For years people have sat in front of computers and made lists of “unreached people groups.” This has been a major mission paradigm, particularly among Evangelicals, since the Lausanne Conference in 1974. As can be expected, of the compiling of lists there is no end. The latest iteration makes the claim that a group of people is unreached if less than 2% of them are Christian.
I have one question. Says who? Isn’t it arrogant and arbitrary to pick out a number (apparently picked out of a hat as there is no Biblical precedence for such a definition) and then to use that number to determine whether a people group is reached? Why isn’t the number 5% or 8% or 20% or 63%? Is there a tribunal on high that makes these sorts of decisions? Were people from the majority world included in the selection of this number?
Furthermore, what determines that a people is reached? I’ve been a Christian since I was a child, have three degrees in Bible and theology, and there are still parts of me that need to be “reached.” The Great Commission includes the phrase, “teach them ALL that I have commanded you.” That ALL is very emcompassing. Maybe being reached should reflect this part of the Great Commission.
Why don’t you weigh in on this? My sense is that missions strategy should be determined contextually, and the context of most of the world’s Christians long ago moved away from the evangelical Christian think tanks in the USA. If the average Christian is a 21 year old woman from the slums of Lima (check it out — that is a pretty accurate definition in terms of demography), who makes about one dollar a day, I have a feeling that part of being reached for her, part of being in the Kingdom of God, has to say something about her hunger, lack of access to clean water, having no job or access to eduation for her children, and so on. Jesus addressed those sorts of issues as he reached people, right?
Doug,
You are absolutely correct. 2% is arbitrary. It won’t hold up in all situations. During the 80s and 90s many missiologist debated what that percentage should be. I hear anywhere from 1% to 20%. I for one believe the figure should be much higher. As a student of the expansion of Christianity I have noted that one of the basic reasons that Christianity has lost ground when confronted with obstacles, persecution, disease, hostile governments, etc., is that the numbers weren’t sufficiently large enough to sustain a church planting movement in a particular people group.
North Africa is an example. It was a strong center for Christianity until the Muslims came calling. Since the “reached” portion of the population were primarily Roman and Carthian they split leaving the Berbers. The Berbers were marginally reached and quickly became Muslim. By the current definition North Africa would have been significantly more reached than 2%. Today North Africa, as a part of the 10/40 window, is listed as one of the least reached areas of the world. We need to be careful with our definitions.
The problem is that we can plan euphoric celebrations and check particular people groups off the list if we set the bar too high, 2% is too low, however.
As a tool for identifying the greatest need and targeting strategic people groups the 2% figure may be helpful. But the task is much more complex than that. Lately, and very tardy, the emphasis has come full circle to the urban centers. Roland Allen underscored this strategy in his helpful book “Missionary Methods: St. Paul’s or Ours?” over 100 years ago.
While I see value in using the various definitions to strategically plan for reaching the whole world with the whole gospel, I think we need to temper our euphoria with the reality that history brings to us. Perhaps listening to the Holy Spirit rather than missiological engineers is in order.
Steve, thanks for writing and helping us to think through these issues. Have a question for you. You wrote, “As a tool for identifying the greatest need and targeting strategic people groups the 2% figure may be helpful.” My question: why do you say “greatest need” and “strategic” people groups. Why does least reached equal greatest need? Why does least reached equal (most) strategic? Isn’t
that as arbitrary as using a figure like 2%?
Shouldn’t the greatest need may be the one the Lord is laying on your heart? Who gets to determine whether a people group is strategic or
not, and who gets to select the markers that make one group more strategic than another?
Of course it is arbitrary. However, it does require that we consider those peoples without a viable church. God leads and opens doors — the missionary call — however, unless we see those without the gospel, the Bible in their language, and a community of Christians ministering to the needs of that people as a priority consideration then we will keep going to the same peoples who may already have a viable church.
As with all strategic considerations there are potential problems. To go back to Ralph Winter at Lausanne in 73, a great deal of the world cannot hear the Christian message because of distance from the gospel. Intentionality is needed in order that all peoples have the opportunity to hear and obey.