I am going to make an observation as a mission leader that some may take exception to but which I believe to be true: In general missionaries from the west have much different expectations of the Holy Spirit in the missions endeavor than those we serve in the majority world.
It saddens me that many missionaries I meet have very low expectations of what God might actually do through their work. They work hard, expect little and often see little fruit. Often, the very people they work with (from the south and the east) have a much larger expectation of what God intends to do through their ministries. They expect much, and see much fruit.
Why the difference? I believe it has much to do with out view of the Holy Spirit, His work in our lives and our expectation or not that He will show up in a significant way.
In the book of Acts - our best primer on missions there are two concepts that show up together with regularity: proclamation of the Gospel and the power of God. Word and power together. It never surprised Paul with God showed his power in places that the Gospel was proclaimed. It was that power that gave credence to their claims that God was who He was and had the power to change their lives. Miracles, healings, and radical life changes accompanied the proclamation of the Gospel. "In this way the word of the Lord spread widely and grew in power" (Acts 19:20).
Why is it that in the rationalistic west where all things must fit into a neat box and everything have a rationale explanation that we see so little of that power in our ministries? Why is it that in the majority world, that power is regularly seen in miraculous events such as healings that result in people coming to Christ?
The Holy Spirit defies rational explanation. He shows up unexpectedly, and does things that defy explanation. In my own life, in 2007 He chose to miraculously heal my mitral valve when surgery would have been a death sentence because of my dire illness. My cardiologist cannot understand how that happened! So why should I be surprised when God heals regularly in much of the world resulting in people coming to Christ? Or shows up in other amazing ways? Even raising the dead resulting in the birth of churches!
We have been taught too often in the West that all our theology needs to fit into neat little boxes - but God defies fitting into a neat little box. When He chooses to show up in power, the unexpected takes place - we cannot control Him. The real question is whether we in our rationalism are willing to allow Him to show up, expect Him to show up, want Him to show up or believe He will show up.
Expect little and we will see little. Expect that the Gospel is the "power" of God for the salvation of everyone who believes...and pray that God would do beyond what we could "ask or imagine" and He might just do that!
Believers in the majority world don't have the sophistication to know that God is supposed to fit into neat categories. When they read the Scriptures and see God doing the unexpected and miraculous they actually believe he operates that way. When He tells them to ask for much fruit they assume He means what he says. And God blesses them for their naive faith. Actually that naive faith is the faith God wants from each of us.
We have a lot to learn about the power of God through His Spirit. We have a lot to learn about believing that His power breaks through spiritual strongholds and changes hearts. We have a lot to learn about naively believing that He wants to show up in power, surprise us and others and bring people to Him. As for missions from the west, I believe our lack of faith in the power of God, through His Spirit is one of the greatest barriers to seeing the Gospel come the way we see it came in the book of Acts.
What I am encouraged by are the number of workers from the west who are re-examining the role of the Holy Spirit in their lives and ministries. And even reclaiming the "forgotten God" of the Holy Spirit.
Here is my challenge to every Christian. Read the New Testament for the first time! By that I mean, put aside all your theological training, grids and commentaries for a while. Just read the New Testament and ask yourself, "What does the New Testament say about the Holy Spirit and His power in my life?" And, "if what it says is completely true what might I expect Him to do in my life and ministry?" And then - here is the scary part - invite Him to surprise you in your life and ministry. It's an invitation He will not turn down.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Developing a Book of Knowledge
Think back to a time when you came into a new organization - perhaps your current organization. How long did it take you to figure out what was really going on, understand what the culture was, or get up to speed on issues they were dealing with? The discovery process can be frustrating and disorienting.
There is a way to shorten the process for new folks who come into your organization. It is to develop a comprehensive "Book of Knowledge." A Book of Knowledge is a compilation of every key document, policy, powerpoint, key meeting minutes, videos, white papers and so on - going back at least five years. It is all those things that those who have been around for a while already know but what a new individual has no clue about.
With a Book of Knowledge for your organization or team, one of the first responsibilities of a new staff member is to take a week or so and simply immerse themselves in that information. Coming out of that homework they then have context to ask questions of their supervisor and dialogue in depth over issues that are key to their success in their new role.
Not only will they get up to speed faster but the frustrations of trying to understand their new organization will be significantly alleviated. Do you have a Book of Knowledge for your organization?
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The Magic of Questions
Many of us are great at telling others what we think and sharing our opinions or telling others what they should think or do. Fewer of us are great at asking questions which draw others out, show our interest in them or create dialogue around issues that allow us to understand others or get to common understanding. For those who develop this skill, there is a special magic in the way others respond to them.
One of my sons is currently looking for a job and a good friend has been coaching him on interviews. The first thing he taught Jon to do was to look around the office of the one doing the interview and notice everything that was there because every book, magazine, picture or memento tells a story about the individual. And then he suggested Jon comment on those items and ask appropriate questions to draw out the interviewer.
Why? Because relational connection is everything in an interview. Actually, relational connection is everything in all of our interactions and learning how to be naturally curious and ask good questions goes a long way in making that connection.
“Tell me about….” questions allow you to ask about situations, decisions or thinking of another person. It sparks a narrative or story which provides context and understanding about a specific issue. It is an open ended question that allows the narrator to take it where they desire and allows for one to follow up to clarify.
“How did you…..” questions are wonderful questions if you want to understand how someone is wired because it is really asking how one went about tackling a specific issue or dealing with a specific problem. All of us go after issues differently so “how” questions help you understand how they are wired.
“Tell me why….” questions allow you to probe why someone chose a certain course of action and if asked well does not indicate rightness or wrongness but simply why they chose that course. If the course of action was problematic one can follow up. Often, one will understand the rationale that they did not understand before for a course of action.
“What are you learning these days about….” allows one to probe on any number of subjects and often reveals the cutting edge issues that people are grappling with opening up a wonderful dialogue on the subject.
The magic of questions is that it creates relationship, gives great insight into the thinking and styles of others and most importantly gives honor to the one to whom we ask the questions. The more questions we ask, the more we honor others and the more we understand.
One of my sons is currently looking for a job and a good friend has been coaching him on interviews. The first thing he taught Jon to do was to look around the office of the one doing the interview and notice everything that was there because every book, magazine, picture or memento tells a story about the individual. And then he suggested Jon comment on those items and ask appropriate questions to draw out the interviewer.
Why? Because relational connection is everything in an interview. Actually, relational connection is everything in all of our interactions and learning how to be naturally curious and ask good questions goes a long way in making that connection.
“Tell me about….” questions allow you to ask about situations, decisions or thinking of another person. It sparks a narrative or story which provides context and understanding about a specific issue. It is an open ended question that allows the narrator to take it where they desire and allows for one to follow up to clarify.
“How did you…..” questions are wonderful questions if you want to understand how someone is wired because it is really asking how one went about tackling a specific issue or dealing with a specific problem. All of us go after issues differently so “how” questions help you understand how they are wired.
“Tell me why….” questions allow you to probe why someone chose a certain course of action and if asked well does not indicate rightness or wrongness but simply why they chose that course. If the course of action was problematic one can follow up. Often, one will understand the rationale that they did not understand before for a course of action.
“What are you learning these days about….” allows one to probe on any number of subjects and often reveals the cutting edge issues that people are grappling with opening up a wonderful dialogue on the subject.
The magic of questions is that it creates relationship, gives great insight into the thinking and styles of others and most importantly gives honor to the one to whom we ask the questions. The more questions we ask, the more we honor others and the more we understand.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Leadership maturity: From me to us
There is an important transition that takes place as leaders mature and as their ministry grows. Many young leaders believe that leadership is about “making the calls” and decisions. Certainly, good leaders are pace setters as well as direction makers. They have an internal compass as to where the organization needs to go, articulate that direction daily and rally leaders and staff to go with them. This is especially true in new ministries, and when ministries are walking through transition and re envisioning their future.
Wise leaders, however, know that there is a more powerful leadership paradigm than leadership that revolves around them. It is shared leadership built around strongly held commitments where a senior leadership group brings their collective intellectual capital and gifts to the table in order to maximize the organizations potential. In order to get to this higher level of leadership there are four things a senior leader must do.
First, shared leadership requires that there is great clarity regarding what the organization is all about. Shared leadership only works when everyone is committed to the same mission, direction and values. This missional clarity is the glue that holds the group together and ensures that they are all moving in the same direction with the same commitments. Without great clarity, shared leadership simply becomes confusing.
Second, shared leadership requires the senior leader to build the very best group of A team players at the top of the organization. This often means recruiting leaders who are stronger than us and who have skills we do not have. The stronger the senior team, the better the organization will be – if built around great clarity and shared vision. As I reflect on the senior team of the organization I lead I can say with confidence that we would not be a fraction of what we are today without the skill, commitment, ideas, innovation and leadership of this group of leaders together. They are A players, committed to the same vision and multiply the leadership quotient of what I could do alone exponentially.
Third, shared leadership requires humility on the part of the leader along with a strong dose of self confidence. Many leaders suffer from deep insecurities which prevent them from building a strong team around them, allowing robust dialogue and dissenting views or allowing the team to truly lead. The pride and insecurity of the leader (these two often go together) keep the organization at the leadership level of the leader instead of allowing the exponential leadership potential of the group to take it to a new level. Those who lead at this level understand that it is not about “them” but about the mission and influence of the organization and set aside their own interests in the interests of the group as a whole.
Fourth, they actually share leadership with their senior team. Sitting in a meeting recently with five of the senior leaders of our organization I realized that they were grappling with issues that I used to grapple with. They were taking ownership for ministry direction that used to pretty much be mine. And, I realized, decisions I might have made myself are now being made by us, not me. It was a gratifying moment. I know the wisdom of the group is better than any of our wisdom by ourselves. I know that the direction does not depend on me because now there is a mature “us.” I know that our ministry philosophy will go much deeper because of shared ownership.
This does not mean that leaders no longer lead. It means that we lead differently. We lead through a team of mature leaders who together take responsibility for direction. I continue to speak into key issues but then work those issues through the team. It is truly shared leadership built on great trust among leaders, common direction and very deep missional commitment. It is a leadership that has gone from “me” to “us” and “us” is far more powerful than “me.” Where are you on that continuum?
Wise leaders, however, know that there is a more powerful leadership paradigm than leadership that revolves around them. It is shared leadership built around strongly held commitments where a senior leadership group brings their collective intellectual capital and gifts to the table in order to maximize the organizations potential. In order to get to this higher level of leadership there are four things a senior leader must do.
First, shared leadership requires that there is great clarity regarding what the organization is all about. Shared leadership only works when everyone is committed to the same mission, direction and values. This missional clarity is the glue that holds the group together and ensures that they are all moving in the same direction with the same commitments. Without great clarity, shared leadership simply becomes confusing.
Second, shared leadership requires the senior leader to build the very best group of A team players at the top of the organization. This often means recruiting leaders who are stronger than us and who have skills we do not have. The stronger the senior team, the better the organization will be – if built around great clarity and shared vision. As I reflect on the senior team of the organization I lead I can say with confidence that we would not be a fraction of what we are today without the skill, commitment, ideas, innovation and leadership of this group of leaders together. They are A players, committed to the same vision and multiply the leadership quotient of what I could do alone exponentially.
Third, shared leadership requires humility on the part of the leader along with a strong dose of self confidence. Many leaders suffer from deep insecurities which prevent them from building a strong team around them, allowing robust dialogue and dissenting views or allowing the team to truly lead. The pride and insecurity of the leader (these two often go together) keep the organization at the leadership level of the leader instead of allowing the exponential leadership potential of the group to take it to a new level. Those who lead at this level understand that it is not about “them” but about the mission and influence of the organization and set aside their own interests in the interests of the group as a whole.
Fourth, they actually share leadership with their senior team. Sitting in a meeting recently with five of the senior leaders of our organization I realized that they were grappling with issues that I used to grapple with. They were taking ownership for ministry direction that used to pretty much be mine. And, I realized, decisions I might have made myself are now being made by us, not me. It was a gratifying moment. I know the wisdom of the group is better than any of our wisdom by ourselves. I know that the direction does not depend on me because now there is a mature “us.” I know that our ministry philosophy will go much deeper because of shared ownership.
This does not mean that leaders no longer lead. It means that we lead differently. We lead through a team of mature leaders who together take responsibility for direction. I continue to speak into key issues but then work those issues through the team. It is truly shared leadership built on great trust among leaders, common direction and very deep missional commitment. It is a leadership that has gone from “me” to “us” and “us” is far more powerful than “me.” Where are you on that continuum?
Friday, September 10, 2010
Deep Influence: The Hidden Practices of Highly Influential People
I have just completed this new manuscript. If you would like to read this manuscript and provide feedback to me, please contact me at tjaddington@gmail.com.
It was also an honor to have Leading From the Sandbox named leadership book of the year by The Mission Exchange. You can view the video announcement at www.TheMissionExchange.org
It was also an honor to have Leading From the Sandbox named leadership book of the year by The Mission Exchange. You can view the video announcement at www.TheMissionExchange.org
What makes for a healthy ministry?
What makes for a healthy ministry organization? Having worked in a few and led a few I would suggest that there are some clear markers that we should look for when exploring a ministry job – and which we should work toward if we are in leadership of a ministry organization. Each of these markers – their presence or their absence – will make a difference in the health of the ministry and the satisfaction of those who work there. Of course, there are no perfect ministries. There is, however, a wide variation in the health of ministries. Most overrate their health and underrate their dysfunction.
Marker one: we have great ministry clarity. Clarity on why we exist, what our non-negotiables are (guiding principles), what we need to focus on all the time (central ministry focus) and the culture we want to create are all significantly important. Specific answers to these questions are far better than general answers because the clearer we are, the better we know how to best live within the parameters of the ministry. In answering these questions we actually define the culture and ethos of our organization. Ministry organizations that have significant dysfunction usually have not taken the time to proactively determine their culture and ethos by clarifying these questions and then intentionally living them out.
Marker two: we drive a missional agenda all the time. The missional agenda of our organization is the process of living out our mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture through specific ministry plans and initiatives. It is not just about doing ministry but it is doing ministry that is in alignment with our clarity so that what we do on a day to day basis reflects the convictions and aspirations of our ministry. Thus our ministry plans and strategies are designed to help us achieve the clarity we have defined. Our actions (ministry plan) are consistent with our intentions (our clarity).
Marker three: individuals, teams and leaders are in alignment with our clarity. Alignment does not mean we all do the same things or use the same strategies to achieve our desired ends. It does mean that we are committed to achieving the same ends with the same non-negotiables. Many ministries are really only a gathering of nice people who like the days of the judges in the Old Testament, “do what is right in their own eyes.” Alignment around core principles (marker one) allows us to align all the arrows of the organization in the same direction even though we fulfill different responsibilities or pursue different strategies. Non aligned ministries often live with significant conflict because there is not clarity on what set of tracks to drive down. In an aligned ministry there is significant commitment to the same convictions coupled with flexibility on strategies to fulfill those convictions.
Marker four: we have an open and collegial atmosphere. Strongly hierarchical organizations will not attract the best people today. The best staff members want a place at the table and their voice to be heard. Indeed, the best organizations understand that a plethora of voices speaking into the strategy is far better than any one or two of us. Thus they seek to bring multiple voices to the table, encourage a huge degree of interaction and dialogue to find the best ways to deliver on the missional clarity we have determined. This does not mean that leadership is by committee. It does mean that we are open to the views of others and have a culture of collegial cooperation, interaction and collaboration.
Marker five: we encourage robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is the ability to disagree and state ones convictions as long as there is not a hidden agenda or personal attacks. Many would call this healthy conflict. It is in the conflict of ideas that better ideas emerge than either party had before the robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is not a smokescreen for hidden agendas, personal attacks or cynical attitudes. Healthy organizations call those behaviors for what they are – unhealthy. It is the ability to go at issues that need solving with vigor and conviction with an attitude of humility and care for others.
Marker six: we do our best but don’t pretend to be the best. Great ministries have high standards for clarity, ministry results and having the greatest influence for God’s kingdom as possible. At the same time, great ministries don’t fool themselves that they are the best or have a corner on the ministry world. They are humble about their place among God’s many workers, humble about their need to continue to learn, humble enough to collaborate with other ministries (many are not) and humble about what they don’t do well. Arrogant organizations go it alone while humble organizations go it with others.
Marker seven: we are candid about our success and failures. This follows from a humble attitude. How many times do you hear a ministry talk about its failures or weaknesses? How many ministries overstate their success? Healthy organizations are candid about where they are seeing success and where they are struggling. It is that very candidness that allows them to learn from others or collaborate with others from whom they can learn. Ministries are like people, they have strengths and weaknesses. Humble ministries collaborate with others where they are weak and don’t pretend that everything they do is a success.
Marker eight: we encourage innovation. Trying new things, rethinking old strategies, allowing the freedom to fail (some new things will fail) are signs of health. Ministry tiredness has set in when we are afraid to take a risk, afraid to fail, and settle into what is familiar rather than being willing to step into the unfamiliar. There is something deeply refreshing when people try new strategies and break old rules. Just as Jesus broke many of the traditions of the Pharisees, healthy ministries love the break the old rules as to “how it is done.” They encourage innovation, new ideas and give people freedom to try and even fail. They understand that if you always do what you always did you always get what you always got and they don’t settle for that.
Marker nine: we love to get people into their sweet spot where they are using their gifts and are in their right lane. Healthy ministries don’t fill ministry slots with available people. Rather they find the best people and then design ministry lanes that are consistent with the gifting and wiring of those great staff members. When staff are in the right lane, when they are playing to their strengths rather than their weaknesses, morale and productivity are high.
Marker ten: we empower people and hold them accountable. Empowerment means that we are clear about the results we seek and the convictions of the ministry and then set people free to achieve the missional agenda in line with their creative gifting. The other side of empowerment is accountability for results and living within the convictions of the ministry. Great staff love empowerment and are committed to accountability.
It takes the commitment of everyone to build a healthy ministry. It is not simply the job of leaders – they can help set the ethos but making it happen is the responsibility of every staff member all the time. That commitment pays off with a great place to work, colleagues we trust and appreciate and ministry results that give us energy.
Marker one: we have great ministry clarity. Clarity on why we exist, what our non-negotiables are (guiding principles), what we need to focus on all the time (central ministry focus) and the culture we want to create are all significantly important. Specific answers to these questions are far better than general answers because the clearer we are, the better we know how to best live within the parameters of the ministry. In answering these questions we actually define the culture and ethos of our organization. Ministry organizations that have significant dysfunction usually have not taken the time to proactively determine their culture and ethos by clarifying these questions and then intentionally living them out.
Marker two: we drive a missional agenda all the time. The missional agenda of our organization is the process of living out our mission, guiding principles, central ministry focus and culture through specific ministry plans and initiatives. It is not just about doing ministry but it is doing ministry that is in alignment with our clarity so that what we do on a day to day basis reflects the convictions and aspirations of our ministry. Thus our ministry plans and strategies are designed to help us achieve the clarity we have defined. Our actions (ministry plan) are consistent with our intentions (our clarity).
Marker three: individuals, teams and leaders are in alignment with our clarity. Alignment does not mean we all do the same things or use the same strategies to achieve our desired ends. It does mean that we are committed to achieving the same ends with the same non-negotiables. Many ministries are really only a gathering of nice people who like the days of the judges in the Old Testament, “do what is right in their own eyes.” Alignment around core principles (marker one) allows us to align all the arrows of the organization in the same direction even though we fulfill different responsibilities or pursue different strategies. Non aligned ministries often live with significant conflict because there is not clarity on what set of tracks to drive down. In an aligned ministry there is significant commitment to the same convictions coupled with flexibility on strategies to fulfill those convictions.
Marker four: we have an open and collegial atmosphere. Strongly hierarchical organizations will not attract the best people today. The best staff members want a place at the table and their voice to be heard. Indeed, the best organizations understand that a plethora of voices speaking into the strategy is far better than any one or two of us. Thus they seek to bring multiple voices to the table, encourage a huge degree of interaction and dialogue to find the best ways to deliver on the missional clarity we have determined. This does not mean that leadership is by committee. It does mean that we are open to the views of others and have a culture of collegial cooperation, interaction and collaboration.
Marker five: we encourage robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is the ability to disagree and state ones convictions as long as there is not a hidden agenda or personal attacks. Many would call this healthy conflict. It is in the conflict of ideas that better ideas emerge than either party had before the robust dialogue. Robust dialogue is not a smokescreen for hidden agendas, personal attacks or cynical attitudes. Healthy organizations call those behaviors for what they are – unhealthy. It is the ability to go at issues that need solving with vigor and conviction with an attitude of humility and care for others.
Marker six: we do our best but don’t pretend to be the best. Great ministries have high standards for clarity, ministry results and having the greatest influence for God’s kingdom as possible. At the same time, great ministries don’t fool themselves that they are the best or have a corner on the ministry world. They are humble about their place among God’s many workers, humble about their need to continue to learn, humble enough to collaborate with other ministries (many are not) and humble about what they don’t do well. Arrogant organizations go it alone while humble organizations go it with others.
Marker seven: we are candid about our success and failures. This follows from a humble attitude. How many times do you hear a ministry talk about its failures or weaknesses? How many ministries overstate their success? Healthy organizations are candid about where they are seeing success and where they are struggling. It is that very candidness that allows them to learn from others or collaborate with others from whom they can learn. Ministries are like people, they have strengths and weaknesses. Humble ministries collaborate with others where they are weak and don’t pretend that everything they do is a success.
Marker eight: we encourage innovation. Trying new things, rethinking old strategies, allowing the freedom to fail (some new things will fail) are signs of health. Ministry tiredness has set in when we are afraid to take a risk, afraid to fail, and settle into what is familiar rather than being willing to step into the unfamiliar. There is something deeply refreshing when people try new strategies and break old rules. Just as Jesus broke many of the traditions of the Pharisees, healthy ministries love the break the old rules as to “how it is done.” They encourage innovation, new ideas and give people freedom to try and even fail. They understand that if you always do what you always did you always get what you always got and they don’t settle for that.
Marker nine: we love to get people into their sweet spot where they are using their gifts and are in their right lane. Healthy ministries don’t fill ministry slots with available people. Rather they find the best people and then design ministry lanes that are consistent with the gifting and wiring of those great staff members. When staff are in the right lane, when they are playing to their strengths rather than their weaknesses, morale and productivity are high.
Marker ten: we empower people and hold them accountable. Empowerment means that we are clear about the results we seek and the convictions of the ministry and then set people free to achieve the missional agenda in line with their creative gifting. The other side of empowerment is accountability for results and living within the convictions of the ministry. Great staff love empowerment and are committed to accountability.
It takes the commitment of everyone to build a healthy ministry. It is not simply the job of leaders – they can help set the ethos but making it happen is the responsibility of every staff member all the time. That commitment pays off with a great place to work, colleagues we trust and appreciate and ministry results that give us energy.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
The Questions Raised by the New Tribes Mission Scandal
The terrible scandal that has erupted around New Tribes Mission (NTM) over systematic abuse in at least one of their mission schools in the seventies and eighties, along with a failed attempt to minimize what happened, protect the guilty and ignore the victims raises an important question for those of us who lead ministries. When things go wrong – and they will – how do we respond? Equally, how do we minimize the chances that something like this could happen in our own organizations?
Minimizing our risk starts with the ethos we develop in our organization. Many organizations have “elephants” that are off limits for discussion – and everyone knows it. We have intentionally sought to develop an open ethos and environment in ReachGlobal where any issue can be put on the table and where there are no lingering elephants in the room. An open ethos that invites dialogue rather than discourages it gives everyone permission to talk about issues that are of concern to them. NTM had a history of the opposite: One could not challenge leaders without it being framed as a spiritual issue of rebellion. There was not an open ethos and the result was that it took decades for a known problem to be brought into the light. One of the questions every leader ought to be asking right now is whether there is an open ethos in their ministry where known problems can be brought into the light easily and without incrimination!
Leaders who seek to cover up sin in order to preserve the reputation of their organization end up doing just the opposite. One of the first jobs of a leader is to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. This includes physical safety where possible – missions is inherently dangerous in many places – but it also implies a promise to staff that if something occurs that should not have that they will always respond in the best interests of those affected and in the best interests of all of their staff.
NTM failed this test miserably. In the attempt to minimize damage to their reputation they responded in ways that put children more at risk and by not acting vigorously and quickly to address the problem caused huge pain to many families and former MKs as evidenced by the stories that are being told. Even now, many former NTM MK’s and personnel are wondering aloud on blogs if there were not other schools where the same abuse took place and whether NTM will address those schools as well. Had NTM addressed the systemic issues quickly, forcefully and thoroughly in the beginning, they would have protected their future staff and spared the organization the agony they are currently experiencing. What they did instead is to put their own people at risk for the sake of their mission and reputation – a moral “exchange” that was unconscionable.
Protecting your staff and acting with integrity requires that leaders confront serious problems directly, with no attempt to hide or cover up the facts, because they know that in doing the right thing they serve their people best and protect the reputation of God. The question is not whether bad things will happen in Christian organizations – we live in a fallen world. The question is whether leaders will act with moral integrity and courage when it does for the sake of their people and God’s reputation regardless of the fallout in the short term. Ironically, short term losses in reputation actually make for long term gains in reputation as staff and others see that leaders can be trusted to do the right thing even when it is hard. Regardless, real leaders confront known issues quickly and vigorously knowing that doing the right thing is always the right thing, no matter what the fallout.
Those who serve on ministry boards have huge responsibility to ensure that they are alerted to potential issues – it should be one of their policies and that such issues are thoroughly explored and responded to quickly. The NTM situation would be a great discussion for many ministry boards. Are they prepared to respond to bad news with wise and decisive action? They need to ask the question, if this happened to us, how would we respond? Don’t pretend that it will never happen to you. It might. The question is whether you are ready to respond in ways different than NTM did?
There is a final question to be raised. The world believes that the end justifies the means. Christians believe that the means must be as righteous as the ends. NTM by its actions and words sent a strong message that they were willing to compromise the safety of their MK’s for the cause of the Gospel. That was an immoral exchange which permanently scarred many MK’s and their families for life. In some cases it also inoculated them against the Gospel itself. The ends never justify the means no matter how noble the cause of our ministry.
It is easy to throw stones and that is not my intention although I am sad, angry and believe that NTM utterly failed in its care for its staff, the ethos they developed and the response they exhibited. But my real question is whether we as ministry leaders and organizations can learn something from their leadership failure and ensure that we have done all that we can to develop healthy ministry environments where serious issues cannot be swept under the rug, where the care and safety of our staff is a high priority and where our ends never justify our means. That to me is the relevant response to this sordid affair.
Minimizing our risk starts with the ethos we develop in our organization. Many organizations have “elephants” that are off limits for discussion – and everyone knows it. We have intentionally sought to develop an open ethos and environment in ReachGlobal where any issue can be put on the table and where there are no lingering elephants in the room. An open ethos that invites dialogue rather than discourages it gives everyone permission to talk about issues that are of concern to them. NTM had a history of the opposite: One could not challenge leaders without it being framed as a spiritual issue of rebellion. There was not an open ethos and the result was that it took decades for a known problem to be brought into the light. One of the questions every leader ought to be asking right now is whether there is an open ethos in their ministry where known problems can be brought into the light easily and without incrimination!
Leaders who seek to cover up sin in order to preserve the reputation of their organization end up doing just the opposite. One of the first jobs of a leader is to provide a safe environment for those who work for them. This includes physical safety where possible – missions is inherently dangerous in many places – but it also implies a promise to staff that if something occurs that should not have that they will always respond in the best interests of those affected and in the best interests of all of their staff.
NTM failed this test miserably. In the attempt to minimize damage to their reputation they responded in ways that put children more at risk and by not acting vigorously and quickly to address the problem caused huge pain to many families and former MKs as evidenced by the stories that are being told. Even now, many former NTM MK’s and personnel are wondering aloud on blogs if there were not other schools where the same abuse took place and whether NTM will address those schools as well. Had NTM addressed the systemic issues quickly, forcefully and thoroughly in the beginning, they would have protected their future staff and spared the organization the agony they are currently experiencing. What they did instead is to put their own people at risk for the sake of their mission and reputation – a moral “exchange” that was unconscionable.
Protecting your staff and acting with integrity requires that leaders confront serious problems directly, with no attempt to hide or cover up the facts, because they know that in doing the right thing they serve their people best and protect the reputation of God. The question is not whether bad things will happen in Christian organizations – we live in a fallen world. The question is whether leaders will act with moral integrity and courage when it does for the sake of their people and God’s reputation regardless of the fallout in the short term. Ironically, short term losses in reputation actually make for long term gains in reputation as staff and others see that leaders can be trusted to do the right thing even when it is hard. Regardless, real leaders confront known issues quickly and vigorously knowing that doing the right thing is always the right thing, no matter what the fallout.
Those who serve on ministry boards have huge responsibility to ensure that they are alerted to potential issues – it should be one of their policies and that such issues are thoroughly explored and responded to quickly. The NTM situation would be a great discussion for many ministry boards. Are they prepared to respond to bad news with wise and decisive action? They need to ask the question, if this happened to us, how would we respond? Don’t pretend that it will never happen to you. It might. The question is whether you are ready to respond in ways different than NTM did?
There is a final question to be raised. The world believes that the end justifies the means. Christians believe that the means must be as righteous as the ends. NTM by its actions and words sent a strong message that they were willing to compromise the safety of their MK’s for the cause of the Gospel. That was an immoral exchange which permanently scarred many MK’s and their families for life. In some cases it also inoculated them against the Gospel itself. The ends never justify the means no matter how noble the cause of our ministry.
It is easy to throw stones and that is not my intention although I am sad, angry and believe that NTM utterly failed in its care for its staff, the ethos they developed and the response they exhibited. But my real question is whether we as ministry leaders and organizations can learn something from their leadership failure and ensure that we have done all that we can to develop healthy ministry environments where serious issues cannot be swept under the rug, where the care and safety of our staff is a high priority and where our ends never justify our means. That to me is the relevant response to this sordid affair.
Monday, September 6, 2010
New Tribes Mission faces the consequences of its past
I have just completed the reading of one of the most shameful, shocking and disturbing reports for a Christian organization. It is the GRACE report (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to New Tribes Mission “for the investigatory review of child abuse at New Tribes Fanda missionary school” in Senegal. The systematic abuse took place in the 80’s and 90’s against Missionary Kids (MK’s) while at this school.”
The introduction to the report states that “In the 1980’s and the 1990’s, New Tribes Mission (NTM) operated a boarding school in the village of Fanda, in the country of Senegal. The children of missionaries were housed at this school, sometimes over the strong objections of their parents. The workers NTM placed in charge of these children were often cruel and many of the boys and girls placed there endured sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Much of this behavior was criminal.”
As if this abuse were not enough, NTM systematically ignored the issue even when they were alerted to the abuse taking place. The field council in Senegal kept abusive personnel in the school even after complaints from children and parents. They downplayed allegations and did not alert the executive leadership in the United States. When the executive leadership in the US was made aware they did not alert authorities, allowed abusers to remain in NTM and hushed up serious (criminal) behavior they were made aware of. The GRACE report suggests that NTM placed the evangelization of the unsaved above the safety, protection and best interests of MKs. In some cases years went by before NTM was willing to even address the concerns of parents to say nothing of the abused children.
The cost to these MK’s of NTM in Senegal has been immense. While some have continued in their faith, others will have nothing to do with Christianity as much of the abuse was perpetuated in the name of Christ like the abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Many are deeply bitter at NTM for the hypocrisy of ignoring the sin in their own organization. Like all those who have been victims of sexual, emotional or physical abuse, all of these kids (now adults) live with scars that will never be completely healed. As the report says, three generations have been deeply wounded and scarred by this abuse.
What contributed to a culture where such abuse could continue unfettered and for such a long period of time? The report suggests that NTM has had a culture of authority among its leaders that does not allow for disagreement. Disagreement was seen as rebellion and sinful and leaders led by authoritarian and coercive means. Field council leaders in Senegal had nearly complete authority over all aspects of their missionaries lives – with little recourse unless one simply resigned and even then, this was seen as a rebellious spirit against leaders. Even now, NTM leadership seems to believe this is a problem and is seeking to change their often legalistic, non-grace filled culture according to the report. They are also seeking to determine whether there were other places where such abuse took place.
It is also clear that NTM did not screen applicants for their mission with any degree of care. In addition, even knowing that they had pedophiles amongst them they did not discipline them, expose them or remove them. In one case a female missionary wife had an affair with a student at the school. The situation was hushed up, she was transferred to another assignment and the victim’s family was let go from the mission. Such a gross violation of trust can hardly be imagined! Only now – years later with the publishing of this report is it recommended that she be fired. Missions who do not properly and carefully screen applicants are on a course for trouble!
Too many missions in their drive to evangelize the world take almost all who come their way without regard to their spiritual, emotional, relational and skill health. This was certainly true of NTM as evidenced by those who perpetuated these egregious acts as well as the leaders who chose to minimize, ignore or even protect the abusers. Even at the highest levels of the organization there was not the health among leaders to choose the right course of action. The evangelization of the world took precedence over the care and health (spiritual, emotional and relational) of their own personnel.
What forced the issue for NTM? Why did they come forward now? Not, it seems, only their desire to bring sin to light within their organization (I hope their desire is authentic). There was the pressure put on them by their own abused MKs through their blog ( New Tribes Mission Abuse ), along with public pressure as the story has emerged over the last years. Even then, NTM’s response was too little, poorly managed, and fell far short of the independent investigation that finally took place by GRACE with its strong recommendations. This has left the affected victims and their families with serious questions as to whether the response today is genuine or is simply a reflection of self – interest. In the short run it is indeed hard to tell. The long run repentance, treatment of victims and changes in its ethos and culture will tell the real story.
Choosing to confront sin is a tough thing. But choosing to ignore it says everything about the character of an organization and its leaders.
This situation bothers me deeply on many counts. I am an MK and am aware of other situations like this that have destroyed the lives of MKs. I am a leader of a mission organization and know the trust that is placed in our leadership by supporters, staff and churches. I am a father and soon to be grandfather who cannot imagine a pain greater than the violation of my children or grandchildren and its devastating long term consequences. And, as a Christian leader I am convinced that we are and ought to be held to a much higher standard than others. No ends (evangelization of the lost) justifies the means (substandard treatment of kids so that the gospel gets out).
I hope and pray that something redemptive will come from this tragic chapter. Humility, repentance and a massive ethos change for NMT and healing for victims and their families. May such a chapter never be repeated in modern day missions.
The full GRACE report is a difficult and sad read. May it also be a cautionary tale for mission organizations. I understand my comments here are unusually to the point. Not more so, however, than the report that NTM solicited from GRACE.
The introduction to the report states that “In the 1980’s and the 1990’s, New Tribes Mission (NTM) operated a boarding school in the village of Fanda, in the country of Senegal. The children of missionaries were housed at this school, sometimes over the strong objections of their parents. The workers NTM placed in charge of these children were often cruel and many of the boys and girls placed there endured sexual, physical, emotional, and spiritual abuse. Much of this behavior was criminal.”
As if this abuse were not enough, NTM systematically ignored the issue even when they were alerted to the abuse taking place. The field council in Senegal kept abusive personnel in the school even after complaints from children and parents. They downplayed allegations and did not alert the executive leadership in the United States. When the executive leadership in the US was made aware they did not alert authorities, allowed abusers to remain in NTM and hushed up serious (criminal) behavior they were made aware of. The GRACE report suggests that NTM placed the evangelization of the unsaved above the safety, protection and best interests of MKs. In some cases years went by before NTM was willing to even address the concerns of parents to say nothing of the abused children.
The cost to these MK’s of NTM in Senegal has been immense. While some have continued in their faith, others will have nothing to do with Christianity as much of the abuse was perpetuated in the name of Christ like the abuse by priests in the Catholic Church. Many are deeply bitter at NTM for the hypocrisy of ignoring the sin in their own organization. Like all those who have been victims of sexual, emotional or physical abuse, all of these kids (now adults) live with scars that will never be completely healed. As the report says, three generations have been deeply wounded and scarred by this abuse.
What contributed to a culture where such abuse could continue unfettered and for such a long period of time? The report suggests that NTM has had a culture of authority among its leaders that does not allow for disagreement. Disagreement was seen as rebellion and sinful and leaders led by authoritarian and coercive means. Field council leaders in Senegal had nearly complete authority over all aspects of their missionaries lives – with little recourse unless one simply resigned and even then, this was seen as a rebellious spirit against leaders. Even now, NTM leadership seems to believe this is a problem and is seeking to change their often legalistic, non-grace filled culture according to the report. They are also seeking to determine whether there were other places where such abuse took place.
It is also clear that NTM did not screen applicants for their mission with any degree of care. In addition, even knowing that they had pedophiles amongst them they did not discipline them, expose them or remove them. In one case a female missionary wife had an affair with a student at the school. The situation was hushed up, she was transferred to another assignment and the victim’s family was let go from the mission. Such a gross violation of trust can hardly be imagined! Only now – years later with the publishing of this report is it recommended that she be fired. Missions who do not properly and carefully screen applicants are on a course for trouble!
Too many missions in their drive to evangelize the world take almost all who come their way without regard to their spiritual, emotional, relational and skill health. This was certainly true of NTM as evidenced by those who perpetuated these egregious acts as well as the leaders who chose to minimize, ignore or even protect the abusers. Even at the highest levels of the organization there was not the health among leaders to choose the right course of action. The evangelization of the world took precedence over the care and health (spiritual, emotional and relational) of their own personnel.
What forced the issue for NTM? Why did they come forward now? Not, it seems, only their desire to bring sin to light within their organization (I hope their desire is authentic). There was the pressure put on them by their own abused MKs through their blog ( New Tribes Mission Abuse ), along with public pressure as the story has emerged over the last years. Even then, NTM’s response was too little, poorly managed, and fell far short of the independent investigation that finally took place by GRACE with its strong recommendations. This has left the affected victims and their families with serious questions as to whether the response today is genuine or is simply a reflection of self – interest. In the short run it is indeed hard to tell. The long run repentance, treatment of victims and changes in its ethos and culture will tell the real story.
Choosing to confront sin is a tough thing. But choosing to ignore it says everything about the character of an organization and its leaders.
This situation bothers me deeply on many counts. I am an MK and am aware of other situations like this that have destroyed the lives of MKs. I am a leader of a mission organization and know the trust that is placed in our leadership by supporters, staff and churches. I am a father and soon to be grandfather who cannot imagine a pain greater than the violation of my children or grandchildren and its devastating long term consequences. And, as a Christian leader I am convinced that we are and ought to be held to a much higher standard than others. No ends (evangelization of the lost) justifies the means (substandard treatment of kids so that the gospel gets out).
I hope and pray that something redemptive will come from this tragic chapter. Humility, repentance and a massive ethos change for NMT and healing for victims and their families. May such a chapter never be repeated in modern day missions.
The full GRACE report is a difficult and sad read. May it also be a cautionary tale for mission organizations. I understand my comments here are unusually to the point. Not more so, however, than the report that NTM solicited from GRACE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)