The following report is presented in support of victims of clergy sexual abuse and misconduct. The original report is available upon request here.

I. Introduction
Leadership at Vineyard USA engaged Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian
Environment (GRACE) in November of 2019 after they received information that an ordained
Vineyard minister, Carl Medearis, had allegations of clergy misconduct raised against him. This
Executive Summary presents the scope and methodology of the GRACE process, findings and
analysis, and proposed recommendations.
II. Methodology
GRACE’s assessment was limited to the scope defined in the Engagement Agreement and
was conducted using semi-structured qualitative interviews, surveys, and qualitative content
analysis of collected relevant documents. The following section provides a summary of the scope
and methodology.
A. Scope
Per the Engagement Agreement, “GRACE shall investigate any and all allegations of
clergy misconduct by Carl Medearis that are directly or indirectly related to Vineyard, including
but not limited to, whether Vineyard had any knowledge of such allegations and if so, how
Vineyard responded to such allegations.”
This assessment defines “clergy misconduct” as occurring when a member of the clergy,
who holds a position of authority and trust, uses that power to exploit or violate an individual under
their authority, care, or mentorship.1 This often includes first developing an emotional and spiritual
connection, then exploiting it. Clergy misconduct may include any verbal, nonverbal and/or
physical acts of an immoral, indecent, or sexual nature that are 1) unwelcome; or 2) performed
without consent; or 3) committed upon an individual under the clergy member’s authority, care,
or mentorship. “Without consent” means that consent is not freely given or obtained, and is
accomplished through force, intimidation, violence, manipulation, coercion, threat, deception, or
misuse of authority or power. Clergy misconduct may also include spiritual abuse, a form of
emotional abuse using religion.2 Examples of spiritual abuse include but are not limited to using
spirituality or spiritual authority to dismiss a person’s perspective, agency, or value; invoking
spiritual authority to manipulate a person into meeting the needs of the abuser; abuse that occurs
in a religious context by a religious leader; attempts to use theology or spirituality to put their
leadership or decisions beyond questioning or accountability; and attempts to spiritualize or justify
harm using theology or spirituality.3
B. Survey and Limitations
GRACE launched a survey as a means of gathering information relevant to the scope of
this assessment. Ultimately, the survey did not identify additional information relevant to the scope

1 See generally Anson Shupe, “Spoils of the Kingdom: Clergy Misconduct and Religious Community” (2007);
GRACE Safeguarding Initiative, https://www.netgrace.org/safeguarding-initiative

.of our assessment. This may be attributed to numerous factors, including but not limited to breadth
and depth of dissemination of the survey link; knowledge and awareness of this assessment within
the larger Vineyard community; and other contributing factors which may have inhibited survey
respondents. Additionally, GRACE was unable to obtain or assess any information regarding any
international activity potentially relevant to the scope of our assessment. Because no party to the
process had subpoena power, the information and data collected was based solely on the voluntary
cooperation and assistance of the participants.
C. Witness Interviews and Documentation
GRACE reviewed hundreds of pages of relevant emails, social media communications, and
text messages, as well as several audio recordings provided by multiple witnesses. 17 individuals
agreed to speak with GRACE as part of the assessment, including Mr. Medearis. The interview
with Mr. Medearis was recorded and transcribed. Subsequently, Mr. Medearis revoked his consent
to reference any content of his interview. We have therefore omitted all content from Mr.
Medearis’s GRACE interview from this Executive Summary.
III. Findings and Analysis
A. Allegations reported to GRACE.
Five women provided accounts of alleged clergy misconduct by Mr. Medearis. The
allegations were similar in context and nature, and many occurred over some form of social media
platform.4 Each woman that GRACE interviewed had either reached out to Mr. Medearis or been
connected to Mr. Medearis due to some recent difficulty or hardship. Each woman was looking to
Mr. Medearis as a spiritual mentor and engaging in spiritual questions. The nature of the
allegations are as follows: in July 2018, Mr. Medearis reportedly directed a young woman to give
him a massage at the Simply Jesus Conference he founded. During this massage, Mr. Medearis
made sexualized comments regarding the massage itself and the young woman’s clothing, had an
erection, and directed the woman to hide in a bathroom to avoid detection by his wife.5 Other
allegations in 2018 and 2019 involve patterns of boundary violations, such as Mr. Medearis
pivoting from the women’s spiritual questions to his sexual interests, leveraging spiritual authority
to engage in sexual exploitation, making flattering comments regarding the women’s appearances,
requesting their photos, attempting to arrange one-on-one in-person meetings in isolated locations
(such as hotel rooms), asking or demanding that the communications be kept private, persisting in
communications after women requested that he desist, and engaging in deceptive or intimidating
behavior with the women or others seeking accountability.6
Significantly, none of these women indicated that they were aware of the identity or even
existence of each other, either at the time they raised concerns or when interviewed by GRACE.
Each of these women described noteworthy similarities in Mr. Medearis’s communication and
conduct. Each lacked an apparent motive to fabricate these accounts and expressed an admiration

4 LinkedIn, Facebook, private text messaging, and other electronic communication methods were utilized.

for Mr. Medearis prior to the alleged clergy misconduct.7 Furthermore, multiple women expressed
a desire for Mr. Medearis to receive help, spiritual support, and ultimately restoration.8 Two
women reported allegations of misconduct committed by Medearis in May 2020 and beyond, long
after GRACE initiated its assessment. One of these women was baptized only months before Mr.
Medearis contacted her.
GRACE has determined these allegations to be credible. Though GRACE’s assessment of
Mr. Medearis’s credibility is unfavorable,9 he has conceded multiple instances that match the
definition of clergy misconduct listed earlier in this report.10 We do not assess additional
allegations that were determined to be outside the scope of clergy misconduct.11
B. Carl Medearis wielded significant influence and spiritual authority.
Mr. Medearis’s website describes him as “an international expert in the field of Arab-
American and Muslim-Christian relations.”12 As founder of the Simply Jesus conference, Mr.
Medearis has befriended and networked with many prominent evangelical voices.13 Mr.
Medearis’s books feature recommendations by high-profile Christian authors like Tony Campolo,
William Paul Young, and Bob Goff. One of Mr. Medearis’s books, “Tea with Hezbollah,” is coauthored
with prolific novelist and New York Times bestselling author Ted Dekker, chronicling
their journey through the Middle East. Dekker’s description of Mr. Medearis is glowing; on one
page, Dekker describes Mr. Medearis as “loved by all, and I do mean all… [Mr. Medearis] stands
six foot two and is built like the grizzly bears he befriends.”14 Reported victims of clergy

7 One woman indicated Mr. Medearis was “someone that I really admired.” RV. “I was so in shock because you
have to remember that, like I have held this guy on a pedestal, and I wouldn’t say pedestal. I just looked to him for
mentorship via his writings and speaking for a decade.” RV. “We just naturally trusted him and supported him.” RV.
“I am grateful that I’ve lived long enough and seen enough that I’ve got good boundaries and that I do get suspicious,
and that I didn’t go [meet Mr. Medearis at a hotel] because it was incredibly disappointing to me to see somebody
you respect behaving that way.” RV.
8 “What I want to see out of this investigation is just restoration. I want Carl to get the help that he needs. And I want
Carl to respect [his wife] with the respect that she deserves. That’s about it. That’s what I want.” RV. “I believe in a
forgiving God. I would like, if there’s any basis to the concerns, I’d really like Carl and his family to be able to get
some help and for him to be able to live the life he’s meant to lead without this going on, right? I’m not looking to
humiliate or shame anyone or for punishment. … but I don’t want somebody who’s supposed to be walking out and
living for Christ and being an example of Christ and having as much global influence for the Bible as Carl has to sully
it with bad choices on his part. None of us are perfect, I recognize that. I would just love if he could get help if he
needs, if he and his family need it.” RV.
9 See Part III.E. GRACE did not base its consideration of Mr. Medearis’s credibility on his interview, per Part II.C,
above.
10 GRACE is not referencing any content from Mr. Medearis’s interview with GRACE, here or elsewhere in the
Executive Summary.
11 Mr. Medearis’s wife was “led by the Lord to go looking for Carl” nearly two months after the Simply Jesus
conference. She reportedly discovered him at a hotel “behind a locked door with two women in bathing suits.”
Interviewee Correspondence. While outside the scope of our work, this incident is at a minimum inappropriate
behavior for someone who holds themselves out as a spiritual leader. GRACE was unable to speak with key individuals
involved in this incident, and does not assess it within the framework of clergy misconduct. However, GRACE does
consider Mr. Medearis’s inconsistent versions of this incident within our assessment of his credibility. See Part III.E.

12 “Meet Carl Medearis,” http://carlmedearis.com/welcome/bio/ (last accessed September 30, 2021).
13 “What is Simply Jesus?” http://simplyjesusgathering.com/about/ (last accessed September 30, 2021).
14 Ted Dekker and Carl Medearis, “Tea with Hezbollah: Sitting at the Enemies’ Table, Our Journey Through the Middle East,” p5

misconduct described their affinity for these books and their positive impact, with one woman
referring to Mr. Medearis’s writing as a pinnacle in her spiritual journey.15 Mr. Medearis’s position
of power and authority was recognized by both witnesses and disclosing women.16
C. Grooming Behavior
Multiple witnesses who observed Mr. Medearis’s communication with the disclosing
women, described his strategies as “grooming” behavior.17 Literature on clergy sexual misconduct
defines “grooming” as behavior by spiritual leadership seeking to develop a close relationship with
targeted individuals, including flattering or concerned language, affection, sharing private
information, religious language, and erosion of boundaries.18
Offenders often “isolate the victim to increase dependence on them, create a sense of shared
responsibility… and further reduce the likelihood of reporting.”19 Isolation and secrecy were
frequent themes of Mr. Medearis’s relevant communications:
“Also, if you agree I think we should keep our chats private. For your sake and
mine.”20
“I’m not even talking to [a mutual acquaintance] about is [sic] talking. It’s just
better to keep things private.”21
“And she [a secretary] doesn’t read this app so that’s why I suggested this.”22
“Carl asked me to keep portions of the conversation completely private.”23
Tactics of isolation were identified by the disclosing women.24 In addition, Mr. Medearis
invited multiple women to spend time with him in isolated contexts and injected sexual themes
into these proposed encounters.25 Researchers have identified flattery as a common grooming

15 RV. “His book kind of opened a window in my heart to be a little bit more open minded to the world and people’s
perspectives in the language that we use. And I was really, really impacted by it.” RV. “His book was really pinnacle
in that [spiritual] journey.” RV. “I know that we have practically all of his books.” RV. “I read Tea with Hezbollah.
That one, I really liked, and I’ve read Saying Yes to Jesus.” RV.
16 Some noted the incongruity of Mr. Medearis’s words with his “big platform for the Gospel” and “position of power”
as a “Christian leader.” RV.
17 E.g., “I thought he’s a pro at this. He’s grooming her.” “This is grooming.” Interviewee Transcript.
18 See Garland, Diana & Argueta, Christen. (2010). How Clergy Sexual Misconduct Happens: A Qualitative Study of
First-Hand Accounts. Social Work & Christianity. 37.
19 Peters R.J. (2020) Technology-Facilitated Child Abuse. In: Geffner R., Vieth V., Vaughan-Eden V., Rosenbaum
A., Hamberger L., White J. (eds) Handbook of Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham.
20 Message from Mr. Medearis to RV.
21 Message from Mr. Medearis to RV.
22 Message from Mr. Medearis to RV.
23 RV.
24 “Carl made [me] feel singled out, special, the only one privy to his attention.” RV. “…then I felt weird,
and I didn’t want to tell [a friend], because it was shameful.” RV.
25 Id.

tactic.26 Flattery was present in Mr. Medearis’ communications with disclosing women.27 Mr.
Medearis also asked multiple women for photos in the context of this flattery.28
Several studies focus on the target selection phase of grooming, which may include
consideration of perceived psychological vulnerability, familial conflict, and access to victims.29
Mr. Medearis reportedly targeted multiple divorced, single women. Each disclosing woman
initially approached or was referred to Mr. Medearis for help or guidance with serious questions,
including problematic behavior by others, requests for ministry or mission trip insight, theological
questions, family crisis involving youth, and even assistance with processing physically and
emotionally abusive relationships.30 Several of the disclosing women previously experienced
serious, sustained physical and sexual assaults, and multiple women discussed these experiences
directly with Mr. Medearis:
“[H]e became aware of the fact that there was domestic violence and sexual assault
in my marriage.”31
“And I opened up. I’m like, ‘I have been sexually abused in church. I’ve witnessed
more friends be sexually abused in church.’”32
On multiple occasions, Mr. Medearis pivoted from the women’s attempted discussions of
spirituality to his interest in sexuality. In several exchanges, Mr. Medearis attempted to justify this

26 Kloess, J.A., Seymour-Smith, S., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Long, M.L., Shipley, D., & Beech, A. (2017). A
Qualitative Analysis of Offenders’ Modus Operandi in Sexually Exploitative Interactions With Children
Online. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29, 563 – 591.
27 “You’re an elegant middle eastern lady…” Message from Mr. Medearis to RV. “[I] realized a couple of significant
things that I’d missed. Your comment about ‘men being entitled to my body just because they like it.’ I totally missed
that. So I went to Instagram and saw the pictures of you that you post. And now I understand more. You are indeed a
beautiful woman. I had no idea.” Message from Mr. Medearis to RV. When confronted, Mr. Medearis would
sometimes claim ignorance of the women’s appearance, e.g. “I didn’t know anything about you… or what you looked
like – until yesterday. So taking advantage of any of that wasn’t even possible as I didn’t know. I’ve actually only
seen the pic of your face on this app.” RV. “Carl made multiple remarks on my attractiveness.” RV.
28 E.g. Mr. Medearis reportedly called one married woman “hot,” invited her to lunch alone multiple times after she
asked for her husband and others to join, and “asked for a photo… multiple times, even after two blatant refusals.”
RV.
29 Spraitz, J. D., & Bowen, K. N. (2019). Examination of a nascent taxonomy of priest sexual
grooming. Sexual Abuse, 31, 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218809095; Peters R.J. (2020) Technology-
Facilitated Child Abuse. In: Geffner R., Vieth V., Vaughan-Eden V., Rosenbaum A., Hamberger L., White J. (eds)
Handbook of Interpersonal Violence Across the Lifespan. Springer, Cham.
30 “[W]hy [is he] thinking about me like this? …I’m going through the divorce, does he want to take advantage of
anything about me? Or does he think that I’m vulnerable to anything, that he can just use that instead of trying to be
helpful?” RV.
31 RV.
32 RV.

shift on grounds of authenticity.33 Mr. Medearis’s connections to power and prominent Christian
personalities also reportedly appeared in his sexualized conversations with multiple women.34
D. Clergy misconduct.
GRACE received information that alleged Mr. Medearis committed clergy misconduct35
against five women. In the first instance, Medearis leveraged his position of spiritual authority to
exploit a young woman who sought his spiritual counsel while attending the Simply Jesus
conference he founded. In response to the woman’s spiritual questions, Mr. Medearis requested
and received a massage causing his apparent sexual arousal and erection. The woman was hesitant
to provide the massage, but said she trusted Mr. Medearis due to his status as spiritual leader. Her
mother referred her to Mr. Medearis as a trusted source to address a complex theological question
regarding the compatibility of massage therapy and related ideology with Christianity, and “that
was the initial conversation that led to me and Carl being alone together.”36 In this conversation,
the woman shared that she was a victim of child sexual abuse in Christian contexts, and witnessed
“friends be molested in Christian spaces, supposed spiritual sanctuaries.”37 She discussed her life’s
“recurring theme of men sexualizing me when I was not,” and found Mr. Medearis to be “very
supportive and responsive.”38
Though this woman suggested that Mr. Medearis’ wife be present in the room, this
possibility was reportedly rejected by Mr. Medearis. The woman told Mr. Medearis of her desire
“to find a mentor that you trust [so] that I can develop my spiritual pathway. And as soon as he
heard that I do massages, he just bee-lined to that… [he said] ‘Let’s do a massage right now.’”39
This woman had read and appreciated Mr. Medearis’ book, “Adventures in Saying Yes: A
Journey from Fear to Faith,” and embraced Mr. Medearis’ message that “When Jesus says yes, he
says yes.”40 The book was “why I didn’t question because I’m like, ‘This is the man who says yes
to Jesus. Of course, I’m going to say yes to Jesus if he sees it in my ministry.’”41 Mr. Medearis

33 Medearis told one woman “For me being totally transparent has little to do with theological discussions at this point
in my journey. It’s some of that, but not much, but it’s everything. And it just so happens that sex is part of that. My
thoughts are part of that. I was simply being raw and honest with you probably too much [sic].” Mr. Medearis to RV.
Another woman noted that Mr. Medearis claimed “the use of blatant honesty to justify inappropriate remarks and
requests.” RV.
34 “[A]s the conversation went on, when it started getting weird, it definitely felt like he became sexually charged and
it was more about, I want to explore my sexual freedom [more] than any other type of freedom. And he was talking
about [Christian author] and how [Christian author] has an open marriage and how he was definitely interested in
that.” RV. Another woman noted that Mr. Medearis would “name drop[] spiritual leaders to justify his behaviors.”
RV.
35 “Clergy misconduct” is defined in Part II.A, “Scope,” above.
36 RV.
37 RV.
38 RV.
39 RV.
40 RV.
41 RV.

reportedly removed his clothes during the massage42 and made sexualized comments regarding the
massage itself and the young woman’s clothing.43 Mr. Medearis later behaved evasively,
reportedly attempting to leave the room through a window,44 and directed the woman to hide in a
bathroom, in his failed attempt to avoid detection by his wife.
Mr. Medearis seems to have exploited this young woman’s trust and admiration, reportedly
deriving sexual pleasure from a practice which she viewed as a spiritual gift, immediately after she
shared her history of sexual abuse in Christian environments.45 As psychologist Diane Langberg
observed, “Our responses to the vulnerable expose who we are.”46
With the remaining four women, Mr. Medearis engaged in other forms of repeated and
persistent boundary violations. Significantly, Mr. Medearis reportedly engaged in this behavior
both before and, with two of these women, during GRACE’s assessment process.
Multiple witnesses described Mr. Medearis’s approach to women as polished, practiced
behavior,47 often using “humor” or “self-deprecation” to obfuscate “the serious inappropriate
content of the conversation.”48 One aspect of Mr. Medearis’s approach, which all five women
described, was seeking an in-person, one-on-one meeting and injecting sexual topics or context.
Mr. Medearis attempted to meet multiple women at hotels, often noting that his wife would be out
of town. In one instance he offered his “motor home. So I could even spend the night there to give
us some time.”49 Mr. Medearis attempted this meeting with a woman referred to him for help in
the context of trauma and divorce—in May of 2020, during this investigation.
E. Assessment of credibility for Carl Medearis.

42 According to the woman, Mr. Medearis indicated that “he is nude with his other massage therapist.” She indicated
Mr. Medearis requested a massage at pressure points at the top of the thigh, since a previous massage therapist did
this to “make him feel better.” When the massage was given, Medearis “basically said, ‘How can you say that this
isn’t sexual?’ And then that’s when I concluded this. Because I realized that where his head was at, and where I was
at, were not the same.” She stated that it is common for men to be nude during a massage, although the other
behaviors (sexualized comments, evasive behavior, etc.) are not typical or accepted.
43 Mr. Medearis initially omitted his comments about the young woman’s bra from his version of events. In an email
to accountability partners dated September 15, 2018, Medearis acknowledged that “I did tell her (when I first saw
her) that she should wear a bra. She had a sheet shirt on that we [sic] very revealing. Actually a couple came up to
me and asked about her as well – they were concerned about that.” This raises the question of why, if Mr. Medearis
(and others, in his narrative) were concerned with modesty, he then proceeded to a room with her alone and removed
his clothing. One individual responded, “that is even more confounding… When is the last time you told a young
girl she needed to wear a bra? Seriously?” Interviewee Correspondence.
44 RV Correspondence.
45 “[M]y healing session got dragged down into being an extra marital affair. That it wasn’t. He told me to go hide in
the bathroom, so I hid in the bathroom. [Mr. Medearis’s wife] came in, and then when she realized that I was in the
bathroom, he couldn’t even say my name.”
46 Diane Langberg, “Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church” (2020).
47 “I thought he’s a pro at this.” Interviewee reaction to RV text messages. “[H]e was playing his cards right.” “I have
a feeling I’m not the only one because he switched so quickly and easily and as if …. he’s done this before.” “It felt
very predatory.” “Just how quickly he transitioned from a meaningful conversation to let’s meet at a hotel like that,
that happened within a matter of 24 hours.” RV.
48 RV.
49 RV.

As previously stated, GRACE has omitted any reference to the content of GRACE’s
transcribed interview with Mr. Medearis due to his revocation of consent. However, GRACE has
reviewed documented communication between Mr. Medearis and multiple witnesses, including
email, text messaging, social media, and voicemail. Based on this correspondence, authenticated
and corroborated by transcribed statements of relevant witnesses, Mr. Medearis changed critical
components of his versions of events, numerous times. Mr. Medearis himself has acknowledged
“a series of lies to cover up the lie,” and lying “a hundred times”50 regarding the relevant facts,
although he has never acknowledged the full scope of his misconduct, and typically concedes
misconduct and deceit only after his behavior is conclusively exposed.51 Mr. Medearis’s pattern
50 Mr. Medearis conceded some of his lies in a voicemail left for accountability partners. “There was no sex
involved, no intention for sex, I was caught lying to her [my wife]… a series of lies to cover up the lie. Telling her
the rest of the story, I just see how she’s reacted. I saw how she reacted when I told her two new details to the
story… [I told her] a very minor detail and she just freaked out [referring to his comment to one disclosing woman
about a bra]. It was so traumatic for her.”
51 Medearis initially either denied or omitted key details from every instance of alleged clergy misconduct. In one
incident, Mr. Medearis’s wife found Mr. Medearis in a hotel room with two women wearing swimsuits behind a closed
door. Though we do not assess this incident within the framework of clergy misconduct, Mr. Medearis’s conflicting
and shifting versions of events are relevant to our assessment of his credibility, in that they demonstrate Mr. Medearis’s
inconsistency and serial deception:
● Version 1: Mr. Medearis texted his wife that his two hunting partners cancelled, and he would sleep in
his car. Mr. Medearis later stated that he lied because he was “embarrassed about bear hunting by
himself.” Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
● Version 2: Mr. Medearis told others that he put on his swimsuit, and as he walked out his hotel door,
two ladies were walking up the stairs and said “Is this the apartment?” Mr. Medearis replied yes. Both
were “drunk and high,” laughed, and walked into his room. Mr. Medearis asked what they were doing
and followed one in. The second woman closed the door and they sat down. Mr. Medearis was in shock
and feeling guilty about lying to his wife (see Version 1). He sat on the edge of the one chair in the room
(they had sat on the couch) and Mr. Medearis said they needed to leave. This is the point that Chris
arrived. Mr. Medearis maintained Version 2 after its plausibility was challenged, asserting that “They
walked in and closed the door.” An individual confronting Mr. Medearis told him “You made choices
to be in a room (actually rooms) with a girl alone… The second incident is after you told me to my face
that you would never be in a bedroom with [another] woman again.” Interviewee Correspondence with
Mr. Medearis.
● Version 3: While pushing back against the “agenda” of accountability partners who voiced skepticism
and discussed the incident with third parties, Mr. Medearis attacked the hotel as complicit in the women’s
arrival, suggesting that they targeted him with prostitutes: “We’ve now assumed that one very plausible
thing is that the place itself sent two hookers to my room – how else could they have known someone
was up there and how did they tell [my wife] that three people were in the room? Unless they knew. So
you’re gonna ask the culprits what went down and hope to get truth?” Mr. Medearis asserted that a “lady
at hot springs” “sent those ladies up there,” and attacked accountability partners for presumably
accepting her story: “That you would believe her.. or someone else.. it feels so hurtful that you kind of
believe their story and not what actually happened. I don’t get that. You know me by the fruit of my life.
You know my three kids. Kids don’t turn out this way if their father’s a hypocrite.” Mr. Medearis later
conceded this version of events was false, but maintained his anger towards accountability partners.
● Version 4: Mr. Medearis admits that the women were not hotel-directed prostitutes, and that he knew
both women, and thought “I should call these two girls and get them together to talk about a business
idea,” which was their interest in “starting responsible weed growing business,” “pot tourism,” or
“recreational weed usage.” He stated one was a massage therapist he visited, and met one previously on
a boat ride. He was perhaps inspired to text them because “it’s the devil, my sickness.” Mr. Medearis
maintained that he “was not planning on an all-night threesome” and they were “literally in the hotel

of obfuscation and deception raises serious concerns regarding his level of past and future
truthfulness, and the probable efficacy of accountability measures.
F. Assessment of Mr. Medearis’s response to allegations of clergy misconduct.
When confronted by others for misconduct, Mr. Medearis typically conceded facts that the
confronter likely knew,52 denied facts that the confronter was less likely to know,53 and when
pinned on inconsistencies, became verbally aggressive54 and/or selectively claimed amnesia or
memory loss. As confronters learned more information, Mr. Medearis’s story shifted to
accommodate their increasing knowledge base. Several tactics were utilized by Mr. Medearis to
avoid or deter accountability and exposure.
Thomas Doyle, a leading scholar on issues of clergy-perpetrated abuse, stated that an
offender’s lack of awareness can be “akin to disavowal or denial and is a delusional suspension of
reality.”55 Over a year after attempting to meet one woman in a hotel, Mr. Medearis messaged her
the following:
“…please consider forgiving me for my weird and totally bizarre texts a year and
a half ago. I have no recollection of any of that or even of that day. My doctors
have since decided that I had a stroke and that’s why I can’t remember, and maybe
even an explanation of that weird behavior on my part. But regardless it was awful,
and I’m so sorry for the confusion and pain it must’ve caused you.”

room for one minute” before Mr. Medearis’s wife arrived. Mr. Medearis acknowledged “I’m guessing it
did look like I invited those two ladies to spend the night, one came in for free under my name.” Mr.
Medearis says he apologized to one of these women, stating “Please forgive me, I’m a sick man,” to
which she responded “f*** you.” Other unique facts include the timing of Mr. Medearis’s booking the
hotel, and how many individuals he booked it for. Mr. Medearis claims he asked to have the hotel booked
for three individuals (but not these two women), and the owner stated that was not an option. Mr.
Medearis also states that he had previously booked the hotel room for himself and his wife. Mr. Medearis
told others that he knew his version of events “sounds so stupid.” Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
● Version 5: After Mr. Medearis was found laying in his driveway early in the morning, he was taken to
the hospital and “now he has amnesia.” From this point forward, Mr. Medearis “has crisp memory about
things that he wants to have memory about and has amnesia about things he doesn’t want to remember.”
Interviewee Transcript.
52 As one witness noted, “Carl has not admitted to anything that he wasn’t caught in.” Another responded to Mr.
Medearis’s belated disclosure of remarking on a young woman’s bra as “I would’ve expected you to share that in
our other conversations but you didn’t. That does make me wonder if other specifics are going to come out?”
Interviewee Correspondence with Mr. Medearis.
53 An assessment participant indicated that “Carl lied to and threatened those that confronted him in his behavior.”
54 In an email dated September 15, 2018, Mr. Medearis accused accountability partners of having an “agenda” or
“mission,” stating “If you want another reaction from me – then keep pushing,” and “If you share any of this with
[my wife], I will no longer be your friend.” According to one interviewee, Mr. Medearis “demands to be believed
when he has proven he will lie, and threaten if challenged or caught.”
55 Thomas Doyle, ARTICLE: CATHOLIC CLERGY SEXUAL ABUSE MEETS THE CIVIL LAW, 31 Fordham
Urb. L.J. 549, 562

Multiple individuals, including a disclosing woman, noted the implausibility of Mr.
Medearis’ selective amnesia narrative,56 which is further undermined by the similarity of the
referenced messages to Mr. Medearis’s other incidents of clergy misconduct over a span of years,
including during the timeframe of this investigation. One participant noted the logical conflict
between Mr. Medearis’ amnesia claim and his assertion that “this is all that has happened and…
there are no other incidents that will come to light.”57 Interviewees also noted the strategic nature
of Mr. Medearis’’s selective amnesia, since Mr. Medearis “remembers certain things very clearly,
things that he uses to proclaim his innocence. He can’t remember things that demonstrate his
deception and inappropriate behavior.”58 As with Mr. Medearis’s other post-misconduct actions,
this narrative minimizes his conduct and assigns guilt to others.59
Despite the implausibility of Mr. Medearis’s narratives, he engaged in what appears to be
“gaslighting,” a technique utilized to undermine a victim’s confidence in their own ability to
distinguish truth or reality, thereby increasing their dependence on the perpetrator.60 Mr. Medearis
told women that they were misinterpreting his communications because of their compromised
status as sexual or physical abuse victims, and claimed to be hurt when his advances were rejected,
or when accountability partners expressed skepticism over his version of events:61
“I’m sorry if that’s been your experience with men. It hurts and is offensive that
you’d put that on me. I guess you must just assume that with a guy who is friendly
to you.”62
“Honestly, I said too much to you, open too quickly, too deeply in an area where
you’ve been hurt. Let’s back up and have some phone conversations if you’d still
like and then see.”63

56 “I was like, ‘Oh, how convenient, you had a stroke and can’t remember anything you did.’” RV. “Carl does not
demonstrate the humility that one would expect from someone who has admitted to fabricating complex stories or
someone who has amnesia and can’t remember details.” Interviewee Correspondence.
57 Interviewee Correspondence.
58 Interviewee Correspondence.
59 Mr. Medearis claimed mistreatment by others, stating others were “treating me like a criminal.” Voicemail
recording of Mr. Medearis.
60 “Gaslighting,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/gaslighting (last accessed June 1,
2021).
61 The disclosing women often saw through Medearis’s gaslighting tactics, noting how he was “Trying to make me
feel guilty, like I did something wrong for not wanting to meet him at a hotel, a married man.” The tactic was even
recognized by name: “it was classic emotionally abusive behavior where he’s turning the tables, he’s minimizing,
he’s gaslighting.” As one woman noted, “So now he’s the victim, right?” Disclosing women articulated further
issues with this tactic: “I mean, come on, you have to have some serious, serious cognitive dissonance just to think
that [Mr. Medearis’s messages] could be interpreted in any kind of platonic way.” “And just to be having this
meaningful conversation and then all of a sudden it’s like, whoa, okay now hotel, and now you’re making me feel
guilty because I’m not interested in that.” RV. Another woman noted that Mr. Medearis “put[] blame back on the
subject.” RV. One individual confronted Mr. Medearis, observing that his conduct was not “flirting, as you called it
in a previous semi transparent explanation. That’s a long term pattern of breaking covenant, lying, pretending, and
then trying to cover. No play on words, but it’s Simply Not Jesus.”
62 Social media message from Mr. Medearis to RV.
63 Social media message from Mr. Medearis to RV.

“Your accusation that I’m using my power to manipulate you again, I assume is
from your past felt pretty bad [sic].”64
“I’m still confused and hurt if I’m honest by your response [in which the woman
declined a one-on-one hotel invitation].”65
“When you show such skepticism and even believing her story and not mine, well
to say the least – it’s hurtful. It’s gonna take time to recover from all of this. Good
thing there’s a God.”66
In one instance, Mr. Medearis’s justification to a concerned third party was “I was being middle
eastern friendly is all. Are you serious?”67 Mr. Medearis also sought to discredit allegations based
on the women’s past sexual abuse, stating his fear of what they would allege, based on their
compromised status. In one email, Mr. Medearis wrote “I thought this [the allegation] might
happen.” In another, he stated “I’m not surprised she’s made up this story.”68 Mr. Medearis also
claimed his wife “had a whole feeling about [one disclosing woman] before it ever happened.”69
This raises the question of why, if Mr. Medearis found these women unreliable and suspicious to
the point of anticipating abuse allegations, he actively attempted to discuss sexual topics with
them, alone, in isolated locations.70
Mr. Medearis’s justifications seem to demonstrate in part that the “exploitation of the
vulnerable person tells us about the exploiter, not the victim of that exploitation… Wrong choices
and inaccurate labeling of exploitations of another’s vulnerability cause further damage to
ourselves and others. But the truth is that our response to vulnerability tells about us and only us.
What comes ‘out of us’ in the face of vulnerability was there all the time. The vulnerability of the
other has merely exposed the truth about ourselves.”71
64 Social media message from Mr. Medearis to RV.
65 Social media message from Mr. Medearis to RV. The referenced response from the woman included declining and
expressing disappointment in Mr. Medearis’s one-on-one hotel invitation.

66 Email dated September 15, 2018 from Carl Medearis to accountability partners.
67 Social media message from Mr. Medearis to third party.
68 In an attempt to discredit one woman prior to church leadership reaching out, Medearis left a voicemail stating,
“This has happened to her before—I mean, there was no sexual abuse this time, but the fact that there was a thing
with a leader.” Mr. Medearis worried aloud that she “might say something negative about a spiritual leader… I do
feel nervous about that… Who knows what the story could come back as?” Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
69 Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
70 The flawed rationale of Mr. Medearis’s victim-blaming statements presented in multiple contexts. In an email to
accountability partners regarding the Simply Jesus Conference allegations, dated September 15, 2018, Medearis
acknowledged that “I did tell her (when I first saw her) that she should wear a bra. She had a sheet [sic] shirt on that
we [sic] very revealing. Actually a couple came up to me and asked about her as well – they were concerned about
that.” This presents the question of why, if Mr. Medearis (and others, according to him) were concerned with her
modesty, he then proceeded to a room with her alone and removed his clothing. Similarly, Mr. Medearis inferred a
lack of reliability by suggesting one woman might be autistic. He also stated that there was an unfriendly exchange
with a disclosing woman’s family member prior to one instance of alleged misconduct, calling that individual “off”
and “kooky.” He stated one woman had “demonic reactions” during an incident of clergy misconduct.
71 Diane Langberg, “Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church” (2020).

The apparent gaslighting was often paired with repeated attempts to communicate, even
after women indicated a lack of interest in further discussion,72 which is noteworthy since
“persistent and pressurizing requests and orders” are an additional feature of concerning
communication methods noted by scholars.73 “Downplaying inappropriate requests or comments,”
“playing dumb when called out” for these, and other deceptive forms of communication were
identified.74 Mr. Medearis also engaged in a pattern of seemingly threatening behavior that
appeared designed to intimidate, manipulate, and demand the silence of reported victims,
concerned pastors, accountability partners, and Vineyard staff. In some cases, Mr. Medearis’s
threats had their intended effect, with victims describing fear of financial hardship and lawyer
fees.75 Threats of legal consequences were particularly frequent, and targeted towards victims and
others seeking clarity, accountability, or repentance.
Mr. Medearis also leveraged his wife as a tactic, either as an excuse to avoid or reject
proposed accountability measures,76 as a proxy for filing lawsuits against an individual seeking
accountability,77 as a motivation for sexual misconduct,78 or as a reason for evasive behavior in

72 “So after I said, I do not wish to communicate further, he messaged me as you see again on [date] and then again
on [date], and then again on [date].” RV. “… I began to get suspicious when I called him twice and told him that he
shouldn’t be sending me texts like that and he continued to do it. Then I finally told him that I wasn’t going to meet
him and I wasn’t going to answer the texts anymore.” RV. “I was really blunt with him, and then he sent it again.” RV.
Mr. Medearis’s persistence extended to requesting photos despite multiple refusals by the women. RV.
73 Kloess, J.A., Seymour-Smith, S., Hamilton-Giachritsis, C., Long, M.L., Shipley, D., & Beech, A. (2017). A
Qualitative Analysis of Offenders’ Modus Operandi in Sexually Exploitative Interactions With Children
Online. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29, 563 – 591.
74 RV. “After making an inappropriate remark or request, he carefully uses language to counterbalance the remark,
in attempts to release responsibility from himself.” RV.
75 “But when I first got it, I was … I was like shaking. I’m sitting outside alone with my kids and I’m like, oh, my gosh,
is this guy going to come after me? And I can’t afford a lawyer like he can.” RV. Disclosing women expressed concerns
over speaking with GRACE, due to fear of public retaliation from Mr. Medearis.
76 Mr. Medearis expressed caution over an accountability member speaking with a disclosing woman, stating “It
would crush us, [my wife] and I if a really bad story came out.” In a September 2018 email response to allegations
being examined by his accountability group, Medearis stated “Not sure what the agenda is here. Chris would be
deviated [sic] even if she heard there was another story here. My guess is that we’d be done.” In October 2018, Mr.
Medearis wrote that an accountability partner “has seemed to be on a mission to tell [my wife]… So here’s the thing
– I don’t want to keep secrets from my wife (or anyone for that matter). But I need assurance that I can trust you
NOT to share with [her] what I share with you. If you give that… and you tell me what you know and I’ll tell you all
I know. And then I’ll decide if and when and what to tell my wife in due time as we get healed and I feel that we can
handle it. Ok? If you don’t agree to that, well then I’m not sure where to go from here. What do you say? I do feel
like I’d kove [sic] a clean and full confession so this’ll be good. But I will do anything to protect my marriage.
Anything.” In a separate text, Mr. Medearis wrote “I’m asking that you agree not to tell [my wife] and you leave that
up to me.”
77 “A gentle warning, this time it’s gentle, be careful. [My wife] hired a lawyer, libel, slander and defamation are real
things. [My wife] sees the game you’re playing and so do I. Another public message [disclosing Mr. Medearis’s
misconduct] like you posted on Facebook meets all the above requirements. Another message of any kind and you’ll
need a powerful lawyer. This is my gentle warning …” RV
78 “I got texts back and forth from Carl saying that his wife was gone and I should come up and meet him at a hot
springs and we could have a glass of wine and talk.” RV

hiding the abuse itself.79 Mr. Medearis leveraged his children in the same ways less frequently.80
These blame-shifting tactics are consistent with the dynamics of DARVO, a phenomenon in which
offenders are observed to “use denial, engage in personal attacks on victim credibility, and assume
a victimized role (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender; DARVO) to deflect blame.”81
G. Repentance and theology.
Authentic repentance includes sincere and complete confession. Words should never be
the sole proof of accepting an individual’s repentance, but words along with actions are part of
repentance. The type of words that demonstrate true repentance are words that acknowledge the
sin without any attempt to minimize or hide the sin. Repentant sinners should admit their sin before
the Lord and to those who were impacted by the sin.82 Repentance also describes a recognition of,
and turning away from, sinful behavior. Furthermore, a repentant individual recognizes the
propriety of safeguards to prevent future offenses and accepts these as lovingly implemented for
the benefit of themselves and others. These elements of biblical repentance are critical when
assessing an offender’s repentance.

79 Mr. Medearis frequently seems to use the pain his actions would cause his wife, if known to her, to avoid
accountability and transparency. He also ignored the pain his actions caused the disclosing women, by shifting focus
to the pain his wife would experience if he suffered consequences. Medearis stated to accountability partners, “I know
you guys think that [my wife] knowing all truth about everything is good and it’s hard to argue with that I know. But
I’m convinced it’s actually not a good idea. And I’m doing it under protest. And the consequences of me sharing the
rest of the story with her, if it goes bad, I will place the blame directly on your heads… I’m not happy, I’m not
impressed by this angle… that you’re kind of pushing and driving… There was no sex involved, no intention for sex,
I was caught lying to her… a series of lies to cover up the lie. Telling her the rest of the story, I just see how she’s
reacted. I saw how she reacted when I told her two new details to the story… [I told her] a very minor detail and she
just freaked out [referring to his comment to one disclosing woman about a bra]. It was so traumatic for her. Why do
we want to hurt her, wound her, and traumatize her more? I actually don’t get it… I will do it if you continue to hold
the threat over me that you’re going to tell her… I’m telling you, you’re forcing me to do something that I think is
unhelpful, maybe even wrong, to hurt her that way… It will so freak her out that I knew [redacted] before… when she
knows that, then I’m not sure she’ll ever believe that I wasn’t inviting [redacted] to spend the night. And then it goes
right back to where we were before, then she’s gonna say how do I really know you weren’t wanting to spend the
night with [redacted]. I just don’t see that going anywhere positive. … Ever since then as I’ve prayed and thought and
kind of role played that conversation in my mind I don’t see it going anywhere that’s actually helpful. I just see it
causing lots of hurt and damage and maybe not recoverable. I know you think I’m being dramatic about that, but
believe me I’m not being dramatic. And the funny thing is we’re doing great now. For the first time last night, I don’t
know if this is TMI, we had sex, really good great wonderful sex, and it was so passionate and so loving, and this
morning it’s been so great and she left for Bible study just now. And man I don’t want to jeopardize that just because
you think I need to tell her the rest of the story. So again, I want you to be really convincing on why you think this is
vital to happen… I think you need to convince me again.”
80 While arguing to keep the truth from his wife, Mr. Medearis quoted her as saying “if there’s anything more, or if
anything happened, or if you knew those girls or invited those girls, I will leave you that day,” and “I will tell your
children that you are a hypocrite and a bad man.” Mr. Medearis also said “I feel sad that if you expose something…
it ruins my marriage and my children.” In another incident, while asserting his candor, he argued “You know my three
kids. Kids don’t turn out this way if their father’s a hypocrite.” Mr. Medearis later conceded that he lied about this
incident.
81 Sarah Harsey & Jennifer J. Freyd, (2020). Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO): What Is
the Influence on Perceived Perpetrator and Victim Credibility?, Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma,
29:8, 897-916, DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2020.1774695.
82 Psalm 32:5; 2 Samuel 12:13; James 5:16.

Those who exploit others will often admit to a lesser offense, minimize what happened,
deflect attention from themselves, make a false show of sorrow, or otherwise say what needs to be
said to avoid or lessen culpability. In the Christian environment, this often means distorting
Christian beliefs and theology to manipulate others and avoid responsibility. Leaders in the
Christian environment must diligently uphold a fully biblical standard of repentance for the sake
of protecting victims and holding perpetrators accountable for their actions.
Mr. Medearis has consistently claimed his repentance from 2018 to the present. As he
stated then, “I want to step up and take responsibility for my actions.” “I think repentance you
don’t just say I’m sorry and move on, it’s a process obviously. I’ve started doing the hard work of
that. But I just need time. I need you to trust me and trust God that it could be six months or a
year.”83On April 3, 2021, Mr. Medearis suggested that pastors warning others of his misconduct
meant that to them, “repentance doesn’t count.”84
For the past three years, Mr. Medearis demonstrated behavior inconsistent with repentance
in a variety of ways, first and most obviously through his reported continued exploitation of
vulnerable women, all while claiming restoration and attacking those who expressed concerns. In
an email dated September 11, 2018, with the subject line “Needing and getting help,” Mr. Medearis
told accountability partners that “I’m re-committing to what we’ve agreed upon all of our married
lives. No hotels or travel alone and no meeting with women alone.” Mr. Medearis claimed the
“two incidents were a big wake up call.” Since then, Mr. Medearis repeatedly attempted to meet
women alone and in hotels, often persisting long after the women requested that he cease
contacting them. With each new discovery of misconduct, Mr. Medearis professed that all behavior
was now known and he was at last restored and repentant, only to repeat the same assertion when
yet another incident of exploitation was uncovered. In 2021, while addressing another incident of
misconduct, Mr. Medearis acknowledged “I get why some of this feels disingenuous because it
feels like ‘more stuff keeps coming out.’”85 Mr. Medearis summarized his misconduct as “the two
incidents in August and September of 2018… and then this one a year and a half ago… It’s a huge
deal. But all of them have been in the light for a while now and have and are being worked
through.”86 This does not appear to be a truthful or comprehensive accounting of Mr. Medearis’s
known misconduct, as misconduct that was subsequently reported demonstrates.
Second, Mr. Medearis demonstrated a lack of repentance through resistance to and
apparent manipulation of accountability. Mr. Medearis repeatedly attempted to control the nature87
and duration of accountability mechanisms. When multiple accountability partners expressed
concern over Mr. Medearis’s obvious deception, he became apparently passively or overtly
aggressive,88 accusing others of a “self-righteous Pharisaical attitude… It’s not fair, it’s not right,

83 Mr. Medearis was requesting trust in the context of discouraging disclosure to his wife.
84 April 3, 2021 email from Mr. Medearis.
85 Id.
86 Mr. Medearis chose to “discount[] the one at Simply Jesus.”
87 “I am laying down an ultimatum… If you want me to tell the truth, you have to promise to not tell [my wife].”
88 Examples include:
● “You can’t fire me from a church like they did with Bill Hybels.”
● “You’re like, Carl you’re not in charge. I actually am in charge. I’m in charge of my life.”
● “You were not appointed as my prosecutor.”

it’s not godly.” Mr. Medearis seemed angry when these individuals located information
demonstrating his inconsistency.89 Mr. Medearis stated he had no obligation to confess, since these
individuals were holding “a gun” to his head instead of showing grace.90
Third, Medearis appeared to demonstrate the absence of repentance by persisting in the sin
of deceit and seeking to make others complicit in his lies. Ironically, he sought to convince his
accountability partners “to do something really hard,” and conceded that it might make them “feel
like you’re being complicit with me in a lie” by “hiding the truth from my wife.”91 Mr. Medearis
employed God in his deception. When an individual expressed their reservation, conveying his
prayer that God grant “the strength to trust that he is in charge and will guide you into all truth as
you live into what is true,” Mr. Medearis countered “I suppose I could ask you the same question
– would you trust God in what I’m asking of you [to hide the truth from his wife]? Is he big enough
to handle this?”92
Fourth, Medearis appeared to demonstrate the absence of repentance through deploying a
theology of deception. At the core of this theology is Mr. Medearis’ distortion of Christ and truth:
“I know in Western evangelical circles that having the facts, or we’ll call it the
truth, is all important over everything else. But of course we know that’s actually
not true, because we don’t say lots of things that are true. And Jesus actually didn’t
say lots of things. Sometimes he didn’t answer. Sometimes he told a story that didn’t
make any sense. And he didn’t confront things, he didn’t bring up things every time
that he knew something was going on. Actually lots of times Jesus didn’t tell all the
facts and tell all the truth…”
“All truth is true, but not all truth is helpful all the time. There’s lots of true things
that Jesus didn’t point out [or] address. I use the example of me being overweight…
I am, but for you to come up to me and say Carl, you’re fat, that probably isn’t
helpful. It’s probably harmful… There are people in the world that are ugly. You
don’t walk up to them and say you’re ugly… There’s lots of times you don’t say
something. And it doesn’t mean you’re lying, or complicit with lying. It just means
that you’re waiting… If [my wife] knew any of the ‘more stuff’… She might have a

● “I’d ask you to stop treating me like a kid. Whenever I share and you say ‘we’ll talk to each other and get
back to you’ – at best that’s dehumanizing. Let’s talk. I’m not willing to keep moving forward in the dark
waiting for you two to make decisions on my behalf about our lives. Let’s all make a plan together. If we
can’t do that, then this probably isn’t working. I said I’m open to your suggestions about how to move
forward… I did not say, ‘you two decide whatever you want and I’ll comply.’ Let’s do this together as mature
adults. K?”
89 Mr. Medearis stated “It feels like you’re playing a game, like you know some information that you’re choosing not
to say. I don’t know why that is. You’re the one that pushed and found out this stuff, so why don’t you say what it
is?” Ironically, elsewhere Mr. Medearis conceded to accountability partners that he is tempted to and has used the
tactic of withholding confession until he knows what concerning conduct partners are aware of. Voicemail recording
of Mr. Medearis.
90 “You’ve become a tribunal in my life. I’m not sure who appointed you. I didn’t.”
91 Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
92 Correspondence between Mr. Medearis and accountability partners.

heart attack, and if she didn’t I probably would… I hope you agree and we can
move on.”
“I think Jesus is saying a lot to me… You’re the one that decided to be the detective
in this and find truth. Truth at the cost of relationship. Truth at the cost of being
helpful. If you wanted to actually help me, you’d know that I’m broken and hurting
and you could help… What you’re doing isn’t helpful…”
“If you want me to tell the whole truth and be completely honest… I will be, I
promise you before God… If you cannot commit to not telling [my wife] I will not
do that. You can think whatever you want about that… This is all very classic
western evangelical theology that you all are doing, it’s kind of funny… It’s
painfully difficult for me to be on the other end of that, and seeing how little grace
and relational integrity is in that but just a quest for something called, quote,
‘truth.’ A very western construct of what that looks like in relationship. Anyway,
I’m sitting here in the east maybe being too philosophical. I’m sure you’re not
thinking that. So I’ll try to give you grace.”
“Can I ask you to stop for a minute and imagine Jesus doing that with Peter or
even Judas. Imagine Jesus saying, “You have betrayed my trust and lied to me.”
Both would be true for both those disciples. “So therefore, I have to ask the
Sanhedrin to open an investigative file against you to prove your guilt or
innocence.” Can you imagine Jesus doing that? Of course not.”
This theological construct enabled Mr. Medearis to leverage his credentials as a subject matter
expert on issues pertaining to the Middle East, mitigate his acknowledged disregard for truth, and
attempt to avoid accountability for clergy misconduct. Mr. Medearis compared himself to the main
character of Les Misérables, and those seeking accountability to the antagonist policeman Javert,
because “You’re the ones looking for truth, finding justice, chasing me [but] I’ve needed a priest…
You’re acting very suspicious.”93 Like Jean Valjean, Mr. Medearis perceived a need for “a
priestlike figure that I can confess sins to”—but not “unless I feel like there’s a commitment from
you to not share it with [my wife].”94
The Jesus of Mr. Medearis’s theology bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible,
who responded with rage to the oppression of the vulnerable. “Jesus drove out those who took
what was not theirs, those who made his temple unholy.”95 “When such evil is happening in the
house of God, it ought to be ended, for the sake of victims certainly but also for those who are
deceiving themselves.”96
These convenient, false doctrines conveyed by Mr. Medearis are ring true with
psychologist Diane Langberg’s insight that “power, deception, and abuse were all tangled up

93 Voicemail recording of Mr. Medearis.
94 Id.
95 Diane Langberg, “Redeeming Power: Understanding Authority and Abuse in the Church” (2020).
96 Langberg (2020).

together. People who were highly esteemed and seen as godly were in fact deceiving themselves
and others in order to commit and conceal ungodly deeds.”97 The flexibility of Mr. Medearis’s
theology also demonstrates that spiritual power “is yet another kind of power that can be dangerous
unless it is exercised in obedience to God. This form of power is used to control, manipulate, or
intimidate others to meet one’s own needs or the needs of a particular organization, often by using
words cloaked in nice-sounding spiritual language and concepts.”98
Fifth, like many who engage in exploitative behavior, Medearis distorted the concepts of
gossip and slander, claiming they are “serious sins in the scriptures… If you say something bad
about someone else behind their back – that’s called gossip.” Medearis called on those seeking
accountability to repent for engaging in gossip.99
Misapplication of Scripture regarding “gossip” is a common tool used by offenders to
silence survivors and minimize behaviors; “a culture that silences its members from speaking with
each other about suspected abuse is one where abuse will almost always flourish.”100 Abusers do
not typically apply this flawed definition of “saying something bad about someone else behind
their back” to their own conduct, such as Medearis’s many harmful or cruel statements about the
disclosing women.
Sixth, Medearis decried legalism and oppression, while appearing to leverage his power
for the exploitation and intimidation of young women. Disclosing women noted the misuse of
Medearis’s spiritual power, including “blending his inappropriate requests and remarks with
spiritual topics and using his spiritual authority to justify the request.”101 One woman confronted
Mr. Medearis with the following:
“…your primary life message seems to be about loving one another. However, it
feels like you are leveraging your power and position to exploit both me and your
wife who have less power and privilege. If you teach that Jesus came to set the
oppressed free, yet sexism, patriarchy, and exploitation are by nature oppressive,
it feels quite hypocritical… I don’t feel like you are being honest with yourself about
how and why your behavior is oppressive to women. You would be lying to a woman

97 Langberg (2020).
98 Langberg (2020).
99 “I’m asking that when you get those kinds of emails from [redacted] (or phone calls), please ask them to stop and
don’t entertain it. It’s killing them – and us.” “…please repent. For the sake of Jesus’s name and a damaged
friendship. For the sake of your own integrity. Humble yourselves. Do what you’ve asked me to do. Model it for us.
Stop the gossip and backbiting.” Email from Mr. Medearis.
100 Boz Tchividjian, “Walls of Silence: Protecting the Institution Over the Individual,”
https://www.netgrace.org/resources/walls-of-silence (last accessed September 28, 2021) (“The first wall silences
members from even mentioning allegations of abuse. This institutional directive is often under the guise of
preventing “gossip”, when oftentimes the real reason is the institution’s desire to protect its status and reputation
among its members.” See generally Boz Tchividjian, “A Church Silent in the Face of Evil Is No Church at All,”
https://www.netgrace.org/resources/a-silent-church (last accessed September 28, 2021; Amy Stier, “Sexual
Harassment: 5 Guiding Principles for Churches,” https://www.netgrace.org/resources/sexual-harassment-5-guidingprinciples
(last accessed September 28, 2021).
101 RV. One woman noted that Mr. Medearis would blame “church rules and enslaving religious standards that he
claims just don’t work.” RV.

you claim to love and taking advantage of a woman whom you know has already
been sexually victimized.”102
To the limited extent Mr. Medearis has offered “apologies,” they seem to exhibit suspect
timing103 and have often not acknowledged, let alone fully owned, his misconduct. For example,
Mr. Medearis’s conveniently timed amnesia is one scapegoat for multiple sexual propositions
spanning a period of years. As one woman noted, “I don’t remember” is not repentance.104
Providing shifting, self-serving explanations of misconduct is not repentance. Evasive, selective
concessions to known misconduct while simultaneously (and falsely) denying additional incidents,
is not repentance. Referring to those you’ve mistreated as a “totally messed up family” or
“plausibl[y] … hookers” is not repentance.105 Offering to confess if no one tells your wife is not
repentance. Legal threats to intimidate victims or accountability partners into silence is not
repentance.106 Preying on multiple women–during an assessment of alleged prior predatory
behavior–is not repentance.
As German theologian and anti-Nazi activist Dietrich Bonhoeffer noted, “Cheap grace is
the grace we bestow on ourselves. Cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring
repentance… Communion without confession… Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace
without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.” Though Carl Medearis has
been repeatedly and lovingly called to true repentance, he appears intent on bestowing cheap grace
on himself, reportedly continuing his exploitation of vulnerable image bearers who trusted and
admired him, and reportedly intimidating any who object into silence.
H. Assessment of Vineyard’s response to allegations of clergy misconduct.
Reports of Vineyard’s interactions with the victims of clergy misconduct reflect that their
concerns were taken seriously. One woman reported that a Vineyard-affiliated pastor reached out
to ensure she was okay and if there was anything they could do to assist, which was appreciated.
Correspondence reviewed by GRACE reflected pastoral concerns that disclosing women “feel
heard and understood.” In one instance a woman was thanked for her disclosure: “I can’t
adequately express how grateful I am for this email… it takes incredible courage to speak up.”
One woman remarked that Vineyard’s hiring of GRACE to conduct this assessment “shows me
some integrity… it shows me that they are holding him accountable.”

102 Social media message sent from RV to Mr. Medearis.
103 One woman noted that Mr. Medearis’s apology came a year after his proposition, consistent with his other incidents
of misconduct becoming known.
104 The woman observed ”Oh, now he’s getting in trouble, so he’s going to pretend like he doesn’t remember it
happened.” RV.
105 Medearis routinely conveyed blame to the women directly or to third parties. In one email, Medearis stated “after
what she’s said, I don’t feel so gentle any more” and described a woman as “cowering” in the aftermath of clergy
misconduct.
106 Mr. Medearis responded to criticism of his legal threats by stating “I did NOT use the word ‘sue’… I simply said
that [my wife] and I are at the end of ourselves and will do whatever it takes to defend our marriage and family against
malicious and often untrue gossip. And that libel and slander are illegal and harmful things. I asked them to stop in
the name of reconciliation and they refused. So I was forced to hire a lawyer – one of the saddest days in my life.”
Email sent by Mr. Medearis.

and love for Mr. Medearis by Vineyard-affiliated pastors. These pastors attempted to speak truth
through Mr. Medearis’s cognitive distortions, and call him to repentance:
“I love you and truly want the best for you.”
“I beg you to humble yourself and trust those that you have surrounded yourself
with. Believe that they are truly for you and your family.”
“I choose to be your friend even if you don’t choose to be mine. And a true friend
sometimes brings things to light that are hard to swallow.”
“I am not going to downplay the severity of your sin in a misguided effort to love
you. That risks leaving you in the hands of shame. I call you into more
vulnerability… That is not to put you on trial. That is to play some small part in
your reintegration.”
These individuals were proactive in seeking the safety and care of clergy misconduct victims, and
the repentance and spiritual wellbeing of Mr. Medearis.
IV. Recommendations
Vineyard USA and its pastors who discovered and acted upon allegations of clergy
misconduct are to be commended for their attempt to move transparently and with a high degree
of humility throughout this process. Jesus warned in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I am sending you
out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” Tragically, the
impetus for this Executive Summary is a shepherd who seems to be engaging in the behavior of a
wolf. Based upon the above findings and analysis, Vineyard should consider the following:
1. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA review whether to remove ministerial
credentials and authority from Mr. Medearis, given his years-long refusal to meaningfully engage
in accountability processes and demonstrate authentic repentance for clergy misconduct and
deception. Vineyard should also consider whether to continue selling or promoting Mr. Medearis’s
books or other materials.
2. Given Mr. Medearis’s sexual exploitation of a young woman at a spiritual
conference and attempts to isolate vulnerable women in numerous contexts, GRACE recommends
that Vineyard USA consider distributing this Executive Summary to decision makers at
membership churches, relevant partner organizations, and related conferences.
3. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA issue a statement regarding Mr.
Medearis’s misconduct. Components to consider as part of the statement include: formally calling
Mr. Medearis to repent for the clergy misconduct detailed in this Executive Summary; cease
fundraising, social media activity, and threatening behavior; step away from any and all leadership,
publishing, or ministry roles; and engage fully in an intentional process of spiritual and marital

healing. GRACE further recommends that Vineyard USA issue an apology to any known reported
victims of clergy misconduct, given Mr. Medearis’s affiliation with Vineyard.
4. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA consider whether a formal accountability
process would be fully participated in, or effective for Mr. Medearis. As noted above, Mr. Medearis
allegedly engaged in two of the incidents during the GRACE process. Given that his behavior has
been brought to light by his accountability partners and he apologized for known behaviors, the
fact that he continues in this pattern of exploitation despite being held to account, may indicate the
level of recklessness or pride involved in the behavior. This should cause Vineyard USA to
carefully consider whether Mr. Medearis is truly interested in or capable of being held to account.
In addition, behaviors involving internet harassment are difficult to oversee and thus add another
difficult layer to the accountability structure. If Vineyard concludes that Mr. Medearis is truly
willing to engage in an accountability process, despite the concerning evidence of 2018-2021, then
Mr. Medearis should be prohibited from providing direction or input into the nature, structure,
frequency, or duration of the accountability process, given his track record of apparent
manipulation and intimidation in this context. The individuals overseeing this accountability
process should have an advanced understanding of clergy misconduct, deception, and offender
tactics. As part of this accountability process, mentors should address issues of cognitive distortion
in the context of spiritual abuse.
5. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA provide payment for therapy or other
support if requested by any victim of Carl Medearis’s clergy misconduct, whether or not that abuse
is detailed in this Executive Summary.
6. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA provide therapeutic or other support for
Mr. Medearis’s wife, if requested.
7. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA review training, policies, and procedures
in light of the current situation, including guidance for pastors addressing when and how to contact
the denomination regarding behaviors of fellow pastors. Vineyard USA may find it helpful to
access an independent subject matter expert.
8. GRACE recommends that Vineyard consider clarification of behavioral
expectations at conferences, and which sins prohibit a pastoral or authority role in Vineyard USA.
9. GRACE recommends that Vineyard USA encourage churches to address from the
pulpit issues such as humility of leadership, power dynamics, and the difference between reporting
abuse and gossiping.