Leaked Audio - I Believed Jen Lyell

So when the Capstone Report commented on this leaked audio of the Jennifer Lyle interview with Ron Hensel, where she goes into a lot more detail about her story and her allegations, I thought about doing a video regarding my feelings on this audio, because I listened to the entire thing, and I think my feelings on the audio are going to surprise you a little bit.

And I had an idea for a video, but then I decided not to do it because, you know, I don't need to give my opinion on everything. And really, a good part of the video that I had the idea for was going to be opinion, and then there was going to be some truth.

So I decided not to do it, and this was a couple days ago, whenever this video came out. But I changed my mind. I'm going to do the video because Ron Hensel here, this is the guy who interviewed her, he wrote an article at the time about how he believed Jen Lyle.

He considered her testimony very credible. She was very convincing. It answered a lot of his questions. You know, Ron had a lot of the same questions that all of us had about the nature of this relationship, and why did it last so long and, you know, things like that.

And so he said, you know, at the time, I believed her. But then when you read, he says, look, he says, I have a very difficult but necessary statement to make concerning my involvement in the David Sills, Jennifer Lyle case, which began unexpectedly in June of last year, and has taken more than one surprising and even alarming turn, please read.

So I read the article. And as it turns out, Jen Lyle has been telling untruths about Ron Hensel, and their interaction and all of that. And Ron's thinking to himself, you know, look, I believed her. But now she's saying untruths about me.

Maybe she's saying untruths about all of a sudden, her testimony doesn't look very credible. And I decided to do my video anyway, because he lands in the exact place where I was going to land in the video I had the idea for.

Believing Jen Lyle's Testimony and the Limits of Personal Judgment

And Ron, I want to encourage you, because here's the truth. When I listened to that audio from the capstone report, at least, I don't know if it's from the capstone report, but commented on by the capstone report, I found Jen Lyle pretty believable, too.

That might be slightly overstating it, because there were certain aspects of her testimony that I found to be completely incredible in the sense that I just, I can't believe that it actually happened that way.

Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. But it just seems so ridiculous. Like, like the whole the whole story about how, you know, still said, you know, to Al Mohler, I think, allegedly said that, you know, the abuse, he knows it was abuse, but it wasn't really that bad, because she's been through worse.

And like, all that kind of stuff didn't really make much sense. But what I found incredible about Jen Lyle, is the explanation as far as why she, she didn't say anything, or why she continued the relationship.

And basically, it boils down to, you know, she, it was like her family, and she wanted she didn't want her Sils as grandchildren to have to hear all the details and stuff like that. And honestly, I sympathize with that.

I mean, it's, in my opinion, it's it's not an excuse to not say anything. It's not an excuse to not be open about it, you still got to protect yourself and stuff like that. But it sounded believable. And the other thing is to, you know, contra to what Jacob Den Hollander thinks about people like me, who insist on following biblical parameters when you're adjudicating these things.

I have had experience with this kind of thing in my personal life. And I know people in my personal life that have been assaulted and abused and things like that. And there is sort of a, I don't want to call it a Stockholm Syndrome, but there's, but there is sort of a way, an inexplicable reason that people will return to someone who's abusive.

And we might not get it, we might not understand it, but it does tend to happen. And so there, I could see it, you know, happening in this case. And I found a lot of what she said very believable in that regard.

There were some things, though, that I didn't find very believable about her testimony. And this is a small one, but, you know, maybe you've noticed this as well. But I think about, like, myself when I lie, or when I know somebody's lying to me.

Like, there are certain times in our life when you tell a lie, or when you catch somebody in a lie, and you know they're lying, but you don't quite reveal that you know they're lying yet. We've all experienced this, right?

People, when they lie, they tend to fill dead air with kind of information that's like, kind of tangentially relevant, but not really that relevant. Where it's like, it almost feels like, and in some ways it is, when I'm doing it, I know, it's kind of like a distraction, right?

Like, someone's asking me, where were you when you were supposed to be at this interview, or whatever, talking to this particular person? And I'll answer, kind of, but I'll be like, oh yeah, that person I was supposed to interview, yeah, I ended up interviewing him three days later, and we were talking about this, and actually it turns out, it's a funny story, he has a friend that's kind of we're related, and stuff like that.

If you notice, I'm talking about the person, the thing that he asked about, where was I when I was supposed to interview this person, but I didn't actually answer the question about where I was when I was supposed to be interviewing this person.

That's what I was asked. I end up talking about the interview, and it's sort of tangentially related, and there's a lot of detail. That's the other thing. I often embellish, not embellish details, but overshare.

Like, there's no reason for me to share about how I've got something in common with him, and stuff like that. Honestly, it's just to sidetrack the conversation. If you ever watch police interrogations, this kind of thing happens all the time, where a guilty party will, they give these long-winded, kind of almost rambling answers.

They're kind of all over the place, and part of it is because they're uncomfortable. I mean, when we're uncomfortable, we ramble, but part of it is because you want to appear cooperative, but you're holding something back, and that is the impression I got from some of Jennifer Lyle's answers.

She was giving a lot of details, but not really the relevant details that were necessary for the question that was asked her. If you listen to this audio, you'll see she talks a lot, and she's doing most of the talking, which you'd understand, of course, if you're being interviewed by Ron Henzel.

You'd end up doing a lot of talking, but I did find a lot of what she said to be very irrelevant, and it kind of seemed like she was trying to evade or distract, which maybe she was. I mean, honestly, even if it really did happen the way she said it did, it's probably uncomfortable to talk about it, right?

So at the end of the day, even though there were certain aspects of her testimony that, in my opinion, I didn't believe, overall, I found it very believable. And it could also be, just so you know, it could also be because in my mind, I'm comparing it to a situation that is personal to me, and there are some similarities there, and I certainly believe the person that's in my personal life.

So maybe she's not quite as convincing as I personally believe that she is, but I find her testimony very believable. And Ron did as well. In fact, he made a very good point in his article, look, I believed her, and I said so, and all of that.

The Need for Two or Three Witnesses in Civil and Church Discipline

But Ron, I want to encourage you, brother, because you feel like you made a mistake, and you did. You did, Ron. And it's a mistake that is so tempting. And this is why I am like a stick in the mud regarding the law of God, because the law of God is so important.

Because at the end of the day, it makes no difference if I believe Jen Liel's story. None. It makes no difference if Ron Henzel, here he is right here, drinking a cup of coffee, Ron believed her and wrote about it in his...

It doesn't make a difference if Ron... Ron, you seem like a good guy. I'm not saying that I don't trust your judgment. I'm not saying that. Well, I guess kind of I am. But the reality is that it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter if Al Mohler, he makes the point in the article, look, Al believed it. Al said he confirmed it, which made me want to believe it. In fact, Jen, in the testimony, said Al confirmed it, and she put a little detail in there and stuff like that.

It doesn't matter if Al believes it either. It simply doesn't matter. That's not how the law of God works. Look, the law of God has a very high standard if we're convicting people of crimes, whether it's in an actual court or the court of public opinion.

Guys, the law of God, Paul applies it to the church situation as well. The church can't adjudicate crimes. We understand that is clearly the realm of the civil governing authority. So if someone is going to be convicted of a crime, they need two or more witnesses.

Ron is very, very specific in his article here, and he needs to be, because this is a matter of the law of God. You can reject it if you want to, but it doesn't change the fact that you're bound to it.

You're duty bound to it. This is something you're held to. So in Deuteronomy 19, verse 15, a single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed.

Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses shall a charge be established. So no one can be convicted of a crime in a law court without two or more witnesses. It doesn't matter how believable the testimony is.

That's the fact. But you see, Paul doesn't just leave it there. That's from Deuteronomy, talking about the criminal court. Paul applies it to the church setting as well. So if you want to, if Rachel Denhollander wants to try this trial in the court of public opinion with the SPC and stuff like that, then all of a sudden, we're going to need a lot more details, because even in the court of public opinion, in the church courts, we still need two or more witnesses.

Paul, the apostle of God, says this. This is the third time I'm coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. And then he says in 1 Timothy, this is such an important verse, do not admit a charge.

Don't even admit a charge against an elder, except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. The reality is, no matter how believable I personally find Jen Liel's testimony, and I've told you, I've got some reservations, of course, by it.

I've got some things about it that I, it kind of sounded like she was being evasive. But even given all that, I actually believe her testimony. I did. I did. I found it very believable. But I'm not the standard.

This is the thing. I'm not the standard. I'm not the one who's the judge. I have to go by what Christ says. He's the king, he's the judge. And he says, don't admit a charge against an elder, except on the evidence of two or three witnesses.

And furthermore, every person's, everyone's testimony sounds pretty good until someone cross-examines him, until we hear the other side, until we have, have we heard the other side to this point? I'm sure at this point this has become a public situation with all kinds of public interests attached to it.

It's just that simple. You know, sometimes million-dollar settlements make that happen. I'm sure we're going to hear the other side of the story. And, you know, obviously we're not a law court, so we're not trying anything.

But the thing is, we have legitimate questions. We have basic, natural questions that you instantly think of when you hear the story. And that, those questions need hearing. It's just that simple. I'm duty-bound to not say, oh, you know, Jen sounds pretty believable, so, you know, there it is.

I'm gonna, what a monster Sills is. Look, Sills, I guess, on record, he seems like a scumbag to me. You know what I mean? Like, I don't know how else to say, look, if you'll betray your wife, you'll betray anybody.

But I don't get to make that determination. I don't just get to say, oh, he's a scumbag, his testimony's invalid. I don't get to say, oh, he seems like a scumbag to me, so I automatically believe everything evil you say about him.

Like, that, I don't get to make that charge. The law of God must be insisted on because we are, our hearts are so deceitful. Do I, I don't even know if I believe Jen's testimony because it's believable or because of personal situations that I have.

I don't know. I don't know. But luckily, I don't have to decide based on one person's testimony. Here's what Ron Henzel says, and this resonates with me. He says, I had one witness to the charges against David Sills.

You might say I was very impressed by that witness. You might say I thought David Sills was credibly accused, which is a phrase I've seen used a lot lately concerning the type of allegations that were lodged against him.

You might say I believed he was so credibly accused that I sinfully set aside the biblical principle of two or three witnesses when I agreed to publish my opinion about that those allegations were true.

And you would be correct. When I saw Jennifer Lyle's text to Tom Buck, this is when he realizes that she's told untruths about him. The Lord rebuked me. I don't know whether she made some same statements to anyone else, but if she did, and if those people believed her, they were believing her charges against me on the evidence of one witness alone.

Contemplating that possibility does not leave me with a pleasant feeling. I don't know whether David Sills is guilty of abuse. Let me stop there for a second. I understand. Ron, I get it. I get it. Lots of people in my life have believed something negative about me because one person told them that.

There's one person in the SBC who has told numerous lies about me to numerous people, and it does not feel good to be convicted on the evidence of one, in my opinion, deranged witness. He goes on, he says, I don't know whether David Sills is guilty of sexual abuse.

That's all I should have written in my revision to my article last year. I should have said Jennifer Lyle provided me with her account of what happened between her and David Sills. She seemed reasonable and credible and provided sensible and helpful answers to difficult questions I asked about her allegations.

I thanked her for this, but I also told her that I cannot corroborate her account because scripture requires two or three witnesses in all cases in which someone is charged with any kind of offense or crimes.

That's what I should have written, but I didn't, and I'm deeply sorry for that. In the spirit of Psalms 51 -4 and 12 -13, I think I should say that unless they had a way to fulfill the biblical requirement of two or three witnesses and the individuals and entities of the SBC who quote-unquote corroborated Lyle's story, I should have basically said the same thing.

But I cannot repent for them. I can only repent for myself. Yeah. Yeah. It resonates with me so much, man, and we all just got an important lesson in the importance of the law of God because we can't trust our own assessment of the situation without being in the confines of the law of God.

Obviously, when you're hearing testimony, you're going to judge whether you believe them or not, but you can't let that override your commitment to the law of God because God is the standard. He's told us what the standard is.

He's told us what the requirements for conviction are. He's told us the crimes. He's told us the punishments. He's told us how to figure out what the truth is, and we are duty-bound, slaves of Christ, to do that.

We're forgiven for breaking the law. Ron is forgiven here, and I've been forgiven for the times I've broken the law, but we must uphold our desire and our drive to do that law because that's the example Christ set, and we must follow that example.

We must. And so, you know, there's more to talk about regarding this interview, but I'm going to leave that as it lies right there. That's the video I wanted to do anyway. I wanted to say, look, I find this believable, but it doesn't matter what I find believable.

What matters is the law of God. In any case, I hope you found this video helpful. God bless.