious third party, conducted a comprehensive investigation backed by sufficient funding to acquire all the needed documents and testimony.I have also wished that a nationally-platformed journalist with more star-power (and budget) than me would get involved and do this thing right.That said, it would be a MONSTER. I spent three days on this, acquiring everything and talking to professionals and others involved where possible, and this story didn’t meet the journalistic requirements required. The evidence on one site would seem conclusive, but when we fact-checked it, holes and gaps emerged. The evidence on another opposing site would seem conclusive, but then we’d find more information that disputed or clouded any clear cut conclusion there too. Good luck to anyone going after this thing!!

Glad the articles/archive were of some help, Erika. That’s part of why I’ve put them there … time capsule of information, eclectic bits of first-hand info, attempts at interpreting. I’m hoping that church planters, social transformation entrepreneurs, leadership trainings, and organizational developers will find the materials helpful for bringing better integrity into our ministries.

And I hear yuh on the journalistic requirements issue about the info/evidence available at this time. And I’ve probably already spent probably 250+ hours on research and writing for the archive (about 100 hours of that in 2009-2010 while things were popping online). It’s been difficult to find and/or wait for information to be forthcoming, and sometimes to figure out where it fits once it is available. For instance, some info that emerged in reader comments on the 2014 NakedPastor thread are pieces and perspectives of both inner ring and outer circle individuals that Julie had apparently waited for as long as six years to find out.

This is all part of why I felt G.R.A.C.E. would be a good alternative, if available. This isn’t a trial or re-trial, so it wasn’t about getting evidence in order to figure things out “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” But reconciliation/mediation could perhaps be more successful if there was at least greater knowledge of all parties, of the facts as seen by all parties. Anyway, it’s messy. But Jesus came to be with us in our mess. How can we be incarnational and supportive in constructive processes to help some reconciliation succeed?

I agree. But some things are not worth reconciling. Sometimes all you can do, having said your piece and been dismissed and entirely rejected, is go public to warn others as you shake the dust off your feet and walk away. Some things – many things- may not be resolved this side of eternity. But this is a good warning to Christians now what to expect from the Emergent community if they are abused, plus, those who stubbornly refuse to follow Christ above reputation NOW may find they were never following Him at all, and that’s dang scary.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Erika Burkhardt wrote:

And I also agree that it would be helpful if some organization, if not Grace another professionally qualified, non-religious third party, conducted a comprehensive investigation backed by sufficient funding to acquire all the needed documents and testimony.I have also wished that a nationally-platformed journalist with more star-power (and budget) than me would get involved and do this thing right.That said, it would be a MONSTER. I spent three days on this, acquiring everything and talking to professionals and others involved where possible, and this story didn’t meet the journalistic requirements required. The evidence on one site would seem conclusive, but when we fact-checked it, holes and gaps emerged. The evidence on another opposing site would seem conclusive, but then we’d find more information that disputed or clouded any clear cut conclusion there too. Good luck to anyone going after this thing!!

Glad the articles/archive were of some help, Erika. That’s part of why I’ve put them there … time capsule of information, eclectic bits of first-hand info, attempts at interpreting. I’m hoping that church planters, social transformation entrepreneurs, leadership trainings, and organizational developers will find the materials helpful for bringing better integrity into our ministries.

And I hear yuh on the journalistic requirements issue about the info/evidence available at this time. And I’ve probably already spent probably 250+ hours on research and writing for the archive (about 100 hours of that in 2009-2010 while things were popping online). It’s been difficult to find and/or wait for information to be forthcoming, and sometimes to figure out where it fits once it is available. For instance, some info that emerged in reader comments on the 2014 NakedPastor thread are pieces and perspectives of both inner ring and outer circle individuals that Julie had apparently waited for as long as six years to find out.

This is all part of why I felt G.R.A.C.E. would be a good alternative, if available. This isn’t a trial or re-trial, so it wasn’t about getting evidence in order to figure things out “beyond a shadow of a doubt.” But reconciliation/mediation could perhaps be more successful if there was at least greater knowledge of all parties, of the facts as seen by all parties. Anyway, it’s messy. But Jesus came to be with us in our mess. How can we be incarnational and supportive in constructive processes to help some reconciliation succeed?

Personally I hope it all works out for her and yes for Tony as well, but mainly for her and her kids.

@ Bill Kinnon:
Oh, Ok, still couldn’t find it though, that comment thread is bottomless.

Patrice wrote:

IMO that’s also, partly why domestic abuse thrives—good reporting is, after all, one of several social deterrents to bad behavior

Patrice wrote:

@ Beth:
I remember early on with the loveliest-therapist-in-the-world, I was suspicious about her easy willingness to take my word for it. She told me that she didn’t think she ever knew the full truth of any of her clients’ lives, but that broad outlines of it will appear over time. She said her job was to help me deal with what I was suffering at the time, and we would work outwards and inwards from that point, gathering a pattern as we go along.
I can’t tell you how relieved I felt when she said that. I could finally shut down the endlessly cranky thoughts in my head: “How do you know you are being perfectly truthful here? You can’t see it so you’re making stuff up. You’re trying to cover your ass again. You can’t see up from down so shut up. Oh, that’s just to make yourself feel better, arfarfarfarfbarf”.
So yeah, I can see how gathering the truth via therapist is different from gathering truth as an online observer of a situation.
I think it is interesting that you state in one place that you firmly believe she was badly hurt by Tony and in the next paragraph say that you are not ready to conclude that she was abused.
I am not reluctant, like you, to say a leader should step down. I have found Christian leaders as a group, outside my father, to be heavily weighted with arrogance and condescension. I’ve only met one who didn’t treat me like a precocious child for the mere fact that I was female (he was a wonderful person). It is possible that I simply kept running into that type, a sort of Brueghel-esque inevitability-track, but I doubt it.
A couple years ago Tony asked on his blog “where are the women”. It is a fascinating but long read, if you are interested—a hullaballo of comments because the women appeared. At the time, I’d just begun reading online in the Christian circles and I found it disquieting. So when I read Julie’s tale on Naked Pastor, I was upset but not surprised.
Oh here I found it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/11/28/where-are-the-women/

Your therapist sounds wise. I was very lucky to have a good one at a time when I needed it too. I still replay some conversations 30 years later.

Thanks for the link. I should have gone to bed instead but. . . very interesting. “Because the women showed up.” Yes indeed, and good for them, lol.

I agree with your experiences with male spiritual leaders. It’s not like you don’t find men like that outside the church too, but I admit the attitude layered with piousness or spiritual arrogance makes me want to bite someone.

Melody wrote:

I agree. But some things are not worth reconciling. Sometimes all you can do, having said your piece and been dismissed and entirely rejected, is go public to warn others as you shake the dust off your feet and walk away. Some things – many things- may not be resolved this side of eternity.

Yes, some disputes are probably not fixable in this life — either not easily, or even not at all. Especially in the realms of abuse and violence.

It seems to me that part of the “radicalization” that has taken place since 2008 when I started tracking spiritual abuse survivor communities, is that there is far more push-back to be heard. That’s part of an intervention process … but, as with so many kinds of intervention problems, the parties involved don’t always listen. So, yes, warnings may be the only things left at that level, while working on prevention so the next person or generation is less likely to endure what we have.

Every so often, I reflect on how John — the “Apostle of Love” — was the one to call out his contemporary, a celebrity named Diotrephes, “who likes to put himself first,” and to warn the Churches about him (3 John 9-11, ESV).

Papyrus and parchment … and open-air readings in the assemblies … “first-century social media”?

We’ll see what continues to unfold. At least I can still imagine some positive possibilities that I can pray for regarding the current situation, and isn’t that what prayer is about? Asking God to intervene so that what seems inevitable does not come to pass?

Not sure you are ever going to understand the point. NPD might not change anything in a court, but it most certainly changes things in a family.
Everything comes back to the Christian issues at stake of power and control being misused and abused by leaders. As well as the issues of adultery and lying/deception/denying. The legal issues really don’t matter. The spiritual ones do. This is not about family law but about how Christians treat each other when the power dynamics are imbalanced. The issue is genuine humility and love vs abusive power and control.

Jeff S wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Jeff –
Thank you for your courteous responses even when you disagree.
I have never, ever said that her conduct did or could absolve him of his own bad acts. If I was unclear, I apologize. We’re each responsible for ourselves.
The report available at Stollar’s site says the psych evaluator concluded that neither caused the other’s behavior but their “pre-existing tendencies” exacerbated each other’s toxic (my word) attributes. But, if he did in fact shove or push her, unless it was in self defense, he deserves to face whatever consequences can be meted out to him and nothing, nothing, Julie did or said could absolve him of that.

Let me lay my perspective out as clear as I can.

The point isn’t about what Julie has or hasn’t done wrong, and this is why it is getting people’s ire up that you focus on her. If her trustworthiness is an issue at all, it would only be if there was an issue trying to determine the truth of his treatment of her. But now we know she isn’t lying and he really did mistreat her.

Tony is in a leadership position that has influence over people. People are partnering with Tony and supporting this ministry. And Tony has enlisted others to slander his ex-wife (he said she had mental illness she does not have- and no one should call anyone else “bat $%$ crazy”, especially encouraging others to do so).

What Julie has done or hasn’t done doesn’t matter one bit to the above, and the above is the important part. This isn’t a public judgement we’re all making about a man and a woman’s marriage. It’s about the decision a narcissistic man made to use his position and influence to terrorize a woman, and then presume to lead others and teach them about Jesus.

This is why it is upsetting for you to pick at nits with regards to Julie’s credibility. And yes, you make take the discrepancies seriously, but they are not related to the public ministry and abuses by Tony. If we were discussion who is right and who is wrong, then yes, those things you bring up matter. But again, this is about whether a Christian leader should get away, for any reason, with using is power and influence to mistreat is ex-wife.

Tony abused Julie. It doesn’t matter whether he shoved her one time or not. It’s clear from reading the documents that he systematically controlled her with a sense of entitlement that he must be the center of her world and she must fulfill his narcissistic supply. Some people focus only on physical abuse, but at the end of the day, the only real abuse is emotional. Or rather, it’s only the emotional component of all abuse that matters. Whether it is financial, sexual, physical, or whatever, at the end of the day wounds heal, finances can be addressed, and all of the “secondary” aspects to these forms of abuse can usually be dealt with. But what persists is the emotional effects: the betrayal of trust and the realization that you are a “thing” to someone else, used for their pleasure, rather than a person. It is destructive beyond belief when the person you are designed to trust with the ultimate vulnerability betrays you like Tony did Julie.

Did you read the part about how everything she did was subject to Tony’s direction? And only when he wasn’t home (which wasn’t frequent). Do you have any idea what it’s like to rarely see your partner, and then when you do see him be constantly controlled by him? To realize that you only exist in his world to prop him up and be a toy he can play with for his enjoyment? That other people in his world are more important that you are and you can never measure up to his approval?

This stuff is way more damaging than his one-time physical abuse, though physical abuse is easier to understand and relate-able to the common person. For her, the physical abuse was likely just one more brick in the wall of being shut out of this man’s life and being used as a fuel for his narcissistic supply. It might be the only form the outsiders see, but it’s a follow up to years of destructive behavior.

I don’t know Julie. I can’t say if she’s a safe person or not. What I can say is that Tony is not, and that he is a dangerous person for anyone to be around. Courtney is probably to be pitied, though I can understand if Julie doesn’t feel that way about a homewrecker. And all of those who would partner with such a man should wake up and realize he is not the kind of person they want to do business with, especially ministry business.

*THAT* is the point. *THAT* is why we are having a public discussion about this. TWW doesn’t deal with every domestic fight that happens (though there are other sites that can help victims of abuse). It deals with public ministers who behave badly and seeks to warn others when this happens.

Julie is not on trial here. Her choices and actions can be accurately assessed outside the court of public opinion once there is an equalization of the power balance. However, Tony is in a place of power and influence, and people are standing by him to keep that power imbalance in his favor.

I have tried to be open minded and understanding of questions. I know that not everything said or done in Julie’s favor is necessarily good. But I will draw a firm line in the sand when it comes to moral equivalence in this discussion. Because this isn’t a conversation about which of them was right. It’s a conversation about how one man has used his power and influence to destroy another human being.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Jeff S:
Jeff – Julie wanted to tell her story and be heard. And she had and she was. That’s a very good thing. But she was also asking us to believe her. And to disbelieve Tony.

I’m not sure I’m getting the hang of this replying thing. Sorry for any confusion when I attempt to reply…

In any case, love hopes all things. Hoping and praying for real change in the attitudes I’m seeing in the church about how leaders may behave and still lead. At the risk of quoting Gandalf or Highlander(!), there really is only one Leader.

Ok I need to stop, but this is interesting:
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2015/02/13/i-wish-i-knew-this-about-peacemakers-before-i-went-part-5-of-persistent-widows-story/
I know TWW has talked about Peacemakers before, but this references an abusive marriage and the damage it caused to have their version of mediation between a husband and wife.

Glad to hear if I heard right that GRACE has advised a neutral party to mediate between Brian and Julie regarding how she felt going through everything and how he responded at the time.

Found this on A Cry for Justice FB page.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

* Tracking some dramatic developments and radicalization in the spiritual abuse survivor communities over the past 7+ years, paralleled by significant changes in its social media usage from 2009 until now, and why the social media push-back in 2015 (apparently by both insiders and outsiders to Emergent/Progressive) has been unexpectedly strong and even shocking.

This is a story I’d love to see!

Melody wrote:

Emergent is clearly a very unhealthy place.

And then some.

Lets get this thread to over a thousand posts for Dee!!

Xianatty wrote:

Re an NPD person being in a position of leadership, I’m not sure, primarily because I’m uncertain of whether there are levels of NPD or how any different levels might manifest.
Re Tony’s NPD diagnosis, I looked up the specific code he provided and posted a link to it, weeks ago, noting how bad it is. But, Tony’s diagnosis was 6 years ago. He claims to have gotten counseling. I would be curious to know whether he would be given the same diagnosis today. I don’t really know what kind of change is possible.

This is where I will appeal to you a third time to educate yourself on the dynamics of abuse. The aforementioned Lundy Bancrofts book “Why Does He Do That?” is a great resource (I haven’t read it, but I know many who have and they all say great things).

But about NPDs- counseling rarely, if ever, helps them. Usually what happens is they say they are sorry, people believe them, and they do it all over again. Secular therapy has figured this out, but Christians (who try to forgive as much as possible) are still easy marks for an apologetic NPD.

It takes quite a bit to get an official diagnosis, so you can rest assured that it was/is severe.

My own therapist used to provide court ordered therapy to abusive men. I’m certain a fair amount of these were NPDs. I asked him once how many had ever changed. He said he could count it on one hand, and even those were dubious; he would never encourage their exs to try and reconcile. So even the one that maybe showed some promise he still wouldn’t count as safe.

Yes, Tony’s diagnosis was six years ago, but if anything had changed, Tony would have accepted the consequences of his actions and admitted to the wrong things he’s done to Julie. His continuing to maintain his innocence and shift all the blame onto Julie is proof positive he has not repented.

I read a letter sent to Ken Silva December 17/2007 Where Julie says “She Stands By Her Man” Is this the same Julie Jones you are writing about on this blog? Julie wrote a long letter to Ken, here is part of it. I usually don’t respond to such nonsense,but this is the father of my children who I fell in love with. As he was living among the poorest of the poor on The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.Tony so authentically lived and worked among them that they gave him the Highest Honor of an Indian name.”He Who Takes Others Into His Heart”

@ GuyBehindtheCurtain:

Just a reminder from GBTC folks….

@ Patrick O:
And their decision was to try and help Tony commit her. you don’t find it odd they kept the narrative alive even after his spiritual wife/legal wife.

@ Erika Burkhardt:
How about Emergent/Progressive Christian movement Pastor, Leader and Author has a diagnosis of NPD. What might that mean in light of cult of personality?
Can an NPD really know Christ?

I am sorry, Julie. 🙁 All the comments everywhere have to be hard for you or Tony or your kids etc. to read through as the public process your accounts. It gets ugly.

On one hand, it is SO fortunate that several voices like Stollar and David have put your story in the headlines for the world to see! It’s your time! Your long silenced story has the spotlight. On the down side, I’m afraid that one part of being heard is that now people tend to ruthleessly pick through both you and Tony’s accounts…some with good intentions of understanding, comparing, etc. Some who just want to celebrate failure, announce loopholes, or insensitively fact check. That has got to feel really bad. I’m sorry.

Thanks. I’ve been living with this for years so I am actually doing better then okay. A great therapist for me and my kids who specializes in coping with NPD. My kids were there and witnessed abuse so this is not a new revelation. We have been openly healing from events. This is part of my journey and I own it. My intent is to make peace with offenders and have reconciliation with those willing. I have children. For them, I model speak up and speak out for injustices. I will wade through the mud to get to the other side.

You own everything that happened to you. Tell your stories. If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should have behaved better. -Anne Lamott

BethanyAnn wrote:

I am sorry, Julie. All the comments everywhere have to be hard for you or Tony or your kids etc. to read through as the public process your accounts. It gets ugly.

On one hand, it is SO fortunate that several voices like Stollar and David have put your story in the headlines for the world to see! It’s your time! Your long silenced story has the spotlight. On the down side, I’m afraid that one part of being heard is that now people tend to ruthleessly pick through both you and Tony’s accounts…some with good intentions of understanding, comparing, etc. Some who just want to celebrate failure, announce loopholes, or insensitively fact check. That has got to feel really bad. I’m sorry.

dee wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Several people have already repented of spreading the guano-crazy slander, so Julie’s reputation was not an issue to Tony and the others who were spreading that narrative.
This is an important observation. It is obvious that the *crazy* narrative was widespread. Wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the Emergent/Progressive leaders had attempted to stop that by making public comments that such talk was to stop and then had added that they love and respect Julie
I wish RHE had called Julie *amazing.*That would have gone a long way to bringing dignity to Julie. In fact, I wish all of the leaders had sad some kind and encouraging words about Julie in a public setting. Can you imagine how things might have been different?
Now is the time to do such things.

Gram, these suggestions are actually some of the best I’ve seen. It’s becoming more apparent that this was a very dicey, horrific, and complicated situation that maybe can’t be captured or simply understood here. That’s the benefit of this conversation to me. Humility. 🙂

But I think what you’ve said is really interesting. The people on the Naked Pastor blog who apologized for calling Julie crazy made it clear they used that label based on their own experiences of her and they had come to regret it. They even said that the leaders had definitely NOT told them that and they HAD NOT been asked to participate in some sort of smear campaign. BUT here’s the genius in what you said, what if some leaders would’ve responded with even “Thank you for apologizing for labels you used. We encourage anyone who has said something about Julie’s mental state during this vulnerable time would make a similar apology.”

Hmmm. I am just thinking about that. From what I’ve seen, the leaders involved are primarily good hearted and probably failed in that they were untrained to respond to the level of complexity in this case. It’s a lot when you read all the versions and allegations and disputed allegations online, so I can’t imagine they had the psychological background or bandwidth to lend the kind of professional, long-term support that would’ve been needed. But even when things are complex and clouded and volatile, simple graces and humility like you suggested go a long way!

This is absolutely untrue. I was home 250 days of the year alone with 3 kids under age 5. I never met Mike Morrell or the many others who used “batshit” crazy and yet never laid eyes on me. You are incorrect.

“The people on the Naked Pastor blog who apologized for calling Julie crazy made it clear they used that label based on their own experiences of her and they had come to regret it.”

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

“The radicalisation of spiritual abuse survivors” is a very interesting * phrase.

Feel free to borrow! Radicali[z/s]ation is nothing all that new. The year Mark Driscoll started in kindergarten, I probably learned about the term in my upper-level university course in Political Sociology. So I’ve had a long time to observe these things. And then to observe how it boomeranged back onto Mars Hill with its massive failures via authoritarianism.

I’m still working on the article that goes with that, but I think you’re on to something with that notion about equali[z/s]ing the authority/accountability factors. Also would suggest:

* The process of vetting leaders for mature character and Christlike behavior and core theology should always have been in place; the people who survive such “leaders” who would fail such qualification thresholds are bringing INTEGRITY, even if belatedly. That’s biblical. The “handlers” and platform brokers of the past may find that opportunity taken out of their hands.

* Spiritual abuse survivors often seem to be NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. That’s biblical. Having been beat up spiritually by a christian-ish celebrity will help break you of enamorment to celebrityship. No longer wowwed by those with a gift of woo, as it were. If there is no character to back up charisma, a so-called leader really does have nothing to offer except perhaps ending up as a negative role model, unfortunately.

* Sadly, for some survivors, rage against the christian-ish machine may be from issues of anger and desire for revenge. However, from what I’ve seen, for a lot of survivors, it’s a way to show PASTORAL CARE and work toward JUSTICE for other victims, and to prevent others from becoming victimized. That’s biblical.

Personally, I think that one of the more important things **for the long run** will be to focus on plain old discipleship and helping people develop character, and relational and ministry skills, and to continue pushing back on publishers, denominational offices, training networks, etc etc etc that fail the Church by giving immature/unqualified people roles as leaders or giving abusive-malignant/disqualified people roles of authority or influence over others.

FWIW.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:
Julie – I hear your pain. But, there’s just no grassy knoll here. None. I wish you nothing but peace.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by the grassy knoll comment, but I do just get the impression that with all the documentation and testimony and complexities of this, it’s not as if suddenly now that the stories are out there for the public to weigh in on that anyone–Julie or Tony or their kids–are going to feel completely vindicated. Situations like this aren’t going to tie up with a nice little bow. Things aren’t going to be solved with simple conclusions or statements. But everyone got to learn something important hear about listening well and responding with sensitivity. Validating, humility, all that. I for one learned a ton from this entire conversation and everyone in it. Thanks!!

brad/futuristguy wrote:

It seems to me that part of the “radicalization” that has taken place since 2008 when I started tracking spiritual abuse survivor communities, is that there is far more push-back to be heard. That’s part of an intervention process … but, as with so many kinds of intervention problems, the parties involved don’t always listen. So, yes, warnings may be the only things left at that level, while working on prevention so the next person or generation is less likely to endure what we have.

Again thanks for all the work you do on this. I’m not sure what you mean by “radicalization” since 2008. ISTM that a lot of things have been disintermediated by the internet, including information channels. Individuals can have a voice that would have been silenced by the brokers in the past. Communities can re-form consisting of individuals who have been cut off from or left toxic communities. I wonder how you see that playing out in the future? Will the knowledge that the toxicity can be exposed help to prevent more toxic systems from forming? Will the availability of non-personal communities decrease the value of personal communities?

Julie McMahon wrote:

https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tony-jones-and-why-the-documents-shouldnt-have-been-needed/
The grassy knoll is called enablers who are complicit.

I am glad you shared this article because it was meaningful to me. It is well written and also it is apparent that the person who wrote it is really vested in these sorts of cases and cares passionately for people whose voices are marginalized.

I think she’s a million percent correct that those of us in the know on victimization know that even when stories contain questionable elements, or could be fact-checked etc., that the best response is to listen well, listen long, listen deep, listen thoughtfully. To come alongside and support that person to healthier days.

The tricky part, and I know you know this, Julie, is that when there are claims of criminal charges, for example, documents are needed not to hold over the woman telling the story, but to give the courts the chance to determine whether charges should be pressed or legal consequences should be determined. And for people like me who work in journalism, documentation is also needed. But as a whole, in society, I think her point and yours is strong: LISTEN, PEOPLE. For God’s sake, the least you can do is listen!

dee wrote:

Beth wrote:
But this, this is a disaster for those children.
I think the disaster for the children started a long time ago with a father who couldn’t live with his wife and ditched her, and in so doing, broke up an intact family. The disaster wad compounded when he took up with a new woman and married her while keeping up with his busy life. The kids really needed dad to be distracted with the courting and marriage to *amazing* new wife while it was made quite clear that Julie was just a loser. Yep, the mom who they were living with was the real problem. That really helped them to cope.

I agree, but I would go further and say the most damage was done by their extremely conflictual and volatile marriage. If Julie and Tony had been able to ratchet that down and come to a more peaceful coexistence, the kids would have been spared much of this. It sounds like they tried, but were unable to do so. I think there are marriages that are so destructive that the kids are better off with a divorce. (For every one of those there are probably three or four marriages where someone bailed too early and chose their own happiness over their kid’s.) I don’t know if that is the case here.

I think because those kids have already been so damaged, that is all the more reason to protect them from further damage. Like I said, I wish many involved had handled it differently, both then and now. Trying to find a way to let Julie be heard and her accusations evaluated privately would have honored the seriousness without further traumatizing the kids. Releasing the results would have insured there was no cover up.

Sorry I don’t know how to multi quote, so I’ll just say I agree too that it has festered too long. That was the whole point I was making in criticizing their reaction. While I see it as more naive while others seem to see it as more malicious and calculated, in the end, we can agree that the leaders did not deal with it well then and a lawsuit is not dealing with it well now. Again, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make something more redemptive happen. I want to clarify that I think once the Naked Pastor thread happened, discussions on other blogs like this one probably aren’t exacerbating the damage (I tell myself that anyway). I think that thread, the release of the psych evaluation and court documents, and both Tony and McLaren’s statement were damaging and I wish all of that had been dealt with privately.

I’ve been reading the comments and trying to keep up. Overall, I see many ugly CONTROL tactics by Tony Jones and friends.

Additionally, I see the blaming Julie for attempting to damage their ministry reputations and careers and this is ridiculous. Any damage to reputations and careers by Julie is false. What truly damages reputations of public figures / individuals in ministry is their damaging own private words and hurtful actions that they believe or claim or demand should stay “private”. This type of blame shifting is at worst abusive and best is not taking personal responsibility for hurtful words and actions and showing remorse. The coverup and blame shifting is so familiar to those of us who have experienced abuse from someone in a leadership ministry position. As our new “guest” post they fail to realize that most if us have seen these same tactics played out. We will never fall for these abuses and blame shifting.

I BELIEVE JULIE !!!

Erika Burkhardt wrote:

Although from a journalist’s point of view, I wouldn’t respond to your last statement, from a personal point of view, I also think that last sentence about whether an NPD can know Christ is really offensive. You probably didn’t mean it that way, but I think it’s a highly dangerous and insensitive practice for anyone to go crossing lists of people off the people who could have relationship with Christ based on various psychological diagnoses. That’s not the side of this conversation I want to be on. I just need to clarify that for anyone reading. (Again, you might have been speaking to make a point and not meaning to be harsh. I get that.)

Did you find it as harsh as, say, a legal wife versus a spiritual wife? Or a “discernment” group of spiritual leaders who meet and decide the best course of action is to try and get Julie committed? Do you find that offensive? do you think our Lord finds it grievous?

I don’t think you and I have the same definition of harsh. I did my time in the seeker mega movements and if there is one thing I learned it is that negative truths are never allowed. the person who dares to utter a negative truth is always harsh, bitter or hateful.

I think it is a useful question to ponder. Not harsh but important. Another one is can NPD’s help it? could they choose to work for good? Even without the ability to have real empathy?

and you are more than welcome to find me offensive as this is not a popularity contest for me.

lydia wrote:

Erika Burkhardt wrote:
Although from a journalist’s point of view, I wouldn’t respond to your last statement, from a personal point of view, I also think that last sentence about whether an NPD can know Christ is really offensive. You probably didn’t mean it that way, but I think it’s a highly dangerous and insensitive practice for anyone to go crossing lists of people off the people who could have relationship with Christ based on various psychological diagnoses. That’s not the side of this conversation I want to be on. I just need to clarify that for anyone reading. (Again, you might have been speaking to make a point and not meaning to be harsh. I get that.)
Did you find it as harsh as, say, a legal wife versus a spiritual wife? Or a “discernment” group of spiritual leaders who meet and decide the best course of action is to try and get Julie committed? Do you find that offensive? do you think our Lord finds it grievous?
I don’t think you and I have the same definition of harsh. I did my time in the seeker mega movements and if there is one thing I learned it is that negative truths are never allowed. the person who dares to utter a negative truth is always harsh, bitter or hateful.
I think it is a useful question to ponder. Not harsh but important. Another one is can NPD’s help it? could they choose to work for good? Even without the ability to have real empathy?
and you are more than welcome to find me offensive as this is not a popularity contest for me.

I understand, Lydia. I don’t think everyone draws lines in the same place. For me, both based on my faith and my exposure to many good people with various psychological diagnoses, I would just never be able to feel comfortable with that statement. But I wish you well in your own assessments for sure.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

* Spiritual abuse survivors often seem to be NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. That’s biblical. Having been beat up spiritually by a christian-ish celebrity will help break you of enamorment to celebrityship. No longer wowwed by those with a gift of woo, as it were. If there is no character to back up charisma, a so-called leader really does have nothing to offer except perhaps ending up as a negative role model, unfortunately.

* Sadly, for some survivors, rage against the christian-ish machine may be from issues of anger and desire for revenge. However, from what I’ve seen, for a lot of survivors, it’s a way to show PASTORAL CARE and work toward JUSTICE for other victims, and to prevent others from becoming victimized. That’s biblical.

Brad, these two are key. The one thing that really shocked me over the course of the spiritual abuse I witnessed in megachurches is how hard it was for people ….even oew sitters who found out things….to just say simply: that is wrong

@ GerriBee:
I would love to read some of Erika’s articles. I hope she links to them.

Julie McMahon wrote:

Again, you are incorrect. My kids are thriving straight A students excelling in academics and sports. We live very transparently and the “hard years” are a part of our story. They are smart, independent and aware kids. They have compassion and a strong bent towards social justice. This did not and does not define them. If they encounter abuse and I pray they do not I will stand strong beside them in speaking out. This is NOT about a messy divorce it’s about individuals in positions of power with platforms refusing to do th right thing. Do not pity my children. They are incredible! Beth wrote:
dee wrote:
Beth wrote:
But this, this is a disaster for those children.
I think the disaster for the children started a long time ago with a father who couldn’t live with his wife and ditched her, and in so doing, broke up an intact family. The disaster wad compounded when he took up with a new woman and married her while keeping up with his busy life. The kids really needed dad to be distracted with the courting and marriage to *amazing* new wife while it was made quite clear that Julie was just a loser. Yep, the mom who they were living with was the real problem. That really helped them to cope.
I agree, but I would go further and say the most damage was done by their extremely conflictual and volatile marriage. If Julie and Tony had been able to ratchet that down and come to a more peaceful coexistence, the kids would have been spared much of this. It sounds like they tried, but were unable to do so. I think there are marriages that are so destructive that the kids are better off with a divorce. (For every one of those there are probably three or four marriages where someone bailed too early and chose their own happiness over their kid’s.) I don’t know if that is the case here.
I think because those kids have already been so damaged, that is all the more reason to protect them from further damage. Like I said, I wish many involved had handled it differently, both then and now. Trying to find a way to let Julie be heard and her accusations evaluated privately would have honored the seriousness without further traumatizing the kids. Releasing the results would have insured there was no cover up.
Sorry I don’t know how to multi quote, so I’ll just say I agree too that it has festered too long. That was the whole point I was making in criticizing their reaction. While I see it as more naive while others seem to see it as more malicious and calculated, in the end, we can agree that the leaders did not deal with it well then and a lawsuit is not dealing with it well now. Again, I appreciate your efforts in trying to make something more redemptive happen. I want to clarify that I think once the Naked Pastor thread happened, discussions on other blogs like this one probably aren’t exacerbating the damage (I tell myself that anyway). I think that thread, the release of the psych evaluation and court documents, and both Tony and McLaren’s statement were damaging and I wish all of that had been dealt with privately.

Your kids sound awesome. I am sure they make their parents proud.

While it unequestionably takes a toll to have these personal family documents released as part of the larger analysis about silencing, there’s no getting around that.

My family was involved in a local religious scandal as a child and having friends know so much detail about my family was extremely difficult. It took me at least a decade to find my peace with the amount of public involvement in our little world (perhaps that says something about how slow I am to adjust…I also didn’t have this level or scrutiny nor the kind of support that I hope your kids will have).

But now that it’s done, and a lot of attention has been given to both sides, it is great to hear you talking about moving on. I too find hope in that for your kids and also for you and Tony. And I wish your kids wisdom and support for if and when they one day sort through all the documents and testimony that awaits them online and in person.

@ Bill Kinnon:
Yes, I went back into that thread to check too. There’s also this from Andrew Jones (Sept23): “I saw Julie’s reputation smeared, and her attempts to speak silenced….The marriage ended, so I heard, because Julie was destructive and mentally ill. It didn’t add up – why is the crazy person doing all the child care?”

dee wrote:

Now, in case you have not heard, Matthew Paul Turner came out in support for Julie. Late yesterday, his Facebook page went down. MPT says he is not doing well. Please pray for him. This stuff is getting odder and odder.

Well, MPT starting deleting even innocuous comments in his FB feed, told Stephanie at SCCL “Whatever. You’re just an abuser. Have fun.”, and then deleted his FB page. His reaction seems waaaaay out of proprotion to what he’s “endured” for 24 hours (in contrast, for example, for Julie’s abuse and mistreatment over 6 years). Maybe he’s not happy that his change from being “neutral” didn’t receive universal acclaim. Perhaps he got some mean messages, but surely he’s dealt with that before.

It all comes across as really childish, quite frankly. It looks like an attempt to garner some attention and pity in a situation where he’s only peripherally involved in the first place. Just weird.

BethanyAnn wrote:

I can’t imagine they had the psychological background or bandwidth to lend the kind of professional, long-term support that would’ve been needed.

Anybody who has lived a long time has been in at least one personal situation that seemed overwhelmingly complex or impossible to solve. Our natural response is to default to the path that causes us the least personal loss, whether that loss is the confidence in our ability to handle the situation, financial loss, time loss, emotional energy loss, loss of relationships, etc. So, on that level what happened with the leaders is understandable but not right or justified. The way to make it right is to recognize the failures, by all concerned toward all concerned, and pursue the good of those harmed. Only the people involved know their part, and they need to be encouraged by their circle to own that part and move forward redemptively.

Julie McMahon wrote:

My kids are thriving straight A students excelling in academics and sports. We live very transparently and the “hard years” are a part of our story. They are smart, independent and aware kids. They have compassion and a strong bent towards social justice. This did not and does not define them. If they encounter abuse and I pray they do not I will stand strong beside them in speaking out. This is NOT about a messy divorce it’s about individuals in positions of power with platforms refusing to do th right thing. Do not pity my children. They are incredible!

You go, girl!!!

Do be prepared for some struggle during their teen years. It may not happen but it is quite possible. My daughter was straight-A etc, too, but became angry at me about every.single.thing during her teens. For a while she wanted to be with her dad as much as she could, and would defend him if I even mentioned something small, such as that he hadn’t done something he had said he would do (unlike Tony, he was very lazy).

Therapist said that my daughter’s anger towards me was a sign that she trusted me enough to take it and still love her. I relied on that analysis through some rough times, and she was proven correct.

Now that daughter is out of college, we spend much enjoyable loving time together.

So hang in there, good mother.

BethanyAnn wrote:

The people on the Naked Pastor blog who apologized for calling Julie crazy made it clear they used that label based on their own experiences of her and they had come to regret it.

That is a massive thread. I’ve searched it several times for information, notes of apology etc. You may have missed some with very different backgrounds. Following up on what Bill Kinnon noted about Jenell Paris, here is another person, this one with no connection with Julie. So, yes, some others may have apologized based on their own experience, others had no connection.

@ Bill Kinnon:

Here is the testimony of Todd Hiestand, someone who had no connection with Julie, but apologized. “EV” = Emergent Village, the non-profit organization where Tony Jones served as National Coordinator from 2005-2008.

http://nakedpastor.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/#comment-118061

Todd Hiestand
September 17, 2014 at 2:55 pm

Julie, I was a little connected to the EV stuff back in the day. Not a ton, but enough to (loosely) know some of the people involved in this discussion. It was never directly told me to that you are crazy (that I can remember) but it is something that I inferred pretty clearly.

I confess, I’ve repeated that same thing (that you are “crazy”) to at least two people when your marriage/divorce came up in conversations. I’m sorry I did that. I do not know you at all and its not likely that I ever will. It’s completely unfair and wrong of me to perpetuate an idea that I cannot verify, especially something as significant as this. It’s especially awful to share that a person is “crazy” to write them off and thereby justify someone else’s actions or behavior.

I’m not writing this to make myself look good (I tend to think it might be doing the opposite!) but I commit to going to at least one of those people (the one who I am still in contact with and know how to get ahold of) and apologizing for passing on things that I have no actual knowledge of.

In short, sorry for perpetuating an uninformed and harmful narrative and thereby hurting you and your family in the process.
Todd

Xianatty wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:
Julie – I hear your pain. But, there’s just no grassy knoll here. None. I wish you nothing but peace.

That was a cheap shot and totally unnecessary, especially the condescension. You don’t have exhaustive knowledge of the entire situation. Or do you?

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:
@ Julie McMahon:
Julie – I hear your pain. But, there’s just no grassy knoll here. None. I wish you nothing but peace.

That was a cheap shot and totally unnecessary, especially the condescension. You don’t have exhaustive knowledge of the entire situation. Or do you?

I thought so too but as I read back in context, I think this person may have just been over simplifying that they themselves are not involved in any kind of conspiracy but rather were just offering their feedback based on their understanding of the legal field. It just sounded a bit trite to me too.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

Here is another from the NakedPastor thread:
http://nakedpastor.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/#comment-118193
Ian
September 18, 2014 at 12:30 am
Hi Julie. I want to apologise. I jumped on you on a thread on Andrew Jones’ Facebook page. I am sorry. I didn’t know about this and was wrong.

So great to see people owning up to our worst behaviors. I too hope that I’ve been able to speak respectfully and listen well to those here regardless of whether I agreed with them. If we could all be quick to apologize when we jump on someone like the gentleman here, I bet more understanding could be accomplished. Thanks for sharing, Brad!

Andrew Jones, The Tall Skinny Kiwi is the real deal. I mistakenly held the Emergent Christian Industrial Complex to the same standard. I was stunned they did and do nothing. They are either complicit, ignorant or enablers. I’m not sure which. I don’t think this is rocket science. lydia wrote:

@ Patrice:
Thank you. And bless the tall skinny kiwi

BethanyAnn wrote:

The people on the Naked Pastor blog who apologized for calling Julie crazy made it clear they used that label based on their own experiences of her and they had come to regret it. They even said that the leaders had definitely NOT told them that and they HAD NOT been asked to participate in some sort of smear campaign.

I’m sorry, BethanyAnn, but I’m going to call you out again. This is a complete misrepresentation of the NP thread and I believe you owe Julie an apology. Both she and I have responded to your mischaracterization and have been ignored.

To further help you understand the dynamic Julie has experienced, here is a quote from an unsolicited email (on this situation) I received on January 11, 2010 from someone who made their living promoting books in the emergent/progressive/bizarre publishing wing of the Christian Industrial Complex. I had asked to be removed from their email list. They read an elliptical post I’d written on TJ & marriage and decided that’s why I wanted to disconnect and decided to “educate” me:

• Tony wants custody of his kids. And will probably get it.
• Julie has been court-ordered to receive psychiatric help…but has refused.
• The police had to forcibly remove Julie from a recent conference Tony was facilitating, as she showed up to protest…in disguise.
• If ‘the truth’ came out, it would be complex like any failed marriage for sure, but it would be Julie, and not Tony, toward whom folks would be shaking their heads and asking ‘Why?’

I hope that helps you understand the dynamic, BethanyAnn, and again, an apology to Julie would be appropriate.

@ BethanyAnn:
It is a tactic. He gets in a dig implying she is a wacked out conspiracy theorist of sorts but uses empathy language with it for deniability. It was a low down cheap shot. But sadly most won’t see it and those who point out the cognitive dissonance in such things are accussed of being mean and hateful. Sheesh.. This stuff was SOP in upper level mega circles. it is how they communicated. I find it slimy.

I made up a term for it back then: Totalitarian niceness.

I literally had to leave evangelicalism to find decent consistent people. thankfully blogs helped find more folks who see through the slippery smoke and mirrors of what passes for Christianity.

Julie McMahon wrote:

Andrew Jones, The Tall Skinny Kiwi is the real deal. I mistakenly held the Emergent Christian Industrial Complex to the same standard. I was stunned they did and do nothing. They are either complicit, ignorant or enablers. I’m not sure which. I don’t think this is rocket science. lydia wrote:
@ Patrice:
Thank you. And bless the tall skinny kiwi

Julie, I saw you mention a blogger who I will look up. As someone who experienced some local fallout around my parents dissolved marriage (and other complex pieces) two decades ago, I was wondering if you’ve run into books that have been helpful in moving you beyond the past and creating hope for the future? I have such trouble “letting go”. It might be my worst fault even (besides letting laundry pile up and trashing my car when I’m stressed?). I try to be wise as I sort through all of this with some of the learning and maturity that comes with age. Like I get that mine is just one person’s story, and while my story and truth are valid, I am not arrogant enough to think my own perceptions capture all the motives and complete information about my family’s more localized tragedy. Honestly I was often under such emotional pressure and just so many tasks I needed to manage to hold things together that I didn’t have the time or emotional space to get “objective” and make a thorough investigation. You don’t have that luxury when you’re scrambling as your family falls apart, you know? But I tend to get hung up on a few instances where people failed me that were never made right. One of the people has even died now so that one has literally zero hope of ever being repaired. What do you suggest to someone who needs to let go like you are are doing after fighting this fight, doing mediation, and finding what peace you have?

lydia wrote:

@ BethanyAnn:
It is a tactic. He gets in a dig implying she is a wacked out conspiracy theorist of sorts but uses empathy language with it for deniability. It was a low down cheap shot. But sadly most won’t see it and those who point out the cognitive dissonance in such things are accussed of being mean and hateful. Sheesh.. This stuff was SOP in upper level mega circles. it is how they communicated. I find it slimy.
I made up a term for it back then: Totalitarian niceness.
I literally had to leave evangelicalism to find decent consistent people. thankfully blogs helped find more folks who see through the slippery smoke and mirrors of what passes for Christianity.

Totalitatiran niceness is a great term! I am stealing that. I tend to think this person is just a guy who is used to blurting out whatever they want and they were trying to make a political reference to the term “grassy knoll” in a situation where it wasn’t needed and a little brash. I know a lot of guys who use political vocab like this as part of their personas. I blow it off.

Michaela wrote:

Erika Burkhardt wrote:
….I have been able to access some documents prior to the legal proceedings as well that do reflect moral conviction on the part of some leaders involved….
So whom do you know that gave you ‘access’ to documents? Were those documents filed? Was it their personal copy? Or did an attorney violate legal ethics to give you a copy?
Were they declarations in the family law case? There really aren’t other documents that would come in to play as that isn’t how family law works. I’ve worked in law for years. People can write anything, any spin, in a declaration to make themselves look good. Where were these leaders’ ‘moral’ actions to back up their convictions? It’s my understanding they were non-existent.

The newspaper in question had their lawyers acquire the documents and they acquired them from several different courts (family plus others with relevant testimony pertaining to family) as well as well as custody evaluators and the guardians ad Litem. They also researched some documents from a child protective services-like agency (not sure if it was CPS or something similar) and another non-profit who conducted an investigation.

They also contacted people making various claims on the Naked Pastor thread and asked those willing for further comment and to expand on the extent of things they witnessed personally or had documentation for.

Clearly in a case this size, it’s really complex and a lot of bad twists and turns have made it all the more complex. I again want to reiterate my hope is not to silence Julie. I applaud her fight to share her story. I think she has been more successful than many in her situation. I have no wish to try her. I am purely talking about the paperwork available to verify claims to the extent required for this type of article.

BethanyAnn wrote:

as I read back in context, I think this person may have just been over simplifying that they themselves are not involved in any kind of conspiracy but rather were just offering their feedback based on their understanding of the legal field.

I don’t know which context you mean, but I think that your reading of this particular comment is unduly generous. That commenter has shown no real concern for the big issues here and will not even reveal what he/she believes the Christian issues are, so I doubt the “peace” part. The reference to “pain” is part of the narrative, too.

Here’s how that narrative goes: Julie is not acting like a rational person would act. She’s speaking from her pain. Therefore, we don’t need to be concerned with the substance of what she is saying.

That is classic victim minimization and dismissal. And it is more victim-blaming behavior.

@ Brockton:
Brockton, I cannot tell you what it would have meant to have just one person stand up and say: that is wrong.

you cannot change what happened to you as it is now part of your story. you have no control over other people and how they responded or treated you and your family. But you can love justice and fairness for others. you can recognize that injustice is almost always accompanied by an imbalance of power.

Your story counts in the kingdom. You count and are valuable.

@ Bill Kinnon:

I’m assuming that the content of the email that you quoted is untrue? Do you know why the sender didn’t just put the information in a comment on the article thread? Of course, if it’s not true, we all understand why.

Erika Burkhardt wrote:

er. I am purely talking about the paperwork available to verify claims to the extent required for this type of article

Why?

dee wrote:

Matthew Paul Turner came out in support for Julie. Late yesterday, his Facebook page went down. MPT says he is not doing well. Please pray for him. This stuff is getting odder and odder.

This whole thing seems to be spinning off into the Twilight Zone. It’s really hard to follow on Twitter, but after MPT made his conciliatory post, he was involved in some escalating back-and-forth with @StuffCCLikes and some others about what I’m not sure with MPT saying “i’m done with all of this man. Julie’s supporters have done nothing but bully me for 24hr. I’m done.”

Followed by “I’m taking a short break away from the Internet. I’ve deactivated my Facebook, too. I’ll be ok. But I’m not ok right now. But I will be.”

Can’t tell what all went on, but it’s weird.

Xianatty wrote:

@ BethanyAnn:
I guess I revealed my age with “grassy knoll,” which refers to never-to-be-convinced-otherwise conspiracy theorists who believe there was a second shooter on a grassy knoll in Dallas in the JFK assassination.

You revealed more than your age. Everyone who sees abuse here is a conspiracy theorist? Another way of considering your comment is that the grassy knoll is where some good eyewitnesses were there. Maybe Zapruder, though I don’t specifically recall. ISTM there are some good witnesses coming forward in this instance as well, now that it has come to light. But I suppose we should award you some points for dismissing both the victim and the witnesses with one comment. Well done.

Blaming the Victim is Never OK.

Great comment. And I agree. Those Christians who blame Julie fur ruining their careers are delusional and dysfunctional. Their unwillingness to deal with this is what will ruin their careers, not her desire to expose this. A little personal responsibility would go a long way here.

In any case, Christians, who care more about their careers and image, than truth and doing what is right even when it hurts, are living as professing Christians who are in practice athiests.

Ali wrote:

I’ve been reading the comments and trying to keep up. Overall, I see many ugly CONTROL tactics by Tony Jones and friends.

Additionally, I see the blaming Julie for attempting to damage their ministry reputations and careers and this is ridiculous. Any damage to reputations and careers by Julie is false. What truly damages reputations of public figures / individuals in ministry is their damaging own private words and hurtful actions that they believe or claim or demand should stay “private”. This type of blame shifting is at worst abusive and best is not taking personal responsibility for hurtful words and actions and showing remorse. The coverup and blame shifting is so familiar to those of us who have experienced abuse from someone in a leadership ministry position. As our new “guest” post they fail to realize that most if us have seen these same tactics played out. We will never fall for these abuses and blame shifting.

I BELIEVE JULIE !!!

I personally have some disdain for conspiracy theorists, so it’s pretty insulting to see someone I believe, based on evidence of her ex and the new woman covering up the depth of their relationship that is documented to have existed as far back as Feb 2007, being dismissed in this way. Not dignifying XianAtty with any more of my time. That person needs to read some Lundie Bancroft and Susan Forward, amongst others. Oh and perhaps the qualifications of an elder in God’s church located in the New Testament of the Bible. End of story.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

@ BethanyAnn:
I guess I revealed my age with “grassy knoll,” which refers to never-to-be-convinced-otherwise conspiracy theorists who believe there was a second shooter on a grassy knoll in Dallas in the JFK assassination.

You revealed more than your age. Everyone who sees abuse here is a conspiracy theorist? Another way of considering your comment is that the grassy knoll is where some good eyewitnesses were there. Maybe Zapruder, though I don’t specifically recall. ISTM there are some good witnesses coming forward in this instance as well, now that it has come to light. But I suppose we should award you some points for dismissing both the victim and the witnesses with one comment. Well done.

Blaming the Victim is Never OK.

Beth wrote:

If Julie and Tony had been able to ratchet that down and come to a more peaceful coexistence, the kids would have been spared much of this.

That’s a lot like saying, “If we just hadn’t been in war, the citizens “would have been spared much of this”. Of course everyone wishes the situation didn’t occur at all!
Beth wrote:

I want to clarify that I think once the Naked Pastor thread happened, discussions on other blogs like this one probably aren’t exacerbating the damage (I tell myself that anyway). I think that thread, the release of the psych evaluation and court documents, and both Tony and McLaren’s statement were damaging and I wish all of that had been dealt with privately.

This is more wishful thinking about the obvious. A fair and private intercession didn’t happen because people who could make that happen instead wanted the issue to disappear without being dealt with. The intense pressure to keep Julie cornered/silent shows even in the systematic attempt to hush/delete comments ~2010.

Once the pieces are set in place, action/reaction has an inevitable trajectory, unless the larger pieces (those with enough power to alter the flow), change their positions. It is up to those with power to “think about the children” and alter the trajectory.

That hasn’t happened here, so on it goes.

Michaela wrote:

Erika Burkhardt wrote:
….The newspaper in question had their lawyers acquire the documents and they acquired them from several different courts (family plus others with relevant testimony pertaining to family) as well as well as custody evaluators and the guardians ad Litem. They also researched some documents from a child protective services-like agency (not sure if it was CPS or something similar) and another non-profit who conducted an investigation.
They also contacted people making various claims on the Naked Pastor thread and asked those willing for further comment and to expand on the extent of things they witnessed personally or had documentation for….
Well that’s strange, and expensive, for a newspaper to use attorneys to get public records when databases are used by newspapers to get a plethora of records and any journalist can obtain the records without attorneys being involved. What is the name of the newspaper? Did they write an article or not?

Totally fair questions and ones that, trust me, I asked. I was really disappointed when several days of hard work did not result in an article. At least not yet. I haven’t given up completely.

I can’t speak for all papers. I actually write on contract (kind of a step up from freelance) for several papers, on an as needed basis. Sometimes they assign me articles and sometimes they ask me to pitch articles for certain departments (religion or politics, for example). Each paper I work with has slightly different policies, often because they are different sizes and have different budgets and constituencies (plus subscription size).

I was asked to pitch a couple article ideas for a piece on religious current events at one of these papers I have just started working with. The paper has a daily online edition and a weekly print edition and while that doesn’t give you the exact name, it narrows it down significantly.

I did all the research that I had the knowledge to do myself to start with, such as accessing online documents and requesting court records. The pitch got off the editorial table (it was greenlighted for me to do more research in other words), but someone raised legal questions which meant that I was awarded additional help from the legal department (not the lawyers themselves, but their research assistant…think of her as sort of the paralegal of the newspaper world). In this case, I believe the assistant was able to acquire many of the documents cited by Julie and Tony and three other parties I am aware of, but the lawyer specifically stepped in to get three of them. I am not sure what about those documents made the lawyer wish to do the work directly but I am guessing they are either highly sensitive or just require more legal expertise to maneuver the systems and make sure you get all the files available.

At this point, I sorted through these as well as all the documents that have been posted online (I printed and copied all the Stollar pieces, some of which we were already aware of, and added them to the file after the fact as well). We came up with a few possible angles. While my confidentiality agreement precludes me from giving the exact details of an “open file” story, I’ll just generalize that one angle was more expose-ish (pro-Julie), one looked at the treatment of false allegations, and one looked at the larger religious context.

Based on what we had, the documents were not conclusive to write in any of these directions in a way that meets our standards for journalistic integrity for this type of high profile article that might warrant national attention. Believe me, career wise, it would be good for me to break open a case like this and conviction wise, if there was wrong doing, I wanted to pursue it. However, my own uncertainty and mixed findings were confirmed by the research assistant who made a recommendation to “yellow light” the story which was then passed onto the editor and lawyer who approved it.

This means the story is considered “open file” in that we are not just discarding what we’ve collected, but are keeping it on hand in case of future developments. I personally have looked into two ongoing cases that still have relevance to this issue which might produce more on-record statements, specific judicial rulings, and more publicly available documents. If the story goes forward after those cases (which I believe conclude in March, unless they are prolonged or appealed), I will come back and post the link to the story here.

Also, if the paper ever decides to close the story, if you would like Dee to give me your email address, I will at that point share what I can since the confidentiality agreement will be void at that point.

It’s just a complex situation with lots of tricky paperwork and conflicting testimony. I appreciate all the heart for justice here and the cry for investigative reporting. Believe me, that is what motivated me to study journalism to begin with so I hear that courage in you all.

I also will come back and post links if the other journalist I know decides to write about the piece. It’s possible he will have more leeway because he is on staff as opposed to being a contract writer like myself.

JeffT wrote:

dee wrote:

Matthew Paul Turner came out in support for Julie. Late yesterday, his Facebook page went down. MPT says he is not doing well. Please pray for him. This stuff is getting odder and odder.

This whole thing seems to be spinning off into the Twilight Zone. It’s really hard to follow on Twitter, but after MPT made his conciliatory post, he was involved in some escalating back-and-forth with @StuffCCLikes and some others about what I’m not sure with MPT saying “i’m done with all of this man. Julie’s supporters have done nothing but bully me for 24hr. I’m done.”

Followed by “I’m taking a short break away from the Internet. I’ve deactivated my Facebook, too. I’ll be ok. But I’m not ok right now. But I will be.”

Can’t tell what all went on, but it’s weird.

Bridget wrote:

I’m not sure who monitors that page, but is it the same person who wrote an article (can’t remember the link) about there not being a real “neutral” where abuse is concerned?

Yes, it’s the Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook page. I think this is the post you are referring to:

https://www.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes/posts/10153713288353782?comment_id=10153713364643782&notif_t=share_comment

Lydia wrote:

Life with an NPD is hell and causes people to respond in ways they never dreamed. They literally stop “knowing” themselves. That is what the NPD does. They create chaos and keep their target off balance so they are in control. I keep thinking of a mom with very small children being gaslit constantly over years. NO ONE tried to even understand her…personally. Where is the “pastoral” aspect to this? Where was Doug Pagitt? All were going by Tony’s narrative. And Julie was responding exactly like Tony provoked. It wa all working well for him. That is how it works with an NPD until you figure it out and that can take years! one has to finally realize that NPD’s are incapable of any degree of agape love.
And when these types find their voice and are heard they often do not sound the way people expect. Living with an NPD is living in an alternative universe. It can take years to go through the process of finding “normal” again.

Yes! Absolutely this. I separated from my probable NPD ex-husband 5 1/2 years ago. The divorce was final 4 years ago and he stopped the frivolous litigation 3 1/2 years ago. I have had almost no contact with him for the last 2 years. I’m getting back to “normal” but I’m not there yet.

Julie can’t really begin to heal until the litigation ends. When will that happen? When the youngest child is 18 or more? Tojo abused her during the marriage and he continues to abuse her through the court system. If you’re expecting Julie to be the “perfect” mom and divorcée you’re expecting too much. She has been in a state of crisis for years.

Thank you. Exactement.
@ Gram3:

Xianatty wrote:

I wish her nothing but peace.

You have a very odd way of showing it.

When someone is hurt, the normal thing to do is wrap a loving arm around that person and sympathize with the person, not attempt to pick apart what they said to try to demonstrate what they said is false. You’ve been picking apart her comments or actions in a most anal-retentive manner the last several days. That does not come across as loving or caring.

Xianatty wrote:

The accusations she quoted were about me, personally. I responded about my complete lack of involvement in any conspiracy.

Please don’t parse the word conspiracy because no one has accused you of being part of a conspiracy. What many of us are observing is that your comments are not consistent with a neutral observer. The legal facts you cited are not the problem. Rather it is your fixation on one party’s actions and not the actions of the other party that is suspect.

IMO the best way to avoid being viewed as a PR operative–retained or not, formal or not–is to avoid imitating one so perfectly. No conspiracy is required for like-minded people to join a cause using their talents. That, actually, is what happens at TWW all the time. The difference, of course, is that the mission of TWW is explicitly stated, and no one needs to guess the POV. No conspiracy is required or even desirable.

However, in all honesty, the way you turned the table by inserting the idea of a conspiracy was clever. So, you get more points for that.

Blaming the Victim is Never OK.

The litigation will NEVER end. He is looking to the legal system to vindicate and make sense of himself. One of the 17 professionals involved so aptly put it. He looks to the legal system to be a “litigation hammer” to punish Julie.

Elizabeth Lee wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Life with an NPD is hell and causes people to respond in ways they never dreamed. They literally stop “knowing” themselves. That is what the NPD does. They create chaos and keep their target off balance so they are in control. I keep thinking of a mom with very small children being gaslit constantly over years. NO ONE tried to even understand her…personally. Where is the “pastoral” aspect to this? Where was Doug Pagitt? All were going by Tony’s narrative. And Julie was responding exactly like Tony provoked. It wa all working well for him. That is how it works with an NPD until you figure it out and that can take years! one has to finally realize that NPD’s are incapable of any degree of agape love.
And when these types find their voice and are heard they often do not sound the way people expect. Living with an NPD is living in an alternative universe. It can take years to go through the process of finding “normal” again.

Yes! Absolutely this. I separated from my probable NPD ex-husband 5 1/2 years ago. The divorce was final 4 years ago and he stopped the frivolous litigation 3 1/2 years ago. I have had almost no contact with him for the last 2 years. I’m getting back to “normal” but I’m not there yet.

Julie can’t really begin to heal until the litigation ends. When will that happen? When the youngest child is 18 or more? Tojo abused her during the marriage and he continues to abuse her through the court system. If you’re expecting Julie to be the “perfect” mom and divorcée you’re expecting too much. She has been in a state of crisis for years.

Thank you, Melody. I tried private peacemaking for years. The only motivating factor for an NPD is their public image. I will keep right on talking. Why the men and women of God surrounding him do nothing to make the hell stop for me and the children is staggering. Melody wrote:

And this is why you are entirely right to expose this mess. That scribd site with Brian’s statement would have been extremely frustrating and hurtful to me in your shoes. I am so sorry you have experienced this. I am (still) praying for you and your children and for the church to come back to “true religion”. You deserve closure and an end to litigation. No one should have to go through that.

@ Julie McMahon:

ComplBridget wrote:

I’m assuming that the content of the email that you quoted is untrue? Do you know why the sender didn’t just put the information in a comment on the article thread?

They were simply repeating what they had been told in an effort to have me take the post down. If you read the blog post from 2010 which I referred to earlier in this thread, (where I was reviewing McLaren’s ANKoC) you will see a number of folk disparaging me and protecting Tony & Emergent. The person who wrote this to me shows up in the September 2014 NP thread where they claim my original blog post triggered him to refer to Julie as “b_t-s__t crazy” (don’t want to end up in moderation).

You simply can’t make this stuff up.

@ Daisy:
I think you’ve come in in the middle of a long-running conversation. I’ve had my personal motives and my Christian ethics dissected in the most anal-retentive way for quite a while now. I’m not a paid troll, or shill, or secret agent of anyone’s PR firm. I’m just not. As I have said repeatedly, I came into this wanting to believe Julie. In my comment this morning I was trying, however imperfectly, to offer an olive branch to Julie. I do hear her pain as she tells her story. I truly wish her nothing but peace.

I want to help take the ring to Mordor. Xianatty has played the role of Thor. This isn’t about me anymore. This needs to end well and peacefully by those capable of emulating the love of Christ. On Valentines Day how fitting to say….let’s end well. Let them know we are Christians by our love not our litigations. I keep hoping, praying and trying for three reasons: Tanner, Lily and Aidan. For them let me be the first to say I am sorry for my part. I apologize for hurt caused by me. We don’t get to call ourselves Christians if we refuse to do better than this. “Healthy people and healthy relationships ALWAYS have a mechanism for repair.” Let’s bring the ring and restore the fellowship. I love that analogy B Rad. lbrad/futuristguy wrote:

TC wrote:

* Tracking some dramatic developments and radicalization in the spiritual abuse survivor communities over the past 7+ years, paralleled by significant changes in its social media usage from 2009 until now, and why the social media push-back in 2015 (apparently by both insiders and outsiders to Emergent/Progressive) has been unexpectedly strong and even shocking.

This is a story I’d love to see!

So, TC, I’m still working on a longer version that’ll be broken into parts. Finished a draft last night, but always find it works out better to post after a review next day. So, more on this some other time … but meanwhile, I will say that it can just take a lot of time — even for insiders in spiritual abuse survivor communities — to grasp the dynamics of how these communities functions, what they intuitively know, how they crowd-source in unusual ways, how to estimate where they’re going, what their triggers and tolerance levels are, etc.

After I started reading TWW in about 2007/2008-ish, it *still* took me three years to wrap my brain around one of the most basic issues: “Abuse is not so much about legalism as it is about authoritarianism.” Three years. Seriously!

So, how can I expect people who aren’t insiders to understand such dynamics, if that’s how long some things took me to get? How can I expect them to know when they’ve accidentally done something on social media that is a *huge* trigger for spiritual abuse survivors? Doesn’t matter how much of an advocate and a voice they have been for victims … they can still mess up big time and not even know it.

So, when they are in a state of brittleness from having done that and receiving apocalyptic-level flaming in return, do we go in with Thor’s hammer to finish the job? Or in the opposite spirit with firm gentleness to try to help them understand, if they are willing? I’m not against deconstruction, but I am against dehumanization. I’m not for constricting people’s responsibility for self-determination, but I am for constructive ways to empower us all to be/do better.

As somewhat of a sidenote, I was reared in what became a social gospel tradition, and my parents both lived out many aspects of what it is to be a “person of peace” who is hospitable to all and works for justice. So I already genuinely wanted to DO good, but that wasn’t enough. It left me empty and wanting something more. What drew me into evangelicalism is that I wanted to BE good, and find Christlike transformation, not just work for social change. And that’s how I ended up in church planting and in the emerging ministry movement in the mid-1990s, and began observing what would become Emergent.

Which brings me back to the current situation. We’re in a toxic environment right now that understandably puts everyone on edge, makes us more prone to assume the worst and not act our best, to be suspicious of any overture that might bring peace but feels like it could be a trick.

And trying to work it all out on social media … well … it’s just not going to work. There’s a helpful principle (can’t find the exact title/source at the mo — help me out, crowd-sourcers!) about a “40/60 rule” in communications. When the meaning of words is ambiguous, then we typically get only 40% of the intended meaning from (1) the words themselves, and the other 60% comes from the larger context that includes (2) tone of voice, (3) facial expression, and (4) overall body language. So … face to face offers all 4. Skype, sort of a 3.5 out of 4. Phone calls offer 3. Most social media … 1, maybe 2 if there’s an image or illustration. Now — compound the lack of elements in communication via mostly print-word-based social media — with a toxic environment of mistrust, and what will likely happen?

In the autumn 2009 through February 2010, I saw in pretty much real-time where blog owners and commenters played whack-a-mole with Julie McMahon’s attempts to comment and bring out her story. My rough estimate is that only a third of her comments remain intact on the 13 or so blogs that were talking about Emergent and/or the Jones/McMahon situation. The rest were de[screen]capitated.

In 2014, no one was forced to quit on the NakedPastor thread of 1,082 comments (a full 1,000 of which were posted between the threads beginning on September 5, 2104, and one month later with host David Hayward’s comment on October 5th). There were (and have been since) apparently a number of emails and messages suggesting-telling-demanding-asking him to take down the thread or to edit or remove certain comments. He didn’t. No whack-a-mole deletions, but some commenters may certainly have felt like they got hammered by others. (See for yourself what their reasons may have been.)

In 2015, some who were apparently attempting to act as silencers in 2009-2010 and 2014 were on the receiving end of what happened to Julie McMahon those five-plus years ago. And some relatively new people on the scene likewise have gotten a lot of push-back, some definitely warranted (in my opinion) for saying/doing things that were insensitive toward survivors of spiritual abuse, but some probably over the line and out of proportion for the offense. There is no justification for demoralizing and dehumanizing behaviors on either any side, it creates a horrible space for *any and all* to be in. And imagine being the brunt of social media flame wars for several days or weeks .. then imagine enduring that kind of intensity for six years, like Julie has.

I debated about putting in the following, because I know it may be misunderstood in multiple ways by various factions — including some friends of mine. But I felt if there’s to be peace-making, then we need to risk things that could be misunderstood but also potentially hold forth healing: To Rachel Held Evans and Matthew Paul Turner, we don’t know each other, I’ve not followed your writing careers, I’ve maybe read a couple things on each of your blogs. As with many who’ve been caught up in these events, we’re not all on the same page theologically — but we’re written in the same Book of Life. I don’t know your motives, but I’ve not particularly liked some of the ways you’ve handled recent events on social media anyway. And I have also not liked how you have been treated on social media in this fractious family infighting. I am praying for the well-being of you and your families, and hoping for eventual peace-making among all us involved in this.

Two final thoughts on what I see as some very complicated aspects of how this is unfolding:

(1) I don’t have formulas for how or how much to push back against perceived and real abuse, hypocrisy, caving in to pressure to comply. I hope we’ll think more about the Golden Rule of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” AND, at the same time, I’m not okay with revictimization, and so I’d also suggest that when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, He wasn’t giving the other person permission to b****-slap us again.

(2) Certain kinds of mediation may best be done by an external, secular, legally-trained mediator. But so much of what is happening here has distinct theological components — such as biblical mandates for mature Christlike character and for consistent moral behavior required of leaders — that perhaps a well-trained and discerning disciple would do better at facilitating interpersonal reconciliation. Those doctrinal aspects of leadership aren’t issues for neutrality. Whatever possibility is to happen, I’m hoping there’s a breakthrough soon, because the longer this goes it seems the more likely there’ll be a breakdown.

If we’re all trying to take this Ring to Mordor to undo whatever evil has been done, it won’t happen if the Fellowship dissolves along the way.

Xianatty? Will you kindly go away? You bring a darkness and are a prime example of the darkness I have fought for years. We want light. You’ve been called out. Please go away. Be a part of the solution…or if you don’t mind…I personally wish you to take your darkness and find another target. Thank you. The Holy Spirit is moving and quite frankly….you’re in the way.

Daisy gets it. We all get it. Enough! Xianatty. No more! Go!

We want peace, healing and reconciliation. Your cross examination for days is now over. I have written Brian privately. Doug Pagitt? Rachel? Nadia? Phyllis? Let’s do this!

@ Julie McMahon:
Just ignore this person, if you can. People keep responding to them, which is what keeps them coming back. If none of us interact with them, they will stop commenting.

numo wrote:

@ JeffT:
Social media can be brutal.

Yes. With no small amount of misunderstandings.

@ Bridget: Too true, I’m afraid. And things tend to escalate REALLY fast. (Which is why my FB feed has mostly pics of cute animals and updates on music and other cultural stuff, plus non-controversial posts by actual friends. I have even unfollowed some relatives because, although I love them, I can’t bear to read their religious and political pronouncements.)

@ Gram3:
You are thinking about the same person. He is a good writer, and has published 1st-person accounts of abuse at places like Mars Hill in the past.

I think some of the folks on SCCL are just so raw from what they’ve experienced that they tend to attack others without necessarily realizing how they are reacting. I can’t blame MPT for taking a break, and while I know you didn’t like his 1st post on this, I truly think he was referring to the kinds of comments and emails that have caused him to take a break from FB for the time being. (Plus, he and his wife have a very young infant now, along with their other kids, so I’m sure things are a little chaotic.)

brad/futuristguy wrote:

So, more on this some other time … but meanwhile, I will say that it can just take a lot of time — even for insiders in spiritual abuse survivor communities — to grasp the dynamics of how these communities functions, what they intuitively know, how they crowd-source in unusual ways, how to estimate where they’re going, what their triggers and tolerance levels are, etc.
After I started reading TWW in about 2007/2008-ish, it *still* took me three years to wrap my brain around one of the most basic issues: “Abuse is not so much about legalism as it is about authoritarianism.” Three years. Seriously!

Bingo! And part of that is a bigger problem for those who are in systems that “systematically” promote equality, leaders are just regular guys, etc. People really have no clue how to spot the indicators in place. Often they are simply not close enough to the leaders to ever make the connection. But there are indicators in place that should give off some red flags to pay attention to

@ numo:

That was what I was hoping. I will say that the first post surprised me in view of my recollection of the Williams post. Truly a young baby will drive parents over the edge at times.

I made a comment above about XA that I do not believe is correct. I took a break and arranged some flowers from my Valentine, and I recalled that he/she did say that the two parties are both equally responsible to pursue mediation/reconciliation. IIRC that opinion was from his/her Christian perspective. I don’t agree with that, obviously, since I think the more powerful has a greater responsibility. But he/she did finally say that. I apologize, XA, for not remembering that comment you made.

Beth the phrase “damaged” was used to describe my kids…survivors of untreated mental illness would be more accurate. Resilient survivors but not damaged. Thank you for clarifying. Beth wrote:

Julie McMahon wrote:

Again, you are incorrect. My kids are thriving straight A students excelling in academics and sports. We live very transparently and the “hard years” are a part of our story. They are smart, independent and aware kids. They have compassion and a strong bent towards social justice. This did not and does not define them. If they encounter abuse and I pray they do not I will stand strong beside them in speaking out. This is NOT about a messy divorce it’s about individuals in positions of power with platforms refusing to do th right thing. Do not pity my children. They are incredible!

Julie, I am often wrong about things. I am so glad to hear your kids are strong and thriving in spite of the difficulties they’ve been through.

Fully forgiven. Thank you. I’ve worked very hard and at great expense for them to have therapy from day one so although we all bear scars I perceive them as thriving in spite of it all. Beth wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:

That was an incorrect and assumption-filled term I used and I should have chosen my words more carefully. I’m sorry. I wish I could go back and change it because it was wrong to use it, but now it is what it is. All I can say is I’m sorry.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

thank you, too, for being an early voice against this

Thank you. That means a lot to me.

Yes, Bill. My thanks to you as well.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Daisy:
I think you’ve come in in the middle of a long-running conversation. I’ve had my personal motives and my Christian ethics dissected in the most anal-retentive way for quite a while now. I’m not a paid troll, or shill, or secret agent of anyone’s PR firm. I’m just not. As I have said repeatedly, I came into this wanting to believe Julie. In my comment this morning I was trying, however imperfectly, to offer an olive branch to Julie. I do hear her pain as she tells her story. I truly wish her nothing but peace.

Then why have you sounded like you have an agenda to pursue? Which you have done relentlessly, unashamedly & pointedly. You have pursued a line of attempting to make Julie’s actions equivalent to Tony’s, using a single past issue – mistake over monetary amounts- to block block block looking at any current pertinent issues…I could go on, but if you don’t have an unhelpful deliberately biased agenda of some kind I would fall over in shock. Your compassion seems broken.

Xianatty wrote:

I think you’ve come in in the middle of a long-running conversation. I’ve had my personal motives and my Christian ethics dissected in the most anal-retentive way for quite a while now. I’m not a paid troll, or shill, or secret agent of anyone’s PR firm. I’m just not. As I have said repeatedly, I came into this wanting to believe Julie

I’ve read through almost all your comments and comments to you on the past few threads about these subjects. I do not know if you are a paid PR person or not. That is not my point.You want to say you are on Julie’s side, but you act in the total opposite manner.

I left you several comments on page 1 or 2 of this discussion that you may want to go back and read.

I sometimes do a lot of lurking and little commenting. Do not assume a lack of comments by me means I just stumbled in half way to a thread. I’ve been reading from the start

I don’t think you want to believe Julie. You want to anal rententively nit pick her comments and actions to try to show she is untrustworthy – you’ve been doing that on a few threads now. You’re not fooling me at all.

Actually, you’re thinking of Stollar’s follow up guest post. Here: https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/13/tony-jones-and-why-the-documents-shouldnt-have-been-needed/

JeffT wrote:

Bridget wrote:

I’m not sure who monitors that page, but is it the same person who wrote an article (can’t remember the link) about there not being a real “neutral” where abuse is concerned?

Yes, it’s the Stuff Christian Culture Likes Facebook page. I think this is the post you are referring to:

https://www.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes/posts/10153713288353782?comment_id=10153713364643782&notif_t=share_comment

Daisy-

I meant to link what you said. “You have a very odd way of showing it.
When someone is hurt, the normal thing to do is wrap a loving arm around that person and sympathize with the person, not attempt to pick apart what they said to try to demonstrate what they said is false. You’ve been picking apart her comments or actions in a most anal-retentive manner the last several days. That does not come across as loving or caring.”

That says it all.

@ nobody:

I think it dawned on me a while back in mega celebrity xtiandom that Jesus is always on the side of the oppressed so we should be, too.

btw: there is no such thing as a “nobody” in the kingdom. :o)

On this side, here, in this world the oppressed & nobody’s are nothing.

Lydia, I wish I could articulate the way you do, I lost my voice… The only thing I kinda know, is that Jesus knows this nobody & He is keeping the records.

However, I am moved & grateful for the likes of of you & others who call a spade a spade.

Well over 1000 comments, thanks to XianAtty vs All Comers.

When did Celebrity Deathmatch go off the air?

Happy St. Valentine’s Day everyone.

Here’s a beautiful classical music station, KDFC, out of San Francisco that I wanted to share: http://www.kdfc.com/

Lydia wrote:

I think it dawned on me a while back in mega celebrity xtiandom that Jesus is always on the side of the oppressed so we should be, too.

Tonight, I’ve been reading a bit of this/that on the topic by going down the google list. I don’t remember where (I should be in bed), but someone was writing about Jesus being for the guilty and somehow that meant Jesus was for Tony. It was the oddest bit….

Daisy wrote:

I don’t think you want to believe Julie. You want to anal rententively nit pick her comments and actions to try to show she is untrustworthy – you’ve been doing that on a few threads now. You’re not fooling me at all.

You’re spot on about XA. That’s what I see, too.

I believe Julie !

@Marsha,

Your post was well-written. There is one person in this story that we have never heard about and he’s never been written about: Courtney’s ex-husband. I really feel for him.

@ Marsha:

Very well said. And that’s excellent advice to Tony, too.

@ Marsha:

This should be a blog post all on it’s own. Well said.

I hope Eagle is ok. We haven’t heard from him…in days.

The NPD diagnosis is such a very very very important detail to this whole situation. I am not a professional but for personal reasons I researched NPD extensively a number of years ago. How my heart goes out to Julie for the pain and turmoil she experienced at the hands of her ex-husband and for being uncared for and maligned by those who wear the badge of Jesus. Let us hold this woman up as she apparently still has legal turmoil and drama to contend with.

I think a mediation with McLaren should have a professional present with great knowledge of NPD. Pastors and various people in authority know nothing about this disorder. So much of what has occurred here is very hallmark. In fact, the response of the pastoral individuals here is very hallmark. They had no idea they were taken by a very cunning snake oil salesman. Even when facts emerge that might cause them to question the narrative they accepted, it’s too embarrassing for them to admit they believed a smooth charmer. That would require admitting you had a flaw and couldn’t discern not just a liar, but a malignant one.

dee wrote:

@ Michaela:
He’s great. He has a surprise to share with all of you in the near future.

Thanks Dee!

Glad for the many comments. I am thankful that this community continues to process this abusive situation.

Marsha on,

Thanks for your clear and thoughtful comment. You have stated things so well! Agree, you are correct:

“Like everyone else here I care deeply about the victims of emotional, physical, and/or sexual abuse and as a Christian I hate when the church is spiritually abusive to these victims. It is a horrible betrayal.”

Thanks Lydia for posting the link to Subversive Influence. This is another insightful article.

Here is my comment that I posted there:

“Brent,

Glad that you are another voice to clarify hidden and sticky issues that need to be painstakingly explained. It is so timely and necessary.

Your article continues to illuminate and support Julie’s situation. All the best as you participate in righting wrongs, clarifying untruths, and pushing against abusive systems.”

@ Bunsen Honeydew:
Yikes, that is frightening (that you can recognize the signs of NPD just from internet back and forth and a few life snippets).

Maybe because I am seeing it all out in the open now, but I just don’t see Tony as “smooth”, he seems to run into a lot of hiccups (being the one divorcing her, meeting with Courtney 4 days after just serving her with papers, conveniently, insisting there were no abuse allegations, then having them posted, saying he is being harassed when she just tells her side, lawsuit allegations and threats flying every which way – even if they aren’t all by him, this looks like a gong show created by a desperate person, not smooth snake oil salesman), but given how many high profile people have flocked to his defence, he does seem to have a sway over many people he’s meet personally.

__

“FreeBird?”

hmmm…

Dee n’ Deb

hey,

Is enough is enough?, JulieM has been given grace, money, and the Wartburg Watch platform, yet where is her Guest Post?

Respectfully, ‘how’ does this ‘defcency’ help her situation?

(sadface)

ATB

Sopy
__
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_v-7FdtuSA

—

“The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.”
— Mahatma Gandhi

This quote from Brother Maynard’s blog. http://subversiveinfluence.com/2015/02/tony-jones-the-new-emergent-manifesto-part-i/

Thank you. That is so kind and loving! @ Michaela:

From E church Tony and Julie
Lord God,
you have taught us that anything we do without love is worth nothing,
for whoever lives without love is counted dead before you;
send your Holy Spirit,and pour into our hearts
that most excellent gift of love, the true bond of peace and of all virtues;
grant this for the sake of your Son Jesus Christ
who is alive with with you and the Holy Spirit, one God now and for ever.
Amen.

Margaret wrote:

My heart weeps for the real victims in all of this. For me they are the children of Tony and Julie. My prayer is that some how they can be protected from their parents Internet and court fight. Really how does forgiveness between Brian and Julie help these innocent children? How do all these comments and all the blogs that take sides help the true victims?

Margaret- I agree with your prayer. However, I disagree with you putting equal blame on Julie in this story. What is it that, you cannot see? Julie has been traumatized. How can you not see that? I don’t care for your sanctimonious comment. You are blaming Julie, have you missed what she has been through?

“My heart weeps for the real victims in all of this. For me they are the children of Tony and Julie. My prayer is that some how they can be protected from their parents Internet and court fight. Really how does forgiveness between Brian and Julie help these innocent children? How do all these comments and all the blogs that take sides help the true victims?”

Stop. be quiet, and pray. You are not helping.

Julie is not only speaking for herself, she is speaking for many of us who have been wounded/crushed/ destroyed by celebrity super hero’s.

Margaret- I hear your pain- and I appreciate what you have suffered at the hands of your parents. No wonder this ties you up in knots, but if I may say, ever so tenderly, this is not your story…

Julie has not had a voice for a long time, she has been manipulated, abused, & trashed. Her voice needs to be heard, and she might not agree, but, she is speaking for so many who have been crushed under the wheels. I mean you no harm, no ill, I just ask you to look at the facts in this horrific story. Julie has been a supportive & loving mom. It is not her fault that she keeps getting dragged into court.

Margaret wrote:

Just wish all the comments and blogs would be erased for your children. Understand the need for mediation, hope you can find peace, love, and forgiveness. Praying for your precious children. I know what it feels like to question my parents love. I lived in 8 different homes from the age 13 to 18. My heart breaks for your children.

@Margaret,

If you are this triggered by this story then it’s probably not a good idea for you to come to TWW to read and post. (Help is available, from reliable, free sources such as Al-Anon and other sources.)

The Lord REQUIRES that we help people in Julie’s situation. To talk about it honestly is not a sin. There is nothing that is being spoken about that these children haven’t already lived through. So it’s no surprise to them. In fact, I’m fairly certain that there’s a lot that they’ve lived through that has never been posted and written about.

Margaret- I hear you. This story is hugely triggering, maybe differently for different people. I am praying for Julie and Tony’s kids. Also for everyone who is triggered by this story and harmed by situations like this.
Peace to you.

“So glad my story was not fought on the internet where I could read the accusations of my parents and my sisters. This hurts me to the core, trying hard to stop weeping for the pain of these innocent children. Not pointing my finger at Julie, just asking everyone to think about the ones who are being hurt.”

Take care Margaret, I hope you don’t leave, your voice is important. You obviously know the hurt of being a child who was deeply wounded by her parents. I didn’t factor your wounds in, when I read your first comment. My apologies for my harsh response.

I think, I hear you now, you are not blaming Julie, you are coming from a place of knowing the agony of what a child experiences when her parents are at war.

That said, please keep in mind what was done to Julie. She was a victim. She was alone. She had no support against the celebrity circuit machine. That machine shut her down. Didn’t hear her. Called her bat s*** crazy.

I would be called a lunatic if I went through what she did. I would have been devastated if I was abandoned by my husband…

She has loved & supported her precious children well, and they sound strong, resilient, and healthy for what they have been through.

I will join with you in your prayer for the children, along with Julie & all who long for peace for this nonsense to stop.

@ Margaret:

I’m sorry that you had to deal with divorced parents. Many of us have. Even when everything goes smoothly, it can still be painful for the children. I don’t think that what we are seeing now is what Julie wants at all, but the main issue is how the Emergent Leaders have treated Julie. That story does need to be told.

You have lamented about Julie’s children in several comments and asked that Julie and Tony stop airing what you think is inappropriate information, but now you are adding comments that add more personnel information. So, do you really care about the children or do you have some other reason your commenting? Your actions don’t line up with your words.

Margaret wrote:

@ Michaela:
Why don’t you give Julie this advice?

You mean Tony and Julie?

@ Margaret:

Nope. No one said anything about dismissing anything. Well, actually, Tony is dismissing the child custody agreement. Julie made a petition and it was refused. Alot has happened over the past seven years between Julie and Tony.

Sounds like the children are doing pretty well right now.

@ Margaret:

I didn’t give you that advice. I don’t think you’ve been shut down at all. Comment away. You have had the floor for the past few hours. I’m off to bed.

@ Margaret:
So is this a “different point of view” or a request for the protection of the children? See, I suspected this wasn’t really about the children from the second you said you wished it would all be taken off the internet. That really won’t change anything for the kids, now will it? But it would be mighty convenient for certain sides of this debate to have the other side shut down, wouldn’t it? I don’t know you, but I am connecting dots here.

@ Margaret:
The internet is where Julie’s fight for justice has finally been taken seriously though…it is really the only place where she has been able to show the world that she is not crazy, & that he is lying. Without those factors, which are his doing, she would not have needed to go there. Without the truths coming out here as they have done/are doing Julie may not get justice in family court as she’d still be just one woman against his narcissistic celebrity agenda. You’re still not taking into account she is dealing with a diagnosed narcissist with a larger power base. Why is that bit not making sense?

http://subversiveinfluence.com/2015/02/tony-jones-the-new-emergent-manifesto-part-ii/

@ Val: yeah. I’m going with val on this one. XtianAtty took Sunday off and Margaret is taking the shift with a different trial balloon to float.

Interestingly, it is also the balloon being floated most recently on Stollar’s blog as well. Hmmmm

Margaret lost credibility with me when she said that she was glad that her own family story wasn’t discussed on the Internet and talked about living in many different homes during a short period of time as a child. We naturally thought she was referring to divorce in her family and that she was being triggered. However, when Bridget made such a reference, she came back with, “Did I say my parents divorced?” instead of simply saying, there was no divorce; I am referring to other family problems if she felt the need to correct Bridget. This and the reference to legal documents she mistakenly thinks we ignore suggests game playing to me.

@ Marsha:

The campaign is in full swing.

People who are married to NPD’s do all they can to protect their children from the tactics of the NPD but it is nearly impossible. For many it can take a long time to realize what they are really dealing with. And the spouse of an NPD carries all the burden for the children. Alone. The NPD does not really care. Children are seen as tools to use for their supply or weapons to hurt others. They are viewed as mere extensions of the NPD and not unique individuals.

The children will grow up to deal with it the rest of their lives until they can choose how to spend their time. Getting them good therapy and encouraging them to stay on task and working toward future goals is the best route I have seen.

The worst thing anyone can do to children is go along with an NPD and pretend they are normal.

I think that Julie’s kids–if they are even following this online–may actually get some validation from seeing the support and kindness that has been shown toward Julie as well as the calls for Tony et al to change their ways. I doubt that anything disclosed recently is new and shocking information for the kids; they have been living this story every day for a very long time.

Julie, I’m sorry you’ve been dealing with this horrible situation for so long. My mom was likely a narcissist, and once I finally cut all ties I went through three years of harassment, involving the legal system and law enforcement, as she tried to regain access to my kids before she finally gave up (for now!). So I understand the tactics an NPD uses to keep narcissistic supply and maintain their image at all costs. I can’t imagine trying to co-parent with someone with NPD. You are very strong and you deserve to be heard.

dee wrote:

If Julie was truly crazy, them why did Tony leave the kids with her? If she was not crazy, then allowing this statement to make the round also addresses Tony’s character. Either of those possibilities demonstrates to me that Tony had little regard for his kids in this mess. That is why I jumped into the fray.

This is key. I hope Margaret is taking this into consideration. Not only did Tony leave the kids with her, he went on a tour leaving her with 3 small children while he was spreading the meme she was mentally ill. And people in the Progressive/Emergent movement beleived him without even considering why he would leave the kids with a mentally ill wife and why he was not at home dealing with it? Now we know she was never mentally ill. Tony made it up as cover to have a spiritual wife. If people are concerned for the kids, that is the place to start.

@ Val:
Very well said.

JoelM wrote:

Both because Tony was never held accountable for his abuse and because he had a large following who trusted him to be a spiritual leader, it was necessary for this “dirty laundry” to be “aired on the Internet,” as you say. Indeed, this is the Matthew 18:15-17 way of doing things—first go to the person, then the elders, then the entire church. Since Tony did not change his behavior on his own and the elders (McLaren and Pagitt, in this case) didn’t pressure him to change his behavior, it is the responsibility of the church at large to hold him to account—after all, he is a spiritual leader “at-large,” as it were.

So—regarding the children. This is a huge bummer for them; I agree with you. I wish it didn’t need to play out this way. But Julie is following (nearly to the letter!) the biblical way of dealing with an abuser. While there is the potential for the children to be hurt with the intimate details of their life plastered on blogs around the Internet, there is more potential for harm if Tony is not called to account, both in terms of their relationship to their NPD father and in terms of their relationship to the church. After all, I wouldn’t want to be part of an organization which promotes and admires someone who clearly doesn’t care about his wife or his kids (see Tony’s 2008 tour for one example of many).

That is a very important point. Tony and his friends stifled the process, and Julie took her story to the only places that would hear it and give her a measure of justice. Thanks for highlighting that aspect of this and tying it to the Biblical process. We are encouraging the ones who have ignored her and the children to do the right thing.

I’m now blocked by Matthew Paul Turner on Twitter. I don’t recall tweeting him myself directly about the TJ matter. Déjà u #TGCblockedparty.

I think we are dealing with narcissists who are accustomed to being successful in selling their stories. They can’t believe they won’t get the narrative back under their control.

I am waiting and willing! Let’s walk the talk Christians!!

dee wrote:

@ Gram3:
I believe that Tony’s supporters realize that they have a serious problem. The cat is out of the bag. If they try to denigrate julie in anyway, the pushback will be something to behold. I believe the only way through this situation is to meet, apologize and to stop the lawsuit.

dee wrote:

@ Gram3:
I believe that Tony’s supporters realize that they have a serious problem. The cat is out of the bag. If they try to denigrate julie in anyway, the pushback will be something to behold. I believe the only way through this situation is to meet, apologize and to stop the lawsuit.

Dee, I understand if you can’t say, but what lawsuit?

Bridget wrote:

So transparent that it makes we wonder if the people doing it are delusional. Do they really think that everyone will believe them?

Well, everybody THEY know believes them 1000%…

Like all the Beautiful People in Anointed Media who were aghast when Dubya Bush won a second term. “How Could He? Nobody *I* Know Voted For Him!”

@ Beth:

I believe Dee is referring to this:

http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/30/brian-mclaren-to-take-legal-action-against-this-woman/

A friend of mine, who comments here occasionally pointed to this description of a Concern Troll:

A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don’t really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.
A concern troll on a progressive blog might write, “I don’t think it’s wise to say things like that because you might get in trouble with the government.” Or, “This controversy is making your side look disorganized.”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=concern+troll

I think we’ve seen a number of fit who fit this description on this thread, n’est-ce pas?

@ Gram3:

Here is soemthing for the Tony memes to consider. An NPD will use any tactic even if it is for one hour, one day or a week to defelct. The point is to create chaos and imbalance to overwhelm and deflect. This works well, actually, because most folks do not believe rational people would actually do something like that.

And we have seen all the tactics in play here as deflections from the larger narrative that is not good for Tony. An NPD created a lie about his wife so he had what others in his movement might buy as a good excuse to eventually get rid of her. He wanted to help her by committing her. His wife played her part by responding to the gaslighting and then reaching out to their joint “spiritual” community for help. They blew her off as mentally ill who needed help but would not cooperate. After all, the leaders “discerned” this as a group.

NPD’s will even use their own children. They really are that vile. They have no real empathy and what looks like empathy is feigned. People are often fooled for long periods of time. Do you know how many people actually think they KNOW the guy they see on stage? I call this the soap opera effect.

Again, I ask folks: Are narcissists rational when you look at the overall patterns? I really hope people stop and think about that.

And all this especially works well for NPD’s in ministry who have a plastic Jesus fish covering them. Fellow travelors and those who have made bank off Jesus with the NPD need to save face. People will often choose the doctrine they espouse over people and especially those who make an income from it. Doctrine over people is a cultish tactic. The emergent progressives are having a harder time because they chose to focus on the oppressed as their doctrine. Their leaders are not looking “authentic” or sincere. The leaders are looking as “authoritarian” as the evangelicals are! And they continue to compound that problem.

Here is the other problem: http://kinnon.tv/2015/02/narcissistic-psychopathic-leadership.html

People with narcissistic tendancies (or full blown narcissists) are attracted to public ministry. It is one of the top 10 professions that narcissists are attracted to.

I can tell you from my experience in the mega world of evangelicalism this rings especially true. And those “under and around” the narcissistic leader on staff are often seeking their own power. It is a system from hell.

And after a while, people sound like broken records about the NPD. They become exhausted because quite simply, they are not narcissists.

The narcissist never tires.

The NPD actually gets energy from all this. They “enjoy” it in a sick sort of way. I have no doubt Tony has been a busy bee since Sept 2014. And they often win because they never tire. And no one would be that bold if they weren’t innocent, right?

That is why it is important not to get sucked into their deflections and always respond with the larger narrative. Dee has done a great job with this concerning why Tony would leave his 3 small children in care of a mom who he insisted was mentally ill to go on a book tour.

If people are concerned about the kids, the details of litigation or any other trial balloon they float for deflection from Tony, they can start with leaving the kids with what he insisted publicly was a mentally ill mother. What does that say about Tony’s overall character.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of “concern,” to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power.

If you guys noticed, most of this has been some sort of “appeals to authority”. (Which I thought was a uniquely evangelical tactic in Christendom until now)

We have had an xtian”attorney”, a “therapist”, a “neighbor” who can see Tony’s house and so on. We have also seen on other blogs “medical abuse advocacy groups”, experts in family court and so on.

These are simply mind games because many people are easily influenced. Some are very good at these mind games.

@ Marsha:

Bingo

@ Banannie:

People want to understand a public person’s first reaction to something like this. They want to know why MPT responded as he did the first time.

I think that is understandable. MPT and others like him seek public attention so they are going to receive some pushback to their initial reaction. When they don’t like that pushback they suddently want to be a private person or resort to a deflection of cyber bullying as RHE has done.

Some survivors are so jaded by false leaders, they view the first reaction is the true one. Subsequent actions are often viewed as “saving the business”. They have a right to feel that way whether we like it or not. This is not about PR but about real life victims.

Banannie wrote:

@ Val: yeah. I’m going with val on this one. XtianAtty took Sunday off and Margaret is taking the shift with a different trial balloon to float.
Interestingly, it is also the balloon being floated most recently on Stollar’s blog as well. Hmmmm

First it was infinite posts on ‘Julie’s not telling the truth’, no discussion of Tojo’s lies and despicable actions, to try and focus the attention away from Tojo and villianize Julie. Now it’s ‘think of the children’, no discussion of Tojo and his lack of care about his children, in order to get people to stop talking about Tojo.

Seems like we’ve got an Internet discussion version of 3-card monte going on to try and take everyone’s attention off the Tojo card. Wonder what the next card will be.

Beth wrote:

McLaren said he meant he was conferring with legal counsel about releasing his own documentation.

He did not need to announce it if he merely meant he was going to confer with legal counsel. It sounded like a threat, and IIRC he used the word “action” which means he was looking into something like a lawsuit.

He can make his intent not to sue crystal clear by taking down the post and correcting it. That would be very helpful for a lot of people, not least of whom would be McLaren himself. It would make him look like a leader who is seeking peace instead of someone who is interested mainly in his image. Ironically, his image would be enhanced.

Amy Smith wrote:

Did MPT completely delete his statement from last week saying that he believes and supports Julie? Why?

I’m pretty sure that the dogpiling from people following the SCCL page caused him to decide to just avoid the whole topic. After he posted his support, the comments were littered with people decrying him for previously being “neutral”, both on the SCCL page and on his own post. There wasn’t anything so over-the-top incendiary that I saw that merited shutting down his entire Facebook page and making his tweets protected, but that’s what he did (and maybe the most vitriolic ones he deleted), along with sending a note to Stephany Drury (who runs SCCL) saying that her group was the reason for it.

Have people done damaging things to Julie? Yes. Should we demonize them after they realize and repent? No. Very disappointing.

Banannie wrote:

@ Val: yeah. I’m going with val on this one. XtianAtty took Sunday off and Margaret is taking the shift with a different trial balloon to float.

Interestingly, it is also the balloon being floated most recently on Stollar’s blog as well. Hmmmm

Spot on. XA is in Florida (the state where Brian McLaren also resides). XA from what I could tell from the Twitter feed: lives 10 miles from the Everglades, is a possibly a Methodist (given all of the feeds), liberal Democrat, possibly black and possibly a woman.

Michaela wrote:

Methodist (given all of the feeds), liberal Democrat, possibly black and possibly a woman.

Why would any of that matter?

Bridget wrote:

@ Gram3:
@ Lydia</b
You guys are fast.

Hanging tag . . . didn’t mean to bold that.

Marsha wrote:

WAS he neutral? I thought he supported Tony?

Said he/she was, but didn’t respond like it.

@ Bridget:

Bridget, I have heard one too many celebrity mega church types say:

Trust positive intentions.

In other words, we are to ignore words/actions and believe there is some positive intent we cannot know or understand. And we are to do this because of who they are.

It is just too close to thought reform tactics for me. No thanks.

Bridget wrote:

Michaela wrote:

Methodist (given all of the feeds), liberal Democrat, possibly black and possibly a woman.

Why would any of that matter?

I am just looking at the XA’s Twitter feed and have taken screen shots of it all.

Amy Smith wrote:

Did MPT completely delete his statement from last week saying that he believes and supports Julie? Why?

Yes, he did. I’ve seen a couple of screenshots of it. When you are in the public limelight, it’s foolish to delete a whole statement. A better idea is to let it stand and issue a new revised statement. Removing a statement along with comments never looks good in the big scheme of things. It makes it look like someone is trying to hide something. Also taking away the voices of the commenters by removing a statement with comments is not cool.

Margaret wrote:

@ Michaela:
Why don’t you give Julie this advice?

Because you were the one who said that you were in near sobbing tears and couldn’t cope. But now I see that despite your proclamations that you were in such emotional distress, that you could figure out the MN court website and use terms such as ‘vacated.’ Me thinks you’re jiving us.

What do you really do for a living and whom are you really working for?

You said you’re in Canada.

@ Julie Anne:
Thanks Julie. And by removing his public statement of support for Julie, he takes that gift of belief and support away from her. If support is conditional, it’s not support at all. His facebook page is back up but no mention of support for Julie that I can see. Does he regret taking a public stand ever so briefly?

Lydia wrote:

I am at a loss why more folks have not realized what that was really about and how insidious it is.

I think big part of it is people wanting to “think the best” and not believing that someone they trust, love, respect could possibly do such things. They have to come to terms with their own misguidedness. Not easy, but needed.

Bridget wrote:

Lydia wrote:

I am at a loss why more folks have not realized what that was really about and how insidious it is.

I think big part of it is people wanting to “think the best” and not believing that someone they trust, love, respect could possibly do such things. They have to come to terms with their own misguidedness. Not easy, but needed.

I think some people who have been close to Tony, loved him, learned from him & so on will be going through a period of cognitive & emotional dissonance, shock, sadness, grieving for a friendship that has not turned out to be what it seemed. It’d take me a while in their position to realise I was wrong, check & double check that, freak out, & then, when I could, admit my wrongs & try & put stuff right. It’s going to take time for people who have only seen Tony being charming & persuasive to shake off the spell they’ve been under.

@ Brent:

We’ve heard . . . crickets.

“. . . and he knows none of her accusations to be true.” I guess the children didn’t tell the truth. For a situation that is complicated, McLaren seems pretty sure of the truth.

@ Bridget:

And that without ever talking with Julie, which is negligent at best. I hope he, and others, do actually interact with Julie in a safe place for Julie. After all, she is the one who has been maligned these past eight years. The Emergent celebrities have been rolling on as if nothing happened.

Beth wrote:

@ Bridget:
@ Gram3:
@ Lydia:

I agree. I wish if he didn’t mean a lawsuit, he would fix it. It is unclear the way he said it.

But I still don’t know what Dee meant when she referred to a lawsuit by Tony’s supporters. Is McLaren suing after all? Is someone else? I would find that to be very bad news if so.

McLaren has the platform to fix the legal threat he wrote right now but chooses not to remove it for some reason but wants us to believe it says something very different. Curious.

There is someone suing Julie right now who is being propped up by the emergent/progressive leaders even though he broke the current legal agreement. Don’t you know who it is? Why can’t the progressive/emergents make it known they do not support breaking legal agreements nor this current legal action against Julie? How long are they going to prop this NPD up?

@ Carl A:
Re. SCCL people dogpiling MPT: I agree. Some of them are not only very vocal but still suffering terribly from the abuses they’ve endured, which ends up making it difficult for them to look at Julie’s situation + the things that RHE & NBW said/did with any objectivity. I think many of them feel betrayed, and unfortunately, they tend to tske it out on other commenters who don’t agree with them 100%.

My guess (and that’s all it is) is that MPT’s post some weeks back about “the mob” was/is about some of them, plus others who take a similar approach.

I do *not* think FB and Twitter are set up to allow for nuanced, in-depth discussions, and both are conducive to flash mob swarming and attacks.

@ Michaela:
You know what? I don’t think it matters (all the details). Imo, not woth the time to rehash or discuss.

@ Bridget:
Yes.

@ Gram3:
I think you aren’t being fair to MPT (not that it really matters one way or the other).

@ Beakerj:
Exactly.

Margaret wrote:

@ Bridget:
Sorry my mistake. My issue is the children and what they are experiencing and what they will deal with as they grow older.

Are you for real? A wife/mother is dumped by her husband, the father of her young children, while he takes up with some other woman….and you ‘take’ his side? Imagine what a really good sponsor in a 12-step program like Alcoholics Anonymous would tell a recovering drunk who had done that and the amends that they would need to make to ex-wife, children, family and friends.