In February 26 of this year a gunman strode through the doors of the Seventh-day Adventist  Clinic in Tamuning, Guam, looked up his estranged wife, shot her and another nurse who happened to be nearby, then sought out the business manager and shot him.  The assailant was a former worker at the clinic who had been laid off as part of a downsizing effort. He had also been treated at a mental health unit of the clinic, then released shortly before his rampage.  He was stopped only because one of his intended victims grappled with him over the gun while a SWAT team from the local police department entered the building.  They dispatched him with bullets, fatally wounding him.  The clinic remained closed for a week while its 200 employees tried to cope with the tragedy.

Only a week or so later, on March 8, another Adventist institution on the other side of the planet, an office of  the Adventist Development and Relief Administration (ADRA) in Southern Sudan, was similarly invaded, this time by rebel soldiers bent on a political mission.  They shot two of the workers and took four others hostage.

Institutional shootings have become almost commonplace.  We are no longer surprised when postal workers go berserk with guns or schoolchildren in public schools target classmates.  While there is very small likelihood that any given institution will be subjected to such frightening treatment, that it should happen at all makes everyone uneasy.  Where will it happen next?

In the Sudan incident, political instability has been a  fact of life for years.  People there have watched the warring factions of Moslems and nonMoslems and of farmers and pastoralists and urbanites, and remembered the long history of intertribal animosities.  Foreign countries have intervened on one side or the other with supplies of ammunition, and attempts of relief agencies to supply food to starving villagers have often been thwarted by rival military groups which commandeered the food shipments to sell for arms.  People work there in a high-risk atmosphere.  ADRA workers there are supposed to be shielded from political strife, because of their humanitarian and nonpolitical stance, but they still recognize the possibility of danger.

But Guam is a United States protectorate and presumably low-risk.  The clinic attack was motivated by purely personal feelings. Discontent, rage, grief at the loss of his wife to divorce, all played a part in the gunman's urge to kill.

How should Christian organizations respond to dangers like these?  World Vision, an international relief and development organization, has prepared a World Vision Security Manual to guide its workers in dealing with security risks.  They point out that "ensuring the absolute security of all World Vision staff is simply not possible.  Ultimately, in faith, we must depend on God to sustain and protect us."  They recognize that in the present era, "conflicts are seldom fought between professional armies, but rather between terrorists, ciminal gangs, ethnic cleansers, and gun-toting drunken teenagers."  The attacks are increasingly from within the communities the aid organizations have come to serve.

 The first of some 15 "security policies" adopted by the World Vision to reduce the vulnerability of its field staff is the creating of what they call a "positive security profile."  This means that the aid organization should try to anticipate the attitude and response of the local community and the government to its mission, policies, and principles, then, depending on the circumstances, either keep a quiet, low-key profile or take steps to communicate the chosen profile to the community and the government.  

Other policies proposed in the manual include tips on safety when traveling, safety measures in residences and offices, and suggestions on what to do in emergencies.  They place much emphasis on developing situational awareness, and knowing the history and culture of the region, including customs and religious dynamics and traditions.

So how could security measures like those proposed in the booklet have helped the ADRA workers and the clinic employees?  In the Sudanese case, the fact that official government troops seized the facility and abducted the workers indicated that somehow ADRAís stance as a humanitarian agency was misinterpreted by the army commanders who sent their men with guns to storm the compound.   Two of the ADRA workers have been released, following an official request from the president of an adjacent state, Kenya, and other high-level negotiations are going on for the remaining two.  For the clinic at Guam, it would seem reasonable now for the administration to institute security measures like those used by schools and banks in this country, with requests for identification for visitors and ìhot-buttonî panic alarms at strategic places.

We hope they won't really need such measures. But while our missionaries are willing to take risks for the Lord's work, it seems reasonable that we should limit those risks as far as we can, then trust him for continued help.