Two years ago a “hush fund” masquerading as a benevolence fund was deceptively set up by Mark Prater (Executive Director for SGM), Paul Buckley (Chairman of the SGM Board), and Tommy Hill (Director of Finance & Administration for SGM) in order to surreptitiously meet the demands of a SGM pastor whose son was sexually abused by the son of another SGM pastor in the same church.
The fund came about because the father of the victim was thinking about joining the sex abuse lawsuit against SGM if SGM did not agree to reforms and if he did not receive restitution monies from SGM for harms done. Insurance lawyers told SGM leaders they would lose their liability coverage if payouts were made thereby arguably admitting fault. Instead, SGM lawyer Chip Grange suggested a plan whereby monies be raised for the victim’s family as “a collection and private gift to help him avoid eviction.” This plan was approved by C.J. Mahaney and the SGM Board of Directors and implemented by Mark Prater.
As a result many SGM pastors who knew the pastor and father of the victim were contacted and asked to give benevolence to the family. Prater, Buckley, Hill and the Board deceived these pastors into giving personal and church monies to a benevolence fund that effectively functioned as a hush fund. The pastors had no idea what was really going on behind the scenes. They were intentionally deceived in the matter.
People inside and outside of SGM must come to grips with the corruption that characterizes the leadership of SGM starting with C.J. Mahaney. He was the President of SGM when this hush fund was set up. No one should be supporting or following any of these men. As I’ve demonstrated countless times, you cannot believe anything they tell you.
What follows is a presentation of hard evidence starting with the initial letter from the pastor who was the father of the victim (henceforth referred to as Pastor-Father of Victim) to Tommy Hill requesting reform and asking for $35,000 in restitution from SGM. I’ve interspersed some of my own comments in the email evidence in bold print.
From: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Date: March 5, 2013, 11:01:02 AM EST
To: Tommy Hill (thill@sovgracemin.org)
Subject: Confidential request for Reform & Restitution
Hi Tommy.
I wanted to reach out to you (SGM), to request reform, and ask for restitution to my family for the way our son’s sexual abuse was handled. This situation was conducted in a clumsy, incompetent, and willfully negligent manner, resulting in unnecessary emotional, mental, relational, physical, and financial harm to my family.
Comment: The father is asking for restitution because the “son’s sexual abuse was handled” in a “willfully negligent manner” that resulted in multiple harms. That makes it a reasonable and justifiable request.
Reform: I’d like to ask for three simple things to be done (in the first 48 hours), in future cases of sexual abuse. First, every single time there is an instance of possible sexual abuse, I’d like all parties involved (victim’s family, offender’s family, and church leaders), to receive a copy of the SGM paper on “How to Respond to Sexual Abuse”. Second, I’d like the families of the victim and offender to be referred to a qualified, experienced, biblically trained sexual abuse counselor. Third, I’d like a qualified, experienced, biblically trained mediator from outside of SGM (Peacemakers) to be assigned to serve the family of the victim as they seek to walk through the process.
Comment: SGM still has no official written policies made public on how they handle these and many other issues including the mandatory reporting of suspected sex abusers. I’ve appealed to them several times over the past 2 ½ years to standardize policies and procedures as part of their denominational polity found in the Book of Church Order. They have steadfastly refused to write out their legal, ethical and pastoral commitments when sexual abuse occurs or is suspected in their churches.
Restitution: I’m seeking an account established in my son’s name with $10,000 for future counseling or other needs. Additionally, I’m seeking $25,000 to be paid to me in restitution for harm caused to my family.
I respectfully ask for your immediate reply to this request.
[Pastor-Father of Victim]
The Pastor-Father of Victim asks for an immediate reply from Hill in all likelihood because he was in contact with Susan Burke who was the lead attorney for the Plaintiffs in the growing sex abuse lawsuit against SGM and others. At this point in time, Ms. Burke was working on the third version of the lawsuit called the Second Amended Complaint. I helped her efforts by providing a five page affidavit on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Pastor-Father of Victim was thinking about joining the lawsuit but first he gave SGM a chance to respond to his conditions. The next morning he followed up with Hill.
From: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 10:01 AM
To: Tommy Hill
Subject: Confidential request for Reform & Restitutionst for Reform & Restitution
Hi Tommy,
I have not received a response to my email yesterday (see below). Please reply that you have received this request, and let me know your intentions. It is my sincere hope that we can resolve this matter quickly, and that my family can have closure to this matter. However time is if [of] the essence, and I must receive a response from you by 3:00pm today indicating that you have received my request, and communicating your intentions.
[Pastor-father of the victim]
Time was of the essence if he was going to join the Second Amended Complaint which was being prepared. He sets a deadline of 3:00 pm the same day. Hill is forced to respond.
From: Tommy Hill <THill@sovgracemin.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 3:35 PM
To: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Subject: Confidential request for Reform & Restitutionst for Reform & Restitution
Hi [Pastor-Father of Victim]. I did receive your 2 emails and have forwarded them to the board for their consideration. Is there a number I can call you at so that you can help me understand why events that apparently happened several years ago suddenly require a substantive response within hours of your email this morning?
Tommy
This was written by Hill on March 6, 2013 when C.J. Mahaney was President of SGM, Paul Buckley was Chairman of the Board and Mark Prater was Acting Director of Church Planting & Church Care. Buckley, Prater and Hill were working with Mahaney on how to respond. The proposal was forwarded to the entire Board of Directors which included Mickey Connolly, Ian McConnell, Ken Mellinger, Phil Sasser, Ron Boomsma and Al Pino.
The abuse took place in March 2010. The request for reform and restitution took place in March 2013. Three years had elapsed. Hill probably suspected the Pastor-Father of Victim was thinking about joining the lawsuit against SGM. He asks to talk by phone rather than use email. He refers to the sexual abuse as something that “apparently happened.” This provides legal cover but understandably offends the Pastor-Father of Victim.
From: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:02 PM
To: Tommy Hill
Subject: Re: Confidential request for Reform & Restitutionst for Reform & Restitution
Hi Tommy,
Thank you for your reply. Having not received a reply to my email from yesterday morning, I was simply asking for acknowledgement of receipt, and some indication that you intended to give earnest consideration in a timely manner.
As for the years that have passed, yes it’s been almost three years to the day since my son was repeatedly sodomized.
I hope that your choice of words “apparently happened”, is not an attempt to dismiss or minimize the sexual abuse that absolutely did happen and is well documented.
I would hope for a substantive response by week’s end.
[Pastor-Father of Victim]
Once again the Pastor-Father of Victim asks for an “earnest consideration in a timely manner” and “a substantive response by week’s end.” He also challenges Hill on his apparent attempt “to dismiss or minimize the sexual abuse that absolutely did happen and is well documented.” The lawsuit and documentation were key in forcing SGM to respond. They could not make this go away with denials or cover ups if the Pastor-Father of Victim decided to go public.
Tragically, we discover the young boy was forced to endure repeated acts of anal intercourse. These heinous crimes involved terribly perverse indignities. The Pastor-Father of Victim was right to hold SGM accountable for their neglect but he should have also held the perpetrator accountable by prosecuting him in a court of law.
Hill writes the Pastor-Father of Victim back. This time he asserts the Board “know[s] very little, if anything, about the situation.” Once again, he endeavors to interact by phone rather than email which leaves a document trail.
From: Tommy Hill < THill@sovgracemin.org >
Date: March 11, 2013, 5:41:48 PM EDT
To: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Subject: RE: Confidential request for Reform & Restitutionst for Reform & Restitution
Dear [Pastor-Father of Victim],
Our desire is to care for you in this situation as a brother in Christ and friend. You are asking the board to consider your request. But they know very little, if anything, about the situation and would like to understand what happened. Would you be willing to give me your phone number to begin that process?
In Christ,
Tommy
A few days later Hill receives an email from a senior pastor who is no longer part of SGM (henceforth referred to as Former SGM Pastor) stating he had talked at length about the abuse with five Board Members (i.e., Dave Harvey, Ian McConnell, Aron Osborne, Mark Prater and John Loftness) and also with Ambassadors of Reconciliation at the Group Reconciliation meetings in November 2011. Subsequently, AoR provided a report to the Board on their findings of sexual abuse in SGM. The Former SGM Pastor was a friend of the Pastor-Father of Victim and very concerned about Hill’s claim the Board knew “very little, if anything.” He questions their honesty and appeals they “not compromise [their] consciences in any way.”
The Former SGM Pastor also reveals the Pastor-Father of Victim is thinking about joining the civil suit against SGM.
From: [Former SGM Pastor]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 7:30 PM
To: [Tommy Hill] THill@sovgracemin.org; [Ian McConnell] grace4ian@gbcphilly.com; Paul Buckley; Dave Harvey; [John Loftness] john@solidrockchurch.net; [Mark Prater] mprater@sovgracemin.org
Subject: [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Hi Guys,
Hope you are all doing well in what I am sure is a challenging and busy time. [Pastor-Father of Victim] just forwarded me the email below and I found the response very concerning in light of the conversations that I have had with the leaders on the ground in [Church A] and with you Tommy and you Ian [McConnell]. I have also had fairly detailed conversations about [Church A] with Mark Prater, Aron Osborne, Dave Harvey, and John Loftness. I also did a lengthy interview with AoR [Ambassadors of Reconciliation] about it. Do you guys honesty feel like very little is known?
Comment: The Former SGM Pastor was a weighty witness against SGM. All of these men were up against the wall.
What happened in [Church A] was tragic and the aftermath made it all the more painful. I know it was a difficult situation, but in my opinion, the refusal to do any due diligence on the local church level, the [Victim’s Family] not being able to attend church as a family because the [Abuser’s Family] was unwilling to keep their son [the sodomizer] at home, and Aron [Osborne’s] and SGM’s response were all indefensible.
Comment: The abuser’s father was the senior pastor (henceforth referred to as Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser). He should have resigned and reported his son’s abuse to Child Protective Services or law enforcement. A thorough investigation by the police should have followed to see if other children had been abused by his son and if other abusers were operating in the church or known to be operating in other SGM churches. This kind of heinous activity doesn’t usually happen in a vacuum. There is often a wider circle of involvement. That’s why an investigation by law enforcement professionals is vital in discovering and stopping sexual abuse. Furthermore, the church should have been informed. Instead it was covered up. SGM refused “to do any due diligence on the local church level.”
The victim was receiving professional counseling. The counselor did not want the boy to attend the church if the abuser was present. No matter, the Senior Pastor-Father of Abuser refused to keep his son at home thereby forcing the victim and other family members to stay at home. I can’t think of anything more selfish under the circumstances and it was supported by Aron Osborne (the Regional Leader) and SGM.
This speaks volumes about the Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser and demonstrates a complete lack of repentance. It also highlights the preferential treatment he received from SGM. The victim was forced to stay home while the perpetrator got a front row seat. There was no care for the victim or his family in the matter. The needs of the victim and his family were disregarded. I imagine the senior pastor and SGM feared people asking questions if his son stopped showing up on Sunday mornings. In contrast, the victim’s family “disadvantaged themselves as much as they possibly could.”
Recently, Boz Tchividjian wrote an excellent article titled "Righteous" reputations of church who don’t care. Here is an excerpt.
“A church that cares will encourage and assist the victim to immediately report the crime to the police, regardless of the consequences such a report will have upon the church’s reputation. A church that cares will immediately remove the alleged offender from the church staff and prohibit him/her from being on the church premises. A victim should never have to fear encountering this offender in the place that should be the safest. … A church that cares will inform its members of the allegations knowing that sexual offenders often have many victims. It will also encourage them to immediately report any suspected abuse to the police.”
I think the [Victim’s Family] have disadvantaged themselves as much as they possibly could to serve [Church A], SGM, and the [Abuser’s Family]. The lack of response has left them open to considering joining the lawsuit for the first time and I think that is tragic. I think all they ever wanted on the local level was care for their son and proper due diligence in the church. I am still at a loss as to why this situation was handled in the way it was even after John’s [Loftness] document was made available to all the churches. All of this grieves me.
Comment: Eleven months earlier at the Sovereign Grace Pastors Conference, C.J. Mahaney handed out a paper by John Loftness called “When Child Abuse Occurs” and exhorted the pastors to give “five times” more care to victims of sexual abuse and their families than to abusers and their families. Here’s a quote.
“Our first response and our most important response is to rush, run, as fast as we can and as many pastors as can, immediately rush to the side of the parents of the victim and the victim to surround them, to care for them. And to care for them in this particular and specific way; to simply grieve with them, to as much as possible feel the full impact of their grief and sadness and as much as possible identify with their grief and sadness. … Here is my recommended policy in Sovereign Grace Churches. Pastoral teams, let’s provide five times more care for the victim than we do the perpetrator if the perpetrator is in your church. Five times. You don’t need to neglect the perpetrator. Care for the perpetrator and the family but our care for them is to some degree different. There is an accent on correction appropriately communicated with the perpetrator. There is a specialized kind of care for the parents of the perpetrator. But let there be five times more care for the parents of the victim and the victim. … Clear your schedule. Communicate your availability and make sure that you have some contact every day, multiple times a day without missing a day for an indefinite period of time.” (C.J. Mahaney, SG Pastors Conference, April 7, 2009)
Former SGM Pastor is “still at a loss as to why this situation was handled in the way it was even after” after the 2009 Pastors Conference. He is stunned by “the lack of response [that] has left them [the Victim’s Family] open to considering joining the lawsuit for the first time” when all they “ever wanted on the local level was care for their son and proper due diligence in the church.”
This is a classic example of Mahaney’s hypocrisy. The victim and his family received less care than the abuser and his family. Mahaney was directing Dave Harvey and Harvey was directing Aron Osborne in how to handle this situation. Osborne was one of eight Regional Leaders for SGM. The “indefensible” response of SGM was due to these three men. They were in charge. By the way, I wrote Osborne over two weeks ago and asked if he cared to comment on this email from the Former SGM Pastor. I’ve not heard back from him.
Most of you know [Pastor-Father of Victim] and the way he and his family have sacrificed over the years. Can anyone answer the question of why things were handled so badly in [Church A]? Someone will certainly answer to the Lord some day for it all. Praise God for his redeeming grace! I don’t know what the right next step is in this, but I do pray that you men will do what you believe to be right and not compromise your consciences in any way.
Comment: The Former SGM Pastor asks the question, “Why [were] things handled so badly” in 2010 given the sacrifices made by the Pastor-Father of Victim and his family over the years. I doubt he ever got an answer to his question because it would have been indicting. I know all the parties involved in this situation. By 2010, the Pastor-Father of Victim had little influence in SGM. On the other hand, the Pastor-Father of Abuser was on the rise. He was a senior pastor being positioned for regional responsibilities in SGM and well connected to influential leaders in SGM like Harvey, Osborne and others. He was unquestionably treated with partiality and favoritism under the oversight of Mahaney. Policies don’t mean anything when you don’t follow them!
Your brother in Christ,
[Former SGM Pastor]
After receiving this email, Paul Buckley, Chairman of the Board, emails Mark Prater and Tommy Hill three plans of action with pros and cons. All three plans are corrupt, devious and insincere. Buckley is not interested in doing what is right or biblical. He is only interested in doing what will serve the self-interests of SGM.
Plan A and B seek to silence the Pastor-Father of Victim by meeting ”most or all of his financial expectations” and securing a “legally binding agreement” that prevents him from suing SGM. Plan C entails a fierce commitment to fight any lawsuit he files in court.
This is how SGM does damage control or in Buckley’s words “helps us navigate through this as wisely as we can.” In particular, note how he states SGM must “avoid any admission of fault” in all three plans.
From: Paul Buckley <pfbuckley@kingofgrace.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 12:52 PM
To: [Mark Prater] mprater@sovgracemin.org; Tommy Hill
Subject: CONFIDENTIAL – [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Guys,
Here is my attempt to organize our thoughts on scenarios for responding to [Pastor-Father of Victim’s] situation. I trust this helps us navigate through this as wisely as we can.
Let me know of any edits you would have.
Tommy – feel free to send to legal team once they are ready to meet.
Comment: Remember, the First Amended Complaint came out in January, 2013. It is now March, 2013. A much larger legal team is being assembled from several law firms. The Second Amended Complaint will come out two months later.
Thx,
Paul
PLAN A
We shift the conversation from legal liability to provision of care and consider how we can care for [Pastor-Father of Victim] given his previous service and subsequent hardship. We meet most or all of his financial expectations. We secure a legally-binding agreement not to pursue this matter further. We avoid any admission of fault.
Comment: This is the friendly version but it is a con. Any conversation with the Pastor-Father of Victim should have started with the “provision of care” not debating the “legal liability” of SGM. Buckley proposes they “shift the conversation” from SGM’s obligations under the law in order to manipulate the Pastor-Father of Victim under the pretense of sincere care. This becomes obvious in Plan C. Plan A calls for “love bombing,” the payout of money in exchange for a legally binding agreement and no admission of fault in any way.
Pros
o Minimizes further damage to the [Victim’s Family].
o Avoids negative implications of further legal action.
o Secures a solution for this situation.
o Protects us from further ill will from the [Victim’s Family, Former SGM Pastor] and others.
Cons
o Could be understood as a pay off.
o Could be used in the class action lawsuit as an admission of guilt.
o May be precluded by our insurance company.
o Will have to pay $10-35K, perhaps out of our own pockets.
PLAN B
We enter into negotiation with [Pastor-Father of Victim] for a gracious settlement if he lets the statue [statute] of limitations lapse. We frame the ball park figure in light of the assistance that [Pastor-Father of Abuser] received. We secure a legally-binding agreement not to pursue this matter further.
Comment: In my opinion, this is the paying of a bribe and/or extortion. The Pastor-Father of Victim only gets the negotiated “gracious settlement” if he agrees to let “the statute of limitations lapse.” In other words, the payoff is contingent on him signing a “legally-binding agreement” that prevents him from filing a lawsuit in a timely manner. Once the statute of limitations expires he cannot sue SGM.
In 2010, the Pastor-Father of Abuser received $25,000 in assistance for an “internship” he did in another church after he resigned, was honored by the church and left the state. Buckley wants to “frame“ the amount of the settlement as assistance rather than a payoff.
Like Plan A, monies will only be paid out if SGM is released from any obligation to admit fault.
Pros
o We avoid any admission of fault.
o Keeps the case out of the class action lawsuit.
o May reduce the total financial contribution.
o Minimizes further damage to the [Victim’s Family].
o Avoids negative implications of further legal action.
o Secures a solution for this situation.
o Protects us from further ill will from the [Victim’s Family, Former SGM Pastor] and others.
Cons
o May be rejected by the [Victim’s Family] because of loss of negotiating advantage to them.
o Could be understood as a pay off.
o Could be used in the class action lawsuit as an admission of guilt.
o May be precluded by our insurance company.
o Will have to pay $10-35K, perhaps out of our own pockets.
PLAN C
We refuse to entertain [Pastor-Father of Victim’s] request in any way and allow him to possibly sue us either as part of the class action lawsuit or on his own.
Comment: This is the opposite of love bombing. This is just bombing. It means blowing up the Pastor-Father of Victim at every turn and giving him and his family nothing in terms of care or restitution. And like Plans A and B, there will be no admitting of fault even though the fault is ever so great. These men have no consciences. Plan C was the chosen method of attack against the victims of sexual abuse in the Second Amended Complaint.
Moreover, notice the reference to “what the Insurance carrier requires.” Mahaney, Buckley, Prater and the Board of Directors are not submitted to the Lord Jesus Christ or the teaching of Scripture, they are submitted to the evil counsel of lawyers from the insurance company that would have to pay out damages if SGM admitted its fault and the truth prevailed.
Pros
o Avoids a precedent of settling financially.
o Avoids admitting any fault.
o We could win and have no legal or financial liabilities.
o It may be what the Insurance carrier requires.
Cons
o Could cause the class action lawsuit to shift negatively in favor of the plaintiffs.
o Could cause additional harm to our reputation and subsequent loss of support.
o Could create further ill will towards SGM in [Pastor-Father of Victim] and others.
Paul Buckley
Lead Pastor
King of Grace Church
28 Chadwick St.
Haverhill, MA 01835
www.KingofGrace.org
office@kingofgrace.org
978.374.6562
Remember the three plans above are Buckley’s “attempt to organize our thoughts on scenarios for responding to [the Pastor-Father of Victim’s] situation.” The “our” includes Mark Prater and Tommy Hill in the immediate context but the larger context must be kept in mind. These three men were working for C.J. Mahaney, not independently of C.J. Mahaney. Keep in mind the following.
Mahaney was the President of SGM when all this was happening in March 2013. He “transitioned” out of the Presidency the following month on April 12.
Mahaney was training and positioning Prater to replace him at this time. They were working very closely with each other. Prater was chosen to be the President (i.e. the Executive Director) the following month on April 23.
John Loftness resigned as Chairman of the Board on February 18, 2013. Buckley immediately replaced him. Mahaney was also training Buckley at this time. They too were working very closely with each other.
Mahaney also worked very closely with Tommy Hill on everything related to SGM because he was a close friend and the Director of Finance and Administration. Hill was also a member of Mahaney’s church in Louisville and led the SGM staff that was based there.
My point is obvious. Mahaney was behind everything these three men were doing and discussing. These men did nothing without Mahaney’s knowledge, counsel and support. Prater responds to the three scenarios put forward by Buckley.
From: Mark Prater <mprater@sovgracemin.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 11:33 PM
To: pfbuckley@kingofgrace.org; Tommy Hill
Subject: RE: CONFIDENTIAL – [Pastor-Father of Victim]
Paul,
Thanks for working on this. I’m praying for wisdom and I know God will help up [us].
Comment: This reveals the depths of Prater’s deception. He is praying for “wisdom.” Prater must believe God’s wisdom includes the use of lies, deceit, and manipulation. Prater should have rebuked Buckley for his scheming; but of course, Buckley is simply organizing the options discussed by him, Prater, and Hill under Mahaney’s supervision.
Here are some thoughts to consider for edits:
1. Similar to Tommy’s thought, I wonder if we should include Christian conciliation in Plan B. If we haven’t cared for [Pastor-Father of Victim] well, or cared for him in a way that was inferior to [the Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser] that gives us a chance to own that and be reconciled. I still wonder if he is angry or offended in some way.
Comment: Prater wonders if “Christian conciliation” should be added to all three plans (see below). There is no harm in doing so because the Pastor-Father of Victim would have to sign a confidentiality agreement in addition to a legally binding agreement. This means he would swear not to talk to anyone about what happen. SGM might acknowledge “inferior” care in a controlled environment but they will never admit fault in public. On occasion SGM has “owned” something in private in an attempt to keep it from becoming public. That is what Mahaney did with me. See C.J.’s Foxhole Conversion. So often, these are strategic confessions, not sincere confessions.
Of course, Prater still wonders if the Pastor-Father of Victim is motivated by sinful anger and personal offense. Why else would he be asking for reform and restitution? That is par for the course. SGM leaders constantly play the bitterness card when people seek to correct or hold them accountable.
2. This suggestion could be put in all 3 plan options below in either the Pros and/or the Cons. Given that this happened in [Church A], if this goes to court it will have a real affect on the SGM church there. This is a church that is just turning the corner and is a strong supporter of SGM. If there is a way for us to avoid the difficulty and ramifications that a lawsuit would uniquely have on [Church A] it would be helpful and caring. I don’t think we should be led by [the Pastor-Father of Victim] or manipulated by him, but I’m praying that God gives us wisdom so [Church A] in particular isn’t affected.
Comment: Prater’s real concern is not for the Pastor-Father of Victim and his family. His real concern is for the church if a lawsuit is filed because it “is a strong supporter of SGM.” Not all churches are treated the same in SGM. Churches that are staunch supporters and personal favorites get preferential treatment. Prater is willing to go to bat for this particular church.
Prater’s true colors come out when he asserts “I don’t think we should be led by…or manipulated by him.” The request for godly reform and restitution are viewed as manipulation. Prater, Buckley and Hill will not be “led” by this manipulator. Prater is the consummate hypocrite because he is blind to the horrendous manipulation contained in all three plans.
Thanks
Mark
Three days later Prater sends the Conciliation Proposal he has just finished to Hill. He copies Buckley. Remember, Prater is simply the Acting (Interim) Director of Church Planting and Church Care having just replaced Dave Harvey. He is not even on the Board of Directors. So who gave him the assignment to write up this proposal? President Mahaney of course!
Hill is asked to “look this over and send me any thoughts.” Hill would never do this without getting Mahaney’s input. I know because I was Mahaney’s right hand man from 1991 to 2007. Hill is a go between. It would never happen any other way.
From: Mark Prater <mprater@sovgracemin.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:19 AM
To: Tommy Hill
Cc: [Paul Buckley] pfbuckley@kingofgrace.org
Subject: Confidential
Hey Tommy,
Attached is the Conciliation Proposal for [Pastor-Father of Victim]. I had this finished yesterday but our server was down until this morning so I didn’t have e-mail access. Please look this over and send me any thoughts.
Comment: This proposal concerns the Pastor-Father of Victim but it is written for the Board of Directors. It had to be rubber stamped by them.
Thanks
mark
CONCILIATION PROPOSAL FOR [THE PASTOR-FATHER OF VICTIM]
Overview: On March 5, 2013, [Pastor-Father of Victim] e-mailed Tommy Hill asking that SGM take steps of reform and make restitution to his family for the way his son’s sexual abuse case was handled when he was an elder and member of [Church A]. [Pastor-Father of Victim] was serving as a pastor and elder at [Church A].
Comment: There is no question about the fact of sexual abuse even though Hill tried to frame it as “apparently happened.”
In February 2010 he stepped down from his vocational role (retaining his eldership) because [Pastor-Father of Victim] and [Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser] were having trouble working together and because the church couldn’t support both men financially.
Comment: This raises other concerns for the Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser. Why were these men “having trouble working together” and why was the church doing so poorly?
In March 2010 [the Sr. Pastor’s] son sexually abused [the Pastor’s] son during a sleep over at the [Sr. Pastor’s] home. This incident was reported to Aron Osborne on March 30, 2010 and subsequently was reported to law enforcement authorities.
Comment: The first sentence is frightening. Of all the families in a church, you’d never expect your child to be raped by the Senior Pastor’s son during a sleepover at their house. The truth be told, numerous pastors or their children have been accused of sexual abuse in SGM. In all these cases, SGM has worked hard to cover up the alleged crimes.
This situation is no different. The church was simply told that, “Someone in the [Sr. Pastor’s] family sinned against someone in the [Pastor’s] family.” Then the members of the church were instructed not to discuss the matter with each other. This is a common means by which SGM controls people and keeps them from discovering the truth.
Adult members in the church should have been told the truth in a private meeting. The victim’s name could have been withheld but not the perpetrator’s name. Parents had the right to know so they could talk with their children if they had any reason to believe they might have been abused by the son or anyone else. This would also allow the parents to cut off any relationship their children had with the perpetrator and/or begin to look for a new church if so inclined. That’s a major reason why SGM covers up sexual abuse.
I think this is partly what Former SGM Pastor has in mind when he says, “The refusal to do any due diligence on the local church level…and Aron’s [Osborne] and SGM’s response were all indefensible.”
This was a great opportunity to educate the church about sexual abuse and protect the church against other adult and/or juvenile sex abusers that may have been operating in their midst. How many other kids participated in sleep overs? Were there other victims? Were there other juvenile abusers? Did other families do sleepovers where abuse occurred? I don’t know but all of this should have been thoroughly investigated by law enforcement.
Furthermore, what does this say about the son? How did he become a sodomizer willing to force himself upon a boy? Where or from whom did he learn this reprobate perversity? What other sinful behaviors or crimes did he concealed from his father? Was he sexually abused (which is often the case with juvenile abusers)? What friends did he influence inside and outside of the church? Did he take advantage of girls also?
Moreover, what does this say about the father? A lot according to Scripture (1 Timothy 3:4-5; Titus 1:6). He is clearly disqualified from ministry but that didn’t matter to SGM. He continued, and continues, as a SGM pastor. Members in his current church have no idea about his son’s sexual abuse.
Prater says, “This incident was reported to Aron Osborne on March 30, 2010 and subsequently was reported to law enforcement authorities.” He gives the impression that Osborne reported the crimes to law enforcement but that is not the case according to my sources.
Remember, Prater is writing this proposal for the new SGM Board of Directors (i.e., Paul Buckley, Mickey Connolly, Ian McConnell, Ken Mellinger, Phil Sasser, Ron Boomsma and Al Pino,). It is a sanitized presentation intended to make the old SGM Board (C.J. Mahaney, Dave Harvey, Jeff Purswell, Joshua Harris) look as good and as law abiding as possible for their handling of this situation in 2010. No one in SGM reported it to police as required by law.
The crimes were only reported to law enforcement sometime after Osborne was told because the victim ended up seeing a professional counselor and that counselor reported the crimes as required by law. The Senior Pastor’s son would have been arrested, investigated, tried and sentenced in all likelihood if charges were pressed and pursued. Everything was “well-documented.” They were not and that was a grave mistake. Mahaney, Harvey, Osborne should have encouraged the victim’s family to prosecute the sex abuser and exhorted the sex abuser to fully cooperate with law enforcement.
One other point. The incident was reported to Osborne three weeks after the fact according to Prater. Why not sooner? Did the Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser try to conceal it from him?
Over the next 12 months [Church A’s] Leadership Team and Aron Osborne (Regional Leader for SGM) invested significant time attempting to care for the [Abuser’s Family] and the [Victim’s Family] during a most difficult situation. It is [Pastor-Father of Victim’s] contention that SGM did not handle this situation well and care for his family sufficiently.
Comment: Prater will not admit to any lack of care for the victim or the victim’s family. In fact, he commends the Leadership Team and Osborne for their heroic attempts at caring. Nor will he admit to any mishandling of the situation by Osborne or anyone else. He is deceiving the Board. In Prater’s distorted view, it is the Pastor-Father of Victim that has it all wrong.
Therefore, it is proposed that SGM respond to [Pastor-Father of Victim] by offering him a conciliation process for the purpose of reconciliation and to learn if there are any additional care steps that SGM needs to consider taking. One purpose of this process is to move this situation out of the realm of a legal dispute and into a relational one. Should a Conciliation Process be agreed to, it will be important that SGM avoid any admission of legal fault during the process.
Comment: What’s important to Prater? That SGM avoid any admission of legal fault. That is standard operating procedure. He is extremely concerned about this going to court because he knows there is legal fault that can be proven. Prater makes it clear that SGM will never acknowledged any legal wrong doing for which it and its leaders could be sued in a civil court or prosecuted in a criminal court. He wants this “out of the realm of a legal dispute”! All Prater is willing to do is “learn if there are any additional care steps that SGM needs to consider taking.” One step he has in mind is providing monies to silence the Pastor-Father of Victim.
History: Listed below is a brief history of how [Church A] and Sovereign Grace Ministries financially participated in the care of [Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser] and [Pastor–Father of Victim].
[CHURCH A]
[Sr. Pastor–Father of Abuser]
Four month severance package (after he resigned as Sr. Pastor of [Church A])
May have helped cover medical benefits for a period of time
[Pastor-Father of Victim]
Four month severance package (after his resignation as a pastor)
May have helped cover medical benefits for a period of time
May have helped cover the counseling expense for [Pastor-Father of Victim’s] son
Benevolence of approximately $5,000
SOVEREIGN GRACE MINISTRIES
[Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser]
Gave a $25,000 grant to [Church B] to help support a 1 year pastoral internship for [Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser] after he resigned as Sr. Pastor at [Church A].
Pastor-Father of Victim]
Benevolence of approximately $8,000
Comment: The Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser and the Pastor-Father of Victim each received approximately $25,000 from Church A.
The Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser received an additional $25,000 from SGM. The Pastor-Father of Victim received approximately $8,000.
The Sr. Pastor-Father of Abuser left Church A when his four months of severance were over for a new job in Church B. He experienced no financial consequences and continued in pastoral ministry unimpeded. After his “internship” at Church B, he was transferred and became a pastor in Church C.
The Pastor-Father of Victim received an approximate total of $33,000 in 2010 and was persuaded to be content, keep quiet and take no legal action. It was only after the First Amended Complaint (i.e., the second edition of lawsuit) came out in 2013 that he sought reform in SGM and restitution from SGM. At that point, he realized sexual abuse, the failure to report sexual abuse, and the mistreatment of victims were grave issues in SGM. He was not the only one.
CONCILIATION PROCESS
o It is proposed that SGM seek the services of a biblically trained Conciliator who has experience with cases that involve sexual abuse.
o If possible find 2-3 potential conciliators that would be presented to [Pastor-Father of Victim] as options so that a mutually agreeable Conciliator is chosen. (Peacemakers, Bryce Thomas, etc).
o SGM would agree to cover the cost for the Conciliator’s fees and expenses.
o The Conciliation Process would start as soon as possible.
o Based on the findings of the conciliation process, SGM may be required to give some sort of benevolence.
Comment: Prater knows a “Conciliation Process” will result in everything being covered up. That’s what happened with Peacemakers and with Bryce Thomas from Ambassadors of Reconciliation. Both organizations refused to expose the profound abuse and corruption they learned about in SGM. See for example, Ken Sande Counseled C.J. Mahaney to Confess He Was “So Very Guilty” of Attacking & Ambushing Me. You can also do a search for “Kober” at this link and a dozen posts will come up dealing with Ted Kober and Bryce Thomas from Ambassadors of Reconciliation.
There is only one drawback to Prater’s proposal – “SGM may be required to give some sort of benevolence.” No big deal! Prater is willing to spend donor money in order to keep this from going to court. His proposal continues with two mega “conditions.”
CONCILIATION PROCESS CONDITIONS
o SGM, [Pastor-Father of Victim] and the Conciliator sign a confidentiality agreement to protect the [Victim’s Family] and the [Abuser’s Family].
o The Conciliator or SGM asks [Pastor-Father of Victim] to sign a legally binding agreement not to pursue this matter beyond the conciliation process.
Comment: These are non-negotiables! The Pastor-Father of Victim must never tell a soul about the sexual abuse of his son or about SGM’s negligent handling of the abuse. 2) He must never file a lawsuit against the abuser or SGM for damages in a civil court. 3) He must never press charges against the abuser or SGM in a criminal court. Prater audaciously claims all of this protects the Victim’s Family. None sense! It protects Prater and SGM!
It also shields the abuser from any consequences for his crimes and his father from disqualification. The purpose of these two conditions is to “protect the…A