Is persecution good for the Church? For example, there is much political and ethnic turmoil throughout Africa these days. The family of God is sometimes caught at opposite ends of the discussions and tensions. Hutu and Tutsi believers in Rwanda are an example of Christian family members being divided by ethnicity. Baoulé and Bambara Christians would be an example in Côte d’Ivoire.
Times of ethnic and religious tensions should provide the opportunity for God’s people to demonstrate how the love of Christ transcends ethnic lines; however, this does not always happen. Believers suffer, and some are jailed.
Missionaries put themselves at risk for multiple reasons and with varying motives. Risk as a verb is defined as “to expose to hazard or danger” (Mish 1987). A theology of risk establishes a scriptural understanding for bearing witness and discipling nations in the midst of hazardous or dangerous settings. Some workers believe God is calling them to stay in a risky situation and are prepared to die, citing that the safest place is in the centre of God’s will. Others remain due to faulty analysis of their dangerous situation and a tendency to downplay the threat. If they have already gone through similar circumstances, they become like the “frog in the kettle,” gradually accepting the risk as normal. Some simply do not decide to leave; they stay too long and become casualties. For others, the danger aspect puts stress on what Hill calls psychological fault lines. They think, “I must stay to prove my faith, obedience, and courage.” Others stay to prove their love for the nationals. In these last two instances, the decision is often more about the missionaries and their needs than the church or the call (Hill 2000, p. 339).
As mission team leaders and member care providers for international workers in today’s troublesome global context, we need a growing understanding of a theology of risk. We are also working at a time when society has a preoccupation with safety. Note how many instructions when travelling or commercials we watch that include the words “for your safety” or “your safety is our primary concern.”
Providing member care for workers is most effective in the context of a full ever-broadening understanding of the theology of risk. This understanding, however, is not complete without an appreciation of how workers each have their own unique grasp of this theology. Some have what might be called a “textbook” understanding. They have thought this through, searched Scriptures, and have perhaps even sought out anecdotal support for their developing understanding of what God says about taking risks for the sake of increasing His Kingdom. Others have never given the theology of risk a passing or personal thought. This essay attempts to shed light on the various aspects of the theology of risk and to help member care providers navigate within scriptural teachings on the subject.
Larry Postman cautions us not to glorify suffering in and of itself and warns we should not look for risky situations so we might suffer more (Postman 2001, p. 94). We are not to take delight in pain or the suffering of others. Jesus is a healer and was very much involved in a healing ministry, relieving suffering while on earth. We understand His great compassion for those in affliction. At the same time, we know suffering contributes to our spiritual growth, “If we suffer, we shall also reign with Him...” (2 Timothy 2:12 KJV1).
On the positive side, Postman speaks of some of the benefits we can capitalize on in times of chaos. “Living in the midst of anarchic, insecure situations can have the effect of paring away the layers of ‘security’ in which the modern world enfolds us” (Postman 2000, p. 95). Kaplan juxtaposes the idea; “people find liberation in violence . . . worrying about mines and ambushes frees you from worrying about mundane details of daily existence” (Kaplan 2000, p. 45).
Understanding the role of suffering in the believer’s life, the present-day cross-cultural worker should not recoil from risky situations as found in political, social, or economic chaos. Missionary candidates “should instead be instilled with a ‘survivalist’ mentality which will acknowledge the very real possibility of physical and mental suffering in the midst of missionary ministry and be prepared to deal with on a day by day, even hour by hour, basis” (Postman 2000, p. 95).
Discovering biblical principles for working in risky contexts is necessary, now more than ever, because while the Great Commission and the Great Commandment have not changed, the world has changed. As a result, Christians find themselves needing to move into harm’s way to love their neighbours and disciple them in the ways of our Lord Jesus Christ.
In this chapter, we seek to develop a theology of risk by first looking at the second portion of Hebrews 11 and then looking at the life of Jesus and some of the apostles as they dealt with risk.
The “Others” of Hebrews 11:35
In the well-known eleventh chapter of Hebrews, we read of great men and women of faith. It is an inspiring chapter. The first thirty-five verses challenge us in our walk with God as people of faith. The second part of verse 35 takes a sombre turn to talk about “others,” presumably also people of faith, for whom things did not turn out so well. They were caught in much suffering. Some did not survive; some died brutal deaths. F.F. Bruce observes, “Faith in God carries with it no guarantee of comfort in this world: this was no doubt one of the lessons which our author wished his readers to learn. But it does carry with it great reward in the only world that ultimately matters” (Bruce 1990, p. 329).
Biblical examples illustrate for us how things did not always go well and how there was room to question where God was at these moments. Consider Moses (Deuteronomy 32:48-52), who came to the end of his life after a career of leading the people of God. God told him to go up Mount Nebo and gaze on the Promised Land. This was the destination and the goal that had been in front of Moses for a very long time. Yet, God told Moses he would never set foot there. He would die and be buried on this side of the Promised Land. The dream for him was never consummated. Commentator Earl Kalland muses, “Did ever exuberance of satisfaction, promise, and victory mix with disappointment and pathos more dramatically” (Gaebelein 1992, p. 217)?
Scripture is silent on what Moses was thinking or what he might have said. One can only put themselves into his robes and try to imagine some serious questions about God and His concept of reward for faithful service. Might Moses not be thinking of how deserving he was after all he had done? “I’ve lived my whole life serving you through thick and thin, and this is it; no ‘well done’ at the end of my life?” This question hangs unanswered.
Think of Jeremiah, who was called by God to service while still in his mother’s womb. Yet, he faced horrible suffering as he faithfully went about his prophetic duties. He could well have wondered where God was when he was placed in stocks (Jeremiah 20:2) and left all night in what must have been a distorted bodily position. When he was beaten and again put in prison (Jeremiah 37:15), one wonders what his thoughts about God were during those lonely hours. This dungeon with several feet of mud (Jeremiah 38:6-13) was where his enemies left him to die. It certainly would also have been a place to ask, “Why me, Lord?” Jeremiah qualifies to be included with “the others” of Hebrews chapter 11, for whom life did not turn out well.
Then there is Jesus, the Son of God, in the garden, thinking about what was ahead of Him. “‘Abba, Father,’ he said, ‘everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will’” (Mark 14:36). Deep within, He struggled. His commitment to doing God’s will was strong. Naturally, He would not have chosen to suffer. If the goal could have been accomplished another way, He would prefer that way. Filmmaker Mel Gibson graphically portrayed for the world the physical suffering Jesus endured. Was the more tremendous suffering not the momentary spiritual separation from God? “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (Mark 15:34)?
Moses, Jeremiah, and Jesus are biblical leaders with challenging assignments which included trauma and suffering. However, while the trauma of Moses was a psychological trauma of disappointment and misunderstanding, the trauma of Jeremiah and Jesus was physical as they carried out the Father’s will.
Risk-Taking in the Life of Jesus
Webster’s dictionary defines risk as a “possibility of loss or injury” (Mish 1987, p. 1018). There are numerous occasions when Jesus was faced with this possibility. For example, in Matthew 2, Herod intended to wipe out any potential rival king and requested the wise men to report back to him the location of the divine Child. The keeper God spoke twice using a dream to protect baby Jesus. First, He told the wisemen to depart via a different route. Then He told Joseph to take Jesus to Africa and seek refuge there until further word. The sad consequence of these actions was Herod’s anger at being outwitted, resulting in the killing of all male children under two years of age in the Bethlehem region. God could have protected His only begotten Son in Bethlehem; however, escape was the method He chose to protect Jesus in this situation.
Years later, Jesus as a grown man, found Himself in discussion with the Pharisees (Luke 4:24:30). The consequence of His words infuriated His audience; they physically attacked Jesus taking Him to the edge of town, intent on pushing Him over a cliff. The possibility of loss or injury was significant. Yet, Jesus did not shy away from speaking the truth, knowing confrontation was inevitable. The keeper God could have performed a spectacular miracle. Though hard to understand, the smaller miracle was how Jesus just slipped away through the crowd and left them (Luke 4:30). Did God use a restraining power to keep the mob from grabbing Jesus? God did not do this back at the synagogue, where they were not restrained from manhandling Jesus.
On another occasion, the Pharisees were angered by Jesus (Matthew 12:14- 16; Mark 3:6-7). Jesus learned of their plot to kill Him. He was definitely at risk and left the area. There was no apparent divine intervention; instead, human precaution guided the actions of Jesus. He was at risk, and He did the wise thing.
Reacting to “friendly fire,” in contrast to opposing forces (John 6:15), Jesus read a risky situation, saw the potential for injury, and then withdrew to the hills, a place of solitude and renewal. Violence was not to be His method for Kingdom progress. No divine intervention was observed. Later, when something He said was construed as blasphemous (John 8:58-59), stones were picked up with which to stone Him. Again, a risky situation arose, and Jesus slipped away from the temple grounds. Again, He took the risk to proclaim truth, which provoked a dangerous reaction.
In John 10:31-40, we find another stoning was pending. When Jesus claimed to be the Son of God and continued to risk speaking the truth, they tried to arrest Him. He evaded this by slipping away towards the river. However, active plotting of death by authorities (John 11:45-54) brought Jesus once more into a risky situation. His response was to withdraw to a desert region and cease His public ministry.
The triumphal entry into Jerusalem marked the end of Jesus operating on the perimeter. He moved to centre stage. It was “the beginning of the end” (Matthew 21-23). He deliberately positioned Himself as Messiah. He showed His aggressive side by cleaning out the temple, which brought Him again into a position of risk and confrontation with the authorities. He knew His death and resurrection were on His path as part of God’s redemptive plan. Later, when Peter pulled out his sword in a defensive posture, Jesus told him to put it away (Matthew 26:52-54). There was no divine intervention. Jesus stated He could have called for help, He could have again slipped through the crowd, but instead, He chose not to so Scripture might be fulfilled.
Risk-Taking in the Life of the Apostles
As the story of Christ’s death and resurrection was told, the lives of the messengers were placed at risk. The result was some came into harm’s way, and their lives were threatened. There does not seem to be a consistent pattern in their ministry. At times, certain precautions were evident. At times, there was divine intervention, and at other times there was not.
In Acts 4, some were disturbed that Peter and John claimed a resurrection from the dead. Consequently, they were arrested and jailed, as there was no immediate divine intervention. Yet, some five thousand men responded to their message because of their risk-taking, proclamation, and willingness to face the risk to proclaim. The divine intervention, in this case, came the following morning when Peter was filled with God’s Spirit and empowered to boldly give a reason for the hope inside of him to a select group of leaders and elders of the nation. Had Peter and John not been jailed, they might not have had this unique audience. God’s sovereignty is seen in timing and empowering. The apostles did not back down. They stood their ground.
After another jail experience, we see divine intervention (Acts 5:17) when an angel of God came at night to open the prison gates for their escape. This provision of a divine escape came with the directive for them to immediately go to the temple and continue the ministry. This was a further call to risk-taking on their part, resulting in a second arrest and appearance before a furious council intent on killing them. Gamaliel spoke logic into the situation, and tempers calmed. The apostles were then flogged and sent on their way; their lives were spared. They rejoiced in having entered into Christ’s sufferings, thus well modelling their theology of suffering.
The story of Stephen (Acts 6) illustrates a powerful ministry of signs and wonders. His actions demonstrated fearlessness and risk-taking. When he was arrested, an opportunity opened up for a powerful sermon to be delivered to a select group of leaders. The leaders were enraged. His vicious stoning happened with no intervention from God, and Stephen died. One is left to wonder if Stephen’s bold risk-taking, as witnessed by Saul (Acts 8:1), contributed to Saul’s eventual conversion.
Paul began to preach, and he did it powerfully (Acts 9:20, 22, 27), to the point where he risked disturbing the Jews who then plotted his death. In the face of this risk, we see Paul taking a precaution to escape by night over a wall. He does not seem to be careless and wait for some special intervention by God. We assume Ananias had told Paul he had been chosen by God for a unique mandate as a messenger to the Gentiles, kings, and Israel (Acts 9:15). To step away and escape now meant saving his life in order to engage in God’s special mandate. With this mandate came a promise of suffering (Acts 9:16).
The risks Paul faced were from the Church. How could they now accept a person who had gone out of his way to persecute the Church? Initially, the believers in Jerusalem mistrusted his testimony (Acts 9:26); only after the intervention of a trusted colleague was he accepted (Acts 9:28).
The risky life of an apostle meets different ends in Acts 12. In one instance, King Herod Agrippa killed the apostle, James. There is no indication of what precipitated Herod’s anger against James; this was the beginning of his persecution of believers. There is no indication of divine intervention or of opportunities to escape. Meeting with initial success as measured by the response of the Jewish leaders, Herod took steps to continue a similar fate for Peter. However, in this instance, as the Church prayed while Peter was in prison awaiting his fate, God stepped into the picture to miraculously release him.
Mission history bears out how God has chosen to do something out of the ordinary to free and release one of His servants, and yet, on the other hand, we have a list of martyrs. God does not always choose to miraculously deliver or provide a way of escape. It was also left to God to deal with Herod, which He did by cursing him with worms, causing his death (Acts 12:23).
On another occasion, Jews incited God-fearing women of high standing and leading men of the city to oppose Paul and Barnabas. They were expelled from the region, shaking the dust from their feet as they left town and moved to Iconium (Acts 13:49). Again, no particular precautions or divine intervention is evident.
They continued in Iconium with the same agenda, preaching and teaching in the synagogue, with good results. Opposition arose as they continued to speak boldly. Signs and wonders affirmed their ministry. They learned of plans to stone them, so they fled. There is no special protection from God. They land in Lystra and continue their agenda of preaching the good news.
One would almost begin to think persecution served to spread the Gospel throughout the region. Some from Iconium and Antioch caught up with Paul in Lystra and stoned him, leaving him for dead. There is no divine intervention. Paul got up, showing great boldness and with some risk to his life, went back into town. He and Barnabas went to Derbe the next day, where many people responded to their message. They were fully aware of the risk and danger, and knowing their opposition delegation was still in the area, they turned around. They headed back through the towns of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. You would think they were the ones most in need of member care, but their mission was to encourage the family of God. “We must go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God,” they said in Acts 14:21. Their own recent experiences stand as strong validation for their teaching (Acts 14:21-28).
Paul’s second journey was again full of risk. He returned to visit the towns where he met opposition and suffered at the hands of his persecutors (Acts 15:36- 41). An incident in Philippi had Paul and Silas severely flogged and imprisoned.
However, divine intervention by way of an earthquake brought about the jailer’s salvation. Paul appealed to his Roman citizenship, thus gaining respect before the authorities and maybe safeguarding the Church. Paul and Silas then left town following their release and a pastoral visit to Lydia’s household (Acts 16: 13-15).
The next stop was Thessalonica. Paul obeyed divine direction received during a night vision generally known as the Macedonian Call (Acts 16:9). Trouble followed Paul as he openly taught in the synagogue for three Sabbaths. He escaped at night to Berea. When trouble followed Paul, the brothers sent him to Athens for his own safety and theirs. Silas and Timothy remained in Berea (Acts 17:14). Missionary Bradley Hill observes Paul’s concern for his physical safety was minimal, and not once in his recorded prayers did he pray for protection. Rather, his prayer was for an opportunity to be found for the Gospel (Hill 2000, p. 336).
In an effort to extrapolate a theology of evacuation from these passages, Hill suggests three guiding principles for when to evacuate: 1) a viable Christian community had been established; 2) the continuing presence of the missionaries, Paul, Silas, and Timothy, put the Church in danger; 3) the believers asked the missionaries to leave (Hill 2000, p. 337).
From Athens to Corinth, Paul joined up with fellow tentmakers Aquila and Priscilla and continued preaching and teaching in the synagogue. Divine intervention happened during a dream where God affirmed Paul’s ministry, allayed his fears and assured protection. Paul’s track record had been, preach and then face persecution, so a word from God, showing His keeper side, was probably most welcome at this juncture. Paul did an eighteen-month term in Corinth (Acts 18:9-11).
Paul next took the road to Ephesus and spent some time there. Of note is the account of a riot when the city filled the theatre and two of Paul’s team were seized. Paul would have liked to defend himself and his team in front of this crowd, but his disciples stepped in, forbidding him from entering the theatre. Paul saw the wisdom of not making matters worse and perhaps further endangering the lives of the believers. He listened to his counsellors and friends and later left town. God used the city clerk to take a courageous stand and diffuse the explosive situation (Acts 19:28-31, 35).
We note Paul being alert and informed and, as a result making a decision to alter travel plans to evade trouble (Acts 20:3). Here, he did not choose a risky situation.
The Jerusalem trip was before him. The Holy Spirit had already informed him trouble was ahead by way of prison and hardship, but he was compelled by the Spirit to face the risk (Acts 20:22, 23). Friends pleaded with him not to go. In this case, he could not be dissuaded, and eventually, his friends said to let God’s will be done (Acts 21:12-14). Upon arrival, colleagues devised a plan to do Jewish rituals to show others he respected the Law. However, in the ensuing mayhem, Paul was mobbed, beaten, and almost killed (Acts 21:27). His trial followed.
Finally, Paul sailed for Rome. In this situation, the keeper side of God was evident when panic broke out during the storm and eventual shipwreck. God had assured Paul through an angel that all would be saved. Then, while preparing a fire on the island of Malta, God protected Paul from a viper’s bite as a testimony to His keeping power (Acts 28:5).
By reflecting on the lives of some of the “others” of Hebrews 11:35, then seeing how Jesus and Paul faced the risky situations of their lives, we find hope to move forward boldly and with confidence in our chaotic world. We can shape a solid biblical theology of risk to sustain us in tough times.
Summary
There is risk in daily life. For example, there are hazards when travelling, whether by air or by road, health risks, and security risks in politically and economically unstable countries. Yet, despite such risks, people carry on daily living in our global village.
There is risk in gospel ministry. In a postmodern world, we teach absolutes: a unique Scripture and a unique salvation. In societies with differing religions and valued attitudes of tolerance, we preach Christ crucified and salvation in no other name (Acts 4:12).
There is risk in missionary work. It is an ingredient of total obedience, a component of moving into Enemy territory and discipling the nations. Risk is a factor in the proclamation of a unique message and a catalyst for increased dependence on God. It can be a measuring stick showing commitment to Kingdom building.
Risk is implied in Matthew 10:16, “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” Jesus intentionally puts His disciples at risk in a ministry context. Mission administrators make assignment decisions that place workers at risk. Workers accept ministry assignments placing their families at risk, knowing they may suffer or encounter harm or loss.
Jesus was well aware the mission on which He was sending His disciples was dangerous. In Matthew 10:17-21, Jesus, the leader, is very transparent about what His followers would be up against. He provides further instruction, advising them to be aware of the Enemy’s tactics. They are to be alert and on guard. When brought suddenly before authorities, they are to rest assured that God’s Spirit will provide the words to say. They are to expect hatred. They will be persecuted, not if but when. Yet, in the face of this reality, Jesus sought to instill courage by three times telling them not to be afraid and ascribing value to them as God’s messengers (Matthew 10:24-31).
Through prayer and risk-taking, the Kingdom of God moves forward. Those who are mission team leaders and member care providers responsible for the care of Kingdom workers must have a solid understanding of biblical truth, a solid theology of risk and suffering.
This is an excerpt from the book, On Mission Volume 4. Download your free copy today.