Will a Pastor Sue Me for Speaking Out?

Demonization vs. Defamation: Navigating Propaganda in Church Sex Abuse Scandals

The recent devastating clergy sexual abuse scandals across the country have shattered countless lives and exposed a bitter struggle between two forces: the entrenched, money-fueled church hierarchy and an increasingly livid laity, whose strength lies in its numbers and collective voice.

Victims and their advocates, striving for transparency, justice, and accountability, face imposing church machines armed with highly compensated lawyers and public relations professionals.

In the past, the primary sources of information about these scandals came from the pulpit or mainstream media. Now, social media is the great leveler—the tool that allows anyone with a bit of skill to rock the boat.

Each post, each tweet, each shared story cuts through the fog of silence and complicity.

The First Amendment was drafted for times such as these, but free speech comes with a responsibility.

Although I am not a lawyer, I can share my reflections from 20 years in journalism on how large, powerful institutions attempt to stifle free speech through defamation claims and the tactics that have helped me avoid defamation. While this article includes factual quotes from individuals, the interpretations and opinions expressed are my own. Please note that this is not legal advice.

Furthermore, this information pertains mainly to those already speaking out — not to sexual abuse victims within a church who have yet to disclose the abuse. Nearly every expert I’ve encountered recommends reporting abuse to someone outside the church, such as a lawyer, law enforcement, or an advocacy organization. Speaking with an attorney ensures the highest degree of confidentiality, as attorney-client privilege is considered a sacrosanct protection under the law.

In recent years, self-governing charismatic churches with dominant leaders and little accountability have become focal points for allegations of clergy sexual abuse. In response, these leaders often claim ignorance of the incidents, portray the accusations as spiritual attacks, or dismiss them as mere gossip and slander.

Advocates have warned that sanctuaries of worship have been transformed into master classes in leveraging partial truths and deploying indirect coercion tactics — from the stage or on social media.

Now established voices within the Christian Charismatic Movement — a segment of evangelical Christianity emphasizing supernatural spiritual gifts and direct experiences of the Holy Spirit — have issued oddly timed admonitions about impending legal action and ambiguous judgment against “mockers” and “critics.”

Chris Reed, President and CEO of MorningStar Ministries, a religious institution in Fort Mill, South Carolina, told a crowd at a MorningStar conference this month: "I knew of a minister a few years ago who told a partial truth but partial lie publicly against another minister, and that minister sued him for defamation of character... that man… pretty much lost everything he had."

Reed then appeared to discount a prohibition on lawsuits in the New Testament by emphasizing that some scriptural principles were higher than others and even seemed to encourage using the courts against critics if they make defamatory statements.

“If there aren't people that will stand up and say 'I'm not going to let this stuff happen,' it will keep happening," Reed said.

Experts have frequently cautioned against this kind of talk because it often deters victims from coming forward. It also stretches credulity to think that a leader addressing thousands every Sunday could remain oblivious to this reality.

The mere threat or prospect of a defamation lawsuit can be enough to discourage victims from coming forward, according to a guide published by the women’s advocacy organization Legal Momentum: “All survivors should be able to reclaim power by speaking about their experience if they so choose and in the forum they choose. But defending oneself against a defamation claim or bringing a defamation claim can be extremely costly, financially and emotionally, and drag on for a long time.”

The intimidating impact of a legal threat from a mega-church minister seems evident in a clergy sexual abuse scandal that erupted last week in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. That scandal features allegations that Pastor Robert Morris, a spiritual advisor to former president Trump when Trump was in office, sexually abused a 12-year-old in the 1980s when he was married.

The woman, Cindy Clemishire, now 54, sought reimbursement for counseling services in 2005 for the enduring effects of childhood trauma that Morris allegedly inflicted, according to emails obtained by NBC News.

In Morris’ last direct exchange with Clemishire, he mentions the possibility of her being criminally prosecuted for an unspecified crime.

"My attorney advises that if I pay you any money under a threat of exposure, you could be criminally prosecuted, and Debbie and I do not want that," wrote Morris, now 62, according to NBC. "If you need more information, have your attorney contact mine."

Clemishire’s allegations failed to gain traction until nearly 20 years later when she spoke “The Wartburg Watch,” a blog that addresses concerns about church leadership, abuse of power, and accountability.

The Wartburg Watch featured Clemishire’s story on July 14, and within days Morris resigned.

Pictures posted on social media of Gateway’s services on Sunday showed a few parishioners in sanctuary that appeared as large as a sports arena.

Cindy Clemishire

SILENCING VICTIMS AND ADVOCATES IN THE CHURCH

In my experience, avoiding defamation depends less on what is said and more on how it is said. In highly volatile situations, it's crucial to acknowledge that the right to speak up is deeply ingrained in our government's framework. However, this can make it easy to lose sight of the blurry line between protected and unlawful speech.

“The law of defamation is primarily about protecting reputation, and the First Amendment is primarily about protecting speech,” wrote Alan Dershowitz, a high-profile lawyer known for his work in constitutional law and civil liberties in “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law.”

“There is an inevitable tension between the two."

Failure to recognize that tension often enables a well-financed lawyer with a suspect legal case to make a person’s life miserable.

A glance at the court records and real estate transactions involving Gateway Church reveals a sprawling empire of power and money. The church has assets totaling $218 million, according to a 2018 tax filing.

Public records suggest that members of Gateway’s legal team have been involved in aggressive legal actions to defend the church’s interests.

In 2004, an attorney who, according to public records, now appears to represent Gateway, sued a blogger for defaming him, another lawyer, and Evangelist Benny Hinn’s ministry. The attorney sought an amount exceeding $10 million, alleging that the blogger claimed the three plaintiffs — the two attorneys and Benny Hinn’s ministry — operated a “protection racket” for a “Ponzi scheme,” among other nefarious activities.

Although the lawyer and his firm eventually dropped the suit, it likely cost the blogger tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

LIBEL VS SLANDER

Understanding defamation requires learning a few key concepts: facts, opinions, actual malice, the legal treatment of public figures, and the unique challenges posed by the social media context.

Defamation involves making false statements about someone that damage their reputation and comes in two forms:

Libel: Written defamation, which applies to social media posts.

Slander: Spoken defamation.

To prove defamation, a plaintiff typically must establish that the statement was false.

True statements, no matter how damaging, are not defamatory. The statement must be published or communicated to at least one third party and cause harm to someone’s reputation.

PUBLIC VS PRIVATE FIGURES

The level of fault depends on the plaintiff’s status. Public figures must prove actual malice, meaning the statement was made with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth. Private individuals generally need to prove negligence, meaning the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to ascertain the truth.

Public figures include celebrities, politicians, and others whose names are generally known to the public.

"A public figure must show 'actual malice'—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth,” wrote William J. Brennan Jr., Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1956 to 1990. “This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet."

Brennan authored the court’s 1964 decision in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which established this more stringent standard to protect free speech, especially in matters of public discourse.

Robert Morris

Private individuals have a lower burden of proof and only need to show negligence in defamation cases.

Still, even in those cases, the requirement of proving that someone knew a statement was false when they published presents insurmountable challenges.

Rock singer and actress Courtney Love was sued for defamation by her former lawyer, Rhonda Holmes, in 2010 after a tweet implied Holmes had been "bought off." The tweet read: "I was f---ing devastated when Rhonda J Holmes esq of San Diego was bought off. I've been hiring and firing lawyers to help me with this." Holmes claimed her reputation was damaged and took the matter to court in 2014. The jury found in favor of Love, concluding that the tweet was false and potentially damaging, but Holmes did not prove Love knew it was false when she posted it.

FACTS VS OPINIONS

A fact is a statement that can be objectively verified as true or false. For example, saying "John Smith embezzled funds from his company" is a factual statement because it asserts a verifiable claim.

An opinion reflects personal beliefs, thoughts, or feelings and cannot be proven true or false. For instance, "I believe John Smith is not trustworthy" is an opinion because it reflects the speaker’s belief and cannot be objectively proven. Opinions are generally protected speech.

To avoid making statements of fact, I often use qualifiers and phrases that clearly indicate the statement is an opinion. Phrases like “I think,” “in my opinion,” “it seems,” or “from my perspective” help. Instead of saying, “John Smith embezzled funds,” I might say, “It seems to me that John Smith might have mismanaged funds based on the information available.”

These qualifiers signal that the statement is not an assertion of fact but an expression of personal view.

Defenses to Defamation

An absolute defense is a legal defense that, if proven, completely exonerates the defendant, totally barring prosecution or a lawsuit. In defamation cases, these following defenses, should, in theory, prevent a lawsuit entirely if successfully asserted:

• A truthful statement, no matter how damaging, is a complete defense to defamation.

• Certain statements made in specific contexts (e.g., during judicial proceedings or legislative debates) may be privileged and immune from defamation claims.

• If the plaintiff consented to the publication of the statement, they cannot later claim defamation.

Another defense that could conceivably come into play in cases involving disgraced pastors is the “libel-proof” or “defamation-proof” defense — legal doctrine stating that someone's reputation is already so damaged that it can't be further harmed.

PSEUDONYMS AND JURISDICTION

The context in which a statement is made can influence whether it is considered defamatory. Social media, with its informal, rapid communication and hyperbolic language, can amplify defamatory statements, thereby increasing the harm caused and the potential monetary damages a plaintiff can seek.

Social media allows users to post anonymously or under pseudonyms, complicating the identification of defendants. However, subpoenas issued to social media companies can uncover identities if there is a legitimate legal claim. Additionally, internet anonymity often creates jurisdictional issues, further complicating lawsuits.

Defamation laws vary from state to state and nation to nation, and the global reach of social media enables users to disseminate defamatory statements worldwide. Plaintiffs must determine which laws apply in multiple locations to decide where to file a lawsuit, necessitating additional legal steps to uncover the defendants' identities and establish jurisdiction.

Still, it happens.

In 2016, actor James Woods filed a defamation lawsuit against an anonymous Twitter user, 'Abe List,' for calling him a 'cocaine addict.' Woods argued the tweet damaged his reputation and successfully forced Twitter to identify the person behind the account. Although the defendant died while the case was pending, Woods settled the matter with the man’s estate.

Woods’ legal action underscores that if advocates post stories containing potentially defamatory information online, even anonymously, they could be compelled to disclose their sources, including confidential conversations with victims.

EXAMPLE I: CHRIS REED ‘X’ POSTS

Here are a handful of my own X (formerly known as Twitter) posts about Chris Reed’s June sermon. Reed is a leading “prophet” in the Charismatic movement. Critics have accused Reed of using information on social media and passing it off as supernatural revelation.

I launched a separate X account late last year with the handle @altarofinquiry, featuring my name in the profile, to publicly discuss IHOPKC and other clergy sexual abuse crisis. After reviewing Reed’s talk, I delivered a scathing analysis, noting its potential deterrent effect on victims.

Post No. 1: "Chris Reed, CEO of @morningstarmin, is dragging the church into Babylon by equating accountability with defamation. Remember, 'Morning Star' in Isaiah 14:12 refers to Lucifer—prideful, fallen, and disgraced. Odd branding, isn't it? #ModernDayBabylon 1/2"

When crafting this Post, I intended to satirize Reed’s leadership and MorningStar’s branding. By using phrases like "dragging the church into Babylon" and "Odd branding, isn't it?" I aimed to convey a subjective viewpoint rather than a factual assertion.

The biblical reference to "Morning Star" and Lucifer adds a layer of hyperbole and metaphor, reinforcing that this is not a factual statement but a rhetorical critique. Hyperbolic statements cannot be proven true or false, and therefore, they generally fall outside the realm of defamation.

Post No. 2: "Watch around the 1:30 mark as Chris Reed of @MorningStar reveals his sleazy plan: unaccountable Charismatic leaders combating clergy sexual abuse claims by bullying critics with lawsuits. This reeks of impending downfall. #ShieldingAbuse 2/2"

This post makes a specific, direct, and contentious assertion, such as Reed having a "sleazy plan" and using lawsuits to "bully critics."

I had no desire to harm but to highlight what I believe are tone-deaf and toxic comments. This post reflects my subjective interpretation of Reed's remarks, and others shared my perspective, supporting the argument that it’s a reasonable opinion rather than a deliberate falsehood.

Reed also discussed the use of lawsuits in certain contexts, suggesting that some scriptural principles may support taking legal action in defense of the church.

Reed has previously been the target of social media backlash for comments perceived as insensitive and inappropriate. Late last year after the clergy sexual abuse scandal surfaced at Kansas City’s International House of Prayer (IHOPKC), Reed invoked the story of Lot’s wife in Genesis. He seemed to imply that anyone intent on scrutinizing the organization or its leader, Mike Bickle, risked being "calcified" into a pillar of salt.

At the time, allegations against Bickle and IHOPKC involving sexual abuse, manufactured prophecies, and financial exploitation had just begun to materialize. Reed later apologized for his comments.

EXAMPLE II: ‘X’ THREAD ABOUT REED AND SHAWN BOLZ

Shawn Bolz is a Christian TV host, news commentator, media producer, and minister, also alleged to have scraped details from social media for prophecies.

Post No. 1: "Key lesson learned today: 'How to turn a potentially defamatory statement into a protected expression of religious belief. 1/3'"

This post discusses the general concept of framing statements as protected religious expressions to avoid defamation claims and offers an opinion on defamation and religious speech protections. It makes no specific factual statements about any individual.

Post No. 2: "Successfully suing someone in the US for defamation is already challenging, but nearly impossible when using religious language. Legal protections safeguard free speech and religious expression. 2/3"

This post explains the difficulty of winning defamation cases when religious language is involved. It, too, includes an opinion on the challenges of defamation lawsuits and avoids specific accusations of wrongdoing.

Post No. 3: "Example of defamation: 'Chris Reed and Shawn Bolz are crooks who embezzle church funds.' Example of protected speech: 'Reed and Bolz are false prophets operating under a spirit of deceit, bearing false witness and depriving the brethren of their manna!'"

I presented this information as a hypothetical example of a defamatory statement, not as a fact. It implies that the allegation about Reed and Bolz being involved in criminal activity is untrue because, by definition, defamation involves false assertions.

The phrase "false prophets operating under a spirit of deceit" frames the post in religious terms, which are generally protected as opinion and religious expression.

STANDING FIRM WHILE THE GROUND SPINS

Wade Mullen, a scholar, author, and advocate specializing in issues related to church abuse, emphasizes that whistleblowers in the church should expect attempts to discredit their stories.

“I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully, and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior,” Mullen wrote in an essay on his Substack page five months ago. “This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of lawsuits, overt and covert attacks on the whistleblower’s credibility, and so on.”

Rather than succumbing to intimidation tactics, Mullen, author of Something's Not Right: Decoding the Hidden Tactics of Abuse - And Freeing Yourself From Its Power, recommends that survivors confronting institutional corruption band together and seek advice from outside nonprofits that provide legal and emotional support.

Survivor networks have begun to form following revelations of clergy sexual abuse at IHOPKC, connecting with advocates addressing other nodes of alleged abuse across the country.

Mullen also suggests becoming familiar with the law and, above all else, urges survivors and advocates to never lose sight of what is most important.

“Truth-tellers can, with the support of others, try to keep their footing while the ground spins so they do not lose sight of the distinguishing factor: truth,” Mullen wrote. “Those on the high road will consistently invite the discovery of truth while those on the low road will consistently repel and confuse it.”