Clarification Regarding My Involvement and the Role of The David House Agency in the International House of Prayer Kansas City (IHOPKC) Crisis

Eric Volz | Founder & Principal, The David House Agency

In light of inaccurate characterizations of my involvement in the International House of Prayer Kansas City (IHOPKC) crisis, I decided to publish this document to clarify the circumstances, scope, and duration of my professional engagement.

From October 2023 through January 2024, The David House Agency (DHA), an international crisis management firm that I founded, provided advisory and crisis management services to IHOPKC following the emergence of serious allegations against its founder, Mike Bickle.

My involvement has occasionally been misrepresented, particularly regarding whom I represented, my relationship with Mr. Bickle, my role in organizational decisions, and the nature of the investigative process.

The following statement is based on my firsthand involvement, contemporaneous knowledge, and public statements made during and following the engagement. It is intended to establish an accurate historical record of my role, not to adjudicate the underlying allegations or speak on behalf of IHOPKC.

1. Background and Initial Engagement

For approximately seven years before the crisis, I maintained personal friendships and ministry relationships within the IHOPKC community. I periodically visited Kansas City, attended ministry gatherings, spent time in the prayer room and developed relationships with individuals serving in the prayer movement.

I was not employed by IHOPKC, did not hold a leadership position within the organization, and had no formal responsibility for its operations before October 2023.

Approximately five months before the allegations against Mike Bickle became public, I began receiving information from an individual personally acquainted with one of the principal complainants. These conversations provided some advance awareness of developing tensions within the community, although I had no formal involvement in the matter at that time.

On Friday, October 27, 2023, the day allegations against Mr. Bickle became public, I received a telephone call from IHOPKC's executive director requesting professional assistance.

Recognizing the seriousness of the allegations and the potential consequences for the organization, I traveled to Kansas City, arriving on Sunday, October 29, 2023.

The David House Agency subsequently provided crisis management and strategic advisory services to IHOPKC.

The client was IHOPKC, not Mike Bickle.

Neither I nor The David House Agency was retained by Mr. Bickle to manage his personal reputation, defend him against allegations, or protect him from accountability.

2. My Relationship With Mike Bickle

Before October 2023, I had no personal friendship or professional relationship with Mr. Bickle.

Although we shared mutual acquaintances within the broader Christian ministry community, I had never developed a private relationship with him, maintained regular communication with him, or served as his adviser.

One of my conditions for accepting the IHOPKC engagement was the opportunity to question Mr. Bickle directly regarding the allegations.

On October 30 and 31, 2023, I participated in meetings with Mr. Bickle alongside IHOPKC leadership representatives.

During those meetings, we reviewed the allegations in detail. Mr. Bickle denied significant portions of the accusations while acknowledging certain past misconduct.

I made clear to Mr. Bickle and his wife that my responsibility was to IHOPKC as an organization.

My participation in these meetings was part of an effort to understand the allegations, evaluate available information, and advise IHOPKC leadership on an appropriate institutional response.

It was not an effort to provide Mr. Bickle with a personal defense strategy.

3. My Role Within IHOPKC's Leadership Structure

Throughout the engagement, I served as a consultant.

I was not a member of IHOPKC's executive leadership team, board of directors, or governing body.

I did not possess independent authority to make organizational decisions, terminate personnel, or establish institutional policy.

Those responsibilities remained with IHOPKC's authorized leadership.

During the initial phase of the engagement, I worked with Executive Director Stuart Greaves and other senior leaders. Following subsequent leadership changes, I worked with General Kurt Fuller.

I participated in discussions surrounding major organizational decisions, but my role was advisory rather than executive.

Claims that I was secretly controlling IHOPKC or operating under Mr. Bickle's direction are categorically false.

At no point did I observe evidence that Mr. Bickle was directing the executive leadership team's response during my engagement.

4. IHOPKC's Initial Response to the Allegations

According to the information available to me, the full scope of the allegations then being advanced by the Advocate Group was presented to IHOPKC's executive leadership on October 24, 2023.

On October 25, 2023, before The David House Agency became involved, IHOPKC leadership instructed Mr. Bickle to step away from public ministry and refrain from visiting the organization’s property while the allegations were evaluated.

This is an important distinction.

The initial decision to remove Mr. Bickle from active ministry at IHOPKC preceded my involvement.

During the following weeks, IHOPKC engaged legal counsel and pursued various approaches to obtaining and evaluating information concerning the allegations.

These included the involvement of Stinson LLP, consultations with other attorneys, and ultimately an investigation conducted by attorney Rosalee McNamara.

The David House Agency's role was to advise IHOPKC during these processes.

5. The Investigation and the Availability of Evidence

One of the most contentious aspects of the crisis concerned the investigative process and disagreements over the selection of an independent investigator.

Members of a group commonly referred to as "the Advocate Group” had presented allegations against Mr. Bickle and requested that IHOPKC engage GRACE, an organization specializing in abuse-related matters within Christian institutions.

IHOPKC ultimately pursued other investigative arrangements.

Certain complainants and members of the Advocate Group declined to participate in the investigative processes established by IHOPKC.

This significantly limited the information available to the organization's investigators.

My professional position was that serious allegations required serious examination, including appropriate opportunities to interview witnesses, review relevant records, assess corroborating information, and consider the responses of those accused.

I did not conclude that allegations were false merely because they had not been substantiated through the investigative processes available to us.

Equally, I did not believe that public accusations alone were sufficient to establish every allegation. 

6. Findings Concerning Mike Bickle and IHOPKC's Separation From Him

During the engagement, information emerged concerning additional conduct by Mr. Bickle.

Of particular significance was information involving a woman subsequently identified in the McNamara report as Jane Doe #2. The David House Agency identified this individual independently of the Advocate Group and facilitated her connection with IHOPKC's investigative process.

Following the examination and corroboration of the information she provided, IHOPKC's leadership and legal counsel determined that the organization should permanently separate from Mr. Bickle.

After relevant information was evaluated, IHOPKC's leadership and legal counsel determined that the organization should permanently separate from Mr. Bickle.

The David House Agency participated in the process surrounding these developments.

This outcome is directly relevant to claims that my involvement was intended to protect Mr. Bickle.

During the period in which my firm advised IHOPKC, the organization moved from an initial suspension of Mr. Bickle's ministry activities to a permanent institutional separation.

I supported the organization's responsibility to act upon substantiated misconduct.

In my subsequent public interviews, I expressly acknowledged that Mr. Bickle had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct and clergy misconduct, consistent with the findings of the McNamara report.

My position was not that Mr. Bickle had committed no wrongdoing.

Rather, I distinguished between misconduct that had been acknowledged or substantiated and additional allegations that had not been supported through the investigative process available at that time.

7. My Appointment as Public Spokesperson

For much of the initial engagement, I remained outside the public spotlight.

This was consistent with my normal professional practice. The David House Agency generally advises clients privately rather than becoming the public face of their crises.

As the situation developed, however, it was our assessment that IHOPKC was not communicating adequately with its community and the broader public.

The resulting absence of regular communication contributed to confusion, speculation, and competing narratives.

I repeatedly recommended that IHOPKC designate an internal leader or pastor to serve as its official spokesperson.

When no suitable individual was willing or available to assume that responsibility, I agreed to serve temporarily in that capacity.

On December 10, 2023, I began making public statements on behalf of IHOPKC.

My responsibilities included communicating organizational decisions, providing updates concerning the investigative process, and addressing questions about the institution's response.

These statements were made in my capacity as an authorized spokesperson for IHOPKC.

They did not represent Mr. Bickle personally.

My public statements were made in coordination with IHOPKC's authorized leadership and legal counsel, consistent with my role as its designated spokesperson. Although I advised on communications strategy and messaging, final authority over organizational decisions remained with IHOPKC's leadership.

8. Public Criticism and Misrepresentations

Throughout the engagement, I encountered substantial public criticism.

Some commentators wrongly alleged that I had been hired to conceal misconduct, protect Mr. Bickle, manipulate evidence, or control the organization's leadership.

These claims were false.

I did not participate in concealing evidence, obstructing an investigation, discouraging legitimate reports of misconduct, or shielding Mr. Bickle from accountability.

My firm was retained to assist an organization confronting serious allegations, significant internal disruption, legal exposure, and intense public scrutiny.

There were some legitimate questions about IHOPKC's history, governance, pastoral culture, and handling of past misconduct complaints.

Indeed, during my engagement, I became aware of longstanding concerns within the community, including allegations that certain individuals had experienced inadequate pastoral care or inappropriate institutional responses to allegations of abuse. 

I acknowledged these concerns publicly.

However, legitimate criticism of an organization should be distinguished from unsupported allegations about the motives or conduct of individuals engaged to assist it.

9. Organizational Reform and the Transition Out of Crisis Management

Following General Kurt Fuller's appointment as executive director, IHOPKC began implementing organizational changes and reviewing historical reports of misconduct.

During my engagement, I observed an acknowledgment among senior leaders that the organization had significant structural and governance deficiencies requiring attention.

These issues extended beyond the allegations involving Mr. Bickle.

The David House Agency supported the organization's efforts to transition from immediate crisis response toward longer-term organizational reform.

In early February 2024, I publicly discussed IHOPKC's movement away from the initial phase of crisis management.

Some commentators subsequently characterized those remarks as a declaration that the underlying scandal had ended or that all allegations had been resolved.

That was not my position.

The distinction was between the acute organizational crisis that followed the October 2023 disclosures and the longer-term work of investigation, accountability, reform, and recovery.

The latter processes were not complete.

10. Conclusion of The David House Agency's Engagement

The David House Agency's engagement with IHOPKC concluded in late January 2024, following approximately three months of work.

The engagement was structured on a month-to-month basis.

By that time, several principal objectives of the immediate crisis response had been addressed, including the completion of the McNamara investigation, the organization's separation from Mr. Bickle, leadership transitions, and the development of organizational reform initiatives.

My departure was not the result of a determination that all allegations had been resolved.

Nor did it signify that IHOPKC no longer faced significant challenges.

Rather, the organization was entering a different phase requiring sustained internal leadership, institutional reform, and continued accountability.

Following the conclusion of the engagement, I no longer served as an official spokesperson or adviser to IHOPKC.

Any subsequent public comments were made in my personal capacity and did not constitute official organizational communications.

11. My Personal Position

My involvement in the IHOPKC crisis was both professional and personal.

I had longstanding friendships within the community and deep respect for individuals who had devoted their lives to prayer, worship, and fulfillment of the great commission.

I was particularly concerned about the many staff members, missionaries, families, and supporters who had no involvement in the alleged misconduct but were nevertheless profoundly affected by the crisis.

Having personally experienced wrongful imprisonment and the consequences of serious false accusations, I place considerable importance on careful investigation, fairness, and the responsible evaluation of evidence.

My experience has also taught me that institutions and individuals can cause significant harm when they fail to take allegations seriously or when they prioritize reputation over truth.

The appropriate response to serious allegations must therefore protect the integrity of the investigative process while recognizing the dignity and rights of everyone involved.

My firsthand knowledge is limited to the period of my engagement, the matters in which I participated, and the information available to me at that time. I do not claim to possess complete knowledge of everything that occurred at IHOPKC before, during, or after my involvement.

Nevertheless, I was directly involved in many of the most consequential discussions and decisions during the initial crisis. I am therefore in a position to speak authoritatively about the scope of my firm's engagement, the advice we provided, and the actions taken by IHOPKC leadership during that period.

My objective throughout the engagement was to assist an organization in navigating an extraordinarily difficult period while encouraging responsible decision-making, truthful communication, and appropriate accountability.

I stand by that objective and by the integrity of my firm’s professional conduct.

Eric Volz

Founder & Principal

The David House Agency