From Robert J. Peters

Stephen Jones and Bob Jones University,

Your decision to terminate GRACE days before the final interview and weeks before their final report had an impact on survivors and advocates in ways you do not understand. Your message, unintended or not, was blatantly clear: We care more about our institutional “objectives” than institutional transparency. We care more about us than about survivors.

I begin with facts that no one disputes, that you, Dr. Jones, reiterated in your statement yesterday. You initiated the process. You have raised awareness about the issue of sexual abuse at BJU. This is very commendable. These are important steps that BJU would not have taken a decade ago.

It is also undisputed that GRACE has been compassionate, effective, and helpful throughout the process.

It is sadly also undisputed, by you, that you have not told GRACE about your concerns. You admitted this in your statement yesterday. You say that GRACE diverged from your objectives and you have had concerns for several months, but you openly admitted that you did not bring those concerns to GRACE prior to terminating them. To quote a supporter of BJU, you changed the rules of the game in the fourth quarter.

You also spent a lot of time on how GRACE has diverged from your “objectives,” but you won’t disclose those “objectives” or how GRACE has diverged from them because it’s between you and them. It is not. Hundreds of survivors and alumni have a right to know exactly what part of your “objectives” conflicted with the investigative goals of an objective third party firm. How did GRACE “go beyond the original outlined intent?” Did they uncover more than you expected? Was their investigation not narrow enough for your comfort? When you say “it had gone askew,” what do you mean? Do you mean they looked where you didn’t want them to? Was it too painful for BJU to face abuses when they were complicit?

Furthermore, why do you expect a third party investigation to align with your  objectives? If GRACE followed your “objectives,” they would cease to be objective! This illustrates a fundamental flaw; the goal of the investigation should not be narrow, as your response implies (and if you’re honest, this is the goal of terminating GRACE’s agreement: gain contractual leverage, narrow the scope of the report). It should bring darkness to light, institutional and otherwise. (John 1:5) We are a City on a Hill, not a fortress of secrecy and intentional vagueness.

It is not GRACE’S job to “complete the review to achieve our [BJU’s] objectives.” GRACE’s role is to bring light to darkness, truth to secrecy, and hope to survivors, not to accomplish an institution’s narrow objectives.

Also, your reason for the termination was “so that we could sit down and get back on track.” You run a business. Explain to me how it is a professional business model to never bring your concerns to the party, and before working them out you fire them to get back on track. How does that create a good working relationship? You then complain that GRACE went public with it, when, by your own admission, you 1) had concerns for months, 2) never disclosed those concerns, 3) terminated without disclosing the reasons, and 4) still haven’t communicated your concerns to GRACE. And GRACE is being unprofessional?

Furthermore, this rationale is blatantly opposed to the reason you gave in the termination letter, where you said the change of leadership (and a shift in institutional focus?!) was the real reason.

I have no doubt that BJU will move forward with an independent third party. I have grave concerns that the full scope of the report will not be made public. That is, after all, the real reason for the termination. You can sugarcoat it all you want, but in your heart you know why you terminated.

I’m glad you’re “concerned about people that have been interviewed in this process.” Your response caused them incredible pain. I pray you resolve this with an honest, open, unfiltered report.

You say “nothing is being covered up” because BJU “wouldn’t have initiated” the process. Dr. Jones, initiating costs you NOTHING. It means NOTHING. It’s easy to point to a seminar, an awareness campaign, an initiation, to point to how you care for survivors. That is not what shows you care.

What shows you care is not initiating, but finishing.

Not finishing in accordance with your narrowly construed objectives, but in accordance with the light, openness, and transparency that is the Gospel.

I will get personal. Dr. Jones,  in your time as President you made important, incremental reforms. I believe you are a good man. This will anger many, perhaps even you, but you are better than your predecessors. And you are certainly better than this.

Please, if you value the name of Christ, if you care at all for the survivors of abuse, let GRACE complete this investigation in full–not to accomplish BJU’s “objectives,” but to pursue justice, transparency, and restoration for all involved. The longer you wait, the more news outlets pick this up. And the more others see a flawed depiction of Christ that looks nothing like your Savior.

Robert J. Peters

Originally posted here.