Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Isn’t there already a high-priced matchmaking service specializing in outside-the-marriage affairs? Don’t remember their name, but you used to hear ads about them all the time.

Do you mean Ashley Madison?

It’s a site where married people can look up other married people to have affairs with…

And yet many evangelical Christians keep maintaining the old saw that single women like me are on the prowl harlots, so they tell married men to stay away with single women! Don’t meet alone with single women, if you do, leave your office door open. 🙄
I’m (single woman) not the one trying to have affairs with married men, nor would I want to.

@ Gram3:

Just seen it too much and up close in celebrity evangelical circles. For some reason, this stuff gets a much bigger pass and rationalized to a ridiculous degree in Christian circles. Hmmm.

Nancy mentioned this way up thread but what about plain old fashioned sin? Are we really claiming there is no real right and wrong? One of the things that became clear to me from my days in that world is that deception is the worst. Give me an honest jerk any day. And when your business is your image as it is with celeb Christians, the deception tends to take over as a natural course.

@ Miranda:
Yes on all counts. I think a lot of people who really dislike RHE are having a field day with this. If it wasn’t so, there would be equal criticism of NBW, but… I’m not seeing that *anywhere.* People who are piling on are completely unfamiliar with her, and if anything, would probably be far more offended by her if they did know her work.

But that clearly isn’t the case.

It’s not a matter of disbelieving Julie; it’s about the spamming of legitimate criticism by those wh have bern wanting to go after RHE.

@ Miranda:
Am with you on the dynamics – i get that, too.

Miranda wrote:

Like some people have been waiting for the chance to jump on her and discredit and destroy her and now that the opportunity has presented itself and they smell blood, they are going after it like half-starved vultures.

This seems political to me.

Who are the parties? I admit I’m clueless about the personalities and the EV camp. I don’t see piling on. I do see people who feel betrayed by a decision she made and things she has said. They are imploring her to reconsider.

Others are acknowledging the voice of a woman who has been abused whose abuse was compounded by people she should have been able to trust. Why is that a bad thing? ISTM that only Tony Jones partisans would think either of these is bad. If nothing else, the sheer volume and volume of the volume might make RHE reconsider. That would ultimately be a good thing for her and everyone else.

@ numo:

BS!! Its not about going after RHE for the sake of going after RHE. Its about her doing the same thing Mark Dever and Al Mohler have done. Is it now different becuase she is in your camp? How can we overlook this while talking about SGM? We can’t, if we ignroe this then we become like Dever and company. And if thats the case then I’ll go back to Sovereing Grace and just say, “ok” no problem. Tony Jones shouldn’t be a Pastor for the same reason CJ Mahaney shouldn’t be a Pastor. And its wrong for RHE to speak about victims, promote them but ignore Tony Jone’s domestic abuse. If she ignores it then I think all she cared about was using SGM victimss to advance herself and profit off them. The Evangelcial Industrial Complex has to end. Its threatening Christianity in so many wasy and hurtign so many people.

Miranda wrote:

Like some people have been waiting for the chance to jump on her and discredit and destroy her and now that the opportunity has presented itself and they smell blood, they are going after it like half-starved vultures.
This seems political to me.

I don’t hate RHE. She’s, up until this particular incident, struck me as being a decent, caring person.

I agree with her about gender complementarianism and appreciated her work in pointing out its efforts.

So I don’t have an anti-RHE axe to grind.

I am truly mystified why a woman like RHE, who claims to care deeply about women and how most churches marginalize them, would agree to associate with a man, and go to a pro-woman conference he of all people is sponsoring, who has this much baggage with his ex- wife.

If she has to go due to legal fall out, or it would be too problematic to cancel, she could always just issue a statement saying so, but last I saw, she was digging her heels in, insisting that this conferences is so wonderful, she can’t cancel no matter how icky everything suspects Jones of being.

Anyway, my views on all this are not borne out of wishing RHE ill will.

I liked the fact RHE spoke out against Driscoll’s abuse a time or two, as a matter of fact.

@ numo:

Don’t take this personally but I think your struggling with cognitive dissonace with this entire situation. I want to ignore this since I thought highly of and respected Greg Boyd. But I honestly cannot, not after what I went through in my faith crisis.

Miranda wrote:

But there is definitely a sense of “piling on” from a lot of people on this blog and elsewhere. Like some people have been waiting for the chance to jump on her and discredit and destroy her and now that the opportunity has presented itself and they smell blood, they are going after it like half-starved vultures.

This seems political to me.

Oh yeah, there’s a political aspect to it. Just like there was with SGM, Gothard, etc, etc. We are separated into too many camps and there are those in every group who feel glad when someone in the other camp fails.

Christ didn’t come for no reason, that’s for sure. :-/

@ dee:

“Christians, above all, should be well aware that our heroes, as well as ourselves, can hide their foibles. Why is it when the police finally catch the serial killer in a neighborhood, the neighbors will often say “He was a nice guy.” “He shoveled our driveway.” “He always came to the neighborhood pot luck.” We are sometimes really screwed up in our judgement.”

I don’t think it is a matter of screwed up judgement. It’s simply a lack of obvious evidence that something is askew with the individual. How does someone recognize a serial killer by looking and talking with him / her? You can’t, unless the individual says something that gives cause for concern. Judgement is screwed up if we have all the facts and come to a wrong conclusion, but we don’t have all the facts and we judge based on what we know.

@ numo:

From what I am seeing it has been mostly folks from her tribe who are incredibly disappointed and even hurt. If you could link to some of the Comp, Patriarchal, YRR or Fundy tribe response to her position on this matter, as in those who would naturally be against her and her platform, I would like to see it.

I neither like or dislike RHE. I have never followed her closely but have read some of her books and blog posts. I am well aware of her platform which I agree with. I just don’t do “Christian” personalities anymore. But I do understand the incredible hurt that comes from trusting someone spiritually you thought was a voice for the voiceless.

I actually hope that she will walk away from her part in the conference and start a real conversation about how this sort of abuse affects people in real ways as in being deceived by someone we really trusted. I would also like to hear her take on the “spiritual wife” situation.

dee wrote:

Miranda wrote:
. I can and will concede when I am wrong.
What is so sad about this situation is that we may never 100% corroborating evidence.

You are 100% right, and that is extremely unfortunate. No one knows what goes on behind the closed door of others, and this almost always works to the detriment of the victims.

I know for myself there were several times when I tried to record my ex while he was in the middle of one of his abusive episodes. The problem was that in nearly every single recording that I did get, he always seemed to be able to, even in the middle of his “rages”, manage to justify in the recording why he was doing what he was doing. Every time he acted out, it was always framed in a way that he was merely responding to me and how horrible and screwed up *I* was. It was crazy.

Oh my. I just got to thinking CBMW might just like the Mormonesque concept of “spiritual wife”. :o)

@ Miranda:

Eagle, If they want to go all out “Jesus” on her, they could also do restitution. Not only public statements that they were WRONG and HOW but also some financial restitution with NO strings attached. They cost her and her kids big time. I know it is asking a lot but people need to walk the talk with “apologies”.

@ Eagle:

I agree with your post.

I’m neither a die hard supporter of RHE nor a detractor of hers, so I’m not commenting on any of this from a desire to topple RHE.

I have enjoyed some of her blog posts criticizing complementarianism, as a matter of fact.

One of the good things I find about being half-Christian, half-agnostic and not being totally committed to either side (supporters or skeptics), is that I see the pit falls in almost every side on about every topic.

I quite often do not feel beholden to any one group on many a subject and am more willing to consider someone or “their side” may be wrong. It may depend on the topic.

It makes it easier to be a tad more objective when you don’t feel you have to defend a particular person or a side. And you can more easily spot double standards by either side. That has been fascinating to me.

But anyway, I agree with your post.

@ Eagle:
some people are using it that way, Eagle. That’s all I’m saying. Not that she was right at 1st, though her stance appears to be changing.

@ numo:

Who? Let us speak to them about using it as a political means.

@ Gram3:
theres a lot of it over on FB. and it’s still going on, though likely some of the posts I saw ere deleted.

It really doesn’t matter whether anyone here agrees on this or not. It’s my observation, and Miranda’s, too. It isn’t something I want to get into an argument over, not with anyone. I have already said pretty much everything I have to say about this situation way upthread, so I don’t see the point in continuing to say those same things again and again.

It’s fine with me if you and everyone else here doesn’t agree with me, and I expect that you don’t. That’s not the issue. I feel like it’s not acceptable to some folks that differing views of this situation are expressed here, but that’s not my problem, either.

Gram3 wrote:

Your point about NBW is good, and I had never heard of her before this blew up

I had only heard of NBW about a year ago or more because she wrote a book called “Pastrix” that Chris Rosebrough talked smack about on his radio show.

Outisde of that, I don’t remember hearing much about her anywhere else, maybe one news headline – and I sought that out because Rosebrough mentioned her, I wanted to know more about her to see what all the hub bub was about on his part.

Contrast that to Rachel Held Evans, who sometimes blogs on CNN’s belief blog (or whatever it’s called), and she goes on book tours or conferences. I think more people have heard of her than of Weber.

Julie McMahon wrote:

@ Miranda: no offense taken. Trust me, I get how loaded and dizzying this all is. Most days I want to run away….but I can’t. So I fight. Thank you, Miranda.

You are welcome, Julie. And as for the horrible things your husband did to you, you have my utmost sympathy and you have my respect for standing up and being strong and doing what you had to do to survive. Maybe it doesn’t matter that his behavior doesn’t (seem to) follow the typical pattern of abuse. The way you were treated was wrong and the gaslighting of you was in itself abusive and horrible. I do readily acknowledge that.

@ Daisy:
RHE writes opinion pieces for major news outlets and NBW doesn’t.

Is that some kind of sin in your book? She’s trying to make a living from writing, which is – trust me – VERY hard to do.

Joe2 wrote:

Judgement is screwed up if we have all the facts and come to a wrong conclusion, but we don’t have all the facts and we judge based on what we know.

Does the situation have to be mutually exclusive?

If you are referring to Jones in the last half of that, how much more do I need to know to draw conclusions about the guy?

It is universally agreed upon from what I have read so far by both his supporters and detractors that the guy cheated on his wife.

That to me is bad enough alone, not even considering the allegations of physical abuse, diagnosis of a personality disorder, continual, alleged lying to discredit the former spouse, etc.

Lol, I wake up and there are 200 more posts.

Eagle wrote:

One more thought, I think this shows how many people struggle with envy. I think some poeple like the Neo-Calvinist movement becuase they are having all the conferences, programs, etc

I am in agreement with your post, I just find it funny if that is the motivator, because I think the whole concept of Christian conferences are hokey.

Christians need less of the conferences and speaking circuits, not more. They are so lame and played out.

I’ve even seen some of the Reformed (at least I think they are Reformed) guys write blog posts with titles like, “Does the world really need another Christian conference.” (The answer is no.)

@ numo:
I think people just wanted to understand and thought you might have information or insight that would help with that. I just don’t do vague well.

No offense here at all.

numo wrote:

t’s fine with me if you and everyone else here doesn’t agree with me, and I expect that you don’t. That’s not the issue. I feel like it’s not acceptable to some folks that differing views of this situation are expressed here, but that’s not my problem, either.

Messed up the first attempt. Again.

I don’t think this is quite fair, Numo. I truly do not know who’s who, and I was asking a legitimate question. I don’t do FB or Twitter.

I do verbose Gramsplaining, but sometimes your comments are so oblique and cryptic that I, for one, don’t get them. And I would like to get your point because your POV is valuable. Even especially when it is different. But it needs to be clear for me, at least, to get it.

@ Law Prof:
Yes, and I have more experience of this than I feel comfortable discussing publicly. So it’s not as if I’m unsympathetic – far from it!

Off topic- thank you all the well wishers on my marriage. I am VERY blessed 🙂

Lydia wrote:

Who? Let us speak to them about using it as a political means.

I'm not sure who the specifics who's are either.

I can see how people who don't like RHE before all this happened (such as Owen Strachan, Mark Driscoll, etc, and/or their supporters), can in the future use all of this to bash RHE and/or her positions, but as of yet, I've not seen them do so. They may in the future.

@ Gram3:
just read comments on the SCCL FB page, on the last couple of posts Stephy’s put up. That should clarify to some degree.

Cool?

numo wrote:

she said some pretty bad things about all of this on FB, publicly, so why is there not equal indignation?

Not all of us are on those FB pages nor are we all on Twitter. Speaking for myself, at this point I would stay away from anyone who is endorsing Tony Jones’ conferences, books, etc., just like I have done with those who support SGM and MH, etc.

@ Bridget:
I don’t usually look at the SCCL FB page, either, but discussion here got me over there. I don’t follow Twitter, etc., either, so that makes two of us. 🙂

Jeff S wrote:

Off topic- thank you all the well wishers on my marriage. I am VERY blessed

So happy for you!! Glad to hear from you, too! You kind of dropped off the face of the blog 😉 Glad all is well.

Miranda wrote:

I may not be able to figure out or articulate all the reasons why alarm bells are still going off for me

Really trying to understand. Are the alarms about who is speaking out? Or why they are speaking out? Or the significance of the issues? Or the truth of the allegations of various kinds? Or the significance of what is on the record? Or what is it that is triggering the alarms in your gut?

As with my comment to Numo, I don’t think anyone is trying to shut you down or minimize the importance of your POV. I would just like to have something a little more that alarms in your gut to go on. That would be helpful, I think, for all of us.

@ Bridget:
Miranda has been reading the SCCL page, as have I. Patrice pointed out some of RHE’s recent interactions (as of last evening) earlier in this comment thread. That’s what made me decide to take a look over there.

I don’t think *anyone* can truly keep up with social media, as it’s so fast and furious and things change from one second to the next. It is extremely wearying for me. Mostly I use FB to look at pics of cut animals and the like. It’s my happy place, but I am very selective about the feeds I see and what I will/won’t get involved in – the “won’t” includes political and religious discussions. Most of my “friends” are actually pets and musicians. It can be a good platform if you are very careful about who you “friend” and what you see.

@ Gram3:
I think what both Miranda and I are saying is that we are not yet in a position to articulate *all* of why we feel that way – and I have no doubt that her take and mine are by no means identical.

Please bear with me, OK? I appreciate your kind words upthread, too!

@ numo:
err, *cute* animals. (Though you probably figured that out already.)

@ numo:

I have read the vast majority of the two or three SCCL Facebook posts about this topic and still don’t entirely agree with your take on it. I’m not sure that reading SCCL is a panacea for changing people’s minds about it.

I also do not see any comments by RHE on the SCCL most recent thread. I skimmed it over this morning twice. Or did she comment on an older thread there?

MOD Edit: Some of this comment deleted as discussion in comments of why and how we moderate comments is not allowed. For many reasons.

Daisy wrote:

I can see how people who don’t like RHE before all this happened (such as Owen Strachan, Mark Driscoll, etc, and/or their supporters), can in the future use all of this to bash RHE and/or her positions,

I don’t think that would be wise for them to do. Which pretty much guarantees they will try it. Owen (not John) looked very silly and somewhat paranoid about RHE shutting down his social media. He is so precious and entertaining that I don’t know why anyone would want to do that. Driscoll doesn’t have the sense or judgment of a rock, so I fully expect him to try.

Lydia wrote:

Oh my. I just got to thinking CBMW might just like the Mormonesque concept of “spiritual wife”. :o)

If Really Smart Theologians with a Ph.D./PhD can make up “Subordinate Wife” because they have issues with their masculinity, then I suppose Really Smart Theologians with a Ph.D./PhD can make up “Spiritual Wife” because they have issues with their libido.

Making up stuff is handy when you need it to justify what is unjustifiable.

Miranda wrote:

But there is definitely a sense of “piling on” from a lot of people on this blog and elsewhere. Like some people have been waiting for the chance to jump on her and discredit and destroy her and now that the opportunity has presented itself and they smell blood, they are going after it like half-starved vultures.
This seems political to me.
But I’ve said it before and I will say it again, if I am wrong then I am honestly sorry. I will keep reading and keep trying to open up my perspective on this. I do realize that there is a history that I don’t know about.

So you really like RHE? I’m trying to get to the bottom of this.

Law Prof wrote:

Miranda wrote:
But there is definitely a sense of “piling on” from a lot of people on this blog and elsewhere. Like some people have been waiting for the chance to jump on her and discredit and destroy her and now that the opportunity has presented itself and they smell blood, they are going after it like half-starved vultures.
This seems political to me.
But I’ve said it before and I will say it again, if I am wrong then I am honestly sorry. I will keep reading and keep trying to open up my perspective on this. I do realize that there is a history that I don’t know about.
So you really like RHE? I’m trying to get to the bottom of this.

Do you think I have to be a fan of hers in order to see what I’m seeing?

Julie McMahon wrote:

@ Eagle: they won’t. Brian fired off a letter last week that read like an affidavit. Takes zero responsibility. Disappointing. But he at minimum wrote me even though it was a timely a$& covering no doubt.

Hi Julie: I’m sorry and sad for your hurt.

I read Brian’s response to you in the comment section on the Naked Pastor thread (is that the letter you are referring to?) which as an outsider, even though he didn’t take responsibility for the things you wanted him to, I thought he was even-handed and respectful. Though perhaps I wouldn’t have felt that way if I’d been the one who felt wounded by him. From what I recall, he didn’t own up to those specific wrongs because his experience/his memories of the situation you described (of the pastors intervening, I think?) was or felt different him than the way he was hearing you describe it. And it sounds like your experience of the situation is very different than the one he seems to remember or describe. And that’s really hard, especially when you feel so deeply wronged and wounded.

I’m telling you this as someone who has also been deeply wounded, in big and small ways, by very hurtful people throughout my life: You will likely never get the apologies you want. And that sucks. What has mattered most to me — or rather what has made the biggest difference in my healing — is getting to know Jesus, and myself, as best as I possibly can; to ask Jesus’ help to forgive those who’ve hurt me; to ask Jesus to help me make amends to those I’ve hurt as well. None of the above has been easy. It continues to be hard. Very hard. And it actually piles even more on to the already difficult task of persevering through trauma. But it is worth it. So worth it. Jesus already knows what’s true — the whats and whens and hows of our experiences — and whether people know it or not, He does know it. That has comforted me, anyway.

The following is one of the smaller ways I’ve been wounded (compared to other ways I’ve or others have been wounded). I share it because of the reflections I’ve had in hindsight about it. When I was in college, the very well-respected, Christian guy I was dating broke up with me because he wasn’t able to come to terms with my past (which included abuse and promiscuity, etc.) Maybe there was other stuff there he had doubts about and that was the final straw for him. I don’t know and never will know. But the rejection crushed me. Devastated me. Hurt me beyond what I can describe here. And in my hurt I unleashed holy hell on his life until I graduated. I talked to tons of people about him, wrote about him, and generally just made his life miserable at every turn. That was 10 years ago. And to this day I regret it. Did he really hurt me? Absolutely. Was I justifiably hurt? Absolutely. I believe what he did was sinful and hurtful and immature. It cut to the core of who I was, who I’d been, who I wanted to be.

Here’s why I regret what I did — because I tried to extract something from him he was not able to give: repentance. I wasn’t able to convict his heart of any wrongdoing, and neither could anyone else. And I spent a ton of time trying to force repentance, to force sorrow, and to force an acknowledgment from him about my pain by any means necessary. No dice. And I guess, in hindsight, as I’ve spent a lot of time in therapy talking through the various hurts of my life — trauma, abuse, etc. — as well as the unhealthy ways I’ve responded to those hurts, I’ve realized that ultimately, we can speak what we believe to be true, but the spirit of God is the only one who can help another person — the person who’s hurt us — actually *realize* truth. That’s been my experience.

Again, I’m sorry for your hurt. I want and hope for peace for you, your children and your ex, just as I want peace for myself. I want you to be able to live without regret. (And maybe you do, I don’t know.)

May the God of peace share more of himself with you day by day in a way that reminds you that he knows of the hurt you feel, and why.

Miranda wrote:

I am torn at this moment between the desire to stick to my guns and continue to insist that Julie’s experience as she recounts it isn’t a typical abuse situation

That was helpful, and I can just CtrlF to read your earlier comments. I don’t see this as a matter of sticking to guns, which would *not* be helpful for any of us. The bit about “typical abuse situation” does not make sense to me. I’ve never seen an abuse situation that was typical, though I have observed certain elements that are common to the abusive situations I have observed, whether it is physical, spiritual, or emotional. I would be very hesitant to define abuse heuristically, though the common elements I have observed might prompt me to explore further if I observe those elements in another situation. The perceived absence of certain elements that I expect would *not* cause me to rule abuse out, however, just because humans and human situations are so complex and our information is limited.

Disappointed to hear about Rachel Held Evans’ response, especially the censorship of her comments section.

I’m also appalled by the seeming use of “mentally ill” as a derogatory term and as justification for treating someone poorly (i.e. committing adultery, abandonment, etc.).

As for Tony Jones’ “spiritual wife” – that’s just plain kooky. I think this goes without saying, but MAJOR RED FLAG any time some guy makes up theology so that he can cheat on his wife.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_wifery

Sara wrote:

I talked to tons of people about him, wrote about him, and generally just made his life miserable at every turn. That was 10 years ago. And to this day I regret it. Did he really hurt me? Absolutely

But during the time you did all that, did his friends try to damage your life by spreading falsehoods about you, and try to get your friends to disbelieve your complaints about him, as Julie’s ex has done with her?

If not, the situation you describe is not quite the same as hinting that Julie is just hanging on to anger for the sake of revenge or wanting to lash out and needs to let it go for her own peace.

From what I’ve read so far, nobody has really believed her during this entire ordeal (except for a small handful of people), and hardly anyone has given her a chance to tell her side of the story. Everyone else has been shutting her down.

Did that happen to you when you were having issues with your ex fiance?

numo wrote:

@ Miranda:
bingo!

🙂

Julie’s story resonated completely with me, though my emotional/spiritual abuser has repented and we are still together. On the narcissism continuum, her narcissist ex is WAY more disordered than my spouse ever was. And way less faithful. I’m frankly surprised that Miranda did (does?) not recognize it on the gut level that so many of us do.
BTW, what does ISTM mean? I’m fairly new to the blogging scene, having spent years in my own recovery from spousal and extreme church abuses without knowing a lot of this stuff! I am so grateful for Wartburg and other blogs, and for commentators like Gram3 and Brad/Futurist Guy. You all rock!
Julie, not only do I believe you, I’m praying for you and your kids. God’s peace!

Law Prof wrote:

Maybe it’s because I’m a lawyer by education and former profession and thus accustomed to debate, or maybe it’s because I have a huge family with a wife and children who have strong, vibrant personalities and I have to fight every step of the way to put my point across, with few things in debate being out of bounds for any of us, but frankly, I find the disagreements here pretty mild,

Gramp3, is that you? 🙂

I don’t understand why RHE is deleting her comments. I want very much to give her the benefit of the doubt for now on the basis that maybe she has information that the rest of us don’t. But the deleting the comments thing is not good. Not good at all.

@ Carole Ryan:

ISTM – it seems to me 🙂

@ Carole Ryan:

It Seems To Me. I use it on the rare occasions when I am able to generate an opinion and express it.

@ Sara:

Sara, Many victims find even more healing when they refuse to be silenced any more and take the big scary step of telling their story.

I have seen so many victims get clobbered with the “just forgive and move on” mantra. not only does that further damage victims of spiritual emotional and physical abuse, but it gives the abuser a pass and fails to warn future victims.

believe it or not people can forgive and still tell their side of the story. In this situation the other side’s story became common knowledge and accepted. The victim was silenced.

forgiveness does not mean sweeping evil deeds under the rug. Although a lot of abusers want people to believe that. And a lot of pastors teach forgiveness that way for a reason.

@ Sara:

With respect some of what you say here reminds me of what Mars Hill pastors say to their members. “It’s all about Jesus shut up, move on, and remember your fault in this mess…” Sly way of shifting the blame to Julie.

@ Eagle:

I’m sad to hear that.

@ Law Prof:
i think it’s helpful to keep in mind that everyone here is different, and that a wide range of personalities and discussion “styles’ is the norm, not the exception.

Besides all that, there’s the fact that we cannot hear or see each other, and and are missing all kinds of cues (tone of voice, facial expression, body language, gestures) that are the norm in face-to-face communication. All we have here is text, which is severely limiting in many ways, and makes it that much easier for misunderstandings to happen.

While I’m certainly not a “porcelain doll,” there are times when I know I’ve hit my own limits and feel better about bowing out of something – for a while, or altogether – than continuing to argue the same points that were made several pages back. While I realize that’s not everyone’s cuppa, it’s mine, and when I know I’m getting really annoyed, I find it better to step away than keep on at something that isn’t working, where people are talking past each other rather than with each other.

I respect all who post here, but I don’t think it’s always necessary to spell out all of the reasons their opinion differs from mine, or vice versa.

Hope this is helpful!

@ Carole Ryan:
i don’t think she is saying that Julie didn’t experience abuse, not at all. But that’s my take, and might or might not be accurate. I don’t think that saying something doesn’t feel right about some aspects of the discussion negates the reality of abuse.

@ dee:

A big part of it was being able to discuss my pain in an open way with a very small group of very trusted people. (I can count them on one hand and for and to them I am profoundly grateful.) I recognize not every person has a group life this in his or her life, nor is it always through talking openly in this way that healing occurs. I imagine God’s healing occurs as differently and uniquely for each person just as each person is different and unique. My intent in writing what I wrote — the event of which wasn’t even a “major” trauma compared to other things I’ve been through or, as you’ve pointed out, as complex or even damaging the things Julie’s been through — was simply to share how I’ve reflected on it about a decade late and what I know now that I wish I’d known then. My hope for Julie is that she’s able to connect to that which brings God’s peace for herself and family. Maybe that’s speaking out the way she’s doing. Maybe not. I don’t know! I was simply providing what I hoped would be an encouragement and an additional perspective.

@ Sara:

Sorry if I jumped the shark. Perhaps I have heard too many victims being told to forgive and move on.

@ Law Prof:

I can relate. My dad was a debater so we had to eat our Wheaties. :o)

I am uncertain what the term “Spiritual Wife” means. I have known couple who pray together, go to church together, are deeply engaged as a couple in raising their children, are involved in teaching their children the Bible. They are committed to each other, and if their eye wanders are deeply ashamed. Religion is important to the family of which the heads of household is husband and wife. Having a soulmate can be overly idealized by many and is used as an excuse to divorce.

Interesting in this particular case, the ex wife has been characterized as “crazy,” yet she is raising the children. Kind of seems someone is speaking falsehoods as far as ex wife is concerned. Adultery is adultery and is very very rarely excusable….Perhaps in times past or more rarely when people couldn’t divorce and people were trapped in loveless abusive relationships. Sleeping with an enemy relationships also exist but this is rare. .. i am thinking the hypothetical.

@ Eagle:

We have gotten to that point, too, Eagle. My first question is, are they hurting, using people or going along with that sort of thing so the radar is on. (which is why I stay away from celebrity Christianity because that sort of thing is endemic to that world in my long exhausting experience in it)

@ Sara:

Here’s the thing that troubles me about what you wrote. Because the guy you knew won’t take onwership for his part of the mess I get the vibe that you thought it wrong to pusue or get him to repent. I really see nothing wrong with that. Is it too much to ask someone to to take ownership for their part of the mess? In Christianity todayhere all this garbage about manhood, and what a man is. 99% of what I hear is BS, and a real man should no when to step up, admit mistakes and own them. This is one of the things I like about people outside Christianity. They can be more honest, loving, caring and can do the right thing. I wish someone would do a study one day of ethics, and behavior between Christians and Non-Christiasn. Hands down I think the non-Christians would win and be more ethical.

@ Jeff S:

Thank you for sharing this perspective. I find it to be very instructive and helpful, even as I process my own stuff.

lydia wrote:

believe it or not people can forgive and still tell their side of the story. In this situation the other side’s story became common knowledge and accepted. The victim was silenced.

Absolutely true. Quick “forgiveness” is the easiest path for all who are not the victim.

numo wrote:

@ Law Prof: Besides all that, there’s the fact that we cannot hear or see each other, and and are missing all kinds of cues (tone of voice, facial expression, body language, gestures) that are the norm in face-to-face communication.

Sometimes it’s good not to be able to be cued by body language, expressions and tones, sometimes I gnash my teeth and practically froth at the mouth and pound about my office throwing a veritable middle-aged tantrum. So I probably come across nicer in writing.

Lydia wrote:

@ Sara:
Sorry if I jumped the shark. Perhaps I have heard too many victims being told to forgive and move on.

I was thinking that abusers and enablers just take that part of the process and sever it off from the rest of what Sara said which was very helpful. The problem is that a lot of times we don’t get to complete the entire process. That’s where I am in a couple of situations. I’ve forgiven, but there is no repentance.

Lydia wrote:

Law Prof, How did you get in that comment box??? :o)

I’m all over the place.

Law Prof wrote:

Just wondering how much in common you have with my spouse.

For sure I’m older and crankier and did earn my PHT. Gramp3 and I have lived life in the real world where *everything* is second-guessed and then third-guessed and tested. If you weren’t called a body part complete with adjective accessories, you weren’t being noticed. What I cannot stand are covert- aggressive tactics. Let’s just get it all out and examine it and figure it out and make it work.

Logic proficiency used to be part of a university degree. Not so much now, I guess, judging by the lack of it. Debate over issues? Oh yeah. Lots of that, and no shortage of opinions. Gramp3 pretends my contrariness is part of my charm, and I go along with it. Because I’m so submissive…

@ Eagle:

Yikes spelling errors!

@ Sara:

Oh WoW! Don’t know if you read my story here back in August but I was unsuccessfully recruited to a Sovereign Grace Church. At the time I was into Christopher Hitchens, Greta Christina, having being burned out by fundagelicalism. He was into Mark Driscoll, John Piper, etc… I got smart on SGM Survivors and worked hard to stay away from SGM. He had a powerful position like Tony Jones did, and eventually he used that position to make a false accusation against me. Threatened my name, job, reputation, finances and hurt my family. No one else that I can think of brought my Mother to a point of weeping like this guy did. I hit bottom, darkest season of my life. And I approached 140 peopel asking for forgivnesss. I want this to be reoslved to, but I am not out to get him. I want to forgtive him to show him grace. I’m basically a Christian by a thread. I can’t stand most of teh BS I see today. But I never meant him hamr. I was in a faith crisis that was dark. I still am praying for this guy. If he owns his part of the mess I will go to bat for him, and vouch for his charachter.

Miranda wrote:

In my very first comment on this (wayy) back, I spelled out some of the reasons. There is a pattern that most abusers follow, and there is a pattern that most victims follow in reaction to the abuse. A lot of what I see doesn’t fit the patterns. But taking into account the history of this story (most of which I wasn’t aware of until some of the commenters pointed it out to me), then maybe that’s not as much reason for alarm as I had originally thought. I’d really rather not rewrite what I wrote in my original comment simply because I am lazy, but if you want further clarification from me then let me know and I will suck it up and give it to you.

I am torn at this moment between the desire to stick to my guns and continue to insist that Julie’s experience as she recounts it isn’t a typical abuse situation (even though there are certainly elements of abuse, and that in itself is wrong), and the realization that I probably need to open up my perspective on the issue of abuse itself. I know that I will probably continue to catch heat about this and maybe that’s for the best. Changing perspectives isn’t always an easy thing to do but sometimes it is necessary. I’m a big girl, I can admit that. Like I said, I am torn. For right or wrong, I am torn.

Okay, I think I see the problem. The pattern of abuser that I am familiar with is a man who selects a vulnerable young woman with self esteem issues, isolates her and makes her dependent on him, and maintains control through a pattern of escalating psychological and physical abuse. That is not what you are going to see with the narcissist. He selects a woman who is going to reflect his glory. I have no doubt that Julie was once the hot young bride he was proud to have on his arm. Then she was the pretty young mother with the well dressed children that made it possible for him to run around doing public speaking. Is he going to abuse that wife? Neglect yes, abuse no.

But things change when the person isn’t useful to the public image anymore. Suddenly there’s a younger, cooler version available, someone that makes the narcissistic feel he can be culturally edgy and appeal to a whole new demographic. The old wife and kids are an obstacle to this wonderful new life and their very presence makes him look bad and feel vaguely guilty. That can’t be allowed! Now here comes the abuse. It is not the pattern of an abuser I described above but it IS a pattern.

Julie, do I have this right?

Carole Ryan wrote:

But I learned the lesson well, and advise victims not to expect to be believed, at least initially.

This is good advice. Another thing that has probably already been mentioned is the feeling that some victims get of the unreality of it. It doesn’t seem possible that it is happening because the abuser seemed so different. So, sometimes we don’t believe it ourselves.

I denied what was going on during my latest encounter with a spiritual abuser, even when Gramp3 told me exactly what was happening. I just refused, as in willfully refused, to believe it. Because it was too outrageous to be true! As a result, I don’t even try to get people to hear me. They wouldn’t believe it either, and I’ve had to let go of the possibility of warning others and let them discover for themselves. Some have.

dee wrote:

Now, I am trying to figure out if this is good or bad.

I think it is good. Your bill is probably going to go up, though. There are lots of important topics in this one post and also lots of emotions that I believe are sincere. I have certainly learned a lot, as usual.

___

Dee ,

Hey,

Have you invited Julie to come to Wartburg to tell her story in a guest post?

Blessngs !

Sopy

—

Let’s call it what it really is…a lie, and common, garden variety, adultery. It’s abuse.
http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=20428

763rd !!!

Gram3 wrote:

Logic proficiency used to be part of a university degree. Not so much now, I guess, judging by the lack of it. Debate over issues? Oh yeah. Lots of that, and no shortage of opinions. Gramp3 pretends my contrariness is part of my charm, and I go along with it. Because I’m so submissive…

You are right about that. I don’t teach courses in logic per se, but I can’t resist getting some in lecturing on linear and deductive reasoning, a little Kant, Bentham, Mill, and of course, that greatest of philosophers (if it be proper to refer to Him as a philosopher), Jeshua the son of Joseph, the rabbi from Galilee.

No great shakes on logic, just law school-level, but it kills me how poorly people reason. The worst I see is usually presented to me by enthusiastic undergrads, always wide eyed young men, who find out I’m Christian–namely because I tell them openly in class–and then put me on to the “greatest youtube pastor ever”, who invariably ends up being someone like Paul Washer or Mark Driscoll who couldn’t reason their way round the average 12 year old.

Carole Ryan wrote:

Miranda it’s Carole, not Cathy (just do not want folks to be confused).
Miranda wrote:
“I do recognize it. I recognize that abusers flip the truth upside down and that they are very skilled at painting the victims as the abusers and themselves as the victims.
And what is the logical outcome to this? Well, the logical outcome is that there are a lot of people out there saying they are victims of abuse who actually *aren’t*. Like I said before, abusers aren’t JUST the aggressors in the relationship, they are also usually very much the aggressors when it comes to framing the relationship to outsiders. You can pretty much count on them to make sure that they are the ones who approach family members and friends with the “problems” (I put that in scare quotes because they only problem is the abusive sociopath) that they are having in the relationship. They are cold and they are calculating, and they are the ones who have the presence of mind to start gathering future-needed evidence of their “victimhood”, via recordings, emails, etc. Meanwhile the victim is too busy coming apart at the seams and desperately trying to make sense of what is happening to the relationship to even begin to be able to think so clearly.”

Too much generalization. I’ve been reading lots of credible survivor blogs this year, mainly of the church abuse variety, and the surge of former victims who are coming forward and documenting their abuse is legion, because the time is right. Truth is coming out, edifices are crumbling and they are finally being heard.
Also, often the victim, myself included, starts reading self-help books just to figure out what the heck is happening, then starts documenting, then goes for help to family or church or professionals and is not believed because the abuser looks so darn good on the outside. (I’d use stronger words but do not want to go into moderation.) All of this happened to me, and I was devastated. Since then, all have apologized. But I learned the lesson well, and advise victims not to expect to be believed, at least initially. I have spent years recovering and helping other abuse survivors as well. And I’ve done a lot of research — just not on blogs, until recently.
Also, your opening comment on this thread was really strong and had the effect of discounting Julie, which I am not sure you meant to do, but am glad you apologized to her. This, your latest post seems to imply that you are suspicious Julie could be the actual abuser because she has documented stuff and uses the NPD label. As a fellow survivor, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and not seeing your response this way. However, others could. Context mainly determines meaning, after all.

Yikes! Sorry for getting your name wrong, Carole. I agree with everything you’ve said. But I am a little disappointed to see you write off all the points I brought up as “too much generalization”. What I said is absolutely true, and it *is* very important to remember that abusers are masters at painting themselves as the victims.

I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was applying what I said in my last post to Julie. Rereading it I can definitely see how it comes off that way. I was speaking, as you said, in general terms. Not her case in particular.

Marsha wrote:

Miranda wrote:
In my very first comment on this (wayy) back, I spelled out some of the reasons. There is a pattern that most abusers follow, and there is a pattern that most victims follow in reaction to the abuse. A lot of what I see doesn’t fit the patterns. But taking into account the history of this story (most of which I wasn’t aware of until some of the commenters pointed it out to me), then maybe that’s not as much reason for alarm as I had originally thought. I’d really rather not rewrite what I wrote in my original comment simply because I am lazy, but if you want further clarification from me then let me know and I will suck it up and give it to you.
I am torn at this moment between the desire to stick to my guns and continue to insist that Julie’s experience as she recounts it isn’t a typical abuse situation (even though there are certainly elements of abuse, and that in itself is wrong), and the realization that I probably need to open up my perspective on the issue of abuse itself. I know that I will probably continue to catch heat about this and maybe that’s for the best. Changing perspectives isn’t always an easy thing to do but sometimes it is necessary. I’m a big girl, I can admit that. Like I said, I am torn. For right or wrong, I am torn.
Okay, I think I see the problem. The pattern of abuser that I am familiar with is a man who selects a vulnerable young woman with self esteem issues, isolates her and makes her dependent on him, and maintains control through a pattern of escalating psychological and physical abuse. That is not what you are going to see with the narcissist. He selects a woman who is going to reflect his glory. I have no doubt that Julie was once the hot young bride he was proud to have on his arm. Then she was the pretty young mother with the well dressed children that made it possible for him to run around doing public speaking. Is he going to abuse that wife? Neglect yes, abuse no.
But things change when the person isn’t useful to the public image anymore. Suddenly there’s a younger, cooler version available, someone that makes the narcissistic feel he can be culturally edgy and appeal to a whole new demographic. The old wife and kids are an obstacle to this wonderful new life and their very presence makes him look bad and feel vaguely guilty. That can’t be allowed! Now here comes the abuse. It is not the pattern of an abuser I described above but it IS a pattern.
Julie, do I have this right?

Okay, I can totally get down with this. It makes perfect sense. Maybe I need to brush up on my knowledge of NPD so that I’m not causing things to get lost in translation.

Gram3 wrote:

dee wrote:
Tell Gramp3 I will look him up in the celestial paradise!!
He wants a date with Nancy first. Where is Nancy?

Didn’t mean that as a slight [mortified emoticon]. He loves Nancy’s comments, and especially when she disagrees with me.

__

“Invatation…”

Julie McMahon wrote:

@ Marsha:
Thank you. Those three words….”I believe you.” Cathartic. You may have no idea…if you do? You get it!

Julie,

Hey,

Please come ta Wartburg and tell your story.

Now that you’ve got you’re BIG GIRL PANTS on… 🙂

-snicker-

Praying…

ATB

Sopy

—

Nick Bulbeck wrote:

kilocomment

You’re SOOO Euro. 😛

Daisy wrote:

I had only heard of NBW about a year ago or more because she wrote a book called “Pastrix” that Chris Rosebrough talked smack about on his radio show.

NBW’s whole existence as a Lutheran pastor is a complete and total affront to Rosebrough, also a Lutheran pastor, who believes women cannot be pastors. 🙂

I think the RHE pushback comes from her initial response. It sounded so much like the T4G and SG responses as to be eerie (to me). Brian McLaren’s response on NP struck me the same way. Such obfuscation and spiritual-sounding double speak is par the course for the types of leaders that regularly feature here at WW. The fact that it was those two (and NBW) had my jaw hanging open as I read the computer screen. Like, hanging open.

This whole thing blew up on the NP thread, a thread where NP discussed TJ’s assertion that the Driscoll thing could happen to anyone. I would have normally disagreed, like NP. Now I agree, since I’ve seen it with my own eyes. It can happen to anyone, indeed.

https://twitter.com/TheGospelCorp/status/533316773441843200 Tullian Tchividjian with NBW.

@ Julie McMahon:
Julie, you are taking good care of yourself, yes? I remember when I was in the middle of my own version, I ran on adrenalin most of the time. Eventually I came down with an autoimmune disease.

There’ve been studies done on middle-aged vets with PTSD, and the rate of autoimmune disease is way high.

Rest, eat, drink lotsa water, sleep? I feel like an old Italian mother here, but dang, you have been under maximum stress for a very very long time and I realllyyyy don’t want you to land up where I am.

Patrice,

Hey,

Nice to sėė you back@ TWW. i still pray for you, mother hen…

(grin)

ATB

Sopy

—

__

Patrice wrote:

@ Sopwith:

Hope you’re doing ok. Didn’t I see a Big Dipper earlier in this thread?

*

Patrice,

Your welcome !

So sorry bout your health. Get well soonest.

“prayers”

Big Dipper? Sure, Ize still follow’in my ‘NOTHERN STAR’ …Jesus !

ATB

Dis lit’t lite O’ mine…hum,hum,hun…

Sopy

—

Jeff S wrote:

On a side note regarding leaving the kids behind- personally I’d have to know more details to judge that kind of a thing. If he willingly left the kids behind, I agree. If he lost custody in court, that’s something else. Even then, it’s hard to protect your children if you yourself aren’t healthy, and it’s impossible to be healthy interacting daily with an abusive person. So I don’t see that as the nail in the coffin like you do Dee, but I think it’s certainly a smell.

Jeff, Julie or someone else may have responded in the meantime, but my understanding is that, after Jones started the affair with Courtney, who was married at the time, BTW, he started spreading rumors that she was bat shit crazy and then left her and the kids to go live with Courtney.

He was leaving his children with a woman whom he accused of being so mentally unstable that he was justified in moving in with his new soulmate/sexual partner.

During the custody proceedings, the judge – going partially on the 100% NPD diagnosis of Jones and the 100% sane diagnosis of Julie, wasn’t going to grant ANY visiting rights to Jones. However, Julie asked for the minimum for him because she wanted her kids to have their father in their lives. To me, her integrity in this single decision speaks volumes, and it has cost her dearly.

Sarah K wrote:

I think the RHE pushback comes from her initial response. It sounded so much like the T4G and SG responses as to be eerie (to me). Brian McLaren’s response on NP struck me the same way. Such obfuscation and spiritual-sounding double speak is par the course for the types of leaders that regularly feature here at WW. The fact that it was those two (and NBW) had my jaw hanging open as I read the computer screen. Like, hanging open.

Finally caught up on the comments. A thought on the RHE pushback and (one of many reasons) why this thread has become a record-breaker:

Why is it that this discussion has garnered a record rather than, say, a post on Mahaney or Driscoll? More specifically, why has the #WX15 conversation centered on RHE of all people? Simple. Everyone knows that Driscoll is a bully. Everyone (except a small coterie with book and conference gigs) knows that Tony Jones is a bully. Most people that have read NBW’s “digital pitchforks” rant see it for what it is: callous and insensitive.

By contrast, RHE’s two initial posts (which each tell two very different stories) require the most close reading, and therefore invite the most discussion and debate. It is one thing to recognize Jones’ “spiritual marriage” and CBMW’s “heavenly marriage” for the obvious malarkey that it is (and we need to keep pressing TJ’s supporters on this), but it is another to read through what Sarah K aptly terms “obfuscation and spiritual-sounding double speak,” especially when said “obfuscation” is wrapped in a package of civility.

I don’t think RHE is getting pushback because she said something overtly “mean” or “crass,” and for the most part I don’t think her critics in this matter are long-standing enemies, looking for blood. I think she is getting pushback because her response to Julie’s allegations is the kind of response that is MOST likely to “submerge” (to use futuristguy’s term) an abuse victim’s call for help.

As always, RHE, NBW, and others still have a chance to do a 180…let’s hope there’s one in the works…

__

“My Heart Will Go On…”

“Blessings to you, and everyone here who feels they’re hanging on to Christianity, to Jesus, by a thread.”  ~Sara

*
SECRET:

I never came to christianity, just to

Jesus.

I heard His call, hid His words within my heart, and never looked back.

Seed sown in good soil…

Free gift?

You got it!

Merit?

No way !

Hell N’ high water?

Yep.

Heck of a ride !

Blood, Sweat, Toil, and Tears, and Bucketz of Joy…

(and His faithfulness)

YaHoooooooo !

ATB

Sopy
__
 Inspirational relief: “My Heart Will Go On…” 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QopSSVj9Pyg

🙂

—

Sensible wrote:

As always, RHE, NBW, and others still have a chance to do a 180…let’s hope there’s one in the works…

I hope so too 🙂

@ Serena:
I have actually kicked myself for doing that because it’s been an ever loving nightmare. The custody evaluator recommended to the courts sole/sole because they KNEW it would be impossible. I thought the best…..I got the worst.

@ Julie McMahon:
Oh, crap! Thyroid is first thing that went on me too.

Well, then, PLEASE take very good care of yourself?! Your current public campaign alone is a long adrenalin push, to say nothing of the ongoing litigation, interning, and your son going on a parental alienation swag.

You want to last, both mentally and physically, for your future job and for the kids, and God knows maybe even for a grandkid or two someday.

dee wrote:

This is officially the most comments ever received at TWW since the beginning of thee blog. The previous record was somewhere around 730.
Now, I am trying to figure out if this is good or bad.

This is a good thing. This is an awful story and it resonates. Tony done Julie wrong. The adultery is terrible by itself, but add to this the abuse Julie has experienced in being termed crazy by Tony’s friends and adulatory. And then there is the inappropriated off Tony’s friend Doug Pagitt indicating that this second marriage is sanctioned on religious grounds. How did he twist Scripture to come up with this? This makes me nauseated. It reminds me of that movie with Ingrid Bergmann called Gaslight. I don’t want to say much more except God is on His throne.

@ dee:
Thank you to you and @xianjaneway for the kind words. I’m trying. Thanks also XJ for Twitter convo on NPD.

Eagle wrote:

Have any other blogs discussed this since this mess with RHE erupted? Is Internet Monk or others discussing this dust up with RHE?

Not many. The best (and as far as I know, only) close reading of RHE, NBW, and MPT’s statements is on R.L. Stollar’s blog: https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/what-it-means-to-take-abuse-seriously/#comments

klickvic wrote:

Possibly this has already been linked among these many hundreds. But if not, here’s Tony, having a tough time due to unkind blog comments.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/12/22/limping-into-the-new-year-a-christmas-diagnosis/#disqus_thread

OK. Admittedly Gramp3 and I are old and out-of-touch. But, really, is this how an adult thinks and writes nowadays?

If someone wants an inside look at how a narcissist thinks, this is a good taste. I could hear the voice of the diagnosed NPD we know speaking as I read. It is all about poor, innocent, persecuted Tony. But, hey, the kids he left with his crazy ex are so amazing in spite of being raised by a lunatic!

I cannot imagine a mature, stable adult writing this. It is like a parody. Pay no attention to the facts, but just get lost in the drama of the narrative. Kourtney and Tony are spellbound in love? Gag. Reminds me of the kids: Tony and Kourtney, sitting in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g. Creepy emotional exhibitionism.

And I know she spells her name with a C. But this whole sordid mess around Jones-Perry reminds me of the K’s.

Thanks, Klickvic
Your link provided much insight as to the Pain and Suffering on the other side of the story. I’m sure our collective hearts weep (“Poe”-Me) as we consider the fact that one reaps what they have sown …

Eagle wrote:

Is Internet Monk or others discussing this dust up with RHE?

My guess is that they’ll stay as neutral as Sweden and Switzerland on this one.

Tony said: “assured me that people ultimately prefer the truth to lies, but it will take time.”

Be assured that there are many of us on the other side of this who prefer truth to lies!
#I believe Julie

Phoenix Preacher on Tony Jones and RHE
http://michaelnewnham.com/?p=20428&utm_content=buffer2e8ed&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

@ Law Prof:

Your reply there and the one before it was pretty condescending, and I don’t appreciate it.

The only point I will reiterate is that I don’t particularly enjoy debating or squabbling with people, so I choose to duck out rather than get stuck in endless debates or arguments, most of the time.

(For anyone else who is reading, I’ve not read all other posts since I last posted here today.)

Forgive me for asking this question? What is the difference between a narcissist and a sociopath? What I perceive some people are describing as narcissism seems like a lack of conscience. If I were to act like Tony, I would fear ” burning in Hell.” Just trying to reconcile my behavior with what is written in Scripture would be impossible and I don’t know if I could live with myself. We all have to answer for our behavior at the Judgement Day, I believe. I don’t understand Tony Jones’s behavior. The adultery is terrible, but good people commit adultery and maintain good relationships with their ex spouses. This is a combination of mental cruelty, spiritual abuse, and dishonesty. And for what purpose?

Perhaps @Miranda is less familiar with institutional and spiritual abuse and the impact those have on the victim. There is a special kind of crazy-making that goes on when a person or institution that presents as being sensitive and/or godly is shown to be nothing of the kind. It is especially acute when one genuinely believed that said persons WERE godly and genuine. There is a compulsion to process it and a real connection with those who have experienced the same thing. Perhaps to those outside it comes across as “piling on.”

Sensible wrote:

Alright…and this guy actually gets MONEY for his writing?!?

I offer for your consideration additional examples: Piper, Owen (not John) and Driscoll, just for starters in the category of overwrought prose and purported poetry. Yes, some people will buy whatever someone is selling if they scratch the right itch or promise scarystuff will not happen to you or those you love.

Isaiah 5:20
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

Isn’t this what Tony Jones is doing? And the promise is in Scripture. This is all I will write on this.

Julie, you and your children are in my prayers.

Gram3 wrote:

I offer for your consideration additional examples: Piper, Owen (not John) and Driscoll, just for starters in the category of overwrought prose and purported poetry. Yes, some people will buy whatever someone is selling if they scratch the right itch or promise scarystuff will not happen to you or those you love.

Oh yes…and the best part is, because there are so many of these fine “poets” and “provocateurs” already, it only encourages additional theological entrepreneurs and inspirational wannabes to get into the industry.

Daisy wrote:

I don’t particularly enjoy debating or squabbling with people

That actually makes sense to me. But for people like me and maybe LawProf, debating issues, even vigorously, is how we process things. I might well have written the same thing to you, but I wouldn’t mean to be condescending at all. I get in trouble a lot for my…ahem…straightforward style.

Others like you and other people I know find debate distasteful and sometimes pointless. We’re all different, and I hope you continue to contribute your POV. When I read things you write, I think of a special young woman I know.

@ Mark:
Mark, I pray for him too. I pray my children can see a man broken and who is strong enough to repent. I am not holding my breath. Please pray for my children and all children who suffer from a personality disordered parent. I have not seen my son since Friday when Tony took him and will not return him. I cannot get him or he will have me arrested. I need to use my lawyer and the Parenting Consultant to get him back. This darkness needs to end. I am asking God for better days.

klickvic wrote:

It’s a joyless life, by and large. No achievement brings lasting satisfaction, no friend can be counted on. It’s lonely at the self-proclaimed top. And it gets harder as time goes on.

This made me think of an observation made by someone close to someone I’ve had a difficult relationship with who is not NPD but has traits. What you said is so true of this person and so sad because the person is so old now that I don’t think the person even knows how to reconcile a real and authentic relationship anymore. Whatever relationship skills they once had seem to be gone, and many are very sad about that. And I’m talking generations of sad people.

numo wrote:

@ Daisy:
that is because NBW is a full-time pastor of a Lutheran church, although she does indeed speak at church conferences of all kinds. That she’s not really known by evangelicals – it doesn’t surprise me. But she said some pretty bad things about all of this on FB, publicly, so why is there not equal indignation?

I’ve noticed the same thing as you, Nadia getting a pass for her (supposed to be private) rant on FB. I already knew that she was besties with TJ before that post, and I expected that’s exactly how she felt about Julie, that she’s a nuts, vindictive ex trying to ruin Tony and Courtney’s beautiful spiritual marriage. I suspect it was mostly Nadia that set up the collaboration with JOPA. In a nutshell, I have low expectations.

Rachel has hosted blog series on spiritual abuse, written posts about CSA in churches, called out members of the gospel coalition for referring to accusers as “gossips”. So I have very high expectations of her when it comes to believing victims. BUT, I understand that it is much easier to support victims, to say “believe people”, when we don’t know the accused abuser. I remain hopeful that Rachel will at the very least, contact Julie.

Julie McMahon wrote:

Good, giving and game.

http://letusreason.org/lds%209.htm

Fifteenth paragraph down:
“In 1843 Joseph Smith prophesied his first and only legal wife Emma would be damned or destroyed if she did not accept polygamy”

Some men will use any means necessary to get what they want. Quoting agnostic sex therapists or prophesying hell fire and brimstone. Whatever works for the sake of the cause of their libido.

Julie McMahon wrote:

http://www.minnpost.com/minnesota-blog-cabin/2011/07/theoblogy-whats-christian-do-with%E2%80%A6dan-savage At the time of this dated publication. He was living with the Spiritual and I suppose being GGG. Good, giving and game.

To say that’s a little revealing, would be an understatement.

@ Julie McMahon:

I have a comment responding currently in moderation due to two links. Here it is with one. The only words I have after reading the article you linked are Paul’s, and may God have mercy on many and grant the wisdom from his Spirit:

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.

But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. For who has known the mind of the LORD,that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 NASB http://www.biblehub.com

Speaking of Mormonism I became convinced that the reason Joseph Smith taught polygamy
was to cover up and justify adultery. That is one of the red flags I have about the Mormon faith.

@ Corbin:

He’s justifying his behavior. Tony Jones is one sick puppy… ugh

Daisy wrote “@ brian:
I lean YEC myself and find it distasteful that you are conflating Piper’s YEC with his dangerous teachings about spousal abuse and other things.
#NotAllYECers” That is a fair observation so I apologize to you and any others I offended. Thank you for pointing it out. I hope you have a nice evening.

Julie McMahon wrote:

He said, “I talk to my Emergent friends that I love like that.”

Really??? That’s a new level of desperation.

numo wrote:

@ Miranda:
this! I know it can be hard to stick to one’s opinion in the face of counter-pressure, but, like you, I’m open to other views. Though I feel very uncomfortable with being told (by anyone) that a person is flat-out wrong simply because they disagree, either on substantial issues or minor ones. I think that’s been going on a lot in attempts to discuss this situation elsewhere.

I’ve been reading (and mostly not commenting) on this blog for a long time. For the record, you have always been one of my favorite commenters, numo.

FYI – I’m the Becky referenced in the original post under @Steve – for the record, this quote needs to be seen in its entirty.. I tried for years (as have others) to get the US emergent leaders to get to the table and apologize. As the Naked Pastor post where this was taken from progressed, I challenged Steve on his false assertions that I refused to meet with people – rather the reverse is true. This is how they roll. As the story of Julie gets unpacked, note this is a larger problem that can be traced back to the Young Leadership Network. Brad Sargent has done charts making these connections. Well worth a look see.

@ Gram3:

Thank you 🙂

I agree with you really, so I’m hopefull in time that they will come to see Piper for who he is.

Just being able to be open enough to write a blog like that and know that there won’t be repercussions for it is something I value in my current church community. Perhaps that openness can lead eventually to a better understanding of both Piper and gender relations in general. My pastor has indicated he is interested in further conversations about my egalitarian views and why I believe what I do- that he’s always interesting in learning more.

@ Julie McMahon:
Heart wrenching to read this, Julie. And I even missed the part that he wanted you to have sole legal and physical custody. I cannot begin to imagine what you’ve gone through and continue to go through because of this “human.” #IBelieveJulie!!!!!

From http://tonyj.net/blog/2014/12/22/limping-into-the-new-year-a-christmas-diagnosis/: “I just want to move on with my life, to live in peace . . .”

Reminds me of what my ex-wife used to say to me every time I’d bring up the pain.

No indication of sorrow for past actions- just the sense that she was entitled to move on and have peace. If there was ever a regret, it was always in the context of wishing she wasn’t feeling the effects of her past decisions now (not because I was hurt). Or in other words, regret, not repentance.

And of course there’s “Maybe I even needed to let a truck run me over.” (to be clear, a metaphorical truck).

Oh so meek and mild, isn’t he? He won’t even defend himself, that’s how peaceful he is with the world. Such is the privilege of one with all the power.

I guess what gets me about this guy (who I’d never heard of before) is whatever else happened in his marriage, he had an affair and has yet (that I’ve seen) to show any sorrow for his actions. Just the entitlement that he should be able to “move on” and painting those calling him to accountability as a metaphorical truck that would run him over.

“I continue to hope and believe that the birth of a child savior, God-enfleshed, is our most likely shot at peace.” True statement- yet we murdered that child when he got old enough to make us uncomfortable. Accepting the gift of that child begins with admitting we are sinners, that our wrongs make us guilty and show approval of that murder, and that we can only receive it when we come to the end of ourselves and turn from our sin (not brush it aside).

@ Miranda:
Naked Pastor addresses this here: http://nakedpastor.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/

The article addresses your question about the chicken and egg nature of pathology vs. theology.

In the comments, Julie talked about what Tony Jones had done to her and their children. David Hayward (Naked Pastor) allowed her to speak her truth. For the first time in 5-6 years, she was not silenced online. Behind the scenes, Tony Jones and his enablers were pressuring and threatening David to control the conversation or shut it down. David refused, and the conversation continued for 3.5 months.

dee wrote:

Miranda wrote:
nd if your belief system includes teachings about things like female subordination, then certainly people are going to treat women accordingly. Why is this so controversial? I would think this would be rather obvious.
But- I do know people who teach that who treat women very kindly. Now, excluding women is not kind. But many are not abusive. I also know women who buy into the system who do not feel oppressed. That is their perception and I must take them at their word even though I have significant concerns as I have documented on this blog.

So you’re saying that your beliefs don’t affect your actions and behaviors? I’m not denying that there are other factors involved but c’mon, of *course* your beliefs matter. It’s entirely possible to be a man who believes that women are subordinate to you and still treat them kindly, and that’s where the bazillion other factors come into play. It’s also possible to be taught in church that women are lesser then men, but to learn and absorb conflicting viewpoints outside of your church which temper those taught inside the church. I’m not saying that all people who go to such churches abuse women…that would be silly. But I do certainly believe the world would be better off if it weren’t full of men in positions of authority telling other men that women are lesser just because they are women.

About those women who are oppressed but don’t feel the weight of their oppression….I guarantee you they’d feel it in a heartbeat if the men whose goodwill they rely on for survival suddenly turned on them and withdrew that goodwill.

I’m not trying to be argumentative or disparage certain belief systems here. I would apply this line of thinking to all relevant areas of my life, not just the church. But going back to my first point, of course these things that I believe are going to affect certain decisions I make, such as where I go to church and the kind of men I choose to let into my life.

FireGears wrote:

“I thought the whole thing was a hoot.”

It’s not a “hoot”. It is tragic. A tragic example of sin ignored, a self appointed “theologian” immersed in sin, a wife abused, children abused, a “church” turning a blind eye to sin, and a classic case of what happens when people use religion as a cloak for vice.

It’s anything but a “hoot”.

Gram3 wrote:

Anon wrote:
Accusations that a wife is “mentally ill” or “hysterical” are classic manipulative tactics
Hysterical is the original term of dismissal for females. Because female parts make people crazy.

And in Victorian medicine, the universal cure for Hysteria was Hysterectomy.

Mark wrote:

And then there is the inappropriated off Tony’s friend Doug Pagitt indicating that this second marriage is sanctioned on religious grounds.

Wonder if Pagitt’s planning on acquiring a “spiritual wife(TM)” of his own.
After all, if it’s OK and Justified for ManaGAWD Tony…

Jeff S wrote:

My pastor has indicated he is interested in further conversations about my egalitarian views and why I believe what I do- that he’s always interesting in learning more.

Well, you could start by asking him what makes hierarchy so compelling to him and where he finds it in the Bible. You know, the Regulative Principle of gender. I can tell you right now he will not be able to show you where God put males over females because it isn’t in the Bible. So the question for him would be why is he teaching it? Ask him if he would either teach or recommend someone who teaches that white males should rule over black males. If not, then why does he believe that about males and females? If he really wants to learn, he can and he will.

It sounds like you’ve been down a long road, and I’m glad you are at a good place now. I hope the Lord will pursue your ex-wife and bring her real peace that comes from reconciling the past.

Approaching 900 comments…

dee wrote:

This guy is an obvious troll.

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe FG is Tony Jones desperately trying to mimic John Piper’s tweet style.

Lydia wrote:

Is “oppression” a money maker?

Historically it has been for some. But these are nice non-oppressive servant-oppressors. And the oppression teachers are teaching the servant-oppressors that they are not real men if they do not servant-oppress. Men and women are both taught that they are not real Biblical men and women if they call servant-oppression what it really is.

I don’t know how you kept your sanity.

@ Gram3:

Well, we’ve started the conversation. There will (hopefully) be more. As for why he teaches what he does, it’s his conviction that it’s what scripture teaches. His initial reaction to me was that I was adopting a “loose” interpretation of scripture. When I backed up my position, he seemed thoughtful and respectful.

Some of his logic was very bad (stuff I’ve heard before), and I hope in time to expose it. But these things take time. It took time for me 🙂

Ooooooooops
Should have added a
“Poe”-Me

Miranda wrote:

People keep saying this, but I kinda disagree. I’m not so sure it’s an either/or proposition.

I agree it’s not 100% either-or, beliefs matter and can affect behavior. BUT, I also agree with Scot McKnight’s comment on that Naked Pastor thread:

“Each version of the major options in theology is quite capable of distortion by toxic people. The bold lines that emerge under the forceful hands of toxic people are usually healthy lines prior to the force. Calvinism has lines that are attractive to certain forms of toxicity, while Arminianism or the Anabaptist orientation … Orthodoxy… Catholicism, each has elements easily turned into toxicity. On their own, however, those theologies are more or less healthy and capable of expressing the gospel and grace.”

I like Scot’s point that different theologies may tend to attract different types of toxicity. But, there are toxic (and non-toxic) people in just about any of the theological options out there. I’ve also seen people who were toxic arminian fundamentalists become toxic 5-point calvinists and then become toxic emergent/progressives. And I’ve known relatively non-toxic people who were in all of those (and many other) camps, too.

And the last point, the one Julie keeps hammering and that we see play out time and again: regardless of which “Camp” the toxic person is in, if they decide to engage in pathological behavior very often they will change their theology – sometimes subtly, sometimes dramatically – to justify their pathological behavior. It was the desire/behavior/pathology that came first and had to be satisfied, and they chose or changed their theology to justify it.

Gram3 wrote:

desperately trying to mimic John Piper’s tweet style.

Piper is not alone in ‘weird tweet world’ – Rupert Murdoch (YOUR citizen, not ours) has been putting out some strange ones. His handlers must be going into overdrive.

Jeff S wrote:

Right now, my cup is overflowing. I am so blessed and I only hope I can share it with others

That is so great! Sorry for the long Gramsplaining above. I didn’t see your comment about Love without Fear. You get it. I hope you can persuade your pastor to get it. The pastors of the church need to start scraping the barnacles of human tradition off the hull of the church.

Hey all: I’ve been talking with Dee behind the scenes about getting a GoFundMe account set up to help Julie MacMahaon with legal fees, etc, and she has gotten it set up here: http://www.gofundme.com/ko5bn8

I think Dee will likely post this somewhere more prominent when she gets a chance.

@ Jeff S:

Ha! Piper is the best argument against comp doctrine. So true, Jeff!

Did anyone get to see his recently deleted tweet claiming that rape and seduction are distinct in form according to the bible?

He is one sick puppy.

Gram3 wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
Right now, my cup is overflowing. I am so blessed and I only hope I can share it with others
That is so great! Sorry for the long Gramsplaining above. I didn’t see your comment about Love without Fear. You get it. I hope you can persuade your pastor to get it. The pastors of the church need to start scraping the barnacles of human tradition off the hull of the church.

I feel like there is progress- if not for this pastor, perhaps the next. The change will ultimately come from the community and the people they put in “power”. These things take time, and I am sometimes not as bold as I would like to be, but I think the tide is coming. At the very least, in my church women lead worship and participate in all the leadership training men do. It isn’t enough, but it’s a far sight better than many PCA churches.

I *do* believe that as long as gender hierarchy is present in our church and our homes, abuse will be more prevalent.

Ironically, my now-wife does defer to me in most spiritual things (but not because of her gender- it’s just how we naturally operate at this time). When I went to my pastor to talk about our vows, she told me to tell him that she deferred to me on the question of male headship. Hahaha.

(Although, to be perfectly frank, she doesn’t care that much about male headship because she sees it as mostly theological posturing with little application. That is, she wouldn’t accept me trying to dominate her, and doesn’t see much value in answering the question of who is leading who. So if my pastor declared me the head of the household, she’d probably just shrug and feel it carried as much practical significance as declaring herself queen of the sofa).

Miranda wrote:
“People keep saying this, but I kinda disagree. I’m not so sure it’s an either/or proposition. I mean yeah, perhaps one could argue that the desire to dominate others is an inborn thing but people also are driven by their belief systems. And if your belief system includes teachings about things like female subordination, then certainly people are going to treat women accordingly. Why is this so controversial? I would think this would be rather obvious.”

Miranda, I agree with you here. I too have a problem with “always/never” statements. This is what I meant about over-generalization in some of your earlier posts. NOT that what you were saying is not often or even mostly true. Only that generalizations indicate “This is always the case,” which is almost never true.

The pathology driven theology has always been with us, for example, in the church’s history of anti-Semitism; the U.S. and most others’ history of racism, classism, sexism and slavery; and currently, ISTM (thanks everyone for informing me on what this means!:), in the current complementarian views on the eternal submission of the Son.

However, I hope pathology certainly does not always drive theology, or we’d all be in trouble. And yes, theology also drives pathology — it’s a two-way street, and they feed off of each other.

Also, in the same comment, you ask whether NPDs wouldn’t lean toward authoritarian beliefs. In my experience and learning, people often reject authoritarian groups maybe for some legitimate reasons, and sometimes to get by with what they want to do, and then start other groups which then become their own new brand of authoritarianism. Which is what seems to have happened in the case with some Emergent people/groups. And which continues to happen throughout history and in the present with many other groups.

I’m so glad you believe Julie! And I’m so glad everybody here hangs in with this thoughtful discussion. I am learning so much.

Jeff S wrote:

she doesn’t care that much about male headship because she sees it as mostly theological posturing with little application.

Gramp3 is my head in the sense that it is used by Paul in Ephesians. But we don’t believe in the abstract of “headship” which is totally made up to sound like something Really Important.

It is clear from the context in Ephesians that Paul is not talking about Christ’s rulership over the church, though he certainly is sovereign over the church. Paul talks about Christ’s provision and care for the church, his Body. Grudem and company have totally ignored the way that Paul draws the analogy of Christ and the church and have inserted their obsession with authority into the text.

They have mistranslated 5:22 as an imperative when it is describing the way wives demonstrate their “inChristness” toward their own husbands. The only imperative in the context is the command to be filled with the Spirit. It is impossible grammatically to sever off 5:22 from 5:21, however what is impossible for an honest exegete do is possible with Grudem and the Gospel Glitterati for whom nothing is impossible if it furthers their agenda.

Keep your pastors attention to the text itself and away from what he has always assumed. Ask him if it glorifies Christ more for the female to always be subordinate or if it glorifies Christ more for males and females who are in Him to live together in unity and love without asserting privilege over the other.

Julie McMahon wrote:

He was living with the Spiritual and I suppose being GGG. Good, giving and game.

Glad you explained that. I was thinking of the Good Guy Greg meme and scratching my head.

@ lydia:

And remember John Piper is promoted amonst young people in Crusade, Navigators and Campus Outreach. You want to know how a person gets brainwashed? In the Chinese Cultural Revolution you had people walking around carrying Mao’s Little Red Book. Today the equivilent would be people in the Neo-Cal crowd walking around carrying John Piper’s “Don’t Waste Your Life.”

How does this nasty divorce affect me? Why are so many on here getting involved with this squabble? I guess I am totally missing the point of this whole post. I must also not know what constitutes gossip.

Miranda wrote:

So in that respect, this can definitely go both ways, and using that line of reasoning I suppose it’s fairly obvious why someone with NPD might be attracted to a system that isn’t authoritarian.

NPD’s are not idealogues, so my guess is that an NPD would do whatever the NPD needs to do to continue the supply. ISTM that part of that would be finding a social or religious niche that is somewhat comfortable and looking for ways to acquire supply within that niche. It’s easier to play the role that a NPD plays if they don’t have to also pretend to hold an ideology they don’t hold.

My guess is that a looser theology appeals to Jones. He draws a crowd of followers by appealing to their values and setting himself up as the champion of those values. Once he is established and recognized by the group as the champion and the face of the group, then the actual ideas and practices he promotes can be molded to better fit his desires because, after all, he is the hero and face of The Cause, and he is therefore indispensable. Followers forgive lapses because The Cause is more important, and damage to the image of the Leader must be denied and covered up lest it damage The Cause.

To me, the dynamic looks very similar to Driscoll, Mahaney, Haggard, Clinton, and all the other Leaders who violated the principles which they claimed to support. I understand this in politics, because politics is about power. I do not see how this fits in any kind of Christianity where there should be only one Leader and one Cause.

@ THC:

Also, some here are trying to expose yet another instance where networks and associations seem to be altering principles, and we are calling for people like RHE to reconsider her path. That is pretty important for a Christian, ISTM. Some are trying to offer support to a person whose voice has been silenced. That is also an important Christian principle.

Gram3 wrote:

To me, the dynamic looks very similar to Driscoll, Mahaney, Haggard, Clinton, and all the other Leaders who violated the principles which they claimed to support. I understand this in politics, because politics is about power. I do not see how this fits in any kind of Christianity where there should be only one Leader and one Cause.

That’s right on there, one ought to expect NPDs in politics and corporate management, they don’t make my head explode, but when people start playing those games in the name of Christ (assuming Tony Jones has all that much to do even nominally with Christ, in my opinion he’s a below average self esteem guru who wraps himself in the superficial trappings of Christianity), it puts my meter on red. Clinton doesn’t bug me, Driscoll makes me nuts.

lydia wrote:

@ Jeff S:

Ha! Piper is the best argument against comp doctrine. So true, Jeff!

Did anyone get to see his recently deleted tweet claiming that rape and seduction are distinct in form according to the bible?

That any relation to or setup for “I don’t rape; I seduce”?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That any relation to or setup for “I don’t rape; I seduce”?

Or, more likely, I didn’t rape her, she seduced me. (Whether she realised it or not).

THC wrote:

How does this nasty divorce affect me? Why are so many on here getting involved with this squabble? I guess I am totally missing the point of this whole post. I must also not know what constitutes gossip.

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. None of this has anything at all to do with you. Fortunately the RCC does not tolerate this kind of theological belief (spiritual wives) but then neither did you all set any world record for how to deal with abuse allegations, so I cannot see how any of this applies to you in the least nor can I see how you might have anything constructive to add to the conversation at this point.

Rest easy, we are doing what we can where we can. Nobody will blame you for not solving it.

@ THC:

Since you don’t seem to understand the principles involved, here’s what’s going on.

A woman claimed she was abused by her husband. The church silenced her. The husband continues to serve in a place of power and she claims he continues to abuse her. She reaches out to the broader Christian community, and those who make a big deal out of supporting the vulnerable ignore her. Some people in the community make noise calling the church to be considerate of this woman and not abuse her.

This isn’t about casting stones or blaming people for their sin. It’s about protecting the vulnerable. If no one says a word when the vulnerable try to speak about injustice, that injustice will persist unfettered. Doing justice is one of the missions of the church.

I have been following Julie’s story here and on SCCL. It is very sad, and I’m going to donate to the fund now.
But I still can’t stop sniggering when I hear the words ‘spiritual wife’.

THC wrote:

Sorry, I just perused her comments on the Naked Pastor’s blog and she doesn’t come across to me as a victim. She calls her ex and others obsessed, narcissistic, personality disordered, and so on. She does come across as more of a scorned woman.

I’m going to attribute the idiocy of that comment to the hypoxia you surely must suffer at the High and Lifted Up position which you occupy.

Gram3 wrote:

I’m going to attribute the idiocy of that comment to the hypoxia you surely must suffer at the High and Lifted Up position which you occupy.

Well, “THC” is also the active substance in marijuana…

THC wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
A woman claimed she was abused by her husband. The church silenced her.
Sorry, I just perused her comments on the Naked Pastor’s blog and she doesn’t come across to me as a victim. She calls her ex and others obsessed, narcissistic, personality disordered, and so on. She does come across as more of a scorned woman.

Nice, very nice there. Keep on digging that hole. Are you just a first class troll? because it’s hard to imagine you’re for real. If you are, I don’t apologize, your position is so absurd as to lend credence to the troll theory.

@ Amarantine:

Isn’t it amazing how many people either bought into it or ignored it— as if it is normal? Mind boggling.

Eagle wrote:

Julie McMahon I walked away from my desk at work and paced for a while. I was that upset.

Here’s what deply troubles me about this. I predict that this is going to be more harmful than the Mars Hill abuse or SGM abuse for one reason. Driscoll, Mahaney, Piper, etc.. were always about doctrine and doctrine was theire and comfort in folks like Rachel Held Evans, Greg Boyd, etc…

I enjoyed his critical critiques about John Piper and pointing out Piper’s problems with disaster theology. For this broken and crushed soul some of his stuff was refreshing and helpful.

I’m sorry this is rough on you and I resonate with that after stumbling on this thread after a long absence from christiandom. Years ago I hung in these crowds as I was making my way through my own theological education and starting my own movement. I partnered with some folks and took residence in an emergent like camp. I also prayed a lot in those days and I do belive God spoke. After seeing decay and other signs of disease in my own mini movement, I shut it down in distress. It takes spiritual discipline to do that. Yet if my livelihood would have depended on it surviving, I may have pushed on.

That is just the trouble with all these camps of Christiandom. They reached this point as well, should have shut down/repented but they pushed on. When I was young, I used to think I had to join on to be a legitimate part of the body of christ. No. Not so. choose a shepherd. Etc. There is all sorts of spiritual Langu age for this. I have come to realize joining a camp will most surly incapacitate you as a christian. Take the theology/thought of all those people driscoll, tillich, pagit, yoder, boyd use what is good and toss the rest. Don’t go sit at their feet unless there can be dialogue. Otherwise the dialogue will be so one sided, it will just go one way, from them to you. The church was never met to be a revolving door of celebrity preachers providing spiritual sustainable on sunday. It was a weekly meeting of the sharing of testimonies. Every week you andon’t others came to share about what God had done! The apostle Paul just came around every great once in a while to share stories about his missionary journey, then sent letters telling them how to fix their problems. No one person was ever supposed to have the power these guys have.

it is humanly impossible for these megachurches, megamovements to care for the spiritual direction of all their followers.

I remember back to the 2003-2006 days when the emergent stuff was all new and hip. I liked it. I wanted to cash in. But there was something very the same about it, aside from the one tweak: replacing church benches with couches.

I joined camp on the other side of the city. After years of meeting with pastors and praying my heart out, I for some reason was sidelined and ignored no incident at all. I was given the choice to loose my faith and join the Rah Rah celebrity pastor fan club or find another way to live faith.

Sometimes I have the chance to go back and look around. Its all the same people just a few fewer. But they are all still there and it has been 15, 20, 30 years. Very few have been called on by God to do new emerging developing work.

THC wrote:

She seems to want him to PAY and PAY BIG. Not defending the guy, but I am just not seeing a pure victim here.

Oh dear…. nice bit of gaslighting here. So unless a victim is ‘pure’, in whatever definition you are using, carrying the burden of moral perfection as well as that of abuse, they are not actually the injured party or worthy of justice. Be very very careful with this slippery slope, it is an insidious tactic that doesn’t work on grown ups reading this.

Beakerj wrote:

Oh dear…. nice bit of gaslighting here. So unless a victim is ‘pure’, in whatever definition you are using, carrying the burden of moral perfection as well as that of abuse, they are not actually the injured party or worthy of justice.

To advocates of this position, there is usually only ONE who fits their definition of “pure” and “morally perfect”. Guess Who?

THC wrote:

t’s also a violation of HIPPA laws and could cause trouble. Much like if you disclosed that someone was HIV positive.

1. It’s HIPAA–not HIPPA. It helps to use the correct acronym and syntax before deriding others on diagnosis-related matters. Yes, Julie cannot publicly post another individual’s actual medical records without permission. In this case, it doesn’t matter, because…..

2. ……a person with or without diagnosed NPD can still abuse their spouse and harass them litigiously. Even if Julie had told her story with zero reference to an alleged NPD diagnosis, Tony’s reported treatment of her is abysmal and abusive.

3. As far as being scorned–yup, Julie was scorned and she is rightfully angry about it. Casting aspersions on an angry divorcee is straight out of the Mad Men era. Please join the current century.

4. The way that Julie has gone about things is different than how I would have. But you know what? My opinion on that really doesn’t matter. She has now been given open forums and introduced to supportive people far and wide. I’m glad that she is getting that because after years of having others dismiss her–the support has been revelatory for her. I hope that she gets everything that she wants out of this–eventual peace, eventual ceasing of unending litigation from her ex, and being able to be seen for who she is by everyone.

Being married to a cheating man is not a mistake that Julie should have to pay for, for the rest of her life. The fact that Tony is in a very “verbal” profession (shall we say) where keeping an alternate persona has been rewarded for years is a double-whammy. Which she also should not have to pay for, for the rest of her life.

In short, #TeamJulie

THC wrote:

she goes on to call others “personality disordered.” Was that also a medical diagnosis?

Well, no, sort of on par with “batsh*t crazy”, but much less rude, wouldn’t you say?

Jeff S wrote:

@ Michaela:

Thank you for the kind words
I am quite passionate about this subject!

You do a great job of writing about it all, Jeff S., and your contributions here are so valuable. I feel really blessed by all of the folks here: Deb, Dee, Gram3, Eagle, Law Prof, Numo, Lydia, our friends across The Pond in the UK, Todd from Dubai, and all of the others I may have forgot to mention.

Helpful stuff…all of it from everybody!

Jeff S wrote:

If no one says a word when the vulnerable try to speak about injustice, that injustice will persist unfettered. Doing justice is one of the missions of the church.

In the original languages, “bringing Justice” is ALWAYS a large part of the word translated as “Righteousness”. It’s in English that the two concepts are completely (and conveniently) separate.

Diagnosing the Emergent Movement research site is up and running as of 11:11 a.m. today. I’ve described it as *A holistic systems case study by “futuristguy,” analyzing issues in the Emergent Movement: historical, personal, theological, organizational, institutional, sociological, and toxicological.* Six of the 12 pages are already posted, and I have more in the prep stage, hopefully to be posted over the next few days.

The research and resource work on this site began almost exactly five years ago this month, and I’ve been studying the larger emerging ministry movement for about 20 years. A good lesson therein on tenacity and trusting in the Lord’s providential timing, as our communities seem more ready to push for resolution, integrity, and justice on issues like these now than back in the late 2009 / early 2010.

My hope is that having such extensive historical information collected in one place will let people focus on reading and reflecting on the material, instead of trying to find it, so they can then discern and decide what to do.

https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/

@ Lydia:

Thanks Lydia … it was well worth the doing.

@ brad/futuristguy: Brad, thank you from the bottom of my heart for organizing my story into the larger context. Thank you so very, very much.

Likely, many have seen the new statement out on Scribd. Glancing through it I’ve noticed some things that I anticipated while reading this thread.

Julie pulls from her background the term “spiritual marriage” “spiritual wife” to mean something synonymous to the term Tony uses on his blog, “sacramental marriage” (There are Two Marriages). Most pedestrian theologians and lay people would not think to split hairs over the distinctions and most theologians would split these hairs in theological circles. Interesting but anticipated that the term “spiritual marriage” is called a “fabricated category” of Julies own making.

When discussing the DSM results: Tony acknowledges the Axis I: NPD which is the full description of his diagnosis. I think it might be revealatory to know what was left out of Julie’s Axis I and Axis II diagnosis.

Those are just a few observations out of a number, but enough to understand that this is no giant of spiritual discipline and moral character befitting Stanley Hauerwas.

The scribd statement is an academic work littered with documentation. Academics can find the holes in it. However, Julie is not a theologian (I suspect) and would not provide comparable diatribes. This does not invalidate her story. It makes better sense that Brad has organized the story into meaningful, tangible categories.

I think I rest my case here that the profession which requires incessant critique of others, methods and modes of existence can necessarily overtake one’s whole life. Deconstruction. Deconstruction…Reconstruction. Provacurism and its cronies are by necessity professions cluttered with pitfalls on the journey to humble, holy living. Seeking to not be is an impediment to being. Eventually the theological gadfly becomes merely a fly.

@ Julie McMahon:

Julie, as someone who faced the wrath of Tony on his blog a few years ago (you can look up his “Darius” posts), reading about your struggles with him has been so revealing and goes a long way to explaining his persona and his venom towards me and others. Please know that many believe you and in time, the truth will out. The abuse and tyranny is coming to an end. Tony’s sun is setting. I pray that peace will finally find you when it’s all finished.

Be strong. Your voice is heard.

John Brost wrote:

It is a pretty terrible thing to lose someone like that. To watch them slip away. Watch a life totally fall apart. Unfortunately this is not the first time we’ve seen it happen. It happens all the time….addiction, physical maladies, senility.
Most of us haven’t been spared. Most of us have had some close relative, friend or loved one slip away, seemingly unable to help themselves from careening off on self destructive tangents.

Are you referring to Julie here? Tony has a diagnosis of NPD. /Are you attempting to diagnoseher? I have personally seen what living with an NPD does to people. I have no doubt she has not looked like a sympathetic victim after his spiritual wife ridiculousness, gaslighting and trying to have her committed. So those things are normal in your world? Many of your friends like that?

Julie….didn’t you engage one of the most respected family law attorney’s in Minneapolis…Karen Schreiber at Linquist and Vennum? I have not worked with her but I have worked with other partners at the firm and understand that she is highly regarded as one of, if not the best family law attorney in town.

@ John Brost:

XianAtty already tried your tactic.

Graham. I am a neighbor. I live here. What have you done other than comment on a blog?

Lydia….you have been all over all these blogs making all kinds of assertions about Tony.

Do you live here? Do you have direct contact with any of the participants? Or…do you just make accusations on the blogoshere? Perhaps we should look into your own public record and post it here?

For my part…and the context of my remarks are clear…I was speaking about other personal experiences with mental illness.

Fair enough….I have watched her violate a restraining order and be arrested by the police in front of her children. Dee. What is your full name? What is your personal experience?

Graham….did the attorney follow through? What is your name…your full legal name?

John Brost wrote:

And you are qualified to make this assertion?

If you were addressing me, yes, I believe I am qualified to state my belief that XianAtty was attempting to deflect and redirect attention from the real issues by appealing to Julie’s legal representation and to the circumstances of the divorce. We had quite a discussion about it. Do I know that is what XA was doing? No. Did what XianAtty said look like what a disinformation campaign might well look like given these facts? Yes.

dee wrote:

@ John Brost:
Dearest John
I have always wanted to have a blog post that had 1,000 comments. Due to your rather insistent ramblings, you have made my dreams come true. And I am commenter 1,000! Yay me and thank you, thank you, thank you John.

dee wrote:

@ John Brost:
Dearest John
I have always wanted to have a blog post that had 1,000 comments. Due to your rather insistent ramblings, you have made my dreams come true. And I am commenter 1,000! Yay me and thank you, thank you, thank you John.

Yowza, Dee! It’s time for all of us to celebrate with Sacred Cow Sundaes, a delicious dessert invented by our own Gram3 just a few weekends ago!

Gram3 wrote:

Nick or OldJohnJ will correct my math, but I think you need another comment to make it to 1,000. So here it is!

Michaela beat me. Bummer.

@ John Brost:

Did I have to know Bill Clinton personally to have a problem with his behavior? A lot of people tried to convince me of that, ironically.

that sort of bizarre standard is often used by many in the public eye whether the mega church pastor, politician or even movie stars. There is always the charge that you don’t know them personally so cannot comment on their public behavior and how that affects the brand image they have been selling.

Personally, I thought “theological provocatuer” was bad enough before all this came out. It really is upsetting the apple cart that a single mom without a public platform told her side of things. As one who used to dabble in murkey world of brand management for mega churches, the progressives would have been much better off if they had lost their keyboards. The bizarre responses (deleting, blocking, threatening lawsuits, etc) simply convinced me they had a huge problem and they knew it. It has been all about saving the “brand”.

John Brost wrote:

Graham 3. If you see fit to post on this blog about this matter, why wouldn’t you reveal your name?

I see your perception of this bloggers name is incorrect. I’m assuming that some of your other perceptions about this topic may be incorrect as well.

The same people who let loose against Mahaney and Driscoll are now clamping down on info about this Tony Jones? Ugh. Another year, another Christian voice I thought was above silencing victims proves they are no better than the rest.
At this rate who’s next? Dave Hayward? Will we find him pulling a Cosby on some buddy of his like RHE is doing with Jones? I respect him quite a bit but with the way things are going in Christendom these days…

Justin Hanvey wrote:

@ Ragnarok:
As for actions a year ago I was a stalker. That is a more apt word than clingy.

I am retracting this comment since it is now being used to harass me. I made this comment in duress when I felt bullied by members to SCCL to make it. I wish to retract it now.

@ dee:

I dunno what you can do now…I’d say delete my comments on here, but they’ve already been screenshotted and used to harass me so I’m not sure what can be done now. Thank you for asking though.

Justin Hanvey wrote:

Justin Hanvey wrote:
@ Ragnarok:
As for actions a year ago I was a stalker. That is a more apt word than clingy.
I am retracting this comment since it is now being used to harass me. I made this comment in duress when I felt bullied by members to SCCL to make it. I wish to retract it now.

Apologies for the second comment. I accidentally posted my previous (thank you iPad). Continuing…

I did contact you later when I learned that you were accusing a mutual acquaintance of posting under my online moniker to inform you that that was not the case, and I included in that correspondence a message from another person whom you had previously agreed not to contact or include in your efforts to reestablish contact with the person whom you had been harassing in the first place that you were to desist in your then-renewed efforts to do what you had agreed not to do lest you face the consequences. No one wants you to face those consequences, least of all me, but it’s only right to warn you that they’re coming if you don’t stop. You may consider those efforts harassment, but I doubt any otherwise reasonable person would do so. Your response to our correspondence then was unduly defensive insofar as you accused me of attempting to intimidate you, but when you asked that I stop contacting you I did so. (Something, I would add, that you have consistenly failed to do for others who have made the same request of you.) I even refused via inaction to respond to your subsequent messages regarding the matter. If you doubt any of the preceding, I still have that correspondence.

Now, however, you have appeared once more (even assuming a false guise on FB to offer support for your case) not only to attempt to reestablish contact with Shade Ardent but also to attempt to paint them a liar for telling the truth on SCCL regarding your actions. You reportedly went so far as to accuse people you considered friends of being unsafe for advising you against what you were doing, and then you unfriended and/or blocked them. These were people who were attempting only to promote your own well-being, and who also had no intention of supporting any of the supposed harassement you claimed to be enduring. It’s telling that you would heap the same accusations upon those people that you insist on heaping on those of us who are attempting to protect others from you.

I have no intention of allowing you to go unchallenged in what you did last week. It’s truly unfortunate that you made the decision to do the things you did, and I have no good explanation for what led you to do them other than you feel compelled in some way you have difficulty resisting. I stated on SCCL last week, and I state again here, that you need to seek help for whatever is driving you to do these things. I state again here that I do not say you need help in order to diminish your basic humanity, and that I also need help. There’s no shame in that fact, and I entreat you sincerely not to hold that to be the case. Whatever may be happening is something you can overcome if you seek the help you need, and if there is any way I can aid you in finding that help then I will gladly do so.

I don’t believe you’re a bad person, Justin. Truly, I don’t. You’re just fighting something you can’t seem to manage on your own. Please find help. I would consider it a real benefit for the world if you found a way to manage whatever is driving you and were able to lead a life without that torment. I have managed to overcome the worst of my bipolar disorder and my OCD, but it has taken many years, a great deal of love and support, and professional care to do it. The thing that I would wish for you to take away from this comment, if nothing else, is that if I can do it then you can do it, too. It’s possible not to live in constant torment from your own mind. But treatment by professionals is absolutely essential to the process of learning how. Please get it. I implore you.

And I want to say that I will not be engaging Justin here on TWW, since it was all hashed out over on SCCL, and I will not be party to again swinging the focus away from Tony Jones and onto Justin Hanvey. Dee, you have my email if you’d like to ask any questions. Justin, I sincerely hope you get help.

@dee

yes the email you have for me is correct.

Justin Hanvey wrote:

I was not the first one to make the connection here, a friend of mine mentioned me being in correspondence with Rachel about Julie, and Banannie and Danica both took that as a chance to mention my past actions and how I am not trustworthy.

I can’t speak to the circumstances surrounding how, when, or by whom your reported correspondence with RHE was first mentioned here. However it came to be reported is not particularly relevant to the questions of who initiated it and why. Nor is it the point under discussion. What happened on the SCCL Facebook page last week, and the incident which preceded it to the degree it is currently applicable, is.

Your past actions are what make many, including me, conclude that you are not trustworthy, and your recent attempts to rewrite history and shift blame have only served to confirm that conclusion further. It is not the case that you are irredeemably untrustworthy, Justin, but before you can begin to reestablish trust you must first own the actions which led to others losing their trust in you. And you must be honest when discussing those actions. The entire purpose of my originally calling your characterization of your previous actions into question on this thread was to point out that if you hope to be of any use to anyone else when trust is required then you must be honest about questionable actions in your past.

In response to my challenge, you admitted that you had stalked Shade Ardent (although you didn’t mention them by name in accordance with your agreement). At the time, I viewed this as a positive step, and that is why I didn’t continue to pursue the matter. I wanted you to be honest and open. You were. The events of last week, along with your reappearance here to recant, present a significant setback, unfortunately.

No one wants to own behavior as egregious as you have demonstrated both originally and this past week, and I hardly blame you for wanting to fight being labeled a stalker. I wouldn’t want to own that behavior either, but if any of us hope to heal and grow then we must be honest. Honesty is sometimes hard, and in situations such as this one it is also painful. Even more painful is the desire to make things right when one is unable to act upon that desire, but part of life is sometimes not being able to make right what we’ve done wrong. Bad things done cannot be undone. Those we’ve wronged may choose on their own to forgive us, and they may even choose to reach out to us to let us know if we’re extremely fortunate. However, forgiveness isn’t always forthcoming, and forcing oneself upon another even for what we are convinced is a noble reason (such as apologizing) only revisits trauma upon others. It compounds the wrong.

Last week, you showed up on SCCL after having openly criticized SCCL—none too kindly and some would say unfairly—on your blog. You, of course, have every right to your views and to express them openly, but you seem unwilling to allow the objects of your criticism to defend themselves without crying persecution in your turn. You were full of recriminations from the start, and once you were predictably challenged by your erstwhile critics on that page things began to deteriorate quickly. Once you made the decision to assume a false identity (and please don’t bother to repeat denials since at one point “Bill Thornton” began to speak of Justin in the first person) in order to be able to argue with those whom you had previously agreed not to contact, the wheels had well and truly come off the metaphorical bus.

These are things you simply must not permit yourself to do, Justin. It’s difficult by any measure to accept how badly things have gone for you, and after last week it cannot have become any easier. I urge you to listen to those around you when they advise you against these sorts of actions.

@ Justin Hanvey:
Well you do sound like Tony Jones inasmuch as you keep trying to convince yourself and everyone else that Shade’s experience with you should be dismissed on account of her diagnosis of PTSD (per you, she has PTSD. I’d like to point out that you are the one who has now, if that’s true, just divulged someone’s private mental health information. Someone who has asked you to leave them alone.)

So let me be an ableist too and help you out, I do not have PTSD. Or any other mental health diagnosis. I was there, I watched what went down. I am watching what you are still doing. I agree 100% with Shade’s characterization of your behavior.

Go re-read John’s posts, follow his advice.

As someone who has bern stalked and who has seen some of the things that the stalker wrote in an attempt to dismiss his own behavior and discredit me, all i can say is that i believe Shade was indeed stalked. It is a frightening experience and i will not play along with anyone’s attempt to explain it away.

I have not read/posted much at SCCL for the past 4+ years, but i used to be a regular and am aware that there have bern some extremely tense situations, where women who post there said they were being stalked or otherwise harassed.

Until a person has been on the receiving end of it, ig is hard to understand how devadtating it can be.

*continually apologized and expressed deep regret for, as I did not realize the extent to which my actions had affected til long after the blocking and getting a phone call from a friend of hers. I have tried to respect the boundary since then, and have done so for over a year. In fact I’ve never stopped respecting it, and have only spoken of what happened in public when others began making it public. And that only to contest the word stalking, not to contest saying that my actions were inappropriate, hurtful, and wrong, and I have said over and over how truly sorry for them I am. I would like to now take that guilt and move on, remembering this as a lesson in how not to treat people, and I have for the most part I believe been learning that lesson and have not reacted in the way I did with Shade with anyone else since. So really, continuing to argue over this word is to me a completely absurd argument since every act I have owned, apologized for, etc. adds up your weird definition of stalking, and while I will not own that word, I have and always will own the actions themselves as wrong and hurtful and I have tried to learn and grow from them.

Okey dokey.

Yevska wrote:

(I am sorry to continue this distraction that this person has made.)

This goes for me as well. I would hate to see this whole mess continuing over here, where it is not relevant and where it is, at best, a distraction from the posts and comments on the posts.

It really upsets me when people try to restart personal conflicts from other forums and online communities on website that have nothing to do with the people in question, let alone the conflicts. It is also innately disrespectful to the owners of this site, and all of the commenters. (Note: this is for JH, not the others who, like me, have weighed in on his recent comments here. That said, I am out, because I don’t want to encourage this to continue…)

Justin
So glad you get to tell your story on Wartburg Watch. Looking forward to reading it. Sorry that people will not accept your apology. At times I see group think happening. One person says something and everyone jumps on board. Critical thinking is lacking and shaming people is popular. When responding to what a person has written it needs to be on what the person has said not on attacking or shaming the personhood. Wishing you all the best.

@ Margaret:
You are assuming a lack of critical thinking and a popular enjoyment of shaming. In fact, you are witnessing informed discernment.

@ Margaret: Actually I really appreciated Lewinsky’s Ted talk and the articles I read discussing it.

I don’t believe it applies to this situation. I haven’t said anything insulting or mocking of JH, and I have primarily commented on his actions both past and present.

Can you describe what you think would be an appropriate response, online, to someone one believes is neither sincere nor safe?

Yevska wrote:

Justin Hanvey. You came out of the sky and posted about another place. You did. No one else.

I knew you would not stop.

numo. You are right. This, I should have ignored. I will do so from now on regarding this topic.

I’m sorry but you have apparently missed a whole bunch in this thread. I was not the first to post of myself or the issues I have with SCCL here.

@ Margaret:
Oh. I see. Answering my question with an unrelated question.

This is not something that I have any interest in. I have truly said everything I have to say on the subject, and I think my views and concerns have been made abundantly clear, and I do not see a value in rehashing that again.

I was curious if you had a suggestion for following Miss Lewinsky’s admonitions while dealing with someone you believe to be unsafe.

Yevska wrote:

Justin Hanvey wrote:

Now what I did was hurtful and wrong and whatever state of mind I was in or Shade was in does not excuse me at all.

Jusin Hanvey knows “what [he] did was hurtful” but will not stop telling us he willfully hurt others. More and more this make my heart sick. He is actively continuing or attempting to continue to harm. Why does one who knows this, not stop this? Ego? Sickness? Because only his feelings of wrong is important no matter what?

Willfully is absolutely not true. And this is why I continue to speak here. I am trying to own my wrongs while pointing out that how I am being portrayed is wrong.

I have never tried to harm anyone. I deeply regret that I inadvertently did and I should have known better and made better choices at the time.

Justin Hanvey wrote:Yevska wrote:

Justin Hanvey wrote:
Now what I did was hurtful and wrong and whatever state of mind I was in or Shade was in does not excuse me at all.

Justin Hanvey wrote:

Margaret wrote:
Justin
So glad you get to tell your story on Wartburg Watch. Looking forward to reading it. Sorry that people will not accept your apology. At times I see group think happening. One person says something and everyone jumps on board. Critical thinking is lacking and shaming people is popular. When responding to what a person has written it needs to be on what the person has said not on attacking or shaming the personhood. Wishing you all the best.

just wanted to say thanks for your comment and encouragement. I will post up some official statement or whatever tomorrow. Most of it has already been said but not all.

Justin Hanvey wrote:

Yevska wrote:
Justin Hanvey wrote:
Now what I did was hurtful and wrong and whatever state of mind I was in or Shade was in does not excuse me at all.
Jusin Hanvey knows “what [he] did was hurtful” but will not stop telling us he willfully hurt others. More and more this make my heart sick. He is actively continuing or attempting to continue to harm. Why does one who knows this, not stop this? Ego? Sickness? Because only his feelings of wrong is important no matter what?

Willfully is absolutely not true. And this is why I continue to speak here. I am trying to own my wrongs while pointing out that how I am being portrayed is wrong.
I have never tried to harm anyone. I deeply regret that I inadvertently did and I should have known better and made better choices at the time.

Justin Havney says he was hurtful, and yet does not acknowledge his own words that what he did was hurtful and will not stop reminding his victim of his harmful words or actions. How can this be both?

Justin Havney has more words words words. And Margaret continues this distraction and admitted stalker. Why? Remember when this was about a wronged wife and mother and not Justin Hanvey? I do. So very sad, this posturing ego.

@ dee:

This entire thing has been bizarre to me. Not sure if there isn’t two victims in this one.

@ Margaret:
I apologize for being unclear. Creating trust with JH is something I have no interest in or need for. I will offer a caution, based on my experiences and observations, to anyone I think may be at risk- especially someone I care about. Being grownups, they are then free to make their own decisions based on their own experience, and I certainly won’t hold their different view against them.

I think the bigger question of having compassion for people, even people I believe to be unsafe, an interesting one. I think it can be discussed without reference to JH.

@ Yevska:
The person I non willfully, and unintentionally hurt is not here. That I know of. I have not tried to contact them at any point in time since they blocked me over a year ago. This is about vindicating myself of the accusation of stalker and harasser. i believe such is a false accusation.

@ dee:
I hope they can help me too. Thanks for putting me in contact with them 🙂