Watermark Church and Chuck Adair
Image Repair Analysis of Latest Statement
Amy Smith (@watchkeep on X) has recently brought attention to the fact that Watermark Church has used Chuck Adair, a registered sex offender, in ministerial capacities, for several years.
For context, here is the background:
Chuck Adair, while serving as a youth minister at a church, groomed a 13-year-old and ran off with her.
His case was actually featured on America’s Most Wanted.
He eventually served 10 years in prison for his crime.
He is a registered sex offender, and must remain registered and compliant for the rest of his life.
At Watermark, he is involved in the RE:Generation ministry, and preaches 1-2 times per month.
Due to the ensuing blowback, Watermark has released a statement. For context, here is the text of that statement:
Response to Inquiries Regarding Chuck Adair
Dear Watermark Family,
Recently, questions have been raised online regarding Chuck Adair’s involvement with Watermark, specifically regarding his employment and status as a registered sex offender.
Mr. Adair was convicted in 1996 and completed his community supervision in 2006. Mr. Adair has been an active member of Watermark since 2017. He volunteers in our prison ministry and with Watermark’s adult recovery ministry, re:generation, where he occasionally teaches. He is also employed part-time as a re:generation coach with Watermark Resources, remotely helping other churches implement Watermark’s recovery program in their local church contexts. Mr. Adair does not serve on our staff in a pastoral role.
Mr. Adair has spoken openly and honestly about his past offenses as a means of pointing others to Christ’s redemptive work in his life. Watermark is aware of Mr. Adair’s status as a registered sex offender and his previous completion of his required community supervision/parole. While Mr. Adair has no legal restrictions preventing him from visiting our campus, in light of his past transgressions, Mr. Adair has long agreed with Watermark’s leaders that he should not be permitted to provide childcare or volunteer in any ministry to minors. Guided by care and common sense, these boundaries have been upheld throughout his involvement at our church. Mr. Adair’s past has disqualified him from ministering to minors, but it has not disqualified him from the grace of God or participation in the body of Christ through service to other adults–including through our recovery and prison ministries.
Watermark has robust policies to protect the children entrusted to our care, including the careful screening and training of all individuals who volunteer or work with minors, the completion of a criminal background check, and the cultivation of a culture of open communication among our volunteers and staff regarding diligence and discernment in this area. No registered sex offenders, even those who have completed their community supervision, serve with minors at Watermark.
Watermark also has ministries available to care for men and women who have experienced sexual abuse—to help them find hope, healing, and freedom through Christ.
As Watermark’s leaders, we are committed to protecting the flock of God among us while also honoring the redemptive work of Jesus in our midst. Please pray that God would give us—and church leaders everywhere—the grace to fulfill our responsibilities and calling with diligence, humility, and wisdom.
Humbly,
Elders of Watermark Community Church
Todd Anders, Timothy Ateek, Ben Caldwell, Mickey Friedrich, Blake Holmes, Rob Thomas
Let’s look at that statement.
First, looking at the first paragraph, we see the use of passive voice (“questions have been raised“). Remember: passive voice tends to distance the party from the offensive action, thus minimizing the perceived severity of the actions. This is why attorneys will coach their clients to use passive voice while under cross-examination. I always point back to the Watergate hearings and even the O.J. Simpson trial: “Mistakes were made…”
The second paragraph appears to be a matter-of-fact statement: “Mr. Adair was convicted in 1996 and completed his community supervision in 2006.”
The problem? In light of the known facts, it is MINIMIZATION. Why is it minimization? It OMITS damning details:
Adair committed predatory sex offenses while serving as a youth minister;
the offenses were so severe that he landed on America’s Most Wanted;
he was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
he is a lifetime registered sex offender. (They note this in an ensuing paragraph.)
So yes, while he was convicted in 1996 and “completed his community supervision” in 2006, the specifics of his crimes are not mentioned. And this is serious, as the nature of the crimes are critical to the issue of his qualification. (I’ll speak to that later in this.)
Continuing:
Mr. Adair has been an active member of Watermark since 2017. He volunteers in our prison ministry and with Watermark’s adult recovery ministry, re:generation, where he occasionally teaches. He is also employed part-time as a re:generation coach with Watermark Resources, remotely helping other churches implement Watermark’s recovery program in their local church contexts. Mr. Adair does not serve on our staff in a pastoral role
Here, we have a matter-of-fact statement of Adair’s involvement in the church. They concede that he occasionally teaches and engages in various ministerial activities related to the re:generation ministry, as the church employs him on a part-time basis.
Does this square with the observation that at least one person has made—that he preaches 1-2 times per month? That’s a gray area; I’ll let the reader decide that one.
They seem to have the need to assert that “Mr. Adair does not serve on our staff in a pastoral role.” This is a form of DENIAL. That is not necessarily a bad thing if the denial is true. But are they making a true statement? If he preaches a couple times a month—even if it isn’t in front of the general congregation—and helps run a recovery program where he is coaching other leaders and/or members, is the work not pastoral in nature?
Moving on to the next paragraph:
Mr. Adair has spoken openly and honestly about his past offenses as a means of pointing others to Christ’s redemptive work in his life. Watermark is aware of Mr. Adair’s status as a registered sex offender and his previous completion of his required community supervision/parole. While Mr. Adair has no legal restrictions preventing him from visiting our campus, in light of his past transgressions, Mr. Adair has long agreed with Watermark’s leaders that he should not be permitted to provide childcare or volunteer in any ministry to minors. Guided by care and common sense, these boundaries have been upheld throughout his involvement at our church. Mr. Adair’s past has disqualified him from ministering to minors, but it has not disqualified him from the grace of God or participation in the body of Christ through service to other adults–including through our recovery and prison ministries.
That first sentence has the appearance of transparency: “Mr. Adair has spoken openly and honestly about his past offenses as a means of pointing others to Christ’s redemptive work in his life.” But the problem is that it amounts to BOLSTERING and GASLIGHTING.
Why?
(1) They present Mr. Adair as a model of transparency “has spoken openly and honestly…”
(2) They don’t seem to be telling the whole truth here.
Mr. Adair may have spoken to leadership about his past, but the reason that Watermark has its current dilemma is due to the fact that the larger congregation has been unaware of Mr. Adair’s past. And this is no small matter, as Mr. Adair has been at that church for at least 7 years. If everything had been out in the open, Watermark could easily have said: “We have been open with the entire church, from day one, about Mr. Adair’s past, and have provided full disclosure to the general congregation, and especially everyone who participates in re:generation.”
Right now, the problem is less about Mr. Adair—it is possible that he is playing by the rules that he has been given—and more about the leadership of Watermark.
In that paragraph, they do, to their credit, stipulate limitations that they have placed on Mr. Adair. This shows some good faith: they do seem to understand that Mr. Adair’s past warrants at least some restrictions. And that’s a good start. (Again, I’ll address the larger issue of Mr. Adair’s qualification later.)
Moving on:
Watermark has robust policies to protect the children entrusted to our care, including the careful screening and training of all individuals who volunteer or work with minors, the completion of a criminal background check, and the cultivation of a culture of open communication among our volunteers and staff regarding diligence and discernment in this area. No registered sex offenders, even those who have completed their community supervision, serve with minors at Watermark.
Here, Watermark informs the world that they have policies in place for the protection of children. And on its face, the policies are not bad:
Screening and training of all individuals who volunteer or work with minors
Completion of a criminal background check.
Cultivation of a culture of open communication among volunteers regarding diligence and discernment;
No registered sex offenders serve with minors.
But there are some blind spots there: are all volunteers and staff screened? Or just those who work with minors? (All volunteers and staff—including all deacons, elders, secretaries, etc.—need to be screened. Many a pastor has gotten into the front door at churches because those churches did not screen the incoming pastor.) Also: who provides the training and advisement on culture? Are they qualified to provide those services? I’m not saying this to be nitpicky, but more for informational purposes.
Moving on:
Watermark also has ministries available to care for men and women who have experienced sexual abuse—to help them find hope, healing, and freedom through Christ.
This is pure BOLSTERING. This is a statement that elevates the perceived status of the parties who are in the hot seat. Why do I call this bolstering? Because the fact that they may offer ministries to SA victims is not pertinent to the issue at hand. It only serves to cast Watermark in a more positive light. That is the essence of bolstering.
Moving on to the last paragraph:
As Watermark’s leaders, we are committed to protecting the flock of God among us while also honoring the redemptive work of Jesus in our midst. Please pray that God would give us—and church leaders everywhere—the grace to fulfill our responsibilities and calling with diligence, humility, and wisdom.
If I were being purely cynical, I would write this off as TRASCENDENCE: they appear to be casting themselves as agents of a higher cause—doing God’s work—and positing themselves as protectors, all while trying to honor God’s grace. They end by asking for prayer, which is also a sign of TRANSCENDENCE.
But I’m not completely cynical here. I do detect a struggle on their end—and a struggle that many believers have—over the extent that one’s past offenses impact one’s current or future qualification for various service in leadership, including among God’s people.
And Christians—of all people—love a good redemption story. It’s in our DNA, and it’s Biblical. From Rahab (a harlot) and King David (a sex offender and murderer) to Peter (who denied Jesus) and Paul (who was complicit in a murder), to post-NT Church history: from to Augustine (a womanizer) to John Newton (who traded in and raped slaves), the history of God’s people is replete with remarkable stories of great transformation of the most horrid offenders.
Ergo, the dilemma of Watermark is understandable:
To what extent does a person’s past impact his (or her) current qualification?
How ought the Church address such cases where violent crimes, including of a sexual nature, were in play?
What do we do with one whose past offenses raise question of the future safety of parishioners should he or she be permitted in particular roles of service?
At the bare minimum, I would suggest this much:
Full transparency. That means
One who has such offenses must provide full disclosure coming out the gate.
Full disclosure must be provided BEFORE the background check. No minimization.
Full disclosure must include all victims. Leadership must be able to contact them and/or their families. Any disclosure determined to be incomplete: 100% permanent disqualification.
Full disclosure means the entire congregation gets notified DURING CANDIDACY/INVESTIGATION.
Prior victims must be contacted.
Their full impact statements need to be on the record.
Their assessments need to be on the record.
The candidate must have established a track record of integrity and transparency. That includes workplace relationships, neighbors, family members.
The victims get the decisive vote.
If any other victims—not previously known—come forward, it’s a permanent 100% disqualification.
I suggest all of that with respect to the overarching Biblical requirement for elders (1 Timothy 3): they must be “above reproach”. While Mr. Adair is not on the elder board, he is arguably serving in a pastoral capacity, as he is doing the work that a pastor would do. Therefore, IMHO the “above reproach” test should apply here.
But another problem, which would collide with my “bare minimum” suggestion, is that the nature of his offenses may disqualify him from ministry.
Why?
He committed his predatory sexual offenses while serving as a youth minister. In other words, he committed his offenses while in the capacity of church office. Moreover, from what we know about sexual predators, there is a substantial chance of re-offense.
This makes the “above reproach” requirement a lot harder to surmount in his case. He would have a burden of proof, and the leaders at Watermark also have a burden of proof, of showing how he is qualified against that backdrop. And given that his offenses were severe enough to land him on America’s Most Wanted, that’s a very substantial burden of proof.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Adair. He may be a fully-changed man. But if I’m on the board of elders, it’s a very hard sell.
But, in truth, my larger problem is with the leadership of Watermark. I have reason to question the extent of their transparency with the larger Body from the outset. That they must release the statement that they have released, is itself problematic.
If you’re a member, you need to be grilling the leaders without apology. I’m not ready to tell you that you must eject—although I’m not a fan of megas—but your BS indicators need to be on full alert.