Sam,
I’m your first statement, you did not state that MB is the one who invited you to go to his house . You did not mention that he was
in a meeting that could not be interrupted
By not mentioning these details in your first statement , you gave a negative impression.
By concealing part of the story , not saying the whole truth always gives negative impressions .
Please go back to your first statement and write the full story of your attempted meeting
Because
Many share your post that gives a negative impression without sharing your clarification
Thank you

Dr Storms,

In my career I advise corporate enterprises on strategy & business transformations - including high stakes strategic comms.

As some have pointed out, Eric Volz has twisted your generous clarification to IHOPKC’s advantage on his Twitter account. He turns your clarification of a tertiary statement of fact into a “correction” of your story.

Unfortunately, this softens the effect of your initial statement. If you were my client I would strongly advise you to write a brief statement that does the following:

1. Expresses displeasure with the language Eric used on Twitter to characterize your minor clarification of a tertiary statement of fact from your original statement.

2. Reasserts the primary points of your original statement (e.g., “To be absolutely clear: I believe Jane Doe; Mike Bickle is unrepentant & unqualified for ministry; and I strongly appeal to the IHOPKC ELT to work with the AG to jointly design a truly independent, fully transparent investigation rather than engaging in PR and Legal games”)

3. States that you are removing your “brief word of clarification” and are replacing it with a brief comment at the bottom of your original statement to the same effect (e.g., “Clarification: I do not know the details of what Eric / Chris were discussing with MB on the evening of Oct 31 and am in no way attempting to insinuate they were doing anything sinister or sinful.”)

Note: This last point is critical. Optically, a minor clarification of a tertiary point should be done in a way commensurate with the nature of the clarification (i.e., a small comment at the end of your original statement, not a separate statement.)

A statement like what I outline above strongly re-asserts the core points from your original statement which many feel have been somewhat lost in Eric’s PR tactic.

It also sends a strong signal to Jane Doe and other potential survivors: the strength of my support for you & clarity on this situation will not be obfuscated by others.

Sam, your voice has never been more critical to this movement than now. Thank you for raising it!

Sincerely,
Johnny

Dr Storms,

In my career I advise corporate enterprises on strategy & business transformations - including high stakes strategic comms.

As some have pointed out, Eric Volz has twisted your generous clarification to IHOPKC’s advantage on his Twitter account. He turns your clarification of a tertiary statement of fact into a “correction” of your story. Unfortunately, this softens the effect of your initial statement.

If you were my client I would strongly advise you to write a brief statement that does the following:

1. Expresses displeasure with the language Eric used on Twitter to characterize your minor clarification of a tertiary statement of fact from your original statement.

2. Reasserts the primary points of your original statement (e.g., “To be absolutely clear: I believe Jane Doe; Mike Bickle is unrepentant & unqualified for ministry; and I strongly appeal to the IHOPKC ELT to work with the AG to jointly design a truly independent, fully transparent investigation rather than engaging in PR and Legal games”)

3. States that you are removing your “brief word of clarification” and are replacing it with a brief comment at the bottom of your original statement
to the same effect (e.g., “Clarification: I do not know the details of what Eric / Chris were discussing with MB on the evening of Oct 31 and am in no way attempting to insinuate they were doing anything sinister or sinful.”)

Note: This last point is critical. Optically, a minor clarification of a tertiary point should be done in a way commensurate with the nature of the clarification (i.e., a small comment at the end of your original statement, not a separate statement.)

A statement like what I outline above strongly re-asserts the core points from your original statement which many feel have been somewhat lost in Eric’s PR tactic.

It also sends a strong signal to Jane Doe and other potential survivors: the strength of my support for you & clarity on this situation will not be obfuscated by others.

Sam, your voice has never been more critical to this movement than now.

Respectfully,
Johnny

Thank you, Sam, for your heart to clarify.

Along with so many others, your and Michael Sullivant’s willingness to speak into this situation is deeply appreciated.

This is an hour and a situation where older, respected, gracious and Godly voices are desperately needed.

Thank you for your diligence to give an accurate account.

One thing that is challenging is the way Eric Volz has characterized this clarification:

https://x.com/ericvolz/status/1737138020443181302?s=46&t=lUVAtrlkDWvL-l2cmi_8zQ

For many people the wording of his tweet casts doubt on the original statement.

I wanted to draw your attention to this.

Thank you for the bold and compassionate response. It encouraged the hearts of many.

Sam, this explanation makes no sense and I fear you are letting yourself be used for dishonest purposes here.

If Mike was busy in a meeting, then he should be free to meet you after it ended. In the 7 weeks after this meeting, did Mike meet with you or Francis Chan? Who instructed Mike to refuse all subsequent meetings?

If Eric met with Mike to confront him, why did ihop make no announcement or report?

Thanks so much for your helpful posts. Your involvement carries the sense of the spiritual authority that is so needed in this situation. Please continue to help with your leadership the very confused Body of Christ as we walk through this dark period.