The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar

The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time the witch hunt was begun by R L Stollar

The “abuse survivor community” has taken their pitchforks out again, and again their pitchforks and torches are for journalist Julie Roys.

This time, the bullying is being carried out by a R L Stollar, a name I’ve seen on twitter off and on in the last few years.

I believe he originally began speaking out against harms caused by Christian homeschooling? Good on him for that (I mean that, that was not snark).

Beyond that, though, I’m not familiar with Stollar. He may have even tweeted a few things in the past I saw shared by others I follow on Twitter that I agreed with.

To Julie Anne (“Defend the Sheep” on twitter) – why are you  participating in this continued pile on?

(Edit: I believe Julie Anne “Liked” some of the comments in that thread, or I saw her share it on her Twitter account, which is how I became aware of it in the first place)

Why are you, Julie Anne, continuing to associate with people who behave this way?
I’m sorry if you feel that Roys did not credit you or friends of yours or whatever on older reportage she did (which she tried to discuss with you), but what is the deal with cozying up to the people singling her out every few weeks?

Anyway. Roys is being bullied online again, and this time it was started by Stollar.

Yes, I said “again” – see (Link): my previous post about this weird, disturbing anti-Roys obsession from the Amy Smiths, Ashley Easters, and other so-called abuse survivor advocates.

If you take note of this obnoxious behavior, as I did, (that is, noting their bullying and mob mentality where they target someone), some of them will erroneously misconstrue you as being a “Julie Roys Stan,” or use that as an ad hominem against you (see embedded tweets below for more on that).

Birth Control Movie

Now, the “abuse survivor community” is targeting Roys for having once appeared in a several years old (conservative created, I believe) movie about birth control and the sexual revolution.

I’ve not seen the movie they are referring to, but I did watch and listen to a clip of Roys presumably from the film (that clip located in a tweet by someone else here), and the comments Roys made were pretty conventional.

There was  nothing “far out” there by Roys in that clip, not unless, I suppose, you’re operating from a faulty, far left liberal paradigm, in which case pointing out that sexual behaviors with little- to- no boundaries can result in things like disease or other harmful ramifications will sound judgmental, fuddy duddy, and stodgy.

Speaking of which:

(Link): Monkeypox virus could become entrenched as new STD in the US – via ABC News (warning: auto-playing video file with audio on that page)

Excerpts:

The spread of monkeypox in the U.S. could represent the dawn of a new sexually transmitted disease, though some health officials say the virus that causes pimple-like bumps might yet be contained before it gets firmly established

By Mike Stobbe AP Medical Writer
July 22, 2022

… So far, more than 2,800 U.S. cases have been reported as part of an international outbreak that emerged two months ago. About 99% have been men who reported having sex with other men, health officials say.
— end excerpts —

Secular Criticisms of Birth Control and the Sexual Revolution

In the past year, a few secular books criticizing the consequences of the sexual revolution (including the role of the advent of birth control pills) have been published
(which I’ve blogged about here (Where the Sexual Revolution Went Wrong by Maria Albano) and here (The Sexual Revolution Has Backfired on Women by S. Moore),
so it’s not only those evangelicals all you hipster “Exvangelicals” despise pointing out the flaws and dangers with no-holds-barred sexual behavior.

In the past few years, more and more liberals and feminists have been speaking out about the excesses and harms of loose sexual behavior; these are just a couple of examples on my blog:

(Link): Why Sex-Positive Feminism is Falling Out of Fashion by S. Greenberg – excerpts via New York Times

(Link): Did Hell Freeze Over?: Liberal Rag Promotes Idea that Celibacy is Acceptable, and a Valid Life Choice / Re: 2016 Study Says Millennials Aren’t Having Much Sex

Progressives / Abuse Advocates Define Christianity to = Democrat Party, Progressive Values and Views

Many of the abuse advocates under consideration in this blog post I am discussing are politically driven (or some have left-leaning sympathies).

They conflate Christianity with leftism, progressive views, causes, and the Democratic Party, and reject anyone who doesn’t agree with all their socio-political views.

Here is my reaction to what got the ball rolling (tweet link – my comment – and here is a link to the original R L Stollar comment I was replying to):

Link to Tweet embedded below.

So this Stollar guy initially did a tweet with a link to this page (also linked to below, with excerpt) at Right Wing Watch – of course he did.

Does Stollar ever follow sites with names like “Left Wing Watch” (i.e., any accounts that are critical of progressive ideology?) – probably not.

Continue reading “The Obnoxious Abuse Survivor Community Is Targeting Julie Roys Again – this time begun by R L Stollar”

Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction

Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction


Work on this post first began in April 2022, or maybe early May 2022. As I wrap this up, today’s date is May 24, 2022.


Introduction

Ever since Christian journalist Julie Roys began publishing reportage of domestic abuse cover ups, or child sex abuse cover ups, by John MacArthur and his church (such as this one), various JMac (John MacArthur) defenders have come out of the wood-work to dig up any dirt on Julie Roys that they can (these people are supposed to be Christians but behave as though they’re in a JMac cult, where JMac is their cult leader).

As for me, JMac is one of those Christian guys whose opinions I occasionally agree with, but I sometimes disagree with him, depending on the topic.

Based on a few of the tweets I’ve seen by Roys over the past couple of years, I don’t think she and I share the same political views – well, I suspect that is so, at least. I’m not 100% sure.

When I politely tweeted minor disagreements with Roys in the past on political related topics, Roys did not block or mute me.

It does look to me as though JMac (John MacArthur) and his church have grossly mishandled or covered up abuse in the church going back decades, which is wrong – his Fan Boys need to recognize that, own up to it, and stop defending JMac on these points and stop harassing Julie Roys, or whomever else, for merely reporting on these things.

At any rate, Julie Roys has a site where she sometimes publishes articles about church- or Christian- related topics. Some of them involve coverage of church sex abuse scandals and so forth, and I’ve followed her Twitter account for months to keep up with church related news stories.

Beyond that, I am not familiar with Roys, I’ve never met her in real life or spoken to her by DM or by phone.(*)

The fact that Roys reports on church scandals gets some Christians very upset and angry with her, and they harass her online.

It looks like Roys wrote a book, with another woman named Kay Arthur, entitled “Redeeming the Feminine Soul: God’s Surprising Vision for Womanhood,” and it was published in 2017. 

Digging Up Dirt

People who are upset with Roys for exposing JMac’s disgusting sexism and incompetence at dealing with abusers at his church caused these wacked-out, enraged, JMac Fan Boys (and maybe some James MacDonald fan boys) to dig up any perceived dirt on Roys that they could to try to demonize or discount her so the public will disregard anything she publishes about MacArthur.

(The JMac Fans are too dumb to realize pointing out any flaws with Roys still doesn’t invalidate her reports of JMac – her reporting on JMac can remain true even if one can discover something supposedly unsavory about her or her past behavior).

So the JMac Fan Club came across this “Redeeming the Feminine Soul”  book Roys wrote years ago, and they began sharing excerpts of it on Twitter about a month ago.

At the time, I read excepts from that Roys book that some of these Fan Boys had scanned and posted to Twitter.

How creepy is it, by the way, that these church boys are such ass-kissers of a pastor that they felt the urge to go combing through anything Julie Roys has ever said, published, or done, all so they could find something – anything – to pounce on her with – and the abuse survivor community ate it up, too. Also weird and disturbing.

(This is also what the woke left usually does, goes digging around for ten or twenty year old tweets or articles to use to harass someone today.)

So desperate are the fan boys of some of the churches or pastors that the Roys site has published exposes on, one of them seems to have fabricated some more accusations against Roys, posted it to You Tube, where it was then picked up and shared by Roys haters and over-zealous “abuse survivor advocates” (but then, I repeat myself) on Twitter.

Roys later released a rebuttal to the video, which you can read here:

(Link): Opinion: Former Harvest Volunteer Publishes Falsehoods; People Quick to Retweet

From that page:
(and this is the first time I’ve read past the first fourth of the page when I first glanced it over weeks ago, so… wow – Amy Smith’s, Ashley Easter’s, and their ‘abuse victim advocates’ pals’ obsession with, and vendetta against, Roys is worse than I first realized – I have more to say about this below):

Survivor advocates spread unsubstantiated rumors
(by Julie Roys – excerpts)

… But what’s most disheartening about Engleman’s video isn’t the video itself. Engleman has been producing angry, misleading videos for some time. Most people familiar with what happened at Harvest know to disregard them.

What’s disheartening is how a new audience is eagerly spreading Engleman’s rumors without verifying what he says. And people you’d expect to be wary of deceptive troll accounts are instead retweeting them.

For example, Amy Smith, an abuse survivor advocate, on Wednesday retweeted a tweet from an account titled “NOT Julie Roys.” The retweet advertised a “bombshell torching of Julie Roys” and linked to Engleman’s video.

[Roys includes screen shots on the page]

This is the same troll account that attacked me relentlessly for reporting child abuse coverup by John MacArthur and Grace Community Church.

 [More embedded tweets on the page by Roys haters]

The account also has labeled the survivor community “#VictimhoodCulture” and attacked Lori Anne Thompson with names I won’t repeat. This seems a strange bedfellow for an abuse survivor advocate.

Yet Smith has also been retweeting Protestia and David Morrill tweets, which is bizarre given those accounts’ track record for misogyny, sensationalism, and half-truths.
Morrill has similarly ridiculed the survivor community with the “VictimhoodCulture” hashtag, and does disgusting things like mock a racial trauma counselor for his lisp.

Smith’s embrace of these fringe and hateful voices is concerning.

Smith also published a blog Friday with Engleman’s video and leading questions.

Similarly, Ashley Easter, another victim advocate, retweeted Engleman’s allegations Wednesday night.

In response to Easter’s tweet, I tweeted information showing that Engleman’s allegations had been debunked by Rob Williams and Ryan Mahoney. I also offered to provide Easter with Williams’ email so she could talk to him herself.

Easter never asked for Williams’ email, but instead defended her right to “post opinions I think are interesting.”
— end excerpts from Roy’s page —

Some of the scanned material from Roy’s book that JMac fans posted involved Roys’ discussion of how, when she was in her early 30s and was a youth ministry leader at her church, she attempted to help a 17 or 18 year old troubled teen in her church class whom she calls “Sarah” in the book.

(I assume that “Sarah” is a fabricated name. Roys does not list a last name in the excerpts I saw. In other words, and I could be mistaken – but it looks like Roys kept “Sarah” anonymous,
so why some of Roys critics online said it was wrong for Roys to divulge some of Sarah’s personal details in this book was strange to me.
Nobody outside of Roys and Sarah herself, (if Sarah even reads the book), and possibly Sarah’s mother, will ever know who “Sarah” really is, so what huge difference does it make if Roys shared some personal details about Sarah in this book?
I personally have no idea who Sarah is, as the author did not give out Sarah’s last name, and I don’t think “Sarah” is even her true first name but is a pseudonym.)

So, this all begins with outraged Fan Boys of preacher JMac (John MacArthur) bringing this book up to attack Roys over, to attack Roys with, since they are angry with her for exposing JMac for the (Link): sexist, (Link): abuser-coddling hack he is.

And soon enough, if my understanding of events is correct and in proper chronological order, the usual “abuse survivor advocates” I have seen on Twitter for years (among these, I would include Ashley Easter and Amy Smith of the “Watchkeep” blog) – and others  – jumped in to the fray to essentially start hinting or depicting Roys as a groomer who (sexually, or spiritually) intentionally, maliciously, preys on 17 year old teen girls.

I think that is a very, very uncharitable and inaccurate way of filtering the whole thing.

Let me pause here to say that while I have generally supported and agreed with a lot of the work the abuse survivor advocates have done in years past, I at times, on occasion, do disagree with them on some topics.

Furthermore, I think they sometimes have over-reacted and have gone over-board – in regards to things and persons such as, but not limited to, Anna Duggar (married to pedophile Josh), ex-Christian Joshua Harris, and others – in how they react to or treat people they suspect of protecting or enabling abusers.

I’ve never been comfortable with their behavior in those areas, at times, and I think in regards to Julie Roys, they’re doing the same thing to Roys.

Continue reading “Mischaracterizing or Misunderstanding Codependency (Re: Sexual Betrayal, and Julie Roys Book) – Christian Abuse Survivor Community On A Witch Hunt – Introduction”

Never Married Person Ticked Off Because Churches Don’t Support Never Marrieds Who Do Not Want To Be Married

Never Married Person Ticked Off Because Churches Don’t Support Never Marrieds Who Do Not Want To Be Married

I once posted to a thread about adult singleness at another blog in 2014.

A person or two left comments there that I am just now, in 2019, seeing (as of last night).

I support single adults who’ve always been single who do NOT want to be married.

I’m a never married adult who wanted to be married, but it did not happen for me.

A person calling him or herself “Ehartsay” left a comment in that thread in 2014, (Link): here. I will just assume this is a woman poster.

Here is a portion of her comment:

by Ehartsay:

It has started to leave be with a feeling like even in this camp it is really only accepted to stay longterm single because of high standards, but still holding out hope for marriage, and not because you simply don’t want to be or care care about getting married

Even the ‘Christian Pundit’ seems to take care to establish that she wanted and still wants to get married, and would have been but for circumstances.
How about some live [love] for the marriage averse among us?
//////

Here is the reply I left to her:

Ehartsay,
Why are you criticizing me for wanting to be married? That’s what it sounds like you’re doing. I wish I had seen that post of yours back in 2014 – it’s five years later now.

On my blog, I have said in different blogs posts over the last few years I don’t have a problem with singles who enjoy being single and have no desire for marriage, and I’ve said on my blog that churches should treat such singles with respect and not try to cram marriage down their throats.

But I find your nit picking over my comment to be insulting.

What is it to you if I honestly would still like to marry?

Continue reading “Never Married Person Ticked Off Because Churches Don’t Support Never Marrieds Who Do Not Want To Be Married”

Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

Gender Complementarian Christians Who Teach Gender Inequality Even in Afterlife – an UPDATE

Hat tip again to Julie Anne of the Spiritual Sounding Board who announced in a Tweet today that CBMW (which is a Christian gender complementarian group) removed a looney editorial by Walton from their site, which I wrote of in an earlier post, here:

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven

Julie Anne wrote an update about the situation recently, here (at Spiritual Sounding Board):

(Link): Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Removes Article about Complementarian Roles in New Creation Did they change their minds?

    • Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood removes Article about complementarian roles in new creation

… Let’s be clear – pulling the article does not mean CBMW has changed their ideology.

She also provided a link to the screen shot of the CBMW page, before it was removed, and it can be viewed here:
(Link): Screen capture of Weirdo “marriage in the afterlife” CBMW Page by Walton

Someone in the thread linked to this related material, from the Strange Figures blog:
(Link): A letter to our sisters, on biblical womanhood in heavenly places

The piece starts out serious (as you can see from the excerpt below), and the author goes into satire (not excerpted here):

      • I think the author, Mark David Walton, has shown us the end toward which complementarian theology is heading. While Walton’s piece is several years old, it’s still out there as a resource and other articles have expressed the same idea – the gendered headship/submission model is not temporal. It’s eternal. Get used to it, ladies.
      — end  excerpts—

Julie Anne also mentioned that Owen Strachan is the Executive Director of CBMW, and Rachel Held Evans recently took Strachan to the woodshed here:

(Link): If men got the Titus 2 Treatment…

Also related (off site; from RHE’s blog):
(Link): Patriarchy and Abusive Churches

From RHE’s blog:
(Link): If marriage is not eternal…

(Though I do have excerpts from Walton’s the page on (Link): my previous post as well, if you’d like to read for yourself some of the nutty things Walton wrote.)


Related posts, off site:

(Link): Complementarianism: even in its best form, it is Patriarchy

(Link): The “CAN’T” Chant of Complementarianism

(Link): Com­ple­men­tar­i­an­ism Sucks : Telling Women to Stay Quiet in the name of Jesus

(Link): Question to complementarians: What is my [single, adult woman] gender role?

I agree with point 3 on the list on this site (I do not, however, agree with the author that a literal understanding of the Bible should be rejected, or that the Bible supports homosexuality):
(Link): Reality: The Problem with Complementarianism


Related posts (on this blog):

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)

(Link): The Irrelevancy To Single or Childless or Childfree Christian Women of Biblical Gender Complementarian Roles / Biblical Womanhood Teachings

(Link): Independent Fundamentalist Baptist College Kid Friendship Permission Form – Christians lowering marriage rates due to their own stupid teachings about sex, dating, marriage, etc

(Link): Christian Gender Complementarian Group (CBMW) Anti Virginity and Anti Sexual Purity Stance (At Least Watered Down) – and their Anti Homosexual Marriage Position

(Link): Celestial Sexism: Why Don’t Muslim Women Get Rewarded With ’72 Studs’ in Paradise?

Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)

CBMW (Christian Gender Complementarian Group) Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in the Afterlife And/or All (or Just Married?) Women Will Have to Submit to Men in the Afterlife

In the past, I’ve told anyone reading this blog they should visit Julie Anne’s (Link): Spiritual Sounding Board; it’s a blog that discusses spiritual abuse, as well as some of the topics I cover here, such as how Christians teach about marriage, dating, and gender roles.

Recently, Julie Anne found an odd page by CBMW (Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood), whose author seems to be arguing that not only will there be marriage in the afterlife for Christians, but that women must submit to their husbands. Here is the link:

(Link): Is the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood Drinking Mormon-Flavored Koolaid?

The sub heading of that post is:

    Will there be Complementarian or Egalitarian marriages in heaven? What about Biblical gender roles in heaven? What in the world is Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) talking about?

I don’t want to steal Julie Anne’s thunder, so I’ll not copy in much of her post but just a smidge and encourage you to drop by to read the rest – you should also visit her blog page to read the comments her readers leave. She often gets some very educated or just wise people who leave comments that you can learn from.

Here is just a brief snippet:

From the CBMW page “Relationships and Roles in the New Creation,” Walton writes,

    Considerably more controversial, however, than the question of “what we shall be” in the new creation is the question of “what we shall do.”

    Given that gender identity will remain, is there evidence that functional distinctions will likewise remain in the new creation? Will resurrected saints as male and female have gender-specific roles? How will we relate to one another?

    Will male headship apply?

    Initial responses will likely depend on whether such questions are approached from a complementarian or egalitarian perspective. Complementarians, who view male headship and gender-specific roles as part of God’s original plan for creation (and for the present age as well) are more likely to answer these questions in the affirmative

Other than the Bible saying that saints shall throw crowns at the feet of Christ and worship God, not a lot is said about people’s roles in the afterlife or in the millennial reign of Christ on earth, or in the “New Jerusalem”.

The Bible is pretty silent on what exactly men and women will do in the afterlife and when the present age ends. It’s foolish to build an entire view of gender and gender roles based on silence.

Later in the piece, Walton even concedes,

    Although Scripture does not speak directly to the question of the effect gender will have on the lives of resurrected believers in the new creation…

Walton admits the Bible is silent on the matter and yet feels just fine using his own preferences to assert a bunch of nonsense about marriage and gender.

Walton, sir, your opinion is just your opinion, your preferences are your preferences: they are not binding on Christians, who are to follow only God’s word.

It’s laughable that a gender complmenetarian is attempting to carry over gender role concerns into the afterlife. As has been mentioned on Julie Anne’s blog by some of her readers, that is more reminiscent of Islamic or Mormon religion, not Christianity.

Mormons have an entire system of belief that hinges on a man marrying a woman in this lifetime and having a lot of kids, and their marriage and reproducing here and now has something to do with how many planets their Science Fiction God will bestow upon them later, or some such. (I read about their theology years ago and my memory is shaky.)

I really question the motives of Christian gender comps, I really do, and I do not mean that in a good way.

I think in part Christian gender comps are motivated out of a fear or loathing of secular feminism and homosexuality (they, I suspect, figure strict gender roles will keep people from acting out in a homosexual manner, or that they will keep women at home making babies), and a lust for power and control.

It’s not enough for these complementarians to want men to control women in a fallen world, they want this to hold over after death, in Heaven and the New Earth.

Jesus specifically told His followers not to lord authority over one another, but that is precisely what gender complementarians do, seek after male power over women.

In the Bible, Christ says there will be no marriage in Heaven.

Never mind that, gender complementarian teaching never really addresses never married adult women. It’s just assumed all women over the age of 20 or 25 will marry and have children.

Continue reading “Christian Gender Complementarian Group Teaching That There Will Be Marriage in Afterlife and That Women Must Submit To Males in Heaven (post at Spiritual Sounding Board)”

Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).

Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless.

Though it is primarily a blog about spiritual abuse, the following blog occasionally covers the very troubling, odd views some self professing Christian groups have about marriage, dating, and having children:
(Link): Spiritual Sounding Board

I usually devote my attention to marriage and child worship by evangelicals, Baptists and one or two other main stream groups, but there are other Christian groups who are actually far, far worse.

These groups include Reconstuctionists, Quiverfull, some homeschooling groups, and Dominionists. Some of these “Christian” groups want the USA to revert back to using Old Testament Laws. They place far more emphasis on having children and being married than even the average Baptist, Reformed, or evangelicals do.

These fringe groups, somewhat like Independent Fundamentalist Baptists, have a lot of weird, unbiblical ideas about inter-gender relations; they seem to frown upon men and women merely spending time alone together, even if it is just in friendship, to chat.

They assume any and all male-female interaction will always end in sex. When the genders are taught this way and are not encouraged to spend time with each other (one on one) it can and does stunt a person’s growth, and leaves them unsure how to approach or deal with the opposite gender… which in turn means, such people lack the courage or skills necessary to date, which also means they cannot marry, or it will be a long, long time before they do..

I realize that some of these groups don’t even permit dating and are into courtship, but the courtship model pushes kids who are not right for each other into marriage far too young. And it too causes them to have all sorts of strange ideas about the genders and how men and women ought to relate.

Here’s one post about it from the Spiritual Sounding Board blog.

(Link): Doug Phillips & Vision Forum: Multi-Generational Faithfulness and Video of Young Boy Explaining the Importance of Having Many Children for 10 Generations

Here are excerpts (please click the link above to visit the page):

    • Over at Bluebehemoth.com, one of Vision Forum’s websites, I found an audio series available called: The 200 Year Plan: A Practicum on Multi-Generational Faithfulness. I have discovered a certain lingo that is popping out while reading a lot of Vision Forum material…

The speakers in the audio are Doug Phillips and Geoff Botkin. Here is the introduction to the series:

[— start quote from patriarchy group —]

Our age is defined by warfare against the Christian family, and one of the casualties experienced by many families is the death of multi-generational victory. Psalm 128 teaches that it is the hope of the righteous man to see the generations that come after him persevere in Christ

Only God’s grace can produce such a blessed result, but the Bible teaches that parents can make strategic choices which either impede or bless generational faithfulness.

…. In the battle between pagan culture and the Christian family culture, paganism often wins.

…We believe more is needed. Our message is this: To achieve victory, first you must seek it. In the battle for the family, this means making God-honoring and strategic choices …

[— end quote from patriarchy group —]

If you click the link above and read the entire post, you will see the word “family” (as in nuclear family, NOT the spiritual family of God) mentioned over and over. These people have made an idol out of the traditional family.

Continue reading “Christian Patriarchy Group: God Demands You Marry and Have Babies to Defeat Paganism and Satan. Singles and the Childless Worthless (in this worldview).”