Background: In 2006, Ken From, program director of a well-established MCC restorative justice program in Alberta, resigned. This followed years of what he describes as intimidation, gaslighting, and bullying from the provincial executive director. A few days after resigning, he was offered several months of severance if he would sign an NDA (a non-disclosure agreement) that required him never to speak about his experiences. He signed it, but later concluded that this NDA functioned as “hush money.”
Twenty years later, after much healing and recovery, Ken decided it was time to share his story publicly. First, he took steps to be released from his NDA, since MCC’s recent public statements had given him some hope that such a request might be favorably received.
(In 2025, in response to allegations of systemic abuse, MCC downplayed its use of NDAs in a public statement, claiming that they were used only rarely, such as in war zones or in areas of political instability. And in a May 2026 response to church leaders who wrote to MCC US and Canada board members to insist on the need for a full external investigation, MCC Canada and US executive directors claimed they would consider requests to release former staff from NDAs on a “case-by-case basis” while continuing to insist they were used only rarely.)
In 2026, Ken wrote to the board of the provincial MCC, outlining his request to be released from his NDA and asking for an investigation. The board refused. Ken decided that he would speak out anyway, believing that the truth could bring freedom for him, for other survivors, and for MCC.
Today, Ken publicly shares his story despite the NDA.
November 5, 2026
The truth will set you free
My name is Ken From. I volunteered and worked with MCC for 25 years including two terms as service worker in Nigeria (1990-93 and 2005-06), several years as a volunteer in prison visitation (1981-1989) and as director of the restorative justice program in Alberta, Community Justice Ministries (CJM), from 2000 to 2006.
I’ve been enriched by the many relationships made through MCC. While with MCC Alberta (MCCA), I had the privilege of speaking on behalf of MCC in multiple churches from the far north to the far south of Alberta. More than once, MCC leaders in Akron invited me to consider a leadership position overseas. Since leaving MCC I have supported the organization by promoting the sponsorship of a refugee family, organizing a fund-raising evening for CJM, hosting events with volunteers and ex-prisoners, hosting gatherings of CJM staff, hosting and meeting multiple times with colleagues and friends from our times of service with MCC in Nigeria. I am an Anabaptist with Mennonite roots and affirm MCC’s commitment to justice, peacemaking and service in the name of Christ. This identity and commitment has motivated me to publicly share my experience of abuse in MCCA during my time as director of CJM.
I identify with Mary Lou Klassen’s comments on the “Stop MCC Abuse” petition when she says,
I signed up to work for MCC because it was a values-based organization which offered a place to live out my calling to Christian peace and nonviolence. I also expected, therefore, that the values I was asked to hold, and to share with our partners … were also held by MCC’s leadership. Moreover, I trusted that those values would shape the systems that structured the organization and our work. When stories such as those outlined in [the petition] arise, the sense of loss and betrayal is deep and profound and completely disorienting. Being fired from an organization in which one placed their spiritual trust cuts to the core.
The final event of my employment at MCCA was having a “non-disclosure agreement” (NDA) presented to me after I had resigned in 2006. A few days previously, the executive director (ED), in the presence of the Human Resources (HR) director, had offered me three or four months’ salary in a gesture of goodwill “to help me through the months up until Christmas.”
I was surprised to have an NDA presented to me. A couple of years earlier, the ED had insisted that no NDA should be presented to two lifers who had received compensation when they resigned. Thus I wondered, “Why the change?” What led to the decision to present me with an NDA?
I now believe the words about “help” were a lie. The NDA was used to prevent me from disclosing my experiences at MCCA. It was hush money, not help money.
I relate here some of these experiences and lies that the NDA required me to conceal.
In the spring of 2005, I was subjected to a third “Annual Performance Review Evaluation” (PRE) within a 12-month period. This happened after years of asking for support, of criticism, of gaslighting and of being pitted against other staff. The use of multiple, arbitrary PREs sent the message that I was an outlier, misbehaving and needing to be reined in. Today, I see this capricious use of PREs as unethical, unprofessional and abusive.
Two board members from the CJM program met with me and the ED for this PRE. I spoke in the strongest voice of which I was capable – which was tenuous, non-threatening, and halting – and said,
“I don’t think I can continue to work under the ED in these conditions.”
The ED showed signs of surprise and quickly responded with a commitment to get down to my office regularly to work things out. I and both of the board members understood that he was committing to address and resolve the concerns I raised. I felt hopeful that positive change could occur.
The following week, the ED spent several hours traveling with two other staff. When greeting one of these staff members the next morning in the lunch room, she looked at me with horror on her face. I assumed from the timing that she had heard something negative about me from the ED during the trip. Since the ED had committed to work at addressing my concerns, I felt confused.
After another week of the ED not attempting to meet as he had promised, I phoned him to inquire about when we might meet. I still felt hopeful based on his commitment to the two CJM board members and to me. His response was,
“Mr. From, I don’t know what to do with you anymore.”
I responded that he had committed to working things out. He then came into my office, sat down and began to harangue and insult me. He said that perhaps “we” (meaning I) needed to apologize to three staff members who had left CJM in the previous five years. The innuendo was that I abused staff and that I, not he, was the problem. I was stunned by this verbal violence and made no response as he stood up and left my office.
(I note that at the time of staff resignations, in subsequent PREs and in all my time with MCC there had been no suggestion that I had acted inappropriately to any staff. What was consistent, however, was pitting staff against staff. And now, out of the blue, I was being accused of improper conduct towards other staff.)
Looking back, it seems that the ED interpreted my words during the PRE as criticism and chose to attack rather than reaching out for understanding and resolution. I felt that my concerns about a growing issue had been twisted. Suddenly I was being accused of being the problem and the one who needed to apologize. The commitment to the two board members and to me in the PRE was a lie. He didn’t come to my office as he promised until I insisted that he had committed to doing so. During the ED’s time of travel with two staff members, I suspect he did a DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender). As noted, it followed a pattern of speaking to staff about other staff and pitting us against each other. When I asked the ED later if he had spoken about me to the two staff members he said, “I don’t remember.” I suspect this to be a further lie.
Another example of the ED pitting staff against staff and of responding with criticism rather than affirmation occurred when CJM held a staff meeting. The ED assisted in setting up the room and arranging chairs. As staff arrived, we engaged in our usual banter, teasing, kidding and laughter that was part of our team-building and mutual support. We were a team working with prisoners, with high-risk sex offenders and others largely despised by society while engaging the rigid, authoritarian institutions of incarceration. Our gathering felt like a sacred time. While he was welcome to stay, the ED left as we began the meeting.
I suppose I naively hoped the ED would recognize the team spirit and energy surrounding our restorative justice work. However, after the meeting I received an email worded, “What does it say to the rest of the staff that you would schedule a meeting at the time when the administrative committee usually meets?” The message, once again, was that I was careless, unthoughtful, and dismissive of other staff. What he didn’t acknowledge was that none of the MCCA staff, including the ED himself who had helped to set up the CJM meeting, were aware of the possibility of an administrative committee meeting. I mentioned this to him but he brushed it off with a comment about this being the usual time of their meeting. I had sought support from the ED for our CJM programming in the face of the challenges and obstacles faced in our work. But it felt like, at every turn, he provided undermining rather than supportive responses and again pitted us against other staff. When I noted the inconsistency of his response, this only led to further antagonism toward me. Looking back, it seems that even expressing an opinion different from that of the ED had consequences.
Having constantly given evenings, weekends and holidays to promote MCC, I don’t recall an occasion when I heard, “Thank you for what you do for MCC.” One weekend I was involved on Friday evening, all of Saturday and for several hours on Sunday on behalf of CJM and MCC. When I requested Monday off, I was berated for making the request and received no acknowledgment of the extra time I had invested on the weekend.
On another occasion I had been told on Sunday by someone in our church that I was apologizing too much. On Monday the ED, not knowing of Sunday’s conversation, said that I didn’t apologize enough.
On another occasion I had spent an entire evening after office hours traveling with a special speaker, attending a church presentation and visiting with our host into the late evening hours. When I returned to the office the following morning, I forgot to refuel the rental car before passing it along to another MCC’er. When the ED learned of this, there was no acknowledgment of my evening given to MCC nor of the speaker’s extremely positive representation of MCC to the constituency. Instead of being offered understanding for a rare act of forgetfulness, I was told that I was careless.
Multiple times each week I would receive phone calls in evenings, weekends and even during vacation. Though I complained about the violation of personal time, the calls persisted.
In 2005-2006 I was reluctantly allowed a sabbatical. From the college where I taught in Nigeria I reported back to MCCA on relationships with students and teachers with HIV/AIDS as well as on remarkable nonviolent responses to home invasions of staff. All reports were ignored or at least received no response even though MCCA was involved in promoting awareness and responses to HIV/AIDS. My sabbatical was viewed as an inconvenience at best and not a resource in our mission.
If these were isolated incidents, they could be excused and I could be depicted as overly sensitive. But my account is not of isolated cases but of a pattern of common words and actions. This pattern was a long accumulation of blame and gaslighting instead of acknowledgment and support. “Gaslighting” is communicating that “You are the Problem” and this was my reality for several years at MCCA. Counsellors and psychologists often frame these kinds of actions as attempts to maintain power and control.
I don’t claim perfection nor that I was faultless in my interpersonal relationships. However my experiences with the ED went far beyond interpersonal conflict and misunderstandings, violating the core values of MCC that are rooted in our Anabaptist faith. I was blind to the abuse at first, because I assumed everyone in MCC shared and lived by these values. It cut to the core of my being to learn that I was wrong about this.
During the year I was away on sabbatical, MCCA had an organizational review and made a change that wouldn’t have been noticed by most others or would have been seen as somewhat minor. It was a change to my job description that removed the possibility of involving CJM volunteers in a PRE or of having the CJM board of volunteers offer any balance to my supervision. Before I was hired as CJM director, the CJM board and ED had shared the responsibility for supervision and support of the CJM director. Throughout my six years as CJM director, I had had the support of the CJM board, which had allowed me to continue the work in spite of the opposition I received from the ED. Upon my return I quickly noted the change and that I would be accountable only to the ED.
I resisted the new job description being imposed on me and communicated that I wouldn’t be able to work within this new structure.
I also met with the chair of the MCCA board and discussed my experiences with the ED. He simply responded, “I’m sorry.”
Then, the ED and Chair of the MCCA board offered me an ultimatum: to accept the new job description or to resign. Finally, I chose to resign. The final abuse occurred when I was offered severance only if I would sign an NDA. Based on the pattern I have described, it seems clear that the NDA was intended to prevent disclosure of abuse.
I am now in my 70s. The years of abuse struck to the core of my being and diminished my self-worth. I struggled towards healing for over 20 years, and only in recent years have I felt free from the abuse. Following the #stopmccabuse petition, I found it empowering to write out my story and began to think about sharing it.
After more reflection, later in 2026 I decided to ask MCCA to release me from my NDA. Extensive documentation highlights the unethical and abusive nature of NDAs in Christian organizations. MCC leaders had recently suggested that they used NDAs only in exceptional situations. They had even said that they would consider releasing staff from NDAs on a “case-by-case basis.”
However, the MCCA board simply refused without any explanation. Their quick dismissal of my request feels like complicity in covering up the abuse I’m reporting. Their action is even more baffling in light of discovering that there is no record of the NDA in my file.
I want readers to know that it can take years for many victims to come forward. All need to be heard and supported regardless of how long ago the abuse occurred. The "Stop MCC abuse" petition motivated me to make this contribution for the healing and wholeness of other victims.
To this day I view my service with MCC as a “calling.” At the same time, I also view the abuse and lies that I experienced as a violation of “service in the name of Christ.” In compiling and releasing this report, I’ve sought counsel and discernment in knowing if my reporting is consistent with “service in the name of Christ.” I believe that it is, and that “The truth will set you free.” I’m hoping my story will encourage the appointment of an external, independent investigation that will reveal the truth and set both MCC and survivors “free.”
A comment from MAST
MAST has reviewed documentation from Ken’s case, including the request to be released from the NDA and the board’s response.
We wish to emphasize the many ways in which Ken’s story overlaps with others reported to us:
employees report being exploited and bullied for years by a supervisor with considerable power who appeared to be largely shielded from accountability;
they report that the person consolidates power over them through verbal abuse, capricious use of performance evaluations, gaslighting, pitting staff against each other, withholding of appropriate appreciation or praise, relentless pressure to work extra hours, and eventually a restructuring that removes checks on the person’s power over them;
NDAs effectively silenced them;
they describe a profound sense of betrayal and moral injury arising from the mismatch they experienced between MCC's stated values and the conduct of MCC leaders;
the pain persists for years and even decades;
bystanders brush off the abuse as an interpersonal conflict or as isolated incidents, while the person accused of abuse continues to enjoy considerable respect from the constituency;
even decades later, MCC still declines to commission an investigation.
For further analysis of MCC’s use of NDAs, see this blog post. For ideas about how you can speak out against abuse inside MCC, see this page. For an overview of developments related to the abuse allegations, see this timeline. To share your own story of abuse within MCC, contact stopmccabuse@proton.me.
