A real estate agent and youth volunteer at Lakepointe Church, a megachurch near Dallas, has been arrested and charged with sexually assaulting a child, according to public safety records.
Natalie Sorrells, 44, was charged with two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child and two counts of indecency with child sexual contact on February 20, the records from the Department of Public Safety in Heath, Texas, state.
Sorrells served as a volunteer youth worker at Lakepointe Church, a church led by well-known pastor Josh Howerton, with six locations throughout the Dallas area. According to a statement from the church shared with FOX 4, Sorrells served at Lakepointe’s Rockwall campus.
In the statement, Lakepointe said it learned of Sorrells alleged illegal sexual contact with a minor last week.
“While it is our current understanding that no inappropriate activity occurred on church premises, at any church event, and that the minor involved was not under the direct leadership of the volunteer, out of an abundance of caution we immediately informed Lakepointe parents, restricted the volunteer from any access to minors at the church and removed her from her volunteer position,” the statement added.
Your tax-deductible gift helps our journalists report the truth and hold Christian leaders and organizations accountable. Give a gift of $30 or more to The Roys Report this month, and you will receive a copy of “Baptistland: A Memoir of Abuse, Betrayal, and Transformation” by Christa Brown. To donate, click here.
Lakepointe also noted that all of its volunteers undergo security clearance, background checks, and training before serving at the church.
The Roys Report (TRR) reached out to Lakepointe for additional comment but did not hear back prior to publication.
Court records show that Sorrel was initially held in Rockport County Jail until she posted $150,000 in bond a week later.
The Heath Department of Safety informed TRR that Sorrell’s case report with further details is not public at this time.
Sorrell has worked as a real estate agent in the area for nearly five years, according to her Instagram account.
Just two weeks ago, she published a post to her realtor Instagram account that included a positive testimony and recommendation from a client. Sorrell added her own thoughts to the post and said, “My clients are the best! Helping them accomplish their dreams and life goals is the best part of the journey.”
Freelance journalist Liz Lykins writes for WORLD Magazine, Christianity Today, Ministry Watch, and other publications.
English 
Spanish 
13 Responses
“Lakepointe also noted that all of its volunteers undergo security clearance, background checks, and training before serving at the church.” So this process is either ineffective or defective.
All the security clearance and background checks do is identify if someone has done it before. It doesn’t identify who might perpetrate a crime like this in the future
You are 100% correct, Tricia. I do not and will not surrender my SSN to any organization other than the federal government.
Don, you may be absolutely correct, but I know nothing about this church or criminal case except what’s reported here. Do you have any insights to share?
Going only on the above, Lakepointe could be hiding something. Or, to Tricia’s point, it could be that they had all the best practices and procedures in place, followed them faithfully, and still failed to catch this woman because she didn’t have a prior arrest record (I assume the reporting wouldn’t skimp on those details if they were out there). Additionally, maybe she never put up any obvious behavioral red flags until now. Predators can be very good at gaming systems for access to target-rich environments; just ask any public school principal, daycare manager, scout leader, or youth coach who’s had something similar blow up with an employee or adult volunteer.
Any time large groups of people gather publicly for any purpose, sacred or secular, it’s not just possible, it’s statistically probable that there are at least a few individuals present who have a psychological condition or some other predisposition that may or may not manifest horrifically at some point. Unfortunately, the presence of children or teens or vulnerable adults increases the odds that actual predators will be present. Either way, even more probable is that there will be quite a few relatively normal individuals with something disturbing in their personal history, unknown or not widely known, for which they’re morally culpable. All of this is merely the human condition at scale. Vigilance is warranted, but vigilance has its limits.
The accused is innocent until proven guilty. That’s why we have courts of law and not courts of public opinion.
Daniel, first a caveat: I’m not an attorney.
On the one hand and speaking as a citizen, you have no argument from me against the notion of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law: See my very first sentence above, where I stated, “…I know nothing about this church or criminal case except what’s reported here.”
On the other hand, the courts can take a really long time to sort things out, even in a case where public safety might be at stake, or where someone’s been unjustly accused. It could be months to years, depending on the strength of the evidence and the resources of the defendant. In the meantime, no one who might grant the accused a position of trust has the luxury of assuming her innocence for those purposes. And whether she is found innocent or guilty, unless it becomes pretty clear to the court that she’s been somehow railroaded or made a victim of police or prosecutorial misconduct, her arrest and court records will continue to show on background checks.
So, there’s theory and ideals, and then there’s how the real world works, especially as regards child safety. I stand fully by my previous comment.
Point One: I’m not questioning whether the church should immediately dismiss the accused and bar her from any contact with the church and any church ministry. They already did that as they must. Safety comes first, always. I never said otherwise. Besides that, undoubtedly, one of the conditions for bail will be a no-contact order. Point Two: What I did say is that for legal purposes and for our hypothetical discussions here, the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Having known someone who was wrongly accused of a sex crime, I know how an innocent person’s life can be destroyed. Unless you and Charles are privy to the Probable Cause documents that might contain some damning admissions, withhold judgement until after the case has been adjudicated.
Daniel, for some reason, there is no reply link on your second reply below, so I’ll reply again here and hope the order of this post doesn’t cause confusion.
Re: “Point One”: Glad we see eye to eye. From the cryptic nature of your previous blanket statement, I wasn’t sure. In fact, it seemed like you were implying something else, so thanks for clarifying.
Re: “Point Two”: See the second paragraph in my previous reply to you, the one that starts, “On the one hand…you have no argument from me against the notion of innocence until guilt is proven in a court of law.” Your “Point Two” basically restates what I’d just said. It then adds an assertion about your personal sensitivity to this issue that I have no way of verifying. Such is the internet, so for the purposes of this discussion I’ll take that assertion at face value, and ask you to trust me when I say that we are on the same page here, too. (See my previous paragraph that starts, “On the other hand…”.)
What Charles Mallet says below indeed directly judges the defendant by voice vote. Don Jones, to whom I was originally replying in this chain, makes blanket assumptions about the church’s vetting processes (unless he has actual insight he still has yet to share…still waiting on that). For the third time now, making extra-judicial judgments regarding Natalie Sorrells or assumptions regarding Lakepointe Church is not something I’m participating in here. Quite the opposite, actually. If you’re still reading premature judgment or unwarranted opinion into the sum total of what I’ve written here, I just don’t know what else to say.
Thanks for clarifying things. I must have misunderstood you. My original comment was a little confusing.
I don’t believe that any of this happened on church premises or with a child that she directly supervised. She is also active in the community. I know our church takes this very seriously and they do everything they can to protect children. No one would ever have the opportunity to take a child off alone at church. Michael I believe your take to be correct when you said, “they had all the best practices and procedures in place, followed them faithfully.” I will be watching for further details about this as they develop.
No system is foolproof but background checks and training are best practices and work. (I don’t know what is a security clearance) There are other policies. The church also seems to be responsive and transparent that it happened.
And the abuse didn’t happen at the church.
I’m not a big fan of megachurches but it seems like this one did it right.
100% of the many public school teachers who have been charged and convicted of unlawful sexual contact with minor children passed criminal background checks. Criminal background checks do not predict future behavior.
Criminal background checks expose one’s social security number to criminal hackers.
The Social Secuity Administration advises:
Never send SSNs via an electronic format
Never have a computer log-in system where a person has to use their SSN
As you SS card advises, your SSN is for TAX PURPOSES ONLY.
This is no different than all those cases of women high school teachers taking advantage of their male students sexually and committing crimes against minors. This lady will end up on the Sex Offender Registry like those teachers.