A letter from a director declined for publication in the British Church Newspaper, by its editor.

=======================================================================
Dear Sir,

Brethren pray for us that we may be able to strive together for the
cause of the gospel and not be distracted by contentions. Sadly the BCN
directors have not been able to reach a consensus about the best way to
close the issue regarding the dispute between Jeyakanth and Muralee, so
we are left with each writing our own opinion on the matter.

Firstly, I believe an apology to all our readers is in order, for
printing accusations against named individuals in a national newspaper,
which I see as akin to gossip but worse because of the public setting.

While I am focussing below on my assessment specifically regarding
Muralee I in no way want to denigrate or discourage support from the
good work that the LEFC is doing. No organisation is perfect and readers
have to make up their own mind about who and how to support the Lord's
work.

Getting to the bottom of the issue regarding Muralee

The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water: therefore
leave off contention, before it be meddled with. (Pro 17:14)

Over 20 years of bitter contention have emanated from a generous donor
who sadly did not realise the trouble it would cause to give to an
individual rather than giving to the church. Nevertheless, the legal
ownership of a gift is determined by the expressed intentions of the donor.

For whatever reason it was decided to send the gift via the church bank
account. It is probable that Muralee did not have a personal bank
account since at that time in such countries one had to be rich to have
a bank account. It was clearly specified by two independent letters that
the gift was to Muralee personally.

Sadly, the church officers saw the money in the church bank account and
ignoring the letters, concluded that the money had been sent to the
church. This error seems to have been the primary issue causing the
dispute. When I was an executor of my father's estate I had a lot of
money in my bank account which didn't belong to me, so I have personal
experience of this. Its like seeing a parcel in the possession of the
delivery man and assuming it must be his property.

Muralee however, believed the legal evidence and bought a van in his own
name. The church officers said that the van should have been registered
in the churches name and accusations and counter accusations got out of
hand.

I therefore conclude that Muralee was entirely innocent of the original
accusation of taking property which belonged to the church and see
little point in further analysis, so I offer my apology to Muralee for
repeating what was a false accusation based on an erroneous assumption.

Since the evidence is so clear, one wonders why this accusation is still
being repeated over 20 years later. Please pray that all the Lord's
people will have grace and wisdom to resolve such matters and not let
them get out of hand, especially for the sake of the Lord's work in
difficult and dangerous parts of the world.

Sincerely,

Michael Virgo

Sheffield