Recognizing Patterns: A Response to Mountain View’s Recent Statement

I want to begin by saying that raising these concerns is not about picking apart language or being unnecessarily critical. In situations like this, however, the way leaders frame their words matters. Communication patterns can reveal deeper dynamics related to transparency, accountability, and authority within an organization.

Most people are not equipped to recognize spiritual abuse or institutional harm when they encounter it. That is not because they are careless or naïve, but because they have been taught to trust what happens within the church, especially when decisions are presented in the language of prayer, unity, and faithfulness. We tend to think of abuse only in terms of direct physical harm from one person to another. But harm can also occur at the level of systems, when the structures meant to protect people begin protecting the institution instead.

For many observers, the removal of Josh may appear to resolve the issue. It is an important step, but it does not necessarily address the broader dynamics that allowed the situation to exist in the first place.

My academic background includes studying systems, institutional dynamics, and the ways organizations respond to crises and allegations of harm. When you study these issues, you begin to recognize that certain patterns appear repeatedly, which is precisely why this is an area of study. These patterns are well documented in research on spiritual abuse and institutional betrayal. They often emerge not because people necessarily set out to harm others, but because systems tend to produce what they are structured to protect: the institution itself and the reputation of those who lead it.

For that reason, the concerns outlined below are not based simply on personal disagreement with leadership decisions. They reflect recognizable dynamics that frequently appear when organizations attempt to manage reputation while navigating internal crises.

Several elements of the elders’ statement raise important questions when considered alongside the experiences and concerns that many within the congregation have shared over time, as well as the ways those concerns have historically been handled. If some readers are unaware of those experiences, that lack of awareness may itself point to part of the broader issue being discussed here.

1. The claim of “new information”

The statement explains the decision this way:

“In light of new information regarding Josh’s 2004 charges and conviction that was recently brought to our attention…”

Only a few days earlier, leadership communicated that they had already carefully evaluated Josh’s past and possessed the relevant information about the situation. The congregation was told that leadership had done its due diligence. In fact, those decisions were described as prayerful and Spirit-led.

This raises a question: what exactly is the “new information”?

From the perspective of many observing the situation, no new facts appear to have emerged publicly. Instead, it appears that information long known to at least some within leadership has now become more widely known to the congregation and, possibly, to other members of leadership as well.

If leadership already possessed the relevant information, as previously claimed, then the issue is not the discovery of new facts but a reassessment of decisions that were previously defended. If leadership did not have the full information, that raises a different concern about whether adequate due diligence was conducted before placing someone with that history into a position of leadership, and why that lack of knowledge was not communicated more transparently.

Either possibility points to a serious leadership failure that deserves clarification.

2. “Inability to fully clarify details”

The statement also says the elders were unable to fully clarify certain details surrounding Josh’s conviction.

When key facts surrounding a prior conviction involving the abuse of a minor cannot be fully clarified, best practice in situations like this is not a quick internal review by the same leadership structure responsible for earlier decisions. Independent outside investigation is widely recommended in order to establish credibility and avoid conflicts of interest.

It is also worth noting that records related to criminal convictions are generally obtainable through public sources. For that reason, it raises an important question as to why these details could not be clarified earlier, particularly when those details would have been relevant when making the decision to hire someone into a position of leadership.

If leadership acknowledges that it cannot fully clarify important details, that is precisely the type of situation that calls for outside assistance rather than an internal conclusion.

3. Framing Josh’s tenure positively

The statement notes that:

“During his tenure, he has done well as Campus Director.”

This may be intended as an acknowledgment of service. However, it is difficult for some to reconcile this statement with the reality that concerns about Josh—and others—have been raised by women in the church over the years and were not meaningfully addressed. By what standard is “doing well” being measured?

If leadership now believes information may have been incomplete or misrepresented, it raises questions about why earlier concerns were not taken more seriously and whether other matters may have been dismissed at the discretion of leadership.

It also raises questions about the decision to provide severance if the current explanation for the situation involves withheld or incomplete information.

4. The focus on child abuse policy

The statement indicates that the church will now develop a comprehensive sexual abuse policy and strengthen child abuse prevention practices.

Strengthening these policies is certainly necessary and welcome. However, leadership had previously assured the congregation for years that appropriate policies and safeguards were already in place to protect children. This raises a reasonable question about what, specifically, was lacking before and why these measures are only now being developed.

It is also important to note that many of the concerns people have experienced within the church extend beyond child abuse prevention alone.

Over the years, concerns have included patterns such as:

• women not being listened to when raising concerns

• wives being dismissed when seeking help in abusive marital situations

• resistance to learning about trauma and abuse dynamics

• patterns where questions or complaints stop once they reach senior leadership

• harmful literature and unqualified counseling practices within the marriage ministry

In other words, the issue many people have experienced is not simply the absence of a policy. And the issue doesn't just concern children. It is a broader leadership culture in which accountability becomes difficult because authority is highly centralized.

A child abuse policy alone cannot address those deeper cultural dynamics.

The statement also indicates that leadership will consult counsel connected to the Southern Baptist Convention in developing these policies.

While outside expertise is valuable and needed, it is worth noting that the Southern Baptist Convention itself has faced extensive criticism for its handling of abuse allegations. A 2019 investigative series by the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News documented approximately 380 Southern Baptist pastors, leaders, and volunteers accused of sexual misconduct over a twenty-year period, involving more than 700 victims, many of them children. Since that reporting, additional survivors have come forward and further investigations have continued to examine the denomination’s response to abuse claims. The conclusions of those investigations have raised serious concerns about how abuse allegations were handled.

This raises the question of whether consultation connected to this organization provides the level of independent credibility that situations like this require. Will the SBC and Evangelical Council for Abuse Prevention (ECAP) conduct a thorough examination of the church’s leadership structures and create space for individuals to speak openly apart from leadership oversight? It is also fair to ask whether these organizations are positioned to conduct an independent review of that kind, and whether that falls within the scope of their expertise.

5. The claim that no accusations have been made

The statement says:

“We are thankful that Mountain View has not had any accusations of abuse involving children or women.”

This claim raises important questions.

First, how is “abuse” being defined in this statement? Concerns have been raised over the years regarding various situations. If those concerns were brought forward but not formally recorded as accusations, it becomes important to ask what standard is being used to determine that none exist.

It is also important to recognize that identifying abuse—particularly emotional, spiritual, or coercive abuse—requires a certain level of awareness and training. When leadership lacks familiarity with abuse dynamics, it is possible for reports of harm to be dismissed, minimized, or categorized as ordinary marital conflict, interpersonal disagreement, or misunderstanding.

In those cases, the absence of formally recognized accusations may reflect not the absence of harm, but the absence of a system equipped to recognize and document it.

Second, how did leadership determine that no accusations have been made? If there is no clear policy requiring the lead pastor or leadership to formally document and report accusations, it is difficult to know how that conclusion was reached.

It is also worth noting that if the primary reporting pathway leads back to the same leadership structure responsible for handling concerns in the past, we do not necessarily know what has been reported. In addition, individuals whose concerns were dismissed may not feel safe continuing to report them. In those circumstances, an important question becomes: where are people supposed to go?

Absence of recorded accusations does not necessarily mean absence of harm. It may also mean that individuals do not believe their concerns will be taken seriously or handled appropriately.

It is also reasonable to ask whether leadership has considered how many individuals may have quietly left the church because unresolved concerns made them feel that remaining was no longer safe.

6. This is not just about one individual

It is important to recognize that Josh did not serve in leadership for many years in a vacuum.

Leadership structures placed him in that role and repeatedly affirmed that decision over time.

If the current conclusion is that placing Josh in leadership was ultimately unwise, it is reasonable to ask why he is the only person being asked to step away, and whether the leadership structures that enabled that decision are also being examined.

If trust is to be rebuilt, those structures must also be addressed. Removing one plant does not necessarily restore the health of the soil that allowed it to grow.

Why this matters

In my earlier analysis of the sermon preached in response to this situation, I noted several patterns that are commonly identified in research on spiritual abuse and institutional self-protection. The concerns raised in this statement echo some of those same dynamics.

When similar patterns appear repeatedly in sermons, leadership communication, and institutional responses, it becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss them as isolated incidents. In the study of institutional harm, these kinds of recurring patterns are often described as textbook indicators that deeper cultural issues may be present.

Addressing those issues honestly would be an important step toward rebuilding trust and ensuring that the church becomes a place where transparency, accountability, and protection of the vulnerable are truly prioritized.

A Model of What a Transparent and Accountable Response Might Look Like

For the sake of comparison, and to illustrate what a trauma-informed and spiritually healthy response might look like, I asked AI to generate an example of how easily a statement could be written. The result demonstrates how different the tone and priorities can be when a basic commitment to trauma-informed leadership and institutional responsibility guides the response. The contrast highlights how easily a different tone could have been offered if those considerations had been prioritized.

A Statement from the Elders

In recent days, our church family has been confronted with serious questions regarding Josh Bowen’s past conviction and the leadership decisions that allowed him to serve in a pastoral role at Mountain View.

First and foremost, we want to acknowledge the weight of this moment for our congregation. Situations involving the abuse of a minor are deeply serious, and we recognize that many within our church may be feeling confusion, anger, grief, or concern. We also understand that conversations like this can be especially painful for those who have experienced harm in the past.

As elders, we recognize that the decisions that placed Josh in leadership were made under our oversight. While those decisions were made years ago with the belief that redemption and restoration were possible, we also acknowledge that the responsibility for those decisions rests with leadership.

After careful discussion, we have asked Josh to step away from his role as Campus Director, effective immediately.

However, we recognize that removing one individual from a leadership role does not answer the broader questions that many members of our congregation have raised. This situation calls for humility, transparency, and a willingness to examine our own leadership processes.

For that reason, we are taking several additional steps.

First, we will be engaging an independent, outside organization with expertise in abuse response and church governance to review the circumstances surrounding Josh’s leadership role and the decisions that led to it. This review will not be conducted internally by the elders alone.

Second, we want to clearly invite anyone who may have experienced harm, misconduct, or unresolved concerns related to this situation—or to any ministry context within Mountain View—to come forward. We will be providing a confidential reporting process that does not require individuals to report directly to church leadership if they do not feel safe doing so.

Third, while we have policies intended to protect children and vulnerable individuals, we recognize that policies alone are not enough. We are committed to strengthening our abuse prevention practices, pursuing outside training, and examining whether our leadership culture and accountability structures need meaningful change.

We also acknowledge that trust may have been damaged. Trust is not restored through statements alone, but through transparency, humility, and a willingness to listen. We commit to communicating openly with our church family as this process unfolds.

Josh and Tammy remain people we care about deeply, and we will continue to pray for them and support them as members of the body of Christ. At the same time, our responsibility as leaders is to prioritize the safety, integrity, and spiritual health of the entire church.

In the coming weeks we will hold open meetings where members can ask questions, share concerns, and hear more about the steps we are taking moving forward.

We ask for your prayers as we seek to lead with humility, wisdom, and integrity in this difficult season.

— The Elders of Mountain View

Original letter from the elders: