An SBC Pastor Lying? - Grant Gaines

All right. Well, who's this guy on the screen? He looks a lot raggedy er than than I do now. But But yeah, this is a video that I did a little under a year ago. This is from June of 2021. And this is right during the SBC convention.

The SBC Convention and the Motion for Transparency

And if you remember, I did a lot of content around the SBC convention. And this particular video is titled the high point of the SBC convention with a question mark. So I guess it's more like the high point of the SBC convention.

In any case, it was regarding the motion to try to provide more transparency to the way that the executive committee of the SBC or the SBC in general handle sex abuse allegations. I mean, this is a very important issue.

Now at the time I said I like the approach. I mean, anything that brings more transparency to the just really the shady activities of the Southern Baptist Convention, in my opinion is a good thing. Now at the time, there were two quibbles that I had with with the with the motion.

The first one had to do with waving attorney client privilege. And I you know, I kind of pled ignorance on it. I didn't know what he really meant by that. But it certainly didn't sound to me like a good idea.

Definitely not biblically required. And just not wise to do that, in my opinion. Now I'm for transparency, but I'm not for waving rights unnecessarily. So that was the first thing. The second thing had to do with, well, you know what, let's just listen and hear what I had to say.

Local principle. And so, you know, I don't really know what he meant by that waving attorney client privilege. But you know, it depends on what he means by that whether or not I support that. So I did want to mention that.

I also don't know about this whole situation of using this woman here as a prop for your motion. I don't understand why you would do that. I mean, you know, there's enough in the law of God to say that, hey, you know, transparency in these death penalty offenses, what they should be anyway, is necessary for Christians.

If you're going to be a Christian, you ought to support these things. I don't think you should necessarily use someone who's been obviously very emotionally traumatized by something. As part of your pitch for this.

I mean, we're all Christians here, you should bring the law of God to bear on the situation. And that should be enough. Now, that's a stylistic thing, of course, but but I personally, I don't think that that's very good to do.

I think it's I think it's actually somewhat. How do you? How do I say this? It's not abusive. But it's like, you're using somebody. Yeah, I don't I don't think that that's something that that Christians ought to be engaged in.

You see, because the law of God, it doesn't tell you to not take emotions into account. But it's set up in such a way that we don't, we're not overly or unduly influenced by emotion, because the law of God talks about a number of things when it comes to accusations, right.

And so we understand that the, you know, any accusation that's going to be submitted, whether it's in a law court, or even in just a church, that we need to, there's a process that we need to follow in order to decide on that accusation.

This is not just in the Old Testament law, but it's also in the New Testament law. Let's start with the Old Testament law. That's let's just stop there. So what I was saying was that, you know, the law of God is powerful enough, you know, we're at a Christian denominational meeting.

And so it'd be very easy, and it should be effective for you to give an impassioned plea for obeying the law of God in every area, and especially this area where there's such a serious allegation being made of rape and sexual abuse, and then covering that stuff up.

That should be enough. And to bring a woman who's obviously emotionally traumatized, she's weeping, and you know, to try to use her as a way to manipulate the crowd, which is what I think was happening there.

That is just unnecessary, number one, and I don't think it takes into account the care of that particular woman, you know, she's gonna and at the time, I believe I said, she's gonna look back on this and realize she was being used for someone to score, you know, political points in the SBC kind of thing.

And you know, that was something I said, and I believed it. It's not like I was just making that up. But I kind of said it off the cuff. And you know, of course, I didn't know that she would look back and think that she was being used.

But actually, it turns out, that's exactly what happened. This woman, Hannah Kate, allegedly, is has now is now realized that she was she was used, she was used as a prop. In fact, that's language that I used at the time a year ago.

And that's language that's been used since then, by a lot of people, including people that are very much in Hannah Kate's orbit, right. And so allegedly, she feels like she was used, and she doesn't like that.

And, and this is very predictable, because that's exactly what happened. Now, here's the interesting thing. So this has now come up again. Recently, this is the man grant gains, who gave that motion who had who was there with with Ms. Hannah Kate, and all of that.

So this is the guy who's allegedly, you know, believe all women, you know, we've got to take the survivors of abuse very seriously. Well, as it turns out, and this is something that that Tom Buck, I started, I started seeing talking about this, essentially, that now, now accusations are flying at a few different places now.

And so it's not just the political enemies of grant gains anymore, where, you know, now he in that time, he was very supportive of this. Now, there's accusations flying all over the place. And so Tom Buck says, I wonder if grant gains has any regrets of opening Pandora's box upon the SBC.

Now, the story here is that the the, you know, accusations are flying towards people that, you know, and again, sexual abuse cover up type of allegations are allegedly flying towards people that are not political enemies.

In fact, they're connected people, they're people that are in the guild, so to say. And so now Tom Buck is saying, you know, well, hey, you know, you kind of open this box to sort of now believe all women and you know, don't do things according to the law of God, do them according to what I say, you know, waive your attorney, client privilege, and all of this kind of stuff.

And, and so Tom Buck is asking about that. And, and so, you know, the way this all went down, this is very interesting. Here is how a part of that conversation went. So Tom Buck gave his, his first initial tweet, then grant gains responds, and he says, I would make that motion again, in a heartbeat, I'm hopeful it will lead to substantive change in the SBC.

And then so, so that's number one. And so Tom Buck clarifies a little bit, he says that he wasn't really talking about the motion per se. But what he was talking about was the fact that he used a vulnerable woman as a prop.

And that has done further damage to her. This is what Tom Buck says that has only done further damage to her. Surely by now you can see how unwise that was, by what it has reaped. So Tom Buck is pointing out that, you know, not only is the motion, you know, very questionable, given, you know, current situations that are, you know, now find yourself involved in, but also he's talking primarily about, you know, why did you use Hannah Kate like this, this was, this was pretty messed up.

I mean, she was vulnerable, she was obviously emotional, and you used her. And, and this is, I think this is plain for anyone to see. I mean, anyone who watched this video and watched how this all went down, it'd be very easy to see how, you know, you used her man, like, why'd you do that?

And so this is where it gets interesting, because now we're going to test the resolve of the believe all women, you know, you know, we should, we should just, you know, assume that that they're right.

And you know, you don't defend yourself, you just open yourself up to the attorney, client privilege, you waive it, stuff like that. Here's what's going on. So Grant responds to Tom Buck, and he says, honestly, I did not use her as a prop.

Now listen to this, this is very important. At the last second, she asked if she could stand there while I made the motion. That was not pre planned at all. So Grant Gaines is saying that he didn't use her as a prop.

At the last moment, she asked to stand there while she made the motion. So he's saying Hannah Kate asked to stand there with me while I made this motion wasn't pre planned, I didn't use her. Now, I know grant gains is trying to defend himself here.

But in my opinion, even if this is true, which this is now being called into question this order of events, right? Even if this is true, I still think he used her. Because if a vulnerable woman, an emotional woman says, Hey, can I stand there with you while you make this, this, this thing, and you know, you understand that that, you know, this is, this is a sensitive situation.

The answer should have been no, let's just keep this, you know, let's just keep this, you know, as, as, as, as, as business like as possible. I don't want to put you in a situation to be fielding all of this criticism.

I want the criticism to come to me. I'm Dr. Grant gains, or whatever his name is, maybe it's not Dr. Grant gains. But I'm the guy who's making the motion. And I don't want to distract from that. So so I just I want to protect you.

I don't want you to be on the receiving end of criticism. I don't want you to be the one that's now the face of this when people push back and they definitely will. I want to make sure that you're protected.

And all you know, everyone is protected. I can I can yield, I can feel the the criticism, right? I don't want to put you out there. Let me be out there. Let me take the fire. Let me take the arrows. And, and we're going to get this that we're going to get it done, right?

That's the response that should have happened. Because if you don't, it's sort of like, it's kind of like, how do I put this? It's kind of like the guy at your church, right? Who says that, well, you know, my, this happens a lot.

So, you know, maybe you guys know of a situation like this, where, you know, the guy at the church will stand up and say, you know, my wife was uncomfortable about this or that or this, and really, it's them that were uncomfortable, but they're trying to hide behind their wife, because they think that you won't come as aggressive, they're essentially using their wife, because most people don't want to say no to a woman.

So you that you they use their wife to make their point, so that they don't receive the criticism and that they can kind of manipulate you into doing what they want. It's, it's really disgusting. It's really common, unfortunately, for people to do this, it's kind of like, you know, you wouldn't punch a guy with glasses, would you, you put on glasses, and then you know, you knock them out kind of thing.

It's just a way to sort of like, avoid confrontation. It's really weak. But in any case, so even if his side of the story is correct, I still think he used her he still used her as a prop. He still didn't do the right thing.

He didn't do what he should have done. But it turns out that Hannah Kate disputes this. So here she is referencing allegedly this exact tweet, where he didn't use her. So Hannah Kate says this, quote, I didn't use her, quote, she asked.

And here's what she responds with. She says, Sir, you asked the day before, if I could read a statement at the mic. And I said no, because I was not a messenger. Now, this is a clear dispute of facts here, right?

So Grant is saying I didn't use her as a prop. I asked her if she could stand there with me while I made the motion. This was not pre planned at all. Hannah Kate saying what are you talking about? You did use me.

Allegedly. You asked me to read a statement. You wanted me to read it. And I said no, I'm not a messenger. Now, I think I know what's going on here. Because people are people are pointing out that somebody is lying here, right?

And I agree, somebody is lying, but they're lying in the most weaselly way possible. Let me be the first to say I do not support the believe all women thing. I don't think that that's the way the Bible says we should do this.

I believe that the Bible understands that men can be sinners. And likewise, women can be sinners. And that you have to treat men and women when they're giving testimony in court the same way. You know, you verify what they say.

You don't just believe them. You take them seriously. Yeah. So so if the quote was, take women seriously, sure, I could be in support of that. But I'm not going to just believe them just because they make an accusation, right?

The Bible has a very clear way to adjudicate these things, you find out if they're so you diligently inquire, we've been through a whole video about this. In fact, I recommend my video the high point of the SBC convention because I go into detail about what's required when a woman makes an accusation of sexual abuse, right?

And I and I take sexual abuse serious more seriously than almost anybody that I know, because I believe it's a it's a death penalty if convicted, right? So I don't play footsies with that. But here's the thing, though.

In this case, I believe Hannah. Hannah Kate, I should say, I don't want to miss miss say her name. I believe her. I think she's exactly right. I think that the person that's lying here is grant. But he's lying in the most weaselly way possible.

He's lying in a way that grants him plausible deniability. So he's not technically lying. I Hannah Kate says here again, I believe her and I don't think she's wrong about this. I could be I could be wrong.

I mean, listen, I'm just let me just give you my reasoning. Here's what Hannah Kate says. He says, Sir, you asked the day before if I could read a statement at the mic. And I said no, because I was not a messenger.

So she's alleging that this guy grant gains, asked her to read a statement at the mic. So he was trying to use her even more than he did. In other words, he wanted her to read a statement, he likely knew that she would read the statement and she would weep because she's emotionally traumatized.

She's, she's hurt. There's just no question about it. I don't I don't, I don't disbelieve that something has hurt this woman and she's, and she's emotional and understandably. So right. So he was trying to use her even more than he did.

He was going to have her read a statement and she was going to be weeping. And again, he's hiding behind her because now anyone who would question the wisdom of waiving attorney client privilege is now going to easily you can easily turn around and say, well, why don't you care about women?

You have what kind of a monster are you she's crying here and you're worried about your rights. And it's like, yeah, but you know, I can care about women and also not waive attorney client privilege, right?

But but he wants that to be not an option. He's trying to manipulate the messengers. He's trying to use Miss Hannah Kate as a prop. In my opinion, this is what he is doing to use her as a prop to get them to do what he wants for whatever reason he wants them to do this.

I have no idea. But but so that's what he was trying to do now. Notice grants words. Okay. Notice grants words. Honestly, I did not use her as a prop. By the way, when people start a statement with honestly, that's a sign.

Not always. I've done that before do but I'm just being humorous. But anyway, look at what he says. At the last second, she asked me if she could stand there while I made the motion that was not pre planned at all.

Now you see that both of these can technically be true. You see, here's what I think happened. I don't know this, but this is what my opinion is. It's possible that he tried to get her to read a statement and she said no wisely.

She said no right? At the last second, maybe she said what if I just stood there with you? Again, I don't know if this is true, right? I'm just trying to read both of these statements and assume that they're both true and and I want to explain to you who I think is is lying here.

It's possible that at the last second, she said what if I just stood there with you? I can't read it. I'm not I know you asked me to read the statement. I'm not a messenger. So I don't want to read it.

What if I just stood there with you? And then he said, Hmm, you know, it's not quite how I wanted to use her as a prop. But you know, maybe it'll work because she'll be standing there with me. And maybe I'll get a little cover.

Instead of having her read the statement. It's not as good as that. Maybe, maybe I can just have her stand there while I make the motion. And it could be true that that was not pre planned. Because what was pre planned was, hey, Miss Hannah Kate, can you read this statement?

That's what was pre meditated that well, that's what was pre planned. And so she was like, No. And then the last minute, she's like, What if I just stood there with you? Because I want to help, right?

And and so he he says, Sure, because that's better than nothing in his eyes. And now he's trying to say he's trying to pretend as if, well, none of this was pre planned. He's probably just leaving out the fact that he actually wanted her to do much more than just stand there.

Now, I believe Hannah Kate, this this strikes me as believable. But here's the thing, even if Hannah Kate is not correct, right about how this all went down. I'm not saying she isn't because I believe her.

But let's just say she wasn't. He still definitively used her as a prop. She feels like she was used as a prop because she definitely was I feel bad about that. I predicted that she might feel this way in this video.

And then of course she does, right? Because that's what happened. That's objectively what happened. She was used as a prop in his political game. And now the chickens are coming home to roost. Because now what's happened is, yes, Pandora's box has been opened.

And we're starting to see a window. You know what that believe all women stuff and how I wanted to make substantive change in the SPC. Yeah, but that was back when it was my enemies that we were targeting.

Now that it's my friends. It's like, well, let's block them and say and call them liars. And that's okay, all of a sudden, right? Now that it's someone on Ed Litton's staff, you know, let's, let's just block her, call her a liar and throw her to the wolves.

Like, it clearly he was she was being used. And I feel so bad about this, because she should never have been put in that position. You know, a man should not put a woman out there to feel the criticism to feel the to be the lightning rod of all this thing.

Obviously, that shouldn't happen. But the thing is, like, that's what he did. And the more stuff that comes out about it, the more time that passes, the more obvious that is. And I think here we've got now we've got a situation where it's like, you know, is she lying?

Is he lying? You know, we really don't know. I believe her though. I believe her. I think it went down just like this. And I think grant is playing fast and loose with the facts here. And he's wording this ever so carefully.

So it's not technically a lie, but he's clearly trying to send a lying message. This is still a lie grant. This is still a lie when you leave something out to make it not technically a lie, but you leave out the key detail that makes the message totally different.

That's still a lie. God sees through that. And quite frankly, many of us see through that these days as well. I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.