“I’ve always been crazy, but it’s kept me from going insane.”
-Waylon Jennings
Do you recall the alleged crime James MacDonald committed while in the San Diego area?
Allow me to take you back 5 months to the scene of the alleged crime of James MacDonald, courtesy of Julie Roys:
On March 22, 2023 “Disgraced megachurch pastor James MacDonald has been arrested and charged with felony assault and battery in California, after authorities say he attacked a 59-year-old woman, resulting in “serious injuries.”
If convicted of all charges, MacDonald faces seven years in prison, according to Tanya Sierra, assistant director of communications for the San Diego County District Attorney’s office.
MacDonald has pleaded not guilty, Sierra said.
According to the police statement, the assault happened after MacDonald struck a car parked in front of him while attempting to parallel park his truck on the 900 block of Orange Avenue in Coronado at 10:15 a.m. The occupant of the car, a 59-year-old woman, got out of her car to talk to MacDonald, the statement said. MacDonald then reportedly “jumped out of his truck and attacked the victim.”
The statement said the victim sustained “serious injuries” and was transported to the hospital.”
Source: Julie Roys,“Disgraced Megachurch Pastor James MacDonald Charged with Assault After Allegedly Attacking Woman”
Fast forward to yesterday, August 10, 2023. I was informed (see below) that a new court date has been set in the James Sherwood MacDonald criminal case. On September 5, 2023 MacDonald and his Defense Counsel, Michael Prancer, have a “Mental Health Diversion Initial Hearing.”
What is a “Mental Health Diversion Hearing,” you ask? I had the same question, so I commenced an internet search and it didn’t take long to come up with this informative article, which I have quoted at length below.
Source:Who Qualifies For Mental Health Diversion?
If you’re a California resident with a mental health disorder and currently facing criminal charges, California laws may dismiss those charges after completing a treatment program. Once you’ve gone through the treatment program, your records are sealed, allowing you somewhat of a fresh start. The process is called Mental Health Diversion and is codified under Section 1001.36 of California’s Penal Code. The Mental Health Diversion program is a form of pre-trial diversion that allows the defendant to postpone their case and commence a treatment plan.
The idea behind the Mental Health Diversion Program is simple; if the person facing criminal charges completes the program successfully, her or his charges are dropped and arrest records sealed.
By law, the treatment program can only run for a maximum of 24 months. Judges are also required to consider the needs of the defendant, the community, and the requests of the prosecution, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the program offers inpatient or outpatient services. It’s important to note that a defendant might have to cover the program’s cost, but if he or she can’t, he or she may be able to qualify for public funding.
Upon completion of the treatment program, the court will discharge all the charges you originally faced. However, the law is pretty adamant that all the necessary terms and conditions must be met:
- The defendant must significantly meet all the requirements of the program
- The defendant must not commit any new crimes that would not be related to the disability
- The defendant must create a long-term plan for psychological care
Who qualifies for the Mental Health Diversion Program?
Anyone charged with both misdemeanors and or felonies can become eligible for Mental Health Diversion. However, there are certain factors stipulated by the law, which the defendants must meet in order to attain the eligibility status. The criteria are as follows:
- The defendant must be afflicted with a mental health disorder, which is neither borderline personality disorder, anti-social personality disorder, nor pedophilia. His or her condition must be recorded in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
- The mental health disorder must have played a significant role in the defendant’s crime. To determine this, the court will review police reports, evidence, witness statements, and medical records.
- A qualified mental health expert must conclude that the treatment would positively benefit the defendant.
- The defendant must waive the right of speedy trial guaranteed in the 6th Amendment and consent to the terms of completing the treatment program.
- The defendant must agree to remain fully compliant with the terms of the program.
- The court must determine that the defendant doesn’t pose an unreasonable risk to public safety. At this point, judges will typically consider the opinions of mental health experts and attorneys involved, medical records, witness statements, and other key factors of the case.
Benefits of Mental Health Diversion
There are a couple of benefits that come when one participates in the treatment program as a defendant. First, your criminal charges get dismissed. Once you complete the program, the charges you face are ultimately dismissed. Sealing your arrest records gives the impression that the case never happened. Unfortunately, sealed records aren’t really “gone.” You might still be required to disclose your records when applying to specific government jobs, and agencies related to criminal justice can still access your sealed records.
On July 20, 2023 Baptist News Global published an article titled “An Interview with James MacDonald.” The article stated in part that:
“From his vantage point, whatever has gone wrong — and he admits plenty has gone very wrong — was hastened by the impossible expectations of the kind of pastoral life he once led.
In addition to planting and growing Harvest Bible Chapel in suburban Chicago, he became an A-list conference speaker, church planting guru, best-selling author and TV host. His influence extended into the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest non-Catholic denomination. In the past two decades, he has spoken at the SBC Pastors’ Conference six times.
Amid the controversies seemingly engulfing him, MacDonald granted an exclusive interview to Baptist News Global — an hour-long conversation that was both confessional and confused.
He considers himself a broken man, struggling to make sense of the world he once preached about with certainty.
He’s disconnected now from his former life leading a church staff of 500 and a TV show with a staff of 50. He’s not invited to speak at conferences, and he’s not giving advice to anyone. Instead, the counselor has become the counselee.
“According to counselors I’ve been to, I’ve been diagnosed as having symptoms of PTSD,” he said. “I’ve done a lot of counseling with Henry Cloud, and he’s helped me understand two very important sentences. … The first one is first they idolize you. And then they demonize you.”
Dee published an excellent article critiquing the above article. The article may be found here and I encourage you to review it. Dee says in part:
Finally, his statement about ‘mass hysteria” shows his derogatory view of people who read the news and come to a conclusion. This wasn’t hysteria. It was a bunch of sane people who were furious about how James MacDonald hurt their church. Years ago, I thought James MacDonald was a great pastor, but now I see his feet of clay. If the information Julie provided wasn’t true, he could write a book and refute her or start a website and refute, point by point, her errors. That is what honest men do. They don’t sit on the sidelines and weep crocodile tears.
So, back to the question in the title of this article – is James MacDonald batshit crazy, or crazy like a fox? My opinion is that MacDonald is crazy like a fox. I predict his “Mental Health Diversion” tactic will be successful and MacDonald will face no time in prison, instead he will take part in some type of counseling for a year or two and after successful completion of the prescribed program the felony charges will be dropped and his record sealed.
If this happens it will be interesting to see how the man will get back into ministry, and you know he will!
But for all that, would his congregation believe him? If they jeered when he faced them, he would be ruined, he would still lose the Yorkville pastorate and the Napap. Thus he fretted in the quarter-hour before morning service, pacing his study and noting through the window -for once, without satisfaction -that hundreds on hundreds were trying to get into the crammed auditorium. His study was so quiet. How he missed Hettie’s presence! He knelt. He did not so much pray as yearn inarticulately. But this came out clearly: “I’ve learned my lesson. I’ll never look at a girl again. I’m going to be the head of all the moral agencies in the country -nothing can stop me, now I’ve got the Napap! -but I’m going to be all the things I want other folks to be! Never again!” He stood at his study door, watching the robed choir filing out to the auditorium chanting. He realized how he had come to love the details of his church; how, if his people betrayed him now, he would miss it: the choir, the pulpit, the singing, the adoring faces. It had come. He could not put it off. He had to face them. Feebly the Reverend Dr. Gantry wavered through the door to the auditorium and exposed himself to twenty-five hundred question marks. They rose and cheered -cheered -cheered. Theirs were the shining faces of friends. Without planning it, Elmer knelt on the platform, holding his hands out to them, sobbing, and with him they all knelt and sobbed and prayed, while outside the locked glass door of the church, seeing the mob kneel within, hundreds knelt on the steps of the church, on the sidewalk, all down the block. “Oh, my friends!” cried Elmer, “do you believe in my innocence, in the fiendishness of my accusers? Reassure me with a hallelujah!” The church thundered with the triumphant hallelujah, and in a sacred silence Elmer prayed: “O Lord, thou hast stooped from thy mighty throne and rescued thy servant from the assault of the mercenaries of Satan! Mostly we thank thee because thus we can go on doing thy work, and thine alone! Not less but more zealously shall we seek utter purity and the prayer-life, and rejoice in freedom from all temptations!” He turned to include the choir, and for the first time he saw that there was a new singer, a girl with charming ankles and lively eyes, with whom he would certainly have to become well acquainted. But the thought was so swift that it did not interrupt the pæan of his prayer: “Let me count this day, Lord, as the beginning of a new and more vigorous life, as the beginning of a crusade for complete morality and the domination of the Christian church through all the land. Dear Lord, thy work is but begun! We shall yet make these United States a moral nation!”
Lewis, Sinclair. Elmer Gantry . Penny Books. Kindle Edition.
Crazy like a fox. Yes, he’ll be back.
Since anti-social personality disorder is DSM for narcissist, I’d say he will not qualify.
I think a person can be both kinds of crazy.
But, I think MacDonald knows exactly what he is doing……. very intentional….. playing on the sympathy factor.
Let’s see if MacDonald wins this game with the judicial system.
sigh…..
“the man will get back into ministry, and you know he will!”
Using the “Jesus Forgives” or cheap grace trick. Bungle, restore, bungle, restore, ad nauseum. For a so-called donor supported church leader, no less. The cult of personality persists.
Another question: what’s the mental state of the fools that support this scammer?
Yes. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Wouldn’t the court require some standard mental health tests such as MMPI-2, MSE, BDE, HAM-E, etc? As well, wouldn’t a court appointed professional do a standard face to face using PTSD CAP-5 standards?
Nothing against Henry Cloud, he is licensed, but no one knows if he just did some talk therapy, or if MacDonalds definition of ‘a lot of time’ might not be.
While reading the “Elmer Gantry” excerpt, I couldn’t help but hear the voice of Jimmy Swaggart in substitute of Gantry’s voice. Jim Bakker comes in at a close second, follow by Mark Driscoll. So, yeah, MacDonald will probably be (self) redeemed soon.
Especially if MacDonald stacks the deck with the best personally-selected play-along “counselors”.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen – he’s basically tring the insanity defense.
“All those people that loved me and listened to my wisdom…THEY made me do it!!!”
His self-diagnosis of PTSD gets him sympathy. The label he deserves,”narcissist”, gets him condemnation for being a fraud; someone who lacks character. The Psalms and Proverbs call them fools. He’s a con man, plain and simple. People got tired of his ever increasing sense of invincibility about himself. They finally weren’t afraid of him any longer.
Ain’t gonna happen.
If there’s any bucks to be had, he’s gonna’ wind up payin’ big.
And/Or doin’ time.
It can be challenging enough to pass along necessary information without giving people ammunition to discredit not only a given article but every single associated one writ large. Hard to believe knowing all of that, this headline got a green light. Anyone asking a question about the merits of the site can now have this headline along to them as a reason not to take the submissions seriously.
Col. 3:8 — “But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.”
Eph. 4:29 — “Do not let any unwholesome word go forth out of your mouth, but only good, for edification of the need, so that it may give grace to those hearing.”
Eph. 5:4 — “Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.”
Proverbs 16:32
He who is slow to anger is better than the mighty, And he who rules his spirit than he who takes a city.
Proverbs 25:28
Whoever has no rule over his own spirit Is like a city broken down, without walls.
Others have also said this. If James McDonald truly has a problem with PTSD, then he has no business being back in ministry with it being a stressful type position. He should choose some other vocation if he really needs money. One can’t have it both ways like he seems to want.
Ryan Visconti, pastor of Generation Church here in Mesa, has had no problem inviting MacDonald to preach there on a regular basis. As far as I’m concerned, MacDonald’s rehabilitation has already started. *blergh*
JDV,
Look, if you didn’t like the use of one word, why don’t you state it clearly? Seriously, dude, I’m so tired of people like you bouncing out Bible verses that have nothing to do with what you’re complaining about. *rolls eyes* /goes back to listening to the Beastie Boys “No Sleep Til Brooklyn”
Can’t help about fatigue concerning the sharing seemingly apropos verses for those are inclined to receive it, especially since it wasn’t solely verses “bounced out”, but a concern and rationale stated before that. If you want a little more fleshing out beyond what should’ve been evident in what was posted, sure.
There’s a possibility that the issue isn’t my comment but has to do with the fact that this is a site specifically focused on “dissecting Christian trends” that also presumably aspires to get messages past all sorts of barriers and strongholds. Again, the issue is the wisdom of eliminating barriers to presenting the truth in hopes of making a difference, whether that’s about frauds and predators of the hirelings / grievous wolves variety or by giving voice to those who have been unfairly attacked, targeted, etc.
It goes beyond what I personally don’t or don’t like; it goes directly to whether the site is going to be about the above or largely reduced a place for a handful of people to vent spleens. As much as it would be nice for everybody to automatically get it about the problems with the Christian industrial complex as Max puts it, not everybody is on the same page, up-to-date as everyone else, and so forth. If there’s a undercurrent of a perspective like ‘well, people should just get past a word or two, and just focus on the issues that we want them to’, who makes the call on that?
At the risk of bouncing a couple more Bible verses, what if Paul had just vented his spleen full of righteous indignation at the Areopagus? Instead, he appeared to tailor his messages in a way that avoided unnecessary barriers: “For being free from all, I myself became servant to all, so that I might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).
If somebody who otherwise might be informed or persuaded by a post has an issue with something as basic as profanity in post titles on a site that purports to be “dissecting Christian trends“ (and that is already targeted as far as credibility by some), is the issue having to consider the people that would be inclined to have a negative reaction to that and act accordingly? Is the issue the person who brings this up as something that should be avoided, maybe even starting a couple of verses to maybe point towards the bigger picture — again, for those inclined to receive it amidst the dissection of Christian trends?
Those who would like to make this about anyone raising a concern may choose to do so, but if they don’t see the larger point, how is that likely to be to the betterment of those who could be benefited by revelations, discussions, and dissections from sites like this?
Or Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon, old but still good.
What are Spongebob’s 13 bad words?
1. Dolphin noises.
2. Dolphin noises.
3. Dolphin noises.
4. Dolphin noises.
5. Dolphin noises.
6. Dolphin noises.
7. Dolphin noises.
8. Dolphin noises.
9. Dolphin noises.
10. Dolphin noises.
11. Dolphin noises.
12. Dolphin noises.
13. Dolphin noises.
Dung?
Phil 3:8
“Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
Anyone here know Greek? Making sure we have our 4-letter words straight.
I have wondered about MacDonald’s two statements: “I blacked out” and “I barely touched her.” How could he know that he barely touched her if he blacked out?
He’s not very smart. “Sly, like a fox” is something altogether different than smart.
Then there’s Paul’s message to the Christians of the church at Galatia:
“As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” (Galatians 5:12)
Castration… if that’s not venting one’s spleen, I don’t know what is.
I was actually taken a bit aback by the post title, as well, but more so because of “crazy,” having a close family member who, well, literally goes psychotic sometimes.
But, that being said, this is one post title out of the literally hundreds of posts each year. Unless it turns into a pattern, is it worth throwing the Bible at someone right off the bat instead of trying out a more respectful approach, first? And, given the nature of what is generally discussed in this forum, perhaps some anger and strong language on behalf of the victims is warranted.
PS – We’re dealing with a bat infestation in our house at the moment. And the amount of guano those little dudes produce IS crazy.
JDV,
it’s a technical word.
.
.
i recall a sermon where the pastor used the word ‘crap’ (i think it was).
it fit very well for the context, which was Egregious Situation X. Egregious Situation X was caused by christians straining at gnats and swallowing camels.
he paused.
“now i’m going to get 250 emails about saying the word ‘crap’ and not a single one of compassion for the victims of egregious situation X nor the injustice of it, or what could be done about it.”
Hey, I just checked, and that language about dog spit-up is still found in both Hebrew and Christian Scripture. There’s also some gross stuff in Matthew 15. Hard to imagine those got a green light.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
King James Version
16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.”
Green light.
Listener priorities. Where hearts are. Telling.
We have never been ones to dicker over the Sunday sermon at the Sunday dinner table. Once in a while, my husband has commented, “Now, where is that found in the Bible?” Later, he will phone a theology-type friend. If he finds out it (sermon gist) isn’t in the Bible, he moves on with, “then I guess we just won’t worry about it.” End of story.
Yep, and he wrote that to believers that knew him, while the point I made referred to a time where he was coming before those who didn’t know him As such, he appeared to tailor his messages to a crowd likely of all non-Christians in a way that avoided unnecessary barriers: “For being free from all, I myself became servant to all, so that I might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).
I would think it’s pretty respectful for me to state my reasons for an issue with it as I did, knowing that both of the moderators of the site dissecting Christian trends profess to be Christians and could receive what was shared in the spirit was given.
I also thought it might prompt a quicker action if any thought better of it so that it didn’t get archived and become an issue thrown in their face later by those seeking ad hominem ways to discredit future posts.
The other thing is since I’ve been posting here for years, I kind of figured people would figure I wasn’t trying to come out something with a disrespectful angle or just taking pot shots or whatever.
Though here we are again with it being portrayed as bouncing around or throwing around Bible verses, I’m decently confident that Todd and Dee had enough experience, intestinal fortitude, or what have you to comprehend what was being presented and why, as opposed to people perhaps speculating that this is just some guy trying to browbeat.
“Anyone asking a question about the merits of the site can now have this headline along to them as a reason not to take the submissions seriously.”
So raising that as an issue for the betterment of the outside perception of this site, especially on a site that sometimes have revisions after some review for purposes of better communication, warranted this response? OK.
And that seems to get to the point of my post, which was not to be the most holy guy in the room, the most offended, or what have you. There are enough people trying to take down legitimate info and revelations and will hang their hat on any little thing.
This was a reminder on that level keeping the big picture in mind, and rather than have this turn into parsing what word should or should not be triggering, I thought the verses (which I was pretty sure the readers could take for what they were worth) could amplify perspectives that could be helpful in this particular arena. It’s like when you show up in court; you might be inclined to say all sorts of things, but you don’t give the other side an inch.
1) Isn’t the whole idea of “Mental Health” SECULAR and SAY-TANN-IC?
2) Where’s his Andrew Tate/SNEAKO- sized cigar?
The name “Hysteria” means “of the uterus”.
What gender is JMac’s accuser?
In Victorian times “Hysteria’ was widespread among wimmenfolk; the treatment/cure was compulsory hysterectomy.
But “honest men” are NOT Mighty CHRISTIANS(TM).
Anyone who gets the vapors over this common expression will not be receptive to TWW’s heart-rending stories of abuse.
On another note, Jesus gave the Pharisees plenty of material for criticism.
Honest question: outside of what?
(Wondering: Does this discussion have to do with Polite Company? One of the problems with Polite Company is that it does not address major issues in, for example, the church – ‘cuz that would not be polite, after all. Not even Polite Company adjacent. It’s the other side of the coin. So here we are.)
Given the tenor that has seemed to accompany many replies to my comments this time around, I’ll offer an alert that there’s more verse posting to come.
Now that that’s out of the way…
Let’s go back to Paul’s perspective:
1 Corinthians 9:12
“If others partake of the authority over you, should we not more? But we did not use this right. Instead, we bear all things, so that we should not place any hindrance to the gospel of Christ.”
Apparently, some of those of the Law / circumcision might get the vapors as it were over one thing or another. Timothy, “the son of a believing Jewish woman and a Greek father,” “Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him, so he took him and circumcised him on account of the Jews in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek” (cf. Acts 16:1-3) — though he evidently drew the line at Titus who was Greek, with the epistle of Galatians and Acts 11-15 appearing to show the significance of the distinction. With the barrier removed from access to his target audience, Paul could then hope to travel with Timothy, enter the synagogues, and so forth all along with his plan of conveying the message without hindrance.
As noted before, whether people thought certain other people should get things or not or shouldn’t have things as potential barriers or material for detraction, deflection or what have you, Paul evidently was putting a high priority on not having any unnecessary hindrance to the message he sought to convey. Per 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:
“For being free from all, I myself became servant to all, so that I might win the more. And to the Jews I became like a Jew, so that I might win the Jews. To those under the Law, as under the Law (myself not being under the Law) so that I might win those under the Law. To those outside the Law, as outside the Law (not being outside the law of God, but under the law of Christ) so that I might win those outside the Law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all these things to all, so that by all means I might save some. Now I do all things on account of the gospel, that I might become a fellow partaker with it.”
I’ve been in situations where I’ve thought it helpful to convey relevant stories to others from different backgrounds from the site, including some who may have little to no clue of how bad things have gotten in certain places. People can naturally be curious about the history, background, and so forth of news sources. The example in the comments of the pastor who talked about how people can become known for one thing rather than the bulk of their work seems to me to represent the efficacy of removing an unnecessary hindrance if the object is conveying information to people who need to hear it. That includes plenty that may be either on the way to being white-washed walls or have them as a place of influence in their life.
If the sole object is for people to get together with the like-minded, that’s another thing. Does anyone else recall how some, especially some new to the site, have taken issue with a horrific story of brutalization only to be followed by the “1st” post, expressing concerns about the story being taken lightly, and IIRC, expressed having a negative emotional trigger in response to that? How many of those people seem to have then gone on their way?
Primarily communicating with people who are considered get it while potentially implying others need to get over themselves no matter how things are presented does not seem compatible with the “when are people going to get it?“ lament that frequently seems to have popped up in the comment section now and again. If the priority is getting across stories that those taking the time to write them feel are important to be heard, a different standard — one that could be seamlessly picked up by the Houston Chronicle or whatever major outlet could further disseminate that has happened before — is a good object and a standard for review and revision. It was along those lines on something potentially time-sensitive and carrying the potential to adversely impact the image of the site that the point was made and continues to be made.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
I’m with you Muslin.
I fail to see why the present-day colloquial expression for ‘dung’ is such a bad word.
elastigirl,
Well said elastigirl, well said.
I was hoping that JDV would pack his bags and go elsewhere but instead he decided to ratchet it up. I was hoping we could talk about how it’s apparent that MacDonald is already being restored. But I guess not, because someone got upset about how bat guano is referenced.
Oh yeah, JDV, I don’t know Paul, yet I’m being told over and over and over again that it is to my spiritual benefit to read Paul. However, Paul used some hard language. “Emasculate” as someone pointed out above. Also “skubala” (dung or that word you’re having the vapors about). If Paul is so very, very inspired, why did he insert that kind of language, which should be making you pass out in a dead faint because it’s so inappropriate? Or maybe Paul was a human being like the rest of us and used shocking language because he was trying to make a point–as here.
Seriously, this emphasis on OMG! LANGUAGE! is one of many reasons why Evangelicalism needs to figuratively be burned to the ground. Y’all are worrying about this rather than about the children being molested in your churches, the people being harassed by your pastors.
Now that’s out of the way, back to James MacDonald. I do think he will get the diversion above, will undergo some therapy, but will also go back to preaching in other churches. You know, like Ryan Visconti’s Generation “church” here in town. Why can’t Evangelicals get rid of the bad rubbish? Maybe because there’s admiration among pastors for men who are mean to their congregations?
Outside of regular readership, such as those who would go to a Houston Chronicle article and say ‘what’s the Wartburg Watch’ and do a search on it. If having a less than professional headline (and in an attempt to avoid another trip around the mulberry bush, that means such as what the Houston Chronicle — or perhaps the Christian Post — would or would not put in their headlines after the editing process) on a site that purports to be dissecting Christian trends is worth the arguably needless risk of being used to discredit it — rather than reconsidering it despite a willingness time and again to revise posted articles well after their posting, someone besides me might understand why this would be a hill to die on as it were.
There’s a lot of work that goes into these articles, as well as a lot of people willing to open up in a very personal way and have that information stewarded and presented to a very judgmental world. Shouldn’t that warrant being as purposeful as possible to getting the message beyond those already getting it? This is literally in an environment where articles are flagged for all sorts of reasons, and people can take down links to them on all sorts of social media sites for whatever reason.
Also, going back to the comments from Paul, Paul got himself into the synagogues and made his case in front of “polite company“ as it were, which some received and some didn’t. He eliminated the barriers and had the conversations about the major issues. Once again, that’s actually what this whole thing is a bit about. It would’ve been a lot easier and less time-consuming to just let this float on by, but I’ve cared about the big picture here, whether anyone believes it or not. I also think it’s not just those whose actions may be dissected here that needs to have times of reflection no matter the merits of much of what is shared, and that includes myself. I still think the point made was worth being made.
“ I was hoping that JDV would pack his bags and go elsewhere but instead he decided to ratchet it up.”
Yeah, I’ve only been on this board for years and would just disappear the second make the comments you did in reply? That makes sense… and now by replying to replies to me, I’m deciding to ratchet it up? How about that…
“Oh yeah, JDV, I don’t know Paul, yet I’m being told over and over and over again that it is to my spiritual benefit to read Paul. However, Paul used some hard language. “Emasculate” as someone pointed out above. Also “skubala” (dung or that word you’re having the vapors about). If Paul is so very, very inspired, why did he insert that kind of language, which should be making you pass out in a dead faint because it’s so inappropriate? Or maybe Paul was a human being like the rest of us and used shocking language because he was trying to make a point–as here.”
It’s almost as if I directly replied to that arguable strawman earlier, as well as why it’s arguably a strawman. (Bonus points for another trotting out of “vapors”, something also previously addressed). So let’s repost: “Yep, and he wrote that to believers that knew him, while the point I made referred to a time where he was coming before those who didn’t know him As such, he appeared to tailor his messages to a crowd likely of all non-Christians in a way that avoided unnecessary barriers: “For being free from all, I myself became servant to all, so that I might win the more” (1 Cor. 9:19).”
See, doesn’t that go right on point, just as my first post was before somebody appeared to take it far afield with a roll of the eyes? That also goes to the repeated emphasis that it’s not about my reaction but the reaction of others that could be a hindrance. It almost seems downright hilarious when people try to turn any pointing out of the problems with profanity and headlines on a site like this to a personal inability to bear encountering coarse language – – all while I’ve somehow stayed on this thread and continue to comment with hopes of clarity and reconsideration after having shared Scriptural perspective on the issues with it. Well, I guess it is getting near harvest time, so the strawmen really may be useful as they stack up.
“Seriously, this emphasis on LANGUAGE! is one of many reasons why Evangelicalism needs to figuratively be burned to the ground. Y’all are worrying about this rather than about the children being molested in your churches, the people being harassed by your pastors.”
Once again, already addressed, yet here this is in way that seems very irresponsible to imply somebody like me – – if I’m presumably included in the “y’all“ – – is not worrying about the children and those being harassed. Frankly, it’s sickening. In order to merit seeming worthy to comment as I see fit, need I compile some of my contributions in that vein, including countless hours of transcripts involving some of the perpetrators in both camps just mentioned, in hopes that it would enhance information sharing, including with authorities? Some of them didn’t make it onto the website but were passed along through other means, but maybe some on the site might need me to flash some credentials so that they might not hope I pack up my bags and go elsewhere.
A scene from the play / film 1776 has been going through my mind ever since the cavalcade of replies came, so might as well throw it in here:
Franklin:
“We have no choice, John. The slavery clause has got to go.”
Adams:
“Franklin, what are you saying?”
Franklin:
“It’s a luxury we can’t afford.”
Adams
“A luxury? A half million souls in chains… and Dr Franklin calls it a luxury. Maybe you should’ve walked out with the South.”
Franklin:
“You forget yourself, sir. I founded the first antislavery society on this continent.”
Adams
“Don’t wave your credentials at me. Perhaps it’s time you had them renewed.”
Franklin
“The issue here is independence. Perhaps you’ve forgotten that fact, but I have not. How dare you jeopardise our cause when we’ve come so far. These men… no matter how much we may disagree with them… are not ribbon clerks to be ordered about. They’re proud, accomplished men. The cream of their colonies. And whether you like it or not, they and the people they represent… will be part of this new nation you’d hope to create. Now either learn how to live with them or pack up and go home. In any case, stop acting like a Boston fishwife.”
The issue here as it was raised, Muslin, is getting the word out and not letting self-inflicted wounds get in the way of that. You may have forgotten or diverted from that (while seeming to want to turn the withering focus on me), but I have not. Whether or not you or others were triggered by Scripture being used in my comment and perhaps suspected that anyone doing that is just resorting to irresponsible tactics is a peril of being in the comment section of a site dissecting Christian trends that might be populated by Christian bloggers and commenters. It doesn’t seem reducible to out of bounds, boundary-crossing church language to raise a concern while including cautions from Scripture when for the first time, a discernment blog leads with — as mentioned in my first comment — potential “ammunition to discredit not only a given article but every single associated one writ large.”
Funny how after all these comments, we’ve yet to have somebody to actually break down how this is a net positive worth doubling and tripling down over versus something that warranted a quick edit as has happened countless times on this site – – in other words, actually addressing the point raised.
JDV,
You are dragging this thread off topic and fashioning yourself as a victim here.
I suggest that you write something about the article, if indeed you managed to get past the headline.
From James MacDonald’s July 2023 interview with Baptist News Global, quoted in the OP:
“According to counselors I’ve been to, I’ve been diagnosed as having symptoms of PTSD,” he said. “I’ve done a lot of counseling with Henry Cloud, and he’s helped me understand two very important sentences. … The first one is first they idolize you. And then they demonize you.”
First, was he troubled by being idolized, or would he have happily enjoyed years of continuing to be worshiped?
Second, this individual is blaming others for pointing out his alleged wrongdoing. I wonder what Henry Cloud would say about this comment and any connection to PTSD.
Adroit vernacular eliminates barriers.
Polite Society doubles down with barriers when important topics are introduced.
Both apply to “outside regular readership”. Truth seekers, of any side, seek truth not façade, obviously.
When Christians attempt to tidy up their brand to be shiny happy, what happens to truth and authenticity?
Down-to-earth Paul writes of dung, his 4-letter word.
Jesus rebuked Polite Society as “whitewashed tombs”.
Moreover, Jesus took a step further, overturning marketing tables in the Temple. Nothing Polite Society about that.
“First you make yourself a Dear Leader where rules don’t apply to you. Then you break the Law of the Land where rules actually apply to everyone (in a country where Rule of Law and Common Good yet persists). Finally, there are consequences for Dear Leader.”
There, fixed it. No charge.
(Surely McCloud charges megabucks for faulty advice, IF indeed the quote from McCloud’s counseling is even accurate. Who would believe anything this Dear Leader says.)
More info on Dear Leaders: “How to Become a Cult Leader” on Netflix: Charles Manson, Jim Jones, Jaime Gomez, Marshall Applewhite, Shoko Asahara, and Sun Myung Moon, with the six communities they created:
1. Hook.
2. Create belonging.
3. Message. Mind control.
4. Promise. (i.e. wealth, health.)
5. Brand. Control image: Limit info.
6. Reign forever. Dear Leader.
When there’s a blip in #6 (Reign Forever), go back to #1 and repeat with New Hook (such as, “Church of Second Chances” OR “Restoration Church” OR “All Are Welcome Here” OR “Grace for Everything”).
Does he require payment in Crypto like the dues to join Andrew Tate’s Inner Ring?
Not to mention a comment that’s almost longer than the actual posting – always a bad sign.
At least he broke it up into paragraphs; I’ve seen gigantic run-on comments of solid text reminiscent of the climax chapter of Atlas Shrugged.
And remember: ALL church corruption whistleblower blogs get Defenders of The Faith (and especially the ManaGAWD under scrutiny) coming out of the woodwork to drive-by the comment thread. Throw a rock into a pack of junkyard dogs and the one who YELP!s is the one who Got Hit.
Tone Policing is the Cheapest form of Virtue Signalling.
Look at all those Screaming SJWs out there.
And scrolling through the above traffic, it’s obvious that JDV has officially hijacked the comment thread.
JDV,
Todd asked me if I minded if he used that term, and I told him I was okay with it, so the blame lies with me. We even discussed the infamous “F” word and agreed we would not use it.
The Urban Dictionary gives some interesting background to the derivation of this term.
“A person who is batshit crazy is certifiably nuts. The phrase originates in the old fashioned term “bats in the belfry.” Old churches had a structure at the top called a belfry, which housed the bells. Bats are extremely sensitive to sound and would never inhabit a belfry of an active church where the bell was rung frequently. Occasionally, when a church was abandoned and many years passed without the bell being rung, bats would eventually come and inhabit the belfry. So, when somebody said that an individual had “bats in the belfry” it meant that there was “nothing going on upstairs” (as in that person’s brain). To be BATSHIT CRAZY is to take this even a step further. A person who is batshit crazy is so nuts that not only is their belfry full of bats, but so many bats have been there for so long that the belfry is coated in batshit. Hence, the craziest of crazy people are BATSHIT CRAZY.”
I think the definition of batshit crazy is apropos for this instance. The context is essential. James MacDonald’s hope that he will be declared mentally incompetent is ridiculous. The term fits this situation. However, calling someone truly mentally challenged by the term would be wrong.
Todd and I cover many bad things out there; occasionally, we need a laugh. I ask that you consider what we do and understand why a little off-color verbiage might lighten our mood.
On that note, I leave you with this link .
“29 of Martin Luther’s Most Hilariously Over-the-Top Insults.”
https://www.churchpop.com/29-of-martin-luthers-most-hiliariously-over-the-top-insults/
I forgot-this is one of my favorite sites that I visit when Im “in a mood.”
https://ergofabulous.org/luther/
It goes beyond what I personally don’t or don’t like;”. …………… “If there’s a undercurrent of a perspective like ‘well, people should just get past a word or two, and just focus on the issues that we want them to’, who makes the call on that?”
JDV,
WADR, Perhaps you should consider starting your own blog …… where you will have absolute control.
Ya’ gotta’ admit though the ‘F’ bomb does have a certain amount of panache.
The bats in Austin sleep (among other places) under the Congress Ave. bridge. After dark, they come out to hunt insects. Later in the evening, after the bells in the UT Austin Tower stop ringing (so after 10 pm) you can see them flitting around the top of the Tower. Oh yeah, decades ago when I was there, the grounds crew had a bat squad, because bats will roost anywhere, and sometimes “anywhere” meant that they crawled through crevices in the building masonry and ended up flapping up and down the halls and offices.
Muslin, fka Dee Holmes,
Have you ever been to Carlsbad Caverns? It’s not so far from you. They have a bat show every evening just before dusk, and they teach you about bats. At dusk, thousands of bats fly out, which is fantastic.
I loved my time there so much that I liked to watch bats fly around the house at dusk. I plan to set up a bat house as well. There are few mosquitos around my house, and I attribute that to them.
Love the comments! Grew up about 50 miles from Carlsbad Caverns. Love the place!
Off top checking in: both eyes done now, mild dry eye in one as healing continues. Love the vision, should get new glasses in a few weeks. Very busy time of harvesting, canning, and freezing food for winter so not much time to comment, but really enjoying lurking. Learning much!
It’s says for California residents this applies. Does he claim to live there now?
Longer than a surfboard, smaller than a jellybean: the variety of bats.
While bats suppress or control insect infestation, they also transmit serious diseases for humans and other mammals (Ebola in W. Africa, Hendra in Australia, bat corona-viruses, rabies), so not to be toyed with.
It’s bat waste that is most often the problem, thus the term used in this post. Insanely deadly droppings they leave in their wake. Not to be toyed with or taken lightly.
Perhaps these church predators, perverts, and predator perverts are thus perilous in our church communities.
Muff Potter,
Plus, it’s as American as the Indy 500 and Vietnam.
Muff Potter,
I don’t forbid my kids anything, but rather talk about ‘moderation in all things’ so much they’ll put it on my tombstone.
I figure it will serve them well, in learning how to negotiate… oh, everything.
I reserve the F bomb for when it’s required’ (and advise them, too).
And let’s face it, some things deserve nothing less less.
Tell me about it!!! For several summers we kept finding poop all over our porch glider, and we couldn’t figure out who the culprits were. Finally, one day, my husband was pressure-washing behind the shutters, and a bunch of bats flew out. Since then there’s been no poop on the glider. When I think of all the times I washed off that dang glider!!! But I did take extra care not to touch the poop.
When I told this story on Facebook, one friend chided us for disrupting a bat’s nest, which is apparently against the law in NC. I was like, “Honey, what part of ‘we didn’t know the bats were there’ are you not getting?” To tell the truth, though, if we HAD known the little boogers were there, we would have chased them out even harder.
Why are there so many officious busybodies on social media? LOL!
linda,
Ditto here, except for the eyes part. Still reading along….. but, whew.
Freezing corn; canning green beans, tomatoes, pickled beets (Mamaw’s recipe), strawberry jam, peach jam, raspberry jam ………. grape jelly, elderberry jelly ……….
Sweet potatoes are still in the ground………
Cookers and canners and jars everywhere!
I’m tired!
We’re all so different. Sure, the stuff that comes out of the far end of an animal can be hazardous. But if I found bats living on my porch, I’d probably try to open a bat sanctuary. Had I chased them off by accident, I would never forgive myself.
The ‘F’ bomb conveys incredulity better than any other singular expression in the American lexicon.
You got that right, especially when it comes to the misuse and abuse of the Christian religion.
You are more than welcome to come collect any bats we may discover on our porch, roof, or rafters at anytime in the future!
Well, if JM is actually his client, then Dr Cloud probably can’t say a peep. I doubt a client name-dropping you and selectively quoting you to bolster his own narrative qualifies as a reason for a mental health professional to break confidentiality.
CMT,
Yes, that’s what I was trying to imply. A man can quote his counselor till the cows come home, knowing full well that ethics, law, etc., silence that same counselor.
Catholic Gate-Crasher,
🙂
I call BS. I have a friend who suffers from PTSD and bipolar, had the most horrific childhood anyone could ever imagine, has spent countless hours in psychiatric and counseling offices in a desperate effort to address and combat the effects, and would NEVER pull a stunt like the one in this story.
Built-in gag order so the counselor can’t go against the Official Story according to the counselee.
Like a ManaGAWD lying in the name of Jesus.
Truth. Is. Out Of Style…
JDV,
TLDR
Born Again Bible Believing Evangelical(TM), of course.
Remember that Christians were the original Tone Police.
And Virtue-Signallers.
Pingback: Is James MacDonald About To Get Off Scot-Free On His Assault and Battery Charges? - Protestia
Friend,
This is entirely untrue. In fact, those of us who are sensitive to the plights of the victims are also sensitive to the sting of unnecessary profanity. We may even have been victims ourselves.It was an unwise choice of words and I am in full agreement with JVD.
The use of foul language is never a wise move: don’t do that to yourself, Todd (and Dee).
JDV,
James, Is that you responding? I saw you within the first two sentences. As a Narcisist you MUST respond. And, what else do you have going on while awaiting trial but to read publications about you and respond? I remember your sermons on Adam, Eve, the Serpant. Their sinful nature would not allow them to accept fault instead each blame shifted the responsibiity for the eating of the fruit. So how did you come up with JVD as a name? James victimized daily? James(the) Vexed Defendant? Eyeball roll. Take responsiblity for your actions.
Friend,
JVD is James MacDonald. It is so obvious to anyone who ever knew him. This tyrant about use of words, is a diverstion from topic. A typical James MacDonald move. And yet, he himslef did the same thing when writing the book, Verticle church. While in its final stage he asked a group of people if his choice to use the sentence “You can go to hell” was too much. The chapter context was explaining the result of rejection of salvation. Instead of phrasing it in any other way, James argued the use of sensationalism “You can go to Hell” was in order to capture the readers attention. I don’t know if he changed, edited it. I didn’t read this particular book for multiple other reasons during the beginning of the end of James’ HBC ministry.
Sandy,
I used to comment here pretty regularly and part of the reason i quit is that you and some others never stop hijacking the topic and making it all about yourself and your superior bible knowledge. You taking potshots is a huge understatement. I am trying to find information on the latest court proceedings with Mr MacDonald, not your take on how wrong this website framed its headline.
RatherNot Say,
What an interesting idea.
sandy,
Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry that commenting has been frustrating to you. I am perfectly fine with the title. A supposed Christian leader used this term to describe his wife. It was inappropriate then, and I believe it is appropriate for many reasons, some nuanced here. Glad you came back to comment.