Unhelpful Things People Say in Cross-Cultural Risk #1

This series is based on real statements really heard in risk situations.

"I'm ready to be blown up."

Background:

A young father shares his concerns about the current threat level against the international church. The leader responds with, "I'm ready to be blown up."  This leader fits Risk Myths #7, 8, 13, and 14. This leader did not "feel" the threats, and felt he was ready, as a man who had raised his children, that he was ready to be blown up should the building be attacked one Sunday. The leader truly may be ready, but the young father did not feel cared for, and went to another person to share his fears.

How would you have responded to this father's fears?

If it would have been with a Bible verse, that's called a "conceptual response."  The young, concerned father already knows those verses. If it would have been a statement like the one above, implying that the elder had counted the cost but the young father had not, again, it does not address the situational issue of counting the cost of attending church with little ones who have no choice in the matter.

As a leader or member care personnel, we need to be more discerning of what people are trying to communicate by "reading between the lines." Meaning: the underlying issues of the surface statements.

A situational response is what was called for here. There was a direct threat against the church, thus, a very specific risk situation.  The outcome could have been different if the leader had drawn the young father out, asked him to share more about his fears, addressed what mitigation had been done and was planned for by the church, and what more felt needs the young father was aware he had, then the conversation would not have been passed on.

The father could have felt cared for by the leaders of the church, which would have lowered his anxiety and fear level, thus increasing his resiliency in an increasing risk situation, so that the strategic work could continue to be effective as the father was encouraged and could demonstrate joy in a dangerous situation for his family and those he was leading.


Risk Myth 13 and Risk Myth 14 are available here.
Go to Unhelpful Things People say in Risk #2

Why Giving a Suffering Answer to a Risk Question Isn't Helpful Part 2

Conceptual Thinking Vs. Situational Thinking 

Cross-cultural Risk is an event, a situation with a great amount of uncertainty. It is a question asking about the calling and meaning of my life, my death, and my work.

In my book, Facing Danger, I've defined cross-cultural risk as: 

"Potentially losing my life for the sake of the Gospel."  However, I quickly realized I left out the other half of risk:   GAIN. 

When we risk, we have the opportunity for loss OR gain for the sake of the Gospel.  This is the definition we use in our RAM Training and will eventually make it into Facing Danger 2nd 2nd.


The longer definition is: 

We choose and are called to go or remain in a situation where we are willingly exposing ourselves to laying down our lives which we do for the advancement of God's kingdom. Faith-based risk refers not just to the external aspects of danger, but must include what is happening internally about God, others, and oneself.(1)

When we enter this type of situation, it is crucial to engage in what is termed, "Situational Thinking." In the West, we are used to primarily "Conceptual Thinking" to engage in problem solving. Please be clear - BOTH are needed in tension in the risk situation.


How are conceptual thinking and situational so different?(2) Conceptualizing a problem is not the problem itself and often distorts it. "It is one thing to entertain or comprehend a certain concept; it is another thing to experience an actual situation and to perceive a real problem"(3).

As Heschel himself says, 

Too often speculation becomes analysis-by-long-distance of sounds transmitted over a poor connection. We formulate and debate the issues while oblivious to, alienated from the experiences or the insights which account for our raising the issues. The predicament of much of contemporary philosophy is partly due to the fact that ongoing conceptualizations have so far outdistanced the situation which engender [theologizing] that their conclusions seem to be unrelated to the original problems.(4)

As a mom choosing multiple times to return to Afghanistan with my husband Neal and our little children, I needed to process what it meant for me to go to a place and a people group where foreign aid workers were under constant threat of kidnapping and being killed.

My problem was far beyond the concepts of risk, it went far beyond spiritual platitudes. My problem never got easier, only harder the more I knew and experienced the risks. Each time, an altar in my life was needed, and God gently led my through.

My problem of risk was deeply personal and extremely painful. It was isolating and lonely for both Neal and me. I rarely felt understood or empthasized with. My problem involved myself and those I loved the most. My problem involved making potentially life-shattering decisions for three little people who had no say in the matter but for whom I was (and am) 100% responsible.

Was I lacking eternal perspective? No. I knew the big vision of the unreached people groups, and the desire to see more people in eternity with God. And this is what keeps me going on the days I just wanted to go home.

But while the big picture is necessary, and is what gets us to the field, more is needed to help us thrive through risk, through the problem of the human situation, the ultimate questions, than simply the answers found in traditional dogma, creed, and the ultimate vision.

Conceptual Thinking is:

• Detached analysis; thinking about concepts rather than the situations that account for them; thinking about phenomena in a purely speculative way.

• An adequate way of dealing with intellectual questions, but not existential ones.  It is a detached way of viewing a problem. 

• Most discussion on risk only engages in describing risk as a phenomenon to be studied. And since most of those writing about risk have rarely experienced the risk of laying down their lives, the primary focus of their writings has been on the concepts of risk from a cognitive approach, utilizing a proof text or anecdotal approach of Scripture. 

• Too often, conceptual thinking wrongly is indifferent or personally unbiased to the situation, While conceptual thinking is needed, it must be balanced with careful reflection as part of situational thinking to understand and explore all aspects of the phenomena of risk. 

Situational Thinking: 

• Deals with situations by way of concerned involvement; thinking about situations not only the concepts that arise from them;  

• Risk is an existential problem (existence, and the meaning of existence). This is not to be confused with existentialism, but it is to be understood in terms of possibly being killed, martyred, the annhilation of existence, forces much more than thinking about a situation to the top - emotions, core questions, meaning of life, death, and work, are all issues that very often need to be acknowedged and addressed again, often right in the middle of the risk situation. 

• The situation of a risk situation forces us to face what we are willing to die...or not die for. In this way, Conceptual thinking only goes so far. It only addresses the problem from a rational and reductionistic viewpoint, and so does not minister to the heart and soul of the person in risk. 

 Our first goal then, in considering risk, is to place ourselves in the situation like I described risk was for me, and try to understand what the needs, the problems, the emotional, spiritual, and mental dilemmas are. But no one answer will suffice. Everyone's pain, past trauma, and core questions are different and unique.

We must engage with each unique personality without judgment, in order to empathize with them and understand them, so we can point them on the right path in risk.


1. Hampton, Facing Danger, 2016, Chap. 8, p.112.
2. The following are notes I've excerpted, paraphrased, and applied to risk from John Merkle's discussion of Heschel's Philosophy of Religion approach, found in Merkle's book, The Genesis of Faith, p.32.
3. Ibid., p.35.
4. Heschel, Who is Man, 1965, 1.

Why Giving a Suffering Answer to a Risk Question Isn't Helpful, Part 1

The simple answer is that suffering answers a question that risk is not asking.

Suffering is the the experience of real pain in my life through the medium of the body or the psyche (mind and emotions). The experience of pain in the body as the result of persecution, torture, or the pain of betrayal or psychological torture is the daily reality of Christ followers all over the world. All Followers will suffer - Jesus made that clear in Matthew 5:10-11.There is so much written about suffering, I won't begin here. Significant modern writers touching on three major aspects of suffering  include C.S. Lewis (intellectual), Joni Erickson Tada (physical), and Joseph Tson (persecution).

But risk is an entirely different concept. Risk is the threat of suffering, the threat of pain, the threat of persecution, torture, kidnapping, and death. Choosing to go to places where these threats are 24/7 reality, where the smell of death is inescapable, is an entirely different experience from suffering. Those verses that are a comfort in suffering are not automatically or necessarily a comfort in risk.

Giving suffering answers to risk questions demonstrates several things:

1. Not really listening to the heart of the person asking; 
2. Not really listening and understanding the problem being expressed; and
3. A lack of understanding what risk is, both as a concept and as an experience. 

I've received "suffering" answers so many times, that I'm very careful who I go to for advice and input as I work through my own risk dilemmas as a mom living in the Middle East.

The Bible reveals three significant concepts about risk:

1. It is always referred to as an event that requires action and response (Ex. 17; I Sam 19:5, Acts 15:26; Rom 16:4; Phil 2:30.)
2. When risk is referred to, it is only in the event of risking one's life for the righteousness of God and the sake of Jesus Christ. 
3. In all its uses in the OT and NT it is always related to the covenant relationship between God and man. 

Risk is an event, and the only way to truly understand risk is by balanced awareness of both conceptual thinking and situational involvement, because risk is an action, not primarily an intellectually abstract problem.

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.