Living Behind the Veil

I'm often asked what I wear in Afghanistan and what it's like to wear a veil. It's freedom. Freedom to have a bad hair day, freedom to arrange my chadar to conceal the curve of my breasts and backside, freedom to not be an expatriate for a little while. It means freedom to hide even on the street from the Afghan men's eyes which seem to strip me naked.
When I relax my shoulders and walk less purposefully, less confidently, my eyes downcast and covered by sunglasses, I pass for an Afghan woman. I hear the men whisper in Dari, "Is she a foreigner or local woman?" I chuckle but am silent. On the street, I'm also a free target....freely exposed to groping, sexual innuendos whispered to me as a man bicycles by, free to have stones thrown at me, freely seen as no one's wife, daughter, sister, mother, friend, or boss. I step inside my gate, and remove my chapan and chadar. Now I'm someone's boss, motherhood returns to me as little steps run to greet me, and I receive a kiss from my adoring husband. Now I'm free to his loving and gentle eyes which know and enjoy my curves, free to once again be under the protective umbrella of being a wife, mother, friend, colleague, boss, niece, sister, daughter, woman.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Let's At Least Get the Numbers Right


Risk Analysis and Mitigation are Situational, NOT Conceptual


Recently, it was brought to my attention that several key leaders of large teams were comparing the current risk of attack in their city to the risk of being involved in a traffic accident. Statistically, looking only at the numbers, it is totally rationally true - the risks are much higher that a large percentage of the population will experience a traffic accident as opposed to being effected by a bombing attack by terrorists. 

The conclusion made by these leaders then was that the international school and international church are actually a reasonably safe "bet" to continue to be part of, with no major changes put in place. 

There are several major problems with using primarily or only statistical analysis as a measuring stick for cross-cultural risk threats. 


1. It is applying conceptual thinking to a situation incorrectly and illogically and in isolation from situational thinking. 

2. Rational statistical analysis is logical for the population not currently threatened by terrorists, but is illogical for the much smaller population being threatened. 

3. It only accounts for one cause and one consequence, and therefore is extremely biased and limited in scope.

4. It is the kind of argument that curtails discussion, because it is hard for people in risk to argue against the numbers. 


Massive amounts of secular research demonstrate that rational risk analysis is incomplete and ineffective when it does not take into account the emotional factor. Using only rational risk analysis is applying only conceptual thinking to risk analysis, and is not balanced with situational thinking. In this case, it is using the laws of probability in general (which originate from gambling statistics) to a specific known threat of attack against a specific location, which is a situational risk event.

If there are only 400 Christians, or even 4000 in a city of 6 million Muslims, and the 4000 are being threatened specifically by terrorists, then the risk of an attack is quite high and very reasonable to anticipate. Therefore, risk mitigation should take place. It is irresponsible from both a worldly (risk adverse) perspective, as well as an Isaiah 22, Matthew 25, and Luke 16 stewardship perspective. 

When comparing data sets in risk analysis, the data sets must be similar. Therefore, comparing the rate of traffic accidents to the threat of attack is illogical. It would be better to compare a similar city and situation where non-Muslims are being threatened. as well as take into account the recent (6 months to 12 months) history of threats and resulting action, and see what those terrorists have actually done. 

But to put men, women, and children at greater risk because due diligence had not been applied in risk analysis and mitigation is quite simply, irresponsible before the Lord. Often only Matthew and Luke are cited as principles of stewardship in the Bible. However, everything Jesus taught gave  deeper insight on the Tanach. One of the primary passages on stewardship in the Tanach is Isaiah 22. 

Here, Isaiah 22 makes it clear that the lazy steward of the city and people was cast out and replaced by a man who became as a father to the people in a dangerous situation. I think this is extremely instructive for us. We are to be as mothers and fathers to our flock, especially when we are in risk, paying attention to them extremely closely out of a heart to care for them. 

In risk, as leaders, we have a clear calling to not be cavalier about His resources and His people, but to do the opposite - to love and help them into endurance. When God's people endure in high risk situations, we are putting His Kingdom on display, and through that, people at the very gate of hell are led out of demonic captivity and into His eternal presence. 

Let's at least do our best to analyze the numbers coherently and use similar data sets in the numbers we choose to use in our risk analysis. 


No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to comment related to this post or ask additional questions. All comments require moderation. I do not post sales or non-related links.