MK forum

Excuse the format below...doesn't translate well from Excel. I was trying to estimate how many missionaries, out of the 1,701 missionaries listed in the "Give" section of ntm.org, are actually stationed in a tribe at any given time. The resulting 15% (248 members) estimate uses the assumptions as shown below. Using a $40,000 average support level, that would be about $10,000,000 going to support tribal missionaries out of a total of $70,000,000.

Sample Size (first 500 missionaries listed on NTM's website) 500
# in U.S./Canada/UK/Australia 257
% Full Time U.S./Canada/UK/Australia 51%

Total Missionaries Per NTM Website 1,701
Extrapolation % from above sample 51%
Total U.S./Canada/Australia/UK 874
Total "Foreign" Country 827
Estimated % time on furlough (1 in 4 years) 25%
Estimated "Foreign" missionaries on Furlough at any given time 207
Estimated Total Missionaries Located in a "Foreign Country" at any given time 620 36%
Estimated Total Missionaries Located in the U.S./Canada/Australia/UK at any given time 1,081 64%

Estimated % of "Foreign Missionaries" that work in a tribe 40%
Estimated # of Foreign Missionaries stationed in a tribe at any given time 248 15%

Yet another reason -- I guess -- for NEW TRIBES Mission to seriously consider changing its name.

Stole this from Bonnie.

http://adultingblog.com/post/12590049239

Several years ago (5 or 6 actually) I had a conversation with one of the then EC members of New Tribes Mission. This individual, whose name I will leave unmentioned, was describing to me the big changes that the mission was undergoing in terms of its organizational and leadership structure. As best I can recall, the model that they where transitioning into was what he called a "pancake" model of leadership. He described it by saying that individual "fields" would essentially have more decision making power and in theory not really be accountable to the EC in the US. It was a decentralization of leadership and a spreading out of responsiblity and a delegating of authority to leaders on the various fields worldwide. I understand that a couple of these foreign fields already existed autonomously through previously established national programs and national training centers.

At the time that I had that conversation with this individual, I had little knowledge of the abuses in the Mission, as did most of us in the general public. Some of us know there had been some abuse, but we generally thought it was isolated instances. That being said, even as the conversation wrapped up, I remember thinking to myself that this "pancake" model of restructuring leadership was a clever way of spreading responsibilty and blame. I say this because I had already been a student of leadership styles and worked on a board of directors myself

All good organizations have at their core a centralized board of individuals who are accountable for the proper handling of the purpose, vision and mission of that entity and they are where the buck stops in regard to any and all disputes and or abuses of authority. (Kudos to Penn State board of trustees for doing the right thing and understanding their role in the organization and how to handle the offenses and offenders).

I could be wrong in my synopsis of the decision the EC made to pancake out their responsibilities years ago, but in light of all that has surfaced with cover-ups, denials, and document destruction, it does seem to me that this was one of the ways the EC had decided to shift the blame and responsibility of all the abuses happening on foreign mission fields away from themselves and out to where they knew the long arm of the American justice system couldn't easily reach. I will acknowledge that I am not close enough to all that is going on in NTM to know the exact leadership structure they are currently operating under, but, if pancake is the structure they are indeed operating under, then in my mind, the implications are obvious for why they did this.

All this to say once again, Leadership worldwide... dismantle this disfunctional dangerous bomb!!

Ironman, it might be going too far to say NTM changed their leadership structure in order to avoid taking responsibility for abuses. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and say I don't think their INTENTION was to avoid the American justice system.

However. The present result of this restructuring has truly been that NTM now has no single, centralized board which holds ultimate responsibility and accountability. Perhaps those who came up with the restructuring idea did not anticipate that their plan would result in the present alarming condition of New Tribes Mission. But alarming it truly is.

I notice that in all their announcements and press releases, NTM USA makes it a point to say "NTM USA". This excludes all the other branches, which include NTM Canada, NTM UK, NTM Germany, NTM Australia, NTM Brazil, and others.

Even within NTM USA there are committees which don't appear to be accountable to anyone in particular. They seem to have free reign to make decisions regarding individuals and their ministries, and these missionaries don't have much recourse if they are being selectively bullied or black-listed.

I am not aware of any current abuse of MKs (children) within NTM. I pray to God there is none going on presently, but in a group the size of that mission, you know statistics would tell you that some child somewhere is being molested and/or abused. God help them. If anything like this comes to light in the present, that is when NTM will be tested against their own high standards which they have set; their new policies as set forth in their new handbook designed to protect the children of their missionaries.

But I do know of contemporary examples of spiritual and emotional abuse which have been taking place on various fields within NTM. I do know of entire field committees that are inept at best and abusive at worst, which should be disbanded.

Back in our day, the imposing and intimidating Executive Committee had the power -- and used that power -- to dismantle entire field committees and replace them at will.

There were times when that power was misused, to be sure. But what is happening now, when there is no power? Each individual branch does what they choose, and they have not even all adopted the NTM USA standards and policies on MKs.

As a former insider who is now an outsider, this breakdown in structure and leadership is quite alarming to me.

I think something is broken.

from what i understand, most of the abuse of power now lies, not with the EC or individual field committees, but with the various "regional" leadership teams (for example, i think there is a team overseeing southeast asia). with little to no input from individual missionaries or even the various field committees, these roving bands of men with near unlimited power or accountability are now imposing their will with blatent disregard for transparency, open and honest communication, or for the impact of their decisions on the individual missionaries. the intent may have been to strip field committees of their power (may be a good goal), but the result has been to create fewer "committees" with even more power, who are exerting immense power over nearly every detail of the operations of the various fields from some boardroom on some beach somewhere.

perhaps my perception is not based on reality. but, from the things i hear from newly fired missionaries and others, these regional team are flexing immense muscle with little to no recourse for anybody involved.

more of the same...just in a different package.

I find the supposed new structure of NTM interesting. We were with ABWE for several years as I have said before and tried to resign, we just wanted out, but they terminated us instead. We had what we personally called our boss and he was called an administrator, he would visit the field and tell us how to do it, etc., etc., etc. He would stay in our home and check us out and speak at our church and meet the people. It was a short visit that was distributed among many missionaries so whatever view he got of you and your family the few days he was with you would be the view he would report back to ABWE. We had no issues with these visits ourselves but I found it odd that a man can live in America and oversee several different mission fields and be able to evaluate much of anything. This is the same man that handled the rape of a 12 year old girl by Dr. Donn William Ketcham in Bangladesh (see bangladeshmksspeak) by allowing the "good" doctor to tell his own story when he was made to return to the states (the good doctor's story was inappropriate behaviour not pedophilia) and this so called administrator is still employed by ABWE even though he is getting quite old. ABWE nor this field administrator reported their cherished doctor to the medical authorities in Michigan when he returned nor did they even tell his sending church what he had been doing for years on the field to other mk's as their doctor. He even had I think 2 single nurses sent home for committing adultery with them. By the way he wasn't sent home, his punishment was to be sent to Chittagong for a year to continue practicing on that mission compound. They treated him with "kid gloves" and acted like the little girl he was raping for 2 years was an "adulteress." From what I understand this "good doctor" has been working with illegal migrants in the States and you wonder, did he cease to be a pedophile when he returned to the States? I am not accusing him I am just wondering, that's all. What gets me he wasn't even dismissed as early as the 70"s for adultery which would constitute most missionaries a termination and rightfully so. I guess all I am trying to say in this long comment, I don't reckon anything will really change with NTM, you might not see as much abuse on the scale of the past but it will always be with NTM. I think no matter what structure these mission board/agencies set up they are doomed to fail. Men appointed to these "high" places love this power and to keep their jobs they will relinquish any convictions or moral right in order to keep them. Changing their structure is all they know how to do. Fix the problem, I really doubt it. Full stop.

Not sure what it's worth, but I found a letter from NTM Executive Committee dated May 97. It addresses the problem of "discontent amongst its members". It's pretty faded and I have no idea how to cut and paste on to here.
The one line paragraph that best sums it up is as follows:

"What is this problem? It is a system of leading by strict oversight that teaches grace and yet demands performance and conformity. It's a harch way of relating to other people that does not have as its source teh character of Christ. Please understand our herts. We are not saying that none of our leaders in the past have walked in ghe grace of Christ's life and manifested it; and taught it; and modelled it; and discipled it. All of our hearts have warmed to the blessed precious truths of God's grace, and we've been drawn by the aroma of Christ in the lives of different ones ouf our leaders. But somehow, contrary to the very roots of grace that NTM was founded upon, we have gravitated as leaders to a system of leading that depends heavily on control ....submission....lack of trust....fear. When you lay it alongside a military manual, the systems look frighteningly similar. It is a style that has fostered dependence on leadership rather than on God" . . .

Just in light of this thread, it seems to have some relevance.

Great post, and yes they set it up to be like a military from day one. look at all the lingo they use.