Thank you for setting an example and for giving Brian McLaren the opportunity to speak for himself in his own words. That is not the norm, certainly. I hope that he proceeds with a mediation effort and is willing to apologize to Julie for his part in her abuse. For Brian, Tony, Rachel, Nadia, and the others, you need to realize that trust must be earned by your actions and your words. It’s easy to lose trust and very hard to earn it back.

To Dee and Brian – This is all good news and I appreciate how you two have interacted. I have seen enough witness testimony, participated in enough lawyer presentations, and read enough transcripts, to know that good people can and do inadvertently mishear, misremember, or misunderstand what they thought they heard, or misstate what they thought they were saying. Thank you for both for working it out. I pray that mediation can move forward on whatever part of this whole situation where it’s possible.

@ Bill Kinnon:
Bill Kinnon wrote:

In fairness to Dee, Brian could have corrected any mistakes within moments of the post going up. Brian has been blogging for years and knows how social media works.

I think that would have limited the impact of his Wise Lesson To Us All. Everyone who knows how social media works knows that the body of the post is a better platform than the comment section.

Brian wrote: “Not one of us is perfect, and all of us need grace and humility as we seek truth, justice, peace, and love as followers of Christ.”

Indeed. I’ve also had to apologize when the price of doing so was high. Excruciating!

That’s why I will be so relieved if Brian would also tell us that he made a mistake with his all-or-nothing denigration of Julie on “WhyTony” scrib’d. That would do a great deal to bring things forward, here on out.

It is not being wrong that is the biggest problem but rather our willingness to face it and work for restitution. I hope you can, Brian. It truly is worth it, over the long haul.

Thanks for this, Brian and Dee. Just goes to show how important it is to hear everyone’s story in their own words, eh? 😉

There’s just too much double speak going on for me to feel this will bring true healing. A little humility and servant heartedness would be nice. Plus that scribd site should be taken down and some apologies are in order. It does take time for people to change their way of thinking, so I don’t expect it overnight, but this whole culture in Christendom is the problem. I see no reason to trust anyone who perpetuates politics in church.

Amy Smith wrote:

Patrice wrote:

That’s why I will be so relieved if Brian would also tell us that he made a mistake with his all-or-nothing denigration of Julie on “WhyTony” scrib’d. That would do a great deal to bring things forward, here on out.

Exactly. The initial statement of support for Tony on the site you mentioned is still out there which if I remember correctly included threats of legal action against Julie. Is there no public apology to Julie for that? There should be. I don’t see that in his comments. She deserves that at the very least.

@ Melody:
The “double speak” is the default mode when there’s more concern for image over people. That’s been what has hit me in the gut everytime there is a new statement released by these leaders.

@ Xianatty:

Sorry, disagree. Removing his statement on the scribd site should not be a point of mediation. The statement impugns Julie and contains the legal threat. Removing it would go a long way to put actions to the words here. You make it sound like removing it will be “negotiating” tactic reserved for mediation. If so, it is a cheap tactic.

Xianatty wrote:

Lamentably, miscommunications are often amplified on the internet, which provides all the more reason for responsible people to exercise care in jumping to conclusions, believing the worst, etc. Scripture has a lot to say about how we communicate, and for people who identify as Christians, I don’t think there’s an online exemption.

Yes, I agree. And we need to be patient. And this means hope.

Moreover, Dee shows herself to be one of the best. She and Deb have proven themselves, again and again. People like them keep me from despairing of our species. I am very grateful.

Thus, considering that Brian is merely another human among us, this gentle chiding for the children among us sounds a tad precious:

“Lamentably, miscommunications are often amplified on the internet, which provides all the more reason for responsible people to exercise care in jumping to conclusions, believing the worst, etc. Scripture has a lot to say about how we communicate, and for people who identify as Christians, I don’t think there’s an online exemption.”

It is vital that all adults involved recognize that we are peers in both sin and wisdom. Face-to-face openness without condescension. That is hard work and sometimes painful. But this won’t work unless it is done.

Melody wrote:

but this whole culture in Christendom is the problem.

I don’t consider these people part of ‘Christendom’ – they are wacky undisciplined sects, typically founded by one man or small group of men with a schtick. Anyone, but anyone, can call themselves Christian and set up shop, and will likely find gullible followers.

Christendom is a lot bigger than the ‘Emergent’ and ‘Progressive’ world, or even the Evangelical world .

I have no idea how the quote by Brian was made into Xianatty’s quote, which follows.

Xianatty wrote:

The question of who owes whom an apology and for what, along with all the suggestions for what “must be done” by either side to remedy which errors, are all matters to be worked out in mediation. Things are moving in the right direction.

Lydia wrote:

@ Xianatty:

Sorry, disagree. Removing his statement on the scribd site should not be a point of mediation. The statement impugns Julie and contains the legal threat. Removing it would go a long way to put actions to the words here. You make it sound like removing it will be “negotiating” tactic reserved for mediation. If so, it is a cheap tactic.

No, Lydia. That’s not what I suggested at all. My experience has been that once parties have agreed to move forward with mediation, it’s better to address any outstanding issues in that forum, not as a “negotiating tactic,” a term I never used or even implied, but rather because they have already established that they can’t resolve things on their own and trying to do so might just crater the whole idea of mediation before it gets started.

Xianatty wrote:

they have already established that they can’t resolve things on their own and trying to do so might just crater the whole idea of mediation before it gets started.

So gestures of good faith or goodwill are unpossible if mediation is possible? Really?

@ Xianatty:

It is certainly ok with me if we disagree. I have personally seen good faith actions BEFORE mediation to show seriousness of purpose. So please don’t try and tell me otherwise.

Lydia wrote:

These sorts of responses were condescending but because of the gentle chiding with a sincere smile, people often missed what they were really thinking of them.

There is nothing quite like condescension to make it clear that a real conversation is not taking place even though it might *look* like a conversation. Been in those meetings at churches, too, and not even just in megas. The best way to cause someone to default to “believing the best” is to act like you’re trustworthy over a period of time. The worst way is to use it as a question defense. Very bad tactic and even worse strategy.

Melody wrote:

I have decided to call myself an eclectic Christian because I’m tired of these other e’s.

I know a LOT of folks who call themselves “followers of Jesus”, or “followers of The Way” in order to avoid the baggage that has collected around the word “Christian”, particularly in this country (US).

If this is on the up-and-up, it’s a Very Good Sign.

However, if this is another chess move by ToJo using a plausibly-deniable pawn…

Lydia wrote:

I lived in the mega church world where all the leaders communicated like this to the followers….These sorts of responses were condescending but because of the gentle chiding with a sincere smile, people often missed what they were really thinking of them. I knew because I was in the meetings. :o(

Yah, after I wrote the comment, I realized I was showing the length of time I’ve been away from the church. It was an attitude in which I was immersed, especially because I’m a woman. I am glad to be shed of the soft supercilious attitude which has always reminded me of the first verse of Jabberwocky—-just that smooth, nonsensical, and soporific:

‘Twas brillig and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogroves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

🙂

Xianatty wrote:

@ Beth:
Beth – I’d be happy to communicate with you privately. I’m assuming you’ll keep my contact information private. I will do the same for yours.

Dee – You have my permission to share my email with Beth.

Certainly.

Wow. Well done Brian McLaren and well done Dee and Deb and TWW…on many fronts. Happy to see this situation take this positive turn. I am so damn jaded with regards to “spiritual leaders” that I really didn’t see this one coming around to a more positive potential solution.

I hope the mediation process goes well and I hope that Julie and Brian are able to reach a peaceful and mutually beneficial solution to the problem between them.

I am also hopeful that Tony Jones will follow Brian’s lead and seek a peaceful solution with Julie as well.

Amy Smith wrote:

The initial statement of support for Tony on the site you mentioned is still out there which if I remember correctly included threats of legal action against Julie.

Brian clarified in TWW’s last post on this subject, that he didn’t mean bringing Julie to court, but rather meant that he would find out the legalities of publishing documents to support his view.

I haven’t been at WhyTony scrib’d for a few days, but last I looked, he hadn’t corrected that stumble in communication. I hope he has by now.

@ Gram3:
You wrote:
“This is an opening for a demonstration of real leadership by McLaren if he is sincere. AFAIK no one is demanding anything.”

Perhaps I am misreading them, but some of them sure sound like demands to me.

Xianatty wrote:

I was addressing commenters here who are demanding that McLaren do this or that.

If you are speaking to me in this sentence, I demanded nothing. I merely pointed out what would make me very happy and would push the process along most beautifully, and then I followed it up with another comment about why I feel a little dubious about the humility quotient, and wished it for all of us.

You are not an objective speaker here, either, Xianatty. It is also important for you to understand that and meet us as peers.

I’m having a difficult time understanding how someone who hasn’t been in touch that much over the last few years comes to write such a strong public statement of support for Tony and requires mediation with Julie. Why does Julie have to mediate with him? I hope this isn’t further victimization. We have seen this happen unfortunately when survivors of abuse talk directly with or mediate with church officials. Is mediation required because McLaren has considered legal action?

@ Patrice:
No, Patrice, I wasn’t actually talking about you. I read some other commenters as making demands.

You’re welcome to your own views about me and my comments and my objectivity, but that doesn’t make them right. If I didn’t think you and others here were peers I wouldn’t bother trying to have a discussion with you.

1. Brian McLaren posts on scribd site supportive of Tony and with implied legal threat.

2. Brian McLaren is shocked, SHOCKED, that Dee could have possibly misunderstood him to be supportive of Tony (in his camp) or threatening legal action against Julie.

3. Brian McLaren is shocked, SHOCKED, and deeply saddened and disappointed in us that we could so easily misinterpret what he said to Dee as implying he was distancing himself from Tony and that mediation between him and Julie must wait. HOW could we be so biased as to suspect he is lying? WHEN will we all realize how easy it is to misunderstand via the internet?

Brian- you’ve tried three times now. You, the dude who communicates in writing for a living, have tried 3 times and failed 3 times to be clear. Maybe it’s not your audience. Maybe, just maybe, you’re equivocating and it’s more obvious than you would like.

Come on dude. Come to the table like an equal, ready to hear.

Xianatty wrote:

You might try that.

Here’s what I would like to try. There is no such thing as objectivity residing in a person. Let’s not pretend that either you or I are objective. I asked you whether we can agree that it is reasonable, in your view, for McLaren as a purported Christian leader to demonstrate that leadership by actually leading with a gesture of reconciliation. He is the more powerful person in this situation, and ISTM that a Kingdom ethic places the greater burden on the more powerful individual. Of course, you are not obliged to accept my view of Kingdom ethics.

Alex wrote:

Well, after reading a post from Reuben on Stuff Christian Culture Likes thread…I’m not so sure.

Same here.

Dear Brian: I don’t think you’ve been misunderstood or misconstrued. I do think you have unfairly maligned Julie McMahon. If you had not posted that document to Scribd, it would be one thing. But you did, and it’s still there.

It seems that you are saying one thing (wwhich keeps changing) to Dee, and another to Julie and to every person who reads your assertions about her on Scribd.

It is not enough to try and put spin on it, or to try to make nice by saying that Dee misrepresented you.

I would hope that you would be willing to not only apologize, but have the Scribd document taken down. That appears to be pretty clear-cut, to me, at least.

You might feel a weight slide off your soul if you said and did those things and meant them sincerely. And you might just set an example for others to follow in so doing. I do not know if you will read this comment, but i hope you do. More important, I hope you will reach out to Julie, as well as removing that document from Scribd. Because all the nice-sounding words in your latest to Dee most assuredly do not cancel out the reality of the words you have posted on that sie, and the accusations you have made.

@ Xianatty:

I don’t believe you actually addressed the ethical question I put to you. What, if any, greater responsibility does a Christian leader have in a situation like this? Please answer not as an attorney but as a Christian.

__

“SkyFall?”

Intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOfwHP7oW-8

did you hear,
Did you hear the thunder?

better run,
Better run for cover?

🙁

__
Comic relief: Colin Hay (Men at Work) – “Land Down Under”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NNQlU1aF1Y

^^^

—

@ Xianatty:

Just to clarify, I understand you stated that it is reasonable, though probably not advisable, for McLaren to make a gesture of goodwill. The ethical question is a different one, and I did not explicitly state that as a question to you. So, I’ll try again. Do you think that a Kingdom ethic places a greater responsibility on the one with greater power to lead in the process of reconciliation? I think Numo gives some excellent guidance on what that might or might not look like.

@ numo:
Further, i do not like what McLaren said to Dee, but she’s not the one beingmharmed in all of this.

@ Gram3:
That you don’t like my answer about Kingdom ethics does not mean that I didn’t answer you. The Christian leader, like the parishioner, has an ethical duty to conduct themselves in ways most likely to bring about a successful mediation. My legal experience leads me to conclude that a successful mediation is more likely if parties defer all outstanding issues and all direct communication until the mediation itself.

I can no more separate my legal training from my Christian faith in this analysis than a physician would in dealing with a public health issue. The doctor might say that Kingdom ethics require us to love our neighbor as ourselves, that medical training teaches them that (absent a specific health issue) most all kids should be vaccinated, and so Kingdom ethics require parents to vaccinate most all kids.

@ Beth:
I have said all that i intend to say about this in the comment you referenced. It seems to me that debating the matters you raise is not helpful, whic is why i addressed the comment directly to Brian McLaren.

numo wrote:

@ Beth:
I have said all that i intend to say about this in the comment you referenced. It seems to me that debating the matters you raise is not helpful, whic is why i addressed the comment directly to Brian McLaren.

Fair enough. I respect that.

Comment on SCCL page about this post:
Eric Booth:
When he takes down his PDF accolade on scribd, that action, and not these good words, will convince me he is interested in reconciliation/restoration. That site is intentionally divisive. That is it’s purpose in life.
https://m.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes/posts/10153709016253782?comment_id=10153709046443782&offset=0&total_comments=5&notif_t=share_comment

very good question:
Curtis Griesel:
It seems all Julie has ever really wanted is an apology. (That and Tony’s share of child support) They have to mediate saying “sorry”?

I went beck in my email and looked I emailed Brian 8 times in the 9 years of knowing him. I calked him once. One email bounced back because he was out of the country. I have been very hard on him, that is true. It is my perception he failed miserably in his position of authority with the Emergent church as it pertains to looking the other way about serious issues concerning Tony Jones. CLEARLY, Brian is conflict avoidant but that makes me question his leadership. That is my only issue with Brian. I feel he was in a very powerful position (still is) to admonish Tonys abhorrent behaviors and yet he defends him in the face of irrefutable evidence and chooses to stand by Tonys side. EVEN when sent doctors and hospital records detailing my torn shoulder. FOR THAT I am calling foul. Maybe this is no longer about you, Brian but about doing the right thing. 6 years too late but for the love of God stand up for the people you claim to stand up for. It’s getting a bit ridiculous. Seriously. It’s over. I mean that it’s just time. Enough is enough. You, Phyllis Tickle, Doug Pagitt, Danielle Shroyer, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Rachel Held Evans….just stop. No one with any sense is buying the bag of bull any longer. I messaged Rachel and said, “I come in peace….” She said, “Do not contact me again and stop threatening me.” Blocked me. It had become just way too much. Too disgustingly much. I forgive you, Brian. I do. I know you people are basically incapable of admitting any fault so let me be the one to say I am sorry for being too hard on you and holding you to a standard I misjudged you were able to be held to. I will mediate with you but you need to show up first authentically. Doug Pagitt, you too. You’re both enablers! I asked you both to help…you did nothing but enable…for years. Beth wrote:

numo wrote:

Dear Brian: I don’t think you’ve been misunderstood or misconstrued. I do think you have unfairly maligned Julie McMahon. If you had not posted that document to Scribd, it would be one thing. But you did, and it’s still there.

It seems that you are saying one thing (wwhich keeps changing) to Dee, and another to Julie and to every person who reads your assertions about her on Scribd.

It is not enough to try and put spin on it, or to try to make nice by saying that Dee misrepresented you.

I would hope that you would be willing to not only apologize, but have the Scribd document taken down. That appears to be pretty clear-cut, to me, at least.

You might feel a weight slide off your soul if you said and did those things and meant them sincerely. And you might just set an example for others to follow in so doing. I do not know if you will read this comment, but i hope you do. More important, I hope you will reach out to Julie, as well as removing that document from Scribd. Because all the nice-sounding words in your latest to Dee most assuredly do not cancel out the reality of the words you have posted on that sie, and the accusations you have made.

He has only unfairly maligned Julie if what he said isn’t true.

He has been accused of some very serious things. I think he has every right to publish his version of what happened. His version does not make Julie look good. If it is inaccurate or untrue, then he absolutely should take it down and apologize. But if it’s true, he has been very poorly treated by her and I think he has as much right to tell his story as she does, especially considering how wide the audience is that has heard her side now.

@ Amy Smith:
Thanks for linking. I think Eric is right.

@ Bridget:
Yes, exactly.

If the issue is Julie’s complaints against Tony, why does Brian keep talking about himself?

@ Amy Smith:
I don’t know. Brad Sargent probably does, though.

Lydia wrote:

These sorts of responses were condescending but because of the gentle chiding with a sincere smile…

I have learned through experience that nobody is as Sincere or as Charming as an NPD/Sociopath/Manipulator. Until the instant you outlive your usefulness.

By radar was tripped weeks ago by xianatty. Sorry, years of training have made my radar acute to these sort of behaviors. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Banannie wrote:

Brian- you’ve tried three times now. You, the dude who communicates in writing for a living, have tried 3 times and failed 3 times to be clear. Maybe it’s not your audience. Maybe, just maybe, you’re equivocating and it’s more obvious than you would like.

Come on dude. Come to the table like an equal, ready to hear.

Something else I’ve noticed is we never heard of “Xianatty” (at least under that handle) until the whole ToJo-vs-Julie thing hit the big time. While this may be a coincidence, a manipulator would also try to camouflage the timing of moving his chess piece as a Coincidence(TM) so for a third party like me there’s no way to be sure. And NPDs plan thirty chess moves ahead. Which way is up?

Julie McMahon wrote:

I messaged Rachel and said, “I come in peace….” She said, “Do not contact me again and stop threatening me.” Blocked me. It had become just way too much. Too disgustingly much.

Oh h*ll, I was hoping your recent reference to being rejected by yet another mini-celeb wasn’t RHE. That’s just rotten and I am very sorry.

You have many others who believe you, which you didn’t have before you told your story. That is not much solace, but it is something, I suppose.

I am glad to be on your side, Julie McMahon.

In fairness to Rachel it was more words than just my opener of I come in peace but nothing any rational person would deem a threat. I offered again for her to see the evidence I have. I offered that to Nadia also. Both declined. I reached out because honestly I think she is young and naive and was played by an NPD and I was offering her a way out. She has been a sad casualty in all of this like Nadia playing the victim to “digital pitchforks” when people called her out for refusing to hear the side of the abused person. They both decided I was disposable and went on the attack, so there is nothing else I can do there. They are left standing alone with their true colors shining brightly and ironically, Tony is no where to be found. That’s how they masterfully get others to do their bidding. NPD is serious and at times very scary. Unfortunately, unless you comprehend the complexities of it…you are likely to play right into the hands of the person. I believe many of the “supporters” are just that. Pawns. Bridget wrote:

Julie McMahon wrote:

I messaged Rachel and said, “I come in peace….” She said, “Do not contact me again and stop threatening me.”

If a message like this is what RHE considers threatening, then she has no business saying that she supports victims who have really been threatened. She doesn’t know what a real threat is. I hope she has never and will never receive an actual threat.

Yep. Yep yep. Stinks.
Beyond that, I have a variety of friends I disagree with. But I don’t feel I have to side with abusers and I’m ok with losing friends if they wish to abuse. It is not true friendship to support a narcissist.

It comes back to Tony’s diagonsis and these “friends'” lack of love for both parties as their marriage collapsed. They’ve clearly only cared to believe Tony yet ignore the factual diagnosis and the natural consequences of it for his previous marriage. These are the pertinent points.

On top of that, the beginning of this blogpost reminds me of how I took the blame one time for someone else’s stuff when gaslighted. I think Brian is right to clarify if there is a misunderstanding but I also think Dee is pretty wise and tries to be fair. Personally, the way Brian clarifies this blames Dee when it sounds like he wasn’t clear. Taking full responsibility truly is difficult, and sometimes as Dee did, it is right to fix confusion. But this smells fishy and it would not be right to shut up about that.

However the important truth to remember is Tony’s NPD diagnosis, extremely suspect quick new relationship regardless of whether it was an affair (which evidence suggests it was), and his powerful connections (I hesitate to call them friends) vs. Julie’s single mom status and expected amount of stress as her marriage fell apart and custody battles commenced. I’m not sure either Tony or Julie have true friends in the emergent movement and that is heartbreaking.

Amy Smith wrote:

@ numo:

Isn’t that Scribd document what RHE linked to in an email to Dee and said that she would have nothing further to say about this matter? And then she proceeded the next week to have something further to say…

@ Patrice:
You wrote:
“Because of this, we will not be acquiescent to presumption, pomposity, or condescension regarding what we know.”

— Nor will I.

@ Xianatty:

I will admit I do have a talent for reading non-answers in the very worst way possible. So, are you saying that the more powerful person *does* have a greater responsibility to move toward reconciliation, according to Kingdom ethics?

Are you saying that either your Christianity or your legal training *does* have greater weight when formulating your opinion on Christian questions? If so, then which has greater weight?

As an attorney, do you routinely receive what your adversaries say uncritically and in the best possible way?

Amy Smith wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:

Mine too, Julie. Also on Twitter. Sounds like the same one…

Amy – That’s a pile of nonsense! You followed me on Twitter long ago when I was commenting on a case where you and I agreed. You even retweeted many of my comments. Dee has seen these. In Julie’s case I disagree with you. But my efforts to look at what the legal records show were the same in this case as in that other case. In both cases my first reaction was, as usual, to believe the victim. In this case, however, I found the appellate order that describes how Julie told the trial court one set of facts, and then told the appellate court the opposite. That, to me called into question the rest of Julie’s story. The more I looked, the more I found that didn’t, to me, jive with what the available court records show. Maybe Julie has valid explanations, but I haven’t heard her address the holding of the appellate court at all. Unfollow me, block me (just like Tony has), whatever, but you won’t stop me from searching for the truth or reporting what I believe the records show, regardless of whether the results were what I expected or wanted to find. Funny, I thought outing the truth was what SNAP stood for.

@ dee:

I just keep seeing a rewriting of the history as if this all started in the last few months when Julie was able to start telling her side. It also sounds like she tried to send emails and texts and make contact seven years ago, but got resounding nos from everyone. Well, there was one person who contacted her, her pastor I think, who wanted to get her committed to a psych ward. Oh, yes, the last or is also Tony Jones’ best buy Nd business partner.

Bridget wrote:

Everyone who posted to Scribd and RHE, since she directed others to the site, took a side – Tony’s.

And the Scrib’d statements not only sided with Tony wholeheartedly, but made no mention anywhere of the diagnosis Tony himself said he had, as well as delivering an almost point-by-point contradiction of the diagnostic characteristics of NPD.

This proved to me, more than anything else, that Julie was correct. They defeated their own intentions by setting up that site, and they seem to be completely unaware of it.

The mind boggles.

Again- I find it interesting that XtianAtty refers, again, specifically to the only single document that is easily googlable, and only vaguely to the other documents that back up his/her claim. If we google, we find the doc XA is referring to and might accidentally forget we can’t find any others. That’s pretty good sleight of hand.

I have yet to see XA refer to any other doc, provide any links to any docs, or respond to any explanations or alternate views that don’t expressly align with his/her take.

I also notice XA does not respond to Julie McMahon.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Xianatty:

I will admit I do have a talent for reading non-answers in the very worst way possible. So, are you saying that the more powerful person *does* have a greater responsibility to move toward reconciliation, according to Kingdom ethics?

Are you saying that either your Christianity or your legal training *does* have greater weight when formulating your opinion on Christian questions? If so, then which has greater weight?

As an attorney, do you routinely receive what your adversaries say uncritically and in the best possible way?

I probably shouldn’t try this again, but here goes.

Both the powerful and the powerless have the same Christian duty to move toward reconciliation. You speak of the duty of reconciliation like it’s something can fall more heavily on one person than another. I think it’s a non-divisible duty, like the duty of brotherly love. I don’t have less of a duty depending on whether I’m rich or poor. It’s all the same duty, but the rich person will likely be called on to honor that duty in some ways that are dramatically different than the poor person.

At *this point* in the dispute between Julie and Brian, I believe both Brian and Julie honor Christian ethics best by deferring all substantive issues and all direct questions until he’s in a mediated forum.

I’m saying your question about whether my Christianity or legal training trumps when “formulating [my] opinion on Christian questions” creates a false dichotomy. My Christian ethics help me understand my legal ethics. The legal system is set up (though certainly it often falls short of these goals) to provide a fair process for both sides to present their case. I chose early on not to work as a prosecutor since I am opposed to the death penalty. I have read of a few cases where I was very glad I was not the attorney, but I can’t remember ever having a legal obligation that I thought violated my Christian ethics. When, as here, I’m giving an opinion about how Christian ethics should apply to a matter that is or is becoming a legal dispute, of course I’m going to use my legal training. I can’t conceive of doing otherwise. Would you want the doctor giving an opinion on the Christian ethics of vaccination to ignore their medical training about the efficacy and safety of most if not all vaccines?

“Uncritically” and “in the best possible way” are two different things. Actually, yes, I *always* try to understand what my adversaries are actually trying to say, to understand the internal logic of their argument, and to respond to that. Because that’s what the judge is going to do and I need to satisfy the judge, not opposing counsel. Why would I ever want an opponent to have the “out” of claiming that that’s not what s/he was arguing? There is nothing more likely to set a judge’s hair on fire than to have two attorneys arguing about what they really said and really meant rather than about the law.

And when it comes to dealing with opposing counsel directly, as in discovery, where each side has to turn over all the relevant documents and take depositions, unless I’ve been bitten by a particular person, I always try to understand what they are seeking from my client and why, and to agree to it when I think the law requires it and the judge will grant it. I can zealously represent my client and negotiate in good faith with opposing counsel, only going to the judge when we have a true dispute. That’s the right thing to do and it’s good for my client.

@ Julie McMahon:
Julie – How did Tony’s NPD “illness where pathological lying, abuse, sadistic traits, and being devoid of empathy are present” make you tell one set of facts to the trial court and the opposite to the appellate court? Yes, sometimes a party gets new information and has to ask the court to change one of their factual claims or defenses, but you apparently didn’t offer the appellate court any reason for changing your story and you haven’t explained it here. That Tony has NPD doesn’t explain why you changed your story.

Banannie wrote:

Again- I find it interesting that XtianAtty refers, again, specifically to the only single document that is easily googlable, and only vaguely to the other documents that back up his/her claim. If we google, we find the doc XA is referring to and might accidentally forget we can’t find any others. That’s pretty good sleight of hand.

I have yet to see XA refer to any other doc, provide any links to any docs, or respond to any explanations or alternate views that don’t expressly align with his/her take.

Actually, I’ve provided links, and they are also available as I’ve said on Brad’s site, @futuristguy, to the trial court docket, which lists everything that’s happened in the divorce case and when. It contains a wealth of information.

Amy Smith wrote:

It’s not a pile of nonsense to me Attorney. But it’s cute how you think you can tell me how to discern my feelings. That’s why I blocked you on Twitter. And I don’t regret it.

Amy – I said nothing about your feelings.

Brian,

I assume you’re reading this since you were allowed to post here. Frankly, I’m disgusted by you. I just checked and your statement that says, “I am pursuing legal action…” is still posted here. http://www.scribd.com/doc/254082913/Statement-by-Brian-McLaren

I wasn’t privy to your conversation with Dee, but I’m aware of how gaslighting and blameshifting works. That’s what today’s statement sounds like to me.

Dee, if you ever have another conversation with Mr. McL, I’d suggest that you record it.

@ Marsha:
Why do you believe it’s trivial that Julie told one set of facts about a substantive issue to the trial court and a completely different set of facts to the appellate court? The appellate court found it serious enough that it prohibited her from arguing her new “facts.” That’s a serious penalty or punishment. What basis do you have for believing that the appellate court was wrong for penalizing her for her new and different story?

Musical interlude…
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=c7EdGJw7GWY

Julie McMahon wrote:

. It seems to me very apparent you are aligned and proliferating that agenda.

That was obvious on the first post thread

Val wrote:

@ Xianatty:
Answer this, as a Christian, not a lawyer, because one day you will retire or fall into ill health and need to quit or whatever else happens in old age, and won’t be a lawyer any longer, but you will still be a Christian. Does is matter what Julie did wrong in the case for Tony Jones??

Again, not interested in the legal stuff here, only the faith issues. He divorced her, if it was due to some marital trauma or breakdown, he spent virtually no time trying to heal, help of fix it. He remarried asap. He wrote a book more or less justifying leaving your legal marriage for another one (that is conveniently named something else, but really, is just another marriage). He didn’t write a book on how to cope with a mental illness in the family, or how to cope with broken people in marriages, nope, just a big excuse book for dumping whatever is not up to some delusional new standard (Spiritual Marriage).

If that isn’t bad enough, next he spends six years in litigation. Even if his wife was a monster, why would he want to keep seeing her/ dealing with her in court? And his kids? He left them with this supposed monster? Why would he begrudge them child support? The least he could do really for running off on them and leaving them with a supposedly mentally ill wife.

Forget if Julie lied, forget if she was mentally ill for a second. Is Tony Jones a competent Christian leader or does he have large issues he needs to fix first, before being restored to any position in the Church?

And if it is all about “everyone’s a sinner”, try to remember that Tony called Mark Driscoll out on his leadership for incompetence. We have all seen other McLeaders try all the usual wiggle tactics. Don’t bother. Is it OK for a Christian leader to treat a wife he is choosing to divorce (and that alone is problematic) the way he has been treating his Ex Wife?

Because, really, WHO CARES if Julie is bad????, Tony Jones is the public leader here. We need to undo his platform, that is the focus we must take. The Julie said/Tony said stuff is irrelevant if Tony is unfit for leadership and still a leader. Driscoll was sent packing, now Tony. OK, keep the focus here.

Val – You have no idea whether Tony did any or all of those things. All you have is Julie’s claims. I wanted to believe her. I don’t care so much what she “did wrong” in the case against Tony. I care that the appellate court found her willing to tell one story in one place and a different story in another place on a substantive matter. That, to me, deeply undermined her credibility. So, yes, if Tony did all those things, and he may well have, then the consequences should be as you say. But, I’m no longer willing to take Julie’s word for it. She’ll have to earn that back.

__

“Leave It To Funny Farm (TM) ?”

hmmm…

When does this “Emerged” ‘religion’ cross a line into cultic practice; when the leader apparently tries to get their wife declared “CRazzzy?

huh?

(and every one ‘apparently’ covers his precious little donkey?!?)

hee-honk !

What?

…sounds like another 
particularly “healthy” ‘religious’ movement, dontcha think?

Didn’t da Master sayz youze know them by theyz fruit?

Gump.

(sadface)

Sopy
__
comic relief: The Cars – “You Might Think ?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dOx510kyOs

;~)

—

Xianatty wrote:

That you don’t like my answer about Kingdom ethics does not mean that I didn’t answer you. The Christian leader, like the parishioner, has an ethical duty to conduct themselves in ways most likely to bring about a successful mediation.

It seems clear to me that it’s not that she doesn’t like your answer, yean; it’s that you haven’t bothered to respond to her. Instead you’ve been engaging in the kind of weasel words that were made popular by a Certain U.S. President who ended his days in well-earned disgrace. (Of course, HE was a lawyer, too. Not a condemnation of the whole profession; just of its slimy underbelly).

Xianatty wrote:

Julie – How did Tony’s NPD “illness where pathological lying, abuse, sadistic traits, and being devoid of empathy are present” make you tell one set of facts to the trial court and the opposite to the appellate court? Yes, sometimes a party gets new information and has to ask the court to change one of their factual claims or defenses, but you apparently didn’t offer the appellate court any reason for changing your story and you haven’t explained it here. That Tony has NPD doesn’t explain why you changed your story.

This is where you have no business going, particularly since earlier in the combox, you chided people for being “demanding” of Brian. At least be consistent.

Asking Julie that question is plainly presumptuous. Why should Julie air, in a combox to an adversarial commenter, the long explanation about that one bit in 6 yrs’ worth of litigation?

Moreover, this post is about mediation between Julie and McLaren et al, not about July and Tony.

You belie yourself.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Marsha:
Why do you believe it’s trivial that Julie told one set of facts about a substantive issue to the trial court and a completely different set of facts to the appellate court? The appellate court found it serious enough that it prohibited her from arguing her new “facts.” That’s a serious penalty or punishment. What basis do you have for believing that the appellate court was wrong for penalizing her for her new and different story?

Because I don’t see it the way you see it. Here is how I read the situation from the judge’s decision. The parties agreed to a certain level of child support and it was incorporated into the divorce agreement. Then two years later Tony files for a reduction in child support. A referee reviews the petition and apparently concludes that according to some formula that Family Court uses, it was too high. So the referee calls Julie and asks why there is a discrepancy and she doesn’t know. Tony says it must be a clerical error. Julie concedes that if it was supposed to be something other than it was, it was a clerical error.

So a year later, she appeals and points out that whether or not the figure fit the formula or was higher, they did bargain the details of the settlement and that amount was what they agreed to in the settlement.

Now you think that makes her a liar but I think that makes her as confused as I would have been about the whole situation.

I do not think Julie needs to or should respond here about this issue nor do I think she has to ‘earn back your trust’ which she obviously never has had to begin with.

If you have to get outraged by something as a lawyer, why isn’t it that Tony didn’t return his son after visitation was over or don’t you care about THAT part of the agreement? To repeat, you are coming across to me as a person with an agenda.

RL Stollar brings more light/clarity to the situation with The Evidence Against Tony Jones https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-evidence-against-tony-jones/

Xianatty:

You seem very worried by the appellate court’s opinion. Fair enough – Julie provided different details about the child support agreement in two different court hearings.

But consider her (documented) situation at the time:
Several years of court cases.
Struggling to fund her children’s lunches, let alone lawyers to represent her.
Single mother of 3 children.
Recently divorced acrimoniously, and still experiencing that acrimony.
Years of marriage to an admitted diagnosed (but apparently untreated) sufferer of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, formerly known as megalomania. (Yes, Tony has admitted the NPD diagnosis.)

In this context, isn’t it possible that she simply lost track of the details of the child support agreement?
(Rather than, as you seem to be implying, deliberately lying to a court, and therefore forever impugning her credibility?)
I honestly can’t say I’d do any better under similar circumstances – can you?

And yes, we will probably disagree on this, and that’s ok. I view the situation through my experience of the legal system, and how easy it is to become confused when you’re inexperienced and it’s your first time facing particular legal issues. And you view the situation through your mastery of the legal system, and never making a mistake on such a critical issue as facts told before a court.

But who is more likely to empathise with and understand Julie’s experience, in her context, and therefore be able to accurately assess her credibility? I think your sharp legal mind puts you at a serious disadvantage here. Because you could *never* make the mistakes that she did.

As long as Brian and Julie start mediation, I’d encourage them to put aside an awful lot of what has been said before (including documents on scribd, or blog posts, or whatever).

Mistakes have been made.
Things have been said.
Comments have been misinterpreted.
But let’s focus on moving forward.
Please.

zooey111 wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Why does the self-described “very busy” XianAtty have so much spare time to devote to matters which are so inconsequential? And he/she never has an opinion that doesn’t sound like it’s been run through a legal algorithm a few times.

Maybe he’s on retainer…….

Ding, ding, ding…
I believe we have the answer.

Banannie wrote:

Thank you for once again reminding us not to fall into the “arguing about private lives” trap.

Public figures have limited private lives. That is the choice they make when they decide to make money by living publicly.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

RL Stollar brings more light/clarity to the situation with The Evidence Against Tony Jones https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-evidence-against-tony-jones/

Wow. Just wow.

@ Xianatty:

You are very clever.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Marsha:
In order for the above-the-standard child support amount to have been “bargained for” there would have to have been some actual discussion of that term. Julie told the trial court that she had no idea how that amount was agreed to. To later say that it was actually bargained for is a change in her version of the facts, not simply a shrug that heh, that’s what’s in the paper he signed. I think it’s significant because the appellate court thought it was significant enough to penalize her for her change of story. It doesn’t mean that every single other thing she’s said is therefore false. It just means that, to me, to use the appellate court’s word, she’s “waived” (knowingly given up) her claim to credibility that I believe victims start out with.

There was a clerical error on the numbers in the original Marital Termination Agreement. Tony was $50,000 in arrears and about to be held in Contempt of Court. Rather than pay what he owed he hired a disgusting slimy (not my words but words of the professionals she works amongst) lawyer who argued and won lowering it retroactively to 2009. Tony makes a very nice living and chooses to pay a very small amount to keep his kids who love with me living below the line of poverty. The original amount set was based on financials that he himself provided and he could comfortably afford to pay back in 2008. I am certain he makes 2 or more times more now in a home his mother bought him with another working adult. I have no friggin idea what the xianatty is referring to but I never lied or changed my story. I may be a lot of things but a liar is not one of them. I grew tired of him back on Twitter when his agenda is so clearly over the top. What is your point? https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-evidence-against-tony-jones/

Beth wrote:

Her accusations are on the Naked Pastor thread.

This is not the right way to go about it, Beth. The NP thread occurred only years after the Emergent Leaders tattooed “Guano-Crazy” on her forehead and intimidated others into silence and shunning. You need to be more subtle to be effective, and avoid words like “accusation”, too.

https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-evidence-against-tony-jones/

I don’t think there is really anything left to say. I spoke my truth. I told my story. I am grateful for Ryan Stollar for telling my story with all corroborating evidence. I won’t hold my breath for ANY apologies from the likes of Brian, Doug, Rachel, Phyllis, Nadia, Danielle, Brad C. or Mark S., or Mike K. Or, the xianatty. These alleged Christian leaders were sent copies of evidence and did NOTHING. The truth is out there in black and white. It was kept silent due to GREAT effort and threats for too many years. I pray that others would be inspired to stand up for what is right, even when it’s scary and you are threatened with lawsuits and a fairly effective “bat shit” crazy campaign. Speak up anyway! I love that Ryan Stollar’s blog is called Overturning Tables. That’s the Jesus I want to follow. The one with the courage to flip a table and say, “No more!” I am prepared for what will surely be a lawsuit but I hold the truth and am prepared to walk through that too. If you feel inclined to help me fund my lawyer, I appreciate your kind generosity. Thank you to Dee for this safe place to speak. My faith has been restored through this process. There are really good Christians out there. Sadly, all outpouring of support has been exclusively OUTSIDE the Christian celebrity circles. http://www.gofundme.com/ko5bn8?utm_content=buffer30c17&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Jeff S wrote:

I would rather honestly engage the questions that Beth and Xianatty raise without assuming the worst and trust that the truth will prevail than spend a lot of time questioning their loyalties. And perhaps I’m out of my mind to suggest any of this, but I think every time that something Xianatty says is taken as the worst possible interpretation, it weakens the power of the comments on this blog to see real justice done.

I agree almost totally with you on everything. This is where we greatly disagree. No one is silencing XianAtty or Beth. Speaking only for myself, what I am doing is pointing out that what XianAtty and Beth are both doing is exactly what a PR campaign on a forum like this would look like. I am probing them and testing their views. You think they have raised points that bear on the mediation question or on the overall picture, but if you notice they always focus on legal issues which were settled long ago or some other inconsequential matter when there are matters before us that are very consequential to many persons. That is not what I would expect a Christian attorney or a Christian therapist to do.

Only when pressed will they say something like what would be expected. That is telling.

Bill Kinnon wrote:

RL Stollar brings more light/clarity to the situation with The Evidence Against Tony Jones https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-evidence-against-tony-jones/

In light of all these facts and others, how in the name of Christianity can RHE remain passive-aggressively silent and NBW gush like a fangirl about this guy? It’s become clear that when you join a Christian Conference Cabal to hawk your books and collect speaking fees, you have made a Faustian bargain.

I did not have a lawyer present when his lawyer found the “clerical error” two numbers were used in the original MTA doc and his lawyer argued and won to go with the lower number. Retroactively reduced back to 2009. Xianatty wrote:

@ Tim Wilson-Brown:
You wrote:
“In this context, isn’t it possible that she simply lost track of the details of the child support agreement?”

— No. The child support agreement was in writing. She was represented by counsel when she made the representation in writing to the trial court. She also had counsel when she changed her facts that she presented in writing to the appellate court. If she had a good reason for changing her story, which people sometimes do, she could have explained that to the appellate court. It appears she made no effort to do so because, if she had offered an explanation, the appellate court would have had to deal with it.

Quote on SCCL page by KT Pridgen:
Wow. Will the circled wagons start saying the kids were lying now? (I’m only to the part where the child affirms Tony’s physical abuse).)

Sadly I wouldn’t be shocked if they did. I’ve seen it happen in other cult of personality cases like this. It’s still happening in the Fight for GK cult crowd, who after a conviction and sentencing plea, still are calling the now 5 year old boy survivors liars.

The silence on the documented facts of Tony’s physical abuse of Julie by certain people in this thread and among the leaders like RHE is deafening.

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“I did not have a lawyer present when his lawyer found the “clerical error”

— First, as both the trial court and the appellate court noted, it was the neutral referee who found and reported to the parties the error, which was an almost $600 per month difference that had persisted for several years. Second, it was your lawyer who submitted the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the trial court agreeing that the support amount was in error and agreeing that it should be changed retroactively back to 2009.

@ Patrice:
Seconded!

@ Xianatty:

I don’t know about her lawyer or what she had available to he. but you were questioning her credibility, and my point is that a victim like she is should get more leeway in my book that you appear to give her.

__

Dear Wartburg Reader,

These faithful words bear repeating:

“Our Lord warned: ‘Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit’ (Matthew 7.15-18).

The Bible warns that false teachers will come into the Church…

First, dear reader, all believers need to understand that false teaching is a major theme that runs throughout Scripture. As Christians, we must be aware of those who seek to destroy the Church from within. The following Scriptures are pertinent:

 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves (Matthew 7:15).

For false christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect (Mark 13:22).

For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:13).

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1).

Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)

 The warning is clear—the threat of false teachers is ever present and so the gospel of truth must be defended against the ministers of Satan. An essential attribute of false teachers is their ability to mix truth with falsehood. Another attribute is their moral laxity that often deteriorates into immorality. So false teachers, while appearing to preach sound doctrine, will often legitimize sinful, sensual conduct in the Church. Satan’s aim is that his ministers of light (false teachers) are able to convince believers that their sinfulness does not really matter. False teachers will frequently encourage an attitude of worldliness and a love for the things and attitudes of the world. The Church must expose false teaching and false teachers must be identified and put out of the Church.” ~ Dr ES Williams

—

Xianatty wrote:

I hadn’t seen the RL Stollar post until the links here. I haven’t finished reading through all that material, but the very first document he provides completely contradicts one of Julie’s key claims.
Julie had repeatedly claimed here, and all over the Internet, that she sought sole physical custody of the children and that Tony had not wanted any responsibility for them. Apparently, to the contrary, the court ordered psych evaluator, in early 2009, before the custody & support agreement, reports that Tony was seeking sole physical and legal custody and Julie sought joint custody.

Seriously, that’s all you came away with after reading that post?

@ Xianatty:

Yes, let’s ignore the professionals’ opinions in those documents and what that means to the big picture while you compile the timeline of when Julie asked for sole custody or joint custody or Tony asked for sole custody or joint custody and when each of them said what and when and where about custody. Because that is the really big question before us, isn’t it?

JeffT wrote:

Seriously, that’s all you came away with after reading that post?

“It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”
— William J Clinton

Don’t ever let a shyster steer you into legal minutiae and parsing semantics.
At that point, he has every home-field advantage and the only thing that matters is to WIN.

“I pay a lawyer to tell me how to get away with what I want to do!”
— one of the Gilded Age Captains of Industry

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Remember those Colombian drug lords/gangs who killed Nicole and Ron?

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
@ Gram3:
I agree with Gram3 and add:

As a child with an abusive father and as an adult with an abusive husband, I constantly ultra-scoured myself for “things I might have done wrong” in any given situation.

It took me a very long time to realize that this was how it was set up and the intention was to keep me in a subservient and humiliated position.

As I gradually began to see the bigger picture, I shed my super-conscience and developed a more balanced understanding, which was that I had been chronically abused and had done the best I could within that.

Here, it seems to me there is a similar insistence on “majoring in the minors” so as to keep the full situation unseen. If we remain focused on the possibility of small wrongs, we might pass over determinative larger ones.

Until the Stollar piece, it has worked well on some.

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“Rather than pay what he owed he hired a disgusting slimy (not my words but words of the professionals she works amongst) lawyer who argued and won lowering it retroactively to 2009.”

— Actually, I looked up Tony’s lawyer. Contrary to your claims about her reputation among her colleagues, she had repeatedly and consistently been judged by her peers as outstanding in annual awards and professional rankings. She’s also been on the Minnesota Bar’s committee on professional standards for many years.

@ Xianatty:

This would be a good time to denounce Tony’s reprehensible behavior toward his wife.

So, the initiation of the divorce by Tony was to take the children (who had been mainly raised by Julie due to Tony’s travel, school, and work), serve Julie with divorce papers, kick Julie out of their home, get a restraining order against her, and NOT explain anything to the children. Sure. (And who was going to care for these children when Tony continued his pursuits?)

And this is a man who now claims to be concerned about a child and won’t return him to the custodial parent.

And Julie is spreading lies all over the internet according to some.

Jeff S wrote:

@ Xianatty:
This would be a good time to denounce Tony’s reprehensible behavior toward his wife.

I agree, but that presumes that XianAtty’s intent is to analyze the facts as a neutral party. I think the evidence demonstrates that is not what he/she is trying to do. At all.

Thanks Jeff for your thoughtfulness. For the record, while I do feel a little ganged up on sometimes, I know it is par for the course. I understand that many here have experienced all sorts of things that someone who hasn’t experienced them would consider unbelievable. It’s not paranoid if they really are after you! I am questioning the story of someone who has said she was abused and I’m doing it on a blog that is devoted to shining a light on spiritual abuse. Of course I’m going to get pushback, especially since almost no one shares my concerns. It totally stinks to be victimized and then victimized all over again by people doubting your story. I get that.

For myself, I see many red flags that don’t allow me to accept Julie’s word without credible evidence. My initial response was to accept what she said, but the more I read and observed what was happening, the more questions were raised in my mind. I hasten to say that I certainly don’t accept Tony’s word without credible evidence either. My doubts are raised by inconsistencies I see and by the fact that people who were directly involved and who normally would be on Julie’s side are behaving very strangely. I find McLaren’s statement sobering. I completely agree that people in power often behave badly when their neck is on the line and that might be happening here. Given my other concerns though, I want to maintain a wait and see when it comes to judging their behavior.

I read Stoller’s statement. Some of it does support what Julie said. Some of it repeats her allegations without providing evidence. But my overall feeling was horror that something that private was made public. We did NOT need to know much of that. I wish so much that a trusted, independent third party could have been tapped to evaluate the evidence in private. Now that the accusations have been made public, the public deserves answers, but not like that. Ugh.

Someone called me a Christian therapist and, for the record, I am not a Christian. I used to be, but am no longer. Also I am a therapist but am not currently practicing as I am home with my children. FWIW, I don’t want misunderstandings.

I will add that I’m not impressed by the courts- I know why the issues are there and they are a necessary evil, but seeing a friend go through a custody battle and seeing how much of it is about your image and how you look/can prove, it makes me sick. I don’t like living life that way. I prefer to focus on being a good man and treating my family well.

Seeing my friend being admonished by the judge to “be a good co-parent and work together” was insulting after she went to her ex to try and work things out only to be told he “had no choice but to sue”.

So, honestly, what happens in a court transcript doesn’t hold much weight with me. It may be our best approximation at justice, but it certainly doesn’t have any solid claims on the truth.

Gram3 wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Remember those Colombian drug lords/gangs who killed Nicole and Ron?

And how OJ was going to Find the Real Killers?
(The same OJ who was suddenly dirt-poor penniless the instant he lost the civil trial and had seven figures of Weregild assessed against him.)

@ dee:
You wrote: “To expect Julie to perfectly respond to such a situation would be naive and insensitive.”

True, but that’s what her lawyers are for — to advocate on her behalf when she can’t. She may have been confused, but her lawyers apparently submitted written materials to two different courts that said two different sets of facts. It was the lawyer’s responsibility to provide an explanation for the change if there was a viable explanation. It appears there wasn’t any explanation, even one that claimed the client had been confused or had simply misremembered.

Jeff S wrote:

after she went to her ex to try and work things out only to be told he “had no choice but to sue”.

Almost word-for-word what my Sweet Innocent Angel of a Widdle Bwudder said to me when him and his previously-retained shysters rooked me out of my share of an inheritance. By the time I even knew what was happening, all his ducks were in a row and it was all over but the screaming and begging. (It was All My Fault, of course. “If YOU had only been Reasonable, I wouldn’t have to play hardball like this.”)

@ JeffT:
You wrote: “Seriously, that’s all you came away with after reading that post?”

— No, as I said, that’s what I came away with after reading just the first document linked in that post. Again, I haven’t gotten through the rest of it all.

@ dee:
Dee –

Maybe he should have just agreed to keep paying the higher amount. I’m not privy to his financials. But Julie, with the advice of counsel, agreed to give up that $72K per year, and to have the amount due her be recalculated going back 2-3 years, and then filed an appeal of that same order.

Jeff S wrote:

@ Xianatty:

This would be a good time to denounce Tony’s reprehensible behavior toward his wife.

Tony engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior toward his wife. Full stop.

The further I get into Stollar’s documents, it’s pretty clear that Julie also engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior toward Tony.

Xianatty wrote:

@ dee:
Dee –
Maybe he should have just agreed to keep paying the higher amount. I’m not privy to his financials. But Julie, with the advice of counsel, agreed to give up that $72K per year, and to have the amount due her be recalculated going back 2-3 years, and then filed an appeal of that same order.

Could she have misunderstood or been misinformed by her counsel? And then went to undo what had been done? If so, how would you describe what she did? Not trustworthy?

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

she had repeatedly and consistently been judged by her peers as outstanding in annual awards and professional rankings.

Which is not necessarily inconsistent with being slimy in the human sense.

Julie claimed that her professional peers found her to be slimy. To the contrary, they do not. Whether you might find her that way “in a human sense,” isn’t the point. Julie made another claim that is apparently untrue.

@ Xianatty:

I am a fool.

The peacemaker inside of me sometimes causes me to misplace my empathy.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

The further I get into Stollar’s documents, it’s pretty clear that Julie also engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior toward Tony.

Moral equivalence.

Yes, when I read that Julie, in her own words, reports hitting and shaking Tony in a separate physical altercation from the one she’s always talking about, I believe Julie’s admitted conduct is just as reprehensible as Tony’s would be.

Xianatty wrote:

dee wrote:
Xianatty wrote:
It was the lawyer’s responsibility to provide an explanation for the change if there was a viable explanation.
Now, I could buy that the lawyer made a mistake.

Yes, that’s possible. But, then Julie could just say so. Instead, she’s refused to offer any explanation at all, now claiming she had no “friggin” idea what I’m even referring to.

It was discovered that a paralegal actually drafted the MTA to save money. She put two different amounts. I had no lawyer. Tony’s lawyer argued and won so it went to the lower amount. Any other questions xianatty? What are your thoughts on my torn shoulder? Would you like clarification or details of that? Or am I lying? I cannot help but see you are clearly a sent detractor using the same smoke and mirrors tactics as Tony and Co. has for years. Isn’t is MORE plausible wrong doing actually did occur? You would like the focus on the “messy divorce” I know I have heard this song and dance for years. However, the blight it actually the abuse of power, privilege and platform by minor Christian celebrities with followers and blogs. Are you really not getting this? Or playing stupid to detract?

Xianatty wrote:

Yes, when I read that Julie, in her own words, reports hitting and shaking Tony in a separate physical altercation from the one she’s always talking about, I believe Julie’s admitted conduct is just as reprehensible as Tony’s would be.

It’s not, and it seems to me you have to try very hard to be willfully ignorant of that fact.

Xianatty wrote:

Jeff S wrote:
@ Xianatty:
This would be a good time to denounce Tony’s reprehensible behavior toward his wife.
Tony engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior toward his wife. Full stop.
The further I get into Stollar’s documents, it’s pretty clear that Julie also engaged in some pretty reprehensible behavior toward Tony.

I find it interesting that you keep making your appearances here about the divorce details, and not about the fact that Julie has been upset about being shut down and unsupported by the Emergent crowd. That was the main issue between Julie and McLaren and the others she has named. And about being labeled guano crazy by her ex and no one from the group willing to listen to her side. That is what this post was mainly about. Divorce can be messy. (Although it doesn’t have to be, as my nonChristian parents’ divorce years ago attests to. Still painful. Maybe not fair. But children in mind always.)

For seven years Tony has been supported, remarried, and encouraged. Julie has been taken to court over and over while raising children alone, going to school, and with NO support from these people who were supposed to be her friends and her Church community.

dee wrote:

@ Xianatty:

Oh, I understand the legal stuff. A legal contract is a legal contract. Perhaps I am a fool but I am looking for a willingness to sacrifice and give more than expected. I know-this doesn’t sound realistic but then again, Jesus’ grace was unexpected as well.

I remember one time I wanted to teach my children this lesson. They had not done their chores as they had agreed to do. So, I told them I would not take them to a movie that they really wanted to see. I told them to get in the car and come with me to do some grocery shopping which they despised. i surprised them and brought them to the movies.

i explained to them that grace is a thing that is unearned and unexpected. To this day, as adults they remember that day. Perhaps I am looking for some sacrificial and extravagant grace in this situation.

What a great and tender lesson for your kids!

And yes, if Tony had the resources, maybe he just should have paid the higher amount. He’s certainly doesn’t come out looking like a saint. But in my view, Julie has seriously damaged her own credibility.

Xianatty wrote:

Julie claimed that her professional peers found her to be slimy.

Is it inconceivable that attorneys who know that attorney could simultaneously applaud her legal skills while also viewing those same legal tactics as slimy? Because I actually know some attorneys who admire the effectiveness of other attorneys while deploring their tactics.

Xianatty wrote:

Gram3 wrote:
Xianatty wrote:
she had repeatedly and consistently been judged by her peers as outstanding in annual awards and professional rankings.
Which is not necessarily inconsistent with being slimy in the human sense.

Julie claimed that her professional peers found her to be slimy. To the contrary, they do not. Whether you might find her that way “in a human sense,” isn’t the point. Julie made another claim that is apparently untrue.

I’m sorry…..actually COUNTLESS professionals involved in supporting the children over the years (there have been 17 professionals involved) have used the following words to describe Tony’s lawyer…..which you very well may be…”harms children” “pitbull” “rabid litigator” “when is she going to retire?!” “winning at all cost no matter how it harms the family” “lines her pockets with broken families” “I’m staying on the case to save you from her ripping the kids from your arms” “Tony’s litigation hammer to punish Julie” “bad for families” “nightmare” “she should be disbarred” I think you have now been exposed. You are a nightmare and you do harm families. You do need to retire. I went to a Co-Parenting with a Narcissist weekend workshop where you were discussed by name. A group organized themselves and decided to send you Congratulations on your Retirement cards. Why? Because these people care about children!! The scorched earth left behind by Narcissist and their lawyers whom they ironically hire with matching pathologies is reprehensible.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“It was discovered that a paralegal actually drafted the MTA to save money. She put two different amounts.”
–So, now you’re back to the version of the facts you told the trial court?

That is what happened as it was explained to me as why it was ordered by the Judge as an error. Hey, xianatty? I’m really sorry your client is a dirt bag. You never did address my torn shoulder. Don’t want to talk about that? Just want to focus on a clerical error? I’m done dancing the smoke and mirrors dance with you. Peace, out.

Jeff S wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Yes, when I read that Julie, in her own words, reports hitting and shaking Tony in a separate physical altercation from the one she’s always talking about, I believe Julie’s admitted conduct is just as reprehensible as Tony’s would be.

It’s not, and it seems to me you have to try very hard to be willfully ignorant of that fact.

If a woman resorts to physical violence in anger against her spouse (as opposed to in self defense, which Julie didn’t claim in her documented admissions to the psych evaluator), she is just as morally and legally culpable as when a man does it.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Yes, and XianAtty knows that quite well, but that is irrelevant to the Alternative Narrative he/she is trying mightily to construct. Actually he/she is quite skilled at what he/she does. No doubt he/she earns kudos from his/her professional peers.

Sorry, I meant victims

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Julie claimed that her professional peers found her to be slimy.

Is it inconceivable that attorneys who know that attorney could simultaneously applaud her legal skills while also viewing those same legal tactics as slimy? Because I actually know some attorneys who admire the effectiveness of other attorneys while deploring their tactics.

No, the awards and professional rankings include an evaluation of their ethics. It’s not just about whether their tactics are effective. Plus, the professional standards committee, is, by definition, all about professional ethics.

Xianatty wrote:

If a woman resorts to physical violence in anger against her spouse (as opposed to in self defense, which Julie didn’t claim in her documented admissions to the psych evaluator), she is just as morally and legally culpable as when a man does it.

Again, that is a convenient reading of the totality of the facts. However, you do earn points for parsing “moral” and “legal” and additional points for using “culpability.”

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“I’m sorry…..actually COUNTLESS professionals involved in supporting the children over the years (there have been 17 professionals involved) have used the following words to describe Tony’s lawyer…..”

Any documentation for that?

@ Xianatty:
So What? Tony is the public figure here. If this gets uncovered (and it has) he is the one who stands to lose. So, who has more motive to try and paint the other person as a “problem”?

Tony is the media darling here, not Julie. Tony is the one “on trial” all this deflection to Julie just makes everyone see this for what it is, a giant blame and deflect tactic to (in their minds) exonerate Tony. The problem is, we are on to Tony and no matter how bad/good Julie is or isn’t, Tony is unfit for leadership due to his public (court documented and seemingly endless litigation) actions.

I really don’t care if Julie is bad, she isn’t mentoring people at Fuller Seminary, she isn’t writing books and blog posts and calling out other public leader’s behaviour on the internet (beyond how they treated her, she never called out Mark Driscoll in a public post). She isn’t hosting famous Christian writers who claim to support justice and Christlikeness, nor is she shutting down any dissent. (I do care that Julie, as a person gets fair justice (financially, emotionally, etc.)=, I hope her kids can get some peace and they can move on, but I never heard of Julie or the fact Tony was divorced until all this came to light).

Your diversion from Tony to Julie is speaking volumes about Tony’s innocence (or lack thereof). If Tony has despicable behaviour why aren’t you helping remove him from public Christian leadership? We don’t need any more self-serving leaders in Christianity. Driscoll is gone, Mahaney should be, Tony can vamoose. If a leader can’t live his/her life in a Christ-like way, they shouldn’t expect Christian support, especially if it drags on and on for six or seven years. Again, who cares about Julie’s innocence or not? Tony is the problem being addressed here.

@ Julie McMahon:

Julie, XianAtty is baiting you and attempting to evoke an emotional response from you which might help him/her advance the Guano-Crazy Alternative Narrative. Take some advice from someone who has been in a double-bind situation. You cannot win playing XianAtty’s game. And you need to recognize that we are really talking about someone who is playing a game rather than trying to have a rational discussion about the real issues. Or someone who has demonstrated the least concern with the Christian issues at hand. Blessings to you and the children.

Julie McMahon wrote:

Does @xianatty have a job? Or is this is? I gotta go to mine.

Julie, I have seen a similar dynamic in various fandoms (including online presence/Social Media). The most famous Big Name Fans and Big Name Netizens are often no-lifes in their Mommy’s basement or similar parasiting off others for support. Without any job or life to take time away from Building Their Brand, Constructing their Alternative Narrative, Schmoozing the Social Media, and Promoting Themselves until they are Famous for Being Famous. Those of us who have jobs & lives cannot put the time and energy into countering them that they can put into promoting themselves without any job or life. Because such Self-Promotion and Substituting My Own Reality and Gaming the System IS their entire being. “The constant, sleepless, unsmiling concentration upon Self which is the true Mark of Hell.” — C.S.Lewis, Preface to Screwtape Letters.

At any rate, at what point do we send Xianatty packing? Perpetually antagonizing Julie doesn’t count for me as constructive contribution.

Gram3 wrote:

So an individual’s character is measured by their adherence to ethical guidelines?

Letter Of The Law. Q.E.D.

“But everything we did was LEGAL!”
— that local law firm who all got disbarred years ago for running an OSHA-compliance extortion game

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Any documentation for that?

I think you have tried this line before a couple of weeks ago.

I know the drill. It’s an old one.
No matter what documentation is produced, it won’t be “real”. (Remember Truthers & Birthers?)
No matter how much documentation is produced, it will NEVER be enough. (Again, remember Truthers & Birthers?)

J Pow wrote:

At any rate, at what point do we send Xianatty packing? Perpetually antagonizing Julie doesn’t count for me as constructive contribution.

He’s already between 30-50% of the comments here.

And nobody ever heard of him (at least under that handle) until the ToJo-vs-Julie/RHEGate situation hit the big time.

@ dee:
Dee, bless you for sharing this little story. And of course, for your humble, strong heart in coordinating all this. I need to hear that people care, that Jesus really cares.

Beth wrote:

My doubts are raised by inconsistencies I see and by the fact that people who were directly involved and who normally would be on Julie’s side are behaving very strangely.

Only proving that you do not understand NPD. Julie married, had three children soon after and lived in HIS world. His ministry, His church, His police chaplaincy world, etc. She was at home with the kids. So who would “normally be on Julie’s side” in that situation? And who in that situation understood the deceptive tactics of an NPD. Seriously, if a therapist does not get it, that is pretty bad.

I’m fascinated that XtianAtty has double stepped up the efforts with the small red herrings as soon as this piece came out by stollar. It’s almost like a coordinated attempt to distract and redirect. Also interesting is the increased direct aggressive challenging of Julie.

I agree with gram3, better not to respond to him/her, Julie. I’m sure whatever impolitic and non-vetted-by-a-lawyer thing you say will be hoarded and shoved in your face at a later date. Hissing snake gonna hiss. Better to stay away.

Notice XtianAtty notes the MRI doesn’t show an injury, but has nothing to say about ongoing treatment of inflammation and tendonosis to shoulder joint, NOR about the kids affirming TJ shoved her and feeling upset that he continues to lie about.

(As a practicing occupational therapist in a rehab setting, I can confidently say that not all injuries show up on X-rays or MRIS. Yet no physiatrist in their right mind would take that as 100% diagnostic. Swelling, reduced movement in certain planes, pain, those all indicate injury if a specific type. As the doc noted: impingement. Better stick to the lawyering, you’re out of your depth in the medical – and human decency- arenas).

Gram3 wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:

Julie, XianAtty is baiting you and attempting to evoke an emotional response from you which might help him/her advance the Guano-Crazy Alternative Narrative. Take some advice from someone who has been in a double-bind situation. You cannot win playing XianAtty’s game. And you need to recognize that we are really talking about someone who is playing a game rather than trying to have a rational discussion about the real issues. Or someone who has demonstrated the least concern with the Christian issues at hand. Blessings to you and the children.

this is exactly right. He is also trying to advance the “she has no credibility” tactic. xtianatty is smart enough to know that baiting you into playing defense is a losers game for you.

After all the litigation and and legal threats from ministry quarters, I am proud of you if you can even remember your address in court. Everyone wants the victim of an NPD to be perfect. But they are often in a PSTD fog for years. IMO, when they get finally get angry it is a healthy sign after years of gaslighting and their byzantine world of smoke and mirrors NPD deception.

Xianatty wrote:

No need for a complicated timeline. Julie has repeatedly claimed that Tony never wanted custody or responsibility. That appears to be incorrect.

Thank you for emphasizing my point!

Xianatty wrote:

No need for a complicated timeline. Julie has repeatedly claimed that Tony never wanted custody or responsibility. That appears to be incorrect.

Um. No. She hasn’t claimed that. She said he didn’t at the time. She’s actually said, multiple times, that subsequently he filed for custody on several occasions. Are you slipping? Mixing up your details?
Or intentionally obfuscating? If you’re lying then is that defamation? I have no idea how this lawyering works.

Banannie wrote:

Gram3 wrote:

@ Xianatty:

Yes, let’s ignore the professionals’ opinions in those documents and what that means to the big picture while you compile the timeline of when Julie asked for sole custody or joint custody or Tony asked for sole custody or joint custody and when each of them said what and when and where about custody. Because that is the really big question before us, isn’t it?

As I’ve said before. Julie explains that the custody evaluator recommended sole/sole for Julie, and that at that time TJ did not contest that. Rather, Julie offered joint legal custody.

Subsequently, Tony has allegedly filed for full custody several times.

No, Banannie, read the documents. The report states that, prior to the evaluations and reports, Tony had been seeking sole custody. That completely contradicts Julie’s claims.

@ Xianatty:

What you are engaging in is sin-leveling, blame-the-victim’, ‘surely you must have done something to invite it’ that is always trotted out to take the scrutiny off an abuser and place it on the victim. Nowhere have I seen you parse out the details of Jones’ claims in light of contrary evidence, particularly to the degree you have regarding McMahon.

The real issues involved as far as we are concerned in discussing their relationship are:

1. Did Tony Jones have an affair while married to another? Has Tony Jones physically, psychologically, and/or spirituality abused his ex-wife?

2. If so, do these actions call into question his fitness as a progressive Christian leader?

3. Did Jones’ associates and/or followers engage in behavior to paint his ex-wife in a negative light, such as claiming she was mentally unstable, and/or act to silence her voice to keep the issues of Jones’ behavior from coming to light?

I have yet to see you weigh in on any of these issues.

Banannie wrote:

It is also curious why XtianAtty chooses to dispute stollar here rather than…say in the comments on stollar’s blog.

I don’t know, obviously, but if TWW gets a lot more traffic, then it would make more sense to blow smoke….I mean raise really important issues….here rather than there.

I skip over everything Xianatty writes because it’s a constant attack on Julie. Whoever this person is, s/he is quite obsessed with the Jones-McMahon situation. Having dealt with Scientology for 20 years now, I actually have to ask if Xianatty is getting paid to do this. Because I’ve seen it before, tiresomely so.

@ dee:
I understand what you’re saying. I’m sorry I haven’t been clearer.

It’s clear Julie has suffered a lot. As I’ve said a few times now, Tony has engaged in some pretty reprehensible conduct toward her. I’m glad that she had the opportunity to tell her story. That I don’t believe all of her story doesn’t mean there aren’t important parts of her story that I do believe. As I said, I hope and pray any mediation with McLaren is successful. I hope and pray she and the children get the help and support they need.

As I said a couple of times on one of the earlier posts, I understand that many folks here have suffered abuse that I cannot even begin to imagine. I wish there was something I could do to change that. As an attorney, I came to this issue believing that one thing an ally can do is to try to bring the truth to light. That has been my only goal here. I’m sorry for any hurt I’ve caused in that process.

Xianatty wrote:

As an attorney, I came to this issue believing that one thing an ally can do is to try to bring the truth to light.

The truth isn’t always found written on paper with many witnesses.

One’s own healthy Christian conscience is the best truth revealer.

Xianatty wrote:

I responded to you with a lengthy post last night about Christian ethics.

More like a lecture. I have a family member who is an atty on retainer with some megas. s/he talks just like you do concerning “Christian ethics”.

Lydia wrote:

There are mega churches who have people who do nothing but search for negative media and devise strategies to deal with even the most miniscule negative report.

Just like North Korea!

Lydia wrote:

Xianatty wrote:
As an attorney, I came to this issue believing that one thing an ally can do is to try to bring the truth to light.

ally?

Freudian slip there.
Time for the “clarification” to Spin, Spin, Spin.
Where “It all depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

Bridget wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

As an attorney, I came to this issue believing that one thing an ally can do is to try to bring the truth to light.

The truth isn’t always found written on paper with many witnesses.

One’s own healthy Christian conscience is the best truth revealer.

But sometimes the documents reveal that one’s heart is leading one down the wrong path.

Who is Xianatty?

Xianatty wrote:

Much of what you claim isn’t actually documented in the records.

Russian/Soviet Bureaucratic Tradition, based around Plausible Deniability. Where you CYA by never writing anything down (and Stalin took it one step further by liquidating(TM) any & all witnesses). Because “If it isn’t written down, It Never Happened And You Can’t Ever Prove It Ever Did!”

Devil’s advocate anyone? 😉

(Had to be done…)
Gram3 wrote:

Dee, thanks for not banning XianAtty’s comments. I believe that, unlike THC, XA’s comments are purposeful. The purpose is in question, but there is a point being made. In that case, I think it is good to allow the comments and the refutations and challenges. IMO it helps to clarify the issues.

Xianatty wrote:

But sometimes the documents reveal that one’s heart is leading one down the wrong path.

And sometimes people use particular documents to justify being on the path they want to be on.

Exactly. These are the real issues Christians might be expected to weigh in on since we are not to have close fellowship with abusers. The legal issues won’t matter in eternity.

JeffT wrote:

@ Xianatty:

What you are engaging in is sin-leveling, blame-the-victim’, ‘surely you must have done something to invite it’ that is always trotted out to take the scrutiny off an abuser and place it on the victim. Nowhere have I seen you parse out the details of Jones’ claims in light of contrary evidence, particularly to the degree you have regarding McMahon.

The real issues involved as far as we are concerned in discussing their relationship are:

1. Did Tony Jones have an affair while married to another? Has Tony Jones physically, psychologically, and/or spirituality abused his ex-wife?

2. If so, do these actions call into question his fitness as a progressive Christian leader?

3. Did Jones’ associates and/or followers engage in behavior to paint his ex-wife in a negative light, such as claiming she was mentally unstable, and/or act to silence her voice to keep the issues of Jones’ behavior from coming to light?

I have yet to see you weigh in on any of these issues.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That’s what a lot of us would like to know.

I think XianAtty is either an “ally” of Jones/McLaren/Evans or is playing that role for whatever purpose. Regardless, the issues get exposed. If XianAlly thinks that his positions are helpful to Jones’ case with onlookers, I think that XianAlly is mistaken.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

He’s already between 30-50% of the comments here.

And s/he is acting like a troll. IME, the best thing to do with a troll is to ignore it.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:

Okie Dokie. Thought I might have missed something by not being a Twit.

The problem with lawyering from my outside perspective is that they have to slant the truth in favor of their clients and figure out how it could be slanted in disfavor of their clients.

The justice system doesn’t work because lawyers are good at slanting the truth or getting clients off on technicalities. Justice is only served and the system works when the truth is exposed and wrongs are made right.

To an outsider, the legal system is intimidating. And I guarantee that abusers will make sure they manipulate that fact to their advantage.

Gram3 wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

That’s what a lot of us would like to know.

I think XianAtty is either an “ally” of Jones/McLaren/Evans or is playing that role for whatever purpose. Regardless, the issues get exposed. If XianAlly thinks that his positions are helpful to Jones’ case with onlookers, I think that XianAlly is mistaken.

Ha! Agreed.

numo wrote:

This whole series of exchanges is beginning to sound like something from Franz Kafka’s “The Trial.” (meaning XianAtty, not the rest of us.)

@ dee:
See, that is why you are so lovely, Dee.

I understand your position and what you are attempting to do. It is smart and wise, IMO.

But yes, we will also take our allotted positions, and if they also prove useful, well…w00t

Matthew Paul Turner (after reading the R.L. Stollar post): I believe Julie.

brad/futuristguy wrote:

(op cit Naked Pastor – HUG)

“I’m thinking of an analogy. Let’s say we are in a room listening to the harrowing stories of war rape victims. But someone in the room keeps demanding pap tests results, police reports, photos, documented rapist’s confessions, and an objective, unemotional, orderly account of the events, etc… can you see how destructive that would be to the conversation, but also to the spirits of those victims? Plus, can’t you see how people might even suspect that person was some kind of an official plant, sent there to disrupt the narrative, infuse insecurity, doubt, and fear in the victims, maybe even arouse sympathy for the rapists, and somehow dismiss their experience? In most cases like this the victims, more than wanting justice (which is often impossible), just want to be heard so they can integrate their trauma into their lives and move on.”

Official Disinformation Plant or just a total Correct Legal Procedure wonk with Aspergers-Hyperfocus tunnel vision on legal-technicality trivia? Both would express the same behavior (from different motives), and I’ve seen a lot of wonks like that in IT and/or Fandoms.

Beakerj wrote:

Who is Xianatty?

As long as he doesn’t spawn Celebrity Impersonators like John Galt…

Xianatty wrote:

I responded at length to a couple of other of your posts demanding I justify myself and my ethics. You didn’t acknowledge those either. Your only response is to claim my ethics “fall short” without any explanation. In my book, that falls short of constructive dialogue.

Your fallback position is that I didn’t respond to you. That is very uncharacteristic, and I have been known to be positively vexatious about responding to comments. I distinctly remember responding that you are very clever.

Nevertheless, as I understand it, your position WRT Kingdom ethics is that the stronger or more powerful person does *not* have a greater responsibility and I disagree based on the example of Jesus, the Christ. I thought we got to that point last night. Customarily, I do not make demands though I understand that a strong challenge might feel that way. IRL I am one of the gentlest people imaginable. Except when the weak are harmed or threatened by the strong.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Ad Hominem (“HATERZ!” sub-type) or just Projection?

Both?

We do NOT know that Julie has done reprehensible things.

Xianatty wrote:

In order for the above-the-standard child support amount to have been “bargained for” there would have to have been some actual discussion of that term. Julie told the trial court that she had no idea how that amount was agreed to. To later say that it was actually bargained for is a change in her version of the facts, not simply a shrug that heh, that’s what’s in the paper he signed. I think it’s significant because the appellate court thought it was significant enough to penalize her for her change of story.

Good points, but wasn’t Julie represented by an attorney when the above-the-standard child support amount was determined and shouldn’t such questions about the amount be addressed to the attorney who represented her? But if she appeared pro se, then that’s a different situation.

Xianatty wrote:

When I started looking at what Julie said about the litigation I thought it would be an easy way to corroborate her story. But, as it turns out, I was surprised to find that the court records contained information that called her account into question. Tony’s statement about what happened in the litigation is much closer to what the record, IMO, actually says.

I find this difficult to believe. Your motivation in combing the court record with a legal lice comb was to corroborate what she said? Not buying that story.

@ brad/futuristguy:
Brad –

I appreciate the pleasant interactions we’ve had and your willingness to update your reports.

From my perspective, I went into this assuming I could find some things in the litigation records to corroborate Julie’s story, but instead, what I found raised some pretty significant questions to me about Julie’s credibility. I stated those concerns. While there were some who appreciated that I raised the questions, a bunch of folks went right into the “anyone who raises questions is part of the enemy conspiracy” mode. Some of Julie’s supporters even trashed Boz!

In your analogy to the war rape victims, they didn’t affirmatively do anything that would warrant the offensive questions. Here, Julie has repeatedly made claims about the litigation that appear to be contradicted by the litigation records. Even if they were on trivial points, which they are not, the multiplicity of them, IMO, call into question her credibility on the rest of her story and she needs to earn that back.

I’ve seen cases where people with serious, substantive claims feel like they need to exaggerate those claims in order to be believed, or are so angry they can’t be rational about what actually happened. Maybe that’s what’s happened here and Julie will be vindicated. But when a victim gets caught making a series of statements that appear to be incorrect, it’s not the fault of the person who discovered their incorrectness.

Xianatty wrote:

Lydia wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I responded to you with a lengthy post last night about Christian ethics.

More like a lecture. I have a family member who is an atty on retainer with some megas. s/he talks just like you do concerning “Christian ethics”.

Yes, it’s clear you hate lawyers. In my experience, it’s usually the I-hate-lawyer-types who, when *they* need a lawyer are the ones who want me to be as needlessly aggressive as possible or to even violate my own Christian and legal ethics.

bwahaha. So, if I recognize certain strategies and tactics then I “hate” all lawyers and would then insist the lawyer I retained (but hated in advance) violate legal ethics, to boot? Is that a lawyerly argument?

Xianatty wrote:

Some of Julie’s supporters even trashed Boz!

Yeah, I saw that. Like with all commenters, we need to consider the source. In this case, it was two agnostics at SCCL who didn’t know the position that Boz has taken in the institutional church, and couldn’t believe that anything good could come out of the church.

At any rate, xianatty, what do you say, now, about Boz’ comment?

Lydia wrote:

Is that a lawyerly argument?

Trick question. 😉

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:
Yet failed to use the lice comb on Tony’s 12 page document.

Odd, isn’t it? It’s suggestive of the possibility that there may be some subtle bias.

Xianatty wrote:

I’ve seen cases where people with serious, substantive claims feel like they need to exaggerate those claims in order to be believed, or are so angry they can’t be rational about what actually happened. Maybe that’s what’s happened here and Julie will be vindicated

And here we have the old broken record narrative implying that Julie is not rational and needs to vindicate herself.

You are tenacious, I will say that about you.

xtianatty, do you believe NPD’s are “rational”? It is an interesting question to consider.

@ Gram3:
I saw where you said I was “clever,” without any reference or explanation but had no idea what you were responding to. IMO, that kind of response isn’t really helpful to constructive dialogue.

Suffice it to say that you’ve misrepresented what u said about ethics. But, I’m not taking the bait again.

Julie McMahon wrote:

She has been a sad casualty in all of this like Nadia playing the victim to “digital pitchforks” when people called her out for refusing to hear the side of the abused person. They both decided I was disposable and went on the attack, so there is nothing else I can do there. They are left standing alone with their true colors shining brightly and ironically, Tony is no where to be found. That’s how they masterfully get others to do their bidding.

You don’t suppose that was Tony’s purpose all along? What I mean is, One sentiment I have heard frequently is, Why would RHE and NBW partner with JoPa productions for their conference, when either of them are WAAAAY bigger deals than JoPa? Maybe Tony saw RHE and NBW as threats to his stardom and this was his means to get them out of the way?

Lydia wrote:

xtianatty, do you believe NPD’s are “rational”?

If they’re paying his retainer, they are.

Bridget wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

The report states that, prior to the evaluations and reports, Tony had been seeking sole custody.

Is this what you are referring to:

Bridget wrote:

So, the initiation of the divorce by Tony was to take the children (who had been mainly raised by Julie due to Tony’s travel, school, and work), serve Julie with divorce papers, kick Julie out of their home, get a restraining order against her, and NOT explain anything to the children. Sure. (And who was going to care for these children when Tony continued his pursuits?)
And this is a man who now claims to be concerned about a child and won’t return him to the custodial parent.

Are we supposed to believe that this is a man who is concerned for his children’s well being?

I don’t see the dissonance here, honestly. A dirty dealing blind-side is far different that what may have been actually written in the petition when it was filed and served. I haven’t seen that petition, but I really don’t see the two as equivalent – that is the blind siding vs the petition to the court for dissolution. The planned blind side, given the diagnosis, can very simply be an act of cruel vengeance. I would never count it as equal to legal intention or filings.

@ Jeff S:

It is all a strategic deflection, Jeff. To get the focus on Julie and NOT on Tony. And Tony has star power backing him up from the progressive wing of Christendom. You know, the folks who care about the oppressed and making a living speaking on behalf of the oppressed.

Kind of strange considering Tony is currently violating a LEGAL agreement. Crickets from xtianatty on that one.

@ Gram3:
Gram3, I’m not thinking that XianAtty is going to change his/her stance on this; maybe better to just let it rest for awhile? Otherwise, they are getting ammo to keep commenting and keep contradicting others and it becomes self-perpetuating without ever going anywhere.

That’s why I wrote a comment addressed directly to Brian McL. and told Beth I would not engage in discussion with her when she challenged me on it. The person who needs to read what we have to say (at least, insofar as this post is concerned) is Brian McL. It does not matter what anyone else who’s being a gadfly has to say, really.

My .02-worth, anyway…

@ Xianatty:

This is the same argument used for rape victims who are not Snow White prior to be raped. It is called moral equivalency. He did 20 million bad things, she did 3… so she is just as bad or she deserved it because she embarrassed him. We get it.

numo wrote:

The person who needs to read what we have to say (at least, insofar as this post is concerned) is Brian McL. It does not matter what anyone else who’s being a gadfly has to say, really.

I agree with you WRT McLaren, and your comment to him is very helpful. If XianAtty wants to comment here, then I think that he/she is subject to challenge. He/she may be a troll who should be ignored. I’m not sure that what he/she says is unimportant. But I think I understand your greater point.

Xianatty wrote:

Dee- I hadn’t seen the RL Stollar post until the links here.

Also by Xianatty:

Apparently, to the contrary, the court ordered psych evaluator, in early 2009, before the custody &

I’m afraid that Xianatty has lost all credibility with me, because he (or she) did not put a space between the word “Dee” and the hypen in the sentence he typed.

In addition, Xianatty used an ampersand (&) rather than type out the word “and.”

This action of using the ampersand is inconsistent with other posts Xianatty has made where he has typed out the word “and.”

I also am having trouble believing anyone who would type out the phrase “Christian Attorney” as “Xianatty.” Is he hiding something? After all, he’s chosen to omit, or “hide,” if you will, the “Christ” part of “Christian,” to go with “Xian.”

I can’t take Xianatty’s word for anything. If he wants my trust now, he’s going to have to earn it.

I strongly suspect that this man is Xianatty’s close relative:
The Anal Retentive Chef, video on NBC site
http://www.nbc.com/SNLByTheDecade/video/1132251

Patrice wrote:

@ Patrice:
Boz is a lawyer too, xianatty.

Yes, I know that. I have great respect for him. He has a sterling reputation and those who thought that trashing him was a good idea should be ashamed of himself.

@ dee:
Yes, and he also made clear that both the justice system and the church have failed here. Which I find fascinating, esp considering that it is this justice system’s documents over which Xianatty is kvetching at Julie.

Patrice wrote:

he also made clear that both the justice system and the church have failed here.

Yes, he was very succinct, to the point, and, imo, accurate in his assessment.

Patrice wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Some of Julie’s supporters even trashed Boz!

Yeah, I saw that. Like with all commenters, we need to consider the source. In this case, it was two agnostics at SCCL who didn’t know the position that Boz has taken in the institutional church, and couldn’t believe that anything good could come out of the church.

At any rate, xianatty, what do you say, now, about Boz’ comment?

I’m not sure what Boz comment you’re referring to? I haven’t seen one from him since the other day about a potential role for GRACE in a mediation.

Karl wrote:

I hope RHE sees Boz’s comment. I wonder if it – or the documents released earlier today – will cause her to reconsider and take a different stance toward Julie.

The first rule of holes is that, should one find oneself in one, STOP DIGGING.

RHE has been busy blocking and unfriending anyone who might be seen as supporting Julie. She has also flatly refused to hear Julie’s side of the story. I’m saddened by her response. If this was Mark Driscoll, she’d have 10 posts on it up by now.

Xianatty wrote:

Patrice wrote:
@ Patrice:
Boz is a lawyer too, xianatty.

Yes, I know that. I have great respect for him. He has a sterling reputation and those who thought that trashing him was a good idea should be ashamed of himself.

A more pertinent idea is to take a personal lesson from Boz’ comment—that a xianatty with a sterling reputation has found the justice system lacking in this situation. Following that, you could find that justice would be better served by simply backing off until you’ve checked in with Boz on why he thinks this.

Patrice wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Some of Julie’s supporters even trashed Boz!

Yeah, I saw that. Like with all commenters, we need to consider the source. In this case, it was two agnostics at SCCL who didn’t know the position that Boz has taken in the institutional church, and couldn’t believe that anything good could come out of the church.

At any rate, xianatty, what do you say, now, about Boz’ comment?

Really? That was all XA had to say about Boz??!! Don’t hold your breath, Patrice. XA won’t give a straight answer to that question, not when s/he deflected so hard on their first response.

There is a higher law to consider- something like not dealing treacherously with one’s wife of their youth and all that. I think that’s the point Christians are concerned with.

You can argue all day about the legal backs and forths and mistakes and misconstructions and what “that woman” could have done better or even what she did wrong, but the issues of justice in the church and in the eyes of God are what matter to people who walk in love.

The 12-page document by TJ may have been legally above reproach, but the reality of how he has treated Julie is that he has dealt treacherously and that document contains certain half-truths (otherwise known as lies) that may not matter in court, but speak to TJs qualification for Christian ministry and perhaps that of his enablers.

Xianatty wrote:

Lydia wrote:

@ Gram3:

Yet failed to use the lice comb on Tony’s 12 page document.

I used the lice comb on the section of Tony’s document that related to the litigation. His explanation tracks what the litigation records appear to say.

And yes, I read the documents, XianAtty. Do not I didn’t just because I reject your view of Julie.

No one should be ashamed of doubting those with power within Christendom. No one. Boz, if he is respectable, will over time show that to be the case. People with histories of pain and abuse at the hands of those with power and standing have every reason to be concerned and cautious when a person with power seems to be doubting a victim’s story.

Shame on XA for deflecting from the actual discussion, Tony’s dishonest and disqualifying behavior, by attempting to shame survivors. Every comment reveals you to be an even more terrible follower of Christ.

In practice, obvs. Can’t speak to your heart.

@ dee:
I didn’t realize that horror was in your area. You have my prayers.

Jeff S wrote:

This would be a good time to denounce Tony’s reprehensible behavior toward his wife.

But Jeff S., don’t you understand? Can’t you see?

Nobody here can trust anything Julie says or does, nor can anyone denounce angelic Tony (who is above reproach and question), because five, ten or some odd years ago, some lawyer on Julie’s behalf incorrectly stated a $600 financial differential on some court document thingy.

Why, why, do you insist on discussing Tony’s behavior or any abuse that occurred, when some appellate court got the wrong number in some document or in testimony?

FOCUS MAN! Keep sight of the big picture. 😆

Gram3 wrote:

That is what I asked to you do

That is what I asked you to do.

@ Beth wrote:

For myself, I see many red flags that don’t allow me to accept Julie’s word without credible evidence.

Then you said,

I wish so much that a trusted, independent third party could have been tapped to evaluate the evidence in private.

We did NOT need to know much of that. I wish so much that a trusted, independent third party could have been tapped to evaluate the evidence in private. Now that the accusations have been made public, the public deserves answers, but not like that.

You say you want to see credible evidence but then say that the whole thing should be kept private. Those sound like mutually exclusive propositions to me.

How else are you going to see or find credible evidence about any of this, unless some of it is posted in public?

Are you expecting Tony Jones or someone to drop in at your home in person and mime the story to you, act it out in charades, or send you a snail mail letter?

It’s my understanding that Julie spent years contacting some of these individuals in private (e-mails and phone calls), they kept telling her to buzz off and leave them alone, so her only outlet was to start telling her story on blogs.

Marsha wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Marsha wrote:

We do NOT know that Julie has done reprehensible things.

She, herself, reported to the psych evaluator that on one occasion when they were traveling and after arguing she put his suitcase out in the hall, and when he returned and did not give the response she wanted, “she said, she grabbed his neck and shoulders and shook him, asking if he realized what he was doing to their family.” She did not claim this was in self defense or defense of her kids. Read the Stollar documents themselves, not just his description of them.

I knew you would say this so I asked my husband about this in case I was not seeing this correctly. I asked him what he would think if I did this to him following futile attempts to get him to see that he was neglecting me and our young children (we are in our sixties now so this is hypothetical) by traveling five months out of twelve. He said he would not consider it abuse (he is much stronger than me) nor reprehensible but rather an act of despair and frustration.

You and your husband are entitled to your opinions. If Julie did what she claimed, a court might find it to be assault/battery depending on the particular laws of whatever state where it occurred.

@ Lydia:
XA also obviously missed the “she initiated the divorce right up until the moment I served her with divorce papers (paraphrased)” part of TJ’s 12 page statement.

@ numo:
OK. I found Boz’s comment:
“This paints a pretty darn clear picture of a dangerous and traumatized home where the wife was repeatedly victimized and the children were traumatized. It is also a tragic example of how both the justice system and the church often fail when confronted by abuse within the home.”

I agree with almost all of it. I think the Stollar documents also make other points, as I’ve already said.

@ Banannie:
I hadn’t seen Boz’s new comment yet at that point.

Boz Tchividjian
This paints a pretty darn clear picture of a dangerous and traumatized home where the wife was repeatedly victimized and the children were traumatized. It is also a tragic example of how both the justice system and the church so often fail when confronted by abuse within the home.
14 · Hide · 1 hour agoXianatty wrote:

Patrice wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Some of Julie’s supporters even trashed Boz!

Yeah, I saw that. Like with all commenters, we need to consider the source. In this case, it was two agnostics at SCCL who didn’t know the position that Boz has taken in the institutional church, and couldn’t believe that anything good could come out of the church.

At any rate, xianatty, what do you say, now, about Boz’ comment?

I’m not sure what Boz comment you’re referring to? I haven’t seen one from him since the other day about a potential role for GRACE in a mediation.

@ Daisy:
Julie has made the “slimy” comment else where.

Over at the Naked Pastor blog thread some time ago, she said:

“He also hired literally the slimiest lawyer he could find (people hire lawyers like themselves)…. But as I said, he hired someone who is honestly (and this is not just me speaking but the entire professional family law community chiming in)….an utter disgrace to the family law profession and she is harmful to children.”

I never commented on that before, though out of curiosity when I read her ad hominem I googled Tony’s lawyer to see if she really was as slimy as Julie claimed. It appears Julie is mistaken about Tony’s lawyer’s reputation among her peers.

Did anyone notice that Tony took down his “Statement by Tony Jones”

http://tonyj.net/blog/2015/01/27/statement-tony-jones-regarding-allegations-abuse/

He forgot to take down the PDF version (which I’ve since saved):

http://tonyj.net/wp-content/uploads/Statement-by-Tony-Jones.pdf

Apparently he didn’t want people to point to the opening wherein he claims “I have never once physically assaulted Julie McMahon. I say this unequivocally, without reservation, and in the strongest possible terms.”

Lydia wrote:

@ Xianatty:
You did not catch the Axis 1 deflection or was it a typo? Or perhaps it did not pertain to “litigation” so not important.

That it didn’t pertain to litigation doesn’t make it “not important.” It just makes it something on which I’m qualified to opine. Also, the Axis I/II issue was well covered in earlier posts by others who do have expertise.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I agree with almost all of it

With what parts do you disagree?

I said I think the Stollar documents provide additional information.

@ Carl A:

I noticed. He also took down the conference greeting video where he told conference goers he was not there because he had to stay home with his child—- when he was actually breaking the legal agreement to return him from visitation.

Xianatty wrote:

I said I think the Stollar documents provide additional information.

Actually, using your own standards, that isn’t what you said. Can we say that you agree with Boz’ statement without reservation?

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I said I think the Stollar documents provide additional information.

Actually, using your own standards, that isn’t what you said. Can we say that you agree with Boz’ statement without reservation?

You can say what I actually said in response to Boz’s comment.

Lydia wrote:

I have a family member who is an atty on retainer with some megas. s/he talks just like you do concerning “Christian ethics”.

I am so sorry. Holiday dinner conversation with this person must be so heart warming and delightful. Not.

XAs goalposts move so fast they are a blur! It is truly masterful dishonesty.

@ Lydia:

That video was up and taken down in a fee hours.

Creepy.

It also creeps.me.out when people write to you and sign off by saying the document is only for your eyes — please do not share it with anyone. It is especially concerning when this is a pastor. Why is he writing something that he doesn’t want anyone else to see? Is it something he shouldn’t be saying or others would refute? Just not good. I quit communicating with a pastor who kept saying this to me.

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“Which lawyer are you referring to? He goes through them like a bag of chips. And they quit. So, since you are unsure of which one I am referring to, I am not sure how you ‘looked her up.'”

— According to the trial court docket, he’s had the same lawyer going back almost 4 years. The appellate court order and docket list the same attorney for him throughout that part of the litigation as well. I simply googled her name.

Xianatty wrote:

are the ones who want me to be as needlessly aggressive as possible or to even violate my own Christian and legal ethics.

Why are you being needlessly aggressive as possible on this blog about Julie?

Xianatty wrote:

Jeff, I haven’t said their conduct was morally equivalent.

You were implying so in posts above this one.

Xianatty wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:
You wrote:
“Which lawyer are you referring to? He goes through them like a bag of chips. And they quit. So, since you are unsure of which one I am referring to, I am not sure how you ‘looked her up.’”
— According to the trial court docket, he’s had the same lawyer going back almost 4 years. The appellate court order and docket list the same attorney for him throughout that part of the litigation as well. I simply googled her name.

Look again. xianatty with all due respect. You don’t know what you are talking about.

Lawyer #1 said he settled and proposed that I have sole/sole as the courts custody evaluator also recommended. She quit after finding out he was a liar. Before she quit I countered with shared legal to keep him on the hook for being a dad. I think you think that reading dockets gives you all of the information. But it doesn’t. In fact, As Boz and expert on abuse unlike you has just said, the courts in fact fail victims.

appellate court has been mentioned separately 23 times so far in the thread.

Lydia wrote:

This is the same argument used for rape victims who are not Snow White prior to be raped. It is called moral equivalency. He did 20 million bad things, she did 3… so she is just as bad or she deserved it because she embarrassed him. We get it.

This is similar to what some Christians believe or argue: we are all sinners, so all sins are equally bad.

You may be upset at a grown man who fondles five year old girls, but how dare you say anything since you stole a box of pencils from your job ten years ago?

I see this sort of thing come up on Christian blogs and sites quite often. The Neo Calvinist guys seem pretty fond of it, too.

Xianatty wrote:

Whatever else you’re trying to twist and distort is on you.

Please show me the twist or distortion in a straightforward question. What part of Boz’ statement do you find objectionable? You made the statement, I didn’t. I quoted your comment using the reply function. How can I twist a quote that everyone can verify?

You are evading a very simple question and attempting, once again, to deflect from a subject you don’t want to discuss.

What is your disagreement with Boz’ statement, if any?

Gram3,

You have a great brain! Xianatty has made his/her points enough times already and has shown that s/he is very good at stonewalling. May I suggest it’s time to ignore him/her?…

Julie,

If Xianatty answers appropriately, good. If not, your questions make a point by themselves. May I suggest it’s time to ignore him/her? It’s really not his/her business… (unless it’s his/her business) and you are not obliged to convince him/her. Plenty of reasonable folks believe you. Blessings.

XA, the word “almost” in your post about Boz’s statement is the word that jumped out to many of us. You qualified your agreement with Boz. If you agree with “almost” all of what Boz said, then what did Boz say that you DISagree with?

Pointing to the Stollar documents and saying they add more info? I would move to strike that answer as not being responsive to the question asked.

@ dee:

I heard about this. Very tragic. Will be praying for you.

@ Karl:
For instance XA, you could say you agree 100% with all that Boz says. But, you might add, the Stollar documents add info and raise other questions for you.

But you didn’t say that. I don’t mean you used different words to say the same thing. I mean you used words that mean something entirely different. Maybe you are tired after dominating this thread all day and just got sloppy and you really meant you agree 100% with Boz. If so, you can clarify that to be so. But don’t pretend that what you actually said, says that you agree 100% with Boz.

Xianatty wrote:

It was always multiple.

Are you sure about that?

Because the last thread or so and most of this one, you kept harping upon one statement at one court differing from another at an appellate court, and this had something to do with a disagreement or difference concerning $600.

I think you only contested other points, such as who had custody of the kids and when, after someone else touched upon that topic.

Xianatty wrote:

Julie has made the “slimy” comment else where.

I’m not addressing it elsewhere, I am talking about you quoting Julie on this blog in this thread.

Lydia wrote:

Carl A wrote:

Apparently he didn’t want people to point to the opening wherein he claims “I have never once physically assaulted Julie McMahon. I say this unequivocally, without reservation, and in the strongest possible terms.”

Well, he is right in his own mind. NPD’s get to define

“I REJECT YOUR REALITY AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN!”

Anyone notice how XianAtty has hijacked this comment thread completely?

If he’s whoring for attention, he sure got it. Now the thread revolves completely around XianAtty’s comments and responses and responses to responses and responses to responses to responses in one big Game of Uproar.

Instead of Julie’s grievance and/or the McLaren/Julie mediation, it’s now all about legal minutiae and XianAtty and what the meaning of “is” is. The original subject of this thread — how Julie was wronged by her NPD ex and his Fellow Travellers — has joined Julie under the bus.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Anyone notice how XianAtty has hijacked this comment thread completely?

That is one way of looking at it. Another way of seeing it is that XianAtty has possibly presented the best case that Jones’ enablers and apologists have. Facts are stubborn things and really throw sand in the gears of their narrative. Everyone who reads this thread (!) can see what is going on.

It is time for Brian and Rachel and Nadia and the others to reconsider their course and decide to move in a redemptive direction for all, including them and Julie and the kids and the Emergent movement and the church.

I ask publicly for a 3rd time:

XIANATTY

1. Are you a practicing attorney? You seem to have been free all day long!

2. Do you represent any of the people who have been discussed in this thread? Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Rachel Held Evans, Brian McLaren, or Nadia Bolz-Weber?

3. What is your area of law?

4. Are you trolling here now on the day Ryan Stollar wrote an article, to try and build a case? Baiting a victim?

These are 4 very simple yes or no questions and because this is supposed to be a safe place for people I demand you answer the above questions or excuse yourself.

Beakerj wrote:

Who is Xianatty?

I suspect female. Lives in South Florida. Democrat. Unemployed. (Because nobody who has a job can post over 4,000 tweets on Twitter in just a year.)

Gram3 wrote:

It is time for Brian and Rachel and Nadia and the others to reconsider their course and decide to move in a redemptive direction for all, including them and Julie and the kids and the Emergent movement and the church.

Brian seems willing to meet with Julie and work towards resolution. RHE and NBW seem to be sticking to their guns, so to speak. The image in my mind is the “you choose poorly” scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade…

Clock’s ticking, RHE & NBW.

Gram3 wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

I’m not sure why you can’t read

I believe you have provided inconsistent responses which I have highlighted. The problem is not with my reading comprehension or some alleged twist, distortion, or misstatement, but with your own inconsistent statements and/or non-response responses. You make allegations, but don’t back them up except with ad homs.

By your own standards, we are entitled to assume your credibility is seriously called into question.

Boz was referring to the information at Stollar’s site. In response, I said: “I agree with almost all of it. I think the Stollar documents also make other points, as I’ve already said.” One can disagree with a statement if one believes it would have been better to have referred to additional information. As I said, I have great respect for Boz and I’m not implying any ill will or any other negative thing. Contrary to the practices of some here, people of good will can disagree without believing the other is evil.

Beakerj wrote:

Who is Xianatty?

I’m thinking Javert (pre-redeemed version)

@ Xianatty:

That is not what happened, and if you check back our comments around 5:30 you will find your comment and see that you have misrepresented yourself. You said you had found Boz’ statement, then you quoted Boz’ statement and said that you agreed with almost all of it. *Then* you made the comment about additional information at Stollar’s blog. That, IMO, is because it was a very inconvenient thing for Boz to say from the POV of your narrative, but you needed to say something which appeared reasonable while still reserving total agreement.

I am not the one distorting what you actually said. Does the standard you are applying to Julie apply to you? Why is it reasonable for you to find inconsistencies in her actions during a traumatic time and insist we conclude that her actions are somehow egregious? Yet you, as a professional wielder of words, should not be held to the same standard, if not a higher one, in a combox when you are not under stress of any sort?

Why is it so difficult for you to plainly acknowledge the overarching moral and Christian issues here and abandon your tactic of smearing Julie?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

DON’T WE HAVE OTHER LAWYERS COMMENTING ON THIS BLOG?
AnAttorney?
LawProf?
Judge Tim?
I’D LIKE TO SEE THEIR COMMENTS/ANALYSIS OF XIANATTY’S ANTICS.

I’m an ex-attorney. Xianatty is reminding me of why I gave up the practice of law. To put it in Scientologese (you’d appreciate this, HUG): She’s restimulating my engrams.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2015/02/the-tony-jones-affair-releasing-the-documents.html

Yeah, this thread has been hijacked. People, please don’t pay any h3ed to the threadjacker. It’s pointless.

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Yes. this needs to stop, imo.

lydia wrote:

Xtianatty has been blowimg up Twitter with his/her Javert styled single minded legalese minutia. I am not a follower but others I follow engaged him/her. Oh my. Busy bee!

I don’t think the timing is a coincidence even going back to the first thread about this issue on this blog. Xtianattys word and actions don’t match up very well.

Of course xtianatty just looks for truth in legal documents concerning an NPD. Can the irony get any thicker?

Are NPD’s rational, xtianatty?. You seem to think so.

LOL! I had one polite exchange today with one person (we each sent a handful of polite tweets to each other). Other than that, I had a polite exchange with @futuristguy the other day about some clarifications and one correction to his report. You call that “blowing up Twitter”? That’s hysterical!

Now that we are finished with that deep dive down a dead-end alley, I’m wondering about mediation.

Will this be only between Julie and Brian? Brian has made it clear that he represents only himself and not anyone else in the Emergent group. If some peace is attained between them, will that do anything for the larger group, or will others need to be invited too, in order to accomplish broader purpose?

And what is the purpose, exactly? I am foggy on the whole concept of what mediation might be in this situation.

@ Xianatty:
Thank you for the reply and clearing that up….

Patrice wrote:

If some peace is attained between them, will that do anything for the larger group, or will others need to be invited too, in order to accomplish broader purpose?

I can see a couple of possible paths, though others like Brad no doubt have better ideas since he is more familiar with the people involved. But, ISTM that one path might be for the the top leader in the group of those who have been most adamant against Julie step forward and take the mediation lead with someone of like stature whom Julie trusts standing beside her through the process. Would that leader be Brian or is somebody bigger in that group? I don’t know.

Another path might be someone like Matthew Paul Turner, but not necessarily him, who has had a change of heart but who is not so closely identified with either Julie or Tony or Brian (AFAIK anyway) to act as an informal go-between. Personally, I would love to see RHE do this.

Another path might be several of those on Brian’s “side” getting together on their own and deciding how to take the initiative toward peace and contacting someone who has been sympathetic to Julie. The initiative would be a group effort.

The important thing is that a lot of people need to realize this has all been badly, badly handled from the very beginning. There needs to be some deep repentance and meditation on the big issues at stake here for the people involved on all “sides” and for the church and for the name of Christ. I believe that as awful as this is, it can still be redemptive if everyone involved is willing to face the reality of what has happened and is *more* concerned about bringing light and healing than about their personal or brand reputations. I actually think that their “brand” would be enhanced by facing the debacle squarely and behaving as people expected them to behave in the first place.

Gram3 wrote:

Another path might be several of those on Brian’s “side” getting together on their own and deciding how to take the initiative toward peace and contacting someone who has been sympathetic to Julie. The initiative would be a group effort.

Should probably add that if these folks are true friends of Tony, then they will want to help him to do the right thing by his children and Julie and the name of Christ. There is a big difference between being an ally in a political fight and being a true friend and brother or sister in Christ who seeks the best outcome for all. Hopefully Julie has friends like that as well.

Typo “set down” = sit down

I really appreciate Dee humbly opening up the post to Brian. It demonstrates a sincere interest in listening to all parties involved, not just the ones that most closely resonate with us.

It’s disappointing to see some questioning Xiantty in contrast. Clearly he/she is asking questions from a different angle than others here, which makes sense to me if he/she’s been trained to look at things with a legal eye. But there are plenty of other people who interact in comments here that are equally devoted to advancing their points of view. He/she seems to be drawing scrutiny because of a willingness to depart from the perspective of the majority.

I’d like to think we could model respectful listening like Dee has done with Brian. That’s really inspiring to me and I think if everyone involved in this scenario originally had been willing to be respectful and entertain dissenters, Julie wouldn’t have felt dismissed years ago.

@ Beth:
I didn’t like the facts around Tony during this divorce, but I also noticed ppl in the emergent movement behaving strangely. Through a friend, I have knowledge that one of them was acting very odd a week or two ago. Said friend linked to a David Hayward post the emergent person didn’t like (wan’t mentioned in the post, just didn’t like it). Said emergent unfriended my friend on Facebook for simply linking to David Hayward’s site a second time.

I had no idea who Julie was or that Tony was divorced until this blew up here. I was scratching my head on certain emergent’s reactions too. I dug in and found everything I dislike about American pop Christianity – people with few credentials rising higher than their earned status because they are held aloft by people who do have earned credit. Said people behaving badly, yet high up buddies protecting them. All the stuff the emergent group called the Gospel Coalition out for when they protected Mark Driscoll’s antics now came home to roost.

No one called Tony Jones out on his behaviour towards his ex wife and the mother of his children. Instead they launched “it’s private” bombs, triggering many who had been silenced, then complained they felt attacked! Yikes, how do they think Julie felt for all those years? Accused of being insane (and where was the compassion if she really were mentally ill???), without a shred of evidence. Too bad many of them didn’t think to check if Julie really was insane, or just really broken over the whole divorce experience. Too bad none of them felt any compassion for a woman who had been left by her husband when said husband was being presented to the world as a competent Christian theologian, and she asked them to what? help her, assist them in letting it be known things were very, very wrong. His divorce was now known, His NPD was now known, but that didn’t set off any red flags?!?

In the end, Jesus teaches, many will come to him saying “Lord, Lord I cast out demons in your name” and he will not acknowledge them, instead, he will turn to those who visited him in prison, visited him when he was poor, and broken, and destitute. And that will confuse those people, until it dawns on them, those who stand up for the maligned and unjustly accused, the silenced, is where you will find Jesus.

The American (and much of the western) business world admires narcism and sociopathic tendencies, they benefit a cutthroat environment and give businesses an edge over competition. Unfortunately, the church has jumped on this bandwagon and is looking at successful leaders as somehow “godly” leaders. But scratch that surface and see if there is anything there. In the end, right theology isn’t what Jesus is looking for, it is right actions.

The western church needs to stop raising media savvy, ambitious young men up into the stratosphere. England, at least, gets it right, NT write wrote volumes and volumes. He worked his way up from a common vicar to a bishop to an archbishop, he earned his status and reputation. The Driscolls and Tony Jones brought in the numbers, but Jesus isn’t about numbers. He is about integrity.

So, regardless of how right or wrong Julie is in this. Tony was wrong, and as long as all the other emergents continue to circle the wagons and try and defend him, the further down the path they once condemned Driscoll’s supporters for they too will travel. You can’t love God and the world. You will eventually hate one and love the other. There is a fork developing here. It will remain to be seen who will go which way.

Until Tony apologizes for silencing Julie, until Tony apologizes for fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying full child support, until Tony apologizes for convincing people his ex wife was mentally ill from his position of power, when no documented evidence existed of such a diagnosis, he is best avoided in Christian circles. If he is waiting for an apology from Julie for her sins, he can go wait on the sidelines, we don’t need his “leadership”. As Dee has pointed out many times before, Evangelicalism is shrinking by each demographic. There is less need for Spiritual big-wigs or leaders of movements. If the emergent is down by one leader, it isn’t like there is an overwhelming need, as the numbers aren’t growing these days, other leaders can fill in that gap. Tony can go do something else and heal. He is a mess and incapable of Christian leadership right now. If Brian and Rachel and Nadia and whoever else can’t see that, that is too bad. That said, it is time Tony moves on. The sun is setting and his ship has sailed.

And Rachel, many women hold conferences and speak in the Christian church. They speak in the Charismatic world, where they have always been welcomed. Jesus doesn’t need you to align with those who choose to mock the high call of Christ to follow him and refuse to repent of going their own way. If you want women’s voices to be heard, don’t align yourself with with a silencer. Let Jesus be the one to open doors for you. Wait if you must. When it is time, the door will open. If not you, then to someone who follows Christ alone will be given that chance.

Thousands of years ago God put several men to a test. First, he gave Adam a chance to redeem himself in a beautiful garden. Adam blamed his wife. Next, he gave Moses a chance to defend the many wicked men around him. He didn’t care when God said they’d die, he just happily built his boat. Next, God gave Abraham a chance to save Sodom and Gomorrah, he only bargained for the “righteousness”, but they were all fallen men and women, so he didn’t save them. Finally, God told Moses he would wipe out these idolatrous Israelites and start a new nation with Moses as the father of them all. Moses, a true leader, said No Way God, you started with the Israelites, you will not wipe them out but continue with them (despite their wickedness). For this reason, the Jews view Moses as the true leader.

A true leader is not caught up with the blame-game of the world. A true leader stands up for the marginalized, even if they don’t deserve it. A true leader does not allow rumours or insinuations about his ex wife’s mental health to percolate, even if it is mighty convenient. Church, we waste our time with less than leaders and Christianity continues it’s downward spiral. God is patient. He doesn’t care if we need to wait 6 more generations, or 20 before the right leader arises. You can’t make a Spirit filled event happen by sheer will or booking the right speaker. God needs to be the Spiritual leader of the event. God chooses who to give leadership to carefully. He tests leaders all the time. Beware of non-signs of good leadership, like mass followings. Good leadership does not malign people, even if they are bad. It does not seek to destroy others to maintain itself. It rests confidently in the knowledge that Christ is King and he alone appoints the person he wants to lead. God doesn’t need us, he asks us to join him. He takes who he wants, and his ways aren’t our ways. A cool goatee, hipster jeans and thick dark ‘nerd’ glasses aren’t part of the test. Nor is hip theology. Just actions.

@ Val:
Great comment. Thank you!

@ Gram3:
@ Gram3:

As I understand it, a mediation team will be hired. It has been suggested, I think by Boz, that it be a group from outside Evangelical (or Christian?) circles.

The mediation will be between Emergent leaders (but not Tony) and Julie. It would be self-defeating to have RHE as go-between. She’s been complicit with the “Tony Tale” and has shut down Julie. If she has any involvement, it will be as a member of the bunch on the other side of the table from Julie.

I doubt it would be helpful to involve Matthew Paul Turner, except maybe as a messenger to the other leaders involved. Even though he has been courageous to state support, he remains a bit waffled, and I suspect he needs time to set up.

Besides, even if these individuals had more accurate/sturdy senses of reality, they have no competency in mediation, as far as I can tell. I mean, they have been bamboozled by a narcissist; their wisdom obviously needs further development.

Yeah, things have been going badly for a long time, against all common sense. Which is why mediation. And yeah, it can be made redemptive if people were just willing. But that’s the point, isn’t it, that they haven’t been?

So what can be done to make willingness most likely? What is the procedure if they never become fully willing? How “willing” is enough? Is there such a thing as “agree to disagree” in this situation?

@ Patrice:

Those are some good points. There will definitely need to be professional involvement. What I had in mind was the informal dynamics that are necessary for the professional(s) to be effective. I guess I’ve been behind the scenes at too many church “conflict resolution” things that have been torpedoed by the informal structures and dynamics. It really takes both, IMO.

Thanks for that info on the particular people because I’m totally in the woods here. The reason I mentioned Rachel is that I think that *if* she comes to her senses that she could be valuable in the process as a woman who has made her reputation standing against the powerful but who, for some reason, seems to have lost her way. So, if she repents, then perhaps she could show others the way. And also, personally, she was the only one from the emergent/progressive world that I had read beyond one or two random posts.

Still looking for the redemptive way forward. What do you think that might look like given the people who would need to participate? Who is the informal leader in the group?

doubtful wrote:

Xianatty wrote:

Julie McMahon wrote:
I ask publicly for a second time:
XIANATTY
1. Are you a practicing attorney? You seem to have been free all day.
2. Do you represent any of the people who have been discussed in this thread? Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Rachel Held Evans, Brian McLaren, or Nadia Bolz-Weber?
3. What is your area of law?
4. Are you trolling here now on the day Ryan Stollar wrote an article, to try and build a case? Baiting a victim?
These are 4 very simple yes or no questions and because this is supposed to be a safe place for people I demand you answer the above questions or excuse yourself.
______
Yes, no, civil litigation (including appellate), no, no.
______
Sorry for the deposition speak…but one last line of questions (if you don’t mind).

Have you had any contact (conversations, email, phone calls, etc..) with the aforementioned authors/ speakers that you do not currently represent?

Are you related to, friends with, or ever had any professional relationship/ personal relationships to the previously mentioned folks?

Thanks in advance for your willingness to answer my queries.

No and no.

I’m not Emergent or Emerging. I’m not even sure what that means. I’ve never read any of their books except one by Rachel, which I bought on my own initiative through Amazon. I did not finish it. I’ve never been to any of their conferences or heard any of them speak in public.

I’m a mainstream progressive. I’ve witnessed spiritual abuse (a cult of personality) in a former mainstream progressive congregation. I have no problem calling out abuse in a liberal setting, as well as in a conservative setting.

I don’t know how much more broadly I can say it. I have and have never had NO. CONNECTION. WHATSOEVER. to any of those people.

Praying for this. As it stands I do not trust Brian M. However someone else who disappointed me has taken a stand I respect after taking the time to be sure of themself. So there is hope. Even for XianAlly might I suggest. 😉 this whole mess just proves that the justice system can be manipulated by abusers because people’s natural emotions in reaction to abuse are seen as suspect, not only in the church.

Julie McMahon wrote:

I sent this to Brian McLaren and copied Dee for accountability and as a witness. I’d like to wrap this up and make peace and reconcile with those who have hurt me in the past. I spoke up and told my story and now it is up to each individual involved to make things right or they may choose to dig in even deeper and try and spin their way out of this.

Brian,

It saddens me that my abuse story has had to go viral to be heard. I would like to believe in a better path. One in which the Tony’s and Doug’s of the world cannot go because it requires them saying I am sorry for my part.

I have blamed you for not doing more to help an impossible situation with an abusive narcissist. Was that fair of me? I don’t know. I just know I looked to you for guidance and wisdom and because I truly believed you could help.

Maybe it isn’t fair to put people on pedestals. We do put our religious leaders up above us and we do hold them to a higher standard.

Now that this is all dragged out into the open….do you still stand beside Tony and not the victim?

Maybe we can mediate peace and forgiveness but not if you are stuck on remaining blameless and victim blaming.

Peace,

Julie

*scribd-site

Melody wrote:

It is, in my reading of his scribd-sure statement, amongst other public statements, the meaning he has communicated.

Margaret wrote:

@ Julie McMahon:
You are assuming something that Brian has not said.

Maybe we can mediate peace and forgiveness but not if you are stuck on remaining blameless and victim blaming.
Julie’s comment

Brian has asked Julie to speak to him before, he wrote this on the scribd site and Julie refused. Now he is willing with a mediator to meet with Julie. What more can you ask of a person?!

I do not personally know Julie, Tony, or Brian. My personal response is to what I have read. Yes by all means my heart goes out to Julie. My heart breaks for her and her children, however, for the mediation process to work both parties must be willing. God willing both Brian and Julie will reconcile and will forgive one another. This is my prayer. Please Lord Jesus help Julie and Brian to forgive one another.

I would never meet with a powerful person on their terms. There is much mediation that can do more damage than good, especially if “mediation” is really code for “shut up already”.

Margaret wrote:

Brian has asked Julie to speak to him before, he wrote this on the scribd site and Julie refused. Now he is willing with a mediator to meet with Julie. What more can you ask of a person?!

@ Melody:
Wow, all we are doing here is saying Brian would tell Julie to shut up already when he is willing to meet with a mediator! Do you have any idea how many victims of Spiritual Abuse from Mark Driscoll, C. J. Mahaney etcetera would love to have mediation??? Brian is willing to meet with Julie he has not stipulated who the mediator will be. How wonderful for Julie, wish this was true for all how have felt abused.

@ Bridget:
That is very true Bridget and my comment was out of line. Wish I hadn’t posted it.

Just to clarify: no one has said Brian is a narcissist as far as I know.

Tony Jones unfortunately however has been diagnosed as a narcissist (NPD) per her own admission.

And so, for realz this time, good night!

Margaret wrote:

Brian has not been diagnosed as narcissistic! This is mediation with Brian not Tony Jones.

@ Melody:
You wrote this Melody and I thought you were referring to Brian, sorry I misunderstood

Julie deserved the freedom to make mistakes, but that freedom has instead been granted by people of influence to narcissistic people of influence.
That is evil and wrong. That is the heart of what needs to be rectified here.

@ Patrice:
So? that is the Christian call. If we are to take Tony as a spiritual leader, we need to see a leader that aligns with that style of leadership – Christ as King means the leader isn’t focused on business style leadership, but on what it means to be a Christian, a totally different style of leadership. You don’t have to believe a word of the Bible to know how a Christian should be acting.

The problem I have is Beth is being swayed by the emergent’s reaction to Julie (like RHE refusing to hear her side of the story and blocking her from contacting her?!?). Forgetting that, in the end, their reaction is likely not based on anything profound or more wise than the rest of us. They are blinded by Tony, turning away from his fall from any further qualifications for leadership, regardless of what Julie said, did, thought, acted. Brian needs to realize this too. Beth may not be a Christian, as she said, but she used to be and she likely knows what is required of a Christian.

I am just pointing out Tony isn’t up to all that right now (hasn’t been for a while, apparently) and she need not be alarmed by other emergent’s reaction to Julie. Their desire to defend Tony is what is utterly misguided here. It is why Julie and Brian need reconciliation, why RHE cut her off, etc. If Julie was just some woman with a sad divorce story, these guys would likely be all over it, sympathetic, supportive, etc. But now it is about Tony and suddenly they all go into Bazaaro mode and start acting as if she is the Great Satan, slamming commenters on their blogs, or others, cutting off contacts, writing letters about how much they love Tony, from a few posts Julie made on David Hayward’s blog??

I am just pointing out, there are massive issues with defending Tony as a Christian leader. As a business leader I am sure he is admirable, but that isn’t what Christians are supporting him for. If they wanted internet advice or how to influence others advice, they could get that from anyone successful. They have been looking at Tony as a spiritual leader, but according to the Bible, he doesn’t cut it. He’s bombed the test and other leaders need to be aware.

Plus, they have absolutely no justification for acting this way towards Julie. Refusing mediation, threatening lawsuits, refusing to communicate with her? The reaction is ridiculous, and defiantly NOT private. You can’t treat people this way and then say “oh, it’s private”. No, you can’t treat people that way period. If she really is mentally ill and a chronic liar, all that will be revealed, but as it stands, the court records and respond to her on blogs doesn’t prove Julie wrong.

Val wrote:

I am just pointing out, there are massive issues with defending Tony as a Christian leader

I know you know this, but Tony isn’t a Christian leader. To the extent a Christian leader is someone you follow, to follow him would be to allow him to lead you into the same deception that he is in himself. And isn’t deceit/deception the elephant in the room, the underlying problem of what is going on here? It’s not just him, deception is spreading among his supporters like a black light.

Banannie wrote:

Shame on XA for deflecting from the actual discussion, Tony’s dishonest and disqualifying behavior, by attempting to shame survivors. Every comment reveals you to be an even more terrible follower of Christ.
In practice, obvs. Can’t speak to your heart.

“Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh”–Very Smart Man That XA Claims To Know.

@ Xianatty:
I did not to mention anything about being impolite. So am confused.

Patrice wrote:

Besides, even if these individuals had more accurate/sturdy senses of reality, they have no competency in mediation, as far as I can tell. I mean, they have been bamboozled by a narcissist; their wisdom obviously needs further development.

Exactly.

@ Margaret:
But SGM did mediation with victims. some of us remember it well. it was a total sham. even after everything that happened at SGM, people believed those Christian leaders had their best interest at heart. They did not. the reason for mediation was to save the leaders and shut the victims down.

so how one goes about this mediation business in Christendom is very important.

Melody wrote:

There are some interesting blogposts on A Cry For Justice regarding one woman’s experience with mediation, albeit through Peacemakers, if my memory serves me correctly. That may frame what I am saying about mediation not always being in the best interests of the less powerful person in the equation.

From what I understand, Peacemakers is overly concerned about keeping established structures in place. If I remember correctly, Boz has suggested finding a mediation group from outside the Evangelical (or Christian?) circles, to minimize these kinds of biases.

I too have qualms about the process. Julie wants apologies and I think she’s right, but there is a lot of ego going on here. Maybe mediation is the best venue for greatest chance of that happening? I’m not feeling much hope but would love to be proven wrong.

@ Patrice:
I am a big believer that people have a right to tell their story. As we can see from the responses of celebrity Christianity, that can be a dangerous thing for victims of spiritual abuse. And I do think Julie was spiritually abused by that movement and continues to be.

Most are not strong enough for a long time to even attempt it.

this also causes a lot of problems because at the time victims had no idea what they were really dealing with. they were drinking the kool aid too. they believed they could work within in the culture and trust the people around them. Big mistake made over and over.

They are often aware they will not be believed. people tend to love their christian celebrities and give them the benefit.

and the victims do not have power on their side or the platform that a christian celebrity has.

It is a scary and lonely business. I admire those who tell their stories. It takes courage.

Xianatty wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Margaret wrote:

@ Xianatty:
Thank you for giving another perspective to this issue. Anyone notice that Dee is not shutting Xianatty down? Wonder why?

I don’t think she typically shuts people down for dissenting views. I’ve only seen it happen when people act in an abusive manner. What are your thoughts on the reasoning?

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

Jeff S wrote:

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

Yes. BTDT.

And Tojo has not quit abusing Julie through the court system to this day.

What most people don’t realize is that a narcissist gets PLEASURE from abusing others.

@ BethanyAnn:
It is because of the legal aspect because that is very serious business right now. you do realize that Tony has filed suit,?

I sent in a comment a little while ago and it hasn’t posted despite many other comments posting since. I see from the other comments that are present that Dee has a high degree of trustworthyness when it comes to not silencing voices. Someone even said she has only banned 10 people in the course of this site’s history.

I am trying to share some heaviness that I experience as I watch this conversation unfold as someone who has been closer to the situation than many here. Can someone help me understand why my post is not appearing?

@ BethanyAnn:
I don’t view XianAtty that way at all. He is devoting all energy and time to nit picking at Julie’s actions or comments and no energy doing the same with Tony Jones. He seems to have a vendatta or grudge against Julie for some reason.

@ Gram3:

I think I understand what you’re saying. You’re saying that you believe Xiantty is demanding Julie be a “perfect victim” which I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree is not acceptable.

I don’t think Xiantty has crossed the line here though. He/She (Do we know? I just don’t know who he/she is so I don’t know what gender pronon is appropriate.) has not spoken with disrespectful tones or attitudes in my mind. But his/her questions are an annoyance because they seek more information rather than taking everything spoken here as verifiable. While we might not like their personality in that they require more evidence, the fact they are asking questions or looking at it from a different point of view, doesn’t qualify as victim blaming.

It’s okay to ask people questions about their stories, otherwise we would never have any way of sorting out fabrications or falsehoods from Tony or anyone else either. That’s part of honoring their platform is saying their story is taken seriously and thoughtfully and they are engaged in conversation to be heard.

I have seen some victim blaming on a social media page that was not pretty and I privately contacted the person responsible and asked them to reframe what they’re saying or realize they are being silencing. I am just saying I think there’s a difference between asking questions and looking at things from different angles vs. putting down a victim.

@ Gram3:
I think you’ve made some importanGram3 wrote:

Patrice wrote:
I too have qualms about the process. Julie wants apologies and I think she’s right, but there is a lot of ego going on here. Maybe mediation is the best venue for greatest chance of that happening? I’m not feeling much hope but would love to be proven wrong.
I agree about an unbiased mediation group. Perhaps they would go to both “sides” and compile their grievances. Having a go-between who is truly neutral might help mitigate the ego factor. In a Christian leader, ego should not be the main thing, but it seems to be. Leaders who call themselves Christian should look and lead like Christ. If they are not willing to do that, then they should drop “Christian” as an adjective.

I think your comments about an unbiased mediation group that would listen to all parties is one of the wisest things that has been said and repeated in this forum. That suggestion doesn’t sound like manipuation or PR of fear tactics. It sounds like people saying they aren’t afraid of truth and are willing to turn over everything available to shed all the light they can. More light, as I’ve seen people say it, more light! We will not fear the light.

lydia wrote:

@ BethanyAnn:
It is because of the legal aspect because that is very serious business right now. you do realize that Tony has filed suit,?

I know there are ongoing court cases. Do you believe Xiannty is party to one of them? I don’t think legal proceedings should prevent anyone from asking questions. Otherwise none of us could question anyone’s public statements on account of their being charges filed or cases in court etc.

Xianatty wrote:

But she was also asking us to believe her. And to disbelieve Tony

She was asking people to listen to her story after seven years of only hearing Tony’s story. Tony’s was a one sided story as much as Julie’s would have been IF that was all anyone was allowed to hear. Tony forced his story and shut up Julie’s story for seven years. And many people in public places helped him. Tony asked people to believe him for long enough.

@ Jeff S:
Thanks for saying this again. It has been said every which way but upside down at this point. 🙂

BethanyAnn wrote:

I don’t think legal proceedings should prevent anyone from asking questions.

Questions about what happened in the course of a divorce case are not the issue we are discussing which is prospective mediation between Brian McLaren (and hopefully some others who have enabled Tony) and Julie.

Please understand that we are standing against XianAtty’s attempt to push his/her Alternate Narrative and to shift the discussion to What a Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Person Julie is.

@ lydia:
Definitely not. I see the imbalance of influence. I think it is heartwarming and setting-right for Julie to be able to communicate in so many online forums using the platforms of more visible watchdogs of the church. It has been great to see that when I google this information, Julie’s story is often appearing in the search results more than anyone else’s. This doesn’t retroactively change the past or reverse any silencing, but it’s great to see that both stories are out there now and everyone has the opportunity to listen to either and both parties without one party being able to shut down the other. We’re moving in the right direction, people! More light!!

BethanyAnn wrote:

I don’t think anyone here should seek to shift the blame or assign guilt to anyone. This isn’t a court of law. We should seek to understand the stories being told here. To hear Julie. To welcome her voice.

You think that Tony is blameless? I don’t understand that at all. Do you think the ones who silenced Julie are blamelesss?

I actually said that XianAtty is perseverating, not persevering. He/she is irrationally focused on trivial matters that occurred years ago while ignoring huge issues with Tony’s credibility. His/her double standards are quite impressive, I must admit.

Blaming the victim is Never OK. I’m going to perseverate on that.

Xianatty wrote:

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

I give up. If you cannot understand what is going on here after reading Jeff’s wonderful post then there is no hope that you ever will. I just do not know what is the matter with you.

Do you know where you are? You are at a blog that exists to support the victims of spiritual abuse.

Tony IS a liar. He has maintained his position as a Christian leader by convincing others that his exwife was batshit crazy and that he was a good husband and father. That is not true. He says he never cheated on her with Courtney and it was a sign of her mental illness that she thought so. That is not true. He says he never abused her, not once. That is not true. He says Julie never once told the court he did in all the years of litigation. That is not true. Every blog owner until The Naked Pastor this fall has been threatened by Tony’s camp to take down any post of Julie’s to protect Tony and they did so for years. The Naked Pastor won’t. Wartburg Watch won’t. SCCL won’t. R Stollar won’t.

A woman’s marriage was in trouble. She goes to her pastor. What was the response? He sides with her husband abd tells her she is mentally ill and there is no affair. He supports the divorce and remarriage. He shows no concern for the children. That is spiritual abuse not pastoral care.

Once Julie can tell her story years later, Tony’s fellow celebrities double down on their support for Tony and their maligning of his first wife. That is spiritual abuse.

We know Tony was diagnosed with NPD and look at what is happening now! Julie got to tell her story on the Naked Pastor. It is a great blog but it’s not the New York Times. Nevertheless it is being treated as a narcissistic injury by Tony and Julie has to pay. He won’t return one of the children and I gather he is in the process of tormenting her with another round of litigation.

This is wrong. This is appalling. And your response? Oh, Julie is not a perfect victim! Look, look, everybody, she admits shaking him! Look, look, her attorney made inconsistent arguments! I don’t care. Nobody cares but you and Beth. Julie cannot be a perfect victim because we are none of us perfect. That does not justify abuse in any form – spiritual, physical, emotional, or legal.

Gram3 wrote:

BethanyAnn wrote:
I don’t think anyone here should seek to shift the blame or assign guilt to anyone. This isn’t a court of law. We should seek to understand the stories being told here. To hear Julie. To welcome her voice.
You think that Tony is blameless? I don’t understand that at all. Do you think the ones who silenced Julie are blamelesss.

I actually said that XianAtty is perseverating, not persevering. He/she is irrationally focused on trivial matters that occurred years ago while ignoring huge issues with Tony’s credibility. His/her double standards are quite impressive, I must admit.
Blaming the victim is Never OK. I’m going to perseverate on that.

No. I think anyone who thinks Tony is completely blameless would not be trying to exercise any objectivity. That’s unrealistic.

My personal opinion is just that I don’t think Xiannty is blaming the victim in the same way you see it. I don’t think asking questions of legal matters is blaming the victim. I think it is honoring the speaker by taking their story seriously and trying to fully understand.

The point is not to force agreement on every angle. The point is to honor Julie’s story and to platform it and give it as much visibility as it can. And then to receive and interact with it without silencing it. I see Xiannty as operating within the bounds of that.

Xianatty wrote:

@ BethanyAnn:
Thank you for trying to understand my perspective. It’s refreshing.
It’s my understanding from Dee’s posts that, though GRACE could not do the mediation itself, Boz, who is an attorney, has offered to (and may have already) provide names of neutral, professionally trained mediators for Brian and Julie to select from. Dee is helping facilitate movement toward an understanding on logistics.
When refer to “mediation,” it’s my understanding they are referring to formal mediation pursuant to the applicable laws and professional standards. As I understand it, it’s not an informal get together with the parties and their supporters all sitting around, and it’s not something that’s going to be run by church leaders or others who are not trained mediators. I hope and pray that this will be successful.

You’re welcome. I’m not sure we see eye to eye on everything, but I will fight for the values of safe space which allow any respectful party to be themselves and have their voices heard as well even if they choose a different point of view.

I hope as you say that the mediation is conducted by professionals, but I have to say, I would also like to see a qualified agency (if they exist) or a well-known national journalist do an investigative report. I also will be watching the outcome of the ongoing court cases which are sure to make more details public as well.

BethanyAnn wrote:

So in this way I think it CAN be helpful, if done respectfully, to establish credibility as much as one can or to ask questions as much as one can so that the whole picture can be taken seriously.

That might be true *if* the person/s who are questioning Julie’s credibility had nearly the same concern for Tony’s credibility. That condition, however, does not exist with the person/s who are questioning Julie’s credibility.

When someone questions the credibility of Julie based on Julie’s performance under stressful conditions which conditions were caused by Tony, as documented yesterday, while that questioner simultaneously studiously ignores the huge and ongoing credibility problems with Tony, then I think it is safe to assume the questioner is not acting as a neutral observer and seeker of light, as you put it.

Meanwhile, said questioner is unable to meet his/her own exacting standard for credibility. Now, you are perfectly free to regard that questioner who failed their very own test as a reliable neutral party. Why are you so concerned about XianAtty not being heard? I think we heard loud and clear what XianAtty has been communicating.

Blaming the victim is Never OK.

Gram3 wrote:

BethanyAnn wrote:
So in this way I think it CAN be helpful, if done respectfully, to establish credibility as much as one can or to ask questions as much as one can so that the whole picture can be taken seriously.
That might be true *if* the person/s who are questioning Julie’s credibility had nearly the same concern for Tony’s credibility. That condition, however, does not exist with the person/s who are questioning Julie’s credibility.
When someone questions the credibility of Julie based on Julie’s performance under stressful conditions which conditions were caused by Tony, as documented yesterday, while that questioner simultaneously studiously ignores the huge and ongoing credibility problems with Tony, then I think it is safe to assume the questioner is not acting as a neutral observer and seeker of light, as you put it.
Meanwhile, said questioner is unable to meet his/her own exacting standard for credibility. Now, you are perfectly free to regard that questioner who failed their very own test as a reliable neutral party. Why are you so concerned about XianAtty not being heard? I think we heard loud and clear what XianAtty has been communicating.
Blaming the victim is Never OK.

I agree that we should have the same standards and questions about credibility for each person involved. And I agree blaming a victim is never, ever okay.

There are a lot of people in this forum who are questioning Tony’s credibility (including me) and many of them fully accept Julie’s account, so there is a good healthy balance of power and platform here, which is a tribute to Dee.

It is wonderful and inspiring in my opinion to see people who support or question both sides be able to speak in a place where neither is AUTOMATICALLY given more weight because of their influence or perceived “accomplishment”.

I think the things you are saying are extremely important. And I think that Xiannty’s voice belongs here too. Xiannty doesn’t have more power than anyone else, which has seemingly been the case with Julie’s supporters in the past, so I for one am thrilled with Dee providing an equal and respectful playing field.

Lastly, I agree with you again. Blaming the victim is NEVER OK.

BethanyAnn wrote:

My personal opinion is just that I don’t think Xiannty is blaming the victim in the same way you see it. I don’t think asking questions of legal matters is blaming the victim. I think it is honoring the speaker by taking their story seriously and trying to fully understand.

And XianAtty might just be a wonk who tunnel-visions onto legalese minutiae.
(I remember some reference to a Victorian novel where one minor character was always lecturing everyone he spoke with about “how many times the word ‘whip’ is mentioned in the Bible.” That sort of thing.) That would be the most charitable/sympathetic interpretation.