“On January 13, 2025, Firefly was contacted to conduct an independent investigation involving Michael Brown, founder of the Fire School of Ministryand The Line of Fire – Dr. Brown Ministries, Inc., alleging sexual misconduct toward two adult females within his ministry.”

-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 2.

Dr. Michael Brown came to my attention first because he involved himself in the IHOPKC mess with Mike Bickle. In particular, he initially involved himself trying to tamp down any social media discussion about what Mike Bickle had done–i.e. Bickle’s misconduct.

Now, Dr. Brown himself is in the spotlight for his own misconduct.

In particular, this report from Firefly focuses on two specific inappropriate relationships in 2001-2002 time frame. One was with a married–now deceased–woman identified in the report as “IS #1.” The second, identified as “Sarah Monk (IS #2 Sarah),” was a student under Dr. Brown during this time of misconduct. She was nineteen years old when this inappropriate relationship began, whereas Dr. Brown was in his 40s.

This first post is going to look at the situation around IS #1 and provide commentary over what Dr. Brown says and what is known regarding the reported circumstances.

The report outlines how this inappropriate relationship with #IS 1 was first discovered by Dr. Brown’s assistant, Scott Volk, who confronted him late in 2001 (9). Dr. Brown later confessed to this relationship with IS #1 being inappropriate in January 2002 to both Volk and his wife, Nancy (9).

The report goes on to recount about a private conference between the couples involved–i.e. Dr. Brown, Nancy Brown, IS #1, and IS #1’s husband (IW #1). The situation was allegedly resolved between parties and concluded with Dr. Brown going to counseling as part of that resolution. Finally, Volk was reportedly forbidden to talk about this situation by Nancy Brown.

Then the report states the following on page 10:

Regarding the above-mentioned incident, IW #1 stated that in late January or early February 2002, he became aware of the inappropriate relationship between his wife, IS #1, and BROWN. IW #1 confronted BROWN in his office, with Nancy Brown present. According to IW #1, BROWN admitted to the inappropriate relationship during this meeting.

The husband learns of this in late January 2002 at the earliest. This means Dr. Brown was confronted about the inappropriate relationship by Volk roughly one month ahead of IW #1’s discovery.

IW #1 then goes on to “confront BROWN” about the inappropriate relationship with his wife (IS #1). Such language suggests that Dr. Brown did not initiate this. Other language than “confront” would be used if this was a meeting called for by Dr. Brown. Rather, IW #1 had to initiate and bring up these issues with Dr. Brown (and his wife, Nancy).

In other words, Dr. Brown was caught and confronted by the aggrieved husband. If Dr. Brown was really sorry for his behavior, he could have had a meeting with this couple at the BEGINNING of January 2002. He did not. Instead, he waited AT LEAST ONE MONTH until finally confronted by IW #1.

(This is typical Cheater behavior. They get caught and typically avoid taking responsibility for as long as possible.)

The report continues…

Shortly afterward, IW #1 stated that one of BROWN’S senior staff members called him and asked, “I just want to know one thing. Did anything happen?” According to IW #1, the staff member was referring to whether BROWN and IS #1 had a physical encounter. IW #1 responded with “No” and the staff member indicated that was all he wanted to know.”

This illustrates the danger in Christian communities around emotional affairs. Cheaters can safely admit to emotional affairs, because they can deny that “anything happen(ed).” Only physical, sexual contact seems to count–i.e. at least, to this staff member.

Something DID happen, though!

Minimally, Dr. Brown engaged in an emotional affair with another man’s wife. That IS something! It is a violation of both Dr. Brown’s marriage vows and the trust of those who look to him as a spiritual leader.

This awful chapter in Dr. Brown’s life is revisited years later when a concerned former co-leader with Dr. Brown, Ron Cantor, felt compelled to confront Dr. Brown about the situation in an email (pp 10):

In an email response from BROWN to IW #4 Ron Cantor on October 26, 2024, BROWN stated:

“Re: _____, (IS#1) I did not have an affair, but we developed a very unhealthy and sinful soul tie. I was not caught. Instead, I repented in agony of heart to Nancy Brown, she (IS #1), then followed suit, because of my repentance, with her husband. And because there had been no physical relationship, both spouses said that nothing more should be said. I, for my part, wanted to tell the whole world – the FIRE leaders; the students; everyone! I was asked to say nothing, and I said nothing. God is my witness as to the depth and thoroughness of my repentance. It was during this time – totally burnt out; emotionally wrecked with the split; under hellish financial pressure – that I allowed this to happen and exercised such idiotic judgment with Sarah [IS #2].”

This does not strike me as the response of a fully repentant man. He is minimizing and making excuses for his sin now on over two decades later!!!

It is a “soul tie” NOT an “affair.” That is just spin. He does not want to have to face the implications of what he did.

Using such minimizing language means he did not repent fully at this time as he is not taking full responsibility for what he did. Without taking full responsibility and properly labeling it as an “emotional affair,” he lacks the ability to turn from said sin.

Next, he gives an excuse or “context” for these sins.

He writes, “It was during this time – totally burnt out; emotionally wrecked with the split; under hellish financial pressure – that I allowed this to happen….” This is excuse making. He is trying to get sympathy or pity from Cantor for his behavior. If we pity him, then we–hopefully, in the Cheater’s mind–will excuse him. That is the purpose of such “context.”

Also, notice the passive nature of this statement–i.e. “I allowed this to happen….” He is along for the ride as opposed to an active participant. It is eerily like the words from Genesis 3:12b (NIV): “‘The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.'” Again, this is NOT the words of someone who fully repented of an emotional affair back in 2002.

Now, contrast this statement with the response he gives investigators in February 2025 (pp 12):

On February 20, 2025, BROWN was interviewed by Firefly at the FIRE SCHOOL, 6509 Hudspeth Road, Harrisburg, NC. During this interview, BROWN admitted to what he called an “emotional affair” during the second half of 2001 with IS #1 via phone calls, texts, and emails. BROWN stated they “both said some sinful things to each other and that it was the most despicable thing he had ever done.” BROWN also noted that “there was never a physical, sexual relationship of any sort between us, but I don’t minimize the ugliness of my sinful emotional attachment. In the words of Jesus, it was certainly adultery of the heart.”

Here, Dr. Brown, does label the relationship appropriately–i.e. an “emotional affair” and “adultery of the heart.” He does not make excuses in this interview.

Dr. Brown emphatically denies any physical, sexual contact with IS #1, but also remember he was explicit about it NOT being an affair in his email to Cantor in October of 2024.

Dr. Brown statements must be taken with some skepticism considering the shifting narrative he has presented over time. It may very well be true that his relationship with IS #1 was limited to being an emotional affair; however, I would caution against just taking his word for it.

As general commentary, Christian Cheaters have been known to cop to an “emotional affair” as to avoid a more severe response from other Christians that they would otherwise receive if their illicit relationship was known to be a full-blown physical adultery.

Another disturbing thing about this is how it takes until February 2025 for Dr. Brown to own this as an emotional affair on his part publicly. That is over twenty years–TWO DECADES!–of minimizing and avoiding responsibility for such serious sin. Alone, this is NOT “above reproach” behavior for a Christian leader to have (see 1 Timothy 3:2).

So, we have situation here of a Christian leader who himself admits to an “emotional affair” that he covered up to the public for over two decades and denied as an “affair” in writing as recently as October 2024. This is truly disturbing stuff! But it does not stop there.

While this relationship with IS #1 and Dr. Brown’s subsequent response is extremely troubling, I find the interaction Dr. Brown with Sarah Monk (IS #2) in 2001-2002 even more disturbing.

More on that in Part II…