A Letter to Tony Jones

Dear Tony Jones,

nakedpastor.com

This morning I came across link to a letter from your lawyer telling your ex-wife, Julie McMahon, that she should remove any comments she may have made on the various social media sites which are mentioned in said letter. So I was very surprised to see this blog post I wrote and this one being listed in that letter.

Mine is a very minor blog in the scheme of things, and I'd be surprised if Julie is even aware of its existence. She has certainly never commented on it. So it puzzles me why my opinion pieces are even listed there. If there are no comments that need removing, why are my posts mentioned at all?

Some people might infer that you are trying to control the conversation regarding the experience of your erstwhile wife.

Some people might assume you want to expunge from the internet anything that refers to you in less than glowing terms.

Some people might even suspect that you are seeking to silence people who are protesting the silencing of people.

How ironic that would be!

I, myself, would never have even heard of you if it wasn't for the fact that the behaviour described in some of the posts I read sounded so familiar.

You see, I experienced bullying and abuse at the hands of 'church leaders'.

When I objected, they tried to silence me. When I said something was wrong with that, they tried to shut me down completely.

So I get a bit twitchy when I see people being silenced. And these days I say something about it.

Yours inconsequentially,
Living Liminal

The Deafness of Tony Jones & Friends

Why is it that Tony Jones & Friends seem to have adopted this pose?

giphy.com

Many people were disgusted when Rachel Held Evans, who had previously loudly denounced abuse of power, deleted multiple comments questioning her seeming support of Tony Jones. She assured everyone that she takes "abuse allegations very seriously" and that she'd made a "diligent investigation of this situation" (i.e. abuse claims by his ex-wife, Julie McMahon).

(Of course, some weeks later she did say, "I don’t want to overstate my knowledge of this situation... I have spoken with neither Tony nor Julie..."!?!)

And after writing a glowing review of Jones's latest book on her blog, Nadia Bolz Weber found that her husband had apparently accidentally deleted the 800 plus comments thread that had been generated there. Fortunately, they can still be found on Disqus ;)

Now Peter Rollins, who applauded the resistance against "ubiquitous, normalized violence operating in disavowed ways" in other contexts, has written a blog post which appears to be a defence of the abusive, narcissistic behaviour of Tony Jones.

And it seems he is joining the 'I'm Not Listening' club.

I left the following comment on his Facebook page:

I also tried to leave a comment on the blog itself, but it was failed (twice) in moderation. So I returned to Rollins' Facebook page and added it:

It lasted a whole minute before it was taken down, along with the original comment. As well as that, I  have been blocked from making any any further comments on his page.

So it would appear that this is standard behaviour for anyone (professionally) connected to Tony Jones. Avoid questions, delete comments, ignore the abuse.

I know what it is like to have to speak out about the toxic behaviour of people close to me. I know it seemed at the time that in doing so I'd lost everything that was important to me.

But I now realise that I had actually been set free!

I feel sorry for those people who are too afraid to hear the truth, let alone speak it. Their deafness is self-inflicted and they are enslaved - trapped in a cage of their own design.

Dangerous 'Christian Leaders'

Until they were 'accidentally' deleted, I had been reading some of the 800 plus comments on a blog post lauding the most recent book of Tony Jones, a 'christian leader' who is surrounded by controversy regarding abuse allegations.

This is a man who left his wife and children to live with another man's wife. This is a man who has been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This is a man who is acclaimed as a 'leader' of  the'emergent' church.

A few days prior to this, I was reading about the launch of 'christian leader', Mark Driscoll's new ministry platform.

This is a man who headed up the "most abusive, coercive ministry culture" that one pastor had ever been involved with. This is a man whose own elders called for him to step down. This is a man who openly boasted about throwing people under the bus.

Naked Pastor

And all the while I think about the fact that the elder who bullied and abused his peers in a bid to be top dog in my ex-church has already left to start his own so he can really be in control. This is a man who amply demonstrated he valued position and power more than relationship - and he has started his own church.

And he learned his 'leadership' style from his previous church where the pastor has damaged people for years with his "my way or the highway" approach. This is a man who was willing to see an entire congregation of people to leave the church rather than let them pursue their own vision.

And I think of the man who I turned to for help when I was being bullied and abused by my peer. This is a man who told me that I should submit to the 'godly leadership' of my abuser, and if I couldn't do that I should resign from leadership myself. This is a man who has his own itinerant counselling ministry!

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this picture?

Does anyone else question the fitness of these men to be 'christian leaders'?

Does anyone else wonder how many people have to get hurt before someone calls a stop and faces the reality of how much damage 'christian leaders' are inflicting on people?

Does anyone else care how many have been so badly hurt that they have turned away from their faith - mistakenly believing that the way these 'leaders' act reflects the heart of God.

Does anyone else fear how many more will experience this trauma in the future simply because no-one is willing to listen to those who are crying out, "Stop it, you're hurting me!"

These 'leaders' keep sacrificing people in the name of their gods, and not one seems willing to lay aside their position and their reputation and see how their behaviour might be damaging the people around them.

Wake up guys! You are not safe to be around!

Lay aside your reputations, your politics, your positions of power, and listen to your victims. All those you've damaged; you've ostracised; you've abandoned. All those you've run over with your bus and left bleeding by the side of the road.

Stop and see the damage you've inflicted. And then do something about it.

Not "I'm sorry you are hurt" apologies.

Not "mistakes were made" confessions.

Real, honest, raw repentance is what you need.

For God's sake, find it!

How Do We Tell Who The Real Victim Is?

izquotes.com

In recent times, I've been following developments in the story of Julie McMahon vs Tony Jones, which first surfaced last year in the comments section of this blog post.

Since that time, emotions have run high. People have taken sides and tried to shut down opposing voices. Names have been called and accusations thrown around. 

In other words it's been messy and, at times, ugly. That's what situations of abuse are like.

And like 99.9% of all abuse cases, the same arguments and defences are being trotted out.

Many people are saying, "There are always two sides to a story", meaning if one person acted badly it was probably because the other had too.

While that sounds reasonable and rational, it doesn't take into account that, in cases of bullying and abuse, the victim is often driven to such desperation that they do lash out, or fight back. It ignores the fact that the abuser has provoked that behaviour, and that it would not otherwise have occurred.

Along with this goes, "They gave as good as they got." It pretends to ignore the fact that when you are attacked, the 'fight or flight' instinct kicks in. Some people fight because they've been attacked. And then they are crucified for doing so!

Or you hear, "Neither person is perfect", implying moral equivalence (i.e. whatever one person did, the other person's actions were equally bad - no matter what those actions actually were). So... to follow this reasoning, slapping someone across the face in anger and frustration is morally equivalent to beating someone to a pulp and hospitalising them. Because both are acts of imperfect people!!!

In the midst of all this, there has been on-going questioning of who abused whom.

"He did this, therefore he's clearly abusive."

"No! She said that, so he's the one being victimised."

We weren't privy to all those conversations, we didn't witness the actions of those involved. So what are we to believe!?

Here's a tip: When one of the parties walks away with their position and power intact, they are most likely NOT the victim of abuse!

Abuse involves a real or perceived imbalance of power, rank, status, authority, control. Its tools are things like intimidation, gas lighting, whispering campaigns, mobbing and victim blaming. Most of these tools can only be wielded by the person holding the greater power.

So when you see a situation where one person in the conflict holds all the power cards in his or her hand, and at the end of the conflict they are still holding them, its highly unlikely that they have been the one damaged by abuse!