Since the publication a couple of weeks ago of the admission by Jonathan Howe that the story published by Baptist Press on Jennifer Lyell was not accurate, I’ve been dealing privately with a man (I won’t give any information on him, other than he holds a responsible job at a non-SBC parachurch organization) who constantly wanted to find fault with Ms. Lyell and continue to besmirch her reputation. I finally cut him off, because I was getting so frustrated with his ignorant insinuations. It is hard to imagine the damage done by the Baptist Press’s irresponsibility in March when they first reported on Jennifer’s statement that she had been abused by a professor at Southern Seminary, Dr. David Sills. I have no idea why people would want to add to the torment Dr. Sills put her through, but evidently some “Christians,” not satisfied with the suffering of a woman under the hand of an abusive predator, want to heap shame and pain on her as well. Human depravity is real.
Jonathan Howe is taking the right steps in his early days as VP for Communications at the Executive Committee and has just issued an expanded Statement from Baptist Press that further elaborates the mistakes made by Baptist Press in their reporting of the story and apologizes clearly for the failure. He promises that Baptist Press will not make such mistakes in the future and he wants to help make the SBC a safe place for people who report abuse. It is well-stated and I am grateful for his stand. He may draw criticism in some circles, but when has an SBC entity ever issued a statement like this? It is ground-breaking.
Howe makes important points:
- In her original statement, Lyell made it clear that what went on was emotional and sexual abuse, but Baptist Press changed the wording to “morally inappropriate relationship.”
- This change caused great damage to Ms. Lyell, since the wording change by Baptist Press led people to assume an affair took place instead of years of emotional and sexual abuse. People wholly ignorant of the story, unknowing of the details, drew conclusions that were unwarranted. Jennifer suffered greatly because of it.
- The article references “un-Christlike slurs” against Jennifer Lyell. This is an understatement.
- The change was made because of legal and policy concerns. Without revealing sources or betraying confidences, I’ve been privy to other stories recently where “doing the right thing” was put on the back burner because of legal concerns. I understand that. No one wants to get sued. But there has to come a time when we do the right thing no matter what the consequences. People have died for the faith – we can’t face legal jeopardy?
I realize some people will be slow to trust and suspicious of the motives and timing of this statement. I think Jonathan has the desire to do the right thing and make Baptist Press the place of “Christian journalism that prioritizes integrity, truth, and accuracy” he described as the goal.
Time will tell. I believe in Jonathan’s heart and character. May it come to pass.
May all the slander against Jennifer Lyell pass away and may the truth of this story be recognized.
Thanks Dave… I appreciate and affirm your use of the words “ground breaking”… I thought about using similar language in a tweeted response to the BP, but refrained and so you using it, is a confirmation as you are so much more in tune with the SBC as I have only been following the SBC journey for the last few years now as I have focused on addressing abuses of power in the reformed tradition I’m with… I too am hopeful that this action is indicative of a true change of heart for those who are employed by the institutional church (SBC and beyond), that as believers, and especially leaders, we realize our call is far higher than protecting the institutional church from legal, that our call and responsibility to the Kingdom Church is to do the right thing, no matter the cost – often at our own expense so the suffering and vulnerable and abused/hurt may benefit and find healing in our midst, loving people and protecting them from harm, and seeking justice and truth with those who have been harmed, more than being loyal to our idolized institutions and traditions, whatever those might be… may the sacred trust that has been deeply violated in so many ways across “christendom” be restored by His people that are part of the Kingdom Church of God that are following Jesus’ commands and His witness…
“… more than being loyal to our idolized institutions and traditions…” Yes. Come to think of it, both Jesus and Stephen died because powerful religious leaders falsely charged them with wanting to destroy the temple and traditions.
One of the aspects of that shaped the original BP story is that, as I read BP the statement BP released today, BP wanted to wait until Dr. Sills had a chance to respond to BPs request for his side of the story. One of the problems that responsible journalism faces is weighing the need to publish a “complete picture” without getting input from all sides of the story.
Here are several outcomes: [a] BP runs the story essentially as reported by their own news gathering without gathering more facts from ALL sides — which could force them to retract stuff later. [b] BP runs with a toned down version of the story which only reports a subset of what turned out to be the facts — which would be in retrospect be viewed as downplaying what actually happened.
They chose [b]. I’d say they did the right thing at the time.
The only problem BP had with the story is that they should have issued a more strongly worded statement months ago about what we now know actually happened. I looks to me like BP was “inadvertently” slanting the reporting of the story and they didn’t do anything to correct it until this whole thing blew up last week even though over the last number of months they had mounting evidence that that the story was incomplete.
Responsible journalism demands that when amplifications and corrections are needed THEY ARE PUBLISHED IN A TIMELY MANER.
Roger Simpson
If you have to balance the risk of “having to retract stuff later” with doing significant damage to a victim of sexual abuse, there is something wrong. This can be proven by BP’s significant, non responsive delay in correcting the story. Howe’s story is a step in the right direction but there is still a long way to go.
Ronnie Floyd needs to publicly repent of how he treated Jennifer when she tried to correct the story and SBC ExComm as well. Both were horrible to her, even threatening her if she continued, and she says this is what broke her emotionally. That is inflicting trauma on a victim of sexual abuse like Paige Patterson did.
Ronnie Floyd is the last person that should have been on the Caring Well Panel or any other area of SBC life. According to Jennifer, the BP, Ronnie Floyd and EXCOMM threatened to escalate the trauma she was already going through.
https://twitter.com/jenlyell/status/1184245062403792896
I would like to hear from the EC and see/read the minutes from the meeting where Ms. Lyles asserts she was treated badly by Dr. Floyd and others.
If that happened – there ought to be repercussions.
I think the notion of a real investigation of the EC on this idea is a good one. Lyell was quite specific about the people she talked to and how they responded. Howe alluded to certainly “policy and legal” concerns that allowed the BP to hang Lyell out to dry. What were they? Who advanced them? What discussions happened in the following months prevented Lyell’s story from being corrected? Who was behind the scenes. All of those should be examined if we are find our way,.
I keep hearing that Ronnie Floyd is the new sheriff in town,. He needs to start sheriffing. His credibility is draining away. Depending on his actions with Lyell they may have already done so.
Great point John R. and I completely agree. At this point the only person with any credibility is Ms. Lyell. Her statements have been clear and consistent. BP released the “inaccurate” initial story and then followed with a statement after Rachel Denhollander “outed” them on stage at Caring Well and now 10 days later followed up with this clarification. I would be willing to bet (but I know we baptists don’t gamble) that during this 10 day window there was legal consultation about the wording and admissions in the clarification. All that to say this – BP has corrected/amended their initial reporting. The EC and Dr. Floyd have not publicly responded. That leaves me to draw the conclusion that the only person who has been up front and clear in all this is Ms. Lyell. Ms. Lyell has been beyond gracious about Johnathan Howe and his work at BP and it definitely appears that changes are taking place. That is a good thing.
The issue now remains to assess what Dr. Floyd and the EC did or did not do. They have not (to my knowledge) publicly responded. Therefore I agree with John R. that an investigation is in order (not to verify Ms. Lyell’s claims as there seems to be no question about their truth) but an investigation into what the EC and Dr. Floyd did or did not do. Let them respond PUBLICLY and let this issue be addressed. Nothing will change regarding the abuse culture in the SBC until there are consequences and until people at all levels are called to account for their response to the abuse crisis we are facing.
Agree. There needs to be a public response at this point from Dr. Floyd. Surprised there hasn’t been an apologetic response already. Not a good sign.
My comment stands with no apologies. It may have been deleted, but truth is truth. Not being able to say it like it is is what has gotten us in this mess. I think some need to learn that lesson.
My guess is that the minutes of that meeting won’t reflect any bad treatment. Unless it was recorded, I would not trust the minutes to accurately and fairly reflect the tone of the meeting.
If what she asserts is true, something I tend to believe simply because that’s the way virtually all of these issues have turned out regarding this particular issue, none of those involved on the executive committee end should be working for a Christian denomination that desires to reflect integrity.
Lets find out if the meetings are recorded. If they are, I say lets hear it. The EC probably would need to jump some legal hoops, and need a waiver from her to release the minutes of the interaction though.
I agree with you about those guilty if the accusations of mistreatment are true…
First, let me say I believe Lyell. But my belief means nothing.
I know I am not supposed to ask this, but… Has there been an independent investigation into Lyell’s allegation of sustained sexual assault and manipulation? By that I mean the police. By the way, aren’t we telling churches and schools and institutions to NOT INVESTIGATE allegations on their own?
So, trying to be legally fair, has there been any independent confirmation of the allegation? I could not find any indication of this. If there is, let me know.
My understanding is that these actions were not explicitly illegal. I think Ms. Lyell was over 18 when the abuse occurred thus making it a non-criminal matter, and not subject to police investigation. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t wrong, just that it was not something for which the state of Texas possesses an applicable penal code.
As well, Sills’ resignation seems to be an indication that he opted not to contest the allegations. Perhaps this was all the investigation needed by the seminary to confirm, at least organizationally, the veracity of the claims being made.
Ethan: You would be wrong. Please do not comment on this anymore. I do not know where your information comes from but not only is it wrong, it is damaging to Jennifer Lyell. If you don’t know do not comment.
Debbie, since you are commenting, by the logic of your post, you know. So, is there any independent confirmation of the Lyell claim? Any investigation by a 3rd party (ie non-SBC)?
Debbie, I welcome being corrected. I dislike being wrong enough that I’m willing to say, “Teach me – I’ll listen.”
If my facts are incorrect, then I’ll gladly (enthusiastically, willingly, voluntarily, deliberately, humbly, etc) accept being pointed in the direction of correct information. I mean that truly. Could you, then, point me towards what you would call a credible summary of this matter? And by credible I mean something other than BP.
And thanks in advance.
Since when is forcing someone to unwillingly participate in unwanted sexual activities not a criminal matter?
.
Lee, i wasn’t aware that she is claiming that happened (the forcibly part of your comment suggests actual rape) – am I missing something?
Debbie is correct in her statement. We do not need an investigation to see clearly the time line of the EC and Baptist Press ignoring for months the truth. That is blatantly obvious, early March till October… with Ronnie Floyd at the lead of this. This in itself is evidence of willfully ignoring abuse.
Even though it has not been mentioned here, the bruhaha about Paula Whites endorsement by a few SB elites, involves Ronnie Floyd also. Ronnie has been friendly and cooperative with the NAR movement which Paula is a part of for years. Even to the point of taking part in a conference with them as a featured speaker. Our SBC Ridgecrest Conference center is happily hosting a NAR conference I believe this very month, going against their own rules for use of the property. Not only is Ronnie guilty of turning a blind eye from abuse but also of linking us with the such as Paula White and NAR.
So Ronnie really should have a lot to answer for if most did not have celebrity christian stars in their eyes. But alas, Most with a voice in the SBC will turn a blind eye or give excuse for leaders like Floyd.
Alan,
Would you call into question a conference at Ridgecrest for a group which practices infant baptism like the Presbyterian Church in America? I say that because many an SBC pastor has attended T4TG Conferences in which PCA pastors (like Billy Graham’s grandson) have been speakers. A fundamental doctrine of Baptists historically has been Credo Baptism, not Paedo Baptism, (Remember Baptists in The Netherlands were called Anabaptists due to their opposition to infant baptism) yet these pastors have no issue in being in a group with those who believe quite differently.
Like the issues over Lifeway, when you have entities within the SBC umbrella who are essentially business units, they are set up to attract customers and at least break even, if not make a profit. This leads to efforts which may be controversial (like Lifeway selling The Shack book) in their efforts to bring in revenue. I think the situation at Ridgecrest is similar when they have overhead and need paying customers all year round. The business realities of brick and mortar stores ultimately led Lifeway to close all of their stores because they were loosing money – which many were unhappy about.
David,
I would say you should take a look at Ridgecrest rules for having an event there. It plainly says that any and all events must be in line with BFM2000. I would also say that it is owned by the SBC and we are not obligated to lease it to anyone especially a NAR healing event…. unless the SBC is just fine with the heresy that NAR stands for…maybe the leaders have no problem with the heresy of NAR, if so they are guilty… Money should never trump correct doctrine nor compromise with heresy…unless money is ones god….
It doesn’t plainly say that. Check the paragraph down the page. Easy to find. The thing is that Ridgecrest does market to other denominations and groups with conditions. Easy enough to get the policies right, then bash. I don’t know about the nar meeting. Might be worth exploring and I’d hold off on the cheap shots until the facts are in.
Here is the statement direct from Ridgecrest site….seems plain to me… “Preservation of Religious Voice and Rights
LifeWay Ridgecrest Conference Center is a facility owned and operated by LifeWay Christian Resources of the Southern Baptist Convention and was created predominately for LifeWay and other Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) ministries. Thus, in addition to the above standards designed chiefly to protect the peace and enjoyment of all our guests, LifeWay also imposes religious standards based on the religious faith, purpose, and mission of the SBC, as reflected in the current Baptist Faith & Message (click here for statement of faith). Enforcing these religious standards helps to ensure that no activities or views expressed by or through groups using LifeWay’s facilities interfere with the ability of LifeWay, or this Conference Center to speak with one religious voice and promote one religious message consistent with the published views of the SBC. Accordingly, users or guests of this Conference Center facility must not engage in activities or publicly declare views while using the facility, which are contrary to these religious standards as determined by LifeWay.”
The name of the conference is “Kingdom Dominion 2020 with Bethel Church< Ben Fizgerald as one of the speakers. It is a healing conference.
That is truth not a cheap shot…. SBC can regualte the center anyway they want…they do not have to let the3 conference happen, it is the leaders choice
And William, are you talking about cheap shots like your cheap shot on the BGR? Acting and writing as if it was mutually exclusive from caring for abuse victims. Making it appear that concern for abuse victims could not also apply the BGR in some way? Is that the cheap shot type your talking about?
Alan,
I’m not arguing in favor of the healing conference at Ridgecrest. My point was, will be people be consistent when a non SBC group wants to have am event there, but they personally like that group (and possibly their theology). I said specifically if a PCA group which affirms infant baptism wants to have an event there would you be opposed. It’s pretty obvious that their theology on baptism is in direct conflict with SBC beliefs. However, you didn’t respond by saying, “No, I don’t think they should be allowed to have their meeting there.” Instead, you continued talking about the NAR group. This leads me to think that you would be o.k. with the PCA group meeting there.
Also my point about the money is that the moment you set up a Ridgecrest or a Lifeway, you have set up a business unit which has overhead costs and places pressure on that entity to marketing to break even and not be a money loser. If not enough SBC churches decide to use Ridgecrest, then they will look outside of the SBC for customers. Lifeway is a case in point. Years ago, they were called Baptist Book Stores, but someone got the idea to market to the larger Christian community, beyond the SBC, so they changed the name to Lifeway and began selling a larger range of authors. This generated some controversy – The book The Shack is the case in point.
Because these business units face these pressures to be profitable, perhaps the leaders of the SBC should think long and hard before putting them into business or else budget them to be money losers.
David,
Sorry for not giving an answer…no I would not be ok for the Presb. having a conference there like you said and for the very reason you said. You are correct about the “profit” pressure. SBC should have never put ourselves into the marketing business in any way. This has created a problem of faithfulness to Baptist doctrine in many ways. Actually it may well be sinful, IMO, in it is marketing the gospel… Sorry David for not answering your question up front.
#ReleaseTheMinutes
We need to know if the executive committee is misstreating victims of abuse. For real.
A story on BP appeared yesterday [i.e. Oct 16] saying that BP is looking for a new editor. They are splitting up the communications function to [a] BP [which is journalism] and [b] PR.
It sounds to me like the leadership of the Exec Committee is taking steps to beef up the BP so it can actually do INDEPENDENT research on stories — aka investigative journalism not just publish stories from the agencies verbatim. If you have a journalism background here is your chance to inject new life into BP. The exec committee is accepting resumes now.
Roger,
Do you honestly believe that there is going to be “independent research” investigating SBC agencies by an organization paid for by members of the SBC? I’m not saying this to be critical, but how will the President of a Seminary or the President of the IMB feel if they know that their contributions to the CP are going towards the salary of a reporter who is doing a scathing investigation of how they are leading their respective organizations.
Also, beyond those in leadership, there are a lot of rank and file folks sitting in the pews of churches who can’t stand anything that’s negative – I say this because I know them. I don’t agree with them, but I know how they think. A lot of folks deal with negativity and challenges in their lives and the last thing they want is to go to church and hear or read anything that’s controversial. A lot of megachurches have services that resemble pep rallies – I know what I speak of because I have attended them.
Why do you think that Joel Osteen is the most famous pastor in America? It’s certainly not form the depth of his preaching. A lot of people are attracted to positivity and repelled by anything that’s negative and many churches cater to this reality.
I agree that there should be investigative journalism of all institutions whether in government or in the church. However, in the case of the SBC, I’m afraid the most independent journalism will be outside of the SBC like what the Houston Chronicle did in their article on sexual predators in the SBC.
Such a key point – the church culture of relentless positivity that won’t tolerate reality. I’m convinced it comes from fear and fragility, from culture, from weak theology and shallow understandings of faith, hope and love.
Another thought: separating journalism from PR? What a profound metaphor.
I nominate Robert Downen from the Houston Chronicle.
Alan Davis, glad you got around to reading the policies. Non SBC groups rent the place all the time. Groups don’t have to agree with the BFM to use it bur, “…users or guests of this Conference Center facility must not engage in activities or publicly declare views while using the facility, which are contrary to these religious standards as determined by LifeWay.”
We will see what actually happens. Worth scrutinizing. I don’t dispute that the conf is scheduled. If you trouble yourself to email RCC or LW, let us know what they say.
The BGR is ripe for criticism, which is what I did. Will do so again if the occasion presents itself.
It would be safe to say that we know to watch for stuff here that seems to emanate from anti-SBC sites. Cheap shots at LifeWay are common and require no thinking. Pleased that you have now read the relevant material.
Have a nice Lord’s Day.
William,
I apologize for the shot at you. Glad to see it deleted. I do not believe there is factual evidence that the BGR and caring well for abuse victims are at odds with each other. You are correct above and I may contact if I have time. I will always fall into the camp that believes all SBC entities should keep fully within the bounds of the BFM2000 in material, positions, teaching and those they let use properties of the SBC. It appears self defeating from our mission and doctrines to do otherwise.
Have a good Monday.
No need for an apology, sometimes things get edgy. I’d point you to comments here and elsewhere about how women see the BGR. Total reliance and confidence on the BGR looks like a Luddite movement. If you or anyone else wanted to write an article exploring, explaining, and touting the BGR as indispensable, have at it. Send it to me or one of the other guys. It’s always an interesting subject.
LifeWay has to tiptoe all the time on what they sell and how they handle non-SBC events at their facility. The policy looks sound to me but someone at LifeWay looks at a prospective conference and makes a decision, then they watch it happen and see if the policy is followed. It could get messy. I don’t know how much revenue LW gets at Ricgecrest from non-SBC things.