Unreached People Groups

A baptism in northern India

Ralph Winter was among the first to articulate the concept of people groups back in 1974 at the Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization. (See Stephen Burris”s article for more on the origin, biblical roots, and history of the development of this concept.) He helped coin the words “people group” to describe these gatherings of people who share a common ethnolinguistic heritage. Time has shown his ideas were not merely correct from an anthropological point of view, but also from a strategic one. Frankly, we have to keep these people groups (and their characteristics) in mind when we do evangelism and church planting.

In our rapidly urbanizing world, some might ask, when these people groups move to the cities, do they lay aside their native languages and respective ethnic heritages? While research on this question is ongoing, many studies are indicating the “melting pot theory,” which might have proven true in the 18th century, might be falling on hard times.

Technological innovations such as cell phones, Internet, and satellite television have made it easier for people to maintain their ethnic identity, as they try to fit in with the mainstream in today”s fast-paced urbanscapes.1 William Booth, Mexico bureau chief of the Washington Post, described this phenomenon as a “demographic balkanization,” citing evidence in the U.S., for example, of a growing number of “hyphenated Americans,” who preferred to append their original ethnic, linguistic, or national origins to the front or back of the categories into which they would have perhaps been given previously.2

Strategic Implications for People Group Thinking

Exactly what does this mean for those wishing to communicate Christ cross-culturally? First and foremost, it means when we enter any new environment, whether urban or rural, we must enter with eyes and ears wide open.

In Spain, I visited with a church planter originally from Central America. He was complaining about the apathy of Spaniards toward the worship service he had started. As members started entering the hall, I struck up conversations with them and, one after another, I learned that practically all of them were from either Central or South America. Finally, I met a single Spaniard and said, “I wonder why more Spaniards aren”t attending.”

His response? “Why would they? This is a Central American worship service.” According to this gentleman, Spaniards wouldn”t feel at home in a group filled with Central Americans, for reasons beyond the scope of this article.

The point is, the way we structure things””the language and setting we prescribe, the look and feel of the leaders, and many other factors””apparently communicate a message. And that message can actually come through so loudly that it can drive away those from a different “hyphenated reality” or, in the parlance of Ralph Winter, from a different people group.

Second, we need to sort out the implications of Jesus” parable of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3-7). In it, Jesus explains that it would be commonplace thinking to leave 99 sheep in the “open country” just to seek out one single sheep that was lost. Could it be Jesus was trying to tell us something about unreached people? Should we be willing to send workers out of the “open country” to seek out “lost people” in faraway lands, regardless of how small those people groups might be?

This concept is further supported by such Scriptures as Revelation 5:9 and 7:9, in which God seems determined to make sure there are representatives “from every tribe and language and people and nation.” It”s as if God has a multicolored tapestry in mind. At the core of his heavenly vision, he wants colors, languages, “people groups”””not just some, mind you, but ALL peoples.

The word translated “nations” in Matthew 28:19 never really meant political nations. The truth is, the Greek phrase panta ta ethne might best be translated as, literally, “all peoples.”3 So, strategically, we”re apparently supposed to care about getting every last people group involved. We”re supposed to pay attention to those who are overlooked and ignored. That should be our standard approach to missions, even if, at times, it means placing fewer workers in “the open country” with the already-saved 99, and sending additional workers to reach the “one lost sheep” who is about to walk over a cliff.

Taking Stock of Where We Are

So how are we doing at the challenge? And what”s the task remaining? One of the most popular sources for information on unreached people groups can be found on the web, for free, at www.JoshuaProject.net. Researchers there are constantly revising data, and they publish everything openly. On the day this article was written, that site listed 9,993 documented unique people groups on the planet, if taken without respect to national boundaries.4 If we count a people group as distinct, merely because the same tribe or ethnic group exists in more than one country, the situation becomes substantially more complex. Many of those 9,993 have now scattered to live in different countries, and, for the sake of church planting, it is highly likely we will need different church planters in each country where a particular people group exists. As a result, at least for the purposes of strategizing for church planting, it is probably more helpful to count “peoples-by-countries.” In that case, we must focus on 16,445 different groups around the world.

Next comes the tougher challenge. JoshuaProject.net set an arbitrary threshold for “just how Christian are they?” The benchmark is obviously subjective. Researchers are divided. But for the purposes of the research, they used the benchmark of “2 percent or less evangelical” and also “5 percent or less adherents” of any Christian faith. Rather than go into detail about this formula, I ask that we just accept that the formula is applied consistently all across the board.

In other words, perhaps you live in a county in the U.S. in which the percentage of Evangelicals is 22 percent (which is not uncommon), and perhaps 70 percent of the people there claim to be Roman Catholic. As a result of those stats, your “tribe” will not be listed as being “unreached” by JoshuaProject.net.

Now you might be able to point to a lot of non-Christians in your county. And you might argue that there is still a lot of work to be done. And we would agree with you, without a doubt. But you must understand that, if you think it”s bad where YOU live, imagine what it”s like in a place that is many times less “reached,” a place many times more desperately in the dark about Jesus. And, according to the parable of the lost sheep, perhaps many times more likely to be lost.

That”s the situation in 4,366 people groups worldwide. If we count those groups as being unique if they occur in different countries, the number swells to 7,060! Living among those “lost tribes” would be 2.9 billion lost sheep. Yikes. We have a job to do.

We Are Not Alone: Partnerships Make Magic

Since there are so many challenges in finishing the task, not the least of which is the sheer quantity of unreached peoples remaining, it makes sense to work together. After all, that was Jesus” prayer in John 17. Regarding those who would believe in him through the ages, his prayer was “that all of them may be one . . . so that the world may believe” that Jesus was sent from God (vv. 20, 21).

The synergy we achieve when we partner together””churches with agencies with individuals with nationals””apparently is part of what God has been seeking all along.

________

1Helen G. McDonald and Pallassana R. Balgopal, “Conflicts of American Immigrants: Assimilate or Retain Ethnic Identity,” Migration World Magazine, May-June 1998, 14.

2William Booth, Washington Post, 22 February 1998, A1.

3Donald A McGavran, Understanding Church Growth (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1980), 56.

4www.JoshuaProject.net, accessed 21 August 2012.

Doug Lucas serves as one of the volunteers seeking to undergird the movement at www.Unleashed-ForTheUnreached.com. He is president of Team Expansion (www.TeamExpansion.org) in Louisville, Kentucky.

________

What Should We Do Next?