Staying or Leaving: The Missiology of Risk

EMQ » July–September 2020 » Volume 56 Issue 3

2 comments

1. 
   Anna Hampton on July 28, 2020 at 3:32 pmLog in to Reply
   A few ministry leaders who have read my book, "Facing Danger: A Guide Through Risk" ("Haz Frente Al Peligro" both on Amazon) have asked for my response to Mr. Rievan's thought-provoking article. Mr. Rievan correctly states that the Covid-19 crisis has made the feeling of risk accessible to just about everyone, not just cross-cultural workers. However, he rightly states that cross-cultural workers take on higher levels of risk than those staying in the relative safety of home. I urge caution to anyone discussing “Biblical Principles” and citing specific cases in Jesus’ life, Paul’s, or the Early Church, as the individual situations are just that…situations. All too often in the risk discussions I’ve read, generalized concepts are applied to risk, or a suffering answer is given to the risk question, and neither approach answers the risk question. Risk is situational, and must be answered situationally. He states, “Self-sacrifice should be a core value for every Christian, and particularly for those sent to reach the unreached.” This seems to imply a dangerous assumption, and that is that staying in the risk is self-sacrifice, and conversely, leaving the risk is not self-sacrifice. The opposite may very well be true – it could be at great sacrifice that a worker leaves a situation due to a spouse or children’s needs. His discussion on both self-sacrifice and then caution focus the locus of the risk question more on those two approaches. I submit a much more helpful question to ask is simply, “What is the Lord’s leading in this situation, no matter what it looks like?” That is risky, because He may (and often does) ask us to do something we don’t want to do or would think to do without His help. Mr. Rievan next explains Johnson’s Model of Polarity Management and applies it to the discussion of staying or leaving in risk. I agree that this model is useful, but suggest some modifications to Rievan’s proposal. First, is his suggestion that we use the word vulnerability. I would suggest a better term is stewardship, because that is more easily translatable for the Global South workers who make up the majority of cross-cultural missions. Additionally, stewardship re-focuses the discussion of risk back into a Biblical framework. While I realize that the industry standard for security experts is to use “vulnerabilities,” I propose that in cross-cultural missions, this be replaced with stewardship for the simple reason that we think about risk much differently than any government’s military risk experts. We are stewards (Genesis 1:28) of all entrusted to us in risk. I have a whole chapter in my book on stewardship in risk. Next, he proposes “Mental Models” as a way to reconsider our missiology. This is very helpful, and we are in agreement that these are hindrances to how we evaluate risk. See my discussion on the 14 Risk Myths here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/17SnOkJsdu3rhpi2KfOQHyyLD23fMz5pW/view Thirdly, in Figure 14.2, Mr. Rievan seems to be making the suggestion that a lack of balance in the conversation on risk results in a focus on the bottom half of the model. However, this implies that Leaving the Risk and not continuing the ministry from home is negative. The thing is that in risk, it’s highly possible that God DOES want us to stop a certain aspect of our ministry, because it is actually not as effective as we thought. I’m uncomfortable with automatically applying a value to someone’s leaving risk or staying in risk. There is both cowardly remaining and cowardly leaving, courageously leaving and courageously staying. Applying the Polarity Model without further adaptation leaves “Staying in risk without significant ministry contribution in the country” as “Early Warnings” that “…we are sinking in one of the lower quadrants of the Polarity Management model.” Sometimes staying is what is required, even when it doesn’t look like much. I would urge re-working this model so that such scenarios are not automatically considered “wrong” or negative. The research on the psychology of risk is very clear on the issue of a logical/emotional risk analysis. It is not helpful to bifurcate the person by saying that “…conversations can easily slip back to focusing on risks and fears.” Why is this automatically stated in the negative? If we do not account for our fear, face our fear, and wrestle with it, we miss having wholistic risk assessment as well as a wrestling with God for the transformation He wishes to work in us in the moment of fear. I suggest the discussion of fear to be reworked among global workers and their senders. There is a lot of un-Biblical teaching on fear coming from particularly America’s pulpits. Gideon’s men, the 22,000 who were sent home because of their fear, WERE NOT CONDEMNED, although I’ve heard plenty of American preaching that condemns them. Dismissing the fear of global workers is one of the primary ways we decrease resiliency and increase stress. Conversely, facing our fears, working through them with God and our team, will enhance resiliency and help us endure for the long term. And Covid-19 and it’s consequences (the pandemic of fear that has swept the globe) requires long-term resiliency and endurance from global workers. I loved Mr. Rievan’s questions toward the end of his article, as those are common to all of us, or should be. Honest and transparent questioning of ourselves and our motives allows the Holy Spirit to speak into our risk situations and helps us to know what He is leading us to do despite the best most comprehensive and “responsible” risk conversations, assessment and management. I would welcome more dialogue with Mr. Rievan and others on this topic. Dr. Anna E. Hampton Author, Facing Danger A Guide Through Risk. https://better-than-gold-faith.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
2. 
   Kirst Rievan on July 30, 2020 at 7:48 amLog in to Reply
   Thanks you Ana, for sharing your thoughts on this! I have posted by response on the Lausanne site: https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2020-07/in-a-pandemic-should-missionaries-leave-or-stay I