Ship of Fools: 'Shaming the Tiger': What should churches do?

Thread: 'Shaming the Tiger': What should churches do? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026978

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

An investigation into the life story of the evangelist Tony Anthony, as told in his book 'Taming the Tiger' has found that much of his dramatic life story has been fabricated, and in some cases passages lifted wholesale from other martial arts books – such as a book about Bruce Lee. His publishers have now withdrawn the book from sale.

An account of the investigation can be found on the Ship's front page: Shaming the Tiger

Tony Anthony visited the church I used to be a part of last year, not long after I had moved away. People spoke very highly of him, and a number of young people (I think it was billed as a youth event) came to faith or became more involved in the church as a result of his visit.

How should a church handle this situation? I feel strongly that some acknowledgement should be made that the church gave a platform to a man who, it turns out, was not telling the truth about his life. I am sure that there will be concerns about the effect this might have on people who came to faith after hearing his now discredited testimony, and I'm concerned that because of this the issue might not be addressed. If faith might be damaged by the discovery of this man's deceit, surely it would be damaged still more if the church covered up, and then later that was discovered – people would feel they had been lied to twice.

I'm interested – if you were an elder or minister of a church where this had happened, how would you address it now?

I don't know yet what (if anything) is being said in my previous church about it. My father-in-law is an elder there, and I'm hoping to talk it over with him soon.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

I think there have been misgivings about him in various communities for at least 4/5 years.

I was invited to play at an event that he was speaking at, and had not really heard of him prior, in 2009; at that point I did a little Google-Fu on him, and there were already rumblings that he was something of a charlatan, both in attitude and story; so I took the decision not to attend the event.

Judging by the developments since, as I look around on the internet, it seems that it has been fairly widely known for at least 2 years, that there is no basis for his story. So maybe this conversation should be more about the due diligence that churches should undertake before actually booking a speaker.

I'm sure there are many other questionable characters that are often invited into churches (for a fee!) and there are names that come to mind immediately that I'm wary of, in the same vein as Tony Anthony.

If I was a church leader, I'd apologise for not doing due diligence on the people that are taking the pulpit in the church, and resolve and create process such that it can't happen again.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

Incidentally, his website now introduces him as an "award-wining" author. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

A couple of times now I've heard our vicar use a couple of illustrative anecdotes in sermons that I went home, looked up on Snopes and found to be wrong. He gets them out of a boo of useful illustrative anecdotes and while he's always acknowledged my point I have yet to hear a public retraction. So the first obstacle to overcome might be to get people to believe it and see why it matters that the man is a fake.

But assuming it is possible to build up a sufficiently critical mass, if your church has in any way bigged up the Tiger then my advice would be to come clean: announce it publicly. Your church's faith and mission should be strong enough to survive having one of its supports kicked away.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Well, yes. Took him a while to take the site down. Avanti Ministries on their main page are saying they are ending all their operations, and are closing down; that's all that is available now.

In fact, on the Crosswire site linked to in the SoF article, there have been comments that TA also did things like plagiarising other writers' evangelical advice books, so basically nicked resources created by others and claimed them as his own, and then sold them on in a book.

It seems there's possibly more wrong with the guy than one might think at the moment.

How to react, once the initial shock is overcome, is entirely another matter. I'll be following the development and this thread with interest.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

This link to Premier Radio may be helpful, too. I happened to listen live when TA was being interviewed. Quite a shipwreck. Sadness.

Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :

It's a good question, birdie. Over here in Oz, we had a bloke pretending to be dying of cancer for quite awhile, even appearing on stage with a respirator. Turned out he wasn't even sick - it was some kind of bizarre cover up for a porn addiction. More on that here, for those interested.
I agree with others, the churches need to fess up that they got duped. But also remind the new converts that they weren't saved into Tony Anthony, but into Jesus. And just because the bloke was a crook doesn't discredit the gospel. Heck, in the Hebrew Bible God spoke through Balaam's ass, so anything is possible.

[ 17. July 2013, 11:15: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

I have a sneaking suspicion that time will prove Doreen Irvine's "autobiography" to be somewhat embroidered as well.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I know I can be something of a cynic at times but my experience has been that charismatic evangelical circles are nowhere near as hot as they should be on investigating these kind of claims - nor of issuing disclaimers once things turn out not to be the way they've been presented.

I'm old enough to remember the 'Revival' video back in the '90s that included all manner of unsubstantiated claims that later turned out to be false. I don't remember hearing of many leaders apologising for having shown the thing in the first place.

Of course, these kinds of things aren't restricted to the charismatic evangelical constituency but I would suggest that the charismatic evangelical scene is prone to this kind of chicanery and charlatanism more so than some of the other Christian traditions - although it's not hard to come up with odd-ball claims and whacko assumptions in any of the churches - RC, Orthodox and Protestant.

As to how to deal with it:

1. Be up-front. Acknowledge the lack of provenance and, if necessary, own up to having been taken in by it. People will respect leaders more if they admit and acknowledge mistakes.

2. Cultivate a wise awareness that such things are more common than we might care to admit. Be wise as serpents, gentle as doves.

3. Cultivate a spirituality that is more grounded, less dualistic and less prone to extravagant flights of fancy. In other words, don't be so super-spiritual as to be of no earthly use.

4. Kick this celebrity-style testimony thing into touch. It does none of us any favours.

5. Turn away from fads and fancies and concentrate on what's important - the preaching of the word, pastoral care, the sacraments, social and community outreach as part and parcel of evangelism etc

6. Develop your bullshit detector. Changing one's reading patterns can help here. Read proper theology and tried and test devotional books etc etc and not the sensationalist pulp.

Finally, be as wise, sensible and balanced as curmugeonly old Gamaliel ...

[Biased]

No, I don't mean that. Forget that last bit ...

[Razz]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Between deceptions like this and abusive priests what amazes me is that the survivors very often manage to salvage something of faith in the midst of it all. I know there are examples of quite the opposite too though.

What really worries me is the motivation. To fabricate to this level and effectively build a double life there has to be serious sums of money involved; otherwise why would he do it?

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
To fabricate to this level and effectively build a double life there has to be serious sums of money involved; otherwise why would he do it?

It's gotta be better than working in McD's at minimum wage?

Posted by beatmenace (# 16955) on :

The guy who wrote 'Healer' and pretended to have Cancer is just bizarre - not sure how that is more of a cover-up of anything than just saying nothing. I cant help thinking he might have been setting himelf up to return with a miraculous 'healing'.

Not sure i will ever see that song in the same way now.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by wishandaprayer:

quote:

It's gotta be better than working in McD's at minimum wage?

Really? - and I mean that sincerely. There is a serious energy that goes into living such a double life. The point I was making was that the payoff at some point for living such a fucked up life, must be huge. I can't honestly think of anything other than money that would be such a motivator (unless we're in the area of mental health, which doesn't seem to be the case here as far as we know).

I will say that I have seen the bills presented by some evangelical preachers and I have been more than a little shocked (and no I am not tarring them all with the same brush). The only other job I think that might reward as well is top level banking.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, there's serious money to be made within evangelicalism. Very serious.

That doesn't apply right across the board, of course. For every superannuated so-called apostle or get-rich-quick author and snake-oil salesman, there are people struggling to make ends meet and whole armies of unpaid volunteers ...

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Really? - and I mean that sincerely. There is a serious energy that goes into living such a double life.

From my point of view, this isn't the kind of thing that is planned with much thought; it happens and the consequences have to be dealt with. One lie creates another, and therefore it snowballs. I'd venture he was making a very comfortable living, plus whatever he could legally skim from his charity (income of £150k last year, with £45k on "travel" for example); and there was no way to expose the lies, so the best for him was to continue in it.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

wishandaprayer, I think you are seriously naive if you really believe that level of deception does not require huge pre-planning.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

FC, in addition to the money, there was also the fame. Some people love attention.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I can understand that Monkey, but it was just the level of deception that surprised with no mention of what the return was. I would imagine that the desire for fame with that level of deception would be a clinical issue; although I am far from qualified to say.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
wishandaprayer, I think you are seriously naive if you really believe that level of deception does not require huge pre-planning.

I'm not saying that; I'm saying that it can be planned one way, and blow into much larger proportions that require much more energy. Like anything, all these things evolve. I'm not saying Tony the Tiger didn't pre-plan all of this, but I'd think that it started as a much smaller deception before it grew as large as this.

Posted by wishandaprayer (# 17673) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I would imagine that the desire for fame with that level of deception would be a clinical issue; although I am far from qualified to say.

I'm sure it would be - and it wouldn't be a stretch to say that he shows a lot of characteristics of a sociopath (see the Hare Checklist). I'd be willing to wager that he would fit as a sociopath, and that provides a bigger base for the "why" of his action. I wonder how many large church leaders we can fit to that mold too [Biased]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
How should a church handle this situation?

Just say that the factually inaccurate bits are supposed to be a poetic metaphor? That seems to work well in other church-related examples. [Big Grin]

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
How should a church handle this situation?
Just say that the factually inaccurate bits are supposed to be a poetic metaphor? That seems to work well in other church-related examples.

Naughty, Croesos.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

There is a whole genre of autobiographical writing which has had a bad press for several years now - that of someone who has had a really bad childhood, treated like a dog rather than a person, by uncaring parents, etc. etc. The trend got to be that the punters wanted more and more extreme versions of the style, so the authors gave them what they wanted - as they discovered such books sell well and made them lots of money. Then the examples started to get so extreme and unbelievable that bluff was called and people now need to buy such books with wide open eyes, realising that the stories may be fictional rather than factual.

The example given in the OP seems to be along rather similar lines - except that people do seem to expect a Christian writer to be more truthful. Perhaps that is rather unrealistic, as they are subject to the same temptations - to make money, to be popular - as other writers. It therefore shouldn't happen, but it does.

I guess the answer is to take all autobiographical writing with a pinch of salt, and seriously question how much of it is 'truth' and how much 'embellishment'.

Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :

As to why someone like TA does this? There are easier ways to make money, surely...

My own belief is that people like TA are mentally ill and can hold contradictory information in their brain and believe both sides to be true. There are various medical names for this but it's the only thing that makes any sense to me. And that's because, to the rational mind, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
wishandaprayer, I think you are seriously naive if you really believe that level of deception does not require huge pre-planning.

Actually why should it require any sort of pre-planning?

The foundational evidence is basically .. his book. It's not like he has scads of secondary documents/witnesses that actually support his claim.

He probably started off small and then his claims became more outlandish over time. He didn't have to be particularly venal about it either - and I'm sure at some point everything snowballed, and then it was hard to walk away.

He was helped by people's natural good will - and by the fact that he was working with an audience which naturally believed things told to them by authority figures. Back in the pre interweb days he could have probably lasted for much longer or even forever (I've always had doubts about Audrey Harper's claims of child sacrifice, for instance).

It's happened often enough that it has been satirised in popular culture.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
As to why someone like TA does this? There are easier ways to make money, surely...

My own belief is that people like TA are mentally ill and can hold contradictory information in their brain and believe both sides to be true.

I think this absolves the rest of us too easily. It's easier to say that he is mad than have to deal with the fact that it;s basically an extension of a trait that all of us experience.

Children make up stories all the time, so do CEOs.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be frank, this isn't a new thing. I remember as a very earnest young evangelical with an interest in history and so on, being mightily impressed by the journal of John Nelson the stonemason, one of Wesley's 'adjutants' in the North of England.

I still am, it's gripping stuff.

However, even back then I could see that much of it was crafted rather like a 'tract' rather than a standard autobiography - all the incidents seemed designed (or reported rather) to support one or another aspect of Wesleyan doctrine against Calvinists and others.

Not only that - whilst it was certainly the case that the Nelsons suffered greatly for their faith - his wife was manhandled and miscarried when attacked by a mob at Wakefield - some of the accounts of how badly beaten he was did stretch credulity somewhat. I have no idea how he was able to walk yet alone ride a horse after some of the incidents he recalls. I've since met a Methodist historian who told me that we should take some of the more extreme incidents in Nelson's journal with a pinch of salt.

Now, Nelson wasn't in it for the money and I'm not saying he made it up - I'm sure he was knocked about at times. But with the best will in the world urban myths develop in the telling.

I suspect in this case we've got a combination of elements:

1. Yes, prior planning and malice aforethought.

2. Some opportunism and having to keep the thing going once he'd got in too deep.

But each of these would be predicated by:

1. An over-willingness within some constituencies to jump on the bandwagon of any exciting testimony that came their way.

2. A refusal by some church leaders to let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

It's the gullibility of many that's so amazing too. Like I mean to say, 'Tony the Tiger'?...puhleeese.
Pity some nut didn't give him a good ass kicking after his preachy boasts to debunk the whole myth early on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

That he was not a winner of a completion does not mean he knew no martial arts. Nor that if he were, he would be unbeatable. All it would prove is who won a fight that day.

We are almost all guilty of accepting stories which fit our narratives without as much critical thinking as should be.
The churches taken in should address it quickly and honestly.
But the larger problem is that this has happened before, is happening now and will happen again.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Lol, I see from youtube that he did a lot of prison ministry. I hope when they get out that he finds a good hiding place. Talk about a lie biting you in the ass - that's gotta suck.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Such goings on has been around since the Old Testament, no doubt. There are several warnings about false prophets just as there are about false teachers and evangelists in the New Testament.

But God can still use such people to accomplish his mission. The fact that the original post indicates several young people coming to faith should not be discounted based on false witness.

What the church needs to do for those people is continue to minister to them, strengthening them in their new faith.

But, at the same time, it does go to show when such people are claiming fantastic experiences it is imperative someone does a little fact checking.

A standard that I have is to ask whether the testimony exhibits a theology of glory or a theology of the cross. If it is a theology of glory, approach with caution (double check the facts.)

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

By a weird coincidence I first heard about him when I sold his wife something on eBay and googled Avanti ministries which was in the email address.

I never met the guy but did read his book. I think back now to the biographies I read back in the 70s as a fledgling Christian or seeker. How many grains of salt do I now have throw at Corrie ten Boom, David Wikerson, Nicky Cruz, Brother Andrew et al.? How much responsibility should the individual reader bear in weighing up the veracity of such stories? Can we not assume any diligence on the part of the publisher?

JtW

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

As a reader? Depends on how much of the facts you wish to know, vs reading an inspiring story.
As an organisation booking a speaker? Especially one to emphasize your message? You have an immense obligation to verify.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think the point we have to bear in mind with any of this is that whether we are reading about Corrie Ten Boom, Brother Andrew, David Wilkerson or St Seraphim of Sarov, St Francis of Assisi or whoever else is that hagiography is hagiography - it has 'designs' upon us.

The same with your daily newspaper.

There is no such thing as a completely neutral or unbiased article or story.

Even the NT has 'designs' upon us - 'These things are written so you might believe,' John's Gospel tells us.

This doesn't necessarily imply a lack of trustworthiness, just that nothing is there to be taken at face value.

As for the popular evangelical stories, your Corrie Ten Booms, Brother Andrews and what have you - I don't have any problem with the overall thrust and trajectories of these stories but they are what they are - popular and populist accounts.

None of them convey a great deal of nuance.

Take the popular Norman Grubb biographies of figures like C T Studd ('Cricketer and Pioneer') and Rhys Howells ('Intercessor') - they're cracking good yarns and the overall outlines are 'true' in the historical sense - but the weight and interpretation that Grubb puts on them is a different thing again.

Sure, there have been attempts to portray Studd as a misogynistic nutter who left his wife behind to live as a somewhat flakey missionary in the Congo. I'm not so sure the revivisionist versions are any more 'true' to the facts than Grubb's rather starry-eyed and uncritical biographies.

The truth, as ever, lies somewhere between the two extremes.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There have been occasions when I have read several autobiographical books by the same author, and almost always there have been points of detail in each book that contradict each other (sometimes the contradictions are present in a single book). That is, I always assumed, the nature of that sort of book - they tell a gripping story that gives a good broad-brush testimony and/or exhortation to take action over a major concern of the author. But, attention to detail is often overlooked, and quite often as the emphasis on a story changes then which details to include and how to describe them necessarily change too.

Now, of course, details like whether person A met person B on a Wednesday or a Thursday may be very trivial. And, no one would expect every conversation to be reported verbatim (and, so, when reporting the same conversation on different occasions the author may choose slightly different words or include/omit different parts, and for simplicity may conflate a conversation had over an extended period into a single event). We see exactly the same phenomena in all biographical and autobiographical works ever written, including the Gospels.

There is a fuzzy ground between the trivial detail and those details which it is essential are reported reasonably accurately to convey the truth of a narrative. There is an equally fuzzy line about how much 'poetic license' an author can exercise in turning a sequence of events that often occured over decades into a book that can be read in an afternoon or a talk lasting one hour.

It certainly appears that Tony Anthony crossed well beyond the fuzzy line. I don't know anywhere enough of the details to say what parts of the story are basically true, though the investigation as reported certainly shows large parts that are complete fiction. If there is a genuine testimony of a small-time criminal with a prison-conversion then that could be the basis of a valuable ministry (especially, potentially, in prisons), though not as rewarding (in terms of fame, finance etc) as what Tony Anthony describes. Some exageration in a testimony is to be expected (I'm sure we've all at times described either our life before we became Christians as worse than it actually was or our life as Christians as better than it actually is), and is perfectly normal filtering of events to suit the purpose we have in offering such testimonies. Take that exageration too far into the realm of complete fantasy, especially when that fantasy becomes part of our ministry, then things are in a different league, that then destroys that ministry and damages others with similar ministries. It extends to other areas; someone with a ministry to addicts who invents a past addiction to sympathise with the addicts they minister too, for example, would not only loose their ability to minister to addicts but calls into question all those ministering to addicts who probably do have genuine past addiction problems.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's the gullibility of many that's so amazing too. Like I mean to say, 'Tony the Tiger'?...puhleeese.

Tony the Tiger. I don't think wishandaprayer intended that as a respectful nickname...

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

This all sounds to me like American comic-book stuff, where people are looking for a superhero to save them, rejoice when they find him, or sometimes her (if it's superwoman.) Their world comes crashing down when they find out that their hero is not all he claimed to be.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This all sounds to me like American comic-book stuff, where people are looking for a superhero to save them, rejoice when they find him, or sometimes her (if it's superwoman.) Their world comes crashing down when they find out that their hero is not all he claimed to be.

It's simply the Evangelical Protestant version of over-enthusiastic veneration of Catholic and Orthodox Saints, isn't it? Except I suppose with the Saints, most people will permit some doubt as to the historical accuracy of all the events in the hagiographies...

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
This all sounds to me like American comic-book stuff, where people are looking for a superhero to save them, rejoice when they find him, or sometimes her (if it's superwoman.) Their world comes crashing down when they find out that their hero is not all he claimed to be.
It's simply the Evangelical Protestant version of over-enthusiastic veneration of Catholic and Orthodox Saints, isn't it? Except I suppose with the Saints, most people will permit some doubt as to the historical accuracy of all the events in the hagiographies...

Well one major difference would be, I think, that Catholid and Orthodox saints are all dead and certainly not self-promoted.

Posted by Avila (# 15541) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
As to why someone like TA does this? There are easier ways to make money, surely...

My own belief is that people like TA are mentally ill and can hold contradictory information in their brain and believe both sides to be true. There are various medical names for this but it's the only thing that makes any sense to me. And that's because, to the rational mind, it doesn't make any sense at all.

And others referencing mental health....

Why is it that people are so quick to point at 'mental illness' to account for certain types of behaviour?

Is it as suggested above somewhere that we want to separate it off from things we might find potentially in ourselves???

Whatever the reason it is offensive to those with Mental health issues to have this link all the time being made with bad behaviour, whether here, or cases of violence or whatever.

People make choices, and can make bad choices without the help of depression or sociopathy or whatever. Most of the bad choices triggered by poor mental health are focussed inward and are self destructive not about major public deceptions.

Living a life built on a lie would take much more emotional energy than a mentally stressed person would have to spare.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

@ Gracie:

RC saints can be made rather swiftly now, see JP2! Still, they are dead, yes.

[ETA: crosspost]

[ 18. July 2013, 10:38: Message edited by: Wesley J ]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Avila:

quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
As to why someone like TA does this? There are easier ways to make money, surely...

My own belief is that people like TA are mentally ill and can hold contradictory information in their brain and believe both sides to be true. There are various medical names for this but it's the only thing that makes any sense to me. And that's because, to the rational mind, it doesn't make any sense at all.
And others referencing mental health....

Why is it that people are so quick to point at 'mental illness' to account for certain types of behaviour? [...]

I don't see Ancient Mariner's comment like that. I believe he may have tried to look at the situation from a different angle, and with quite some mercy on the perpetrator. This approach I find remarkable, and similar to what I would have said, but haven't got round to yet, and which perhaps has been somewhat absent from the discussion so far.

'Love your enemies', in this sense, would be like stepping back from judging for a brief moment, and look at the person who felt they needed (for whatever reason) to act wrongly. It would give them the chance to repent, face the consequences, repay their debts (financially, morally), but also for them to turn back onto the right path, a bit like the prodigal son. The offer should be there, and I feel that's what AM tried to express.

If Tiger Tony is willing/capable/able to accept his guilt, shame and sin will be left up to him, and remains to be seen. None of my business really.

So I think there need to be both views - denounce what went wrong, analyse, and draw the right conclusions; but also, possibly, if there's repentance, to allow the return of a prodigal offspring, but in a way that makes sense and creates healing, rather than hurt. If ever possible.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect the RCs and Orthodox would argue that 'nature abhors a vacuum' which is why Protestants come up with their own equivalents. It's long been observed, and I think there was a recent Ship discussion on this, that evangelicalism developed its own 'canon' of saints, as it were, largely missionaries, Bible-smugglers and evangelists of some form or other.

I think this tendency can go 'overboard' in any of these traditions ... I think it was Hatless who told us about Spanish peasants whipping statues of St Anthony whenever the Saint apparently failed to locate lost items on their behalf ... [Ultra confused]

I think the issue I have with this particular incident isn't that it happened in the first place so much as it indicates the level of thirst for stories of this kind in certain types of fellowship.

It's as if everything has to be exciting and upbeat all the time. As if there is no room for the mundane and the daily grind. As if everything has to be switch-back ride exciting all the time. As if every meeting has to end on some kind of 'high' and every prayer has to yield some kind of spectacular result.

The problem I have is with the underlying assumptions and spirituality that create the conditions for this sort of thing to take hold and flourish.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There have been occasions when I have read several autobiographical books by the same author, and almost always there have been points of detail in each book that contradict each other (sometimes the contradictions are present in a single book). That is, I always assumed, the nature of that sort of book - they tell a gripping story that gives a good broad-brush testimony and/or exhortation to take action over a major concern of the author. But, attention to detail is often overlooked, and quite often as the emphasis on a story changes then which details to include and how to describe them necessarily change too.

And sometimes memory can just plain change. I remember reading two accounts of a fatal mountain climbing accident by the survivor, written some years apart. I forget the exact detail that differed, but it was fairly central: something like, in one he saw his partner go over the edge of the crevasse, and in the other he didn't. He was aware of this discrepancy however, and talked about it in the second account, saying he couldn't explain it, and in both accounts he was honestly reporting what he remembered at the time he wrote the account.

quote:
Some exageration in a testimony is to be expected (I'm sure we've all at times described either our life before we became Christians as worse than it actually was or our life as Christians as better than it actually is), and is perfectly normal filtering of events to suit the purpose we have in offering such testimonies.

I don't recognize this. Perhaps I haven't had a proper Christian conversion to awaken me to the evangelistic possibilities of exaggerating my testimony, but I think when talking about my life I try to convey it as accurately as I can. It may be impossible not to include filters and emphases, but I am not consciously making them in the direction of making things out to be different than they really were.

Posted by Sooze (# 16621) on :

I'm a prison chaplain and have invited Tony to speak to my congregation in the past. I think it is a wicked thing to deceive vulnerable people who are in need of inspiration and hope that they can change their lives and escape from the treadmill of crime and imprisonment. The discovery that some of his claims are false will undermine his message of redemption and confirm the view held by many prisoners that everyone else is dishonest and it is foolish to try to be a good person and follow Christian precepts. He will have to answer for his deception of people trying to reform. I am not looking forward to exaplining this to prisoners who have read his book and been inspired by it.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

The evangelical church seems more prone to this kind of hero-worship than the Catholic wing. I have to wonder whether that's because the churches on the Catholic end prefer to wait until their heroes are dead and can't spoil it all by misbehaving.

Not that we aren't perfectly capable of exalting unworthy people, but it seems to come around and bite the evangelicals in the ass much more often.

Posted by Sooze (# 16621) on :

I should add that I am an Anglo-Catholic, a rarity amongst prison chaplains, and use both the saints of old and saints alive to try to inspire change in prisoners. Despite the evangelical nature of these transformed lives autobiographies I use them because they are effective.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sooze, that reminds me of the East End of London Anglo-Catholic priests who used to serve the Liturgy with all due solemnity yet used Moody & Sankey/Salvation Army style tactics when conducting rallies and missions ...

[Biased]

I think that the use of these books and testimonies is entirely appropriate, of course - and indeed, I am sure they can be effective.

Where the danger starts is where there's an uncritical acceptance of everything that 'comes from the front' as it were or when there is a reluctance to accept that leaders and others have simply got things wrong.

I know it's a different thing, but I can remember a few painful incidents from my more full-on charismatic evangelical days when there was a reluctance on the part of leaders to acknowledge that particular 'prophecies' or initiatives had been duff.

A similar thing applies in cases like this. I don't envy you having to let some of the prisoners down by saying that these books contained lies, spin and insubstantiality but I'd imagine it'll have to be done sooner or later.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I assume the sequel is that he will have a long talk with Christ about his failings as a miserable sinner and Christ will forgive him and tell him to go back on the lecture/autobiography trail.

As an outsider, I note that fallen preachers in America are forgiven and go back in the pulpit rather than retiring to the choir.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sooze:
I'm a prison chaplain and have invited Tony to speak to my congregation in the past. I think it is a wicked thing to deceive vulnerable people who are in need of inspiration and hope that they can change their lives and escape from the treadmill of crime and imprisonment. The discovery that some of his claims are false will undermine his message of redemption and confirm the view held by many prisoners that everyone else is dishonest and it is foolish to try to be a good person and follow Christian precepts. He will have to answer for his deception of people trying to reform. I am not looking forward to exaplining this to prisoners who have read his book and been inspired by it.

I don't know anything about this chap (though the Chinese grandfather/kung fu thing rings a bell from my visits to Christian bookshops), but IMO the problem that's arisen now could be turned to some sort of advantage. It could be a 'teachable moment', as the Americans say.

Noone is pure and beyond temptation, not even a Christian. That's a banal message that every new Christian needs to hear repeated, especially if their conversion has relied heavily upon other people's testimonies. What the men in prison or other Christians elsewhere now need to consider and discuss is what God's response to Tony might be. What does Jesus say about people who find themselves in this sort of place? How might Christians respond? What should the church require of someone like Tony? Is Tony in a state of repentance, and what difference does that make? None of this discussion should be an attempt to hide the disappointment, but it's necessary because it'll help people move forward in their faith, IMO.

More generally, I agree that these stories about excitement and waywardness followed by conversion can be highly compelling. I sometimes think how 'cool' it would be if I'd led a more debauched life and then had a grand conversion experience.... Churches are fascinated by this sort of thing, even sensible MOTR churches. Such a background enhances one's status in the church - there's no denying it. And for men, hearing a life story like Tony's reinforces the masculine potential of entering the Christian faith as the outcome of a great struggle, rather than the genteel summary of a careful upbringing, or of bookish thoughtfulness, or whatever. But the current situation shows that discernment is always required, and no one should be put on a pedestal.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I assume the sequel is that he will have a long talk with Christ about his failings as a miserable sinner and Christ will forgive him and tell him to go back on the lecture/autobiography trail.

His website seems to indicate he's not ready to fess up to his 'failings and sinfulness' just yet.

Hopefully he will find redemption. [Votive]

This reminds me very much of Mike Warnke. He seems to still maintain his story (according to his website) twenty years later. [Votive]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
He seems to still maintain his story (according to his website) twenty years later.

With considerable changes .. the coven of over a 1000 people has shrunk to 13 people of whom most of which are said to be dead (and the rest he no longer knows the whereabouts of).

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

... gosh, how convenient (sorry, that should be sad?) [Killing me]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Latest update by the Evangelical Alliance UK: Link here.

Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on :

Why aren't people more angry about this Charlatan?!! Sadly this lame and half hearted response to this con man typifies the larger Christian community. There is nothing wrong with some cynicism and wrath where approriate....and in this case it IS appropriate. This man has done so much damage to the Christian cause.

In my church the home groups were studying a series of Tony Antony DVDs for a while last year: he struck me then as a bit odd, so I looked him up on the internet, and a two minute search raised all sorts of odd questions. So I got ahold of his book and nearly laughed my socks off when I read it, most of it taken straight from some 1980's martial arts computer game - pure fantasy! Anyway I tactfully raised my doubts with others in my home group and church who seemed to lap up his every word and claim unquestioningly, but they gently 'humored' me and said I was wrong and that it was all absolutely true and he was a very interesting, powerful man (vomit). Upshot was I left my home group because I wasn't prepared to watch any more of his stuff or even debate it.

Sadly, in my experience too few Christians are prepared to question people like this. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. It makes me so angry. And now what, do I go back to my home group and say 'told you so!' No I won't, I expect the matter will quietly be tucked away and never mentioned again. The man should be publically shamed. He killed someone in a hit and run for goodness sake, and even had the nerve to use this as part of his 'testimony' when all the time he was profiting from the lies he told.

Jesus told us to beware because wolves would come in sheeps clothing.

Tony Anthony is one such wolf.

Posted by chive (# 208) on :

I think one of the odd bits is the discrepancy about his age when he married. Presumably he had to complete a marriage registration form and I believe knowingly completing these things wrong falls under the Perjury Act 1911 and is therefore liable for criminal prosecution.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
This man has done so much damage to the Christian cause.
[...]
I expect the matter will quietly be tucked away and never mentioned again. The man should be publically shamed.

To be fair though, if everyone quietly forgets the whole thing then where is the 'damage'?

This isn't the church as I know it but I'm curious; if this sort of thing happens regularly in churches that put people on pedestals then presumably there's also a natural response that kicks in when they fall off said pedestals? Does everyone just go quiet, as you say? Perhaps the big public apologies and offers of forgiveness are also part of this culture. I don't know. But presumably this guy will be 'shamed' simply by virtue of this whole thing coming out. He might have to turn Methodist or URC if he wants to start all over again in a church that's never heard of him!!

This isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened, and it won't be the last.

[ 19. July 2013, 18:02: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chive:
I think one of the odd bits is the discrepancy about his age when he married. Presumably he had to complete a marriage registration form and I believe knowingly completing these things wrong falls under the Perjury Act 1911 and is therefore liable for criminal prosecution.

Yes but mistakes on certificates are not unknown. Ie he could have given his correct age to the local Registrar (and proved it by producing a birth certificate or similar) but the officiating clergyperson may have written it down wrongly.

At the time he was married there was a rather more cavalier approach to checks - they are now much more robust following recent "marriage" scandals.

Posted by Karl Kroenen (# 16822) on :

quote:
To be fair though, if everyone quietly forgets the whole thing then where is the 'damage'?..... Perhaps the big public apologies and offers of forgiveness are also part of this culture.

And it continues....

quote:
Yes but mistakes on certificates are not unknown. Ie he could have given his correct age to the local Registrar (and proved it by producing a birth certificate or similar) but the officiating clergyperson may have written it down wrongly.

At the time he was married there was a rather more cavalier approach to checks - they are now much more robust following recent "marriage" scandals.

Exclamation Mark and SV2 - this sort of attitude is the whole frickin' problem, already people like you are starting make excuses for him, and to talk about simply forgiving and moving on!

Forgive, sure, providing he's willing to accept it, but don't FORGET! The guy's a WOLF in sheeps clothing taking everyone for a ride. He's made a living by pulling the wool over people's eyes, and most of the Christian church is just too damn naive to see it! Already on his website he's BS'ing that he's just realised he made 'factual errors' and now information has come to light concerning his family history he realises it wasn't quite factually but was true as he saw it...like DUH! You sayin' you didn't purposly lie to a welcoming community!

Anyone looked at what the judge said following his trial for perverting the course of justice, racial abuse (etc...) that he glossed over in his book, check it out, a very different story emerges in reality - he's a manipulative devious individual who wove a web of lies in a desperate attempt to avoid taking resonsibility for his crimes (yes they were crimes).

With the amount of handwrining do-gooders out there it wouldn't surprise me if this fraud wasn't back in business in 12 months time espousing more plaguirised BS. [Disappointed]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
To be fair though, if everyone quietly forgets the whole thing then where is the 'damage'?

The damage is the creation of a culture where the Noble Lie is accepted - whilst the Gospel should be about Truth. And there are plenty of casualties - usually the teenagers in such churches who then decide everything ever told to them is false, and that their parents are liars.

quote:

Does everyone just go quiet, as you say? Perhaps the big public apologies and offers of forgiveness are also part of this culture. I don't know.

The culture is that if he had been exposed to be having an affair or something there may have been a big tearful apology and a public restoration of sorts, however the type of offense probably means a quiet forgetfulness - and he'll pop up in other circles who will insist that at least part of his story must be true, and oh look at the people he brings to Christ. So no, it's not about forgiveness, at least not in any real sense. It's more about preserving power structures.

This is the kind of thing Gamaliel often brings up in other threads about evangelicalism.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sadly, it is. Don't get me wrong. I've got a lot of time for evangelicalism but it really ought to clear the shit out of its Augean Stables.

A good place to start would be to 'fess up to swallowing bull-shit whenever that happens.

It's the failure to acknowledge bollocks when it happens and to inculcate an overly dualistic and unrealistic approach to life that is to blame.

It comes with the territory, though.

It's hard to imagine evangelicalism without the bullshit but if it scrubs and swishes hard enough it might clear some of the crap.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:
Exclamation Mark and SV2 - this sort of attitude is the whole frickin' problem, already people like you are starting make excuses for him, and to talk about simply forgiving and moving on!

Forgive, sure, providing he's willing to accept it, but don't FORGET!

If the guy's guilty of crimes then he should be punished according to the law. And I never said that the church should treat this man's behaviour as though it were nothing. In fact, in a previous post I implied that this man's attitude should influence the church's response. If he's not in a place of true humility and repentance then the church is certainly under no obligation to offer him a free ride of any sort.

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles

The damage is the creation of a culture where the Noble Lie is accepted - whilst the Gospel should be about Truth. And there are plenty of casualties - usually the teenagers in such churches who then decide everything ever told to them is false, and that their parents are liars.

I feel that most churches have difficulties with openness and hence create casualties, but I accept that situations like this one with Tony create casualties in a more dramatic and immediate way.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think that's a fair point, SvitlanaV2. I'd suggest that what happens within evangelicalism is generally a more 'realised' or apparent version of what happens everywhere else.

Because the spirituality is rather more 'full-on' then the mistakes/failings can be rather more immediate and spectacular too.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl Kroenen:

quote:
[QUOTE] Yes but mistakes on certificates are not unknown. Ie he could have given his correct age to the local Registrar (and proved it by producing a birth certificate or similar) but the officiating clergyperson may have written it down wrongly.

At the time he was married there was a rather more cavalier approach to checks - they are now much more robust following recent "marriage" scandals.
Exclamation Mark and SV2 - this sort of attitude is the whole frickin' problem, already people like you are starting make excuses for him

I'm sorry if you thought I'm making excuses for him - I'm not at all. I pointed out how easy it might be to make a mistake about a number.

I've seen it happen in a church I've attended - in that case an innocent transcription of a Registrar's error. I've also seen 2 instances of it being misrecorded by a year - someone having a birthday between the Registrar sending out the form and the wedding ceremony taking place.

That said, I share your concern about what he's done and the reaction to it. IMHO such action, deliberate deception brings into question whether he should ever speak publicly again.

I didn't rate the guy when I first came across him -- there was a sense of it all being too good to be true. I made my concerns plain within the context of my own church.

I also share the concerns that have been raised here and elsewhere about so called "celebrity" conversion stories. Tbh I'm not over interested in hearing sermons from well known speakers nor stories from celebrity conversions. I'm much more interested in listening to the ministers and clergy who keep alive for God in some tough and under appreciated areas (and who'll never seek or get national recognition) and in listening to the stories of how God is working in the life of people who are ordinary in the eyes of many, but special in God's eyes.

I don't need public or celebrity endorsement for God's Kingdom. To seek that simply looks to me like another fad or homage to consumerism.

Yes the evangelical constituency has its own issues with this kind of thing - but it (they) isn't/aren't alone. People once hung on every word that Steve Chalke uttered; Anglicans have an Archbishop, Catholics a Pope, NFI - Terry Virgo and now, his son. Evangelicals just have to be careful IMHO that in condemning the practices of others, they also root out the canker in their own ranks.

[ 20. July 2013, 07:33: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Anglicans have several Archbishops, and I would have thought it was pretty clear from the flak that Archbishops Justin, Katherine et al have received that Anglicans are in little danger of pre-emptively canonising their senior clergy.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Spot on (and before someone snarkily points out that K J-S isn't technically an Archbishop, the difference here is not relevant). Anglican Archbishops (and Presiding Bishops) generally exercise, in Weberian terms, a combination of traditional and legal-rational authority: they don't, generally, rely on charismatic (in Weberian rather than theological terms) authority. Which is not to deny that the arrangement might have its problems, but they are likely to be different in kind from those in the case under discussion here.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Some years ago a group of church leaders from Our Town - myself included - went to meet Tony Anthony in his office. I had never heard of the guy and was decidedly suspicious (for the same reasons as ExclamationMark - i.e. a distrust of "Christian celebrity"). Everyone else came out of the meeting raving about him and saying, "We must get him to do a mission here" - which he did.

I am not claiming any "gift of discernment" but I just didn't like the guy! There was some sort of apparent over-confidence about him which immediately turned me off him. That isn't to say I thought he was a rogue - I didn't. But I was not at all convinced by his story and I felt that there was some kind of innate aggression about him which I found disquieting.

All very subjective impressions, I know; and little more than a mismatch of personality types. I am sad to discover that my "hunches" were actually based on something more substantial.

[ 20. July 2013, 09:09: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I feel that most churches have difficulties with openness and hence create casualties, but I accept that situations like this one with Tony create casualties in a more dramatic and immediate way.

The issue is that these things end up being a lot more foundational in evangelical circles - so the end result is more dramatic.

The closest parallel I can think of is an inerrantist coming into contact with even the mildest forms of higher criticism.

and actually - what Albertus just said - the difference between the various forms of Weberian authority is the most apt framework for this discussion

[ 20. July 2013, 10:04: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

chris stiles

Ironically, this problem must be exacerbated by the fact that evangelical churches have more young people in the first place. The dangers of Christian celebrity culture can't be much of an issue for some of the more traditional churches if they don't have very many young people in the first place.

Perhaps these different kinds of congregations end up with similar demographic challenges but for different reasons.

[ 20. July 2013, 11:23: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :

I notice that Antony has published a response on this website defending himself. I'm not sure whether I know who to believe or how to decide. Perhaps I'm just naive.

Posted by markporter (# 4276) on :

quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I notice that Antony has published a response on this website defending himself. I'm not sure whether I know who to believe or how to decide. Perhaps I'm just naive.

Oops. I somehow missed the second page of the thread.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think there are some very good points here from all sides - not that I see a great deal of 'opposition' here but we are all coming at this from slightly different angles.

I'm not surprised that both ExclamationMark and Baptist Trainfan were ahead of the game to a certain extent in terms of discernment ... I'm not trying to butter either guy up but on the whole my experience of Baptists has been that they are reasonably good at sussing out things that are iffy or suspect.

Where I would part company with ExclamationMark to some extent is his attempt to correlate 'celebrity status' in this sense with the role of bishops, Popes, new-church style 'apostles' and so on as if somehow Baptists are immune from this particular tendency. I don't believe that is true at all. You can get Popes and celebrities at a congregational level just as much as you can in an episcopal, presbyterian or any other kind of setting.

Besides, if he thinks that Anglican bishops are put on a pedestal either by their own diocesan clergy or by the faithful in the pews then he obviously hasn't had that much experience of Anglicanism ... [Killing me]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think SvitlanaV2 is on the money though, with the comment that there are different demographic challenges according to age profiles and so on.

Here where I live, the local liberal-catholic Anglican parish is losing young people and young families to the evangelical one precisely because the evangelical one has yoof-work and lots more going on for families and so on ... even if a lot of it is, in my own view, dumbed-down to an excruciating degree.

The concern I have is that whilst it's great to have a young and vibrant congregation the corrolary of that so often is that it feeds a kind of adolescent spirituality ... and that's when incidents like this occur.

People are so desperate for 'success' and good news and so on that they'll swallow almost anything at times. It's a bold pastor or church-leader who can take a stand against this sort of thing. I congratulate ExclamationMark and Baptist Trainfan for having done so.

More power to both their elbows ...

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

You are too kind! I didn't "take a stand" - I merely felt uncomfortable with the man. But I certainly wasn't enthusiastic, unlike my (more Evangelical) colleagues, who seemed very taken by him.

To answer the OP, it may be too simplistic to suggest that Philippians 1:15-18 applies; this ends: "The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached".

[ 20. July 2013, 17:27: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

1. I'm not surprised that both ExclamationMark and Baptist Trainfan were ahead of the game to a certain extent in terms of discernment ... I'm not trying to butter either guy up but on the whole my experience of Baptists has been that they are reasonably good at sussing out things that are iffy or suspect.

2. Where I would part company with ExclamationMark to some extent is his attempt to correlate 'celebrity status' in this sense with the role of bishops, Popes, new-church style 'apostles' and so on as if somehow Baptists are immune from this particular tendency. I don't believe that is true at all. You can get Popes and celebrities at a congregational level just as much as you can in an episcopal, presbyterian or any other kind of setting.

3. Besides, if he thinks that Anglican bishops are put on a pedestal either by their own diocesan clergy or by the faithful in the pews then he obviously hasn't had that much experience of Anglicanism ...

1. Well, it does help having a minister friend who is an ex prisoner and who knows a few dodges from both sides. I'm not sure how much discernment I actually exercised on the ground .... it just didn't seem right. The church I'm part of (rather more con evo than Trainfan's) would probably be the kind of territory very open to TA but there were others who also had reservations.

Trouble is I have an in built detector for a bit of a story that is the truth + additions or not the truth. I spent 17 years in retail finance and heard every story under the sun as to why people couldn't pay their mortgages. In ministry I've picked up the pieces when a former poster boy pastor went wrong, so I've seen spiritual deceit at first hand. TA had all the hallmarks - esp the spectacular stuff that couldn't be verified for security reasons.

2. Yes well it was tongue in cheek, hence the reference to Steve Chalke. I might just as easily referred to certain others in BUGB who are idolised ... or even in my last church where a predecessor was lionised 25 years after he'd left.

3. (Screams) you mean to say that not everyone has a picture of their Bishop on the living room wall? Now I know why I left the Anglican church after 15 years.....

[ 20. July 2013, 17:58: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Biased]

Having a sense that all isn't quite as it seems counts as discernment in my book.

Of course, it's more than that too.

What worries me, and I've seen it happen and it's happened to me, is when we allow apparent glitz or pzazz to over-ride our unease in such circumstances. I've gone along with a whole load of things that I wished I'd spoken out on or opposed more vociferously.

That said, I have also opposed things when I've felt it necessary - in all the church settings I've been involved in.

We don't any of us get it right all the time.

I still think, though, that there is some settings - not necessarily all evangelical or charismatic by any means - that are more intrinsically open to deception.

I suspect an overly simplistic cause-and-effect and let's focus on the upbeat form of spirituality is part of the problem.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Here where I live, the local liberal-catholic Anglican parish is losing young people and young families to the evangelical one precisely because the evangelical one has yoof-work and lots more going on for families and so on ... even if a lot of it is, in my own view, dumbed-down to an excruciating degree.

The concern I have is that whilst it's great to have a young and vibrant congregation the corrolary of that so often is that it feeds a kind of adolescent spirituality ... and that's when incidents like this occur.

All the same, I think it's a bit harsh to criticise Christian parents for moving to a 'yoof' church when their children are indeed 'yoof'. Maybe Christian parents these days have to be pragmatic on behalf of their children, since the surrounding culture is such infertile ground for the transmission of the faith. And we shouldn't be expecting our churches to provide all of our theological education anyway - so I'm told.

Liberal-Catholicism isn't going to disappear (so long as the CofE keeps subsidising it!!), so after 10-20 years or so of Christian celeb culture and dumbed-down worship songs, the family can still return to their roots. Perhaps liberal-Catholicism is a bit like opera - best enjoyed by old folks.

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
I notice that Antony has published a response on this website defending himself. I'm not sure whether I know who to believe or how to decide. Perhaps I'm just naive.

That reminds me of Lance Armstrong. Just before the report was published, he wrote a piece defending himself and arguing the enforcing body had taken agin him. It was plausible and I wanted to believe it. Subsequent events have undermined it rather....

Carys

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

As far as I can tell, all the defense on his website consists of is:

I was told the old guy who taught me kung-fu was my grandad, but he wasn't
I dramatised some dialogue
I changed some names to protect people
This stuff is normal for the genre

This doesn't come within a country mile of answering the detailed critique.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I think you need to add the Scripture passages he quotes which basically seem to say, "Every faithful servant of God is bound to encounter opposition and criticism; what I'm going through is par for the course so hey! I must be doing things right".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

What should churches do? Tell the truth and shame the devil? And find a loving way to do that?

I think there is a deeper issue at work. One of the formative books I read in the late 50's/early 60's while still in my teens was Vance Packard's The Hidden Persuaders. Basically about manipulation by advertising, it opened my mind at least to the different ways in which persuasive hooks are lowered into human minds to achieve desired effects. I've lived long enough to see the relatively primitive but quite effective techniques in use then become more sophisticated and more generally applied in fields such as politics, news media and, yes, religious prosyletisation. I don't think fraudulent statements for effect are anything new, by the way. What is new is the development of powerful manipulative techniques.

I guess we all need to face an uncomfortable truth which is that we all edit our own personal history, sometimes to avoid shame, sometimes to make ourselves more interesting, sometimes just for the sake of a good story. We don't need much encouragement to do that, but living in a culture which is generally "economical with the actualité" makes it easier to justify to ourselves.

The problem of ubiquitous lying and evasion is that it has created a general distrust of the truth of the spoken word. Chris Froome has just discovered this in the Tour de France. Lance Armstrong has done more than just damage himself by making a career out of cheating and lying about it. And that example can be multiplied.

I think the real message for the church in our culture is to put a lot more emphasis on deeds than words. Words on their own have been largely deprived of their power to convince anyone. And so far as "shiny testimonies" go, treat them with a large pinch of salt, whether they are written or spoken. They may be salve for itching ears, but truth is not always comfortable and is often messy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I wasn't criticising people with families from the liberal-catholic parish for attending the evangelical parish for the yoof work, SvitlanaV2. I was simply stating a fact. We gravitated towards the evangelical parish when we moved here because we both come from evangelical backgrounds - although I've been on a trajectory away from that to some extent - and because our kids were of a similar age to the vicar's and because there was yoof-work there.

What I was doing was criticising the evangelical parish of dumbing things down.

Yes, I agree that more traditional forms of Anglicanism appeal to older people. It appeals to me now I'm in my 50s in a way it didn't appeal when I was in my 20s and 30s.

Posted by Zebra (# 17773) on :

Discrepancies with his date of birth were certainly no mistake. There was a wrong date of birth not only for his marriage.

according to http://crosswire.org.uk/tag/tony-anthony/:

"He used his correct date of birth on official records when he registered Avanti Ministries Ltd in 2003; but two years later he submitted a change of details form to Companies House amending his birth year to 1969."

"The most surprising aspect of the court case is that Tony Anthony was convicted using a false date of birth.

A certificate of conviction released by Reading Crown Court shows his date of birth as 7th August 1969 rather than the true date of birth, 30th July 1971."

Posted by David Matthias (# 14948) on :

Soul Survivor had to deal with similar with that Pastor's son who was healed of cancer, wrote a song, then it turned out he did not have cancer but was addicted to pornography. I don't see the link but that was the story.

I think the days of the traveling testimony are greatly diminished. I remember seeing the "jellyfish man" and wondering about it.

It's not that I am even accusing him of lying, but I do think quite a lot of it is unverifiable.

It certainly makes me consider that real stories from real people in your own congregation who you can vouch for might be a little less sexy in terms of marketing but reduce the risk of egg on face in the medium term.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by David Matthias:

I think the days of the traveling testimony are greatly diminished. I remember seeing the "jellyfish man" and wondering about it.

Just correlate it with every other person who claims to have had the same experience and discount it appropriately.

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

Some bookshops are now apparently offering to refund money against the return of Tony Anthony's books.

This site also has a very good series of questions the bookshop asked Avanti, without getting any answers from them.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

National press now on it: link to The Grauniad.

Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on :

quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
This reminds me very much of Mike Warnke. He seems to still maintain his story (according to his website) twenty years later.

My.
God.
I remember our family going to see one of his comedy shows when I was young. Back then, I thought his worst quality was his love of fast food.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wesley J:
National press now on it: link to The Grauniad.

Amusingly a quick google will show that questions about his story were raised up to 6-7 years ago on various martial arts forums. They questioned the implausibility of some of his claims - for example his claim to have carried a cauldron full of molten steel with his bare elbows, his claim of wrestling with a wild white tiger in South China (both straight out of chop socky films).

It seems as a result of a lack of citations his wikipedia page was deleted at least once.

The christian community was predictably a lot more gullible.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I hereby promise that I was boring, am boring, but nevertheless that my life has been transformed by Jesus. Who is not boring.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Mr Anthony was taken at face value by people who invested a lot in his being the real deal.

Those people - and churches - should examine why they feel a need for conversion testimony and heroics rather than the day-to-day heroism of people who just get on with life.

Churches that welcomed him must 'fess up to their congregations and take the flak.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Mr Anthony was taken at face value by people who invested a lot in his being the real deal.

Those people - and churches - should examine why they feel a need for conversion testimony and heroics rather than the day-to-day heroism of people who just get on with life.

Kinda, sorta. In idly googling I found a couple of links:

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60260&page=57&p=2405231&viewfull=1#post2405231

http://www.bullshido.net/forums/showthread.php?t=60260&page=58&p=2407677&viewfull=1#post2407677

The original thread goes back to sometime in 2007. The posts there are dated 2010.

If you look at the information put up by EA and others - the impression (perhaps unintentionally) given is that new information that has recently come to light - specifically the claims about his ethnicity, the claims about being a bodyguard for a Saudi Ambassador, the claims of plagiarism. Yet it is clear that at least 3 years ago various people had contacted his co-writer and publisher to make them aware of this information.

The EA doesn't go into the ludicrous nature of some of his other claims (to have driven a camel across 190km of the Empty Quarter, to have carried a cauldron of molten metal - straight out of a shaw bros film).

Without a full mea culpa the impression given is that of a cover up - not in the conspiratorial sense - but rather that the various parties involved (including the EA) would prefer it if the entire affair was forgotten as soon as possible.

[ 30. July 2013, 10:14: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Maybe they should start with looking at various things they could have checked and didn't - for instance

Saudi Arabia has never had an ambassador to Cyprus
the name of TA's grandfather being the same as a famous US chinese-impersonating magician (Chung Ling Soo - died 1918 London when bullet-catching trick went wrong)
Riyadh's Le Meridien hotel didn't open until 2006 (+ TA spells the name wrong)
hostile takeovers were pretty rare in the 1980s
the Saudi stock exchange didn't open to foreigners until 2011
the Al Yamamah Saudi/UK arms deal was signed in 1985 - it is inconceivable that a Saudi diplomat would have dealt with small-scale arms dealers around the same time
for any diplomat being ambassador in London would be the pinnacle of their career - they wouldn't go backwards to Italy and Cyprus (or Malta)
if he was at school in London in his teens why can't he produce school friends to verify this bit of his story

For the EA to claim that doubts about TA's story have come as a bolt from the blue is not credible: there have been doubts all over the web since 2008; the big question is why is the EA still in denial?

If the EA still refuses to row back on its cosy relationship with TA then I'd suggest churches should consider their relationship with the EA as a matter of some urgency.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

For the EA to claim that doubts about TA's story have come as a bolt from the blue is not credible: there have been doubts all over the web since 2008; the big question is why is the EA still in denial?

I agree with you - and from outside it is hard to see it as anything other than a form of damage limitation ("I'm shocked, shocked!").

I have a theory that the more 'miraculous' and 'spectacular' claims have been left unquestioned by the EA because of the prevalence of such claims among a certain segment of high-profile evangelists - and also a fear of seeming to cast doubt on the 'supernatural'.

The EA has a habit of trying to see which way the wind is blowing and then jumping to the winning side while trying to keep all their constituents happy (their report on prosperity theology was a very good example of this).

[ 30. July 2013, 12:31: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

Latest: EA kicks out Avanti. Phew...

Posted by Jonah the Whale (# 1244) on :

Does anyone have any (polite) suggestions about what I can do with a signed copy of Taming the Tiger?

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Does anyone have any (polite) suggestions about what I can do with a signed copy of Taming the Tiger?

Post it back to them with a letter saying why you are returning it and expressing your disappointment/anger/whatever else.

Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Does anyone have any (polite) suggestions about what I can do with a signed copy of Taming the Tiger?

Ebay?

Posted by Plique-à-jour (# 17717) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jonah the Whale:
Does anyone have any (polite) suggestions about what I can do with a signed copy of Taming the Tiger?

Read it again and laugh.

Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on :

The (questionable) man in question is now upside down:

Kiwi news article.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Lets hope the NZ press keep on digging...

Posted by maybury (# 17926) on :

All have sinned and fallen short . . . " so I would not expect anyones story to be completely accurate.
Someone who gets respect for a dramatic life story will be tempted to embellish that but having done so it is hard to correct. I know that I have said things in the past that I now know to be wrong. Thankfully they were not in print.
Someone coming from a life of crime will understandably take time to purify their lives.
None of this is to defend the lies but to avoid the false simplification that anyone who lies is all evil, otherwise that should apply to all of us not just those in the spotlight.
Tony has admitted most of his past mistakes. The basis of his conversion and his connection with Michael Wright seem verifiably true.
We are told to judge on the basis of "by their fruits you shall know them" .
Tony did some events near us that I was involved in. He did so free of charge, worked hard whilst he was here. I wondered if he was trying to "work his salvation". He didn't want to talk about his past other but about God's redemption.
If lying is his temptation then it is not surprising that he falls that way again. What are your temptations and have you fallen that way since conversion.
I'm glad this has been investigated and brought into the open but lets also look at ourselves and particularly religious institutions who seem overly keen to destroy the good rather than just expose the wrong. We all need correcting, and forgiveness.

Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :

quote:
I would not expect anyones story to be completely accurate.

This is an exceedingly generous interpretation of Mr. Anthony's weak grasp of what the term "accuracy" means to most of us.

The New Zealand Tribune article (Oct. 22, 2013), linked by Wesley J: article, refers to ...

...

quote:
Mr. Anthony's admission that parts of his story are "no longer historically accurate."

No Longer Historically Accurate ! Are we to infer that his claims WERE "accurate" at the time he wrote them but have, magically, become false? If so, something truly miraculous has occurred.

Mr. Anthony was not just selling books and collecting fees (though that seems to have been a big part of his job description). He was witnessing to an extraordinary conversion experience and setting himself up as an exemplar for others. I don't know why certain faith communities get taken in by charismatic figures like Mr. Anthony, or even why they find such people charismatic. This thread has offered a number of plausible explanations. The negative consequences, however, are multiple. One of the worst, it seems to me, is that his story confirms for many in the outside world a common prejudice: that "faith" is synonymous with credulity.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Maybury, welcome to the Ship!

Please take the time to read our Ten Commandments and board posting guidelines and introduce yourself if you wish on the "welcome aboard" thread in All Saints.

Eutychus
Purgatory Host

Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by maybury:
All have sinned and fallen short . . . " so I would not expect anyones story to be completely accurate.
Someone who gets respect for a dramatic life story will be tempted to embellish that but having done so it is hard to correct. I know that I have said things in the past that I now know to be wrong. Thankfully they were not in print.

Here the problem isn’t in the story not being “completely accurate” – it’s more a case of trying to find the small percentage that is accurate.

quote:
Tony has admitted most of his past mistakes. The basis of his conversion and his connection with Michael Wright seem verifiably true.

Nobody has called into question the circumstances of his conversion and connection with Michael Wright. What has been called into question is pretty much everything he says about his pre-conversion life. In an interview on Premier Radio, John Langlois, chairman of the EA panel, said that if he were to remove everything that was fabricated – not just exaggerated but fabricated – he’d be left with a “very thin pamphlet”.

Tony has admitted to minor errors in the book. He has not admitted that he made most of it up. More specifically he has not admitted that he did not spend his childhood in China, that he was not a Kung Fu champion and that he did not work in close protection. The EA would not have taken the action it took for anything less serious than this as evidenced by its report on page 5 of the November/December issue of its magazine.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Im so tired of hearing this "we are all sinners so just be nice to people that harm others and let them walk all over everybody without obstruction because thats what the bible says"

Michael Wright unknowingly taught a career conman that christians are easy targets and many of them will believe anything you say and be extremely generous if you tell them what they want to hear.

Tony Anthony has been working those moves ever since and looks to have taught a few other criminals the game too.

Try to out christian me as much as you want but thats how it is.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I recall some words in respect of one of the most notorious liars in British public life. John Stonehouse. After investigation of his business affairs, the Department of Trade inspectors came out with this memorable bit of prose.

quote:
Mr. Stonehouse personally instigated falsification of records and indulged in misrepresentations in an attempt to hide the illegalities which had taken place and to avoid his own actual or potential criminal and civil liabilities for them. In relation to the subject of our investigation we concluded that for Mr. Stonehouse truth was a moving target

An MP in the Commons. commenting on another matter which Stonehouse may have been involved in, said this.

quote:
If, in that respect, those words are fair comment, why not in other respects?

That's the distinction I would always draw. Proven liars in one area make bloody awful witnesses in any other. Losing your credibility in this respect may not take very long, recovering it, even to a limited extent, may take the rest of your life.

Tony Anthony was taken on face value and trusted. He didn't just let himself down, he let down everyone else who had trusted him.

Now is that forgiveable? Yes it is. Does that mean that following forgiveness he is to be trusted once again to be telling the truth? No it does not. That is not retaining unforgiveness. It's just about being wise.

Tony Anthony is 7 doors deep in the doghouse by his own actions. Sure he can helped out of that. Repentance and restoration are always possible. But it can be a long, slow, process, and rightly so. Old habits can die hard, despite the best of intentions. In these circumstances the verification of trust can take many years.

There is actually a rather good New Testament example. If you read Paul's own personal testimony in Galatians 1 and 2, you'll see something interesting. There are at least 17 years between his conversion after his persecution of Christians and the blessing conveyed by the church on his missionary journey with Barnabas. It needs to be remembered that he consented to the death of Stephen.

That period whizzes over in Acts, and there are some harmonisation issues as well. But it seems clear that it was a long, long time before he was trusted with the major responsibility of missionary to the Gentiles. Even then, he wasn't sent off alone, but with Barnabas, who by the brief accounts in scripture was a "good egg". To work with him and keep an eye on him? Seems likely!

And before that, the consistency of his change of heart, mind, soul and life was tested by various duties and confirmed by independent reports. It's all there, in his own words.

That ought to tell us something about him. In the opening to the letter he is reminding readers of his scabby past and his long rehabilitation. He needs to do that because he is about to launch headlong into a major controversy in the early church and give his passionate views about what it true. One of the most remarkable books in the New Testament (and Galatians is in many respects an astonishing book) is launched by someone for whom trust was an issue because of his past.

Forgiveness, rehabilitation, trust are sensitive matters. It's a good idea not to mix them up.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

Yes that all makes sense but has no relevance as Tony Anthony has shown no signs of repetance in fact quite the opposite so I for one will hold onto my forgiveness until he does.

He was a big con man and has been demoted to a small one , i am not expecting him to become an appostle anytime soon.

And yes yes I know all things are possible but not all things are likely.

Posted by PDA (# 16531) on :

http://gavindrake.co.uk/2014/03/25/when-christians-lie-to-abuse-the-truth/

For your perusal

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

C.S. Lewis pointed out that we should not offer the God of Truth the unclean sacrifice of a lie.

Moo

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0