So Sad: Tony Jones Reportedly Sues Julie McMahon for Custody of All of the Children.

I was contacted by a friend of Julie McMahon. She told me that Tony is suing Julie for the custody of the rest of her children and is reportedly claiming that Julie is an unfit mother. This is the woman who cared for the children while Tony pursued his degree, his career and then another relationship. Julie was there for those children all of those years.

I remember how I felt when I thought my daughter would be taken from me due to a brain tumor. The pain was almost unbearable. There were days I couldn't think straight and was afraid that I would not be able to handle it. Years later, I still vividly recall those feelings.

I do not know how Julie bears this pain and I do not know why Tony believes he needs to do it this way. If only he was as committed to Julie as Stanley Hauerwas was to his wife. At one time, Tony loved Julie enough to make all these children with her. How quickly that got thrown away.

May God have mercy on Julie and grant her peace and strength. May God reach into Tony's heart and help him to remember the love he once had for her. My heart aches for the children.

Comments

So Sad: Tony Jones Reportedly Sues Julie McMahon for Custody of All of the Children. — 148 Comments

  1. And yet Tony still has his defenders. I actually doubt he ever loved Julie as his diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder makes it hard for him to really love anyone.

  2. This makes me sick to my stomach. Does Julie even have the means to defend herself against Tony’s claims?

    Everything Julie put up with during the marriage, and while Tony divorced her for his younger honey, and this is how he treats her. He is one sick, hardened, man. God have mercy on all of them.

  3. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    I actually doubt he ever loved Julie as his diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder makes it hard for him to really love anyone.

    I doubt it also.

  4. Thank you for letting us know what is going on with Julie. I think of her often. This breaks my heart.

  5. Are there anti-slapp laws for this type of activity? I can imagine the agony this is causing for Julie, it is simply aweful. I’ll pray for a good attorney that is looking for a good case to take on pro-bono and a judge that knows about narcissists.

  6. There are no words. I understand what is wrong with this man. But what is wrong with the people who defend this and call themselves followers of Christ?

  7. For those that know Tony, know of this situation, and have done nothing, what is wrong with you?

  8. Is it tacky of me to wonder what on earth his current wife thinks of this? She might be like him or does she understand she will raise them if he wins because an NPD does not do well with those that need them. They use others for narcissistic supply. Is she fit?

    Rachel Held Evans are you still silent? Nadia? Doug Pagitt?

    Fuller? Do you still employ Tony in any way?

    At some point those in Tony’s tribe who pay him to speak, write books, etc need to speak up because without their money, he could not afford to keep doing this to her.

  9. Bill M wrote:

    I’ll pray for a good attorney that is looking for a good case to take on pro-bono and a judge that knows about narcissists.

    Good idea. Let us all pray for a new and better judge. As I understand it, the last one was a former partner of his current attorney.

  10. Lydia wrote:

    As I understand it, the last one was a former partner of his current attorney.

    That is unconscionable and unethical. He should recuse himself! Unbelievable.

  11. Lydia wrote:

    Rachel Held Evans are you still silent? Nadia? Doug Pagitt?

    Brian? Matthew? Jay? Peter? That whole “Homebrewed” group?

    Seriously, if this was John Piper making some dumb comment about women we’d get a month’s worth posts out of it and the snarky twitter back and forth might last even longer. Tony Jones injured his wife and emotionally tortures her to this day, and all we get is deleted comments, defensive posts, and arrogant toughtpieces about finding better ways to respond.

  12. David wrote:

    Tony Jones injured his wife and emotionally tortures her to this day, and all we get is deleted comments, defensive posts, and arrogant toughtpieces about finding better ways to respond.

    I’m not sure exactly what you mean since I don’t do social media and don’t recognize the names, but ISTM that the progressive/emergent sector of the church needs to deal with this with the full support of the rest of us. I do not get why Jones gets a pass, especially among people who say they are concerned with the weak and least powerful among us. Or why Rachel Evans supports him. It makes no sense.

  13. Lydia wrote:

    Good idea. Let us all pray for a new and better judge. As I understand it, the last one was a former partner of his current attorney.

    “One hand washes the other…”

  14. OnlyEleven wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    As I understand it, the last one was a former partner of his current attorney.

    That is unconscionable and unethical. He should recuse himself! Unbelievable.

    Pedos & Abusers don’t just groom their prey.
    They also pre-groom third-party allies, especially in positions of authority.

  15. David wrote:

    Lydia wrote:

    Rachel Held Evans are you still silent? Nadia? Doug Pagitt?

    Brian? Matthew? Jay? Peter? That whole “Homebrewed” group?

    Seriously, if this was John Piper making some dumb comment about women we’d get a month’s worth posts out of it and the snarky twitter back and forth might last even longer. Tony Jones injured his wife and emotionally tortures her to this day, and all we get is deleted comments, defensive posts, and arrogant toughtpieces about finding better ways to respond.

    And Brian McLaren in Florida? He has never “manned-up” and handled business. He threatened to sue Julie.

    There isn’t a real man in the Emergent Bunch. Losers every last one of them. Even unbelievers behave better than this, know better and do better!

  16. anonymous wrote:

    There are good people who keep showing up and that is my gentle reminder that there is a loving God who cares. My prayer for peace and healing is offered up. I wish I could do it for the both of us….for the children but know he is incapable of peace.

    Ah dear lady whom I’ve never met, I first read this post and had to leave the computer for a while because I was so angry. I am very glad to read this on my return.

    I think often of this situation and send up prayers but I do not know if that does anything useful. At any rate, all the best that can be had from this travesty, please God it can be squeezed out for anonymous and her children.

    PS: book sounds like an excellent idea to me.

  17. To be honest I think the emergent group is ill equipped to deal with a situation such as this. One, there was some effort to be different from mainstream church and nit come across as all hung up and judgemental man. We’re the hip groovy ones, not the judgemental Pharisees.

    Second, emergent leadership really couldn’t admit to themselves they had such a lack of discernment and lack of insight in this situation because hey, we’re the spiritual ones, dude.

    Third, I would guess that there are some pretty big Holy Crap we were wrong moments going on. In my experience, the bigger the mess the more difficult it is to fix it, if not impossible. If you can’t fix it, then you can’t apologize because it only calls attention to the fact you screwed up so bad, hurt someone so badly, and it can’t be fixed.

    The mature thing to do would be to own it. The right thing to do would be to own it. In that respect the Emergent group isn’t much different from the Calvinistas.

  18. KimberlyRS wrote:

    To be honest I think the emergent group is ill equipped to deal with a situation such as this. One, there was some effort to be different from mainstream church and nit come across as all hung up and judgemental man. We’re the hip groovy ones, not the judgemental Pharisees.

    Second, emergent leadership really couldn’t admit to themselves they had such a lack of discernment and lack of insight in this situation because hey, we’re the spiritual ones, dude.

    Third, I would guess that there are some pretty big Holy Crap we were wrong moments going on. In my experience, the bigger the mess the more difficult it is to fix it, if not impossible. If you can’t fix it, then you can’t apologize because it only calls attention to the fact you screwed up so bad, hurt someone so badly, and it can’t be fixed.

    The mature thing to do would be to own it. The right thing to do would be to own it. In that respect the Emergent group isn’t much different from the Calvinistas.

    There isn’t a *real man* in the Emergent Bunch who is capable of *owning it*. Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones’ co-“man-o-gawd” [H.U.G.’s term], described the woman Jones was having an affair with as his *spiritual wife*.

    Oh puuuuhllllllssssssseeeeee!

    Can you imagine having the MISFORTUNE to be Doug Pagitt’s grown daughter? What if his daughter came to him and said, “Hey Dad, I just discovered that my husband is having an affair with another woman. What should I do, Dad? I’ve got three little kids. I need some good advice.”

    Can you imagine having this moron as your father? “Oh she’s just his ‘spiritual wife'” garbage???

    Losers one and all: Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, and Brian McLaren. NO REAL MEN IN THE CROWD, EVER!!!

  19. Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.

  20. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    I actually doubt he ever loved Julie as his diagnosed Narcissistic Personality Disorder makes it hard for him to really love anyone.

    It’s one thing to be a narcissist, and another level of awful to act unrelentingly malignant year after year, making everyone near you suffer your baseless bottomless rage: your children, your children’s mother, your current wife. In the end, your own stability. Just to know, Tony Jones, constant rage kills brain cells. The longer you stay in that place, the stupider you get.

    Obviously Rachel Held Evans, Doug Pagitt, Nadia Boltz-Weber, Brian McLaren, Peter Rollins, the Homebrewed bunch, etc, don’t care about Tony Jones. If they did, they’d do something about this ongoing soul-destruction. Maybe they are cowards. Hard to say, really.

    Either way, I no longer recommend anything these people say/write; not because what they say is without merit but because their words ring hollow against this situation in their midst. It’s vital for “up front” Christian to have a backbone of honesty.

    Yet another display of lack of character. Apparently their proggy words about courage and risk-taking was mostly just dreaming and preening.

    Humbug

  21. Leslie wrote:

    Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.

    Go for it!

  22. Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:

    Blech. I doubt Tony gives a care, but his actions have been so gross I can’t imagine anyone other than a complete sycophant would hold him in any esteem. I officially revoke his man card.

    I would have ripped it up myself, but then I learned that Tony Jones had never been issued *a man card* because we all know that he isn’t one!

  23. Patrice wrote:

    Either way, I no longer recommend anything these people say/write; not because what they say is without merit but because their words ring hollow against this situation in their midst. It’s vital for “up front” Christian to have a backbone of honesty.
    Yet another display of lack of character. Apparently their proggy words about courage and risk-taking was mostly just dreaming and preening.
    Humbug

    My disclosure is that I am more conservative than not on a number of issues, but want to see other opinions when they’re well defined. That said, the near-total collapse of the modern Progressive Evangelical/Emergent movement on this scandal should be a wake-up call. If you think you are speaking Truth to Power by making fun of that stupid Trump prophecy, but can’t speak up for a woman being harassed by her ex-husband with a book deal (and the same publishers in some cases), please call off the NPR and The Daily Beast interviews and re-asses your selective outrage.

    And I’m saying this as someone who is livid that SGM is still coddled and upset that Franklin Graham has enough money to buy a Target store if he wanted.

  24. I am most disappointed in Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber. Apologies if I misspelled her name. How they can support the abuse of another woman and her children is beyond comprehension. There are so many parallels with the Mahaney-Gospel Glitterati and Driscoll-Gospel Glitterati bromances that I sympathize with the people who are shocked and disappointed by the failures of their “leaders” to lead. I certainly know what that feels like.

    It is so encouraging that there is a place like TWW where people with different convictions can yet agree that there are some things which should not be so, regardless of political or doctrinal differences. Children should not be abused in any way, and people in power generally should protect people with no power. Otherwise, it really is all about politics of one kind or another or money, and that is pure worldliness.

  25. Leslie wrote:

    Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.

    Allred won’t do jack unless she smells lotsa’ dinero.

  26. Sooo in another life time I ran a blog called “Poop is Emergent Too” at times I would talk about folks like ToJo. (Full Disclosure, I am a dreaded Calvinist…but a nice guy)… During that time Julie McMahon actually emailed me with a whole lot of things to say about Tony Jones and his affair and such, I can’t remember what all she said, but I do know it leaves me with the distinct impression that she was telling the truth, and this was before all the spiritual wife stuff. My tendency based on that experience is that she is telling the truth about the abusive nature of the relationship and this is just sad.

  27. David wrote:

    If you think you are speaking Truth to Power by making fun of that stupid Trump prophecy, but can’t speak up for a woman being harassed by her ex-husband with a book deal (and the same publishers in some cases), please call off the NPR and The Daily Beast interviews and re-asses your selective outrage.

    Yup. This is one of those rare times when people should feel downright ashamed of themselves.

    Gram3 wrote:

    It is so encouraging that there is a place like TWW where people with different convictions can yet agree that there are some things which should not be so, regardless of political or doctrinal differences.

    I think so too. I love how passion comes in many forms and from all directions. It gives us a glimpse of the wide contours of our gigantic God. What He must be like, that we are all made in His image?! hah

  28. Leslie wrote:

    Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.

    I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. I’m tempted to throw something at the TV every time I see either one of them.

    I just checked Rachel Held Evans’ blog. Not surprisingly, she’s silent on this matter. I’m not holding my breath that will change anytime soon.

  29. I agree, but maybe that is what is needed in this situation.
    singleman wrote:

    Leslie wrote:
    Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.
    I’m not so sure that’s a good idea. I’m tempted to throw something at the TV every time I see either one of them.
    I just checked Rachel Held Evans’ blog. Not surprisingly, she’s silent on this matter. I’m not holding my breath that will change anytime soon.

  30. Here is the link to Solomon’s Porch, the church in Minnesota, where Doug Pagitt is a pastor. I thought Tony Jones was also a pastor there too. Curiously, he is not listed as being on the staff. Ideas?

    http://www.solomonsporch.com/intro/

    For all of their message at Solomon’s Porch, perhaps Doug Pagitt can explain to all of us why he hasn’t kicked it into gear, confronted Tony Jones, and protected Julie McMahon. Doug Pagitt HAS FAILED!

    Take down the drippy love message on Solomon’s Porch, Doug. Tell the truth about how you failed Julie, her kids, and the rest of us. You could have put a stop to this, Doug, you could have helped. And you didn’t.

    There is NO EXCUSE.

  31. ^MESSAGE OF “LOVE”, ETC.

    SOLOMON’S PORCH CHURCH = FAILURE

    You had a case in front of you, Julie. You failed to take care of her, Solomon’s Porch. Shame on all of you!

  32. Gram3 wrote:

    I am most disappointed in Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber. Apologies if I misspelled her name. How they can support the abuse of another woman and her children is beyond comprehension.

    Especially when they built their xtian brand on standing up for the “oppressed”. But I think it only counts as oppression when it is the right wing doing the oppressing. Amazing how money and fame is just as important to the left wing of xtianity, too.

  33. @ David Drake:
    Welcome David and thank you for sharing this.I am not a Calvinist (or, as I like today, maybe I am a one pointer). However, Wade Burleson, whose sermons are featured on E Church has a Reformed perspective and our official TWW hero™, Todd Wilhelm tips that way as well. We love nice guy Calvinists. We do not like Calvinistas-a term we invented for the other type. I believe in unity of the body and in diversity of secondary doctrines. In fact, it is far more stimulating to all of as we are forced to consider our own thoughts.

    I am going to make sure Julie sees this comment. It will warm her heart to know there are some who believe her.

  34. These battles are the worst, and so hard. Even if he is not able to make the case, Julie will now spend months looking over her shoulder trying to be “perfect”. And she’ll have to have the emotional strength to withstand the accusations (they are VERY hard).

    And I imagine Tony’s pockets are very deep.

    You’d think a Guardian Ad Litem would be involved, and would not think too highly of Toney’s NPD diagnosis . . .

  35. Reminds me a little of my first pastor who was most likely NPD – He took the Bible literally, yet had a divorce earlier in life, when he was a Christian. He should have disqualified himself as a pastor, but nooooo….

    Christian principles, rules – heck, even ordinary human decency doesn’t apply to these people.

    I’ve made use of the gofundme account. Sad situation.

  36. Gram3 wrote:

    I am most disappointed in Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz-Weber. Apologies if I misspelled her name. How they can support the abuse of another woman and her children is beyond comprehension. There are so many parallels with the Mahaney-Gospel Glitterati and Driscoll-Gospel Glitterati bromances that I sympathize with the people who are shocked and disappointed by the failures of their “leaders” to lead. I certainly know what that feels like.

    … Children should not be abused in any way, and people in power generally should.

    I hope Rachel thinks long and hard just what it would feel like to have someone take her baby away from her. Now that she is a mother, she’ll know this deep primal urge to protect your child at all costs. She’ll know how difficult it is to leave her child just a few hours for a night out or grocery shopping. She’ll know that invisible chord that always binds a mother’s heart to her children … and she’ll know the agony she is helping to enforce tearing another mother’s childrenaway from her.

  37. Is there truth to the rumor that Tony Jones left his wife and children behind while he pursued his PhD? If true, was this with consent by Julie, his wife?

    Can someone confirm this rumor? Because….

    If a man deserts his wife and children in the past, and if there was no consent for that desertion, then what court will give him opportunity for more desertion in the future? – answer: none.

    No court should give opportunity for a parent to repeat their desertion of the children. Why risk damaging the children so deeply yet again?

    May God give the Court wisdom and help them see Tony Jones’ prior actions are the best indicators of his future actions.

  38. lydia wrote:

    @ Danica:
    She has a child?

    Yup, expecting. Outside of this mess, I wish her nothing by joy and health during the pregnancy and hope she and her husband keep strong during tough times.

  39. *sigh* and people wonder why I don’t practice law any more. Exhibit eleventy seven–bad actors.

  40. As Scripture teaches, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Tony Jones is playing with fire doing things like this. God is not amused by attacking his former wife, the wife of his youth, after already considerable treachery. You would think his “buddies” would at least care enough to warn him about that…then again…that would require true wisdom.

  41. Divorce Minister wrote:

    God is not amused by attacking his former wife, the wife of his youth, after already considerable treachery. You would think his “buddies” would at least care enough to warn him about that…then again…that would require true wisdom.

    Yes, that is the real meaning of the divorce clobber verse in Malachi, but sadly it has been divorced from its context, like so many others that are used to harm people. I don’t hold out much hope that the buddies will do the right thing. It does not seem fashionable to do that on either the right or the left. I think there are some similarities because both the YRR and the Progressive/Emergents have built what amounts to a negative identity. They are defined by what they are against. And everyone rallies around the perceived “enemy” while the real enemy runs amok. Both the right and the left have deserted the real battlefield.

  42. And Courtney, Tony Jones’ current wife, left a perfectly good (now ex-)husband for *this*? A guy who does all of *this*? What was she thinking?

  43. As someone who has been through a divorce, and with the intimate knowledge of a couple others in my extended family, I’ll say this: If one party to the divorce is constantly bringing motions against the other, 9 out of 10 times THAT one is the crazy one. It’s brutal, un-Christian, and potentially could be considered barratry, but IANAL.

    In this case in particular, you don’t have to prove much in the way of narcissism to get a thumbnail sketch of what’s going on.

  44. Velour wrote:

    And Courtney, Tony Jones’ current wife, left a perfectly good (now ex-)husband for *this*? A guy who does all of *this*? What was she thinking?

    People diagnosed with narcissism can be very charming, and since they don’t believe it is wrong to be utterly selfish, they appear honest and their stories feel convincing.

    I’m sure that Courtney had no clue of it when she fell for him. Julie, neither, right? Plus, we outsiders don’t know what Courtney’s first marriage was like nor how she has been doing in her marriage to Tony. I’m inclined to sympathy.

    It is disconcerting to see/hear someone lie through their teeth and not be able to track any physical/emotional clues. Probably naivete initially caused the prog celebs to dismiss Julie’s story. But that stance has now become impossible to maintain honestly. I’d be surprised if they all don’t feel very uncomfortable and are trying to shove the whole thing out of awareness.

    So come on, Brian McLaren, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Rachel Held-Evans, Peter Rollins, Doug Pagitt, Home-brewed bunch, etc. Show us that you deserve your positions. Show that your words aren’t meaningless chatter. It wasn’t a different theology that destroyed Driscoll, once part of your group, but his arrogance and unwillingness to face his own mistakes/flaws. You all appear to be suffering from the same disease.

  45. I remember during the Driscoll flameout/implosion thinking ‘does this man have no friends to help him get under control?’ That’s the same feeling I get from this Tony Jones character – he’s out of control, and no adults seem to be willing to step in and say ‘look friend, you are off the rails…’ Someone needs to push him under their care, just to coin a phrase…

  46. Julie has commented on what happened to her after the famous NakedPastor blog and the whole hoo-ha that’s so fresh in our memories. It was posted above on this thread, but deserves to be posted again as it provides a good account and background:

    http://nakedpastor.com/2015/04/julie-mcmahon-this-is-my-story-this-is-my-song/

    In this Julie reports that Tony litigates against her on average 3 times a year, that she has spent her entire inheritance of over $500,000 on fighting the courts, and as a result is now broke (as are her wider family). She has been told that, as a narcissist, Tony will keep going until he wins.

  47. roebuck wrote:

    I remember during the Driscoll flameout/implosion thinking ‘does this man have no friends to help him get under control?’ That’s the same feeling I get from this Tony Jones character – he’s out of control, and no adults seem to be willing to step in and say ‘look friend, you are off the rails…’ Someone needs to push him under their care, just to coin a phrase…

    Yah. Relating back to the earlier post on church discipline, where is accountability for leaders/celebs? It can’t be done when there is a “top” above which there is no one to administer accountability. Concerned pewpeons end up pleading with leader-peers to do their proper jobs, and most of the time, those peers refuse to take the risk. And it’s risky partly because there is no established structure for it.

    Hierarchical structures just don’t work in a church. It invites people into leadership who don’t want to be held accountable. Church life needs to be structured in a way that keeps us accountable to each other, across the board.

    As Nick frequently mentions, denominational boundaries are artificial. By “across the board”, I mean all of us.

  48. As mentioned earlier, Mr. Jones has been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) — a diagnosis which he himself publicly acknowledged in a statement he posted earlier this year.

    This is an Axis II diagnosis, which means it’s a condition that can be managed, but not one which will disappear. For background on the self-centered and other-abusing traits typical of those with a diagnosis of NPD, see the Out of the Fog website. It presents a chilling profile of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    https://outofthefog.net/Disorders/NPD.html

    I found that the whole situation makes more sense, when you compare that list of traits to the record of what Julie McMahon has apparently endured at the unrelenting whims of Tony Jones. Hopefully the court will see through his narcissistic need to win, and give him motivation to manage his condition.

    Meanwhile, I don’t think we’ve seen any obvious evidence that Mr. Jones’ ministry peers or promoters or publishers have succeeded in helping him curb his behaviors. But, as many on this thread are pointing out, the reputation of his endorsers continues to be linked with his.

    If you know Tony Jones, please do something to stop this destruction! This seems to be a last-chance opportunity to demonstrate publicly whether or not who he is and what he does represents what you really stand for in Emergent/Progressive Christianity, and in Convergence ministry circles …

    “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” ~ Dietrich Bonhoeffer

  49. David wrote:

    It is slightly more nuanced than that, but yes he returned to Princeton alone, against the wishes Julie. He left her with a young child and newborn. More details have been released:

    My guess is that does not work against him..a male pursuing a PhD. But let us not forget Jones relationship with law enforcement as a chaplain.

  50. @ brad/futuristguy:

    For me, it is more about cutting financial ties from published, Fuller, conferences, etc. Without the income he makes off ministry, he could not afford this. Money talks loudest.

  51. Lydia wrote:

    Especially when they built their xtian brand on standing up for the “oppressed”. But I think it only counts as oppression when it is the right wing doing the oppressing. Amazing how money and fame is just as important to the left wing of xtianity, too.

    And as the flames climbed high into the night
    To light the sacrificial rite
    I saw Satan laughing with delight
    The day the music died
    He was singin’

    — Don McLean 1971 —

  52. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    Birds of a feather with ToJo, in my never humble opinion.

    Do you think they get along because they understand each others’ priorities? Perhaps, they share a like-mindedness, in that “those out there” are mere incidentals, objects for use or discard? Do they find companionship in complaining to each other about the stupidity of the entire globe and all its parts?

    ISTM, that if each person sees/values only himself, there’d be a lot of fighting/hating rather than cooperation. I was married to a narcissist and he was alone/lonely, but he also was an introvert.

  53. lydia wrote:

    For me, it is more about cutting financial ties from published, Fuller, conferences, etc. Without the income he makes off ministry, he could not afford this. Money talks loudest.

    Agreed, lydia, about the financial ties. But I’ve also just wondered if this is one last chance for his ministry peers to stand up publicly to say “Stop!” instead of prop him up by their vocal – or silent – endorsements.

  54. Divorce Minister wrote:

    As Scripture teaches, the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Tony Jones is playing with fire doing things like this. God is not amused by attacking his former wife, the wife of his youth, after already considerable treachery. You would think his “buddies” would at least care enough to warn him about that…then again…that would require true wisdom.

    The courts do not care what goes on between the parents of the children. The court looks at what is best for the children. Documentation is required to prove the mother is not a good influence on the child. It is not an attempt to create some kind of illusion, but the claim need to be backed up by facts. The courts do not accept innuendo. There needs to be solid documentation based on solid facts. For example, a neighbor can testify that the mother let the child run out into the street traffic, there may be medical records which document injuries to a child while in the mother’s custody, the mother drinks / smokes in the presence of the child or the child is not given adequate and proper nutrition. In custody situations claiming one parent is unfit is required by law; it is not an option.

    I don’t know anything about the Tony Jones and Julie McMahon custody agreements. It is none of my business. I do trust the courts will act in the best interest of the children. Please, you do not speak for God – comments such as “playing with fire” and “God is not amused” – are inappropriate.

  55. May wrote:

    Julie has commented on what happened to her after the famous NakedPastor blog and the whole hoo-ha that’s so fresh in our memories. It was posted above on this thread, but deserves to be posted again as it provides a good account and background:
    http://nakedpastor.com/2015/04/julie-mcmahon-this-is-my-story-this-is-my-song/
    In this Julie reports that Tony litigates against her on average 3 times a year, that she has spent her entire inheritance of over $500,000 on fighting the courts, and as a result is now broke (as are her wider family). She has been told that, as a narcissist, Tony will keep going until he wins.

    Does this mean we pray for an attorney who will help her counter-sue for attorney fees?

    Does nobody in his congregation (does he have one now?) have a problem with his non-stop litigation? I’d also be curious if he’s still with the same attorney…another page from the “crazy ex” playbook seems to be burning through attorneys.

  56. Joe2 wrote:

    The courts do not care what goes on between the parents of the children.

    That is not true! The courts must look at how one parent treats the other parent. Would the courts knowingly give sole custody (or any) to a parent who abuses the other parent? Your comment is foolishness.

  57. @ Joe2:

    Joe, the research in Phyllis Chessler’s book does not bear this out unless things have changed drastically since it was published. What you do not take into consideration is that very few fathers file for sole custody. Of those that do, an average of 70% are awarded custody.

    Why? Because so few fathers file for sole custody there is this idea that those who do must be great fathers. (and many are) So a woman needs to prove her parental fitness in a much more strenuous manner than a man does. He is given much more leeway in the way of the benefit of the doubt. It is simply the way our society thinks. In fact, most of our society thinks the courts are favoring moms when the truth is few fathers file for sole custody.

    tony was clever in how he set this up. He did not return one child from visitation, made a video about it to show a conference audience in how his son needed him….and and yet he is filing for all of them now. You think this guy is not playing a chess game 4 steps ahead? That is NPD. They are evil.

  58. Joe2 wrote:

    The court looks at what is best for the children.

    Yes, that is how it is supposed to go. And sometimes it does.

    Joe2 wrote:

    I don’t know anything about the Tony Jones and Julie McMahon custody agreements.

    True. We know some things, enough to recognize that it has not been working as you trust it to do.

  59. @ Joe2:

    And Joe, evidently, the judges do not seem to care about Jones’ constant filings and motions over the years. Lawfare. So what is up with that? Could it be the attorneys who are connected and the money involved?

  60. So very sad, and equally infuriating,though I am not entirely surprised by TJ’s move. (Nor the selfishness and lack of regard for his ex and children that prompts it.)

  61. May wrote:

    In this Julie reports that Tony litigates against her on average 3 times a year, that she has spent her entire inheritance of over $500,000 on fighting the courts, and as a result is now broke (as are her wider family). She has been told that, as a narcissist, Tony will keep going until he wins.

    Sheesh, so sad. Just makes you want a no-nonsense judge to turn a case initiated by Tony on its head, find for Julie, and issue both a restraining order and a decree requiring support from Tony.

    Not that such a thing is legally possible, so far as I know.

  62. Jay wrote:

    Does nobody in his congregation (does he have one now?) have a problem with his non-stop litigation? I’d also be curious if he’s still with the same attorney…another page from the “crazy ex” playbook seems to be burning through attorneys.

    Perhaps they don’t consider Julie a “fellow believer” and so the scriptural admonition to avoid the civil courts doesn’t apply to her.

  63. refugee wrote:

    Just makes you want a no-nonsense judge to turn a case initiated by Tony on its head, find for Julie, and issue both a restraining order and a decree requiring support from Tony.

    Back in May, on the NakedPastor Blog, Michaela posted this:

    “It is time to get Tony Jones marked as a vexatious litigant in the State of Minnesota.

    TWW Readers: Let’s write the Minnesota Supreme Court about Tony Jones and ask the court to put a stop to this relentless litigation against Julie.
    http://www.mncourts.gov/?page=550

    Anyone remember this or know if anything became of it?
    Presumably Michaela also posted it here?

  64. refugee wrote:

    Not that such a thing is legally possible, so far as I know.

    I’m pretty sure that, at least here in the UK, Tony’s behaviour amounts to harrassment. That’s a crime.

  65. So Sad: Tony Jones Reportedly Sues Julie McMahon for Custody of All of the Children.

    TRIGGER ALERT! THIS MEANS YOU, JULIE!

    I am not surprised. From experience with my probable NPD brother, I half-expected him to prepare, groom/marshal/manipulate his allies, perfect his Angel of Light Mask, wait for Julie to return to an even keel and hope it’s all over, plan twenty chess moves ahead, then Hit Back HARD. NO, HARDER.

    You see, Julie by her very existence has committed the Unpardonable Sin in Tony’s eyes: “You weren’t NICE enough to me when You Had The Chance.” And she must not only be destroyed, but destroyed in a way that maximized her suffering while leaving Tony smelling like roses.

    Though I expected Tony to go for custody one kid at a time, with cool-down periods in-between, both to maximize Julie’s suffering (anticipating the next shoe to drop) and add to the Delicious Taste of POWER in causing her suffering.

    Because guys like Tony always have the advantage. Julie, Deb, Dee, you, me — we all have lives and other things in our life. Tony’s ilk have only (in the words of C.S.Lewis’ Preface to Screwtape Letters) the constant, unsmiling, never-sleeping total concentration upon Self which is the true mark of Hell. Tony’s ilk can put every atom of their being into the twenty-chess-moves-ahead planning, manipulation, grooming, plausible deniability, and building their Brand and Image and Mask as the Angel of Light. Julie can’t. We can’t plan and prepare twenty chess moves ahead. We don’t have unlimited money (AKA TITHES) to throw into the fight. Which is why Tony can say “I. WIN.”

  66. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Agreed, lydia, about the financial ties. But I’ve also just wondered if this is one last chance for his ministry peers to stand up publicly to say “Stop!” instead of prop him up by their vocal – or silent – endorsements.

    Has RHE sprung for a poodle skirt and cheerleader’s pompoms for the “GO TONY! GO TONY! RAH! RAH! RAH!” pep rally outside the courthouse yet?

  67. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    Patrice wrote:
    Brian McLaren, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Rachel Held-Evans, Peter Rollins, Doug Pagitt, Home-brewed bunch
    Birds of a feather with ToJo, in my never humble opinion.

    Make that FIVE sets of poodle skirts & pompoms…

  68. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    You are so right about him being several chess moves ahead.

    Make no mistake, Tony had this planned from long before he kidnapped one of his kids and refused to return him. And before that, he managed to file a restraining order on Julie so she can’t fetch her son back.

    Oh, yes, it’s all been planned well in advance.

    Remember this: originally Tony had no interest in having custody of his children. Julie won FULL custody but decided (a decision she undoubtedly now regrets) that they should see some of their father, so allowed him access. No, make no mistake, the ONLY reason Tony is filing for custody of all 3 kids is to hurt Julie. To make her suffer. The children’s welfare doesn’t come into it.

    This whole story, and Julie’s plight, more than any other story on TWW, makes me very ad.

  69. Velour wrote:

    For all of their message at Solomon’s Porch, perhaps Doug Pagitt can explain to all of us why he hasn’t kicked it into gear, confronted Tony Jones, and protected Julie McMahon.

    To paraphrase Chesterton:
    “These two Pastors said one to another:
    ‘Pastor unto Pastor o’er the world is Brother!’…”

  70. David Drake wrote:

    Sooo in another life time I ran a blog called “Poop is Emergent Too” at times I would talk about folks like ToJo. (Full Disclosure, I am a dreaded Calvinist…but a nice guy)…

    Who has the same name as a famous author of Military Science Fiction.

  71. Muff Potter wrote:

    Leslie wrote:

    Since the Emergent church and the big boys in power are not handling this well, maybe someone could clue in someone like Nancy Grace or Gloria Allred.

    Allred won’t do jack unless she smells lotsa’ dinero.

    At which case, she’ll go for Tony.

    Morning drive-time radio guy where I am is a snarky lawyer himself, and he says Allred has such a rep as a media whore even the ambulance-chasers won’t have anything to do with her. Only law office in LA with the majority of space dedicated to press conference auditorium fully wired for media hookups…

    Afternoon drive-time guys on the same station (just as mouthy) once tried to interview her on-the-air; it did not end well. I remember one of the drive-time guy’s parting shot: “No wonder they put you on South Park! YOU ARE A CARTOON!”

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, Tony is for Tony, and Allred is for Allred.

  72. Velour wrote:

    There isn’t a *real man* in the Emergent Bunch who is capable of *owning it*. Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones’ co-“man-o-gawd” [H.U.G.’s term], described the woman Jones was having an affair with as his *spiritual wife*.

    Oh puuuuhllllllssssssseeeeee!

    “Spiritual Wife” = Christianese for “My Soulmate”.
    (Which is NEVER the one you’re married to; always the honey you’re screwing on the side.)

  73. I don’t know anything about the Tony Jones and Julie McMahon custody agreements. It is none of my business. I do trust the courts will act in the best interest of the children. Please, you do not speak for God – comments such as “playing with fire” and “God is not amused” – are inappropriate.

    Yes, well, you’re extremely naive about the courts in family law. They may claim to act in the best interests of the child, but they define that as children spending time with both parents, many times even in cases of physical – and sometimes sexual – abuse.

    The best interests of children in a divorce situation where one partner has such a dangerously destructive personality disorder is not to be exposed to that “parent.” There has to be extreme abuse, well document over a long period of time, before there is ever any chance of a child being adequately protected from an abuser. And emotional, spiritual, financial abuse isn’t even considered by the courts. I say this from experience working with family law people and personal experience.

    There are always exceptions, but they’re rare.

    God is indeed not amused, wherever the weak are oppressed by the strong.

  74. May wrote:

    @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    You are so right about him being several chess moves ahead.

    Make no mistake, Tony had this planned from long before he kidnapped one of his kids and refused to return him. And before that, he managed to file a restraining order on Julie so she can’t fetch her son back.

    Oh, yes, it’s all been planned well in advance.

    Like I said, I grew up with a brother like Tony. Who has always one-upped me all our lives. A lot of times I wish I was just like him or Tony, a Winner instead of a Loser. That’s another side effect of NPD.

  75. I come here often, but rarely comment. However, Joe, that remark about playing with fire is idiotic, if I may write that. Yes, God does care and divorce is huge with Him. You see, sex and marriage relate to more than just the bed. It related to how Christians and Israel in the old testament related to God. It related to the church and God. Of course, it is ugly with what is going on here, but the the eternal implications show me that someone here is not saved and if I was a betting man it would be the hubby. By their fruits you will know them. Tony def. should be worried about playing with fire. Eternity without Jesus is a loooooong time. Hope this was all worth it, but i doubt it.

  76. Joe, I concur with Persphone regarding your naivete about court decisions regarding custody. How many freakin’ (yes, I wrote) times are we as a society going to watch tv and see a child placed in a home where a parent murders or abuses the child? Well the courts acted in what they thought were they best interest. I am so sick of seeing that newsreel.

  77. She doesn’t have a child but she is with child. Prepare yourself for all the things kid related.

    lydia wrote:

    @ Danica:
    She has a child?

  78. dee wrote:

    Breaking News:
    The Daily Beast/ Gawker reporting that Josh Duggar is the first casualty of the Ashley Madison hack. That is the website that people use to cheat on their spouses. He has allegedly been using this site for over a year. “Duggar paid almost $1,000 for two separate subscriptions on the site in 2013 and 2015.”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2015/08/19/josh-duggar-was-on-ashley-madison.html

    What?

    Could it have been someone using Duggar’s name?

    This is just sick. (And I don’t use it as the teens of my acquaintance use it, to mean a good, useful, or desirable thing.)

  79. Persephone wrote:

    I don’t know anything about the Tony Jones and Julie McMahon custody agreements. It is none of my business. I do trust the courts will act in the best interest of the children. Please, you do not speak for God – comments such as “playing with fire” and “God is not amused” – are inappropriate.

    Yes, well, you’re extremely naive about the courts in family law. They may claim to act in the best interests of the child, but they define that as children spending time with both parents, many times even in cases of physical – and sometimes sexual – abuse.
    The best interests of children in a divorce situation where one partner has such a dangerously destructive personality disorder is not to be exposed to that “parent.” There has to be extreme abuse, well document over a long period of time, before there is ever any chance of a child being adequately protected from an abuser. And emotional, spiritual, financial abuse isn’t even considered by the courts. I say this from experience working with family law people and personal experience.
    There are always exceptions, but they’re rare.
    God is indeed not amused, wherever the weak are oppressed by the strong.

    Amen to this. Know someone who has BTDT. (Not the BTDT who posts comments here, but literally BTDT.)

    It can take a lot of $$$ to get sole custody of the kids. Tony seems to have that. His ex doesn’t seem to, from what has been reported.

    Poor kids. Just a volleyball in a game of revenge. The mom may just want to keep the kids safe, but for an NPD father it’s more likely to be a power play and punishment move.

  80. Lydia wrote:

    He did not return one child from visitation, made a video about it to show a conference audience in how his son needed him….and and yet he is filing for all of them now. You think this guy is not playing a chess game 4 steps ahead?

    And if the court is lazy or corrupt and lets him have the kids, it’ll happen just when Julie gets a good job after her long schooling, and then he can try to make her pay it all out to him in child support.

  81. refugee wrote:

    It can take a lot of $$$ to get sole custody of the kids. Tony seems to have that

    “TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”

  82. If it is any comfort to anybody here is what one attorney said during a recent divorce in my family. “It does not take long for the kids to figure it all out and come to their own conclusions.” I hope that is true in this case.

  83. Persephone wrote:

    The best interests of children in a divorce situation where one partner has such a dangerously destructive personality disorder is not to be exposed to that “parent.” There has to be extreme abuse, well document over a long period of time, before there is ever any chance of a child being adequately protected from an abuser. And emotional, spiritual, financial abuse isn’t even considered by the courts. I say this from experience working with family law people and personal experience.

    In families there is usually at least one child or more who is on to the abusive parent’s manipulative tactics and is capable of shutting said parent down. I am hoping for that in this case.

  84. Hey readers

    Please be careful about recopying large chunks of another comment and then commenting on the large chunk. Recopying only causes people to zone out since lengthy comments are often overlooked.
    Thank you all.

  85. mirele wrote:

    *sigh* and people wonder why I don’t practice law any more. Exhibit eleventy seven–bad actors.

    I got migraine headaches every single day when I worked in family law, before I even arrived at work! My worst family law case, the one in which I vowed: I will NEVER work in family law again because of this family…sadly I was unable to escape. One of the parties is my next door neighbor in a totally new city! Grrrrrrrrr……

  86. dee wrote:

    The Daily Beast/ Gawker reporting that Josh Duggar is the first casualty of the Ashley Madison hack. That is the website that people use to cheat on their spouses.

    Mmm hmm. Married people do cheat with married people.

    I’ve never been married but am considered a bigger threat to married men by many evangelicals, per the “Billy Graham Rule” and other, similar nonsense.

    Yet, number of married dudes I’ve slept with: Zero.
    Number of married dudes I’ve flirted with or tried to seduce over my life: Zero.
    My interest in scoring with a married dude: Zero.

  87. okrapod wrote:

    If it is any comfort to anybody here is what one attorney said during a recent divorce in my family. “It does not take long for the kids to figure it all out and come to their own conclusions.” I hope that is true in this case.

    Agreed totally. Usually the kids understand or come to understand what has been going on with the parents. I wish that could bring some comfort to Julie now.

  88. Jay wrote:

    another page from the “crazy ex” playbook seems to be burning through attorneys.

    Yep. My crazy ex is on his 4th now. I’m having to sue him for back child support and alimony. Of course.

  89. Gram3 wrote:

    Agreed totally. Usually the kids understand or come to understand what has been going on with the parents. I wish that could bring some comfort to Julie now.

    I wish some of the adults around Tony would “come to understand what has been going on”.

  90. What scares me is he has custody of the oldest, what if he has convinced the oldest to bear false witness against his mother? If so, hope no judge buys this and no decisions are made that don’t also consider Tony’s diagnosis in this mess. Will pray, the poor kids.

  91. Yeah, poor Julie, totally innocent and bad Tony, completely guilty.

    I don’t know these people but the heavy one-sidedness of this discussion is an approach my parent’s taught be better than by the time I was 14.

    Sure, there may be a greater culpability on one side but failing to enumerate and discuss the failures on the side of the party (Julie) being supported here, belies claims of wanting genuine answers. Of course, if we can make one side evil and the other justified, we don’t have to wade through the messy details of complex human issues.

    To those crying about Emergent leftists like Rachel Held Evans, Nadia Bolz-Weber and others, staying silent, wow, you really are naive.

    The Emergent movement isn’t a principled movement rather, a personality based one. People rise as “novel personalities” in this pool and their theology is secondary, though it generally needs to reflect Emergentism (and if it does not, such people wouldn’t drift to Emergent camps in the first place).

    This sect is led by a society of mutual admiration narcissists who are invested in themselves first and the movement secondly because it serves them. They aren’t led by binding principle but convenient and pliable principle with many escape hatches and unclear lines precisely for situations like this one.

    You actually think they are going to cannibalize themselves for a blip on the radar in lieu of alienating book/conference ticket buyers? They really have suckered you.

    Of course an alternative none of you are willing to consider is that these leading Emergent personalities have investigated the issue thoroughly and have at hand far more information than you and have made a determination based on those findings which conflicts with your, oh so great insight, and that you, in your over self-identification with a suffering fellow woman, are too egotistically invested to consider that you may be missing essential facts and have erred in forming an inflexible opinion early on when you should not have.

    As well, a big mistake seems to be the continued search for faithful puppet masters in the circle(s) of Christianity you have chosen to idealized which speaks to your immature understanding of human nature, your inability to admit such people could even possibly exist in your approved of sect and further, the absence of the capacity to disclose to yourself these puppet masters, which creates a situation where you are repeatedly shocked and hurt when your heroes and heroines fail to rescue damsels in distress.

    You were foolish enough and arrogant enough to pick sectarian sides with full investment, just as your Emergent masters told you to, which is their side because, of course, they are not like all the others you suspect are abusive meanies and part of a self-serving good ole boys network. But as you see, you’ve been conned again by way of your naivety and refusal to grow up.

    How about you quit being led in such a reactionary manner, picking sides so absolutely, granting sainthood to those you favor and completely demonizing those with whom you have issues and begin understanding that black and white is reserved for extreme cases and that picking sides before you hear ALL the facts (and even then it might not be so easy) is what children do.

    Expecting religious celebrities to sacrifice themselves for the sake of blips on a radar is the hope of the gullible because your idols are climbing a ladder and are part of a fraternity which does not include rescuing low tier troublemakers who cannot handle their personal business.

    So until you are able to admit this goes on, are able to identify it and accept that your favorite idol might even be one of these duplicitous religious narcissists, you are doomed to the miserable task of repeating your being let-down, forever.

  92. ^
    Are you being paid for this? The Tony paid crowd always comes around…about now.

    Of course the guy is a loser. What kind of guy drags his ex-wife into court for years and threatens people’s Free Speech rights in countries around the world and tells them not to cover this story?

    Now it involves the Minn Supreme Court, judicial standards board, attorney licensing, etc.

  93. I have been reading 1 John and pondering some of these passages in light of hurtful activities of certain pastors who claim to know Christ.

    When does extremely bad behavior end up being ‘hateful’ towards individuals, that is, fellow believers in Christ??

    “Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness.

    Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble.

    But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them.”

    1 John 2:9-11

  94. Missy M wrote:

    Sure, there may be a greater culpability on one side but failing to enumerate and discuss the failures on the side of the party (Julie) being supported here, belies claims of wanting genuine answers. Of course, if we can make one side evil and the other justified, we don’t have to wade through the messy details of complex human issues.

    Missy M, no relation, thankfully. Where is the sarcasm font when I need it? So I’ll skip sarcasm and get straight to the point. Do everyone a favor and get informed before such a rant. This site and others have waded through a great deal of complexities concerning Tony so don’t congratulate yourself on superior understanding.

    You commit the grievous error of contending someone must be flawless before they can be a true victim. Should such evil befall you, hopefully you will find more understanding than that which you have displayed here.

  95. Just a question: under US law, do the children themselves have any say in the matter? Surely their interests should be paramount.

  96. Ken wrote:

    Just a question: under US law, do the children themselves have any say in the matter? Surely their interests should be paramount.

    We have more than one legal system in the US; federal laws, state laws, city/county laws. State laws differ from one locale to another. Here locally the judge may, but is not required to, listen to something a child has to say. The likelihood of that mostly depends on the age of the child. If the judge does listen to what a child has to say he/she is not bound to let that affect his/her ruling in the case, though it may in some cases at the discretion of the judge. I don’t know what the law says, actually, but that is how the process plays out here in my city.

  97. Missy M wrote:

    Of course an alternative none of you are willing to consider is that these leading Emergent personalities have investigated the issue thoroughly and have at hand far more information than you and have made a determination based on those findings which conflicts with your, oh so great insight, and that you, in your over self-identification with a suffering fellow woman, are too egotistically invested to consider that you may be missing essential facts and have erred in forming an inflexible opinion early on when you should not have.

    Actually the power differentials are pretty obvious. That includes money, a long time public platform and perceived grativas. It is wise to always take those things into consideration in these situations. And then there is the NPD diagnosis. Oh my. That one is HUGE.

  98. @ Ken:
    In my state, it is not uncommon for the court to designate an ad litem for the children in such situations.

  99. Ken wrote:

    Just a question: under US law, do the children themselves have any say in the matter? Surely their interests should be paramount.

    I believe the father will be awarded custody if a male child, as he gets older, expresses a preference to live with the father rather than to continue living with the mother.

  100. Lydia wrote:

    Missy M wrote:
    Of course an alternative none of you are willing to consider is that these leading Emergent personalities have investigated the issue thoroughly and have at hand far more information than you and have made a determination based on those findings which conflicts with your, oh so great insight, and that you, in your over self-identification with a suffering fellow woman, are too egotistically invested to consider that you may be missing essential facts and have erred in forming an inflexible opinion early on when you should not have.
    Actually the power differentials are pretty obvious. That includes money, a long time public platform and perceived grativas. It is wise to always take those things into consideration in these situations. And then there is the NPD diagnosis. Oh my. That one is HUGE.

    Lydia

    Your response to the quoted portion of my comment is not directly related, I might even say non sequitur but you do bring up a point.

    Let’s say we accept the power imbalance with regard to resources. That still has no moral value in determining who is right or wrong. It only speaks to what resources a party has.

    Many people with little to no resources are taken to court by parties with far greater resources and justly so and certainly the other way around.

    Thus, that consideration alone has no bearing but as I said, nothing you quoted by me or beyond contains any commentary on the power of balance issue until now.

    However, at one point “Julie” did have (as I recall reading, correct me if I err) a $500,000.00 inheritance she says she went through via lawyers for all of the legal issues so she could, at some point and with earlier issues, afford good representation and still came out on a losing end?

    Could nothing be settled by a mediator to save court costs?

    What is ultimately disturbing in all of this is the ultra oversimplification of a complex matter, the choosing of sides in such an absolute matter involving someone else’s personal dispute, the demand that high profile personalities choose a side in something that again, is some else’s personal dispute and most of all the willingness to ignore or at best gloss over, any wrong doing on Julie ‘ s part which is demonstrated by Julie admitting she overreacted a few times (my words, I do not recall the precise statement – I read it at a link someone posted here in the comments section which contains Julie giving an account of grievances).

    Please tell us, what are the things you did, Julie, to overreact? Maybe they were so provocative that you brought some of this upon yourself?

    I don’t know but like I said, when discussing personal disputes in such a grossly lopsided manner, which I believe is permitted and encouraged here, it does not speak to a quest for truth and resolution but to a far less virtuous agenda.

    Does that mean I am not aware of what appears to be glaring problems with Tony? No.

    But if one is looking for truth where there is a dispute between two people and are unwilling to enumerate and discuss failures on both ends, one is not looking for the truth.

  101. Missy M wrote:

    Please tell us, what are the things you did, Julie, to overreact? Maybe they were so provocative that you brought some of this upon yourself?

    Please understand, this is offensive. Dealing with an NPD is not like dealing with a normal person, there is no equation where “I could have done something different and things would have turned out better”. NPD’s play to win, they are devoid of compassion.

    This is not a “ultra oversimplification of a complex matter”. The alternative you appear to be promoting, apparently do nothing, do not bring any public pressure to bear because Julie may have done something wrong to provoke Tony sounds similar to the old standby “we don’t have all the facts”. It is a prescription for evil to flourish.

    I have not seen an expectation that Julie is perfect in the extensive comments following postings months ago here and elsewhere. It is NOT reasonable to expect that someone act reasonably all the time when dealing closely with an NPD over a prolonged period of time.

    The statement “afford good representation and still came out on a losing end?” is in error. In the face of continual lawsuits from someone with relatively unlimited resources, you can burn through a half million and win every time, but that doesn’t stop the next legal move. There is no anti-SLAPP law concerning this type of legal harassment. A normal person would not spend such resources just to harass and win, but remember this is characteristic of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

  102. @ Bill M:

    Bill M,

    Troll Alert re Missy M. AKA MisBehavin.

    Tony Jones’ hired hands – public relations firm in Minnesota, attorney like M. Sue Wilson – always come around about this time.

  103. Bill,

    You’re still stuck on your presuppositions and narrative which is precisely why you are offended by my question. Narrow thinking will not permit necessary and broad questioning since it may produce discovery that threatens a needed narrative.

    As to the poster accusing me of being someone else, that is called bearing false witness but hey, who cares about what the Bible teaches us not to do so long as our own indignations are forwarded.

    As I said, there is no attempted discovery regarding Julie ‘ s overreaction which she acknowledges nor any account of what they were and any consequences they may be responsible for in part or whole.

    When that element is part of the discovery you might then, be able to make some kind of assessment.

    I do find it interesting that while the ex-husband is suppose to have NPD the ex-wife is doing a great deal of public sharing of a private dispute. Hmmmm….

  104. Missy M wrote:

    I do find it interesting that while the ex-husband is suppose to have NPD the ex-wife is doing a great deal of public sharing of a private dispute.

    More mis-information, not “supposed to have”, it is diagnosed to have NPD. TJ first took it public by declaring his wife BS crazy. Those are two significant errors to be made in the same comment alleging false witness towards another.

    Interesting the missy m moniker only appeared recently and only commented on this post. I may be slow, velour may be close to the truth, I felt the need to respond as it would be unfortunate for this thread to end on mis-information.

  105. Missy M wrote:

    Yeah, poor Julie, totally innocent and bad Tony, completely guilty.

    I don’t know these people but the heavy one-sidedness of this discussion is an approach my parent’s taught be better than by the time I was 14.

    Sure, there may be a greater culpability on one side but failing to enumerate and discuss the failures on the side of the party (Julie) being supported here, belies claims of wanting genuine answers. Of course, if we can make one side evil and the other justified, we don’t have to wade through the messy details of complex human issues.

    This seems to be an indicator that you are not a frequent reader here, Missy M, or you might see how this contravenes “the prime directive” at The Wartburg Watch, including this part: “All commenters must acknowledge the pain some people have experienced at the hand of pastors and churches which overemphasize a particular doctrine or which apply harsh and capricious discipline. TWW exists, in part, to provide understanding in this area.”

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/about-us-the-basics/about-us-blog-rules-of-the-road/

    In other words, empathize. Also, the blog posts often talk about “no perfect victim.”

  106. Missy M wrote:

    To those crying about Emergent leftists like Rachel Held Evans, Nadia Bolz-Weber and others, staying silent, wow, you really are naive.

    […]

    You actually think they are going to cannibalize themselves for a blip on the radar in lieu of alienating book/conference ticket buyers? They really have suckered you.

    Oh, perhaps I’m naïve and been suckered. But for me, my statement from earlier had a different purpose which perhaps you did not see — or that perhaps even your own presuppositions precluded you from seeing as a possibility. I said, “If you know Tony Jones, please do something to stop this destruction! This seems to be a last-chance opportunity to demonstrate publicly whether or not who he is and what he does represents what you really stand for in Emergent/Progressive Christianity, and in Convergence ministry circles …”

    http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/08/18/so-sad-tony-jones-reportedly-sues-julie-mcmahon-for-custody-of-all-the-children/comment-page-1/#comment-213446

    As one who has been observing the unfolding of this situation since late 2008, my purpose was more as one last witness. From here on out, I conclude based on the accumulated information that I myself collected and wrestled through to conclusions, that I will not be getting involved with Emergent/Progressive or Convergence endeavors. Of course, that may not mean anything much in the bigger scheme of things, but it is my conclusion nevertheless and it will guide my choices of collaborative efforts to engage in or avoid in the future. And who knows … that might mean something.

  107. Missy M wrote:

    Of course an alternative none of you are willing to consider is that these leading Emergent personalities have investigated the issue thoroughly and have at hand far more information than you and have made a determination based on those findings which conflicts with your, oh so great insight, and that you, in your over self-identification with a suffering fellow woman, are too egotistically invested to consider that you may be missing essential facts and have erred in forming an inflexible opinion early on when you should not have.

    […]

    How about you quit being led in such a reactionary manner, picking sides so absolutely, granting sainthood to those you favor and completely demonizing those with whom you have issues and begin understanding that black and white is reserved for extreme cases and that picking sides before you hear ALL the facts (and even then it might not be so easy) is what children do.

    Perhaps “leading Emergent personalities have investigated the issue thoroughly” etc. But if so, they’ve not exactly published their findings in any systematic or focused way — at least, not that I’ve found yet.

    If you’re interested in researching this situation and the “Emergent/Progressive Industrial Complex” (which, by the way, you seem to have captured the essential elements of quite well overall in your initial comment) from a non-Emergent perspective, you might want to check out my “Diagnosing the Emergent Movement” blog. It’s now somewhere around 80,000 to 90,000 words of information — with links to primary source articles with many thousands more. FWIW, I suspect it’s likely to have some historical compilations you won’t find on any Emergent personality’s blog, looking at roots that go back 15 years or more, analyzing the E/P Industrial Complex, etc.

    https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/

  108. Missy M wrote:

    As to the poster accusing me of being someone else, that is called bearing false witness but hey, who cares about what the Bible teaches us not to do so long as our own indignations are forwarded.

    Could you tell me which Bible scriptures support Tony Jones threatening bloggers in countries around the world to remove their content and not practice their Free Speech Rights?

    You know. The big letter he had his attorney M. Sue Wilson write to bloggers – what was it – more than 56 of them in countries around the world – to remove their content about this story? (Canada, Australia, in states across the U.S., etc.)

    Can you explain why Tony Jones practices his First Amendment rights, including hawking his book on tv (including recently) and yet he doesn’t want anybody else practicing their Free Speech rights?

    Could you explain which Bible passages support Tony Jones demanding via his attorney M. Sue Wilson that Dee here at the Wartburg Watch give a “full accounting” of the donors around the world who donated to Julie (Tony’s ex-wife) in the GoFundMe account?

    Can you explain what at Vexatioius Litigant is in law? Can you explain why Tony is one?

    Has Tony Jones ever apologized to his (current) wife Courtney’s ex-husband for the harm Tony caused him as another man?

    Does Courtney ever second guess herself and why she ditched Husband No. 1 for this drama?

  109. Brad

    Thanks for the info. You did your due diligence for conscience sake, I’d say you are atypical from most I’ve read here commenting on the issue.

    As to any leading Emergent personality publishing their findings, why should they? What obligation do they have to inject themselves into a personal dispute in which they are not involved? There is a Proverb which teaches against that.

  110. Missy M wrote:

    Brad

    Thanks for the info. You did your due diligence for conscience sake, I’d say you are atypical from most I’ve read here commenting on the issue.

    As to any leading Emergent personality publishing their findings, why should they? What obligation do they have to inject themselves into a personal dispute in which they are not involved? There is a Proverb which teaches against that.

    Interesting proof texting Missy M. Tony Jones is not Biblically-qualified to pastor or church or to be an elder. His affair with Courtney, leaving Julie and his three young children several times to *do his own thing*, automatically gets him an “eject” button from any kind of church leadership according to the Bible.
    His cohorts – Doug Pagitt (that Solomon’s Porch church in Minnesota), the whole *spiritual wife* garbage (instead of “mistress”), Brian McLaren – they are all just big Biblical losers who can’t man-up and protect a woman and children, or their churches.

  111. Missy M wrote:

    As to any leading Emergent personality publishing their findings, why should they? What obligation do they have to inject themselves into a personal dispute in which they are not involved? There is a Proverb which teaches against that.

    I disagree with your opinion that this constitutes a purely “personal dispute.” There have been, and continue to be, significant public ramifications of this so-called personal/private issue. Tony Jones presents himself as a thought leader in the Emergent/Progressive movement. He is published, and he does public speaking, blogging, tweeting, and commenting. He has held positions where he chooses other people for writing and speaking, whom he considers worthy to be thought leaders and role models. He fits the profile of someone who should be considered a “public figure,” not merely a “private individual.” And, as I understand the New Testament requirements for leaders, he would be subject to the standards there for character and behavior. If Mr. Jones wishes to keep such “personal” issues “private,” it doesn’t really work since he has promoted himself (and been commended by others) into a higher-profile role as a Christian professional, public figure, and ministry leader/role model.

    Meanwhile, I would agree that there is no “moral mandate” for any leading Emergent personality to publishing their findings if they have done due-diligence research into the situation between Tony Jones and Julie McMahon. Similarly, there is no requirement for them to comment in any media on that situation — or to publicly endorse and/or publicize Tony Jones’ books, speaking engagements, blog posts, Tweets, etc. But if they choose to give their opinion on these disputes through comments, endorsements, or promotions, don’t you feel it is fair to challenge them on what basis they do so? [And haven’t you done that here to readers at TWW, challenging their support of Julie McMahon as a survivor, and their rejection of Tony Jones as a trustworthy leader?] They were under no obligation to share their opinions. But, it seems to me, their choosing to do so directly inserts them into the public conversation about so-called private matters. And such men and women who’ve been public endorsers of Tony Jones have been the main ones called out here on The Wartburg Watch.

    However, FWIW, it appears that the most typical patterns from those who comment negatively about Julie McMahon while commending Tony Jones — or who don’t comment about her but do commend him — is that these are followed by:

    (1) Silence, or overt refusal to specify why they hold that opinion.

    (2) Unsubstantiated claims of “doing due diligence,” such as making statements that are quickly overturned by documentation easily attainable elsewhere online.

    (3) Appeals to undisclosed information (e.g., “If you only knew …” or “You don’t know what happened” or “You/we don’t have all the facts”). Some of that actually constitutes a covert “publishing” of findings … suggesting that some sort of documentation exists. However, because it is not specified, it might just as easily be word of mouth, gossip, rumor, spin, etc. To me, that’s irresponsible. Thus, I seek to be able to back up opinions with research from primary and secondary sources.

    [Sidenote: I know only One Person in the cosmos who has all the facts about everything. And I don’t believe anyone else will ever have all the facts about anything.]

  112. Brad

    I will give you a whole response later, chores and other responsibilities beckon but you have taken the time to present what appear to be some favorable points. They are worth more time than a glancing response from me so with patience I will give a more thorough reply later.

  113. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Missy M wrote:
    As to any leading Emergent personality publishing their findings, why should they? What obligation do they have to inject themselves into a personal dispute in which they are not involved? There is a Proverb which teaches against that.
    I disagree with your opinion that this constitutes a purely “personal dispute.” There have been, and continue to be, significant public ramifications of this so-called personal/private issue. Tony Jones presents himself as a thought leader in the Emergent/Progressive movement. He is published, and he does public speaking, blogging, tweeting, and commenting. He has held positions where he chooses other people for writing and speaking, whom he considers worthy to be thought leaders and role models. He fits the profile of someone who should be considered a “public figure,” not merely a “private individual.” And, as I understand the New Testament requirements for leaders, he would be subject to the standards there for character and behavior. If Mr. Jones wishes to keep such “personal” issues “private,” it doesn’t really work since he has promoted himself (and been commended by others) into a higher-profile role as a Christian professional, public figure, and ministry leader/role model.
    Meanwhile, I would agree that there is no “moral mandate” for any leading Emergent personality to publishing their findings if they have done due-diligence research into the situation between Tony Jones and Julie McMahon. Similarly, there is no requirement for them to comment in any media on that situation — or to publicly endorse and/or publicize Tony Jones’ books, speaking engagements, blog posts, Tweets, etc. But if they choose to give their opinion on these disputes through comments, endorsements, or promotions, don’t you feel it is fair to challenge them on what basis they do so? [And haven’t you done that here to readers at TWW, challenging their support of Julie McMahon as a survivor, and their rejection of Tony Jones as a trustworthy leader?] They were under no obligation to share their opinions. But, it seems to me, their choosing to do so directly inserts them into the public conversation about so-called private matters. And such men and women who’ve been public endorsers of Tony Jones have been the main ones called out here on The Wartburg Watch.
    However, FWIW, it appears that the most typical patterns from those who comment negatively about Julie McMahon while commending Tony Jones — or who don’t comment about her but do commend him — is that these are followed by:
    (1) Silence, or overt refusal to specify why they hold that opinion.
    (2) Unsubstantiated claims of “doing due diligence,” such as making statements that are quickly overturned by documentation easily attainable elsewhere online.
    (3) Appeals to undisclosed information (e.g., “If you only knew …” or “You don’t know what happened” or “You/we don’t have all the facts”). Some of that actually constitutes a covert “publishing” of findings … suggesting that some sort of documentation exists. However, because it is not specified, it might just as easily be word of mouth, gossip, rumor, spin, etc. To me, that’s irresponsible. Thus, I seek to be able to back up opinions with research from primary and secondary sources.
    [Sidenote: I know only One Person in the cosmos who has all the facts about everything. And I don’t believe anyone else will ever have all the facts about anything.]

    (A – first paragraph)You have some merit here but allow me to point out that Tony did mainly address the issue in detail, publicly, only as a defense after prolonged public accusation by Julie. His public commentary is nothing in comparison to the quantity of direct public discourse by Julie. This does not speak to the merits of either one, by the way, just to point this out. But if one feels this is sufficient to publicly share their own views and because he is a public figure, so be it. I believe one must gather facts and information, as much as possible, before commenting and it seems there is a great deal of information still needed on the specific dispute.

    Secondly, you seem to want to impose upon Tony the rules of conservative Evangelicals with regard to this dispute. Remember, he is an Emergent. Their license with the Scripture, morality and so on, is way, way removed from the biblical, moral and ethical arguments you are making which are, frankly, conservative Evangelical ones.

    Either in forms of theology which grant plausible deniability or in practice, with Emergents, there really is no way you can argue the rightness or wrongness of his or their actions biblically, morally or ethnically using their own theology or values. They have a very fluid value system not to mention that the list of ethical, theological and moral violations by Emergents is so egregious and so numerous that I am astonished you actually believe you can make a biblical, moral or ethical argument against anything he or any Emergent does.

    When he and others state that he had a “spiritual wife” while still legally married to Julie, so what? That is Emergentism! You might argue back, “Well, I’ve never heard of that as an Emergent view”. Right, but Emergentism isn’t bounded by a set of dogmas other than some very basic (maybe) theology. Thus, they are essentianlly permitted to use the Bible to justify their actions so long as they can proof-text their way out of it and create ad hoc novel doctrines which their fans adore.

    Surely you understand this about Emergentism. It’s a theological and ecclesiastical game. Tony is just being what he claims to be so you really have no grounds to approach him biblically, at least not with respect to his belief system. In reality, he is practicing the awful Emergent theology he espouses.

    (B – second paragraph)Approving of a person’s ministry can be construed as an endorsement of their entire life, I suppose, but I believe that principle would fail, even in your own life and with your own circle of friends. I rarely consider someone’s work being complimented or supported as an approval of every single part of their life. The ministry is different, I agree, but remember, that only is valid with conservative (sometimes general) Evangelicals. With Emergents, their behavior and theology aren’t necessarily part of one another when it comes to commendations.

    Again, these are Emergents. On what biblical grounds are you ever going to challenge them on a theology that is ever moving and never stable because it has little foundation?

    Emergentism is shape-shifting theology.

    These people are practicing what they preach which essentially has few boundaries in reality. Argue if you wish but where they assert one principle they always leave an escape hatch not to mention the assertion of a contradicting principle elsewhere and of course, you’re lack of Emergent enlightenment (tongue in cheek) is always a pain for them.

    In principle, I do agree that you can and are not in violation of say, some biblical dogma, in challenging these peers of Tony but you have little ground on which to argue, Emergently speaking, since you argue from principles and dogma they neither recognize nor practice, even if they have said they do at some point because they likely have said something else or will say something else at another point which is wholly consistent with Emergentism.

    (C – last section) For the record, I do not have a “position” other than what I originally addressed regarding people taking sides and then going about with their selection of information which is a violation of biblical principles. I do not doubt that Tony (or anyone in any dispute) has their supporters who do not do their homework but I find the absolutism of Tony bad, Julie good, untenable.

    If this isn’t the case then tell me why no one here or among her supporters has been willing to enumerate and discuss Julie’s wrongful contributions, including Julie, herself (Simply stating or admitting she might have overreacted is not an enumeration and discussion of points for those who might want to rush to cite her admission that she probably overreacted. That is a generalization which informs people of nothing specific which may be critical in determining if she did something cataclysmic or so provocative that she has a greater culpability in the matter). Does that not speak a bit of volume to you?

    As to Tony Jones and my confidence in him as a spiritual, moral or healthy Bible teacher? I hope I have been clear, he is an Emergent, and they have no credibility with me and this nonsense about a spiritual wife sinks him even further. Children make that kind of garbage up.

    I agree that “if you only knew” doesn’t work. Appeals to special knowledge are no better than arguing from silence when meriting points in a discussion or debate.

    As to Julie, I am sure she has suffered some things but I also get this nagging obsession syndrome taste from her. I’ve seen this profile of public relentlessness, in a number of similar cases. It may not be the case, here, but there are many red flags on her side, in my view. This is not to say she does not have some justified claims of injury but how we respond sometimes indicates how we have contributed.

    I appreciate your self-regulation on the matter and recognized it which is why I felt comfortable with the exchange at this point. I hope this helps.

  114. @ Missy M:

    Hi Missy M, Just a note to let you know that I saw you posted a comment. Thanks for your detailed reply — I’ll try to respond in the near future when my client work doesn’t involve quite so much writing!

  115. Missy M wrote:

    This is not to say she does not have some justified claims of injury but how we respond sometimes indicates how we have contributed.

    If you had a husband who did things to you that he did to her, and no help from Christian personalities or church people (she was frozen out by a number of them), you might get pretty upset about it and seek understanding on multiple online venues as well.

    I find her online behavior pretty understandable, rather than some indication that she too was just as guilty as her ex spouse, or a tad guilty, or a nut job.

  116. I have a husband and I don’t expect Christian personalities or church people to help me out with marital issues. My marriage is not with them but my husband and our problems are just that, ours. They do not belong to other people and to demand other people invest in any public campaign against my husband, were I to engage in one because of a dispute, is the height of narcissism, childishness and utter disregard for the privacy of the relationship. Even if he made it the business of the world, my integrity would remain in tact. These are called adult boundaries.

    In the non-Christian world, when someone starts soliciting and attempting to influence associates of another with whom one is having a dispute, the non Christians have sense enough to see this crusading, disruptive and histrionic behavior for what it is (much of the time, at least). Unfortunately many in the church sanctify it with the ignorant belief that the marriage of others is the business of others and its everyone’s job to get involved in the marriage of others, in the name of Christian love and accountability which isn’t found in the Bible except through poorly used proof-texts.

    Possibly you have grown up in a world where you imagine you are owed the assistance of others with your personal problems and it has unfortunately been reinforced, I really don’t know. But I do know this, that such a view is weakness which will continue to debilitate you until you fix it or leave this earth and go to be with the Lord.

  117. @ Missy M:

    How much are you paid by Tony Jones to come here and post this? It’s always about this time that the public relations folks roll in.

    He must be an awfully insecure person…Tony. If he were a real man, he would have manned up a long time ago and he would have done the right thing. He’s not *a real man*. But then we all knew that – men and women alike.

    He’s also a public figure. He can be the topic of Free Speech in countries throughout the world. For a guy who has made money by going on tv, using the media, he certainly enjoys his Free Speech rights while wanting to curtail everybody elses’.

  118. MIssy M certainly puttin’ a lotta o’ work&time into a combox she never been to before, usin’ all dem big wurds like narcissism n’ stuff. Throwin’ Christian memes around like a theologin. Preachin’ right hard, ain’t she? Sayin’ she knows how non-Christians do but we don’t. Thinkin’ to make us feel bad. All fer our own sakes as good dumb li’l sheep, of course.

    Maybe her real name is Antonia CoJones.

    Pfffft

  119. @ Missy M:


    Some miscellaneous thoughts and questions:

    Tony did mainly address the issue in detail, publicly, only as a defense after prolonged public accusation by Julie …

    While he personally addressed it directly in early 2015, it seems to me that other indirect tactics have been engaged far more often to give his defense. Do those count? When he is criticized, one of Tony Jones’ apparent M.O.s through the years is to deflect in brief with online comments, a few times, and then go silent while apparent proxies comment in ways that carry on a defense on his behalf. So wouldn’t it be intriguing to conduct an analysis of amount of content over the years by Friends of Tony Jones defending him (including in the mid-2000 decade, by Julie herself), and then compare that with her direct comments? Another M.O. seems to be to write a blog post that addresses some concept connected with a current criticism, and so he gives his general defense indirectly while not dealing with the specific issue.

    [Y]ou seem to want to impose upon Tony the rules of conservative Evangelicals with regard to this dispute.

    I do see Scripture as having moral and ethical mandates, which will always create a stark contrast with the views of those who see it as apparently little more than their personal theological storying touchstone. When theology shifts according to the whim or will of the day, there isn’t much of substance there in which to trust … sort of just “spiritual tofu” that takes on any flavor that they want it to.

    Since the Emergent/Progressive theology is constantly deconstructing and re-shape-shifting, then commendations for a celebrity would mean nothing either, except in the moment written or uttered. Wonder why some seem nervous when challenged on their support for Mr. Jones, if it was just a meaningless utterance in the first place.

    Wonder if those seemingly aligned with the same paradigm overall as his don’t believe abuse occurs, because that would require some kind of standard to identify it. However, we find many of his commenders stating they are for the abused and they are against abuse. So, maybe they aren’t the same spiritual tofu paradigm as he seems to be. Or maybe it’s something else going on.

  120. Wow. I just caught up on this thread. Should Missy M ever be subjected to abuse, should we all pray that everyone leaves her completely alone? It would be a private matter, so the abuser and Missy M should be left to their own devices. Missy M definitely would not want any support or prayers said on her behalf.

  121. Missy M is coming across as a very high and mighty self righteous person. She/he seems to know EXACTLY how every party should approach the issues at hand. Seems everyone has been wrong and she/he is setting everyone straight.

    She/he reminds me of the Pharisee and Scribe who walk by the man beaten and lying on the road. Only this is worse. The Pharisee and Scribe in this story follow the Goood Samaritan to the inn explaining why he shouldn’t help the man and why they are right about not helping.

    This is quite remarkable (in a not good way) behavior.

    Someone wants the last word, too.

  122. Missy M wrote:

    Possibly you have grown up in a world where you imagine you are owed the assistance of others with your personal problems and it has unfortunately been reinforced, I really don’t know. But I do know this, that such a view is weakness which will continue to debilitate you until you fix it or leave this earth and go to be with the Lord.

    Wow! This is a harsh statement to someone you don’t even know.

    You believe that Jesus never helped anyone with their personal problems then? And there are ways to help AND strengthen people at the same time.

    In Julie’s case, there was an unfair public and private power advantage by Tony Jones. But, you can stand before God and say you minded your own business with no worries.

  123. James 5:19&20~ brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; let him know that he which converters the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins”