01 | Half-Truths, Lies, Secrecy & False Assurance
ACNA Witnesses Series:
How the Anglican Church in North America failed victims of sexual abuse.
ACNA leadership failed repeatedly to create a transparent, workable, fair way to support victims of sexual abuse under their care.
ACNA leaders, after being made aware of abuse allegations in their churches, focused on self-protection and secrecy instead of providing immediate help to multiple victims. Our witnesses document these failures with emails, minutes, and their personal conversations.
Hello. If you don’t know me, my name is Helen Keuning. I am nearly 50 years old. I live in Minneapolis, MN with my husband of 26 years and our 4 children (ages 9 - 23). My husband and I met at Trinity College (Deerfield, IL) when I was a Biology, pre-med major.
After going to one year of medical school and dropping out, I received an MA in Christian Thought (with emphasis in Bioethics) from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (Deerfield, IL). After we married, I attended Loyola Law School (Chicago, IL). We moved to MN and I worked for a private law firm for over 3 years and then moved to a federal government position for 4 years. I then decided to leave my career and be a full-time stay-at-home mother. I have done that for the past 17 years and we have homeschooled off-and-on.
Our family left a local Evangelical Free Church and have attended Church of the Cross (Hopkins, MN) since spring of 2008. I sat on the vestry from 2011-17 and chaired it in my final year. Before my term expired, I was invited to join the Bishop’s Council (BC) of the Upper Midwest Diocese (UMD), so I have been on that board for the past 5 years. My final term was set to expire in the summer of 2023.
Background to ACNAToo
In 2019, a mom (Cherin) of a young girl in one of our church plants reported her young daughter’s sexual abuse at the hands of a “lay catechist” (Mark Rivera). Although the church plant itself was newer, Mark Rivera had been a respected lay leader at Church of the Resurrection or “REZ” (Wheaton, IL), our UMD’s Cathedral, for over two decades. Another single woman (Joanna) later stepped forward and identified Mark Rivera as her rapist in late 2020. In early 2021, Joanna and Cherin approached the UMD and REZ by making contact with Bishop Stewart Ruch. Six months later, these two women went public on Twitter about the UMD’s mishandling of these matters, after attempts to advocate with Bp. Ruch ultimately failed. Shortly after, they and their supporters started this website: ACNAToo.org
Back in January of 2021, I was invited by Bp. Stewart Ruch to join his “crisis response team,” formed to respond to Cherin & Joanna’s concerns. Other than the Deans – our diocese is broken down into 4 deaneries – I was the most senior person remaining on the BC. My original assignment on this crisis team was to observe, to be a representative of the BC with a front-seat view, and to report back to the entire BC about the situation.
I was the only non-REZ-associated person on that team. I had the benefit of distance — both geographically and psychologically — from most of the key players. I did not know Joanna or Cherin before that. At the outset, I did not know anybody else on the team besides Bp. Stewart and his Canon to the Ordinary, Brenda Dumper.
My third and final 2-year term was set to expire in July of 2023, but I resigned from the BC abruptly on March 18, 2022 with a 6-page letter explaining why.
Brief Synopsis of This Post
I resigned from the BC over a month ago. But, the public dishonesty that I have witnessed during my tenure has been crushing to my conscience. Important figures in the church have been quick to tell falsehoods and half-truths, while survivors’ stories have been treated without regard for their wellbeing and without safeguarding their very names and identities.
I am stepping forward now as a whistleblower to tell you the pieces of this story that I personally know from my time serving in UMD leadership. And I am including documentation – emails, letters, screenshots, etc. – to substantiate my claims. I have kept these confidences for the past two years. But, after trying so hard to work within the UMD system and within the BC, I feel absolutely powerless to make any difference without coming forward publicly.
Let me be clear. I have not chosen to join ACNAToo. I have only chosen to speak out on their platform. They have not solicited my story. Instead, I approached them and asked them to publish these posts so that the folks in the UMD and in the ACNA can have a better understanding of what is happening behind the curtain. I will have already submitted all my posts to be published before this first one goes public.
Because this matter is highly complex and involves many parties, my posts are long and detailed. I have been a lay member of the BC. It is an unpaid and entirely voluntary position. However, this position has regularly required dozens of hours each month – over 30+ hours during certain weeks – for the past 16 months of my life. I know this story well. For those of you who are deep in the weeds, I hope I can supply factual pieces here that help you make sense of your confusion. For those of you who are certain of your position, I hope that I can supply factual pieces here that help you begin to question your certainty. For those of you who only have a superficial understanding of this drama playing out in our diocese, I hope that these posts will make you ponder and be more prone to seek out answers.
My main goal is to be a public witness to what has happened within our diocese. You each get to decide whether I am a credible witness and what to do with the information I provide.
These posts — set to release on consecutive days — will explain my top 4 reasons for leaving the BC, my own beloved Church of the Cross, and the ACNA entirely.
#1 Reason: Half-Truths, Lies, Secrecy & False Assurance
Half-Truths:
Technically speaking, Bishop Stewart Ruch is on a voluntary leave of absence.
What is left out, however, is that he was, in fact, asked to do so by Bishop Alan Hawkins at the behest of Archbishop Foley Beach. I was in the Zoom meeting on the morning that this was announced to the BC and the Deans by Bishop Stewart and Bishop Alan. I believe that Cherin had gone on Twitter and posted her story the day before. Bishop Alan had called Bishop Stewart earlier that morning. They had discussed the matter privately and, now, they were coming forward jointly to tell the BC that we were to be the “ecclesiastical body” in the Upper Midwest Diocese (UMD) during Bp. Stewart’s absence.
At Bp. Alan Hawkins’ recommendation, the Deans in that meeting who had involvement in the underlying matters also took a “leave of absence” from the BC, starting immediately: (i) William Beasley because of his leadership role in the Greenhouse Movement (in which Mark Rivera had been a lay catechist); (ii) Fr. Eirik Olsen because he had involvement in the pastoral care for and the communication with the Rivera family. Fr. Christian Ruch, although as the Dean of MN he had no involvement in the underlying matters, volunteered to step down, simply due to the fact that he was a close family member of Bishop Stewart Ruch. His was the only fully voluntary departure.
Everyone was sad. Grieved, really. I cried and told Bp. Stewart that it had been a great honor to serve him. We said our “goodbyes” and we were told by Bp. Alan Hawkins to not be in contact with him in any official capacity in order to give the UMD space to move forward with the investigations into the underlying mishandling of sexual abuse allegations brought forward by Cherin and Joanna.
Bp. Stewart was asked by Bp. Alan to draft an official announcement of his leave of absence and it was published after the Province approved it. The BC was asked to draft an email requesting help from the Province. We did, and Archbishop Foley responded to this request quickly.
The public communications from both the UMD and the ACNA have been that Bp. Stewart’s leave was and continues to be completely voluntary . . . and imply that it was self-initiated and continues to be self-imposed.
As a first-generation Chinese immigrant, I understand the desire to “save face.” But, I thought at that particular time last July — and still think today — that I was being asked to perpetuate a falsehood every single time I had to agree (or at least not openly disagree) with the statement that Bp. Stewart had chosen to step down from his position completely on his own volition.
My question: Are we acting in a fully transparent manner? Or are we creating a culture of image management and false perceptions?
LIES:
Ever since I stepped onto Bp. Stewart’s Crisis Response Team in January of 2021, I was told that “somebody” in the church reported Mark Rivera’s alleged sexual abuse of Cherin’s young daughter to the proper authorities when she came forward. Who that somebody might be was never named. It was always stated that it had been done. It was an indisputable fact accepted by everyone. And so I believed it to be so.
Before Bp. Stewart stepped down, the consistent narrative was: “The Church reported this incident . . .” or “The Church and the parents reported this incident.”
Excerpt from 3/15/2021 BC Meeting Minutes. Read the full 3/15/2021 Bishop’s Council Minutes here
*Our previously posted transcript excerpt was obtained from a recording given to ACNAtoo by someone who attended the July 4th FAQ session, but the audio was difficult to make out in places. Five different individuals listened to this part of the recording and confirmed that they heard Bp. Stewart say, “The diocese and the parents reported the allegations to the police.”
In February 2022, a Church of the Resurrection parishioner informed Cherin Marie that the church had a full recording and transcript of this meeting, so Cherin emailed Anne Kessler to request a clearer audio recording to ensure ACNAtoo’s transcript was as accurate as possible. Anne replied that she was not aware of any audio preserved.
Alec Smith recently reached out to Helen to challenge the ACNAtoo transcript, claiming that it was “materially contradicted by both an audio recording of that meeting and the actual, complete transcript…” However, when the Keunings invited Alec to share his audio with them he declined, answering, “Unfortunately, the decision about releasing the audio file itself was and is not mine to make.” Read this email exchange with Alec Smith here:
After rereading Alec’s email to see exactly what phrasing we might need to listen for, some of us listened again to our own recording multiple times, including slowing it way down and putting headphones on, trying to see if we had missed something. There seem to be some muted noises that could be extra words that would potentially change the meaning to fit Alec’s transcript. Since we were unable to confirm the exact wording Bp. Stewart used and it is possible we made a mistake, we removed the transcript excerpt.
Nevertheless, multiple parishioners who attended the Church of the Resurrection FAQ meeting reported to ACNAtoo that they were led to believe the Diocese had reported Mark Rivera’s abuse to the authorities, based on Bp. Stewart's explanations during this private church meeting.
As Helen heard this same message repeatedly among the Bishop’s Council and ACNAtoo has received numerous reports from congregants who were told that a member of the staff made a report to DCFS, Helen stands firmly by these assertions.
Per Alec’s final email to the Keunings, we are posting this explanation of why we removed the transcript. We know this is not the most concise asterisk you’ve probably read, but we want to own our mistake here.
There were 5 church leaders who were told about Cherin’s daughter’s original accusations of sexual abuse back on a May weekend in 2019: (1) Fr. Rand York; (2) Cn. William Beasley; (3) Chancellor Charlie Philbrick; (4) Sr. Warden Christopher Lapeyre; and (5) Bp. Stewart Ruch (on that Monday). None of these men have ever stepped forward and claimed to have made an official report, and yet, we as the UMD – for most of two years – held forth that reporting “had been done” by the church.
The consistent narrative that I heard after he stepped down continued to be: “Why is Bp. Stewart being punished in social media for Mark Rivera’s child-molestation when the church reported these crimes?”
Thus, this portion of the @believeustoo letter on their Twitter Post dated March 12th arrested my attention:
‘We have watched as ACNAtoo has crafted a narrative that skews the facts.
Bp. Stewart did not “cover up” Mark’s abuse.
When Bp. Stewart was informed of the first allegations against Mark, the mother of the child had already reported the abuse to the authorities, and the DCFS had already opened the investigation against Mark. One of us was at the house when the DCFS arrived. When other allegations emerged that even came close to meeting mandatory reporting guidelines, Bp. Stewart immediately required those reports to be filed.’
The story had now shifted significantly from what I heard from December of 2020 - March of 2022. It was no longer “we reported it.” It had now morphed into “this had already been reported by the parents and, therefore, there was no need for us to report it.”
The church has never disputed the fact that Cherin texted Fr. Rand York to set up a meeting on a Friday and then reported these allegations to Fr. Rand York in-person on a Saturday morning.
The fact that the police were called – two days later – on Monday by Cherin and that the DCFS showed up at Mark Rivera’s house later that same day is similarly uncontested and is a matter of public state record.
But, the longer I stayed on the BC and the more I reflected on what I knew about the underlying facts, my new question this spring became:
If the church had always known that nobody from it actually reported this incident, then why was the message that “we had done the right thing — we had reported this to the officials” the one that was trumpeted loudly for most of 2021, two years after these events took place?
I submit to you my own conclusion that this happened NOT as a result of a grand cover-up or as a matter of nefarious intention by any priests or bishops. This happened because of NEGLECT on the part of our leadership. There was a neglect in paying attention to the important details. It was neglectful of Fr. Rand York, Chancellor Charlie Philbrick, Cn. William Beasley and Bp. Stewart Ruch not to nail down who did the reporting and when. It was neglectful of them not to admit — early on — that the only person who actually reported the child molestation was Cherin, the mother.
It was neglectful of us — myself included — on the crisis response team not to push further into demanding that the “mysterious reporter” step forward and confirm the report. And it was neglectful of me – the only outsider on the crisis response team – not to dig deeper into why these reports were never made. Were Cherin and her daughter truly believed by the church leadership when they made their abuse allegations back in 2019? If so, by whom and how?
By neglecting to verify the truthfulness of its own belief in its own supposedly correctly-taken actions, the narrative that UMD and its leaders proactively reported the initial abuse of Cherin’s daughter is, and always has been, a lie.
We need to own that.
SECRECY:
On Monday, February 7th, 2022, I attended the strangest BC Zoom meeting. I stepped onto the call and was warned that this call must remain strictly confidential to the highest degree. I was told that we were going to have a guest — Alec Smith — join us. I was told that we could ask clarifying questions but could not make comments. The mood on the Zoom call was tense and terse.
Alec Smith is an administrative law attorney who is also a long-standing REZ member, whose wife is warden on the REZ vestry. He had been an active participant in the Bishop’s crisis response team when I served on it. He was coming onto this BC meeting to represent Bp. Stewart and to let us know that Bp. Stewart had reached out directly to Bp. Alan Hawkins and Archbishop Foley Beach to ask for his “voluntary” leave to end. We listened to 45+ minutes of a legal argument about how the treatment of Bp. Stewart was wrong under Canon Law and administrative law practices.
Read the full 2/7/2022 BC Minutes here
Post-meeting, we were given access to view documents on Google Docs that had high security measures placed upon them — we needed to use our individual email addresses, it could not be saved, it could not be shared, and it could not be printed.
Recipients of this email included Alex Cameron, Anne Kessler, Barbara Gauthier, Bp. John Miller, Matt Arndt, Michael Flowers, John Mackett, Kyle Oesch, Paul Calvin, Steve Williamson, David Stewart, Helen Keuning, and Helen Buchanan.
These two documents were both dated January 14, 2022 and included:
A letter written by Bishop Stewart to Archbishop Foley Beach in which he states that he has decided to end his leave of absence on March 7, 2022.
A long legal memorandum presented to us in the BC meeting, in which Stewart’s lawyer makes detailed arguments for Stewart’s return to power.
Read Bp. Stewart's letter to Abp. Foley Beach here
Read Alec Smith's letter to Abp. Foley Beach here
I was shocked that this had been happening behind the scenes.
I was dismayed with how very often throughout the letter Bp. Stewart used the singular possessive — me, my, mine — to describe the Diocese, the Bishopric and his own rights and position.
Following the original Monday night meeting, the BC had a week of at least 2-3 distinct and extensive meetings with the ACNA leadership discussing these matters, followed by additional meetings afterwards solely on our own as a BC. Each of these meetings were over 3 hours long. These meetings were so long and so rapid that they all blurred into one another that week. We never met with Bp. Stewart during this time, nor did we see Alec Smith again.
All of us sitting on the Council recognized the gravity of what was before us. In essence, we were being asked to go toe-to-toe with the Province. We were asked either to side with Bp. Stewart’s return to power (and defy the ACNA) or to side with the ACNA (and deny Bp. Stewart his planned return).
Acting Bishop John Miller even floated the idea that he would gather Bp. Stewart, Alec Smith, and our current Acting Chancellor to fly out to the east coast together to meet in-person with Archbishop Foley and Bp. Alan to see if they could not negotiate a solution. He did not want another split like the one that happened with the Anglican Mission in America (“AMiA”).
On Friday, February 11th: The BC decided — but not unanimously — to ask Bp. Stewart to remain on “voluntary leave” until after the independent investigations initiated by the ACNA were completed. (I was not on this call when the vote happened. I had to leave early since I teach on Fridays.)
On Friday, February 11th - Saturday, February 12th: Acting Bp. John Miller reported back to the BC that, sometime in the 24 hours after our decision, he delivered this news to Bp. Stewart via long-distance phone call, while Bp. Stewart and his wife were in Brazil.
When this conversation was later recounted in detail to the Bishop’s Council on Feb 14, 2022, Bp. John Miller expressed that Bp. Stewart was irate with this news and how Bp. John had never seen this side of him before. I don’t remember the exact words that Bp. John used to describe that conversation but I do recall his tone of voice on Zoom and how he was shocked at Stewart’s initial response to him. He reported that it took him a long time to calm Bp. Stewart down and that, by the end of the conversation, Bp. Stewart had returned to “being the person we all know and love.”
Excerpt from the 2/14/2022 Bishop’s Council Meeting Minutes (emphasis mine).
On Sunday, February 13th: The folks who would later call themselves BelieveUsToo sent an email entitled, Urgent Statement to the Archbishop, the College of Bishops and the Bishop’s Council by 5 of Mark Rivera’s Victims. Attached to this email was the letter that was to be published exactly one month later in a @believeustoo Twitter post.
Now, I know that this all certainly could be a coincidence in timing. But, I also went back and noted that in the Alec Smith legal memorandum (that accompanied Bp. Stewart’s letter), there was a substantial paragraph near the conclusion that levels accusations against Joanna in the same way that BelieveUsToo does in their letter.
Excerpt from Alec Smith’s Jan 14, 2022 letter to Abp. Foley Beach
I also knew from my January - June 2021 stint on the REZ crisis response team how much access Alec Smith had to information coming forward at that time about new Mark Rivera victims who bravely followed Cherin and Joanna’s footsteps in telling their own story for the first time to those in authority at the church.
In effect, Chancellor Charlie Philbrick, Alec Smith and Bp. Stewart Ruch were the “trifecta” with the real power behind the crisis response team power:
How did Alec Smith get this very sensitive and private information about Joanna before BelieveUsToo’s letter was released to the public or even to us on the Council, I wondered?
How did the BelieveUsToo survivors decide to go forward with their appeal to have their bishop returned to them so quickly after Bp. Stewart’s bid to return was denied by both the ACNA and the BC?
All of this left me wondering if it was possible that during the autumn of 2021 and into the early winter months of 2022, as Bp. Stewart and Alec Smith were negotiating with Archbishop Foley and drafting their January 14th documents to him, others were also strategizing about avenues to return Bp. Stewart to power? Could these BelieveUsToo survivors coming forward from REZ have been encouraged or even cultivated to provide both a “shield” behind which Bp. Stewart and the UMD could hide and a “sword” with which to attack Joanna and ACNAToo? If so, this would have been a brilliant move. I prayed that I was wrong.
And, if this was all a surprise to me, as a member of the BC, what exactly was going on behind closed doors and in hushed, ultra-secret conversations? (One inconsequential but bizarre email chain that I was copied on – in which the issue for the BC to vote on via email was whether Alec Smith would be invited by the BC to attend our Zoom meeting with Bp. Alan Hawkins and the ACNA or not – gave me a clue that these were certainly happening. Please note that a new Helen – Helen B. – had joined the BC as of the February 7th, 2022 meeting with Alec Smith so I wondered if I had been sent an email that was intended for her?)
In addition, I noted that Dean Michael Flowers had announced in a December 13, 2021 Bishop’s Council meeting that Fr. Steve Williamson was officially stepping off the BC and that the Chicago Deanery would be voting for a new member in January of 2022. Steve Williamson had indeed been absent from BC meetings in December/January. But, then, on February 7th, he attended this meeting – and all the meetings following – as a voting member during our crisis with the ACNA. The BC Minutes at the end of the February 7th meeting show that: Michael Flowers updated the Bishop’s Council that Steve Williamson has agreed to stay on the Council.
The more I pieced this together – during the months of February and March – and the more I learned about the social media fervor surrounding the BelieveUsToo letter (publicly released on March 12th) and the more I imagined the impact on Joanna personally, the more and more uneasy I felt about remaining on the BC.
We had a BC meeting on Monday, March 14th from 7PM onward. I left the meeting at 9:45PM, before it had even officially concluded, because it was clear to me that I needed to vacate my seat on the Council. I could not remain and serve the UMD with a clear conscience. I waited a couple days before telling anyone on the BC. I sent out my resignation letter on the morning of Friday, March 18th.
False Assurance:
A statement that I hear repeated often in many different settings by various leaders goes something like this: Trust the process. Once the independent investigation by Husch-Blackwell is completed, we will have all the information about what happened here and can know the truth.
I want to disabuse you of this notion.
I went to Husch-Blackwell myself for 3-hours worth of Zoom interviews (two separate meetings on the same day) on Thursday, March 17th. I had set this interview up with them a couple weeks before leaving the BC. I can say confidently that they can guarantee NO ANONYMITY to any of the people who come forward to speak to them. Under their contract with the ACNA — which not even the UMD’s BC has ever seen (even though we are supposed to chip-in and pay for 50% of the costs of this investigation because it is being done on our behalf) – the law firm of H-B has to submit a report to the ACNA that will include the names of each victim that speaks with them.
Read Helen's email exchange with Husch Blackwell here
As part of my interview, I disclosed a name of someone who would have relevant information to share. I also encouraged that person to reach out to H-B. When she did so, she asked about their confidentiality policy for victims coming forward to give information. This is part of their email response to her:
“The relatively straightforward parts are that: (1) we will issue a report to a leadership team at the Province that will include names of people we talk to that share with us information that is material to what we are investigating (we cannot know for sure if the information will be material until we learn what it is and how it relates to other information we gather); and (2) our report will be made public, but the public version will redact names of people who do not work for the UMD, ACNA, or any of its churches, and the public report will redact identifying details about such people, as appropriate.”
I ask you — if you were a victim of sexual abuse in the UMD — would you go forward to tell your story to a law firm that states that your full name will be given to the “powers that be” in the ACNA Province and trust that there will be no personal repercussions to you from the very same religious system in which you were originally abused?
How are we to learn the full truth and to hear from all the victims when these are the terms that Bp. Alan Hawkins and the ACNA have set up as part of this “independent investigation”?
CONCLUDING REMARKS
My goal is not to undermine Bishop Stewart, his character or his credibility.
My goal is not to undermine Bishop Alan Hawkins, his character or his credibility.
My goal is to lay out the facts that have been conveniently misplaced or actively kept secret for far too long.
You each will make up your own mind.
And I know too much to believe that this will change many people’s minds. We all have our inherent biases. We have a “primacy effect bias” that leads us to continue to believe what we initially surmise about a situation. We have a “confirmation bias” that leads us to seek out and to accept only the information that fits into our initial assessment. We have a “false-consensus effect bias” in which we tend to overestimate the number of people who agree with us and we tend to underestimate the number of people who disagree with us.
We have all experienced this first-hand in the past two years of COVID-19 precautions and race tensions. And we know how impossible it is to change anybody’s mind who has a different perspective from ours (or, similarly, for them to change ours). We know how easy it is to move from a moderate position to either extreme — the polarization into “us” versus “them” happens nearly instantly.
This is part of human nature, not modern culture. We tenaciously cling to our original judgments because we don’t like to be proven wrong — and it is painful and humiliating to admit when we are in error, even if it’s just to ourselves. (My favorite literary portrayal of these dynamics is in Jane Austen’s most famous novel, Pride & Prejudice, when Elizabeth Bennet is forced to confront her own erroneous judgments as she reads Mr. Darcy’s revelations of private facts of which she had no idea previously.)
My goal is simply to make known the part of the truth that I see. I am laying it all out here – all the ultra-confidential and quietly-kept facts of which I am aware – for you each in your various circles of influence (REZ + UMD + ACNA + General Public) to make the final call on what you believe is happening.
I am fallible. My observations can be wrong. My interpretations can certainly be wrong. My memory — the older I get — becomes less reliable. I can only provide a sliver of the truth — there are many hidden hallway conversations and secret sessions to which I am not privy. There are many facts and people and situations that perhaps none of us know about.
But, I have been praying since January of 2021 for the FULL TRUTH to be shown in all its multidimensional, not-so-neatly-packaged glory.
I have been praying to THE GOD WHO SEES – one of my favorite Old Testament names for Him from the story of Hagar, an oppressed and scorned and powerless woman, whom only God truly saw and valued (even Abraham, our esteemed patriarch, seems to have cared nothing about her).
And, after finding out the news from Husch-Blackwell about the absolute lack of confidentiality for victims, I felt compelled to consider speaking out myself – on this ACNAToo site – about what I have seen and heard and witnessed. And, in order to be believed, I knew that I needed to attach the emails and documents to which I have access.
When the idea of posting these facts first occurred to me — weeks after I had already resigned from the BC and was ready to silently slink away — I cringed and felt cowardly at the prospect of the cost of coming forward.
The thought that kept pounding in my head and wringing my heart was:
Why am I protecting the confidentiality of those who are in positions of power when NOBODY is protecting the confidentiality of those who come forward with stories of abuse?
“To their own master, servants stand or fall.” (Romans 14: 4)
This entire passage in Romans tells me that I am not in a position to judge anybody else in this. They stand or fall before Christ. And, it tells me that I must obey God when I believe he has asked me to be a witness in these matters. He alone is my master and my judge.
Stay tuned for Reasons #2, #3, and #4 of why I resigned.
CONTACT INFO: If you want to contact me directly about this post, you can do so at helen@keuning.us. I apologize in advance if I don’t respond for a few weeks.
Read all 4 of Helen’s reasons for resigning the Upper Midwest Bishop’s Council at the ACNA Witnesses page: