Posts tagged pastors
2nd Quarter Prayer Requests for Sovereign Grace Churches

I spoke with a Sovereign Grace pastor recently who told me that even though his church is unable to gather together, the pandemic is actually being used to bring his church closer together. I see a similar thing throughout Sovereign Grace. God is using the COVID-19 pandemic to highlight the fact that we are truly a global “family of churches.” Isn’t it so good of God to use a global trial to bring us closer together as a “family” in Sovereign Grace?

One of the ways that our Sovereign Grace family cares for one another during this unusual time is to pray for one another. Below you will find the “Sovereign Grace Churches Second Quarter Prayer Requests.” The requests do focus on prayer needs that are the result of the pandemic. Consider praying for our family of churches in a future livestream service, Sunday or Small Group Zoom meeting, or include these requests in a devotional you create. May our prayers for one another strengthen our partnership and our faith to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ together for His glory alone.

  • Pray that God would give the members and pastors of Sovereign Grace churches opportunities to serve our community and demonstrate the love of Christ during the COVID-19 pandemic looking for opportunities to share the gospel with unbelievers.

  • Pray for the members of Sovereign Grace churches who are unemployed, have been furloughed from their jobs, or who own businesses that have been negatively impacted financially by the COVIOD-19 pandemic asking God to provide for them.

  • Pray for the pastors of Sovereign Grace churches asking God to give them wisdom in knowing when and how to reopen their church in the coming months.

  • Pray that God would provide for Jorge Del Castillo, David Del Castillo and their church plant team who started services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia just before the COVID-19 pandemic started and haven’t been able to meet since early March.

  • Pray that God would use this unprecedented pandemic for an unprecedented advancement of the gospel throughout the world.

  • Pray that God would continue to provide financially for Sovereign Grace Churches so that we can fund the gospel opportunities He is giving us.


Mark Prater is the Executive Director for Sovereign Grace and serves as an elder at Covenant Fellowship Church. He and his wife, Jill, have three married daughters and a growing number of grandchildren.

A Letter of Encouragement to Sovereign Grace Pastors

Dear brothers,

I’m writing this letter the day after Easter 2020. This is a Resurrection Sunday that you won’t soon forget because your church couldn’t gather together yesterday to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For you, it must have been especially difficult and sad to not be with, see, and worship with the people in your church. There is a unique pain and burden that a pastor feels in this regard, therefore, it seemed timely to write you a letter of encouragement to “build you up in your most holy faith” (Jude 20) and to strengthen you for the days ahead. Here are just some of the ways I see God’s grace at work in you, and I hope they provide timely encouragement.

This pandemic has not stopped you from preaching the gospel.

When you were ordained as a pastor, you made a solemn commitment to preach Christ and him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2). Yesterday, you kept your commitment by preaching the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, whether by livestream, Zoom, written devotionals or worship guides. You looked the COVID-19 pandemic in the eye and with faith and courage said, “For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” (1 Cor. 9:16). Well done, brothers! I want to encourage you for not allowing trials, not even a pandemic, to keep you from preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ.

This pandemic did not stop you from preaching the resurrection with joy.

Yesterday, you preached the gospel, and the resurrection of Jesus Christ in particular, with joy. God loves a joyful preacher. Lewis Allen says it this way, “Our ever-blessed, ever-joyful God wants to be proclaimed by those who are brimful of the joy his grace in Christ brings. Preacher and sermon must be filled with gospel joy. ‘With joy you will draw from the wells of salvation’ (Isaiah 12:3). Preachers who taste, teach, and share the joy of the gospel are truly fulfilling their calling as they serve those who listen.”[1] Of course those who listened to you yesterday were not sitting in your church. It was sad for you to not be with your people. But the social distancing restrictions that we must follow in the midst of this pandemic did not stop you from preaching the hope of the resurrection of Jesus Christ with joy. Be encouraged brothers, because you are men who are “sorrowful, yet ALWAYS rejoicing” (2 Cor. 6:10), and your joy brings authenticity to the gospel you preach.

This pandemic has deepened your faith in the God you preached.

Because of the pandemic, your church couldn’t gather together yesterday. When you preached, you couldn’t personally look at those you were preaching to. And yet, by faith, you preached anyway, because you are men who “walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). You couldn’t see or hear the immediate effect of your preaching, and yet you preached with faith believing that the power of God, through the work of the Holy Spirit, in the listeners life would bring about transformation and growth. Brothers, be encouraged because yesterday you fought “the good fight of the faith” (1 Tim. 6:12).

This pandemic has deepened your love for the people in your church.

The sadness, frustration, and pain you felt yesterday because you couldn’t be with your people, is a reflection of your love for them. A pastor loves his people, and this pandemic is being used by God in your life to deepen the love you have for those entrusted to your care. Your desire to be with the people in your church, and see them again, reveals how dear they really are to you. In fact you can relate even more with Paul who wrote to the Thessalonians, “So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but our own selves, because you had become very dear to us” (1 Thess. 2:8). Be encouraged brothers for how this pandemic is deepening your love for those who have become even more dear to you.

This pandemic has reminded you that you aren’t alone in ministry.

The social distancing needed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 isolates us all and can heighten the loneliness we can feel especially when a pastor can’t be with his people. And yet I know, that my voice of encouragement through this letter, is only one of many voices of encouragement in Sovereign Grace. I see Sovereign Grace pastors taking the time to encourage one another through texts, e-mails, phone calls, and via Zoom. Be encouraged brothers, because you have taken the isolation that social distancing requires and turned it on its head to care for one another. At a time when you might feel vulnerable to being alone in ministry, our relationally-driven partnership has only been strengthened, reminding us that we are not alone as we advance the gospel together.

These are just some of the ways I see God’s grace at work in you. I hope they do provide timely encouragement especially the day after a Resurrection Sunday we won’t soon forget. Again, I don’t know if it’s appropriate for me to say this or not, and I really don’t care if it isn’t, so I’m going to say it anyway. I’m so proud of the pastors in Sovereign Grace! You are gospel-men, churchmen, and men I love and respect. Therefore, it remains a joy and privilege to labor for the gospel alongside each of you.

With my respect and encouragement,

Mark

[1] Lewis Allen, The Preachers Catechism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2018), 31.


Mark Prater is the Executive Director for Sovereign Grace and serves as an elder at Covenant Fellowship Church. He and his wife, Jill, have three married daughters and a growing number of grandchildren.

Streaming the Lord’s Supper?

It seems each week spent in seclusion raises new questions for pastors as they recalibrate their pastoral care to the demands of this season. It was inevitable, especially as churches went on-line, that the question of the Lord’s Supper would emerge. Can we live-stream the Lord’s Supper?

It’s easy to sympathize with that impulse. Pastors are looking for ways to maintain continuity in the midst of so much upheaval, especially with things so central, and so precious, to the worship of God’s people. But however well-intentioned those desires are, we must always allow God’s Word to direct how we relate to him and to each other; especially in a crisis, a pastor must always have his hand on his Bible.

In another post I argued that, while much pastoral work can get done through a Sunday live stream—and we continue to marvel at the effects this mechanism has had on our congregation—it is not the same as our Sunday gathering. That distinction is even more important when it comes to the Lord’s Supper. While I’m grateful that we are able to serve our congregation in numerous ways through our live stream, we would not even consider observing the Lord’s Supper in this context; I believe to do so appropriately would be impossible.

Signaling Our Unity

The Lord’s Supper is by its very nature a corporate event. From the very beginning of the church’s history, the Supper was observed when the church was gathered for worship (Acts 2:42; 20:7; note the repetition of the word synerchomai—“gather together,” widely recognized by commentators as something of a technical term for the gathering of the church for worship—in 1 Cor 11:17, 18, 20, 33, and 34). As precious as the Lord’s Supper is to the heart of a believer, it was not given as an individualistic means of grace, but as an ordinance of the church which requires the corporate worship of the church.

The Lord’s Supper is not, then, merely a silent and solitary observance where a Christian privately ponders Christ’s death. Rather, it’s a meal—the family meal of the new covenant people of God where we commune together with our Savior. As with a normal meal, we gather physically and share together (not merely simultaneously) common elements—tactile elements, passed hand to hand—remembering Jesus’ life given for us and communing with him and each other. As we do, our observance of the Supper not only proclaims Christ’s death, but it also vividly depicts those who have been joined to him and bears profound witness to our unity in Christ’s body. Every time the gathered church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, we are reminded of, and give expression to, our identity as a family, rescued and adopted by our heavenly Father. This is simply impossible when people are scattered, linked only by a common video feed.

Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in 1 Cor 11 soberly illustrate the importance of our observance of the Lord’s Supper honoring its nature. When Paul diagnosed the neglect of poorer members of the church by wealthier members in 1 Cor 11, he perceived far more than a relational slight. This neglect created “divisions” (v. 18) that belied their unity in the one body of Christ. Their observance of the Supper was to reflect and reinforce this unity, not damage or deny it. In Paul’s eyes, this behavior did not merely undermine the sacrament—it invalidated it completely: “When you come together, it is not the Lord’s supper that you eat!” (1 Cor 11:20).

Now, it may seem a stretch to compare this situation to a well-meaning, on-line observance of communion. There is, however, an important principle that applies to both: the Lord’s Supper communicates something about the nature of the church—many members joined together in one body (1 Cor 10:17). To honor this—to embody this—we gather together and “all partake of the one bread,” giving vivid testimony to our common participation in the drama of Christ’s saving work. With the Lord’s Supper, the manner of our observation must be consistent with its character and reinforce its meaning.

Marking Out the Church

In testifying of those who have been joined to Christ, the Lord’s Supper also serves the very important function of visibly distinguishing the church from the world around us. Those who partake of the Supper participate, by the Holy Spirit and through faith, in Christ’s body and blood (1 Cor 10:16)—we embrace afresh and enjoy the benefits of Christ’s death and resurrection on our behalf. Never is the line between the believer and the world more starkly drawn than at the Lord’s table.

In marking out who is a member of Christ’s church and who is not, the Lord’s Supper has a “structuring” function among God’s people. In his excellent book The Church, Edmund Clowney speaks of this aspect of the sacraments:

“These outward signs mark out a visible fellowship; they structure Christ’s church as a community with membership. Baptism requires a decision about admission to the community.  The Supper, a sign of continuing fellowship, implies the exclusion of those who have turned away from the Lord. . . . the sacraments testify that the church must have organized form as well as organic life.” (The Church, 272).

This implies a critical role for the pastor. If the Lord’s Supper is for those continuing in the fellowship of the body of Christ, we are to do all we can to ensure that only Christians are participating—a physical impossibility in a live-streamed moment.

Hungering and Thirsting for Now

It’s easy to understand the desire to bring the Lord’s Supper into this season of separation. Just as we long to be together in our churches, we long to share the Lord’s Supper with all the blessings it bestows. Although God in his wisdom has separated us from his table for now, we can be assured that he has not separated us from his love (Rom 8:38-39), nor from the grace we desperately need to be faithful in this moment (2 Cor 9:8). In the meantime, let’s view this season of waiting as a unique opportunity to stir our longings and awaken our appetites for the moment when we will again feast together at the Lord’s table.


As Director of Theology and Training for Sovereign Grace, Jeff Purswell is the Dean of our Pastors College, leads our theological training, and helps develop theological resources. He is also an elder at Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville. He and his wife, Julie, have two sons.

To Stream, or Not to Stream: Considering Sundays in Seclusion

It’s become clear over the past couple of weeks that the COVID-19 pandemic would leave nothing in our lives untouched—including our Sunday gatherings. Since our pastoral team’s decision to live-stream a time of singing and teaching for our church, I’ve heard concerns about this practice from both friends and at least one well-known podcast. As those who will give an account for the ones entrusted to our care, we must think carefully about how we discharge our pastoral responsibilities—and, importantly, not just the content of our ministry, but our methods—and never more so than in a time of crisis.

The question of live-streaming in the church touches upon a number of important issues ranging from ecclesiology (the nature of the church and corporate worship) to anthropology (the nature of humanity, how we experience reality, the nature of relationships) to pastoral ministry (how we care for the people of God). In this post, I’ll more modestly seek to answer three questions that impinge upon a pastor’s decision to stream (or not to stream).

Is It “Worship”?

This seemingly simple question actually unearths issues that strike at the very nature of the church. In a broad sense it surely is, just as under the new covenant “worship” language moves away from a special time or place to embrace all of a Christian’s life (Rom 12:1; Heb 13:15-16). If all of life is “worship” in this sense, then it’s a mistake to exclude our live-streams as a potentially God-glorifying response to his grace in Christ!

More to the point, is it corporate worship—that is, a reasonable approximation of the gathered worship of the local church?  Here we need quickly to say no, for a cluster of reasons.

Beyond the broad sense of worship, the New Testament highlights the importance of the local church gathered for corporate worship. Profound and powerful things are happening in our Sunday gatherings that do not happen when we are apart, or when we are “virtually” together on-line. It is in our gatherings that we give concrete expression to the true nature of the church as a body (1 Cor 12:12ff.) and as a temple (1 Cor 3:16f.)—a dwelling place for God himself by the Spirit (Eph 2:22). Indeed, the church, as the ekklesia of God, the successor and fulfillment of the “assembly (qahal) of Israel,” by its very nature assembles before the Lord—and the entailments are breathtaking. Through his word and the work of his Spirit God presences himself in a unique way among his gathered people (cf. 1 Cor 14:24-25).[1]  Christ himself ministers among us as each member, indwelt and gifted by the Spirit, serves and encourages and stirs up one another to love and good works (1 Cor 12:4-13). Through the preaching of God’s Word by an appointed shepherd who faithfully expounds Scripture, God himself speaks again, addressing his people, binding them together in community, and building them together as his dwelling place.

Undergirding all of this are creational—and new creational—realities that imbue our gatherings with special significance: the “incarnational” dynamic of preaching whereby the preacher models and embodies the message in such a way that enhances its credibility and power (it’s astonishing that, in Rom 1:11, Paul apparently attributed to his personal ministry a unique role that even having the letter to the Romans didn’t seem to fill!); the embodied nature of our humanity and relationships that technology cannot approximate—not to mention the embodied nature of our union with Christ which binds us together and through which we encounter Christ in each other. The Christian has far more reason than the psalmist to exclaim, “I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”” (Psalm 122:1)

None of this is intended to minimize the potential blessings that can flow through our live streams. It should, though, give us a fresh appreciation for what happens when we gather—and to whet our appetites for the moment when we’re able to do so again.

So no, our live stream is not the same as our Sunday gathering, and when we live-stream songs and teaching from an empty auditorium, it is not our “Sunday worship” that comes through our people’s video monitors. But this is not the only question to consider.

Is It Fruitful?

This is more than a pragmatic question. Perhaps it’s better to frame it this way: “Can a live stream of singing and teaching accomplish certain pastoral priorities during this period of social upheaval?”

Our judgment as a pastoral team is that it indeed can—and our experience after two weeks of experimenting is that it has.

Every faithful pastor is seeking to care for his people in this unprecedented cultural moment. We have our own growing list of tactics to do so. But our live stream has had a number of particularly fruitful effects:

  • It has enabled us to deliver pastoral care in a way that is consistent across the majority of our membership in a single moment;

  • It has provided a platform by which to accomplish the biblical imperative of teaching God’s Word to our congregation—and in way specifically applied to the current season of fear and uncertainty;

  • It has enabled our pastoral team to maintain “contact” with our church as a whole as a supplement to the individual contact we’re seeking to maintain;

  • It has provided families a context to worship together, under the leadership of their pastors, in knowing solidarity with their friends.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that every church should be live-streaming on Sunday mornings. And there are certainly other ways to meet the needs of this moment in your church. Yet, when rightly conceived of and communicated, this tool has the potential to accomplish certain pastoral priorities, however imperfectly, in this unprecedented time of crisis. And I believe it can do so without doing damage to one’s ecclesiology, one’s perception of pastoral care, and one’s love for the local church. Which leads to a final question:

Is It Dangerous?

I’ve heard this concern raised in various forms by some very thoughtful friends. Here are a few of the most important ones:

  • Will this distort people’s doctrine of the church?

This is a fair question, and I suppose this would be possible in the absence of a number of factors. But when a church (or a family of churches) stresses the preeminence of the Sunday gathering in its life together, specifically as it shares the sacraments and sits under the right preaching of God’s Word; when vibrant relationships characterize a church’s fellowship and enhance its application of Scripture to its common life; when a church’s members are devoted to one another in love and committed to reaching their community with the gospel—I have little concern that a temporary live stream is going to distort a church’s understanding of its nature or diminish its members’ participation in its common life.

In the presence of solid ecclesiological convictions such as these, my guess is that, in the vast majority of cases, if a person’s commitment to the Sunday gathering erodes following this unique season, live-streaming would simply reveal a heart issue already present, not create it.

  • Are we setting a harmful precedent?

Again, a fair question, but I think it misses the fact that our current moment is unprecedented. There is no parallel in any of our lifetimes for the cultural upheaval we are experiencing. I’ve heard many comparisons with 9/11, but they miss a fundamental difference between that attack on our country and COVID-19 virus: in the wake of the Twin Towers attacks, our country pulled together—in concerts, rallies, and street parties. The coronavirus is pulling us apart—isolating us, erecting barriers, removing all contexts for community. We as pastors must do all we can—within the constraints placed upon us, applying wisdom, exercising love, and respecting civil authorities—to move toward our people, to know their condition, to keep watch over their souls, to facilitate interactions among them, and, above all, to provide what they need most of all—the Word of God, faithfully proclaimed and wisely applied to their lives at this moment of crisis.

As for our eldership, we believe that this technology, in the present moment, helps facilitate at least part of this pastoral obligation when other Biblical means are simply not possible. Providing pastoral care is never more important than in a crisis, and people are especially attentive to their pastors in a crisis—making it critical that we do not miss this moment to come alongside our people as intentionally as possible. We’ve been stunned by the gratefulness our folks have expressed at our efforts to this end.

I would add that, for us, this is a temporary means which we plan to discontinue when the crisis passes. And if we perceive that it is having deleterious effects, or that the benefits do not justify the efforts, or if we conclude that there are better ways to accomplish similar priorities, we will happily cease this practice. We are in no way enamored by or wed to this particular mechanism.

It’s Not the Same, But . . .

For anyone concerned about negative effects from a live stream, I’d offer this, admittedly imperfect, analogy. When I am away from my wife on a trip, I gratefully have the option of talking to her on the phone. It’s not ideal. I’m not present with her. It doesn’t communicate the whole-soul-&-body union which is of the essence of the marital relationship. Yet, I’m grateful for the inferior, temporary, yet meaningful interaction my iPhone offers. Moreover—and here’s where the core of the analogy kicks in—it does not change the nature of my marriage. After a few weeks on the road, with two dozen+ phone calls under my belt, I’m not less eager to be with my wife. I’m not tempted to think, “You know, being physically present with Julie is really not all that important. FaceTime suffices quite nicely.” Nothing about our marriage has changed, not least my desire to be again with my wife. Yet, I’m grateful that FaceTime has allowed me to talk to Julie, to catch up on home-life, to learn of things needing my attention, to be warmed and encouraged by my dear wife’s expressions of love and concern. It’s no substitute for being home, but it’s a blessing when being together is impossible.

That’s how I view our live streams. It’s not a Sunday meeting. It does not afford all the divine blessings God purposes for the gatherings of his people. Nor is it sufficient for the life of any church. Yet, when rightly conceived of and communicated, it has the potential to accomplish certain pastoral priorities, however imperfectly, in this unprecedented time of crisis.

Considerations Thus Far

We’ve only been at this for two Sundays—and we pray this will not last much longer—but here are a few considerations we’re trying to factor into our live stream.

  • The Word of God is central. Live-streaming has obvious limitations, but it is a means by which we can fulfill our chief responsibility to our congregation of feeding them God’s Word—faithfully exposited, personally applied. And we’ve been greatly encouraged by the galvanizing effect of providing our folks a common diet from Scripture during this season. Although it may not have all the dynamics that live preaching in the presence of one’s congregation has, preaching in this form is still the proclamation of God’s Word, which is powerful to open eyes, strengthen hearts, and transform lives—and extend meaningful pastoral care during this time of pastoral isolation.

  • It’s not our “Sunday worship.” For reasons both theological (see above) and practical, we’re not equating our live stream with our gathered worship. Even though they share certain elements, we want to honor the unique characteristics of each.

Some considerations are practical: e.g., we’re not singing as many songs as we would on a Sunday (however, we’ve had some families request more music, as their children join in with instruments and dance!). We’re trying to be sensitive to the dynamics of on-line communication. As much as possible, we also want to engage those listening in—we try to address those at home and avoid the impression that they’re merely observers of a “service” that’s happening elsewhere.

  • It can create a longing for our Sunday worship. Far from being a detriment to our Sunday gatherings, we’ve sought to seize these moments as a means of instructing our people about, and creating an appetite for, our Sunday gatherings once they resume. For example, on this past Sunday our opening instruction (akin to a Call to Worship, although we did not use that precise language) consisted of the following:

“We begin our time this morning—as we do when we gather as a church—with God’s Word—this morning from Psalm 122:1: “I was glad when they said to me, “Let us go to the house of the LORD!”” The psalmist remembers that moment when it was time for him and his fellow pilgrims to journey to Jerusalem. He was filled with joy at the prospect of going to the holy city—the location of the temple—the symbol of the presence of God on earth, and all that implied: protection, refuge, blessing, joy.  Christians experience a similar joy at the prospect of gathering together. We’re not able to do that this morning. While we are grateful for this format and what it can accomplish, it’s not the same! It’s not what the NT envisions for the gathering of God’s people: where we experience God’s presence & grace together; where Christ Himself ministers to us through each member as they are indwelt and gifted by the Spirit; where we experience the personal, powerful effect of God’s Word as it addresses us & binds us together. And so, we can relate to the longing in the psalmist’s words, for the time when we are again together. Yet until that time we rejoice!  This moment whets our appetite, for that moment. And until that moment, this remains true:  Because of the cross, God’s presence is not relegated to a building: by the Spirit, He’s come to dwell with us. And because He has, we can live every moment—especially moments of unprecedented uncertainty and fear–strengthened in Him; protected by Him; relying upon Him; rejoicing in Him.”

  • It affords an unusual evangelistic opportunity. We’ve been surprised to hear from our members that unsaved family members and friends who haven’t accepted an invitation to visit have chosen to join the live stream. Although we’ve not given evangelistic messages, this has proven to be a unique opportunity to offer non-believers the only true source of comfort and hope in a world turned upside down.

Our Only Confidence

I’ll say it one last time: I’m not suggesting that every church should be live-streaming on Sunday mornings!  A pastor may choose other means of caring for his people. This method might not be conducive to a particular church’s “culture.” This technology might be beyond the reach of a particular church. You may even conclude that live-streaming is either unacceptable or unwise. The point of this post is not to advocate for this mechanism, but to explore its biblical fidelity and potential fruitfulness as one means among many.

One thing is imperative. The current moment is forcing every pastor to prayerfully consider how best to “pay careful attention” to God’s flock and “to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). The inestimable price Jesus paid for his bride calls for our most prayerful dependence, careful thinking, and vigilant labors. Regardless of our response to the unique challenges we face, may our confidence never be in the methods we choose, but in Christ’s unshakable pledge: “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18).

[1] See David Peterson, “Worship in the New Testament,” in Worship: Adoration and Action, ed. D.A. Carson (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002), 77.


As Director of Theology and Training for Sovereign Grace, Jeff Purswell is the Dean of our Pastors College, leads our theological training, and helps develop theological resources. He is also an elder at Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville. He and his wife, Julie, have two sons.

A Response to Allegations Against Sovereign Grace Churches

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