Reading my correspondence with the Executive Committee of NTM (above), I can see myself in the words of one of the girls in the boarding school dorm in Senegal.
Listen to her frustration: “Spanked for crying at night when I missed my parents – I was told that it was wrong for me to cry, and that I was bad to be keeping the other girls awake.
As one of the few families who taught our kids at home throughout their school years, we often felt a little isolated. And, I can see in hindsight, insecure.
Please note that the EC was “greatly concerned” about home schooling trends. Their written policy already “urged” and “strongly encouraged” parents to use the boarding schools, which they believed was “the best alternative for providing education and social orientation for the children while also giving time for the parents to accomplish their ministry among the people.”
What does that communicate to a young family living out in the jungles of Thailand?
Their written policy already told us that they believed Mary and I were not doing right by our kids and the Lord’s work. Still, they only “urged” and “strongly encouraged” us to use the school. But now they may have to “request” that we do so.
Can I be blamed for wanting to know what implications this had for my wife and kids?
To give some perspective to how these obvious signals of disapproval would strike a bottom rung missionary in those days, please read the following excerpts from a mission publication sent out to the “family” in 1980, seven years before the further musings about “requesting” missionaries to start using the boarding schools:
“With many of our dear folk we don’t see this kind of dedication, far from it. They find it so easy to give up when things get a bit rough. It seems some are looking for excuses to leave the work rather than in reality, experiencing the kind of dedication we have referred to above. Some are not willing to make sacrifices to pioneer and live like we are shown we can live in our jungle camp experience. You know in a measure where you are. The Lord is willing and ready to help you. One of Paul’s greatest concerns was that he would not become a castaway (disapproved for service). Though he was the greatest proclaimer of the Gospel of grace he disciplined himself more than any man in order that he might glorify Christ.”
. . .
“Then there is much in the Word of God about God’s appointed leadership, their great and awesome responsibility before God, then the submission and cooperation of God’s children to His leaders. We sometimes take this lightly. We are prone to be critical of them, refuse to cooperate with our leaders, and tend to go our own way. This is not pleasing to God. We can’t win with this kind of attitude. We could profit much by making a study in the Old and New Testament about leadership and those who are to submit to them. We see God’s severe dealings with leaders who failed to submit to Him, as well as to the followers who failed to submit and cooperate with their leaders. We find a real weakness in the work at times where some have a rebellious and critical attitude and are unwilling to submit to the Lord and His leadership. This should not be permitted as it grieves the Lord, and we cannot win.”
….
“We know the doctrine of unity in the Word of God. This is very basic doctrine of our operating as a team. We are supposed to be in agreement doctrinally. The policies of the Mission are known but often not followed be some. Our leadership has to continually press for standards and policies throughout the work. This should not be necessary. You see, when we oppose these standards, it creates problems for others. It breaks the unity God wants us to have. It weakens us to a place that we can’t win. The Word of God tells us if we want unity we have to desire it and make a real effort to maintain it. It doesn’t come easy or naturally. Someone has said that the greatest loss of missionaries is through the failure of missionaries to get along with their Mission and their fellow man. How sad that we are not willing to make these adjustments so we can be united in spirit and objective in doing God’s work. “United we stand, divided we fall.” The way to win is to be loyal to your field fellowship, the home fellowship, and to your fellow workers. If you find in your heart an unwillingness to do this, then you should be big enough to deal with it and get the victory the Lord has for you, or leave the work. A little leaven can leaven the whole lump.”
The teaching in NTM at that time was that God leads through leadership; our responsiblity was to submit to “the Lord and His leadership.” This was communicated to us regularly – constantly, in fact – and in no uncertain terms. Again, please remember that seven more years of this sort of abusive language would be heaped on me before I was warned that the Lord’s leaders might have to “request” that I send my children to the boarding school.
Like a lot of missionaries in New Tribes Mission, I was so intent on “getting on with the job” that I gladly overlooked certain peculiarities that sprang up from time to time in the communications from our headquarters. A lot of the things had no immediate affect on me anyway and asking about them could always result in a backlash.
However, there were times when things seemed to have a direct bearing on me and my family – and on my family and the work we were doing among the Yellow Leaf people – and I sometimes succumbed to the temptation to write for clarification. We were always encouraged to avoid gossiping about leadership among ourselves and just go right to the “Court of Appeal.” A few of us were reckless enough to do just that.
We taught our kids at home because we believed that was best for them, best for us and best for the task of getting the Gospel to the Yellow Leaf people. We knew that the leadership of NTM did not share that view, even before they published the article “Praise God for our MK Schools.” Still, we were allowed to teach our kids at home, and we were duly thankful.
When NTM told us that they might start “requesting” all their missionaries to use the boarding schools, we were confused as to what implications that would have for us. They had already told us that we were “strongly encouraged” to do so; they “urged” us to do so. Now, they might have to start “requesting” us to do so. What did that mean for us? To call these terms “vague” is unwarranted generosity.
Moreover, when you are already ignoring “urgings” and “strong encouragement” from the Executive Committee, there is always a chance that you are going to be viewed very disfavorably and find yourself looking for other avenues to serve the Lord. We wondered if this was the case. After all, our “Court of Appeal” was the author of this article!
My first letter to the Executive Committee wasn’t answered very clearly, so I foolishly wrote again. I asked, “Are we less pleasing, or even displeasing, to the EC because we teach our kids at home?”
I also asked, again, for clarification on what the various terms meant. One can be forgiven for thinking that when a change in policy is being considered, it would entail some. . . well, some changes. Otherwise, why bring it up? After all, we had not written to the Executive Committee asking if they were anticipating any changes; THEY had told us that they were. We looked for meaning in their communications and came up blank. So, we asked for clarification.
Gene, this is Bonnie – I just wanted to tell you that I am amazed at the courage of you and your wife, that in spite of the “urging” of NTM to send your kids away, you declined. Regardless of the consequences.
Thank you for making the right choice for your children.
My second letter to the Executive Committee of New Tribes Mission was as positive as I could make it. I found as many areas of agreement as I could and stated them in no uncertain terms; I practically grovelled in my approach to the subject. I ventured to ask for clarification in the mildest language I could muster. Here are some excerpts from the answer I received:
“I trust you can let the peace of God rule in your heart and not allow the enemy to keep bothering you about it.”
“To then ask us further questions just after this statement makes me wonder if you really are submissive and in agreement with us to the point you can have peace about it.”
“I would prefer to not try to get into the area of what if. It is meaningless. We are not thinking of planning any policy changes at this time.”
Like the little girl at the boarding school who didn’t know when to cry and when not to cry, I had no idea when I was supposed to find meaning in communications from the Executive Committee and when I was supposed to conclude that their messages were, in their own words, meaningless.
Please remember, NTM had gotten into the area of “what if.” NTM had said that some changes in the boarding school policy were imminent, depending on how things went in America – things over which I had no control and in which I had no part.
When I couldn’t get a straight answer out of them, they concluded that I had been allowing “the enemy” to bother me about it. They wondered if I were truly submissive and in agreement enough to really have peace about their policy – a policy about which I had not complained, but which they had threatened to change!
NTM finally told me that their message was meaningless and that they were not thinking of planning any policy changes. I was tempted to ask them why, then, did they ever say they might have to start “requesting” people to use the boarding schools! But, even I was smarter than that. I decided that it wasn’t worth pursuing any further!
My children have long since finished their secondary schooling, and we are no longer missionaries with NTM. So, why bring this up now?
Mary and I were not the only parents subjected to this sort of pressure. The parents of the Fanda Eagles were treated in the same way, perhaps even more sternly. We were all conditioned to submit to and agree with leadership – to “have peace” about whatever policies they had. “Having peace” clearly meant that questions would not be asked.
It is important to the Eagles, to MKs from other fields and to readers of this blog, to be aware of the intense pressure that was brought to bear on missionary parents at that time. Failure to submit to and agree with NTM policy could mean that they were not able to fulfill their mission to reach the tribes. It was a pretty stark choice.
Focus on the truth was subordinated to focus on evangelism. And, as a result, everyone lost. Parents lost, kids lost, supporters lost and tribal people lost.
Reading my correspondence with the Executive Committee of NTM (above), I can see myself in the words of one of the girls in the boarding school dorm in Senegal.
Listen to her frustration: “Spanked for crying at night when I missed my parents – I was told that it was wrong for me to cry, and that I was bad to be keeping the other girls awake.
“Spanked for long periods until I cried – It took awhile to get over the confusion of when I was supposed to cry, and when I was not allowed to cry.” http://fandaeagles.com/2009/06/non-sexual-abuses-suffered-by-one-fanda-mk/
As one of the few families who taught our kids at home throughout their school years, we often felt a little isolated. And, I can see in hindsight, insecure.
That probably explains my shock when I read the EC’s article in “Family News” (http://fandaeagles.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Praise-God-for-our-mk-schoolsed.jpg) telling the mission family that there was some thought of changing the policy of allowing parents to teach their kids at home.
Please note that the EC was “greatly concerned” about home schooling trends. Their written policy already “urged” and “strongly encouraged” parents to use the boarding schools, which they believed was “the best alternative for providing education and social orientation for the children while also giving time for the parents to accomplish their ministry among the people.”
What does that communicate to a young family living out in the jungles of Thailand?
Their written policy already told us that they believed Mary and I were not doing right by our kids and the Lord’s work. Still, they only “urged” and “strongly encouraged” us to use the school. But now they may have to “request” that we do so.
Can I be blamed for wanting to know what implications this had for my wife and kids?
To give some perspective to how these obvious signals of disapproval would strike a bottom rung missionary in those days, please read the following excerpts from a mission publication sent out to the “family” in 1980, seven years before the further musings about “requesting” missionaries to start using the boarding schools:
“With many of our dear folk we don’t see this kind of dedication, far from it. They find it so easy to give up when things get a bit rough. It seems some are looking for excuses to leave the work rather than in reality, experiencing the kind of dedication we have referred to above. Some are not willing to make sacrifices to pioneer and live like we are shown we can live in our jungle camp experience. You know in a measure where you are. The Lord is willing and ready to help you. One of Paul’s greatest concerns was that he would not become a castaway (disapproved for service). Though he was the greatest proclaimer of the Gospel of grace he disciplined himself more than any man in order that he might glorify Christ.”
. . .
“Then there is much in the Word of God about God’s appointed leadership, their great and awesome responsibility before God, then the submission and cooperation of God’s children to His leaders. We sometimes take this lightly. We are prone to be critical of them, refuse to cooperate with our leaders, and tend to go our own way. This is not pleasing to God. We can’t win with this kind of attitude. We could profit much by making a study in the Old and New Testament about leadership and those who are to submit to them. We see God’s severe dealings with leaders who failed to submit to Him, as well as to the followers who failed to submit and cooperate with their leaders. We find a real weakness in the work at times where some have a rebellious and critical attitude and are unwilling to submit to the Lord and His leadership. This should not be permitted as it grieves the Lord, and we cannot win.”
….
“We know the doctrine of unity in the Word of God. This is very basic doctrine of our operating as a team. We are supposed to be in agreement doctrinally. The policies of the Mission are known but often not followed be some. Our leadership has to continually press for standards and policies throughout the work. This should not be necessary. You see, when we oppose these standards, it creates problems for others. It breaks the unity God wants us to have. It weakens us to a place that we can’t win. The Word of God tells us if we want unity we have to desire it and make a real effort to maintain it. It doesn’t come easy or naturally. Someone has said that the greatest loss of missionaries is through the failure of missionaries to get along with their Mission and their fellow man. How sad that we are not willing to make these adjustments so we can be united in spirit and objective in doing God’s work. “United we stand, divided we fall.” The way to win is to be loyal to your field fellowship, the home fellowship, and to your fellow workers. If you find in your heart an unwillingness to do this, then you should be big enough to deal with it and get the victory the Lord has for you, or leave the work. A little leaven can leaven the whole lump.”
The teaching in NTM at that time was that God leads through leadership; our responsiblity was to submit to “the Lord and His leadership.” This was communicated to us regularly – constantly, in fact – and in no uncertain terms. Again, please remember that seven more years of this sort of abusive language would be heaped on me before I was warned that the Lord’s leaders might have to “request” that I send my children to the boarding school.
Like a lot of missionaries in New Tribes Mission, I was so intent on “getting on with the job” that I gladly overlooked certain peculiarities that sprang up from time to time in the communications from our headquarters. A lot of the things had no immediate affect on me anyway and asking about them could always result in a backlash.
However, there were times when things seemed to have a direct bearing on me and my family – and on my family and the work we were doing among the Yellow Leaf people – and I sometimes succumbed to the temptation to write for clarification. We were always encouraged to avoid gossiping about leadership among ourselves and just go right to the “Court of Appeal.” A few of us were reckless enough to do just that.
We taught our kids at home because we believed that was best for them, best for us and best for the task of getting the Gospel to the Yellow Leaf people. We knew that the leadership of NTM did not share that view, even before they published the article “Praise God for our MK Schools.” Still, we were allowed to teach our kids at home, and we were duly thankful.
When NTM told us that they might start “requesting” all their missionaries to use the boarding schools, we were confused as to what implications that would have for us. They had already told us that we were “strongly encouraged” to do so; they “urged” us to do so. Now, they might have to start “requesting” us to do so. What did that mean for us? To call these terms “vague” is unwarranted generosity.
Moreover, when you are already ignoring “urgings” and “strong encouragement” from the Executive Committee, there is always a chance that you are going to be viewed very disfavorably and find yourself looking for other avenues to serve the Lord. We wondered if this was the case. After all, our “Court of Appeal” was the author of this article!
My first letter to the Executive Committee wasn’t answered very clearly, so I foolishly wrote again. I asked, “Are we less pleasing, or even displeasing, to the EC because we teach our kids at home?”
I also asked, again, for clarification on what the various terms meant. One can be forgiven for thinking that when a change in policy is being considered, it would entail some. . . well, some changes. Otherwise, why bring it up? After all, we had not written to the Executive Committee asking if they were anticipating any changes; THEY had told us that they were. We looked for meaning in their communications and came up blank. So, we asked for clarification.
Bad move.
Gene, this is Bonnie – I just wanted to tell you that I am amazed at the courage of you and your wife, that in spite of the “urging” of NTM to send your kids away, you declined. Regardless of the consequences.
Thank you for making the right choice for your children.
My second letter to the Executive Committee of New Tribes Mission was as positive as I could make it. I found as many areas of agreement as I could and stated them in no uncertain terms; I practically grovelled in my approach to the subject. I ventured to ask for clarification in the mildest language I could muster. Here are some excerpts from the answer I received:
“I trust you can let the peace of God rule in your heart and not allow the enemy to keep bothering you about it.”
“To then ask us further questions just after this statement makes me wonder if you really are submissive and in agreement with us to the point you can have peace about it.”
“I would prefer to not try to get into the area of what if. It is meaningless. We are not thinking of planning any policy changes at this time.”
Like the little girl at the boarding school who didn’t know when to cry and when not to cry, I had no idea when I was supposed to find meaning in communications from the Executive Committee and when I was supposed to conclude that their messages were, in their own words, meaningless.
Please remember, NTM had gotten into the area of “what if.” NTM had said that some changes in the boarding school policy were imminent, depending on how things went in America – things over which I had no control and in which I had no part.
When I couldn’t get a straight answer out of them, they concluded that I had been allowing “the enemy” to bother me about it. They wondered if I were truly submissive and in agreement enough to really have peace about their policy – a policy about which I had not complained, but which they had threatened to change!
NTM finally told me that their message was meaningless and that they were not thinking of planning any policy changes. I was tempted to ask them why, then, did they ever say they might have to start “requesting” people to use the boarding schools! But, even I was smarter than that. I decided that it wasn’t worth pursuing any further!
My children have long since finished their secondary schooling, and we are no longer missionaries with NTM. So, why bring this up now?
Mary and I were not the only parents subjected to this sort of pressure. The parents of the Fanda Eagles were treated in the same way, perhaps even more sternly. We were all conditioned to submit to and agree with leadership – to “have peace” about whatever policies they had. “Having peace” clearly meant that questions would not be asked.
It is important to the Eagles, to MKs from other fields and to readers of this blog, to be aware of the intense pressure that was brought to bear on missionary parents at that time. Failure to submit to and agree with NTM policy could mean that they were not able to fulfill their mission to reach the tribes. It was a pretty stark choice.
Focus on the truth was subordinated to focus on evangelism. And, as a result, everyone lost. Parents lost, kids lost, supporters lost and tribal people lost.