Unreached People vs. Unreached People Groups

Rethinking Missions Blog #5

I recently watched a video which was explaining that 3.2 billion people on this planet will live their entire lives without having a witness of the gospel. It is important to realize that anytime we are dealing with global numbers, it is more accurate to say “roughly 3.2 billion” because the demographics concerning the remaining task of missions are not exact. The definition of “unreached” and the categories used to classify unreached people groups can be cloudy at best (However, even if this estimate is off by ten or twenty percent, there is still an overwhelming number of people who have little or no witness of the gospel in our world). My point in bringing this out, however, is to demonstrate that definitions really matter, as I discovered while conducting my research. I had a research team ask questions of a variety of pastors in our district, and I reviewed their answers later. One pastor was asked how his church conducted ministry toward unreached people groups. His response was (roughly :-), “That is why our church is located where it is. There are so many unreached right in our neighborhood.” My project coordinator had given me specific instructions not to define “unreached people groups” or “frontier missions” for this very reason. Part of my goal in this research project was to discover the level of understanding among pastors about the subject of unreached people groups. As I ultimately discovered, this kind of confusion over terms is not uncommon in the church of America.

Rebecca Lewis, in a 2018 article in the International Journal of Frontier Missions published this quote from a speaker at a global missions conference: “There are many areas of Los Angeles where less than 2% of the people are evangelicals. Unreached peoples are all around us.” Historically unreached people groups have been defined as those having 2% or less evangelical representation. Therefore, this person was trying to say that the “unreached people” of the Los Angeles area should be considered an “unreached people group.” The two are completely different, and in order to understand the difference, I want to establish some definitions and important principles to help guide us forward in the discussion of rethinking missions.

THE DIFFERENCE

It is true that unreached people are all around us, some may even be sitting in our churches. Any person who has never accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord is unreached and effective efforts should be made to reach them. It is a mistake, however, to identify unreached people as an unreached people group unless they live in a culture that has no viable witness of the gospel. Lewis goes on to quote a 1984 article by Dr. Ralph Winter in which he states, “Unreachedness is . . . not defined on the basis of whether there are any Christians, or whether there are any missionaries working among them. It is defined on the basis of whether or not in that culture there is a viable, culturally relevant, witnessing church movement.” While there are unreached living in many areas of the world where there are “viable, culturally relevant, witnessing church movements,” they are not considered unreached people groups. The 3.2 billion people discussed earlier are not just unreached, they are unreached people groups. In other words, they have little or no access to a culturally relevant, effective witness of Jesus Christ. So, if these people groups are out there and they are being largely neglected by the existing missions thrust, is it scriptural to promote greater emphasis on these unreached people groups?

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT IT

An answer can be found by looking at the life and ministry of the Apostle Paul. In my earlier blog, I discussed some of Paul’s methods but I have not yet given a biblical foundation for his ministry method. Many missions practitioners will be familiar with Romans 15:20 which states, “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.” While this verse demonstrates the Apostle’s motivation toward the unreached people groups, verse 23 gives an even greater understanding of how he operated: “But now that there is no more place for me to work in these regions…” Was Paul saying that there was no one else who needed to be saved in these regions where he had been ministering? - This is very unlikely. It is much more probable that since Paul had established culturally relevant churches which were able to share a viable, effective witness in these regions, he was now free to go where Christ had not yet been preached.

WHY IT MATTERS

Some may read this and conclude that I am just “splitting hairs” or arguing over semantics that really don’t matter in the long run. It seems simple to say, “As long as we are reaching people who need Jesus aren’t we doing what God has called us to do?” This kind of thinking is what has created the imbalance we see in the global landscape of missions today. This kind of philosophy leads to an environment where there are 30 missionaries among the “reached” for every 1 among unreached people groups. Every unreached person is important to Christ, and I am not advocating that effective soul-winning ministries in “reached” regions of the world be neglected or forsaken. I am saying that as long as we are confused about the remaining task we will continue to send the majority of our resources (money and people) to the reached areas of the world and delay the completion of world evangelization.