2 Samuel 12:5-7a Then David’s anger was greatly kindled against the man, and he said to Nathan, “As the LORD lives, the man who has done this deserves to die, and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity.” Nathan said to David, “You are the man!
Imagine that you came across the following quotes from a youth minister, written about a former student in their ministry:
How did I get entangled in an emotionally dysfunctional relationship with a former student in our church youth group?
…my need to rescue her was sabotaging my marriage.
When she’d cut off communication, as she often did, I’d pursue her aggressively.
[She] could create entrancing harmonies and convey the emotion of a song like no one I had ever known. I loved the blend of our voices, and singing together became like a drug to me.
The truth is I couldn’t let go. I didn’t want to give up singing with [her]; I couldn’t imagine someone else taking her place. Beyond that, I didn’t want to give up the relationship. I had become emotionally hooked, and the thought of ending the relationship killed me.
I wasn’t the only straight person who ever got sucked into her emotional vortex, and I thank God my relationship with [her] never developed into anything physical.
If you are anything like the current crop of abuse-obsessed #ChurchToo proponents, you would call on Julie Roys and demand she launch an investigation into why such a damaged, predatory, and imminently disqualified person was being allowed to minister to students. After all, Julie Roys’ website has reminded the world of the dangers of spiritual abuse on many occasions, and that spiritual abuse is a precursor to physical abuse:
Clearly, a youth minister admitting to being “entangled in an emotionally dysfunctional relationship with a former student” – a relationship that the minister couldn’t stand the thought of losing – would be grounds for permanent disqualification from ministry, and a perfect example of the kind of dangerous person Julie Roys charges herself with exposing.
The problem is the minister who admitted to this behavior is Julie Roys herself.
Roys recounts this relationship with a female student (whom she labels “Sarah”) in her 2017 book Redeeming the Feminine Soul. According to Roys, this relationship with a female former student was codependent and involved intense emotional attraction (being without Sarah “killed me”). As Roys was clearly in a position of power in this emotional affair (it was “sabotaging” her marriage), the relationship was (by her definition) spiritual and emotional abuse – a position she reiterated years later when discussing the case of Ann Lindberg and Willow Creek:
Roys sought flattering affection from Sarah, writing, “…deep down I liked taking her mother’s place. I liked being needed and playing the role of savior.” Years later Roys noted the connection between these kinds of expectations and spiritual abuse:
Throughout the account of Sarah, Roys claims victim status for herself and blames Sarah:
She had her mother’s keen emotional perception, and her ability to manipulate.
…she was simply manipulating me to fill the gaping hole in her soul.
[Sarah was] constantly drawing others into [her] dysfunctional world…
…Sarah was like a vacuum cleaner, and I was like a piece of lint—unsuspecting, powerless, and consumed.
Before noting that she would apparently have continued to pursue the former student if not for Sarah abandoning her:
I didn’t have to end my relationship with Sarah; she did it for me, running off with the woman she had told me about and cutting off all communication. I was wrecked.
True to form, Roys Abuse Grifters (RAG™) like Christine Pack of “Sola Sisters” tried to cover up for Roys by pushing manifest untruths about Roys’ account:
Pack first claims that Roys “took steps to get out” before admitting that Sarah was the one who ended the relationship. Yet even after Pack acknowledges that Roys did nothing to end the relationship she doubles down, claiming Roys “took steps to correct.” This is clearly false as Roys admits that Sarah leaving “wrecked” her.
After pressure, Roys finally admits to blaming the victim, yet characterizes her predatory pursuit of Sarah as merely something she should have been better at “managing:”
Should forgiveness be extended to Julie Roys for this sinful affair? Yes. It seems she has recognized the sin and repented. Yet by her own standard, she should remove herself from visible ministry. There exists no evidence she ever sought to confess and ask forgiveness from Sarah. Perhaps this is impossible, but the internet age we now inhabit makes it highly likely someone will figure out who Sarah is or that Sarah will reveal herself. Regardless, this kind of rank hypocrisy from a supposed “church restoring” journalist should cause anyone who still affords Julie Roys’ scandal blog any trust to change their minds.
Julie Roys needs to come clean regarding this rank hypocrisy. And the rest of us need to realize she has no business acting in the role of a defender of the abused. She is manifestly disqualified – convicted by her own words.