A Response to Kirst Rievan on the Missiology of Risk
“The traditional view that risk assessment is purely empirical-logical is inadequate. Humans approach risk experientially, analytically, and politically. With the approach described below by Rievan, risk is approached from a utility and algorythmic view. However, research has demonstrated in numerous studies for the past 5 decades that humans predominantly use the affective, intuitive approach to risk analysis even when they think they are entirely logical.”
Anna Hampton,
Facing Fear, Ch 8 “Thinking about Thinking
Several ministry leaders who have read my book, Facing Danger: A Guide Through Risk, 2nd Ed have written and asked for my response to Mr. Rievan's article, published in two places with slightly different titles:
“In a pandemic, should missionaries leave or stay?: A Mental Model for the Missiology of Risk” (Lausanne Movement)
I have submitted the following comments to both locations in the hope of having increased dialogue with Mr. Rievan and others interested in a practical Theology of Risk. It seems we want similar goals - to have increased resiliency of global workers as well as improve the effectiveness of organizational risk feedback and strategy. I own any misunderstanding I may have of Mr. Rievan's words whether stated or implied, and welcome his clarification.
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. He rightly states that cross-cultural workers take on higher levels of risk than those staying in the relative safety of home.
However, I urge caution to anyone discussing “Biblical Principles” and citing specific cases in Jesus’ life or in 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.
A risk axiom true for all risk is that Risk is situational (see Facing Fear, chapter 9, Risk Axioms, p 141). Risk questions must be answered situationally, not conceptually. A more helpful approach is not to focus primarily on what Jesus did in a risk situation, or what Paul did in a risk situation, but to ask, "How did Jesus (or Paul) hear from His father on what to do?"
He states, “Self-sacrifice should be a core value for every Christian, and particularly for those sent to reach the unreached.” This implies a dangerous assumption: 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 global 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 word/concept be replaced with stewardship for the simple reason that we think about risk much differently than any government or military experts. God's original intention according to Genesis 1:28 is for men and women to be co-regents together to steward all entrusted to us especially in risk.
Mental Models = Risk Myths
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 16 Risk Myths here in Facing Danger: The Guide Through Risk 2nd Edition.
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 assumes 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. Automatically applying a value to someone’s leaving risk or staying in risk misplaces the focus, which should be on hearing God’s voice and obeying Him. 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 holistic 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 appreciated Mr. Rievan’s questions toward the end of his article, as those are common to all of us, or should be. Honest, transparent, and vulnerable 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 welcome further dialogue with my readers and Mr. Rievan in particular.
