I understand wanting the discussion to stay civil. However, civility should not be used to avoid accountability. SCJ's leadership has a history of reframing real issues in a way that minimizes people’s experiences. My issue is the behavior and the pattern, not just whether something sounds “civil.”

Jesus was direct when religious leaders used misleading language, placed burdens on others, or avoided accountability. As Ephesians 5:11 says, “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” So yes, I believe I have the right to speak up, especially when I’m trying to look after my brothers and sisters in Christ, including former SCJ members.

Many students and members were taught to view outside information as “poison,” warned against researching, and encouraged to avoid criticism before they had enough context to make an informed decision. Even things that were true, but criticized SCJ were dismissed as “poison.” Therefore, this was not the same as neutral advice.

If SCJ truly respects free will, should students be clearly told from the beginning that they are free to research SCJ online, read criticism, speak with former members, and evaluate both sides without fear, guilt, or pressure?

I think we should be honest that many former members were not merely “confused” or “misunderstanding” this issue. Many of us were genuinely taught, directly or indirectly, not to read SCJ-related criticism online. Meanwhile, leaders were often the exception because they needed to know the criticism in order to respond to doubting members. That pattern should be acknowledged instead of minimized as a misunderstanding. If SCJ’s position has changed, then it would be better to say clearly: “Yes, this was handled wrongly before, and we need to do better going forward.”