(Opinion) For the past several years, I have wondered why Daily Wire journalist and author Megan Basham consistently supports sexual predators, while attacking their victims. This week, I found out, thanks to a recently released email Basham sent to a source in 2022, explaining her motives.
Basham’s email reveals a stunning lack of objectivity on her part and suggests that her sympathy for abusers stems from her desire to protect her father, not an impartial assessment of the facts.
The email is included in recently unsealed court documents. Former Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) professor David Sills is suing the Louisville, Kentucky, school, its president Al Mohler, the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), Guidepost Solutions and others. Sills claims the defendants falsely labeled him a sexual abuser for what he contends was a consensual relationship with a former student and family friend, Jennifer Lyell.
Lyell claimed that Sills, who was 23 years older than her, exploited her vulnerability as a 26-year-old student with a history of childhood sexual abuse. She says Sills set himself up as her surrogate father and used his position to manipulate her into years-long, non-consensual sexual contact.
Though the abuse allegedly began in 2004, Lyell didn’t go public with the allegations until 2019, when she was working as an executive at Lifeway, the publishing arm of the SBC. When she did, Baptist Press framed the abuse as a “morally inappropriate relationship,” implying consent. This harmed Lyell’s reputation, prompted her to resign from Lifeway, and damaged her health.
Your tax-deductible gift supports our mission of reporting the truth and restoring the church. Donate $50 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you can elect to receive “Primal Fire: Reigniting the Church with the Five Gifts of Jesus” by Neil Cole, haga clic aquí.
A year later, the insurance carrier for the SBC Executive Committee, which oversees Baptist Press, paid Lyell a $1 million settlement for mishandling her story. And in 2022, the Executive Committee also formally apologized to Lyell.
But none of this has deterred Basham from siding with Sills.
Basham believes Guidepost Solutions’ 2022 investigation, revealing widespread mishandling of abuse within the SBC, was greatly exaggerated. And she views Lyell’s story, which featured prominently in Guidepost Solutions’ report, as a prime example of mislabeling an affair as abuse.
In her 2022 article, “Southern Baptists’ #MeToo Moment,” Basham claims that Lyell actually had power over Sills because 11 years after the alleged abuse began, Lyell became an executive at Lifeway, overseeing the publication of Sills’ books. That’s quite a stretch.
Even after Lyell’s untimely death last June at age 47, Basham has continued to attack Lyell’s narrative as a victim.
And this week, after obtaining 2008 emails from court records in which Lyell gushes about how much she loves and misses Sills, Basham practically gloated on X.
“I was called a rape apologist. I was called an abuser ally. I was called an unethical journalist because I did not immediately accept that an adult woman in a 12 year relationship … was ever and always a victim and that their relationship was ever and always abuse and never consensual,” Basham posted.
“And now we have discovery. And I have those communications between the two parties that are not under seal. And here I stand. And the SBC executive committee is nearly bankrupted because of this Me Too madness.”
But Lyell’s emails are not the smoking gun Basham and her followers think they are. They are consistent with trauma bonding — the strong emotional attachment an abuse victim feels toward their abuser, especially when there’s a cyclical pattern of abuse.
But bring up this pattern, or explain how Sills was the powerful one who needs to be held accountable, and Basham will accuse you of being a Marxist, as she recently did with me. She also accused me of being an activist because El Informe Roys reprinted an article from Religion News Service that Basham felt was biased towards Lyell.
Given these accusations, you might think Basham is a paragon of journalistic virtue and objectivity. But her 2022 email reveals that she’s not. Instead, it shows precisely what those of us who have observed her crusade have suspected all along: She’s the activist. And she’s willing to jettison every convention of journalism when it suits her cause.
Basham's email
Her March 30, 2022, email is addressed to Sills, but is sent through Tom Ascol, Founders Ministries president and a polarizing figure in the SBC for his outspoken criticism of the denomination’s “liberal drift.”
In her introduction, Basham notes that she’s aware Sills has spoken with Ascol about her desire to interview him. Then, she explains why she wants to hear Sills’ perspective:
From a personal standpoint, I don't know if it's wise to share this, but I'm going to so you'll know a bit about me.
When I was in middle school, my dad was a lay leader of our church's young adult (college and career) ministry. He had an affair with a woman in that group. She was in her mid-twenties. I have a half-sister from that relationship. I knew the woman well. She was like a part of our family and often babysat my siblings and I. She was a close friend of my mother and went on many vacations with us, and I frequently spent weekends shopping and having outings with her. Looking back, I don't know if she insinuated herself into our family or if the situation developed naturally, but certainly she became very entangled in all our lives.
You can imagine how the affair upended our family when it became public knowledge. We left the only church I’d ever known. We moved states. My parents sought counseling, and it's been a rough road but they managed to keep their marriage together. When I see them with my children today I'm so grateful God preserved their union against all odds.
This was in the early nineties, so though my father was a leader in the church, it was (I believe rightly) characterized as a consensual adulterous relationship. But my dad and I have often talked in the last few years about how his sin might have been described if he had committed it today. We've talked about how he most certainly would be characterized as an abuser today and how that would have impacted my mom, my siblings and I.
I believe that a movement that tells adult women they have been abused when they participate willingly in sexual sins is unbiblical. It keeps them in a state of unrepentance and creates incentives for dishonesty, even in one's own mind. In short, I believe the “believe all women” narrative of the MeToo movement is godless and the church undermines its power to cleanse souls and change lives by capitulating to it.
Perhaps this is not Lyell's story. Perhaps you'll tell me you have decided that abuse was a factor. But I have strong doubts.
I would love to speak with you and get a chance to get a better perspective on your story, which is being used to shape a national narrative which is, in turn, being used to shape the direction of the largest protestant denomination in the U.S.
Your story (or perhaps an inaccurate version of it) has already become national news. I'm hoping to find out if that record needs correcting…
Basham’s email shows she has a deeply personal and painful experience that colors not just how she reports on abuse stories, but how she relates to sources.
Telling a source up front that you’re inclined to believe his story and disbelieve his accuser — based on your personal experience — is highly unprofessional. Though I have often said that pure objectivity is an unattainable standard, journalists strive to be fair and listen to both sides.
Basham pretends that’s her standard, too, but it’s clear she’s biased against adult survivors of sexual abuse and doesn’t even think such abuse exists. It’s “unbiblical,” she says.
This claim makes me think Basham’s personal experience has also clouded her interpretation of Scripture.
When the prophet Nathan confronts David in 2 Samuel 12 for his sin with Bathsheba, he clearly holds David responsible. Even the terminology Nathan uses, saying David “took” Bathsheba, seems to acknowledge that in this situation, Bathsheba had little to no agency.
But Basham can’t seem to acknowledge that adult women can be victims. She attacked Lyell, seeking to tear her down. She similarly went after the credibility of the woman who accused prominent SBC pastor Johnny Hunt of sexually assaulting her.
At the time of the alleged assault, Hunt was the president of the SBC, and woman’s husband was an SBC pastor. Hunt was also about 24 years older than the woman.
Yet, in her 2024 book, Shepherds for Sale, Basham denies this power difference between Hunt and the woman, suggesting that the woman and her husband were SBC insiders, and that somehow changed the dynamic.
Basham also published the name of the woman, who had previously been anonymous. Not only was this incredibly cruel, but it also was a violation of a basic journalism ethic: to minimize harm.
It’s almost as if Basham is out to hurt adult survivors of sexual abuse. At the very least, she wants them branded as sinners on par with their alleged powerful abusers.
Prior to reading Basham’s email, this made no sense to me. Journalists are supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. Basham seems to do the exact opposite.
Similarly, Scripture repeatedly urges believers to “defend the weak and the fatherless,” “rebuke the oppressor,” and “bear with the failings of the weak.”
Sadly, not once in her recounting of her dad’s egregious sin and abuse of his position does Basham mention the plight of the woman, likely half his age, that he impregnated. It’s clear Basham’s sympathy lies with her dad, despite him possessing much more power and less vulnerability than the woman.
This is what’s unbiblical.
Similarly, it’s not the journalists Basham rails against who are biased and lacking discernment, it’s her.
I wish Basham would show some humility and own her error. I wish she’d seek the help of a competent counselor who could help her process what happened with her father.
But at bare minimum, I wish she would stop her crusade against survivors. She’s clearly disqualified herself from reporting impartially on this issue and is causing far more harm than good.
Julie Roys es una reportera de investigación veterana y fundadora de The Roys Report. Anteriormente, también presentó un programa de entrevistas nacional en Moody Radio Network, llamado Up for Debate, y ha trabajado como reportera de televisión para una filial de CBS. Sus artículos han aparecido en numerosas publicaciones periódicas.
Spanish 
English
67 Responses
I am assuming that Julie will read these at some point. I appreciate the work you do and your reporting. My question is, do you ever feel that there is a consensual adulterous relationship? I am sure you must. Is it the power relationship or the age difference that makes a relationship assault.
I respect what you have written in this article, but is this an issue where there is room to disagree on the case of, for instance, Basham’s own family experience?
The answer is in fact no. This opinion article should be called, “The Pot Calls the Kettle Black.” It is a masterclass in glass lighting. Is it possible to have Basham’s experience, and still not advocate for “abusers”? Is it possible that Basham was wanting to interview Sill and wanted him to know that she really does desire to know the truth and not just assume his guilt? And is it also possible that Mrs. Roys has her own lens in which she is looking though (power dynamics) that muddles her own perspective? Those are all questions I would like answers to.
Of course, there are consensual adulterous relationships. Those happen between peers. But when someone is in a position of power over someone else, it sets the stage for abuse. This is especially true if that person is considered a spiritual mentor and able to appeal to divine power or authority. In these cases, it is always the responsibility of the person in power to maintain proper boundaries.
This power differential has long been acknowledged in secular professions. This is why a counselor or physician can lose their license if they have sexual contact with a client/patient. The Christian community has been slow to acknowledge this. But in 12 states, it is a crime for a pastor or person providing spiritual guidance to have sexual contact with someone under their care.
In your view, if there is an imbalance in the relationship, i.e. an abusive component to the relationship, does this then entail that the sin must only be on one side, or can things be more complicated than that? If more complicated, then what would you say about it in general? Is it possible for abusers to prey upon weaknesses in those that they are abuse and yet at the same time, those are are abused partially culpable for not doing more to resist and refuse?
I’m not asking about this particular case, which I am not competent to comment on; I’m trying to understand the principle in general.
I don’t have a sin-o-meter to guage who’s sinning and how much. I leave those determinations up to God. My job as a journalist is to report on prominent figures involved in misconduct and tell the facts. If that person gets involved with someone under him/her, that introduces the possibility of abuse, which we report. But trying to determine whether the vulnerable person has some level of culpability is outside my purview. The story, from a news standpoint, is always about the prominent person who betrayed public trust.
Let us not forget in the “godless” secular world, powerful men have lost their jobs because of their affairs with subordinates. Boeing CEO Harry Stonecipher and his affair with a Boeing VP comes to mind. This is why the CEO was fired and the VP was not.
Well said, Julie! It’s astounding to me that so many Christians are resistant to the idea that spiritual leaders should be held to a higher standard, even though that is clearly taught in Scripture.
The congregations are being kept in line by the use of Romans 13. This absolves the leaders of their actions, and are above being held to the standards of God by the congregation, and cannot be challenged by those as seen as less educated than themselves.
This is exactly the main point. Spiritual leaders are held to a higher standard and should maintain a clean reputation. Knowing if the relationship was consensual or not doesn’t matter.
Yep! It is the gospel. If the Roys Report announces that those who have accused people of abuse, then you must believe all women, regardless of the facts. If the woman stated it, it happened and no facts or truth will change a lie. A lie cloaked in purported truth does not necessarily make it true and it appears that someone does not like to be exposed for supporting lies.
Julie, I agree with you about Bathsheba. She couldn’t consent because she had no power. If you can’t say no, you can’t say yes. She was property and that is why the prophet Nathan described her as a STOLEN LAMB. And no, he did not blame the lamb for looking so fluffy.
He did not blame the lamb for looking so fluffy. Acrid- the only word I could find that describes the – the biting in your face absurdity misogyny.
A retribution piece, really? Why the attack purely at a reporter? And a right-wing reporter, at that?
The Bible said David committed adultery not rape, and she was married to one of David’s mighty men and they had the laws of Moses! Also, why was Bathsheba bathing where someone could see??? It was consensual but David was more responsible for it than her!
Adultery does not preclude rape or abuse. You could also turn your question around: Why was King David spying and preying on a married women, his subject, who was obeying God by taking her ritual mikvah to purify herself according to the Law? Didn’t he realize what an affront this was to God’s holiness? Mikvahs are also often also accompanied by prayers or blessings, and Bathsheba would have been accompanied by other women in attendance, also praying. So while David was focused on his self-gratification, Bathsheba was trying to please God. The text shows great abuse of power and hubris on David’s part, and definitely doesn’t show consent. This would have been obvious to its Jewish audience.
The amount of reading into the text of questionable historic material is amazing.
We know David was wrong. The amount of guilt that can or should be passed on to Bathsheba is very much a modern Western question.
She was shamed, hence she is in Matthew’s list with Ruth, Tamar and Rehab.
Should she be blamed or excused in a guilt or legal sense?
Wrong question.
I am not responding to this situation in any way. I’m responding to the “you can’t say no….” Joseph said “NO” to Mrs. Potiphar in the OT and there was a tremendous “power differential”. Having said that, men (or women) who are involved in Christian ministries should never again lead Christian ministries whether it was “consensual” or so much worse non-consensual. They have disqualified themselves. That doesn’t mean that God can’t use them someplace – but not in a leadership position. Sills should have (biblically) sought forgiveness from all wronged individuals – including Lyells and quietly gone about life. His attempt at lawsuits seems to shout a lack of true repentance.
This definitely explains Basham’s biased reporting. Very insightful piece. It is sad that she has not allowed truth to shine a light on the painful reality of her own family but instead harms others by defending and protecting a culture of abuse.
Her father is her God and she can’t stomach the reality that she is frantically denying. Such an admission would threaten her perspective of God, self identity, and others.
Respectfully, I agree with Megan Basham here, and your efforts to “poison the well” based upon her family history is disgusting. You should repent of that and issue her a public apology. This article is a perfect example of Cultural Marxist thinking infiltrating the church.
More like you drank the Kool-Aid and cannot see that Basham is on a crusade to defend all her daddy figures and others from the evil Jezebels. But then I suppose you also blame Bathsheba instead of David, when clearly Nathan (and God) assigns culpability to David. Why don’t actually read the accounts in Scriptures of David and Bathsheba and get back to us when you have a clue?
Buenos puntos.
I’m also confused as to why Rich believes Julie’s essay is ‘Cultural Marxism” (See my questions below). I would like to see his defense on that and his proofs/examples as to why he believes this is the case.
Or is ti just name-calling?
What is cultural Marxism?
And how is calling out the bias and inconsistencies of another individual “cultural Marxism”?
How is helping to protect women from from men using them for their own purposes ‘cultural Marxism’?
George. I look at the terms people use, in the context of what resources they have to make sense of what they are coming across.
Marxism is essentially a counter ideology. That is, historically and in its origins, it embodies a determination to see one societal form (say Capitalism) displaced by another societal form (say communism); where the mechanism of intended change is ideological.
Ideology here involves personal identity (I) and a mediated world (dea) or social form. The crux here is that the ideas constituting ideology that an individual commits to, yield or mediate self and world simultaneously.
In any phase of attempted change, the encounter between those seeking to conserve the status quo, and those seeking to bring about change, are absolutely antithetical existentially, psychologically and spiritually.
Basham can be seen as conservative in a current phase, while JR can be seen as intending change. With that positioning it is understandable that Basham might reach for the concept of JR being Marxist, as a best-fit idea that she has to hand as she finds herself exposed to JR’s ideation and its expression.
Sorry Colin but you should allow Rich to answer that question. I need to find out his take on his understanding of things
I would also prefer you also use simpler language rather than lofty words and complex grammatical structures. Not all of us have a PhD or have memorized the Oxford English Dictionary.
Are you the same Richa Suplita who was fired from the University of Georgia for dating students under your supervision? If so, I can understand why you would support Basham’s defense of Sills. https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/local/2014/11/22/uga-moves-fire-professor-dating-student-professor-appeals/15511455007/
Julie, that’s the hardest mic drop I have ever read online. It’s unbelievable that someone publicly dismissed on this basis would weigh in on a public forum, but judgement is often lacking for people who do these things. The article that you link describes the fired professor defending himself by saying that even though the student was his teaching assistant, she didn’t really do any work for him so it didn’t count.
Very interesting. Trauma based interventions are all about a victim and a victimizer. What the “trauma narrative” has done is take away all agency from women, claiming they are completely powerless and subject to the power of men. Women are not powerless. Trauma informed counseling is being used where it should not be used. While I disagree with Basham, what she says has some truth to it…as does Julie. I would love to see The Roy’s Report do a series on those who suffered “trauma” from provably false allegations.
Dear Julie, since your own past transparency has been weaponized against you by critics, you can understand how vulnerable Megan may be feeling right now. This is the time for humility and self-examination on all sides, and to realize that the perspective of each member is essential in order to come together to the fullness of the body of Christ. In this case Megan may be the member signaling the rest of us: Hey! Don’t default to assuming the male, or the powerful, is always the instigator. We know from scripture and from experience of women who attempt to seduce righteous men, and sometimes succeed. And we, who’ve been forgiven so much by the king, dare not rush to demand judgment for our peers. Rather we celebrate together his mercy toward all who will honestly confess and repent.
So would you be willing to call up or email Jennifer Lyell and tell her that because she’s the one claiming to be the victim here?
BTW The use of piety to mask an unfounded position that in this case ‘may’ seek to blame the victim is annoying and unnecessary.
Let’s do better next time.
This is a valid observation, and one that I (somewhat) agree with. It is not helpful to always assume that these situations are without nuance.
HOWEVER, Ms. Basham’s record does not seek such nuance. She goes in search of vicarious vindication and absolution for her father’s sins. What’s more, she uses her credentials as a journalist to persecute women as a proxy for what happened regarding her own father’s betrayal and the upheaval her family experienced. This is both tragic and (in my opinion) wicked. It is difficult to overstate the journalistic malpractice, unprofessionalism and downright malevolence involved in what Ms. Basham has done to these women. She sees the world through the lens of a hurt little girl whose father might be have been accused of being an abuser and a groomer. But his sins are not hers to interpret or minimize, and it clear that while she has forgiven him, she has yet to fully forgive the woman involved. The one whose story we have not heard. We can appreciate and even admire a daughter’s defense of her father; but we cannot condone a Christian journalist’s self-righteous scorn and fanatical crusade against victims of abuse because she needs to reframe her own past.
We might not be responsible for our own traumas, but for goodness sake, let’s not allow pride to keep us from seeking healing.
The difficulty here is that it’s the job of the person in power to maintain proper boundaries. There is no question that Lyell, as a 26-year-old student and childhood sex abuse survivor, was extremely vulnerable to Sills’ advances. There is no way to explain that away. And the fact that she developed feelings for him does not negate the fact that Sills abused his position of power. This crusade to assign blame to the vulnerable person is mind numbing to me. Since when do Christians seek to pummel the weak and protect the strong?
It should be obvious that those “Christians” are not, despite what they call themselves.
Given the age of Lyell and Sills, it is possible that this is a reply/flashback to what happened to her when her father and the other woman. The ages are quite close. But rather than blame daddy/Sills, Basham blames the other woman/Lyell. Basham has more than a political and ideological axez to grind. She is defending her daddy figures against the wicked Jezebels who ended her childhood fairy tale fantasy.
Anyone who bought her book Shepherds For Sale and her various articles, and bought into it, should end up feeling quite the fool. I really hope someone at one of her public events brings this up and calls her out on the carpet.
I am amazed there are so many who can’t make a distinction between cases. Yes there are consensual adulterous relationships but as you have said in this case there is a power play of a man over a woman.
Sadly there are too many conservatives who vilify anything that even remotely resembles liberalism and that includes the “Me-Too” movement which they associate with Feminism (One of their many archenemies)
I often ask myself the same question you ask in the final sentence of this reply. I do not recognize Jesus and his teachings in the pummeling of the weak and the protection of the strong.
“We know from scripture and from experience of women who attempt to seduce righteous men, and sometimes succeed.”
What is an example from scripture of a woman who succeeded in seducing a righteous man?
I can’t think of any. Anyone thinks that Bathsheba was seducing David is clearly clueless when it comes to what Scriptures actually say about the account. More like David couldn’t keep his pants on. Potiphar’s wife tried on Joseph but FAILED miserably.
Cynthia – I love it, and thank you for saying it!
It is true, but not acknowledged by men, especially, that it is absolutely impossible for a woman to seduce a man unless he wants to succumb. We have been given that innate control as part of our image of Father God.
Jesus Himself verified that when He indicated that lust starts with a look, which when it develops into a thought and then is maintained in repetition, often develops into an action.
I have no doubt that Bathsheba knew David was in town, and that he was wont to gaze out of his nearby upper window. However, he alone was held to account in this instance, as an example to all men everywhere, for all time.
That’s also why the tempter worked through Eve, rather than Adam.
Re: Your take on the David and Bathsheba story……
Are you serious?
Trevor Graetz, I’m not offering an opinion on men and women in general nor on the specific situations covered in this article. It was asserted that a specific situation occurred -“women who attempt to seduce righteous men, and sometimes succeed” – and is recorded in Scripture, and I am asking for the citation.
Cynthia Wright:
This from Proverbs 7 might give you pause:
21With persuasive words she led him astray;
she seduced him with her smooth talk.
22 All at once he followed her
like an ox going to the slaughter,
like a deer stepping into a noose
23 till an arrow pierces his liver,
like a bird darting into a snare,
little knowing it will cost him his life.
24 Now then, my sons, listen to me;
pay attention to what I say.
25 Do not let your heart turn to her ways
or stray into her paths.
26 Many are the victims she has brought down;
her slain are a mighty throng.
27 Her house is a highway to the grave,
leading down to the chambers of death.
That is an exhortation, not a specific episode involving a specific man and a specific woman in Scripture.
Cynthia Wright:
The “exhortation” would not be needed if the women described in it did not exist. Would you agree?
“Though I have often said that pure objectivity is an unattainable standard, journalists strive to be fair and listen to both sides.”
Reading this piece with this golden standard of listening to both sides in mind, I judge that the two disagreeing protagonists are holding each other to account across the relative validity of both grounding views. Certainly as they so fundamentally disagree across the Lyell-Sills case.
Why did Megan take this writing assignment in the first place? She appears to have an obvious conflict of interest in covering this type of story.
I think these issues of abuse are nuanced. Human beings aren’t simple formulae to be solved. Multiple issues and motivations may factor into something. That said, a couple of thoughts came to mind.
1) Is it possible that Megan herself is dealing with undiagnosed or even unrealized trauma from what happened within her family. Without, in any way, condoning or excusing her behavior and the damage it may causing others today… imagine the betrayal she may have felt.
2) Did Megan only listen to one side of the story… her father’s? Difficult as it might have been, seems like Megan’s family was able to work through things and stay intact. I wonder how the life of that young woman turned out. Seems to me, the aftermath of people’s lives may be an indicator to the nature of abuse and trauma from the past.
3) What’s with christians like Megan and their cancel culture ad hominems? You question something and immediately you’re a Marxist. Nobody is trying to “equate power with sin”. That’s a straw man. Investigative authorities invariably start with interrogating the husband, in the death of a woman. Does that indicate bias? Seems like, when the ad hominems start flying, that’s when you know emotion, not objectivity is at play.
In reading the email from Megan, your leap to her trying to protect her father is quite a stretch. Her father has already paid the price for his transgression. Of course your conclusion would have nothing to do with your advocacy. Certainly there are cases of abuse, and certainly people in “power” are obligated to maintain boundaries, but every situation is different and we are sinful, vulnerable creatures. Without knowing the full story, who is to say that Lyell did not wear Sills down with advances?
The article you wrote is no different than what you accuse Megan doing…
God had the sons of Eli killed off for abusing their priestly role by committing adultery. Yet the liberal, Marxist author of 1 Samuel makes no mention whatsoever of the women’s culpability in these affairs. It’s almost like God has different standards for shepherds than for sheep.
Neither the institutional church nor its insurance companies will pay out $1m if there’s no there, there.
What planet are we living on when a 26 year old “Christian” woman has a 12 year affair with a “Christian” man and her part is excused as abuse. Both of them must have very hardened hearts to be able to ignore their consciences for so long. Have enjoyed your many articles and you are someone who brings things that are hidden in darkness to light. Megan has the same calling. You are both seeking to do the right thing.
The women I have gotten to know, who are victims of adult clergy sexual abuse, have very soft hearts. And like Lyell, they most often have a huge vulnerability to a father figure, given their earthly father’s abuse or neglect. In fact, it’s that vulnerability that predators seem to have a special ability to spot and exploit. That David Sills abused Jennifer Lyell is undeniable because of the power differential. It is an abuse of power for a professor to initiate sexual contact with a student under him. That doesn’t mean that Lyell is sinless; none of us are. But it does mean that Sills betrayed his responsiblity as a spiritual mentor. It was his job to nurture the sheep; not prey on the sheep.
In secular universities, that would be cause for the professor to get fired, even if it is consensual.
I am in agreement with your sentiments but differ with your terminology. What Sills did was morally and ethically wrong—as her teacher, as a married man, as an employee of a Christian organization and as a Christian. Had he tied her grades or her passing his class together with his advances that would have been an abuse of his position as her teacher. It feels like we use the term abuse far too easily these days. Such a very sad situation for his family too.
There are many instances of journalists who become pundits: David Brooks (liberal) and Bill O’Reilly (conservative) are just two examples representing the extremes of punditry viewpoint. There is a lot more money in being a nationally known pundit than there ever will be in being a journalist, so it’s a great gig if you can get it! Sounds like Megan Basham has crossed that line even if she hasn’t publicly acknowledged doing so. IMHO, if Ms. Basham would come out of the journalist closet and openly identify as a pundit or commentator instead of a journalist–or if editors would start treating her as a pundit instead of a journalist–then Julie Roys’ concerns in this article would be largely moot.
“… if Ms. Basham would come out of the journalist closet and openly identify as a pundit or commentator instead of a journalist- …”
Brent, I share your thinking here, albeit I would add to it. I judge Basham to be an ideologue first. Where there is level of holistic individual thinking and expressing on the part of Basham, that goes beyond punditry and commentating. A pundit and commentator works within the parameters of a given audience, whereas Basham’s polemic and theorising has a self-sustaining aspect which makes her an ideologue who can dissuade and persuade so as to create approving and disapproving audiences.
As such an ideologue she can still do journalism, where the journalism she thereby does will be subject to approval and disapproval across an ideological ground. She will be seen as simply reporting by those who approve of her ideologically, and be seen as not doing journalism by those disapproving of her ideologically. She reports the world as it is from the point of view of those who share her ideology, and fails to report the world as it is from the point of view of those who do not share her ideology.
Let’s not forget that Basham’s book “Shepherds for Sale” drew significant criticism for factual inaccuracies, “selective reporting” and ethical breaches.
The book has also been criticized for its lack of accountability, with Basham responding to critics “with ad hominem attacks and deflection”.
(How is that approach – repeated in her dealings with Julie Roys – even professional or decent from a secular point of view, never mind Christ-like???)
So Basham’s “standards” of journalism have already been questioned by everyone who looks at things with IMPARTIALITY
[After all, the phrase “God shows no partiality” is found multiple times in the Bible]
This certainly adds another piece of the picture to Ms. Basham and makes her position even more predictable.
It’s hard to make someone understand a truth when their…
-Financial livelihood
-Standing within a patriarchal religious movement
-Personal brand
-View of their father
… requires them to not understand it.
On the wider point, it’s baffling that so many Christians cannot comprehend power dynamics and Clergy sexual abuse when scripture clearly teaches that those who teach “will be judged more severely”. Surely this is an easy place to see where a scriptural concept finds easy accordance with modern psychological knowledge.
I’ve stopped listening to these “Christian ” influencers. This woman is defending sexual abusers and pedophiles because of her father? She’s got some real mental problems. Did you all hear about Kirk Cameron saying he doesn’t believe that the Hell described in the Bible isn’t what Hell is really like? He’s invented his own version of Hell. So you see this people twist scripture to what they “feel’ is what GOD really means. Enough of what “they” think or feel, read the Bible. GOD has set his word in black and white, I don’t need anyone to tell me GOD’s will.
Good report, Julie. Thanks for clearing that up, or at least shedding some further light.
Proverbs 7:
21 With persuasive words she led him astray;
she seduced him with her smooth talk.
22 All at once he followed her
like an ox going to the slaughter,
like a deer stepping into a noose
23 till an arrow pierces his liver,
like a bird darting into a snare,
little knowing it will cost him his life.
24 Now then, my sons, listen to me;
pay attention to what I say.
25 Do not let your heart turn to her ways
or stray into her paths.
26 Many are the victims she has brought down;
her slain are a mighty throng.
27 Her house is a highway to the grave,
leading down to the chambers of death.
Solomon, the son of David and Bathsheba, likely penned these words. In addition to being the wisest King of Israel, Solomon was known for his wealth and power. God had a plan when David met Bathsheba. He always does. When we mess up and confess our sin, He forgives us and manages to turn our mistakes into something good.
Regarding this article, it seems to me that power differentials do not always translate into an abusive relationship. They may, but it is not a given. I have seen strong marriages that were based on the professorial/student relationship at the beginning. We have to account for people falling in love and we also have to account for the principle “if you want to keep on getting what you’re getting, keep on doing what you’re doing.”
Ms. Lyell had – 12 years? – to get out of that relationship. She had power that comes from knowing Christ. Why didn’t she use it?
God did not plan David’s sin. We need to be careful not to sound fatalistic and make God the author of sin. A flip, casual attitude towards such a grievous sin is unbiblical. So is calling it a mistake like spilling spaghetti on white pants. We are not babies. We are accountable for our sins that grieve the heart of God. May the Lord restore our fear of His righteousness.
Carolyn Warner:
What gave you the idea that God planned David’s sin????????????????????
My point was this: God takes our messes and somehow makes something good out of them once we confess and ask for forgiveness, as David clearly did.
I am so thankful for Julie’s reporting. It takes courage to call out the abusive behavior going on among spiritual leaders. Let’s not question who is the abusers. And let’s pray women or young girls caught up in it see their responsibility to run and report it!!
With Basham it seems like it’s always political. She will go after a political “moderates” (aka not Trump bootlickers) but theologically conservatives like JD Greer, David French, Russell Moore,Tim Keller or Phil Vischer for being “woke”. They all have one thing in common…they are critical of Trump. But she defends those she agrees with politically against actual crimes. Her hypocrisy and shabby “journalism” are well known.
I think if one is going to view these issues through the lens of who sinned vs who didn’t sin, a lot’s going to be missed. Maybe some more helpful questions are who was harmed?, what is ethical behavior in relationships?, are there patterns of behavior? or literally any other question besides who did something bad (sinned) vs who didn’t do anything bad (didn’t sin). Also, who benefits from the sinned vs didn’t sin question? Literally no one. The question doesn’t address any practical issues and doesn’t help provide answers for prevention in the future.
Two interesting perspectives. I agree with some of both. First, I believe that if both parties are of age (20 years or above and assuming no mental health disabilities) regardless of their age difference if they both consent and continue in a repeated relationship both are guilty. Also, as many have stated regardless of how a women may temp a married man he is called to walk away. In Megan’s fathers’ case I can understand Megan’s anger because it appears the women ingrained herself in the family to cause Megan’s father fall into temptation. Both sinned but I believe Megan’s father will be held more responsible because he was in a leadership position over the women (not to mention his wife). This is not to say women never falsely accuse (Joseph went to prison based on false allegations). This is where I think Megan is coming from.