Dr. Michael Brown’s Elder Team Clears Him of Serious Wrongdoing, Recommends Full Restoration and Return to Ministry
Days after Firefly concluded its independent investigation into sexual misconduct allegations against noted author and apologist Dr. Michael Brown, finding that he engaged in ‘sexually abusive misconduct, Brown’s Elder Accountability Team (EAT) released a series of recommendations for him and The Line of Fire Board of Directors, including that he be promptly and fully restored back to ministry.
Brown’s Elder Accountability Team consists of Jonathan Bernis, President and CEO of Jewish Voice Ministries International (JVMI), Raleigh Washington, the founder and Pastor Emeritus of Rock of Our Salvation Evangelical Free Church in Chicago, Leif Hetland the founder and president of Global Mission Awareness, and Mark & Nicki Pfeifer, the lead pastors of Open Door Church n Chillicothe, Ohio, as well as the “Apostolic Overseers of a network of congregations, ministries and schools called the Soma Family of Ministries.”
Invited by Brown and his board to review the investigation and then draft recommendations for him, we previously noted that 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.’ We were not disappointed.
OUR CONCERNS WITH THE SUMMARY REPORT ISSUED BY FIREFLY
2.1 Use of the Term “Sexually Abusive Misconduct”
The FIREFLY Report says it “explored a more comprehensive approach to addressing sexual abuse” when reporting on the conduct of Dr. Brown. This “expanded framework,” they said, extends “beyond traditional definitions of sexual assault…” (FIREFLY, pg.5). This includes behaviors that are not within the “historically narrow understanding of those terms”
We believe that expanding the “historically narrow understanding of those term” could possibly bring unnecessary confusion by allowing any number of behaviors to be defined as sexual abuse by anyone who chooses. Many people in our society already have pre-existing ideas on the meaning of sexual abuse without expanding its definition to include even more.
Expanding the existing framework beyond “traditional definitions” will likely bring confusion in what constitutes true sexual abuse and has the very real danger of diluting it…
While we respect FIREFLY’s decision to expand their definition of “sexual abuse” beyond the “historically narrow understanding of those terms,” the Elder Accountability Team will not follow this expanded definition which, in our opinion, overreaches beyond its intended boundaries to include labeling Dr. Brown’s behavior in 2001-2002 as, “sexually abusive misconduct” as does FIREFLY on page, 27.
Rather, we believe a more accurate and historically consistent characterization of what Dr. Brown did is Moral Indiscretions in the case of the Wife and Leadership Misconduct in the case with Sarah. These are the terms we will us in this document.
Along with not being thrilled about the categorization of Brown’s sins as ‘sexually abusive misconduct,’ the EAT lists several other deficiencies they see with Firefly’s report, including the inclusion of certain testimony without the opportunity for rebuttal, the absence of Nancy Brown’s testimony, and the innuendo that Brown was grooming Sarah.
Still, they do acknowledge errors on Brown’s part.
It appears that when the offenses first came to light in 2002, a sincere effort was made to follow Biblical Due Process as those involved understood it. In the case with the Wife, both couples met, confessed, repented, and forgave one another. The couples agreed to keep the matter private for the sake of the innocent and to lay the matter to rest.
However, we feel the decision to withhold this information from greater disclosure, even if done for reasons that seemed noble to the parties at the time, was nonetheless a breach of trust to those on his leadership team. Dr. Brown was in a major leadership role with a team of elders he had entrusted to hold him accountable for his moral conduct and co-lead the school alongside him.
We believe not confiding in them and seeking their forgiveness, spiritual understanding and support was unwise. This failure of judgement is perhaps the single greatest reason all this has resurfaced 23 years later.
The EAT is very displeased with how all this went down, however, especially the actions of the accusers.
It is the position of the Elders Accountability Team that the LOF Board should have been officially contacted to seek a proper Mathew 18 process since these allegations resurfaced 5 years ago. Instead, these allegations, which could have been resolved with proper Biblical Due Process, were relitigated with accusations, judgement and sentencing by a jury on social media.
This process is unbiblical and has caused irreparable damage to Dr. Brown’s credibility and ministry. We believe all who are responsible for this miscarriage of Biblical Due Process should search their hearts before God and pursue a biblical resolution to these unresolved issues.
The EAT states that given the conduct and behavior of Brown, which was sinful but not severely so, he should not be disfellowshipped:
We believe that Dr. Brown made a sincere effort to follow Biblical Due Process as he understood it in both cases and has committed no sin for which he has not repented and received forgiveness and should, therefore, not be disfellowshipped from the Body of Messiah. Nor has he committed a sin, in our opinion, grievous enough to be disqualified from ministry.
They acknowledge that while Brown “fell short of the high calling of God in faithfully and responsibly executing his duties in the two specific cases referenced in FIREFLY” and that “His actions in these instances during those time periods reflect a lapse in wisdom and good judgment,” this has not been a pattern of behavior or a long-abiding sin:
Based on this conclusion, and the more than four decades of faithful service in ministry, the Elder Accountability Team does not believe the two isolated incidents during mid 2001 to early 2002 warrant a rescinding of Dr. Michael Brown’s status as a Minister of God or requires his disqualification from ministry.
Furthermore, because the EAT feels that these behaviors were not sexual misconduct but rather a far less severe leadership failure that was sufficiently dealt with by Brown:
The Elder Accountability Team believes it is time to finally put this matter to rest and allow these transgressions to remain where they should be – nailed to the cross of Christ, cast as far as the east is from the west and no longer used against him.
Along with his expressing his need to publicly confess his sin, which they note he has already done, the EAT lists several recommendations for Brown and the Line of Fire Board:
In conclusion:
Since Dr. Brown’s sins were committed long ago without any repeated behavioral patterns of like conduct, considering that these issues were believed to have been dealt with using Biblical Due Process as they understood it in 2002, considering his recent confession and repentance of his sins, considering his willingness to step back from ministry until the completion of the FIREFLY Investigation, believing he is trustworthy, presuming the above recommendations (8.1-8.5) will be followed, the Elder Accountability Team recommends that Dr. Brown be released to public ministry with the hope that a new dimension of humility and strength of character may be added to his already broad field of Biblical knowledge, believing that the years ahead will be the most fruitful of all, marked by a greater humility and Christlikeness.
About Author
Brown is disqualified if not for this, for defending the most rank heretics in the church today, he has no credibility now. None.
Which rank heretics are you referring to ? There are so many tares among the wheat nowadays…
Did we expect anything different?
The “church” needs to stop twisting and contorting Matt. 18 into an excuse to hide and cover for sin, to get away with the sin, and to avoid the consequences.
Matt. 18:17, the word is “ekklésia”, which refers to “an assembly, congregation, church; the Church, the whole body of Christian believers.” The process Jesus describes, in general, makes the matter more and more public the longer there is a refusal to repent. And what is repentance (metanoeó)? It is to turn from and cease the sin. A change of heart. Acceptance of God’s will.
Now the question is, since the adulterous behavior should be permanently disqualifying from the ministry, has there ever been true repentance as long as that consequence, which is God’s will as given in His word, has not been accepted? If not, then by Matt. 18, it is not wrong to “tell it to the [whole body of Christian believers.]”, because there has not been true repentance as defined by scripture.
There’s more to be said on the subject, but the point is that Matt. 18 does not mean a matter should always be private, and that the sin should be hidden. Matt. 18 does not conflict with any other scripture.