Joanne Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/19/what-tony-jones-should-learn-from-stanley-hauerwas-about-marriage/ I'm a HUGE fan of the Emergent Christian movement. I love (or, did) Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz Weber. I saw hope, and care, and compassion, and inclusiveness there. Now I see the abuse dynamic in full swing, and perpetuated by a possible narcissist. At least by a charming, manipulative, selfish man. And I see the victim being blamed and the dysfunction and abuse being minimized. Ironically, it reminds me eerily of Cheryl Seeloff. Same personalities; different dogma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Jerks come in all flavours. They do, and I know that. I know you know I know that. ;) I just wanted the Emergent movement to be ....... untarnished? If I were to ever return to Christianity (**not gonna happen**) it would have been the Emergent church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I was reading that late into last night and still haven't made it through all the comments (which to me, are the best part of WW). I am so very surprised at RHE. I have not always agreed with her stance on certain things, but this behavior is so out of (my perception of) her character that I am rather shocked. Deleting comments? Apparently standing in league with someone like Jones? Does. Not. Compute. As for Jones and his whole "spiritual wife" business - how can anyone talk enough circles around that nonsense to make it acceptable for a Christian leader of any kind? Progressive, emergent, conservative, orthodox, none should see that as okay. It is pure BS. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Naked pastor has an insightful article up right now. Have you seen BradFuturistGuy's website? Really good info. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Naked pastor has an insightful article up right now. Have you seen BradFuturistGuy's website? Really good info. Bradfuturistguy often comments at WW and is always well spoken (er, written). I have not visited his blog unless it was through a link from WW. I will take a closer look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasperstone Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 They do, and I know that. I know you know I know that. ;) I just wanted the Emergent movement to be ....... untarnished? If I were to ever return to Christianity (**not gonna happen**) it would have been the Emergent church. Don't turn to man's organized religion. That's not the answer. Turn only to Christ. He is the only one that won't let you down etc.... One doesn't need a middleman. Man will fail and will keep on failing. And religions are getting more and more corrupted by the day. That's why I don't join any Church, Movement or Organization etc... True Christianity in its purest form is following what Jesus taught only. And not what man says He says plus more..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Don't turn to man's organized religion. That's not the answer. Turn only to Christ. He is the only one that won't let you down etc.... One doesn't need a middleman. Man will fail and will keep on failing. And religions are getting more and more corrupted by the day. That's why I don't join any Church, Movement or Organization etc... True Christianity in its purest form is following what Jesus taught only. And not what man says He says plus more..... I am glad you found what works for you. I the future, please do not tell me to "turn only to Christ." Thank you. I am aware of him and the power people claim of him in their lives. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in VA Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Just want to pop in to say I really, really like your new avatar, Joanne. :001_smile: 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Ugh. I thought Brian McLaren's statement was reasonable. The explainantions of what has transpired over the past 6 years are a bit eyebrow raising. The claims of mental illness fall apart, IMO, with the knowledge that she remained the primary caregiver for the children. As for the "spiritual wife" nonsense........that is shades of the "God told me to date/dump you" I heard growing up evangelical. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/19/what-tony-jones-should-learn-from-stanley-hauerwas-about-marriage/ I'm a HUGE fan of the Emergent Christian movement. I love (or, did) Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz Weber. I saw hope, and care, and compassion, and inclusiveness there. Now I see the abuse dynamic in full swing, and perpetuated by a possible narcissist. At least by a charming, manipulative, selfish man. And I see the victim being blamed and the dysfunction and abuse being minimized. Ironically, it reminds me eerily of Cheryl Seeloff. Same personalities; different dogma. Very sad. I don't follow the movement too much as I'm not involved with it...but it's still sad to see people victimized by church leaders. Cheryl Seeloff - haven't heard her name in a long, long time. I think of her from time to time and hope she's okay wherever she is.'' 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 They do, and I know that. I know you know I know that. ;) I just wanted the Emergent movement to be ....... untarnished? If I were to ever return to Christianity (**not gonna happen**) it would have been the Emergent church. Sadly.. the old saying is true here... "The Church would be a great place if it weren't for all the people." 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Ugh. I thought Brian McLaren's statement was reasonable. The explainantions of what has transpired over the past 6 years are a bit eyebrow raising. The claims of mental illness fall apart, IMO, with the knowledge that she remained the primary caregiver for the children. As for the "spiritual wife" nonsense........that is shades of the "God told me to date/dump you" I heard growing up evangelical. From the Naked Pastor: http://nakedpastor.com/2015/01/believe-the-abused-when-they-talk-about-their-experiences/ That bullet point list? It happened because the victim is usually PTSD. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Lulu* Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Let me clarify. I do believe her. And I am not overly surprised. Emergent and progressive Christians are far from perfect and, statistically, there are bound to be abusers in the ranks. The lead pastor of the church I attend and I had a conversation about this sort of thing just this past month. We have a responsibility to create a space of safety in our campus for all who step on site. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to create a space of safety for those who have experienced abuse, wherever it occurred, to share and receive help, acceptance, and support. We have to keep in mind that in our mid-sized congregation we have abusers. We might not know who they are, but they are there. Anytime we default to the idea that abusers are the "other" and not one of "us" we open the door for abusers to opperate in the shadows. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I never liked him because he's always come across as incredibly arrogant to me, but I'm very sorry to hear that it goes much farther than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 Bradfuturistguy often comments at WW and is always well spoken (er, written). I have not visited his blog unless it was through a link from WW. I will take a closer look. What I found really useful on his blog was his approach to the systemic nature of abuse in organizations. He has a very good chart or two that brings so much info about the dynamics together in one place. (I think some would apply to certain private abuse situations as well.) In a twisted way, it "takes a village" to support an abuser and silence the victim. It means total loss for the victim when the "village" of which she's a part supports the abuser. She then has both abuse and exile to deal with. At a time when she desperately needs support, she has no village to turn to and has to work to build a new community for herself and her family. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted January 21, 2015 Share Posted January 21, 2015 I have never known an abuser who did not try to paint his ex spouse as crazy. Never. I have a friend whose ex husband was extremely abusive, as in, she is only alive because she carried a concealed weapon and he knew it, and her brothers told him they would kill him if anything happened to their sister, and when she began dating one of his friends and all of his friends began spending time with her and could see she was not crazy, he moved far away. He could not handle not being able to spread his lies with impunity. I have another friend who is divorced from an abusive man and the lengths he is going to to convince people she is crazy now that the kids are older and not so much work and he wants custody is insane. Spiritual marriage??? Who was that supposed to fool? 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 From the Naked Pastor: http://nakedpastor.com/2015/01/believe-the-abused-when-they-talk-about-their-experiences/ That bullet point list? It happened because the victim is usually PTSD. Joanne--or anyone else who might happen to know: why does the DSMV specify that the stressor be one that involves some kind of physical or sexual damage? What if someone has been gaslighted, or endured other forms of emotional abuse without outright fear of physical/sexual harm? Is it not true that they could have all the symptoms? What diagnosis would you give if someone had the symptoms but not the right stressor? (It seemed odd to me to limit the stressor.) Any professional discussion about this? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 22, 2015 Author Share Posted January 22, 2015 Joanne--or anyone else who might happen to know: why does the DSMV specify that the stressor be one that involves some kind of physical or sexual damage? What if someone has been gaslighted, or endured other forms of emotional abuse without outright fear of physical/sexual harm? Is it not true that they could have all the symptoms? What diagnosis would you give if someone had the symptoms but not the right stressor? (It seemed odd to me to limit the stressor.) Any professional discussion about this? Yea, it is poorly developed. My therapist (before I became one, when I was emerging out of marriage #1), gave me the dx of PTSD. I don't take insurance, so I don't have to dx but I would feel completely ethical in giving it if the symptoms/criteria met. Yes, gaslighting, years of abuse depicted on the power and control wheel makes people PTSD. One of my Professors did her Doctorate on it, and how the victim (she limited hers to female) presented as "hysterical" and "paranoid" as a result of the untreated trauma, and that hurt her in family law battles, which only served to re-traumatize. Meanwhile, the abuser looks calm and controlled. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SparklyUnicorn Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 It's like some sort of overcompensation. One is an as$ and so they throw themselves into preaching against a$sary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 The WW post now has 800+ replies. Most I've ever seen there. I'm still wading through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SunnyDays Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I have been a big fan of RHE and NBW. I'd *like* to think, as some of the comments suggest, that RHE was caught a bit off guard and shouldn't have closed ranks like she did. Perhaps she will rethink things moving forward, time will tell. The emergent movement has some good ideas, but too often it becomes a "cult of personality" around a few very vocal church leaders. As Danae said above, there seems to be a set up with little accountability, strong leadership centered at the very top, and steps backward where gender roles are concerned. ("Complementarianism" has no place in a "progressive" Christianity, IMO.) My views have been undergoing a lot of change recently, and while I don't fit with traditional Christianity, the progressive/emergent movement fits no better, and seems to have much to answer for on a variety of issues. Not terribly familiar with the WW site, but I will have to start reading it more! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 That is some really messed up thinking IMO. Christian or not, the whole idea of theologically coming up with a reason why cheating is ok (if it is so ok Biblically then tell your wife!) And the idea of a spiritual wife and a sacramental wife.....what the heck???? I will say I am not part of the emergent church movement. When it started, I liked the idea of meeting culture and people where they are right now, etc.....I am very into the idea of outreach and helping people, but the emergent church took it too far in so many other areas that I just couldn't stay with it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakeside Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Let me preface this by saying I am not part of the TJ fan club. At all. But as I was looking for an update on this situation I found this statement. I did think it was interesting that he admits to an NPD diagnosis. http://tonyj.net/blog/2015/01/27/statement-tony-jones-regarding-allegations-abuse/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GailV Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Let me preface this by saying I am not part of the TJ fan club. At all. But as I was looking for an update on this situation I found this statement. I did think it was interesting that he admits to an NPD diagnosis. http://tonyj.net/blog/2015/01/27/statement-tony-jones-regarding-allegations-abuse/ Wartburg Watch is discussing that document, particularly whether it's a good idea to believe much of anything a NPD says. That he puts his NPD on the wrong Axis sort of stands out, too. Probably a typo, but still, you'd think a bit more care would be taken in a statement like that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakeside Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Wartburg Watch is discussing that document, particularly whether it's a good idea to believe much of anything a NPD says. That he puts his NPD on the wrong Axis sort of stands out, too. Probably a typo, but still, you'd think a bit more care would be taken in a statement like that. About the bolded, I had wondered about that as well. That's interesting that he put it on the wrong Axis. I'm not very familiar with NPD (other than what I've learned here) or the Axis system, but it does seem like the type of statement that would be proofread multiple times before posting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Wartburg Watch is discussing that document, particularly whether it's a good idea to believe much of anything a NPD says. That he puts his NPD on the wrong Axis sort of stands out, too. Probably a typo, but still, you'd think a bit more care would be taken in a statement like that. Exactly. That was my reaction to the whole........entry? in response to the accusations of his ex wife. Including the NPD wrong axis and the statement he entered therapy. Therapy (even the best ;)) does not touch NPD. It just gives them fodder to manipulate. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrincessMommy Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Wartburg Watch is discussing that document, particularly whether it's a good idea to believe much of anything a NPD says. That he puts his NPD on the wrong Axis sort of stands out, too. Probably a typo, but still, you'd think a bit more care would be taken in a statement like that. if the document is to be believed, it seems both parents are NPD... Lord have mercy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I don't think it is clear that he was an abuser and she wasn't. I have a pretty decent grasp of abuse dynamics and I know victims of abuse can seem pretty messed up from the abuse. In the past we haven't understood that very well and so have been prone to blaming the victim for dysfunctional behavior that was actually caused by the abuse. However, sometimes people mutually destroy each other, and sometimes women are every bit as psychologically abusive as men from the get go. I think it is hard to tell in this situation what actually happened. It's too messy and dysfunctional to understand second hand. It's not like either one is turning out to be a reliable source. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 What a mess. FWIW, I do not find TJ's statement increases his credibility. Not one iota. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 What a mess. FWIW, I do not find TJ's statement increases his credibility. Not one iota. Agreed. And Julie's continued pursuit and ramblings don't "help" her case, either. I can say, however that her continued pursuit and ramblings is consistent with the PTSD and paranoia that develops after years of being in relationship with a NPD or gaslighter. And his are consistent with the re-writing of history and peseveration on details used to support his version of re-written history that go with NPD. (My own custody case, psychological evaluation, ad litem and results were similar, btw) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lakeside Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Exactly. That was my reaction to the whole........entry? in response to the accusations of his ex wife. Including the NPD wrong axis and the statement he entered therapy. Therapy (even the best ;)) does not touch NPD. It just gives them fodder to manipulate. So, is there anything that can be done to treat or manage NPD? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 I just pulled this up to help another person (not on this board). It features a lot of what we may be observing. http://www.lundybancroft.com/articles/understanding-the-batterer-in-custody-and-visitation-disputes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 This is all so ugly and sad. I feel sorry for their kids. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I don't think anyone has posted this, (Or maybe I am blind and missed the post) but it looks like Joanne may have seen it. https://www.facebook.com/stuffchristianculturelikes/posts/10153669598053782?comment_id=10153669629223782&offset=0&total_comments=35 Scroll down to see Reuben Mills' comment. He apparently has a copy of the actual psych eval done on Julie. The combination of TJ's saying that Julie was given an Axis II diagnosis and that DBT was recommeded strongly implied Borderline Personality Disorder. Turns out that was ruled out and Julie doesn't have a DSM diagnosis on Axis II, more of a comment that she is emotionally reactive. I think this is actually helpful in enlightening others as to what can happen to a person being targeted by someone with NPD. Anyone reading threads on Wartburg Watch or other similar sites that are discussing this has story after story of similar treatment. I hope that it is also enlightening to people who might now or in the future realize that they are inadvertantly collaborating with someone with NPD against a targeted person. NPD's have 2 piles of people shaped game pieces in their lives: "people to be charmed because I need them for something" and the "people who I don't see any advantage in charming." . I use the term "people shaped game pieces" because it's like people are game pieces on the NPD's favorite board game of his life, not real people. But if you're in the "people to be charmed" pile, it will be really hard to believe that there is a totally different side to the person with NPD. Hence, it's easier to believe that the target is crazy, and thus become a collaborator. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-response-to-tony-joness-statement/ This post nailed the power differential. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joanne Posted January 29, 2015 Author Share Posted January 29, 2015 https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/a-response-to-tony-joness-statement/ This post nailed the power differential. OMG yes. I am glad I am almost 10 years out or this case would be triggery. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 And this was posted today: http://www.scribd.com/doc/254082913/Statement-by-Brian-McLaren What a mess. I hope it doesn't end up being one of those things which makes people want to "stay neutral" when there are abuse allegations involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I've been following it really closely. This is not going to end well for Julie. I could be wrong, but my instinct says she has been confabulating and she has left a scorched earth paper trail while doing it. I hope she has some wise counsel and good support, because this is going to come crashing down around her ears. I think McLaren is in an utterly no win situation. She has very publicly accused him and others of trying baselessly to get her committed in order to cover up a colleague's divorce (Edited to say affair, not divorce), and to protect an income stream. Somewhere else though, she as much as acknowledged that she was suicidal at the time they were trying. Others have said they received communication from her at the time that made them very concerned for her mental state. So what do you do if someone is telling a very wide audience that you tried to commit them because you were under the thrall of an NPD and wanted to cover up his bad behavior, and that very wide audience was not only believing it, but calling for you to apologize. However, in fact you know the someone was suicidal and you were only trying to get them an evaluation because you were very afraid they were going to act on their threats of self-harm? How do you avoid dragging out the dirty laundry about the person, while still protecting your livelihood? How do you show care to someone so fragile, while not getting caught by the conflagration they seem determined to start? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I've been following it really closely. This is not going to end well for Julie. I could be wrong, but my instinct says she has been confabulating and she has left a scorched earth paper trail while doing it. I hope she has some wise counsel and good support, because this is going to come crashing down around her ears. I think McLaren is in an utterly no win situation. She has very publicly accused him and others of trying baselessly to get her committed in order to cover up a colleague's divorce (Edited to say affair, not divorce), and to protect an income stream. Somewhere else though, she as much as acknowledged that she was suicidal at the time they were trying. Others have said they received communication from her at the time that made them very concerned for her mental state. So what do you do if someone is telling a very wide audience that you tried to commit them because you were under the thrall of an NPD and wanted to cover up his bad behavior, and that very wide audience was not only believing it, but calling for you to apologize. However, in fact you know the someone was suicidal and you were only trying to get them an evaluation because you were very afraid they were going to act on their threats of self-harm? How do you avoid dragging out the dirty laundry about the person, while still protecting your livelihood? How do you show care to someone so fragile, while not getting caught by the conflagration they seem determined to start? I don't think it's going to "go well' for any of the involved parties at this point. It's like an escalation of an arms race. I think the number of readers of blogs in which people have listened to Julie's story is dwarfed by the number of people hearing Tony's story, so I don't think McLaren's livelihood was in reality much threatened. (See the link in my post above about the power differential.) I think McLaren is over-reacting and is going to come off looking like a bully, whatever the story is. Suing a single mother who "has a mental health problem" or "who does not have a mental health problem and is telling her understanding of the truth?" THAT is a no-win. Actually, had be not responded like that, I think the vast majoriity of people would have blown it off and giving a measured response would have been the wise course of action even if some people didn't believe him. Most would have. It's also rather an over-the-top reaction because he's hardly mentioned. Rachel Held Evans is the one most in the line of fire, with Nadia B-Weber a distant second. . And she (RHE) came under fire for shutting down any comments about it on her blog. A lot of people saw that as a betrayal of principle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Very true Laurie. I wonder if he is actually suing her. He said he is pursuing "legal action" so that the documentation can be evaluated by an impartial source. I'm no attorney, so I don't know if there are other "legal actions" that could accomplish that besides suing. But you are right, it doesn't look good. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GailV Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Yeah, I'd be more sympathetic to McLaren if he hadn't hauled out the "legal action" at the same time Jones is apparently making a custody move. So much weirdness. Tony has entire websites now lavishing praise about him. People with tens of thousands of followers on Twitter and Facebook are crying out that he is a victim. Julie's soapbox has been a comment thread on Naked Pastor (apparently he's now getting threats), Wartburg Watch, and a couple of other puny places like the blog post about power differential. So, yeah, I can see how the Emergent gang would feel threatened by that (insert eye roll). And, yeah, I've been following this way more closely than I need to. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seasider Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 I thought this was a good reply. https://rlstollar.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/a-response-to-brian-mclarens-statement/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Tony has entire websites now lavishing praise about him. People with tens of thousands of followers on Twitter and Facebook are crying out that he is a victim. Julie's soapbox has been a comment thread on Naked Pastor (apparently he's now getting threats), Wartburg Watch, and a couple of other puny places like the blog post about power differential. So, yeah, I can see how the Emergent gang would feel threatened by that (insert eye roll). Exactly. Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that what McLaren thinks he knows actually is 100% of the truth and now this woman has mentioned his name on a couple blogs. How much damage could she realistically do? He's a celebrity in his circles. What he's done to his own reputation by threatening legal action is going to be much more damaging to his status and career than anything she has said, imo. He was a minor character in all this. Why the need to insert himself into center stage? He could have just put out a measured statement of his understanding of the situation. Maybe by "legal action" he means an order to stop harrassment. Well then just say that... or just get it, but to threaten "legal action" seems defensive and over-reactive given the power differential. (If it had been reversed and she was the one with the power and platform, that would be understandable. ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laurie4b Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/02/01/brad-sargent-one-possible-solution-to-the-tony-jonesjulie-mcmahon-situation/#comments There is a counter-proposal to McLaren's "legal action" letter. In that, he said he'd tried to meet with her for mediation, but she had refused. Now, Brad Sargent (futurist guy) has proposed that G.R.A.C.E. do a fact-finding mission and issue recommendations, such as they did for Bob Jones. They have a solid reputation of really "getting" the impact on a victim in an abusive system. Julie MacMahon has apparently agreed to this. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Exactly. Let's just suppose for the sake of argument that what McLaren thinks he knows actually is 100% of the truth and now this woman has mentioned his name on a couple blogs. How much damage could she realistically do? He's a celebrity in his circles. What he's done to his own reputation by threatening legal action is going to be much more damaging to his status and career than anything she has said, imo. He was a minor character in all this. Why the need to insert himself into center stage? He could have just put out a measured statement of his understanding of the situation. Maybe by "legal action" he means an order to stop harrassment. Well then just say that... or just get it, but to threaten "legal action" seems defensive and over-reactive given the power differential. (If it had been reversed and she was the one with the power and platform, that would be understandable. ) I have, for some unknown reason, been captured by this whole situation and have spent too many hours reading whatever I can get ahold of. So bare with me here. . . How much damage can she realistically do? She has publicly accused him of trying to get her committed so he can cover up a colleague's affair. That is huge. If true, it should disqualify him from the ministry. She has several victim support groups sure that she is the victim and Tony is the abuser. People are angry that Rachel is not publicly supporting her and they are attributing that to Rachel's preference to cover up abuse rather than turn on a friend. Some are claiming the entire Emergent Movement is in jeopardy unless Tony is renounced (and even then it might be too late). I preface what I am going to say by trying to establish some victim-understanding credentials. My dissertation (which, full disclosure I never finished) was on domestic violence. I volunteered in a battered woman's shelter. I have had an avid interest in abuse dynamics ever since. But I think the most likely reason why Rachel and Brian are not supporting her as a victim is because they do not see her as one. McLaren and Doug Pagitt at least, and maybe Rachel, were first hand witnesses to the dynamics of the marriage as it was splitting up and afterwords. If even part of what Brian says is true, Julie has had a long pattern of destructive behavior that he and others have been direct recipients of, not just through Tony's word of mouth. IOWs, they have witnessed her confabulating and splitting and engaging in an ongoing smear campaign towards them that exploded this fall when she got a wide audience. That fits with Brian's statement (Edited to say and Doug's) anyway, but he hasn't elaborated. Of course we all know that no one can judge what goes on behind closed doors in a marriage, especially when one is a narcissist. But when one person shows an obvious pattern of confabulation and abusive language and behavior publicly, and this pattern continues for year after year when you have tried repeatedly to address it, you are less likely to see the one acting that way as a victim and more as a partner in the mutually self-destructive relationship. Brian and Rachel et. al. have a good knowledge of victims and power dynamics. A chunk of their base is made up of people who understand victims and power dynamics, partly because they themselves have been abused. It is certainly possible that they are willfully or even unintentionally ignoring the abuse of Tony. They wouldn't be the first people in power to do so. But Brian and Rachel do not need Tony. He is a small fish compared to them. He is a friend yes, but it's not like their livelihood depends on Tony's support. Even now they could clear the air and salvage part of their reputation by throwing him under the bus in a nice Christian way and they would be fine. Even if they didn't believe he was at fault, they still could. But they aren't. They are not backing down - people with good reputations who know about abuse dynamics, who have supported abuse victims, who were supposed to be ones who "got it". To me, especially after reading everyone's statement and the original thread where she made her accusations, and reading comments, I think the most likely reason is because they think she is an untrustworthy source of information with a pattern of destructive behavior towards others and they don't believe what she says. Like I said, it certainly isn't unusual for people to act that way towards victims. Our society has erred so many more times towards not treating victims well and retraumatizing them and it is shameful. But sometimes, just sometimes, the ones who doubt are right. I find that enough to give me pause regarding the immediate assumption that Tony is the abuser and Julie is the victim. That is already taken for granted in the conversations now, like it is established. It isn't. Having said that, I don't think Brian should have pursued legal action. It was too heavy-handed. I can understand his frustration if he tried to help a woman threatening to kill herself in front of her kids and instead the woman turns around and repeats for years that he tried to have her committed to cover up a colleague's affair. He says he tried numerous times to address those accusations with her using a neutral party and she refused. He says he has documentation that directly refutes what she claims and she just becomes insulting when confronted with it. I hope a third party besides the courts can be involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 http://thewartburgwatch.com/2015/01/19/what-tony-jones-should-learn-from-stanley-hauerwas-about-marriage/ I'm a HUGE fan of the Emergent Christian movement. I love (or, did) Rachel Held Evans and Nadia Bolz Weber. I saw hope, and care, and compassion, and inclusiveness there. Now I see the abuse dynamic in full swing, and perpetuated by a possible narcissist. At least by a charming, manipulative, selfish man. And I see the victim being blamed and the dysfunction and abuse being minimized. Ironically, it reminds me eerily of Cheryl Seeloff. Same personalities; different dogma. I have absolutely no idea who any of these people are that your link mentions. But it has nothing to do with Christianity. You could as likely be posting about jerks in any other group. Jerks are the same everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Let me clarify. I do believe her. And I am not overly surprised. Emergent and progressive Christians are far from perfect and, statistically, there are bound to be abusers in the ranks. The lead pastor of the church I attend and I had a conversation about this sort of thing just this past month. We have a responsibility to create a space of safety in our campus for all who step on site. Furthermore, we have a responsibility to create a space of safety for those who have experienced abuse, wherever it occurred, to share and receive help, acceptance, and support. We have to keep in mind that in our mid-sized congregation we have abusers. We might not know who they are, but they are there. Anytime we default to the idea that abusers are the "other" and not one of "us" we open the door for abusers to opperate in the shadows. Why don't people out these abusive people more often? I guess I have a hard time understanding that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TranquilMind Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have never known an abuser who did not try to paint his ex spouse as crazy. Never. I have a friend whose ex husband was extremely abusive, as in, she is only alive because she carried a concealed weapon and he knew it, and her brothers told him they would kill him if anything happened to their sister, and when she began dating one of his friends and all of his friends began spending time with her and could see she was not crazy, he moved far away. He could not handle not being able to spread his lies with impunity. I have another friend who is divorced from an abusive man and the lengths he is going to to convince people she is crazy now that the kids are older and not so much work and he wants custody is insane. Spiritual marriage??? Who was that supposed to fool? Both of these. Major red flags. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elisabet1 Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 I have not read the entire thing nor am I familiar with the history. BUT..is there any reason to believe Julie's story other than that she is female? Were there any medical records regarding the hurt shoulder? I ask because, while I was a victim of abuse as a child, my own daughter was not. However, she has some serious mental health issues. She has a long history of accusing others of abuse. And she is abusive too. She was abusing her boyfriend. I know that she will be married some day and will abuse that guy. She abused me, her siblings, kids at school, teachers, kids at camp, and so on. I hear from people no one lies about abuse. But they do and they can. My daughter was the constant victim of everyone. She claimed kids at a home school group were mistreating her before I sent her back to public school. It was one of the reasons she got her first psych eval. She was attacking others, and then crying and claiming they attacked her. It is actually a common thing for abusers to blame their victims. I do think Tony Jones's behavior is questionable. I do not know if Julie is telling the truth or lying. But, as far as my experience goes, abusers tend to be the outspoken vocal ones and the abused do not. So if Tony Jones was the first to go out there and attack and tell everyone his wife was so terrible and Julie was just defending herself because she needed to, then I would believe her over him. But if she came out swinging and he later defended himself, then I would side with him. But again, I do not know the whole story. I just tend to be a little more open minded that we might not all know the whole story. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livetoread Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Elisabet, I think the biggest reason to believe her story is the established fact that they both had to go through a custody evaluation and he was diagnosed with NPD, while she was given more situational related diagnoses. That's huge. Usually that's enough for me, but in this case, for various reasons, I still think there is enough to question that he is the main aggressor and she is the victim. Certainly not enough to conclude anything, but enough to raise some questions that need more info. Regarding medical records, the short answer is nothing has been produced to support her story. She says he dislocated it. The long answer is very convoluted! That is the sole accusation of physical abuse that I know of, but we all know abuse can take many forms and mental can be the worst, so I would never say she wasn't a victim of abuse because one physical incident is unclear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.