First?

Third – Buwahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa !!!!!

So now Tojo’s cronies are piling on to use the legal system to bludgeon her into submission. What a scumbag move by McLaren – make the kids’ any everyone else’s lives even more of a hell.

Jesus H. Christ.

Bullies will bully, won’t they? And what was God thinking when he created The Woman? Next thing you know we’ll hear the corner of a housetop schtick.

I totally agree that someone should sit down with Julie and Tony. The problem, IMO, is that other interests are in play. Julie’s cry has made Tony and Doug and Brian and Rachel and Nadia look like less than their public personas. That means a hit to their wallets because personality and their fans’ identification with their personality is their business model.

The other problem is that there is no longer a community-in-common who share the same goal of making things as good as they can be for the children. There is a total breakdown in trust. I don’t think that the NP thread caused the breakdown in trust. That breakdown happened when the Emergent community did not meet their responsibility to be advocates first for the children and then for the marriage. They chose instead to be advocates for the status quo. That is never good for the children caught in the middle of the battle between a NPD and his wife or ex-wife.

This is the SGM/TgC/T4g all over again, and there is no reason for it other than money and personal friendships. That is not what the Kingdom of Christ is about.

No.words.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I’m not surprised. Religious leaders love to trot out “turn the other cheek,” “enduring hardship as discipline,” and other such verses to victims of abuse.

While calling out their loyal attack dogs to do the dirty work for Plausible Deniability. (You DO know that the activation phrase for an attack dog is always some neutral word like “breathe” delivered in a command tone. That’s to keep some joker from coming up and going “KILL!” or “ATTACK!” or “SIC ‘EM!” for the lulz, but it also echoes the Plausible Deniability meme of McLaren attacking Julie for his master TJ.)

No mention that Tony is an NPD and the implications of that, how they can be so manipulative that it can drive someone to act “crazy”. Why is this massive piece of the puzzle always missed by these guys?

The following immediately came to mind from 1 Cor 6, to give a flavour:

does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints?

are you incompetent to try trivial cases?

why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?

Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to decide between members of the brotherhood,

and that before unbelievers?

I’m not saying it is always wrong for believers to have to invoke the law, govt is ordained by God for this purpose. Where crime is involved, believers have a duty to report it, and should not think forgiveness absolves them from facing the penalty of the law for what they have done wrong.

But the last phrase struck me – having to do this “before unbelievers”. Doesn’t this bring the church into disrepute? These Christians have the word of God, the Spirit of God, 2000 years experience of church history, trained pastors and counsellors, and yet there is no-one wise enough among them to sort out a broken marriage relationship with justice and equity and impartiality. What about a suitably qualified Christian lawyer or judge?

Is this the fruit of the emergent church attitude to the teaching of the NT – ignore it when it suits?

Ken wrote:

Is this the fruit of the emergent church attitude to the teaching of the NT – ignore it when it suits?

No. It is the attitude of some church leadership(.) It is not just the “Emergent” that resort to it.

I read the whole statement where McLaren repeatedly states that Julie’s allegations are false. He also, after decrying that this “personal” matter has been publicly debated, oozes out a little “juicy” info about a “private” situation between Julie and Tony. Pot meet kettle.

My big question is why McLaren hasn’t seen fit to call Tony out on his false allegations. We know of at least one instance in Tony’s statement where he told half truths to insinuate that Julie has a PD. Why doesn’t McLaren address that? If he’s really interested in getting to the truth, he’s already being very one-sided about it.

“Surely Julie and Tony have trusted friends who could mediate on their behalf.”

I know this is well intentioned, but if I were Julie, I wouldn’t go to mediation with an NPD unless I was court ordered to. It’s pointless to try and mediate with a narcissist.

Bridget wrote:

Why is McLaren suing now, instead of in the past if the “public” harassment toward him has been so bad for so long?

Because TJ didn’t give the command word until now.

Ken wrote:

What about a suitably qualified Christian lawyer or judge?

We have quite a few of them on the bench around here.

Sarah K wrote:

Why is this massive piece of the puzzle always missed by these guys?

I don’t think it is. Willful blindness is powerful stuff.

Bridget wrote:

The link isn’t working for me.

Never mind. I can see it now. I am nauseated by what all of these people are doing in “defense of Tony.”

Ken wrote:

Is this the fruit of the emergent church attitude to the teaching of the NT – ignore it when it suits?

We can be certain it is not the fruit of the Spirit. I’m definitely not Emergent, but this behavior occurs in lots of different flavors of Christianity (used in its broadest possible sense.) The Gospel Glitterati brought out the big guns against anyone who *dared* to question what went on at SGM or C.J.’s responsibility. So, they can ignore the Bible when it is convenient for them, too.

Same tactics and same game. The Holy Spirit is not in this.

Wow, this is turning ugly. Now who is suing whom? How were any of these bystanders defamed? Don’t understand….. I don’t think anyone is going to look good when all this is over , especially the bystanders in this drama. They haven’t shown themselves as guiltless.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Nope. I guess I’m trying to sound reasonable. I’m practically sitting on my hands to prevent me from typing what I’d really like to say.

I’m just observing from a distance and saying what’s in my gut.

Bridget wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
“Surely Julie and Tony have trusted friends who could mediate on their behalf.”
I know this is well intentioned, but if I were Julie, I wouldn’t go to mediation with an NPD unless I was court ordered to. It’s pointless to try and mediate with a narcissist.
I believe she did decide that. It came up on The Naked Pastor thread. NOW McLaren is using that against her.

Yeah, it also says in his statement that she refused mediation.

Which completely makes sense; however, it will look bad for her.

These people live in a delusional bubble. Everything they do and say just confirms that Julie is telling the truth.

I would have more respect for Tony if he would just say he wasn’t happy in his marriage, fell in love with a married woman and they decided to divorce and be together. But no, he had to be in the right, he had to be the victim, so he started a smear campaign against the mother of his children. And now that people are finally listening to her, he and his friends want to take legal action and silence her that way. I am beyond disgusted.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I’m just observing from a distance and saying what’s in my gut.

I don’t know about you, but my gut is in knots. At least the NPD person in my life can’t go after me like Tony is going after Julie. I’d be a mess.

Marsha wrote:

These people live in a delusional bubble. Everything they do and say just confirms that Julie is telling the truth.
I would have more respect for Tony if he would just say he wasn’t happy in his marriage, fell in love with a married woman and they decided to divorce and be together. But no, he had to be in the right, he had to be the victim, so he started a smear campaign against the mother of his children. And now that people are finally listening to her, he and his friends want to take legal action and silence her that way. I am beyond disgusted.

“I screwed up” would go along way to diffusing the situation. But these men cannot say that, let alone admit that to themselves. It must be a form of emasculation to them…

The link is not only McLaren’s statement. There are many other statements in support of Tony Jones attached to McLaren’s statement.

It appears that they are a group obsessed with publicly coming against “this woman.”

Doug wrote:

“I screwed up” would go along way to diffusing the situation. But these men cannot say that, let alone admit that to themselves. It must be a form of emasculation to them…

As it is for all they affect. For instance, I can never admit to any wrong — I learned from experience dealing with NPDs in my past that anything like “I screwed up” WILL be used against me at a later time. Admitting to anything means you have just volunteered to take the blame for EVERYTHING since Eve ate the Fruit, with compounding interest. (After all, if it’s YOUR fault, it can’t be the NPD’s.) So you learn to Never Admit to Anything as a survival mechanism.

Tina wrote:

Who besides me thought of Bill clinton’s, “I did not have sex with that woman”?

This brings back the questions I had about the response of the “feminists” to Clinton’s outrageous behavior. Has anyone heard from RHE about this latest? I was disappointed in her before this. Now I’m guessing she will double-down.

Oh brother. Deja vu. What a mess, a waste of time, $$, emotional energy. I’m sure God will truly be glorified in all of this. NOT

Bridget wrote:

It appears that they are a group obsessed with publicly coming against “this woman.”

‘Christian ministry’ in scorched earth form

Gram3 wrote:

I doubt seriously that those conditions apply here.

That is not the point. I understood Ken to be saying that there were plenty of people in the church to deal with this, maybe even a christian judge or lawyer. My point was that we have plenty actually on the bench, unlike in Paul’s time, and why think that a church tribunal is more qualified to deal with anything at all.

McLaren acts like he is concerned for the family and the children, but then wants to bring a case against this woman at the same time her husband is not returning a child to her custody. Yep. That will sure help the situation. He is adding fuel to the fire to “help” this family. I have no respect for McLaren at all!

Bridget wrote:

The link is not only McLaren’s statement. There are many other statements in support of Tony Jones attached to McLaren’s statement.

It appears that they are a group obsessed with publicly coming against “this woman.”

(I meant to include the quoted text. Sorry for the double-post.)

Yes, including one from Courtney Perry. Circling the wagons, indeed. And for someone with NPD, a delicious feast of affirmation.

@ Jeff S

Why are these bystanders getting involved in this is a question I have. They don’t know all the facts and they are biased in this whole issue. I have seen this kind of thing happen before in my family. People who were partial got involved and a family conflict become grew to epic proportions. This is not a wise move for Brian McLaren. He and all other of Tony’s friends should back off.

Gram3 wrote:

Julie’s cry has made Tony and Doug and Brian and Rachel and Nadia look like less than their public personas. That means a hit to their wallets because personality and their fans’ identification with their personality is their business model.

This is it.

Lydia wrote:

I don’t get it. McLaren is the one with the big platform to communicate whatever he wants about anyone anytime. Julie is a nobody with no such resources who spoke up in comments on blogs YEARS after. This is a scare tactic for bloggers, too.

“Make an Example of one and you silence a hundred.”

@ Jeff S:

Totally concur with that Jeff.

Gram3 wrote:

It might seem that way to someone who has a very warped and twisted notion of Christ-like masculinity.

“Warped and twisted notion of Christ-like masculinity”?
Where have we seen that before?

@ Bridget:

Exactly. I thought McLaren had taken himself out of the picture.

@ Mark:

This is the oft repeated scenario that happens ever day in local churches- only played out on the internet where everyone has a ringside view. It’s ugly and horrible. Nobody wants to be a part of it. We all just want it to go away.

But it won’t.

Alliances are forged- NPDs rally for support (and get it, because they are charming and attractive), and victims hope for some kind of support.

Is Julie a victim? I don’t doubt it for a second. Is Tony? He could be- but right now he holds the power and position.

Whatever happens, just remember that this is going on every day at a local level. Being the body of Christ means learning to deal with this stuff well.

Can you imagine how attractive the church would be if we knew how to handle this ugliness well and see justice done? If we were know as the place to go for safely disclosing and handling abuse?

The link cuts off some of it so not sure about the rest. Not one word that “the woman’s” husband is diagnosed NPD. But it looks like the real problem for McLaren are the hashtags and being admonished for participating in the profitable events with the NPD. But I have rarely seen his name in connection to this except at nakedpastor. What am I missing?

Why didn’t he use her name? For legal reasons? Anyone know?

I’m suspect that friends of Tony and McLaren will be reading here as they scour the internet buzz, so this comment is specifically for them.

I was sued by my pastor in a defamation lawsuit. I think it’s important to point out that defamation lawsuits rarely win. I just found out that Florida, (I believe McLaren’s home state) has anti-SLAPP laws in place. This is good for Julie and very bad for McLaren. I haven’t looked at the specifics of the Florida anti-SLAPP law, but traditionally, if (and most likely when) McLaren loses an anti-SLAPP, he gets to pay all of Julie’s legal fees, court costs, plus his own. (I estimate that my case was easily $100,000 combined attorneys/court fees.)

In a defamation lawsuit, the burden would lie on McLaren to prove that:

Julie knowingly and intentionally lied, AND
she did it with malice (with the intent to harm)

Both of these “tiers” must be proven, not just one, in order to win a defamation lawsuit. Just as an example, in my defamation lawsuit with over twenty alleged defamatory phrases, the judge ruled that not one of the phrases met even the first tier (intentionally lied), so the lawsuit was dismissed.

Sometimes courts mess up on First Amendment cases (ie, Calvary Chapel Bob Grenier vs Alex Grenier and Tim Grenier which is currently waiting for Court ruling after Appeals). So in light of that possibility, it’s important to note that if does actually go to court, there will likely be discovery/interrogations. This information is important to note:

Destruction or withholding of evidence is a serious issue, with potentially severe consequences regardless of whether the forum is a (1) criminal case, (2) civil lawsuit, or (3) regulatory agency action (such as an IRS investigation of a Complaint/Referral against a tax-exempt non-profit organization). It does not matter whether the “spoliation” of evidence was intentional or not. From some of the background reading on this issue, it is clear that digital documents, audio, and video can constitute relevant evidence in any of these legal actions. So, it is imperative to preserve “discoverables” – especially as the destruction or withholding of them may mean the court can interpret that act as “consciousness of guilt” and therefore assume that the evidence went against the case of spoliators. In some jurisdictions and situations, it may lead to criminal charges for spoliation of evidence or perhaps even tampering of evidence.

(Source: https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/resources-for-research-writing-on-situations-of-spiritual-abuse/)

So, in other words, if you have correspondence saved between or about Julie McMahon, if you remove it, you could find yourself in a heap of trouble legally, so be sure to safeguard all correspondence/documentation.

And finally, if you want to see an example of what a defamation lawsuit can look like or what can happen (surrounding issues, social media coverage, etc), take a look at my lawsuit archive written by Brad Sargent: http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/about/bgbc-defamation-lawsuit-archive/

Lydia wrote:

I used to think only the fundys did this sort of thing.

I guess this proves that fundyism is more of a mindset than a set of beliefs. You can be uber liberal and still be a fundy with your cultural xenophobia and us vs. them mentalities.

Brian McLaren’s comment at nakedpastor:

Brian McLaren

 September 24, 2014 at 11:19 am

Last Friday, I received an email from Julie McMahon requesting that an apology to her be posted on this thread. I was one of several people who had been asked by both Tony and Julie in 2008 to help them in a time of marital crisis. We tried our best to help, but the marriage didn’t survive.

I read through all the postings on this thread and checked back as the list grew. I saw significant discrepancies between the version of the story that was being told on this thread and my experience and understanding of what actually happened.

However, I was at a distance and was only peripherally involved because I extricated myself from the situation early on. Because I take accusations of spiritual abuse seriously (as, I’m sure, do all the people named in Julie’s email), in recent days I’ve gone back in my email archives and reread the many emails Julie sent or forwarded to me during and since 2008.

I have come to see a few things that could have been done differently, especially with the benefit of hindsight. I also see areas where, if the counsel given to Julie and Tony had been followed more fully, outcomes could have been better. But I have never witnessed or observed anything even close to abuse by any of the people named; in fact, I have only witnessed sincere and solid pastoral care in a tragic and volatile situation, right up to this moment.

I think that someone on this thread made a good suggestion. She shared that she was once accused of something. A group of qualified and mature people reviewed the evidence in a responsible way. She suggested taking what has been shared on this thread, along with information that can’t in good conscience be shared in public, for private professional review, making use of structures developed by denominations over many years of dealing with situations like these.

I think that is a good idea, and I will do my best to see it is done. Because I have some idea of the legal dimensions of situations like this, I do not believe it is wise or appropriate to say anything else at this time.

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

@ Jeff S:

Can I adopt you?

Gram3 wrote:

So very sick of Kardashian Kristians.

A good description!

@ Gram3:

Haha- my mother and father might object 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

So very sick of Kardashian Kristians.

YES!!!

Has Tony ever offered to recuse himself from speaking at special events until this is resolved? Regardless of who is at fault here, that would be the most prudent thing for the cause of Christ. If he hasn’t, that doesn’t look good. Is it about the Lord or about the ministry? Isn’t the Man of God held to a higher standard, speaking from a Bible perspective?

Gram3 wrote:

Pure speculation here, but maybe his real intent is not to sue but to intimidate whomever he can and to recruit followers using the biggest microphone he has.

I thought the same thing. Julie prob doesn’t even have the means to fight such a legal battle. I’ll quote again from Brad’s excellent article: “As examples of abusing the system, Tony has filed over 35 court motions since first filing for divorce in 2008. So, in the six full years since then, Julie has had at most only six months without litigation from Tony. (Julie’s father, now deceased, spent over $500,000 to fight custody battles and court motions by Tony to reduce his child support.)”

https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/04-personal-issues-between-tony-jones-and-julie-mcmahon/

Julie’s main source of financial support for legal battles is now gone. Threatening to sue would be a tad bit intimidating, don’t you think?

Brian McLaren: Is this a “Generous Orthodoxy”?

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

I thought the same thing. Julie prob doesn’t even have the means to fight such a legal battle. I’ll quote again from Brad’s excellent article: “As examples of abusing the system, Tony has filed over 35 court motions since first filing for divorce in 2008. So, in the six full years since then, Julie has had at most only six months without litigation from Tony. (Julie’s father, now deceased, spent over $500,000 to fight custody battles and court motions by Tony to reduce his child support.)”

And how much $$$$$$$ does ToJo have pouring in to keep it up?
“TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE! TITHE!”

My gut reaction was – and granted, I haven’t read as much as others on this thread, so maybe things were said that I don’t know about – what standing does McLaren even have to sue here? How was he injured in this situation except that he feels bad for TJ? Seconding others who say that proving slander / libel when you’re a public figure is, like, kinda hard.

If TJ and his friends want to make JM look like the one in the wrong here, they’re not doing it right, because this looks pretty much exactly like an NPD engaging in ally recruitment and using bullying to silence the person they don’t like.

This was just posted at R.L. Stollar’s Overturning Tables blog:

https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-response-to-brian-mclarens-statement/

@ Ken:

Is this the fruit of the emergent church attitude to the teaching of the NT – ignore it when it suits?

No – if that were true, then more conservative churches that (supposedly) value/believe the Bible more than these guys, would not have these issues. Except they do (witness SGM for just one example).

brad/futuristguy wrote:

This was just posted at R.L. Stollar’s Overturning Tables blog:
https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-response-to-brian-mclarens-statement/

Reading this article and seeing the lengths that Evans and others are going to to get their message out is just making me ill. They are not taking this family into consideration at all. I’m just speechless and sad. Stollar makes two excellent but sad observations.

The Emergent’s are demonstrating the same things the conservative Evangelicals often demonstrate. Cross another Sect off the list…same stuff, different skin (in general).

I find it most interesting that all this “evidence” was not presented in order to safeguard Tony’s children, when custody was being determined, but is now being presented in order to safeguard Tony’s image and reputation.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

This was just posted at R.L. Stollar’s Overturning Tables blog:
https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-response-to-brian-mclarens-statement/

I just told Gramp3 to remind me of this the next time I want to think the best. This is bringing back the soul-sick feeling back when the Gospel Glitterati circled around Mahaney and lashed out at everyone on Facebook and the blogs.

Where are the spiritually mature adults among the Emergents and the Gospel Glitterati? Do they think this looks anything like Jesus?

The mob has picked up their stones and have cast the woman down.

@ Gram3:

Amen. Our hope is not in sects, tribes or anything else we’ve designed. Only Jesus. Always Jesus.

My prayer is that Julie forgives her ex-husband and moves on. It is difficult for her to do when so many people on blogs fan the flames for retribution.

Bridget wrote:

The link is not only McLaren’s statement. There are many other statements in support of Tony Jones attached to McLaren’s statement.

It appears that they are a group obsessed with publicly coming against “this woman.”

I’m shocked at how this is going. If “this woman” is really as crazy as they say they could just ignore it. To sue like this says to me someone is scared and wishes to ruin her.
“The fact that you have lawsuits among you means you are defeated already…”
And I greatly dislike the language: “this woman”. “This person” might be more appropriate. There is still a lot of entitlement in the way these guys think. Messed up.

Margaret wrote:

I find it most interesting that all this “evidence” was not presented in order to safeguard Tony’s children, when custody was being determined, but is now being presented in order to safeguard Tony’s image and reputation.

Exactly. This is truly sick.

THC wrote:

My prayer is that Julie forgives her ex-husband and moves on. It is difficult for her to do when so many people on blogs fan the flames for retribution.

He has her son and is suing for custody. How is she supposed to “move on”?

@ mirele:

I know tough when I see it, and you are tough. Blessings.

Message to Julie: I hope more get it now– what you were up against.

Patrice wrote:

This will swell the population of nones. What a horrid wretched shame!

I’m already there. What’s going on here has convinced me that the safest place for me is outside the church. I don’t think it’s a wretched shame. I think it’s a more than reasonable response to overwhelming toxicity.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

This was just posted at R.L. Stollar’s Overturning Tables blog:
https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-response-to-brian-mclarens-statement/

I’m deeply troubled after reading this. First, Ryan says, “I have followed Evans on Twitter for a while now, but she has never followed me. So she followed me briefly just to send me a direct message and then un-followed me.” Really RHE? Did you just have to get your digs in and then slink back off into the shadows? Do you even care how this is affecting Ryan? Have you now become the abuser? Ryan states that, “Even if Jones was entirely innocent, my heart aches to think of what these progressive leaders are communicating to people like me — people who have felt unsafe in the Church because of actions just like this.”

Second, Ryan goes on to talk about Julie’s “suicidal ideation.” I found the mention of this in McLaren’s statement completely unnecessary, unless it was another attempt to discredit Julie. IMO, Ryan’s perspective on this issue is the compassionate and caring one: “. . .maybe there’s a reason this person wants to die. And in McMahon’s case, there was. There were reasons. I see them right here in these documents I’m reading. And no one — not even Brian McLaren — seems to realize that Jones was inflicting real, serious damage in McMahon and their children. It’s here. It’s real. I’m not making this up.”

Lydia wrote:

Is McLaren using a scare tactic to shut bloggers up?

There is that aspect of it. However, my point was that it goes both ways. Not just the bloggers, but the people promoting a certain storyline to protect their business and income stream. That’s why I suggested McLaren back off to the status quo ante and take down that disgusting document.

@ dee,

In the main body of your article you state (as did McLaren) that McMahon has refused third party arbitration in this conflict. True? Not true? Help me out here if I’m being dense or obtuse, but if one party refuses the bargaining table isn’t that kind of like Hamas’s refusal to stop lobbing rockets into Israel?

THC [Tony (hearts) Courtney?] are you Tony or Courtney?

Muff Potter wrote:

@ dee,
In the main body of your article you state (as did McLaren) that McMahon has refused third party arbitration in this conflict. True? Not true? Help me out here if I’m being dense or obtuse, but if one party refuses the bargaining table isn’t that kind of like Hamas’s refusal to stop lobbing rockets into Israel?

Going to the bargaining table with an NPD and his sMuff Potter wrote:

@ dee,
In the main body of your article you state (as did McLaren) that McMahon has refused third party arbitration in this conflict. True? Not true? Help me out here if I’m being dense or obtuse, but if one party refuses the bargaining table isn’t that kind of like Hamas’s refusal to stop lobbing rockets into Israel?

What do you think it would like to try to bargain with an NPD and his supporMuff Potter wrote:

@ dee,
In the main body of your article you state (as did McLaren) that McMahon has refused third party arbitration in this conflict. True? Not true? Help me out here if I’m being dense or obtuse, but if one party refuses the bargaining table isn’t that kind of like Hamas’s refusal to stop lobbing rockets into Israel?

What do you think it would like to go up against an NPD celebrity and his celebrity support team? The NPD has all the celebrity entities in his corner. It would be like me up against Ali in his prime.

Feel free to fix that comment in moderation. Don’t know why it is in triplicate.

@ Beakerj:

Complete silence followed by abject appeals for forgiveness for her manifold sins and most of all for the sin of marrying a NPD and for making him abuse her. Or something like that.

THC wrote:

I find so many people here are insensitive to mental illness like NPD.

Some of us are extraordinarily sensitive to NPD. We know what it can do. I am sorry for anyone who is NPD if they cannot help it. I have no sympathy for *anyone* who excuses behaviors like we are seeing.

Nick, add this to my troll tab.

@ TJ:

Very well said!

THC, just substitute this for what I said to you, that is if you care at all.

@ mirele: Lucky thing you weren’t there for that subpoena. Awful story about a bullying organization.

Patrice wrote:

I find it ridiculous that so many people have to leave in order to be healthy

That is where I am. It is glorious.

@ Patrice:

Or the Christians who find out you don’t go to church and their reactions such as “Oh, if it were a ‘perfect’ church no one would be there” and other trite dismissive cliches. Oy vey. I really have to bite my tongue.

What is interesting is that in their world they equate being a Christian with going to a church building. They cannot fathom how else it is done. :o)

Lydia wrote:

Or the Christians who find out you don’t go to church and their reactions such as “Oh, if it were a ‘perfect’ church no one would be there” and other trite dismissive cliches. Oy vey. I really have to bite my tongue.

I don’t hang around with institutional Christians anymore. Barring a an aunt and uncle who have given up on me, The Deebs are as close as I get to church people and I love them in spite of it. 😉

Beakerj wrote:

Well, one of the big questions is whether NPD is mental illness, or if it is a more chosen stance of ‘me first to the nth degree’

Are you a psychologist? Are you on any medical board to determine this? Are you arm-chairing mental illness? Is that responsible? I thought this place stood for the victims.

This entire situation has progressed to a level of beyond sad. There was a time when Emergents appeared to be something better than what already existed. Now they’re proving that they’re not any different.

Bridget wrote:

What do you think it would like to go up against an NPD celebrity and his celebrity support team? The NPD has all the celebrity entities in his corner. It would be like me up against Ali in his prime.

A quick Wiki-up of arbitration will show that there are safeguards in place to prevent conflict of interest, ‘packing the jury’ so to speak, or letting it morph into a court of mediators and shills who are kangaroos. In other words from what I understand, both the little guy and the big fella have equal footing. If it can prevent an expensive and pugnacious court battle, how is this a bad thing?

THC wrote:

Beakerj wrote:

Well, one of the big questions is whether NPD is mental illness, or if it is a more chosen stance of ‘me first to the nth degree’

Are you a psychologist? Are you on any medical board to determine this? Are you arm-chairing mental illness? Is that responsible? I thought this place stood for the victims.

Exhibit one – diversionary tactics designed to not have to answer the challenge about bullying. It’s actually a debate in the psychological world, a discussion about which I had with a professional counsellor today regarding a young person we co-work whose symptoms and behaviour are beginning to look like a personality disorder.
I also want to second the point about Julie… have you seriously thought through your comment about bullying those who were claimed to have mental health problems? Please point me to where you waded in to stop her being bullied? I love to learn from those who have the moral high ground.

@ KRT:
No, he is being deliberately provocative and is, imo, trolling, as he has on many other threads. I will no longer engage with him because of his behavior, though i did try for a while.

Ignoring this individual’s comments will stop him in a hurry, though.

McLaren’s actions show the true face of this movement’s “leaders.” I flinched when reading the part about suicide.

PPlease, people, if you are reading this (and i think you are) stop compounding the abuse that Ms. McMahon has experienced and learn to deal with your own lack of compassion and – for everyone’s sake – stop the intimidation and bullying. You are acting like a gang of thugs, not like people who claim to have anything to do with the love of Christ. I would venture to guess that the parable of the good Samaritan is applicable to you, right now, and I’m not referring to the kindness of the Samaritan man.

Muff Potter wrote:

Bridget wrote:
What do you think it would like to go up against an NPD celebrity and his celebrity support team? The NPD has all the celebrity entities in his corner. It would be like me up against Ali in his prime.
A quick Wiki-up of arbitration will show that there are safeguards in place to prevent conflict of interest, ‘packing the jury’ so to speak, or letting it morph into a court of mediators and shills who are kangaroos. In other words from what I understand, both the little guy and the big fella have equal footing. If it can prevent an expensive and pugnacious court battle, how is this a bad thing

I know you mean well. But right now TJ is blatantly flouting the child custody visitation agreement. He could easily take his son back and then sue for custody for them all. . NPD’s do not follow agreements. How much less would he follow a third party agreement Even if he chooses his own mediator?

numo wrote:

@ Jeff S:
Jeff, this guy enjoys stirring up the, err, refuse bin. Don’t respond to him and he will move on. (Back to the underside of the bridge whence he came.)

But I’m bored & I like poking him with a stick. Their ridiculousness amuses me. Sorry, bad beaker.

JeffT wrote:

If the Deebs go off the rails, I’m hangin’ it up. Goin’ off the grid, puttin’ on sackcloth and ashes, growing a long beard, and livin’ in a cave. 🙂

Not too many caves in this town. Maybe I should move, just in case.

But we do have several good blood labs, so nah….

I agree, feeding the trolls can be a nice release (as per my release posted above). I’m beyond disgusted by these events, how they’ve transpired and continue to blow up like a big pile of manure. It offends me, and I know I’m not alone, in seeing a woman accused of being crazy, found to be mentally capable, and now her abusers demand everyone have mercy on Tony since he’s mentally ill. People with diagnosed NPD do not deserve mercy, they deserve to be institutionalized. This is all complete madness. @ Jeff S:

Patrice wrote:

tl;dr We, the unruly irrational powers of the internets, are scapegoating Tony just like what happened to Christ. Because we, the great unwashed masses of little people, have irresistible and mesmerizing communal guilt and anxiety.

My irresistible and mesmerizing guilt right now is that I need to drive over to my mother’s and feed my brother’s bird. And it’s been raining since yesterday afternoon. In Phoenix. And I’m having a lot of anxiety about driving over on wet roads with drivers generally unused to wet roads. Including me.

As for this greater existential communal guilt and anxiety that Tickle wants to project on the hoi polloi of the Internets for not understanding her buddy, her fellow teacher at Fuller and The Great Man…*wads up an imaginary piece of paper, lobs imaginary piece of paper into waste basket*.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/254019273

Now Pete Rollins has a support statement on Tony Jones.

Lydia wrote:

I know you mean well.

Thanks Lydia I appreciate that. When all is said and done at day’s end I don’t give a rat’s a$$ whose fiefdom goes down, the kids are of paramount concern, and their interests are above all others.

Lydia wrote:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/254019273
Now Pete Rollins has a support statement on Tony Jones.

Who I’d Pete Rollins.

@ Patrice:

Sounds like a good summary of what they are doing to Julie.

JeffT wrote:

Patrice wrote:

I don’t hang around with institutional Christians anymore. Barring a an aunt and uncle who have given up on me, The Deebs are as close as I get to church people and I love them in spite of it.

If the Deebs go off the rails, I’m hangin’ it up. Goin’ off the grid, puttin’ on sackcloth and ashes, growing a long beard, and livin’ in a cave.

Ohhhh nooooooo! And takin’ up a diet of locusts (without honey)? LOL.

Don’t despair we and The Deebs will make it through.

Muff Potter wrote:

Lydia wrote:
I know you mean well.
Thanks Lydia I appreciate that. When all is said and done at day’s end I don’t give a rat’s a$$ whose fiefdom goes down, the kids are of paramount concern, and their interests are above all others.

I agree. But truth is unless there is some Damascus road blinding experience for Tony, those kids will be dealing with this until Jones is in depends. Ex wives don’t have agreements” with NDP’s even if they have one if you get my drift.

I am heartbroken these celebs are propping him up. The only thing I have seen work to some degree with toning down an NDP is when someone with major power and gravitas they admire/fear goes after them. That is why the celebs are doing extra damage to the kids right now by propping him up. Tony needs them Much more than they need him.

Julie is calling for him to release his eval.

@ Jeff S:
Many failed attempts at mediation. You can not mediate with an NPD. It is their way or the highway.

This is from Peter Rollins’ statement . . .

“But a public response has become necessary in light of the fact that a seemingly highly visible, carefully coordinated and tightly orchestrated campaign has grown online that is dedictated to ruining Tony Jones’ personal and working life.”

So this is what they think this is about. And who is controlling the “highly visible, carefully coordinated and tightly orchestrated compaign?” (Considering the abundance of adjectives, I assume Rollins is an author.) Maybe the blog post from September at the Naked Pastor and the two articles on this blog fit the description? These people are too much. This description fits what they are doing with their scribd page!

Lydia wrote:

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/254019273
Now Pete Rollins has a support statement on Tony Jones.

Lydia wrote:

The only thing I have seen work to some degree with toning down an NDP is when someone with major power and gravitas they admire/fear goes after them. That is why the celebs are doing extra damage to the kids right now by propping him up. Tony needs them Much more than they need him.

That is my experience. They have effectively neutralized the only thing that would make him change. The only way to get a NPD to change is to alter the incentives by either increasing the rewards or threatening to decrease them. The rewards may be monetary or social, and in this case the Emergent leaders have decided to squander both. For what? How can people be so heartless and gutless at the same time?

Gram3 wrote:

Sounds like a good summary of what they are doing to Julie.

Yeah, doesn’t it? It is so strange how facts can be lined up and conclusions drawn in opposite directions. I suppose that’s projection.

Pete Rollins, in his statement, also takes the memes of abuse and flips them on their head so they’re about Tony&stuff.

Peter writes, “This campaign [dedicated to ruining Tony Jones’ personal and working life] has tempted many…people dedicated to fighting injustice, to quietly distance themselves from Tony….The fact that standing against this type of injustice is still largely taboo in comparison to others has made some fear for their reputations.”

And then, because he’s a hero like that, he declares, “To remain silent at this point….would be the easiest one for me to walk. Yet I must answer to my conscience and so what I believe is right regardless of whether it damages my reputation, undermines my project, or provokes personal attacks.”

This group just can’t make it over here, from the other side of the mirror.

@ Bridget:
Sorry Bridget, we overlapped and I didn’t check before posting.

dee wrote:

Michaela wrote:

Has Brian McClaren even talked to an attorney about his chances for a viable cause of action?

I think he probably has. He probably is going for harassment and libel but I could be wrong.

He may have spoken to an attorney or he may just be blowing smoke. I don’t think Brian McClaren can even conceive of how many lawyers (and First Amendments) would be delighted to take on this case pro-bono(for the aggrieved ex-wife, a “Rosa Parks” so to speak in the evangelical Christian movement who is simply asking for her ‘seat on the bus’) and what a feather in the caps of the lawyers who take on McClaren (who will be splashed all over the evening news and on the internet).

Lots of questions will come up too about McClaren’s judgment. Why didn’t he confront the Christian leader/husband and tell him to step down, that he wasn’t Biblically qualified to serve any more? The Bible does say that. Why didn’t McClaren do what the Bible says?

I can’t look up Maryland’s civil jury instructions for libel and defamation right now as I have other plans this evening, but perhaps LawProf, XianAttorney or Mirele could and post them here.

Michaela wrote:

If it was viable, then why didn’t an attorney give that little press release? And truly what attorney wants to take on this case and have their legal reputation harmed for looking like an idiot before their peers?

Exactly. That’s why I said at first that this is a shout out to the fanboys and fangirls to rally around Tojo. No one who intends to file a real suit puts everyone on notice via the internet. Or if they do, their attorney should have them involuntarily committed for an evaluation and fire him as a client. If an attorney takes this case to court, the judge is going to roast his marshmallows.

an avalanche of testimonials is cascading down from the Emergient mountaintop to bury Julie McMahon. Don’t bother looking into the extremely troubling facts about Tojo’s behavior. Too bad it seems you’ve been snowed by an NPD.

@ Muff Potter:

You’ve probably seen responses to this already, but I didn’t want you to think I was ignoring you.

With the average person, mediation would probably work. I’m not thinking this would be an average case.

Bridget wrote:

Maybe the blog post from September at the Naked Pastor and the two articles on this blog fit the description? These people are too much. This description fits what they are doing with their scribd page!

Projection?

Gram3 wrote:

Michaela wrote:

If it was viable, then why didn’t an attorney give that little press release? And truly what attorney wants to take on this case and have their legal reputation harmed for looking like an idiot before their peers?

Exactly. That’s why I said at first that this is a shout out to the fanboys and fangirls to rally around Tojo. No one who intends to file a real suit puts everyone on notice via the internet. Or if they do, their attorney should have them involuntarily committed for an evaluation and fire him as a client. If an attorney takes this case to court, the judge is going to roast his marshmallows.

Michaela wrote:

Ohhhh nooooooo! And takin’ up a diet of locusts (without honey)? LOL.

That will be my menu 🙂

Gram3 wrote:

Michaela wrote:

If it was viable, then why didn’t an attorney give that little press release? And truly what attorney wants to take on this case and have their legal reputation harmed for looking like an idiot before their peers?

Exactly. That’s why I said at first that this is a shout out to the fanboys and fangirls to rally around Tojo. No one who intends to file a real suit puts everyone on notice via the internet. Or if they do, their attorney should have them involuntarily committed for an evaluation and fire him as a client. If an attorney takes this case to court, the judge is going to roast his marshmallows.

[Note to Deebs: You can delete my other post as I hit ‘post comment’ inadvertently in response to Gram3.]

I seriously doubt that Brian McClaren has any viable causes-of-action that could survive in court. Plus he’s going after a woman, an ex-wife of a buddy of his, who is ‘judgment proof’ (has very modest financial means).

Next, courts have what’s called Alternative Dispute Resolution. Most people never file a lawsuit who actually do have causes of action to file. Of the ones that do actually file, 95% are settled out of court.

But let’s just say that Brian McClaren decides to file a lawsuit against his buddy’s ex-wife (who has modest means). He’s going to look like a bully, will be ALL over the internet and the evening news, the news media, and bring out every expert and opponent against him. Really. It would be that bad. He will have the First Amendment attorneys going after him and the various civil rights groups, feminist attorneys, and all kinds of people willing to take him on.

Brian McClaren will look despicable and probably lose his ministry and his career.

He’s not very cool-headed, is he? Can you imagine, say, the Rev. Billy Graham ever doing what Brian McClaren is claiming he will do?

Gram3 wrote:

Bridget wrote:
But a public response has become necessary in light of the fact that a seemingly highly visible, carefully coordinated and tightly orchestrated campaign has grown online that is dedictated to ruining Tony Jones’ personal and working life.”
OK, this *really* upsets me because I do not like being excluded from anything that is *carefully coordinated* and *tightly orchestrated* (there’s a jingle or a haiku there somewhere.) I did *not* get the memo about my part in the carefully coordinated and tightly orchestrated campaign. Where is my invitation? Where is my assignment if I choose to accept it? Where?
I love the weasel word “seemingly” which modifies “carefully coordinated” and tightly orchestrated. Which is translated “I’ve noticed a lot of people are really ticked about this and sales are falling off the chart.”
The Deebs wardrobes are no doubt carefully coordinated, and the concerto Nick is working on tonight will no doubt be just as tightly orchestrated, in a manner of speaking, at least if he popped open the second bottle.

I’m wondering where he got his intel from? Who is spreading the rumor of a coordinated attack? Geesh!

I have worked in law for more than fifteen years and I personally changed California law for high-risk crime victims to copy Washington state’s groundbreaking law.

I’ve also worked in civil rights law firms (my former bosses have won billions of dollars and the US Supreme Court justices heard one of their cases a few years ago).

I really don’t like bullying, like what Brian McClaren is doing. So I’m emailing all of the big First Amendment attorneys this weekend about Brian McClaren’s threats of litigation as well as the well-known litigators.

Does he really think we’re all cowed by him and have no clue as to what to do?
I am not the least bit intimidated by him.

mirele wrote:

Michaela wrote:

I honestly think that an attorney like Gloria Allred would like the publicity of taking on Brian McClaren.
McClaren doesn’t realize how many truly skilled litigators there are who would be more than willing to take him on and tell an equal compelling story to America.

Having tangled with Scientology, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that *if he were willing to pay for it*, Brian McLaren could hire a law firm that could make Julie McMahon’s life very, very difficult. Thing is, you have to be willing to spend lots of money. We’re not talking a mere five or six figures. Nope. I’m looking at the litigation of Monique Rathbun versus Scientology to get them to stop spying on her. Litigation expenses for Scientology are conservatively estimated to be well into the seven figures, and this case hasn’t even had a hearing on the merits, a couple of years after it was filed. They’re still talking about whether David Miscavige can be hauled into court and then Scientology filed a SLAPP suit against Monique….I hope you can see how crazy this can get if unlimited money is involved.

Thing is, unlike Scientology, I don’t believe there’s unlimited money involved here. I also strongly suspect that McLaren did not run his statement by an attorney and thought he was protected by calling her “this woman.” I do think McLaren thought by putting out a statement, he could get the puny bloggers to “shudder into silence” via threat, which is so very, very Scientological and not at all Christian.

But the thing is, if McLaren wants to drop oodles and oodles of cash, I can see no better sinkhole than a lawsuit. It would be a horrendous waste of money and reputation.

Agreed that a rich plaintiff can certainly make a poor(er) defendant’s life miserable. But the difference between Scientology and Brian McClaren is that Brian McClaren is a well-known Christian pastor in America and the figures of Scientology are vague to most Americans.

There are plenty of civil rights attorneys who would be willing to take on McClaren and get a feather in their legal cap/reputational cap for doing it. They, in fact, would chomp at the bit to take him on.

Do I think that Brian McClaren’s proposed litigation against this aggrieved ex-wife (his buddy’s ex-wife), could end his ministry and career? Yes, in point of fact that I do.

Once he lands documents in the public record, he’s fair game and he’s toast. Really stupid on his part.

Julie has publicly stated that McClaren, and others, tried to baselessly get her committed in order to cover up a colleague’s affair that at least some of them knew about, and/or because they were manipulated by Tony into doing so, and/or to protect their income stream. She said this was spiritually abusive on their parts, and she said it was a crazy-making scheme on their part to allow their colleague to divorce. She named McClaren several times as one member of the group doing this.

If that was true, that would be reprehensible behavior on his part, and his livelihood should and would be strongly affected.

However, if it isn’t true and the group was if fact trying to get her committed because she had directly communicated suicidal ideation and or self-harm threats, then trying to get her committed (or at least seriously evaluated), instead of being spiritually abusive, would have been the right and caring thing to do.

I would guess that that forms the basis of at least part of his legal action. She is portraying him in a way that can directly affect his livelihood, and she is doing it in written form to a large audience. It appears that enough people are accepting this portrayal that his livelihood might be affected. If that portrayal isn’t correct and he has documentation to show that, in fact, there was a good basis for trying to get her help, then she might be in trouble.

It’s a guess as to at least part of the basis, but I think a reasonable one.

Michaela — thanks for the cluing us in on some of the background issues and the reality of what a lawsuit along these lines could mean. I’m not a lawyer, but as a research writer, having tracked the defamation lawsuit against Julie Anne Smith et al in 2012, what you’ve said meshes with what I was learning back then.

FYI, Brian McLaren’s Twitter account notes his location as Florida, though he was a pastor in Maryland. So, that may make a difference. From some preliminary searches I did today, looks like Florida’s had a version of Anti-SLAPP since 2000.

His Twitter account is Brian D. McLaren. [Note: *not* McClaren.]

https://twitter.com/brianmclaren

Thanks again for the enlightening information.

dee wrote:

Jeff S wrote:

He has her son and is suing for custody. How is she supposed to “move on”?

I agree. If it were my son, I would do anything to protect my child and get him to come home. Any parent who loves their children would do the same thing.

To the friends of Jones: Please please please-figure out how to solve this. Had it been dealt with years ago, this would not have happened. Show us that you can be creative in coming to the table.

@ mirele:

mirele, thanks for your chain of comments, too. Very instructive and much appreciated. I’ve seen what a couple friends of mine have gone through with defamation/harassment lawsuits … angst inducing. Relieved for how things turned out, and there’s been a redemptive edge to it.

For those interested in responses to Brian McLaren’s Statement, I added a new page today to the Diagnosing the Emergent Movement site. I added this thread and the one from R.L. Stollar already, plus another link to some background I wrote in not destroying or withholding evidence, and threshold of evidence.

I’m hoping to catch up some over the weekend — I’ve got a backlog of writing and posting to do for the site.

https://diagnosingemergent.wordpress.com/15-responses-to-statement-by-brian-mclaren/

You guys- Words can’t express how very very encouraged I am to find a group of people who so quickly see those letters of support for what they are. Faith in humanity restored!*

*okay maybe restored is too strong a word, but definitely able to tread water a little longer.

@ Michaela:

I bet “spiritual wife” would play well in the secular media.

So let me figure this:

Brian feels that Julie is harassing him and is in fact suicidal. As a result, he has concluded that the best course of action is to publicly announce to the world that he intends to sue “that woman”, in Christian love of course.

Since everyone knows, if someone refuses to reconcile or to mediation (because they are emotional desperate)-the best course of action is to sue them.

Have I missed anything?

PS-I think Brian also announced he is updating his book “New Kind of Christian” with an addendum called “No More Mr. Niceguy-How to Sue Ex-Spouses of Friends Who Are Suicidal”

PSS-For Brian’s attorney’s-The previous PS was an attempt at sarcasm, and in know way attempts to portray any actual knowledge of future revisions of any of Brian’s books.

@ Michaela:

Thanks @Michaela — that’s helpful to know. Does filing in federal court make a difference in terms of the relevant governing law about others of the usual issues … proving malice, “limited public figure,” anti-SLAPP, etc.?

brad/futuristguy wrote:

@ Michaela:

Thanks @Michaela — that’s helpful to know. Does filing in federal court make a difference in terms of the relevant governing law about others of the usual issues … proving malice, “limited public figure,” anti-SLAPP, etc.?

Hi Brad,

No filing in federal court wouldn’t make a difference in the relevant governing law. It’s just where it has to be filed and heard.

And the First Amendment lawyers will come out of the word work on this one. Seriously. The American Civil Liberties Union has even defended the First Amendment rights of r(a)cists to march through minority neighborhoods, etc.
There are plenty of high-profile First Amendment groups who will take on the legal issues in controversy and they will bring Brian McClaren to his knees and make him look like a complete fool.

doubtful wrote:

Since everyone knows, if someone refuses to reconcile or to mediation (because they are emotional desperate)-the best course of action is to sue them.

I’m just amazed at how they are flogging every hysterical, nagging, harassing, woman stereotype they can. How long until they mention, casually of course, Fatal Attraction? It sounds like they have been working the BPD narrative for awhile.

@ Gram3:

True dat?

I have to say, I am truly surprised that the emergent crowd has closed ranks like this.

@ dee:
Yes. When I was in the middle of my PTSP collapse, I had suicidal ideation ~half the time. My therapist had a written covenant with me, that I wouldn’t act on it, and if/when there came a time that I felt myself losing control, I would call her, and then dash to hospital, or I would be picked up by police and hauled over. It is required by law, that if you will not agree to keep from suicide, you will spend at least 72 hours in-hospital.

But Julie’s incident, supposing it did happen, was a number of years ago. I imagine that a week or two of not actually dying would take care of the issue.

But if doubt still remains, Brian can simply ask her, in one of those inappropriately public places (here, for eg!) whether she’s still fighting suicidal ideation. And that would settle the matter.

Right?

Where is my good friend, Xian Atty? I think his/her comments on this would be most interesting. Not as interesting as the monumental issues he/she raised yesterday and last night, of course.

I certainly hope he/she is not taking a break at the beach after helping McLaren write this threatening post. He’s in Florida, right? The beach is nice this time of year, and scouring everything to smear Julie is so draining. I would expect after his/her great interest and persistence that he/she would follow up today. Has anyone heard from him/her on Twitter or FB? Maybe he/she is busy on his lawsuit. It’s a mystery.

@ Bridget:

Thanks to you too for the vote of confidence. I Did Not intend disrespect toward McMahon in any way, shape, or form.

@ brad/futuristguy:
I am very grateful that you carefully and faithfully write down these stories. It’s important to have the material somewhere. That way, it stays.

@ dee:
Thanks 🙂

Michaela wrote:

they will bring Brian McClaren to his knees and make him look like a complete fool.

OK, I was perhaps hasty and there is wiggle room left in “complete” and they may get a chance to completely complete his foolship. However, IMO MacLaren auto-fooled himself today. It was bodacious in a sick sort of way.

BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

I’m just observing from a distance and saying what’s in my gut.

I don’t know about you, but my gut is in knots. At least the NPD person in my life can’t go after me like Tony is going after Julie. I’d be a mess.

I made the mistake of publishing an article about my experiences with my mom, in a small, unheard-of-at-the-time Christian magazine. My mom found it through a google search of my name, and threatened to sue me, and the magazine. She claimed that the article was keeping her from getting a job (not true–I never named her, and used my married name) and caused her untold emotional distress. They took it down. I didn’t write anything else for years. To this day, I’m terrified to write anything under my real name.

Gram3 wrote:

Michaela wrote:

they will bring Brian McClaren to his knees and make him look like a complete fool.

OK, I was perhaps hasty and there is wiggle room left in “complete” and they may get a chance to completely complete his foolship. However, IMO MacLaren auto-fooled himself today. It was bodacious in a sick sort of way.

@Gram3,

Spot on. (By the way, I keep messing up Brian’s name since I have been up since 4am and I am not at my sharpest right now. Thanks Brad for correcting me earlier on the spelling, “McLaren”. I think we should just call him, “McFool”!)

THC wrote:

My prayer is that Julie forgives her ex-husband and moves on. It is difficult for her to do when so many people on blogs fan the flames for retribution.

You are blind, at best. “Forgiveness” only comes after “repentance.” Fat chance of that.

Michaela wrote:

Thanks Brad for correcting me earlier on the spelling, “McLaren”. I think we should just call him, “McFool”!)

You’re welcome — Just mentioned the spelling note because it could make a difference for those doing searches to track down information.

And I’m sitting here chuckling a bit because I meant to add something about my own story about that, but it was one of the after-hit-enter things that I realized I forgot. Anyway, I was at some of the same “emerging ministry movement” conferences in the late 1990s as Brian McLaren, and I produced bibliographies on postmodern ministry and emerging etc., for about the next five years — and still constantly alternated between spelling his last name right versus wrong!

dee wrote:

Beth wrote:
f that portrayal isn’t correct and he has documentation to show that, in fact, there was a good basis for trying to get her help, then she might be in trouble.
If she was truly suicidal, she could be committed for 1-2 days against her will by a physician. I know. I have seen it done appropriately. As a public health nurse, I called the police on several occasions in order to save a suicidal person’s life. If they were unable to get her committed, it means she was not in obvious imminent danger.

That’s true.

klickvic wrote:

But THC is still, at best, disingenuous.

The commenter you mentioned is totally sincere, as far as I can tell. And that is very sad, I think.

@Brad,

Thanks again.

Regards from Silicon Valley.

Anonymous Child of BPD/NPD couple wrote:

THC wrote:

My prayer is that Julie forgives her ex-husband and moves on. It is difficult for her to do when so many people on blogs fan the flames for retribution.

You are blind, at best. “Forgiveness” only comes after “repentance.” Fat chance of that.

Whom are they to tell somebody else what to do? Cheeky, really. Whom are they to prescribe ‘forgiveness’. Can we have a look at their lives (including THC’s) and then make sweeping pronouncements about shaping up in some fashion?

I like the saying of a lovely, older woman, married for many years to an alcoholic (who thankfully got clean and sober). She went to a group called Al-Anon for the family and friends of alcoholics. She said that she used to not only behave like ‘a doormat, but wall-to-wall carpeting’ and that as she got better she learned to set boundaries.

Gram3 wrote:

The commenter you mentioned is totally sincere, as far as I can tell.

I don’t think so. I think THC is trolling us. Making wild statements and then changing the focus when answered sufficiently- it’s about getting a rise out of people, not getting to the truth.

If I’m wrong, I’m wrong, but if so then he/she is too far gone to reason with anyway.

klickvic wrote:

A person can make a choice to forgive without repentance from the perpetrator.

I agree completely. My definition of forgiveness is “removal of debt”.

I once told my ex-wife “You do not owe me anything. There is nothing you need to do to make up for the pain in our past. I do not trust you for the future, but the past is done”. She didn’t know what to make of it, really, but for me it was huge. I was no longer holding my breath waiting for her to “get it”. I needed nothing from her- her debt was forgiven.

And no, we were never reconciled.

@Brad,

Thanks for sharing more of your story with Patrice, which I hadn’t known about you.

Update:

1) I have contacted big-name famous litigators on the East Coast about Brian McLaren’s statement that he will be suing Tony Jones’ ex-wife.

I gave the attorneys the link about the story here on The Wartburg Watch and I explained to them about how famous McLaren is, Jones, and the messy divorce between Tony Jones and Julie, and what McLaren wants to do to Julie.

2) I will be contacting more First Amendment litigation attorneys/groups over the weekend and report back here.

Update No. 2:

I just finished contacting the second group of very famous First Amendment litigation attorneys about Brian McLaren’s threat to sue Tony Jones’ ex-wife.
I nutshelled the Jones’ marriage for the First Amendment attorneys.

Banannie wrote:

…she was never suicidal and need threatened suicide.

NEVER threatened suicide, not “need”.

@ brad/futuristguy:
One of the more discouraging things, to me, has been how similar these malignancies are. The Emergent people can’t believe that many of us can sense, in a tentative general way, integrity and falsehood even though we don’t have all the evidence in hand. But that’s because it’s all so much the same as it ever was! Only the clothing and houses are different.

Of course, that’s why you can do as much solid pattern-making and forecasting as you do. And it’s not that I want highly creative malignancies wreaking havoc. But I’d be simply delighted not to have to constantly see the same destructions, pains, lessons and frailties. We can’t, as a species, get beyond them.

God has some major work ahead, to rebuild fascination, curiosity and originality into us. After such a long slow and monotonous path, everything’s been worn to a nub. We need a major overhaul.

mirele wrote:

Frankly, I’m hard-pressed to think of a dumber idea than for Brian McLaren to sue for libel.

I can’t think of any good reason for it. I wonder if a custody battle is afoot and McLaren is being used somehow to make that go favorably for the non-custodial parent.

Update No. 3:

I just contacted the third well-known First Amendment legal group on the East Coast about Brian McLaren’s threat to sue Tony Jones’ ex-wife Julie.

@Mark,

Information on the legal rights of bloggers: https://www.eff.org/bloggers

@ Michaela: Good info. If they would they could.

THC wrote:

I find so many people here are insensitive to mental illness like NPD. I guess it is the last frontier where discrimination and bullying can occur.

Do you realize that this entire comment (not just the part I’m quoting) sounds like a textbook example of what someone with NPD would say? If you really believe this, you really don’t understand NPD and the destructive, no-win fallout is has on all who come in contact with it.

Gram3 wrote:

Wonder what the difference is between Mac and Mc?

The difference is Scottish (Mac) versus Irish (Mc).

Michaela wrote:

@Brad,
If Brian is in Florida (or Maryland) and his buddy’s ex-wife that he wants to sue is in another state than Brian is going to have to file an action against her in federal court because:
1. There is Diversity of Citizenship (plaintiff and defendant are from two different states and therefore to prevent bias in a state court against an out-of-state defendant the matter has to be filed in federal court);
2. The amount in controversy is more than $75,000; and
3. A claim based on the United States Constitution. In this case, Brian is alleging that his buddy’s ex-wife’s speech is not protected under the First Amendment.

That’s just not correct at all. Regardless of where anyone lives, nothing in federal or state law would require McLaren to bring his claim in federal court. Also, the possibility or even the fact that Julie’s defense would raise a first amendment issue does not turn McLaren’s claim into one “based on” the constitution.

Any claim that McLaren might bring would likely raise issues of jurisdiction, venue, and choice of governing law. These are some of the most technical and arcane legal issues to analyze. For any of you who need a cure for insomnia, and for Brad/ @futuristguy who’s trying to report accurately, here’s how those issues work:

1. Generally, a federal court *may* have subject matter jurisdiction over a claim (not to be confused with jurisdiction over a person) because either (a) the court has diversity jurisdiction, or (b) the claim presents a federal question, which means it “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

2. Federal diversity jurisdiction exists to ensure that a defendant from one state is not from disadvantaged by having to litigate in the local courts of the plaintiff’s state. It only requires that the parties be from different states and the amount at issue be greater than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1332.

3. Diversity jurisdiction allows a plaintiff to file state court claims in federal court and sometimes permits a defendant sued in state court to “remove” a claim from state court to federal court. (More on “removal” below.) Diversity jurisdiction does not require the claims to be based on the US constitution. Constitutional claims are brought in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, not diversity jurisdiction.

4. Federal question jurisdiction requires a claim itself to “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. 1331 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1331 It does not require the claim to meet a minimum amount at issue.

5. Here, any claims that McLaren might bring, for example, defamation, harassment, or tortious interference, would be state law claims. The possibility that Julie, as a defendant, might assert a first amendment defense does not turn McLaren’s claim into a claim “arising under” the constitution or other federal law. So, the only way a federal court would have jurisdiction over McLaren’s claims would be if there were diversity jurisdiction.

6. Regardless of who lives where, however, nothing would *require* McLaren to “have to” file his state law claim in federal court. That’s because federal diversity jurisdiction is not “exclusive.” In other words, not surprisingly, state courts also have jurisdiction over state law claims even when those claims are between parties of different states. (Some federal statutes give federal courts “exclusive” jurisdiction over specific types of claims arising under that particular statute, meaning that any such claims can *only* be brought in federal court.)

7. Federal court litigation has some benefits but is usually more expensive and time-consuming than state court litigation, in part because in federal court most things require more extensive briefing. Opinions differ on which is best. Assuming McLaren and Julie are citizens of different states, and he could show the amount at issue is over $75,000, McLaren could choose, but would not be required to, bring his claims in federal court.

8. The next question would be venue, or in which federal district the claim could be brought. Generally, a plaintiff can choose either where the defendant resides or where “a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred.” See 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1391 I don’t know where Julie is alleged to have done whatever it is McLaren claims. But, courts are wrestling with where torts are committed when one person types or posts messages from a computer in one state that are read in many other states or when a person from one state posts messages on a website hosted by an entity in another state. If McLaren lives in Florida, he might want to bring his claims there.

9. Next, if McLaren chose a federal court other than where Julie lives, the court would have to determine whether it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Julie. That raises the constitutional due process right not to be dragged into court in a state where one has no substantial contacts and has not committed any torts. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (discussing corporations but general principle is explained). It may also involve state “long arm” statutes governing whether the “long arm” of the law may drag a person into court there.

10. If McLaren chose federal court, and that court had personal jurisdiction over Julie, that court would then have to decide which state’s law to use. The body of law governing the question of which state’s law to use is called “conflicts of laws” or “choice of law.” Each state, however, has its own “choice of law” law. So, a federal court will use the choice of law law from the state in which it sits to determine which state’s substantive law to use. For example, a federal court in Florida will use Florida’s “choice of law” law to determine whether Minnesota tort law or Florida tort law will apply.

11. If McLaren chose to file in state court, he would still have to determine which state, and whether that court could exercise personal jurisdiction over Julie.

12. Finally, if McLaren chose to file in Minnesota state court, Julie would not be permitted to “remove” the case to federal court even though the parties are “diverse.” See 28 U.S.C. 1441(b)(2). http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1441 That’s because a defendant doesn’t need protection from his/her own state’s courts. But, if McLaren sued in, for example, a Florida state court, Julie could remove the case to federal court as long as she could establish that the amount at issue was over $75,000.

Jeannette Altes wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Wonder what the difference is between Mac and Mc?
The difference is Scottish (Mac) versus Irish (Mc).

The actual spelling, in Scots Gaelic, is Mhic; it’s pronounced “Vik”. Both “Mac” and “Mc” are anglicisations.

I hope this is helpful.

I hope this is helpful.

Jeff S wrote:

Then the judge admonished both sides for not being able to come to an agreement.

And this is why just reading what is in court documents to get the ‘truth’ is dangerous. Especially when dealing with a narcissist, you can have a boatload of facts and land nowhere near the truth.

@ Jeannette Altes:
Mc, Mac, M’, and Mhoc are Gaelic prefixes meaning ” son of”

Nc means ” daughter of Mac”

Vc means ” grandson of”

For a full explanation of Scottish surnames, go to Scotlandspeople.gov.uk which is the website of th Registrar General of Scotland.

@ brad/futuristguy:
What a healthy way to process spiritual abuse!

@ Jeannette Altes:
Yep. Even if it is a third party mediation. People often mistakingly think an NPD will be reasonable because they can look and act very reasonable but for very different reasons. Look at what Tony Jones is doing right now concerning his kid. And look at all the people who are supporting him. He has built a narrative around Julie. It is being threatened so he does not return the child.

Mark wrote:

@ mirele: Could WWW be dragged into this mess? He didn’t mention the website by name, but we all know who he was writing about. Could the Deebs be subpoenaed? I am not a lawyer, but it seems these people may try anything to silence their critics. Their issue with “that woman” seems a little extreme to me. Is it possible McLaren also has NPD? I don’t understand the dynamics here.

I can’t answer the questions about NPD. However, if there’s a lawsuit, yes, the Deebs could be subpoenaed and their depositions taken. However, I can also tell you, based on more experience than just Scientology, that going after blog owners tends to raise the hackles of First Amendment advocates.

And yes, this is absolutely about silencing the critics.

Mark wrote:

@ Michaela: Good info. If they would they could.

@Mark,
Indeed if they could they would.
Barb Orlowski wrote:

Michaela,

Appreciate your expertise and your communication with attorneys galore, that is a delightful development and a super bright spot at the end of the day!!

Good going, Michaela!! Thumbs up! God has his people in all kinds of places. Ahahah-aymen!!

@Barb,

Thanks for all of your work about spiritual abuse. I am going to keep emailing national-known First Amendment attorneys and groups this weekend about this case, there are many of them.

Michaela wrote:

Thanks for all of your work about spiritual abuse. I am going to keep emailing national-known First Amendment attorneys and groups this weekend about this case, there are many of them.

Wouldn’t it be a REAL kicker if ToJo and his attack dogs found themselves squaring off against a REAL high-powered attorney taking Julie’s case pro bono?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Michaela wrote:

Thanks for all of your work about spiritual abuse. I am going to keep emailing national-known First Amendment attorneys and groups this weekend about this case, there are many of them.

Wouldn’t it be a REAL kicker if ToJo and his attack dogs found themselves squaring off against a REAL high-powered attorney taking Julie’s case pro bono?

Indeed, H.U.G.

And the bonus for First Amendment litigators is that would get to take on a very famous, nationally known, Christian pastor going after the ex-wife of his buddy and the ex-wife has humble means.

Dee,

Can you tell me what state:

1. Julie lives in; and

2. What state Brian McLaren lives in? (If you have that information.) Brad posted that McLaren lives in Florida.

I am writing many of the well-known First Amendment litigators and groups this weekend about Brian McLaren’s threatened lawsuit against his buddy’s ex-wife.

3. I’d like this information (jurisdictions) so that a First Amendment group in Julie’s geographic location could assist with this.

Guest wrote:

. I think Rachel Held Evans reputation is ruined, does anyone else?

Probably not, but the maintained image of the nice girl who stands up for the oppressed (who are all conveniently conservatives, Calvinists, Complemtarians, or other sort of mainstream Evangelical) is.

What might be a bigger takeaway is that Progressive Christianity, in all of its subcultures and forms, might just end up looking like the cliche of its secular counterparts: The rules and outrage they direct at others do not apply to themselves. It only take a little bit of reading on the WhyTony site to see that “He isn’t a monster, we’re friends – plus he’s good with the kids” is meant to be a conversation ender. Switch the names with AFA, Mark Driscoll, or CJ and see if they’d be pleased with the response.

@ Michaela:

Julie , I think is Minnesota. Have no clue about Mclaren.

@ Michaela:

You are amazing, Michaela! Thank you.

@ XianAtty:

Thank you, Xian Atty for that helpful summary. It sounds like you have done a lot of research on this or have some experience with these sorts of cases.

Gram3 wrote:

@ XianAtty:

Thank you, Xian Atty for that helpful summary. It sounds like you have done a lot of research on this or have some experience with these sorts of cases.

Thanks XianAttorney for expanding on those specific legal issues, since I’m a paralegal and I only know the overview.

I’ve been perusing again the posts at scribd’s WhyTony. Tony is presented everywhere as one of the kindest and brightest of humans. A dozen professionals say so: writing under letterheads of Claremont and a creative agency, using proper titles such as “Rev”, and mentioning personal accomplishments throughout as if they automatically endow greater knowledge of all truths.

In not one post is there even a whiff of the NPD diagnosis. It’s their Achilles heel, really, isn’t it?

If they were upfront about the diagnosis and declared it wrong, they would lose the “expertise of the professional”, to which they cling in other ways throughout their defense.

If they admit the diagnosis, but say that he’s done his work and is now healed, they show foolishness, which undercuts their smart, educated and savvy brand.

If they admit to it but say he’s making headway, they legitimize re-examination of all of Tony’s action under much brighter lights than they’ve allowed themselves so far.

Admitting to it will also highlight Tony’s manner of presenting it in his document.

Thus, any which way, they must ignore the diagnosis or the bottom drops out. That Tony has admitted it, leaves them hanging in nowhere land. And it looks like Tony is using it to spin a fine little web around his friends by making himself appear uniquely genius (Vaknin!), plus extra-ordinary for “overcoming so much so quickly”, plus the “best victim ever” for living graciously and beautifully in spite of it and the super-huge pile of rancor loaded on him by ex-wife and the plebs.

And as long as these people remain stuck in this web, they will certainly be pushing for Tony to get full custody of the children, which (seems to me)is his goal, to restore his good name “out there” and to continue perpetual revenge on Julie because of the ego-wound he just can’t get over.

If such a travesty succeeds, it will be the direct result of these professionals’ refusal to deal with the reality of NPD.

Do you think there might be something to this?

Let’s start up a pool and bet on when they announce a change of name from “Emergent” to “suppressant”

This site might aid in understanding life with & divorcing an NPD: http://onemomsbattle.com/ Ms. Swithin also has a facebook page, has written a couple of books, and has a private forum for people who are currently in battle with an NPD.

Margaret wrote:

I find it most interesting that all this “evidence” was not presented in order to safeguard Tony’s children, when custody was being determined, but is now being presented in order to safeguard Tony’s image and reputation.

This is the real issue. Why is this degrading of Julie appropriate now when a friend’s celebrity is at stake but evidently not that big of a deal when the children’s custody was at stake?

(P.S. And I said celebrity not ministry. Tony could have easily stepped away from public ministry and engaged in building the Kingdom in his small corner of the world. If he had chosen that path, this would not be the issue it has become.)

Patrice wrote:

@ mirele:
Yeah, that seems so. I can only imagine how Julie is feeling these days. This ain’t no intellectual exercise but about the safety/health of her dear children. Gah!!!!

BTW, thanks for offering your expertise here.

And also to Michaela, thanks very much!! Who knows, maybe because of your efforts, something can be done to bring eventual peace. Hope!

Patrice wrote:

@ mirele:
Yeah, that seems so. I can only imagine how Julie is feeling these days. This ain’t no intellectual exercise but about the safety/health of her dear children. Gah!!!!

BTW, thanks for offering your expertise here.

And also to Michaela, thanks very much!! Who knows, maybe because of your efforts, something can be done to bring eventual peace. Hope!

@Patrice,

Well I don’t know if we’re going to get ‘peace’ in this situation, given how high conflict and that Brian McLaren has just insinuated himself. But since his arguments center around the First Amendment of his buddy’s ex-wife (that he plans to sue), there are plenty of First Amendment advocates and groups willing to take him on (especially since he is so well known in the US).

Patrice wrote:

Thus, any which way, they must ignore the diagnosis or the bottom drops out. That Tony has admitted it, leaves them hanging in nowhere land. And it looks like Tony is using it to spin a fine little web around his friends by making himself appear uniquely genius (Vaknin!), plus extra-ordinary for “overcoming so much so quickly”, plus the “best victim ever” for living graciously and beautifully in spite of it and the super-huge pile of rancor loaded on him by ex-wife and the plebs.

You made so many good points it’s hard to choose one. The way you worked from the NPD diagnosis out is brilliant. Maybe those in the web need to keep his light shining brightly because they are borrowing from his glory. Maybe that’s why they are going to such great lengths and sacrificing their prior platforms and all that entails. Doesn’t seem rational unless it is the money or the prestige of proximity to the Star that they think they cannot live without.

I thought I’d post an interesting and ongoing example of what happens when someone decides to go after a blog for what’s written there.

Back in September, “Jane Litte” (pseudonym) of the “Dear Author” blog, wrote a piece about the public relations and financial problems being experienced by Ellora’s Cave (EC), a reasonably large player in the erotic romance publishing space. (It’s my understanding EC was a pioneer in publishing PDF romances, but had lagged behind in moving to other electronic platforms.)

This is the blog post, published September 14:

http://dearauthor.com/ebooks/the-curious-case-of-elloras-cave/

On September 27, Jane announced Ellora’s Cave had sued her in Ohio state court for defamation. (Jane is a resident of Ohio.) EC wanted an injunction to take down the blog post and to get the names of anonymous commenters on the post. Holy Chilling Effect, Batman!

At that point, Jane’s supporters held a fundraiser and Jane was able to get representation from top-notch First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza, who proceeded to file to get the case removed to federal court in Ohio. There was quite a bit of hemming and hawing and suchlike, but ultimately the federal judge smacked down EC earlier in January and said the case would remain in federal court. As for that requested TRO? EC has dropped its request, but is still pursuing a defamation claim.

Courtney Milan, a writer and attorney, has been following the case fairly closely and gives regular updates on her blog: http://www.courtneymilan.com/ramblings/ Additionally, there are other blogs which provide background commentary on other aspects of EC. There’s also a considerable amount of discussion taking place on Twitter under the #NotChilled hashtag.

I would advise anyone who is wanting to file a lawsuit which may involve blog postings to take a very hard look at what is going on with the Ellora’s Cave case, and then ask yourself: Do you really want to destroy your brand with a lawsuit? EC authors are doing what they can to get themselves away from EC because people don’t want to buy from a publisher which is attacking a blog via lawsuit.

In the present instance, we’re not even talking about a mere business. We’re talking about a public figure, an author, speaker and professional Christian potentially suing a woman who is judgment-proof because of things written on blogs. I would strongly advise not going there.

Sorry for above…didn’t mean to quote the whole comment.

@ Patrice:

Oh, I forgot about Vaknin! The narcissists narcissist.

NPDs are diabolically clever because they are so bold. The current custody issue has several uses. It punishes Julie and shows her his power even though he is breaking an agreement, his son is shown how mommy is causing it all and his defenders are working off of his old narrative of Julie being Crazy and worse than him.

The narrative is still working because she spoke out….and that is not a good thing for any of them. Besides there has to be a real problem because nobody in their right mind would use their kid like that unless they were trying to save them. Thus the narcissist boldness works in his favor.

The NPD diagnosis only mean something to people who understand it, have seen it up close over a long haul. Celebrities usually develop some of the tendencies so much of Tonyit seems normal. such as the pragmatism it takes to make sure your ministry business succeeds. They tend to forget the ministry part. So Tony, who they see now and then on stages and tours,who is so nice seems pretty normal to them. They have hooked up with him businesswise and they are not about to lose face now for a nobody ex-wife. You would think the sacramental wife thing would have been a clue but, Tony the NPD, spun it in such a way as to merge it with their pet issue of homosexual marriage which is of utmost importance to them.

I am just surprised at how deep they dug their hole for Tony. I think we might see a few of them try to rewrite the history of this a bet and distance themselves over time? But that stuff doesn’t work for me anymore. Instead of giving Julie the benefit of the doubt they immediately turned on her and anyone who asked questions and they have been closing ranks ever since digging in deeper. To me that shows their true character. They are unsafe and unhealthy people to align with. Just as Al Mohler has no cred with me, neither does Rachel Held Evans.

Sorry for typos above. Using a new smartphone.

Lydia wrote:

You would think the sacramental wife thing would have been a clue but, Tony the NPD, spun it in such a way as to merge it with their pet issue of homosexual marriage which is of utmost importance to them.

When you hold a Noble Cause so close, it blocks out the view of everything else. That Noble Cause becomes everything, and nothing else matters. Rachel had a few causes she championed, and it appears she has tossed abuse victims and women overboard in pursuit of something else. We must be able to put any cause in its proper place. Not abandoning it, but neither abandoning principles to protect it.

@Mirele,

Thanks for your post about another First Amendment lawsuit. That gave me some more ideas about other First Amendment attorneys to contact.

So Update No. 4: I just emailed some East Coast First Amendment attorneys about Brian McLaren’s statements that he will sue Tony Jones’ ex-wife Julie for her blog posts.

I’ve already emailed this to some of the big name First Amendment rights’ groups and top-notch law schools.

Any other ideas you all have to share, please post them here and I will get on it!

@ dee:

Thank you for providing an open and safe space to share.

As I thought more about it this morning, that experience when I was 21 to 23 held so many of the scenarios in it that we see as results of spiritual abuse. I almost became a “done.” My one friend who retreated from church and from God became a “none.” And my friend whose condition I believe got pushed too far by the stress became a “gone.”

All three of us were at points of intervention in our faith and life. If only there’d been more prevention beforehand to create a safe and hospitable space, could things have turned out differently and not so traumatic.

The rest of the story from that college experience is that, when I didn’t fit into the churches that leftover fragments from the split tried to start or join, I ended up in a modest-sized church plant on the campus. Happily, it just so happened to end up being the role-model I’ve drawn on for genuine community ever since! If you want to see what it looked like, the middle part of this post on mentors and hope has my story of, *The Whole and the Holes: An Intergenerational, Intercultural Church Genre That Counteracts “Spiritual Osteoporosis.”*

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/recovery-from-spiritual-abuse-part-2e-mentoring-and-moving-toward-hope/

Anyway, thanks again to you, Dee and Deb, for hosting discussions that shine light on the past and point to the better way forward. Even in the current destructive situation, hopefully some positive preventatives for the future can emerge.

Michaela wrote:

Any other ideas you all have to share, please post them here and I will get on it!

My idea, and you’re not going to like it, is to back off contacting lawyers until there’s a lawsuit in hand.

Patrice wrote:

But I could be wrong on that, my view is from the outer edge.

I’m right there on the outer edge with you. Except for Rachel, I had no idea who these folks are or their relationships. I had heard McLaren’s name but that’s about it. The whole reaction to Julie makes no sense to me if they really are pastors and advocates for the weak. Why not work behind the scenes to settle things as best they could? Why would Rachel shackle herself to this kind of thuggery? From what I knew of her, she was considered a voice of moderation though some disagreed strongly and some agreed strongly with her various positions.

mirele wrote:

Michaela wrote:

Any other ideas you all have to share, please post them here and I will get on it!

My idea, and you’re not going to like it, is to back off contacting lawyers until there’s a lawsuit in hand.

Thanks, Mirele.

I see it differently since my former bosses are well-known civil rights attorneys (having won hundreds of millions of dollars over in the years) in the US and one of their cases was heard by the US Supreme Court just a couple of years ago. They move into action very quickly and taught me to do the same.

I’m aghast at how this has played out.

With all of the bullying, ganging up, and airing out of dirty laundry, this feels like the same M.O. that the Calvinistas use! How ironic that some of the most vocal critics of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill are now using some of the very tactics that they once criticized.

I’m also appalled by the seeming complete lack of understanding of, or empathy towards, those who suffer from mental illness. Just…wow. Unbelievable.

I have to say, I would have expected this type of attitude/approach from a guy like Driscoll or Piper or Mahaney, but not from someone like Evans or McClaren. Despite their theological issues, I had a lot of respect for what I perceived to be a strong sense of respect and care among the so-called Emergents/Progressives. Now they are all looking quite similar to one another.

Deb wrote:

JeffT wrote:
If the Deebs go off the rails, I’m hangin’ it up. Goin’ off the grid, puttin’ on sackcloth and ashes, growing a long beard, and livin’ in a cave.
LOL! Saw a pizza commercial about a family that did that.

“THAT’S it! We’re going OFFFFFF the grid!”

@ Tina:
ditto.

Michaela wrote:

I see it differently since my former bosses are well-known civil rights attorneys (having won hundreds of millions of dollars over in the years) in the US and one of their cases was heard by the US Supreme Court just a couple of years ago. They move into action very quickly and taught me to do the same.

I’m going to state this again. I really do think you should back off unless Julie asks you for help. At this point, all we have is this threat and no lawsuit in hand. I think what you’re doing is untimely and unhelpful.

Patrice wrote:

In not one post is there even a whiff of the NPD diagnosis. It’s their Achilles heel, really, isn’t it?
If they were upfront about the diagnosis and declared it wrong, they would lose the “expertise of the professional”, to which they cling in other ways throughout their defense.
If they admit the diagnosis, but say that he’s done his work and is now healed, they show foolishness, which undercuts their smart, educated and savvy brand.
If they admit to it but say he’s making headway, they legitimize re-examination of all of Tony’s action under much brighter lights than they’ve allowed themselves so far.

Astute analysis. I was thinking the same basic things!

http://www.nakedpastor.com/2015/01/sharing-your-experiences-in-the-face-of-threats/#comment-152579

Beakerj wrote:

Well, one of the big questions is whether NPD is mental illness, or if it is a more chosen stance of ‘me first to the nth degree’.

Who, exactly, is questioning whether or not NPD is mental illness?

@ Beth:

from my experience with the xtian celeb types is the problem is Julie would not cooperate THEIR way (which is being committed?) so they spin it as they tried but she would not respond. Now this same “great guy” is threatening to sue a single mom with no resources? I find that a bit naïve.

here is something else to consider; it can take a while to fully understand where the Christian exclusive celeb club is really coming from. The Petry’s reached out to Piper who was Driscoll’s mentor at the time. They thought highly of him. They had a lot to learn how it really works in that world. The worst place to go is their ministry friends and colleagues.

Now Brian McLaren is proving me right.

David Hayward, of nakedpastor.com hit the nail on the head:

“I don’t think this is a theological issue. I think it is a pathological one. Not just for Driscoll and Jones, but for the entire church.”

Gram3 wrote:

@ XianAtty:
Thank you, Xian Atty for that helpful summary. It sounds like you have done a lot of research on this or have some experience with these sorts of cases.

You’re welcome. Yes, I do. I practice in the area of business or commercial litigation in both state and federal court.

Once in a while those business disputes devolve into defamation issues. In the last case like that I represented a woman CEO who was being ousted by her board of directors in an organized campaign to smear her. We prevailed, but it was all very ugly. I am all too familiar with male bullies in positions of power who try to blame and silence a woman.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but what I hear Beth saying is that while there are many things that he might have done wrong, avoiding mediation is not one of them.

I completely support Julie’s choice not to go to mediation, but I wouldn’t accuse Brian of going to mediation if he really did try.

XianAtty,

Thanks for your post. Apparently these US pastors’ threats are widening, including to David Hayward (The Naked Pastor) blog in Canada.

I am not expert in this field, but can access plenty of people who are experts.
I am simply doing research and relaying blog content.

Thanks and have a lovely weekend!

@ dee:

Dee, that was very well-said. Bravo!

Jeannette Altes wrote:

Michaela wrote:

Silence it the best answer. They will eventually have to move on to another target.

Yes. I have not answered her calls for almost 7 years. She doesn’t call as often, but she still calls. Even calls my friends to try and get to me. Thankfully, they get it and don’t answer, either. But it is frustrating that it still shakes me, even if I don’t answer.

I hope you are doing something very nice for yourself every time she shakes you. Go to a movie, take a walk, get a massage. Just increase your self-care.

Emergent bumber sticke:

Support your national Narcissistic Pastor Dude

JeffT wrote:

Emergent bumber sticker:

[with a slight editorial change from Michaela]

$upport your national Narci$$I$tic Pa$tor Dude

@ XianAtty:

Now I’d like a precis contrasting and comparing The Rule in Shelley’s Case, The Rule Against Perpetuties and The Parol Evidence Rule. No rush. Anytime this afternoon will be fine. 😉

Beth wrote:

Julie is well within her rights to refuse. But I don’t think it is fair to suggest that McLaren has not tried to address the accusations she is making against him (him meaning McLaren, not Tony) in an appropriate way.

Thank you for acknowledging that Julie is well within her rights to refuse mediation. She is wise to avoid mediation with Tony and also contact with any people like McLaren who have publicly demonstrated their toxicity.

We don’t know how McLaren tried to mediate, and we don’t even know that he did attempt to mediate. The best thing he could do at this point is use his personal influence with Tony. After he repents of this petulance by an ostensible adult.

Gram3 wrote:

diagnoses.

diagnosis.

@ dee:

That would certainly be a good start and would demonstrate what they are really all about.

Very well said. ^O^ with loud applause.

@ Tim:

Left off the wink again, so here it is. 😉

Tim wrote:

@ XianAtty:
Now I’d like a precis contrasting and comparing The Rule in Shelley’s Case, The Rule Against Perpetuties and The Parol Evidence Rule. No rush. Anytime this afternoon will be fine.

Be careful asking me about the Parol Evidence Rule. I might just do it, including a lengthy analysis of the difference between patent and latent ambiguities. 🙂

The Rule in Shelley’s Case and the Rule of Perpetuities exist for me only in nightmares. But, I’m not sure of what the Rule of *Perpetuties* is. It sounds like a fruity flavor of ice cream. 🙂

@ dee:
Thanks, Dee.

Glad also to hear you had a good experience with mediation.

One of the good things about mediation is that, even if the case isn’t resolved, it can be empowering for an aggrieved person to be given a place before a trained neutral mediator where the other party must sit and listen directly to the aggrieved person tell the story of all of the bad things the other party (allegedly) did and all of the damage and hurt that those actions inflicted on the aggrieved person.

Of course, like anything, this can be abused and in this case, again, Julie may have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to participate.

@ XianAtty:

Re: what is mediation like. My evidence is old (6-7 years) and limited to NC at the time, but it is real and relatively recent experience. At the time of our family disaster, the only people allowed in the room were the parties and the mediator. No attorneys were allowed in the room. The parties did not have a choice of mediator. Mediation was required, but the parties did not have to reach an agreement. After the session the mediator sent written recommendations, and the parties were encouraged to sit down with their own attorney in private and discuss the recommendations. If no solution was agreed upon the case could go to court. If a solution was agreed upon, only the papers went to court for signature. All of this was only after the parties (as a crowd of the bunch for the day) had been shown a movie produced by the state of the horrors of going to court and what could happen to you if you went to court. I did not see the movie, but the description of it would have done justice to a Hollywood thriller, so I am told.

So, evidently the rules vary a tad from state to state. In our case mediation was helpful but not determinative and the parties agreed to something else other than what was recommended but did not go to court. Neither party got all they wanted, but both got something workable though difficult. As it turned out what they agreed to worked out better than what the mediator recommended.

We have been told by the attorney that any attempt to change anything on review will have to go through the mediation process each time, with or without an agreement, before going to court.

Marsha wrote:

But you are talking about court ordered mediation by trained and certified mediators without connections to either party, right? Assuming that McLaren did indeed offer mediation, we don’t know who he suggested as a mediator, a neutral, trained third party or a friend of the family or a pastor or whoever. I certainly would not trust a friend of an ex/husband to arrange a mediation.

No, what I said isn’t limited to court-ordered mediation. In any kind of legal mediation, court-ordered or not, the parties can choose the mediator and all parties must agree. (If the case is in court, the court can select a trained, neutral mediator if the parties can’t agree.) There are many ways for the parties to get a good mediator. Sometimes the lawyers agree that one side will provide a list of several mediators and the other side gets to pick which one. Sometimes each side suggests a couple of mediators and then the lawyers negotiate among themselves (with authority from their clients).

McLaren stated that he offered “third-party review, mediation, and reconciliation.” I have no idea whether he is telling the truth, but this doesn’t say that he was offering to pick the mediator himself. That’s not generally what’s meant when someone offers to mediate. Usually, it means that they are suggesting the negotiated selection process I described. Again, though, I have no idea and no opinion on what McLaren actually meant or offered.

One very valid reason for Julie to have rejected mediation (if she did) was that they couldn’t all agree on a mediator.

@ Nancy:
Thanks for sharing your experience. You’re right, sometimes the rules vary from state to state. I have never heard of mediation, especially court-ordered mediation, where the parties were not permitted to have attorneys present. That strikes me as taking away some important protections from the parties, but it likely would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming to challenge that policy up through the appellate court.

Beth wrote:

Apparently in McLeron’s mind, after those attempts failed, bringing the courts into it is preferable to engaging in “public trial by blog” (I agree with him there), or simply denying the accusations without releasing his documentation (which, IMO might have been better).

IOW, Julie has no right to speak of her experience with Progressive
Christian leaders publicly.

@ Gram3:

The Party Line

@ XianAtty:

So how would mediation force the NPD to follow the agreement?

Lydia wrote:

IOW, Julie has no right to speak of her experience with Progressive
Christian leaders publicly.

Actually, the filing of a lawsuit would give Julie a very public forum in which *can* speak publicly of her experience with Progressive Christian leaders.

I’m not at all suggesting in any way that Julie should welcome a lawsuit, because litigation can be awful. But, she would get a public platform to tell her story.

Lydia wrote:

@ XianAtty:
So how would mediation force the NPD to follow the agreement?

Generally, here’s how it works. Confidential settlement agreements usually contain a clause giving the court jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. If the terms of the settlement are not confidential, the parties can agree to ask the judge to enter the agreement as a court order. (That appears to be what happened with the custody & support agreement between Tony and Julie). In either situation, if one side breaches the agreement, the other side can request that the court order the breaching party to do what they are supposed to do. If the breaching party also ignores that court order, the court can find the breaching party in contempt of court. Depending on the nature of the breach or of the refusal to comply with a valid court order, contempt of court may be punishable by putting the non-complying party in jail. “Deadbeat” parents can end up in jail that way.

Of course, that process, like any, can be abused and manipulated and can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to pursue. Sometimes, though, it can be better than the status quo. I don’t know and don’t have an opinion about what would be best here.

Gram3 wrote:

Why she decided to stand so vehemently with bullies is a mystery compared to the stand she took against Driscoll and Mahaney

Spiritual attack? Whilst some overdo the warfare against principalities and powers and spiritual hosts of wickedness, it is easy to forget this aspect, and not see what is going on behind the human activities. RHE has been deceived into doing the very thing she, going by what I’ve heard on here, opposes elsewhere. And because she has been deceived, she simply cannot see it.

I think she has made herself very vulnerable to this by her attitude to the bible. Any weakness or compromise or disobedience here and we can soon get into serious trouble (and I don’t have in mind just what you probably think I have in mind, I’m thinking more generally). She has a blunt ‘sword’ with which to fight, and the rest of her armour is rusting and less effective.

XianAtty wrote:

Actually, the filing of a lawsuit would give Julie a very public forum in which *can* speak publicly of her experience with Progressive Christian leaders.

You cannot be serious. She finally now has a public forum in the very media which previously had been under the control of her NPD husband/ex-husband and his business associates and buddies. It must be incredibly infuriating for a narcissist to see his target getting traction in a venue he previously controlled. That is why I think we are seeing the explosion of outrage by Jones and McLaren and the others.

@ XianAtty:

So is Tony in contempt of court right now for not returning his son as per the agreement?

Do people not see the problem as they go down the mediation road? We are talking about an NPD. What good is another mediation? It is a roller coaster.

Nancy wrote:

We were satisfied with the process. It was one less thing for the attorneys to argue about or bill for. In fact, more and better agreement could have been reached quicker except one of the attorneys kept wanting to play a variant of let’s you and him fight.
Anywhere there are people things can get complicated.

I’m glad it worked out for you. I’m sure the savings in legal fees and time can be a godsend. You’re absolutely right that sometimes the attorneys can be the problem and not the solution and that people can complicate anything!

@ XianAtty:

But the thing that is interesting is that you are, whether you intend to or not, spinning the actual facts to make it appear that they are neutral. They are not, and it is strange that a litigation attorney would disregard something as consequential as a diagnosis of NPD in a divorce and custody context. That is a significant fact that you are ignoring in your explanation of the process. You only acknowledge the NPD and the actual facts when challenged.

Why don’t you address the facts as we have them and then fit those facts into your commentary?

Gram3 wrote:

You are asking us to accept conditions which do not apply in this case.

I’m not asking you to accept any conditions. I have tried to explain the relevant legal process. I don’t know and have no opinion on what legal course of action Julie should take. Likewise, I am not in a position to know whether Tony violated the custody order. He may well have. The trial docket lists an upcoming hearing.

@ Gram3:

and it is free.

@ Nancy:

I am thankful that your process ended acceptably for all and that part of your family nightmare is over. I understand how mediation happens. What happened with your family is not necessarily the case with all mediation processes, and that is not the fault of the process or the mediator. We have walked through this with a disordered couple. To speak of mediation in the abstract as XianAtty does is one thing. In practice, with a disordered personality it is another thing entirely.

Gram3 wrote:

Beth wrote:
Neutral, third-party mediation would certainly have been preferable
As a therapist, are you stating that mediation with a diagnosed NPD is a good thing for someone to do? How much work do you do with NPD persons in the context of a divorce?

Like I said before, I don’t think McLaren was saying he tried to get Julie to mediate with Tony. I think he was saying he tried to get her to mediate her accusations of him.

As for mediating with someone with NPD, I’d say generally it wouldn’t be advised, but there are no hard and fast rules. Just when I think I can predict stuff, the strangeness of reality bites me in the bum! There are no good options when dealing with someone with a strong personality disorder. Get an attorney and they escalate. Try and work it out and they run all over you. Some things work for a time and then blow up in your face. But yes, generally I would say that trying to mediate with someone who has a marked personality disorder is probably not productive.

XianAtty wrote:

It would be unethical for me to try to give legal advice about a case in which I am not involved and about which there are so many facts I don’t have. As a non-lawyer, you are free to opine or to rage against the machine.

I’m certainly not raging against the machine of legal process. I’m not raging against anything AFAIK. I’m not asking you to render an opinion or to compromise your ethical obligations in any way. What I am asking you to do is to offer an appropriate disclaimer to your recitation of the process, and I think that is reasonable given the circumstances. Unless McLaren or Jones or Julie or someone else is your client or you make a particular recommendation, I don’t see how that compromises your ethical responsibilities.

You are not speaking to an environment void of relevant facts. By ignoring the elephant in the room, you are in effect inviting reasonable people to ask why you are ignoring the elephant. The fact is that ignoring the elephant of NPD advances McLaren’s narrative. Frankly, as a Christian, I’m not inclined to believe that he tried to do anything remotely redemptive or relationally palliative after seeing what he threatened to do.

ISTM as an attorney and as a Christian, you would not want to place yourself in the position of being an advocate, intentionally or not, of a particular POV or even be in the position of appearing to do so.

I am still interested to hear your POV of the moral and Kingdom issues as a Christian, since that should be your primary identity. I don’t see how that could violate your ethical constraints unless one of the interested parties is a client or you are connected to the situation in some other way.

Gram3 wrote:

I don’t see the wisdom of a legal strategy that starts with announcing your intent to sue on the internet if your intent is really to follow through with a suit.

I’m not endorsing the strategy at all, but one reason might be that, as others have noted, when a public figure brings a defamation claim, they must prove that the defendant acted with malice. One way to do that is for the public figure to show that, before they brought suit, they provided the defendant with documents or other information to demonstrate that whatever the defendant said was not true and that, despite repeated requests, the defendant refused to retract or continued to repeat the offending statements.

^ should have said “McLaren”

I’m curious how many ways I can misspell his name in this thread 🙂

Beth wrote:

@ Gram3:
Gram3, go back and read McKaren’s statement again. It really sounds to me like he is saying he tried to get Julie to process her accusations of him, not Tony. Do you read it differently?

I take your point, but I wonder if it really makes a difference. If trust had broken down, for whatever reason, then I would not expect her to enter mediation with McLaren voluntarily over any issue. I do think there are a lot of things we do not know, and for sure we cannot know the significance of those things. McLaren’s actions recently don’t give me much reason to expect he behaved any better in private with a powerless woman who could threaten his interests. His post does not help him in any way that I can see other than rally the fanboys and fangirls and possibly intimidate some people.

@ Nancy:

That is not at all what I have said which did not address rights at all. I am making a point about the wisdom (or not) of entering voluntary mediation with a person who is NPD. I am not saying that a person with NPD does not have equal rights that should be protected or that the other party can opt out of mandatory mediation because of any diagnosis.

I am saying that any implication that Julie had some obligation to have entered voluntary mediation with either Jones or McLaren is improper.

Gram3 wrote:

What I am asking you to do is to offer an appropriate disclaimer to your recitation of the process

I have repeatedly given multiple disclaimers:
-I have no connection to any of the parties or their friends and family, or to any bloggers, researchers, authors, or to the Emergent movement.
-The litigation process can certainly be abused and doesn’t always work properly.
-The mediation process can certainly be abused and doesn’t always work properly.
-Yes, I recognize that Tony has NPD since he has admitted it and that’s a big red flag.
-I don’t have all the facts.

What you seem to want is for me to say definitively whether Julie was wise to reject mediation (assuming she did) because Tony has NPD. For all the reasons @Beth describes, mediation with an NPD person might be a disaster, might work out for a while and then not. But, for all those same reasons, continuing to litigate the matters with Tony in court might also be a disaster, might work out for a while and then not. I can’t say which course might be better, or predict how that would turn out, because there are too many other factors that may bear on that question. That, as a non-lawyer, you can’t appreciate all the other possible factors to consider doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

Gram3 wrote:

What happened with your family is not necessarily the case with all mediation processes … We have walked through this with a disordered couple. To speak of mediation in the abstract as XianAtty does is one thing. In practice, with a disordered personality it is another thing entirely.

Please try to understand that what happened with *your* disordered couple is also “not necessarily the case” with every other case with an NPD person.

That is not to discount in any way the extent of the possible or likely horrors in dealing with an NPD person. It is to say that there *may* be other factors that affect the legal analysis and advice, for example: the presence or absence of children, the age of the children, the available family or professional support system, the quality of the lawyers, mediators, and judges, the practices of local law enforcement, the law in the particular jurisdiction, etc. You discount these things as a non-lawyer, but a good lawyer is trained to recognized and weigh these various factors.

XianAtty wrote:

**(Whether bloggers such as the Deebs could be subpoenaed as witnesses is a separate issue. FWIW, I think the likelihood of such a subpoena is remote.)

I’d disagree, since pretty much everything has taken place either her or on David Hayward’s blog. Hayward lives in Canada, so he’s beyond the reach of a U.S. subpoena. Not so the Deebs. And it’s the publicity that’s got McLaren upset.

I stand by my belief that this attempt to round up legal assistance for Julie is untimely.

XianAtty wrote:

The Rule in Shelley’s Case and the Rule of Perpetuities exist for me only in nightmares. But, I’m not sure of what the Rule of *Perpetuties* is. It sounds like a fruity flavor of ice cream.

We could talk about “Jarndyce v Jarndyce” (the fictional lawsuit made famous in Charles Dickens’ “Bleak House”). *runs away*

@ Bridget:
Very much agreed. This is all becoming very complicated, anf it is better to try and keep track of the details, if at all possible.

@ mirele:
Yeah, this is starting to look the same to me!

XianAtty wrote:

Yes, and in the legal context, advice about how to deal with the diagnosed person cannot and should not be determined based on that diagnosis alone either.

This is obvious. Where has anyone suggested that a diagnosis should be considered alone. She was married to the man for a number of years, and I’m sure she is familiar with the way he functions, diagnosis or no diagnosis.

However, for others outside who are evaluating competing claims and narratives, a diagnosis of NPD is relevant because that diagnosis can only be made when certain criteria are met. And it so happens that those criteria bear a great deal on the wisdom of entering voluntary negotiation and expecting it to proceed as it would with a normal person. That, in turn, bears on how the reasonableness of her position is evaluated.

XianAtty wrote:

At the upcoming hearing the judge will likely hear evidence and argument about whether Tony violated the agreement or if he claims there was legal justification for him to violate it. If the judge determines that Tony did violate the agreement, the judge can and should impose an appropriate punishment.

…on a police chaplain.

Gram3 wrote:

What you have finally included in this comment would have been very welcome much earlier in the discussion and would have provided needed context to your process template that, intentionally or not, favored one narrative over the other.

What I said in the comment to which you are responding is the same thing I have said over and over again.

mirele wrote:

I stand by my belief that this attempt to round up legal assistance for Julie is untimely.

If you mean that the situation needs to be de-escalated, I think that would be wise by any means possible by all people who have the ability to help in that effort. That’s true, IMO, for a lot of people for a lot of reasons on all sides of the matter(s) we have been discussing. Appreciate your perspective very much.

Lydia wrote:

Patrice

Yes, the rising population of “The Dones”, committed Christians who are fed up with formalized religion. (“The Nones” are those who are not believers.)

@ Patrice:

Patrice, I think her words are having a major effect on his reputation and that of the others directly involved in the group that dealt with her.

She has gone further than saying he tried to smear her. She wrote that he and the others smeared her to try and make her look crazy culminating in an attempt to get her committed in order to cover up Tony’s affair and to pave the way for Tony’s divorce. She wrote that they determined to try and get her committed without her input and by listening to Tony. If true, that would be outrageously unethical. It would be bad enough trying to hospitalize a colleague’s wife simply based on his word. But trying to get a mother committed because you are trying to cover up an affair? Awful.

However, Brian states that Julie called one of them threatening self-harm, and the group tried to get her help.

Needless to say, those are vastly different versions, and they reflect directly on Brian’s pastoral qualifications. If Julie’s version is true, he deserves everything he is getting. She would have every right to say openly and publicly what happened. But if it isn’t, then she was being terribly unfair to him to say that is what happened. Not only that, she would be defaming him which is against the law.

It is not just about her being able to publicly speak her experience whatever it may be. People are not free in our country to publicly say untrue things about someone else in a way that detracts from their livelihood. Brian is obviously of the opinion that she is saying untrue things and they certainly have the potential to detract from his livelihood.

Gram3 wrote:

I love the weasel word “seemingly” which modifies “carefully coordinated” and tightly orchestrated.

Not “modifies”.

Gives Plausible Deniability in case of litigation.
“But Everything we did was LEGAL!”

A commenter on SCCL on Facebook said it so well:

“Emergent leaders proving that they emerged from evangelical theology, but not conduct.” -Jordan Wright

Bang on. Same crap, just with a tattoo and a penchant for words like “nuance” and “subversive”.

dee wrote:

Beth wrote:
It is not just about her being able to publicly speak her experience whatever it may be. People are not free in our country to publicly say untrue things about someone else in a way that detracts from their livelihood. Brian is obviously of the opinion that she is saying untrue things and they certainly have the potential to detract from his livelihood.
They must prove two things: that she deliberately lied and knew it was a lie and that she did so with the intent to cause harm to the other person. McLaren is a pubic figure which raises the stakes even higher. He would have to prove actual harm via direct correlation of measurable loss of income directly due to the statements. This is a pretty tough standard to be proven.
If McLaren goes down this road, I believe it will spell the beginning of a decline in the trust levels for his ministry and associated ministries. Abused folks will no longer feel safe around the Emergent groups. This is a big deal since they built their reputations on caring for the abused.
Everyone, and I mean everyone, will lose in this deal. McLaren, Jones, Pagitt, etc must show some loving concern and try to bring a kindness into this debate. If they do not, I think they will experience a decline in public trust.
In other words, they will bring it on themselves. Julie will not be the one to blame. It will be their response to Julie that will be the deciding factor. They need to take a deep breath and respond without rancor or lawsuits. I bet they can if they try really hard.

I agree. There are no winners, and if the legal action continues, things will get worse.

@ Beth:
Yes, libel is actionable. Is McLaren accusing Julie McMahon of libel? He accuses “this woman” as/of: “highly inaccurate, unethical, and misleading…bearing false witness…years of repeated harassment, false accusations, threats, and defamation of character.” No libel and no name. Doesn’t an alarm bell go off?

Moreover, in recounting his history with Julie, McLaren makes no mention of Tony’s diagnosis (which by definition involves profound relational difficulties) while at the same time he frames Julie as incessantly nasty and unstable. A tad hypocritical, yes?

Additionally, people in the offended group have written glowing reports of Tony, accounts that directly contradict, almost point by point, the definitional characteristics of his given diagnosis.

Further, David Hayward writes of being under pressure to delete or heavily redact the comments at his site? He also writes that he’s been threatened.

Lastly, this group has been smearing Julie for years (this is documented and some have apologized to her), but now they complain that they are being smeared, that Julie doesn’t want to play with them, and therefore “action must be taken”. And you think this likely appropriate.

As a therapist, you know that illness, mental or physical, is not original but commonly recognizable through particular symptoms and processes. Tony is behaving typically, almost stereotypically, and his buddies are shining examples of the enthralled.

So I don’t understand your insistence on superficial neutrality while sympathy for Tony and Brian peeks through.

@ Gram3:

My experience has been that the quickest and most reliable way to get my NPD former husband to stop badgering me is to suggest mediation.

I am guessing that the idea of a process where he is accountable for what he says and cannot rewrite what I say, and where he isn’t likely to dominate entirely, is just not very attractive. (In our state, by the way, you do not have to be in the same room as your opposing party. If requested the mediator will practice shuttle diplomacy and go back and forth between the parties.)

But of course Julie’s situation is her own, and her mileage may vary.

Ken wrote:

I think she has made herself very vulnerable to this by her attitude to the bible. Any weakness or compromise or disobedience here and we can soon get into serious trouble (and I don’t have in mind just what you probably think I have in mind, I’m thinking more generally). She has a blunt ‘sword’ with which to fight, and the rest of her armour is rusting and less effective.

Ken, just to make a small diversion here, you act as though RHE’s view of scripture is chosen by her to allow disobedience. That may well be your opinion. Having read her work, & that of Peter Enns, for example, what if her view of scripture is her genuine endpoint of much study & prayer, every bit as much as yours is? Her interpretation may differ from your interpretation of the standing of the Biblical texts, but I think to assume she has arrived at hers more ‘dishonestly’ than you have is way beyond your ability to know. Many many individuals come to the Bible with the same willingness, the same intention to obey & still come away with different interpretations of who God is, what authority the Bible has, & what its words mean. Christian Smith’s The Bible Made Impossible is a great unpacking of this plurality of interpretations arising from the same text, something I bang my head against every day, & that utterly hinders my spiritual life.
I just can’t let a sequence of cause & effect like RHE’s view of the Bible makes her spiritually weak & thus she is reacting badly in this current situation pass. It’s both unfair & untrue.

” I have followed (and admired) her for several years and read much and what she writes tells me she has indeed wrestled much with the text ”

In wrestling much with the text, has she ever truly come to the conclusion that the text directly contradicts some aspect of what she believes? Or is it wrestling followed by rationalisation?

Meant to say Done not None. I’m still very much a believer

“Why not read some of her work? ”

They were rhetorical question (the answer to which is ‘no’ btw), I’ve read her work. FWIW I consider whether someone comes to an orthodox interpretation or not somewhat irrelevant, if in ‘wrestling’ with the text they only come up with rationalisations for what they take to the text.

[and yes, I’ve read Pete Enns, back in 2008 when I&I came out. I think he’s doing the work of a scholar, and you can’t really compare RHE to him].

@ XianAtty:

That is nothing but a platitude. You can in no way guarantee or declare that his position with the police has not negatively affected her dealings with an NPD.

@ Lydia:

I think that what xianatty has said about family court judges is very apt to be quite true, based just on the fmj we have elected in this jurisdiction. Many of them have been practically ferocious she-who-is-not-to-be-messed-with African American women who are apparently adept at any kind of alley fighting that some thug or attorney brings into court and who certainly do not hesitate to end up on the evening news. It is after all a political job for which one stands for election. I have never seen a report yet where they deliberately made a decision which was not intended to be for the children’s welfare. And we keep electing these women when we can.

And while we are at it, does not the OT tell the jews that they may not favor either the rich man or the poor man in legal matters? Meanwhile in our culture is not Lady Justice depicted as blind folded? And if that does not play out in court is there not cause to re-enter the ring with accusations of bias or bribery or intimidation or political chicanery or such? To say that one must assume that a judge will be corrupt is way over the line.

@ Nancy:

Then I suppose Julie is lying about some of her encounters with police concerning her children and dealing with the NPD. How was she served when she went to get her child past visitation, called the police to help and was told “we don’t get involved in domestic disputes”?

See how this works?

In my city which is large, (Julies is smaller) there are several watering holes where the judicial, law enforcement and lawyers go. They know each other. I am sure that never influences anything? I sure know it influenced one judge in a custody suit where the mom could not afford an attorney. I was sitting in the room as moral support.

I personally think she deserves to at least be believed until it is proven otherwise.

klickvic wrote:

In our state, by the way, you do not have to be in the same room as your opposing party. If requested the mediator will practice shuttle diplomacy and go back and forth between the parties.

IMO that is the best kind of mediation process. It’s great that your ex respected the mediator’s role and responsibility. Sounds like you had a very good mediator!

Nancy, I don’t think judges are corrupt….I spent most of last year working on a campaign for a friend who ran as a judge for family court. She lost in Nov, sadly

I think the “process” favors certain situations. A criminal can get legal aid more readily than a single mom in a custody situation.

I saw a lot of this up-close and personal when I was on the board of a spouse abuse center. I had no idea. It as quite an education.

The Nightowl wrote:

Thankfully, Jesus is faithful when man fails.

Indeed.

Lydia wrote:

You and xtian atty sound like people who are in the world of being able to afford representation. Go take a look at the world that can’t afford it or has no connections.

My daughter-in-law practiced family law for years for Legal Aide. A poor single mom going to court without representation would be bad news (ed.), but that just might not be her only option, don't you know.

@ Nancy:

news

I never have been very good at discerning neutral language that hides an agenda.

From my perspective, I’m convinced enough of the non-neutral stuff I see that the neutral stuff doesn’t bother me. I fear to those unconvinced, going after neutral language can appear unobjective.

From a standpoint of mediation, the idea that mediation was persued and Julie didn’t accept it doesn’t bother me at all- there’s no need in my mind to establish anything else beyond that, because whether TJ’s camp did peruse it, or how if they did, is irrelevant. In the end, Julie is justified not showing up to the table with such a power imbalance.

@ numo:
Hide an agenda.

Lydia wrote:

Then I suppose Julie is lying about some of her encounters with police concerning her children and dealing with the NPD. How was she served when she went to get her child past visitation, called the police to help and was told “we don’t get involved in domestic disputes”?

When her NPD ex has established himself as a POLICE Chaplain, just like Bob Greiner of CC Visalia?

“The Code of the Blue”.

In my city which is large, (Julies is smaller) there are several watering holes where the judicial, law enforcement and lawyers go. They know each other. I am sure that never influences anything?

“One Hand Washes the Other…”

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

Lydia wrote:

Jeff S wrote:

-Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see either Beth or XA as posting in favor of TJ or against Julie. I’m not seeing the agenda, just information to help us understand what has happened and what has the potential to happen.

I did not pick up on that. I got the impression she is having a hard time accepting that McLaren has done anything wrong from the get go and is ignoring the fact that Julie has had a reason not to trust him. It can be very hard to come to grips with the fact your favorite celeb is not who you thought they were. His threatening legal action now should inform her of who he really is once you strip away the persona of a “Generous Orthodoxy”.

Lydia,
I can see how you would think that. Here’s my honest view. I don’t know Brian McLaren. I’ve never read anything he has written. I have not followed the Emergent crowd and I know very little to nothing about their theology, reputation, or behavior. I have picked up from the many hours I’ve spent reading about this situation, that both he and Rachel had a solid reputation for sticking up for victims, but if you had asked me that four days ago, I would have had no idea.

I do know someone who knows him though, and while we have never discussed Brian except briefly in passing, the passing comment was that he was one of the good ones.

I have an interest in abuse and spiritual abuse, which is why I read Wartburg Watch from time to time. But my biggest interest (and looking back, why I decided to jump into this thread) is how groups of people behave in certain circumstances. I am quite curious about that. I am also someone, some would say to my detriment, who endlessly analyzes things. I mull and wonder and look at things from many different angles. I ask, “What if?”and think about possible answers. That’s what I’m doing here.

My comments are not about Julie and Tony. I have no interest in touching that mess. My comments are about Brian and Julie.

One of my “What ifs” is what if Brian is telling the truth, and his statement is essentially accurate?

I imagine myself in his situation and I wonder what I would do. I wonder what the right thing to do would be. She is making public accusations that are not accurate and that are eroding people’s view of my reputation. I have tried to privately clarify, but to no avail. I have tried to bring a neutral third party in to no avail. The public accusations continue,but if I try and publicly defend myself by producing my documentation, then it is likely to further wound her because those documents reflect poorly on her. The cynical part of me would also recognize that by producing those documents, I would be accused of trying to make a vulnerable woman look bad and that would backfire.

If (big IF) what Brian said in his statement is true, then really any option is a bad one. He can’t publicly defend himself because he would be publicly hurting a vulnerable woman, and if his reputation is deserved, he would not want to do that. It would also appear that he is taking advantage of his position of power (because he would be) and he would be sensitive to that.

Even if what he said in his statement was essentially correct, I still don’t think he should sue her, and I’ve said that. Out of all the bad options, I think it ranks above coming on blogs and trying to defend himself, but below continuing to try and find a neutral third party besides the courts who can privately evaluate the information, hopefully with Julie’s contribution, but even without. I also think Dee is spot on that more public expressions of care need to be made from that group.

I don’t know. All I am doing is speculating out loud and pointing out possible scenarios. I think the possibility that he is abusing his power and treating Julie unfairly is already being well-covered here and I feel no need to point it out. If I had come to a site that was vigorously defending Brian without acknowledging that Julie might very well be telling the truth, I would probably be pointing out that she might very well be telling the truth and speculating about the ramifications of that. Like I said, these situations fascinate me, but I’m not one to settle on any version without more evidence.

Beth wrote:

If (big IF) what Brian said in his statement is true, then really any option is a bad one. He can’t publicly defend himself because he would be publicly hurting a vulnerable woman, and if his reputation is deserved, he would not want to do that. It would also appear that he is taking advantage of his position of power (because he would be) and he would be sensitive to that.

I am so glad you explained it all! I only take exception to the above. Compared to Julie, McLaren has power, position and followers. He comes at this from an exalted position of ministry. He did have another option no matter what Julie said about his part in all of it.

He lost his Christian leadership moment/opportunity by not apologizing for his part in not taking the time to understand her situation years ago.(Go look at book blurbs to see why this might be a problem for these guys). It is real simple. All she asked for on nakedpastor is an apology. And that is AFTER everyone knows about the NPD diagnosis.
How did McLaren respond on that thread? He wanted mediation he would look into…..huh?

But to apologize to Julie publicly would be seen as dissing Tony who has built a narrative they have all gone along with—for years.

@ Gram3:
Gram3–It’s great that your ex respected the mediator’s role and responsibility. Sounds like you had a very good mediator!

Ah–I should have been more clear. The result of suggesting mediation in my situation has not been mediation. It has been that he stops contacting me for long stretches, which is a blessing. I am speculating about his reasons.

In the past the only way to have a stretch of peaceful life was to apologize, give in, and grovel regarding the issue de jour. Besides the psychic damage that causes, it only gives a short respite because the NPD person gets a big yummy helping of narcissistic supply, which brings him–or her–back to the table for more.

If he did ever agree to the process, I doubt it would result in an agreement he would stick to. The benefit for me–as I imagine it– would be having both our positions stated clearly, on the record, in front of a neutral witness.

Going forward, this would include the chance to demonstrate that I do in fact live up to my agreements and commitments. I also want my children, who are grown now but still dealing with the fallout of our strife, that there are ways to seek peace and self-respect even when repentance or vindication may never happen.

My current husband worked for years as a volunteer mediator, and it does sound from his stories as though the process in our area generally works well.

@ dee:

That would be wonderful!

I’m really wondering how many of the celebrities who posted their statements on the Scribd site with McLaren actually interacted face to face with Julie six years ago when Tony left her? Did any of Tony’s supporters, who appear to have supported TJ leaving his wife and children, contact Julie, support Julie, hear her story without first hearing what Tony was claiming. Were Tony and Julies’ friends Tony’s friends first and foremost? Did Julie get to travel and connect with all these people like Tony did? Did all their friends support Julie who probably traveled less, gave birth, and was with the children then and these last six years?

Do any of these celebrities have a clue about what went on six hears ago, what is going on now, or are most of them blindly supporting TJ because TJ, or McLaren, asked them to?

@ Bridget:

Please excuse the finger foibles.

Lydia wrote:

It is sad but in some situations it has to be done because NPD’s are often believed.

Because NOBODY is as Sincere and as Credible and as Truthful as an NPD/Sociopath.
Until the instant you outlive your usefulness.

Some guys I know used to call it “they shine their Stupid Ray on people and everyone believes them.”

dee wrote:

One thing that disturbs me about certain factions in the evangelical/Reformed movement is their absolute inability to show respect to others who are trying to think it through. The continuous subtext of *heresy* stops any sort of give and take.

“Heresy” or THOUGHTCRIME?

@ dee:

Thank you Dee (and for your comment on the other thread that I just recently saw).

My heart is breaking over this; I don’t even know what a good outcome looks like now, but I hope people can be awakened as they watch this unfold. 🙁

@ Beth:
Thanks for further explanation. I think the situation is fascinating, too.

I also did a thought exercise on McLaren, wondering what I would do if I were him, believing himself to be correct and wounded. An exercise like this helps keep one from “otherizing”. It can also help us survivors keep traumatic pasts separate from the current story.

What’s most interesting to me, though, is that I make a declarative positional statement before diving into the exercise and re-affirm my position after I am finished. And this is something that neither you nor XianAtty do, obviously feeling no need for it.

I wonder if this might be a difference between people with personal experience of (this kind of) trauma and people with only intellectual experience of it. We survivors bring complete selves to both the examination of evidence and the discussion following it, because we remember the destruction viscerally, and have long recognized that a strong ethic stance must be kept front and center, and is in fact, the best defense against it.

I am not sure, but this difference might be what has been causing some of us to question the ethical perspective of you and XianAtty.

dee wrote:

Beth wrote:
he wrote that they determined to try and get her committed without her input and by listening to Tony. If true, that would be outrageously unethical
The good news here is that they cannot do that without a psychiatrist/social worker assessment in the place they attempted to commit her. If she is deemed suicidal by a professional, she could be admitted against her will for a short period of time (varies by state (@48 hours). She was not admitted which means she was not deemed suicidal by the professionals.

True. According to Julie, a member of the group tried to take her to the hospital, but she refused to go and I’m not sure was ever properly evaluated. She does say she called and talked to an intake nurse who told her she needs a good lawyer!

The others involved aren’t giving details other than to say they tried to respond.

Patrice wrote:

@ Beth:
Thanks for further explanation. I think the situation is fascinating, too.
I also did a thought exercise on McLaren, wondering what I would do if I were him, believing himself to be correct and wounded. An exercise like this helps keep one from “otherizing”. It can also help us survivors keep traumatic pasts separate from the current story.
What’s most interesting to me, though, is that I make a declarative positional statement before diving into the exercise and re-affirm my position after I am finished. And this is something that neither you nor XianAtty do, obviously feeling no need for it.
I wonder if this might be a difference between people with personal experience of (this kind of) trauma and people with only intellectual experience of it. We survivors bring complete selves to both the examination of evidence and the discussion following it, because we remember the destruction viscerally, and have long recognized that a strong ethic stance must be kept front and center, and is in fact, the best defense against it.
I am not sure, but this difference might be what has been causing some of us to question the ethical perspective of you and XianAtty.

I think this is very insightful Patrice. I really appreciate it and think you are right. I take my ethics extremely seriously, but I don’t always communicate them up front.

I have not felt even slightly offended at any expressed concerns over my motives etc. I understand that many who comment here have survived abuse in one form or another, and you are not only justified but right in questioning the motives of someone who is, in turn, questioning the story of a victim. I try and tread lightly, especially since my questioning can seem cold and clinical. It might be an interesting situation to me, but to those who’s experience parallels it, it is much, much more. If I have hurt anyone by my comments, I apologize.

dee wrote:

Doug Pagitt’s statement of support for Tony Jones.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/254304734/Statement-In-Support-of-Tony-Jones-Doug-Pagitt

A number of years ago I made a decision to not engage in public online forums or blog comments in regards to criticism about me or others. I have worked hard in my 27 years as a pastor and public figure to seek reconciliation and healing in every relationship where I am able.

Doug Pagitt

What a useless comment other than to trash Julie McMahon. So Doug, what exactly the false accusations? We never seem to hear the specifics, all it ever amounts to is you all saying “Liar, Liar, Pants on fire!”. Nor is there any acknowledgement of any side of Tojo other than the one that pictures him as a candidate for sainthood (if he was Catholic). People then rush to Julie McMahon’s defense to expose Tojo’s dark side. The result is a painting public pictures in black and white while the world exists in colors and shades. Statements such as this do nothing to present any kind of real picture, something we do not have regarding either side.

On Doug’s statement that he pursued mediated counseling with her in late 2014. Given Doug’s alleged role in helping Tojo with his divorce and painting Julie as mentally unstable, if this involvement on behalf of Tojo is true, why would she ever accept any offer of help from him?

@ Beth:
Just to clarify– she was evaluated later.

@ Beth:
On the nakedpastor thread some apologized for believing the narrative being pushed back then that she was crazy. Evidently even people not in the leadership circle had heard about her being crazy.

she deserves a public voice even if years later and even if she does not do it in a way that people approve.

Michaela wrote:

Beth wrote:

@….I think her words are having a major effect on his reputation and that of the others directly involved in the group that dealt with her.
….Not only that, she would be defaming him which is against the law.
It is not just about her being able to publicly speak her experience whatever it may be. People are not free in our country to publicly say untrue things about someone else in a way that detracts from their livelihood. potential to detract from his livelihood.

@Beth,

You made a sincere post, but you omitted that Brian McLaren is a public figure in the United States and therefore under the First Amendment his entire life can be written about and discussed. McLaren has made a living by being in the media, writing, blogging, speaking and exercising his First Amendment rights. Other people in the US can do the same.

Here’s a nice chart from the Digital Media Law Project which explains the difference for purposes of libel and defamation between public and private figures:

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/examples-public-and-private-figures

and one on proving fault, actual malice, and negligence

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

By the way, Beth, if you’ve noticed the tabloids in the grocery store checkout line or the convenience store, the stories about those public figures are protected under the First Amendment.

The rare exception that I know of is when Carol Burnett sued and prevailed against the National Enquirer due to California law which was in her favor and not the standard case law Sullivan v. New York Times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.

lydia wrote:

@ Beth:
On the nakedpastor thread some apologized for believing the narrative being pushed back then that she was crazy. Evidently even people not in the leadership circle had heard about her being crazy.

she deserves a public voice even if years later and even if she does not do it in a way that people approve.

And David Hayward in Canada at the Naked Pastor also deserves an apology for the pressures that Tony Jones & Company have been putting on him to not cover this story.

Since Tony Jones, Brian McLaren and others weren’t willing to ‘man up’ and apologize to David Hayward, I apologized to him from the United States.

Gram3 wrote:

If you mean that the situation needs to be de-escalated, I think that would be wise by any means possible by all people who have the ability to help in that effort. That’s true, IMO, for a lot of people for a lot of reasons on all sides of the matter(s) we have been discussing. Appreciate your perspective very much.

Not only do I believe the situation should be de-escalated, I think it’s highly inappropriate for Michaela to go out seeking legal help for Julie. Again, Just My Personal Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary.

Michaela wrote:

mirele wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
If you mean that the situation needs to be de-escalated, I think that would be wise by any means possible by all people who have the ability to help in that effort. That’s true, IMO, for a lot of people for a lot of reasons on all sides of the matter(s) we have been discussing. Appreciate your perspective very much.

Not only do I believe the situation should be de-escalated, I think it’s highly inappropriate for Michaela to go out seeking legal help for Julie. Again, Just My Personal Opinion, Your Mileage May Vary.

@Mirele,

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

I have not sought help for Julie per se, but for the First Amendment issues involved and the reception from those legal experts across the U.S. has been FANTASTIC!

Have a great day.

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