MK forum

Did you say "if you don't be a good kiddo you'll be like bemused! So eat your greens and be grateful."

Ha! This child's school years were dominated by our Lord of the Rings obsession--as evidenced by several swords, and the Axe of Gimli that have migrated all over the house . . .so, the answer is, she doesn't care about details, just get her a ticket to NZ and she'll be happy!

Another theory as to why MKs work against other MKs in the matter of Child Abuse is to question what there motive for doing so is.

We know that what we are seeing is probably the tip of the ice berg, therefore there is probably more abuse to be exposed (which NTM will have a reasonable idea of because of the IHART investigation).
We know that many abusers were abused themselves, therefore look at how many MKs return to Missions and what burdens and tendencies they have carried.
We know that MKs have already been proven to be offenders, i.e. Scott Kennell.
And we know that in groups where abuse is rife, there are family connections and other alliances that give reason for keeping the lid on offenders activity.

It may be uncomfortable to wonder why another MK goes against the natural instinct to wish to work for the protection of children and administration of justice, but given the above and the secretive isolative nature of such groups, it alas has to be considered how many more people are offending or protecting offenders.
We won't be alone in asking such questions, there has been a shift in attitude in the general population and also law enforcement agencies, who look at trends and hunt rings of paedophiles.

Bemused, you are not the only one to make those associations:

http://acesconnection.com/group/faith-b ... anizations

Systemic Abuse Within Mission Communities/Organizations

Posted by Catherine Thompson-Darnell on February 3, 2013 at 7:43am in Faith-Based ConnectionBack to Faith-Based Connection Discussions
​
The mission community, on both an agency-level and as a collective community, functions as a closed family system. Closed family systems have some inherent characteristics which have allowed abuse to go unchecked in many settings. The followings are some key areas where this is true, particularly regarding systemic abuse.

In a closed family system, the authorities set the rules. These rules are to preserve the integrity of the organization. Outside input, e.g. civil law, psychology, etc. is seen as irrelevant if the input threatens the organization. The prime directive is to protect the organization at all cost. The primary prerequisite for systemic change in a closed system is referred to as “intentional effort”. Even with intentional effort there are many blocks which make change difficult. Some of these blocks come from within the personal history of mission leaders and staff members, other barriers come from organizational structures.

The leadership of a closed system almost always comes from within, and has been inculcated with the values and norms of the organization. In the case of mission agencies and denominations, almost all mid and top-level leadership fall in one or more of the following categories:

a. MK’s who were raised primarily by people other than their own parents and—as a consequence—this is normative for them,
b. their own children attended international boarding schools
c. they were themselves abused as children in settings where abuse was not considered criminal and/or was never discussed.

I believe the personal and family history of mission leaders is one of the reasons so little has been done to actually implement child protection policies and practices, and to treat child abuse as a crime, rather than as a sin. In Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma, Peter A. Levine talks about the three common responses to danger or trauma: Flight, Fight or Freeze. In his theory, when we have experienced trauma we often retain, both in our muscle memory and our brain memory, whichever of these three responses we used to survive the trauma. And when we encounter dangerous situations in the future, we instinctively, and unconsciously, use the responses that allowed us to survive the previous trauma.

These responses, Flight, Fight or Freeze may have worked well for past trauma; but they can be very counterproductive in our lives moving forward. There have been times when, as an adult, I heard about events happening which were abusive, and did not speak out. Levine’s theory resonated with me (it did not excuse my silence and inaction, it explained it – I was, and still am, responsible for my silence). My response to danger was to freeze…and that changed only as I became aware of the reasons for my silence and inaction.

There is a reason I mention this in the present context. Many mission leaders were brought up through a closed family / mission system, and experienced abuse or neglect in one form or another. I suspect many of them are incapacitated by their own survival mechanism of Fight, Flight or Freeze. Because this is one of the contributing factors to why so little change has been implemented, the approach to change requires - out of necessity - some inner healing on the part of mission leaders and staff.

In a closed family system, there is little room for intellectual development done outside the context of “approved” institutions. This makes it very difficult for leaders (who grew up in the mission system) to study in educational institutions outside of the sphere of their religious environment. One salient example of this is that many are not aware of current Trauma Therapies. In part because of this lack of education, victims of abuse seldom receive funding for trauma therapy from the mission organization that employed their perpetrator.

Deviation from the norms within a closed system is quickly and effectively dealt with through shaming and rejection. Although group members may not agree with the values and norms in a closed system, they often find that it is overwhelmingly difficult to leave the safety and predictability of that organization. A person who strongly challenges the norms becomes an outcast of the system. In his book, The Lucifer Effect. Understanding How Good People turn Evil, Philip Zimbardo explains this dynamic very well. I found the book helpful a number of years ago, when I frantically was trying to understand why almost no one in mission organizations (even good people) was proactively attempting to stop abuse or was dealing with it as criminal behavior.

Those are some of my thoughts about why there has been so little systemic change in mission organizations in relation to the care and protection of children. One of the goals of MK Safety Net is to go to colleges where people are studying before they become missionaries. We want to introduce some of these concepts to candidates before they enter mission communities; once the candidates are within the mission system it is very difficult to “reach” them.


Beverly Shellrude Thompson
President, MK Safety Net
January 24, 2013

The Australian government has made the same connection hence their Commission of Inquiry. Organisations that have harmed children are now being exposed. The brave will do the right thing and clean up their mess. The rest will gamble that they will escape public backlash. We have an easier role, we just tell the truth.

How about presumed spiritual authority? I had to gently remind a close relative that it would be inappropriate for him to give his "biblical" perspective to another member of the family . . .it was hard for him to grasp . . .I had to say . . .you are NOT her pastor. She has never asked you for your perspective.

He then mentioned his Bible degree and studies. I said it still didn't matter. She doesn't attend church, isn't close to you . . .you can't just go over and talk to her about a very personal decision . . .

I had to say to my mother . . ."please, can you just be my mother? God has my spiritual condition quite under control."

It gives me willies to think that a mission board, or representative, might think they have a right to make spiritual assumptions about me . . .whether or not I need to forgive, if I'm walking with The Lord, if I have a rebellious spirit . . .

We know that there are HUGE boundary issues with restrictive, closed, cult-like systems. Do mission boards feel like they "own" the MK, and thus have less respect? Are the peevish statements by NTM about Lori's "demands" indicative of their unwillingness to place a "former MK" on equal standing with any other member of the general population? Do they feel like it is more "Christian" to swallow injustice? So they just make their decisions because they think it is their right to do so? As spiritual leaders?

NTM--you have no rights to any aspect of our lives. We do not see you as spiritual leaders, as heads of anything that we are "under." Your cross-cultural expertise, biblical exegesis, history of sacrifice, time spent in prayer, amount of money raised, number of missionaries, and standing in the community are absolutely meaningless . . .if we are not equals.

I think NTM is flaunting, showing off . . .thinking that the buck stops with them . . .deliberately doing "less." Like coming in late to an important meeting, only casually prepared . . .

Amazing insights here, Allbetter!

Your post gives me much to ponder.

Realizing I have spent my whole life around people who think they should be giving me spiritual direction. And you're right, others have no idea what is going on in our hearts and minds ... so very presumptuous, isn't it!!

Of course New Tribers look down on the rest of us. We are not in The Work ... the work of tribal evangelism in their particular mission, doing things the one and only correct way. The smug superiority is prevalent throughout the mission, especially among those in leadership roles.

And yes, that sense of superiority naturally affects how they view MK abuse survivors and those who advocate for them.

I will be giving this more thought. I agree, we have the right to call NTM out on this ... No, you are not our spiritual leaders and we are not "under" your authority. It is rude and offensive, the way you are treating us. For me, this includes the lack of common courtesy in responding to communication attempts. Not answering e-mails. You do not "own" me. I was programmed into thinking you did, at one time. I lived as though you did own me.

Not anymore.

It's the same in many versions of other extreme religions too. The average practitioner of faith is more tolerant of others views, but as one becomes more convinced that one is the only one with the answers, then extremist problems arise, such as intolerance and the preceived right to walk over other people.
And although the product might be fine, the delivery mechanism becomes faulty and thereby ruins the credibility of product. Christ preached a message of inclusiveness, i.e. He had followers and friends from all walks of life.
The best way to present a truly living faith is to be truly living it for all to see, being human enough to make and clean up ones own mistakes.

The above posts make very good sense. Many Tribers and other missions cannot understand why anyone would not accept their faith, but alas most of the population is wondering why anyone would, given what we now know.