If you attend Canyon Hills Community Church, I encourage you to ask the leadership the following questions.  As developed on this website elsewhere, and as is common Christian knowledge, we are to evaluate leaders for their moral fitness as well as for their teachings.


For context, in case you have not read other parts of this website yet, PASTOR1 was involved with public, online smut which the husband confronted him about.  The confronting email was kind and private, sent ONLY to PASTOR1.  That letter is posted on this website.


While initially acknowledging that the Instagram accounts he followed contained sexual images, etc. PASTOR1 began to change his story and told people that they were “sailing” accounts, etc.  Now, normally that level of dishonesty would be up to him and the Lord, but he is seemingly taking vengeance on the husband for confronting him about his sin, by influencing the husband’s estranged wife against him.  The wife has since filed for divorce, and the husband’s brother – who is in contact with the estranged wife and is aware of PASTOR1’s influence over her -  has told the husband that PASTOR1 needs to be removed from the equation.  PASTOR1 is seemingly making the wife feel like the husband is irredeemably evil, etc. 


To understand things further the reader should  read “The Letter” posted on this website which the husband wrote to PASTOR1 and which the elders of Canyon Hills are instructing PASTOR1 to not answer.




Why Doesn’t CHCC Take Sexual Sins Seriously When They Happen To Their Own Pastor

QUESTION ONE:  Why is CHCC leadership being dishonest about their pastor’s involvement with smut?

Calling these accounts “sailing” accounts is patent dishonesty.

All in all PASTOR1 followed maybe 5 to 7 accounts which contained smutty pictures of women on sailboats and beaches, etc.   Additionally PASTOR1 followed another 5 to 7 accounts which contained smutty pictures from Fiji.

Regarding, “sailing accounts” - one of the “sailing accounts” has a post saying “Who needs clothes on a private island”.  Ummm…..Christians do?  


These “sailing accounts” were actually accounts that contained many pictures of scantily clad women on sailboats and at beaches, etc.  Taking pictures for Playboy in California doesn’t make your pictures about California.


One of the “sailing accounts” PASTOR1 followed has corresponding inappropriate YouTube channel that this pastor acknowledged he followed for a year or more.  I would  share the name of the YouTube channel with you but its rather morally defiling; after I visited this channel YouTube began to “suggest” other channels to follow that were extremely smutty.  In other words, YouTube’s algorithms knew that people who followed that channel also were likely to follow these other smutty channels and so YouTube suggested them.  Let’s just say that these suggested accounts were not about jigging, sails management, and tacking.


Calling these ‘sailing accounts’ is like the guy who says he buys Playboy for the articles.  No one believes his story.

One of the “Fiji” accounts has pictures such as this:  5 young women laying face down in ‘thong type’ bikini bottoms lying next to each other….topless.  PASTOR1 wants us to believe this is a “Fiji” type account?  Suffice it to say these accounts did not focus on the flora and fauna of Fiji.

I think by now you know that these accounts do not cover jigging, sail management, and rich information about the flora and fauna of Fiji.

If CHCC’s position is that these were not smut accounts, then ask them to specifically list each account PASTOR1 followed on their own website so that attendees and others who have a moral responsibility to evaluate their leaders and teachers can look each account up on Instagram and decide for themselves.  If they are “safe” Instagram accounts then surely this is not a problem.

Which brings us to the next question:  If these were morally appropriate accounts why did PASTOR1 brag about elder “protection”?

QUESTION TWO:  Why did the elders “protect” him? 

As mentioned on the Timeline section of this website about 5 weeks after PASTOR1 confessed to following Instagram accounts which contained sexual images, his posture changed and PASTOR1 sent an email to the husband telling the husband how thankful PASTOR1 was for the “protection” of the elders.

This was a rather unusual email to get and certainly the tone of the email did not contain the humility that goes along with repentance.  PASTOR1 was now defiant as though the whole problem is not his sin nature and lust – but rather the husband who privately confronted him.

But that raises an interesting question: What does PASTOR1 know about others at CHCC such that it made sense for the elders to offer him protection for a sin they publicly speak against?

Why would he need “protection” if he was living a  holy lifestyle?  If these were good accounts then protection would not be necessary would it?  Just publish the accounts on their website and proclaim how thankful they are that he was following sailing and Fiji accounts.  Protection would not be needed in that situation, right?

If you follow this story through, you can see that the elder protection allowed this man to stay in his job where he used his influence to apparently make this man’s estranged wife think the husband was irredeemable and should be divorced even though she had no biblical grounds for divorce.   It would seem this man got inside of her head through a combination of directing her counseling, being dishonest (read the attached letter in this website to get the full picture) and other methods to make her despise her husband and divorce him.  The exact scope of his behavior is unknown and that is the purpose of the letter posted on this website – to find out exactly how he is influencing and interacting with his wife.  The elders have instructed him to not answer the letter.

If this man were living a holy lifestyle he wouldn’t need this type of protection would he?


If CHCC had good answers for the attached letter they would answer the letter wouldn’t they?


QUESTION THREE:  Because CHCC has protected smut in their pastor, what message does this send to others involved with sexual sins that CHCC rebukes?

CHCC recently took a stand against LGBTQ and they took heat for it from that community.  But if CHCC allows smut in their own pastor - how can they draw the line at LGBTQ?  Did God give them special allowance to define sexual sins a certain way such that only other people’s sexual sins are serious but their own sexual sins just need “protection”?  Do they think they are fooling anyone?

The author of this website heard of a story from the local Christian community of a man who was taking counseling from CHCC and one of the counselors told this man that because this man accessed pornography in the last 30 days that he was unfit to lead a small group.   Seems like clear hypocrisy.  Everyone else’s sins are serious and people need to sit under the bright light of interrogation.  However their pastor who follows an inappropriate YouTube channel for a year or more and who follows smutty accounts on Instagram – he keeps his job and gets “protection”. 


What moral standing does CHCC have to speak against sexual sins since they not only allow their pastors to be involved in smut, but go further and “protect” him?



Protecting Women and Girls Form This Man Who Indulges In Smut

QUESTION FOUR:  Did CHCC leadership cut off this pastor’s access to women’s and girl’s counseling files?  When?

It’s one thing for CHCC to offer protection to a wayward pastor.  Maybe he knows things about others and it was a strategic decision to save face in another domain.

However, this PASTOR1 should have been banned from accessing the counseling files of women and girls.  Women and girls should feel free to receive counsel and have open discussions about sexual issues without having to worry about a smut-loving pastor lurking in the background and reading their files for his own enjoyment.

This sin on Instagram was out in the open.  If PASTOR1 had such boldness in the open, then likely he is involved with more and his access to the private files of women and children should have been immediately cut off.

Was his access cut off, and if so, what date?  And what evidence can the elders offer to prove his access was cut off?


QUESTION FIVE:  Since his smut was in the public domain, did CHCC notify members about it and alert them to the course of actions they were taking?

In other words, it’s very possible that other counselees and attendees of the Damascus House, etc. were aware of this man’s smut that he followed but that they didn’t have the courage to confront him.  It’s also possible his own children knew and other children knew – his account settings were such that his Instagram “friends” could see what he followed.  


To prevent stumbling others into sin did CHCC make it clear to their membership that this pastor, though protected, was following inappropriate content?  If CHCC does not take such a public stand then they run the risk of stumbling others into sin.  Stumbling others, especially those young in the faith, is a very serious matter.  “It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!  It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.”


The word of God also says “Those that sin rebuke before all” (1 Timothy 5:20) and the context is of this verse sinning elders.  In other words, when an elder sins (you don’t protect him, you rebuke him publicly PASTOR1 is not an elder but the principle still applies).  The wisdom of this is that it sends a message to EVERYONE that leaders are accountable.  There is no need to “protect” sinning leaders, but rather to rebuke them before everyone so that others will learn.



Investigating Further

QUESTION SIX:  What Further Investigations Into PASTOR1’s Behavior Did CHCC Do?

The recent story of Ravi Zacharias is truly a tragic one.  But give the RZIM organization a LOT of credit for taking the sexual accusations seriously, for hiring a firm to do an investigation, and then being committed to transparency and sharing the results of that investigation.  This is exemplary behavior by RZIM and is polar opposite of the direction CHCC has taken.

In contrast CHCC offered protection to their sinning pastor; CHCC let this pastor keep his job where he perhaps further influenced a wife against her husband;  and instead of transparency CHCC leadership stonewalled all efforts by the concerned husband (see next question) to see what PASTOR1 was doing to influence his wife. 

How much due diligence did CHCC perform to determine the extent of PASTOR1’s involvement with smut and other sexual sins?  Did they hire an outside firm like RZIM did and commit to share the results publicly?  If not, why not?





Stonewalling a Concerned Husband

QUESTION SEVEN:  Can CHCC handle this situation (the disclosures on this website) without referring to the man who confronted the pastor? 


In counseling CHCC teaches that we are all responsible for our sins and that no one “makes” us do anything.  So, can CHCC handle this disclosure and the aftermath without referring to the husband or his sins? 

When the husband sent a letter of concerns to the elders and PASTOR1, those communications indicated that if resolution was not achieved by the letters then Matthew 18 would be followed whereby 2 or 3 others would come, etc.


In response,  Randy Long, one of the elders, wrote back to the husband and basically said “Well if you send others to us we’ll need to make sure they sign a waiver so we know we are talking to the right people.”

What Randy Long really meant was this:  “We are not going to take your concerns seriously.  We have knowledge of your sin because you took counseling from us and so if you send anyone our way we are NOT going to not talk about OUR sinfulness but instead we are going to talk about your sinfulness, which we know about because you too confidential counseling sessions from us, and now we are prepared to use that confidential information against you to protect us from further question.  The people you send will need to sign a release.”

This is incredible.

Reader, pause and think about this.  Is this the type of leadership you want to be under?  What moral authority do any of their messages on Sunday morning now carry for you?


QUESTION EIGHT:  Does CHCC agree that it appears that you are more angry for being confronted than you are for being involved in smut?

When Saul disobeyed God in refusing to hack Agag (1 Samuel 15) here are some key points:

a.  Saul minimized his sin “And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea, I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have gone the way which the Lord sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amalekites.”  He did not mention that he did not fully obey.  Saul was being dishonest about his actions.  Much like a pastor claiming he is following “sailing channels”.  There is dishonesty in Saul and in PASTOR1 in truly acknowledging what they have done and its sinfulness.

b.  Saul blamed the people for the actual sin. “But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God in Gilgal.”  Much like this PASTOR1 and Dave Morgan asking the questions they asked the husband “What were you trying to accomplish?” “Where you being a hero?” was their question.  So it wasn’t’ that PASTOR1 was wrong for following smut, the real problem, the true source of concern, according to CHCC is the husband.  Just like Saul thinking the real problem was the people.

c.  Saul had a brief acknowledgement of sin (but no real brokenness) and then his immediate desire was towards himself and that he, Saul, could be held in honor.

And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned: for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord, and thy words: because I feared the people, and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon my sin, and turn again with me, that I may worship the Lord.”  Saul wanted the prestige and honor of having Samuel be with him before the people.

 As already mentioned, PASTOR1 did admit to following inappropriate accounts but almost immediately his concern, and the concern of leadership at CHCC, was their reputation and the feelings of PASTOR1.  “How did that make PASTOR1 feel to receive that document?” was a question posed by Dave Morgan and PASTOR1.  Look again at the questions posed by Dave Morgan and PASTOR1 in the timeline and you will see their overarching concern is their reputation and the feelings and prestige of PASTOR1.  Just like Saul.

So, attendees, I ask you to ask leadership at CHCC how they see this differently than outlined above.  It’s a brave question, but prayerfully consider asking it.

QUESTION NINE:  Why would CHCC ever not force a pastor to answer a letter to an estranged husband, when that husband is concerned that a pastor is using his influence over her to influence her for HIS own gain and satisfaction, and / or vengeance for the husband confronting him on his sin?

if you have not read the letter posted on this website yet, then I encourage you to go read that letter next.  The husband is concerned what the PASTOR1 is doing to influence and interact with his wife and they will not answer.


In what world is the pastor’s relationship with a woman more important than her covenantal marriage?  In other words, the elders have been given a copy of the letter which is now published on this website, they are aware of the concerns – and the basis for such concerns – why are they telling PASTOR1 to not answer these letters? 


What have the elders done in response to receiving that letter and why is the God-ordained husband left in the dark with no answer at all?

Subscribe to newsletter

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linkedin