Julie Roys: December 2024 Update

A journalist sacrifices her integrity in service of anti-trans narratives

I published my first article on Julie Roys treatment of trans people in July 2023. For those unfamiliar, Julie Roys is a Christian investigative journalist, whose primary work is reporting on abuses within the American evangelical church. This will be an update on what’s transpired since then, along with updates on how I will treat her work going forward, and finally a suggestion for her to build bridges.

I wish the developments were more positive. I really do. I wish I could tell you a story about a journalist whose devotion to truth drives her to understand even those she finds different. One whose empathy compels her to engage those different from her in an effort to learn about their experiences. One who refuses to compromise her integrity, even when the facts are inconvenient to her preconceived notions.

But those are not the facts I have available.

“What do we do when the facts… are not kind?” - Abigail Thorn

Photo of me at Bryce Canyon National Park

Before we dive in, I wanted to share this photo. In part because this photo needed a feature graphic, in part because I felt cute in it, but also because I know that Roys has a love of hiking through scenic areas such as this. Recently, in large part due to the anti-trans campaigning of the American evangelical church, Congress appears to be preparing to pass a bill that would make it impossible for me (a transgender woman) to go to National Parks anymore¹. There is a good chance such a bill will pass once Donald Trump takes office. In light of that, on December 8th I went and visited Zion National Park and Bryce Canyon National Park, neither of which I had seen before. I only got a couple hours in each, and that may be all I ever get.

The point I want to make to Roys: the anti-trans views so prevalent within the church, which you have supported at times, may make it impossible for me to enjoy something you love deeply. Think about that.

Where we left off

In that original article, I covered several topics. I also discussed some of this, as well as my decision to write about Roys, as a guest on the Thereafter podcast with Meghan Crozier and Cortland Coffey.

My appreciation for much of her work

I believe Christians (and churches) should welcome accountability, even be eager for it. I also agree with Julie Roys’ take on a Christian approach to investigative journalism and believe that my work here falls well within what Roys describes in her paper on the subject.

I also expressed appreciation for her work, which I still believe has helped shed light on situations that needed it.

A history of misinformation

Roys has spread multiple false claims about trans people. I continue to believe that, at the time, she did not know she was wrong. That’s a journalistic error, but journalists aren’t perfect. My request to her, both privately and then publicly, was to correct the record, as is standard journalistic practice. She has failed to do so.

There comes a point where the failure to correct past misinformation is better understood as intentional rather than accidental. Roys is very aware of my previous article, and has therefore chosen not to address it publicly, despite repeated calls from myself and others. In Christian parlance, this is a violation of the ninth commandment, as Roys bears false witness² against transgender people.

The specific claims she has made which are false are as follows, all of which are extensively documented, with my analysis, in the previous post:

1. That gender affirming care increases suicidality for those with gender dysphoria, when it in fact does the opposite.

2. That conversion therapy for both gay and trans people, or some version of it, can be effective.

3. That the inclusion of trans women will “destroy” women’s sports.

4. That the allowance of trans women into women’s spaces creates a danger to cisgender women.

5. That transgender Christians are embracing the “heresy” of “Gnosticism” and “aiding Satan”. Also, that same-sex unions are “essentially symbolic blasphemy”

Platforming Anti-Trans Figures

I do not like “guilt by association”, but sometimes it is relevant. Author Sheila Gregoire, a speaker at Restore 2023, dropped out of Dave Ramsey’s conference to avoid giving him credibility, a decision Julie Roys praised, saying: “I know this was not easy to do, but I believe it was the right decision and God will honor it.”

In Roys’ case, she has platformed Anne Edward, Executive Director and Board Member of Restored Hope Network (an organization that seeks to help people become straight or cisgender), and Kaeley Triller, co-founder of Hands Across The Aisle Coalition (an anti-trans organization). Both individuals are detailed in the previous post.

Lack of Coverage of Abuse of LGBTQ+ People

The Roys Report rarely covers the abuse of LGBTQ+ people in churches, whether physical, sexual, spiritual, or other. This despite research showing that LGBTQ+ people are the one group for whom risk of suicide increases when going to church. Similarly, as far as I am aware, her Restore conference has never had a guest speak about harm done to LGBTQIA+ people.

The abuse of LGBTQ+ people is an epidemic in the white, American evangelical church, and one of the leading voices on abuse in the church is both contributing to it and failing to cover it. According to a 2022 survey by Brandon Flanery, 21%³ of those who had left the church did so because of the lack of LGBTQ+ acceptance. Meanwhile, less than 3% left due to “Abuse/Hiding Abuse.” If Roys’ goal is “Restoring the Church”, this would seem to be a critical part of it.

And this matters, because the failure to deal with the abuse of LGBTQ+ people prevents fully addressing other abuses as well. Emily Joy Allison co-created the #ChurchToo hashtag in November 2017 and has been a prominent voice on it for years, since before The Roys Report even existed. The #ChurchToo movement was a watershed moment just like #MeToo had been. But for the first year of my time in survivor spaces, I constantly saw the same list of books sent around, with their authors featured on the same podcasts. All five authors have spoken at Restore or been guests on Julie Roys’ podcast.

• A Church Called Tov, by Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer (October 2020)

• Something’s Not Right by Wade Mullen (October 2020)

• When Narcissism Comes to Church by Chuck DeGroat (March 2020)

• Redeeming Power by Diane Langberg (October 2020)

These books helped me immensely, but they all have two things in common:

1. None address LGBTQ+ people

2. Of the four, none mention Emily Joy Allison, or LGBT people. DeGroat includes exactly one mention of #ChurchToo, while the others do not (Langberg and McKnight/Barringer each mention #MeToo once).

Allison writes this in her book #ChurchToo, in Chapter 6, and I want to quote at length, especially given my own identity as a polyamorous, transgender lesbian.

If the last three years since the launch of #ChurchToo have taught me anything, it’s that this is the chapter where I start to lose people in droves… when I go one step further (than talking directly about sexualized violence and purity culture) and suggest that to truly dismantle a culture of abuse, you have to not only tolerate but accept, affirm, and celebrate LGBTQ persons and their relationships in all the myriad forms they take, suddenly nobody wants to touch me with a ten-foot pole.⁴

…

But we all knew why. #ChurchToo began when a queer woman came forward about her abuse in the evangelical church.

…

I was basically the worst nightmare of the evangelical Christian purity industrial complex. And they wanted nothing to do with me.⁵

And finally, she lands this point, so often left out of all discussions of abuse:

There is a direct line between the homophobia that is so often justified using the bible and the trauma—and retraumatization—of survivors of sexualized violence in the church.⁶

And I agree entirely about this. Queerphobia leaves queer people vulnerable to sexual abuse within the church and is itself a form of spiritual abuse.⁷

Refusal to take accountability

Despite my efforts to discuss this with her privately first, Roys refused to correct the record on the misinformation publicly. In her final email to me, she pressured me not to say anything publicly, either. Author and therapist Krispin Mayfield addressed it publicly, saying, “This is DARVO/abusive spiritual silencing tacticts (sic) 101 stuff.” She tried to make it seem as though I would be attacking her by publicly talking about what she had said.

Others commented on Mayfield’s post:

• Jordan Emmons: “This is beyond unsurprising. I've had two conversations with Julie, one in-person and one online. In person she defended a comparison of abortion policies to the holocaust. Online she defended her position that feminism isn't compatible with Christianity. I can appreciate the investigative journalism she's done in recent years, but she has not been quiet about where her heart really is.”

• J.S. Park: “YIKES. I’m not the best at seeing red flags but this one is all fire alarms. What a degrading and deflecting reply. Thank you Krispin for bringing this to our attention.”

• Sierra Noel: “Wow. @celestefinally is an amazing human⁸, and this is extraordinarily disappointing to hear from Roys.”

Others called it “gravely disappointing”, “upsetting”, “unacceptable”, and “disturbing.”

The cost of my writing

I have seen many in the survivor space observe something: Being disbelieved is often as bad (or worse) as the original abuse to begin with. That was definitely true for me - the worst damage done to me was not the direct abuse by leaders, it was when my friends sided with those abusers. And Julie Roys agrees:

I think the hardest thing about the journey I've been on is betrayal. I know many survivors of church hurt and/or abuse feel the same way. How can these people we thought were our brothers & sisters turn on us the minute we become a pariah to their faith community? It's hard.

If you are someone who regularly cites Julie Roys, or is speaking at her conference, I’ll have more thoughts later, but for now I ask you to simply keep that in mind as you read this article.

If I can get personal for a moment, I’d like to share what it cost me to write about Julie Roys. The cost of truth telling is often far higher than it should be, as Roys herself points out regularly⁹. This is one reason why it’s such a gut punch to have her fail to respond well when people try to invite her into the same kind of accountability she expects for many of the subjects of her own journalism.

I published my article in July 2023¹⁰. Months before that, I told someone who was a mutual friend (of me and Roys) that I was going to have to write it, and they said they understood¹¹. No pushback, no offer to mediate. Four days after I published it, they subtweeted¹² me. They sided with Roys and not so subtly implied that my article created the same kind of pressure seen in abusive evangelical spaces.

I messaged them to confirm it was aimed at me, and they did. They added that they were now “afraid” of talking to me¹³. They seemed to take particular exception at my pointing out the inappropriate attempts Roys made to try to keep me silent, discussed above. As I will cover later, Roys herself privately¹⁴ apologized to me later for this section as well.

This was a person I deeply respected, who had taught me a lot about holding leaders accountable. But when the leader was their friend? It was all for nothing - they sided with Roys against all evidence. Hours later, I was at the ER with my first ever official panic attack¹⁵.

And so, I lost at least one friend by speaking truth about Julie Roys. Telling the truth always costs more than it should.

But we can lower that cost by understanding two things:

1. Your experience with someone is not everyone’s experience with them.

2. Accountability is not canceling. It’s an opportunity to learn and do better. If they won’t take the opportunity, it becomes a way of keeping a community safe.

If you have critique of the truth teller, consider how best to give that critique. A truth teller isn’t above critique - I made a couple edits to my original article based on feedback. For example, you can ask something like, “Hey so I have questions about this part of what you said - can we talk about that?” That’s reasonable and kind.

Two quotes from a thread by Roys on the subject of supporting whistleblowers¹⁶:

1 of most grievous dynamics I witness in the Church is that righteous whistleblowers fear retribution from Christian leaders. This is evil. Christian leaders should support whistleblowers. And if they don't, that speaks volumes about who these supposed leaders really are.

…

Christians leaders, please support whistleblowers. Christian laypeople, please support whistleblowers.

And witnesses of wrongdoing, use your voice. If you believe God is sovereign, then you must believe He's got you.

There’s a reason I’m not naming the former friend: this isn’t about them. It’s about all of us choosing to learn that an influential figure can do harm, and that no one is above critique.

We’ll be healthier for it.

Further Developments

Since March 2023, Julie Roys has known that I was aware of her anti-trans views. Since July 2023, she’s known many others are as well. The following are the key events that have happened since then¹⁷¹⁸. Each of these has included me (and usually others) pushing back publicly and directly, and in no case did Roys respond to me directly.

The Dove Awards

Julie Roys published an article by Liz Lykins on October 25th, 2023, about Flamy Grant, Derek Webb, and Semler attending The Dove Awards¹⁹. Or rather, it was about the reaction of an anti-LGBTQ+ musician who wasn’t in attendance. The article was titled: “Skillet’s John Cooper ‘Literally Speechless’ Over Dove Awards Controversy, Involving Christian Musicians in Drag”

Roys told me I'd be safe at Restore 2023. Given her past treatment of LGBTQ+ people, I wasn't convinced. Later, when three queer/affirming artists went to the Dove Awards, Roys framed the story through the lens of someone who saw their attendance as bullying conservatives in attendance.

Roys didn't have to report on Flamy Grant, Semler, and Derek Webb attending at all. Or she could have reported on how their music has given hope to so many LGBTQIA+ Christians (including me), like Baptist News Global did here: At the Dove Awards, Section 103 marched to a different beat. But she chose to publish an article with, by my count, more words from Cooper (who wasn't there) than Semler, Webb, Grant, and supporters combined.

So, let's imagine I had showed up to Restore 2023 as my beautiful, Christ-loving transgender self:

Given that, as far as I know²⁰, not one of Roys' speakers was publicly LGBTQ+ affirming, what are the chances someone would've said something like Cooper did? How about if I'd posted a photo of myself with #Restore2023 to social media and people took exception to it?

Would Julie Roys have written about the "Restore 2023 Controversy" around my attendance and social media post? It's not clear to me what the controversy about the Dove Awards even was, other than some people don't like LGBTQ+ people existing.

If a friend of mine had attended and chosen to wear a Pride pin, or even go as far as to cross-dress for the day in support of me²¹, would she have published a story quoting people who weren't there calling us "aggressors"?

Does Roys have any idea the betrayal it would be for me to go & then have that happen? If she says she’d never do that to someone attending your conference, why did she do it with the Dove Awards?

Why should a queer person consider attending her conference in the future?

Others commented with similar sentiments:

• Mae Forrest Barnes: “The continued callous disregard for LGBTQ Christians by [Julie Roys] and her press is unquestionably horrible. She should be ashamed. This is journalistic malpractice.”

• Transvangelical: “Julie is an incredibly dangerous person for queer people. She's awful.”

• Melissa: “It looks like this was written by a freelancer and published by Roys. But still, the perspective that we are the bullies by just trying to exist in Christian spaces is ridiculous”

• KaRAYgeous: “The bullies are the Christians belittling & excluding LGBTQ+ people. The aggressors are in Julie’s comments treating LGBTQ+ people as less than human. I’ve followed Julie for a while for her reporting on church abuse, but I have to unfollow. She has major homophobic blind spots.”

Nashville Statement

Julie Roys is a signer of The Nashville Statement²², an extreme anti-LGBTQ+ statement created by evangelical Christians in 2017, as is Karen Swallow Prior, who has also spoken at Restore. Article 10 states that it is sinful to "approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism (sic)²³". Articles 12-14 appear to say I cannot be Christian.

I confirmed separately with Denny Burk, who helped create the Statement, that a signatory can withdraw their signature at any time²⁴. Roys has not, and therefore it is safe to assume she still affirms these views²⁵. This the clearest evidence of Roys’ strong anti-LGBTQ+ views.

Nashville Statement and Signers

Pastor Zach W. Lambert responded to my post about these two, Russell Moore, and David French signing the statement:

WOW. Thank you for drawing attention to this. I knew about Moore signing it, but had no idea about Roys, Prior, and French.

I remember when it came out and I saw that a friend who was fairly moderate had signed it. I DM'd him to ask why and he said something like, "I don't agree with a lot of it, but did it so I could stay in good graces with the authors."

I was so stunned and angry. People's lives are on the line and folks are out here signing their names to homophobic and transphobic crap for networking purposes? That is so antithetical to the way of Jesus.

DuhThinker²⁶ noted that Roys signed a statement also signed by John MacArthur:

Does @reachjulieroys realize she's striking hands with John MacArthur? She's one of his most outspoken critics.

Other signers Roys has reported critiques of include Paige Patterson, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Ronnie Floyd, and Mike Bickle. Again, I’m not a huge proponent of “guilt by association”, but I wish Roys would consider what it says about the Nashville Statement that so many individuals she reports on seem to like it.

Roys herself critiques the kind of posture that leads to people believing that those who disagree are not Christian:

It's not so much what they believe but how they hold those beliefs, essentially saying those who differ don't get the gospel. That takes an enormous amount of hubris.

Bubba Copeland

On November 2nd, 2023, Julie Roys amplified a story about Bubba Copeland this week with a report on The Roys Report by freelancer Liz Lykins. The reporting focused on Copeland’s "double life". The following screenshot is still live on her Instagram.

The next day, Copeland died by suicide.

Roys also posted the story to Twitter. After Copeland’s death, she chose to hide²⁷ many replies which state or imply that she may share blame for it. For context, remember that she constantly encourages accountability and transparency.

This is exactly the kind of thing that made me publish the original article — LGBTQIA+ folks need to know that Julie Roys is not a safe person for them.

But far from taking any kind of accountability or reconsidering the newsworthiness of her story, Roys attempted to defend her reporting but was factually incorrect in doing so.

To that point, on November 6th, @XianJaneway said to Julie Roys on Twitter, saying, “Rev. Copeland did not commit any crime. In fact, if his name was James Patterson, he'd have been PAID for his work: The Loss of Rev Mayor Bubba Copeland, Part 1.” In response, Roys said, “I don't think that's accurate. His victims are speaking out and the local district attorney is investigating. The results will be presented to a grand jury. (Link).” Importantly, recall that in the original Lykins piece, no crime was alleged. Even if Copeland had committed a crime, that was not the justification for Roys’ decision to publish the story about him originally.

But Roys was wrong.

I commented on Roys’ claim, saying, “Just to be clear, though I'm sure unintentionally, @reachjulieroys is incorrect about this. An investigative journalist should know better than to run with a report that doesn't even name what's being investigated. (Link)”

I also called on her to delete her erroneous tweet. She did not, nor did she respond to either of my posts, nor did I ever see her acknowledge the error in her reporting, a pattern that by now was familiar.

This incident is important because, if one is affirming of LGBTQIA+ people, then most if not all of the details about Copeland’s life included in Lykins original story are perfectly fine²⁸, even for a pastor. And certainly none of them rose to the level of abuse. So, I am left asking: who exactly was this story meant to serve? When I write an article like the one you’re reading, I filter it through a lot of questions, but chief among them is this: what good is accomplished by publishing this²⁹? Copeland was not famous or influential. His church’s YouTube account has seventy-five subscribers. This story was only interesting because a certain subset of Christians, already in the midst of a moral panic about trans people and drag queens and other issues of gender, found Copeland’s behavior to be unacceptable. Those Christians then chose to make it into national gossip, and that appears to have led to Copeland’s suicide.

Here are some other sample comments on Roys’ reporting on Copeland:

• Emily Joy Allison: “I swear to god the next time I see someone sharing J*lie R*ys work on #churchtoo as if she is any way any kind of credible source whatsoever I might actually scream”

• Billie Hoard (here, and here): “This ‘story’ was not newsworthy in any sense beyond gossip. You now own a share of responsibility in what came of its being published and promulgated.” “You were a part of this. (Link to story about Copeland’s death)”

• Transvangelical: “You have blood on your hands.”

• Lina: “Delete this shit and apologize. Witch hunting people you disagree with is NOT the change TheChurch needs”

Discussions of boycott lead to a partial apology

In early December, as Julie Roys reported about the continuing issues surrounding International House of Prayer (IHOPKC), some individuals expressed reservations about sharing her work due in part to what I had written.

When I saw this, I responded and explicitly stated that I was not calling for a boycott, saying, “And just to be clear, I do not advocate for a boycott of @reachjulieroys. But I do want people to be aware of this side of her (and I really want her to grow and do better) and consider how best to interact with her in that light.”

Some back and forth discussion occurred between me and H.L. Griffin of #ACNAToo. I want to quote her at length here because they’re very well-articulated, and I publicly voiced my agreement with her sentiments:

This is really charitable, Celeste.

If another news outlet is covering a story or an aspect of the story, I use them.

If only Roys Report is covering something important, I don't have another option until other press picks it up.

Julie absolutely needs to change how she deals with conflict & how she talks about LGBTQ people, even if she doesn't become fully affirming.

The first move of any ministry that is refusing to reckon with abuse allegations is to create scapegoats & to manufacture Bogeyman to distract the focus away from the sins of leaders & the community. LGBTQ people are usually the first targets of choice.

The way Julie interacts with LGBTQ people & treats their stories reenforces the scapegoating dynamic of abusers & their enablers rather than challenging it.³⁰

In another reply, she acknowledged the importance of Roys’ work on IHOPKC, saying, “Without Julie's coverage on this case, IHOPKC leadership would have been able to do a complete snow job on their followers.”

After that, Roys responded on December 1st, 2023. As near as I can tell, this was the first time she had publicly acknowledged my critique of her treatment of LGBTQ+ people (published four months earlier). I find it significant (for obvious reasons) that it came only after people openly considered whether or not to cite her work anymore. It’s also important to note that she still did not reply to me, but rather to Griffin.

Roys responded with three tweets (here, here, and here), and I want to consider each of them.

All three of Roys’ responses.

Tweet 1: Think of all the good I’ve done

The first tweet reads:

It's interesting that stories like these that we've published go unnoticed.

Gay Christian Jonathan Merritt Shares How He And His Father, SBC’s Dr. James Merritt, ‘Learn to Love Across Difference’

First, this story was published on September 30, 2023, nearly two months after my critique was published. I remain confident in my assessment that Roys’ public statements about LGBTQ+ people are nearly always negative. This story is also not exactly positive toward the younger Merritt’s sexuality, but rather positive towards his continued relationship with his father. Given that, I’m not actually sure the relevance Roys thinks this story has to my critique, which was (and is) primarily about the accuracy of her reporting.

But let’s consider two more troubling aspects.

The first is driven by a question: Why is it “interesting” that these stories go “unnoticed”? What is she implying?

“Think of all the good I’ve done”, is such a common tactic by those seeking to avoid accountability that I’m pretty sure every book I’ve read on the topic of spiritual abuse and toxic leadership discusses it (more on that in a bit). This line is typically only relevant if it’s meant to say one of three things:

1. Publishing this story (and some unknown set of others like it) offsets all of the other concerns people have about her work.

2. People who don’t mention this story (which was not published when I posted my critique) are showing bias that undermines their credibility.

3. Talking about her flaws will potentially prevent her from doing those good things in the future.

I’d like for you to imagine that John MacArthur responded to Julie Roys’ critiques of him with, “It’s interesting that the thousands of people happy with my leadership of Grace Community Church go unnoticed.”³¹ Do you think Roys would find that to be a compelling, or even relevant, rebuttal?

Remember, as just one example, Roys has spread misinformation that gender affirming care increases suicide risk, when it does the opposite. That misinformation, in the seven years since it was published, may easily have contributed to the death of one or more trans people, including minors whose parents might have read Roys’ book. How is it relevant that Roys did a story about a pastor and gay son not cutting each other off?

My second issue is the extreme lack of self-awareness Roys demonstrates by citing this article. It is, in fact, about building bridges with those who think differently than us. The article quotes Jonathan Merrit:

“If more people were willing to learn the spiritual practice of ‘loving across difference,’ I think our coarse-edged world might become a gentler, kinder, more hospitable place for all of us,” Jonathan concluded.

This is an approach I tried, continued, and will continue trying to do at the end of this article. However, Roys refused to engage in even private dialogue without a guarantee of confidentiality ahead of time, a condition it is difficult to imagine Roys recommending anyone accept in dealing with someone in power who has harmed them. Publicly, Roys simply will not respond directly to me.

Tweet 2: I have a gay friend

Or this one, which speaks to how I've treated people with whom I disagree.

Can Two Walk Together Unless They Agree?

This is a 2017 article from Brandan Robertson, a gay Christian, about his relationship with Julie Roys, and it is indeed generally positive. She also wrote about their relationship in her 2017 book³². Roys referring to this strikes me as just basic tokenizing: "But I have a gay friend!" For what it’s worth, neither of them has ever referenced the other on Twitter, as far as I found, despite them both being prolific there.³³

The implication here is that my critiques of Roys are invalid because another gay person she knows has not raised similar critiques. Tokenization at its most harmless is the inclusion of someone simply to say you have someone from their class. But at its worst, it is the use of “one of the good ones” in a group in order to invalidate and silence the critiques from others in that group. One good example in the transgender community is the platforming of Caitlyn Jenner on conservative media, given that Jenner has conservative views on gender transition. Conservatives can then point to her and say, “See? We listened to a trans person and she says…”

In general, this is always bad practice. While input from multiple people in a community is good, it’s always a bad sign when you see someone from the majority community promoting the marginalized person who asks the least of them, explicitly to invalidate those who would ask more.

Dr. Lainna Callentine spoke at Restore 2023 on "Surviving White Evangelical Racism". In going through a list of unhelpful things that white people would say, included "one of my best friends is black."³⁴ She described this and the other statements as “delivered with good intentions”, but “sophmoric”, “unhelpful”, and “lacking insight”.

Tweet 3: No one has a problem with me

Also, I have worked with sources who are LGBTQ. To my knowledge, none of them have complained about how they were treated. I hv messages thanking me for how I handled their stories. We also hv changed our policy & adhere to AP style³⁵ when reporting on LGBTQ issues. We may disagree, but we strive to treat everyone w/ dignity & respect.

I honestly felt erased when I read the first three sentences. Notably, she did not point to examples where the mistreatment of LGBTQ+ people by evangelical churches had been the topic of her reporting. Presumably they were sources for other topics.

But I am a source, or at least I tried to be. My goal in reaching out was, in part, to equip her to be able to report on the abuses of the LGBTQ+ community, which are rampant in the evangelical church. And I have, in fact, voiced my issues with how she treated me.

It is impossible for me to verify the fact of her claim that no other LGBTQ+ source of hers has ever had an issue with her treatment of them. But I will also note that, as many of you are aware, raising a complaint of that kind is a risky, difficult thing to do. The fact that she has not heard such a complaint does not mean that all the sources were happy with her treatment of them.

As for the rest, it’s more examples of, "I have a queer friend" and "think of all the good I've done."

Summary of three tweets

I’d like to quote from the “Making the perpetrator the victim” section of Scot McKnight and Laura Barringer’s book A Church Called Tov, in a passage where they are quoting from Wade Mullen’s book Something’s Not Right regarding a statement issued by Harvest Bible Chapel, a church on which Roys has reported extensively:

“… the church tries to establish the unfairness of it all ‘by suggesting [the accusers] lacked credibility, were motivated by malice, and were alone in their concerns.”³⁶³⁷

Sound familiar? Roys’ tweets have the impact of making me sound unique (or at least rare) in my concerns and further implying that my words are giving an unfair, biased, uncredible take.³⁸

Mullen’s book Something’s Not Right further addresses the “consider the good” tactic for pretty much the entirety of chapter 8, “Demonstrations.” I think this chapter provides a good lens through which to view Roys’ words here, and want to share two quotes:

These demonstrations of change and goodwill are a common tactic for any offending party. By drawing attention to successes, the good done since the exposure, or the positive influence on the community, the abusive person or organization demonstrates to a watching world that they deserve to possess what they want. What they want, of course, is continued control and reputation.³⁹

And this:

Whenever an organization apologizes for its unethical behavior but then goes on to promote its values, successes, and contributions to society, you can be sure it is more interested in repairing its image for its own benefit than it is in making amends for the good of the wronged.⁴⁰

And finally, this:

When organizations devote greater urgency to demonstrating change than to pursuing an understanding of the problems that caused the need for change, they sacrifice truth. And this has serious consequences.⁴¹

I have to stop there, or I will end up quoting most of the chapter. Fortunately, I suspect many readers of this have a copy of Mullen’s book already.

Remember that McKnight, Barringer, and Mullen are all former speakers at Restore. McKnight is on the speaker list for Restore 2025.

These are standard tactics with which the community that has arisen to hold churches accountable is well aware, and it’s honestly jarring to see Roys deploy them so readily.

After some more comments by @hlgriffin and @Skjaldmaer1, Roys tabled the discussion for the day, and I thanked her for her engagement.

The apology

Five days later, Julie sent me this apology specifically for the section Krispin Mayfield highlighted in his Instagram post. She also posted it as a reply on the previous twitter thread on December 10th.

For transparency, the only thing cropped at the end of this is an email signature block.

As for the apology, I appreciated receiving it. I really did. And I wish I could just leave it at that, because I know what this next section is going to read like. Someone might say, “Wow, Celeste, can’t you just move on?” And my answer is… no. I can’t.

There are some significant issues with it.

• No repair - I think Wade Mullen’s SCORE framework for apologies would find it lacking in repair, specifically.

• Repetition of same harm - She also apologizes for "think of the good I've done" without even acknowledging that she had just done it again five days earlier. Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg’s says this in her masterwork On Repentance and Repair, “The critical fifth and last stage of this process is that the perpetrator must, when faced with the opportunity to cause similar harm in the future, make a better choice.” It is hard to believe that Roys will make a better choice when this apology was sent in the immediate wake of her making exactly the same choice again and failing to notice.

• Apology is less public than the offense - An offender can do something for a victim that no one else can: exonerate them in the eyes of the offender’s friends. They can say, “Yes, friends - this person was right. It is wrong to be upset with them for stating that I harmed them.” This apology was sent privately, and then only to a very narrow Twitter thread. It would have been better for her to post it to her main Twitter page.

• Why the delay - Jesus said that if your sibling has something against you, you should leave your gift at the alter and go reconcile with them⁴². This apology came four months after my post, eight months she sent her email to me, only after Sierra Noel, H.L. Griffin, A9 Collective, and others questioned whether to share her work anymore.

Perhaps the most important thing to note is this: Her apologizing for her behavior while discussing LGBTQ+ issues is kind of like someone pleading guilty to contempt of court while on trial for arson. Good, yes. But the fundamental issues remain unresolved - the trial for arson must now continue.

All of the original critiques I made are still valid and most of the offending statements she has made are still published, with continued capacity to do harm.

In her apology, she wrote that she is "in process". Of course, a process is fair⁴³. But... some of these things can be corrected and apologized for now, without waiting for a future moment of affirmation for the LGBTQ+ community. That's what I asked for.

She can begin including LGBTQ+ voices in her reporting and conferences, begin highlighting the abuses we are subject to, without even having to affirm our queerness. She can engage our critiques. She can learn from us.

How long do I wait for those things?⁴⁴ How long should this process take? I tried to correct her in early 2023. Since then, hundreds of anti-trans bills have been proposed and many of them passed, a large number of which came with the backing of Christian organizations, as reported on extensively by Translash Media. With the election of Donald Trump, those attacks are now intensifying. Trans people are dying. This is the targeted abuse of a marginalized community, by Christians.

Again, Dr. Callentine's talk at Restore includes wisdom. She says, at roughly the 45:45 mark⁴⁵:

The second word [God] sent me was liberate. Oh my gosh, this seems out of touch. Because of all that stuff I hear an evangelical word about liberating means once Jesus comes, then we’ll be good. No, this means as soon as you see the problem, you have to liberate that issue. You don’t wait till Jesus comes. I lament, there’s a problem, it needs to be corrected now. I love how we like use time; I was told this at a prominent school, Christian school, you know, Lainna, you’re just trying to rush us too much. We’re just going to need a little more time to change hearts. Like seriously? Wait, your Bible says, When you see something wrong, you correct it. How does racism take time? So, you have to liberate.

At the start of that talk, Roys issued an apology for having taken too long to wake up to the realities of racism.

So, three weeks ago, our next guest and I got together at her request…

… and she reminded me of a time we got together in a coffee house, and she shared her, really bared her soul to me, about all the racism that she had experienced. And she said, Julie, I didn’t feel like you believed me either. And the truth is six, seven, however, many years ago, this was I didn’t really believe it.

A bit later, Roys says this:

And so, it kind of opened my eyes to how this is done. And it’s kind of a covert thing. And I had to say to Lainna, you know what? I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I didn’t see that. And I’m sure that hurt you. And that was wrong of me. And I also told her that you guys are different. And when you’ve had enough bad experiences with white people, it’s hard to say this group is different. But I said, one, this group knows about believing victims, about believing survivors, and believing their stories. And we also know that when you get up and you bleed, when you tell your story, we get the cost. It’s like re traumatizing. And if you’re going to do that, and nothing’s going to happen. It’s like it happened again. Right? And so, I know you guys, I believe in you guys, or I wouldn’t have asked my friend to come, who I care about deeply. And It’s my prayer that this will be a healing experience for all of us. But especially for persons of color who have been hurt profoundly in the church.

I can't accept an apology on others' behalf⁴⁶, but it strikes me as a good start, and Dr. Callentine seemed to appreciate it as well.

But how long will queer people like me have to wait for an apology like that?⁴⁷

Dr. Callentine also delivers a couple other strong comments in video clips shared by Roys:

• Clip 1 - Dr. Callentine compares discussing racial trauma in white evangelical spaces to “slitting my wrists” and then giving white people the power to determine whether her “blood is red” and how much pain she is experiencing. Roys comments: “I pray my fellow white evangelicals would listen with a modicum of humility and empathy, rather than defensiveness and judgment. Just listen.”

• Clip 2 - Dr. Callentine speaks of being tired of being dismissed by white evangelicals, because they say she has a “conflict in interest in my blackness” and that “only white folks have the power to be the judge and jury in such matters.” Roys comments: “I'm so sorry, Lainna. I believe you.”

Again, it is heartbreaking and frustrating to me that Roys continues to refuse to fail to apply the same humility, empathy, and listening when it comes to queer people. It’s so hurtful to have her be so continually dismissive.

Side note: When Roys publicly shared the apology she sent me, she also publicly shared the final email she had sent me previously, but without the preceding chain with it. I had previously told Roys that she could release the full thread if she wanted to, but I had chosen not to because that last email from her included details I was not sure she wanted public. But once she did, I chose to release the entire, unedited thread, all twenty-five pages of it. You are welcome to read it here.

---

When I wrote about all of the above in a thread in February 2024, Roys did not respond. The only substantive thing that has changed regarding those specific incidents since then is that ten more months have passed, and it’s closing in on two years since I initially emailed her in February 2023. Once again, I must ask - how long should it take to correct misinformation? How long should it take to ask questions to work out your stance on LGBTQ+ people? Have you been doing that work, Julie? Do you need help? I’m still here.

This year

This year has seen more instances of Julie Roys jumping into trans and LGBTQIA+ issues in problematic ways.

Redeemed Zoomer

On August 4th, 2024, The Roys Report re-published an article originally written by Religion News Service, which gave a mostly positive profile of Richard Ackerman aka Redeemed Zoomer. Ackerman is notorious online, as many pointed out, but in particular I pointed out that he had previously voiced support for executions of “those who transmit STDs.” Such takes were absent from the RNS profile.

The TGC article in question

I tagged Roys in a post about this, and she did not respond.

So, @reachjulieroys republished an RNS piece about Redeemed Zoomer on Monday. He's previously voiced support for executions of "those who transmit STDs." Julie, I'm curious why you'd republish a profile about someone w/ such extreme views, w/o the profile mentioning those views? (screenshot above)

This is extremist rhetoric, and Roys did not even acknowledge it.

Imane Khelif

The Algerian Boxer Imane Khelif became the subject of controversy this summer, when she competed in the Olympics. To be very clear: Imane Khelif is a cisgender woman. She was assigned female at birth, raised as a woman, and has always identified as a woman. She is not transgender. There were no trans women competing in the Olympics this summer, in part due to new rules put in place by the governing bodies of some sports. Not only that but being transgender is illegal in Algeria.

Nevertheless, “discourse” erupted after she won a match in the Olympics, because of a combination of factors. Independent journalist Erin Reed has a short piece about the Boston Globe getting it wrong and having to retract it (twice!):

Boston Globe Falsely Prints Headline Calling Olympic Boxer Imane Khelif Transgender

Christianity Todays Director of Media, Mike Cosper, wrote a tweet about it on August 1st, 2024. Much of it was about the opening ceremony, but here is the relevant part:

“In this case, today, a biological male breaks a female athlete’s nose in competition and is rewarded for it by advancing to the next round. Think about it. In the name of sport, we’re rewarding violence by men against women. We’re setting a standard that will almost surely, in many categories, crows (sic) biological women out of the games.”

Cosper is wrong. When he found that out, he issued an “addendum / amendment” that included the words “the point stands”, which, as multiple people pointed out: no, it does not. You can read it here (and the comments in response are excellent), but this article isn’t about Cosper.

It is possible (though not known) that Khelif is intersex. The only source of the claims that Khelif is intersex is a boxing organization which has faced allegations of corruption (particularly its ties to Russia) and is no longer recognized by the IOC. Beyond that, the claim surfaced within days of Khelif defeating (you guessed it) a Russian boxer. Regardless, this is not relevant to the eligibility criteria for the 2024 Olympics, though intersex athletes have been the subject of debate for decades.⁴⁸

Despite all of that, Julie Roys quickly amplified Cosper’s above tweet on the topic, saying:

Another view of the “deconstruction of the Last Supper” in light of yesterday’s boxing controversy involving a transgender athlete. Definitely worth a read…

Even Cosper had not actually said “transgender” in his post — Roys added that part all on her own. Once again, this shows an anti-trans bias, as with previous incidents. When the topic is someone transgender or otherwise outside gender norms, Roys’ journalistic responsibility to be accurate and fair seems to fade quickly.

Shortly after she posted that, she edited the post, changing it to (emphasis mine, to highlight the change):

Another view of the “deconstruction of the Last Supper” in light of yesterday’s boxing controversy involving an athlete with xy chromosomes competing as a woman. Definitely worth a read…

First, “athlete with xy chromosomes” is irresponsible journalism given that the only source was a disgraced organization that hadn’t released any evidence on the matter. “an athlete who the IBA claims has xy chromosomes”, would be a typical journalistic way of phrasing this.

But “as a woman” is a terrible phrase there, given that Khelif was born, raised, and exists now as a girl/woman, in a country where being transgender isn’t even legal. Khelif is a woman. Full stop. Even if you (wrongly) deny that trans women are women. Even if you believe that trans women should not compete in women’s sports, a better phrase would be “among women.” There is no more reason to say “as a woman” than there would be for other women competing like Simone Biles.

Roys was heavily criticized by many and never withdrew her take. One particular thread on this starts with me replying to her original tweet and ends with Sierra Noel making a point that I’ve been trying to make since I started talking to Julie Roys about all of this.

Me: Julie - when you (intentionally or unintentionally) spread or amplify misinformation about a person or group you don’t like, it undermines your credibility when you try to hold people like MacArthur and others accountable.

JJ: Exactly this. I followed her for her MacArthur journalism, but I don't think I can follow her anymore after this. This is outright slander. It's not Christian and it's not good journalism.

Julie Roys: It’s Mike’s opinion. As a journalist, I believe in the 1st Amendment.

Meg W.⁴⁹: You value some man’s opinion over the truth? Julie!! Literally WTF?!!

JJ: Both her and Mike are putting their pride over the sake of the truth. It's so sad to see.

Sierra Noel: I hope both of them understand that it is important to me, and I hope for others, to call them to do better BECAUSE I value the work they do / have done, because this undermines their credibility and it calls their judgment and impartiality into question. Do better, please!

After Julie Roys’ bizarre invocation of the 1st Amendment above⁵⁰, JJ responded:

Seriously, Julie. I'm going to have to unfollow you now. I am extremely appalled by this. This isn't journalism. This isn't Christianity. You have undone so much of your credibility by spreading these lies.

Responding to Julie’s original tweet, we also have the following. Each of these individuals is a prominent and important voice in the conversation about abuse in the church and most have previously shared or praised Roys’ work.

• The New Evangelicals: You know how much I appreciate your work @reachjulieroys but this take is really not accurate. You’re a trusted source for reporting on church abuse and tweets like this cast doubt your veracity. I implore you to reconsider these tweets.

• Meg W.: Julie, we know that you’re not affirming of trans folks. This is really horrifying, Imane Khelif is not trans. Please consider deleting.

  • Transvangelical replies, “She won’t”, which was ultimately accurate.

• April Ajoy: This is very misleading and harmful reporting. The athlete competed as a woman because she is a woman, even by transphobic standards. (Link)

• Dr. Laura Robinson: oh my friggin gosh* JULIE. He compared a woman who has an unconfirmed possible intersex condition (which the IBA provided NO EVIDENCE FOR except a statement to a Russian propaganda outlet!) to a drag queen! Don't recommend this shit!

• Tyler Huckabee: julie, i think you're a good reporter so i'd advice you to check the sources here. the information in mike's tweet just doesn't add up. (Link to Tyler’s lengthy thread on the topic, responding to Mike Cosper, which ends here)

Meg W. also quoted Roys and said: “When people like @reachjulieroys @MikeCosper spread misinformation under the guise of the 1st amendment, it undermines their witness and stabs every religious abuse survivor in the back. I’ve been disturbed by Julie’s stance on LBGTQ+ for quite some time, receipts posted below.”

It would have been appropriate to issue a correction saying at least that the source for the claim about Khelif was suspect, and no evidence was given. Instead, her update was to amplify the IBA’s statement on the matter, which falsely implied that Khelif had not met relevant eligibility criteria. Additionally, the corruption of the IBA became a huge part of discussion of this⁵¹. Again, she was again heavily criticized for this, with the following sample replies:

• Sierra Noel: “Ah, going the trade your birthright for soup route... Julie, doubling down by sharing this makes it harder to trust your credibility as a journalist, & your ability to truly review facts & shelf your bias before reporting. IBA has a history of ethical, financial, etc scandals.”

• Geek Girl: “Jumping on this bandwagon founded on speculation, rumor, and lies has forever damaged your credibility. I, & so many others will now look at your claims & research with extreme skepticism How could we ever trust you again?”

As far as I could find, Roys also never referred to Khelif as a woman, or with “she/her” pronouns. This is relevant as it shows that her supposed policy of using trans people’s pronouns is tenuous at best and doesn’t even necessarily apply to women who have literally always been recognized as women. Even if Khelif is transgender (she isn’t), Roys’ policy should result in her using she/her pronouns for Khelif. But she doesn’t. As Meg W. asked Julie Roys:

Her dad has literally said “she’s a woman.” In a country that does not accept trans folks. What more are you looking for?? Because I’m just wondering when you’re going to start questioning my womanhood next? What purity test do I need to pass be a “real woman”?

There’s an ensuing back-and-forth in which Roys deploys an infuriating Motte-and-Bailey type argument - more details on that in the footnote.⁵²

Roys’ initial tweet, poor edit, and then continued defensiveness without ever accepting Khelif’s womanhood as fact, all contribute yet another case in a pattern spanning years. Once again, as of today, Roys still has the edited tweet live, which claims that Khelif is “an athlete with xy chromosomes”, which is unproven at best.

Fundamentally, Roys started by claiming something even her source didn’t claim, then edited it to an unsubstantiated claim only made by the President of an organization not even recognized by the IOC, under dubious circumstances, with heavy ties to a country that famously has a history of corruption in sports. And despite all of that, Roys’ Twitter account still states, as fact, that Khelif has XY chromosomes, uses odd phrasing to cast doubt on Khelif’s womanhood, which has not been in doubt her entire life, and still refuses to use “she/her” pronouns for Khelif.

As always, my problem is firstly Roys’ willingness to compromise on facts, and secondarily her specific views on transgender people, but in this case the two are tightly intertwined.

Looking Forward

Restore 2025

Restore 2025 still doesn’t have any speakers who are from the LGBTQIA+ community or who regularly speak in support of us. Johnna Harris is the only one I am aware of who is publicly affirming, but it’s not a main focus of her work on the Bodies Behind the Bus podcast, which as far as I can tell has never featured a queer guest or talked in any length about LGBTQIA+ issues.

This is true despite LGBTQIA+ people continuing to be heavily marginalized by the white American evangelical church, with attacks on transgender people in particular growing rapidly.

If you’re thinking of going

For those considering going… please strongly weigh whether or not you want to attend a conference where a significant subset of the survivor community could not possibly feel safe.

If you’re already planning on going

I won’t tell you to change your plans, but may I ask you to keep LGBTQ+ survivors in your mind and hearts as you do? If you have the opportunity to ask speakers, including Roys, why we are not there, would you consider taking it? And would you please at least remember that the conversations being had are incomplete?

I am sorry that Roys is putting you in this position, where you may feel tension about your attendance. All I can ask you to do is do what you believe is right.

And if by some chance an LGBTQ+ person is there, would you do everything you can to make sure they feel loved and safe?

If you are a speaker

This is where it gets complicated. If you are planning to speak at Restore, I’ll be honest: I am not entirely sure why you would do that at this point unless you share her anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs. Even then, I do not know why you would not be wary of tacitly endorsing someone who has the record I have detailed above.

Jenai Auman⁵³, author of the outstanding book Othered, attended Restore 2022, and was scheduled to speak at Restore 2023. After I spoke with her about Roys, and published my article, Auman chose to withdraw from speaking. Particularly if you are going to be a speaker at Restore, you can and should read her full statement here. The first reason she gave was that she came to believe that she, “will not personally be safe or feel welcome at the conference.” She chose not to elaborate on this.

The second was more detailed:

“Second, my friend Celeste Irwin wrote a well-researched and mindful piece on harm she and others in the LGBTQIA+ community have experienced in relation to The Roys Report and Julie Roys. I am affirming of all sexualities and gender identities. Commitment to learning from and loving my queer neighbors includes acknowldging how they have been maliciously abused in Christian spaces. Celeste is a dear friend who has held space for the hard and difficult parts of my story, and I want to do the same for her.”

She makes the following observation about white supremacy:

“White supremacy oppresses all. It is the soil from which harm is grown. It feeds patriarchy, ableism, racism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, antisemitism, transphobia, homophobia, and inequality in all forms.”

Finally, she closed with words that I believe are so important:

It hurts to see voices on the margins further marginalized in advocacy spaces. Any effective conversation on abuse and othering in the church and among Christians should include those whom society most wishes remains unseen and unheard.

I cannot begin to say how much it meant to me for Jenai to stand with me in this way. She gave up an opportunity in order to be in solidarity with me and so many others. In much the same way that being disbelieved and your harm ignored can be retraumatized, being believed and having someone stand with you can be so very healing.

When I publish this, I will be tagging all speakers of Restore, and I do encourage each of them to consider whether or not tacitly supporting Roys’ work is appropriate at this point, and what message it sends to the LGBTQ+ community when you stand on her stage. But I also ask you to consider the impact you could have by calling on Roys to add an LGBTQ+ speaker (more on that in a moment) and additionally calling on her to address the failings I have outlined in this article and the previous one.

Interacting with Roys’ Work

Consider that much of what I’ve detailed in this article happened after I confronted Julie Roys about her treatment of transgender people. She knew myself and others were paying attention to her treatment of trans (and LGBTQ+ people more broadly). Jenai Auman withdrew from the conference, in part because of what I reported. Other people who previously looked well on Roys’ work agreed with my reporting and expressed disappointment in Roys. Conversations were had online about whether or not her reporting should be avoided or boycotted. As you can see above, my answer at the time was, “no.”

However, all of this continues to build doubt in my mind as to the credibility of Roys’ reporting. I’m unable to independently verify the fairness or accuracy of many of the stories she publishes about Christian leaders. But in the one area where I am extremely well qualified to assess the quality of her work, not only is it poor, but she is very resistant to hearing and acting on critique. If the one area where I can evaluate her work is one in which I find her to be biased, sloppy, resistant to correction, and dismissive of critique, there is really every reason to believe her work is similarly flawed in her other areas where I’m unable to know if she is correct.

Fundamentally, and tragically, all of this paints a picture of a journalist who compromises her integrity when it comes to subjects about which she is biased. Additionally, as Emily Joy Allison has noted, Roys’ biases on these topics can lead to her having difficult differentiating issues of abuse from issues of purity, which can lead to all manner of issues in the framing of her reports.

It is for this reason that I can no longer recommend Julie Roys as an implicitly trustworthy source. Her reporting is worth consideration, but without independent verification or her bringing significant evidence for the things she claims, I can’t just assume truth anymore and will no longer share her articles unless I can see that support.

This is a break from my previous stance, where if she was the only source, I considered sharing her work to be a reasonable practice. Now, if she is the only source, it gives me reason for pause. Sadly, I can no longer treat her work as implicitly trustworthy.

As always, that is only my position on how I will interact with her work, and each and every one of you should determine the right line for yourselves.

What comes next?

For Julie Roys

I continue to hope that Julie Roys will finally take accountability and truly work to learn about transgender people (and, more broadly, all LGBTQIA+ people). Minimally, she owes us either silence about us or more accurate reporting when she does discuss us⁵⁴. And that reporting should include actually talking to us.

I wanted to include an excerpt of Roys’ words from Restore 2023. She delivered a talk at the conference, which her podcast describes, in part, as follows:

Exposing abuse and corruption can be a thankless job. Powerful figures doing wrong often deny and attack those exposing them. And their supporters often join suit—attacking the messenger, rather than holding their leader accountable.

As I said above, I understand this deeply. The anti-anxiety meds on my desk in front of me testify to that. I felt shocked and betrayed when supporters of Julie Roys, themselves passionate about holding leaders accountable, completely failed to do so with her, despite me taking the most civil tone I could and bringing thorough documentation⁵⁵. People who helped me learn to use my voice didn’t want to hear it when it was about Roys.

It was even more stunning when I heard what Roys said in her talk. You can listen yourself, but, near the end, she pondered what it would be like if John MacArthur repented. She said that’s what the Church needs to see.

The lack of self-awareness was astounding to me. How can she call MacArthur⁵⁶ to truly apologize when she will not do the same?

This part of her talk is heartbreaking to me, because I honestly thought at the start that she might be segueing into an actual heartfelt apology for how she treated trans people, myself, and those who tried to hold her accountable for other things⁵⁷⁵⁸.

At another point in her talk, she speaks angrily about how Christian leaders are only talking about “the sin out there.” She goes on to say “They’re not talking about the sin in their own house. None of them.”

---

To Julie,

First, I want to make clear that doing a regular update on your anti-trans words and actions is not exactly a fun project for me. But just as you see it as necessary to keep reporting on various toxic pastors, I see it as necessary to keep pointing out the harm you do to the LGBTQ+ community. Your position is too influential to be able to ignore when you do harm like this⁵⁹. I hope someday that I can stop, but for now, you need to know that I will continue reporting on your treatment of queer people.⁶⁰

With that said, Julie - I want to ask you: when you are convicted of the importance of repentance, why is your first thought about MacArthur, instead of having the humility to look for those things that you need to repent of? I agree with you that it would be great if MacArthur repented, but don’t you want to do as Jesus said, and turn to the log in your own eye? Or are you really standing at the altar, thanking God that you are “not like that sinner”? How can you ask MacArthur to do that which you refuse to do?

As I have been telling you for almost two years, some of the things you have said are damaging, while others are downright dangerous, possibly even deadly⁶¹. And I challenge anyone to read our email exchange or my articles about you and say that I went about it with less grace or love than you approach people like MacArthur. Rather than have the journalistic integrity to correct the record, you allowed yourself to be so blinded by your bias you tried to pressure me into silence. Not only that, even when myself and people you would have respected in the past said that’s what you did, it took you over four months to apologize. Even then you only did it very quietly and only after people started to publicly question the value of your work. And on the vast majority of what I have said, you simply have not responded.

I found your apology to Dr. Lainna Callentine to be quite appropriate. It seems like she appreciated it as well. In that apology, you noted that it had taken you too long to understand issues of racism and to take it seriously. You were dismissive for too long, even past the murder of George Floyd, only finally taking it seriously when reporting on John Piper and Bethlehem Baptist.

Again, recall Rabbi Ruttenberg’s words⁶²:

The critical fifth and last stage of this process is that the perpetrator must, when faced with the opportunity to cause similar harm in the future, make a better choice. (p. 43)

Ruttenberg discusses this aspect and comes to the conclusion that if a perpetrator apologizes, pays restitution, etc., but then does the exact same thing the next time they are faced with a similar decision, then whatever happened is not real repentance. Your fundamental issue before was being dismissive of someone with a marginalized identity that you did not share. Now, consider the interactions me and other queer people have had with you⁶³. You are, on the whole, dismissive, don’t ask questions, and hold us at arm’s length through statements of “process” and thanking us for our tone, while rarely truly listening to us.

So, I have a question, Julie: how long will it take you to listen and take it seriously when I tell you that your reporting on transgender people is not just inadequate, but wrong. And not just wrong, but harmful. On March 18, 2023, you said this to me:

However, I have discovered in the past five years that some of my former community is very toxic and I want no part of it. Also, my experiences of the past five years have caused me to re-evaluate some of the positions I formerly held. I'm not in a place today to declare new positions. I wouldn't say I'm deconstructing. But I would say I'm sifting, trying to retain what's good and true and trying to discard that which is not.

This has been a very personal journey. I understand you want me to make public declarations on positions I've taken in the past and I'm just not there. I don't know what I'd say on some of them. That's just being honest. I'm in process. 

How is that process going? Are you able to share any update? Which LGBTQ+ voices have you sought out? Who have you listened to and talked with? Why is the evidence I’ve brought insufficient to get you to see that you were just factually incorrect on many things, and at least start with corrections and apologies for those?

To engage in the same kind of wish you entertained at Restore, I have to ask you, how long will it be before you publicly apologize?

Once again, drawing from Rabbi Ruttenberg’s book, I strongly favor “restorative justice.” I’m not interested in canceling you, I’m interested in you making things right and doing better. But until you do that, my priority must be to protect the community from you.

If I may be bold

When we meet Nehemiah, he is grieved by the state of his people, who were vulnerable and continually under attack by others. But he had an audience with a person with power to help. So, Nehemiah boldly asked that person for what he needed. We see that Esther, Ruth, and more do the same throughout the Bible. Even Paul at Areopagus does the same thing - asks for an audience from those who may not have been inclined to hear him.

Consider this my attempt to imitate them, despite the discomfort it gives me⁶⁴.

Your audience needs to hear from me or someone else in my position⁶⁵. Your conference is incomplete without it.

So, here’s me, being bold.

Julie: Invite me to speak at Restore 2025⁶⁶.

The dialogues I am sure we could have would be rich and fruitful, and foster understanding. Allowing a transgender person to speak on the abuses experienced by the queer community is vital to the mission of your conference, whether you know it or not, yet. You cannot fight abuse while turning a blind eye to it in certain cases⁶⁷. Is your conference not a place where you seek to give the microphone to those the church has harmed? What a holy space that would be! Aside from speaking, I’d be privileged to share communion alongside those in attendance, as their sister in Christ.

As you know, you will lose support from some people, just from my being there. But if the cost of their support is that you have to continue harming others, are you any better than many of the pastors you report on?

I leave the decisions on where to go up to you and pray you will consider those humbly.

Your sister in Christ,

-Celeste

Also feel very free to discuss this in the comments below!

1. The bill would require me to use restrooms corresponding to my sex assigned at birth. Men’s rooms are inherently unsafe for transgender women. I’ve discussed this topic before.

2. “Bearing false witness”, per my understanding, is best understood as effectively testifying falsely in a way that would lead to exonerating the guilty or condemning the innocent. In a time where eyewitnesses were pretty much the only thing to go off of, intentionally lying could easily result in catastrophic impact to the accused, or to the cause of justice.

In this case, Roys’ spread of false claims about transgender people has done exactly that. The collective impact of evangelicals has been terribly harmful to trans people. These impacts include withdrawal of our health care, restrictions on restrooms usage (and more), street harassment, and so much more. She has not acted alone, but her false words have quite literally contributed to legal impacts on many trans people - exactly what the ninth commandment was warning against.

3. Given the buckets Flanery proposes, I actually think there’s some chance that LGBTQ+ exclusion was a contributor to the top four causes listed in his survey. For example, the fourth most common was “Exposure to Difference” (11%), which certainly could include exposure to queer people.

4. Joy Allison, Emily. #ChurchToo: How Purity Culture Upholds Abuse and How to Find Healing (pp. 108-109). Broadleaf Books. Kindle Edition.

5. Joy Allison, Emily. #ChurchToo: How Purity Culture Upholds Abuse and How to Find Healing (p. 109). Broadleaf Books. Kindle Edition.

6. Joy Allison, Emily. #ChurchToo: How Purity Culture Upholds Abuse and How to Find Healing (p. 111). Broadleaf Books. Kindle Edition.

7. I do recommend that anyone familiar with the other books go out and get a copy of #ChurchToo, even just to read chapter 6.

8. I promise I did not include this quote just for this part. But Sierra, if you see this… thank you and same, friend.

9. Her talk at Restore 2023 was titled “Why Not Quit” and centered around the personal costs she has paid to do the work she does.

10. What follows after this footnote is a lightly edited version of a thread I wrote on Twitter on August 16, 2025, which was itself inspired by a post by @HannahDPT23.

11. Here is the screenshot.

12. For those unfamiliar, a subtweet is a tweet that is critical of someone but does not name them, especially when the poster’s primary audience can pretty easily infer who it’s really about.

I am intentionally omitting the screenshot of the original subtweet, to protect the anonymity of the individual, because this simply is not about them. I share this story because it is my own story, not aimed at other party in it.

13. Here is that exchange (redactions are for privacy and to protect unrelated personal info).

14. And I will talk about why that apology being private was problematic.

15. This panic attack was primarily in response to this interaction. But it also had contributing stress of a situation.

Perhaps coincidentally, I had my second ER trip for a panic attack a few days ago (Friday, December 13th), the morning after drafting the section in this article about the first one.

16. From here and here.

17. I originally summarized the first few on Twitter on February 14, 2024.

18. I also posted a note about Restore 2023 as it happened, tagging speakers so that they would be aware of the situation. I heard from none of them in response.

19. I originally commented on this on Twitter on October 26, 2023, and what follows is an adapted version of that thread.

20. By the way, the “as far as I know” is meant kindly, but also, I need to say this: if no one knows that you are affirming, you need to be louder in your affirmation and allyship.

21. Important note - cross-dressing and being transgender are two very different things (and neither is wrong). Only ever cross-dress to show support for trans people if a trans person you know is supportive of the time/place/context you’re doing it. A cross-dresser is explicitly adopting a gender expression that does not match their own gender identity. For me, dressing masculine would be cross-dressing.

22. Twitter here and here.

23. “Transgenderism” is a word that implies that being transgender is an ideology. It is not. Gender identity is well-studied and gender affirming care is the well-evidenced treatment for those whose gender identity does not align with the sex assigned at birth. Many in the trans community do not use the word “transgenderism” anymore.

24. Here’s the Twitter thread:

25. I’d obviously be thrilled if she corrects me about this and removes her name from the signatories list.

26. One of the elements of social media is that people call themselves what they want. Here, the name is silly, but the point they make is an important one.

27. “Hide” is a feature on twitter where one can make it more difficult to see a given reply to one’s own tweet. I use it frequently to deal with abusive trolls who call me all manner of things and are clearly not interested in discussion. I do not use it to simply hide replies that disagree with me or attempt to call me to account.

28. You can read a good summary of the events leading to Copeland’s death on Wikipedia. In it, you will see that Copeland also published erotic fiction online, in which he appears to have used names and images of real people, without having obtained their prior consent. The Wikipedia entry states:

On November 3, another 1819 News article claimed that Copeland had written fiction containing violent fantasies. It also claimed that he republished photos of community members, including minors,^[23] online without their consent.^[27] One story described a transgender woman's deadly obsession with a local business owner, which the article claimed was based on a real person and business.^[28] An acquaintance of Copeland's said that he had posted her name and social media photos online; she also recognized the names of local women in Copeland's allegedly fictional stories, calling the writing "disturbing".^[27][29]

While no crime was committed or alleged (no one has alleged that the photos were erotic, for example), I agree that this was unethical, though again, it is difficult to see how it rises to the level of national news.

Most importantly, none of this was known publicly until the day after Roys published Lykins’ article, meaning none of this was the basis for Roys finding this matter to be newsworthy enough to report on. The fact that these details came out in no way justifies the original publication of the story.

Lykins’ story received this update after Copeland’s death:

UPDATE: On Friday, 1819 News reported that Copeland wrote fiction about murdering a real-life businesswoman in his town and posted pictures of local residents, including minors, on porn sites. The same day, Copeland took his life, according to 1819 News.

And even that update makes an assumption that the cited 1819 News article did not. While the update says that Copeland was the one who posted pictures to “porn sites”, the cited article makes a more cautious claim, saying “Some of the porn websites use content from Copeland's now-deleted Reddit account, but it's unclear if they were shared to the website willingly or aggregated from his public account.”

In any case, nothing about this appears to have been done with a goal of, “Restoring the Church,” but comes across more as salacious gossip. Roys and her team did no original investigative work for it, they broke no news that had not previously been made public. They just chose to amplify it to Roys’ audience.

29. For example, my primary goal in documenting Roys’ treatment of the LGBTQ+ community is to try to ensure that other LGBTQ+ people do not mistakenly trust her to support them. A secondary goal is to try to help her and others see that abuse of LGBTQ+ people is a real and serious issue in the church, so that they could do better in pushing back on it, rather than contributing to it.

30. My quote ends with this tweet, but H.L. Griffin adds more after that.

31. This statement is accurate. Unless I am mistaken, Roys has never published an article about those who would undoubtedly say they love being a part of MacArthur’s church.

32. Redeeming the Feminine Soul, Julie Roys, p. 53-55.

33. I reached out to Robertson via Twitter for comment, but he did not respond.

34. At 7:38 in this video.

35. This part is worth remembering when we get to the part about Imane Khelif.

36. A Church Called Tov, p. 68

37. Mullen’s book Something’s Not Right further addresses the “consider the good” tactic on page 120 and also pretty much the entirety of chapter 8, “Demonstrations.” I think the chapter on “Demonstrations” provides a good lens through which to view Roys’ three tweets here.

38. An implication I have worked hard to dispel in this article by quoting from many others concerned about Roys.

39. Something’s Not Right, Wade Mullen, page 153-4

40. Something’s Not Right, Wade Mullen, page 154

41. Something’s Not Right, Wade Mullen, page 155

42. Matthew 5:23-24, my paraphrase.

43. I certainly went on my own journey to get to the point where I could write this.

44. Yes, this question is inspired by James Baldwin, here (only 22 seconds - please watch)

45. Transcript taken from Roys' website.

46. An important principle I wish more Christians understood.

47. Perhaps shedding light on this, Roys herself wrote, “If you’re afraid I’m going progressive, you can relax. I’m not. I am very conservative.” on November 2nd of this year. That certainly doesn’t sound like she continues to be “in process” on these issues.

48. For a deep dive on sex testing in sports, which is very complicated, see the Tested podcast by NPR.

49. Meg is well known to Julie Roys, as she left John MacArthur’s church several years ago, and has done a huge amount of work to expose and hold MacArthur accountable.

50. A truly bizarre defense that effectively denies that her or Cosper have done anything legally actionable. Though likely true, this hardly seems like the ethical bar a Christian journalist should be aiming for.

51. The IBA’s alleged corruption and how it may have led to this controversy to begin with are outside the scope of this article, but nevertheless, worth understanding, especially if you’re inclined to think that Roys’ reporting on this subject was acceptable. This Wikipedia article is a good start.

52. The ensuing back-and-forth between Meg and Roys sees Roys deploy a great example of a “Motte and Bailey” argument. Roys had said (as fact) that Khelif had XY chromosomes, while quoting someone who referred to Khelif as a man (the “Motte”). Upon pushback, Roys retreated into an ever narrower claim (the “Bailey”) without ever acknowledging that her original broad claim was false. For more about how Motte and Bailey arguments work and are frequently used by anti-trans people, see ContraPoints excellent discussion of JK Rowling’s Motte and Bailey arguments.

The implication of a Motte-and-Bailey argument is that as long as the narrow “Bailey” is correct, then the attack on the broad “Motte” was somehow wrong.

53. Jenai Auman is someone I am grateful to call a friend, and who I have seen consistently handle so many situations with grace, integrity, and a fierce devotion to truth and loving others in a gentle way.

54. Many writers use “sensitivity readers” regularly today, whereby they have a reader from a marginalized community preview anything the writer is saying about that community. Roys should absolutely do this on anything she writes regarding LGBTQIA+ people.

55. Go ahead and count the links and footnotes in this post and the previous one. It’s a lot.

56. Who absolutely must repent. I am in no way defending MacArthur here, just to be clear.

57. In particular, the incident with “Sarah”, from her book, which she also defended herself on in the same talk or at least cast doubts as to the goals of those who brought it up. I do very much wish I had been able to include something about this topic here, but it’s somewhat out of scope and this article is already far too long. If you’d like to read more, including Julie Roys’ own words from her book, please see this article by Amy Smith here, though please note that much has been said about the subject since then.

58. I feel the need to establish that I am not doing exactly the same thing here. There are two pieces of writing I am most proud of in my life.

The first, is my public letter about the abuse I experienced and committed while a member of Vista Church. After its publication, I apologized in person to those I had harmed, if they gave me the opportunity to do so.

The second was an essay titled: “I Was Wrong (About LGBTQ+ People and the Bible)”. It was my way of sharing that I was now affirming, sharing why, and sharing an apology to those I had harmed by my past failure to do so.

Not everyone has forgiven me for those things. And that is ok. Forgiveness and grace cannot be demanded, or else they are transactional. I hope my actions going forward prove worthy of grace and forgiveness, and I try to ensure that they do. But when people tell me they still can’t trust me because I was anti-LGBTQ+ for so long, I merely respond, “I understand.”

59. Sadly, Julie Roys is not alone in this. I do plan in 2025 to cover others who have similar anti-trans track records that seem to go unnoticed by many.

60. The Network likely thought I would get bored and stop writing about them. I ended up writing over 150,000 words across dozens of articles, not to mention copious posts on reddit. Others contributed mountains of their own words. For what it’s worth, the specific church I went to and wrote the most about closed earlier this year, as Julie Roys reported.

61. Notably, the claims that suicidality goes up with gender affirming care, and the promotion of conversion therapy.

62. I’m begging everyone. Read. This. Book.

63. As with the previous article, I do want to note that, in Roys’ book Redeeming the Feminine Soul, she indicates that she experiences attraction to women, saying about her relationship with “Sarah”, “I thank God my relationship with Sarah never developed into anything physical”. However, more recently, she has said about that relationship, “No I didn’t say I had a physical attraction. I said the opposite.”

And as before, if Roys is not straight, then I find this entire topic to be even more heartbreaking, as the first victim of Roys’ anti-LGBTQ+ views would be herself. I’m aware of some of the leaders she sat under, and I feel deep compassion for the ways people could have made her hate those aspects of herself. I personally spent decades in the closet, under leaders who told me that who I am is wrong. It’s an abusive environment to be in, just like toxic patriarchy or white supremacy, and it does great damage.

Beyond that, there can be a kind of “sunk cost fallacy” for one who has lived that life so long, and even publicly spoken out against LGBTQ+ people. If one is aware of the life they have given up, the decades spent suppressing it, the joy they have lost, it can become even harder to admit that it was all unnecessary. These are thoughts I wrestled with deeply in my coming to terms with my identity as a transgender lesbian, and I do not envy those who have to confront similar thoughts.

So, I cannot speak to Roys’ sexuality beyond what she has shared, but given what she has shared, I know the pain it would bring for her to ultimately conclude that all of the hiding and suppressing was unnecessary.

It is Roys’ choice what to do with her sexuality - I will defend her right to those decisions strongly. But I have no patience for those who, beyond being closeted, choose to harm other LGBTQIA+ people, often because they can’t stand the idea that the life they’ve been denied was ok all along.

64. When I wrote my article last year, I was worried of being accused of trying to get a platform, and so I did not make the obvious offer. I honestly didn’t even think I’d make it in this one when I started writing, but I find that it’s the only logical conclusion.

65. At the risk of self-promotion, I do think it should be me, given the history now. But there are others who would do an excellent job, so long as they are well-respected by the queer community.

66. My terms: Much as Boz Tchividjian demanded to be uncensored when he spoke at the Caring Well conference, I expect the same. I am fully aware that many of those in attendance are survivors of abuse, and I do not wish to ambush them with scolding/etc. My tone would likely be similar to Dr. Callentine’s, with the specific goal to equip attendees to push back on anti-LGBTQIA+ abuse. I’m also open to doing an “ask me anything” session for those who have questions about LGBTQIA+ Christians, which might allow the participants to have more agency in the discussion. Either option or both would be fine.

I am well aware that many in attendance will not be thrilled that I am there, and this could be quite uncomfortable for me. As long as you commit to my safety and allow me to bring at least one friend (to help me feel safe) while I am there, I will be there. I obviously insist on being referred to with she/her pronouns by you, but I do not expect you to enforce that among attendees - I understand that would not be possible.

67. I believe this strongly. Trying to fight spiritual abuse while making exceptions for specific cases like LGBTQIA+ people is effectively saying, “it’s ok to use the Bible coercively in some cases, the only problem is when it’s used wrong.” But the one doing it nearly always believes that they are doing it right. Piper actually believes it’s right for a woman to endure abuse. MacArthur actually believes Beth Moore should have no platform. Abusers frequently actually believe that “Matthew 18” is a valid response to being publicly called out as abusers. The only safe path forward is to acknowledge that we must leave much more room for individual conscience, at least when that person’s actions have little to no tangible impact on others. See Romans 14 for more discussion of this by Paul.