The Story Did Not Stop at TSIS

For a long time, we believed this story was primarily about one school.

One investigation.

One safeguarding situation.

One institutional response.

But over time, something became increasingly difficult to ignore:

The concerns did not remain contained within Tien Shan International School.

As documentation expanded, more organizations became aware of the situation.

Mission organizations.

Sending agencies.

Safeguarding networks.

Accrediting bodies.

Board-connected individuals.

Leadership structures outside the school itself.

And gradually, the questions became larger than the original incident.

Questions about:

• how information moved between organizations
• how safeguarding concerns were framed internally
• how communication with families was managed
• how oversight functioned across interconnected systems
• how institutional risk was assessed
• and whether meaningful independent accountability was actually possible once multiple organizations became implicated

This broader focus did not emerge because we initially set out to examine multiple institutions.

It emerged because multiple institutions became involved in the handling of the concerns themselves.

Over time, organizations connected to the school — including the International Mission Board (IMB), mission-affiliated networks, safeguarding organizations, accrediting bodies, and other connected entities — became aware of aspects of the situation and, in varying ways, responded to it.

As that process unfolded, another reality slowly came into view:

The concerns being raised around Tien Shan did not exist in a vacuum.

In 2024, before many later disclosures and external escalations connected to TSIS, dozens of current and former IMB missionaries collectively submitted a letter to IMB trustees describing concerns involving leadership culture, retaliation fears, reporting failures, spiritual abuse, and institutional response dynamics within the organization itself.

Later that year, IMB trustees issued a formal response describing leadership concerns and outlining a series of organizational reforms.

That documentation will be examined carefully in future posts.

Not because it “explains” everything that happened at Tien Shan.

But because it highlights broader questions about accountability once multiple institutions become entangled in a crisis.

What initially began as an attempt to understand what happened inside one school gradually became an effort to document how broader institutional systems respond when safeguarding concerns escalate.

Not only at TSIS.

But around TSIS.

What Comes Next

Over the coming weeks, we will begin documenting portions of that wider timeline.

This will include:

• when outside organizations were informed
• how concerns were escalated
• how different entities responded
• what was communicated privately versus publicly
• and how institutional priorities appeared to shift as organizational pressures increased

As always, our goal remains the same:

• careful documentation
• clear timelines
• corroborated evidence
• and a continued focus on patterns, systems, and accountability

Because ultimately, the larger question is no longer simply what happened at one school.

The larger question is how interconnected systems respond when safeguarding concerns become institutionally difficult, reputationally sensitive, or organizationally costly.