Risk and Vulnerability

In this resource, Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist have a discourse about the issue of risk management and the vulnerability of missions for where their people are, and what they do.

Part 1 (from Brent)

Hi Theresa! A recent issue of the online newsletter Missions Interlink from New Zealand has an article about the 2016 “Health and Safety at Work Act” and its application for missions. First of all, it is consoling that the United States is not the only one that likes policies and procedures! But it is sobering that the Act lays out a bunch of requirements and responsibilities that raise the issue as to whether churches and missions are liable, or how liable they may be, for the health and safety of field workers. In good legalese, the author responds to that question by saying “it depends.”

This brings up many interesting issues that I wonder if you are aware of, and where the United States is on some of these. A key issue in the article is "that leaders need to ensure that they are proactively providing a healthy and safe working environment and their staff need to participate in developing a healthy and safe workplace environment and culture at all levels."

We have typically seen that, there are so many open ended variables in cross-cultural settings that it is difficult to train and account for all of them. In some ways, missions organizations have taken an attitude of “Que sera, sera.” It sounds like this new legislation is not going to allow such a laissez-faire attitude about the stresses and strains of missionary life. Perhaps unrealistically, it assumes that all risks are relatively manageable. This worries me, in that somebody may think an unmanageable risk is actually manageable, and therefore the mission organization could be liable for negligence when something goes wrong.

In this thread, I would like us to discuss the issue of risk management and the vulnerability of missions for where their people are, and what they do. Who is responsible for what? For the purposes of your next comment, Theresa, I wonder if you are aware of any requirements, or case examples addressing this new legislation in New Zealand and Australia?

Part 2 (from Theresa)

Hi Brent. It’s no surprise to me that New Zealand, being fairly socialized, would pass such an Act. One small consolation may be that the Act likely cannot be enforced against those who are not New Zealand employers. For one thing, it would be hard to get jurisdiction over them. And even in New Zealand, it will take awhile to develop a body of case law around the legislation.

But this legislation is probably the sign of a trend. In the world today, organizations that work internationally especially face frequent and unpredictable violence from terrorism and war. Humans don’t like to feel that things are out of their control. How better to regain “control” than to pass an Act saying that things must be safe and happy?

Even without an Act, missions should be considering the health and safety of their workers. These considerations are more complex than they have ever been. They can cover everything from sexual harassment to disease to terrorism to personnel policies, or some intersection of them. To take one example, I am told that many missionaries may not have wills, or even guardianships for their children—both for when they are alive but unable to care for them (illness or hostage situation) or if they die. While I realize that getting these documents is costly, not to have them is foolish and can create much greater problems on the back end of a crisis.

There are many other ways in which missions can strive to have good policies, good work environments, adequate crisis management plans, and so forth. We’ve talked a lot recently about disabilities and how missions do assessments, which addresses one aspect of a work environment. I’ve seen recently that something as relatively simple as promptly and adequately investigating complaints can make a big difference in organizational culture. So can holding people accountable to behave well towards others from the very highest levels down. The secular organizations have a term for this, but it involves language that I don’t want to post in a missions blog (The No Insert-Bad-Word-Here Rule).

But there is so much involved here on so many levels that you can only summarize by saying, “Get leadership and HR squared away.” In all issues of negligence, the standard is “reasonableness.” An organization is not going to be liable for a situation that it could not have reasonably prevented. It won’t be liable for failing to make responses if it could not have reasonably foreseen what was needed. But it might be liable for dangers or situations that ARE reasonably foreseeable.

I’m assuming that your next post is going to put me on the spot about some particular area of risk management!

Part 3 (from Brent)

Risk Management and Martyrdom

Well done, Theresa! I thought you tried to cover a lot of things there, some of which we have talked about in other blogs in the past. But you got me thinking about a particular issue that revolves around the theology or missiology of suffering. I have suggested to a number of mission agencies that they intentionally have missionaries take into account the reality of the hardship of cross-cultural ministry, and the fact that there may be very bad outcomes at certain times and in certain places. One way to do this is a missionary dedication service, in which there is a responsive reading between the missionary and the organization with the congregation observing. The mission’s share is to indicate that it is deeply committed to ensuring the thriving and care of the missionary. The missionary’s response is to acknowledge that there will be hardships, including difficult situations that could lead to injury, suffering, or death. This is a pretty powerful statement to say and I'm wondering how you would respond to that, especially wearing your attorney hat.

There are many things that are out of an organization’s control, no matter how hard it tries. That can include kidnappings, car-jackings, rape, physical violence, and death. Assuming that this law in New Zealand becomes a standard application for other countries, how do we create an environment that both protects everyone and yet allows people to follow their calling?

Part 4 (from Theresa)

Hi Brent,

The very nature of missions is that we have to be willing to take up our cross and die for Christ. Most of the great missions biographies show us people living very difficult lives and even being martyred. Our brothers and sister in many countries are being martyred right now.

From a spiritual perspective, people should be encouraged to consider the real nature of taking up a cross and being willing to die. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said, “When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die.” Or as Amy Carmichael said, “Missionary life is simply a chance to die.”

The missionary dedication service you describe is a great way to acknowledge that reality of spiritual commitment for both the missionary and the sending church. The missionary training programs should have a similar preparation of reflecting on these things.

I’ve written before on this issue of how missions and missionaries need to acknowledge liability issues, in an article called The Blood of the Martyrs and Legal Liability. In addition to understanding how legal liability is formed, the article discusses informed consent and assumption of the risk. Generally, this means that if you are asking someone to do something dangerous, you should make sure that they really understand and consent to the risk (going into surgery is the classic example). And usually, they sign something to that effect. People going overseas can state that they understand the risks and waive liability against the mission.

But in my concept, this consent or waiver would not be written in legalese, but instead would be a real testimony to the person’s faith and state the spiritual reasons for being willing to take the risk. In the event that something happened to the missionary, this same document could be read as a testimony of why he or she was willing to suffer or die for Christ.

Missions can do some things to protect people. But as much as we would like it to be so, life isn’t safe, and some missions activities are less safe than a quiet life in the home country. (Of course, the death rate is 100% no matter where you are, and for a Christian, seeing the face of Jesus is glorious.) Since we can’t protect people, we need to make sure that people understand and fully accept the risks they are taking. The understanding should be based on a deep spiritual commitment, and so should the documents that discuss it.

Part 5 (from Brent)

Hi Theresa. Thanks for this post, and thanks for reminder and link to the article. That was one of the earlier things we discussed, and it is nice to revisit it because it is so useful here.

I really like the idea of the missionary writing the consent in their own language, or at least having the missionary’s position incorporated into the documents. I would like to do that for one of the next posts. But, I wonder, could you give us a broad stroke outline of the major points that could be used in the narrative consent?

Also, what other points need to be considered on crisis management? Here are areas we may need to think about: what training the mission should provide for missionaries; whether the mission needs a crisis management policy in place; whether the mission needs a policy or power of attorney for hostage negotiations; how much the sending church should be involved in all this; and what kind of member care should be in place when there is some kind of crisis incident.

Part 6 (from Theresa)

Hi Brent,

You raise several questions. The only one I’m going to get to today relates to how to prepare missionaries to go overseas—what kind of vision statement or consent to danger and difficulty would we recommend? Perhaps the most practical approach would be to have a waiver more like the legal documents that we’re familiar with, but have a paragraph in the waiver refer to the missionary’s own vision statement and acceptance of risk as part of that vision statement. Then each missionary could explain what he or she hopes to accomplish, why he or she is called, and why (or whether) such a calling is worth encountering disease, violence, or other disasters.

In the 19th century, missionaries literally went overseas to die. They knew their chances of making it through very many years were not great. The African Soudan (now Nigeria) was called the White Man’s Graveyard because of the high mortality rate, mostly from diseases like malaria, but also from violence. Even if they lived a long life, travel was so expensive that they might never be able to visit home again. Some of the missionaries packed their belongings in their coffins—an interesting organizing approach. Here’s one letter written by a missionary dying of malaria at the age of 28 (one of the founders of SIM):

August 9, 1894

Written in view of my approaching end, which has often lately seemed so near but just now seems so imminent & I want to write while I have the power to do it.

Well Glory to God! He has enabled me to make a hard fight for the Soudan and although it may seem like a total failure and defeat it is not! We shall have the victory & that right speedily. I have no regret for undertaking this venture and in this manner my life has not been thrown away. My only regrets are for my poor dear mother. For her sake I would have chosen to live.

Mother Dear: And what a mother you have been. It seems I appreciate you now more than ever I did. Oh how often I have thought while lying here of your love and how I have longed to see you again in the flesh. Don’t mourn for me darling dearest mother. If the suffering was great, remember it is all over now and I think of the glory I am enjoying and rejoice that your boy “was permitted to have a hand in the redemption of the Soudan.”

Oh! How I did wish to live for your sake…..

……Goodbye dearest, till we meet at Jesus feet,

-Walter¹

And recently, the entire Pals family, young missionaries with WorldVenture, was killed (summer of 2016) in a car accident before even reaching the field—while on their way to missionary training. “In speaking with WorldVenture President Jeff Denlinger, Jamison and Kathryne’s fathers each echoed this sentiment: ‘Though we are devastated, we are praying that God would bring many to Christ through their testimonies and this tragedy.’” ²

My point is that before we can start the details of crisis management, we need to have our theology of suffering clear. Are we ready to pick up the Cross and die? In today’s world, we don’t pack our coffins, which wouldn’t make a great checked bag, but we face bombs and active shooters. Malaria is still around, too. Despite easier communications and more convenient lives, the death rate still is 100% without fail. What do we mean when we say we will follow Christ? How sure are we of life in Him? Mrs. Gowan and Walter met again, long ago. After we get that sorted, we can start talking about the details of crisis management.

Part 7 (from Theresa)

Now that we’ve considered the theological implications, let’s turn to some of the questions you raised, Brent.

First, let’s consider crisis preparation training as part of member care. Missionaries need to be prepared for what to expect. There are some excellent training programs that prepare for possible difficult conditions, including kidnapping, or missions can run their own internal programs. Liability is usually a function of negligence. If people are reasonably informed about risks and given reasonable training, then the mission won’t be negligent on training and preparation.

Having been informed about risks, the mission can consider having the missionary assume the risk. This is similar to what happens when you go skiing—or sky diving! The risks are laid out and acknowledged. In the missionary case, the risks might include disease, bodily injury, and terrorism, rather than rocks and broken bones. The person can acknowledge and consent to the risks, and release the organization from liability. The person can give authority to provide medical care as well.

We discussed how a missionary might explain his or her own vision and calling. While your actual legal waiver might not include that, I like the idea of having an accompanying document, which is the missionary’s own testimony and explanation of why he or she thinks that taking risks is worthwhile for the sake of sharing the gospel. Imagine what a powerful testimony that could be later, in the event that something happens to the missionary—a testament to what he or she believes.

In addition to what we’ve discussed, the mission should consider requiring or recommending a whole suite of documents: an estate plan, a medical power of attorney, a power of attorney in case of disability, guardianship of children, adequate insurance coverage.

Another possible document is a power of attorney for hostage negotiations. The document arises out of the question of who will do the negotiating if there is a hostage situation. Lately, the U.S. government has stated that it will work with the family of the hostage. But what if the family is not sympathetic to the mission vision of the hostage? What if the family is willing to sacrifice the work of the mission in the region to save the loved one? What if the government will not tell the mission anything, even though others may be at risk?

Some missions are addressing this by having missionaries sign a Power of Attorney assigning the mission as their designated agent for any hostage negotiations. This is a possible route that may be effective, but you have to consider issues like how to handle the potential role of a spouse, and whether the missionary needs legal counsel to give informed consent to something like this. Also, the mission should talk over with its missionaries the issue of whether it will pay ransom.

The mission needs to have a well-developed crisis management plan, with approaches for various emergencies spelled out so people understand them ahead of time. In situations where a crisis is triggered, the mission should implement the plan.

You also asked how the sending church should be involved. The sending church should understand the mission’s approach to various possible crisis situations. In addition, the commissioning ceremony of the sending church can acknowledge the vision and mission of the person being sent, including the understanding that it may involve suffering. The sending church can acknowledge being part of this commitment as part of the body of Christ, and can commit to being involved in member care if anything happens.

There are no easy answers, but if you prepare by training missionary candidates and have clear policies that everyone understands, you may at least avoid some needless suffering.

____________________________________________

"The Rock and the Hard Place" blog is a discourse between Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq. and Dr. Brent Lindquist on the topics of law, human resources, psychology, member care, and the theology of missions. To learn more about this blog and what it's all about, click here.

Theresa Lynn Sidebotham, Esq.

Dr. Brent Lindquist

¹ https://milesinmissions.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/pack-your-coffins-lets-go/

² https://www.worldventure.com/remembering-the-pals-family/

Disclaimer: not official legal or psychological advice or opinion