August 21 & 22

In the days leading up to my birthday, I continue to share the feedback that has helped me to grow; today’s offering is the idea that:

Love pays attention to the shadows.

The shadows:

Persons employed by the Seventh-day Adventist Church have expressed supporting interest in programs begun in the community by members, and when the invitation of support is accepted assume control without consent, transfer, or acknowledgment.

When informed of this injustice the Executive Leaders of the Organization fail to act, refuse to engage in discussion or investigation, and threaten legal action against the affected parties if they speak publicly.

Because Momunity was unincorporated, that does not mean it was ownerless. Its name, records, equipment, money, creative materials and community goodwill can be traced to their actual owners. 

This was my experience.

It is not bad for a person to point out an ominous shadow. A shadow may signal harm because it reveals that something is blocking the light. Pointing it out is a call to carefully investigate what is happening. The risk to the room lies in refusing to acknowledge the growing shadow.

I’ve always known that it was highly important to know when to pay attention to shadows. I had a now resolved decades-long sensitivity to darkness which I suspect may have been caused by an early infant memory of shadows in the night. That may be one of the reasons why shining a light on what lurks has always been important to me. That brings a memory to mind.

When I was a little girl I dearly loved watching Perry Mason. I was so enthralled by his defence of the complicated innocent that on the days when school became too overwhelming for me, I would take an unauthorized mental health afternoon, and find safety in Raymond Burr’s portrayal of Mason, the defence attorney who consistently prevailed because he listened, and lead his team to invest themselves in paying keen attention to the details. And then one evening in 1988 our family watched a Perry Mason marathon which included the re-run for the first time since its initial release in 1963, of the only case that he lost: the Case of the Deadly Verdict. It was a complicated tale of a young woman who thought that what she had seen was too harmful to share—she thought that too many people would be hurt—and so although she held her tongue with some resentment, she refused to share the information that would have saved her life. She was found guilty of the murder of which she had been accused, and was sentenced to death. But Perry never gave up. He had listened to her. He had paid attention to the details, and he knew that he was missing the one thing that could exonerate her.

Enter the shadows… After relentlessly reflecting on every single detail Perry realized what he had missed. And with the help of the devoted family housekeeper, Perry, Paul, and Hamilton Burger set out to draw the real killer into the open—out of….the shadows.

That eerie scene with its mournful music twisted round the depths of my soul as the convicted woman’s errant brother-in-law stealthily went up the stairs intent on strangling the housekeeper so that the secret of his murderous deed would die with her. He was disguised as a woman to hide his identity. That disguise had almost cost Janice her life. She had been willing to hide what she thought was her brother-in-law cheating on her beloved sister to spare her sister the pain—what she didn’t know is that the woman whom she thought she had seen was in fact her brother-in-law in the disguise which he used to protect himself from being accountable for his actions.

As his shadow crept closer to the housekeeper, hands extended to do the dastardly deed, Perry, Paul, and Hamilton Burger turned on the light and revealed themselves.

That scene made me sick. Literally, physically sick. I couldn’t sleep alone that night. I had to sleep in bed with my parents. I spiked a fever. My nervous system went into full overwhelm mode. It took hours for my system to return to calm—to be able to connect with gratitude that the truth had been revealed in the end.

Perry naming what he had seen was not the problem…the brother-in-laws life-ending actions and his attempts to cover up at all costs including up to committing murder again was the issue. Much like the experience in the biblical story of David orchestrating the murder of his very close friend, Uriah, whose wife Bathsheba, David had stolen by force of his word as king.

And Nathan courageously flipped on the light to invite David into accountability.

Naming what has or may cause harm is not condemnation. It is responsible care. The great danger begins when preserving comfort, appearance, or certainty becomes more important than acknowledging what may threaten the security and healthy growth of the community.

Please, don’t shoot the messenger. Please listen to the message. I am speaking because I care, and because I have repeatedly tried to speak with community leaders privately. I waited too long to speak more openly, hoping that what I had raised would be carefully examined and addressed. While I waited, I watched other people be hurt.

I have also lost relationships with several people who were, and remain, very dear to me because, after years of denying my own experience, I could no longer ignore what I had experienced, what I had witnessed with my own eyes, or the patterns of concealment surrounding it.

I have repeatedly pursued private accountability. Those efforts have not resulted in a meaningful response. I therefore have to speak to the community.

I am not seeking to shame or blame, and I am not seeking to drag anyone into the figurative community square to be condemned. I am asking the community to listen, to investigate carefully, and to decide what responsible care now requires of us.

I am asking us to turn on the light.

With love and solidarity,
Saran Lewis

Momunity: Single and Strong

• Existed independently in the community before Leader 1 extended an invitation of support and mentorship.
• Entered the church because its leaders were promised support, mentorship, encouragement and facility access.
• Was never formally transferred, merged, donated or dissolved.
• Became operationally intertwined through the conduct of church leadership, not through our informed agreement to surrender it.
• Was later placed under new leadership as though it had always belonged to the church.
• Had its prior existence concealed from two successive incoming leaders.

Operational intertwinement is not the same as informed consent to transfer ownership or control.

The fact that incoming leaders were told “there was no existing program” is especially important. It suggests this was not simply an unclear transition:

• It effectively erased Momunity’s documented community history.
• It prevented the new Community Service leaders from engaging in ethical collaborative engagement with Momunity’s founders.
• It concealed that control was being assumed over something that already existed.
• It created the false impression that the church was establishing a new program rather than erasing the leaders of an existing grassroots ministry.
• It deleted the financial and professional benefit to the founders and stole their opportunity to grow and develop this vision which we began to execute together. This robbed us and our families and created deep social, emotional, professional and financial trauma and vulnerability.

Here is an economic impact assessment. This seemed to be needed because caregiving in home and community seems to be deeply undervalued. I knew its value socially, spiritually and financially. No one took our pain seriously because they did not view our work as financially valuable. As a person of great wisdom and vision Leader 1 saw the value in it.

I have the receipts.