Author: wingsfortruth2

Why We Must Expose the Language That Enables Abuse in the 2×2 Church

This Substack article was written by Alissa Klenk and is posted with her permission. WINGS found it to be instructive and valuable, particularly because it is directly connected to the F&W church and related to CSA and other abuses.

---

https://alissaklenk.substack.com/p/reading-between-the-lines?r=1egs8y&triedRedirect=true

With every evasive letter released by overseers (and nearly every worker), I am disgusted by the lack of transparency and the use of carefully sanitized and vague language. This was one of the first things that I began to notice when the crisis began to unfold, and I have paid special attention to it since then.

I would say that these letters are carefully worded to avoid accountability, but I don’t think it takes much effort to write in this style because it’s so embedded in the 2×2 church culture. I don’t think anyone even realizes what they’re doing. It has become “group speak,” if you will. These language phenomena are not restricted to letter writing. It’s the preaching style of most 2×2 church workers, too.

So what exactly is wrong with the language used in these communications? And why does it matter?

Let’s break it down.

Passive Word Choice

The first red flag for me was the use of passive language in letters from overseers. As a quick overview, passive language (or passive voice) is a grammatical construction where the sentence’s subject receives the action rather than doing the action.

Here’s a simple example of passive vs. active language:

Passive: The letter was written by Larry.

Active: Larry wrote the letter.

Sometimes passive language is okay, like when we don’t know who did something. But in serious situations, like the crisis we’re in, passive language hides essential information. The language is neutral, obscures responsibility, and is insincere when discussing accountability. It makes problems seem less urgent or smaller, and can unintentionally (or intentionally) silence victims to protect the system.

Here are a few examples taken out of actual letters from the ministry:

1. “…it has been decided that…”

Let’s Analyze:

Who decided it? It’s hiding relevant information and leaves readers guessing. Not naming the decision-makers makes it seem like no one is accountable.

Active Voice Rewrite Idea:

Barry and Ray have [insert action here], in consultation with [relevant group or authority].

2. “…CSA and SA cases that have surfaced…”

Let’s Analyze:

The word choice of “have surfaced” makes it sound like these cases just randomly appeared. Abuse cases don’t just surface. The truth is, overseers have known about abuse for decades. This also downplays the courage it takes for victims to come forward and minimizes institutional responsibility.

Active Voice Rewrite Idea:

Brave survivors have come forward to report the perpetrators of child sexual abuse.

3. “There is ongoing work to continue to help in these matters.”

Let’s Analyze:

Who is doing the work? What work is being done? What does help mean? How are they helping? How long has this work/help been going on? It’s extremely vague and offers no accountability. It sounds nice, but says nothing.

Active Voice Rewrite Idea:

The ministry is working with the GRACE organization to develop clear policies that protect children and support survivors of abuse.

4. “It is being dealt with.”

Let’s Analyze:

What is being dealt with? And who is dealing with it? In situations involving harm or abuse, clarity is essential. Who is taking action and how?

Active Voice Rewrite Idea:

The ministry takes child sexual abuse allegations seriously and reports them immediately to law enforcement.

How to Identify Passive Language:

1. Look for a form of the verb “to be” + past participle

• Examples of “to be”: is, was, were, has been, is being, had been, etc.
• Examples of past participles: written, known, made, taken, reported, seen, etc.

The policy was created last year. → Passive

The ministry created the policy last year. → Active

• Ask: Who is doing the action?

2. If it’s unclear or missing, it’s probably passive.

Mistakes were made. ← Who made them?

The overseer made mistakes. ← Active and clear

3. Try the “by zombies” test

If you can add “by zombies” after the verb and it still makes sense, it’s passive.

The cookies were eaten (by zombies). → Passive

Grandma ate the cookies (by zombies). → Not passive

How often do you read a letter from a worker and think, “What did that just say?” and then have to go back and read it again? This is likely the result of their use of vague, unclear, or ambiguous Language.

Unclear and Ambiguous Language

This kind of language allows for wildly different interpretations since it avoids specifics. And that’s exactly the point.

Have you ever noticed how some people will never directly address the child sexual abuse within the church, but will instead refer to it as “concerns” or “these matters”?

Even using the words CSA or SA softens the blow of a topic that’s incredibly horrible. Ambiguous language leaves the subject up to interpretation without revealing any facts. It creates the illusion of action, empathy, or leadership without creating any accountability.

Let’s look at some examples.

1. “We are trying to listen, show we care, and comfort those with concerns.”

Let’s Analyze:

On the surface, this language sounds warm and caring, but it doesn’t reveal anything. What are they listening to? How are they showing they care? What is care? What does comfort look like? And what concerns are they speaking of?

Rewrite Idea:

“We are meeting with survivors and connecting them with support through counseling referrals. We are setting up accountability processes and are working with grace to create a policy that protects children from abuse.”

2. “The ministry is united in standing against wrongdoing.”

Let’s Analyze:

Wrongdoing is an awfully sanitized word. What wrongdoing? Child sexual abuse? Coverups? Misconduct? If the language used could be applied equally to lying, theft, or child sexual abuse, it’s too vague to be useful. It mutes the seriousness of the harm.

Rewrite Idea:

“The ministry condemns all forms of child sexual abuse and has implemented a zero-tolerance policy for those who cover it up or fail to report it. The policy outlines accountability processes.”

How to Identify Ambiguous Language:

1. Look for Undefined Words or Concepts

• Words like: “support,” “concern,” “wrongdoing,” “help,” “safety,” “steps,” “care”. These all sound good, but without definitions or examples, they can mean anything or nothing.
• Example: “We’re offering support to those affected.”
• Ask: What kind of support? Emotional? Legal? Financial? Counseling?

2. Look for Phrases That Could Apply to Anything

If a phrase could be copied and pasted into 100 different situations and still “fit,” it’s probably ambiguous.

• “The matter is being addressed.” What matter? How? By whom? When?
• “We’re committed to doing what’s right.” What is “right”? Who decides that?

3. Ask: Could Two People Read This and Understand It Differently?

Ambiguous language allows different audiences to walk away with very different interpretations, which is often the goal when leaders want to appease everyone without offending anyone.

“We continue to stand with victims.”

One reader may think this means financial or legal action. Another may think it just means feeling bad for them.

If it’s not clarified, both interpretations “work”—and that’s the problem.

4. Look for Emotionally Soothing Words Without Substance

• Words like: “deeply grieved,” “working tirelessly,” “feeling with you,” “striving together,” “from the depths of our heart”.
• These phrases sound heartfelt, but if they aren’t connected to real details or actions, they can be emotional filler, meant to calm without informing.

The ministry’s use of vague language has continued to erode trust and cause confusion. Read communications twice, maybe even three times, and ask yourself what’s actually being said and what are you assuming. This takes practice, especially for those of us who are so used to this vague language.

When leaders speak in euphemistic terms, they are protecting themselves and the system, not the people who have been harmed. This is especially dangerous in spiritual communities.

Spiritual Bypassing

When spiritual language is used, it deflects responsibility, minimizes harm, and allows those in leadership to avoid difficult conversations under the guise of faith, peace, or God’s will. This is called spiritual bypassing.

Here are some examples pulled straight from letters from the ministry:

1. “God is cleansing His Kingdom….the falling away must come.”

Let’s Analyze:

This is one of the worst statements being made repeatedly from the platform and throughout the friends. This statement takes a horrific situation involving real victims and reframes it as something God is doing to purify the church. The real truth? It’s shifting the focus away from the abuse coverups, placing blame on God instead as if it is His divine plan. It’s deflection.

Fix:

I don’t even think rewrites are necessary in this case, because statements like this shouldn’t even be said. Instead, the focus should be on caring for the victims.

2. “I just pray that your heart can find peace again, my dear.”

Let’s Analyze:

This was written to me directly after I wrote a letter to sister workers early on, imploring them to speak up for survivors. My concerns for survivors and for the safety of my own child were turned back on me as if I didn’t have peace in my heart. It suggests I should move on without addressing the real grief I was feeling and the reasons for it.

Fix:

Don’t use thought-stopping cliches that shame people. Instead, acknowledge the depth of pain and think analytically about what has caused these problems and how they can be fixed, rather than attributing it to spiritual failure.

3. “We are praying about guidelines.”

Let’s Analyze:

Do we really need to pray about whether or not to protect our children? The statement sounds holy, but prayer should not replace action when it comes to safety.

Fix:

Identify the specific steps to take, such as working with professionals to create safety guidelines.

How to Identify Spiritual Bypassing:

1. Watch for Scripture or God-Talk Replacing Action.

• Examples: “We’re praying about it.” “God is in control.” “The Lord knows the heart.”

These may be sincere, but if they’re used instead of naming abuse, addressing harm, or pursuing justice, it’s spiritual bypassing.

2. Look for Redirects to “Unity,” “Peace,” or “Faithfulness.”

• Examples: “Let’s keep our eyes on Jesus.” “We don’t want to focus on the negative.” “Let’s move forward in love.”

These phrases shut down hard conversations by making it seem unspiritual to talk about abuse, injustice, or leadership failure. They frame speaking up as a problem, rather than the harm itself.

3. Check if Victims Are Being Silenced in the Name of God.

• Examples: “The Lord is cleansing His people.” “This is all in God’s plan.” “Only God can judge.”

These statements minimize abuse, blame victims for “bitterness,” and excuse leaders from accountability.

4. Notice If Emotion Is Framed as Lack of Faith

• Examples: “Don’t be troubled.” “Just trust God.” “Bitterness is a sign your heart isn’t right.”

These kinds of phrases can make people feel ashamed for feeling hurt, angry, or betrayed. They twist real pain into spiritual failure, which is cruel and harmful.

I want to be clear that spiritual language is not the problem. Faith, scripture, and prayer are not the enemy—they are powerful tools of healing and hope. But when they are used to avoid truth, accountability, or justice, they become weapons of silence.

Spiritual bypassing sounds faithful, but it protects the system instead of the people harmed by it. It shifts the conversation away from truth and justice, and back onto obedience, loyalty, or “God’s plan.” When faith is used as a shield from responsibility, it stops being faith—it becomes spiritual manipulation.

Thought-Terminating Cliches

Thought-terminating cliches sound meaningful on the surface, but are actually used to shut down questions, critical thinking, or emotional responses. They’re often vague, create the illusion of wisdom or spiritual insight, but really, they half the conversation right where it should begin.

Here are a few examples in letters from the ministry:

1. “We care deeply.”

Let’s Analyze:

Statements like these got really old, really quickly for me. I am tired of hearing how much the ministry cares for us. I’d like to see some actions that prove it. “We care deeply,” sounds comforting, but it’s very vague. Why are they using “we” in a letter from an individual? If they say they care, but won’t acknowledge harm, name abusers, or take visible action to support victims, then it’s just a statement with no substance. Statements like these often appear in place of accountability. It’s a blanket statement that prevents follow-up questions.

Rewrite Idea:

“We care deeply—and here’s what we’re doing to show that care: meeting with survivors, funding counseling services, and working with abuse prevention experts.”

2. “Let’s keep our eyes on Jesus.”

Let’s Analyze:

This is a classic spiritual redirect. Of course, we want to focus on Jesus, but when this is said in response to concerns about abuse, it becomes a way to dismiss uncomfortable truths. It implies that addressing harm is a distraction from faith rather than a core part of living it. It pressures people to stay silent “for the sake of unity” or spirituality.

Rewrite Idea:

“As we look to Jesus, the embodiment of truth and justice, we are committed to confronting wrongdoing honestly and caring for the wounded among us by taking the following steps…”

3. “We’re all grieving.”

Let’s Analyze:

This phrase is sometimes used to flatten the emotional experience. Yes, many are grieving—but not all grief is the same. Survivors are grieving betrayal and trauma. Others are grieving the loss of comfort or image. Pretending these are equal creates false unity and silences people who are in deeper pain. It dismisses survivor-specific grief and replaces it with general emotional fog.

Rewrite Idea:

“While many are grieving, we recognize that the grief of survivors is uniquely deep—and we will honor that with action and change.”

Thought-terminating cliches make people feel wrong for asking questions, selfish for wanting clarity, or divisive for expecting justice. They’re a verbal smoke screen—sounding good while obscuring the truth.

If it sounds final, but says nothing, that’s your clue: it’s probably a thought-terminating cliche.

How to Identify Thought-Terminating Cliches:

1. They Shut Down Questions or Disagreement

These phrases are often used when someone raises a valid concern—but instead of engaging, the speaker ends the conversation with a “final” statement.

These aren’t always wrong, but in the wrong context, they function as conversation stoppers. They suggest that asking questions or expressing pain is unfaithful, divisive, or unnecessary.

More Examples: “God is in control.” “It’s in His hands.” “We’re all doing our best.” “Let’s not dwell on the negative.”

2. They Redirect Attention Away From the Issue

These can be used to shame people who bring up hard truths, and redirect the conversation back to spiritual performance, unity, or obedience.

More Examples: “Keep your eyes on Jesus.” “Only God can judge.” “Let’s focus on moving forward.”

3. They Flatten Complex Emotions or Experiences

These blur the distinction between survivor and abuser, bystanders and enablers, or leaders and victims. They oversimplify what needs to be confronted with nuance and care.

More Examples: “We’re all hurting right now.” “We’re all just human.” “Mistakes were made.”

4. They Make the Listener Feel Like the Problem

Instead of focusing on the harm done, these clichés shift the burden to the one speaking up—turning their valid concern into a spiritual flaw.

• More examples: “You just need to forgive.” “Don’t be bitter.” “Be careful not to gossip.”

When I received several letters in response to my letter to sister workers, I found some common themes amongst them. They relied heavily on personal intentions over institutional transparency, framed internal dialogue and private care as adequate responses to public harm, and implied quiet care was morally superior to visible advocacy.

There’s a tendency for the 2×2 church to frame anything done publicly as attention-seeking. This is problematic when we’re dealing with child sexual abuse. Institutional change only comes from public and group advocacy, which is probably one of the reasons no real change has been implemented—there’s just not enough public support within the group to influence change.

So while the ministry relies on language tactics that are manipulative and unclear, the congregation remains silent. Language is powerful. Recognize how it’s being used and call it out. But also, use your voice to effect change and stand for the vulnerable amongst us.

Silence is too costly, especially in the face of language being used harmfully in a situation influenced by spiritual authority, emotional manipulation, and institutional self-protection. Words shape belief. They shape loyalty. They shape what we think we’re allowed to question. Don’t let vague or spiritualized language silence truth.

Speak clearly. Speak bravely. Speak up.

---

Author’s Note:

For the sake of transparency, I used AI fairly heavily while writing this piece—especially in the sections that define and explain different types of language. It helped with efficiency and structure, but the experiences, observations, and outrage are entirely my own.

On a related note, if you ever find yourself unsure about how a particular phrase or sentence feels or functions, try asking AI! It’s surprisingly helpful at analyzing tone, identifying vagueness, and pointing out language that dodges responsibility. Just be sure to ask thoughtful follow-up questions—and trust your gut, too.

And honestly? A few overseers might benefit from running their letters through AI before hitting “send.” It won’t fix the theology, but at least it might flag the passive voice.

---

In 2012, Leroy Lerwick wrote to the survivor and her family, advocating for Marais’ return to the work in South America. He admitted the international transfer of workers who are prohibited from being on staff in their home countries.

Lerwick’s letter is posted below.

The yellow highlights in Lerwick’s letter have been added by WINGS.

---

August 17, 2012
leroylerwick@Redacted

Dear Friends, the ____ family;

I was in South Africa for conventions this year but did not have the privilege to meet you, or be in the meetings where you attended. I labor in South America, in Ecuador. Interest is very good in this country. We are unable to reach all who would like to listen, due to our limited number of workers. This is true in several countries in South America. We are glad there were enough workers to reach our families when they first heard the message that gave them a hope for eternity and could make that hope available to us. We would like to believe that every seeking sinner would find the Lord, but our experience makes it very clear that many will go to their grave without hearing this precious gospel, even though they earnestly desire to, for lack of messengers. Jesus made this clear, too, saying that those he sent forth would not be able to cover all the places in Israel. The harvest is great and laborers are few.

Recently we read Paul’s letter to Philemon. We do not know all the details of the situation, but can understand that Philemon had a servant, probably a slave which was his property, who had escaped from him and somehow made contact with Paul who was in prison in Rome or perhaps Caesarea. From some of the details of his letter and similar details of his letter to the Colossians it is thought that Philemon lived in that place. Paul says he had not been to Colossae, but had heard of their faith and was moved to write to them to encourage them. He does appear to know some who were from Colossae, perhaps those who labored in the ministry who were from there. We admire his interest in this runaway slave. What had he done, what harm had he caused his master, we do not know. Paul spoke to him about forgiveness, salvation, and he received a hope for his soul, as Paul states that he had become his father in the gospel. Now he sends him back to his master with this letter. Paul appeals to Philemon in a very humble manner, pleading that he would receive him, not just as his slave, but as his brother in Christ, and as a repentant slave who is willing to serve him now as if he were Christ himself. We can see Onesimus arriving with his letter, trembling, with fear, lest his master would not even allow him to present the letter, maybe he would not read it, but he does, and he watches his countenance as his master reads Paul’s plea, watches the softening of his countenance, and hope wells up in his heart, he is prepared to confirm what Paul has written, that he has changed, and now he hopes to prove it by serving his master as if he were Christ himself. We do not know the outcome, but what a lesson for us all, of the importance of reconciliation, how it can heal, how it can produce a rich fellowship. It is the reason Jesus came, to reconcile us to His father, not to condemn us, not to punish us for our sin, for sure to bring us to repentance first, but to reconcile us. None of our efforts towards righteousness or justice would be of value without reconciliation.

There have been some wonderful missions in Latin America in the past 30 or 40 years. Some countries were not given the opportunity until the 70’s and 80’s. When I arrived to Ecuador in 1983 there were only 7 people professing in the country, and now there are about 30 churches. The first pair of brothers arrived in Peru in 1969, in Ecuador in 1975, in Venezuela in 1980, in Colombia in 1988. There are many rejoicing in these countries now for the hope they have received. Where did these workers come from? USA, Europe, Canada, South Africa, Australia, Korea. Who were they? They were fragile human vessels that God was able to use. Some of them were very appreciated and loved in their home countries and went only because they insisted, though the responsible brothers in their countries would have preferred to keep them home for the need there. A few had not done well, and their testimony was such that they were not free to continue in the work in their home country. Many would have thought they should not have a place in the work anywhere. One such brother from Switzerland was given the opportunity to go to Peru, and we now can see that God’s hand was in that arrangement, as he was the man with the courage and strength that was required to go to the high mountains to an area known for its violence, where even the police did not venture. Now there are many churches in that area, and many workers have gone forth from those churches. I asked this brother when visiting there if he had ever dreamed he would see such a response when he went there. He did not answer me, but bowed his head into his arms on the table and wept. I did not know what was behind those tears at the time, as no one spoke of his past and few in South America knew. He had committed a serious error and it had been undisclosed for years. Eventually it came to light and it was decided and correctly so that he should not be in the work in his country. However he pled for an opportunity to go to some country to pioneer, anywhere, no matter how difficult, and it was arranged for him to go to Peru. We wonder if and when the work would have ever begun in that country if this had not been arranged. God is merciful, and it is His victory when there is forgiveness and restoration, and reconciliation. It is our enemy’s victory when there is none. Another brother who did not manage to maintain a good testimony was the first to go to a country in the Caribbean, a very poor country where none had ventured to go. The response there has been wonderful. None of us would have any hope of salvation without His mercy.

We are aware of the offense your family suffered and do not wish to give the impression that we do not consider it a serious matter. We hope and pray that such matters can be dealt with fairly and justly, and the final result can be healing, forgiveness and reconciliation. There are cases where one has a weakness and becomes a serial offender. There is no doubt that in such cases it is not possible to continue in the ministry or in any capacity that allows further offenses to occur. However, we in South America can say that Johan Marais has a good testimony during his years in Bolivia and Peru. There are many in those two countries that will be eternally grateful for the help received from his ministry. We have a sister from Bolivia on our staff in Ecuador, who has great appreciation for Johan, as he was in her home when her mother passed away, a terrible time for her and her sisters who were all young at the time, and in primary school. There was never any incorrect behavior towards her and her sisters. Her eyes fill with tears whenever his name is mentioned. The need is so great for laborers; all of us are so extended trying to reach needy souls. We pray that Johan could be restored to a useful place in South America even if he cannot and should not be active on the staff in his home country. Nothing matters but salvation, and the salvation of many is at stake. God can forgive, as we sing, “not a sin so great but he’ll forgive it.” Repentance is turning and not continuing in the same error. Forgiveness is possible when there is repentance. Forgiven sinners do not have a past. Offenses we have suffered do not continue to harm us when there is forgiveness, as we also no longer have that past. When we do not set a brother free, we keep ourselves in bondage. Our humble plea is that there can be reconciliation, forgiveness, and all can be set free, so that this great kingdom does not suffer loss. Forgiving does not mean we forget, but it changes the way we remember, as it frees us from the bitterness of the memory and replaces those feelings with thankfulness and peace. David was forgiven by God, but not by Ahitophel, Bathseba’s grandfather. His end could have been so different, had he forgiven as God did.

We respect and appreciate the efforts of all on the behalf of the kingdom and the salvation of all and I have felt moved to write this letter in support of those efforts. I hope it may be received in the same spirit. Finally, our humble plea is that in the interest of souls crying out who can help us, in these needy fields in South America, would you consider assuring the responsible brothers in South Africa that you would not object to Johan Marais helping in a field in South America, though he not be on the staff in South Africa. I am sure he is willing to spend the rest of his life in South America in the work and never return to his homeland if that were the conditions required of him. This is not a plea specifically in favor of Johan Marais, rather it is a plea on the behalf of souls that are destined to perish for lack of laborers. Your response will be appreciated.

A brother, LeRoy Lerwick

---

WINGS is focused on protecting children from CSA and on helping victims. WINGS has no intention of undermining the fellowship, but we are concerned when we read an overseer’s letter that places blame on others and does not recognise the harm done to victims.

Following the letter from Lyle Shultz, we have posted some comments posted on a fellowship member’s public blog, that provide a useful analysis of Lyle’s letter.

---

February 19, 2025

Dear Fellow Labourers in India;

I am sorry for the long silence on my part since I left the shores of your country on October 30 last year. I have been in touch with several of you individually but this is the first general letter that I have directed your way since that time. You may be aware that I flew direct from Bangalore to Canada via Paris landing in Deer Lake, Newfoundland 34 hours after taking off from Bangalore. Newfoundland is where my brother, Dale and nephew, Steve are stationed. Steve Shultz, as you likely know, is a brother of Rob Shultz who visited India two years ago. Their field consists of the western side of Newfoundland and the territory of Labrador. There are only three friends in Labrador although it is a vast rugged country. I arrived in Newfoundland two weeks before they closed their mission to participate in the special meetings in that part, so got in on their final round of visiting and the last two gospel meetings there. Then I had the privilege of attending four special meetings in Newfoundland, one in New Brunswick and one in Nova Scotia. It was special to spend that time with Dale and Steve and others on that staff. I had never before visited Newfoundland and had only very briefly been in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick once before for conventions during one of my previous home visits.

After finishing the special meeting tour in Eastern Canada, I returned to Saskatchewan which is my home province. It was arranged for me to rejoin Larry Greenaway in Regina and that is where we have been since then. I was with Larry in this field the first part of last year before I left in mid March to come to India, and it has been good to get back to this area and these people that I am familiar with. We have several young professing families in this field so we always have children in every meeting to labour for and hope for. Besides them, there is a young Chinese couple who have been coming regularly recently. —– and ——– are obviously very interested in what they are hearing and told one of our friends recently that they so much appreciate listening to truth. Other messages have been confusing to them. It is very special to have genuine interest to labour for, and I trust that there will be even better things than this to report about them as they continue to listen. It is arranged for Larry and me to attend special meetings in Minnesota and Iowa during the month of April this year. We will leave here on March 29 and expect to return on April 28. Iowa is the State where both my father and mother were born so we do have some relatives down there but have more or less lost touch with them over the years.

It was good to hear reports of your convention season passing without any serious interference from dissident people. There is a movement that is sweeping the whole world to undermine the confidence of the Lord’s people in the ministry and fellowship that Jesus established while he was here. The people at the center of that movement pretend to be interested in cleansing the Kingdom, but in reality their principle aim is to destroy it. Many others get innocently caught up in that movement not realizing that most of the information provided to them on the Internet is untrue or only partly true. Unfortunately, there have been some disappointing and unwholesome things happen amongst us. There always has been and always will be as long as human nature is part of the equation. Each of us does need to be on guard against the many subtle forms that self takes to try to get its own way. Prabhakar and Saju and their helpers are under a lot of pressure as they guide the staff through these perilous times and I urge each one of you to stand by them and give them your wholehearted support. That is the right and godly thing to do.

I am sorry that I cannot write individually to each of you but do invite you to get in touch if you have concerns that I may be able to help you with. May the Lord be with each of you and and give you the grace to accept the things you cannot change and to change the things that He shows you need to be changed in your service, attitude and spirit so that each pair of workers will be displaying the fruit of the gospel as well as preaching the word of the gospel.

Thoughts and prayers are with you all,

Brotherly Greetings,

Lyle.

---

The Letter of the Unrepentant: A Public Response to Lyle Shultz

When abuse is minimized, victims ignored, and loyalty demanded… what remains is not Christ, but control.

Jonathan McLernon May 12, 2025

Introduction: Beyond Outrage

My first response when reading this was: “Are you kidding me?”

But that quickly faded into something more sobering: “Of course that’s what he’d write.”

Lyle Shultz is a senior overseer in the Two by Two church. Decades in the ministry. Countless meetings and conventions. And now, in the middle of the largest abuse scandal our fellowship has ever seen, so bad that the FBI is investigating…

And he writes this letter.

He’s not just speaking for himself. He’s speaking the language of the system: defensive, dismissive, and cloaked in spiritual platitudes.

This is the language of spiritual insulation. This reads like someone writing from the safety of unchecked authority.

It sounds so rehearsed that it no longer even registers as tone-deaf within its own walls.

He speaks like a man who has never had to answer hard questions, never had to account for his stewardship, never had to consider whether his comfortable circuit of meetings, flights, and hosted meals (all funded by others) might carry a sacred responsibility.

I don’t know if I’m beyond outrage… but I am beyond expecting these men to change.

So let’s take his letter line by line. Not to nitpick, but to shine light on a deeper issue.

And more importantly, let’s contrast each part with what Spirit-led, Scripture-rooted leadership might actually look like.

I’m not writing this because I enjoy being critical or because I want to stir up controversy. I’m writing this because silence has failed us.

Because the ministry won’t self-correct. Because if we don’t name what’s broken and contrast it with what is holy and Christlike, we leave the next generation to inherit the same disease.

---

1. The Grand Travelogue

Excerpt from the Letter:

“I flew direct from Bangalore to Canada via Paris… landing in Deer Lake, Newfoundland… It was special to spend time with Dale and Steve… I had never before visited Newfoundland… I had only very briefly been in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick once before… It was arranged for me to rejoin Larry Greenaway in Regina…”

What This Reveals:
There’s not a single note of humility in the way this is presented, just a casual retelling of international travel and multi-region ministry tours, funded by donations.

There is no acknowledgment that these trips are paid for by the sacrificial offerings of others. No mention of the scandal. No shared grief.

Just personal updates and praise for fellow workers, while the fellowship burns behind them.

This reads more like a retiree’s newsletter than a letter from a spiritual leader shepherding people through crisis. Enjoying all the perks with none of the accountability.

What a Spirit-Led Response Might Look Like:

“Since returning from India, my heart has been burdened. I’ve had many sleepless nights thinking about the pain that has surfaced within our fellowship.

Before I speak of my travels, I want to say this clearly: I grieve for the victims. I grieve that we, as ministers, failed to protect them.

Wherever I’ve been, whether Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Regina, I’ve carried the weight of that sorrow with me, and I know I must own part of it.”

True shepherds don’t gloss over crisis. They stop and tend to the bleeding.

---

2. Defensive Framing of “Dissidents”

Excerpt from the Letter:

“It was good to hear reports of your convention season passing without any serious interference from dissident people… There is a movement sweeping the world to undermine confidence in the ministry and fellowship that Jesus established…”

What This Reveals:
This isn’t just tone-deaf. It’s spiritually abusive.

To call survivors and advocates for accountability “dissidents” is to mirror the very tactics of corrupt religious systems throughout history.

Label the wounded as enemies to preserve the power of the unrepentant.

He paints truth-tellers as troublemakers, rather than asking why the truth needed to be told in the first place.

This is deflection and scapegoating. Deflect the betrayal committed by leaders, and place blame on those exposing the truth.

This echoes the spirit of the Pharisees. Protecting power while silencing prophets.

What a Spirit-Led Response Might Look Like:

“There have been voices rising in grief and anger across the world. I’ve heard some of those voices. And while it’s hard to be confronted, I know we must listen.

Some of what’s being shared is painful to hear. But instead of dismissing these voices, we must discern what God might be saying through them.

To stand with the wounded is to stand with Christ, because that’s where we’ll find him.”

Jesus didn’t silence the bleeding woman. He turned toward her.

Spirit-led ministry doesn’t fear hard truth, it leans into it with humility.

---

3. Casual Acknowledgment of Abuse… then Deflection

Excerpt from the Letter:

“Unfortunately, there have been some disappointing and unwholesome things happen amongst us. There always has been and always will be as long as human nature is part of the equation…”

What This Reveals:
This is classic spiritual deflection. “Some bad things happened, but that’s just human nature.”

This kind of language minimizes evil by framing it as inevitable. It doesn’t call sin by name. It offers no confession. No accountability.

Just vague acknowledgment followed by a shrug and “business as usual”.

This is minimization masquerading as spirituality.

To call generational sexual abuse, rape, and cover-up merely “unwholesome things” is to protect the image of the institution instead of speaking the truth.

And it’s not just dishonest… it’s condescending.
As if grown adults are too delicate to hear the words that victims had no choice but to live through.

As if shielding our ears is somehow more important than confronting evil.

Jesus never softened the truth to preserve appearances.
And He never minimized sin, especially when it harmed the vulnerable.

Imagine saying this to a survivor of abuse. “That’s just human nature.”

What a Spirit-Led Response Might Look Like:

“There has been terrible sin living in our midst. Grievous, deliberate, calculated evil.

Abuse was committed. And we didn’t act to protect the most vulnerable among us.

For that, I’m deeply sorry. I can no longer pretend this is just the reality of a fallen world. The voices of the victims are crying for justice.

It was our silence, our inaction, and our obsession with control that allowed it to flourish.”

Real repentance doesn’t hide behind generalities. It names the wrong, and it kneels in sorrow, broken-hearted and a burning desire to make it right.

---

4. “Support Your Leaders” (No Matter What)

Excerpt from the Letter:

“Prabhakar and Saju and their helpers are under a lot of pressure as they guide the staff through these perilous times and I urge each one of you to stand by them and give them your wholehearted support. That is the right and godly thing to do.”

What This Reveals:
Blind allegiance masquerading as faithfulness.

The implication is clear: if you love God, you will support these men without question, even if they’ve mishandled or minimized abuse.

This is how spiritual institutions shield power… by binding “godliness” to loyalty rather than to righteousness.

It’s also manipulative. It weaponizes spirituality to silence discernment. And it pressures sincere believers into complicity by labeling questioning as rebellion.

What a Spirit-Led Response Might Look Like:

“Our leaders are under pressure, but more importantly, they are under the eye of God. Support does not mean silence. Faithfulness does not mean blind loyalty.

I urge you to stand for truth, even if it means asking hard questions. The most godly thing we can do right now is seek the truth, even if it leads us to uncomfortable places.”

A leader secure in God’s authority invites accountability. They don’t fear it, they welcome it as protection from self-deception and corruption.

A Christlike leader never demands loyalty to men. He calls people to loyalty to Christ.

---

5. A Call to “Accept What Cannot Be Changed”

Excerpt from the Letter:

“…give you the grace to accept the things you cannot change and to change the things that He shows you need to be changed in your service, attitude and spirit…”

What This Reveals:
This might be the most insidious line of the entire letter. On the surface, it sounds gentle. But this isn’t a call to lament injustice or confront sin.

It’s a call to submission.

To compliance. To keeping your head down and your spirit “quiet.”

And to be clear, what is it that he’s subtly telling us cannot be changed?

The structure. The secrecy. The leadership.

What a Spirit-Led Response Might Look Like:

“Some things must be changed. And if we truly follow Christ, we will not be afraid of reform.

We have grown comfortable in our form, and in doing so, we have become complacent and allowed evil to flourish.

Our salvation does NOT reside in our form, but in Christ alone.

We must pray not for the grace to passively accept what is broken, but for the courage to confront what grieves the heart of God.”

Jesus didn’t die so we could preserve traditions. He died so we could be made new creatures in him.

And sometimes, the most faithful act is not acceptance, but holy defiance.

---

6. Zero Mention of Victims or Repentance

What Lyle didn’t say:
There is not one single mention of survivors. No apology. No grief. No call for justice. No invitation to report. No hint of repentance.

Why it’s un-Christlike:
This is perhaps the most damning omission. Jesus always moved toward the broken.

He called out wolves. He wept with the grieving.

He said, “Let the little children come.”

When image is guarded but the innocent are not, we’ve wandered far from Christ.

This is a complete inversion of the gospel.

What a Christlike response would look like:

“To every survivor who has been harmed, I am so sorry. I failed you. We failed you. We cannot undo what was done, but we can repent, remove abusers, support healing, and rebuild this fellowship on truth, not appearances.

If we don’t do this, we are no longer serving Christ.”

---

Closing Reflections: From Broken System to Broken Bread

Let’s be honest: Lyle’s letter is not surprising. It’s disappointing, yes. But not surprising.

It is the product of a man raised in a system that worships form over repentance, loyalty over truth, and silence over integrity.

And while I no longer expect anything different from men so deeply steeped in this culture, I still believe we must name what’s broken if we ever hope to offer anything whole.

So let me say this:

If I’m going to cast my lot with anyone, it won’t be with the Pharisees defending a failed system.

It will be with the wounded in the temple, and at the foot of the cross.

The ones Jesus turned toward after cleansing the temple. The ones the Pharisees left behind.

And as I move forward, writing, wrestling, reconstructing, I want to do more than just critique what was. I want to help point to what could be.

Make no mistake: I’m not trying to portray myself as a hero. I’m simply holding myself to the bare minimum of what should be expected if we dare to call ourselves followers of Jesus.

It should never be considered heroic to stand for truth.

It should not be rare or remarkable to advocate for victims.

And it should not be controversial to demand that self-appointed leaders root out corruption, complacency, and evil in their midst.

---

What’s Next?

If Lyle’s letter shows us anything, it’s that the old guard still thinks they can suppress this reckoning with gentle words and vague warnings.

But they’re wrong.

A new wave has risen up. One that’s not afraid to wrestle with truth.

One that refuses to equate peace with passivity.

One that stands with survivors and fights for righteousness, no matter the cost.

If you’re part of that wave, stay strong.

And if you’re still undecided, still on the fence, still wondering whether to speak up, just know this:

You’re not crazy.
You’re not alone.
And you never needed their permission to stand for truth.

I know where I stand.

---

WINGS has received a request “to remove the transcript” relating to the recently published informal notes of an overseer meeting held in March 2025.

WINGS is posting the request it received, as requested, and declines to remove the original post because:

A) It isn’t clear from the strange sender email address that this was actually sent by Brian Getz.

B) The notes are not ‘a transcript’.

C) It is not apparent that the notes include “sensitive personal information”.

D) As the notes have been published in multiple forums, it is now pointless to remove them.

In response to the extracts of legal analysis, presumably prepared by a lawyer:

1. There was probably no intention to harass or defraud.
2. There is no indication that the meeting was recorded. The statute doesn’t bar note-taking.
3. The purpose was not harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person. 
4. There was probably no intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity.
5. There was no invasion of ‘privacy’ as the overseers are public people and the meeting discussed matters which are of interest to the whole church.

WINGS has redacted one name from the original post.

---

mitosis.visas_0j to wingsfortruth Tue, 22 Apr 2025 22:51:18 -0700 (PDT)

Dear WingsForTruth Administrators and other Site Administrators,

I’m reaching out regarding the transcript of a private Zoom meeting held on March 25, which has been published on your website. This meeting was intended to be confidential and informal, with access restricted to invited participants using a security code and waiting room.

Unfortunately, the transcript was obtained through unauthorized access to the Zoom call by someone impersonating a known participant. In your posted notes, this individual is referred to as “Jon.” While that name was mentioned during the call, the actual person “Jon” did not call in that day. The impersonator was mistakenly admitted to the call based on claiming to be “Jon”. Additionally, we do not know how this individual obtained the Zoom meeting ID and security code, and it’s possible this information was acquired through illegal means.  It was only after the call finished and the actual “Jon” apologized for not attending (he was involved in an important visit), that we then realized our call had an imposter.

This impersonator had no permission to attend and misrepresented their identity as “Jon” in a text message in order to gain access—an act that may constitute criminal impersonation under Washington, California, and possibly federal law. Our policy is to fully report all CSA allegations to authorities, whether historical and current – using unlawful means to misrepresent our intent or concern during private conversation is not appropriate during the current crisis.

The transcript includes sensitive personal information that was shared with the understanding that the setting was private. Even though the impersonator was mistakenly admitted, they were not authorized to record, transcribe, or disseminate the conversation. The public stating of specific names associated with possible CSA-related allegations is also considered “defamation per se” in many jurisdictions.  Public posting or sharing of content obtained through deceptive or unlawful methods may also carry legal implications, even if done unintentionally.

We fully recognize that you may not have been aware of how this material was obtained. Out of fairness and respect for those affected, we kindly request that you remove the transcript from your website and facebook page, and consider posting a brief note acknowledging that it was removed due to its unauthorized, deceptive and likely criminal acquisition—rather than as a simple “leak,” as it may have been presented to you.  We also request that a copy in full of this letter and attached information be posted in explanation of the situation.

We sincerely appreciate your understanding and cooperation.

Respectfully,

Brian Getz (Zoom meeting host)

maned_waver_5j@icloud.com

Some related information:

1. Washington State Laws on Online Impersonation and Eavesdropping 
(The Zoom call was hosted in WA)

In Washington State, impersonating someone online with the intent to deceive, harass, or defraud is actionable under civil law. According to RCW 4.24.790, a person may be liable in a civil action for invasion of privacy when they intentionally impersonate another actual person on a social networking website or online bulletin board without consent, intending to deceive or mislead for purposes such as harassing or defrauding another. 

Regarding eavesdropping, Washington is a two-party consent state. Under RCW 9.73.030, it is unlawful to intercept or record any private communication transmitted by telephone or other device without obtaining the consent of all participants. 

RCW 9A.60.045: Criminal Impersonation in the Second Degree involves assuming a false identity to commit or aid in committing a crime.  If someone impersonated a real person to gain access to private information that they then used for harm, it could qualify under 2nd-degree impersonation if part of a broader criminal act (like unlawful recording, harassment, or defamation).

2. Does Erroneous Admission Grant Rights to Disseminate Call Contents?

No, being mistakenly allowed into a private meeting does not grant the right to record or disseminate its contents. If the individual misrepresented their identity to gain access, any recording or sharing of the meeting could be considered unauthorized and potentially unlawful, especially if it involves private or sensitive information.

3. California Laws on Online Impersonation
(It is possible the impersonator is located in California)

California Penal Code § 528.5 makes it a crime to knowingly and without consent impersonate another person through or on an internet website or by other electronic means for purposes such as harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person. 

Additionally, Penal Code § 529 addresses false impersonation more broadly, criminalizing acts where someone falsely impersonates another and performs an act that could subject the impersonated person to liability or provide the impersonator with a benefit. 

4. Is Online Impersonation a Federal Crime?

Yes, under certain circumstances. The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act (18 U.S.C. § 1028) criminalizes knowingly transferring or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment. 

Furthermore, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 U.S.C. § 1030) addresses unauthorized access to computers and can apply to cases where someone gains unauthorized access to private communications.

5. Is It Federally Illegal to Post Criminally Obtained Private Material Online?

Yes, under certain conditions. If the material was obtained through unauthorized access or impersonation, its dissemination could violate federal laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Additionally, publishing private facts without consent can lead to civil liability for invasion of privacy. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act also prohibits the intentional interception or disclosure of electronic communications without authorization.

Sequence of Impersonation:

• Zoom call was started, both waiting room and security code were in use (most attend with video, some with limited bandwidth occasionally call in by phone).
• We’ve never had a stranger try to attend, so when the imposter called in (non-video), they were at first admitted.  (we have no idea how they obtained the zoom call ID and security number)
• The unknown caller number was noticed and questioned by some attendees, and some made the statement “That must be “Jon”, since he hasn’t joined yet” (in this way the imposter would know that they could use this name as an imposter name).
• Since it was unclear who owned the number,  the imposter was removed to the waiting room again.
• A text message was sent to the questionable number, asking “Who are you?”
• After a little while the imposter texted back, saying “Oh sorry just saw this. Stumbling with technology today. This is jon”
• The host assumed this was the true identity of the caller and admitted the imposter for the remainder of the zoom meeting.

Note of a recent US overseer meeting are posted below. WINGS posts these notes because of our concerns about the ongoing failure to properly address CSA issues. An analysis of the meeting notes by Perplexity, an AI system, summarises these concerns :

• Minimization of Allegations: The discussion around the return of an individual with allegations is concerning. The seriousness of the situation appears downplayed (“not a crime to be weird,” “taking pictures of children and families”), with more emphasis on being able to answer critics than on child safety or transparency. The reliance on an unnamed “man in California” for assessment, rather than formal child protection professionals, raises questions about the adequacy of safeguarding procedures.
• Insularity and Dismissal of Criticism: There is a tendency to characterize critics as unsatisfiable or as lacking faith, and to dismiss external concerns as “echo chamber” talk. While some self-reflection is present, the overall tone suggests defensiveness rather than openness to substantive reform or outside accountability.
• Hierarchy Justification: The defense of hierarchy is largely scriptural and anecdotal, with little discussion of the practical implications for transparency, accountability, or abuse prevention. Historical doctrinal issues (like LWD) are acknowledged but quickly dismissed as no longer relevant, without detailed examination of their legacy or impact.
• Lack of Victim Perspective: The conversation focuses on the accused, the workers, and the church’s reputation, with minimal attention to the experiences or needs of victims or survivors of abuse. Jokes and laughter about serious topics may indicate a lack of sensitivity to these issues.
• Echo Chamber Risk: The group’s own use of the term “echo chamber” (even if jokingly via ChatGPT) highlights the risk of insularity and groupthink, especially when facing significant external criticism.

Conclusion: The meeting notes reveal a leadership group grappling with criticism, doctrinal challenges, and allegations of misconduct. While there is some evidence of self-awareness and scriptural engagement, the overall approach appears more focused on internal cohesion and reputation management than on robust safeguarding or meaningful engagement with dissenting voices and victims. This raises ongoing concerns about transparency, accountability, and the prioritization of member safety.

---

The overseer meeting notes were formatted and Released by Abbi & Mike Prussack / 2×2 Church Updates. The notes have been confirmed to be legitimate. While much of the discussion is paraphrased, with some verbatim quotes, the note-taker did their best to accurately capture the context of what was spoken.

---

Overseer Meeting Notes March 25, 2025

The following notes were taken by an attendee of an overseer Zoom call in March of 2025. Speakers are identified by name only when the attendee was positive of who was speaking.

There were a total of 17 people on the call.

Known attendees (last name given only if it was able to be confirmed)

Barry Barkley (Former overseer, senior worker)
Brian Getz (WA/N. ID/AK senior worker)
Dale 
Darryl Doland (WA/N. ID/AK overseer)
David 
Jay Wicks (Oregon senior worker)
Jon 
Merlin Affleck (B.C. overseer)
Mike 
Larry
Ray Hoffmann (New York/New England overseer)
Richard DenHerder (China/Asia overseer)
Rob Newman (CA/AZ/HI/Pac. Isl. overseer)
Wayne

Pre-meeting

• General chatter about the friends and where attendees are staying.
• Discussion of health conditions of some of the friends.
• Ray reported he was in NY City but would be leaving for special meetings.
• Confusion regarding one of the attendees. Darryl surmises it could be Richard.
• Someone said “Just as long as it’s not Cynthia.” *laughter*
• Unknown attendee later determined to be Jon.

Meeting

• Discussion with Rob regarding arranging the return of someone with allegations to meeting. (Believed to be referring to Name Redacted)
• Rob was asked if there were children in the meeting. He responded that he wasn’t sure. He checked and confirmed that there is a family in the meeting with children.
• Rob was asked if they had consulted any professionals to see if he was safe. Rob responded that he went through a man in California that they’ve used before. He said his finding was that he was a low concern.
• Response from person asking was that it was good to be able to have an answer for the friends who would ask questions, or the critics.
• Rob said the most serious thing that happened was taking pictures of children and families.
• Someone mentioned that he was just one of those strange personalities.
• Someone else mentioned that it wasn’t a crime to be weird. *laughter*.
• Someone quoted Willie Jamieson as saying “If I’m going to err, I’d rather err on the side of mercy, make sure I’m not part of the problem.”
• Rob was asked if he’s been in any meetings at all. Rob responded that he hasn’t been in any so far.
• Rob mentioned that his elder and elder’s wife have been very supportive through the situation and they know him better than anyone.
• Confirmation was given of his (perpetrator’s) wife being very loyal.
• Someone mentioned that the alleged perpetrator was one of the names put on a list by Bridging the Gap, and they’d listed their overseers on it as well. (Believed to actually be referring to lists by Pamela Walton)
• Someone asked for clarification that they had actually published a list.
• Response: “Well, that Jenn Tschetter did, whatever she’s on.” (Jenn included Pamela’s list in a recent weekly newsletter)
• Richard DenHerder asked if they were serious offenders or not serious offenders.
• Someone responded that it was a little of everything.
• Someone else said that they had gone through a process and were deemed safe to be in meeting again. But that others spin it in a way that makes it sound like they are putting a bunch of dangerous people in meeting.
• Same person said it was all carefully done.
• Richard says that Bridging the Gap had done a bunch of sessions on exposing the Truth.
• Richard explained that he had taken transcripts from all of the sessions and was in the process of using ChatGPT to process the transcripts because he doesn’t have time to listen to all of it.
• He is using ChatGPT to determine all the complaints against the church and about doctrine.
• Richard mentioned that lots of the friends are listening to those sessions and it’s good to know what they are being fed.
• Richard says that so far ChatGPT had said “warning: echo chamber” *laughter*
• Someone says “So a robot is smarter than they are.”
• Richard says he thinks the word is “honest”.
• Rob says the offender is not in meetings yet. The elder and his wife were going to wait until after special meetings to approach him about returning to meetings.
• Darryl asks Richard if there was much mentioned in the Bridging the Gap videos about hierarchy.
• Richard confirms this and offers to send everyone the summary from ChatGPT.
• Darryl talks about recent reading in Revelation about John talking to an elder. He uses this to note that there’s even hierarchy in heaven.
• Darryl says that people are saying that ideally there would be no hierarchy, but even John’s vision of heaven had hierarchy.
• Ray mentions Michael the archangel and how that seems like hierarchy to him.
• Someone chimes in that it just comes down to having order.
• Richard mentions that you see hierarchy in the body. If everything was equal we would just be a blob. And that he’s sure the foot enjoys the hand scratching it when it itches.
• Richard says that one of the complaints they had was about the LWD (Living Witness Doctrine), which he quickly says they (the workers) don’t believe.
• Richard mentions that the LWD (Living Witness Doctrine) did come up in the church at one point in history but was “cleaned away”.
• Someone asks what LWD is.
• Richard responds that it’s the belief that eternal life is only gotten through the workers, and that the truth is an unbroken line back to Jesus.
• Ray recounts a story of someone who contacted him and wanted to attribute the origins of the truth to William Irvine.
• Ray says his response to this person was to ask if he’d be satisfied if he gave him the name of the person who brought the gospel to William Irvine? Or if he’d be satisfied if he gave him the name of the person who brought the gospel to the person who brought the gospel to William Irvine? Etc.
• Ray said he answered for the person, no, you wouldn’t be satisfied until I could give you names that go all the way back to Peter, because you have no faith.
• Someone mentioned that George Walker had said that if LWD was true then he’d have to deny his own testimony.
• Richard said that they (people on Bridging the Gap) say that you don’t need to go to meeting to serve God, or they say they have better fellowship outside of meetings. He then says this is not scriptural.
• Someone says quote of “by one spirit we are all baptized unto one body”
• Someone else quotes Malachi “those that love the Lord spoke often one to another”
• Someone else quotes Psalm 50 “gather my saints together for those who have made a covenant with me through sacrifice.
• Ray says “don’t forsake the assembling of yourselves together”
• Richard says one complaint they (Bridging the Gap) had was that the workers pick and choose Matthew 10.
• Darryl says that they have a list, and that some of the things they say we don’t do, he begs to differ.
• Darryl says that they say the workers only do 18% of the things described in Matthew 10. But that’s not the percentage he came up with.
• Darryl is asked where that came from, he thinks it was on CCF, but may have originally been on Bridging the Gap.
• Richard said that on Bridging the Gap they had said there was no need to go 2×2, but the verse they quoted was where it said to send Paul and Barnabas. *laughter*
• Someone says Henry Moore’s answer to this was “we do greater works”.
• Speaker clarifies that Henry was an old Irish worker.
• Merlin says he’s up in Northern BC and he’ll admit he has a couple coats (referencing the previous discussion about the claim that workers don’t follow Matthew 10 where it says “Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes.” *laughter*
• Someone says that one of the friends, after reading Matthew 10, had said it just sounds to them like “don’t take more than you can carry around.”
• Same person says people are always looking for what they can get, and we (the workers) are always looking for what we can get rid of.
• Someone said that a man had been coming to their meetings and his companion had spoken in a meeting on Matthew 10 and after the meeting the man came up to him and said that he now saw that the workers are the apostles. He had gotten that revelation just sitting in the meeting.
• Darryl said another thing they have a problem with is “go not house to house”.
• Darryl said that when this was brought up, Craig Stockwell mentioned that buddhist monks go house to house looking for money and people don’t like that, and that’s not what Jesus was recommending.
• Darryl then said there are other places where it does talk about apostles going house to house.
• Someone mentions that before that it says “if they receive you, remain in that house…” and they go on to say that if there’s a mission, there’s a need. They also said that they sometimes leave sooner than they should because of their fear of being a burden in the home they are staying. Says this happened more in the past than it does now.
• But they finish by saying that this wouldn’t satisfy the nay-sayers, we don’t need to satisfy them.
• Rob says the dissenters have a great motivation to discount the ministry because if they don’t discount it they fall into that group of people that Jesus said “it would be far better for Sodom and Gamorra, than to reject those that he had sent.”
• Someone else says that nothing will ever make them happy.
• Someone says there’s a large group of the friends who are solid and don’t need any help, and there’s a large group of people who are not “part of us”, but it’s really all about the ones who are right on the edge of those two groups. That maybe they can help one or two of those, not with reasoning, but with clarity given by the workers it can help them come back.
• Same person says there’s not much you can do with the info from Bridging the Gap, but it’s nice to know what is said.
• Someone said that they had a lady in their field who was in this position, and God woke her one night and told her she was drinking poison. So the Lord is well able to rescue those who want to be rescued.
• Someone else says the Devil uses a little bit of truth to bait us to catch us in a lie. He tried it on the Lord, he used scripture.
• Ray mentions the stones between the cornerstone and the headstone. He references something that Barry had said at an earlier time, that sometimes the stones in between just need to be discarded.
• Barry recounts a time that George Walker invited him to his room at a convention in Ohio and he said that if a few shingles blow off a roof, that can be repaired. But if a disease gets into the foundation stones, that will be felt through the whole building. To fix it you may have to set a few good stones aside until you can get down to the one that’s crushed, and build up again. But what it comes down to is that it’s up to the Lord.
• Ray says to think about how we felt when we were called. We had no clue what the future would hold, but were willing for whatever Jesus had planned for the ministry. References spirit that young people have when they first start out, total submission to the rock. Versus the spirit of resisting the rock like the dissenters.
• Someone relayed a story of a couple he had stayed with who told them their testimony. They had been going to another church and the pastor had mentioned that workers were in the area and that people should use their discernment when interacting with the workers. They prayed to have discernment and had invited the sister workers over. They said that as soon as they opened the door, they knew that they were the servants of God.
• Barry relayed a story told by Jack Jackson. Jack had said that he had told the sisters in the early days not knowing the language, that God would use what they were more than what they say.
• Ray spoke about the parable of the treasure hid in a field, and that it does seem that God is hiding that from a lot of people. He mentioned in Jesus day that when the blind were made to see and the deaf to hear, thatJesus always told them not to tell anyone. The people who are worried about a hierarchy and all, they are missing the hidden treasure.
• Ray says they have reduced Jesus down to CSA and are missing the treasure.
• Someone talks about how they were talking about Truth in gospel meeting and how it’s the same everywhere in the world. He had said in his sermon that he had been in Asia, in various countries, and they could have fellowship due to all having received Truth. The call-in number for the gospel meeting hadn’t been muted, and someone listening had said “That was a waste of money (the flights around Asia), they could have taken that and given it to the victims.” *laughter*
• Darryl says “stop the heart and sell the blood” (referencing that the movement of workers among countries is as vital as having a beating heart)
• Someone asks if that’s a Chinese phrase?
• Someone says that circulation is good and is a miracle.
• Someone else says, in reference to hierarchy, that none of them were pressured to go in the work. It was a personal calling.
• Someone else says that none of them asked to be overseers either.
• Someone says that overseers have the privilege of serving servants. “And carrying out a lot of garbage. Save somebody else from the job.” *laughter*
• Someone asks Richard if people in China ask about the West.
• Richard responded with yes. He talked about meeting people and that people talk positively about the West.
• He mentioned that he’s in China on an Irish passport and he often says he’s an Irish citizen to avoid the politics of America.
• Richard talked about a man who owns a coffee stand who likes to talk. The man asked him if he thought there is a deep state controlling the world. Richard said no, that the only one in control is God. The man asked if he believes in God and reads his bible every day and gave a kind of smirk.
• Richard says they are nice people and that they are watching his testimony.
• Richard mentioned tarot cards, that they don’t use that much in China.
• Ray talked about a woman who recently stood up in a meeting, and another lady who they thought would stand but she hadn’t due to a misunderstanding of what testing the meeting meant.
• The lady who recently stood up is 90 years old and is quite tall, and was brought to meeting by one of the friends who is a “midget”.
• Richard mentioned that the Chinese are superstitious, and most of them know it’s quackery. But there are some who have a spirit that they deal with.
• More discussion about fortune telling.
• Discussion about two professing men who had died in a small plane crash. Noted that the plane had been completely compressed, but the man’s bible was found a short way from the wreckage without any damage.
• Meeting adjourned, with discussion of plans to meet again the following week.

The authors of a recent letter have decided to post it online. They state:

“Because no response has been received to the following letter from any it was addressed to, the co-signers have agreed to post it online in an effort to inform those who may be impacted, since we have no other confirmation that this information was shared to them. Since we are unaware of any criminal accusations against Harold, the lack of response may be that the behaviors do not justify informing the congregation. Unfortunately such a reactive process can only adapt to crimes that already occur rather than one of crime prevention. We believe and endeavor to help the community prevent crimes when there are reports of blatant and unabated grooming behaviors by an individual. It should also be well understood by now that people can be terribly harmed even without crossing prosecutable boundaries, which is what has occurred in the case of Harold Bennett based on survivor stories shared to Cynthia and others.”

---

March 17, 2025

Dear Doyle, Jay, Darryl, and Boring Convention owners,

We are deeply concerned about a recent photo of Harold Bennett with his arm around a young man, reportedly taken two weekends ago in Oregon after a union meeting on the Boring convention grounds during a young people’s gathering. The image depicts a young man embracing Harold surrounded by many underage children, with no other adults in the picture. While we understand other adults were on the premise, the picture made public on Instagram does not show any parents present and thereby sends a message that Harold is a safe person around young people, even unsupervised. As we’ve been trained, perpetrators depend on building trust as a currency which they spend to access their victims. This image is a prime example of how this trust is built and propagated onto others.

Our concern stems from longstanding issues regarding Harold’s inappropriate interactions with boys and young men. The ministry has been aware of these issues for quite some time. Over 20 years ago, Ed Alexander expressed his concerns in a letter. In 2015, Dale Schulz had a meeting with Harold, during which he mentioned that Harold had been reprimanded previously, yet the behavior persists. We understand some of Harold’s former companions and other male workers began to voice concerns about him in the late 1990s to ‘responsible’ male workers in Oregon. Additionally, five of those former young male workers wrote to Harold and to the West Coast overseers in 2011, sharing their concerns about Harold’s behaviors once again. Additionally, Doyle, we know that you are personally aware of the dangers Harold represents, as you mentioned to Cynthia, Sheri and Lauren in 2023 that you had personally witnessed Harold’s inappropriate interactions with young men.

In 2023, Harold was finally removed from the work under intense pressure (including, as we understand, from other overseers). However, the letter explaining Harold’s removal was vague and did not effectively disclose to the friends the level of trauma Harold has inflicted on others, denying them the ability to make informed decisions for themselves and their children. Despite all their efforts, Harold’s behavior has not changed, and we have received first-hand information that his behavior is continuing to this day. The image above therefore represents problematic behaviors that have caused the extensive history of abuse in the church:

• A congregation either uninformed or ill-informed about a man with a history pf predatory conduct; and
• A failure by leadership to establish boundaries of safety that empowers the friends to enforce safe boundaries for their children and their vulnerable within the church.

We see it as imperative that those in positions of responsibility within the church must take immediate and decisive action to prevent future harm. What that looks like to us is the following:

1. Prohibiting Harold from attending gatherings where young people may be present. Ensure that the friends clearly understand this boundary is in place; and
2. Informing the community transparently about Harold’s past behaviors to ensure they are aware of the risks for their own children and young adults and take their responsibility on this matter seriously.

The young men exposed to Harold deserve to know the truth and the extent of his past behaviors, which are reliable predictors of future actions. They deserve to be aware of the risk he presents.

We understand many of the friends believe Harold’s inappropriate behavior is due to him being misunderstood, due to him being autistic. This is a false narrative that also needs to be addressed. First, autism does not prevent people from learning when their behaviors are called out as inappropriate. Secondly, if someone has a development disorder that makes them inappropriate around children and young people, the friends need to take even more care, as this means Harold’s behaviors are both uncontrolled and unpredictable.

How many more victims are you willing to risk before taking strong actions to ensure he Is not allowed near young and vulnerable people?

We look forward to your response and action on this matter

Cynthia Liles, Private Investigator	Eric and Elaine Printz
Dr. Natalie Bolin, DSW, LCSW	Phil Doland
Ben Bolin, School Psychologist	Michael Ford
Deb Rose, Retired FBI Special Agent	Arun Moran
Denice Doucette, Retired Corrections Counselor	Mike Groseth
Steve & Aimee Paddon	Ryan Jelinek
Dan Pearce	David & Bernitta Woodward
Paul Svendsen	Alissa Klenk
Tom & Debi Taylor	Calvin & Nadine Mead
Kent Forsland	Jenn Tschetter
Laura Ryan	Darren & Rhona Reid
	Mike & Tawn Thompson

This letter may be shared to any and all that have an interest.

I am writing this with a heart that is full of sadness and pain.

I gave my testimony 2yrs ago at Winchester never believing it would be my last ever. That testimony cost me so much to give, baring my soul about CSA and how I was desperately trying to deal with the rivers of emotion and feelings of hopelessness. After walking out of the shed I had the most amazing sense of calm contentment I hadn’t had in months. I knew God had been troubling me to make me say that testimony, I tried so hard to get out of saying it, but I knew it was something I had to do.

I have been watching all of the CSA victims as they have found the courage and strength to come forward. I know what it costs each one. I have a overwhelming sense of love and hope for healing of each and everyone.

But I have had a red line in my heart that I knew I could not go over.

I have watched the USA and Canada workers and overseers given way to letting the pedophiles that walk among us being allowed to come back into meetings and fellowship.

I have watched as good people who walk with God are having their meetings removed and being removed from all fellowship.

I have watched as those that were once revered as spokesman of God have now revealed their feet of clay and their words of bondage.

I have watched as Australia is now slowly but surely going down that same path.

I am watching this pattern now coming into New Zealand and I cannot standby and say nothing.

I watched as a perp in the North Island was allowed back into meetings with nothing more than a ‘behave yourself’. While the victim was silenced and victimized by those that should have been a comfort and helping hand, and that victim has now left the fellowship.

I have watched the same thing happen in the last few weeks in NZ.

I cannot stay in a church that seems to reward abusers and punishes the abused.

I cannot stay in a church that seems almost paralyzed by indecision and ineffectiveness.

I cannot stay where our children are not safe because the established overseers are unable to put the children’s lives and souls before those who would abuse them.

I cannot stay where we would allow abusers free license to have access to our little ones, and stand aside and just let it happen.

I WILL NOT.

‘Better a millstone is hung around his neck and he is thrown in the sea‘. There is no talk by Jesus here of forgiveness here.

This letter is to say that after talking to God and pleading with him, for an answer as to what I should do, I have finally had my answer.

This is my final and lasting testimony to all. I do not have a heart of anger or bitterness. Please don’t think that or tell others I do.

I have a heart of sadness and deep devastation that I have to remove myself from a church that once was my life, and fed my soul. But has left the teachings of God for the teaching of men/overseers.

We have some workers who are truly amazing and are there for the furtherance of the gospel.

But the senior overseers around the world have lost their compassion and their calling that originally was their reason for doing the work of God.

Until the people see for themselves what is happening to the church I can only see destruction.

Carol Chenery.
New Zealand.