Download the full PDF here.

Different people in various public contexts have called for Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC) to undergo an “independent third-party investigation” of our denomination to determine if sexual abuse has been covered up and abusers protected in our churches. We understand that such a call may sound reasonable to outside observers—even to some who, despite the nature of some online discussions, do not presume SGC’s guilt.

Despite the seeming reasonableness of this appeal, last year the Sovereign Grace Leadership Team (LT) concluded that recommending such a review would be both inappropriate and impractical for a number of important reasons. We did so only after pursuing counsel from a range of pastors, Christian leaders, and attorneys, including the input of SGC’s Executive Committee, which stands in support of this decision.

Before addressing the reasons for this recommendation, it’s important to stress what it does not mean. It does not mean that SGC does not take allegations against it seriously, or that we are unconcerned about the details of these allegations. Most importantly, it does not mean that we are insensitive to the seriousness of sexual abuse and the great harm experienced by its survivors. We want the truth to be known about these allegations, we have spent years investigating them, and we have sought to answer as many questions as possible surrounding these events, a summary of which you can find here.

Moreover, we have worked diligently as a family of churches, especially over the past ten years, to give attention to the issue of sexual abuse. Like all sincere Christians and churches, we have learned much about the tragedy of sexual abuse and have taken concrete steps both to strengthen the safety of our churches and to equip our pastors in providing wise and compassionate care to survivors of abuse. Some details of these steps are explained in our FAQ document.

The Nature of Our Decision

A number of issues affected our decision to not recommend a third-party independent investigation of our denomination. Here are some of the main points of our thinking for anyone desiring to understand our position.

• We made our decision based upon principles that were theological, ethical, and practical in nature. Practical matters alone make this option impossible, but we have tried to think through this recommendation in the most principled way available to us.

• We are not saying that external investigations are never appropriate. Rather, we do not think one is appropriate given the present circumstances, in which scandalous allegations have been made publicly against a limited number of parties, without providing credible evidence or based upon any substantive findings by criminal or civil authorities.

• In addition, and contrary to the impressions of some, the allegations against SGC have not gone uninvestigated; they have been investigated by civil authorities, our own years-long efforts, and the churches involved. Moreover, the ongoing allegations of covering up abuse have never been—before or since the civil lawsuit filed against us—supported by any judicial or investigative findings by law enforcement or any other party.

• Neither is this a decision to shield ourselves from scrutiny. We are not denying that there is an appropriate interaction with, and submission to, external authorities for churches. For example, SGC has submitted to external audits that have demonstrated our financial integrity for 30+ years. Civil authorities bear appropriate responsibility for a wide range of issues that promote the safety and common welfare of citizens. For this we are grateful, and we have cooperated and intend to cooperate fully.

• More to the point, we are grateful that allegations of criminal activity have been investigated by the proper civil authorities, and we stand by their conclusions. That said, the expectation that Sovereign Grace can conduct its own criminal investigation into these accusations, outside the scope of law enforcement and civil authorities who have already conducted their own investigations, and obtain any meaningful resolution that respects the rights of the accusers and those accused is not only unrealistic, but potentially harmful to all parties affected.

Reasons Against an Independent Investigation

Our reasons for not pursuing a third-party independent investigation of our denomination fall within two general categories: standards of justice, and SGC ecclesiology.

Standards of Justice.  Given the basis of the allegations, the demand that we subject our entire denomination to an investigation is neither just nor practically possible, nor would it meet biblical, or even civil, standards of justice.

• The primary events in question relate to the allegations made in the civil lawsuit filed in 2012.

  • For those unfamiliar with the civil lawsuit, the plaintiffs’ attorney made one overarching charge: a conspiracy to cover up sexual abuse against two churches.

  • These circumstances have been investigated by law enforcement authorities, by our own years-long efforts, and by the churches themselves.

  • These investigations have yielded no credible evidence of any instance of abuse or conspiracy to cover up abuse or to protect a criminal by any SGC pastor or staff member.

  • Moreover, there is not a single instance of a Sovereign Grace pastor or staff member ever being charged with—much less convicted of—sexual abuse or covering up abuse in our 35+ year history.

  • To demand an independent investigation of an entire denomination based upon unsubstantiated allegations—especially against only two churches, neither of which is any longer a part of the denomination—is unwarranted and unjust.

• The idea of an “independent” investigation ignores basic realities of the issues involved in this situation.

  • The allegations from the civil lawsuit pertain to two churches that are no longer part of SGC. We have no authority over those churches, no right to their pastoral records, and no access to their internal reports or investigations. We are simply unable to perform what some people are demanding.

  • Like many denominations, our churches are independently constituted. SGC has no more authority to order a denomination-wide investigation of all of its churches than, e.g., the Southern Baptist Convention does.

  • That said, if someone has criminal allegations against any SGC pastor, we would strongly encourage them to report that to the appropriate authorities.

• Beyond the civil lawsuit, SGC has faced online accusations that are broad, generalized, and unsubstantiated. An investigation of our denomination based on such accusations would remove these issues from biblical—and even secular, civil—standards of justice.

  • Are such unsubstantiated allegations an appropriate basis for imposing an investigation upon an entire denomination?

  • Does an entire denomination have to prove its innocence, based upon a presumption of guilt, for every accusation made online, whether it has been substantiated or not?

  • Who would decide what “independent” means, and how would such independence be established?

  • What result would satisfy? Assuming such an organization could even be identified, what are the standards for guilt, innocence, and conclusiveness?

  • How would such an investigation, under these circumstances, correspond to biblical standards of discovering truth in churches—or even reasonable, civil standards of discovering truth?

  • On what basis should we rely on an independent investigator to rule on issues that fall within the purview of law enforcement? Again, if someone has evidence of sexual abuse or cover-up that has not been reported to authorities, we urge them to do so.

  • What accountability would the investigator have? In particular, who would assure they operate with integrity and with biblical (or even secular) standards of credibility, truth, and justice?

  • How can one biblically justify appointing an investigator to act as both judge and jury over an entire denomination (combining into one person functions that our legal system separates: investigation, presentation of evidence, and judgment)?

  • What investigator would be able/willing to identify false accusations as well as legitimate ones?

  • A just investigation should also measure faithfulness: how should the faithfulness of hundreds of pastors in scores of churches over decades be weighed and factored into a comprehensive view of SGC?

  • In sum, to subject any church (much less every church in SGC) to an external investigation based upon unsubstantiated online allegations, from the premise of a presumption of guilt, requiring compliance with requests of an investigator the church did not choose, is unwarranted, prejudicial, and singularly unjust.

• Finally, we are convinced that no independent investigation of all of our churches could accomplish what it purports to deliver.

  • Given the omission of the two primary churches in question (along with any number of SG churches which might refuse to participate) and the unsubstantiated nature of so many allegations, any report would come under harsh critique from critics and would fail to provide the basis for support that allies profess to seek.

  • Under these circumstances, we do not believe any investigator, methodology, or scope of investigation could ever be identified that would both satisfy those demanding an investigation and meet the standards of objectivity and independence any reasonable party would insist upon.

Sovereign Grace Ecclesiology. Despite SGC Leadership’s inability to order an investigation of all of its churches, SGC has a detailed, well-defined polity with clear avenues to pursue biblical justice. This includes objective and impartial means of examining and adjudicating allegations of wrongdoing, within the protections of due process. We believe this honors God and protects our members and churches with both righteousness and compassion.

• For example, elders in Sovereign Grace are subject to multiple layers of accountability, along with multiple avenues of recourse, so that every pastor can be held accountable to biblical standards of morality, ethics, and doctrinal orthodoxy—an accountability we gladly welcome. Such provisions include:

  • Ecclesiastical charges related to sexual misconduct or criminal behavior (which would also be reported to authorities) against an elder can be brought at any time—there is no statute of limitations.

  • Non-members are able to bring forward evidence of alleged scandalous sin (and, of course, criminal activity) against an elder that will be used in evaluating charges against him.

  • If an elder is accused of sexual abuse (or any criminal activity), that local church is required to report that to an SGC regional judicial body (i.e., the local church cannot deal with this itself).

  • If a member who is sinned against and brings charges against an elder is unsatisfied with a verdict against that elder on the local level, the decision can be appealed to a regional body, and ultimately to a national body.

  • All SGC elders are required to report suspicions of abuse to authorities whether their state law requires it or not. If they do not, they are subject to discipline in our polity.

• Even more importantly, our polity provides protections for those sinned against, to ensure they have clear and objective ways in which to receive justice. Survivors have a safe process by which they can be cared for and their concerns addressed, including allegations from our past.

• An independent investigation of our denomination would set aside the biblical principles underlying all these polity provisions and structures, which all those demanding an investigation should understand and support: e.g., standards for charges against an elder (1 Tim 5:19); appropriate avenues of appeal to and among elders (Acts 15; cf. Deut 17:8-9); the responsibility of elders to govern the church for which they will give an account (Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 6:1-4; 1 Thess 5:12-13; Heb 13:17); provisions that not only seek justice for the aggrieved but also provide appropriate protections for the accused (Deut 17:6; 19:5, 18-19; cf. Prov 18:7). To disregard these biblical principles in favor of pragmatic alternatives would both jettison biblical authority and undermine justice.

• As a result, such an investigation would submit all our churches and their leaderships to the processes and judgment of a single, functionally unaccountable organization or individual, who would be empowered to pass judgment on every SGC church without recourse. As we’ve done our best to explain above, we fail to see how such an organization or individual—who could act dispassionately and satisfy all parties—could even be appointed.

• In short, we cannot recommend that our denomination abandon the just processes it has developed and submit all of our churches to an external investigation, particularly in the present circumstances. Where there is credible evidence or substantive findings by criminal or civil authorities against a pastor or church, our polity contains ample provisions to address them compassionately, justly and effectively.

Finally, the circumstances in view have been examined by SGC, the churches involved, and civil authorities. Moreover, law enforcement retains the ability to bring charges against anyone credibly suspected of abuse or the cover-up of abuse—and were we to come upon any evidence for such crimes, we would report it to authorities, irrespective of any law or reporting requirement indicating that we were not required to do so. Such realities, however, have not mollified the online controversy surrounding these allegations. In sum, however desirable it might be, any hope that a third-party investigation would put these accusations behind us once and for all is, in our judgment, utterly unrealistic.

We hope this explanation demonstrates the profound biblical and theological issues at stake in this matter. We made our recommendation in the face of public criticism and with the realization that some of our churches have faced significant pressure from some church members or their community. That grieves us deeply and we continue to pray for God’s wisdom to protect all of our churches and the gospel mission we share. Nonetheless, we remain persuaded that an investigation of the sort we’ve been challenged to authorize—both in good faith and otherwise—is inappropriate, impractical, unjust, and finally would be unsatisfactory to all interested parties. Most importantly, as far as we’re able to discern, we believe this course, the theological capitulation it would represent, and the precedent it would set, would ultimately dishonor Christ and harm the cause of the gospel.

The Sovereign Grace Leadership Team

On Monday, March 19, 2018, Christianity Today contacted Sovereign Grace Churches to inform us that they were planning to post an online editorial asking us to do an independent investigation regarding past allegations of sexual abuse made in a 2012 civil lawsuit that involved two former churches. On February 13 we posted this statement providing details of these allegations including a denial that any Sovereign Grace leader covered up abuse.

We are grateful that Christianity Today asked us for a statement before they published their editorial; however, we were disappointed when they didn’t include our entire statement in their article, especially given the critique made of our denomination.

Here is the full statement we sent to Christianity Today on March 21, 2018.

Recent public statements have called for Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC) to undergo an “independent third-party investigation” of our history and current practices to determine if sexual abuse is being covered up and abusers protected in our churches.

We believe it is the Church’s obligation to lead in any realm related to justice for or protection of any child who has been harmed. Our difficulty is this: the most specific accusations involve allegations made in a civil lawsuit filed in 2012 involving two churches that are no longer part of Sovereign Grace. As to those two churches, we have no authority, no right to their pastoral records, and no access to their internal reports. We, therefore, have neither the right nor the ability to agree to, require, or conduct an investigation of these churches. One of those churches has already performed its own third-party investigation, but SGC has no access to that report or details from that investigation.

Secondly, SGC is a denomination consisting of 72 churches, each of which is individually constituted and governed by its own board of elders. While there is a specific process by which a charge may be submitted against an elder by any current or former SGC church member, SGC leadership has no authority to mandate an investigation by an outside authority upon all of our churches. We are therefore unable to authorize an independent third-party investigation of SGC and its churches.

Clearly any specific allegations of child sexual abuse should be reported to criminal and child protection authorities, regardless of the passage of time. We recognize the critical importance of treating child sexual abuse seriously and its victims with compassion. To this end, SGC has taken specific steps in recent years to better understand and address the risk of child sexual abuse. Since 2014, we have provided the MinistrySafe child safety system to SGC churches free of cost, including training, screening forms, policies, and proactive reporting practices.

To ensure that any survivor of child sexual abuse in our churches feels protected and cared for, we have sought ways to further strengthen our practices. We are exploring the involvement of an organization with expertise and objectivity in dealing with issues of abuse to assist our pastors and elders in this regard. This is intended to help ensure that allegations are reported, cases are handled legally and wisely, and abuse survivors are provided proper care. It is our desire and goal to maintain consistency in all SGC churches where child sexual abuse issues are encountered, and, specifically, to provide compassionate care and support to those who have experienced past sexual abuse.

In sum, we desire to walk transparently, to grow in our ability to better address this risk, and to honor Christ in the way we care for those who have experienced abuse.

Over the past several days, Rachael Denhollander has twice raised allegations—first in an interview in Christianity Today (CT) and then in a Facebook post—concerning Sovereign Grace Churches (SGC) and its handling of sexual abuse cases. Over the past few years, we have regularly shared details on these matters privately with those who have approached us in good faith with understandable concerns. However, in our public statements, we have been reluctant to share many details concerning these accusations. Far from hiding facts, we have sought to be discreet in our communications to protect those involved—first and foremost victims and their families. In light of these recent accusations, it seems important now to address them more specifically. We hope what we share here will help to clarify some details and, as a result, address questions and misperceptions that exist about Sovereign Grace, our pastors, and our churches.

Before we address substance, however, we feel compelled to address certain aspects of recent public comments and the process surrounding them. As we stated in our response to the CT interview on February 2, 2018, we are grateful for Rachael’s courage in confronting Larry Nassar, and as pastors and churches we share and commend Rachael’s passionate concern for victims of sexual abuse. Having said that, the decisions of Rachael and others to publicly pronounce SGC and its pastors guilty of sexual abuse and conspiracy, on the basis of false allegations and with no direct knowledge of SGC’s history or the facts, have profoundly damaged the reputations and gospel ministries of innocent pastors and churches. The comparisons drawn between SGC and horrific, widespread episodes of abuse—about which the facts are already publicly established – are irresponsible. The pastors and leaders of SGC are believers in Jesus Christ, and our churches are led by pastors who fear God with the sobering reality that we will give an account for our ministry (Hebrews 13:17). We are also unceasingly aware that our faith is rooted in the absolute truths of God’s Word. To allChristians, truth matters, and zeal without knowledge leads to error and strife.

Rachael calls for a “fair, independent” investigation into SGC led by GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in a Christian Environment) because of the organization’s supposed neutrality. However, Boz Tchividjian, the leader of GRACE, has on multiple occasions written and spoken publicly in ways that suggest he has already prejudged the case against SGC. He has publicly indicted the motives of SGC as it relates to those allegations, and he has publicly criticized others who have expressed any support for SGC. No investigation can be conducted or evaluated with integrity and good faith by an organization whose leader has already publicly drawn his conclusions and has used his platform to attempt to sway public opinion about the case.

In addition to various investigations by authorities, one of the two churches that were accused of wrongdoing commissioned an independent investigation of its involvement in these matters. Because this church is no longer part of SGC, we have not been given access to this independent report, but one of the church’s pastors publicly disclosed certain conclusions from the investigation, and we will refer to some of these below.

No matter how great the passion for an obviously righteous cause, no fallen human being possesses absolute moral authority, and it benefits neither the victims of sexual abuse nor the name of Christ when believers publicly condemn one another without the facts.

Now to those facts. In providing these details, we hope to substantively address the allegations brought against SGC and to shed light on the false narrative some have sought to promote in recent years.

In a 2012 civil lawsuit, SGC and some of our pastors were accused of conspiring to cover up instances of sexual abuse. After the suit was dismissed in 2014, we issued a statement denying the accusations in the lawsuit and defending the integrity of our pastors. Here we will seek to address the major questions and concerns many have expressed, along with misperceptions some have regarding these issues.

Many have the impression that abuse was widespread throughout Sovereign Grace churches. This is not true. The lawsuit brought against Sovereign Grace in 2012 included accusations of abuse in two churches that had occurred many years earlier. No other Sovereign Grace churches were named in the lawsuit. While a single incident of abuse is grievous, it is simply false to characterize this as widespread within Sovereign Grace churches, whose experience with this horrible sin is, sadly, not unusual in our culture. We have been grieved to see pastors and church members tainted by this false impression.

Some have the impression that pastors have been involved in abuse. That is false. We are not aware of a single pastor in Sovereign Grace ever being guilty of – much less charged with or convicted of – sexual abuse, in our entire history. In the civil suit discussed above, two pastors were included in allegations of abuse that had never been reported previously. These accusations were investigated by the police and the church. None of these claims have ever been substantiated and no criminal charges were filed. These pastors immediately and publicly denied these accusations, and we strongly believe them to be false.

Some accuse Sovereign Grace of conspiring to cover up child abuse. This, too, is completely false. Some of the details of the civil lawsuit are relevant here:

• This was not a criminal trial of the abusers themselves based on any charges brought by authorities. It was a civil lawsuit against pastors and churches seeking financial damages relating to past handling of claims of abuse.

• The suit was brought by 11 plaintiffs suing pastors, two churches, and Sovereign Grace.

• The claims of five of the 11 plaintiffs involved cases of abuse that had been reported and addressed by authorities years earlier.

• Another five of the plaintiffs made allegations of abuse that were purported to have occurred years earlier. These allegations were sensational and were never confirmed, in spite of investigations by law enforcement and the churches. These resulted in no criminal charges. We strongly believe these allegations to be false.

• The final plaintiff claimed abuse by Nathaniel Morales, now a convicted pedophile, who had been arrested by police prior to the civil suit based on reports by other victims. We will say more about his case below.

• In sum, to the best of our knowledge, only one of the confirmed cases of abuse (Morales) relating to the plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit was not reported until years after the abuse occurred.

• As to the charge of conspiracy, the very thought is abhorrent. Moreover, in 2016 a pastor of one of the churches named in the civil suit, in response to accusations of conspiracy to cover up child abuse, stated publicly that: “We denied those charges and allegations from the beginning. Not only that, we hired an independent investigator to look into those allegations. The investigator concluded that there was not any evidence to support that conspiracy or obstruction had taken place.” Indeed, had we ever become aware of any effort to hide abuse or protect an abuser, we would have reported it to authorities immediately.

It has been claimed that the lawsuit against Sovereign Grace was dismissed because of a legal technicality. This is largely correct but misleading. Again, details of the lawsuit are important.

• It is true that the civil lawsuit was dismissed in September of 2014 primarily (but not exclusively) because of expired statutes of limitations.

• That said, it is important to note that the civil statute of limitations does not protect perpetrators of abuse or conspiracy to cover-up abuse. If law enforcement had found there to be substance to the accusations of abuse or conspiracy against SGC pastors, those individuals would have been subject to criminal prosecution irrespective of the civil lawsuit. No abuser or conspirator escaped justice because of the dismissal of the lawsuit.

• The statute of limitations is no mere technicality, but a legal provision that protects people from false accusations made many years after the fact. We believe it served precisely that purpose in the case of allegations in the civil lawsuit that had never before been made and had no corroboration, even if it meant that the merits of the accusations were not fully adjudicated in the context of the suit.

• Once again, the lawsuit in question sought financial damages for charges of conspiracy to cover up abuse; it did not involve criminal charges. As noted above, one of the churches named in the lawsuit had an independent investigation performed, and we repeat here the public summary made by one of their pastors: “We denied those charges and allegations from the beginning. Not only that, we hired an independent investigator to look into those allegations. The investigator concluded that there was not any evidence to say that the conspiracy or obstruction of justice had taken place.”

Some have characterized SGC’s experience with abuse as a “scandal” and compared it to horrific instances of modern abuse scandals. Such characterizations have been uninformed, irresponsible, and have severely damaged the reputations of innocent pastors and churches. They are also false comparisons. At the root of these issues is the case of a convicted pedophile, Nathaniel Morales, who abused victims while a member in one of our churches around 30 years ago. Details of his case are grievous to recount, but they are relevant to the false impression some have of SGC.

• The abuse by Morales occurred in the 1980s at a church that was then part of Sovereign Grace. Morales was not and never has been a pastor or staff member of a Sovereign Grace church.

• According to court testimony, in 1992 Morales was confronted by a pastor and a parent of one of the victims (who was by then an adult). Morales denied the charge and then left the church and fled the area.

• As a result of an independent investigation by the church, a pastor publicly reported the following in 2016: “[T]here were only two [instances] that specific pastors were aware of. One family member went to one pastor and in that context they interacted with Nate Morales and the pastor followed up with the family member to say ‘Would you like to take this further?’ In other words, would you like to go to the police? The family member said no, he did not. The other instance was one where a pastor did not have first-hand knowledge of the information of the details—it was 2nd or 3rdhand . . . where the victim didn’t discuss the details of what took place until many, many years later.”

• Although the care of these pastors was well-intended (and they were not required by law to report these incidents), it is clear in hindsight that there were grave errors in judgment, and the abuse should have been reported regardless of the circumstances or a victim’s wishes.

• Finally, but importantly: as grievous as this situation was, it is simply wrong and irresponsible to compare it with modern day abuse scandals. No pastors were involved in abuse, and no one knowingly sought to hide or cover up abuse.

Sovereign Grace has been accused of protecting abusers through a policy of not reporting abuse. This is not true. A few distinctions are important here:

• During the time period covered in the suit, SGC as an organization did not have an officially stated policy with respect to these issues. We certainly had no policy of “not reporting.” It is regrettable now in hindsight, but SGC and its churches were like many organizations and churches in past decades in that we lacked formal guidelines for such cases.

• Despite the lack of a formal policy, we are aware that in our churches instances of abuse were reported to authorities from the 1980s to the present, including episodes referenced in the civil lawsuit. This is not to say that our pastors handled every situation as they would today (for example, the Morales situation noted above), but over our 30+ year history, our churches (numbering at times up to nearly 100) have endeavored to care for and protect its members by ensuring the involvement of civil authorities, honoring relevant laws, and seeking legal and professional counsel in these difficult circumstances.

• With respect to caring for victims, we readily acknowledge that we have learned much over the last 30+ years. There have been times when we simply did not do it well. We do not believe these instances were common, and they were by no means ill-intentioned. But in hindsight, we regret this and wish that we had done it better.

• We have worked diligently to improve. Over the past ten years in particular—and we wish it had been far earlier—we have presented to all of our pastors information concerning abuse intended to raise both our awareness and our vigilance in caring for victims. Sovereign Grace also offers its churches, free of charge, the comprehensive safety system designed by MinistrySafe, a leading organization dedicated to the prevention of sexual abuse. We stress to every pastor the necessity of reporting allegations of abuse to the authorities and prioritizing the care of the victim. We try to do what we believe every church desires to do: provide a safe environment for our children and all of our members.

Some have accused C.J. Mahaney of both being involved in protecting abusers and in creating a “culture” that perpetuated abuse. This is false on both counts. Given the unrelenting attacks made against C.J. over the past few years, it is important for us to state the following.

• As those who have known and labored with C.J. for decades, the very idea of sexual abuse is abhorrent to him, as it indeed is to anyone who fears God and loves the gospel. Like untold numbers of like-minded pastors, C.J.’s life and ministry testify to a man who is passionate about his Savior, devoted to his family, and who has faithfully served the cause of the gospel for decades. It saddens us that people have vilified C.J. and believed the worst about him, especially that he is guilty of perpetuating abuse.

• C.J. has no recollection of hearing of Morales’s crimes in the 1990s. He has honestly stated that, if he had received that report at the time, he likely would have deferred to the adult victim and his parents in the same way the pastors involved apparently did. He has also stressed that, given what we have all learned about the nature of child predators and sexual abuse generally, he would never take that same approach today.

• As for the “culture” charge, nothing could be further from the truth. The culture C.J. helped to create, by the grace of God, was one of loving the gospel, honoring Christ, and pursuing holiness. The church was not a perfect church, but it was a faithful, healthy, and fruitful church. Accusations that C.J. and the pastors at that time created a culture that engendered abuse or enabled abusers is not merely false, it is absurd.

For the past six years, SGC has found itself in a difficult situation in addressing the accusations lodged against us and our pastors. It is difficult to communicate complex details involving painful circumstances decades after the fact. It is difficult to respond to false accusations without appearing defensive and, far worse, unsympathetic to victims of abuse. Behind the details of this statement are real victims whose lives have been harmed by abuse. For victims outside of Sovereign Grace, even listening in to these details evokes painful memories and, one would imagine, feelings of indignation. That is sobering for us to consider and, like every church and denomination that seeks to honor Christ, SGC is committed to pursuing the highest standards of protection for our members, and especially our children.

However, the public nature of the charges made against SGC and its pastors necessitated this more detailed response. A certain narrative has been put forth concerning Sovereign Grace which is untrue and unjust, and it has been damaging to pastors, church members, and ultimately the cause of Christ. We hope these details will help to correct that narrative. We trust that some who read this document will be comforted or persuaded by it; we realize others will not. Still, we have undertaken the effort in good faith, and we anticipate that this response will be our last public comment on the details of these allegations.

For the members of Sovereign Grace Churches, we are grateful for your love for Christ, your trust for your pastors, and your faithfulness to your local churches. For Christians in other churches, we hope you recognize that, like your own church, Sovereign Grace consists of flawed but forgiven sinners seeking to honor the Lord and see the gospel proclaimed in this world. For everyone reading this, we hope you realize that SGC, its pastors, and its members share a hatred of the sin of sexual abuse and a commitment to protecting against it.

The Sovereign Grace Churches Leadership Team