Sexual Abuse, Institutional Accountability, and Biblical Church Discipline
Theological Abstract
Sexual abuse within the church violates the dignity of persons created in God’s image, contradicts the responsibilities of shepherds, and calls the church to both compassion and accountable action. Recent evangelical abuse litigation provides a setting for examining the relationship between forgiveness, church discipline, civil justice, and pastoral qualifications. This article argues that faithful Christian care requires truthful investigation, protection of vulnerable people, impartial accountability, and sustained support for those harmed. Matthew 18 must not be used to compel unsafe private confrontation, and forgiveness must not be confused with exemption from consequences or entitlement to pastoral office. God’s redeeming work in suffering gives survivors hope without making abuse good or excusing those who perpetrate or conceal it.
A Crisis That Requires More Than a Settlement
For Christians who have loved the church, served in ministry, and trusted pastoral leaders, reports of sexual abuse can produce grief as well as anger. The injury reaches beyond the conduct of one offender. When leaders dismiss a disclosure or protect a colleague at another person’s expense, the community entrusted with spiritual care can become a source of further harm. The question is therefore theological: what does faithfulness to Jesus require when someone entrusted with His flock abuses that trust?
A settlement may compensate a claimant and end litigation. It does not, by itself, establish that a church has confessed wrongdoing, disciplined responsible leaders, repaired its practices, or provided adequate care. Neither an institution’s financial payment nor its public statement can substitute for the moral responsibilities Scripture places upon shepherds. God condemns leaders who serve themselves while neglecting the weak and injured. (Ezek. 34:1–10.)
Stanley Grenz and Roy Bell examine clergy sexual misconduct through the misuse of trust and power within pastoral relationships. Their discussion helps explain why a church cannot adequately address abuse merely by treating it as a leader’s private moral lapse. The pastoral relationship itself creates responsibilities that the offender has violated.1
What the Reported Cases Establish—and What They Do Not
Responsible Christian reflection must distinguish an accusation, an investigative conclusion, a civil finding, a criminal conviction, and a negotiated settlement. They are different kinds of evidence. Accuracy serves both those reporting harm and those accused; careless claims undermine the pursuit of justice. (Prov. 18:13, 17.)
Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa
On October 7, 2026, The Roys Report reported a $12 million agreement resolving a former church employee’s sexual-assault claims involving ordained wrestling coach Jacob Joshua Harman. According to the report, the church admitted no fault, and a final approval hearing was scheduled for January. The agreement should therefore not be described as a jury verdict against the church. Separately, the report describes an October 2023 civil ruling in Harman’s defamation case finding that he had sexually assaulted the woman on at least one occasion. That finding is distinct from a criminal conviction. The report also documents revocation of his ordination on July 25, 2017; that action alone does not establish the full scope of ecclesiastical discipline.2
Other Evangelical Settlements
In April 2022, plaintiffs’ attorneys announced a $2.5 million settlement involving Seacoast Grace Church in Cypress, California, and three women’s claims concerning former youth pastor Kenneth McCall. Because the announcement comes from the plaintiffs’ law firm, its characterization of institutional conduct should be attributed accordingly.3
In March 2025, The Christian Post reported that Houston’s Grace Church and its insurers had paid the $2 million agreed upon in Tyler Bates’s abuse-related lawsuit. The report concerns a settlement and subsequent payment, rather than a jury determination of the church’s liability. This Houston congregation should not be confused with other churches bearing similar names.4
The Village Church in Texas resolved an abuse-related civil lawsuit in 2022. The amount was not disclosed; the amount sought in the lawsuit cannot be reported as the settlement amount. The Christian Post also reported that criminal charges against former minister Matt Tonne had been dismissed and that the church maintained it had committed no wrongdoing. Those qualifications matter when presenting the case.5
Harvest Christian Fellowship: An Unresolved Allegation Must Remain an Allegation
December 2025 reporting about Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside concerns former minister and missionary Paul Havsgaard. The Roys Report described former staff members’ accounts of an earlier confidential settlement, but neither Harvest nor the relevant plaintiffs’ law firm publicly confirmed its terms in that report. The account does not establish a settlement amount or the contents of an NDA. The plaintiffs’ firm separately publicized lawsuits alleging abuse and institutional failures; such allegations are not adjudicated findings.6
These cases do not establish identical facts or outcomes. They do demonstrate why a church’s response must be examined separately from the disposition of its lawsuit. Ending a legal dispute leaves the congregation responsible to ask whether people are safe, the truth has been addressed, and those harmed are receiving care.
Sexual Abuse Violates the Whole Person
The biblical doctrine of humanity begins with creation in God’s image. A person’s worth does not depend upon social influence, ministry usefulness, emotional composure, or the ability to recount painful events without hesitation. The person reporting abuse possesses dignity before any pastor or board decides whether the disclosure is convenient. (Gen. 1:26–27; James 3:9–10.)
The distinction and relationship between body, soul/spirit, and mind within the unity of the human person helps us understand the reach of abuse. Injury to the body can affect thought, relationships, worship, and the experience of safety. Yet suffering does not erase the survivor’s identity or make that person spiritually inferior. Christian care must address embodied people rather than reduce their needs to an instruction to change their thinking. (1 Thess. 5:23.)
Sexual assault must not be described as mutual sexual immorality. An assaulted person is not morally responsible for another person’s coercive conduct. Paul’s instruction to honor God with the body establishes the seriousness of bodily life; it must never be turned into a claim that someone else’s assault makes a survivor impure. (1 Cor. 6:18–20.)
Mark Laaser distinguishes misconduct involving exploitation of authority from the broader category of sexual wrongdoing. That distinction is useful because apparent cooperation does not settle whether a pastoral relationship involved manipulation or abuse of trust. It also prevents the church from collapsing every case into the same moral or clinical explanation.7
Pastoral Authority Is a Responsibility Before God
Peter commands elders to shepherd willingly and by example, without dominating those entrusted to them. Jesus likewise contrasts the exercise of power among worldly rulers with the servant character of leadership among His disciples. Spiritual authority exists for the good of those served. (1 Pet. 5:1–4; Mark 10:42–45.)
Pastoral exploitation reverses that responsibility. Instead of protecting another person’s spiritual and bodily well-being, the leader uses access, trust, or influence for personal gratification. A persuasive testimony, gifted teaching, or successful ministry does not cancel the qualifications Scripture requires of an overseer. (1 Tim. 3:1–7; Titus 1:5–9.)
A congregation can compound the offense when it regards the leader as indispensable. Large attendance, effective evangelism, and financial influence are not exceptions to biblical accountability. James’s warning about the greater judgment attached to teaching should make churches more careful about leadership, not more protective of its privileges. (James 3:1.)
Matthew 18 Cannot Become a Barrier to Safety
Matthew 18:15–20 places confrontation and discipline within a chapter concerned with vulnerable disciples, the recovery of the wandering, and forgiveness. Craig Keener’s discussion of the passage highlights its judicial setting, its attention to witnesses, and its restorative purpose. Its concern for orderly treatment does not justify exposing an injured person to further coercion.8
A survivor must not be required to meet privately with an alleged abuser before a church will receive a report or before authorities may be contacted. Private correction of an ordinary interpersonal offense differs from investigating allegations of assault by someone who possesses pastoral power. Grenz and Bell specifically question applying the private-confrontation sequence mechanically to clergy sexual misconduct.9
Matthew 18:16 and 1 Timothy 5:19 require serious attention to evidence. They must not be turned into a rule that an assault committed in private cannot be investigated unless two people watched it happen. A disclosure warrants appropriate inquiry; testimony, contemporaneous communications, documents, corroborating witnesses, and other evidence must be evaluated fairly. Receiving a report for investigation is distinct from reaching a final disciplinary judgment. (Matt. 18:16; 1 Tim. 5:19.)
Neither “binding” nor “loosing” gives church leaders independent authority to declare concealed wrongdoing acceptable. Their decisions must conform to Christ’s instruction. His promised presence among those acting in His name deepens their accountability; it does not sanctify a board’s preference for avoiding embarrassment. (Matt. 18:18–20.)
Ecclesiastical Discipline and Civil Justice Have Distinct Tasks
Paul identifies civil authority as having a responsibility to restrain and punish wrongdoing. The church’s spiritual mission therefore does not authorize it to replace lawful investigation of alleged crimes with an internal pastoral meeting. A church can pursue discipline while cooperating with the appropriate authorities. (Rom. 13:1–4.)
Paul’s rebuke of believers litigating ordinary disputes in 1 Corinthians 6 should not be used to prevent reports of sexual assault or to pressure survivors to abandon appropriate civil remedies. The chapter does not establish ecclesiastical immunity from the responsibilities described in Romans 13. Criminal investigation, civil compensation, church discipline, and pastoral care address related but distinct needs. (1 Cor. 6:1–8; Rom. 13:1–4.)
Church leaders should promptly identify and comply with applicable reporting obligations, preserve relevant records, and avoid obstructing external investigations. The precise legal duties depend upon the jurisdiction and circumstances. John Sandy’s risk-management discussion emphasizes preparing response procedures, recognizing reporting duties, and avoiding interference with criminal investigations.10
Accountability Must Reach Those Who Enabled Harm
First Timothy 5 addresses both the fair treatment of elders and the correction of elders who sin. Paul then commands impartiality. The passage offers no basis for treating seniority, friendship, or a prominent name as a reason to overlook established misconduct. (1 Tim. 5:19–21.)
Where the evidence establishes that leaders concealed reports, intimidated complainants, or knowingly exposed others to danger, their conduct also requires investigation and appropriate accountability. The institution cannot complete its moral response simply by separating from the direct offender. Its decision-making, supervision, and treatment of those reporting harm must also be examined. (Eph. 5:11; 1 Tim. 5:21–22.)
Independent investigators with relevant expertise can help when those receiving allegations have personal or institutional conflicts of interest. Independence does not guarantee infallibility, but it provides a means of testing evidence beyond the loyalties of the immediate leadership circle. Appropriate disclosure should communicate established findings and protective actions while respecting survivors’ privacy and the integrity of ongoing proceedings.
Forgiveness Does Not Confer a Right to Lead
The New Testament calls Christians to forgive and to restore repentant believers with gentleness. Those commands cannot be equated with an automatic return to pastoral office. Reconciliation to Christian fellowship and qualification to shepherd others answer different questions. (Eph. 4:32; Gal. 6:1; 1 Tim. 3:1–7.)
An apology may be a beginning, but tears, eloquence, or a stated desire to preach again do not independently establish repentance. Paul describes godly sorrow as producing a changed response to wrongdoing. Genuine repentance includes truthful acknowledgment, cooperation with accountability, appropriate restitution, and willingness to accept consequences. (2 Cor. 7:10–11; Luke 19:8.)
The church must never make the survivor responsible for authorizing an offender’s return. Nor should it promise reinstatement after a fixed period. Pastoral qualifications include established character and a sound reputation; serious abuse can produce enduring disqualification. Whatever debate remains about restoration after other kinds of misconduct, no repentant person is owed pastoral office. A church can offer spiritual care while maintaining permanent restrictions necessary to protect others. (1 Tim. 3:2–7; Titus 1:7–9.)
Survivors must not be pressed into immediate trust, personal contact, or participation in an offender’s public rehabilitation. Forgiveness does not eliminate prudent boundaries or transfer responsibility for renewed harm to the person already injured.
Confidentiality Must Serve People Rather Than Conceal Danger
There is a legitimate place for confidentiality. Survivors may need privacy, and investigations may require careful handling of sensitive information. Public accountability need not mean publishing a survivor’s identity or intimate details. (Prov. 11:13.)
The ethical question about a confidentiality agreement is what it protects and what it obstructs. An agreement that supports a survivor’s privacy differs morally from institutional pressure intended to conceal danger or suppress truthful reports. One cannot infer the terms or enforceability of a particular NDA without examining it. Nevertheless, Christian leaders should not use confidential processes to evade their responsibilities to protect others, cooperate with authorities, and address established wrongdoing. (Eph. 5:11–13.)
Care Must Continue After the Headlines End
John teaches that love must be expressed through action when another person’s need is visible. James likewise rejects words of concern that leave practical needs unmet. The church’s response to abuse should therefore include sustained assistance rather than a temporary public expression of sympathy. (1 John 3:17–18; James 2:15–16.)
Such care can include independent counseling, practical help, support during legal proceedings, and pastoral companionship chosen by the survivor. Assistance should not depend on silence, attendance, withdrawal of a complaint, or public endorsement of the institution. The church must also recognize that spouses, children, and others affected may need care without displacing attention from those directly harmed.
Prayer offers hope and a place to bring fear before God. It does not replace protection or make persisting distress proof of defective faith. Paul’s promise concerning prayer and God’s peace must be offered with compassion, without demanding that an injured person recover on the institution’s schedule. (Phil. 4:6–7.)
Romans 8 locates Christian hope within present suffering and the certainty of God’s love. God’s purpose to conform believers to Christ does not make abuse morally good or justify those responsible for it. Christian confidence in providence should strengthen solidarity with the suffering, never become an explanation that excuses their mistreatment. (Rom. 8:18–39.)
Faithfulness Requires Visible Change
A church seeking a faithful response should establish accessible reporting channels outside the accused leader’s control, act promptly to protect vulnerable people, arrange impartial investigation, cooperate with lawful authorities, and provide care without conditions of loyalty. It should also review recruitment, references, supervision, counseling boundaries, and procedures for communicating substantiated safety concerns. Background checks are one safeguard; they cannot replace those wider responsibilities.11
When abuse is established, the church should acknowledge it accurately, discipline those responsible, and explain meaningful corrective action. These are contemporary applications of biblical responsibilities, rather than a procedural code directly supplied by a single passage. They give practical expression to the call to protect the weak, tell the truth, act impartially, and shepherd without domination. (Ezek. 34:4; Eph. 4:25; 1 Tim. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:2–3.)
The Christian message of grace remains essential. Precisely because grace brings sinners into the light and teaches a new manner of life, it cannot be used to shelter exploitation. A church displays the character of Christ when its compassion reaches the wounded and its accountability reaches the powerful. (Titus 2:11–14.)
Questions for Reflection
1. Does our understanding of grace include truth, protection, repentance, and consequences?
2. Can someone in our congregation report a leader without being required to confront that leader privately?
3. What evidence would distinguish genuine repentance from a desire to recover influence?
4. Do we confuse reconciliation to Christian fellowship with qualification for pastoral office?
5. Who receives our first practical attention when allegations emerge: the person reporting harm or the institution’s reputation?
6. What changes would make our reporting, investigation, and care procedures more trustworthy?
7. How can we offer prayer and hope without minimizing trauma or imposing a timetable for recovery?
Scriptures Cited
Genesis 1:26–27; Proverbs 11:13; 18:13, 17; Ezekiel 34:1–10; Matthew 18:15–20; Mark 10:42–45; Luke 19:8; Romans 8:18–39; 13:1–4; 1 Corinthians 6:1–8, 18–20; 2 Corinthians 7:10–11; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 4:25, 32; 5:11–13; Philippians 4:6–7; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 3:1–7; 5:19–22; Titus 1:5–9; 2:11–14; James 2:15–16; 3:1, 9–10; 1 Peter 5:1–4; 1 John 3:17–18.
Scripture references follow the New King James Version.
References
1 Stanley J. Grenz and Roy D. Bell, Betrayal of Trust: Confronting and Preventing Clergy Sexual Misconduct (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001), discussions of pastoral power and trust. ebook.
2 Daniel Silliman, “EXCLUSIVE: Founding Calvary Chapel Church Agrees to Pay $12 Million to Alleged Rape Survivor Disparaged as ‘Borderline Crazy,’” The Roys Report, October 7, 2026, https://roysreport.com/founding-calvary-chapel-church-agrees-to-pay-12-million-to-alleged-rape-survivor-disparaged-as-borderline-crazy/. The account of the 2023 civil ruling is attributed to this reporting; the ruling itself is not reproduced here.
3 Greenberg Gross LLP, “$2.5 Million Settlement Reached with Seacoast Grace Church for Enabling Sexual Abuse by Youth Pastor,” April 29, 2022, https://www.fightforsurvivors.com/2-5-million-settlement-with-seacoast-grace-church-for-enabling-sexual-abuse/. This is a plaintiffs’ counsel announcement.
4 Leonardo Blair, “Steve Riggle’s Grace Church Pays $2 Million to Settle Lawsuit for Teen Abused in Sleep,” The Christian Post, March 5, 2025, https://www.christianpost.com/news/grace-church-agrees-to-2-million-settlement-to-tyler-bates.html.
5 Ian M. Giatti, “The Village Church Settles Sexual Abuse Lawsuit, Says ‘We Committed No Wrong,’” The Christian Post, August 10, 2022, https://www.christianpost.com/news/the-village-church-settles-sexual-abuse-lawsuit.html.
6 Daniel Silliman, “Harvest Christian Fellowship Waited 20 Years to Call Police about Suspected Pedophile Minister,” The Roys Report, December 29, 2025, https://roysreport.com/harvest-christian-fellowship-waited-20-years-to-call-police-about-suspected-pedophile-minister/; McAllister Olivarius, “McAllister Olivarius Files Lawsuits against Harvest Christian Fellowship and Greg Laurie on Behalf of Survivors of Child Sex Abuse,” accessed October 11, 2026, https://mcolaw.com/mcallister-olivarius-files-lawsuits-against-harvest-christian-fellowship-and-greg-laurie-on-behalf-of-survivors-of-child-sex-abuse/. The latter represents plaintiffs’ allegations.
7 Mark R. Laaser, “Sexual Misconduct among Clergy: Update and Treatment Options,” Review & Expositor 98, no. 2 (Spring 2001): 207–8.
8 Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993), commentary on Matthew 18:15–20.
9 Grenz and Bell, Betrayal of Trust, discussion of Matthew 18 and procedures for responding to clergy sexual misconduct. ebook.
10 John Sandy, “Law, Ethics & Liability: Supervising Leadership: Clergy Sexual Misconduct Risk Management,” Christian Counseling Today 17, no. 4 (2009): 68. Contemporary legal requirements must be determined separately for the relevant jurisdiction.
11 Sandy, “Supervising Leadership,” 68. The recommendations in this article adapt general preventive and responsive principles; they are not quoted policy language.
