Jonathan Leeman: Parsing Words and Deleting Comments

By | September 24, 2016

When we capitulate to evil in the name of “peace”, we become the evil.
When we suppress truth in the name of “love”, we become the lie.
When we excuse abuse in the name of “unity”, we become the abuser.
~ Jim Wright

1leeman 9marks

The following are ten indicators of Fraudulent Authority within Christian organizations and churches.

1). There is never any freedom to question leaders.

2). Leaders often make claims of having special insights from God, insights that others are unable to possess.

3). Disagreement with leaders is deemed a sign of the devil’s influence in one’s life.

4). Events are designed to bring attention and praise to leaders rather than equipping others to do the work of the ministry.

5). Any concept of equality is immediately labeled rebellion or the end result of a “liberal” denial of the Bible.

6). Authoritarian leaders are only comfortable around like-minded leaders; thus, there is an unofficial ‘speaking tour’ where only imperial, authoritarian leaders share the platform with each other.

7). The measure of success becomes the number of people who follow the leader (” It must be of God! Look at how many come to hear me speak!”)

8). If a person leaves the community or church, the problem is always in the person who leaves, not the leadership.

9). Leaders who wrongly perceive themselves as those “with authority” insulate their lives by demanding absolute loyalty through giving large financial benefits to their closest ‘advisors.’

10). The ultimate end of this kind of Christian leadership is always more; more money, more power, more followers, more publicity, more, more, more…

The people of Christ are beginning to awaken to abuses of authority in the modern church and home. This book will help you understand how anyone who seeks to “rule over you” is actually usurping the role of Christ as Lord and Savior of your life. We are all called to submit to the Lordship of Christ and His authority, not any man’s authority.

This book is written to help empower you to Christ alone and refrain from thinking anyone else but He holds the keys of authority in His Kingdom.

Burleson, Wade (2016-04-16). Fraudulent Authority: Pastors Who Seek to Rule Over Others (Kindle Locations 198-216). Istoria Ministries. Kindle Edition.

In my previous blog article, “9Marks Attempting “Brand Enhancement,” I responded to Jonathan Leeman’s article, “Don’t Be a 9Marxist,” published on the 9Marks blog, the official voice of the parachurch organization.  The gist of Leeman’s article was an acknowledgement of hearing about some problems of heavy-handed authoritarinism, but these reports are few. After quoting a lady (a friend of mine) who had major issues at a 9Marx church and subsequently wrote a negative review of Mark Dever’s book, “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church,”  Leeman replied:

“I’ve been the editorial director of 9Marks for over a decade, and part of the church behind the ministry for two. I don’t often hear criticism with language this strong; maybe one or two other times.”

If you’ll buy that I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona to sell you.  The fact the Dever and Leeman had a break-out session at the T4G conference in April of 2016, and that Leeman subsequently wrote this article are clear indicators that the 9Marx boyz have a problem on their hands, a problem that they are only too well aware of. One doesn’t write a lengthy, fifteen-point article in response to two or three complaints of spiritual abuse.

Leeman’s article attracted at least 31 comments, both positive and negative.  Earlier today I was notified by a reader that all the comments on Leeman’s article had been removed! I wasn’t surprised.  The 9Marx, T4G, TGC “leaders” frequently remove comments and block individuals from their sites. (See my previous blog article for two examples of mine.) These blocked individuals generally are not blocked for crude or spiteful comments, rather, they are generally individuals who respectfully disagree with the the christian celebrity “leader.” A few years ago TGC blocked anyone who tweeted the hashtag #IstandwithSGMvictims. This was done to draw attention to the fact that the Gospel Coalition had issued a statement of support for C.J. Mahaney, a man credibly charged with blackmail and covering up sexual abuse of children in his Sovereign Grace denomination.

The simple fact is that these leaders love to utilize social media to solicit donations, sell their books, promote their conferences and expound their viewpoints of “orthodox” Christianity, but the heavy-handed authoritarians cannot accept any comments critical of their views. They have yet to learn that, unlike their local churches, where they can practice their tyrannical ways with impudence, those in the blogosphere are unafraid to question them, and in fact often do. A guy like Leeman, accustomed to the rock-throwing peasants genuflecting to him, appear to be unable to handle any sort of criticism from lowly, uneducated, edgy individuals such as myself.

I experienced the same type of behavior from John Folmar, a man who, like Leeman, was also mentorred under the tutelage of Mark Dever. Folmar is the senior pastor of United Christian Church of Dubai, the church I quit three year ago. You can read a brief story about that here.  Basically, Folmar didn’t like me placing links to articles about C.J. Mahaney’s shenanigans (they were “unhelpful”) on a private Facebook page, so he managed to get them deleted.   You can read a 9Marx article by Folmar on how he successfully implemented the 9Marx manifesto here.

Leeman, seemingly unaware that information, including truthful comments that he finds “unhelpful,” once published on the internet, are not easily deleted. Ahh, how he must long for the good-old-days when a “divisive” congregant could be intimidated into silence.  (I believe in evangelical church-speak the term is “submitting to your elders.”)

Anyway, I asked Janna, my trusted blog partner, and technical wizard, if she could dig up the “unhelpful” comments Leeman had deleted.  It took her all of about a minute.  Please read them below, or if you would prefer, you can go to this link and view them. Be advised you will need to click on the “Comments 0” at the end of the article to make the missing comments appear.

2016-09-24-0-comment-button  Sorry Jonathan, it kind of sucks not having control, no?

 

2016-09-24-trimmed-down-version-9marx-article-comments-removed-by-leeman

Word quickly spread through social media that Leeman had removed the comments from his 9Marx article. Dee, of The Wartburg Watch fame, tweeted this message to Leeman:

2016-09-24-dee-comment-to-leeman

 

Leeman then responded with this Tweet below.  (I couldn’t resist adding my two cents!) Leeman’s comment seems disingenuous at best. He states that believe it or not, he almost never looks at comments.

I choose the “not” option.

You will notice, about half-way through the comments Leeman made a comment, thanking Dwight (no relation to Newt) Gingrich for his positive comment. I can only surmise that Leeman’s vision magically fogs over when he comes to the negative comments because he has only heard strong criticism once or twice before. Or, perhaps he is parsing his words, as Bill Clinton did when asked about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinski, famously replying, “It depends on what the meaning of “is” is. Plausible deniability my friend, that’s what it’s all about.  Leeman may have read hundreds of stories of spiritual abuse by 9Marx pastors, but that doesn’t mean he heard these stories! These highly educated men of the cloth can be so clever!

Does Leeman really expect us to believe him?  Remember at the beginning of his article he states:

“In a “one-star” Amazon.com review of a 9Marks book, the reviewer shares his (note: later changed to “her” after he read one of the negative responses he has never heard, informing that a woman actually wrote the review) experience of being a part of what he calls a 9Marks church.”

So Leeman, probably on a break at one of his many conferences, is just randomly scrolling through the web and stumbles upon a one-star review of his idol, Mark Dever’s, book “Nine Marks of a Healthy Church.” Really? The review is not that easy to find, but I am to believe a guy that says he almost never looks at comments and has heard only heard one or two negative comments about 9Marx just randomly came across this negative review?

The “not” option makes a lot of sense to me Mr. Leeman.

 

2016-09-24-get-a-clue-leeman

We are then treated to this pearl by Leeman. After stating he rarely reads comments and has only heard strong criticism once or twice before, he now says he seldom sees substantive contributions (comments).  O.K., I guess  we are to believe that Leeman must have only read about 3 comments in his entire life, because two of those  have been negative, ad hominem, non-substantive contributions. IF he had seen four or more comments he couldn’t truthfully state that he “seldom sees” substantive comments. He would have to say the majority of comments are substantive, excepting the two comments containing strong criticism.  The other one had to be Dwight (no relation to Newt) Gingrich’s positive, substantive contribution. Which is it Bill, er, Jonathan?

“We don’t ever block, tho,” states Leeman.

Yeah, I guess deleting comments en-masse is not blocking, right Mr. Word-Parser? And who is the “we?” Because your idol, Mark Dever, blocked me on Twitter years ago. I guess I probably deserved it.  I dared question  Mr. 9Marx Church Discipline extraordinaire if he found it a bit hypocritical to allow C.J. Mahaney to flee to Capitol Hill Baptist church to avoid discipline at Covenant Life Church.  Ahh, but some animals are more equal than others, especially if they have donated $10,000 of their church members money to Mr. Dever.

Mark Dever praising C.J.Mahaney
C.J. Mahaney purchasing Mark Dever’s loyal friendship

2016-09-24-leeman-dishonest-comment

Next, I guess Leeman is attempting to play on our sympathies. The poor guy feels responsible for giving us irresponsible blog commenters a platform.

Tell me, Mr. Leeman, just what comments among the thirty-one listed above do you deem to be irresponsible?

I think most, if not all were good comments.  I wouldn’t remove one of them.  (Which is why I posted them all on my blog.) If you had issues with one, why not remove that one? As a highly educated “leader,” you should know that “shotgun” discipline is never a good idea, except perhaps in Marine boot-camp. On our blog, we respond to the offender, sometimes publicly, most of the time privately, letting them know their comment is unacceptable and why.

But now these nasty, irresponsible comments have shoved you over the cliff, the last straw, so to speak. I expect future articles from you will not allow for any comments.  A safe, sterile environment, where no dissension is tolerated, not unlike any authoritarian 9Marx church.

Let me offer you this quote to ponder:

“We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility…”
-John Stuart Mill

2016-09-24-leeman-says-irresponsible-comments

 

So now we get to another diversionary tactic by Mr. Leeman.  Not only are these thirty-one comments irresponsible and non-substantive, they are….. drum roll….. ANONYMOUS! We all know how 9Marx leaders hate those anonymous comments.  Let’s take a stroll down memory lane and listen to Matt Chandler blow a gasket over an anonymous comment.

Some of those comments were not anonymous Mr. Leeman, including yours and mine.  Why didn’t you let the comments stand that were not anonymous? If you have a problem with anonymous comments, why don’t you implement a policy of no anonymous comments?

Truth be told, Mr. Leeman, I believe you are unable to take criticism.  In your position, that is a major character flaw. I wonder how you manage to cope  in those weekly sermon reviews? Perhaps your peers, aware of your fragile make-up, abstain from any critical comments. Or perhaps, like many 9Marx churches, you surround yourself with yes-men for elders, lacking courage, they utter only what they know you want to hear.

2016-09-24-leemans-lame-excuses

I leave you with a winsome quote from Spurgeon. I hope it serves you well.

“I heartily add my own solemn warnings against your pampering the flesh by listening to the praises of the kindest friends you have. They are injudicious, and you must beware of them. A sensible friend who will unsparingly criticize you from week to week will be a far greater blessing to you than a thousand undiscriminating admirers if you have sense enough to bear his treatment, and grace enough to be thankful for it.”
-C.H. Spurgeon, “Lectures to My Students”

62
Submit Comment

2000
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of

Didn’t really know who this guy was but died laughing when I saw his picture. This is the guru of “church discipline”? Looks like the worst he could do is inflict a paper cut.

It’s weird when men claiming to be Godly masculine complemenatarian champions of women look like they’d need help opening the pickle jar. I call Mark Driscoll the Pillbury Discoll boy. I’m not trying to body-image shame anyone yet if you want to act like you’re Clint Eastwood then invest in a gym membership. 😉

A. Amos Love

Hi Janna and Todd

I just left this comment on your article at TWW.
———

Deb – Todd

Yes, they moved Jamisons article that received lots of negative feedback.

It was so bad, Leeman felt he had to write a “Part 2” supporting article.

“Pastors, Don’t Let Your People Resign Into Thin Air, Part 2”

https://9marks.org/article/pastors-dont-let-your-people-resign-into-thin-air-part-2/

“Thank you to those who have taken time to respond to Bobby Jamieson’s blog. Bobby has clearly provoked a robust discussion; so much so, that I thought it might be worth offering a few comments that, I hope, will promote shared understanding.

The main bone of contention around Bobby’s blog is around the idea of authority, and whether or not churches have the authority to say “no” to anyone who says, “I want to resign now.”

Blah, Blah, Blah…
———-

Maybe when Leemans articl did NOT convince the folks….
They had to move the original article and delete ALL the comments.

Maybe someone (Hi Janna.) can locate the original article and comments.

Thanks, I may not be able to find deleted comments for the article in question but have found deleted comments for several other 9Marks articles on the same topic.

I will post those shortly. Thanks.

I did locate the original article and comments! Please see the comment at the top of the page.

Shy1

Well, this exchange makes it clear that it is not cluelessness that Leeman et al suffer from, it is deceptiveness.

As far as anonymous comments, why should anyone trust these abusers with their real information?

Thanks for the comment.

As far as anonymous comments, why should anyone trust these abusers with their real information?

I’d love to hear Leeman answer that question given that several 9Marks Churches have long and documented histories of stalking and harassing people who leave try to leave the Church or merely criticize it.

Leeman himself, in his original article, seems surprised that an Amazon reviewer would be very angry about a Church deliberately exposing children to a registered sex offender without taking any precautions to make sure that that person doesn’t harm the kids.

Besides, all protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, Leeman is just engaging in ad hominem attacks because he can’t logically defend himself or 9Marks. The identity of a commenter is usually not relevant to the substance of what that person is saying, from an intellectual and logical perspective.

People have the right to respond to publicly posted information anonymously. If you can’t handle criticism about your work then don’t publish it online, Mr. Leeman.

I’m always surprised by how whiny and ultra-sensitive many self-described Godly, masculine “complementarian” men can be. 😉

I agree, fundamentally, yet think that Leeman may be both clueless and deceptive. He certainly doesn’t seem to understand how angry people in the real world get when Churches and Pastors cover up child sexual abuse.

Shy1

Janna, perhaps he is also clueless, but his removing of the comments and his response to those who noted it were not the communication of a straightforward, transparent person, more like those of a politician. Implications, blame shifting, dodging.

I agree and think that Leeman lied about the nature of the comments he wiped out.

If nothing else, Leeman is clueless about tech issues. It literally took me 30 seconds to find most of the comments he deleted and I’m no tech wizard. 🙂

Hi Shy1:

Thanks for your comments. I just want to clarify that I fully agree with everything you’ve said including your argument regarding the reason some people wish to post comments about 9Marks anonymously.

I was merely noting that Leeman is clueless about how the real world works if he’s surprised that most people become very angry when church leaders enable pedophiles and he doesn’t know how hard it is to erase your tracks online.

Apparently, Deb at the The Wartburg Watch saved the deleted comments so we would have had a record of them even if I hadn’t found a cached version of the article in question. (Go Deb, by the way!)

Leeman should know that many people keep close tabs on what he writes, so censoring folks after the fact just makes him look dishonest and immature.

In general, in my experience, 9Marks and many other organizations with whom it is at least informally affiliated, regularly tolerate or even encourage the harassment and even stalking of former members.

That’s why I call them cults although I understand and respect why other people may object to using such a pejorative term for any entity.

Unlike, Leeman, Todd and I fully understand why many people prefer to talk about abusive Church organizations anonymously and are honored to provide a safe place to do so.

So please keep commenting with the knowledge that I’m fully aware of the deceptive and immoral conduct victims are dealing with, regarding 9Marks ,and I apologize if I sounded as though I was trivializing it.

Sometimes I do have to joke around a little bit about the cluelessness of guys like Leeman to stay sane because the way they behave is a depressing embarrassment to Christianity, in my view.

Thanks!

I just found deleted comments for another 9 Marks article and would be happy to dig for more deleted 9 Marks comments.

Just shoot me the link to the article you’re interested in.

Thanks!

Lydia

Every single utterance by Lehman is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He is simply not as good at it as Piper, Dever or Mohler who learned early on not to engage the peasants at all. They only engage adoring pastors or wannabe ministry types.

His responses on twitter are reminiscent of a middle school boys logic. On one hand we are to believe he does not read certain kinds of comments. On the other, he writes a post on a hard to find bad review of 9 Marks and deletes a comment stream!

Does he not see how obvious he is? I guess it doesn’t matter when you have job security? :o)

Thanks, Lydia. The fact that Leeman obviously thought it strange that someone would be very angry that a Church was putting children at risk by exposing them, without their knowledge, to a registered sex offender, speaks for itself.

The guy is clueless.

Broader society does not consider one’s supposed religious beliefs about any subject to be grounds for breaking the law. These guys are going to discover that in a big way, as I think the Leeman/Mohler crowd is about to go through a child abuse scandal on par with what happened to the Roman Catholic Church 15-20 years ago.

Same problem, same unwillingness to do anything but cover it up.

Thanks, Lydia!

Ken F

Did anyone capture the 35 comments from the DA Hortom post?

Hi Ken,

Send me the link to the post in question and I’ll see if I can find the comments for you. Thanks! 😉

Ken F

https://9marks.org/article/the-abuse-of-authority-in-prosperity-gospel-churches/

It’s stiil on the 9marks site. The 35 comments were excellent and should be posted if they can be found.

Saw your comment on TWW about comments being blocked.

We installed a new security system that initially blocked everyone’s comments last week, so it was nothing personal and shouldn’t happen again.

I apologize for the inconvenience.

Also, our new commenting system allows you to sign up for comment notifications on any article without first commenting yourself.

It would make my day if folks utilize that system!

Velour

Thank you for the kind comment. I am just a pup at the blogging business. But I have watched Dee and Deb do it. And Julie Anne at Spiritual Sounding Board. And when my former church (Grace Bible Fellowship of Silicon Valley) just had my logical YELP review and my Google review purged from the internet, I decided to launch a blog that couldn’t be shut down.

Thank goodness I live in California with strong Anti-SLAPP [Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation Laws] making it virtually impossible to shut down discussions via lawsuits.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-california

“Anti-SLAPP Law in California
Note: This page covers information specific to California. For general information concerning Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs), see the overview section of this guide.

You can use California’s anti-SLAPP statute to counter a SLAPP suit filed against you. The statute allows you to file a special motion to strike a complaint filed against you based on an “act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16. If a court rules in your favor, it will dismiss the plaintiff’s case early in the litigation and award you attorneys’ fees and court costs. In addition, if a party to a SLAPP suit seeks your personal identifying information, California law allows you to make a motion to quash the discovery order, request, or subpoena.

Activities Covered By The California Anti-SLAPP Statute [from Harvard University’s Digital Media Law Project].

Not every unwelcome lawsuit is a SLAPP. In California, the term applies to lawsuits brought primarily to discourage speech about issues of public significance or public participation in government proceedings. To challenge a lawsuit as a SLAPP, you need to show that the plaintiff is suing you for an “act in furtherance of [your] right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue.” Although people often use terms like “free speech” and “petition the government” loosely in popular speech, the anti-SLAPP law gives this phrase a particular legal meaning, which includes four categories of activities:

any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law;
any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; or
any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(e)(1-4). As an online publisher, you are most likely to rely on the third category above, which applies to a written statement in a public forum on an issue of public interest.

Under California law, a publicly accessible website is considered a public forum. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, 146 P.3d 510, 514 n.4 (Cal. 2006). The website does not have to allow comments or other public participation, so long as it is publicly available over the Internet. See Wilbanks v. Wolk, 121 Cal. App. 4th 883, 897 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)….”

Thanks for the information about SLAPP laws in California, Velour. Unfortunately, Maryland, where I’m located, has a very weak SLAAP law/set of statutes.

Fortunately, the last thing many of my critics want is me talking in court, publicly, about some of the icky things they’re doing.

😉

Best, Janna

Velour, I had the same experience with a Goggle review, regarding child sexual abuse at a Church in my community, because Google seems to delete reviews automatically if enough people simply press the “abuse” button.

Yelp has a reputation for caving quickly even if their process is not as automated as Google’s.

Therefore, I’m glad you have your own blog. Please tell me if I can assist you with anything. Julie Anne can vouch for me, too. 🙂

Thanks. Janna

Velour

Brad/FuturistGuy has blogged about Dr. Robert Jay Lifton, psychiatrist/author/researcher at Yale University, and an expert on Thought Reform. Lifton started studying the Communist Chinese and their Thought Reform techniques to gain compliance from people. Strip them of their identities.

Dr. Lifton’s research has had wider implications as authoritarian groups always practice some form of Thought Reform.

https://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/the-hunger-games-trilogy-5a/

A. Amos Love

Todd

Love your post – And Love your passion…

Leeman’s funny… 😉
He writes a post about – “Don’t Be a 9Marxist!”
Then goes an “performs” just like – “a 9Marxist!” 😉

Do you think Leeman ever read his own post? – “Don’t Be a 9Marxist!” ? 😉

“…fifteen marks for NOT being a 9Marxist,
that is, NOT being a church leader who abuses authority.”

Oh the irony…
———-

Leeman says, “believe it or NOT almost never look at comments.”

Then he wipes the server clean and calls comments that disagree…
“irresponsible comments”

“…felt responsible for giving “irresponsible comments”
a plateform on my post…”

If Leeman does NOT look at the comments
how can he call the comments – “irresponsible comments”?

“Leemans, Mark 2, says…
Be a strong advocate for Christian freedom.”

Just DO NOT – “advocate for Christian freedom”
When pewpeons disagree and leave comments.

Seems Leeman is – “being a 9Marxist.” Yes?
“being a church leader who abuses authority.” Yes?

Being a hypocrite, saying one thing and doing another. Yes?

Mt 23:1-3 NASB
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to **His disciples,**
saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees (Religous Leaders of the day.)
have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
therefore all that they (Religous Leaders, pastors.elders)
tell you, do and **observe,**
but DO NOT DO according to their deeds;
for they (Religous Leaders)
say things and DO NOT DO them.

Scott Shaver

These guys are finding out, and can’t handle the fact, that this social media instrument is a two-edged sword.

Eventually you’ll hear a piece-meal rationale for why only “enlightened elders” should be allowed to discuss matters of faith online. Both SBC Today and SBC Voices have become highly censored and controlled in the viewpoints they are willing to post….PRAVDA-LIKE twin rags along the lines of Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dum.

Reminds one of why a certain brand of clergy historically felt the need to keep the sheep in the dark with masses they couldn’t understand and texts they couldn’t read. Straw that broke the came’ls back in the SBC was removing Christ altogether as the criterion for biblical interpretation in the 2000BFM. Relationships have rapidly deteriorated among its leadership, accountability structures, funding appropriations and constituency since that move.

The fact that they’re creed has changed twice in the last 15 years only adds to the confusion.

Max

“believe it or not, almost never look at c.” (Jonathan Leeman)

Considering the purging of comments from 9Marks, “c.” surely means “comments”. But it could mean “criticism”, since that’s what has been unloaded on 9Marks in recent blog posts. “Believe it or not” … yes, I believe that these folks would never review critical comments – they are above rebuke and correction, so why consider dissenting views about anything. With a nasty streak of pride running through their flesh, however, you have to think that they glance at the comment thread searching for words of affirmation – something that would stroke their egos. If they see a negative word, they pass by it quickly … but camp on the soothing posts of adoring followers. There is no shortage of arrogance in New Calvinist ranks.

Hi Guys:

I’m repeating a comment placed on the original article about 9Marks to clarify what I found regarding the deleted comments in question.

Specifically, I could only find a copy of the comments, on the 9 Marks article in question, through Sept. 17, 2016. I believe that the article was taken down on Sept. 22 or Sept. 23, so any comments posted between that time-frame aren’t listed on the page Todd is pointing everyone toward.

Unfortunately, there’s also no way to “extend” the longer comments that the screenshot does not show. The good news is that we have evidence that most of the comments were thoughtful, not abusive. Therefore, 9 Marks should not have erased all of them if they’re claiming to possess any intellectual or moral integrity, regarding their blogging habits, in my view.

Thanks all for your support of this blog! Janna

Max

Janna,

Thank you for your fine contributions to this blog!

I also encountered the “purging” of my comments – the whole comment stream, actually – on another 9Marks post “”The Abuse of Authority in Prosperity Gospel Churches” (D.A. Horton). I was able to retrieve the entire thread via Disqus. Folks posting comments via Disqus can find all comments stored in the Disqus system (I’m not sure for how long). Disqus users can access the whole discussion of a particular post by logging into Disqus, click on “Most Recent”, and then click on “View Discussion”. That will show the whole comment thread, even if the 9Marks site does not.

Thanks for the kind words and the information about Disqus, Max. I did not know that you could read deleted comment strings, on Disqus, for some time.

That does make sense as Disqus is a free program and its owners have no incentive to delete any comments.

Thanks again!

Velour

Great work Janna! Thank you.

I knew this was going to happen and so I saved the 9 Marx page over on the Way Back Machine website.
https://archive.org/web/

Check over there too.