PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
LE RUCHER NARRATIVE AND ANALYSIS
Rand Guebert
rand.guebert@free.fr
This material is strictly confidential.
It may not be reproduced in any way or shared without the explicit
written permission of Dr. Kelly O’Donnell and Dr. Michèle Lewis O’Donnell.
*****
INTRODUCTION
Since the early days, the ministry of Le Rucher (LR)
has been synonymous with that of Erik and Jeltje Spruyt (EJS). That was not the intention in the beginning,
but that is principally how it evolved.
Many people came and went from LR but EJS were always there. This
narrative is not intended to focus on the ministry of LR or the ministry and
character of EJS—that is perhaps the subject of another study; nor is it
intended to focus on the departure of seven staff in January 2003—that should
rightly be the subject of its own independent review as was requested at the
time.
This narrative is intended to look at (1) the
relationship between LR and YWAM over the years, (2) the lack of proper
corporate governance and accountability for LR and (3) the vulnerability of
voluntary Christian workers who lack the protection of secular employment
law. It is these aspects that have
important bearing on the wider issues covered in this professional review.
NARRATIVE AND
ANALYSIS
The original ministry of LR was conceived during
1993 by various YWAM staff members who had a heart for pastoral care of
missionaries. The ministry concept
preceded the facility—in fact another property in Switzerland Lausanne Crossroads Church
The vision, the people and a potential ministry facility
had evolved, and in May 1994 ES received an offer from Mr. Lowe’s estate agent
offering the property for rent. In June
a further offer was sent with a purchase option and a 1 August commencement
date. The physical expression of the pastoral care center was beginning to take
shape. On 7 September 1994 Mercy
Ministries was registered as an Association according to French law with ES as
President, Janice Rowland as Secretary and Alan Murray as Treasurer. YWAM is mentioned twice in this document
In early November the six founding members met at Cheltenham , England
Following soon thereafter, on 13 December 1994
Association Mercy Ministries was registered in Switzerland
Were these
French and Swiss associations, that were registered within about three months
of each other, parallel national organizations with the same purpose? They were both understood to be YWAM
associations, but was the French association “hijacked” by ES when he amended
the statutes on 12 June 2002? Because
both organizations have Mercy Ministries in the name it would seem that they
were meant to be sister organizations—one serving France
the other Switzerland
On 17 January 1995 T&EH, JR and MN arrived at LR
to begin the ministry. Matters quickly
soured though as ES announced to them that he was now in charge of LR, that he
would manage the enterprise, and that he had scheduled a series of training
seminars and mission conferences for 1995 in his capacity as Director of EMA
for Mercy Ministries YWAM. These
unilateral decisions by ES confounded the other four team members, and Dr.
Bruce Thompson, a senior leader in YWAM, was called in to mediate between the
members. As no significant change
developed MN and JR opted to leave and departed LR on 14 March 1995. T&EH were also very distressed by the
changed circumstances of LR.
With the departure of staff, ES wrote to Sean (SC) and
Lynn Collins on 2 May 1995 describing the ministry of LR as a prelude to the
Collins’ moving from Africa to be seconded to
LR. ES says in the letter, “Thank you
for pursing me, we are only just setting up shop here and no real pastoral
ministry has actually started here yet.
We came late last year in this empty building, fully renovated but
empty. We negotiated a rent free year
for the first year and truly this is a classic old Ywam “faith project!”…”
ES states
clearly here that this is a “classic old Ywam faith project”. The challenge is to follow LR as a YWAM
ministry and identify the time years later when it is no longer “YWAM”.
On 23 May 1995 T&EH meet with Bruce Thompson to
say they are resigning from LR and according to T&EH “he prayed us out of
YWAM.” As T&EH prepare to leave LR
physically TH makes a calculation of the monies that are due to them including
the guarantee they have given for the LR rent.
He says in a letter, “When Erik communicated to us the urgency to finalise
the guarantee last September, he said that he would cover the guarantee with
his own resources if it became necessary.
In view of the fact that Le Rucher is not to be the Pastoral Care Centre
that we envisaged and that we will not be involved we have accepted this
offer. We have requested Erik to make
good his promise and to refund us the amount of the guarantee by the end of
this year 1995. We hope that enough
gifts to cover the rent will have been paid in by then, so that the amount can
be repaid without Erik having to turn to his own capital.”
After T&EH returned to England
On 28 September SC sends a long email to ES
describing the interest he and his wife have in moving from Uganda
On 9 October ES sends a letter to TH saying that he
is working to get the guarantee returned to him, although ES disagrees with TH
about the exact circumstances in which the guarantee was given. This letter is copied to LG and Alan Murray,
indicating that YWAM is still involved in this process.
On 1 November, TH writes to LG asking him to
negotiate with ES the return of the guarantee money, “…I feel I passed the matter over to you when
we were at Harpenden… I am sorry this adds to your busy schedule, but I
strongly feel that we need a mediator to prevent this becoming more ‘sour’….” LG replies on 9 November saying, “Thanks for
your letter of the 1st of November.
I will follow things up with Erik.
I have already let him know that he should repay the money right
away. Alan and I will keep the pressure
on.”
On 21 November, SG emails Alan Murray and ES, “I
received a letter from Tony Hyland about a guarantee he made to Le Rucher and
have received a response from Erik to his letter. While I was in Harpenden, I was able to
discuss this with Alan Murray and encouraged him to see how we could have this
guarantee returned as soon as possible to Tony.
Hopefully, Erik and Alan, you are working on some tangible plan for that
and I would appreciate you keeping me informed.”
The
jusxtaposition of LG and SG in this matter of the rent guarantee monies is
consistent with the hierarchy of the Association Mercy Ministries that exists
today where LG is part of Team3, SG is in the GLT and ES is director of
LR. There can be little doubt that LR is
part of YWAM in 1995. It is also
apparent that LG, SG and ES have a long history of dealing with financial
issues. This is also the time that NCI
is being established, so what do LG and SG know about that??
Finally on 3 January 1996 the guarantee monies are
repaid to TH with the interest that was agreed. ES informs TH of this with copies to LG and
SG, “Making the money available was a significant help in getting started with
the ministry here at Le Rucher…After negotiations with the leadership for the
French speaking family of YWAM we agreed that the co-ordinator for pastoral
care for the Francophonie will be based at Le Rucher and work on implementing
and nurturing pastoral care throughout the Francophonie…”
On 29 and 31 January there are planning meetings at
LR to create a Personnel Development School (PDS) at LR. SC attends these meetings. Darlene Cunningham is interested in this
activity.
In April letters are sent by Food for the Hungry to
the French Consulate asking that visas be granted so that Sean & Lynn
Collins can take up a three year assignment with Mercy Ministries. In May Barry Austin emails some ideas for a
modular approach to PDS, “…Because we are targeting YWAMers – people who are
already in ministry, they have a limited time which they can take off their
present jobs…”
It seems that
there has been little progress made on PDS since January. The involvement of Barry Austin and Darlene
Cunningham implies a strong YWAM connection.
From 1996 the available record shows an original
brochure entitled, “Mercy Ministries – A ministry of Youth With A Mission in France
SC shares his memories of their final days at LR in
his 22 October 2008 story thusly, “Toward the middle of July ’96 Erik announced
to us that we had seven days to be out of the country, at which time he would
personally report us to the French authorities for being illegally in the
country. As Erik had all our work permit
papers, which were still in process with the authorities, we were forced to
find a place to live across the border in Switzerland
The turnover
of staff appears ominous since the beginning 18 months earlier. It is worth noting that the NCI investment
fund was proposed to SC by ES, but SC did not agree to it. Much of the documentation on NCI from these
early years came from the archives of SC.
The available
record for the next five years, 1997-2001, is quite thin. Nevertheless records that are available show
that LR is part of YWAM.
A February 1997 edition of YWAM News features an
article promoting LR. A registration
form for a 22-26 October 1997 counseling seminar is to take place at “Mercy
Ministries – YWAM, Le Rucher”. This
seminar is based on the “Divine Plumb Line”
by Dr. Bruce Thompson.
In February 2000 EJS distribute their newsletter
covering the end of 1999. An excerpt
from this newsletter reads, “The financial situation of Le Rucher is good—all
bills have been paid. There is however,
a challenge. We have a big interest-free
loan that we regularly pay off, but the provider of the loan wants the entire
amount paid back earlier, to enable him to help in other projects. Although we do support his view, we have to
find another solution now….”
As the Danish
passenger ferry that would become the Africa
Mercy was donated to Mercy Ships during 1999 it is possible that the “provider
of the loan” needs the money back for the refitting of the vessel. At this time Mercy Ships is part of YWAM so
the provider of the loan could possibly be either YWAM or NCI. This is conjecture but the timing is
appropriate. It is also possible that
SDI was set up about this time to raise money for Mercy Ships or to replace the
funding of LR. Again, the timing is
appropriate.
On 2 April 2000 ES sends a letter to KMO inviting
them to join the ministry at LR. The
letter is on YWAM headed stationery and reads in part, “Mercy Ministries for
Europe, the Middle East and Africa (EMA) is part of Youth With A Mission (YWAM)
France and YWAM France is a member of the French Protestant Federation…Le
Rucher also serves as the headquarters for YWAM Mercy Ministries for the EMA
field…we would like to invite you to join us at Le Rucher to help set up and
develop the clinical and debriefing care components at and from Le Rucher.”
KMO arrive at LR with their family in August 2000
and EJS recognize KMO’s arrival in their October newsletter.
Moving on in time, the record contains a seven-page
Overview of the Year 2001 for LR that was probably written in early 2002. This Overview shows the evolution of LR, with
a staffing review showing KMO and Sally Smith (SS) there at the beginning of
the year and the Brills (DDB) and T&EH added during the year as full-time
staff. The team was definitely growing
during this time and the Overview reads in part, “For many years we had been
working in what can be called a “pioneering” phase. In this mode, staff members normally stepped
in to fill various needs, regardless of their particular callings or
giftings. Individuals supplied their own
office equipment and other ministry and travel expenses. The “pioneering” phase is essential to begin
a ministry. There comes a time, however,
when it is important to begin moving on to a “settled” phase. Ministries working toward a “settled” phase
attract different personality types than “pioneer” ministries. “Settlers” are more comfortable working
within clearly defined structures. They
are needed to strengthen and consolidate the ministry. This is imperative for continued growth. A ministry that never comes out of the
pioneer phase, burns out its staff and eventually disintegrates. The movement from one phase to another is
necessarily slow, but during 2001 we took concrete steps to build upon our
foundations and move toward the settled phase in order to further the growth of
the ministry….As part of moving from “pioneering” to “settling”, we worked
toward setting up a Personnel Department, including writing staff policies and
a staff manual, designing staff application forms and a screening process for
new staff. By the end of the year it was
decided that Sally would switch her role from ethnic reconciliation, to
becoming the personnel director and doing debriefing part-time.:
While the team
was growing at LR this shift to a settled phase would not be compatible with
ES’s management style. Trouble was
already brewing that would break out in 2002.
It is interesting that ES allowed this process to evolve during 2001.
On 12 June 2002 the Mercy Ministries statutes are
revised. These statutes are not
available to the public, so the actual revisions are not known. It is known that shortly thereafter both
Delon Human (DH) and Marcus Orsi (MOr) joined the French board of Mercy
Ministries as chairman and treasurer respectively.
It is during
this year that The Oaks Foundation grant is received by Mercy Ships and refitting
of the Africa Mercy commences. It also seems likely that this statute
revision signals the time that LR “separates” from YWAM just as Mercy Ships separated from YWAM in
the following year. There is a strong
likelihood that the LR property was also separated from YWAM at this time, but
the loan that was referred to earlier in this narrative may not have been repaid
in full to a YWAM-related entity. This could be the basis of the friction
between ES and Jeff Fountain. The fallout
from these financial arrangements may have been one of the triggers that caused
the health crisis for ES in the late summer of 2002 and prompted the visit of
EJS to North Carolina
While EJS are in North Carolina
“I asked Jeltje for a time to see her and talk. The above was one of the things I wanted to
mention, as I do not think they see how hurtful their attitude is. However, I never got that time but a quick 5
minutes snatched between other things, when I told Jeltje that I felt one of
the reasons for the pain in the staff was that they are not trusted even when
given responsibility, as Jeltje interferes, and they are watched and feel
criticized and controlled. We didn’t
have time to discuss and she never came back to me about it. It seemed she felt threatened and didn’t want
to talk about it. In another situation
Erik came to talk to us about something we had said to her.
“Erik seemed to prefer to talk to staff
individually, and there has been a sense in some that this has not been
beneficial to the team process, as we have not been able to hear one another,
and some were told not to talk about their concerns with other staff. At the last staff meting Erik spoke about the
staff problems as he saw it, saying that now there were more staff it was not
possible to have general team planning as in earlier days. This sounded to me just like our problem with
him 7 years ago. He said that if people
wished to bring in new ideas it would take time and have to be put to the board
before any change could be contemplated.
“We see the present staff as wholly committed to the
Lord, feeling called to le Rucher, yet fearful of the future, knowing they
cannot function for much longer in the current climate. There is an almost tangible feeling of being
criticized and resultant fear, and several members of staff are saying they
want to stay but will not be able to if this tension is not dealt with….”
This long
passage from TH is included because it sets the stage for the staff departures
which will begin within weeks.
Prior to the planned departure of T&EH on 8
December, the entire staff participate in a “Sharpening Your Interpersonal
Skills” (SYIS) workshop from 1-6 December at LR. This workshop is attended by Gina Fadely (GF),
who will later become KMO’s line leader in YWAM. During this workshop Denise Brill has a
particularly harsh encounter with ES and it is becoming clear to DDB, and
others, that the situation is unstable.
It is
important to note that GF had first hand experience of the distress that was
being experienced by staff at LR. This
has an important bearing on the YWAM management narrative in this professional
review.
After DDB leave for their planned Christmas holiday
in California
As T&EH are back in England
“The 6 of us met in UK
There was
obvious tension of a recurring nature and ongoing serious concerns to be
addressed in the meeting that day with the two LR board members.
On 17 December KMO, SS and Renee Schudel of the LR
staff meet with DH and MOr of the LR Board.
According to extensive notes of the meeting sent out several days later
by DH, “The meeting was arranged to discuss a number of problems affecting the
Le Rucher Ministry over the last months.
It was not a decision-making meeting, but rather a chance for the
non-executive board members to listen to different views, and to prepare
recommendations to the leadership for their consideration and possible
action. No vote or formal
consensus-building process was pursued, so the recommendations are of a general
nature….Delon and Marcus both affirmed the fact that Le Rucher was a ministry
called and anointed by God, as was Erik and Jeltje Spruyt - the founders and leaders….As non-executive
board members, they were not willing to become involved in micro-management,
but were committed to protect the best interests of the ministry as overseers
and governors. It was to be expected that
a successful ministry like Le Rucher would be subject to spiritual attacks and
they called on all involved to pray for protection for individuals and
ministry, so that the work could continue….Several members commented on the
fact that they acknowledged and respected Erik and Jeltje, and that their role
as leaders were not in question, but they were concerned about their health and
some of the structural problems within the community. It was acknowledged that several sensitive
matters were involved in the process, from confidentiality of information…and
the multiple roles between those present….”
It was
acknowledged that there were conflicts of interest here that could have an
effect on future developments. To what
extent did they?? To what extent did DH
and MOr fulfill their roles as overseers and governors? To whom were they responsible—to EJS, to the
full Board, or to the wider Christian community?? DH had a private meeting with
ES the next day on 18 December to discuss the contents of the meeting. Apparently there was supposed to be some
communiqué from this meeting but none was forthcoming.
KO responds to DH’s notes on 20 December saying,
“Thanks for writing this up Delon. I
appreciate your clear thinking and good writing skills. I have added a few comments in the attachment. Have a look and get back to me and all of us
if you have any comments on my comments.
I am not sure what my personal role is now in all of this, as it seems
the leadership team has come back together and is trying to process many of
these items. I’ll contribute what I can
and as helpfully as I can, but probably more when I am asked for input. If however I feel strongly about an item, I
will certainly let you all know….”
On 28 December ES emails KO, “The Leadership Team
has been processing several items, and in consultation with some of our board
members, has reached several decisions I would like to share with you before
your return from your holiday.” ES tells
that Renee Schudel has been appointed as Interim Centre Manager and Chairman of
the Leadership Team, and goes on to tell about the dismissal of DDB, “Perhaps
this comes as a shock to you. However,
this has been in process for quite some time….”
The dismissal
of DDB was unexpected and occurred over the Christmas holidays, when many
people were away. What kind of process
is this?
On 11 January 2003 T&EH email ES expressing
their distress over the dismissal of DDB, “We knew that you had been talking
with them about differences before they left.
We know that when they left they were planning to return to work; so we
can only assume that the decision to dismiss them was taken unilaterally
without any opportunity for mediation or arbitration. Are we wrong?....You say that the Leadership
Team reached this decision. Was this a
unanimous decision of all four of you?
It seems to us at present that this dismissal is arbitrary and
unbiblical. It reminds of us of the time
almost 8 years ago when your attitude and actions caused Jan and Mintie and
ourselves to resign from working with you.
We thought from your words and response to us over the past few years
that you were not acting like that anymore….”
On 12 January KO emails DH, MOr, the Leadership Team
and Mike Sheldon with suggestions for justice and reconciliation, especially
the application of YWAM guidelines to DDB’s situation. KO is concerned that no final notes have been
distributed from the December meeting or on the meeting DH had with ES the next
day.
In response to T&EH’s email of 11 January, ES
responds on 20 January, “With regard to the situation with Daniel and Denise,
we have communicated our views and reasonings to them. As you may be aware, they have appealed to
the board of Mercy Ministries against the leadership team majority decision for
their dismissal. It is in the hands of
the board. The acting president has
asked us not to discuss the issue further and we are waiting for the board’s
conclusions.
Three hours later on 20 January, DH emails DDB
conveying a statement by the Board after consideration of DDB’s appeal of their
dismissal at the Board’s 15 January meeting.
The statement reads, “The Board recognizes that the process leading up
the dismissal of the Brills was not optimal.
Despite this, the Board supports the decision by the leadership and
urges the ministry to: - resume its activities as soon as possible; - establish
a defined forum where all members of staff can help identify problems and
solutions involved in the organization’s growth.”
The Board may
well have felt that it had no choice but to support EJS as leaders, but what
are the results of such choices????
In an undated email in January, T&EH share their
experiences of LR and the current situation with Jim Longhurst pastor of Crossroads Church England
On 23 January, TH replies to ES’s message of 20
January, “…My concerns are that we see the patterns of 8 years ago returning
and that causes us great pain. Today we
received an email from the Brills, saying that they were officially
dismissed. We are gutted, and extremely
distressed. We see what has happened as
extremely destructive to the debriefing work of Le Rucher, and are not
surprised that Sally has resigned….What are you doing to inform the people who
are planning to come soon, of these distressing happenings? They need to have clear information about the
situation from the various points of view.
They must know before they come.
I am writing to the Board and to the Staff with the same advice.”
On 26 January, KMO email the LR Board, “We are
writing to express our deep concern at how the Brill/Spruyt situation has been
handled. We believe that the process has
been marked with inappropriate actions and inadequate protocol. Specifically….[8 points are listed]…In
conclusion, we believe the Board and the three people on the Leadership Team
have made a serious error, and for some, serious errors. We highly recommend that they get additional
counsel from a few people outside of the situation to review this overall
process, the ambiguous protocol that was followed, and the best way
forward. Receiving specific training in
conflict mediation/protocol would be helpful. The Brills deserve an apology and a proper
mediation process; staff deserve an apology; and repentance and correction, if
not a reprimand would be in order for those who have pushed for this dismissal
and allowed for this ambiguous and unfair process to happen.” Shortly after this time KMO decide to leave
LR.
On 30 January, ES replies to TH message of 23
January, “I am sorry you feel the way you explain in your email. You should be aware that your conclusions are
based on one sided information. The issue
of the Brills has been processed within the mechanisms we have, including the
leadership team, external advisors and the board. Individual personnel issues have been
discussed within these mechanisms, and not outside them. Full-time staff will be involved, as already
stated, in the process of organizational growth and making recommendations to
policy adjustments. When you were here,
I had given you the freedom to communicate to one of the advisors (specifically
Jim or Richard) should you have points to raise. I had not expected you to communicate behind
my back to other parties. However, I
have since become aware you have emailed your conclusions on me and the
ministry beyond what we had put in place without knowledge or consent. I am disappointed that your feedback has come
to me through the other staff and potential staff, rather than through the
advisors. I am wondering Tony, to whom
are you accountable for your actions and, secondly, if you are sure God is
asking you to do this.”
ES is claiming
to have processed DDB’s situation within the mechanisms LR has, but none of the
mechanisms are able to hold him accountable.
ES dominates the leadership team and the Board and the advisors are
ineffectual. Secondly, TH has attempted
to get further information, but ES does not provide him with any. How is TH to get more than “one-sided”
information?? Thirdly, why should TH be
restricted in his communications with others??
Fourthly, TH has communicated his feelings directly to ES—ES has not
heard anything from others that he has not heard directly from TH. This whole message is controlling and
manipulative and reflects the authoritarian persona of ES.
On 14 February, TH replies to ES’s message of 30
January, recognizing ES’s good qualities, but also recognizing the sad events
that have just happened, “I wouldn’t be a good friend to you if I didn’t tell
you what I consider was wrongly done. That was why I questioned your decisions
and also communicated with those who were and are personally affected by those
decisions. Nor would I be a good friend
to those who have left, either, if I didn’t try to do my best for them. The debriefing work at Le Rucher was our
vision, too, even though we have worked only part time. That is why I have asked you, and still ask,
for details so as not to have only a one-sided view, and also told you that I
was communicating with the others….At this time we do not feel that we wish to
return to Le Rucher….”
ES responds to TH on 20 February, “Tony, what
difference might it make to communicate more details to you now? As I understand it, you have already reached
your conclusions. Indeed, you have
already acted on a one-sided view and you have communicated things about me and
Le Rucher to others from the same one-sided view. Yes, a good friend will challenge what he
considers is wrong. But is it a “good
friends behavior” to proceed the way you did on the information you have? A good friend, before acting, should first
have sought to support his friend and be very careful to get as full a picture
as possible before acting. A good friend
protects on the basis of motives, even if he does not understand. That is why I asked in my last email: are you
sure God is asking you to do this?
Before I make decisions I consult with our leadership team, our staff as
much as possible, our external advisors and our board members. I do not make decisions in isolation. We are continually working on improving and
better documenting our policies and procedures.
You have the full freedom to have your own opinion about how things were
handled, but should realize that your opinion is based on a one-sided view and
the people involved in the decision making had a much broader view.”
This message
is disturbing as it gives the illusion that ES seeks advice and is
accountable—this is simply not the case.
In fact decisions are made in isolation.
Also TH probably does understand the motives of ES and is attempting to
address these in these communications.
ES simply resorts to the “trust me” approach. So, in the space of two months, seven
full-time staff have left LR: DDB, KMO,
T&EH and SS.
During the first half of 2003 the elders of Crossroads Church
This was a
naïve abdication of responsibility on the part of the elders who had reason to
know that DH had many conflicts of interest in this situation already. It seemed that no one else had both the time and
skills necessary to devote to this matter.
JL could not be pastor to both sides and then attempt to be a
mediator. No one was able to provide
accountability to ES in this situation—neither the Board or church. It is easy to see how authoritarian
leadership can continue on unregulated.
Later in the summer of 2003, SS and EJS meet at
church, resulting in the following message from SS to EJS, “It was good to make
contact at church….As you know, for me ‘process’ is very important in any of
the work we do and as I said in church I am committed to work towards a process
of reconciliation. In December my
message to you was that I felt the issues needed to be discussed as a group
with independent outside mediators, not on any individual basis. I think the same goes for the reconciliation
process. The important factors for a
reconciliation process are that it takes place at the right time, in the right
place, with the right people present, discussing the right issues, using the right
methods and the right mediators. I have
been praying for some time now about this am looking to God to lead and guide
the process in the right way. I think
that everyone also has to come with a right heart too, I am sure that God is
doing His work in each heart and in His time will bring us together.”
This approach
has continued to this day—waiting for the right time and circumstances. Perhaps this professional review will lead to
such a time.
Communications pick up again in August 2004, when ES
emails KO around 17 August, “It has been a while since we communicated but in a
previous communication you indicated (as I understood it) you did not feel the
time was right to try to work on our “issues”.
A fair amount of time has passed now…I have issues with you regarding
both your professional (collegial) behavior and your behavior as a Christian
brother. These issues are unique to you,
alone. I do not have the same issues
with someone else and will not bring them up before someone else who is not in
the role of mediator. I am again asking
for a meeting with you for us together to start working through our
issues. If it is preferable to you for
us to include a mediator, I am open to that possibility. But first, we will need to agree on the rules
of the game and on who will be involved.”
It should be
noted that this message comes one week before the Member Care – Europe meeting,
moderated by the Staffords, at ANCC in England
KO responds on 18 August to ES 17.08, “Thanks for
your email….Reconciliation and unity are really important. You are so right. Michele and I want to see reconciliation done
in a helpful way. For us this means
doing the “process” well. We believe
time is still needed for the Lord to work on hearts. And for any meeting together to be done as a
group. So the right time and the right
people, along with carefully selected facilitators and an agreed upon approach
will be necessary. I do not think it is
helpful to meet individually as the group issues are far more fundamental. In the meantime I suggest we continue to just
be cordial with each other if we see each other.”
Mediation and
arbitration require investigation of facts and circumstances. This is rarely seen in Christian examples of
“mediation” or “arbitration” where simple Solomonic wisdom is favored. KMO are right to be cautious.
ES responds next day to KO, “Thank you for your
answer. It has been two years now and I have not had an opportunity to talk
with you face to face. I have issues
with you that I have with no one else.
So I am asking for a face to face with you. Whatever “group” issues maybe, that can be
addressed in a separate way. I am asking
to see you for issues I have with you only.
I do not have these issues with Michele or anyone else just with
you. If people have issues with me then
they are invited to make them known. But
I am asking you for a face to face between you and me. Or alternatively with an outside mediator or
possibly arbitrator.”
KO responds on 21 August to ES, “Michele and I moved
on from Le Rucher 18 months ago. We
continue to pray for all and trust our Lord to work on hearts. And things like this of course can take some
time for helpful perspectives to work their way into folk’s hearts. In this case, the group issues are the
context out of which individual issues have arisen and therefore remain
primary. If you feel it will help, you
are welcome to write me concerning any issues that you have. I will think and pray about them carefully,
although I would not plan to discuss them further with you at this point, prior
to meeting as a group.”
ES is
charming, Machiavellian and duplicitous.
It is right to exercise caution in these circumstances.
One month later on 24 September, KO responds to an
email from DH asking for a meeting to discuss matters. KO says they, KMO, only want to meet together
in a group context, under the right conditions, rather than individually.
On the same day ES emails SS, “Thank you for sharing
your heart in your email of 30 August [missing]. Thank you also for your concern for us and
for your desire for reconciliation. We
seem to have very different perspectives.
I need you to help me understand where you come from. In my previous email I asked if we could sit
down and talk with you. Does your email
imply that you do not want to meet with us?”
DH responds to KO’s message of the previous day,
“Thanks for the reply Kelly, although it leaves me rather confused. My idea was a simple, informal cup of coffee
to try and make sense out of the current situation and to get to know you
better…If however you would like to meet in a group – I am willing to meet with
whatever group / conditions you had in mind, and in any setting…What I do feel
strongly about is that it should be soon….Somehow I think that we can now stop
praying about this matter and start engaging like Christian brothers and
sisters should – this heaviness is unnecessary.”
On 27 September, KO replies to DH, “Michele and I
believe it is best to meet under the conditions that we have shared
previously. While we appreciate your
suggestion, it is not just a “simple” thing to meet together, nor is it wise,
given what has happened….”
On 4 October SS replies to ES’s message of 24
September, “…Basically I want to work with you to set up a reconciliation
process as I have said to Jeltje in church, and in my e-mails to you. I do value, and have great concern for both
yourself and Jeltje and would like to see this resolved and all the
relationships restored. I am not happy
to talk about it individually however, as it involves lots of different players
and needs a well structured setting to ensure that everyone’s views are heard
and respected. Within that structure
there may well be opportunities for individuals to express their concerns to
one another, but at this stage it is not appropriate. Thank you once again for your reply, if you
are interested in this kind of a process then I will begin to make enquiries as
to how we might set this up.” SS copies
this email to KMO, “I have no reason not to share this with you. I was the personnel manager at Le Rucher and
my motives are to continue to seek a method by which we can have a forum for
the issues which led to many staff leaving Le Rucher discussed in a forum that
is acceptable to all.”
The caution
being displayed by KMO and SS is still pertinent today. People have been
deceived and manipulated.
Moving forward some months, on 11 April 2005, DDB
send an email to their friends reporting on a meeting they have had with the
Spruyts, “We wanted to send an update as
to our visit with Erik and Jeltje. After
two years of not speaking with them and seeing them from time to time at church
I (Daniel) felt like I needed to forgive them face to face for the injustice
and pain they caused in our life through the process in which we were made
redundant. And so we met on the 29th
of March at Le Rucher. I must say it was
very hard to go back to the place of the injustice but I knew that is what God
wanted me to do. We met for about thirty
five minutes and told them we forgave them for the injustice and pain they
caused. They received it and said they
were sorry for the way everything was handled and asked us to forgive
them. We both agreed that this was just
a first step in the direction of reconciliation. This was not reconciliation but an offer of
forgiveness.”
It should be
noted that this meeting comes days before the Member Care – Europe meeting at
Rehe, Germany where SS was present, but did not get a chance to speak to the
group—only to ES, who was there. Did the
DDB meeting with EJS have a bearing on
the MC-E gathering, where LR was a topic of discussion? It does give the appearance that ES is
involved in some kind of efforts at “reconciliation”—attempting to look good at
the expense of KMO who are attempting to act in a prudent and professional
manner.
There is not much movement in the LR story until
November 2006 when ES has some type of “reconciliation” with Jeff Fountain, the
European Director of YWAM. This
reconciliation is facilitated by Iain Muir, a YWAM Team3 leader. Building upon this apparent “openness” shown
by ES, KO is then asked during 2007 by Gina Fadely
in YWAM to reconcile with ES as a condition of remaining on staff. (Please see the YWAM Narrative for more
background and details.) Seven former
staff (KMO, DDB, T&EH and SS) band together to consider yet another time
whether efforts at reconciliation are possible yet and under what
conditions. On 14 August 2007 these
seven send a joint letter to GF and GT in support of KO, “Over the past four
years we (the seven of us, as well as other former staff periodically) have
considered how best to respond to the LR situation…Throughout our discussions
we have made a firm commitment to seek the Lord carefully and to act together
in unity in light of good practice, Scripture, and professional consultation.”
During August the extent of the NCI fraud is
becoming known, and in September KMO begin to involve Rand Guebert (RG) as a
business consultant on a pro bono basis.
KMO are dealing with two issues now:
NCI and KO’s possible dismissal from YWAM for refusing to “reconcile” with
ES. As friends of KMO hear about the
situation, former staff of LR begin to send to YWAM leaders accounts of their
time at LR to show the unreasonableness of YWAM’s requirement.
On 29 September Jan and Henny Pauw [JHP] share some
of their experiences by email with Garry Tissingh [GT] referring to their time
at LR in 2001-2002, “…Jeltje later (in informal setting) mentioned to us that
this was not the first time Kelly was causing problems. He had had the same type of problems with
Garry and Anke, in other words: Kelly
has brought his own problems with him to Le Rucher. Kelly and Michele have denied Jeltje’s
statement. They say they can look back
on an excellent relationship with you. We
thought it important to bring this into the open, for the sake of doing
justice.”
On 30 September the seven former LR staff follow up
their letter of 14 August with a further letter to Team3. It says in part, “We are writing with our
grave concerns about the attempt to dismiss Dr. Kelly O’Donnell. We appeal to you now to reconsider this
decision and to review, with us and others, the process by which this decision
was reached….”
The same day Lynn Green [LG] responds to former LR
staff on behalf of Team3 saying that KO holds the key and it is up to him to
take action. Later that day JL, former
pastor of Crossroads Church and now living in Boston
On 1 October, GT replies to JHP 29.09, “Thank you
for your concern and heart for the situation regarding Le Rucher and Kelly
O’Donnell. Currently everything is being
done to bring resolution and closure to this conflict and in terms of my
involvement and responsibility it is to encourage Kelly to be willing to move
towards mediation and reconciliation with Erik.
We understand there are many matters and issues involved ‘behind the
scenes’ but never the less it will begin by making this initial step. Gina Fadely ,
to whom Kelly is directly responsible, and myself would appreciate your prayer
at this time in this matter.”
It is telling
that GT does not address JHP’s main point about the personal relationship that
GT and Anke had with KMO. Why??? There is evidence in the available record to
indicate that KMO had an excellent relationship with the Tissinghs. With all that was going on at the time, GT’s
duplicity in not clarifying his relationship with KMO was overlooked.
On 2 October T&EH advise GT that they have not
had a promised response from him (please see YWAM Narrative for background),
“In our last group email, you replied that you would be in touch. Elisabeth and I have not heard again from you
and now hear that Gina has given an ultimatum to Kelly. It would be helpful to hear from you your
current thoughts and ask you to consider our thoughts and our view of Le
Rucher’s history….As we see it, there has been no place given to Kelly to put
his side of the story to Lynn, though he has asked for that, or to other
leaders, but another point of view has been accepted….As we said earlier, in
our estimation, this dispute is not really about Kelly. It is one of much wider implications. It is a matter of team dynamics and perceived
use and abuse of authority. The healing
work God has done in many lives through the debriefing at le Rucher has been
invaluable, we have been overjoyed and privileged to be part of it, and we wish
to see that continue as long as God wishes it.”
Also on 2 October the former LR staff group emails
GF in response to LG’s message of 30.09, “We would kindly ask you to
demonstrate how this dismissal is consistent with “YWAM justice and appeals
procedures”. We would note here, that it
is not Kelly who “holds the key” as stated in the letter below. Rather the key lies in clearly following our
YWAM guidelines both previously and now…”
On 3 October DDB send their account regarding LR and
YWAM to Team3 and others. That same day GF sends a general email message to
Friends of Kelly confirming that it is still necessary for KO to begin a
reconciliation process with ES.
On 5 October DDB respond to GF message of 3 October saying,
“They [KMO] both have shown nothing but professional integrity through this
whole process of asking for mediation and appeal when our dismissal was
demanded. Their concern for the higher
good of the organization above their own reputation should speak for
something. It has never been about two
brothers reconciling in our opinion.
According to your letter to Kelly it seemed like an ultimatum for him to
meet with Eric and reconcile if he desired to remain in YWAM.”
GF replies that day to DDB, “I am sorry for the
grief you have felt from your experiences with Erik Spruyt and Le Rucher
ministries – I always have been. I share
your hope that “someone would listen and try to sort all the pieces of the
past”, however, neither Le Rucher or Erik are under our legal or spiritual
authority (Erik personally told me this openly and clearly when I was visiting
Le Rucher in 1999 and as far as I knew he never tried to keep his change a
secret)….”
Perhaps this
professional review is that opportunity to sort all the pieces of the
past. GF seems very willing to believe
what ES told her in 1999—this allegation would seem to be in question. YWAM has a strategy to disown responsibility
for LR. Why?? In a message on 14
November [later in this Narrative] GF says that she has not been a part of YWAM
Europe or Le Rucher ministries, and has no idea how much effort went into
dealing with Erik over the years. It
seems that GF claims to know very much about some things and very little about
other things having to do with LR. It
would be interesting to know what type of relationship GF has had with ES since
1999.
Also on 5 October JHP share more of their LR
experiences with LG and other YWAM leaders.
On 10 October TH emails YWAM leaders, “I am writing
to you again, out of our concern for the welfare of the O’Donnells, the
Spruyts, Le Rucher and YWAM. Thank you
Gina for your letter, we do see something of the difficult position you are in,
but without adequate information a correct understanding of the situation is
impossible….Please would you consider the following points: [four listed]. Those of us who are so concerned about this
attack on Kelly’s character, are not being emotionally swayed by an unthinking
friendship….Our concern is for the health of the body of Christ, in the
individual lives of Kelly and Michele, Erik and Jeltje, in YWAM and Le Rucher
and its work, the networking of ministries and all areas in which God has put
us.”
TH has an insightful
understanding of the issues and presents his points constructively and broadly.
GF replies to TH the next day, “…I am sorry for the
difficulties you have walked through.
Please understand as I wrote already to the Brills, neither Le Rucher or
Erik are under our legal or spiritual authority. Actually this was the case before the
O’Donnells even moved there. The only
reason I am involved at all…is because Kelly is under my direct spiritual
authority in YWAM and he has some issues in his own past that need to be
cleaned up…I see no reason to fear a mediation process where truth and light
and justice may come forth. It is my
sincere desire that this may begin to help restore some of the damage to
Kelly’s reputation and ministry. I
believe much of that damage has come from his unwillingness to resolve past
conflicts.”
Why is GF so
sure that ES was not under YWAM’s authority before KMO even moved to LR?? This seems to be a strategy developed by
others. How would GF explain the YWAM
stationery used to invite KMO to LR in 2000??
How would GF explain that ES is still Treasurer of AMM under SG?
On 11 October JHP send further thoughts to GF about
LR, suggesting that ES should take the first step by offering some sort of
apology. GF replies that day saying that
KO should take the first step because he is under her authority.
It is simply
not clear why YWAM is so intent on KO reconciling with ES if ES is not even in
YWAM. Why is there not pressure on KO to
reconcile with Marion Knell for instance?
Why the intense focus on ES????
On 17 October Jan Rowland and Mintie Nel share their
story from 1993-1995 with YWAM leaders—a story which parallels that of T&EH
in time.
A couple days later John Dawson [JD] responds to Jan
and Mintie thanking them for their concern and saying, “…though I have no
firsthand knowledge of the personnel or relational dynamics you experienced at
Le Rucher, it is only right that I acknowledge the validity of your pain and
ask for your forgiveness…I am told that responsible leadership have become well
informed about dysfunction, pain and broken relationships in the saga of the Le
Rucher ministry team and are now grappling with the implications.”
Does JD know
what these implications are? What meaning does the word “grappling” have here?
On 22 October Sean Collins [SC] shares his story of
LR in a very long email to YWAM leaders.
Following is an extract, “Earlier in our relationship with Erik we had
appealed to Barry Austin and looked to him for guidance and leadership in the
ongoing process of becoming established at Le Rucher. He promised he would visit Le Rucher and aid
us in establishing a working relationship there. However, due to other commitments Barry was
unable to come until very near the end of our time at Le Rucher. When we shared in detail at that point the
series of events that had unfolded around us and what seemed like a concerted
effort to discredit us and push us out, Barry’s response was very
surprising. Basically, what Barry said
was, “I have no problem believing anything you have told me about Erik. I have personally witnessed that Erik is
capable of everything you have shared with me, but I am not willing to raise
these issues now, simply because I don’t want to jeopardize this base.” He said, “we in YWAM have tried for many
years to get a missionary retreat base established and I am not going to
question Erik’s leadership at this point, in case it puts the ministry at
risk.” Yet this same patter of willful
blindness began to emerge as we approached other leaders in YWAM [LG,
Cunninghams], in a desperate attempt to deal with the issues at stake –
primarily the care of God’s servants who were wounded in his service.”
Did the ends
justify the means here, with so many staff being wounded by their experiences? Why
did YWAM leaders take no action?
On 2 November, JD responds to SC thanking him for
his message and saying, “…I am told that responsible leadership have become
well informed about dysfunction, pain and broken relationships in the saga of
the Le Rucher ministry team and are now grappling with the implications.”
This is the
same message sent two weeks earlier to Jan and Mintie. What does JD mean by “responsible leadership
have become well informed about dysfunction….”?
On 5 November SC thanks JD for his response and
concern for them.
On 12 November, DDB email GF and GT, “It is amazing
to see these stories recently recalled as a repetitive pattern over the years
at Le Rucher. You keep saying that they
are not YWAM or under authority. I
wonder why is it that the majority of staff have come out of YWAM, had to go
through a DTS to be on staff and the center is listed in the “Go” if there is
no association? It would have been
helpful to know the history before joining staff at a center we were told had
strong ties with YWAM. The staff leader
there Renee Schudel even told us that they were YWAM but had a little falling
out with one of the European leaders.”
By 13 November SC has had a chance to reflect more
on JD’s response of 2 November to him and sends a long email to JD and other
YWAM leaders saying in part, “Although we would not seek to minimize your
desire to facilitate reconciliation – by asking us to communicate your apology
on behalf of the mission to those in our circle of influence who have been
affected by the trauma that we suffered – you no doubt realize that such a request
can in no way be taken as a substitute for the responsibility of those leaders
directly involved. In that you
personally did not sin against Christ, the responsibility still lies with those
who did – and thus your role would mainly be that of an advocate for
righteousness, facilitating their awakening to that fact. If what we have written to you is true, our
words point to a serious and sobering
reality [bold in the original] which requires action on the part of those
in positions like yours.”
This is the
second of five long messages that SC sends over a period of about five
months. His direct experience of LR and
eloquence elicit important responses from YWAM leaders.
On 14 November GF responds to DDB’s message of two
days earlier, “We say this [that Le Rucher is not YWAM or under its authority]
because it is the truth. We would have
preferred that Le Rucher not have left YWAM the way they did years ago but were
unable to affect that at the time….Since I have not been a part of YWAM Europe
or Le Rucher ministries, I have no idea of how much effort went into dealing
with Erik over the years….”
It is
inconsistent for GF to say that she does not know how much effort went into
dealing with Erik yet be so sure that it has not been part of YWAM since at least
1999. Someone has given this strategy to
GF.
Also on 14 November the TROS television show,
Opgelicht, airs featuring interviews with JHP and KMO, as well as ES at
LR. LR plays a featured role in the
show.
The next day, DH emails KO saying that he has heard
about Opgelicht and wants to get more information. DH asks if it was KO who told TROS that ES
would be at Crossroads when TROS shot some of their film of ES there.
On 16 November KO forwards DH’s message of the
previous day to the FMP in the Netherlands
On 19 November JD responds to SC’s message of 13
November deferring to GF and GT as he has no first hand knowledge of LR.
Over the next several days KO and RG exchange email
messages over the feasibility of approaching the Crossroads elders to take some
disciplinary action against ES after the Opgelicht show. Finally on 29 November RG sends a letter to
Crossroads elders asking them to review the LR situation in light of the NCI
fraud allegations. RG also acknowledges
that the elders in 2003 (RG was an elder at the time) did not adequately
investigate the LR problems then and thus enabled dysfunctional management to
continue.
On 1 December, in his third long email, SC responds
to JD’s message of 19 November saying in part, “…The issue is not about our
“pain” or any former staff member’s “pain.”
Rather, it is about recognizing the truth about what has happened in the
past and addressing what continues to happen regarding seriously unhealthy
management practices. It is about YWAM
as an organization taking responsibility for how it has handled and is handling
this matter of Le Rucher (as clearly seen in the stories of former staff)….There
are many who are praying that you John, will be willing to investigate this
matter personally before YWAM loses any more credibility internationally….It is
our sincere hope that there are still those in YWAM leadership who have not
been compromised who will take their responsibility seriously and step forward
to initiate this necessary process.”
In this
powerful message SC strikes at the heart of the matter of corporate governance
in YWAM. Who will take responsibility in
the organization???? Is everyone
compromised?? SC recognizes that all of the senior leaders in Team3 have a
responsibility for this. This is a very
important message.
On 8 December RG reports to KO on his meeting two
days earlier with Ian Rutter, chairman at the time of the Crossroads elders,
who are currently struggling with various other issues that are more urgent for
the congregation.
On 10 December GT emails SC, “I just wanted to
respond to the last message you sent re the question of why I have not
responded to you in the current situation with Kelly O’Donnell and Le
Rucher. As John Dawson responded on
behalf of us I believe that was sufficient and there was no need to add to
it.” GT also says that he knows nothing
about LR.
GT is evading
the issues here at every turn. Why is he
so evasive?? He gives the impression
that he is an unwilling participant in this process.
On 12 December KO receives his dismissal letter from
GF and forwards this to his supporters.
On 14 December T&EH email KMO, “We were so sorry
to read this last letter from you and Gina’s letter to you. Reading it and its contents makes me, T,
wonder if the words are not just hers but come from higher up the chain! They have said they trust her in this
negotiation, but I think they may be using her as their mouthpiece and trying
to appear uninvolved.”
On 17 December KMO distribute T&EH’s message of 14
December, and ask people to join together to support KMO.
On 19 December SC sends his fourth message to KMO’s
friends with observations on GT’s message of 12 December , “Below we have forwarded
the latest response from Garry Tissingh.
It was written in response to our last correspondence with John
Dawson. Although outwardly Garry’s
response is disappointing, it does provide us an opportunity to look at unseen
things rather than at those things which are visible….”
To end the year, LG emails SC on 28 December with a
response to SC’s message of 13 November saying in part, “As the difficult
situations at Le Rucher unfolded, it was quite hard at the time for me to
understand what we were dealing with…As it was, I had quite regular interaction
and confrontations with Erik and it seemed to me that he had undergone quite a
significant personality change after his stroke in Lausanne. It was unclear whether he would recover from
that or continue in the new patterns of unacceptable leadership behavior….As I
pushed harder to bring Erik to a place of accountability, he became more
distant and took steps to become independent of YWAM. Well before he was legally independent of
YWAM, he was already acting in an unaccountable and autonomous mode….We are
very hesitant to dismiss members of our family-all the more so when they are
leading others and have a ministry that was built in the family, and assets
that were acquired while their identity was YWAM. In fact, we did not dismiss Erik but he and
his board removed themselves from YWAM and created their own identity. Erik knows we feel that such a course of
action is ethically questionable, but we will not go to court to challenge
it. In one sense we identify with all
those who left Le Rucher in pain. We
also felt that we were victims of injustice.
We had worked towards supporting that ministry and the vision it
represented. Like you and others, we had
aspirations and hopes about how Le Rucher would serve the mission but those
hopes were dashed. We have had to make
choices to forgive and to make every effort to be reconciled to Erik.”
LG is
amazingly open about the difficulties with ES in this message. So why does he want KO to”reconcile” with
ES?? Why does YWAM have to make every
effort to be reconciled to Erik whose course of action is ethically
questionable?? This is all extremely
mysterious and suspicious!
On 11 January 2008 SC forwards LG’s message of 28
December to KMO who forward it to RG. Five
days later RG forwards detailed commentary on LG’s message to KMO and on 21
January to SC.
While KMO and RG are absorbed during this time in
the appeal to YWAM against KO’s dismissal, SC sends his fifth and last message
to LG and Team3 on 17 February. It is a
paragraph by paragraph commentary on LG 28.12 noting all of the inconsistencies
and duplicity. The message reads in
part, “As we stated earlier Lynn
So the
question is, what is YWAM covering up??
Why is ES so important??
On 2 March KO reports to SOR that the LR website has
been redone to portray business as usual, though there is only minimal mention
of ES.
On 4 March KMO email DH and MOr regarding a meeting
they have just concluded, “Thanks again for meeting with us today and arranging
the call. It seems we all have important
perspectives and things we want to share as we try and understand one another
and work toward reconnecting and walking in the light. We look forward to continuing this
process…Contacting all the other board members in writing about the reasons for
your resignation is good practice and we hope that you will do it without
delay….One important point to clarify is what we thought was our heart-level
agreement two weeks ago, Delon, about why professionally/Biblically it did and
does not make sense to try to “reconcile” with someone like this….”
The first
meeting two weeks earlier was arranged by a mutual friend in the area. KMO were taking a chance that DH would be
serious after the Opgelicht show. At
first DH and MOr seemed to have changed, but time would show that this was not
the case. Stated simply DH and MOr failed
in their duties as overseers and governors and are trying to exit as gracefully
as possible for themselves without taking any responsibility and with impunity.
On 6 March DH emails KMO and FMP, “…In the meantime
I have had the opportunity to ascertain that Mr. Spruyt is indeed cooperating
with not only the Dutch, but also the Swedish Chief Prosecutor’s office to
assist in the investigation of potential fraud by the NCI organization. According to him a formal procedure has been
followed and further information can probably be obtained through his lawyer….”
It would seem
in this case that the lawyer is ES’s daughter, Maryn, who is living in the Netherlands
On 9 March DH tells MO, “…Please be careful when dealing
with the authorities, not to mention Marcus or my name. We resigned from the MM board because we do
not approve of & were not part of the NCI disaster. They might think that we have information
they need, whereas this is precisely why we left – because we had been kept in
the dark for a long time….”
If Board
members resign when there are problems who is responsible for holding the
manager accountable. In this case ES
continues to act with impunity and it is only the state that has the power to
wield the sword of justice.
On 12 March, MO emails DH and MOr with some
additional thoughts, “In our first meeting, Delon, you said you now appreciated
and agreed with why we and others have not felt it appropriate to
reconcile/meet with ES. You also mentioned
that Marcus immediately expressed concern for the Brills and O’Donnells, when
he understood what was happening. It
would also make sense, then, to acknowledge in this resignation your respect
for the stance that many of us have taken, at personal cost, in the intervening
years. Recall too, that it was through
Sally that the staff repeatedly called for an independent review to help
resolve issues both before and after staff departures. It is unfortunate that these initiatives were
refused or ignored by ES and the board.
All this is to say that you, Delon and Marcus, now have, I think, not
only a responsibility, but an opportunity to help bring healing through your
words. Hoping that you follow through in
the “good faith” we talked about.”
DH responds to MO’s message on 27 March basically
denying any responsibility in the matter of LR.
The boards of
Christian organizations are often entirely ineffective and unprincipled as in
this case—they simply walk away from any problem and blame the victims—very sad
and disturbing example of cowardly corporate governance.
On 7 April RG and DH have breakfast at a restaurant
in Coppet. DH wants RG to talk to Maryn,
ES’s daughter, in order to hear their side of the story. RG thought that DH appeared nervous during
the meeting. Later that day DH emails
RG, “As I mentioned, this morning was my last foray into the LR investment
situation – so I will send an email to Maryn, and hope that, between the two of
you, you might find areas or information that might be of value to all involved
in the NCI affair.” Still the same day
DH emails RG and Maryn with copy to EJS giving mobile phone numbers and saying,
“Although Marcus and I will not be involved in the NCI case in any way, we hope
and pray that your contributions will help Kelly and Michele, Erik and Jeltje
and the other investors to find truth, justice and ultimately some form of
reconciliation.”
Was there ever
such an example of weasel words??
On 8 April KMO email their final message to DH and
MOr expressing disappointment with DH’s last message, “This is a time for moral
courage to guide all of our actions.
This is not the time for anyone to simply try to “protect
himself/herself” which is precisely what you are doing. You both carry a significant ethical responsibility
in this matter, since it was under your watch as Board members that a large
part of this scheme was taking place….”
On 9 April RG emails Maryn and DH to say, “Since my
breakfast with Delon Tuesday morning I have realized that I have a serious conflict
of interest due to a commitment I have made to give professional advice to the
ODonnells. I do not believe that I can
play a helpful role towards multiple parties.
Everyone must act in the capacity in which he is able. I am sure you will understand this.”
On 30 April in advance of the TRUPE meeting
scheduled for 4-6 May, Jan Rowland and Mintie Nel email KMO regarding the
connection between LR and YWAM. The
message says in part, “We agree totally with Tony and Elisabeth Hyland in their
recollections about whether Le Rucher was YWAM or not. We went to Le Rucher in 1995 with the full
understanding that Le Rucher was YWAM.
Le Rucher was to be a YWAM mercy ministry with a heart to receive
inter-agency missionaries into its care as well. Our supporting churches had this
understanding too – thus all the trauma of “coming out of YWAM” in 1995 when we
resigned our position at Le Rucher. Lynn
Green was, for sure, part of the leadership structure that gave YWAM oversight
and credence to Le Rucher as a YWAM ministry.
When the situation deteriorated for us at Le Rucher my Anglican Minister
insisted on seeing E’s “boss” and this was determined by YWAM as Lynn
Green. Jeff Fountain as European
Director was also part of the YWAM leadership of Le Rucher with E consistently
deferring to his authority. Dr. Bruce
Thompson was also part of the accountability structure of Le Rucher on behalf
of YWAM….It seems to us untenable that the said leaders who are reviewing the
situation can now side step the responsibility for those days of Le
Rucher. It is so sad that in this case
prominent leaders of YWAM, so respected, appear to be flaunting every
fundamental value of YWAM, leaving good innocent people exposed and vulnerable. It surely is hard to understand.”
During 4-6 May KMO host at their house in France Canada
Finally the May edition of the Le Rucher Ministries
newsletter gives a report on EMCC6 in Lille ,
France
In a way we
are all waiting for further developments and resolution of these long running
problems. Nevertheless it is a time for
moral courage on the part of those who know the true circumstances of past events.
No comments:
Post a Comment