When Should a Missionary Flee?
The war in Ukraine has renewed focus on an age-old question, “when should a missionary flee?” The pages of Scripture and Christian history provide many examples for this question.
For those who chose to remain in harm’s way, some reaped a harvest of souls as a direct result of their selfless identification with the people, e.g., Robert Moffat. Others were martyred, e.g., Jim Elliot. Those who left were sometimes able to return and resume fruitful ministries. But in other cases, the door never reopened. Historical examples illustrate options and results but don’t provide a definitive answer to the question.
Two accounts from the missionary service of the Apostle Paul reinforce a conclusion from sacred history that the decision to flee is unique to each person and situation. On the one hand, Paul fled Jewish persecution in Damascus. While the Jews watched the gates to capture and kill him, Paul escaped by being lowered over the wall in a basket (Acts 9:21-25). Years later, Paul chose to continue his journey to Jerusalem despite knowing that he would suffer and possibly die at the hands of the Jews. Contrary to warnings, counsel, and pleadings, Paul unilaterally insisted on continuing to Jerusalem (Acts 20:22- 24; 21:4, 10-14). His arrest in Jerusalem ultimately led to his martyrdom in Rome, and who would question that this was the will of God for him?
The examples of Scripture teach us to be led by God in each situation—that the decision is not based solely on a calculated assessment of the risk. Neither the missionary’s safety, nor the potential loss of ministry opportunity, nor the desire to identify with the people are sole determinants. It is not simply a choice between faith and fear. Neither is it a balancing act between potential risk and reward. The choice to remain can be admirable faith or stubborn foolishness. When led by God, departing the field may require more faith than remaining behind. In the absence of universal criteria for an objective decision, the missionary must work through a set of principles toward a subjective decision based on a firm confidence in the will of God for him.
How then should a mission board counsel its missionaries, and what should be the board’s policy toward geopolitical threats? From December 2021, the developing war in Ukraine forced the question upon missionaries of that region. As the administrator for Europe with missionaries in both Russia and Ukraine, I needed to fulfill a biblical role in counseling those two missionaries. While our natural inclination is to base our counsel solely upon concern for the physical safety of the missionaries, that narrow viewpoint deviates from the examples of Scripture and BWM policy, which seeks to honor the examples of Scripture.
Our key concern during those weeks preceding the outbreak of war was to ensure that our missionaries were cognizant of the potentialities, fully prepared for every conceivable outcome, and in communication with key counselors, especially their sending church pastor. Following unanimous counsel, our missionary in Kyiv left before the war started. Our missionary in Russia left when his situation quickly and unexpectedly deteriorated after the outbreak of war. In both cases, counsel and prudent preparations played a vital role. In the spirit of Acts 21:14, BWM resists forcing this decision upon missionaries. “And when he [Paul] would not be persuaded, we ceased, saying, The will of the Lord be done.” Whereas each case should be considered on its own merits, in every case, the missionary needs to be fully persuaded of the Lord’s will for him.
Dr. Kevin Brosnan is the Baptist World Mission Field Administrator for Europe and Central Asia. This article first appeared in the BWM Newsletter, The Messenger, and is republished with permission.
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash