Firefly conducted an independent investigation into allegations of sexually abusive misconduct involving Michael Brown, founder of the Fire School of Ministry and The Line of Fire – Dr. Brown Ministries, Inc. The investigation, which began on January 13, 2025, found that Brown’s actions toward two adult females were “inappropriate and unacceptable” for his leadership position. The investigation reviewed evidence, conducted interviews, and analyzed the situation, ultimately concluding that Brown’s conduct violated the ethical standards expected of someone in his role.
The Michael Brown Firefly Report refuses to refer to since deceased “Kim” by name and it doesn’t dive into the phone sex allegations. The investigation stemmed when Sarah Monk, the main accuser of Brown, informed Kris Bennett that the events from 2001-2 were more than just hand-holding in a father-daughter relationship that went too far. This occurred in 2020, but it eventually found its way to the press. Evangelical Dark Web previously provided a concise summary of events and accusations:
2001 marked a time of transition for Dr. Brown, who had been recently ousted from the Brownsville Revival School of Ministry. In response, Brown founded the FIRE School of Ministry, which would be a direct competitor. It was during this time that he befriended a student named Sarah Monk (initially referred to pseudonymously as “Erin”) in her early 20s. He cultivated what he perceived as a father/daughter relationship with her. They talked often and were affectionate. There is some dispute over what that entailed, but all sides agree that there was hand-holding.
While on a drive back from a ministry event in 2002, a ministry associate of Dr. Brown named Kris Bennett noticed that Michael and Sarah were holding hands during the drive. He was shocked about what he saw and decided to report it to his boss, Keith Collins. Collins and another man in FIRE leadership confronted Brown about hand-holding, and Brown explained it away as innocent, that he had a father/daughter relationship with Sarah, but that it was simply a lapse in judgment.
Kris Bennett says that Michael Brown was upset that Kris didn’t come to him directly and that this could have harmed the ministry. Kris at the time said that he was apologetic and didn’t pursue the matter further.
During this same timeframe, Dr. Brown was carrying on an emotional affair (he called it a “soul tie”) with a married woman, who is called “Kim.” Kim was married to a man called “Ray,” though Kim has since passed away. That leaves Ray to be the accuser of Brown in her stead. According to Ray, he confronted Michael Brown in early 2002 after Kim confessed to having phone sex with Brown. Brown admitted to everything, according to Ray, and both couples mutually decided to consider the matter over with no need to go public, according to Brown.
Sarah Monk continued being friendly with the Brown family, including Brown’s wife Nancy. In fact, Sarah would leave notes for him around his office to find with encouraging messages or Bible verses. After things blew up with Kim and Ray, Sarah happened to be house-sitting for the Browns. According to her, she was attempting to hide messages for Brown to find after he returned from his trip, but in doing so came across a journal or notepad that contained lascivious messages between Kim and Michael. It was at this point that Sarah had instant clarity that everything was wrong: Brown’s relationship with Kim as well as his relationship with her. She confronted the Browns with the notepad, and Michael Brown admitted to her what had been going on. Sarah claims that Brown said that he would formally apologize to her for what happened, as she would be representing the student body. He allegedly did so, and Sarah moved away from the campus. According to Michael Brown, Sarah remained in contact with the Browns through 2015.
According to Brown, none of that occurred regarding the housesitting event. Instead, Sarah approached Brown and told him that his behavior told her made her feel uncomfortable. Dr. Brown asked for her forgiveness, and they parted on good terms.
Regarding the notes found while Sarah Monk was snooping in Brown’s house, Brown is documented in the Firefly report stating:
“No, I didn’t think of saving that at all, plus it would just be my word. In any case, she’s deceased, we didn’t commit adultery – to repeat, I have never had a physical relationship of any kind with any woman other than my wife from the day I got saved until today – and there’s nothing more to say about it. The fact we had a wrong soul tie, that I repented, that all parties met, there was forgiveness, I made major lifestyle changes and got intensive counseling, and nothing even remotely repeated like that in my life – so, one misstep, not adultery, in 53 years – is nothing the rest of the world needs to know, unless repentance and forgiveness and righteous dealing with sin has no more meaning in God’s kingdom.
Sarah asked me about it, she felt bad for me, we talked things through (it’s all journaled), and I was careful to see how she was doing in the days that followed. As for asking her not to say anything, I don’t think it dawned on me to do so. She really was like a daughter to us and very much on our side. And the only thing the note would have done was make the other woman look bad, not me.”
The report features Michael Brown confessing to his actions of kissing and grab-ass which he insists were neither sensual nor sexual, instead reflecting a paternal bond with these women.
The report concludes:
It is believed that any sexual misconduct within ministerial relationships represents a profound violation of sacred trust, undermining the moral and ethical foundations upon which such relationships are built. Such behavior, in any form, is entirely unacceptable in any setting, but particularly within church and ministry settings. These actions not only betray the confidence placed in these roles but also inflict significant harm on individuals and communities, eroding the trust essential for fostering spiritual guidance and support.
Based on gathered information and consistent accounts from multiple witnesses, it is evident that BROWN engaged in an inappropriate relationship with IS #1, as well as an inappropriate relationship involving sexually abusive misconduct with IS #2, Sarah. IS #2 Sarah was nineteen years old when BROWN first took notice of her, leading her to believe God was placing her in a place of favor under BROWN. Within a year, at the age of twenty, these interactions escalated to physical touch. With IS #2 Sarah, BROWN was observed holding her hand on multiple occasions, and both BROWN and IS #2 Sarah acknowledged and admitted to BROWN kissing IS #2 Sarah and making contact with the back midsection of her body. The meaning and exact locations of the kissing and contact to the rear are in question between the two accounts but must be looked at through the external viewpoint of an adult male having physical contact with an adult female.
While it is impossible to definitively prove deviant intent behind these actions, as the only person who sent and/or received sexually related communication with BROWN is deceased, the patterns of BROWN’S actions suggest that BROWN knowingly contributed to the situation and created an environment where, according to IS #2 Sarah, she felt uncomfortable and, even if years later, acknowledges that their relationship was inappropriate. Although the lack of direct proof of intent leaves room for speculation, the numerous interviews and, in many cases, corroborating documentation, point to a deliberate involvement of sexual misconduct within BRSM or FIRE SCHOOL, which could also be viewed as sexual harassment and/or a hostile work environment, especially with BROWN holding a position of power within the school generally and more specifically, with IS #2 Sarah.
Based on the provided information, it is notable that no credible evidence has emerged between 2002 and 2025 to suggest further inappropriate sexual behavior by BROWN. This strongly supports the belief that these were isolated incidents, confined to 2001 and 2002, as corroborated by consistent witness accounts and a comprehensive review of the available evidence.
The report uses feminism to presuppose these women were traumatized by Brown’s actions, even though the most serious allegations involve a deceased person with unsubstantiated claims. Michael Brown gets a consolation when the report concedes that this was an isolated incident and not part of a broader pattern of behavior.
In the end, this story will damage Michael Brown’s reputation and enrich a feminist cottage industry in church circles.
Powered by RedCircle
One Response
I’m not a fan of Brown but to go back to ridiculous allegations 24 years ago is insane. His bad theology is enough to be done with him but what a waste of money and resources. All sides are kooks.