C.J. Mahaney, Dr. Albert Mohler, Failure to Report Crimes, John MacArthur, John Piper, Kevin DeYoung, Mandatory Reporting, Mark Driscoll, Sexual Abuse/Assault and Churches, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Sovereign Grace Ministries Lawsuit, Together for the Gospel

The Photo Promotion of C.J. Mahaney at Together for the Gospel

***

C.J. Mahaney is pictured in front-row seats at the Together for the Gospel conference after publicly saying he would not participate due to the distraction of the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit.

***

 

Note: Brent Detwiler graciously allowed me to cross-post the following article which was originally found at his site. SSB has covered the Sovereign Grace Ministries lawsuit for quite some time. This article shows you the heart of the men who stood behind Mahaney and who continue to support him.  This bold move by C.J. Mahaney to show up at the Together for the Gospel conference is such a slap in the face to all of the victims and their families. This behavior shows unbelievable insensitivity not only to the participants, but to the victims and families of victims.  ~ja

Late Edit:  I asked Pam Palmer, mother of a plaintiff in the SGM lawsuit,  if she had any comments to share regarding this situation and she sent me this reply:

Sometimes I am at a loss for words on what to say at the insensitivity and callousness of C. J. Mahaney and the men who support him. What other conclusion can observant people come to when they see a disgraced (yet undisciplined) leader sitting in the front row at such a prominent event other than the men sitting with him approve of his 30+ year record of covering up child sex abuse.  ~Pam Palmer, mother of plaintiff in Sovereign Grace Ministry abuse lawsuit.

*****************************************

 

The Photo Promotion of C.J. Mahaney at Together for the Gospel
Brent Detwiler
Wednesday, April 9, 2014 at 303 PM

***

The Together for the Gospel (T4G) conference is currently going on in Louisville, KY. This photo shows Al Mohler, John MacArthur, Thabiti Anyabwile, John Piper, C.J. Mahaney, and Kevin DeYoung sitting together in the front row (left to right). The other men are all speakers. C.J. is not.

***

CJ Mahaney, John Piper, John MacArthur, Kevin DeYoung, T4G2014, Together for the Gospel, lawsuit
***

Nine months ago, C.J. issued a statement about withdrawing from the conference. Here are his remarks.

“After much prayer, reflection and counsel I have decided to withdraw from participation in the 2014 Together for the Gospel conference. My reason for doing so is simple: I love these men and this conference and I desire to do all I possibly can to serve the ongoing fruitfulness of T4G.

“Unfortunately, the civil lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries, two former SGM churches and pastors (including myself), continues to generate the type of attention that could subject my friends to unfair and unwarranted criticism. Though dismissed in May (and now on appeal), the lawsuit could prove a distraction from the purpose of this important conference. My withdrawal is not intended to communicate anything about the merits of the suit. My decision simply reflects the reality that my participation could create a hindrance to this conference and its distinct purpose of serving so many pastors. My strong desire is to make sure this doesn’t happen. I believe the most effective way I can serve my friends who have supported me, and continue to support me, is by not participating in the 2014 conference.” (C.J. Mahaney, July 1, 2013)

 

C.J. was forced to withdraw from speaking even though one of the four original founders (Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever being the others). He may not be an official participant but he is a participant. That aside, this photo is a clear endorsement of C.J. It was taken by Melton Duncan and put on the internet. Melton is Ligon Duncan’s brother.

C.J. claims he didn’t want to subject his friends to “unfair and unwarranted criticism” or be “a hindrance to this conference.” Really? Then why in the world did he agree to sit in the front row in front of thousands of people? He should be sitting in the back row. This is a loud statement by C.J. that he’s back! Honesty, this photo promotion is an affront to every conferee who was opposed to C.J.’s participation.

I have benefited from the writings of Mohler, MacArthur, Anyabwile, Piper and DeYoung but I am greatly concerned for them! They are promoting a man who betrayed Covenant Life Church, stumbled thousands of people by his hypocrisy, divided Sovereign Grace Ministries, and manage a conspiracy to cover up sex abuse for over 30 years. Those are the facts. None of these men have studied the evidence. In saying so, I am believing the best of these men in the parlance of SGM. If they knew the facts, and studied the evidence, they would remove C.J. from ministry; not have him sitting in the front row next to them.

An appeal. Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, Mark Dever, John MacArthur, John Piper, Thabiti Anyabwile, Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung, and Justin Taylor – please attend the May 12-16 criminal trial of Nathaniel Morales for the sexual abuse of boys in C.J.’s former church under C.J.’s leadership. C.J. knew full well about these abuses but did nothing. He did not report to law enforcement, alert others in harm’s way, or stop the predator. As a result, Morales went on to abuse other youth in other states including stepsons. This is all due to C.J.’s cover up of his crimes. Honesty, C.J. should be put in jail, not in the box seats at T4G. Your support of him is a betrayal of all the victims in Sovereign Grace Ministries. Like C.J., you need to repent!

A request. I want to meet or video conference with the nine of you in private in order to present the overwhelming evidence of a widespread conspiracy to commit and cover up sex abuse in Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Ministries. Your support of C.J. is unconscionable. This should meet with no objection if you are interested in the truth. C.J. is welcome to participate. I am also glad to talk individually. Please contact me at abrentdetwiler@gmail.com.

***

Recommended Reading

C.J. Mahaney Withdraws from Together for the Gospel & Founders Remove Statement of Support
Wednesday, July 3, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Don Carson, Kevin DeYoung and Justin Taylor Defend C.J. Mahaney Against Charges in SGM Sex Abuse Scandal
Saturday, May 25, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Flagship Church of Sovereign Grace Ministries Announces Plans to Leave
November 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Grant Layman & the Conspiracy Surrounding Nathaniel Morales
Friday, July 26, 2013 at 5:10 PM

 

***

296 thoughts on “The Photo Promotion of C.J. Mahaney at Together for the Gospel”

  1. Maybe I’ll write a book one day. I see the same principles all through the Word, and I see the Word in the wisdom of the observations of psychologists. I sometimes don’t share the same causality for why things happen, and I don’t always agree with the therapy that some recommend. Not all of that is Biblical.

    Like

  2. John,

    As to you your last comment to me. It is ridiculous how much you are twisting what I have written. I was responding to Peter’s suggestion concerning how a court would hear our words. I was not suggesting we actually try and prove narcissism of professing believers in court. I was being sarcastic. We have a higher standard than the civil and criminal law.

    The problem is a lack of the indwelling Holy Spirit (a form of godliness but denying its power) and using our God given senses for discerning right and wrong. Good and evil. It is not that hard. It is just inconvenient. The Holy Spirit is often replaced with clever egos twisting scripture to the point it is meaningless to many. And that is a horror to me because I believe it is inspired.

    Like

  3. It’s best not to misinterpret what people say. There’s nothing in Allman’s citation to John 7 to show that it’s generally OK to say one thing and do another, nor that Mahaney or his companions are justified in anything.

    Nor is it especially honest to figure out a way to harmonize what Jesus did on this occasion with your own ideas of what is proper, especially in light of how God commended the Hebrew midwives for misleading Pharaoh. That’s no more honest than the rationalization you’re accusing Allman of.

    Bottom line, when you’re dealing with bad guys, people feel especially free to find fault with everything they do, and that’s exactly when it makes the least sense. You don’t store up every grain of sand in the desert or gather up every fallen apple when you’re surrounded by acres of apple trees. As in those cases, be wise and with really vile people like these guys be picky. Dwell on the stuff that really counts.

    I guess this is another instance of what Jesus said in Luke 16 – the children of this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light are in theirs.

    Like

  4. “I don’t know that I see the Bible as an application manual, but I see it as God’s counsel, with examples to be learned from, followed, or avoided, as it may be, and advice offered, which it is wise to digest and practice. I’ve seen that whe I blow it off, it ends badly, just as it warns me.”

    We need to understand the historical context or that can go off the rails real fast as we have seen in too many places. It is not a magic book. But in general I agree with you. I just don’t see it as my duty to tell others how such things should apply to them specifically or to take passages out of context and suggest they fit such and such situation. We can get in trouble real fast if not very careful. We have a relationship with a living Savior. Not a book.

    Like

  5. John Mac just preached a really good sermon tonight. Most of it seemed like milk. Towards the end (he’s winding down now), he had to repeat that when we evangelize, we have to speak the Word. (I knew that well as a child and found that odd to have to tell pastors in that kind of venue.) I tweeted earlier that Ligon Duncan gave a beautiful sermon and said last night that he and Al Mohler are fantastic when they stick to basic, central doctrine — Christ and Him crucified.

    But on their hobby horses of intramural doctrine with their authoritarian ways? Holy Moley. They preach evil. EVIL. It is another gospel. I wish that they would dwell on and then preach the Gospel instead of promoting their good old boy network and trying to be the new Baptist and Presby Popes.

    Like

  6. So we’re reminded that anyone might emit truth from time to time – a good reason to be quick to hear. A really bad patter is usually a late development in apostasy. Corrupt behavior – bullying, deceit, usurpations, and like that go pretty far before it mestastasizes into their actual doctrines. You see that a lot in the gospels with the scribes and the Pharisees.

    Like

  7. @ Lydia

    “We must ask ourselves WHY narcissists and other creeps such as pedophiles find church an easy venue in which to operate.”

    How many other shows are there in town, which congregate numerous potential targets under one roof, aspiring to become a community, once a week? What other such folksy communities, with their defences down, are there, for mischief-makers to infiltrate? Why would Satan concentrate his efforts on the damned, instead of attacking the bride of Christ?

    Like

  8. “As in those cases, be wise and with really vile people like these guys be picky. Dwell on the stuff that really counts.”

    In general I totally agree with this. Especially when dealing with narcissistic “believers” on issues like joint custody, etc. Where it counts.

    But we are waaaay past your advice with Mahaney and his cronies. It is over. Evil stays in business all the way around. The big stuff WAS the focus and they simply brought out the big guns to exonerate him. Done deal. The real issue is actually more serious: Is this Christianity? I think not. Authority/position trumps all truth. It even trumps Jesus Christ who seems to be more of an inconvenience to them than anything –so they relegated Him to ESS status. They mainly quote Paul who is easier to twist.

    So here we are on a blog still blown away at how bold they are about their evil deeds. That is all it is. But I do agree with your point…in general.

    Like

  9. “Nor is it especially honest to figure out a way to harmonize what Jesus did on this occasion with your own ideas of what is proper, especially in light of how God commended the Hebrew midwives for misleading Pharaoh. That’s no more honest than the rationalization you’re accusing Allman of.”

    Oh for crying out loud! Of course! None of us can know what is good or proper. How silly of us. We need philosopher kings to tell us.

    John used John 7 to make a point that totally misses the historical context which is very important.

    Jesus waits to go on the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles for a very good reason. Because before that—the time was not right. The last day is the day of the ritual where the priests pour the wine and water. So Jesus goes then and in a loud voice (because tons of diapora Jews camped out all over the place) Jesus calls them to their spiritual thirst. It is the perfect scene set up for Him to make a point.

    “On the last and greatest day of the Festival, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice
    Let anyone who is thirsty come to me and drink.”

    While the priests are pouring the wine and water. He did not change his mind. He had a plan.

    Like

  10. “Why would Satan concentrate his efforts on the damned, instead of attacking the bride of Christ?”

    The Bride of Christ protects children and calls the authorities over child molestation accusations. What? Are you now floating the “devil made us do it” defense? Do we not have victory over him here and now? Are we not to live the kingdom now? I believe we should and have been given the tools to exercise such.

    Like

  11. Lydia,

    No, it’s not Christianity. The only thing I can suggest is that they have lost all authority to stick their nose in the business of the world and criticize anyone else “outside” of the church.

    Like

  12. In the space of a few minutes, I have read two comments by Lydia. In one she outs herself as a libertarian rather than a determinist. (So far so good. I start to warm to her.) But in the next comment, Lydia wrongly assumes that I am a determinist, whereas I have taken plenty of stick over the years for NOT being the determinist certain folk would prefer me to be.

    I chose to come here. What was outside my control, was the events that led me to discover this place, enabling me to have a choice to make.

    Lydia has got me wrong. I don’t believe that there is only one possible future, either because of God’s immutable decree, or his omniscience foreknowledge. The God I believe in is much cleverer than the God in whom many Calvinists believe. He doesn’t need to have decided beforehand everything that happens in order to remain sovereign, and to work in everything that happens. He “accomplishes” what he has decided, by his “zeal”. Unfettered free will of his creatures cannot stop him doing that. When we surprise him, he smiles, recalculates, and still ensures every outcome he has expressly promised, leaving every other twist and turn of history to our free will.

    But I still say he brought me here, without thus inviting the unwarranted inference that I must therefore believe myself to be a puppet in his pre-ordained puppet show.

    Now Lydia, can we please recover from your profound misunderstanding of my theistic but libertarian worldview, and get back on topic?

    Like

  13. @ Lydia

    Re: “It is ridiculous how much you are twisting what I have written.”

    It would be less impolite on your part, to structure your responses thus:

    1 I said …
    2 You seemed to think that I meant to say …
    3 I didn’t really meant that at all
    4 The context was …
    5 What I really meant was …
    6 So, you see, I didn’t really mean what I think you said you thought I meant …

    Same overall message, without being offensive, by accusing somebody else of “twisting” your words.

    Failing that, you could at least try actually to *ridicule* the “ridiculous” alleged “twisting” of your words, so that we could all have a good-natured laugh together about it.

    Like

  14. @ Lydia

    You asked, “We must ask ourselves WHY narcissists and other creeps such as pedophiles find church an easy venue in which to operate.” I tried to contribute.

    If you dislike all three of my suggestions as to possible partial answers to the question you thought it was important for us to ask, you are welcome to suggest other possible answers of your own, the question you said we “must” ask ourselves. That would be more constructive than merely criticising one of my three possible partial answers, and leaving it at that.

    Like

  15. “So John is “led here” and God “leads him” to engage us nasty “Christians”.”

    “Why did God bring me here?”

    @ John~ Please prove that God led/brought you to this website. Thanks.

    Like

  16. Slightly off-topic, but I’m going to give out a trigger warning for the spiritually abused, if you go see the AWESOME Captain America II. I’m sitting here reeling from how timely and applicable it was to our journey out of deception. ❤ I hope to write on it in the next few days, but if you've seen it, I'd love to talk about it. 🙂

    Even better, it was written by the same screenwriters who did The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, and the Prince Caspian adaptation. 🙂 When I saw that, I rolled my eyes a mile wide, because I wasn't too happy with Prince Caspian—but they knocked this one out of the park.

    John Allman, I believe God may have "led" you here–though possibly not for the reasons you might think. 🙂 I hope you find lots of good information, and keep an open mind as you're reading. Welcome.

    Like

  17. “Take it or leave it, but please don’t shoot the messenger, or stone the prophet.”

    Did he just call himself a prophet?
    Hahahahahahahahaha!

    Like

  18. @ Diane

    “Please prove that God led/brought you to this website.”

    No. Shan’t. Just think of it as an antiquated and theologically inaccurate figure of speech that I unwisely used, if you prefer. happy now?

    Like

  19. Well, John, I like to think that God led me here, too, and if it is so important to you, my name is Marsha Lynn Miller.

    Like

  20. “unwisely” is a trigger word for me. My narcissitic abuser used it….in a John Piper type way, as I suspect it is now being used. I have to take a break for now……

    Like

  21. I am a little perplexed at the ungracious way John Allman is being received here. (Not that I have a dog in this fight, so to speak. Well, maybe I do. He has noted that he is being treated this way by Americans; I’m proud to be American.) As he said above, he is posting under his name, has a link to his blog, and has invited dialogue.
    Maybe it would be simpler to apologize for misreading him than to continue to be so suspicious of him?
    Just a thought. Carry on.
    bonnie knox

    Like

  22. Carmen, abusers don’t get to own any word just by employing it. Have a word with God and take it back. I understand that it doesn’t happen without some fighting, but it’s worth it.

    Like

  23. One other thing, each of those men rakes in the cash, they may not be playing in the big leagues like Hinn or the TBN but they are not hurting. I dont fault them that it is that they go on and on about the Pentecostals. I just find it a bit ironic. Oh and someone said Context, every single time I read a book where J Mac decides to discuss science, evolution or the age of the Earth and they quote some “evolutionist” I would love to see the context. JM thinks he is an expert on about 10 different disciplines, must be nice. Like I said, and they call us arrogant.

    JA I think I need to add to the tool shed abit.

    Like

  24. @ taylorjoyyoung

    “John Allman, I believe God may have ‘led’ you here–though possibly not for the reasons you might think. … I hope you find lots of good information, and keep an open mind as you’re reading. Welcome.”

    Thanks for the “welcome”. At last somebody said that.

    When I said “led”, perhaps “brought” might have been a better word to use. Either way, here I am.

    So far, I have found very little “good information”, but allegations galore that aren’t substantiated here, and insults galore. Considering this, my mind remains remarkably more open than (say) Tony Miano would like it to be, about this blog. I have so far ignored Miano’s recent broadcast warnings to the whole world to stay away from here. (The saying, “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” springs to mind, alongside all the scriptures he quotes, of course.)

    God hasn’t brought me here for any reason I think he has, because (as I have already admitted), I don’t know of any reason at all why he has brought me here.

    The real problem for me here is that there appears to be a clique in the USA, of church leaders, whom almost everybody else using this blog doesn’t trust. Upon arrival here, one is expected to have already heard of these mistrusted leaders, to mistrust them oneself, and to know why others mistrust them, and to enjoy the sport of publishing (as good as anonymously in most cases) about how dreadful they are, and anybody who doesn’t join in with the character assassination. (Apparently, there is a history of litigation too.)

    It’s not enough, here, to know one’s bible, and to apply it to each new situation that one encounters, which is seldom dissimilar from one or other situation one has already encountered in one’s own life, or read about in the bible.

    The clique of leaders this website appears to exist to denounce, seems to have spawned another clique. This website appears to be populated by that new clique, a counter-culture clique of those who would never, or never again, follow the said despicable leaders, and who are on an all-consuming mission to topple every member of the first clique, believing this to be the most important service that they can render to God during their remaining years. They have identified some flesh and blood enemies against whom to wrestle, whom they consider to be so closely associated with the dark principalities and powers against whom they should be wrestling (if they are saints), that it make no practical difference to the worthiness or the outcome of their wrestling, if they focus their wrestling exertions upon their flesh and blood, fellow-mortal enemies, rather than upon the principalities and powers in high places supposedly behind the alleged misdeeds of their human enemies. Is that analysis of what is going on here about right?

    Like

  25. “Cindy K on April 10, 2014 at 5:56 PM
    In fact, I think that I just heard the first good non-mean and angry sermon by John MacArthur ever. 25 years a coming…”

    Maybe he is more inclined to speak kindly to conferences full of pastors.

    Like

  26. The lawsuit was dismissed, yet u still treat him and talk about him like its a proven fact that he’s guilty. then on top of that, u tar and feather everyone else who doesn’t just immediately assume guilt like u do. You act as if you are some great defender of the abused but in reality you are the biggest abuser of all! No wonder your daughter left the church. After seeing your hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and bitterness up close I would probably leave too.

    Like

  27. @John Allman,

    Unfortunately, no, it’s nowhere close to right. I wish it was right, because then we could all just go home and go about our business.

    I truly hope you never have to deal with someone who attempts to control your every action and thought, saying that “This is what God wants of you,” and that it’s “for your own good.” Exposing false teaching is the business of every believer in Christ, as well as tending to the hurting sheep.

    Where exactly are these unsubstantiated allegations? Most of what I’ve read on this site has been carefully documented, with the exception of a few sources who choose to remain anonymous for a variety of reasons. (And no, anonymity is not cowardice–in many instances, it’s the only way we can speak without fear of retaliatory lawsuits.)

    Like

  28. The lawsuit was dismissed, yet u still treat him and talk about him like its a proven fact that he’s guilty. then on top of that, u tar and feather everyone else who doesn’t just immediately assume guilt like u do. You act as if you are some great defender of the abused but in reality you are the biggest abuser of all! No wonder your daughter left the church. After seeing your hypocrisy, judgmentalism, and bitterness up close I would probably leave too.

    TheShadow:

    Are you addressing me?

    Like

  29. I agree with Bonnie, and the prudent here should not how the use of logical fallacies, insults, threats of banning, and mischaracterizing what he says appears to resemble the ways of certain church rulers.

    Anyone that has been abused needs to take special care not to learn the ways of the abuser. For now, I’ll leave the reasons for that vulnerabiltity as an exercise for the reader, but examples abound in history.

    Like

  30. I don’t know who you’re talking to shadow, but for now I will assume that you’re not a troll but only a fool.

    That several counts were dismissed for blowing the statute of limitations says nothing about the merits. It says that for some reason someone slept on their claims, and a common reason for that is being intimidated. That happened to quite a few sexually abused kids in which it was known that they had been abused.

    Beyond this, for you to do all this name-calling,even as you’re taslking about judgmentalism and bitterness – player, develop a sense of humor, and then you’ll be able to laugh at yourself.

    Like

  31. Some who are criticizing Jullie Ann ever read some of the vile stuff some of these men write about other Christians, non Christians, people who are gay, and women in general. I mean J Mac has no problem consigning the vast majority of the near two billion Christians now living to eternal torment because they dont buy into his very narrow party line. I mean the utter contempt of which some of them have preached against other people of the Christian religion. I dont mean to be upset and I do apologize for it but it grows so tiring that some leaders get a pass while others are castigated. It goes both ways.

    Like

  32. They do all these things. How is that relevant? Do their doing these things somehow justify following their example? I’m reminded of Omar Mukhtar of Libya in the 1920s. When his men captured some Italian soldiers and wanted to kill them, he refused. His men protested, “but when they capture us they kill us!”

    “But they are not our teachers. Muhammad is our teacher.”

    Should these men be your teachers? If not, why do their evil deeds come up when someone says not to do as they do?

    Like

  33. I guess, the only sane here is John A. Thank you John; you will probably leave soon. This is a nest of vipers fighting everyone in and of flesh and blood. That is how the devil beguiles you! Doesn’t The Lord say we fight the spiritual forces behind using spiritual means? Have you stopped to think what you are doing? Let alone pray about it? Yes, all these leaders are wrong! But you, considering yourself right, are more wrong! Phew

    Like

  34. I think a few people are off their meds. Let’s take a look at what “Agree!” considers “sane.”

    “Jesus declined the invitation to arrive at the feast with his brothers, attracting attention to himself. He set off for the feast late, arrived secretly, and kept a low profile at first, though that didn’t last. There certainly are parallels here, you must admit.”

    So, Mahaney is comparable to Jesus Christ. Jesus set a “Biblical” precedent that Mahaney is following. Hmmm. Did Jesus also set a precedent for covering up the sexual abuse of children? At the very least, “Mr. Prophet” IS defending Mahaney.

    “I didn’t seek out this hornet’s nest of a blog on purpose, a blog which has the potential to bring the gospel into disrepute. I offer an impartial outsider’s “gospel response” (grinning, ducking and running) to the web content that modern technology has brought before my eyes lately, from this blog, all of this being in God’s often surprising plan.”

    So this blog is the REAL problem. So much for being “impartial.”

    “Take it or leave it, but please don’t shoot the messenger, or stone the prophet.”

    And now we’re supposed to take his word as a prophet. I’ll let “Agree!” sell all of his belongings and follow “Mr. Prophet” around proclaiming Mahaney’s innocence. I stand by the SGM victims.

    Like

  35. John writes (Apr 10, 4:24pm):
    “…Here of all places, where I would become bombarded daily with barbed criticisms penned by American people using pseudonyms, of American church leaders I’d never heard of (church leaders of sorts, far richer than me, but who at least use their real names), one of whom (Miano) denounces Julie Anne publicly as a reprobate, at least as vehemently as -er- she denounces him thus.

    Oh good grief!

    And then he writes: “ Why did God bring me here? I do not know.”

    It is quite likely that God led you here to learn the nature of evil in the church, that you did not know when you first read of Miano’s shenanigans in your country. It is more than likely that God wants to mature you so that you will understand how evil parades as a light. If you could learn that, you would be a great help to the body of Christ.

    But whatever the reason God sent you here, it is certainly not what you are doing. You put on the costume of “poor maligned me”. You declare special righteousness for owning your own name. You give yourself the authority of God and preach sermonettes on how the commenters here are wrong&ugly top2bottom.

    And you do all this without engaging the background material or the substance in comments.

    Ridiculously, you even compare yourself to being shot or stoned for the sake of Christ. That is an insult to those who’ve been through such, John. You remain well-fed, housed, protected, and writing. Let me be very clear: in this thread, you are being criticized for acting lazy, arrogant and judgmental. There is no virtue in your position, as it stands.

    Sheesh. Ok, on to the rest of the comments.

    Like

  36. John writes (Apr10.5:18pm) : “The state openly discriminating against persons with (a secular court has ruled) the disability of sociopathic or narcissistic personality disorder, in the selection of church leaders, could be considered “disablist”, as well as violating about as badly as as possible the principle of the separation of church and state.

    My plants will be delighted when I dig this bit of BS into my garden soil today.

    (It’s finally spring here whoooppp!)

    Like

  37. “No. Shan’t. Just think of it as an antiquated and theologically inaccurate figure of speech that I unwisely used, if you prefer. happy now?”

    @John–No, I am not happy now (although your “happy now?”) speaks much to me about you and why you wrote that).

    I have had some bad experiences with people with whom I am acquainted and family members using the term – I feel led / I do not feel led – so am always on the lookout for someone to be able to explain it in depth. Thanks!

    Like

  38. John (10.8:31pm): “…Upon arrival here, one is expected to have already heard of these mistrusted leaders, to mistrust them oneself, and to know why others mistrust them, and to enjoy the sport of publishing (as good as anonymously in most cases) about how dreadful they are, and anybody who doesn’t join in with the character assassination. (Apparently, there is a history of litigation too.)”

    You cannot open a book in the middle and expect the author to obligingly condense the first half of the book just because you don’t want to start from chapter one.

    Blogs are a curious new medium. Subjects are dealt with as they unfold; material builds over time. A comment section arises, composed of semi-regular inhabitants who read/contribute and develop online relationships. This also happens over time. In order to understand enough to enter the conversation, one will need to take the time to read the material.

    It would be foolish to enter an university course when it’s half-finished and announce to the professor “I have found very little ‘good information’”. Yet this is what you are doing here, and it will inevitably cause some disbelieving chuckles in the lecture hall.

    Like

  39. @ Been There Done a That…
    Good Grief! Did I say the leaders are right? NO! It was an emphatic statement that they are wrong! But them being wrong, doesn’t make you right! Goodness! Learn to read, infer or both before you let your venom out.

    Like

  40. “Goodness! Learn to read, infer or both before you let your venom out.”

    Back at ya. 😉
    I questioned your judgement of “Mr. Prophet” being “sane.”

    Like

  41. Peter (10:10:05pm), maybe you could tell us what you think the best way to tell the truth about people who present the real God to the world in a badly twisted form, who usurp power and cause deep harm in community after community.

    Is it calling them “narcissistic” that you don’t like? Do you think denouncing the apparent complicity of leaders as seen in photos is illegitimate? Do you think Christians mustn’t be angry? I haven’t read anything here, of which you complain.

    Loving one’s enemies means genuinely desiring that they become the persons God had in mind when S/He made them. This takes some time to happen, but when it does, I’m not sure it looks like what you think it does.

    Like

  42. Dear Mr/Ms Agree! So you think it’s just fine to storm into someone’s online living room and shout that the people gathered there are a “nest of vipers” and more wrong than those complicit with child-abusers. And when someone speaks up about it, to yell that they are venomous (points for consistent metaphor) and can’t read.

    Ok.

    Like

  43. @Patrice
    No, Darling… No one is “more wrong” than the abusers” with the exception of those who see they are “right in their own eyes” …

    Like

  44. I have no problem calling them narcissistic, or anything else when you’ve made sure first to back it up. Jesus didn’t call the scribes and Pharisees much of anything until it got so nobody dared to ask him a question (Matthew 22). Then in Matthew 23, Jesus said a few things to them. No problem.

    Most name-calling is when people don’t have a good answer to something someone has said, and they know, rightly or wrongly, that there is something bad about it. You’ve probably had folks do that to you – like when the people we’re discussing say how you’re rebellious, or a gossip, or whatever, instead of engaging whatever you’ve said to bust them. As Ezekiel said, we need to observe their behavior, and obxserving it, learn to do otherwise.

    Like

  45. Never mind. Sorry. I am gone once forever. Save yourselves your time and effort to respond to my posts. Take care. This is the best post I can possibly write. Forgive me for getting in your living rooms without asking. I never looked at it that way.

    Like

  46. Shadow @ Fri Apr 11, 2014 at 03:46 AM

    She speaks for the “least of these” not for the man sitting in the front row with his well-known buddies. That man appears to have plenty of support. No?

    The lawsuit has been addressed.

    The offended children . . . . where are they? How are they doing? What has been their plight while their spiritual leaders ignored and even supressed their cries? Did the abusers go on to abuse further? Would spiritual leaders even know or care? If spiritual leaders were ignorant to the devastation their own actions could cause, should they just continue to ignore the pain (now revealed) and move on as if nothing happened?

    Your comments regarding Julie Anne and her daughter are cruel and immature. You seem to want to purposefully cause pain. Do you know her daughter’s thoughts? Julie Anne (unlike some people we know) has explained her relationship with her daughter. You might know that if you had taken the time to read the blog or ask questions instead of throwing flaming darts.

    Like

  47. “No, Darling…” But that is what you did. Do you withdraw your statements?

    Righteousness is what it is. Being “right in your own eyes” is just that. Everyone who takes a stand will be so.

    That oft-misused phrase is intended for those who insist that they are right when they are also causing destruction to those around them.

    Like

  48. John didn’t compare himself or Mahaney to Jesus Christ in comparing Mahaney showing up after saying he wouldn’t with Jesus in John 7. He only said the actions were comparable. It’s the same way that it was OK for the disciples to eat grain as they walked through the field on the sabbath, since it was OK for David to have eaten the consecrated bread, and that didn’t mean Jesus was seeing that they were equivalent to David.

    He didn’t claim to be a prophet, but he did say that attacking him for telling the truth is the same as stoning the prophets. Whether you agree or disagree with that, it’s dishonest to infer that he was claiming to be a prophet. Not everyone who is hungry, thirsty, naked, or in prison is equivalent to Jesus – but how you do them is what you’re doing to Jesus. You could profit by meditating on how that works. It would be more productive than twisting someone’s words because you don’t like what he says.

    People here have been hurt. I understand that. But healing doesn’t come by being unjust or dishonest. The reason not to do it is it doesn’t get anybody what they need.

    Like

  49. Peter: I agree with your generalities. But I still don’t know how you think it’s not been done here, among these people I’ve been reading for quite a while now.

    People will get angry and say one aspect of the truth. When they settle down, they usually round it out. Likewise people will make generalizations that in another place they’ve spelled out more succinctly.

    I don’t think it’s useful to require that every time communication happens, complete contexts/proofs be offered. It would make unwieldy and dull-as-dishwater conversations that couldn’t move forward. In comment sections, which demand succinctness, it is an impossibility. This also true, to a lesser extent, for blog posts.

    I think it’s helpful to see a blog post as a chapter in a book. And also to recognize that comment threads are essentially conversations, like that which occur at a coffee shop, but more formal due to their permanency.

    Like

  50. Peter,

    Yes, Mahaney has a “reason” for attending T4G. Just as Jesus had a “reaso”n for going to the Feast on the last Day telling them before: “the time is not right”.

    That is where the analogy ends.

    The important thing is WHY did CJ attend after everything that has transpired and he said concerning attending?

    I have given the historical reason that Jesus said ‘the time was not right” went on the last day. It was not deception, it was a plan and he had a reason.

    What is Mahaney’s reason? And is it none of our business?

    Like

  51. Peter, so for eg, John made an inference about prophets when talking about him self.

    Infer: “to reason from circumstance; surmise…to hint, imply.”

    Just because someone doesn’t declare it openly, doesn’t mean it wasn’t said. That’s the definition of passive-aggression.

    When communication is interpreted only strictly on the surface, the passive-aggressive mode will permit as cruel and/or false messages as direct aggression. These are communications that can be denied, but will be denied only by those pre-occupied by precision of law but have no interest in the spirit of the law. It is by this kind of deviousness, for eg, that the NSA reinterprets law to allow it to scoop up all our private material.

    Like

  52. “He didn’t claim to be a prophet, but he did say that attacking him for telling the truth is the same as stoning the prophets.”

    Oh? Assuming that he has come to bestow upon us all this great “truth.” He merely has an opinion, like all the rest of us. You don’t often see the rest of us comparing ourselves to “stoned prophets” just because someone disagrees with us. The implication he’s making is rather laughable.

    Like

  53. Peter, I need to add that this kind of communication is, in itself, a good and fine thing. It is the function of metaphors/similes, for eg. Drawing material from various places and putting them together into a new context for our inference, provides our conversation with breadth/depth that could not otherwise occur. It is a lovely thing when done to promote love and truth, and ugly when used for self-aggrandizement, cruelty or untruths. It is only passive-aggressive when it used for less than virtuous reasons.

    Like

  54. There are many places on the internet where ad hominem remarks, and straw man arguments, and flame wars, are frowned upon. This place seems to exist primarily in order to publish exactly that sort of ill-tempered content.

    This blog is publicly visible. I didn’t seek it out. It found me. God knows how many people who never post here, visit here (perhaps only once), and read the content, and quickly form the same impression that I formed quickly.

    That is the message about which I said, “Don’t shoot the messenger”, adding “or stone the prophet”, since the latter phrase is a more biblical version of the same basic idea as is conveyed in the more modern phrase, “shooting the messenger”. Ask yourselves not whether the use of this idiom allows you to accuse me of considering myself to be a prophet. Ask instead whether is it true what John Allman says, that anybody who knew nothing at all about any of the church leaders this blog exists to attack, who accidentally ended up reading this blog, would be likely to form a exactly the same negative impression of this blog as I did, and as Tony Miano did, and broadcast about at length.

    Is what Tony Miano said about this blog true, in a radio broadcast lasting 118 minutes that I listened to in its entirety, at Julie Anne’s specific request? That this blog is like a war zone, a blog whose content is almost all criticism, criticism, criticism, of celebrity preachers who (the reader is told) have done wrong, or just aren’t nice people? And criticism too of anybody who is new here, who posts anything that isn’t simply more of the same.

    Like

  55. The Internet is a different form of communication. If you write a book, everything has to be there. Documents, first person testimony, long accounts of events, etc. that inform your position go into footnotes or appendices when they are too unwieldy or interrupt the flow of the narrative. On the Internet, however, you link to primary sources when you are making an argument, you don’t reproduce them. This is actually better because people can see for themselves the news stories, the court documents, the person’s own words on his own site. If you have previously recounted events, you link to you earlier content. That way regular readers can refresh their memories and new readers can get caught up without constant repetition that will not be needed forest regular readers.

    I would never visit a blog and complain that I wasn’t being told enough to evaluate an issue without doing my homework, let alone criticize the blogger. I read this entire site and I visited the links before I started participating. I also looked at what others had to say about the issues and abusers.

    I have not been spiritually abused. I came here for other reasons. I took a break from church attendance while I was caring for chronically or terminally ill family members. While researching which denomination is right for me so I can find a new church, I also began to read and watch more and more stories about sexual and physical abuse (and a couple cases of pastors murdering their wives) with troubling Christian connections.

    I am not naive about sin, but past church experiences where serious sin became an issue involved individual failings and were quickly resolved, ie a married deacon leaves his wife for another woman, resigns his position, and every one is very sad. The news stories I was reading were different and suggested that the problems went beyond the individuals involved to dysfunction in the church with the leadership committing or covering up serious sin and crime like pedophilia and to abusive teachings, legalism, and theology not supported by the Bible. I wanted to know how churches got so dysfunctional. The case that got me really reading on the internet was the death of Hana Williams. I was so sad and so horrified and I wanted to know why a couple whose pastor described them as the most devout couple he knew could beat and deprive a child of food over many months until she died. I found out about the teachings of the Pearls and similar Christian writers and other abuse cases by their followers.

    I am better educated now about how to avoid or leave troubled churches or even to help prevent problems in the congregation I will join. However, I also want to help support victims and be a counter voice to all those who think that abuse should be covered up to protect the church and who blame victims. I feel that Julie Anne is doing great work here that helps victims make sense of what happened to them and helps in healing.

    Like

  56. John, in answer to your question, I was a new reader who was researching a story, landed here through Google, knew nothing of Julie Anne, and formed the opposite impression of the site from yours.

    Like

  57. “Ask instead whether is it true what John Allman says . . .”

    Ask yourself if illeism is a good thing.

    Like

  58. The little table at the coffee shop–or the living room–or whatever cozy environment this blog might have been–just may be expanding (perhaps in part because people, like Miano, for example may inadvertently be sending visitors here by telling them to avoid this place at all costs). Perhaps if many visitors show up, just pulling a few more tables together may not be sufficient.
    Maybe John’s providential stumbling upon the little table in the coffee shop can be a time to reflect the scope and dynamics of this blog.

    Like

  59. John wrote: “Ask instead whether is it true what John Allman says, that anybody who knew nothing at all about any of the church leaders this blog exists to attack, who accidentally ended up reading this blog, would be likely to form a exactly the same negative impression of this blog as I did, and as Tony Miano did, and broadcast about at length.”

    The answer: No, they would not *unless* they also came to their conclusions without first gathering the necessary information. They might, having done the requisite research, have arrived at different conclusions, and then we’d have a debate *as peers*, respecting each others’ hard work and hashing it out together with love and grace.

    When I have perused the corners of the internet for subjects of interest to me, and found people speaking against authoritarianism and leveling accusations of complicity for reasons of power and self-aggrandizement, I have read carefully and thoroughly before presuming to make a statement in the comment threads. It is a central sin in the human heart—when it appears in complaint, I take it very seriously. That is what I did before I first commented here.

    Mr Allman, you first exposed yourself as sloppy for not reading, then aggressive for presuming to know more than those here, then arrogant for daring to criticize while also wearing the mantle of persecution. I am not talking, here, about opinions re the subject of this post. I am talking about whether you have presented yourself as a person eligible to converse on it.

    I am taking the time to be open and clear with you because I am concerned for a person who calls himself our brother, but who has decided what is correct before spending time on knowing “what is”, and additionally has decided to judge his spiritual siblings. When you nurture such a spirit, you do not learn many things that you need to know.

    I wish you to learn the peace and clarity of humility and patience, learned by open observation of how God works in this wide world that S/he so beautifully made.

    Like

  60. bonnie k, that is my metaphor only, and may not be at all how Julie Anne sees it, only my experience.

    She runs this place and will do whatever she thinks best.

    Like

  61. Maybe John’s providential stumbling upon the little table in the coffee shop can be a time to reflect the scope and dynamics of this blog.

    From the very beginning of my first blog (BGBCsurvivors.blogspot.com) there have been people coming from time to time to challenge me, the purpose of the blog, etc. I do not mind robust debate on this topic because it is important.

    There has always been some who believe this does no good for the cause of Christ and another side that says the opposite. Obviously, after being sued for defamation, I really appreciate protected speech and I like to keep that here on the blog, except when victims/survivors are not defended. That’s where I will step in and say “enough is enough” when it crosses a certain line (and I suppose that line may vary depending on my mood).

    That said, I am always open to suggestion and criticism. If you think I’m off in my moderating or someone is out of line, please shoot me an e-mail.

    Like

  62. I am taking the time to be open and clear with you because I am concerned for a person who calls himself our brother, but who has decided what is correct before spending time on knowing “what is”, and additionally has decided to judge his spiritual siblings. When you nurture such a spirit, you do not learn many things that you need to know.

    Patrice: I love this comment:

    Like

  63. John, in answer to your question, I was a new reader who was researching a story, landed here through Google, knew nothing of Julie Anne, and formed the opposite impression of the site from yours.

    I’m so glad you landed here and stayed. I’ve really enjoyed your contributions, Marsha.

    Like

  64. Clearly established in my personal exchange with John Allman on the Miano thread is an undeniable, shameless display of implementing a double-standard accompanied by a personal sense of authority to pass “proper judgment”. The man lacks integrity, and that’s major.

    Like

  65. Ok, I’ve been trying really hard to be respectful, because I’m a baby blogger, new to this community, and don’t want to say/do anything that would be considered rude, but John, you have not said one word that implies compassion for any victim. If you HAVE, & my pregnant brain has missed it, feel free to re-post. You come to a blog about spiritual abuse, then, instead of offering any type of support to victims, tear apart the methods of their reporting it and discussing it? How dare you? Who do you think you are? Who appointed you arbiter & judge over us? Before you say another word about Mahaney, go look up what happened at SGM—how children were made to confront and forgive adult pedophiles, how abusers were kept on staff, how leaders used their “authority” to tell parents NOT to go to the police, etc. Give them a tenth if the scrutiny you give to us, or go find something else to do with your time. Seriously—don’t you have anything better to do than pick OUR words apart? Our words didn’t abuse kids, or protect perps at the expense of the victims. Go feed some sheep, or stop taking up our energy.

    (Gosh, JA, feel free to delete this if I’m out of line, ok? I’m so sorry, but I’m sleep deprived and caring for a sick toddler, & may have been too harsh here.)

    Like

  66. I just want to alert you guys to a Twitter exchange. Janet Mefferd got raked over the coals for retweeting this tweet of mine:

    Matt – a pastor sent this tweet:

    Somewhere down the line Tony Miano and Fred Butler both jump in:

    https://twitter.com/TonyMiano/status/454607744457519104

    Like

  67. taylorjoyyoung:

    Your words were fine and raise a very important point which is probably why so many jumped on John. This place is supposed to be a safe place for survivors of abuse. When someone new comes here and supports one (CJ or Miano) who lacks empathy for survivors, the dander goes up.

    Jesus interrupted his life to go help someone grieving. He cared about those who were hurting. So should we.

    Like

  68. Ach JA, they have the mentality of playground bully-boys, making small mean remarks loudly for the benefit of the rest of the kids.

    And they are doing it to women, too, which is such a joke, considering how they see themselves as strong manly-men who need to protect the weak women, not because the women are of less worth, of course, but because women are created to be under protection of men.

    They disprove their ideology by the very actions/words they use to prove it. Pfffft

    Like

  69. John Allman

    I really appreciate your taking the time to put the people on this site into the light of all things pertaining to how life here should be conducted for the benefit of people who stop by for the moment and leave not posting anything. And slander sure is an ugly word depending on how people view it in reference to all things being “Biblical.” Because being “Biblical” is of utmost importance to how the world, and “church leaders” are about referring to the “Gospel” and how Jesus would do it though His Kids in just the nick of time. And thank you because you “dare not risk slandering, be it ever so slightly, the worst of the worst” “this hornet’s nest of a blog on purpose, a blog which has the potential to bring the gospel into disrepute.” These that slander and call people names are a hornets nest to deal with.

    Glory to God in the highest.

    And defenitly, being attacked for no other reason then attacking others is understandable when someone is as highly qualified as some who do that attacking. And I’m sure that in the scriptures it is clear that most who participate in such a thing should be duly noted and called to account. Just knowing this brings and unprecedented joy to my heart.

    Glory to God in the highest.

    And just knowing that what John Allman says is true because John Allman says it’s true becomes clearer and clearer in the scriptures as one wonders why these guys, “church leaders,” will determine in their own minds how to perform that which is good. Even though there is none good but one, God. And you are a very brave man coming to “a blog whose content is almost all criticism, criticism, criticism,” and yourself refraining from criticizing the crystalizers of Spiritual Abuse who are criticizing the abusers the way criticizing goes on here and using your own brand criticizing the crystalizers to show them the path they are on and the path they could be on could not be clearer to anyone who had an once of love in their heart.

    Glory to God in the highest.

    Thanks for all you do to help my understanding of these important matters.

    Like

  70. @ square1

    Your most recent comment, ending with, “The man lacks integrity, and that’s major.”, was a good example of what I meant by an “ad hominem” comment. I just don’t see how passing disparaging remarks like that (about any casual visitor or regular customer here) is fair or helpful.

    I wish now I had simply allowed my first comment on this post to stand alone. I made an immediate connection between the large paragraph before Brent Detwiler’s piece started, the paragraph that contained the words, “after publicly saying he would not participate”, and John chapter 7. Explaining that connection really was all I wanted to do here.

    Like

  71. Gotta love that teachable quote by Miano. What he’s really saying is: if Janet does not go with what Tony says, then Janet is unteachable.

    He immediately defaults to accusing her of sin. This is bully behavior. It elevates him as all-knowing and she is aligning with the apostate. Please note this behavior.

    What if perhaps Janet is actually using the brains that God gave her, seeking truth from scripture, the Holy Spirit? Us wimmin’ folk can’t be using our brains, ya see?

    Like

  72. BeenThereDoneThat

    @ APRIL 11, 2014 @ 9:45 AM
    “Ask instead whether is it true what John Allman says . . .”

    Ask yourself if *illeism* is a good thing.

    ————-

    Now that’s funny… 😉

    And thanks for the new word – had to look that one up…

    Like

  73. John, as to ad hominem, I own it. I have criticized your methodology and attitude, and that’s all I’ve done. I did so because you offered no points on the issues brought forward in the blog post but began and continued to criticize the methods/attitudes of the persons of this blog, until I finally had something to say about your own criticism/attitude. This is how it goes.

    But as a matter of fact, I’ve been far kinder to you than you have been to anyone else here. And that’s very interesting, considering what I did was all ad hominem.

    So, since God sent you here (and I agree that God goes with us wherever we go and is also there where we stop), perhaps you can take with you some of the proposals presented here by your family members, for further consideration. That would give good value/purpose to your visit.

    Like

  74. Patrice,

    You nailed it with “passive agressive”.

    This is not new in fact, it is quite typical. It is just on this blog we are allowed to actually interact with the passive agressives without being told to stop. And it just is not pretty when you start analyzing their patterns of communication. I will say that when I grow up, I hope to be as articulate, patient and kind as you and Cindy are in putting forth information and interacting.

    I have seen it over and over when certain types engage those who have been spiritually abused: You do not present your arguments well. You use ad hominem. You have built up a straw man. You have no proof. You do not have 3 witnesses against the elder. You are bitter and angry. On and on ad nauseum.

    I have a name for it: Darwinian Christianity. Survival of the fittist. There is a quiet underlying disdain for those who have been spiritually abused if you know the communication patterns. For some reason they feel comfortable telling people how they should communicate and what is acceptable and what is not.

    What they don’t understand is people who have been spiritually abused are usually the ones who had a target on their back because they are decent folks who want to “understand others, be a team player, give people the benefit of the doubt, are respectful of authority,” etc. They are often very educated.

    Sigh. I have been doing this too long. I see the patterns on many “pastor” blogs all the time this passive agressive behavior. Vascillating with bible talk and put downs as if they are speaking to sub humans. Not me. I am into “direct” communication. I am a meanie with the fakes. I don’t care anymore. The problem is I do understand them and their game. I worked with them for years.

    Like

  75. Hey Julie Anne

    What happened to taylorjoyyoungs comment.

    The one where she was wondering if she was being harsh.

    I thought it was excellent. And now it’s gone???

    ———-

    You write @ APRIL 11, 2014 @ 11:01 AM…
    taylorjoyyoung:

    Your words were fine and raise a very important point which is probably why so many jumped on John.”

    ———–

    Like

  76. Ohhh – thanks, Amos – I don’t know what happened, but Taylor Joy’s comment got stuck in the spam box. It’s posted now. Thanks so much for letting me know.

    Like

  77. “Now that’s funny… 😉

    And thanks for the new word – had to look that one up…”

    Amos,
    I just learned it, too. I googled “referring to self in third person” and found the term. What’s funny to me is there seems to be some connection between illeism and narcissistic tendencies. Go figure. 😉

    Like

  78. Lydia,

    Darwinian Christianity — James Sire calls it “Theistic Existentialism” which differs from “Biblical Theism” in “The Universe Next Door.”

    One begins with and serves man. The other begins with and serves man. (I like to borrow from Protagorus: Man is the measure of all things in the Church and over all things to which the Bible speaks.)

    Like

  79. Cindy K

    Much agreement when you write @ APRIL 10, 2014 @ 3:10 PM…
    “At conferences like this T4G, they use what essentially becomes “hypnosis.” I have a series on my blog about how conferences basically “mesmerize you” and how that all works. Many different things are used to lull people into a state where they suspend their critical thinking and just start agreeing with the speaker.”

    I have seen this taught to public speakers, motivational speakers, who are taught how to put people in a trance (“mesmerize you”) and “suspend their critical thinking.” – Then they will speak to your “Other Than Conscience Mind” – For your own good of course.

    And It’s NOT just conferences – think sunday mornings – where there is a crowd – where you do NOT participate – only listen – some pastors might NOT know what they are doing – But I know of some who have taken these courses – Next time look around at the folks – Their mind wanders but they are still listening – see if you notice many blank stares – Did they “suspend their critical thinking?” Did the speaker “mesmerize you?”

    And I know this stuff works…

    It happened to me – They told us what they did on purpose after they did it…

    Me, the spiritual giant that I am – mesmerized? Put in a trance? Oy Vey!!! 😉

    Seems it’s easier to convince crowds – to go against their values and rules…

    Then individuals…

    Just look at how mobs can run wild as a crowd…

    Like

  80. CindyK, thanks for the info.

    Btw, I had not connected you with your blog before. I’ve enjoyed your blog!

    Like

  81. Lydia yes, thanks very much to JA for understanding the value in letting people battle it out when possible. Passive-aggression is best shown by repetition and pushback from many angles.

    But I am only patient if I push back now/then. I had to deal with it continuously in my marriage. After 18 years, I ran away screaming, and needed 10 years of near-silence to remove the chaos from my head/heart. These days, I find facing it, occasionally, to be helpful—living down those awful years one bit at a time.

    You are right about disdain for the abused. I’ve received so much of it over the years and the vast majority of it from Christians. It hurts most when it comes from family. I have looked very very carefully, and found that in my created self, I am as they are, neither worse nor better. I have also found that in comparison to the disdainers, I can think better, see more clearly, and have more love/joy. It is among those who love most deeply and have gracious hearts, that I can see how much I have yet to learn. This is simply true.

    It is odd how many people don’t notice passive-aggression. Most of my marriage’s couple-friends rejected me when I left my husband because they refused to believe that I was being treated with constant disdain, even though frequently done in front of them. A few friends were relieved that I was finally giving up, but I had no clue, til then, that they were my true friends.

    I am very careful now.

    Like

  82. Cindy K

    Here’s one example of knowingly putting people into a trance using language.
    “used to lull people into a state where they suspend their critical thinking and just start agreeing with the speaker.”

    http://www.nlpskills.com/language-patterns-of-nlp.html

    Language Patterns of NLP
    Advanced Language Patterns and Other Mind Tricks

    Influence beyond the conscious filters
    Take this trance to change profoundly now
    Learn to induce trance in yourself and others
    Understand the structure of hypnotic trance work
    Develop advanced language patterns necessary to make the changes
    Recognize and utilize trance states that people are in and out of all the time

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s