I have something to say and I hope every @SBCExecComm member reads it. I desperately trying to find a portal to some reality that in no way exposes me to what the EC and the SBC leadership does after the actions of BP, the EC staff, & CEO all either created a lie about me, (cont)

refused to admit and FULLY correct it, and/or to acknowledge why it was done. As I’ve previously acknowledged (and oh it’s just a blast to have to keep dealing with this because of new things they do), their actions & then inaction created a widespread understanding that I (cont)

was an adulteress, destroyed most of my closest relationships, unleashed harassment in the form of thousands of horrid messages/comments, and did so despite written documentation from the seminary that explicitly stated they had questioned the accused professor and (cont)

wanted me to know that they believed me about what I had reported and specifically categorized it as abuse. The accused’s SBC pastors concluded the same. After 7 and a half months, when @R_Denhollander drew public attn to their actions against me, a new BP leader issued (cont)

a statement acknowledging they had misreported what I alleged. They did not then & still have not reported what any unbiased, responsible news outlet would report—that my allegations of abuse were deemed credible by the SBC entity & church who questioned the accused and (cont)

that the leaders of both stood by me. I’ve been told MANY times that their lies & silence was because the EC & SBC leaders are focused on caring for the SBC as a whole. After Rachael put the spotlight on them in Oct, someone told me that they (EC/CEO) wish they hadn’t done (cont)

what set all that happened in motion taking my relationships, health, reputation, & career—but I’m just one person and they have a responsibility to put their focus on the whole SBC.

Well, I’ll put the obvious inconsistency between that posture & what Jesus teaches about(cont)

the 99 & the 1 aside—because their own words demonstrate their hypocrisy. Friday, BP published statements that demonstrate the self-protectionstic partiality that is at the core of the SBC in a way that is so blatantly hypocritical and tone deaf that I must address it. (Cont)

Eight days before Friday’s release from BP, @JaredcWellman publicly recounted actions taken by @pastormikestone in an EC mtg & criticized these actions, drawing attn to other related public facts that he asserted reflected that the outgoing EC chairman had strategically (cont)

planned EC nominations to help further the agenda of a newly formed group that has been critical of some SBC leaders, actions, & views. Essentially, the outgoing EC chairman was accused of using his position to further an agenda that represents *some* southern baptists, (cont)

but not all—and of doing so in a way that was a pattern of misusing his authority. Although I’m pretty sure anyone paying attn to this already knew this kind of behavior is hardly novel (Cafe Du Monde), people were upset by what Wellman reported, & criticized Pastor Stone (cont)

on social media. I can’t say for sure as I haven’t spoken with him, but it seems that it hurt his feelings for this to all be said & that people he had trusted might have even inaccurately stated some things. I’m sure it was upsetting for Pastor Stone to be accused of using(cont)

his authority to further one SBC view over another & for people to question his motives. Granted, I’m going to go out on a limb & say it’s not quite the same as having the EC controlled BP report that you are an adulteress, dealing w/2K unkind social media posts, voicemails(cont)

& personal confrontations (not to mention the ramifications of it persisting for mos so that it defines you by Google). Nevertheless, I’m sure it was uncomfortable for @pastormikestone & definitely not what he & the EC wanted people to be discussing. So, 8 DAYS after (cont)

@JaredcWellman first tweeted about Stone, @baptistpress issued a release from the @SBCExecComm w/statements from everyone involved, including the EC officers who did a great job of suddenly being able to write words that completely exonerate someone of false accusations. (Cont)

Then, Pastor Stone’s successor, @pastorrolland lamented that Pastor Stone has been “vilified” on social media & fell HARD on the sword for how he (Rolland) handled the dispute and public discourse. Finally, Stone was given the last word. He first reiterated @pastorrolland (cont)

had apologized to Stone for how he had engaged Stone’s nominations in Stone’s final called executive session. In his statement released by BP, Stone made it clear that Pastor Rolland had admitted guilt and that Stone had “joyfully” accepted his apology. Stone went on to (cont)

address the dangers of “half-truths and untruths,” noting how quickly they can spread online (good thing the EC officers have the ability to call a special meeting anytime they *want* to fix such occurrences). He finished w/a classic landing in which he points out that the (cont)

SBC’s ministry is “hindered when those who have apparent ‘inside information’ turn it into ‘outside misinformation.’” (i.e, if you question us you’re keeping us from fulfilling the Great Commission!). So here it is, breaking news from @baptistpress: The @SBCExecComm DOES (cont)

think *some* people should be defended and protected.

Themselves.

And only themselves.

They know how to speak clearly, quickly, and forcefully about what matters to them.

Which speaks louder than any task forces ever will about what—and who—does not matter at all to the SBC.