Firefly Investigation Finds Dr. Michael Brown Engaged in ‘Sexually Abusive Misconduct,’ But Under Whose Definition?
Firefly has concluded its independent investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against noted author and apologist Michael Brown, finding that he engaged in some degree of ‘sexually abusive misconduct‘ but that the incidents appear to be isolated to the two instances from 2001-2002 that have already been made public.
In response to the findings, some critics have dismissed Firefly’s expanded definition of what it considers “sexually abusive misconduct. They agree that Brown’s behavior was sinful and stupid, but also insist that it’s unfair to categorize it as ‘sex abuse’ under the law firms’ comprehensive definition of the term below:
[When it comes to Dr. Michael Brown,] FIREFLY will take a wider view of sexual abuse and sexually abusive misconduct to include not only abuse within the historically-narrow understanding of those terms (sexual assault and battery without consent) but also to include physical and nonphysical conduct that a person suffers, submits to, participates in, or performs due to the deception, manipulation, coercion, grooming (children and adults) and/or intimidation by another. Source
Late last year, Brown was accused by Sarah Erin Monk of sexually inappropriate conduct that would frequently cross physical boundaries, including holding her hand, kissing her on the lips, and slapping her butt. Further, it was alleged that he’d had a sexual affair with another unnamed woman.
In response to the first claim, Brown has admitted some aspects and denied others, writing, “My interaction with her, although totally non-sexual in every way, reflected a definite lack of judgment on my part…(they were) certainly foolish and irresponsible – but neither sexual nor amorous in any way.”
To the latter, he insisted that he never committed adultery and he never crossed the line sexually. Brown says that the unnamed woman (who passed away in 2021) and her husband were close friends of his and that at one point in their friendship he developed an inappropriate “emotional, not a physical tie” to her, which was ultimately confessed to both spouses and was believed by Brown to have been forgiven and forgotten.
THE SCOPE
Firefly received 103 survey responses, emails, and phone calls from people with information on the situation. This resulted in 74 initial interviews with witnesses and survivors and other re-interviews to ‘ensure clarity and consistency.’ Along with the accusers and witnesses, Firefly also interviewed Brown and his team, who they say were very accessible and gave their full cooperation.
The Board of Directors of LOF and BROWN have actively participated in the investigation by providing interviews and full cooperation. Their proactive stance and collaborative efforts highlight a strong dedication to transparency and accountability, reflecting their commitment to upholding the values of integrity throughout this process.
BROWN AS SPIRITUAL FATHER
Firefly explains that many of Michael Brown’s students “fondly regarded him as a spiritual father during their time at school” and that “his mentorship and guidance left a lasting impact, fostering deep connections and inspiring personal growth among those he taught.”
Furthermore, many students, both male and female, would frequently address him as “Hey Dad” or “Dad Brown.” in their correspondence. Following news of the accusations, many women spoke up on Brown’s behalf, saying they always had perfectly healthy and valued relationships with him for years.
[Brown] often invited students to join his family for dinner and valued the time he spent with them. He was constantly surrounded by students, graduates, and staff, both male and female, including some couples. Some of these people were also in his mentoring group (each of the leaders had a group), and some worked for his wife, Nancy Brown. Brown advised that some of the students and graduate students looked to him as a spiritual father; however, he did not regard them as his own (familial) children.
One woman, known as Interviewed Witness #11 (IW#11), recounts how this type of familiarity could often lead to internal discord and discomfort, however/
IW #11 revealed that she considered herself one of “Dad Brown’s Daughters,” describing her personal involvement with BROWN as “extremely unhealthy.” BROWN functioned as though he were her biological or adopted father, frequently signing his emails with “Love, Dad.”
She further stated that this group of young women spent personal time at BROWN’S home, accompanied him on trips, and were occasionally invited to his hotel room. They also participated in tasks such as shopping with him for his clothing, which she now views as crossing professional and ethical boundaries.
IW #11 expressed discomfort with BROWN’S inappropriate physical interactions, including wrapping his
arms around her for long embraces, giving her his coat to wear, or having her adjust his microphone, straighten his collar, or fix his hair for speaking engagements.
IW #11 stated, “I was both his student and his employee. I was not, in fact, his daughter.”
BROWN referred to himself as their “dad,” assuming the role of a father figure in their lives. She reflected, “We weren’t just around him a lot. We were under his influence in every area of our lives.” The closeness was observed by others close to BROWN, one of whom sometimes referred to the group of young women as “his harem.”
IW #11 described this closeness as inappropriate, unprofessional, and unethical, adding, “If it happened in a church in front of congregants, they would be horrified. No man would let a preacher treat his eighteen-year-old the way Mike treated me and other young women with whom he cultivated this type of relationship.
THE BIG TWO SEXUAL ABUSE ALLEGATIONS
Firefly identified two women involved in the sexual abuse misconduct claims- Sarah Monk and a decreased woman known as IS#1, and offered that one of the purposes of the investigation is to determine “whether these were isolated occurrences of sexual misconduct by BROWN or indicative of a broader pattern of predatory behavior.”
What is notable is that there is very little new information about this situation than what has already been published, such as in our stories:
Dr. Michael Brown Accused of Inappropriate Relationship with Young Woman, Calls for Third Party Investigation
Dr. Michael Brown’s Accuser Reveals Identity, Blasts Him For Lying about Sexual Misconduct
New Firm Investigating Sexual Misconduct Allegations Against Dr. Michael Brown Revealed
Firm Investigating Dr. Michael Brown Expands Scope of Inquiry
(Exclusive) New Michael Brown Memoir Released Amid Misconduct Investigation, But Our Insider Says There’s More To The Story
Case in point: when describing his interactions with IS#1 in an email to Ron Cantor, Brown says:
I did not have an affair, but we developed a very unhealthy and sinful soul tie. I was not caught. Instead, I repented in agony of heart to Nancy Brown, she (IS#1), then followed suit, because of my repentance, with her husband. And because there had been no physical relationship, both spouses said that nothing more should be said. I, for my part, wanted to tell the whole world – the FIRE leaders; the students; everyone! I was asked to say nothing, and I said nothing. God is my witness as to the depth and thoroughness of my repentance.
It was during this time – totally burnt out; emotionally wrecked with the split; under hellish financial pressure – that I allowed this to happen and exercised such idiotic judgment with Sarah”
And, regarding IS#1:
We didn’t commit adultery – to repeat, I have never had a physical relationship of any kind with any woman other than my wife from the day I got saved until today – and there’s nothing more to say about it.
The fact we had a wrong soul tie, that I repented, that all parties met, there was forgiveness, I made major lifestyle changes and got intensive counseling, and nothing even remotely repeated like that in my life – so, one misstep, not adultery, in 53 years – is nothing the rest of the world needs to know, unless repentance and forgiveness and righteous dealing with sin has no more meaning in God’s kingdom.
THE FIRST WOMAN
On February 20, 2025 Michael Brown was interviewed by Firefly. During this interview, “BROWN admitted to what he called an “emotional affair” during the second half of 2001 with IS #1 via phone calls, texts, and emails.”
BROWN stated they “both said some sinful things to each other and that it was the most despicable thing he had ever done.” BROWN also noted that “there was never a physical, sexual relationship of any sort between us, but I don’t minimize the ugliness of my sinful emotional attachment. In the words of Jesus, it was certainly adultery of the heart.”
THE SECOND WOMAN
Sarah Monk (IS#2), age nineteen, attended BRSM, and graduated in 2001. After graduating, she
stayed on as staff for the FIRE SCHOOL. Like many other students, Sarah relied on the faculty for spiritual and life guidance. In her role as staff, she developed a close working relationship with BROWN, assisting him with numerous tasks within the school.
During a ministry trip to Mobile, Alabama, in January 2002, Kris Bennett, then a young man in his early 20s, observed BROWN and Sarah sitting in the front of a vehicle. BROWN was driving and Sarah was in the passenger seat. Bennett noticed the two holding hands with their fingers interlocked. At one point, BROWN lifted their joined hands and addressing the others in the vehicle, said something along the lines of, “I can do this because she’s like a daughter to me.”
Later, back at the school, Bennett observed another interaction where BROWN was hugging Sarah in the office in a full, frontal embrace. Bennett felt confused by what he had seen. Within a few weeks, he shared his concerns with Niels Prip, specifically mentioning the hand-holding incident.
Troubled by the report, Niels Prip contacted Keith Collins. Both men agreed that the behavior needed to be addressed, especially given BROWN’S awareness of the school’s strict behavioral guidelines and his own messages on revival and personal purity.
When they met with BROWN, Brown explained that his actions toward Sarah were entirely father-daughter, insisting there was nothing inappropriate. Not long after the meeting, Bennett was called into BROWN’S office. There, BROWN reprimanded him for how he had handled the situation, saying he should have come directly to him first, citing Matthew 18. BROWN warned that gossip and rumors could
damage BROWN’S ministry.
Kris Bennett accepted responsibility for not approaching BROWN first. He apologized, chose to believe the best, and moved on. Later that evening, Niels Prip got a call from BROWN and Nancy Brown around
10 o’clock, accusing him of trying to bring down the ministry, that he (Niels Prip) would single-handedly bring it down.
Soon after, Bennett was summoned to attend another meeting, this time with John Cava, the Director of Missions. The purpose of the meeting was to ensure Bennett was fully aligned with BROWN’S explanation and he believed that the interaction with Sarah reflected a father-daughter relationship and nothing
beyond that.
John Cava suggested that such behavior might be understood differently depending on cultural context and downplayed its significance. Once again, Bennett agreed and accepted that interpretation. On December 7, 2002, BROWN sent an email to Niels Prip and the leadership team, which, along with Prip, included John Cava, Josh Peters, Robert Gladstone, Keith Collins, and Scott Volk,BROWN writes:
“Niels, you wrote that you were convinced that nothing more happened between SM and me “other than inappropriate showing of affection.” I certainly appreciate you saying that clearly and I understand your intent.
However, it would have been better to say something like, “what appeared to some to be inappropriate showing of affection.” I take the time to write this because even the use of the word “inappropriate” can be misleading and, in point of fact, nothing “inappropriate” was done. Rather, it may not have been wise to treat her like a daughter in front of everyone, but certainly not inappropriate.”
Other quick hits include:
Between 2001 and 2002, Gregg Montella entered BROWN’S office with a question in mind. To his surprise, he found Sarah sitting on BROWN’S lap, his arm tightly wrapped around her. The sight left Montella confused and uneasy, grappling with guilt for feeling that the scene might be inappropriate.
And:
Sometime in 2001/2002, Keith Collins reported seeing BROWN and Sarah sitting in a car at Walmart around midnight, engaged in a conversation. Collins noted his surprise at the situation, as it was unusual to see BROWN in such a private, one-on-one interaction, particularly at that time of night. The circumstances left him questioning the appropriateness of their meeting.
About two days after seeing BROWN at Walmart, Collins decided to reach out to Kris Bennett, who had previously observed BROWN holding hands with Sarah. Together, they confronted BROWN about what Collins had witnessed. BROWN explained that it was merely a father-daughter relationship and acknowledged using poor judgment.
As far as Sarah’s own take on this touching, Firefly shared messages sent between Sarah and Kris Bennet in 2020.
“When asked if BROWN had been physical with her, Sarah responded, “Yes… but only in slapping my butt, trying to kiss me on the lips, and pulling me close when I was standing near him. Meaning wrapping me around my waist area in an inappropriate manner. That was as far as anything happened. Nothing more physical. But still sexual manner of touching.”
THE BUTT SLAPPING
Both Brown and Monk gave their take on these slaps to the butt, with Firefly reporting:
When asked about any other inappropriate contact beyond holding hands, Sarah stated, “He would hit my butt as I walked by, but that was it.” She explained that the first time BROWN swatted her butt, she thought it was an accident; however, it continued nearly every time they were alone.
BROWN, on the other hand, described the incidents differently. He noted that after Sarah greeted him with a hug, a gesture she customarily offered when she saw him at the office, she walked away from his desk and he “flicked her with the back of my hand as she walked away.”
He clarified, “It was not a grab or even a swat but rather a backhanded flick.” BROWN goes on to state, “I never thought sexual thought. It’s like the most despicable thing. I’m sorry. Sorry. So, it was stupid and
it was a playful, stupid thing.”
THE KISSING
Sarah stated that BROWN initially kissed the top of her head to say goodbye, which later progressed to kisses on her cheek. She recalled one instance where BROWN sat up in his chair and gave her a quick kiss on the lips.
However, BROWN denied ever kissing Sarah on the lips. He explained, “I would sometimes give her a peck on the head after she gave me a hug, and it’s possible it was on the side of her head—but not on the cheek. To reiterate, without a doubt, never on the lips. Just to be clear, I never had inappropriate
thoughts or intentions with Sarah in any way.”
Firefly notes that the butt swatting and the quick kisses “is deeply inappropriate and unprofessional. It crosses boundaries of respect and decency, especially in a setting where trust and professionalism should be paramount. Such actions create an uncomfortable and unsafe environment, which is unacceptable in any context.’
SARAH MONK’S DISTRESS (THE YELLOW NOTEPAD)
“While house-sitting for BROWN in 2002, Sarah discovered a yellow pad of paperinside a nightstand that appeared to detail an inappropriate relationship involving BROWN and (the previously deisgnated First Woman) IS #1. Its contents suggested fantasies about a sexual relationship between BROWN and IS #1.
BROWN stated that the document was not a journal, but a piece of paper where he had written down notes from a conversation with IS #1.
During this period, Sarah decided to confront BROWN about the notepad she found, including the other woman’s conversations and the fantasies she had seen in his nightstand, which appeared to reveal inappropriate and troubling thoughts.
As a result of Sarah felt “deeply betrayed and disillusioned. While she “decided not to disclose any details of the incident to others within FIRE SCHOOL,” she felt a “deep sense of isolation, burdened by the fear that no one would believe her due to BROWN’S reputation as a powerful and respected preacher.”
His influence within the organization and community made her question whether speaking out would lead to meaningful action or simply harm her credibility. This fear of being dismissed or ostracized weighed heavily on her, compounded by feelings of guilt and shame as she wondered if she had somehow contributed to the situation. These emotions, along with the imbalance of power, left Sarah feeling trapped and unable to seek the support she needed. As a result, she chose to remain silent, facing the fear of being kicked out of FIRE SCHOOL and bearing the emotional toll alone.
POTENTIAL COVERUP?
Brown has stated multiple times that he desired to make his sinful actions known and publicly confess everything, but other parties involved either advised or asked him not to. Also, because he sought forgiveness from Sarah and IS#1 and believed it had been granted, he believed it had been dealt with and that there would be no value in bringing it up years or decades later, particularly in the case of the deceased, whose name has not been revealed to spare her reputation.
Firefly doesn’t take this view, writing:
“It is believed that over the past 25 years, BROWN has deliberately deflected questions about allegations of sexual misconduct involving IS #1 and Sarah.
This pattern of deflection appears to be a calculated effort to evade accountability, suppress the allegations, and protect his ministry’s reputation. By maintaining silence and avoiding direct answers, BROWN has seemingly sought to shield himself from scrutiny, potentially enabling these stories to remain hidden and preserving his position within the ministry.
CONCLUSION. WAS IT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT OR NOT?
Firefly concludes in their report:
Based on gathered information and consistent accounts from multiple witnesses, it is evident that BROWN engaged in an inappropriate relationship with IS #1, as well as an inappropriate relationship involving sexually abusive misconduct with Sarah.
Sarah was nineteen years old when BROWN first took notice of her, leading her to believe God was placing her in a place of favor under BROWN. Within a year, at the age of twenty, these interactions escalated to physical touch. With Sarah, BROWN was observed holding her hand on multiple occasions, and both BROWN and Sarah acknowledged and admitted to BROWN kissing Sarah and making contact with the back midsection of her body.
The meaning and exact locations of the kissing and contact to the rear are in question between the two accounts but must be looked at through the external viewpoint of an adult male having physical contact with an adult female.
While it is impossible to definitively prove deviant intent behind these actions, as the only person who sent and/or received sexually related communication with BROWN is deceased, the patterns of BROWN’S actions suggest that BROWN knowingly contributed to the situation and created an environment where, according to Sarah, she felt uncomfortable and, even if years later, acknowledges that their relationship was inappropriate.
Although the lack of direct proof of intent leaves room for speculation, the numerous interviews and, in many cases, corroborating documentation, point to a deliberate involvement of sexual misconduct within BRSM or FIRE SCHOOL, which could also be viewed as sexual harassment and/or a hostile work environment, especially with BROWN holding a position of power within the school generally and more
specifically, with Sarah.
They also note that, as Brown indicated, these actions seem isolated to these two events when Brown admits his personal life and ministry were in chaos and his guard was down, as no other similar allegations have been brought forward since.
Based on the provided information, it is notable that no credible evidence has emerged between 2002 and 2025 to suggest further inappropriate sexual behavior by BROWN. This strongly supports the belief that these were isolated incidents, confined to 2001 and 2002, as corroborated by consistent witness accounts and a comprehensive review of the available evidence.
Brown and The Line of Fire Board have not yet responded to the report. However, given Firefly’s ‘expanded understanding’ of what constitutes sexual abuse,* we expect they will bristle at the report’s conclusion and take exception to the categorization and label of Brown as having engaged in ‘sexually abusive misconduct,’ rather than mere ‘misconduct’ or some other way of describing his behavior.
* For example, Firefly would say a pastor entering into a sexual relationship with his secretary, where both parties are adults and willing participants, is sexually abusive misconduct. They believe she must have been necessarily groomed as an adult and therefore can’t meaningfully consent, given the power dynamics between them, making her a victim to his predation.
This is a position that many would disagree with, and would view both as perpetrators of sexual misconduct and neither as victims of abuse.
About Author
Remote work isn’t just a trend, it’s the future of work. qs Work Remotely from your own house. We just want your typing skills, You can make more than 120USD/Hr. No matter where you are. Let’s Grow together and do great things, even if we’re far apart…
Take a Look………
Begin here>>>>>>>>> https://tinyurl.com/46fjveeh