Michael Brown, a very close associate and friend of Tikkun, has recently had allegations against him for misconduct with a young lady who worked with him. This follows the Mike Bickle affair from IHOPKC, another prophet and intimate associate of Tikkun, who is facing similar allegations.
Tikkun’s response in mid December 2024 is very interesting. Regarding the Brown investigation, they wrote the following to their members:
“As we have maintained in our role in the investigation of IHOPKC, the goal is not only to find out exactly what happened, but to implement proper, biblical processes (1 Cor 6:1-6, 1 Tim 5:19). The question of “how was this handled/adjudicated” can be just as important as the question of “what actually happened.”
Firstly, if I understand Tikkunese correctly, the wording above is a gentle way of downplaying the importance of what actually happened by stating that the way it is dealt with is just as important as what happened. Had they placed the primary importance on whether the accusations are true or false, they would have stated, “first we want to find out exactly what happened. Once we know whether the allegations are true, we’ll do everything possible to make things right.” But no – such an attitude is too censorious, isn’t it? What I would like to ask is, how can you take care of things properly without first finding out exactly what happened? That must come first – but there seems to be no weight placed by Tikkun on validation or repudiation of the actual accusations. They like to pretend to be the guardians of correct Biblical procedure when, in practice, they are far from it.
Secondly, Tikkun are already giving away what their leaning is when they comment on Michael Brown’s response to the allegations:
“We can also heartily agree with Dr. Brown’s concluding words in his recent statement: “… if it’s true that for 23 years she (Erin, his “accuser”) has carried this pain and I am responsible for it, I am beyond mortified and would plead forgiveness and the opportunity to bring healing and restoration. Her wellbeing remains our priority.” Amen! May this be true both for Erin and any others who may carry wounding from their time under Dr. Brown’s ministry.”
“May this be true for Erin and any others”? Yikes! This reads to us like, “we sincerely hope that every single one of all those potentially injured by Dr. Brown will enjoy the same healing and restoration that we wish for Erin.” Beautiful thought! We wish healing not only for Erin but also for any others who are yet to come forward! Happy New Year and best wishes from Tikkun ministries!
But let’s unpack this a little more.
“Heartily agree.” Do you ever make a public statement in which you state you “heartily agree” with someone accused of misconduct with a lady? If the offended lady reads their words, what would she feel?
“if it’s true”. Brown either did it or he didn’t. Is his memory failing him that he should say “if”? If he did do it, he should confess. If he didn’t, he should claim he never did such a thing and call her out as a liar. Using “if it’s true” is another way of not denying he actually did what he’s being accused of. Had he said “She’s lying – I never did such a thing”, then, as much as I dislike Michael Brown, I would have had to give him the benefit of the doubt that he might be falsely accused, even though, in my experience, it takes a lot of courage from a woman to bring such an accusation, this being the reason many such complaints emerge many years after the event. But from his wording, I would lean more to the conclusion that he is guilty.
“for 23 years she has carried this pain”. That’s another way of deflecting from what really happened. In Tikkun spirit, what happened matters less, or as they say, is “just as important as” the way it is dealt with. Instead of talking about the facts, Brown would rather talk about her feelings: “she carried pain”. Without slighting her feelings, whether she carried pain or not, and how long she carried it, is beside the point. The point is, is Brown guilty or not.
“I am beyond mortified”. Again, this is overly sappy. Mortified is a very strong word. I, for instance, was never in my life “mortified”. Even when I thought I wouldn’t be able to marry my (then future) dear wife and mother of 6 children, I was sad. Very sad. I wept. But I wasn’t “mortified”. Michael Brown, however, who can’t really remember whether he did offend against this lady or not, is “more than mortified”. Isn’t that touching? If he feels so strongly for someone who might be falsely accusing him, he would make the best of saints look like a devil next to him.
“I… would plead forgiveness”. Note. He “would” plead forgiveness. Is he pleading forgiveness? Then he should first plead forgiveness with her. He should meet up with her when she’s escorted by her brother, or father, or elder, or lawyer – someone who is definitely on her side and there to protect her interests, lower his eyes and tell her in a quivering but clear tone that he pleads her forgiveness. Forgiveness for what “he’s done”. He would not make a public statement that he “would” plead forgiveness because of “how she feels”.
“and the opportunity to bring healing and restoration”. Bring healing? Who exactly is to “bring healing”? Does a sex offender ever “bring you healing”? It’s not Michael Brown’s responsibility to “bring healing” to the offended. It’s his duty to bring a full and hearty apology, together with a public confession, a permanent removal from any position of authority, and a readiness to financially compensate in any way he can for the hurt caused. That should be the first step. Seeing justice is being done, and if the offended is thoroughly convinced Brown’s apology is sincere, that could, with God’s help, bring full healing and restoration. But if Brown is guilty, then his reaching out “to heal her” is entirely inappropriate. In fact, even if he’s not guilty, it wouldn’t be appropriate for him to try and “heal” someone who is falsely accusing him. The matter of “what actually happened” should be settled first.
“Her wellbeing remains our priority.” Notice he’s not saying “her wellbeing is important to us”. Showing concern, even for someone who might be falsely accusing you, is loving your enemy. But Dr. Brown, who obviously “doctored” the statement to appeal to wishy washy people like the Tikkun leadership, is saying that her wellbeing “remains our priority”. It is not only “important” to them now, but it always was. That’s indirectly trying to cast the accuser in a negative light. If her wellbeing was always their priority, including Michael Brown, then obviously Brown never touched her. In other words, she’s falsely accusing him and he only wants to bless her. He’s concerned for her and always was.
Siding with such a statement and adding their “Amen!” to it, Tikkun leaders are showing what they’re made of. They might have degrees but they don’t even know how to think.
Brown’s testimony can be found on One For Israel, together with the testimonies of other NAR men like Ron Cantor, Jonathan Bernis and Sid Roth.
Since writing this article, Brown has published the following, more specific apology. We’ll have to wait and see if what he admits to in this apology aligns with what will be found out to have happened.