Part II: Dr. Michael Brown Firefly Misconduct Report Analysis - Divorce Minister
“…LOF retains FIREFLY to conduct an independent investigation into allegations of sexually abusive misconduct by BROWN in his association with FIRE SCHOOL 2001 – 2002 (which is defunct as a campus school), LOF (or any other ministry where BROWN held a leadership position). While the scope of the investigation is focused on the period that the initial allegations were made (2001-2002), all allegations of sexual abuse/misconduct before or after these dates will be fully investigated.”
-James Holler, Jr., “Firefly Independent Sexual Abuse Investigations: Investigation into the Allegations of Sexually Abusive Misconduct Involving Michael Brown,” April 12, 2025 (Revised April 18, 2025), pp 3.
The investigation mostly focused upon the years of 2001-2002 as those years had the two major victims of Dr. Brown’s inappropriate behavior–IS #1 and Sarah Monk (IS #2). This post will focus on the material concerning Sarah Monk (see Part I for analysis regarding the IS #1 situation).
The report gives this as background for Sarah Monk and her connection with Dr. Brown and the ministry he headed on page 12:
IS #2 Sarah, age nineteen, attended BRSM, and graduated in 2001. After graduating, she stayed on as staff for the FIRE SCHOOL. Like many other students, IS #2 Sarah relied on the faculty for spiritual and life guidance. In her role as staff, she developed a close working relationship with BROWN, assisting him with numerous tasks within the school.
Some important facts to see from this statement are that Sarah was under the authority of Dr. Brown as she was student then later an assistant to him. As such, she cannot consent to any sort of sexual or romantic relationship due to this power imbalance. Any such relationship with Dr. Brown would qualify as Clergy Sexual Misconduct/Abuse.
The report continues:
During a ministry trip to Mobile, Alabama, in January 2002, IW #2 Kris Bennett, then a young man in his early 20s, observed BROWN and IS #2 Sarah sitting in the front of a vehicle. BROWN was driving and IS #2 Sarah was in the passenger seat. IW #2 Kris Bennett noticed the two holding hands with their fingers interlocked. At one point, BROWN lifted their joined hands and addressing the others in the vehicle, said something along the lines of, ‘I can do this because she’s like a daughter to me.’
What I find noteworthy from this paragraph is how Dr. Brown makes a statement addressing the legitimate concerns that his behavior is inappropriate. “‘I can do this because she’s like a daughter to me.'” That sounds like a statement from a man who knows he is guilty of something inappropriate and is trying to head off consequences from outside observers.
Kris Bennett next sees Dr. Brown embracing Sarah Monk in a full frontal hug at the office. All of these things makes him uncomfortable and he talks with some peers, IW #6 Niels Prip and IW #5 Keith Collins, who agreed this needed to be addressed.
The report continues:
When they met with BROWN, he explained that his actions toward IS #2 Sarah were entirely father-daughter, insisting there was nothing inappropriate. Not long after the meeting, IW #2 Kris Bennett was called into BROWN’S office. There, BROWN reprimanded him for how he had handled the situation, saying he should have come directly to him first, citing Matthew 18. BROWN warned that gossip and rumors could damage BROWN’S ministry.
Dr. Brown pleads innocence falling back on his thin excuse that it’s an innocent “father-daughter” relationship with Sarah Monk. Funny thing, though, you would think this sort of relationship would be common enough in a community with spiritual fathers and spiritual daughters that it wouldn’t stand out. The reality is that it did stand out as it was inappropriate and far from innocent!
Then Dr. Brown goes into damage control and attacks those young men for daring to call out his misconduct. This is classic abuser behavior where how you brought it up is treated as worse then their actual bad behavior. They are changing the focus away from their misconduct to play victim to those attempting to hold them accountable.
He employed a spiritually abusive reading of Matthew 18 applying it where it has no business to be applied. Bennett was a young man bringing this up to an established leader in the community, an elder. They weren’t peers as Matthew 18 requires. Instead, the appropriate verse to apply is I Timothy 5:19-20 (NIV):
19 Do not entertain an accusation against an elder unless it is brought by two or three witnesses. 20 But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.
This wasn’t the only instance of Dr. Brown doing damage control, though. Continuing on page 14:
During the first or second quarter of 2002, IW #10 Josh Peters, Assistant Director of Missions, advised that he and his wife remember an impromptu meeting with about 20 students in a common room or the library in between classes where BROWN and IS #2 Sarah shared about the handholding and asked for forgiveness for any foolish actions on their part.
Again, this demonstrates Dr. Brown KNEW what he was doing with Sarah Monk was inappropriate. It was NOT innocent or why confess to a group about such behavior. Innocent people don’t need absolution.
The report goes onto share conflicting accounts from Sarah and Dr. Brown regarding his behavior. Sarah claims he would swat her butt, and Dr. Brown minimizes his behavior saying (pp 16-17):
…he “flicked her with the back of my hand as she walked away.” He clarified, “It was not a grab or even a swat but rather a backhanded flick.” BROWN goes on to state, “I never thought a sexual thought. It’s like the most despicable thing. I’m sorry. Sorry. So, it was stupid and it was a playful, stupid thing.”
He, again, is attempting to get pity from his audience. Claiming it was just a “playful, stupid thing.” If we pity, then we’re more likely to let him off the hook for his misbehavior. This is calculated messaging from an abuser.
Another conflicting account was about kisses between Sarah and Dr. Brown. She claims he kissed her once on the mouth and on the cheeks. Dr. Brown only admits to kissing on the head or side of head but not on the mouth or cheek.
Another witness to a conversation between the two suggests Dr. Brown is lying about spanking Sarah’s butt and kissing her:
In mid-August to early September 2002, IW #24 observed a heated phone conversation between IS #2 Sarah and BROWN. (On April 1, 2024, Firefly emailed BROWN to confirm or deny the phone call, but BROWN did not respond.) During the call, IS #2 Sarah confronted BROWN about his inappropriate actions, including unwanted kissing and touching her buttocks. Deeply disturbed and upset by what they had overheard, IW #24 felt compelled to act. They contacted IS #2 Sarah’s parents, hoping to provide support and ensure IS #2 Sarah’s well-being. Witnessing IS #2 Sarah’s emotional turmoil as she began to shut down and discuss moving to Texas, IW #24 pleaded with her to stay. Despite their efforts, within two weeks of the conversation with BROWN, IS #2 Sarah relocated to Texas.
To be clear, “…unwanted kissing and touching her buttocks” is sexual assault. This is a witness to Sarah Monk calling out Dr. Brown in the time and highlighting the inappropriate behavior clearly. All this minimizing and hiding of this sexually abusive history demonstrates someone who has yet to really reckon with his sin.
In conclusion, Dr. Brown clearly knew what he was doing with Sarah Monk was wrong taking all his other behavior into account including the public confession in 2002 and his ardent work to control the narrative so that it sounded like a mere father-daughter relationship.
