Narrative and Analysis 3--Member Care

PROFESSIONAL REVIEW

MEMBER CARE NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS

Rand Guebert

This material is strictly confidential.

It may not be reproduced in any way or shared without the explicit written permission of Dr. Kelly and Dr. Michèle Lewis O’Donnell.

*****

INTRODUCTION

This narrative is principally the story of the founding and development of Member Care-Europe (MC-E) and MemCa (a WEA Missions Commission Task Force) and the roles that KMO played in these groups.  Kelly had been working since the early 1990’s on developing regional member care affiliations in different parts of the world, and it was through these contacts that the membership of MemCa was principally established.

This narrative is not intended to be a history of the Member Care field or the O’Donnell’s involvement in it.  [Kelly and Michele O’Donnell are hereafter referred to as KMO.]  These are subjects for another day.  Suffice it to say that Member Care was a rapidly evolving field in International Missions with an early focus on the experiences of children growing up on the mission field.  In the mid-90’s there was an increasing awareness that too many missionaries were leaving the field prematurely (missionary attrition) for reasons that could be prevented with appropriate care.

This narrative is divided into two sections, the first composing the years up until the time KMO left Le Rucher in January 2003, and the second the period afterwards.

As this narrative begins KMO are based in Oxfordshire, England and under the line leadership of Garry Tissingh in YWAM.  Garry has “released” KMO to pursue their rapidly evolving international and interagency member care initiatives.

EARLY YEARS, 1996-2002

In April 1996, 12 people met for a WEF Missions Commission Consultation at ANCC in England “to explore possibilities for future cooperation in Europe, for the purpose of improving missionary member care.”  Arie Baak (AB), Dave Pollock (DP), Kelly O’Donnell (KO), Brent Lindquist (BL), and Roy and Jan Stafford (RJS) composed half of the group.  They would all have a significant role to play in later years, especially AB and BL.

KO thought it was important to use this opportunity to bring people together from different regions to begin to craft a response to the REMAP study of missionary attrition, Too Valuable To Lose, that was being completed for the WEA Missions Commission—it was time to act.

In the notes of the Consultation is this observation, “The linguistic and cultural diversity of Europe is an important factor which will affect future actions.  It is evident in differences in ways of publicizing what is being done, cultural approaches to counseling and responses to counseling, and types of needs.  We noted that Anglo-Saxon initiatives are often neither welcome nor appropriate, and that cultural sensitivity on the part of those from the UK and USA is vital.”  Of the 12 attending this meeting three were American and six were British.

Throughout this review it is necessary to evaluate the subject of “cultural sensitivity”. Were Americans culturally insensitive or were Europeans using this as an easy excuse to criticize American involvement?  This “cultural sensitivity” would also arise in a political context in 2003 with the US-led invasion of Iraq which was deeply unpopular in Europe and which cast a shadow over relations with Americans in different contexts.

Following this consultation, in July, KMO sent out an invitation to about 40 of their Member Care colleagues, “For Everything There Is A Season…And A Summons”.  KMO wanted to share a growing conviction of “a need to deliberately join together with a core group of like-minded colleagues in order to further develop the member care field, especially within frontier missions.”  KMO outlined their ideas in this summons, “In short, we would be an interagency, informally affiliated group of friends, who are highly committed to work together on consensually-derived, cutting edge member care projects which will be of direct, strategic benefit to those serving in frontier missions.”  They concluded their summons, “Is the Lord calling you to be part of such a purposeful affiliation?”

The group is described here as an affiliation, but as time goes on there will be continual discussions about whether the group is an affiliation or partnership or nascent association—so what type of leadership was needed or desired.  An “informally affiliated group of friends” would not imply much structure and would perhaps be rather exclusive as you can only be friends with so many people.  While MC-E had a tendency to become more highly structured, MemCa had a tendency to remain more of a loose network, even though Kelly envisioned more structure and accountability.

More structure  might encourage the mobilization of member care resources, but would it in fact limit KO’s personal effectiveness as a world-class networker and consultant, able to reach out in all directions in different ways.  KO was given the freedom by YWAM to concentrate full-time on member care development, whereas other group members generally had line responsibilities in other missions organizations which limited the time they could devote to MC-E or MemCa.  Within these two groups KO uniquely had a strategic opportunity to contribute time that  others did not have..

The groups were always envisioned to be both relational (member support) and functional (project oriented), but KO saw projects as very important whereas most other members tended to the relational side—this created a challenge in order to achieve both.

Between 1996 and 2002 it appears that KO and DP modeled this “informally affiliated group of friends” to themselves and to others.  They modeled what it was to be both relational and functionally productive—they in fact modeled real ministry partnership.

After DP’s son died in early 2002, DP began a gradual withdrawal from his MemCa-related work and KO began to lose contact with his friend and colleague.  This was a relationship he was never really able to replace even though he searched for it.

In June 1997 the first European Member Care Consultation (EEMC1) was held in Geneva with 55 people attending.  KO put together “Guidelines for Effective Member Care Affiliations.”  In this 10 point paper are some indicators of future issues:  “Affiliations are built on friendship, trust, and mutual concerns….They are even more challenging to maintain than to start….Affiliations expect problems and plan ahead for them.  They have an agreed-upon protocol for handling differing expectations, disappointments, and friction.”

Most friends who work together have cooperative ways for resolving disagreements.  A general focus on the positive supplants the negative.  However as groupings become more formal it is correct to expect problems and plan for them.  Generally this leads to hierarchy and varying levels of executive authority which group members accept.  This in turn makes leadership of these more formal groups an important subject.  Kelly leads most effectively when able to concentrate on functional and relational matters, as opposed to organizational and political issues, which often sap everyone’s strength.

In April 1998, KMO and DP met in England to further discuss/develop the WEF Mission Commission Task Force for Member Care (MECA).  Bill Taylor (BT) was able to join this meeting for a short time for an update.  The Task Force was formed in response to a WEF study on missionary attrition.  Much of the groundwork for the future development of MECA (successor MemCa) was laid here.  It was noted that “Improper member care can lead to an Emergency Room experience.  Proper member care leads to Empowerment and Resiliency.”

MemCa had its first meeting/consultation as MemCa at Stanton House in Oxfordshire in September 1998.  An important theme was, “How can organizations work together to help provide a “flow of care” for mission personnel?  One important way is to form “affiliations” of experienced member care and missions leaders, who can further develop important member care resources for various organizations and regions.”  There was a focus on “knitting the net” of MCW’s.  KO, DP and BT are coordinators, although BT was not present at this meeting.

At this time MemCa and MC-Europe are developing in parallel with KO as a coordinator for both.  MC-E is one of the regions represented in MemCa.

KO and DP are an effective team.  KO’s strong networking abilities are combining with DP’s pastoral gifts in a very synergistic way to provide leadership for MCW’s both in Europe and internationally.

By January 1999, MC-E is 13 strong and planning for EMCC2 in June at Rimlishof, France.  Plans are being made to form a Mobile Member Care Team (MMCT) to be based in West Africa.  KMO are involved with MMCT and introduce Erik Spruyt (ES) to the cofounders.  (In fact, MMCT and Michele O’Donnell (MO) planned and conducted a Crisis Response Seminar at Le Rucher (LR) in October 1998.)

At Iguassu Falls in Brazil in October 1999, the second MemCa “consultation” piggybacks on the WEF Missiological Consultation which is organized by BT.  This is a forerunner of larger consultations such as Malaysia 2001, Vancouver 2003, and RSA06.  MemCa is described as a Global Member Care Network.  KO describes, “This core network would likely include about 50 people initially, and we would like to keep it as informal and as user-friendly as possible.”

In retrospect one can see that this network is valuable, but that there is confusion with the organizational concepts of “network”, “affiliation”, “partnership”.  KO is a networker extraordinaire and 50 people can really only be a network or potentially an association.  KO’s relationship with DP is more representative of a partnership.  Working in uncharted waters, KO (and others) tried to find the best organizational concept for MCWs.  It was a bit like herding cats.  KO worked best in this informal, evolving network setting.  [Another study could profitably be written on these organizational issues alone.]

During 2000 MC-E and MemCa both had retreats in Budapest and Indiana respectively.  Both groups are growing and evolving.  At Budapest Marion Knell (MK) was welcomed into the group for the first time and the relationship between MC-E and EEMA was discussed.  Planning began for EEMC3 in 2001.

While there might be  justifiable reasons for MC-E to relate to EEMA, this would significantly change the dynamic of MC-E.  It would begin a shift from informality (American?) to formality (European?), from a coordinating team to an executive team, from a balance between function and relation to a preponderance of relation over function.  Neither of these models is necessarily superior, they are just different and suit different people differently.

It is important to note that following the Budapest retreat KMO moved from the UK to LR to begin their ministry with the Spruyts (EJS).  There was a vision then of LR becoming one of the major European member care centers in a Geneva center.

At the MemCa retreat in Indiana, DP and KO continued to function very effectively as coordinators.  There was a strong desire to integrate and support A4 MCWs.  This was a very functional goal.  [Earlier in the year, the idea of a “flow of caregivers” was discussed between KO and DP.  There was a significant effort to find the right “words”, eg, “flow”, to describe ongoing, effective care concepts.]  At this stage Bruce Narramore (BN) is still quite involved with MemCa and his name appears in the official notes of the retreat.

BN appears to be quite focused on the “missionary attrition” question which was one of the original starting points for MemCa, though not one that DP and KO would continue to articulate much in future years.  BN was interested it seems in the organizational concept of “hubs/centers” of member care which dovetailed with his professional background.  Whereas KO was comfortable with different models of member care provision, BN seemed to favor focusing and developing mental-health related services in hubs and centers.  Here are further organizational issues which can be discussed in a separate organizational  study:  the professional vs. the life experienced, and the hub/center vs. field (or national) work. 

In April 2001 MemCa had another Consultation in Malaysia, piggybacked with a WEF Missions Commission Consultation.  Many projects are discussed and the mood is very positive.  DP and KO continue their synergistic leadership.  They are together modeling the functional and relational.

Immediately after Malaysia is EEMC3 in Budapest.  There are three sponsors:  MC-E, EEA and MemCa.  The theme for the Budapest meeting is “Developing a Flow of Care and Best Practice”.  Eastern Europe was a major subject.  The mood is very upbeat.  The MC-E group has grown to 22, which is beginning to be a large number. 

As numbers increase above 15-20  members an affiliation begins to transition into a network because of the difficulties in maintaining dialogue or splits into smaller affiliations.  Various organizational issues would begin to have a debilitating effect on the working of the MC-E group.

Up to this point Kelly has been sole coordinator of MC-E, but at Budapest MK was asked to become coordinator.  According to KO, from the start he had wanted and asked Europeans to coordinate, but they asked that he as a neutral person coordinate initially.  MK eventually was the only person who stepped forward and offered to coordinate, at which time everyone thought this was a good idea.

In the October 2001 MemCa Briefing, which was sent electronically to hundreds of MCWs around the world,  DP and KO recognize that “There is a steady stream of workers ministering to the missions community around the world.  We call this the “flow of caregivers” or the “flow of member caregivers”.  Some of this is planned, and other times it just happens in a less coordinated but very useful way.  Care is going into the mission personnel so that care can flow out of them.”  There is a strong emphasis at this time on developing RIMA’s (Regional Interagency Membercare Affiliations), the flagship of which would become MC-E.  In a 16 October 2001 email to RIMA coordinators KO gives a biographical introduction for each of the RIMA coordinators.  KO introduces MK in this way, “Marion Knell coordinates the European group.  Her enthusiasm is contagious.  She is based in the UK.  The UK is having a national member care consultation in February called “Growing People” that she is helping to coordinate….”  Kelly introduces Harry Hoffman (HH) as follows, “Harry Hoffman is part of Asian, European, and global task forces, and as you know coordinates the member care email forums.  And recently I got to be his roommate in Thailand for a week!  Fun!  He helps cement so much together through the email forums!”

It is worth remembering a point mentioned earlier that affiliations are often easier to start than to maintain.  MemCa has started out well.  Everyone is on the team at this stage.

On 17 October KO sends a long message to BN and BL (copied to ES and DP) titled: “A dress rehearsal for something bigger and broader:  mc hubs/centers”.  In this message KO elaborates on 7 “flows” contributing to the Flow of Christ.  KO is synthesizing vision and execution.

In February 2002, KMO publish Doing Member Care Well [DMCW].  This is KMO at their most productive functionally and relationally.  In a message to DP Kelly says, “My head is still swimming from the books and travel.  I think I will be OK in a couple weeks, but there really is a process of “recovery” for me from all the output.”  It is a high point on the timeline.  As KO exchanges emails with DP in February, amongst other topics, he discusses the restructuring of MemCa based on discussions that KO has had with BL.  KO is wrestling with the concept of a leadership team to replace the current coordinators (DP and KO).  DP responds, “With the development of the MemCa network more leadership responsibility needs to be spread and as long as “everybody’s business doesn’t become no one’s business” then let’s go with the larger team.”

DP was very prescient.  In fact following the ensuing LR events, what should have been “everybody’s business” (the departure of the seven staff and especially KMO from LR) DID “become no one’s business”.  The expanded leadership teams of both MC-E and MemCa did not seem to fully grasp their responsibilities towards their fellow leaders.  It should be noted that in January 2002 DP’s son, Nate, died.  This would have a dramatic effect on DP.  In the ensuing months KO would effectively lose regular collaborative access to a good friend and significant MC partner.

As 2002 progressed the circumstances at LR began to deteriorate also.  In the late summer EJS went to the USA so ES could have counseling and an extended rest.  When they returned in December matters exploded—in short order the Hylands left and shortly thereafter resigned, the Brills were dismissed, KMO and Sally Smith resigned.  This would be the starting point for 2003.

Within the period of one year DP was withdrawing from his usual MemCa-related work and the vision of LR had clouded.  While KMO’s international ministry was thriving and they were perhaps glad to move on from the stress at LR, they would look for more input from their colleagues in MC-E, MemCa, and WEA.

THE RECENT YEARS, 2003-2007

On 12 February 2003, shortly after KMO leave LR, KO emails BT. “re: Kelly/MemCa accountability”.  KO is looking for someone to whom he can be accountable, especially from a work standpoint, but also personal.  BT responds, “On the personal accountability.  Yes, of course.  When and how?”

As KMO have been involved with BT for a number of years this may look appropriate and practical.  BT was an American, based in Austin, Texas.  He was also involved in appointing the coordinator of the MemCa Leadership Team in his capacity as the representative of the WEA Missions Commission.  KO had a variety of different relationships with BT—hierarchical, functional and personal.  These varied relationships created a sometimes challenging, and later toxic, set of conflicts of interest for BT when problems developed.  KO did not meet with BT very often and so pursued their relationship mainly through email and telephone.  This was a very different arrangement than the one with DP.

EMCC4 took place in May in the Netherlands.  According to an email of 2 March 2004, KO had wanted to talk to AB about LR after that consultation, but for some reason this did not happen.  According to KMO, during the course of the consultation, AB and Marjorie Foyle pleaded with KMO to meet and resolve matters with ES in a joint meeting involving them.  KMO declined saying it was not the appropriate venue or set up.  It seems that the Spruyts had withdrawn from MC-E sometime during 2003 or at least before EMCC4 because of the problems at LR.

Already at this time AB is taking a role in seeking reconciliation with EJS.  He is assisted here by Marjorie Foyle rather than MK.

In the run-up to the June 2003 MemCa Consultation in Vancouver KO was attempting to secure BT’s permission for a few others to attend the MemCa gathering, including BN as a consultant.  There was a continual effort to structure the membership of MemCa with people from different countries and backgrounds.  During this time KO renewed his discussion from the previous year with BN (and BL) about the hubs/centers concepts.  KO asked BN to propose some guidelines for the establishment of hubs and centers.  BN said in an email in early May, “I must begin by admitting to some reservations about trying to establish any set of guidelines….  The groups/individuals most in need of the guidelines are probably the ones that won’t pay any attention to them anyway.”  BN wanted to see very supportive, cooperative working relationships between people with varying degrees of professional training and practical experience.

After Vancouver BN was no longer involved in MemCa but continued his interest through supporting a member care center in Chiang Mai, Thailand and through continuing informal contacts with KO, BL and others.  Global provision of member care was a work in progress.

The Vancouver MemCa Consultation was a very positive event.  It was the last MemCa event that DP would attend before his unforeseen death the following April.  The Consultation had five “R” purposes:  Relationships, Reports, Restructure, Resources, Renewal.  Who was and wasn’t a “member” was a continuing discussion.  As KO said in the notes, “Probably the “hottest” topic we discussed was the need for and appropriateness of some general standards for MCWs…”  The first Leadership Team (LT) was formed with MK, HH, Larrie Mae Gardner (LMG) and Pramila Rajendran (PR) representing different regions.

In the Autumn, KO sent an update to MemCa members announcing that the planning for EMCC5 in 2005 was underway with a plan to bring 30 members from Newer Sending Countries (NSCs) to Europe to use the regional event as a platform to minister to those in regions where member care was only developing.  This was an initiative that MK had promoted during her plenary speech at EEMC4 earlier in the year.

In a MemCa update from January 2004, KO describes MemCa as a “corealition”—a core group of friends and a coalition of networks.

KO’s imaginative use of words and acronyms may be a reflection of the struggle to appropriately characterize MemCa in an organizational sense.  The members of MemCa may have thought that their group was simply a network, rather than a coalition, which is probably a word that is not very appropriate for this grouping.  A coalition is usually a temporary grouping of distinct organizations for a tactical purpose, say to fight a war in Iraq or pass a climate change treaty.  KO seems to be probing for the best structure and characterization for MemCa.

On 2 March 2004, AB sends a very important email to KO.  He has not been in contact with KO for some time.  In this message he describes the status of the LR matters from his point of view.  He had been available to talk in the preceding year, but neither EJS or KMO had contacted him.  AB says, “I have to try to remain as neutral as possible.  So easily one runs the risk that one is drawn into the camp of one of the parties.  And then you no longer can be objective….  If I can contribute anything to the reconciliation between the four of you, then I am quite willing to work on that….  I realize that it will absolutely not be easy to work on the issues, as it is not only an interrelational problem between the four of you, but also, in your point of view, an organizational one…”

So what is the background of this extremely important message? Is there a connection with his and Marjorie Foyle’s efforts to speak with KMO at EMCC4 the previous year?  It now appears that EJS had (probably) by now privately approached MK [via AB?] with a request to rejoin the group.  Probably the MCE Coordinating Team (CT) discussed this privately and thought to explore the subject at the MC-E retreat the following month in Rehe, Germany.  AB was already aware that this would be a difficult subject, but why does he seem to be taking a special interest in this now?

On 4 April KO updates “MC-Europe / Overview and Guidelines”.  It would appear that this was a preparatory document for the Rehe retreat, but it is not clear why KO is preparing this if MK is the coordinator.  KO summarizes the “MOST CONEHEAD” acronym:  Motivation / Organisational / Skills / Time…COmmunication / NEtworks / HEalth / ADministration.

It would seem that there was a serious lack of time for either projects or communication within MC-E.  KMO had aspirations for the group—in light of MC-E’s stated purpose and objectives—which were challenging for everyone.

At this very crucial time everyone learns about the death of DP.  This is a major event and the testimonials reflect the serious loss that is felt.  Even though DP’s involvement had dropped significantly he was a symbolic presence in KO’s member care world. 

At the retreat in Rehe several significant developments take place: (1) MK, AB and Siny Widmer (SW) were appointed as a CT.  SW’s notes reflect that “Kelly will give advice/consult on the invitation of the coordinating team.”  Siny also notes that “We need a stronger communication system by e-mail (everybody:  please respond to your mail!!) / Points to be discussed by e-mail within the next 6 weeks:  Coordinating Team and Confidentiality.

Within months the lack of response to emails from the CT would become a major problem for the group.  This is also the first time in the available record that confidentiality is mentioned as a guideline.  Confidentiality is a word that means many things to many people.  It is an important concept in the professional/legal world.  A word that is perhaps more useful in many cases is discretion.  It is interesting that this word “discretion” is never used when it would seem to be quite relevant.  In the business world people are encouraged to use discretion when considering whether to discuss important matters with others—it would be a fiduciary duty.

There was a discussion at Rehe about LR, but it does not appear in either SW’s or MK’s published notes.  This may have been out of respect for confidentiality.  KMO did share their views on a confidential basis at the behest of Hartmut Stricker even though Kelly had indicated to him earlier at the retreat that this was not the time or place.  There does not seem to be any interest to investigate what happened at LR.  It would seem that the group decided that it was premature to allow EJS to rejoin MC-E.

On 30 April MK sends out her notes of the Retreat meetings with drafts of guidelines that had been drawn up during the Retreat.  These drafts were to be reviewed by the members.

On 11 May MK circulates to the MC-E group a draft letter to EJS indicating that their request to rejoin MC-E could not be accepted for the time being.  MK “wants to get this right and to truly reflect the consensus of the group.”  MO responds immediately with two small adjustments, also recognizing that MK has done a good job with a difficult task.

On 12 May KO sends out to the group a proposal of “various guidelines for MC-E”.  It is a rather complete set of documents/guidelines, not necessarily a response to MK’s message of 30 April, although KO thanks MK for what she has sent out.  KO concludes his email cover, “OK back to Marion and all of you too.”

On 17 May both AB and MK respond to KO saying that KO’s 12 May message was out of line.  MK says that “the email caused me grave concern and I think I need to clear a few things up with you when we meet on Sunday [at the MemCa LT retreat in Harpenden, England]…  Too many things get spoilt because of misunderstandings….”

It would appear that MK, and probably others, are concerned because she feels that the CT should be sending out these proposals not KO anymore.  It seems KO was merely trying to be helpful, but it was not taken this way.

On 18 May KO explains his actions at length, but the problems are evident.

In this one month period it is possible to see the trust evaporating and sides being formed—probably mostly due to LR.  The CT do want EJS back.  On the other side KMO do not want to cease participating in the group and are seeking the transparency and accountability that existed in the group in previous years.  Matters will rapidly deteriorate from here, but not reach their climax until RSA06, a whole two years later.  There was no healing process for LR or for MC-E, because no one besides KMO wanted to investigate what happened at LR.

At the MemCa LT retreat in Harpenden from 24-29 May, KO was the only coordinator, reflecting the passing of DP.  KO suggested five key shifts for the LT, one of which was a “Shift from Coordinators being responsible for MemCa to the LT being responsible for MemCa.”  Subsequently, in the period up to RSA06, DP was never replaced as Coordinator, leaving KO solely responsible.  In practice this shift happened only partially—KO continued to be primarily responsible for MemCa.

It appears that during June MK visited LR, although this only became known by KMO in retrospect.

From 8-13 July there was a series of emails between KMO and the CT that highlight the lack of understanding that is developing.  [These are detailed in the Timeline]  On 9 July, a tipping point was reached when AB said in an email to KMO, copied to the CT, “Whereas we as Coordinating team, just intend to solve things and to bring things into the light and to work on reconciliation, it seems that things even get more complicated…  I have made a choice to accept my brothers and sisters in Christ.  And you Kelly and Michele, but also Erik and Jeltje, are my brothers and sisters in Christ…” 

This rather innocent looking statement is a dramatic departure from the draft letter that was prepared on 11 May.  Things have changed.  SW and MK are not saying these things on 9 July, but AB is.  If one takes together AB’s  messages of 2 March, 17 May and 9 July it is apparent that he is driving the agenda.  Being Dutch, like EJS, it could be a nationalistic inclination.  AB may also have other reasons to protect EJS, but he is taking the lead in the CT.  It is also worth noting that AB has a likely conflict of interest being on the CT and also being head of the EEMA.  It is not unlike the conflict of interest that BT has with KO as colleague, accountability person and head of the WEA-MC.  So many problems can be traced back to conflicts of interest.

The 8-13 July email exchange culminated in a statement sent on 13 July by the CT to MC-E entitled, “Le Rucher Conflict Resolution”.  This document begins, “Having had time to reflect after our retreat in Rehe, April 2004, several members felt there were processes we need to rethink.  The process we followed was flawed:  Kelly and Michele were there throughout our discussions and made several strong statements with regard to Erik and Jeltje / Erik and Jeltje were not present for the discussions and had no chance to reply or refute allegations against them. / … /  “In order to maintain the impartiality of MCEurope we propose that:  Either both the O’Donnells and the Spruyts continue to be part of the core group. / Or if one of the parties cannot consent to that, then both withdraw from the core group for as long as necessary.” [This is a critical document in the whole evolving story.]

Based on these records it is not clear who the “several members” are.  They should have been identified by name.  Also, this proposal can, in no way, be considered “impartial”.  The only impartial proposal would have been to arrange for an independent review by a disinterested party.  There must be some due process.

As mentioned earlier, KMO had indicated to individuals at the meeting in Rehe that they did not want to discuss the issue of LR at that time, but the subject was brought up anyhow in a group setting and a supposedly confidential discussion happened without proper planning.  KMO apologized later at the 2005 meeting in Rehe for sharing without appropriate guidelines being in place.

After this KMO and the CT agree to meet 23-24 August with the Staffords as facilitators.  KO and MK are both in contact with BT in the meantime.  In a 22 July email, BT says, “I am praying for the unveiling of darkness coming out of the troubled sources that will ultimately bring healing to all…”  It is a difficult situation for BT.  Is he supposed to give impartial advice to KO and MK, be an advocate for KO, or get involved and take some initiative?

Planning ensues for the August meeting with the Staffords.  MK says in a (6?) August email, “We feel it is very important to address the facts before sharing feelings as these can be very manipulative.”  In another message sent out very soon after, MK sets an agenda for the 23-24 meeting with Point 1 being, “Define facts before feelings—review what happened, when, and why.”

There is a subtle, but important, confusion developing here.  While the original issue was the conflict between KMO and EJS, which needed an investigation of the facts at LR, the issue is now morphing into a conflict between KMO and the CT, which needed an investigation of the correspondence and process undertaken at and since Rehe.  The events at LR are fading into the background to be replaced by a very messy debate over the apparently hidden process being followed by the CT.

The major problem here is that there is no agreement about the facts of the LR matter and the CT is making no effort to establish them.  Perhaps the CT believes that what EJS have told them are the facts.  Instead the CT is asserting its “authority”, which is being challenged by KMO.  From this point forward for almost two years the main issue will not be the events at LR, but the dysfunctional process being followed by the CT.

In a legal case, a judge first establishes the facts and then proceeds to interpret them in light of the law.  To paraphrase MK’s statement above, if you do not have any facts, all you have are feelings.  KMO are in an awkward position because they are principals in the LR dispute—any proposals of theirs, no matter how appropriate, could be dismissed as biased or self-serving.  All subsequent efforts at facilitated meetings (Staffords, Peter Nicoll) or private interventions (BL, BT) were doomed to failure from the start because of a lack of agreement about the facts and an unwillingness or inability to investigate.

At this time MK and KMO were each looking at YWAM’s Justice and Reconciliation Guidelines.  While these Guidelines have a process that includes mediation and arbitration, no where is it required that the facts should be investigated.  No mediator or arbitrator can act responsibly without a clear and detailed understanding of the facts and issues.  There seems to be some kind of expectation that mediators or arbitrators will use their Solomonic wisdom to “solve” disputes.  The upshot of these J&R Guidelines is that there is a huge emphasis on Reconciliation and very little on Justice.  In fact the modus operandi seems to be that everyone should just “reconcile” and move on.

In a paper distributed around 6 August entitled “Chronology of steps leading to Meeting on 24 August” there is an attachment entitled “Rationale behind the steps followed”.  The first of three points says, “Of paramount importance was the need to act and to be seen to act without partiality and with integrity.  Therefore, we decided to exclude both parties from any e-mail discussion.”

In fact the efforts of the CT seemingly demonstrated  quite the opposite of impartiality and integrity.

As the date of the meeting nears there is a contentious discussion between KMO and the CT over confidentiality of the 23-24 meeting.  While relevant it ends up being a significant distraction.  The Staffords are asked to give their opinion on confidentiality.

The 23-24 August meeting at All Nations Christian College in England resulted in a 7 point summary sent out on 30 August by the CT to the Rehe group without any review by KMO ,i.e., it was not the “joint” communiqué that was agreed to at ANCC.  This was the first in a series of chaotic interpretations and chaotic execution of the points “agreed” at ANCC.  Five of the points concerned LR and two points concerned MC-Europe group process.  The most significant read, “We propose to take matters back to where we were before the subject was introduced on Saturday evening [at Rehe], and present the request of the Spruyts to rejoin to the whole of the core group, not just those who were at Rehe.  No mention will be made of the discussion there and since in this communication.”  This message was accompanied by another email that day [which in fact and apparently unknowingly never went out due to computer problems] to the whole MC-E group which said in part, “Erik and Jeltje have now asked to rejoin us and we see no grounds for refusing that request.  We feel it is right and proper to open up that decision to the whole group….”

It is a little suspicious that such an important message became subject to “computer problems.”

KMO objected on 30 August to the fact that they were not consulted about the wording of the 30 August message.  In a message sent a week later, SW replied after checking with AB by phone, “We as the coordination team believed that the consensus was that we (Marion, Arie and myself) would send 2 emails [as they did]….  As there were no minutes or summary made, we did what we thought was right!  Our prayer is that we can come to a kind of closure on this part.”  KMO do not accept this and in an email on 9 September appeal to the Staffords for their recollection of what was agreed on at ANCC.

The CT appear determined to reintegrate EJS, and to adjust the “process” as necessary.  KMO are fighting a losing battle.  AB seems to act as the lynchpin in the CT.

 

Also on 30 August the CT write to EJS rescinding their letter of 11 August.  Then on 7 October the CT write again to EJS, “We wrote to you at the end of August to say that we would be putting your request regarding inclusion in the core group of Member Care Europe to the group.  This we have done and would like to invite you to rejoin that group…” This set off an exchange of emails because, as was soon discovered, the relevant 30 August email to the group never went out and the CT took an absence of response as affirmation of their proposal. 

This is a very cavalier treatment of the other members.  It would seem that the CT was not very concerned about receiving input from the other members.

Now KMO are rightly concerned about the process that took place at ANCC and afterwards.  KMO’s contentions with the CT were first over EJS and LR as discussed at Rehe, then second over what happened after Rehe, and now third over what happened after ANCC.  The source of “problems” is slowly morphing from EJS and CT dysfunction to KMO’s concerns.

In an email of 30 October, KMO tell the CT and the Staffords, “There is too much at stake for all of us if we just move on without clarifying and discussing some matters….”  Then in a 1 November email Kelly confides in BT, “When and how does one blow a whistle on certain leadership practices?  When does one say “enough is enough” in terms of working relationships with colleagues?  When is it OK to just move on (especially when certain patterns/practices are likely to continue vs when is it important to make a stand?  And especially when acting with “integrity” can create disunity and confusion in a broader arena.  So it is all really easy.  One’s responsibility to confront/hold each other accountable vs one’s responsibility to preserve unity.”

These are good questions, but absent an independent review by skilled, impartial individuals there is not a good answer.

Relations between KO and MK, representing KMO and the CT respectively, are deteriorating and in a 16 November email MK tells KO, “If you have further questions regarding my integrity or the manner in which matters have been handled, I would ask you to refer them to my line manager Martin Lee…  As far as I am concerned we have fulfilled all that you asked of us at the beginning of these discussions.”

On 19 November KO forwards a paper trail on MC-E to BT and requests to talk.  Then on 1 December KO, as MemCa coordinator, writes to MK (copies to CT, BT and Martin Lee) effectively asking her to step down from the Global Faces project and from the MemCa LT as she had chosen to stop speaking to KO for the last several weeks.  BT responds to KO with copies to the others the same day, “This is well stated, clear, and hopefully giving a way forward for all to move.  It is a reflection of our long telephone call yesterday and I thank you for writing this…”  In a subsequent email the same day to KMO only, BT continues, “…Now to await and evaluate the response.  Be prepared for either gracious acceptance and understanding, to anything on the other extreme.  I am with you and Michele.”

This is in effect the point of no return. After this the CT have their knives out for KO.  This is the first of several instances of possible bad judgment on the part of BT.  It is not good practice to dismiss someone from a leadership role (MemCa LT) by email.  It is likely that the others on the MemCa LT found this distasteful also, as did the others on the MCE-CT.  It does not seem that MK is contributing poorly to MemCa LT and she is a member of the LT by virtue of her position in MC-E  not at the discretion of MemCa.  Given BT’s years of experience how could he not know that this email would have a poisonous effect? What was he thinking? BT offers a mea culpa on 16 December saying, “Yes, I wrote my brief affirmation of Kelly’s proposal without listening to the other perspectives fully, or having all of the paper trains.  I deeply regret this.”  This undermines BT’s credibility and limits his own effectiveness in any future discussions.  Perhaps BT and Kelly needed to meet face-to-face with MK and Martin Lee to discuss this situation.

It is AB and SW who respond to KO on 2 December saying how devastated MK is by KO’s message.  They cannot think what the CT has done to deserve such a severe response.

On the same day, 2 December, KO and HH exchange emails.  HH understands the challenges of MemCa.  Sees it as a “global virtual multicultural leadership team”.  Talking about MemCa he says, “I want to get it, but somehow I don’t get it.” KO responds that MemCa needs to do more CONCRETE things, i.e., PROJECTS.

The MemCa LT as a whole is struggling to come to a common understanding of how to embody both the relational and the functional.  The LT has not made the transition from an advisory group to a leadership team.

On 3 December, after seeing AB and SW’s message of the previous day, BT emails KO, “Oh, Kelly and Michele.  It has hit the fan, as I feared but prayed against…”

During the next week KO and MK attend the Pastors To Missions (PTM) Conference in the USA.  KO agrees to continue to work with MK on the Global Faces Project and on the MemCa LT on the condition that they can talk about what is happening, and she agrees.  KO and MK also agree to review the paper trail of the past year to see where things have gone wrong and satisfy each other that each was acting in good faith. 

Unfortunately, KMO and the CT become engulfed in an unsatisfying review of the correspondence.  The CT is winning a war of attrition as KMO slowly become marginalized.

On 16 December following the PTM Conference, BT sends his mea culpa as noted above to the CT and KMO.  This is a further setback to KO.

As the year ends MK and KO are reviewing the 2004 paper trail.  Also MK has drafted a note of their meeting at PTM.  On 15 January 2005 MK sends out a final version of this note to MC-E, but KO is still not satisfied with the text.  Sometime in this period the CT has invited EJS a second time to rejoin MC-E, but EJS have declined because of unrestored relationships.

On 8 March, the CT sends a letter to KMO and EJS asking “to see a process of conflict resolution commenced” prior to the start of EMCC5 the following month.  During the first week of April there is a crisis as EJS decide to attend EMCC5 and rejoin MC-E.  KO objects to the unclear and arbitrary process being followed.

Prior to the start of EMCC5, on 9 April, the CT and KMO meet, with BL moderating.  BL concludes in a draft report on this meeting, “…the issue with/between the ODonnells and the Spruyts/Le Rucher and others…shouldn’t be the committee’s concern, unless there was/is evidence of doctrinal lapse, physical or sexual abuse/harassment/legal malfeasance.  I have yet to hear any of that….”

On 11 April Bjorn Lande led a session at the Consultation on “Understanding, Resolving and Living with Conflict Within a Team”.

Neither of these interventions was very helpful, because neither of them addressed the need to investigate events.  In BL’s case the legal malfeasance had not yet come to light.

EEMC5 seems to have passed off without any major developments for KMO and the CT.  Notes and reports are generated, but they do not say much.  Sally Smith, a former Le Rucher staff member, attends, and attempts to meet with ES to discuss a review of the past problems at LR.  KMO would like to have Sally talk to the MC-E group, but this is not accepted.

From 18-20 April there is a MemCa LT meeting at Rehe.  KO has prepared an extensive agenda, but it seems that the group is unable to assimilate all of it into their work plans.  Amongst the MemCa papers at this stage is an Interdev document entitled “Partnership Principles for 21^st Century”.

Generally one can distinguish a partnership from an affiliation.  Partnerships often occur in professional environments (medical, legal, architectural) with rigorous entry requirements and standards.  Two people may also form a partnership, marriage being the most common example.  KO is potentially a partner of any MCW individually each of whom may affiliate with each other in various ways.  KO is a world class networker and strong advocate of cross-cultural and cross-ministry cooperation.  The word “partnership” seems to be used in the evangelical community in a much wider context than its strict legal sense might imply.

At the MemCa LT meeting there was an excitement about what the group was doing as they looked for the best ways to work together.

On 29 April it appears that a meeting of MC-E is being planned for December with Peter Nicoll to facilitate.  Histories of MC-E are exchanged.

By September 2005 Kelly is well into planning for RSA06.  Will HH become a MemCa coordinator to take DP’s place?  KMO’s true potential is in MemCa rather than MC-Europe.

Discussion between KMO and the MC-E CT seems to have gone quiet over the summer, but the issues resurface suddenly on 19 October when Walt Stuart and Hartmut Stricker send out an email to the MC-E group asking them to vote on whether to invite EJS to rejoin.  [This is an old subject, but why does it resurface now?]  KMO respond to this initiative with questions.  In an email response later that day KO’s “…bottom line suggestion is that an “independent organizational review be done on Le Rucher…”  The main issue here is whether EJS will be invited to join the MC-E meeting in December with Peter Nicoll.

Three days later on 22 October, we see the hand of AB again responding to KMO’s messages, “This is Arie Baak writing from Marion’s computer in Portugal.  Kari Tassia is with us at the EEMA meetings. / The day before yesterday we saw the exchange of emails from Kelly and Michele in response to Walt and Hartmut’s proposal and recognized that we were back where we were two years ago and had reached an impasse. / Bill Taylor of WEA Missions Commission is here.  That evening, Kari and I met with Bill Taylor to discuss the future of MCEurope.  At Bill’s request Bertil Ekstrom was present and at Marion’s request Martin Lee was present on her behalf. / At that meeting it was recommended that, for the good of MCEurope, neither Kelly and Michele nor Erik and Jeltje should be present at our meetings in December.  Those meetings will focus solely on the future and the adoption of a structure for MCEurope, its management and its relationship with EEMA. / This recommendation is affirmed by Bill and Bertil.”

AB is the engine here as MK does not even appear to attend this meeting.  BT completely reverses his position of the previous December, and appears to be completely dominated by AB.  KMO are rightly astonished at BT’s complicity and lack of consultation with them in such matters.  AB seems to be simply canvassing for support outside of MC-E to reinstate EJS.

KMO do not accept that they are to be excluded from the December meeting with Peter Nicoll.  On 2 November Walt Stuart responds to AB’s 22 October email, “I tried to put myself in Kelly and Michele’s place in receiving this announcement and found myself feeling shocked, rejected, excluded and very isolated.”

With the Peter Nicoll meeting only five weeks away now, MK becomes sick.  AB sends an email on 6 November saying that MK will no longer be able to continue in her role up to the meeting in December, but does not want to resign.  All mail should be sent to Martin Lee who will brief MK.  AB continues, “Martin will brief her once the process has been resolved and whether or not the meeting in December will go ahead and under what circumstances.”

MC-E members respond to this message expressing a desire to meet.  AB then sends the following email on 15 November, ”…Finally I have come to a conclusion and I have the conviction that in this conclusion the vast majority of our group will recognize their overall feelings.  I realize that I take up the leadership role, but as a senior and long-serving member of the European MC, I feel strongly urged and endorsed to do so…” / The meetings in December will go ahead. / “Everybody in the group has been invited including the O’Donnells and the Spruyts, as it was never the intention to exclude anybody… / In our meeting we will focus on structures, membership criteria, administration, future vision and development, so mainly focused on the future.  We assume that we have learned our lessons from the past, but we will NOT discuss the past anymore… /  For clarity’s sake I want to state that this mail is not meant to consult you about this decision.  I have taken all that is said into serious consideration.”

This is AB’s coup d’etat.  AB is personally going to force closure on the group dynamic.

BT and Bertil Ekstrom (BE) further confuse matters by sending a message later the same day supporting the attendance of EJS at the December meetings, a complete reversal of their position in Portugal less than a month earlier.

BT seems to be the proverbial reed blowing in the wind with regard to this matter.  While KMO stay in contact with BT his credibility with others suffers.  Owing to his apparent lack of judgment, he is now susceptible to the political issues at hand and the influence of those in the EEMA, who probably now consider that he and BE owe them their respect in these matters.

On 24 November KO emails BT and BE, “I am deeply grieved, disappointed, and disturbed by your email…This matter is at the point where it is affecting Michele’s and my relationship with and confidence in you…”

With the December meetings two weeks away, KMO are trying to clarify matters with BT.  Also KMO each send messages on 25 November challenging AB’s assertions in his 15 November email.  AB responds to KO on 26 November, “From a considerable number of the recipients of the last mail I sent regarding our meeting at Harpenden I received thankful and confirmative comments.  Really nobody seems to have problems with the way I have dealt with this, on the contrary.  So I am not aware of others who feel that there is a better way forward. / I am not going to defend myself about the position and the responsibility I have taken.  I was asked to be part of the Coordinating team because of the illness of Siny and after having consulted the group members about this nobody commented negatively that I would stay on until and including our December meeting.  You and Michele seem to be the only ones who do not accept my leadership position in MCEurope.  This being so, I would ask you kindly whether for the sake of the ministry of Member Care you will accept my position of senior mission leader both in Holland, Europe and world wide….”

KO continues to challenge AB’s authoritarian assertions in an email of 29 November.  Also on 29 November BT sends a message to KMO saying that he is swamped with other responsibilities and continues, “We [Bertil and he] have been trying to listen carefully these last two years, and I, Bill, have been Kelly’s advocate many times… It has become clear to me that I am unable to please everybody at any time.  But we live with these realities….  Bertil and I end up with all parties unhappy with us.”

On 1 December MO reproduces MK’s email from 3 May where she asks for the MC-E group’s permission “to continue to consult with Arie on any issues which may need a quick response…”  AB was not in fact brought back on to the CT as he asserts.

On 6 December Jonathan Ward and Walt Stuart inform the group that they support KMO’s position that EJS should not attend at Harpenden.

On 7 December there is a tumult of messages before the Harpenden meeting which is scheduled to start the next day.  Even Delon Human (DH), Chairman of the Le Rucher Board, joins the fray in an effort to have EJS included.  In an email that day Charley Warner resigns from MC-E because of the dispute—he does not understand how things could come to this point, but he and his wife do not want any more of it—he apologizes for not doing more to help the group.

Late on 7 December when all is decided, BT and BE finally send a follow-up email to BT’s message of 29 November, “We want to address some of the issues that came out of our previous letter to you that might have led to misunderstandings because we did not have as complete information as needed to speak wisely into the situation…We have three reflections:  1. …in essence, we did not have authority to recommend the presence of Spruyts at Harpenden and did so out of confusion.  3.  We will be praying for the meeting in Harpenden…even as Bertil and I withdraw from this discussion…”

There is an appearance of chaos before the Harpenden meetings.   BT, far from being a support for KMO, has become a major liability.

The Harpenden meeting saw the ascendancy of the CT and the marginalization of KMO.  EJS are welcomed back to the group.  The CT becomes an executive committee, with AB, SW and MK as the first EXCO.  ES becomes a member of the task force for EMCC6 and offers to host the next MC-E planning retreat at LR in January 2007.  The problems of LR are finally buried—at least for the time being.

On 12 December KO gives a report to BT, “These comments [following]…reflect the frustrating experience that Michele and I had in Harpenden, in which most of our basic questions and underlying concerns were never really dealt with.  And it seems, almost predictably, that we were generally perceived as the ones who were acting inappropriately…”

On 13 December, Ian Orton, an MC-E member checks in with Kelly to see how he is doing.  He doesn’t want Kelly to leave MC-E, which he obviously feels is a possibility.

In the File at this point is a John Ortberg article entitled, “The Fellowship of the Mat:  True Friendship”.  It is actually the third chapter of his book “Everyone’s Normal Till you Get To Know Them”.

Since the death of DP. Kelly has been on a search for likeminded friends to work with on a regular basis.  He dearly wants to have people within MC-E and MemCa as these friends, but it does not occur in the way that he would like.  The people are nice enough, but there is not a functional component.  HH seems to be the one possibility here, but HH does not wholly share KO’s view of MK, and HH is also preoccupied by his work commitments in Asia—something KO does not have. 

As 2006 begins KMO would like to meet with Jonathan Ward and Walt Stuart to review the Harpenden meetings, “I am not interested in catharting or changing anyone’s perspectives.  But I am interested at better understanding group dynamics and ways to help facilitate change, especially in politically sticky situations, etc.”  Such a meeting never took place.

As KMO move into 2006 their attention turns to the MemCa Consultation in South Africa in June.

On 1 March MK in an email to the MemCa LT proposes to adopt at SA06 a new structure and name for MemCa as discussed at Rehe the previous April.

It would appear that KO’s friction with MK is based in MC-E, not necessarily in MemCa.  For those not in MC-E it is probably very difficult to understand this friction.  It seems that MK is not a very strong or able leader as evident from the MC-Europe evolution, but has written a book, travels widely, has vision and contributes to MemCa LT committee discourse as a member.  It would appear that she is strongly influenced by Martin Lee and AB, but again this would not be evident in the MemCa LT.

On 23 March K Rajendran, husband of MemCa LT member Pramila, sends Kelly an email about the MemCa LT, “I suggest the following to ease your pressure.  Try to get newer members into the team to balance.  1. Try to get an associate leader who will manage the team issue as you become the core consultant, thinker, and the co-facilitator.  2. Try to get newer members into the team to balance the regions and also balance the difficult people on the team, if there are any!...  Please continue to dialogue with Bill Taylor and Bertil Ekstrom who get copies of this letter…”

On 6 April KO responds to Rajendran, “The idea of having an active, broad LT is very appealing.  And this is what we set up officially in June 2005.  But it has not always worked out, and I end up doing most of the admin work and most of the directional/critical thinking.  This really does need to change for sure…  It is absolutely essential that the LT is comprised of compatible people, and this is a very important goal at SA06, as the terms of all the six people in the LT end in June 2006….  I do not want people to mistake my stewardship responsibilities with being overly influential/controlling, however….  We need younger folks in MemCa definitely!... My understanding is that I will still function as coordinator, per Bill’s appointment (the MC Director appoints the Coordinator of MemCa, according to the Guidelines).”

In this message it is possible to see the issues that come to a head in South Africa.  KO understands the issues, but the way forward is not at all clear.  KO is very much alone, but who could help, besides HH?

In an April MemCa update, KO writes that the proposed new name for MemCa is MemCa Network Partnership.

One sees the struggle to define the group.  Not able to decide whether it is a network or a partnership the decision is to split the difference and be both. This is probably confusing for most people.

Also on 6 April, MC-E issues resurface when the MC-E Task Force sends out its proposed constitution.  AB has been chairman of this task force.  The proposed constitution says that “MCEurope is a network of EEMA and as such has responsibilities to and expectations of EEMA.” The EXCO has responsibility for day-to-day matters.  There are explicitly no confidentiality or conflict resolution guidelines.

It is probably satisfying for AB and the MC-E CT that MC-E is now under the control and influence of EEMA.  KMO and BT  are now effectively out of the MC-E picture.

On 14 April KO sends to the MemCa LT a proposed agenda and programme for SA06 along with 36 pages of supporting documentation.  There are many different variables in the programme and schedule.

It looks like a bit of a nightmare to sort out so much by email.  In the past DP and KO would have consulted with the others and set the agenda themselves—this would be most efficient.  Perhaps as a response to the MC-E debacle, KO is making extra effort to be thorough and prepared.

MK gives a probably typical response to KO’s 14 April message when she says, “I wonder during our time as leadership if we couldn’t simplify some of our materials and language.  If I, as a native English speaker, am daunted by volume and vocabulary…it would help if we could come up with some crisp, concise statements…”

HH also responds, “It’s interesting that every time we meet, some of the same emotions come up:  what are we here for?  What are we actually doing here?  Etc…?  And all communication and attempts to find peace with these questions, seems to be going either very slow, or nowhere…”  Later in the same email he continues, “I hear you Marion, and I again and again have similar questions and emotions.  It’s a pattern, and we seem to end up at the same point again and again.  At least I do.  Why is that….”  HH thinks that people do not understand MemCa as a “core group of colleagues”. He thinks they would more easily understand it as a global member care association.

Marina Prins, Larrie and Pramila also contribute to discussions about SA06 as members of the MemCa LT.

The MemCa LT is continuing to look at the best way to structure itself and achieve its goals. MemCa as a whole is a network, which plays to KO’s strengths as a world-class networker—this was the model that flourished between 1996-2002.  The effort to develop a broader leadership team was undermined by dysfunction and political issues that were beyond the ability of KO and the group to manage.

On 5 May with SA06 less than 2 months away Kelly emails BT, “Am wondering at what point do we/I share these things [about Marion] with Bertil?...My goal:  to protect MemCa (and possibly even the Mission Commission) from division, distraction and dysfunction.  And to do so simply and justly as possible.”

Is it within KO’s power to do this? Unfortunately he does not have the support of others on the LT and it does not seem possible to gain it.

On 10 May HH sends a very poignant email, “Kelly, I am reading this [apparently an email from Kelly that is missing from the file, but that can be easily imagined] over and over again, and it’s hard for me… / You wrote, “Harry, please be very careful with what you suggest.  And thanks for checking in with me as you have done.  I will absolutely NOT let happen in MemCa, what has happened in other settings.  Nor will the M Commission leadership.” / I can understand your thoughts and approach, based on what you shared with me, from your point of view. But I don’t have the same history with the people.  And it’s hard for me to adjust my suggestion, based on your experiences….  At the same time, to being careful,…I can’t really, as I don’t know where to be careful.  For example I didn’t know that you wouldn’t want to skype with Marion.  /  I have some emotions here, which I will try to work through and probably write about, as I work myself through the emails and docs.”

KO responds back to HH on the same day, “OK Harry, I understand and I think your response makes sense…Skype will help to share our emotions and discuss more….  And I have very good reasons for trying to help coordinate the LT/MemCa right now in the way that I am.  I do not want to put you in an awkward situation, yet I feel I need to confide in you about a few things.”

KO is perhaps taking undue responsibility “to help coordinate the LT/MemCa right now in the way that I am.”  This may sound somewhat authoritarian, even if it is meant to protect the group from dysfunctional developments. In any event, KO was doing his best to seek advice from BT.   As groups become more formal they do necessitate either more consensus building or executive action.

Also on 10 May KO drafts a letter to BT, BE and Rajendran regarding the MemCa LT and KO’s ongoing differences with one person.  In this letter Kelly recognizes his limitations, “I am so sorry to have to get you three involved in this matter.  But frankly it is definitely larger than what I or the LT or MemCa can handle on our own.  I am looking to you for your explicit and unequivocal backing, and careful intervention, in this matter.” 

Kelly sends this on 12 May to BT saying in a cover email, “Michele and I have already felt abandoned by many friends in the broader process; good people who should know better;….  I have met very few people, mature people, who truly understand systemic and personal dysfunction, AND politics in organizations….”

KMO understand the situation, but there is no place to turn.  BT and BE’s effectiveness has already been undermined, but this is hidden by the busyness created by their preparations for SA06.  The die is being cast for the traumatic events at SA06.

Also on 12 May KO asks Walt Stuart and Jonathan Ward if they want to vote “no” to the proposed MC-E constitution.  Walt and Jonathan more or less want to move on and do not want to vote “no”.  Kelly thanks Walt and Jonathan for their input and would like to discuss more face to face.  This is effectively the end of KMO involvement in MC-E.

On 17 May BT responds to KO’s letter dated 10 May, “I am overwhelmed with the press of 300 people for SA06, and trying to stay on top of 100 emails a day.  I have seen your extended letter of concern which you wrote Bertil and me.  It does leave me profoundly concerned regarding the future of the MemCa structure.  We will have to work together in this, and especially with Bertil and Rajendran as the future leaders of the MC.”

On 24 May BE emails KO, “Let’s find a time first day we meet in Cape Town [15 June] to chat and go through the different issues related to the MemCa network.  I think we could go out with Bill and Rajendran after our first session in the evening and spend some time together.  What do you think?  It is really important that we leave South Africa with everything sorted out and with guidelines that help us to function well internationally.  As you understand I have a lot to learn on these matters and appreciate the collaboration of our MC-team in finding good solutions along the way.”

Do BT and BE think these kinds of issues can be left to the last minute?  BT must know this is not responsible.  These issues must be worked out well before the LT meeting.  If there was not time to prepare than the initiatives being considered should probably have been deferred.

On 25 May KO sends out to the MemCa LT an updated agenda incorporating everyone’s comments.  KO is working very hard on the preparation for SA06.  One of the items mentioned is that KO will continue as Coordinator.  While this is an appointment by the WEA Missions Commission, it may seem to the other LT members that they have had no input on this.

Also on 25 May BT emails KO, “Thank you, Kelly, for engaging Bertil in all of these matters.  I have gone through all of the documents you sent out today to the LT, and it’s quite a list of things for them to have and understand.  May God give all of the LT clarity and focus.”

BT probably realizes that the information is overwhelming, but he really has no time to work with KO on this.  He gives the appearance of being involved without the benefit.  KO needs clear thinking advisors here and they are simply not available.  KO is effectively abandoned.

On 28 May MK emails KO with some questions.  She says that she has never received an e-mail asking if she wants to continue on the MemCa LT.  Kelly responds by directing her to a long email he sent on 7 April.  It would be easy to overlook this request as it was in the middle of a long document.  Normally something as important as continuing on the LT would be the source of some special discussion.  In fact, KO and others are hoping that MK would simply not stand again for election to the LT, and primarily contribute as an active MemCa member, and that that would solve most of the issues involved in the RSA meeting and LT dynamics.

On 10 June, HH emails KO with concerns that virtual teams make action commitments at consultations, but then lose traction when they hit the realities back at home.  HH is also not sure that he can continue on the MemCa LT due to work in China and finances.

This was the last correspondence before SA06.

Kelly has written a 3-page set of notes from his remembrances of the day to day events at SA06.  He did meet on 17 June, the evening before the MemCa LT meeting, with BT, BE and Rajendran.

In this meeting BT and BE support KO, but when matters sour the next day, as wise people should have expected, they abandon KO in order to seemingly try to restore their credibility with other mission leaders.  This is not honorable.

After the fateful MemCa LT meeting on 18 June, KO did not continue as MemCa coordinator and was not allowed to attend the MemCa meetings.  He had various private meetings with members of the LT, BT, BE, Rajendran and Cees Verharen (then General Secretary of EEMA), but these do not appear productive.  In addition to the MemCa development, the EEMA also decides at this time that KMO will no longer be part of MC-Europe.  KMO are completely cut off from their main member care associations. 

On 24 June, the last day of the meetings, KO gives a note to Martin Lee to give to MK.  The note reads, “Dear Marion, / I was sorry to handle our differences the way I did—in our LT meeting June 18. / I hurt you and I feel so sorry. / Please forgive me. / You contribute so much to MemCa and member care.  Thank you! / In spite of our LT interaction 18 June, please know that I do value you and our relationship.  I hope we will be able to reconnect in due course.  May our Lord Jesus guide you and continue to use you and bless you—Ps 67. / A warm hug to you, Kelly”.

While an apology might well be in order.  KO is far from the only one at fault here.  However, this note makes it look like it is KO’s “fault”. One could easily wonder how KO was actually feeling and whether this note accurately reflected those feelings.  KO’s apparent acceptance of fault was probably used by others to make him a scapegoat for this group failure.

Now that KO has been unceremoniously removed from the MemCa LT his recourse is to YWAM and he emails Gina Fadely on 28 June with some important updates about SA06 and KMO’s dismissal from MC-E.

On 30 June KO emails Cees Verharen to ask if they could speak by phone to continue a discussion they were having at the end of SA06 in which Kelly had little opportunity to contribute.

Instead of responding to KO, on 4 July Cees Verharen, as General Secretary of EEMA, sends out a letter to MC-E saying that “Kelly was asked to step down from his role as WEA Member Care Coordinator…” and that “EEMA has decided that it is inappropriate for Kelly and Michele to be part of Member Care Europe from this time…” 

During this 4 July period, KMO and family are traveling back to the States for a 7-week summer working holiday.

On 5 July, KO emails BE wanting to know how he could have “checked” the 4 July message from Cees considering all of the inaccuracies in it. 

On 9 July KO emails Cees listing 9 points in his 4 July message that need clarification or correction.  Also on 9 July, KO emails BT, “Checking with you to see how much you are aware of or involved in the letter that Cees sent to MC-Europe…I can understand any hesitancy for Bertil or you getting involved more.  Yet you are the person with whom Michele and I have tracked for over three years now related to these matters.  Michele felt an urgency to contact you after reading Cees’ letter…”

At this stage KMO have no place to turn.  They have been completely abandoned.  It is the easy way out for everyone.  What is interesting is that the whole matter of LR has been forgotten and instead of EJS being the problem, now KMO are the problem.  What a convoluted result.  This is political maneuvering at its best.

On 11 July HH emails KO, “Our last interactions in SA were, that I said ‘I lost a friend’ and when we said bye, you said something like ‘no, let’s stay connected.’ / Well, I am thinking of you and Michele often.  Let’s connect, email, skype what ever.  Not sure what to talk about, but I don’t want to loose everything we had.”

It should be noted here that HH was appointed as Coordinator of the MemCa LT to replace Kelly—an awkward arrangement for the two of them.

KO and HH had a good working relationship and a growing friendship.  It is sad that this growing friendship became another casualty of RSA06.

On 14 July KO emailed a member care colleague, “The dream, which I still have, is that there will be a partnership of member care networks comprised of quality colleagues doing strategic projects together…We have already been paying quite a high price for holding firm to our values/concerns.  I trust God that in due course, there will be greater understanding, clarity, and reconnection

On 20 July Gina emails Kelly about SA06, “Sounds like a hornets nest got ripped open…  Between us we’ll have to find a way forward.” [This Narrative connects here with the YWAM Narrative.]

Kelly responds the same day thanking Gina for hanging in there.  Kelly also corresponds with Ah Kie.

Finally BE replies to KO on 4 September, “The week at Goudini Spa was very difficult for me personally, and I suppose for you as well.  I am really sorry that things had to take the course they did but I still believe that it was the only solution for the impasse we had.  I appreciated the wisdom and support of Rajendran, Bill and the entire executive committee which was fully apprised of the issues and decisions.  Time will show if we made the right thing and I hope that time will also help us all to have the correct perspective on the whole process, to learn from this experience, and to graciously forgive each other.  At the same time it is important that we deal directly with the issues and try to learn from our mistakes and experiences, both good and bad.”

Frankly, there does not seem to be much wisdom coming from Rajendran and BT.  Also time might heal wounds, but it is not at all certain that time will give people correct perspective.  Without a proper understanding of the events time simply dulls the memory.  BE might be a good administrator but he is no match for the political maneuvering that is taking place behind the scenes.

On 15 September KO emails BE that he would like to meet him again face to face and that he would still like answers to the questions posed in his 5 July message.  In some personal notes KO made on 15 September KMO cannot understand how they can be treated as they were.  Kelly hopes “one day that a few key people will really understand, and do something.”

In October BL and KO exchange long emails.  BL has much “advice” for KO.  BL says, “I think the key is that you have to approach Bertil and Bill with a repentant attitude.  I think you have gone beyond simple reconciliation.  You need to repent and seek forgiveness.  You need to approach people, listen to them, not try and argue your way through things.  The force of your personality will undoubtedly get people to acquiesce to your face.  But then they will feel manipulated and will withdraw further from you over time….”

This is not helpful advice.  BE and BT need to be confronted on this matter.  That does not mean that they don’t deserve some mercy and understanding.  Basically they appear more inept than venal.  The strength of KO’s personality is a factor, but probably people admire it much more than fear it, and it is only one of the factors for which the whole group is responsible.  This advice of BL’s reminds one of Job’s friends in the OT.  BL seems to have played a negative role in all of this by discussing KO’s situation with others in an unhelpful manner given his very limited understanding of the underlying problems at LR.

KO responds to BL saying, “…the info on which you base your concerns/rebuke is really inaccurate….I regret that you have not checked out your concerns with me, and your attributions about my motives, especially prior to contacting others….”

KO and BL schedule a telephone conversation.

On 1 November, 10 days before the COMIBAM conference that the mission leaders would attend, KO emails BE with questions stemming from the conversation KO had with BL, “…I sense a growing distance between us, reflected in the silence on your end, which I think and hope is due mostly to misperceptions and misunderstandings…Two weeks ago I heard some things from two different people about some of your concerns about me.  It was really hard to believe.  So I want to check with you.  And to listen to your concerns.”  [KO lists: defiant, non-compliant, competitive and that I should not be in international ministry until certain relationships are sorted out etc.]  “So I am wondering.  Do you really think such things?  And are you really communicating these things to others?  Do you think that I am incapacitated and insubordinate?  I do not really understand why we have not talked about such things directly.  As friends…”  Later KO says about the 4 July letter from Cees Verharen, it “made us wonder about the broader, behind the scenes political things that were likely happening.  And about how this might relate to the appropriate need to safeguard the integrity/reputation of the WEA-MC and its leaders.”

The last lines of this may have been interpreted as challenging the actions or even integrity of BE and BT even if KO was simply trying to address the realities of the situation.  This critique was bound to upset them, even if true.  Perhaps it is this that leads to the letter of 17 November.  BE and BT are going to put KO to rest once and for all.  This is probably also the source of the problems that KO experienced when he arrived at Granada for COMIBAM.  KO’s attempt to connect and dialogue in effect led to even more problems.  What all is going on?

At KO’s initiative BE agrees to talk to KO in Granada when they are together.  On 11 November KO meets with BE and BT in Granada.  [There are no records of this meeting in the file.] 

Then, on 17 November, just before the end of COMIBAM, Kelly is given a disciplinary letter from the WEA Mission Commission EXCO (BE, BT, Rajendran, Rose Dowsett) with four recommendations.  The gist of the letter is that “…we discern deeper underlying issues to address in you, and therefore in your relationship with the MC…”

Rajendran and Rose Dowsett seem to have little to do with the drafting of this letter.  BE and BT seem to be partially compensating for their own ineptness by punishing KO.  They must have easily been aware that KO was not the only one at fault in this sorry affair.  This letter should be an embarrassment to those who signed it.

On 7 December KO sends the 17 November EXCO letter to Gina Fadely (GF) and Garry Tissingh (GT).  The next day he discusses the letter with both in separate telecons.  KO summarizes these discussions in an email the next day to both.  Kelly says in part, “Gina was concerned that I was “paranoid” and fearful in general, and encouraged me to not respond this way…”

By this stage it would have been a miracle if KMO were not becoming increasingly cautious and even fearful.  Unfortunately, giving this letter to GF and GT turns out to be unwise .  At a time when KMO are vulnerable, GF and YWAM will use this ill-conceived letter to oppress them.

In a file note on 12 December KO lists 12 items he would like to discuss with BT and BE.  Two of the items were, “…so why really did Bill turn on me—after the three of them on June 17 just confirmed my role as MemCa coordinator for three more years? …what would they have done different and better than what I tried to do?”

In early 2007 KO writes to his former MemCa LT colleagues (Marina, Larrie, Pramila, Harry) apologizing for how he handled part of the LT meeting in RSA on June 18 2006, “Although I was attempting to address some very important issues, I realize that I did that in an insensitive way that was hurtful.  I want to apologize for two things specifically. / In my sincere desire to safeguard the well-being of MemCa:  1. I should have used more neutral words / 2.  I should have been less intense /  I am really sorry for the pain and difficulties that this has caused you and many of us….”

It is sad that there was no response to discuss this further from anyone on the MemCa LT, people KO had worked with for years.  They also had a responsibility for the functioning of the group which they failed to honor in the way they treated KO.

In late April 2007 BE emails KO asking for a response to the EXCO letter of 17 November as BE has not received one. Kelly responds to the above in July 2007 referring to emails sent earlier in the year.  It is clear that there is an impasse with the EXCO.

In a 23 October 2007 email BE says, “I am sorry that it was not possible to meet you during my trip to Europe.  However, in terms of the MC you need to relate to the ExCo and give Rajendran and Rose answer to the letter they gave you a year ago.  As you understand your future participation in the MC depends entirely on that…”

It is quite apparent that BE is avoiding KO—this is very sad.  By this point KMO are absorbed with understanding the NCI and YWAM issues—these member care-related matters have become more tangential.

On 11 December the WEA-MC EXCO sends Kelly a letter stating that he is no longer a Mission Commission Associate.  On 14 December KMO respond to BE, Rajendran, etal with a further request to meet.  And there the story rests with deafening silence.