Decoding Naperville Presbyterian’s PR Statement

On May 6, 2026, Naperville Presbyterian Church issued a statement defending their pastor, Dane Ortlund. As I read it, a friend noted how much the rhetoric sounded like the public statements RZIM made when they defended Ravi Zacharias. After taking another look at it, I had to agree. It’s an alarming example of how selective framing, cherry-picked facts, and omitted truths can manipulate public perception.

And when words are used for propaganda, it damages the church's witness. After all, how can we trust what Christians say about the gospel when we can't trust what they say about themselves?

Unfortunately, when words are used to obfuscate, it takes even more words to get clarity.

First, let's recall what was established in a trial between Emily Hyland and Naperville Presbyterian Church before the Illinois Human Rights Commission. This process gave both sides the opportunity to provide evidence, examine witnesses, and make their strongest legal arguments. Then a judge evaluated it.

On some claims, the church prevailed. On another, Emily did.

In particular, in March 2021, Emily raised concerns to two elders that she was being mistreated as a woman.

She wrote notes to prepare for these meetings. The judge writes, "On the top right column of her notes, Complainant wrote the word “female” and in the left column wrote “100% men” related to her observations of Pastor Ortlund’s meeting schedule."

After the meeting, one of the elders took notes. One of his bullet points reads, "She wonders if there is a reluctance to communicate with women in the workplace."

Both sides offered their explanation of what happened in March 2021. But the judge concludes, "Weighing the evidence before me and assessing the credibility of the three witnesses who offered testimony on this matter, I believe Complainant that she broached the issue of unequal treatment based on sex when she complained of Ortlund’s behavior to both Mr. McCauley and Mr. Kuehne. Simply put, Respondent’s witnesses were less credible than Complainant, as their testimony at trial seemed to discount even the possibility that gender discrimination could exist at the Church."

The judge explains, "Taken as a whole, the evidence establishes that after multiple elders were confronted with an accusation of sex discrimination, they were simply unable to accept the notion that such behavior could even occur at the Church and thus undertook no efforts to investigate or dispel the allegation. But a disbelief in misogyny has no bearing on its existence."

The decision implicates not only the elders but the pastors. The judge states, "I also find that the Pastors who would go on to terminate Complainant were aware of her complaints that she believed she was being treated differently for being a woman. Their testimony and the evidence that was presented to me at trial demonstrate that both Mr. McCauley and Mr. Kuehne told the Pastors everything that had been aired during their conversations with Complainant. Tr. Day 1, 163, 182. But they too dismissed Complainant’s complaint of sex discrimination and ultimately ignored the fact that she had very recently engaged in a protected activity under the Act when they moved to discharge her."

To sum it up: both sides argued for their understanding of what happened. The church successfully defended themselves against the claim that Emily was paid less or discriminated against because she was a woman. Nevertheless, the judge found they retaliated against Emily when she complained about sex-based discrimination.

But here's how the church describes it:

"In early March, Ms. Hyland complained to two elders, though she made no mention of sex-based discrimination—a complaint she would later make to the Chicago Metro Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America and to state agencies."

They are entitled to their opinion. But their own elder's notes and a judge's determination say they're wrong.

"Seeing no improvement in her performance—or even an indication of willingness to acknowledge any performance issues—Ms. Hyland was terminated March 19, 2021"

The judge ruled that they hastily fired her in retaliation.

"The congregation was not made aware of her dismissal and Ms. Hyland was invited to continue worshiping at the church."

First, of course the congregation would immediately learn she was fired. She was the Director of Church Operations. Second, after illegally firing her for raising a legitimate concern to the elders responsible for caring for her, what good is an invitation to continue worshiping together?

"The Chicago Metro Presbytery, to whom NPC is accountable ecclesially, conducted a nine-month investigation and concluded there was insufficient merit to the allegations to warrant a trial, thus clearing the churchʼs leadership due to lack of evidence."

This sounds good, but again, it was evidence that led an independent judge to award Emily damages. Nor does the church acknowledge that one member of the investigation team was appointed by Dane’s seminary classmate and co-author, and who was close friends with Davy Chu, the associate pastor involved in Emily’s firing.

"The church disagrees that its actions were retaliatory, due, among other reasons, to multiple attempts offered over an extended period of time to help Ms. Hyland see and address her performance issues."

The current elders can affirm this, but Evan Brown, who served as an elder at the time of Emily’s firing, has disagreed. On X.com, he publicly addressed Dane Ortlund, “And Emily is not the only one you have treated uncharitably. I witnessed firsthand your retaliatory disposition toward several others who would dare challenge you, and I testified to that disposition under oath at the trial.”

Nor did the judge agree with this claim, which they made at the trial. For instance, consider the timeline. The judge explains, "Here, less than a day after Complainant reported her sex discrimination concerns, the decision to fire her was hastily made...In other words, Ortlund scheduled a meeting to discuss Complainant’s termination either the very day he learned about her protected activity or the very next day."

It's hard to see how the church can claim her firing was about performance when the decision was made immediately after Emily raised a complaint with two elders.

"These performance issues are reflected in part by the fact that multiple female staff testified at the trial to being mistreated by Ms. Hyland...In the meantime, we have been praying and will continue to pray for Ms. Hylandʼs blessing..."

It is exceedingly odd to hear the testimony of women used to attack Emily, and then hear a spiritual sounding claim to pray for her blessing. James 3:10 says, "Blessing and cursing come out of the same mouth. My brothers and sisters, these things should not be this way."

Their spiritual claim raises an integrity question. What have the prayers accomplished? Where are the actions that indicate the church is acting to bless Emily? Why are their prayers and their public statement at odds?

"...we have been praying and will continue to pray...our church can return to devoting its time and energy to the work of the gospel."

But making things right with Emily is the work of the gospel. When a church says restoration with a wronged sister is a distraction from ministry, they're saying the gospel isn't big enough to address what they've broken.

"Finally, the elders affirm their support for Senior Pastor Dane Ortlund and commend him for his godly leadership, especially during this season. He has treated Ms. Hyland with dignity and respect, acted in consultation with other elders, and has sought the heart and mind of Christ above all."

Consider these words next to what the judge found:

"But as noted above, there is no evidence that Complainant knew of the precise admissions that were necessary to save her job, and there was no evidence offered at trial that Pastor Ortlund tried to work things out with Complainant in earnest when he met with her a week after she went to the elders. Pastor Ortlund did not testify as to the specifics of their “final exchange the morning of March 17th,” but simply described the dialogue as further confirmation that “she was not taking responsibility for her own actions and, instead, when presented with her instances of underperformance, went laterally to complain rather than directly to me in consideration and exploration of those matters.” See id. at 1042. This comment was tantamount to a confession that Complainant’s engagement with the elders cost her the position she had long maintained. At the same time, the words lend credence to Complainant’s testimony that during their final meeting, Ortlund was angry, dismissive, and verbally abusive. See Tr. Day 3, 817–18. Complainant was terminated less than forty-eight hours later."

It’s this contradiction between the elder board’s glowing praise of Ortlund and the court record that most clearly reveals their defensive, self-protective posture. Five years ago, the elder board protected their pastor even when he wronged a long-time member of their congregation. They've had five years to examine themselves, see if there is any sin they need to own, and demonstrate the distinctive beauty of the gospel. 

Their statement of unconditional loyalty to Dane Ortlund shows us what Emily has had to face.

That's why I feel compelled to write.

When a church describes retaliation by comparing their pastor to Jesus, it will push people away from Jesus.