Last post was going crazy with comments….I’m not putting up a post, but feel free to comment here (closing down the other one)

Lots of interesting discussion in the comments of the previous post.  Reader and commenter “Nickname” had this to say about the question of how churches ought to handle things when there are known predators in their midst:

Let’s say that when SGM leaders found out, they went to the perp and said, “We know what you did, and you need treatment. We will see that you get the very best treatment available for people who are attracted to children. You need to repent and ask God’s forgiveness, but you need to realize that you have forfeited the privilege of being included in church activities. You will not be allowed to be in places where children are present, for their protection as well as theirs. The child that you molested will never see your face again. You may write a letter of apology, but you will never be present in this child’s life. You must pay all expenses for this victim’s medical and psychiatric treatment, and we’ll begin a fund for that — deposit your first check within two weeks.  We will pray with you and help you with treatment. We believe that in Christ, we are new creations, but we also know that pedophiles are generally not cured. We know that only God can recognize genuine repentance, and we are not qualified to determine if your repentance is real.  If, in your case, you experience a miraculous recovery, you would certainly never wish for a child to be endangered or traumatized by your presence, so you will voluntarily identify yourself as a prior offender, and remove yourself from any activities involving kids. Adam and Eve repented and were forgiven, but they still lost the garden.”

And let’s say that SGM said to the victims and the parents, “This was NOT your fault. Nobody deserves to be abused, (even if we do believe that we’re all sinners who deserve wrath) and we will do everything we can to prevent anything like this from happening again. We’re gonna help you get treatment. We love you, and are so sorry that you have been hurt. You will never have to see that perp again in your life. We’ll pray for you, and ask God to help you figure out how, in time, to forgive this heinous act, but we know that can’t be coerced.  We’re not experts at this, but we’re going to learn how to be. How can we help make this easier for you?”

If they had done all that — they’d still be at fault for not reporting to authorities. But we sure wouldn’t be standing where we’re standing now.

Suppose that when the very first rumors of strange behavior surfaced, or the very first pedophile was arrested within the ‘family of churches’  they had said, “We need to find out more about this problem. We need to call in some experts and have them teach us, and talk to the kids and talk to the parents. Maybe nothing else has happened, but this is something we need to learn about.”  After all, they called in so-called parenting experts to give seminars, and even produced a video series about parenting.  Why not a class on how to form child protection policies, and how to deal with the situation if a  predator breaches the child protection policies?

What if they followed the example of Vienna Presbyterian Church in Virginia, who found out years later that a youth pastor had been a predator, and although they were advised by their insurance company to keep quiet, they apologized and tried to make things right?

And suppose that today, after the lawsuit dismissal, they said something like, ‘We realize that we have been spared a terrible trial due to a technicality, and we are freshly aware of God’s mercy. (Oops — had to throw in a little SGM-ese there.) We will do everything in our power to bring healing, restoration, and restitution to every one of these victims. Although we stated that our preliminary investigation has turned up no evidence, we will ask for help from someone who specializes in child sexual abuse cases, and leave no stone unturned until we are sure that everything in our power will be done to find and make public the truth. We want to become educated about this kind of thing. We’d like to be the pioneers in championing victims and identifying pedophilic tendencies, and start providing treatment for people who are at risk for offending before they ever commit an immoral act. We were wrong. We admit it, we regret it, and we will make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. We will try to ascertain the truth behind every allegation. clear the names of anyone who is actually innocent of charges, and cooperate with the prosecution of anyone who has actually committed these atrocities. We have x amount of dollars in the bank, and will use every dollar if necessary toward the purpose of restoring every dime these families lost due to our wrong behavior. We cannot presume to even ask your forgiveness; all we can do is offer our deepest apologies, repentance, and love for these victims.  Here is the way we will handle any further allegations of abuses from the past or in the future…..’

There’d be a standing ovation, and SGM could deserve some kudos from the RBD’s and the wider Christian world.

I may have missed something — does anyone else have educated info on what they really ought to say and do about this case?

The sad reality, of course, is that several of the churches within Sovereign Grace Ministries did none of these things.  If anything, they seemed to work overtime to conceal predators, cover up for them, and advocate for them, all the while judging the predators’ victims as being in sin for bitterness and a lack of forgiveness.  (See this post for links to survivors’ stories and an analysis of the mindset behind leaders’ weird responses.)

At the same time, though, some SGM churches take quite a different approach to how they handle the perceived sins of those struggling with mental illness.  From various readers, we have learned that this past Sunday, it was announced at one SGM church that a pastor was stepping down specifically because his wife was “mentally ill.”  Perspectives and opinions vary wildly as to the accuracy and truthfulness of the pastors’ statements about this situation, but in my view, the larger question is one of whether or not such a discussion in such a setting is even appropriate in the first place.

And, isn’t it interesting that the protectiveness SGM leaders have been willing to extend to pedophiles does not appear to extend to a pastor’s wife with (perceived) mental issues?

Finally, I received a couple of emails asking me to talk more about something I posted last night as a comment.  It’s my opinion that one of the reasons SGM pastors have behaved in controlling and even spiritually abusive ways toward members in the past is because many of them honestly buy into the idea that taking a hardline stand against certain issues is the way they can best “serve” and lead members.  I’d even go so far as to say I think at least some of these otherwise nice Christian guys who at points have seemed to have tremendously tender hearts for the Lord fall victim to Stockholm Syndrome during their SGM training.  Here’s the comment I posted:

I think the SGM system is set up so that everyone — from members to pastors — is conditioned to lord authority over those beneath them.  Parents are trained to submit themselves to pastors while demanding that their children submit instantly and joyously to them.  And of course, in order to be even considered for a leadership role, a man has to demonstrate total unquestioning submission to the men above him.

From what I’ve heard, the Pastors College curriculum for several years included a very grueling discipleship process, where each pastoral candidate and his wife were assigned a corresponding “discipler” couple who would then proceed to probe the candidate couple’s lives.  One woman whose husband had gone through the PC in the earlier 2000s (I’m thinking like 2002 or 2003) wrote me to describe what this was like.  She compared it to being cut open and having all her insides pulled out and laid out on a table, with everyone free to examine and point out everything that needed fixing.  It honestly sounded utterly awful.

But by the end of the 9 months, the couples who made it through the process had come around to be OK with it and even think it was great.  It occurred to me that it was not unlike how a kidnapping victim can fall prey to Stockholm Syndrome, where he or she ends up empathizing and willfully taking on the belief system of his or her kidnapper.

Is it any wonder that these pastors, who were themselves put through the wringer, would turn around and believe that it was their duty to “disciple” those in their congregations with the same hardline coldness and sin-sniffing with which they themselves had been discipled?

It’s really a classic case of the abused becoming the abusers.

The judge in the civil lawsuit ruled today that the statute of limitations had run out for the alleged victims, saying that the victims needed to sue within three years of turning 18.  That deadline had passed for most of the plaintiffs years ago.

Today’s ruling has nothing to do with whether the charges of the lawsuit itself were true or not.  It also does not affect whether or not criminal charges could be filed someday.

The class action lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries and a number of the organization’s pastors and leaders has been amended today.  You can access the amended filing here.

But be warned:  much of what has been added is very graphic and horrifying.

Sovereign Grace sent the following letter to members recently:

Dear [Member Name],

Last October, we informed you of a lawsuit filed against Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM), two of the local churches that were at one point affiliated with SGM (Covenant Life Church and Sovereign Grace Church of Fairfax), and eight individually named pastor-defendants.

As a valued partner in Sovereign Grace’s mission to plant and build churches with the gospel of Jesus Christ, we write to update you on this matter and provide you with the latest details as we prayerfully trust the Lord and submit to the legal process.

The allegations in this lawsuit are vague and largely unclear, but to the extent they can be summarized, they claim that several church members were the victims of physical or sexual abuse by a number of alleged perpetrators at various times and places across a number of years and that a number of pastors failed to report this to the secular authorities. The suit alleges that some of the pastor-defendants failed to properly report the alleged abuse to the secular authorities after the victims’ parents told them of it. There is one pastor-defendant accused of abuse, and these accusations appear to be that he physically disciplined one of his children. We do not believe there was a “cover-up” of sex abuse or pedophiles at the two local churches involved and we trust that the local churches carefully reviewed any reports of abuse to see that the proper response was made. We would encourage any pastor or church member to step forward if they were aware of any such behavior.

Our actions on the legal front do not reflect a denial of real pain for the victims or an effort to avoid the rightful course of justice in these cases. Rather, we are simply exercising our right and obligation to oppose any litigation that claims, without any evidence, that SGM was involved with some sort of conspiracy to wrongfully or neglectfully respond to reports of sexual abuse. We do this while remaining devoted to caring for the victims of abuse and to encouraging our local churches to develop policies and practices to ensure they remain places of safety and healing. In the interest of pursuing truth, we are obligated to answer and defend accusations against our ministry, even at the risk of a perception of marginalizing our regard for any victims and their families. We regret this challenge and, again, commit to do all that we can to seek truth and minister to all who are affected by these allegations. If the process of review and evaluation of this case uncovers any issues of which we are not aware, the Board stands ready to address those concerns in a manner that pleases God and respects and cares for those affected.

We will keep you informed of any progress in the ongoing litigation and ask for your continued prayers for a just resolution to this lawsuit.  We have received questions about the use of the 1st Amendment as a defense. Please make sure to read that section below. Here are the updates:

Motion to Dismiss Filed February 25, 2013

CarrMaloney, SGM’s counsel assigned by its insurer, determined there were a number of valid reasons to file a motion to dismiss the case with respect to SGM. As their motion states: “Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is a vague, confusing document that fails to state any legal or factual basis for the claims against Defendant (SGM).”  Because Plaintiffs’ complaint is so vague, it is difficult for SGM to know the specifics of the incidents that have been alleged. Further, the alleged reporting of abuse would have been handled at the local church level and therefore would have been a matter strictly left to the local churches, not SGM. SGM does not have the authority to control local churches or govern their internal affairs.

Below is a summary of SGM’s Motion to Dismiss, as filed on February 25, 2013. The entire motion is 25 pages long and is a matter of public record. Because many of the deficiencies in Plaintiffs’ allegations are applicable to all defendants, several of the arguments SGM made were similar to those made by the other defendants. The following is a summary of our arguments. (The sections below in quotes and italics are taken directly from SGM’s Motion to Dismiss.)

1. “[Plaintiffs’] complaint is so vague and factually deficient that it is nearly impossible to tell who committed the acts of abuse and when and where the alleged acts of cover-up occurred, much less how old the alleged victims were both then and now. Plaintiffs appear to have done this in a deliberate effort to deprive SGM of the factual grounds that it is entitled to for various defenses, including statute of limitations.”
   .
2. “By alleging the alleged tortious conduct was a product of the churches’ teachings that conditioned the church members to “unquestioningly obey” their “spiritual leaders,” Plaintiffs have put the spiritual and doctrinal affairs of SGM and the local churches directly at issue. Plaintiffs allegations therefore violate the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment and must be dismissed.”
   .
3. According to Maryland law, Plaintiffs have failed to state valid claims or have no legal basis for any of the alleged torts against SGM on grounds of negligence, infliction of severe emotional distress, conspiracy to obstruct justice, negligent hiring and supervision, or misrepresentation. In addition, the Motion to Dismiss includes a number of grounds for dismissal relating to each individual plaintiff, including statute of limitations and lack of legal standing,
   .
4. Even if Plaintiffs are able to show that their case satisfies the legal criteria for stating valid claims, they still have no grounds to impute liability to SGM based on the alleged acts of the other defendants. It appears they are alleging that SGM owned and operated both CLC and SG Fairfax, and that they can therefore impute to SGM any liability these churches have for the alleged cover-up actions of their pastor-defendants. However, SGM does not own, operate, or control any churches. And, at the time of the alleged conduct, SGM did not employ any of the defendants who are alleged to be “personally involved in the events that led to this lawsuit.” Therefore, there are no legal grounds to impute liability for the actions of the individual-defendants to SGM, which is simply a religious denomination, and does not control or govern the local churches.

1^st Amendment Defense

The second point summarized above addresses the 1^st Amendment defense. Plaintiffs claim that the alleged abuse and/or cover-up was a product of the local churches’ religious teachings and doctrines that ordered the church members to “unquestioningly obey” their pastors. Our First Amendment defense points out that such a claim cannot stand because it asks the court to inquire into the legality of the churches’ beliefs. It is a matter of religious liberty to not involve the courts in determining whether the doctrinal teaching and pastoral counseling of a ministry or church is done correctly in their eyes. That is why this is included as part of the legal defense.

I want to strongly emphasize that we are NOT in any way using the 1^st Amendment as a defense to somehow protect sex abuse or a conspiracy to cover up crimes of any kind. We fully respect the gift from God of established legal authority according to Romans 13. And we strongly encourage all our churches to fully comply with all laws pertaining to the reporting of crimes in their state.

With these commitments firmly established and understanding the nature of this lawsuit, we must use all appropriate legal means to address the spurious and defamatory charge of a cover up of sexual abuse as well as all the destructive legal implications that come with this lawsuit.

Please note that our November 17, 2012 statement referenced this First Amendment issue prior to the filing of the Amended Complaint. I hope this explanation adds any needed clarity as to why it is necessary for our legal counsel to make this defense.

Next Steps

Now that SGM legal counsel has filed their Motion to Dismiss and the Plaintiffs have responded to the motion to dismiss, a hearing is scheduled on May 17, 2013 to consider the defendants’ arguments for dismissal. After this hearing, the judge will rule on the motion, normally within two months of the hearing.  So, as we have communicated before, this is more of a marathon than a sprint. If the suit is not dismissed, the actual court date is currently scheduled to begin on February 3, 2014, but there are many things that could happen before then including judgment being granted in favor of some or all defendants based on the evidence presented during discovery.

We are all pained by a process by which we are perceived as “guilty until proven innocent” through a “trial” seemingly already taking place in the court of public opinion, resulting in myriad questions being asked based on incomplete information presented online. But, we are providing this information to ensure you that we are doing all we can to address these charges and address them in a way that honors God, and the members of Sovereign Grace churches. Thank you for your prayers and support.

Sincerely,

Tommy Hill

Director of Finance and Administration

Thoughts???

From an email sent to Sovereign Grace Ministries elders from Mike Bradshaw on behalf of the SGM Executive Committee:

Dear Brothers,

We are looking forward with faith-filled anticipation to our time together  in Orlando next month. Thanks again to all who participated in the Ratification Vote. The new polity structure will, we believe, be of great help to Sovereign Grace (SG) churches in fulfilling our gospel mission together.

In accordance with the new SG Book of Church Order (BCO), this letter serves as formal notice to all SG elders of our previously announced Special Meeting of the SG Council of Elders (CE). The Council will convene at the Rosen Shingle Creek Hotel in Orlando, FL, on May 23-25, 2013.

Each SG church eldership has already identified its representative to the Council prior to the Polity Ratification Vote of April 12. Every SG church eldership that gives notice of inclusion to the Director of Church Care by signing the Letter of Intent is welcome to participate in this CE meeting.

Others SG elders are welcome as observers. Also welcome are the elders of those historical SG churches  who have not yet signed the Letter of Intent but who are considering doing so.

This meeting constitutes a “special meeting” since it is not coinciding with our annual Pastors Conference (BCO III.B.2.c). We realize that, as a movement, we are just getting used to functioning with a Book of Church Order and that the language of formality may be a bit foreign to us all.

Please do not let formal language detract from what we believe will be a time of significant blessing and spiritual communion among our elders.

The formal business action required by the CE will be the confirmation of the Executive Director.

“After the Executive Committee has chosen the Executive Director candidate, he must be confirmed by a simple majority of the Council of Elders.” (BCO III.B.3.g)

After careful consideration, including the review of input from our pastors, a detailed interview process, and much discussion and prayer, the Executive Committee has chosen Mark Prater to be the first Executive Director of the SG Leadership Team to be put forth for confirmation. The Committee believes that Mark is most suitably qualified to direct the Leadership Team in the near future. Mark has ably proven himself as the Regional Leader of a strong Region and as the Acting Director of Church Care and Church Planting. The Committee believes Mark is the best choice among several qualified candidates to bring the necessary leadership at this most critical moment in our history and to meet our most pressing needs: the implementation of our new polity, the restoration of trust and unity among the elders of SG, the facilitation of the care of our participating churches, and the coordination of our Regional Assemblies and our movement in the planting of new churches domestically and internationally. The Executive Director’s responsibilities are outlined in the Leadership Team section of the BCO (III.E.4.a).

We will be supplying each Council of Elders delegate with more extensive biographical information and justification of our decision to select Mark Prater. We do this so that each delegate can carefully and prayerfully consider his vote of confirmation. Furthermore, the Council of Elders meeting will include a formal nomination and discussion of Mark’s candidacy before a final vote is taken. A more detailed agenda of the meeting will be forthcoming in the next week or two.

Again, it is with much anticipation that we approach the convening of our first SG Council of Elders  meeting. This meeting will mark a new chapter in the life of our family of churches. We ask that you all approach this time together prayerfully and in faith for what God will do in our midst.

Grace and peace in the name of the Lord Jesus,

Your brothers on the Executive Committee

Mike Bradshaw
Sovereign Grace Ministries
Interim Communications Manager | sovgracemin.org

It’s a funny thing – I don’t consider myself a “discernment blogger” or this site a discernment site.

I did, however, originally come to read Tim Challies back when he was writing pieces on Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven materials…which always made me think of him as a “discernment blogger.”  (Mr. Challies has written many articles about Rick Warren.  Here is a more recent one.)

Indeed, Tim Challies’ first book was entitled The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment.

But today we learn that Tim Challies no longer “has room” for discernment bloggers.  Why?  Well, because some weeks back, the Wartburg Watch ladies did a piece on Mr. Challies’ joint publishing venture with someone who was a longtime employee and member of Sovereign Grace Ministries…and made the (to me, logical) connection between that business relationship and Mr. Challies’ pretty obvious desire to give C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries every benefit of the doubt.

Reading Mr. Challies’ post today was a sort of surreal experience.  He throws a lot of words out there, many of which seem to accuse the people who discussed his business venture with the SGM guy of misrepresenting him.  He says,

Then they wrote about me. They wrote about my financial situation. They wrote “shocking” exposes and went rummaging through the digital trash to dig up the smoking guns. They did not just report (supposed) facts but also interpreted them. And then other blogs picked up the stories and carried them as well. And this clarified the situation for me. I wish my teacher here had been something nobler than personal attack, but sadly, and perhaps ironically, it was when I was in their crosshairs that they themselves came into sharper focus.

Because here’s the reality: So much of what they wrote about me had so little basis in reality. These bloggers misinterpreted even what is obvious, stretched what is true, assumed what is dubious, and fabricated the rest. They shared all of this with their readers as if it was based on verifiable facts, as if they were privy to details, as if it was anything more than conjecture.

But what’s interesting to me is that nowhere does Tim Challies actually explain what was inaccurate about what was written about him and his business venture.  I know he complains that people didn’t just report facts but also interpreted them…but since when are bloggers solely reporters?  Since when is it not OK to state an opinion, or make an inference based on facts and point out what seems obvious?

Unless Tim Challies specifies and explains otherwise, it is still no less certain that he was caught shading the truth.  The disclaimer with which he prefaced the article he wrote telling his audience how to “think biblically” about SGM – the disclaimer in which he asserted his total lack of relationship with C.J. Mahaney and Sovereign Grace Ministries - conveniently neglected to mention that while he may not be bosom buddies with C.J., he actually does co-own a publishing house (Cruciform Press) with Kevin Meath.  Kevin Meath’s biography, as listed on the Cruciform Press site and quoted at Wartburg, clearly shows connections with SGM, SGM leaders, and other ministries closely associated with SGM:

Kevin has more than 25 years professional experience as an editor, including eleven years as chief editor for Sovereign Grace Ministries. He has worked on more than 40 book projects for the Christian market, and has edited for C.J. Mahaney, Paul Tripp, John Piper, Jerry Bridges, Joel Beeke, Richard D. Phillips, Scotty Smith, Dave Harvey, and many others. He has worked with Multnomah, Crossway, Reformation Trust, Shepherd Press, New Growth Press, Founders Press, Sovereign Grace Ministries, Revive Our Hearts, Focus on the Family, Desiring God, and others.

Instead of railing against “discernment bloggers,” it would have been much more effective for Mr. Challies to explain how it is that having a business partner with longstanding relationships with SGM would NOT have affected his own impartiality when it comes to what he tells people to think about SGM.  How, precisely, did the scorned “watchbloggers” misrepresent the facts?

I’d really like to know.  Mr. Challies, if you’d care to respond, I’d love to post your explanation.  Were the Wartburg ladies wrong in saying that you co-own Cruciform Press with Kevin Meath?  Is Mr. Meath’s biographical information on the Cruciform Press website inaccurate?

And can you truly not see how it looks to those of us outside the cozy world of conservative Christian publishing?  Can you truly not understand why it would make total sense for someone to connect the dots and say that if you’re trying to make it as a publisher of Christian books, you’re probably going to try much harder not to offend the guys who author many of those books?

Or were you just trying, again, to cloud matters for your readers?

If what the Wartburg people posted is not true, how was it inaccurate?

This past week, there was another filing in the lawsuit against Sovereign Grace Ministries.  You can access the ”Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendants’ Motion Alleging Pleading Failure” in its entirety by clicking here.

From my layperson’s understanding, this latest document is a response to the motion filed by SGM’s attorneys that sought dismissal of the lawsuit.  The “Plaintiffs’ Opposition” asserts, by citing previous court rulings, that the original filing and the First Amended Complaint are indeed in line with established precedents and therefore ought not to be dismissed.

Here are what struck me as some interesting highlights from the “Plaintiffs’ Opposition”:

Defendants seek to evade accountability and hide the truth about their egregious wrongdoing.  Defendants seek dismissal, arguing that the 31-page FAC [First Amended Complaint] is vague and that they dispute the facts.

*************

Although Defendants cannot credibly claim the FAC failed to put them on notice of the claims, Plaintiffs stand ready to add furth details if ordered to do so by the Court.  The FAC, however, indisputably states tort claims cognizable under Maryland law, and cannot be dismissed at this early procedural stage.

*************

Plaintiffs have a right to bring an action for negligence.  The test is straightforward:  did Plaintiffs’ FAC allege (1) the existence of a duty, (2) breach of that duty, and (3) that damages resulted from that breach?  If the FAC did so, the Court should permit the lawsuit to go forward without deciding whether or not Defendants may be able to defend themselves at trial by establishing they are entitled to various fact-based defenses.

Here, the FAC clearly meets that test.

*************

Defendants quibble that the FAC does not identify the precise amount of damages sought, but Plaintiffs’ Hearing Statement made quite clear that expert witnesses are quantifying the compensatory damages.  The Statement also made clear that the punitive damages attributable to the class are approximately $50 million.

*************

Defendants cannot credibly argue that the FAC failed to plead a requisite element of negligence claims.  Instead, Defendants try to persuade this Court to dismiss the FAC by arguing that they are entitled to a clergy privilege as a matter of law . . .  First, the privilege protects only individuals; so that argument fails on its face as to the institutional Defendants.  But second and more importantly, it is premature for the Court to make the findings of fact that would be required before any ruling on whether the individual Defendants are entitled to the limited shield from liability established for clergy.

*************

At this juncture, the Court is required to accept as true the facts alleged by Plaintiffs in the FAC . . .  The FAC alleges Defendants conspired together to engage in a lengthy course of conspiratorial misconduct that was intended to, and did, harm children in their care.  The FAC alleges that Defendant Tomczak, one of the founders of the Church and leading pastors, personally engaged in extensive physical abuse known to all the other Defendants.

*************

The “Opposition” document then goes on to assert that the Plaintiffs did indeed properly plead intentional infliction of emotional distress.  In that portion of the document, we see the following:

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants caused their continued sexual and physical abuse during their childhood, and conspired to prevent the detection and cessation of such abuse.  It is hard to imagine anyone suggesting that the Plaintiffs who were subjected to such egregious misconduct suffered only “minor” rather than “severe” distress . . .

Yet that is exactly what these Defendants have the temerity to argue.  Indeed, one Defendant equates sadomasochistic and ritualized sexual and physical abuse of children to “spanking.”

The next section asserts that the Plaintiffs properly pled conspiracy.  After a few paragraphs, we find this:

Defendants can argue to the jury that beating and sexually abusing children, lying to law enforcement, and giving known sexual predators unfettered access to children in multiple settings, and other misconduct alleged in the FAC did not cause damage and need not be punished . . .  But the FAC properly alleges tortious activity, and thus the conspiracy to commit such tortious activity is itself a separate tort under Maryland law.

Other highlights:

Defendants claim that the cause of action must be dismissed because Plaintiffs fail to allege an employment relationship.  This is false.  The FAC alleges repeatedly that the individual defendants were all employees of one or more of the corporate entities . . .  The FAC alleges Plaintiff Poe was sexually and physically abused by a Church employee.

*************

What all of the Defendaants fail to address, however, is that the FAC alleges ongoing conspiratorial misconduct by all the Defendants, and alleges such misconduct is harming Plaintiffs.  To date, Defendants have not ended their conspiracy.  Defendants continue to conspire to prevent secular authorities from detecting and incarcerating predators . . .  [Exhibit B] describes Defendants (specifically Defendant Layman) conspiring with the predator to avoid detection.

Finally, perhaps the most striking element of the ”Opposition” document is the footnote that appears on Page 5:

Plaintiffs are going to be amending the FAC to add more parties, one of whom alleges Defendant John Loftness physically and sexually abused her as a child.

*************

It was announced at a members’ meeting yesterday that Dave Harvey, longtime pastor and Sovereign Grace Ministries leader, resigned effective March 15.  Reasons cited for the departure included family issues and allusions to other problems.

Members were asked not to talk about the situation.

The Sovereign Grace Ministries board announced today that on April 12, C.J. Mahaney will transition out of his role as president of the organization.  Here is how the SGM Plant & Build blog explains the change:

As previously announced, C.J. will transition from his role as President on April 12 at the time of the polity ratification vote. Though no longer serving in this leadership capacity, we are grateful that C.J.’s influence and partnership do not end here. We share his joy in seeing him back regularly preaching and pastoring in Sovereign Grace Church of Louisville, and we look forward to benefitting from C.J.’s continued investment in the mission of SGM through his service there and in the larger body of Christ.