Sovereign Grace Ministries Lawsuit: TV Interview with Victim/Mother

   

Sex scandal: Church turned deaf ear to alleged abuse

“I remember just him, like, taking me to the bathroom,” says a 17-year-old victim. She remembers how she was molested repeatedly when she was three years old by a 15-year-old babysitter. Both were members at the time of Sovereign Grace in Fairfax, but when her parents confronted the church pastors, they were told not to speak about it.

“We were told that we should not talk to any church member about it. Do not tell anyone,” she says.

Charges that churches within Sovereign Grace Ministries turned a deaf ear to child sex abuse committed by church members are laid out in a class action lawsuit. Three female plaintiffs detail repeated abuse in the 1980’s and 90’s ,but say the church covered up child molestation, worked with sexual predators to mislead enforcement and even blamed the victims.

“We received a few letters in the mail saying we were required to come back and reconcile and we needed to ask the perpetrator’s mother for forgiveness, for upsetting and embarrassing her,” she says.

Two other plaintiffs belonged to Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, one now a 22-year-old college student allegedly abused at age two. The other woman’s sister was allegedly abused by her stepfather, the lead pastor. 

Joshua Harris is the son-in-law of Sovereign Grace founder CJ Mahaney. He says the church has never tried to cover up abuse. 

JA Note:  As of right now, the article at the news website and the tv interview mentions Josh Harris is JC Mahaney's son-in-law.  That is incorrect.  CJ mentored Josh, but they are not related.

Sovereign Grace Legal Class Action Lawsuit Posted

The Legal Complaint against leaders from Sovereign Grace Ministries is now being posted publicly.


BrentDetwiler.com has posted the class action complaint here:  
Actual Lawsuit Brought Against Sovereign Grace Ministries & Seven Defendents (sic)

SGMSurvivors.com also has posted the entire complaint with redacted home addresses:  Legal Complaint

I have copied the heart of the complaint here which was filed October 17, 2012.

IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, MARYLAND CIVIL DIVISION

JANE DOE (pseudonym),                                

NORMA NOE (pseudonym),                  

ROBIN ROE (pseudonym), )

Plaintiffs and Class Representatives              Case No.  369721

SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES,  

CHARLES JOSEPH MAHANEY  

GARY RICUCCI   

DAVID HINDERS   

LOUIS GALLO  

FRANK ECELBARGER 

JOHN LOFTNESS 

GRANT LAYMAN 

LAWRENCE TOMCZAK 

Defendants.    

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

15.  The Church constantly engaged in the care of members' children. Among other things, the Church directed the establishment of home schooling groups, arranged for and provided day care to permit members to attend services, and arranged for babysitting during multiple weekly Home/Care meetings. According to the Church's own admissions, it was responsible for more than 800 children at its Gaithersburg Church, and many hundreds of others elsewhere.

16.  The Church failed to take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of children under its care, such as requiring that pastors be licensed or ordained. The Church failed to adopt any processes or policies to deal with sexual predation, and failed to train adequately those placed in direct control over children.

17.  During the time frame at issue in this lawsuit (1987 to the present), the Church operated through a "Home Group" structure and required members to attend a Home Group meeting each week in various residential premises.[2] The Church issued and reinforced church organizational policies and practices through regular weekly teachings, books, and audio tapes conditioning members to follow "spiritual leaders." The Church directed members to unquestioningly "obey" the Church in all matters, including methods of parenting, place of residence and employment.

18.  As early as 1987, the Church was on notice that sexual predation of children was occurring under its auspices. In addition to the incidents described below, the Church learned in 1997 through non-ministerial means that the son of a high-ranking Church leader was engaged in the sexual predation of children under the Church's care. Yet the Church did absolutely nothing to protect the children.

19.  Between 1987 and the present, the Church repeatedly confronted occasions of sexual predation of children was occurring under the Church's auspices. The Church failed to alert law enforcement authorities, and failed to take any steps whatsoever to protect the children from sexual predation.

20.  Instead, the Church taught members to fear and distrust all secular authorities, and expressly directed members not to contact law enforcement to report sexual assaults. This practice has not stopped, as is evidenced by teachings as communications as recent as August 2011. On those occasions when the Church was not successful in persuading the parents of the victim to refrain from contacting law enforcement, the Church interfered with the administration of justice by tipping off the sexual predators that they had been reported to law enforcement.

21.  The Church provided sexual predators with free legal advice and counsel on how to evade accountability, and repeatedly worked with sexual predators to mislead law enforcement. The Church was willing to, and did, make false statements to law enforcement officials and in courts of law in its efforts to protect sexual predators.

22.  Upon information and belief, the Church never initiated contact with the police or any other secular authority when it learned of sexual predation occurring under its auspices. Instead, the Church concealed the ongoing sexual predation in order to avoid any financial or reputational harms to the Church. The Church admitted that it placed such harms over the well­being of the vulnerable children in its care, claiming "[t]hat is our responsibility to protect the Church from harm, and that includes a lawsuit against the Church."

23.  The Church forbade members from discussing sexual predation, which created additional opportunities for sexual predation to occur, as sexual predators repeat their conduct unless detected and incarcerated.

24.  The Church refused to alert members to the presence of known and convicted pedophiles, instead relying on such persons to "self-report" to church members. The Church knew that pedophiles were not "self-reporting" to church members and instead were participating in church events involving children. The Church permitted and, as reasonable discovery will show, is continuing to permit, known pedophiles to interact with children without advising the parents of these interactions. For example, the Church has permitted one known pedophile to homeschool children at his house, and has permitted another to attend a children's camping trip.

25.  The Church exacerbated the harm to the innocent victims of sexual predation by forcing them (some as young as 3 years old) to meet and "forgive" their sexual predators. These sessions re-traumatized the victims and their parents.

26.  In the majority of instances of sexual predation, the Church managed to silence the parents of the child victims, and effectively prevented the involvement of law enforcement. The Church retaliated against those parents who refused to participate in the Church's efforts to assist sexual predators evade secular accountability. The Church engaged in a series of coercive and retaliatory acts designed to isolate and harm, including threatening families' financial well­being, threatening expulsion from the church, and threatening legal action against victims and their families.

27.  The Church misled its members by making a series of false statements designed to allay concerns about the ongoing sexual predation. During a meeting held on August 17, 2011, the Church claimed — falsely — that there had only been two incidents of sexual predation when the Church knew the number was far greater.

 

JANE DOE

28.  Between August 1998 and March 1999, a church member repeatedly sexual assaulted and sexually molested Jane Doe. Jane Doe was three years old at the time of the sexual assaults and repeated sexual assaults. She was living in Woodbridge, Virginia. 

29. On or about March 15, 1999, the mother of the perpetrator told the Church in a non-confessional setting that that her son had been repeatedly sexually molesting Jane Doe. She told Defendants Ecelbarger, Phillips, Hinders, Gallo, and perhaps others that her son had admitted to these crimes.

30.  Upon learning of the crimes, the Church failed to report the crimes to the secular authorities. Instead, the Church engaged in a lengthy pattern of fraud and deception to try to prevent anyone from learning the full extent of the ongoing criminal activity. 

31.  The Church directed the parents of Jane Doe -- church officials who ran a Home Group -- to remain silent about the sexual assault and assault, and refrain from alerting other members of the church to the ongoing predation of their three-year old daughter. 

32.  The Church sought to persuade the parents of Jane Doe to refrain from reporting the crimes and involving social services. 

33.  The Church did nothing to prevent the perpetrator from babysitting at other church functions or otherwise having contact with other children. 

34.  The Church interfered with the administration of justice by repeatedly interviewing the perpetrator, and working with him and his mother to determine how best to prevent any prosecution and publicity regarding his criminal sexual deviance. 

35.  The Church misled secular authorities into believing that it was providing "accountability measures" to ensure that the perpetrator was not permitted access to his siblings or other children. In fact, the Church did not put any "accountability measures" in place, but instead permitted a known child molester to frequent the "children's ministry" without any supervision, babysit children of members, and otherwise interact with children at church events, including a weekend retreat, without any supervision whatsoever. 

36.  The Church lied to the parents of Jane Doe, telling them that the Church would ensure that the parents were kept informed of all court dates. In fact, the Church, working with the perpetrator and his mother, lied and misled the parents in order to prevent them from attending court appearances and filing a victim impact statement. 

37.  The Church lied to the public authorities, representing that they were speaking on behalf of the parents of Jane Doe, and falsely claiming that the parents did not wish to participate in the court proceedings regarding the sexual assault and sexual molestation of Jane Doe. 

38.  The Church made a series of misrepresentations to their church members to ensure that they did not learn that the perpetrator had been raping Jane Doe. 

39.  The Church did not take any steps whatsoever to protect other children from sexual predation by a known sexual predator.

FACTS REGARDING NORMA NOE

40.  On or about March 17, 1993, a church member sexually molested Norma Noe. Norma Noe was two years old at the time of the sexual assault and living in Gaithersburg, Maryland. 

41.  The parents of Norma Noe learned of the abuse the day after it occurred. They immediately called the police and reported the assault. After calling the police, they contacted Defendant Loftness. He immediately advised the parents "do not call the police." When the parents of Norma Noe advised Defendant Loftness that they had already called the police, he expressed his displeasure (stating "that is going to be a problem"), and explained that such matters were handled internally by the church leadership, not by secular authorities. 

42.  The Church, acting through Defendant Loftness, immediately interfered with the administration of justice by tipping off the perpetrator that the parents had reported his sexual predation to the police. Defendant Loftness also took steps to ensure that other church members in the neighborhood were not alerted to the crime. 

43.  Defendant Loftness continued to interfere with the impartial administration of justice. Defendant Loftness "obtained" a confession from the predator, and began to serve as an intermediary between the police and the predator in order to control and prevent the dissemination of information to other families whose children were at risk of predation. 

44.  The Church required the parents of Norma Noe to bring Norma Noe to a meeting to be "reconciled" with her predator. When Norma Noe (who had just turned three) was brought into the same room with her predator, she was visibly scared and crawled under the chair. The "reconciliation" meeting created additional damage to Norma Noe, already traumatized by the initial abuse, and traumatized the parents of Norma Noe. 

45.  Defendant Loftness involved Defendants Ricucci and Layman to assist him in disseminating false and misleading information to the police and to church members. 

46.  The Church did not take any steps whatsoever to learn the extent of sexual predation by the predator, such as advising the police that the predator had been charged with the care of numerous toddlers in his role as a Home Group babysitter. The parents of other children exposed to the predator were never advised of the sexual assault, and never counseled to be alert for signs of trauma in their children. 

47.  The Church advised the parents of Norma Noe that they were required to remain completely silent about who had committed the assault, and thus refrain from providing other members of the Church information needed to protect their own children from the sexual predation. 

48.  The Church required the parents of Norma Noe to refrain from telling any other church members the name of the sexual predator who had sexual assaulted their three-year old daughter. 

49.  The Church knowingly permitted the sexual predator to continue to participate, unsupervised, in church activities with children despite his conviction for molesting Norma Noe. 

50.  The Church withheld information from the parents of Norma Noe about the assault that the Church had obtained directly from the predator. 

51.  The Church misled the parents in order to prevent them from attending court appearances and filing a victim impact statement.

FACTS REGARDING ROBIN ROE

52.  Plaintiff Robin Roe's adoptive father ("Parental Pedophile") is a sexual deviant who sexually abused her older sister for three and one-half years. His criminal conduct was discovered by Robin Roe's mother on or about November 2, 1987. Parental Pedophile was and remains a member of the Church. 

53.  The Church' actions taken after discovering her adoptive father's pedophilia permanently harmed Robin Roe. Robin Roe's mother reported Parental Pedophile's sexual abuse of her 11-year old daughter to the Church leader Dave Mays, who in turn immediately reported the abuse to Defendant Ricucci, and later reported the abuse to Defendant Loftness. 

54.  The Church did not report the matter to the police or any other law enforcement authorities, as they were required to do. Instead, acting through Defendant Ricucci, the Church directed Robin Roe's mother to let them "take care of everything." Robin Roe's mother wanted counseling for the victim and herself, but Defendant Ricucci told Robin Roe's mother that they did not want her to go to a counselor because counselors had a duty to report abuse. Rather than assisting the victims, the Church retained a lawyer for the sexual predator. 

55.  The Church worked with him and intervened repeatedly on his behalf to try to lessen the consequences for his criminality. The Church interposed themselves between law enforcement authorities and the family members, and falsely claimed that they were acting on the family's behalf The Church even suggested to Robin Roe's mother that she send Robin Roe's sister, the victim, out of the house in order to "bring" the predator home as "head of the household." 

56.  The Church took steps to prevent Robin Roe from alerting others in the church community about her stepfather's sexual predation. After Robin Roe confided in one friend, another church member, about the Parental Pedophile's abuse of her sister, the Church acted to prevent Robin Roe from remaining within the church community. 

57.  As a result of the Church's conduct and misrepresentations, Robin Roe was not cared for by loving and responsible adults, but instead was incarcerated in a juvenile half-way house with criminal juveniles. 

58.  The Church obstructed the investigation and the pursuit of justice. The Church interfered with interactions with the secular authorities. The Church warned Robin Roe's mother that her means of financial support would disappear if Parental Pedophile was convicted. The Church intervened with the State in support of the Parental Pedophile, and otherwise supported his defense efforts contrary to the wishes of the victim and her mother. 

59.  After Robin Roe's mother refused to acquiesce in the Church' attempt to obstruct justice, the Church dropped all pretense of support, and expelled the family from the Church. The Church also effectively expelled the children from school by denying them the reduced tuition that the family had received for over ten years. The Church told Robin Roe's mother that the family's financial destitution was self-induced because she was refusing to cooperate.

60.  The secular authorities prosecuted and incarcerated Parental Pedophile. During the incarceration, the Church continuously intervened on his behalf, trying to reduce his sentence. When the Parental Pedophile was released from incarceration, the Church continuously intervened with the secular authorities in supporting his effort to obtain custody of the children.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT SGM

61.  Plaintiffs seek to certify this action as a class against Defendant SGM. For purposes of the Class Allegations, the term "Church" refers only to Defendant SGM. Plaintiffs, acting in the interest of others similarly situated, allege that there is a class of male and female persons harmed by the Church's negligent and intentional misconduct in concealing, tolerating, failing to report, and thereby encouraging sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexual exploitation and sexual misconduct by church members. 

62.  Certification of a class is permitted here under Rule 2-231 of the Code of Maryland because the prerequisites have been met. Joinder of all members of the class is impracticable for two reasons: there are too many members, and they seek anonymity given the facts. There are questions of law and fact common to the class which predominate over any question affecting only individual members and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of the class claims, and plaintiffs will fairly adequately protect the interests of the class. 

63.  The Plaintiff Class is defined as those minor persons sexually assaulted or molested by a Church member during the time period 1987 to present, and who were harmed by the Church's acts and omissions after the Church was put on notice of the assault or molestation.

64.  Discovery from SGM's files will establish the precise number of victims in the Plaintiff Class. Three examples are provided here: First, a young girl was repeatedly sexually abused by her father, a member of the SGM church located in Fairfax, Virginia. When the girl reached the age of ten, she told her mother about the ongoing and long-standing sexual abuse. The mother immediately contacted the Church. 

65.  The Church directed the mother to remain completely silent about the father's repeated incestuous sexual assaults, and to refrain from reporting the pedophilia to the police or other authorities. 

66.  The Church directed the mother to refrain advising other members of the church of her husband's sexually-deviant behavior. When the mother turned to her friends (fellow SGM members) for support, the Church reprimanded her for the sin of "gossiping." 

67.  The Church required the family to undergo pastoral counseling. During the counseling, the Church told the mother that she was a "sinner," and directed her to refrain from seeking any outside counseling for herself or her daughter. The Church also told the 10-year old victim that she was a "sinner" for having been victimized. 

68.  The Church blamed the mother for the father's pedophilia and instructed her to engage in sex with her husband more frequently to prevent him from "being tempted." 

69.  The Church instructed the mother to place a lock on the inside of her daughter's door, and lock it each night to keep the father from assaulting the child. 

70.  The Church advised the father to turn himself into authorities, but he never did so. The Church knew the abuse was ongoing and that the father was not going to turn himself into the authorities, yet they directed the mother to refrain from reporting the crimes or otherwise involving any civil authorities. 

71.  The Church withheld information about the abuse from other church members. 

72.  The Church continued to allow this pedophiliac to attend church events that put him in unsupervised contact with other minors. 

73.  The Church disseminated the false information that sexual deviants who molest their own children are unlikely to molest non-family members. 

74.  Second, church members discovered that one of their minor children was being sexually molested by a member of SGM. The parents reported the abuse to the Church. 

75.  The Church failed to place any meaningful restrictions on the sexual predator and instead permitted him to continue to have access to the child during Sunday church services. 

76.  The Church directed the parents to refrain from reporting the events to the police or other law enforcement authorities. The parents followed this directive. 

77.  Nine years later, the parents learned that their other child had been sexually molested in 2002 as a result of the Church' acts and omissions. The parents immediately contacted the police and pressed charges. 

78.  The Church interfered with the administration of justice by alerting and interviewing the sexual predator in advance of the police. When the police requested information from the Church, they refused to comply with the subpoenas. 

79.  The Church instructed the two victims' biological aunt (their mother's sister), a woman married to an SGM pastor, to refrain from speaking with her sister about the abuse of her niece and nephew. 

80.  The Church withheld information about the known sexual predators from other church members. 

81.  Third, a child was molested by a person of the same sex. The parents immediately advised the Church of this attack. The Church told the parents that the sexual predator had been caught molesting several other children on occasions in the past. The Church did not report the sexual predator to the authorities or take any other steps to protect children in their care. Instead, the Church merely required the parents and the victim to attend a session in which the sexual predator "apologized" for the attack. 

82.  The Church directed the parents and victim to refrain from telling anyone about the attack because the predator "repented." As a result of the attack and subsequent cover-up, the victim suffered serious mental after-effects, including but not limited to suicidal ideation. 

83.  In sum, the Church has conspired repeatedly to permit sexual predators to evade detection and prosecution. The Church has abused the positions of trust and subjected defenseless children to life-changing crimes. 

84.  The Church's repeated misconduct and/or negligence harmed and continues to harm the three Jane Does, their parents, and many others, in wholly foreseeable ways. 

85.  The Church's misconduct and/or negligence caused the three Jane Does severe emotional distress as well as financial distress arising from the need for treatment and inability to function to an optimum capacity.  

86.  The Church's misconduct and/or negligence caused harm to Plaintiffs and to the Plaintiff Class. 

COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE

87.  All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 

88.  Defendants, individually and through their actual and or apparent agents, servants and/or employees, owed Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect Plaintiffs from sexual predators and report sexual abuse to law enforcement when it was found to have occurred under the auspices of the Church. 

89.  Defendants are liable for the sexual violence that happened in their ranks because they acted in reckless and grossly negligent fashion with complete disregard for the safety of children entrusted into the Church's care. 

90.  Defendants were on notice that sexual predation was occurring in church settings and as a result of authority bestowed by the Church, yet they lied and intervened to try to protect the predators from being incarcerated. 

91.  Defendants negligently breached duties owed to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class by repeatedly allowing known sexual predators to engage with children at church-sponsored events or on church premises, by failing to report the abuse themselves, by directing parents not to report the abuse and by concealing the abuse from church members and authorities. 

92.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that making children available to sexual predators breached a duty of care owned to minors. 

93.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that failure to report sexual abuse and engage in its concealment breached a duty of care owed to minors. Defendants knew, or should have known, that state laws required the reporting of suspected sexual abuse of a minor to the authorities. 

94.  As a direct and proximate result of this breach of duty, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.

COUNT II—INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

95.  All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 

96.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class have suffered from extreme stress and severe emotional distress due to Defendants' extreme and outrageous actions. 

97.  Defendants' conduct was intentional and reckless and Defendants knew or should have known that injury and emotional distress would likely result from their conduct. 

98.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that failure to report sexual abuse and engage in its concealment breached a duty of care. Defendants knew, or should have known, that state laws required the reporting of suspected sexual abuse of a minor to the authorities. 

99.  Defendants' acts and omissions that made Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class available to sexual predators, prevented parents from reporting, and interfered with police investigations were so extreme and outrageous that it violated human dignity. 

100.  As a direct and proximate result of this breach of duty, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. 

COUNT III - CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

101.  All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 

102.  Defendants engaged in a conspiracy with each other by agreement or understanding to not report acts of abuse, to refrain from contacting civil authorities, to conceal the sexual abuse, and to interfere with police investigations. 

103.  Defendants owed a duty of care arising from the convening of Home Groups. 

104.  Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were owed a duty to be safe on Defendants' property and to be free of sexual abuse. 

105.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that dangerous conditions existed on their property. They knew, or should have known, that sexual predators were allowed on their property and were placed in unsupervised rooms with minors. 

106.  Defendants' knowledge was gained in sufficient time to allow Defendants to remove the sexual predators from their property and/or to warn the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff class. Instead, Defendants tipped off the predators, thus obstructing justice. 

107.  Defendants adopted policies and practices that required members to refrain from reporting crimes to secular law enforcement authorities until and instead report such crimes to Defendants. 

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENT HIRING AND SUPERVISION AGAINST DEFENDANT SGM

108.  All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 

109.  Defendant SGM entered into an employment relationship with the individual Defendants. Defendant SGM had actual or constructive knowledge that the individual Defendants (acting as pastors) routinely refused to report suspected child abuse to secular authorities, encouraged parents to refrain from seeking outside help or counsel, allowed child abusers access to minors and fostered a culture of concealment of sexual deviance. 

110.  These employees' actions and omissions caused injury to Plaintiffs and to the Plaintiff Class, who have suffered and continue to suffer physical and emotional distress, shock, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment of life; have sustained and will continue to sustain loss of earnings and earning capacity; and have incurred and will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling. 

111.  Defendant SGM in hiring, supervising or retaining the employees is a direct and proximate cause of injuries to Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Class. 

COUNT V – MISREPRESENTATION

112.  All the foregoing allegations are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety. 

113.  Defendants owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. Defendants misrepresented that they would provide a safe atmosphere for Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class. Defendants intended and had knowledge that their statements would be relied upon by parents. Defendants knew, however, that reliance on those statements would cause injury, since Defendants allowed sexual predators access to minors. 

114. Defendants misrepresented that they would act as advocates for the victims and their families. Defendants intended and had knowledge that their statements would be relied upon by parents. Defendants knew, however, that reliance on those statements would cause injury, since Defendants acted as advocates for the perpetrators, not the victims. 

115.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class were harmed and injured.

 

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues.  

Susan L. Burke 

BURKE PLLC 

1000 Potomac Street, N.W.Washington, DC 20007-1105 

Telephone: (202) 386-9622 

Facsimile: (202) 232-5513 

sburke@burkepllc.com  

William T. O'Neil 

THE O'NEIL GROUP LLC 

7500 Old Georgetown Road, Suite 1375 

Bethesda, MD 20814 

Telephone: (202) 684-7140 

Facsimile: (202) 517-9179 

woneil@oneilgroupllc.com

---

[1] Church planting involves sending groups of SGM members to begin an SGM church in a new area.  Many SGM members all buy or rent houses near each other to live out their religious beliefs in a communal setting.  Church planting requires members to attempt to persuade other neighbors to attend and participate in the new church. 

[2] Defendants initially called this structure “Home Groups,” but later changed the terminology to “CareGroups.”  Plaintiffs use the term “Home Groups” to encompass both “Home Groups” and “Care Groups.”

Responses to Lawsuit Filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries

Earlier I discussed the impact of the internet and bloggers on churches with regard to how they handle abuse issues and ended with this paragraph:

I will be highlighting one of the above church groups in the next post because there's a whole lot of shakin' going on and it is important to keep tabs on this situation in light of church trends in dealing with spiritual abuse and sex abuse.

The particular church group I was referring to is Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) under CJ Mahaney.   As some may recall, close to 5 years ago, I began reading SGMSurvivors.com blog as I was coming to grips with my own spiritual abuse.  The stories reminded me so much of my own experience and I was drawn into the personal accounts.

Another reason I have kept up with SGMSurvivors.com blog is that our family has some personal connections with SGM.  We attended the Sovereign Grace Church of Chesapeake, Virginia a few times when we lived in Virginia in the late 1990s.  We know people who have attended SGM churches and who currently attend SGM churches.  Additionally, through the course of being a blogger who deals with spiritual abuse, a number of current and former SGM members have contacted me, relaying their very sad stories of spiritual abuse, heavy-handed authority among church leaders or home group leaders, and sex abuse situations in which church leaders failed to respond appropriately.  

Today we learned about the reported lawsuit which was publicized in AP news and has gone viral:  Lawsuit Against Sovereign Grace Ministries: Failure to Report Sex Abuse


Sovereign Grace Ministries has since issued a statement regarding the media's report of a lawsuit:  

October 17, 2012 

Statement by Sovereign Grace Ministries on Reported Lawsuit

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY – Today, Sovereign Grace Ministries Director of Finance and Administration, Tommy Hill, released the statement below regarding a reported lawsuit on October 17, 2012:

It has come to the attention of Sovereign Grace Ministries through media outlets that a lawsuit has been filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries related to allegations of child abuse apparently arising in the 1980s and 90s. To date, Sovereign Grace Ministries has not been served with any such lawsuit nor does it have a copy of the lawsuit. Sovereign Grace Ministries is not in a position to comment on the allegations of the reported lawsuit. Child abuse in any context is reprehensible and criminal. Sovereign Grace Ministries takes seriously the Biblical commands to pursue the protection and well being of all people, especially the most vulnerable in its midst, little children.

Sovereign Grace Ministries is a family of over 80 churches, primarily in the United States with the goal of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ both locally and globally.

If the lawsuit was reported in AP news, you can be sure that a lawsuit was filed.  AP would not risk leaking a story unless it was filed.  It will be a matter of days before defendants are served.  But I wonder how the victims' families felt when reading this comment from the press release, "Child abuse in any context is reprehensible and criminal. "  In reading several of the abuse stories, it certainly did not appear that church leaders found the disclosed sex abuse to be "criminal" based on their actions, or shall I say non-actions.  What a slap in the face!

If you have never read any of the sex abuse stories, here are a few that are published online.  I must issue a disclaimer.  These are heart-wrenching:

Personal Accounts of Abuse:  Wallace’s Story    Taylor’s Story    Noel’s Story     ExCLCer    SGMnot

Brent Detwiler, a former (and founding) member of the Sovereign Grace board, has also issued a statement regarding the lawsuit.  Brent has been a key person involved in exposing complaints against CJ Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministry pastors and leaders.  Detwiler was known as an historian and took copious notes during his time at SGM.  In the summer of 2011, documents were distributed to pastors and then leaked to the internet in which CJ Mahaney was accused of being proud, abusive, dishonest, and manipulative.  Here is Brent's statement he issued today regarding the lawsuit:

“C.J. was the President and Chairman of SGM when these incidences occurred.  He was also senior pastor of Covenant Life Church – one of the churches cited.  He had knowledge of these matters and certainly would have provided counsel to the CLC pastors.  He has taken no responsibility for any defective handling of either situation.  It is possible the details of these events were covered up to save face.  I was one of five SGM Board Members during this time period and I was never told about any of these cases of sexual abuse.  That information was withheld from me.  

“At the SGM Pastors Conference in 2009, C.J. asked Mark Mullery, the sr. pastor in Fairfax, VA, to make a confession regarding his/the pastors mishandling of the victims.  C.J. took no responsibility and said nothing about his own mishandling of victims in Maryland at Covenant Life Church.  I don’t know the facts concerning these events but I do know C.J. has a history of covering up serious sins and taking no responsibility as the senior leader.  

“C.J. may also have withheld information from me thinking I would advocate for the victims and encourage contact with the law.  In so doing, he may have been trying to keep a lid on things in order to avoid a lawsuit and bad press for pastoral negligence.” (Brent Detwiler, Oct 17, 2012)  

Lawsuit Against Sovereign Grace Ministries: Failure to Report Sex Abuse

Ok, here we go again.  As discussed in this post, it's very important to watch the trends in church.  People are not willing to tolerate the fact that church leaders overlook sex abuse anymore.  Pastors and church leaders are failing to properly notify authorities and we have discussed this issue as well.  Something must be done and if it is not done, people will take action.  Pastors and church leaders must take note.  They are not solving any problems by sweeping abuse under the carpet, trying to keep their image clean.  Church leaders must act appropriately by first notifying authorities of suspected crimes.  They must also genuinely and promptly care for the victim and victim's family.

* * * * *Edited 10/18/12 to add link to legal complaint:  Legal Complaint
Find all posts related to SGM lawsuit here.



Hot off the press:

LAWSUIT CLAIMS EVANGELICAL CHURCH HID ABUSE CLAIMS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Three female plaintiffs claim in a lawsuit filed Wednesday that an evangelical church group covered up allegations of sexual abuse against children, failed to report accusations of misconduct to the police and discouraged its members from cooperating with law enforcement. 

The lawsuit was filed in Maryland state court against Sovereign Grace Ministries, a 30-year-old family of churches, with about 100 congregations. Most of its churches are in the U.S., but it also has planted churches in about 21 countries.

and

The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy spanning more than two decades to conceal sexual abuse committed by church members. The alleged abuse happened in Maryland and northern Virginia in the 1980s and 1990s. The lawsuit accuses of church representatives of permitting suspected pedophiles to interact with children, supplying them with free legal advice to avoid prosecution and forcing victims to meet with and "forgive" the person that had molested them. 

More to come on Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) and the very bad patterns we have seen from bully pastors and church leaders who strive to protect their image and the church's image at all costs - even neglecting and abandoning the victims.  Enough is enough! 

* * * * * * * *




Update 3:45 PM Pacific:  I decided to directly tweet Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan - - who defended CJ Mahaney months ago to see what they think of the lawsuit.  I'll let you know if they respond:

* * * *  Added 10/18/12   Sovereign Grace Ministries Lawsuit: TV Interview with Victim/Mother

* * * New blog post:  Responses to Lawsuit Filed Against Sovereign Grace Ministries 

BGBC Church Members Still Leaving Reviews on Google

I know - this is a quick diversion.  I just could not help myself.

Remember this guy?   The Energizer bunny?  The bumping down of reviews by current church members reminds me of that old Energizer Bunny commercial - - - who keeps going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going and going . . . 

Current BGBC member Liz A  (yes, I know her last name, but I won't publicize it, unlike her pastor who filed a civil lawsuit against me and my name and pictures are now plastered all over the internet, thank you very much, Chuck)  couldn't stay away from the Google reviews and rewrote her Google review, bumping down the negative ones.   It looks like BGBC member  Peppermint Patty also revised her review last month.  

I thought of responding to every statement of Liz's review, but decided to demonstrate shocking restraint.  Instead, I will offer a few thoughts:


Perusing the review, I tallied the use of the word "hate" seven times.  Patty, the BGBC member who revised her review below Liz's also used the word "hate" in her review.  


Surprisingly, through all of the pain so many of the former members have experienced from the pastor/elder and members as a result of shunning, recording private conversations, stalking on social networks, etc, I have never heard even one person mention that they hate anyone from BGBC, including the pastor.  The notion that former members hate current members or the pastor is completely false.  


The most common heart-felt expression I've heard is that they love the current people of BGBC.  They feel sad for those who remain and pray for them.  When the first group of people who left heard that a new group of people had left - nearly 3 years later, we all rejoiced at the news and could not wait to reconnect with them.  Even though those people had hurt us immensely by avoiding us, refusing to talk to us, we still wanted to reach out and connect with them.  We never stopped thinking of them and praying for them.   No, Liz, there is no hate from former members.  The only hate I see is in your words.  Where is that coming from, Liz?     

Liz also uses the word "slander".  Slander is defined as "the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation".     The court said that none of the words we used were "defamatory".  In fact not even one of the words/phrases met even the first tier of the definition of defamation.  Liz, accusing us of slander is a false statement and could perhaps be a slanderous statement.  

Better is a dinner of herbs where love is

than a fattened ox and hatred with it.

(Proverbs 15:17 ESV)

photo credit: sweet mustache via photopin cc

Are Bloggers & the Internet Having a Direct Affect on Churches and Their Policies?

Before I get to the subject of this article, I wanted to give a brief update on my court case:  I've had a few people asking me on the blog and privately if my former pastor has paid the attorney's fees.  He and/or the church did pay the attorney fees for the two defendants who were dismissed early on.  I believe this amount was just under $17,000.  Judge Fun has not issued an order for the fees yet for our portion, nor has there been any action on the plaintiff's side to appeal.  So basically, my understanding is we are waiting for Judge Fun to issue the order to get that ball rolling.

"Church" as seen through the eyes of my now 10-yr old resident artist.

It appears that my case is winding down or is seemingly quiet for the moment.  The case victory means I am free to speak my mind on the internet within the rights of the Constitution.  Yea for Freedom of Speech!   Other bloggers like me are continuing to share their difficult church stories and their speech is protected, too.  My blog did not remove my pastor from the pulpit, but it has served the initial purpose of having a place to tell my story in hopes that others could identify spiritual abuse and we can all learn and heal from our experiences.

Has this blog served any other purpose?  Regulars may be familiar with my friend and reader brad/futuristguy.  Brad has experienced spiritual abuse and has been compiling information, following trends and patterns regarding spiritual abuse for years.  We've been observing how bloggers and social media are impacting the views of church by uncovering and creating document archives for church abuse stories, discussing the financial misdeeds and power plays of pastors, watching how churches handle sex abuse in church.  The internet has allowed us to get a close-up look at what churches are doing right and wrong.

Disclaimer:  I am keenly aware that there are in fact troublemakers in churches who are chronic grumblers and complainers who have posted negative comments online about their church.  This article is not discussing that problematic issue, but real cases of abuse coming from pastors and leaders in the church.  

It's interesting to note that my church was a Podunk church of maybe 100 congregants, yet it made the headlines as if it were a mega church.  Most people in Beaverton probably didn't even know of the small church.  The church is not on a major road and sits back behind a small housing development.  Reader, Kathi, is from the area and had no clue where the church was until I told her, yet, the media attention broadcast the church's and pastor's name far and wide around the world so that names Beaverton Grace Bible Church and Chuck O'Neal became publicly known as the church/pastor who sued a mother and former congregants for $500,000.  The internet and social media have put churches, regardless of size, on an even playing field.   What this means is that my single voice  - - -  or your single voice  - - - from Podunk, USA - -  can be heard just as loud as someone's voice from a mega church with a celebrity pastor.  This is very important to note.

Mega-churches are certainly realizing the impact of social media and the effect it has on their reputation.  Take my case for example.  My former pastor falsely said in his Google review that a pastor from mega church Grace Community Church (Pastor John MacArthur's church) told him it was okay to sue me.  (That is my paraphrase.)  This comment was picked up by popular Christian bloggers and went viral.  Even mainstream media picked up on this information and added it to their news stories.  This false comment threatened the reputation of Grace Community Church, Grace to You, and Pastor John MacArthur to such an extent that Phil Johnson, John MacArthur's right-hand man, had to involve himself in my Podunk church's lawsuit mess and issued a press release on behalf of John MacArthur and Grace Community.  Do you see the ripple effect?

There is a new reality for pastors and others who may be attempting to hide their spiritually abusive practices.  The internet has become a real threat to pastors who once found a safe haven in the walls of their church to continue their destructive behavior.  The internet has allowed individuals to voice their concerns LOUDLY.  Podunk pastors may not realize this new reality yet, but larger, more popular churches like Sovereign Grace Ministries, Grace Community, Mars Hill, and so many other Christian celebrity people and places are certainly aware of it.  

The BGBC/O'Neal lawsuit was pivotal to watch last summer because it discussed freedom of speech regarding church abuse.  Because of the clear victory in my case, a precedent has been set, giving bloggers added confidence to know that it is within their rights to publish their stories and express their opinions about their negative experiences in churches or ministries with strong words like:   spiritual abuse, cult, creepy. They can even discuss publicly online how churches handle sex abuse or sex offenders.  

My case represented spiritual abuse and also discussed sexual abuse and how it is handled by leaders within a church.  A huge case that has been in the headlines around the same time has been the handling of the sex abuse case at Penn State.  The world has been watching how Penn State staff, administration, and trustees handled (or mishandled) the many sex abuse cases connected with Jerry Sandusky.  This case has caused outrage across the nation as we have seen how those involved in that system, one after another, failed to take appropriate measures and/or report crimes to authorities.  We have seen in many news accounts that there were far more efforts in defending the image of Jerry Sandusky and Penn State than protecting and defending innocent children.  This story has caused many universities and organizations to take a closer look at their abuse policies.  That is good.  I recently posted about mandatory reporters at church and how some states allow pastors an exemption from reporting abuse, yet other states will arrest church leaders who fail to report.  These are hot topics in churches and organizations across the States.  Hopefully, as church abuse cases are coming to light, church leaders will be taking a good look at their policies regarding sex abuse and spiritual abuse.  

My strong words were regarding my little church, but they represented a small sampling of what is happening all over the states in small churches and mega churches. There are a number of ongoing church situations similar to mine, with bloggers and members/former members sharing their personal accounts.  I think it is important to take note of these situations and observe how they are handled in the church setting, and also observe how other pastors and outsiders are responding.  Here are some that come to mind quickly:  

Calvary Chapel:  Abuses are noted in the Calvary Chapel family of churches.  A current situation is Pastor Bob Grenier of Calvary Chapel Visalia threatening to sue 4 former church members for defamation.  Other personal accounts of spiritual abuse are shared involving many Calvary Chapel churches.  

The Elephant's Debt - This blog discusses Harvest Bible Chapel, Pastor James MacDonald and has uncovered financial corruption, spiritual abuse, first-hand accounts, etc

Sovereign Grace Ministries:  The blogs, SGMSurvivors.com  and SGMRefuge.com, deal with the heavy-handed abuse, sexual abuse cover-ups in the family of churches, Pastor CJ Mahaney's abuse of authority, blackmailing former church leader, etc.    

Mars Hill:  Joyful Exiles and Mars Hill Refuge - these blogs are no longer "active" but the stories are there  - permanently archived on the internet.  These cover the heavy-handedness of Pastor Mark Driscoll in use of "church discipline," his use of church memberships in controlling ways, etc.

I will be highlighting one of the above church groups in the next post because there's a whole lot of shakin' going on and it is important to keep tabs on this situation in light of church trends in dealing with spiritual abuse and sex abuse.