Unless I state otherwise, all of the information I am providing is accessible publicly online or is the result of interviews I’ve had with representatives of local churches, members of the local churches involved or those who have interacted online with Jim Wright. The opinions expressed are my own. I am doing this independently and on behalf of nobody but myself as a community service and to provide information that may be helpful for those who find themselves interacting with Jim Wright, Nathan’s Voice, Plumbline Faith, Fulcrum Ministries, Fulcrum Express, Fulcrum Forum or Crossroad Junction or whatever subsequent group Jim may create.
Most importantly, I’m concerned for those who have been abused in a church in any manner who might be directed to contact Jim Wright or his wife, Marianne. I sincerely believe those who reach that direction will likely suffer harm or further abuse from this unqualified and untrustworthy source. I’m not stating that Jim or Marianne are sexual abusers themselves. I am saying, however, that unqualified and unaccountable people are not whom sexual abuse victims need to be trusting.
Yes. I contacted Jim Wright several times. I asked to visit his home church and was informed that he considers me hostile and doesn’t want me present. I’ve also offered to meet with him privately in the presence of witnesses. I’ve even invited G.R.A.C.E., an organization that Jim Wright claims he’s positively associated with, to mediate. Jim Wright has refused all offers and countered with none of his own. I think it’s sad this has to be done publicly. However, Jim Wright refuses to address these issues privately, so he must be countered in this manner as he chooses to attack in this manner.
Yes. That is what motivated me to search and figure out what was going on with Jim Wright. The situation with this Christian Brother is separate from what I am doing here. I am part of a group that has written a statement regarding that and Jim Wright’s other online activities.
Beyond that, however, I lived in the Northern Virginia area, was a part of the Christian community, and had connections with local organic fellowships. I returned in 2018 to Canada, where I grew up. Jim Wright claims to represent some organic networked churches and uses that claimed relationship to justify his actions in defaming other people and organizations. I feel it’s essential for people to have the benefit of knowing what the background and patterns of behaviour are with Jim Wright so that they can balance that against his own carefully created and presented online persona. If you want to believe Jim Wright and what he has to say in some areas, that is up to you. At least now, you’ll know the rest of the story.
Yes. I “met” Jim Wright online around October of 2011. In fact, he posted this message to me here on this very blog.
I say (sic) a comment you left on the Organic Church group on FB, and you said you were in the northern Virginia area. Same here. Would love to find out what’s going on regarding other organic church fellowships in the area. We have several in the Prince William County area. You can contact me through my blog.
We initially connected on Facebook and interacted a few times in different capacities. As I saw some of the things Jim Wright had to say about other people and how he treated them, it became clear that he had a very narrow theological view that wasn’t particularly kind or tolerant. After Jim Wright attacked me and my beliefs by mischaracterizing a post I created, I blocked him as an annoying troll.
It wasn’t until I learned about his using his blogs and social media to attack others that I unblocked him and went to see what he was doing. At that time, the scope of what he was doing and how he was doing it struck me. I started to ask him questions (many of which we’ll address below) about him and his organizations, and he quickly blocked me. I found him using a false screen name on Facebook as Joe Ashton in an organic church group (he confessed to it at the time and tried to pass it off), and I also caught him posting a backdated Blog Post to try and minimize the news that he’d been excommunicated from his last local church.
That’s important, as Jim Wright often claims I’ve blocked him in several mediums. The truth is that Jim has done the blocking, and he chooses not to address this directly with me. He doesn’t want to answer many of these questions, so I’ve taken the liberty to get answers as best I can. Jim Wright had opportunities to answer and chose not to. Jim attempts to paint himself as a victim and martyr and conveniently leaves out key facts.
So, Who is Jim Wright?!?
This is his “blurb” on his primary blog, Crossroad Junction, as copied directly on May 19, 2013. His full name is James Curtis Wright or James C. Wright, but he usually goes by Jim Wright and lives in Manassas, Virginia.
Jim is a church sower, public but unassuming, thinker, mentor, teacher, older brother in the faith, motivated by redemption, foe of tyrants, friend of the dispossessed, retired attorney, entrepreneur, private pilot, and so-so bass fisherman.
Wow! The man sounds like a saint!?
Well, before you start polishing his halo, look around his postings on his blogs and social media. You’ll quickly find that these terms are all pretty relative and self-aggrandizing.
Is Jim Wright a Church Sower?
Well … Jim Wright says he’s a church sower. Apparently, Jim’s definition of a church (and I don’t have a massive problem with this, but it does play on the term’s ambiguity) can include people having coffee together. I asked Jim Wright to visit his home fellowship, which I believe exists, and he said no. So all I can go on is what he says publicly and looking at what evidence I’ve gathered in talking with others. It appears that Jim’s home church comprises himself, his wife, his mother (his father passed away several years ago), and maybe 6 -8 other people. I don’t know if these people are “regulars”. They may well be a succession of people whom Jim has made contact with through an obscure prison ministry. Most indications are that the “membership” turns over very quickly, and there’s tiny sustained membership.
Aside from what Jim self-reports, speaking with others, the impression I’ve gotten is that people who meet Jim as he visits with them in prison (or their families) initially see him as compassionate and friendly. He claims to open his house and may do that in other capacities. However, some of those who visit his “home church” have reported to others whom I’ve interviewed that they find a stark contrast when they visit the “church” setting. They see the teaching as harsh and often aimed at other people, and movements painted as “post-modern” contradict Jim’s beliefs. That mirrors the rants he consistently posts to his social media accounts. The impression I get is that the tenure of most people in this “church” is relatively short. All comments point to the conclusion that Jim is the central figure and the model he engages in is more like the shepherding movement of the 80s and 90s, which focuses on spiritual covering and chains of command rather than organic church, which is non-hierarchical.
Outside of that, Jim claims to be a part of a network of churches in the local community, many of which he claims he’s had a part in starting. Again, I asked him for contacts, and his response to me was in an email:
The fellowships that related (sic) to each other here, as best I understand, are open to all who actually seek fellowship. That, unfortunately, does not describe you based on your numerous hostile posts on Facebook and your clearly stated intent to set yourself up as judge over them – even though you yourself have never demonstrated an ability to function in an actual local participatory fellowship. Nonetheless, I have no say over who a particular fellowship accepts into their gatherings. You can take it up with them individually. I do not control them or speak for them, but simply relate to some of them as one who helps and in a number of cases has been involved in starting them.
That’s an exciting response. If you wade through Jim’s blogs, you’ll find he’s visited other local organic churches and groups and, on at least one occasion, used such a visit to trash the people, the church and their spiritual maturity. I guess when Jim has engaged in this activity, it’s hard for him to imagine that other people wouldn’t like him.
It’s somewhat vague, too, isn’t it? By the way, I have been involved in participatory fellowships, although Jim didn’t ask. I’ve been part of at least one other that Jim himself visited and subsequently trashed. I have no desire to set myself up as a judge. I just want to see them and meet with the people and know who they are, how they function, and what they do; no dice with Jim. In 12 years (this is updated in 2024), nobody, to my knowledge, has stepped forward to identify themselves as a part of Jim’s network.
I’ve spoken with one former participant who was a part of Jim’s home church in 2006 when it was more of a bible study, and he laughed when informed that Jim claimed an extensive network. He says it’s typical of Jim’s self-promoting and boasting.
Jim Wright is Humble. Just ask him.
How about “public but unassuming”?
Well, it confirms what I’ve said, that Jim Wright is a “public person,” so this is entirely appropriate to do on that basis, as demonstrated by Jim. “Public but unassuming” is a pretty meaningless phrase outside of that. It’s clear Jim makes many assumptions when he deals with people. As he did with me in his email, Jim assumes I’m just out to get him rather than better understand who he is and what he claims. I haven’t met a person I’ve spoken to about Jim that describes him as humble and quiet. He continuously tries to draw attention to himself and his endeavours. He is constantly working on his public persona online, and there’s very little chance if Jim has an opinion on something and you’re around that, you’ll not hear it.
So, it’s undoubtedly an excellent Public Relations claim, but what does it mean? I guess we’ll leave it at that.
Come on now! How about “a thinker?”
Yes, Jim Wright is a thinker. He appears to think a lot. If you want to read through his voluminous material on the web (which I have), you’ll find evidence that he likes to think.
Jim Wright thinks about theology. He attended a Seminary and studied apologetics before eventually going to Law School, where he obtained a J.D. and focused on litigation. He’s careful to couch his representations there as it appears he didn’t graduate.
Jim Wright thinks about other people who think or believe differently than he does. He thinks about why they’re wrong. He thinks about labels he can apply to them. Most of all, if he sees a way to talk to them or about them in a way that makes Jim Wright look good and attracts attention to Jim Wright, then it appears to me that he likes to think about that, too. He especially likes to think about people he sees as having stood in the way of his desire to assume positions of influence or leadership. Jim Wright likes to be noticed, listened to and respected.
Is Jim Wright a mentor?
Jim Wright says he’s a mentor. Who has he mentored? I haven’t seen any names. Again, it’s a nice word for P.R. work and resumes. It certainly puts him in the position of being the leader, though, doesn’t it?
Is Jim Wright a teacher?
It would appear so. Jim represents himself as doing a lot of teaching. When you look at it carefully, however, the definition seems to include mostly meeting at the jails or at his home, where he provides seminars for some of his entrepreneurial endeavours or occasional counselling courses based on Theophostic Counseling. Jim and his wife Marianne represent themselves as “Pastoral Counselors” based on their claim to be Theophostic Prayer Ministers.
He also taught with Emmanuel Christian Institute, an apparently unaccredited program based in the Caribbean Islands. Many years ago, all references to him disappeared from that site. It simply demonstrates the claims made on the one hand and the reality of what is at work. Jim Wright’s advanced degree is in Law, not theology. Again, it certainly reflects the superior position Jim Wright believes he occupies and deserves relative to others. Perhaps he’s compensating for disappointment in not finishing and pursuing a career in church work or theology earlier?
Is Jim Wright an Older Brother in the Faith?
Jim Wright claims to be a Christian and holds himself out as a leader, mentor, teacher, etc. He appears to have some form of faith. He might even recognize yours, as long as you agree with him, or at least don’t fall into any form of “error,” which he frequently labels as “post-modernism,” etc. If you read his writings for any period, like me, you may see him as a familiar “Older Brother” as described by Jesus in one particular parable. But once again, we visit the assumed position of Jim Wright relative to those who are wise enough to sit at his feet and recognize his superior position. The more you come to know Jim Wright, the more you’ll find that Jim Wright likes to assume the role of the “Older Brother” and probably doesn’t see the irony in that title.
Is Jim Wright motivated by Redemption?
I’ll leave it to you to decide that on your own. Motivations can be pretty tricky things to discern. Sometimes, people may not know what motivates them, even when it’s evident to others. Redemption doesn’t seem to be a very high priority the more you read and observe Jim Wright, in my opinion. Redemption ties into things like Grace, Mercy and Service.
Jim likes to pick fights, and when people respond to his aggression, he is fond of the term “You picked the wrong guy” and presents himself as a tireless crusader for whatever cause he’s claiming to represent. When he gets specific about things and goes after people, those names seem to be people from his old churches or his attempt to create a following on the internet by going after people with a higher profile than he has and promoting theology or methods he disagrees with. Is this Redemptive? Jim Wright appears to make more enemies than friends in any event.
Never Fear! Jim is Here!
Is Jim Wright a Foe of Tyrants?
I guess it depends on what you define as a tyrant. As best I can see, Jim Wright considers those who stand in the way of his deserved place as the focus and center of attention to be “tyrants.” He certainly speaks in many areas in the theory of opposing hypothetical tyrants. When you look closer, however, you find that the people he personally targets and sets himself as a foe toward are people with much more influence than he has. He cloaks himself with the title “Foe of Tyrants,” but in practice, it looks remarkably as if he’s got another agenda going as well. He talks a perfect game, but when he actually plays the game, it’s pretty revealing who those “tyrants” are.
They’re people from his past churches and people he has had online disagreements within other areas. It’s one thing to speak about things in general. When you get specific, however, and the only people showing up on your radar screen are people you personally have had issues with before you come out with the accusations, that isn’t a foe of tyrants, in my opinion. That is a muckraker and rumour-monger.
The “Tyrants” Jim Wright goes after the most are people and organizations he’s already in conflict with previously and on other matters. Examples include the two last local churches Jim Wright was a part of in Manassas, VA, Sovereign Grace Ministries, and Christian Authors with whom he disagrees.
Is Jim Wright a friend of the dispossessed?
He’s active with the Prison Ministry, as noted. He claims to speak for victims in other realms as well, and understandably, in those situations, it wouldn’t be expected to name such people. It’s pretty easy to claim anonymous people, and when you add to that that when Jim Wright claims to speak for anonymous “victims,” “witnesses,” and “elders,” it’s a pretty obvious and fair question to ask whether these are real “dispossessed” people or instead just manufactured or exaggerated entities that serve the purposes that Jim Wright has independent of his claimed sympathies. It’s a pretty easy cloak to wrap yourself in when you claim to represent victims of sexual abuse.
Of course, people do, and people should have strong reactions to the abuses there. When you look at Jim Wright, however, other than mentioning things from the media which are accessible to everyone and then you look at whom Jim Wright and his organization have actually “named” and gone after, there are mostly (maybe even only) those whom Jim Wright has had some level of personal contact with himself, and has had previous issues. Then, all of a sudden, massive “scandals” come out. A reasonable person really should ask why that is the case.
A reputable organization operating in this arena should have named board members and leaders, and any who have previous relationships with those accused should be recused so that any information released is not tainted with an apparent or plausible conflict of interest, in my opinion. In particular, Jim Wright has claimed to base his charges at a time on the testimony and representations of Keith W. Smith and his wife, Jeanne Elder Smith. Keith W. Smith is a confessed academic and professional fraud, and Jim Wright clearly did not check his falsified credentials.
Is Jim Wright a retired attorney, entrepreneur, private pilot, and so-so bass fisherman?
Yes. As far as I can see, he is. (See! …. I can give short answers, too.)
There’s evidence online besides Jim Wright’s self-representation that he’s a retired attorney admitted to the bar in the District of Columbia. I have found no evidence that he’s admitted anywhere else, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he isn’t. The public sources for the State Bar for Virginia do not show him as an active member in its public listings, and Jim could have requested his listing to be removed; the Justia listing shows only Washington DC.
What about some of these organizations?
Thanks for reminding me! I will not address all the organizations here because many other organizations tied to Jim Wright may be involved with other partnerships or endeavours and may not be ministry-related. There are old ones as well as current ones. I do not want to go outside that here, but I came across many others. That’s evidence to me that Jim is indeed something of an entrepreneur. How about if we start with Fulcrum Ministries?
What does Jim say that Fulcrum Ministries is?
Jim said this about Fulcrum Ministries on his Crossroad Junction personal blog.
My blog is not the web site for Fulcrum Ministries. Maybe some day we’ll get around to doing that.
In the meantime, here’s some basic information:
Fulcrum Ministries is nothing more than a legal framework – including government recognition where needed for tax or counseling confidentiality purposes – for small gatherings of believers who meet in folks’ homes, jail dormitories, homeless shelters, coffee houses and other improbable places for fellowship and to participate together in the joy of knowing Jesus. We don’t however, call ourselves “Fulcrum Ministries” or anything else – that name’s just a placeholder for legal purposes.
So it’s just a name that can be used for legal purposes?
That’s what Jim says.
Is that how Fulcrum Ministries acts?
Not in my opinion. Fulcrum Ministries, as best as I can see, is one legal entity that Jim Wright has created, which provides him with the means to pretty much present anything he does or says publicly as part of a more extensive network of people which, in turn, he uses to try to amplify his own voice and his own importance.
Why would you say that?
For one thing, Fulcrum Ministries is often used as a created entity in Jim’s other blogs, which “speaks.”
What do you mean by that?
When you read announcements and statements in these blogs, the name of the “person” speaking often is “Fulcrum Ministries,” and it uses terms such as “we” and “our.”
That seems odd? I thought Jim said it was just a legal placeholder, and he and these unnamed people didn’t call themselves “Fulcrum Ministries?”
That’s what he said. It’s not how he functions with it, however.
So when Fulcrum Ministries speaks, who does the talking?
I have seen no evidence that is ever anyone other than Jim Wright.
But who else is he speaking for?
I don’t know. Jim Wright doesn’t say. He claims to be speaking for, depending upon the circumstance, the fellowships collectively, the other “elders” in those fellowships, and other contexts for victims, witnesses, the “dispossessed,” etc. I’ve never seen any evidence, however, that other people put their names to his statements, identify themselves and stand behind him in the public actions he takes.
Are you saying that there aren’t other people?
I’m saying I don’t know. I only see Jim Wright speaking. I hear the claims of others. I don’t notice them; they aren’t identified in general terms. When I ask to contact them to visit a fellowship, I’m met with a brick wall. I contact the “official website” of some of these organizations under Fulcrum Ministries, and all the points of contact go exclusively to Jim Wright. I asked if there was any other organization representative to speak with, and I received no reply.
This is what Jim Wright apparently defines as being “hostile.” He is the point of contact for multiple organizations, but the only voice I hear and the only person I see is Jim Wright. That is not normal. A network of organic churches is not a secret society. It is fair to ask, “What is Jim Wright hiding?” Are these organizations real or just a form of an internet “megaphone” to make someone’s voice louder?
Jim likes to write about “cults.” Jim is the only face for all these claimed people. If that doesn’t smell like “cult,” I don’t know what does. Jim has accused other organic leaders of having poor track records in churches planted that haven’t lasted and can’t be tracked. Jim Wright holds himself up as a standard for organic church, and he can’t verify, name or provide contacts for the ones he claims currently exist. Again, a former member of the house church who attended as recently as a year ago is not aware of any other fellowships outside of the core group in the one home church that has meetings in different locations with essentially the same people in part or whole.
Jim Wright and his organizations may be like a movie stage set for an old Hollywood western. There’s just one set of old shacks and buildings, but when a movie is going to be shot, stagehands make facades on the outside to create whatever image the script calls for. By being an ambiguous organization used as an umbrella for this network of organic churches, Fulcrum Ministries can take on any facade that Jim Wright’s script calls for, in my estimation. So when Jim Wright says it’s just a legal placeholder, in one sense, he’s saying it can be whatever he wants it to be. It does “speak”. It does claim to “do” things. It provides for engaging “theatre” when it “acts.”
There’s no reason I can believe that Fulcrum Ministries is anything other than Jim Wright, acting according to Jim Wright’s dictates and needs. I am, and I believe anyone else should be, utterly skeptical of anything Jim Wright claims to say on behalf of unnamed others. I’m not saying there couldn’t be others. I just strongly suspect they are not the numbers, nor is there any real formal collaboration to the degree that Jim Wright presents and leads people to believe, and I won’t accept it until I have more than Jim Wright’s claims.
Can you give me an example of what you mean?
Jim Wright claims repeatedly that he is an “Organic Sower” and represents a network of fellowships. Jim Wright, however, until at least 2009, was a part of local Institutional Churches in the Northern Virginia area. He mentions them repeatedly on his blogs by name and names individuals and pastors with whom he has “issues” or “concerns.” To look at the claims, you’d think that each church is led by a coalition of demons set upon destroying the Kingdom of God collectively.
After Jim left both of these churches, the last one by excommunication, which he tried to hide, and began to use his blog sites to blast them as powerfully as he could to “warn others” of the dangers that were there, Jim appeared to have decided that organic or participatory church was what he wanted to be involved in. So he took the step of coming out of these Institutional Churches and presents himself online now as an organic church.
However, Jim did something odd and demonstrates what I mean about allowing Fulcrum Ministries to become whatever his specific needs were. Jim contacted the local Ministerium of Institutional churches in Manassas, Virginia, where both of his former churches were a part, and sought admission as a representative of “Fulcrum Ministries.”
What? Why would Jim do something like that?
You’d have to ask Jim, I guess. I understand that he attended a meeting or two and then fell away. Still, the fact remains that for at least a short time, Jim effectively represented Fulcrum Ministries as an organized church or ministry seeking standing and seating with the other local Institutional Churches in the area.
Why would he want to be a part of a Ministerium that included two Churches he was so vigorously attacking in public?
I don’t know. Some fairly evident reasons might present themselves, I think. Suppose you’re aggressively attempting to shame two churches and pastors. In that case, getting yourself into a forum where just your presence can be perceived as a further statement against them is pretty heady for an angry and bitter person attempting to take his pound of flesh, as it were. Also, more charitably, it may be that he was trying to explore it to get more exposure to his vision for his network of ministries. However, it certainly makes no sense that he would attempt to define himself as a local Institutional Church.
So I’m confused? Is Fulcrum Ministries an Organic Church network or an Institutional Church?
T
hat’s the point. When you create an amorphous, ambiguous, loose organization, and you’re the only public voice and person representing it, you can present it however you want it to appear. When you’re attacking two other local churches, you can make yourself an Institutional Church. Suppose you’re attacking leading voices and authors in the organic church community. In that case, you can push yourself not only an organic fellowship but claim that every meeting you’ve had in a prison dorm, halfway house, home, or even just meeting in a coffee shop is now part of a network of organic churches. It’s straightforward if you refuse to answer questions about who you are and who you represent. You can maintain the image of speaking for a large contingency of unnamed and unnumbered people.
Might they be there? I suppose, but have you ever called a church, ministry, or person before and asked to visit because you’re curious and want to see them and have been told not to come? Even if you think someone is “hostile” or “skeptical,” can you imagine Jesus telling somebody not to come to meet him and hear him? There’s certainly a lot of questions to ask. Without more than Jim Wright’s word, I wouldn’t accept the claim of anything terribly large or extensive. The past “organic churches” that Jim Wright claims to have founded with his parents are now tied primarily to Sovereign Grace Ministries, and again, there are strong tones present from the Shepherding Movement of the 70s and 80s.
What are these other organizations that are part of Fulcrum Ministries?
Jim identifies the following as the organizations of his legal framework on his blog:
Pastoral Counseling: The link to this service goes to a post on Jim’s Crossroad Junction blog, where you find out that the Pastoral Counselor is Jim Wright. Jim has no known credentials in Pastoral Counseling. He claims training in Theophostic Prayer Ministry. Theophostic Prayer Ministries goes to great lengths to make clear that they are not a counselling organization and offer no credentials. This is reckless behaviour.
Fostering Indigenous Churches: The link to this service goes to a post on Jim’s Crossroad Junction blog, where you find out that the Church Planter, Sower, and foster parent is Jim Wright.
Redemption Homes: The link to this service goes to another WordPress Website, with 5 blog articles by Fulcrum Ministries (the framework speaks!) and, you guessed it, Jim Wright.
Nathan’s Voice: This link to this service goes to another blog site, which claims to be about helping victims of abusive churches and exploitive (sic) church leaders. No names are given as to who comprise this voice in the About section, and the blog articles are all written by either (and this gets repetitive) Fulcrum Ministries and Jim Wright.
In other words, Fulcrum Ministries and Jim Wright are the only voices, and there’s no reason to believe that Fulcrum Ministries is anything or anyone other than Jim Wright regarding who speaks, responds and acts on behalf of “Nathan’s Voice.”
However, let’s take a closer look at Nathan’s Voice because that’s where Jim Wright launches many of his attacks.
OK. So Nathan’s Voice has no names you can see identified other than Fulcrum Ministries and Jim Wright. Why does that matter?
Victims advocate groups are unusual entities in many ways. There have certainly been many public instances of scandal and cover-ups and a growing awareness of the cases of abuse in Churches and involving Spiritual leaders. Often, those who are victimized have great difficulty speaking out for many reasons, including pain, trauma, embarrassment, shame, the loss of spiritual community and fellowship, a tendency on the part of congregations to not want to believe the accusations, etc. It’s entirely appropriate for there to be some level of anonymity for victims. It’s even suitable for there to be, at times, some level of anonymity for witnesses for similar reasons. However, there’s something to be said for people being accused of having the right to face their accusers and the witnesses, which often takes time and process to arrive at.
However, there’s no reason I can see for those who are the organization’s representatives not to be named. In fact, that’s pretty much essential. The reputations and the credibility of those of the organization who are screening situations are foundational to the credibility of their voices collectively. It’s puzzling why Jim Wright refuses to name his collaborators, whether they be fellow board members, elders, counsellors in the community, etc.
Jim speaks highly of one other such organization, which is called The Hope of Survivors. If you look at that site and click on the “Corporate” tab, you can easily access the names of those who serve as leaders and volunteers in the organization. The Board of Directors is clearly identified. You find no such element for Nathan’s Voice. I see it hard to believe that any credible public organization claiming to speak for victims of sexual abuse would not provide the names and credentials of its board and leaders. Still, Nathan’s Voice doesn’t, and we’re left to dig into the blog articles to see that it is Jim Wright and Fulcrum Ministries alone that are the contacts, the voice and none others except those that Jim Wright asks us to trust are there behind the scenes.
That’s what it looks like to you?
Yes. It’s not hard to see that if you look at the voices represented, only Jim Wright and Fulcrum Ministries are named. Fulcrum Ministries seems to be what is used when actual accusations are being made toward actual people other than general articles or references to people in the media which are public. That’s pretty straightforward; by having an organization make the accusation, you provide liability control, and you also put in place layers that people have to go through to find out who is making the charges if there’s a desire to hold whoever is making charges accountable. So, suppose you are the person making such a charge, and your personal concern is cloaking yourself from liability and responsibility for those claims. In that case, it might be a plausible strategy to create an organization, put it under another organization, and then speak with those two layers of separation from yourself to form a barrier and make it more complex and more expensive for someone to find out who you really are.
Are you saying that Jim Wright is playing games with these identities?
I’m saying that while it isn’t too terribly hard to see through the organization to know that Jim Wright is the only point of contact and spokesman, most people who come upon a blog article making such a claim are going to take it at face value and presume that these other entities are more than a group of unnamed people with Jim Wright doing all the talking. For many people, the perception becomes the reality. Articles like this are linked to other blogs and spread on social media. People who have never heard of Jim Wright, Fulcrum Ministries and Nathan’s Voice assume this is something like a news release or a reputable organization with named representatives and board members who are carefully screening the information they might put out, which, if wrong, has the potential to have a devastating impact on somebody’s life and reputation. Would you want to be the target of accusations from a possible committee of one?
What makes you think that might be going on?
Nathan’s Voice was up as a blog site for about two years before all this began. Jim Wright claims that Nathan’s Voice has helped “hundreds” of people with different forms of assistance. He doesn’t say who they are (understandably in many cases), where they are, or in what context they’ve been helped. Counselling could simply refer to the different forms of counselling that Wright and their wife provide in their own activities, or they may have other counsellors they refer people to. However, it’s an odd claim because the Wrights are Theophostic Prayer Ministers and not legitimate pastoral counsellors.
Wright, as I’ve noted before, and I’m willing to correct this if he contacts me, doesn’t appear to be a practicing attorney admitted to the State Bar in Virginia based on the public listings in online directories I’ve examined. He may have other attorneys he’s connected with in Virginia who are sympathetic or supportive of his cause. Again, I see no reason that such relationships or people on the “board” named wouldn’t be disclosed. We only have Jim Wright to contact, and he’s the only one speaking.
That seems unusual for an organization that’s helped hundreds, right?
Yes, I think it does.
So, who are the two accusations directed toward?
One of Wright’s former churches and an author in the Organic Church community whom Jim Wright has been attempting to confront on theological matters for more than 2 years.
What? Both of them have ties to Jim Wright personally?
Indeed, the former church is a personal connection.
The national author Wright has never met, but people from Wright’s former churches that I’ve spoken with have told me that Wright has given out books by that author and supported his writings early on while he was exploring “organic church.” If you read Wright’s blogs, you will see that early on, he tried to engage with the author publicly, and after a short period, the author stopped interacting with him due to the growing volume of public contact and the escalating tone of challenge and disagreement with the author in several areas mostly having to do with theology and what Jim Wright decried as “post-modernism” at work.
Jim Wright also likes to repeatedly attack Sovereign Grace Ministries and claim he’s involved in lawsuits against them. Even there, though, Jim Wright has a personal grudge and vendetta at work because Sovereign Grace Ministries took over New Covenant Church in Arnold, MD, which was founded by Jim’s father, Bob Wright, and this “replant” is apparently supported too by the “organic church fellowships” that appear really to just have been run of the mill, garden-variety Shepherding Movement hierarchical cell groups.
So, Jim Wright has strong opinions?
Yes, he does. He describes himself as evangelical with a reformed bent.
That means he has strong ties to the fundamentalist movement in general, has participated in the past with pro-life organizations, and has vehemently opposed influences in theology such as liberalism and neo-orthodoxy. Jim Wright, though for some odd reason in other places, doesn’t like being associated with “Fundamentalists,” even though he and his dad, Bob Wright, freely used the term in their political activism.
Why should I care about that? I don’t even really know what that means.
I just state it so you know that Jim firmly believes that if you don’t accept his narrow view of theology, he sees you as a threat to stand against and oppose. This type of activity is typically known as “Heresy Hunting,” and Jim Wright is quite active in it.
So that’s what happened with this other person who was accused by Nathan’s Voice?
After continued escalation, over about a year, then accusations of sexual impropriety came out.
So you’re saying that there have only been two accusations made by Nathan’s Voice, and both were people with whom Jim Wright had other issues?
Yes. I’m saying that was true up to 2015.
Wouldn’t a reputable victim’s organization recuse someone with other issues with a potential public announcement that could ruin somebody’s life and reputation?
Sock Puppet Spokesperson
Yes. I think that would be the case. Such a person would certainly not be utilized in reviewing such a situation and then speaking as the sole voice of the organization. That would create an apparent conflict of interest and the appearance of a personal vendetta that a credible organization would want to avoid.
Jim Wright could clear that up immediately by giving names and contact information of board members and professionals involved (if any), and he’s been asked, but he won’t do it. When I’ve asked on social media, he has blocked me. When I’ve asked by email and form submission, he’s ignored me.
It also raises the grave question that if Jim Wright isn’t being transparent about where he can and should be with fellow Nathan’s Voice organization leaders, what is happening with the anonymous victims and witnesses behind the scenes?
So why isn’t Nathan’s Voice using someone else to speak?
I don’t know. Ask Jim Wright. Perhaps there’s nobody else who can do it?
So what do you suggest someone should do when Jim Wright begins to visit their forums, blogs or Social Media?
I can’t tell other people what to do, but I recommend being very careful. Be prepared for highly judgmental evaluations measured by what Jim Wright believes is happening. Labelling is likely with words like “post-modern,” gnostic, or existential being thrown around a lot. You can expect a lot of references to his network of churches and organizations to try to establish credibility and convince you that Jim Wright is critical and should be listened to.
Overall, I’d suggest simply ignoring him, or once the escalation is noticed, go ahead and block him or remove him from your group or community. He’s used to it. He’s been banned on many websites and in many social media forums. He’ll often take the “conversation” and put it up on his own blog, where he can continue the conversation (really a monologue) and pronounce the final disposition of the issue, which will be precisely what he stated in the first place.
What should I do when I see accusations made by Jim Wright against people and churches?
Well, of course, even a stopped clock is right occasionally. Still, based on Jim Wright’s personal history and track record, any such accusations he comes forward with should, in my opinion, be treated with extreme suspicion and remain that way until there’s actual evidence of other people putting their names and reputations alongside Jim’s and his organizations. In the absence of that, you should just consider it speaking out for the attention of a man who has been hurt and frustrated in achieving his place with the visions of his organization. You should especially check to see Jim Wright’s relationship with those accused. To this point, the only people who have merited that attention have connections to him that explain possible motives outside of how he attempts to portray himself as a crusader and friend to the weak.
What should I do if Jim Wright targets me, my church, friends or leaders?
Realize that Jim Wright doesn’t have a great deal of credibility online. His past accusations haven’t been picked up by more credible blog sources or Christian Media. Facebook has deleted his Crossroad Junction account for multiple Community Guidelines Violations. In most cases, just ignore him. Engaging with him provides him with a platform to expand his accusations and continue in the image he wants to present to you and how he wants to present you. He mainly interacts as Plumbline Faith, and he’ll no doubt change that up when it suits his purposes.
If the charges are especially severe and outrageous, and you want to pursue them, you could pursue some form of libel charges. Know, however, that such actions are typically pretty expensive. Jim Wright, in fact, creates multiple groups and L.L.C.s specifically to protect himself against litigation, which he seems to expect and, in a twisted way, maybe even invite.
Although Jim Wright may not be an admitted attorney in the venue you’re acting in, he can act as his own attorney, and I suspect he would enjoy being sued in this manner. It gives him the additional platform to speak as a martyr for his cause. It allows him to use every tool at his disposal as a litigator to tie things up in court and increase your costs. At the same time, he works for himself and then, in the end, probably makes some sort of settlement that will not be public but which, in the end, he can claim victory. Add to that the layers of corporate separation that he’s set up, and it could be a long, expensive and emotionally draining endeavour. So, that leaves Jim Wright and his organizations with many barriers to keep you from holding them accountable. The costs of pursuing such an action could be very high.
That sounds pretty grim, so what else can I do?
Jim Wright’s blogs are currently all hosted on WordPress as the content server, and they do have terms of service that provide recourse outside of the law. In addition, there are ways to file complaints if you believe Wright has violated those terms of service.
Check out the terms of service at: http://en.wordpress.com/tos/
Complaints can be filed at http://en.support.wordpress.com/disputes/
An excellent way to confirm the information related to Jim Wright’s Blogs and Organizations is here: http://www.domaintools.com/
Also, you can link to this blog and website, as they’ve been around for a while and are pretty thorough references that provide much information. Many blogs and organizations have deleted Jim Wright from participating based on the information presented in this blog.
What if I have questions about you and what you’re doing here?
I’m accessible on my blog here and give information about myself. I’m not an organization. I’m not trying to pretend to be anybody or anything I’m not. I’m simply using my blog to give my experiences, the results of my looking at Jim Wright based on my local proximity to him, and my opinion based on my observation of his online activities. Leave a comment on this article if you like. All comments on my blog are moderated and don’t go up unless I’ve reviewed and approved them. So don’t assume your comments will be posted if they aren’t germane to the issue. Jim Wright has made it clear on his blog that he will not post any responses countering his accusations unless they are just a declaration of surrender and agreement to his accusations.
I’m not quite so unrealistic and impressed with myself. If I can improve this blog article for accuracy, I will gladly update it. My intent in doing this is to make people aware of who Mr Wright is, what his organizations are and what to consider when engaging with him. I have no desire to harm him. I simply wish to contain some of the harm he appears to enjoy doing and the attention he likes to attract to himself. As he does this in the public eye, he’s as open to public examination as the people he seeks to “expose.”
This article is solely my possession and speaks for no one else but me. These comments represent my reasonable faith effort to accurately convey my opinions and findings as I’ve examined these issues. I am willing to make corrections as needed.
Aren’t you concerned about what Jim Wright might do to you for asking these hard questions?
Well, if history is any indicator, I likely will become a target for Jim Wright. I accept that. He’s made it clear he doesn’t like me, my beliefs or my questions.
I think there’s something significant here, however. Independent of whether any of the accusations that Nathan’s Voice is making are true or not, it is not suitable for an organization to take it upon itself to create them, to not be as transparent as possible and held to the highest standard possible. Anything that even smacks vigilante justice and the personal destruction of churches and church leaders, in the end, is not helpful to the cause of genuine victims and witnesses.
There are any number of alternatives to the way Fulcrum Ministries and Nathan’s Voice, in particular, are operating in this instance that wouldn’t leave the concerns being expressed here open to these fundamental criticisms. Either of these situations could have been handed over to other organizations where no issues or apparent conflicts of interest existed. Jim Wright cannot claim to speak for victims when his motives and desires even hint at a personal agenda. When charges are released publicly as they have been, there must be some level of internal control and balance that doesn’t risk making exaggerated or fabricated claims.
If I have to take a hit for being the only person brave enough to stand up to Jim Wright to bring these issues to light and ask the tough questions, then I’m willing to do it. This goes beyond my concern for my friend and asks, Who is Jim Wright and these organizations, and how can they operate in this manner without these questions being addressed and answered? Without that, there’s no basis for credibility, and we’re left to simply wait and see who will be following in the cross-hairs. If it’s me, then so be it.
(Note: True to form, Jim Wright has frantically tried to defame me in many ways, including trying to label me as a stalker, a cult leader and a sexual abuse promoter. This was part of Crossroad Junction being thrown off of Facebook. That should tell you something.)
Addendum (3/15/2015)
According to this post by Jim Wright in 2010, he was part of a group expelled from a United Methodist Church in the mid to late 1970s. Note that this post was less than a year after being excommunicated from his local Church in Manassas, VA, in 2009, and at the time, he was still representing himself as a “Church” and his position as a “Minister.”
Related Articles:
Everything You Need to Know in One Minute
Jim Wright / Plumbline Faith / Crossroad Junction Watch 