EMQ » July–September 2021 » Volume 57 Issue 3
By Autumn Chen
For Christians, deeply held ideas about risk and safety are intertwined with their ideas about God, and what it means to live under his kingship. While we have seen these convictions affect the church’s response to political upheaval, natural disaster, or even a pandemic, they are especially tested in the crucible of missions in dangerous contexts, where emotions are heightened, stakes are high, and where both the probability and impact of risk are intensified.[1]
On one hand, chronic risk-averseness manifests itself in calculated behavior, an inflated focus on insuring oneself against loss, or even a total unwillingness to consider risk. This can lead Christians to “overemphasize the practical aspects of risk assessment and management while ignoring the spiritual aspects.”[2] On the other extreme, excessive risk-taking can over-spiritualize risk by using it as a measure of faith, showing itself in reckless behavior, a refusal to discuss the practical aspects or real costs of risk, or an overemphasis on eternal rewards. Championing verses such as Matthew 16:25 and Philippians 1:21, this stance leads to a risk illiteracy which does not allow evaluation of the fear, loss, and cost involved in risk.[3]
While these two options are usually advertised as the only available responses to risk, “biblical risk is approached somewhere on the continuum between these two extremes, based on the Spirit’s leading for that risk event and our lives.”[4] There is therefore a need for a more nuanced, varied, and thoughtful response to risk by Christians.
Christian Perspective on Risk
The varied reactions of the world to John Allen-Chau’s November 2018 spearing death in the North Sentinelese Islands were mirrored in the church’s response. Opinions ranged from admiration of this “modern day Jim Elliot,”[5] to public condemnation of Chau’s naïve choices which endangered himself and the native Islanders.[6] This was similar to the responses in 2007 when a Korean short-term mission group were taken hostage in Afghanistan for forty-two days, during which two members were killed.[7] Amongst other things, these responses demonstrated divergent understandings of the correct Christian response to risky situations and raised the question: How should Christians respond rightly to risk?
Risk is an inescapable and essential part of living as humans.[8] It is “woven into the fabric of our finite lives”[9] as the illusion of total control and safety is shattered by unexpected events and the inevitable experience of loss and death. Christians agree with their secular counterparts on the definition of risk: as actions that expose people to the threat of harm or loss or both.[10] Though many conflate risk with suffering, Hampton helpfully notes that a theology of risk is distinct. While “all believers experience suffering whether living in relative safety or danger … a theology of risk influences whether you move toward more risk or toward safety.”[11]
In the Gospels, those eager to follow Jesus soon found out that discipleship came at the cost of comfort (Matthew 8:19–22), acceptance (Matthew 10:14), relationships (Matthew 10:35–37), and even life itself (Matthew 10:38, 16:24–25). Jesus himself warns his disciples of their impending mistreatment (John 15:18–25; Luke 21:12; Mark 13:13), and then sends them out into this risk.
The Epistles not only acknowledge the reality of suffering, but also how some loss is a direct result of following Christ (Acts 9:16; Romans 5:3; Philippians 1:29; 1 Thessalonians 3:3–4; 2 Timothy 1:8; 1 Peter 3:14–17, 4:12–16). The loss encountered by New Testament disciples such as John the Baptist (Matthew 14:3–12), Stephen (Acts 6:12–14, 7:54–60), and Paul (1 Corinthians 4:11–13; 2 Corinthians 4:8–12, 11:23–29), demonstrate their acceptance of danger and risk as part of their discipleship.[12] All believers are called to a life of risk when they choose to follow Jesus, not just when they commit their lives to mission.[13] Therefore, rather than risk illiteracy which neglects proper assessment of risk,[14] Christians need to develop risk literacy, which includes the courage and ability to handle risk.
Responding to Risk in the Bible
Both Prescott and Taylor present two categories of risk response in the Bible: staying and embracing danger, or leaving and avoiding it.[15] However, Payne’s survey synthesizes his results into three categories of response: flight, avoidance, and engagement.[16] Examples of flight or avoidance include Jesus hiding himself from those trying to stone him (John 8:38–39) and withdrawing from public ministry in reaction to the Pharisees’ assassination plot (John 11:54). Acts shows Saul escaping murder through an opening in the wall of Damascus (Acts 9:23–25), being prevented from going in the frenzied Ephesus amphitheater and then making a swift departure from the area (Acts 19:30–31, 20:1).[17]
However, Payne notes that engagement, or confronting risk and persevering in gospel proclamation through it, is the most recorded response to threatening situations in the New Testament. Aware of the suffering which awaited him in Jerusalem, Jesus declares that he will travel towards this risk in Mark 10:33–34,[18] and gives his disciples a similar warning in Matthew 10:17–18.[19] Their response should not be to avoid arrest and persecution, but use it to bring their testimony about Christ before leaders and Gentiles.[20] Peter and John “cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20) despite warnings to desist, and Paul moves stubbornly towards Jerusalem knowing the inevitability (or absolute possibility) of harm there (Acts 20:22–23, 21:10–14). Examples from outside the Gospels and Acts include the description of Moses in Hebrews 11:24–26 and the souls in Revelation 20:4 who had been martyred for witnessing Christ and refusing to bow to idols.[21]
Despite Payne’s observation that engagement is the most prevalent New Testament reaction, he is in agreement with Taylor that “neither staying in a dangerous context nor leaving it is inherently more spiritual or responsible … both staying and going are potentially godly acts.”[22] This crucial point has implications for how Christians should engage with risk: the Bible is descriptive of different responses, and yet does not prescribe a cookie-cutter response for all risk situations.
So, How Should Christians Manage Risk?
While the urgency of the Great Commission may lend itself towards favoring risk-taking strategies, Hampton argues that cross-cultural workers need concrete steps to process risk and loss properly, instead of suppressing their emotions and unquestioningly prioritizing evangelization.[23] Christian management of risk, therefore, is not just an entirely spiritual or entirely secular process, but requires a balancing of robust trust in God’s sovereignty and conviction about his priorities and provision, with informed situational thinking and an ability to take advantage of risk assessment tools and strategies.
In application of this, Taylor argues that Christian risk decisions should be made in community.[24] Multiple stakeholders in every risk decision form a discerning community around the decision-maker.[25] This community is responsible for the three facets to any Christian risk-decision: the spiritual/pastoral (caring for workers),[26] relational/missiological (considerations concerning the national context),[27] and secular security/risk assessment (organizational and strategic assessment)[28] facets.
To complement secular risk assessment tools, spiritual risk management strategies include prayer, the putting on of spiritual armor, and seeking a supportive faith community.[29] “Inner spiritual resources,” including a strong personal relationship with God,[30] and being sensitive to his Spirit’s leading,[31] are the priority in order to develop maturity and glorify God through risk-decisions. Relational risk management strategies include developing strong relationships with neighbors, local believers, and local officials.[32]
Implications for Creative Access Missions
All Christian stakeholders in Creative Access Missions (CAM) can take practical and informed steps to respond to risk.
Write a Risk Statement
Missionaries examining their motivations for entering into CAM “… need to be absolutely sure that we have sorted our motives and objectives and completely thought through the risks. We have to resolve and commit to face the worst possible outcome and consequences … prior to boarding the plane!”[33]
While a complete understanding is only possible once in the risk situation, acknowledging risk is a vital first step. A personal statement of risk, which includes a conviction about calling, and resolved response to hardship, both with Scriptural backing,[34] is crucial to prevent the minimization or over-spiritualization of risk.[35]
In order to successfully account for and navigate through risk, mission organizations must also establish what they think the Bible teaches about risk, and crystallize this theology through an agreed written statement.[36] Interviews of multiple mission agencies[37] revealed that “despite most agencies having documents and training on practical responses to dangerous situations,”[38] only one of the twelve organizations interviewed had an original, written summary statement giving a Biblical theology of persecution or martyrdom.[39]
Don’t Throw Out Secular Risk Assessment Tools
There is wisdom in capitalizing on secular risk resources to better understand and assess risk. Mission organizations therefore should seek expert help to construct clear, specific, tailored, and regularly-reviewed risk management policies.[40] Staff need to be informed of and trained in these policies before rather than during a crisis.[41]
Missionary candidates must be fully versed in organizational guidelines before going to the field, especially regarding divisive issues such as evacuation authority. The tools of identifying potential risks and personal risk-tolerance thresholds, analysing risks by mapping probability against consequence, and implementing personal risk management such as securing digital communication increases one’s risk literacy and must exist alongside a trust in the organisation’s security structures. Other resources to develop and practice include a personal evacuation plan,[42] an untimely-death response plan,[43] a routine of balanced exercise, diet, and sleep,[44] and listening to and recounting testimonies of transformation.[45]
Be Equipped on the Spiritual and Relational Front
Hampton gives seven ways through which Christians can be attuned to the Holy Spirit in the risk moment, including through the local and expatriate community, families, the Bible, and dreams and visions.[46] Due to the uniqueness of each risk-situation, mission organizations need to flexibly and compassionately respond to risk through good member care,[47] as stewards of God’s workers. Home organizations characterized “by a graceful and caring attitude”[48] “are able to engage in time of crisis with the appropriate language and insight to be truly supportive.”[49] Organizations can care well for their missionaries by openly affirming those who have risked,[50] and by providing ongoing support in the form of prayer, field visits, virtual meetings to touch base, provision of crisis services and counselling, and continual evaluation of worker well-being.
Participate in Decision – Refrain from Judgement
Just as “the community had a role in discerning and executing [Paul’s] response to risk” in the Bible,[51] so risk-decisions involve and affect more people than the organization and the worker themselves. These other stakeholders, including parents, spouses, children, national believers and leaders, sending churches, home-side supporters, security consultants, friends, and even international police and national governments, form the discerning community in the decision-making process.
Practical ways of having a voice in the decision include reading missionary newsletters, engaging in prayer for specific needs, and contacting the missionary regularly. Taking opportunities to listen to missionaries on home assignment helps stakeholders understand their greatest difficulties and provide appropriate encouragement.[52] Those eager to be involved in decision-making may even join the CAM worker’s special home-side support team,[53] a select group which is privy to risk details as it provides pastoral care, practical assistance, and more intimate fellowship for the missionary.
Because people often “think in hindsight that they could have judged the risk better than the other person … it is natural to criticize.”[54] However, judgement of risk-decisions made in CAM should be held back. For mission leadership, evaluation can take place after a period (months, years) of rest and decompression for the worker.[55] Other stakeholders should not be quick to dissuade, judge, or inflict guilt even when they disagree about the final decision.[56] God’s unique call and work in each worker and situation, as well as the intensity of risk in CAM, means that it is almost impossible to initially grasp the reasons behind a risk-decision. By first listening to an explanation of the decision (if given), stakeholders can foster trust of, appreciation, and genuine support for their CAM missionaries and the God they serve.
In the absence of a system that can calculate a correct answer to risk-decisions, Christians should rightly respond to risk by establishing their own theology of risk, prayerfully discerning God’s voice, listening to their fellow risk-stakeholders, and optimising their use of secular risk management tools and resources. A believer’s risk-decision in CAM, made thoughtfully, will reflect that their values and interests are rooted in the resurrected Christ and his kingdom, and will even enrich their fellowship with Him.
Autumn Chen (pseudonym) currently works as a short-term missions coordinator for OMF International, but hopes to work in a Creative Access context in the near future. Her own Christian parents’ wrestle with risk sparked her interest in the wide-ranging responses that Christians hold towards risk, whether they are aware of them or not. She is a member of the Angelina Noble Centre.
EMQ, Volume 57, Issue 3. Copyright © 2021 by Missio Nexus. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced or copied in any form without written permission from Missio Nexus. Email: EMQ@MissioNexus.org.
[1] Anthony B. Parker, “In Harm’s Way: Reflections on Missionaries and Risk,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2016): 18.
[2] Anna E. Hampton, Facing Danger: A Guide through Risk (New Prague, MN: Zendagi Press, 2016), 142.
[3] Hampton, Facing Danger, 120.
[4] Hampton, Facing Danger, 113.
[5] This term was coined by John Allen-Chau’s friend Ramsay in a CNN interview. Kaley Payne, “Was John Allen-Chau a modern day Jim Elliot?” Eternity News, November 27, 2018, https://www.eternitynews.com.au/world/was–john–allen–chau–a–modern–day–jim–elliot/.
[6] Robert Burton-Bradley, “Christians who won’t take no for an answer – touched by God or white saviour complex?” ABC News, December 2, 2018, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018–12–02/the–christians–who–wonttake–no–for–an–answer/10567000.
[7] David Tai Woong Lee and Steve Sang-Cheol Moon, “The Korean Hostage Incident,” Sorrow and Blood: Christian Missions in contexts of suffering, persecution and martyrdom, eds. William D. Taylor, Antonia van der Meer, and Reg Reimer (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2012)
[8] Terry Muck, “When to Take a Risk: A Guide to Pastoral Decision Making,” The Leadership Library (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987): 30–32.
[9] Muck, “When to Take a Risk,” 19.
[10] See, for example, John Piper, Risk is Right: Better to Lose Your Life Than to Waste It (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2013), 17.
[11] Hampton, Facing Danger, 15.
[12] Phil Parshall, “Missionaries: Safe or Expendable?” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 30, no. 2 (1994): 163.
[13] Anthony B. Parker, “In Harm’s Way: Reflections on Missionaries and Risk,” Evangelical Missions Quarterly 52, no. 1 (2016): 17, 21.
[14] Hampton, Facing Danger, 120.
[15] Ian C. H. Prescott, “Faith, Risk-taking, and Suffering in Mission,” Mission Round Table 12, no. 3 (2017): 21–22; Dan Taylor, “Should I Stay or Should I Go? Leadership Approaches to Service in Volatile Contexts,” Seedbed 30, no. 1 (2016): 41–2.
[16] J.D. Payne, “Missions in the Context of Violence: A New Testament Response” Missions in Contexts of Violence: Evangelical Missiological Society Series Number 15, Keith E. Eitel, ed. (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008): 57.
[17] Similarly, the strategy of risk avoidance, is demonstrated when Jesus “purposely stay(ed) away from Judea because the Jews there were waiting to take his life” (John 7:1) stating that “the right time has not yet come” (John 7:6–8).
[18] See also Jesus’ Gethsemane prayer in Luke 22:42 which shows his willing engagement with the danger of arrest and death despite his anguish.
[19] See also the parallel “sheep among wolves” passage in Luke 10, and Jesus’ dialogue on persecution, witness, and betrayal in Luke 21:10–19.
[20] Payne, “Missions in the Context of Violence,” 59.
[21] Payne, “Missions in the Context of Violence,” 64–65.
[22] Taylor, “Should I Stay?” 41–42.
[23] Hampton, Facing Danger, x.
[24] Hampton, Facing Danger, 43.
[25] Hampton, Facing Danger, 44–45. In a cross-cultural situation, this could include the worker, their family, their field leadership, their mobilization base, their sending church, local believers, local leadership, expatriate communities, security consultants, governments, etc.
[26] Hampton, Facing Danger, 46.
[27] Hampton, Facing Danger, 47–48.
[28] Hampton, Facing Danger, 45–46.
[29] Parker, “In Harm’s Way,” 20.
[30] Stephen Panya Baba, “Preparing Church and Mission Agencies,” Sorrow and blood: Christian Missions in contexts of suffering, persecution and martyrdom, eds. William D. Taylor, Antonia van der Meer, and Reg Reimer (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2012), 345; Dale M. Wolyniak, “Member Care Perspectives for Working in a Context of Violence,” Missions in Contexts of Violence: Evangelical Missiological Society Series Number 15, ed. Keith E. Eitel (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2008): 143, 146.
[31] Hampton, Facing Danger, 60–67.
[32] Parker, “In Harm’s Way,” 21. See also Richard S., “Mission in High-risk Situations,” Mission Round Table 12, no. 3 (2017): 15.
[33] Ivan Fawzi, “Reflections on Suffering and Ministry in Volatile Places,” Seedbed 30, no. 1 (2016): 34.
[34] Hampton, Facing Danger, 201, 243.
[35] Hampton, Facing Danger, 207.
[36] For example, see Scott E. Shaum, “Toward a Theology of Risk and Suffering Worksheet,” Trauma and Resilience: A Handbook, eds. Frauke C. Schaefer and Charles A. Schaefer (North Carolina: Publisher not identified, 2012), 197.
[37] “A Global Dialogue,” Connections: The Journal of the WEA Mission Commission 7, nos. 1 and 2 (2008). This article starts on page 27 and is scattered throughout the issue until page 77.
[38] “Global Dialogue Summary,” Sorrow and blood: Christian Missions in contexts of suffering, persecution and martyrdom, eds. William D. Taylor, Antonia van der Meer, and Reg Reimer (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2012), 327.
[39] Statement by Detlef Bloecher, DMG, Germany, “A Global Dialogue,” 33.
[40] Global Connections, in association with the Global Mission Network, “Guidelines for Crisis Management and Prevention” Sorrow and blood: Christian Missions in contexts of suffering, persecution and martyrdom, eds. William D. Taylor, Antonia van der Meer, and Reg Reimer (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2012), 390.
[41] “Global Dialogue Summary,” 392–393
[42] “Global Dialogue Summary,” 175, 242–243.
[43] “Global Dialogue Summary,” 173.
[44] Frauke Schaefer, “Healthy Stress Management,” Trauma and Resilience: A Handbook, eds. Frauke C. Schaefer and Charles A. Schaefer (North Carolina: Publisher not identified, 2012), 109–113. See also Hampton, Facing Danger, 177.
[45] Hampton, Facing Danger, 178.
[46] Hampton, Facing Danger, 59–67. Other sources included security consultants, the Holy Spirit’s prompting, and those in authority over us.
[47] Lee and Moon, “Korean Hostage Incident,” 307.
[48] Hampton, Facing Danger, 205.
[49] Hampton, Facing Danger, 206.
[50] Hampton, Facing Danger, 204–205.
[51] Taylor, “Should I Stay?” 43. Taylor cites examples in Acts 9:23–35, 9:28–29, 17, and 20.
[52] Parker, “In Harm’s Way,” 21.
[53] Wolyniak, “Member Care Perspectives,” 144.
[54] Hampton, Facing Danger, 209.
[55] Hampton, Facing Danger, 202.
[56] Parker, “In Harm’s Way,” 22. See also Payne, “A New Testament Response,” 71.
