Pastor Jud Hendrix Creates Insular Secretive Environment: Targets Congregation with Sexualized Violence

Note: when church officials initially discovered his misconduct in 2011, (now former) Pastor Jud Hendrix voluntarily renounced his ordination, which protected him from further accountability.

Recently, Into Account has been working to support members of a Presbyterian Commission in navigating an investigation into a pastor’s sexual misconduct. That man is (now former) Pastor Jud Hendrix, and he is located in Louisville, Kentucky. In addition, Into Account’s Dr. Krehbiel has been providing advocacy for survivors who reported Pastor Jud Hendrix’s sexualized violence.

As revealed by survivors and the investigation, this pastor targeted a congregation whose members and attendees included many LGBTQ+ people. Christian leaders and institutions had previously betrayed and harmed many of these folks. In addition, the investigation and survivor reports illustrated the ways Pastor Jud Hendrix manipulated that experience of betrayal and harm by creating an isolated and insular environment. There, he claimed a superior sexual ethic, one that he and community members must keep secret in order to protect it from church officials. 

This investigation and survivor reports show that within this environment of secrecy, he engaged in additional deception and manipulation to target members and attendees with sexualized violence, unwanted sexual contact, and deceptive sexual relationships, among other behaviors.

You can read the conclusions of the investigation in full here, or a summary here.

Into Account would like to provide some additional thoughts on the pattern and contexts in this abuse, and present in wider Christian cultures, contexts, institutions, values, and behaviors across the nation.

Like Pastor Jud Hendrix, Perpetrators Target LGBTQ+ People with Sexualized Violence: the Impacts of Christian Homophobia and Betrayal

Many congregants gravitated towards CCC after leaving more “traditional” churches, where they often felt judged or rejected. These congregants especially appreciated CCC’s acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals, theological openness, and welcome for those who had been hurt by traditional models of worship. – Report of Administrative Commission Investigating Pastor Jud Hendrix, p 10

Pastor Jud Hendrix chose to target a congregation with many LGBTQ+ people with histories of previous Christian betrayal and harm. This is not unique. A wider cultural environment of Christian anti-LGBTQ+ beliefs, values and practices enables this kind of targeting.

National campaigns by Christians, and/or mobilizing supposed Christian values, that attempt to paint LGBTQ+ people as fundamentally predatory, deviant, sick, abominations, heretics, or similar put LGBTQ+ people in danger. These campaigns prevent people from understanding the importance of abuse of power in sexualized violence. They isolate LGBTQ+ people from systems of support. These campaigns bias people against believing LGBTQ+ people’s reporting of sexualized violence or other harms.

Christian and/or Christian-value-moblizing campaigns against the fundamental worth, dignity, and humanity of LGBTQ+ people provide a path for predators to present themselves as trustworthy and safe, and then to isolate LGBTQ+ people from individuals and systems to whom they could report or turn to for support after violence or abuse. 

These individuals and systems may already be or feel unsafe for LGBTQ+ people. They generally have power over LGBTQ+ people, and they may have a history of harm against LGBTQ+ people, as well as policies or practices that are actively anti-LGBTQ+.

Sexual Ethics for Sexual Behaviors and Relationship Outside the Context of Heterosexual Marriage

A number of young worshipers who grew up in the church, but left due to dehumanizing theology and shame-based morality systems…were drawn to CCC as an affirming community where their whole selves would be welcomed, and where holistic theology was explored. In this context…Mr. Hendrix reframed behavior well beyond the bounds of appropriate pastor-congregant relationships as expressions of sexual and theological liberation. – Report, p. 13

Academics and folks with grassroots lived-experience explore healthy sexual ethics within and outside of Christian contexts. There are books, online and in person resources for communities, and mental health and other professionals available who serve as resources and supports for people seeking to engage in healthy, ethical and respectful sexual relationships. However, many Christian cultures, institutions, theologies, and congregations have little awareness of those efforts. Christian contexts generally have a very narrow sexual ethic: sex should exist only in the context of church-sanctioned heterosexual marriages.

This narrow sexual ethic leaves many congregants and church attendees whose sexual behaviors and relationships fall outside of that scope vulnerable to perpetrators of sexualized violence. LGBTQ+ people are the most visible in this category, but this also includes heterosexual community members whose sexual behaviors and relationships exist outside of heterosexual marriage.

A perpetrator of sexualized violence can claim to be a trusted and safe person, encouraging community members to share the details of sexual behaviors and relationships. Then, that person can target community members with sexualized violence, or create a sexually charged environment, or otherwise harm community members. In that environment, community members will be unlikely to report to or ask for support from individuals and systems that they do not trust to be able to discern the difference between healthy and ethical sexual activities and relationships that sit outside heterosexual marriage; and harmful, unethical, or violent sexual activities.

Simple Sexual Ethics Summary

“Though he overtly encouraged authenticity in relationships, Mr. Hendrix also belittled those who expressed discomfort with his behavior. The congregation by and large followed his lead, responding to Mr. Hendrix’s pastoral authority and, perhaps, their own hesitance to perpetuate the sex-negative, shame-driven theology that dominated the faith communities many CCC members had left.” – Report, pp 11-12

In brief, in many Christian contexts all activity outside of heterosexual marriage is considered wrong or bad. In general these contexts have little or no awareness of, and no guidance on, how to embody healthy sexual ethics by learning about and engaging academic and lived-experience bodies of work on the subject. Community members may have very little experience working together to openly and ethically build new community cultures and standards around sex and sexuality.

Consequently, even church community members may have difficulty assessing when a leader has shifted from supporting ethical and healthy sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage to engaging in isolation, targeting, grooming, or sexualized violence. 

Because of the consequences for community members who do not follow the narrower Christian-context sexual ethic, those who perpetrate sexualized violence can count on, or intentionally create, an environment in which community members feel afraid to report or ask for support for confusing, deceptive, harmful, abusive, and sexually violent experiences.

Some Key Components of Sexualized Violence

[Mr. Hendrix framed] the “rules” of the church at large as not applying to CCC…[and he] cultivated a culture of secrecy, in which CCC members were primed to avoid disclosing any of the “exceptional” behavior for fear of being chastised by the church at large. Those who were uncomfortable with facets of CCC culture became hesitant to speak up, for fear of being ridiculed or ostracized by their own pastor and faith community. – Report, p 11

While Into Account won’t attempt to summarize the entirety of the large body of work exploring healthy sexual ethics, we will briefly compare and contrast healthy and unhealthy sexual behaviors, relationships, and environments.

Healthy sexual behaviors and relationships prioritize honesty, directness, and access to outside support, as well as accountability for those doing harm and/or perpetrating violence.

Secrecy, deception, manipulation, and isolation make informed consent and safe/r environments nearly impossible. When someone asks for secrecy; even secrecy in the name of protection from a larger system, like a denomination or individual church leader who has different sexual ethics; consent is compromised.

For informed consent and a safer sexual environment, community members need access to outside guidance, support, and accountability. Community members need someone and/or one or more systems where they can bring confusion, discomfort, and questions to assess the health and safety of their environment, activities, and relationships.

You Have Options

If you or someone you know have experienced sexualized violence, or would like support in clarifying or understanding a confusing experience that happened in a Christian or other spiritual or religious setting, you can submit a report to Into Account. 

No one at Into Account will judge you for experiences that fall outside of your context’s or outside of narrow religious sexual ethics or rules. You may have had experiences outside of those narrow ethics or rules that were, and that felt ok, healthy, safe and/or good to you. And, you may have had experiences that were, and that felt unclear or confusing. You may have had experiences that were, and that felt uncomfortable, bad, unsafe, violent, abusive, or wrong.

We are here to help you make sense of your experiences and navigate your next steps.