In the Name of “Mission Work” book about CAM/Mast

[Ken]

When injustices occur at the hands of missionaries, as with Jeriah Mast, they have a right to complain.

But to complain about new wells provided for fresh water, food, clothing, medical help and medicines, yes they should be grateful.

Development work is never that simple. And there are endless examples of good intentions gone bad and projects that not only don't accomplish their objectives but leave things worse than before. I saw many such examples while working in Central America and South America decades ago. Even things like food aid can be controversial and counterproductive. I have never been to Haiti but I can imagine the dynamic is not that different. For example, the current cholera epidemic in Haiti that has killed nearly 10,000 Haitians and sickened nearly a million was likely brought there by well-intentioned UN peacekeepers from Nepal who were negligent in their behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010s_Hai ... a_outbreak

[ken_sylvania]

Had I known that my comments would be taken the way there are, I would never have posted in this thread.

I do think your comment (speculation, whatever) could have been worded a bit better. I can see why people felt you were implying that the author was simply grinding everyone's axes for them - but honestly I've done a lot worse as far as in-artful language goes.

Ok. Not sure how useful this post will be but here we go.

In the CAM ABUSE thread and the CAM HOSTAGE thread, I periodically posted information directly from people involved that I could relay with certainty. If I couldn't say something with certainty, I made that clear.

In this CADET BOOK thread I have no primary sources at this time to give me correct information.

I wish I would have worded my original post differently. I'm sorry that what I wrote came across as accusatory.
So here is how I would like to reword my original post.

I heard from someone close to the situation that Cadet had many people emailing him almost daily, telling him what to include in the book. Can anyone verify whether this is correct, not correct, or partially false/true?

This one sounds a lot more like the Ernie I'm used to hearing from! Thank you.

[mike]

A major complaint of the author is the lack of education and training for CAM missionaries, noting how surprised he was to learn program directors were actually farmers, mechanics, loggers, or some other profession unrelated to their supervisory role in the mission, and that their decision-making often reflected this lack of training.

This raises a number of questions for me.

Do Christian mission organizations with a much higher level of education and training among their staff end up doing significantly better at handling crises (or having any in the first place) or even of accomplishing their mission goals?

What sort of education and training should be required of Christian missionaries?

How qualified were the twelve disciples of Jesus to be missionaries?

What is the difference between planting churches, outreach, and dispensing humanitarian in the United State and doing so overseas? Do all Christians who intend to evangelize a community have to be educated and trained to a certain level, or just those who do so overseas in a foreign culture?

What are the best fields of academic study for a person who wants to be a missionary in a foreign country or culture?

The author says,

Being "godly" seems to be the only specific requirement to become a missionary and have a decisionmaking role.

This kind of thing is said about other roles that are thought of as professions by society, but which conservative Anabaptists are perfectly content to have filled without professional training, such as the position of a teacher in their schools. It is unthinkable to public and many private schools to hire a teacher without a college degree or some kind of certificate or training, but in Amish and Mennonite schools you basically just have to be a warm body who's willing to try it.

Parents and churches often care more about the character of the person filling the role than about their training or qualifications. This position does have its problems, but what is the better alternative?

[Ken]

A major complaint of the author is the lack of education and training for CAM missionaries, noting how surprised he was to learn program directors were actually farmers, mechanics, loggers, or some other profession unrelated to their supervisory role in the mission, and that their decision-making often reflected this lack of training.

This raises a number of questions for me.

Do Christian mission organizations with a much higher level of education and training among their staff end up doing significantly better at handling crises or even of accomplishing their mission goals?

What sort of education and training should be required of Christian missionaries?

How qualified were the twelve disciples of Jesus to be missionaries?

What is the difference between planting churches, outreach, and dispensing humanitarian in the United State and doing so overseas? Do all Christians who intend to evangelize a community have to be educated and trained to a certain level, or just those who do so overseas in a foreign culture?

What are the best fields of academic study for a person who wants to be a missionary in a foreign country or culture?

The author says,

Being "godly" seems to be the only specific requirement to become a missionary and have a decisionmaking role.

This kind of thing is said about other roles that are thought of as professions by society, but which conservative Anabaptists are perfectly content to have filled without professional training, such as the position of a teacher in their schools. It is unthinkable to public and many private schools to hire a teacher without a college degree or some kind of certificate or training, but in Amish and Mennonite schools you basically just have to be a warm body who's willing to try it.

Parents and churches often care more about the character of the person filling the role than about their training or qualifications. This position does have its problems, but what is the better alternative?

CAM is not merely involved in simple evangelism of the sort depicted in the Bible. From the web site it is clear that they are engaged in a wide variety of traditional development work such as microlending, water projects, food relief, and a wide variety of economic development projects. And I would imagine that the bulk of their overseas funding actually goes towards economic development work rather than pure evangelism. Someone can correct me if I am wrong about that.

In terms of qualifications for leadership, I would expect that at a minimum, the leaders of overseas projects should have years of experience working in the country and region in question and be well versed and experienced in the field of overseas economic development. They should also be capable of of managing complicated and diverse projects with a wide variety of staff and volunteers.

Does CAM do that? I personally have no idea but no reason to believe that they don't. They are not operating in a vacuum but in an environment where there are also dozens of other organizations are also actively working with greater or lessor degrees of success. And where there are decades of history of successful and failed development projects. So they most certainly *should* know what they are doing.

[mike]

Another major question is what will be the eventual results of this entire situation for CAM?

I have some thoughts but am interested in hearing others'.

It's been a couple of years at this point. The idea that CAM is somehow going down as an organization for this is wrong. It's not going to happen. The most obvious result in my view is that vetting missionaries has already and will continue to intensify in a big way. I am sure this will add to the seriousness with which key positions are viewed and with whom they are filled.

I do also think that it may become harder to find missionaries. I could be wrong on all of the above.

[GaryK]

A major complaint of the author is the lack of education and training for CAM missionaries, noting how surprised he was to learn program directors were actually farmers, mechanics, loggers, or some other profession unrelated to their supervisory role in the mission, and that their decision-making often reflected this lack of training.

This raises a number of questions for me.

Do Christian mission organizations with a much higher level of education and training among their staff end up doing significantly better at handling crises or even of accomplishing their mission goals?

What sort of education and training should be required of Christian missionaries?

How qualified were the twelve disciples of Jesus to be missionaries?

What is the difference between planting churches, outreach, and dispensing humanitarian in the United State and doing so overseas? Do all Christians who intend to evangelize a community have to be educated and trained to a certain level, or just those who do so overseas in a foreign culture?

What are the best fields of academic study for a person who wants to be a missionary in a foreign country or culture?

The author says,

Being "godly" seems to be the only specific requirement to become a missionary and have a decisionmaking role.

This kind of thing is said about other roles that are thought of as professions by society, but which conservative Anabaptists are perfectly content to have filled without professional training, such as the position of a teacher in their schools. It is unthinkable to public and many private schools to hire a teacher without a college degree or some kind of certificate or training, but in Amish and Mennonite schools you basically just have to be a warm body who's willing to try it.

Parents and churches often care more about the character of the person filling the role than about their training or qualifications. This position does have its problems, but what is the better alternative?

Having lived 6 years in two foreign countries, I have concluded that properly vetting and preparing missionaries is something that could be improved on in our conservative Anabaptist circles. I believe it would be good for former missionaries and nationals of a given country to be heavily involved in the preparation of those going. Some of the most challenging times I had to work through as a missionary pastor were issues that came up in the American staff. These things sucked up a lot of time and energy that could have otherwise been expended in the Kingdom work we were sent to do.

I wonder if the country involved shouldn't determine the amount of formal training/education needed. A farmer willing to learn may do better in most 3rd world countries than a highly educated professional. In both countries where we lived, things that I learned in farming and carpentry were an asset and I believe allowed for some relationships to develop that might not otherwise have.

[Ken]

Another major question is what will be the eventual results of this entire situation for CAM?

I have some thoughts but am interested in hearing others'.

It's been a couple of years at this point. The idea that CAM is somehow going down as an organization for this is wrong. It's not going to happen. The most obvious result in my view is that vetting missionaries has already and will continue to intensify in a big way. I am sure this will add to the seriousness with which key positions are viewed and with whom they are filled.

I do also think that it may become harder to find missionaries. I could be wrong on all of the above.

I would expect that it will only become harder to find missionaries if they are not financially well supported by the organization and are are expected to self-fund at some level. That can be a big sacrifice and obstacle for many. The Mormons don't seem to have any difficulty finding missionaries. There were actually two at my door last night. I would be curious to know how the level of financial support for overseas Mormon missionaries differs from that of CAM. I have absolutely no idea what the answer is.

[Josh]

Most Anabaptists fund their mission boards and societies.

Note that whether or not to have missions at all was a key conflict in the old Old Order divisions. Perhaps the author of this book would find the Old Order approach more to his liking; I presume there are no Old Order Mennonites or Amish in Haiti doing things he doesn’t approve of.

[Ernie]

I would be curious to know how the level of financial support for overseas Mormon missionaries differs from that of CAM. I have absolutely no idea what the answer is.

Mormon missionaries start saving for their mission as soon as they can start saving pennies. They are all self funded. Every good mormon is expected to do this.

CAM hires all its missionaries/staff unless the person wants to volunteer. Missionary/staff wages are enough to get by but don't net a lot for savings, unless you are with the organization for 15 plus years.

[Ken]

I would be curious to know how the level of financial support for overseas Mormon missionaries differs from that of CAM. I have absolutely no idea what the answer is.

Mormon missionaries start saving for their mission as soon as they can start saving pennies. They are all self funded. Every good mormon is expected to do this.

CAM hires all its missionaries/staff unless the person wants to volunteer. Missionary/staff wages are enough to get by but don't net a lot for savings, unless you are with the organization for 15 plus years.

There you go. I didn't know that. Interesting.