Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Julie Roys REE

Julie Roys Abuse Hypocrisy Exposed

The feminist Evangelical blogger, Julie Roys has undergone a lot of scrutiny lately when her 2017 book was read by conservatives following her most recent barrage of hit pieces on John MacArthur. Right now her website has three of these hit pieces pinned to the top. Evidently MacArthur supporters like Dear Woke Christian read her book, and it’s bad. The book details Julie Roys having an inappropriate relationship with a former youth group student. Some might call this grooming. But according to Roys, it never got physical.

In this portion we see Julie Roys describe just how intense this relationship was, including a sexual dream. Roys uses the pseudonym “Sarah” in place of the girl’s real name.

In this portion we see insight on how vulnerable this Sarah was. Roys discloses perhaps an inappropriate amount of details of this person’s family life, especially if we were to consider this relationship abusive. We also see Julie Roys, as an adult, blaming a a girl who’s presumably fresh out of high school.

We see Roys continue to victim blame and we also find out what eventually happened to Sarah. Many questions are left such as just how romantic was this relationship and whether on an emotional level this was adultery on Roys’ part.

Julie Roys Cancels Book

In a statement on Twitter in response to her own words surfacing, Julie Roys tweeted out a statement:

Over the past several days, I have been confronted for the way I framed the story, especially assigning blame to someone who at one time had been a student in a ministry I helped lead. It should have been obvious to me that I held a position of power. I regret I didn’t see this at the time I wrote the book. And I regret I didn’t own it more fully when this was first brought to my attention recently.

I am very grateful to a faithful friend, who compassionately, yet honestly reached out and helped me realize my error. When someone who holds the balance of power feels powerless, it is concerning and it is wrong. For me to write that I felt “manipulated” in the relationship, for example, was completely off. And the fact that I only recently recognized my fault shows that I clearly have more of my own work to do.

I regret now that I shared the story of “Sarah” framed the way I did. That chapter reflects a moment in time, a polaroid of my pained posture and my limited understanding to that date.

I have reached out to a trusted professional to help me process what remains a painful memory, and to help me remove any blinders that remain. Because of the work I do, I understand how important it is for me to grow in this area and I am committed to that process.

Thank you to those who have pointed out these painful truths to me. I am so sorry for how this has hurt so many on so many levels. I am especially sorry for how it may have hurt Sarah.

I have pulled my book from my website and Facebook page and have initiated conversations with my publisher about next steps. I remain open to your input and constructive criticism.

It appears as though Julie Roys is pulling her book to save face, but the evidence is already out there and the internet is forever.

Analysis

Julie Roys is hereby exposed as a hypocrite on the issue of abuse. By her own feminist standards, she exploited and groomed someone using a power dynamic. By her own standards, she is an abuser. Julie Roys represents the worst in “Christian media” because she is motivated out of a hatred towards men and the church. Hopefully this ruins causes her site to fold, but unfortunately, her cultish followers are seemingly inclined to indulge their hypocritical figure.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

It's not about the money. It's about supporting the mission in contending for the faith against false doctrines. Consider becoming a member of the Evangelical Dark Web. If you aren't willing, comfortable, or able to, that's cool. And if you still like our content, at least subscribe to the newsletter below.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Facebook
Twitter
Telegram
Reddit
LinkedIn

9 Responses

  1. She did a good job exposing James MacDonald. And that’s it. The rest of her work appears to be feminism-masquerading-as-Christianity-masquerading-as-journalism.

  2. Not being an evangelical, I have absolutely no idea who this woman is, but none of this is surprising to this old man. The women in your camp are total bizzaros.

  3. Her own words ironically, should shed the light on the heart behind the fruit of her ministry. While church justice is certainly needed in our time, there must be a heart that seeks to agree with the justice of God, WITHOUT partnering with the devil to become professional accusers of the brethren over every spec that had not intentions of bringing wholeness to the body. Thankfully the Lord has allowed HIS light to be shown again and may HE root out the dark places in our church. No matter the person!

  4. These are self incriminating disclosure being made by Julie Roy’s in the context of being an open book….

    Should not she be commended and honored rather than bashed?

  5. She is a fake. She will not allow me to comment on her articles because I support John Piper, whose integrity is perfect.

  6. That’s not grooming. That’s getting caught in a relationship with a pathological narcissist. It’s a very bizarre entanglement and is exactly like she describes, like a drug. They play on a deep need you have, then give and withhold. It has nothing to do with attraction or romantic feelings, although those can be exploited as well. It’s not victim blaming either. Narcissists crave attention, destroy people, then move on as if you never existed. Unfortunately, it’s not something most people understand unless they’ve had the misfortune of being captured in this type of destructive relationship. I was nearly killed by a person I tried to rescue, exactly as she describes, with endless drama of life-threatening situations that they created. I’m not the only one, there are many survivors like me who could not leave the person. I was in therapy also, desperate to understand why I could not let the person go even though they were destroying me. I would not expect people to understand this unless they’ve gone through that hell. I doubt Julie Roys understands it herself. For most of us, it took a long time and a lot of education to understand it. Narcissists are extremely manipulative and sexually deviant. I’m glad she got out and got help. They play a mean mental game with people.

  7. To compare Roys’ story here with the people she ‘writes hit pieces’ on is an incredible over-simplification, a grasping for straws. You mention grooming. I can only conclude that you’ve known very few empaths of any sort of unresolved traumatic background. For them to get sucked into trying to save someone has nothing to do with grooming or sexual predation. The people I’ve known who are like this can get sucked into trying to save anything that appears to be suffering. It could be a turtle. Do you think they want to have sex with the turtle? No, but they might get obsessed with it, not understand why they’re obsessed with it and feel stuck and struggle (and I’m not saying there’s not Sarah’s side of it as well). This is extremely different than nefariously grooming a girl’s parents, and the girl, talking about getting married later, almost having sex, etc. (things other groomers she’s done hit pieces on have done).

    Let’s go over some obvious difference between her and say someone like Bickle, a groomer who she’s ‘written hit pieces’ on.

    1) No sexual connection, the story doesn’t begin ‘he saw a hot 14 year old’. Roys had no history of lesbian attraction and as far as we know still does not. If you don’t understand the ‘intoxication’ of playing music with someone, I can only guess you aren’t a musician or haven’t gotten that far into it.
    2) One instance, one girl, not a laundry list of instances (suggesting it’s not a pattern). She was confused by it, not purposely pushing the thing to happen, repeatedly.
    3) She’s not hiding who she is or what she did at all (as sexual predators do). This book didn’t come out as a face-saving effort after getting accused, she voluntarily published it under no pressure. The chapter is called “broken”. She’s clearly not trying to convince everyone around her that she’s the most holy in the room and thus everyone should follow her blindly (which is what some groomers, at least like Bickle, tend to do).
    4) She sought counseling, eventually wised up to others advice. And again, isn’t hiding any of this.
    5) When called out on her hypocrisy for not noting the imbalance of power and how ‘Sarah’ might feel about his, the removed the book (far as you’ve said) showing she does care for other people not just herself.
    6) She has not presented herself as infallible or untouchable or anointed/gifted etc. She said she’s broken, said she’s got more work to do. There’s no sense of denial.

    Compare all this to many who have groomed/sexually abused where it’s repeated, hidden, and they never respond or repent. Instead they hide out, hire lawyers, etc.

    There is so little in common between her account and grooming situations, it’s laughable. Not all dysfunctional, psychologically “inappropriate” relationships are the same. Plenty of people had inappropriate relationships with their parents growing up, that doesn’t always mean there was sexual nature or grooming. Plenty of people have had inappropriate relationships even in marriage, with their spouse, where sex wasn’t the issue. Please consider to see things through a bit more of a nuanced lens.

    I’m stating the obvious here that she’s showing the signs of repentance (changing one’s way of thinking and actions), and you are using the opportunity to strike her for it because she’s written things about leaders you respect that you consider to be ‘hit pieces’. Your time would be better spent defending MacArthur directly instead of this.

  8. PS. Your assertion that you know Roys motivation, that she hates men and the church, is a bit of a stretch. The jump from ‘I don’t like what she says’ to ‘I know why she says it’ is not a provable thing and thus leads someone (at least me) who doesn’t agree with you to wonder if it’s an emotional conclusion. There are plenty of people who love the church who would love to see the wolves exposed ***because*** we care about the church (I don’t mean MacArthur, wouldn’t go that far with him, though I do think he’s not “above reproach” and his attitude has often wreaked of pride and lacked empathy/peacefulness, but I would go as far as “wolves” with many of the people she writes about). The assertion that she hates men is kind of uuuuhhh, I mean, she married one, seems warm/cordial with ones she gets along with (like anyone). Unless someone can point to any evidence that she’s a radical feminist? The fact that she leans toward believing women in sexual allegations simply aligns with statistics – that could be debated, how do we know the stats are real? Sure. But from a biblical definition, when there are enough witnesses, it’s a credible case. And the stuff I’ve seen of hers, that was the case, so it would be unbiblical for us to automatically side with leaders and put skepticism on the women coming forward. So I don’t think standing with women = hates men. That’s as [what?] as saying that a white person who has some white friends must hate black people (or vice versa).

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts