Lausanne World Pulse – World Pulse Archives – World Pulse Archives

Thursday, September 19: “I woke up about 4 a.m. to the sound of automatic gunfire in the distance. At about 6:30 a.m. we heard news of an attempted coup and that the cities of Abidjan, Bouaké and Korhogo had been attacked. Despite some tension and nervousness in the air, we decided to continue with the workshop.”

I was living in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, when war broke out in 2002. As my journal describes (World Pulse, Nov. 8, 2002), I was trapped between rebel troops and government soldiers as our team led a workshop in Bouaké, a town about five hours north of the capital. After being under siege for eight days, we were evacuated by French soldiers to a more secure part of the country.

All the mission agencies faced a difficult and uncertain decision: Do we evacuate our personnel completely, or stay? Some missions opted to remain despite the risks. Others left. Even those who departed differed—some did for a few weeks and returned; others left indefinitely. Some agencies required women and children to leave but allowed the men to return for short trips.

Difficult decisions How do mission agency personnel determine criteria for evacuation and sort out their differing responses to danger and risk on the field? Although many organizations have developed clear evacuation guidelines and criteria, in the heat of a crisis, clarity is hard to grasp, and the criteria becomes questionable.

Robert Klamser (EMQ, January 1992) suggests that mission organizations should cultivate various credible information sources for making evacuation decisions—including governments, news media, other missionaries, trusted nationals and competent professional advisors.

He also proposes doing a practical risk analysis—assessing the probability and potential consequences of each decision.

Judge not Beyond the immediate crisis, a dangerous and sinful side-effect of evacuations is the phenomenon of missionaries judging each other regarding their decision. Those who stay or return quickly may view evacuees as fearful, less faithful to the missionary call or less caring about the people they serve. Those who leave may judge those who stay as foolish, prideful, in denial or unnecessary risk-takers. Missionaries may judge organizations rather than individuals when the home office or field administration makes the decision.

Regardless of who gets the blame, the destructiveness takes its toll on the community of believers. Jesus said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” (John 13:35). Unbelievers will observe and note the decision, how it’s made and how those who decide differently are judged. Thus, judgment can tear apart Christian witness.

Ultimately, we must look at the fruit of the decisions to leave or stay. Has the trust, credibility and mutual respect between missionaries and those they serve been affected? Has the national church grown or declined? Have programs continued or died? How is the mental health of missionaries and their children? Has the decision changed how long they serve overseas? What has happened to the property and/or materials missionaries left on the field? If missionaries moved to a different field, how did their ministry change in fruitfulness?

It’s not just whether we leave, it’s how we leave. Whatever the decision, for many it’s a difficult and painful process. Let’s seek to understand, encourage and love those who are in the midst of such a crisis. FACTORS TO CONSIDER BEFORE EVACUATING

• Children’s education—Schooling may be interrupted. Children may have to transition from one educational system to another (i.e. French to English). Some missionaries at least partially base their decision to leave on whether their child’s school remains open.

• Other mission organizations—Most missionaries don’t want to be the first to leave. Some organizations take pride in their reputation for being the last ones out. Status accompanies that reputation.

• Embassy suggestions—Embassies have different reputations as well. Some are seen as overly cautious or reactive and therefore missionaries may ignore or minimize their advice.

• Experience—Former evacuees or those who have experienced more dangerous situations may downplay their current circumstances as “not so bad” and resist evacuation. Or, they may not want a repeat experience and therefore be quick to choose to leave.

• Nationality—Some team members from newer sending countries—Africa, Latin America and Asia—do not have the option to evacuate, especially if they are nationals. Those who do leave may then struggle with guilt and abandonment feelings.

• The national church’s attitude—Input from local church leaders depends on their former experience with war or coups and their relationship with the missionaries. But communication between missionary and church is critical; a breakdown can hinder trust between the church and mission organization in the future.

• Emotions—Dangerous, high-risk situations that threaten to destroy the lives of people are naturally accompanied by fear, guilt, anger and sadness. Although these reactions are normal, they aren’t easy to cope with. Unhealthy responses to these feelings might include denial, over-spiritualizing, distancing and numbing. As a result, people who should evacuate may decide to stay. On the other hand, anxiety, hopelessness, over-reaction and cynicism might cause those who should remain to leave.

For more on the impact of evacuation, see Bradley Hill’s article, “Toward a Theology of Evacuation,” in EMQ, July 2000. Read the article online at (www.billygrahamcenter.org/emis/2000/hill.htm)

Karen Carr serves as clinical director of the Mobile Member Care Team (www.mmct.org) of West Africa from her home in Accra, Ghana.