The SBC Elite Desperately Want You To Shut Up

All right, well, I've tried to record this video a number of times already. There's just too much information.

There's too much I want to cover here. So I'm going to break it up into a handful of videos. And so we'll kind of pick a theme for each one.

But what I want to talk about is this whole situation with those circle wagoning.

I did it again. I keep saying circle wagoning. You don't know that because I've been editing this, but it's wagon circling, wagon circling.

This epic wagon circling from Big Eva about the article in the

Daily Wire by Megan Basham about this sex abuse scandal. This alleged sex abuse scandal.

Anyway, so Al Mohler got in on it and all that. We want to talk about it today, right now.

Okay, well, you may have noticed a costume change and you'll probably notice another one in just a minute.

Yesterday, I made a whole video. It was a long video and it took a lot of work. And this video was about this situation.

And I tried to upload it to YouTube like 10 times and it just would not work. And so I said, okay, whatever,

I'll just try again tomorrow. But then what I did was I listened to it just to see if maybe there was something in the video itself that was like,

I don't know, deemed offensive or not suitable for YouTube. Because this has happened before and it's happened a couple times each time when

I've touched a spicier topic. I don't know if YouTube can even do that while you're uploading, but I just wanted to check.

And as I'm listening to this video, in the video, I say numerous times that I'm not defending this guy

Sills because he certainly seems like a dirtball to me. Because in my opinion, I believe that God's law should be the standard for our law.

And so in my opinion, adultery, you should be illegal. So if Sills is out there trying to have sexual relations with women other than his wife, that should be a criminal offense.

So it's not like a lesser punishable crime to me. So I didn't want to defend him.

I have no sympathy for Sills whatsoever. If you put yourself in bad situations, sometimes bad things happen.

And maybe you didn't deserve it. Maybe you did. I have no idea. But the thing is, that's your fault because you put yourself in that situation.

It kind of reminds me of all these people that are like, you just want abortions to be unsafe. And they think that's some kind of a gotcha.

No, that's exactly what I want. I want criminals to have to put themselves in harm's way in order to commit their crimes.

That's what I want in any case. So I decided to change directions with the video.

I'm not going to re -upload or redo the video that I did yesterday. It's a good video, but I don't want to come across in any way defending

Sills because I think he certainly seems like a scumbag to me. In any case, what

I wanted to do with this video though, is I wanted to talk about the various strategies that Big Eva and Big Eva sympathizer type people are using to get you to stop asking just the obvious questions when you hear this story that was in the guideposts report.

There are so many obvious questions and they're good questions and they're basic questions that you're being made to think that, you know, if you have these questions, then there's something wrong with you.

And that's a tactic, my friends. That's a tactic. You cannot lose the ability to ask obvious basic questions.

This is not a real life version of the emperor has no clothes where people are afraid to state the obvious.

So I just wanted to talk about that because that to me is a very important part of this story because when you read the allegations that are made in the guideposts report about this, you know, 12 year long relationship that these two people had that after the fact there's allegations that it was sex abuse.

Was it sex abuse? Was it not? I have no idea because I haven't heard the alleged confirmations, the alleged evidence and the article in the

Daily Wire from Megan Basham certainly asks a lot of very valid questions that people are trying to shut down.

And to me, when you try to shut down an obvious good basic question, any kind of inquiry whatsoever, that is highly suspicious in my opinion.

Here's the first example of someone I saw that tried to do this. This is the emotional, you know,

Jacob Den Hollander getting very emotional about this whole situation. And I saw this and I instantly just,

I felt like I needed to take a shower. This is just so slimy and disgusting, but it gives you really, it does give you an insight into how this group of people thinks.

So here's Jacob Den Hollander, self -proclaimed sidekick to his wife. He says this,

It is beyond the pale that after everything Jen has suffered and had to endure, she is still having to defend herself from a hack journalist with an axe to grind.

Shame on all of you who continue to drag Jen through the mud. I don't get mad about a lot, but this kind of expletive deleted makes me big mad.

You all sit here on Twitter anonymously spouting big talk about woke Marxist and liberal takeovers and don't care that you're continuing to ruin the very real lives of women who have suffered and fought.

You get to live your lives abstracted from it, but this sort of trauma doesn't get to get put away in the cupboard for them at the end of the day.

So I hope you're all having fun cosplaying as defenders of truth and role -playing as investigative journalists.

Just know that you suck at doing both and you are hurting people in the process. Now, this might seem innocuous to some people, but again, this made me feel just disgusting to hear this because what

I thought of instantly is just, you know, Jacob, and this is true of all aspects of the woke movement.

I mean, take it out of this issue for a second. What do you get told when you start questioning the race narratives of the woke church?

Well, you get told that maybe you're one of them. Maybe you're a racist. You don't care about black people.

It's highly emotional language. And the idea is if you don't agree with their tactics and their methods and their whole methodology, then somehow you are for sex abuse.

You want to protect the perpetrators. You want to hurt the victims. And clearly you've never experienced sex abuse and you don't know anybody who's experienced sex abuse.

So you just don't get it. You don't understand. And the reality is, Jacob, that you have no freaking idea what

I've experienced, what people in my family have experienced, or anybody that you're criticizing.

But actually you do. And you just seem to just ignore it because Megan Basham has come out and said, look,

I've experienced, I've been abused. I've been assaulted. Or I forget exactly what she said. So I don't want to put words in her mouth. But some kind of sexual crime has been perpetrated against her.

And so she's, but she's still asking the basic questions. Keep this in mind. He's not actually talking about you being abusive to people or not caring about people.

He's talking about you asking obvious questions. Don't let these people gaslight you into thinking these are not obvious questions.

It's an obvious question to wonder why someone would allow themselves to be assaulted sexually over the course of a decade.

Now, could there be a good reason for it? Maybe there's a good reason for it. And maybe there's evidence of that good reason.

But the point is, we don't know. And so he's trying to make you see, like, that's a ridiculous question, you idiots.

By the way, you don't care about these women. You get to just put it on the shelf at the end of the day when

Jacob has no idea what he's talking about. None.

But he's comfortable just saying that. And it's just this emotional, he's a very emotional man.

He's obviously the emotional one in the relationship. He's the sidekick to his wife. And he's out there, and he's just venting, ah, this is,

I'm big mad. He curses for effect, because that's how you know he's serious when he curses. And it's like, it's like,

Jacob, you just need to sit down. You just need to sit down. You're all hot and bothered.

It's time to just calm down, Jacob. You don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about. And that's the bottom line.

You simply don't. So again, don't let these emotional appeals, he basically thinks that anyone that disagrees with him just doesn't understand, doesn't care about women and all of that.

It's the same exact thing with the race stuff. It's the same thing. Here's another one that I found especially weird and hilarious, right?

Here's Hannah Anderson on Twitter. She says this, one manifestation of a pornographic culture is how easily perfect strangers demand the intimate details of sex abuse in order to determine the truth.

They need to know the sexual specifics of abuse allegations is not just asking questions.

It's voyeurism. The sensitive nature of sexual abuse is exactly why we entrust it to those with the authority, responsibility, training and accountability to adjudicate it carefully.

It's not a question for the public to answer. Not only does the general public not need to know the intimate details of the sexual assault allegations, it wouldn't know what to do with such details if it did.

All that to say the details and explanations we feel entitled to reveal more about us than the person we're questioning.

Pressing for sexual details doesn't reveal a commitment to truth, but it might reveal something else.

Folks to feel entitled to such intimate sexual details of a perfect stranger's life, well,

I have questions. Also, the fact that so many abuse survivors are forced to make these intimate details so widely known in order to believe is a judgment on us and not them.

This is so freaking weird. This is so weird.

Because Hannah's trying to basically make this case that if, look, if you want evidence that this has actually happened and it's a real definition of sex abuse and not just the weird power dynamic nonsense that is at play at the story with David and Bathsheba, which by the way, we're gonna get to that at the end because that's one part of the previous video that I'm going to include.

I just can't believe people are still with the David raped Bathsheba thing. Bathsheba was a gold digging temptress. How do you like that?

Anyway, it's so weird. So if you want evidence that this actually happened and all that, then you're a pervert is what she's saying.

And she's got questions for you and she leaves that question kind of open. Maybe she's just saying you're a perv.

Maybe she's saying you're a sexual abuser. Maybe she's saying that you're maybe, I don't know, a criminal yourself.

I don't know, but she's got questions for you. You're a voyeur, you're a pervert if you wanna know if this actually happened.

And the thing is so many people instantly made the point, Hannah, we're not asking for intimate details of the sexual encounters.

That's weird that you would instantly jump there. Maybe that might say something about you and what you would want to know if you really could.

But the reality is what we're asking for is basic questions. What did Sills confirm?

Al Mohler, we're gonna get to that in a minute. He said, Al Mohler confirmed it. He just confirmed it. He knows it's true.

And he says that as if that's enough. It's just Al Mohler confirmed it and we just gotta trust

Al Mohler. And it's like, yeah, but we can find out what he confirmed without finding out the details.

Every single person knows this. It's like, was there violence or was there not violence?

Was there anything mutual in it at all? Or was there nothing mutual in it at all? How did you confirm it?

What did you do after that? And it's like, none of these require intimate sexual details,

Hannah. It's very weird that your mind jumps instantly to there. And it's like, being generous to Hannah, it's like, this is what she thinks of people that have basic, obvious, run -of -the -mill questions.

She's like, oh, you must be a pervert. You must just want to gratify yourself by finding out the details.

That's what she thinks of you. This is what this group of people think of those who are asking obvious, basic, and by the way, biblically relevant questions.

You see, here's the other thing, Hannah. If this was just a story that I was told by someone in my life, and they're not asking me to do anything, they're not asking me to reorganize my church, they're not asking for a million dollar settlement or anything like that,

I wouldn't ask them any questions. I just would sympathize with them. And I would try to walk with them through it.

Guys, this has happened in my life, right? So Jacob, by the way, you don't have a freaking clue what you're talking about.

And Hannah, if that's what all this was, then fine, nobody should ask any questions. But that's not what's being done here.

What's being done is people are being told to take action, reorganizing the SPC to make it something completely different than what it is.

We're being told to set up funds and payments and lists and do things that we're not sure are appropriate.

And we're not sure even the smoking gun in the report, what actually happened there, because we're given very little information about it.

And the information we do have raises some very obvious, basic questions.

Again, the Daily Wire article asks these questions. Do I know that the things that the

Daily Wire article implies are 100 % accurate or true? No, I don't. That's the point.

We have questions and they're obvious questions. But Hannah here is trying to get you to feel like a pervert.

If you want to know basic things, she did a very poor job of it. And actually, I think reveals quite a bit about herself in this thread.

But hey, that's how this works. Do not let these people, they're trying to make you feel bad for doing what the scripture tells you to do.

You don't accept accusations against someone just willy -nilly. And then when people say, well,

I confirmed it and that's all they say. They don't say what they confirmed. They don't say really much of anything about it.

You got to have questions about that as well, because it certainly seems like they might be hiding something.

Here's what Al Mohler says. He says, we cannot and should not respond to every public controversy, but I hope the statement below is helpful and clarifying.

And here's what the statement says. In 2019, Jennifer Lyle came to me with an accusation of sexual abuse by David Sills.

We followed an appropriate process and the accusation of abuse was confirmed as was indicated publicly and have subsequently confirmed.

Statements directly made by Sills in the course of our confrontation clearly confirmed the allegations of sex abuse.

Okay, great. So we know this already. This is something that was known already from the report.

They said that he confirmed it with his own words. But the thing is we simply do not trust that you're using a, in any way, relevant definition of sex abuse.

Is this the weird power dynamic thing or is this a violent act? And if it's a violent act, then why aren't the police involved?

Why don't they have a record of a report? Now that's not to say, maybe you did contact the police,

Dr. Moeller. Maybe you did contact the police. I'm not saying you didn't. What I'm saying is that when we have these basic questions and it was going on for 10 years, which starts to say, well, why?

Maybe there's a good reason. I don't know. The point is that's why we have basic questions and this is not clarifying or helpful.

As you say in the sentence here, this is basically a one sentence response.

You've already disclosed this. Yes, we know that. And we have questions because this doesn't clear up anything.

This is not helpful in any way. And Al, we just simply, we don't trust you anymore, Al. That's the thing,

Dr. Moeller. Maybe people used to trust you, but not anymore. And so take my word for it, isn't really gonna work with you anymore because dude, you're shady.

You've been shady the last few years. You use NDAs in weird situations. You're firing certain people and you're saying it's because of this reason, but really it's because of a different reason.

And dude, you're shady. So there's obviously more going on here.

Why wouldn't he just clear this up? Yeah, it was violent and he told me that it was violent and this and that. And we went to the police, but they said there's nothing they could do.

Even a little bit more detail would help. We're not asking for the details of each sexual encounter, like Hannah says, weirdo.

But more than this is two sentences, Al. You know this isn't helpful. So what's your angle, man?

What's your angle? Don't let these people use their authority and their winsomely worded statements to make you feel like you can't ask obvious questions.

You're being asked to reorganize your church and to do things according to this pagan organization guideposts who allegedly is gonna teach us how to be more

Christ -like. Unreal, unreal. You're being asked to be judged by the pagans in your church, in your church.

All because of this situation that has very obvious questions that come up when you read the account.

Don't be manipulated, made to feel guilty, made to feel like a pervert. Don't be, my authority speaks for itself.

Don't let that make you not ask questions or feel bad for asking questions. Here's the last one we'll cover and then we'll get to the

David and Bathsheba stuff. Jennifer Greenberg. Oh my goodness gracious.

This is just unbelievable what she says here. Anyway, here's what she says.

To these dingleberries who defend disgraced pastors saying it wasn't abuse, it was an affair.

You realize that you're doing the guy no favors, right? Adultery biblically disqualifies him from the pastorate too.

The argument is a lame duck. Heck, it's a dead duck. It's like saying he robbed the bank but he didn't rob the bank at gunpoint.

Are you hearing yourself? So that's not the thing yet.

I'm gonna get to it. But number one, obviously everybody knows that adultery disqualifies you from ministry.

Not everyone believes like I do that adultery should be criminalized. You know, Christians talk a big game about how we think the family is the most important thing of our culture.

But we don't really act like it a lot of the time because I believe that the family is the primary unit of a godly order of government.

And so the family ought to be defended the way you defend a country against treason. Because when you cheat on your wife, that's treason against your family.

We can't tolerate that. I think adultery should be criminalized. So not too many people believe like I do about that.

I agree with her. She's right. It's not a lesser defense. And so I have no, again, no sympathy for Sills.

But obviously, you know, accuracy matters. Jen Jennifer says, it's like robbing a bank, but you didn't rob it at gunpoint.

Are you hearing yourselves? And somebody pointed out, this didn't originate with me, but she's basically saying that the woman is automatically the bank that just passively sits there and gets, you know, robbed from or violated.

And the thing is, women aren't like that. I mean, we've got tons of Proverbs warning about seductive women and things like that.

Could a woman be like a bank and just passive and get violated? Of course, of course, we all know that.

But we also know that people from this Me Too movement don't believe that. They believe that there's power dynamics and weird things.

And so we need to confirm that Al over here is not using a weird definition of sex abuse.

That he's actually using a biblical one, one that actually we could agree with. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, but we don't know.

And that's the point. And that's the point. We have questions, obvious questions, basic questions that we are being made to feel like we're evil for even asking them.

And that's suspicious. It's suspicious, guys. Anyway, let's go to the part of Jennifer Greenberg's statement that's really disgusting.

She says, and let's talk about adultery. Adultery is the premeditated and willful abuse of your spouse's trust and love.

It's the betrayal of your children's hopes and security. It's the intentional breaking of hearts and ruination of marriages and lives.

Adultery is abuse. I don't know if I'd call it abuse, but she's right. Adultery is very serious.

I would call it treason against the family. I think it should be criminalized. I highly doubt that Jennifer thinks it should be criminalized.

Maybe she does, probably. I would be willing to bet that I'm probably against adultery a lot more than all these

Me Too people combined. In any case, here's what she says. This is so gross.

She says, stop defending church leaders who cheat on their wives, especially with their own congregants and people in their care.

You look ignorant at best, at worst, like someone whitewashing serious sin with serious sin because you've done the same thing.

Repent and delete your tweets. This impression that if you're asking questions and if you wanna, if you're, you know, more inclined to defend

Sills, I'm not inclined to defend Sills again because I think adultery is a criminal offense.

I think it's a similar criminal offense to rape. Not exactly the same thing, but I believe that the penalty ought to be similar.

She's saying if you even ask questions about this, you sound like someone, maybe you're an adulterer.

It's the same thing with the woke stuff. If you ask questions about our woke church movement, maybe you're the secret racist.

You probably say the N -word privately. She's like, well, if you even want accuracy in our reporting on this creep and you don't wanna call it sex abuse, you don't wanna call it that, maybe you're an adulterer.

Maybe you're the one. And they're trying every tactic to get you to shut up, to not ask the obvious question.

Look, if these questions were out of bounds and there was just all this information was there, but you're still asking, you wanna know the salacious details, salacious details of it.

You wanna know how many times and what position and stuff. Like if that's you, then fine. But they're making everyone who asks basic questions.

They're not questions like that that we have. They're basic, obvious, biblically grounded questions that we have because the details of this that we do have, they're strange.

And Al Mohler's little non -statement statement here is strange. And Jacob Den Hollander, who

I guess knows the salacious details, because he's a trusted person, definitely not a perv in any way, because he's on our side.

But if you want details, you're a perv. But Jacob knows and he's like, yeah, but you don't have anyone in your life that's ever been abused and stuff.

They're trying to manipulate you into shutting up and stopping asking questions using emotions, accusations, non -statement statements and all kinds of stuff.

And that's suspicious, guys. It's suspicious. And so what am

I saying? Am I saying that Sills is innocent? No, no, I'm not. I have no idea because we just really don't know what they're operating on, what definitions they're using, what methodologies.

He says, oh yeah, this was confirmed. This was confirmed doing our appropriate processes. Oh really?

Your appropriate processes, Al? We don't believe you. So tell us what those were.

Why aren't you telling us? You see, that would be very easy. What were the appropriate processes? What definition of sex abuse are you using?

This would be very easy to do. So why aren't you doing it? Very, very strange.

Very strange indeed. Is it a gambit? Are they like planning a few steps ahead?

Like I don't understand really what it's all about. But it's weird. In any case, now we're gonna talk about Bathsheba.

I'm gonna do a costume change real quick and we're gonna talk about Bathsheba and David because she definitively was not raped by David.

Even according to the Bible's own terms, you can't say that he raped her. You simply can't.

Let's start here because somebody got me thinking around this time,

Al Mohler says in 2019, he got this accusation, blah, blah, blah. Around this time, someone brought this to my remembrance.

There's this tweet from Rachel Denhollander and I think it's related.

I'm not saying that she was thinking about this case at the time, but it's right around the same time that all this is kind of being taken care of behind the scenes.

Like we just found out about it recently, but they've known about it since around 2019, I guess, according to Al Mohler.

Listen to this tweet because a lot of people are talking about this again and I wanna talk about it again too. Matt Smethurst says that, this is a typical

Big Eva tweet, nothing wrong with it. Here's what Matt Smethurst says. Adam fell.

Noah got drunk. Abraham lied. Jacob cheated. Moses murdered. Rahab prostituted.

David fornicated. Jonah fled. Thomas doubted. Peter denied. Paul persecuted.

We rebelled. Jesus redeems. I like this tweet.

It's a good reminder. No matter what kind of sin that you've ever done, Christ's sacrifice can work for you.

He can redeem you. Even if you're an evil, vile, rotten sinner, he can redeem it. No matter how bad the sin is, he can redeem you.

Very innocuous tweet, Matt Smethurst. Thank you. It's a good tweet. Rachel Den Hollander comes and she gets her how dare you hat on.

Actually, she says, actually, David raped. It's important we get that right.

Now, I did a video about this at the time. The video is called Beth Sheba was a gold digging temptress.

And in the video, I made the case that we have just as much evidence that David raped as we do that Beth Sheba actually was a gold digging temptress.

And she put herself on that roof and she got naked just so that David would see her and desire her.

And she could now be the wife of the king. Forget Uriah. He's just a soldier.

Who cares? I have my eyes on the prize. David, what a gold digger.

In the video, I said, we have just as much evidence of that as we do the other thing, which is to say we have no evidence.

But actually, I think I understated my case a little bit because if I was going to put my life savings on one or the other,

David raped her or Beth Sheba wanted it and she was a gold digger. I put my life savings on Beth Sheba wanted it and she was a gold digger.

Not to say that that's what the Bible teaches because the Bible doesn't tell us exactly what her motivations were.

But if I had to put my life savings on it, that's what I would do. And I want to explain that to you because I think that might shock some people, even in this audience.

And I want to explain that to you because the scripture actually tells us we don't have to hire guideposts to tell us how to work through this.

Rachel's case here is just complete nonsense. I mean, when it comes to the scripture and trying to teach the scripture,

Rachel really should keep her mouth shut because she's clueless. She's clueless. She says that the reason why she thinks

David raped Beth Sheba is because Nathan tells David this parable of the rich man and his little lamb.

And because the lamb is innocent and is slaughtered, that's, you know, just like the woman is innocent and you slaughtered her by taking her.

You are the man, David. And she's really reading a lot into that parable from Nathan.

I think what Nathan's talking about, he's referring to the law of God. I mean, he was a prophet and a teacher of the law.

And in Exodus 20, It lists a bunch of things.

It lists, you know, you shall not covet your neighbor's animal, your neighbor's slave, your neighbor's house, or your neighbor's wife, because that belongs to your neighbor, right?

You can't covet your neighbor's what belongs to your neighbor and your neighbor's property belongs to your neighbor, but also your neighbor's wife belongs to your neighbor.

Obviously not in the same exact way, but you don't covet your neighbor's wife because that belongs.

It doesn't belong to you, it belongs to your neighbor. And I think that's kind of what Nathan's referring to there.

But there's actually more here though, because that's just kind of saying, look, we're looking at this weird parable and trying to say, how much do we read into this parable?

Whatever, right? We can actually adjudicate this with the scripture because God tells us what to do in these situations where you've got illicit sexual relations between two people.

And again, hear me saying, I'm not saying that Sils is innocent here.

I'm not saying that adultery is a lesser offense. I believe that the law of the land should be that adultery is criminalized.

I believe that adultery should be criminalized. Let me say it again. Adultery should be criminalized.

It's a serious offense. Let me read to you from Deuteronomy 22.

This is so important. We're going to run the Bathsheba situation through the scriptural grounds that we have, that the law, how do we judge these things?

We don't have to go to the pagans. We have a law. This is Deuteronomy, God's law, Deuteronomy.

Deuteronomy, Deuteronomy. I said Rodomy. Anyway, Deuteronomy 22. Let's start at verse 22.

Here's what the word of God says. If a man is discovered having sexual relations with another man's wife, both the man who had sex with the woman and the woman must die.

You must purge the evil from Israel. So that's just what I just said. I believe it's a criminal offense to commit adultery.

Okay, and by the way, both the man and the woman. Verse 23, if there is a young woman who is a virgin engaged to a man and another man encounters her in the city and sleeps with her, take the two of them out of the gate of that city and stone them to death.

The young woman because she did not cry out in the city and the man because he has violated his neighbor's fiance.

You must purge the evil from you. Okay, here's 25.

But if the man encounters an engaged woman in the open country and he seizes and rapes her, only the man who raped her must die.

Do nothing to the woman because she is not guilty of an offense deserving of death. This case is just like one in which the man attacks his neighbor and murders him.

When he found her in the field, the engaged woman cried out, but there was no one to rescue her. So listen to this for a second.

Here we have the death penalty for adultery and the death penalty for rape. And it has this example of either a woman in the field or a woman in the city.

And it's like, is it just, is it not rape if it's in the city or something like that? Like, it's just, does God have a weird standard where like, you know, you can only rape someone in the woods but not in the city?

No, that's not what it is. What's happening here is, in the, when something happens in the wilderness, God's saying, look, you can assume if the woman comes to you and says, look,

I got raped. You can assume that she was calling for help but there was no one to hear her.

She was in the woods. She was in the wilderness. Nobody could hear her cry. She came to you, not because she regrets sleeping with the man.

She came to you because she was attacked. And he says specifically, this is like when somebody murders someone.

That's how serious God takes rape, right? So that's the one instance. But the one in the city is so important, right?

The one in the city is so important because in the city, these are small cities. It's not, you can't think like a city where, you know, someone over here could be over, like small cities, right?

If you don't hear her screaming for help, right? If you don't hear her trying to call, that's not rape.

She was part of that, right? She wanted it. She, it was an adulterous affair. It's adultery.

And so it's treated just like adultery. So we have here in verse 22, what the penalty for adultery is.

Both parties are put to death. And in verse 23, it's the same situation, except this time it involves a betrothed virgin instead of somebody else's wife.

It's the same situation, the same penalty because it's the same thing, right? And so if there are people there that could help you and you don't take advantage of that, and then later you say, oh yeah, he raped me.

And you know, we were in the city. God's law says, no, you were part of that. That's what happened. You were part of it because you were there in the city.

There were people there that could have heard you calling out, but you didn't say anything until later. That's you, that's on you.

It's not rape because it's not raped. It's just not a violent act. You were part of it. That's what God is saying here.

It's very important because look, this law is specific to Israel. And the context is, you know, we don't really have like betrothed virgins in the same sense that they did before, although we do have that.

But what we're looking for is that idea. Did she try to get help at the time?

She was being attacked and tried to get help at the time or right away, right? And so let's talk about King David, right?

So David was certainly in the city and David was in a palace and he had servants and female servants and things like that.

There were people all around. In fact, his palace was right there. It's so close to Bathsheba's house that he could see her from.

So there are people all over the place and there's no record of her crying out for help or anything like that.

And so according to God's law, this was an adulterous situation. That's so, so we know from God's law itself that David did not rape her.

It doesn't say in the scripture, well, you know, if he's powerful, you know, like obviously this doesn't count if he's powerful.

There's nothing like that in the scripture. That's not what it says. And so we know from the scripture itself that David didn't rape

Bathsheba. Bathsheba was party to this adulterous affair. Now, again, this is not to say that that was okay.

David committed adultery, so did Bathsheba. These are death penalty offenses in Israel. They were not given the death penalty because they hit it and things like that.

And then he got Uriah out of the picture and then he married her after that. And so it was all hidden.

Obviously people knew about it, but he was not executed for this. And that's the bottom line.

All right. Okay, well, there's the video.

I hope you found it helpful. I hope you found it encouraging and emboldening and all of that kind of thing.

So there's a couple of things just to wrap this up. A couple of things about Big Eva and the

SBC elite that have made this so difficult. And I want to just talk about those now because if these two things didn't exist, we probably wouldn't have all these questions.

We probably wouldn't have to kind of push to get this information. Number one is just the secretive nature of the

SBC elite and Big Eva in general. Just so many things get done in these back room offices.

You picture the smoke filled room with like shady things going on. The cigarette smoking man's in the corner probably.

Although I don't think Baptists smoke cigarettes typically. The cigar smoking man. And so many shady rulings have come out and things like that.

And it's just, we just simply do not trust a lot of these people. I saw somebody say, you know, if you believe a

Daily Wire reporter over the SBC president, seminary presidents, then maybe you should leave the

SBC. It's like, like guys, like the thing is one is probably more trustworthy than the other.

And that's really sad. And I have no, I don't like the Daily Wire. In fact, just last week I made fun of the Daily Wire. I think in general the

Daily Wire is a gatekeeping organization. Megan Basham seems like a good reporter.

So like, I'm not talking about her. But the thing is like, honestly, a lot of people do trust her more than Al Mohler.

And that's sad. That's something that Al deserves. He's built that reputation over time. And that's a really sad situation.

If you guys weren't so secretive and shady and have all these kind of back office dealings, you know,

Griffin Gouledge, I mean, his whole job is doing gay ops, right? If you guys didn't run so many gay ops, we wouldn't have these questions.

So that's number one. You got to take a good look in the mirror. Why is it that so many people believe Megan Basham over Al Mohler, right?

And I think that if you look in the mirror and point the finger at yourself first, that'll go a long way because that didn't just happen overnight.

We didn't just decide one day we're gonna trust a random reporter over you. This is a reputation that it's your fault.

Number two, just the complete lack of any discussion of God's law in so much of the response here.

Like what I just did with Deuteronomy 22, that should be central, right?

And obviously that's not central to Guideposts. Like you guys are so, you guys reject God's law so entirely that you hire pagans to tell you how to be more

Christ -like. That is a tremendous problem. And it's very telling to so many of us,

Joe Schmoes in the pews who are like, but I thought we were gonna judge angels.

Like, I thought this was the word of God. This told us what is what. Like, we don't have to ask if David raped

Bathsheba. It's right here in the book. It's right here in the book. And you guys are like, yeah, but Nathan told the parable.

Yeah, I told the parable. And by the way, now we understand power dynamics and like, we gotta hide,

Guideposts is the pro, they're the pros. They know about the power dynamics. It's like, if you guys even were, like, you don't have to become theonomists.

I always say this. You don't have to become a theonomist. But if you guys even respected God's law a little bit as having abiding validity in the general equity or the general principles or something.

You don't even have to say general equity if you don't want to. But just like the idea that we have a universal application of the moral core of this law.

Maybe it's not specifically for us, but there's something there that we need to apply. If there were even a little bit of discussion, if there's even a little bit of discussion about this in our current situation,

I think people would have less questions. But instead, you hire pagans. And then when someone's like, well, why did you hire pagans to teach us how to be more

Christ -like? You point the finger at them and say, you must be one of them. You must be one of those pro -abuse guys.

And it's like, you guys, honestly, if this whole situation is causing you to have concern or you're burdened over it, whatever big

Eva speak you want to use, let me make a suggestion. Take a good look in the mirror because you did this to us.

You trained us. You're the one who's been teaching this whole time. And you're the ones who've been acting this whole time.

And this is the result. So instead of pointing the finger at everyone else like the pagans do, take a good look in the mirror and figure out how this has happened.

I don't want to take anything away from Megan Basham's reporting, nothing at all. She's obviously earned a certain reputation, but also you guys have earned a certain reputation.

And we'd much rather take the side of like, you know what, let's ask some questions here of an investigative journalist more than the old

Al Mohler of just trust me, I did the right thing. Unbelievable. In any case,