Not Biblical, no longer helpful:
-”the 10/40 window,” “last frontier,”"edge of lostness.” When the world was two-dimensional (and to most Christians, that was until very recently…), it made sense to think of people as places on a map and to put them into categories (population, religion, demographics, reached-ness, number of churches, accessibility, etc.). Today, people defy taxonomy; the world is dynamic. Tribes used to be discovered in uncharted corners of the world, now we’re discovering them hiding in globalized urban centers and on the internet.
-”Nations.” Yes, the Bible uses the word “nations.” But missiologists (actually anthropologists) have defined the therm to mean, “ethnolinguistic people groups.” But were there really people from every ethnolinguistic people group present on the day of Pentecost? What about third-generation Muslim immigrants in Paris?
-”Reached/Unreached.” As the church rediscovers her role as incarnatioal (rather than attractional) image-bearers, people are realizing that it’s better to go where God leads (through relationships, gifting, opportunity, interest, connects, etc.) than to engage a people simply because they are “unreached.” God orchestrates the church’s strategic missional engagement, so we need to forget what we think we know about who is “reached” and who is “unreached.”
And then there’s the ambiguity of the concept of “reaching” people….
It’s time to replace the old missions vocabulary with a new one.
Unless writing a lot makes one a "writer," Ernest is a former missionary. After more than six years in Western Europe, he moved to Portland, where he drinks too much coffee and over-analyzes human behavior. For more about Ernest, visit the About page where you can read a long-time reader's interview with him. Or, if you don't mind waiting a very, very long time, send him an email.
Hi Ernest, very thought provoking post. Wondering though how long it would take without some “targeting” of people – whether by language, ethnicity/origin, language, tribe or whatever to get the people and resources together in an effective way.
For example, language is a barrier that I’d think would have to be hurdled prior to an effort to influence (chosen as a substitute for reach) a people. Otherwise getting up to speed might take a long time.
Then too, some places in this world are not popular travel destinations. Targeting a people group focuses the attention of the church on them in I would think a redemptive way. Prayer can be applied, people become aware of the needs, language and cultural training occur in order to make that incarnational process more effective.
I’m very much wanting to move toward better ways and better ways of talking about the expansion of the Kingdom of God. Maybe we are in a sort of interim period where what we know God is calling us to do just hasn’t synched up with the language we describe that work in today.
Any of what I’m asking/suggesting make sense to you?
Grace and peace to you brother,
David
David,
Thanks for your comment. I think you’re right about the shortcomings of our language when it comes to talking about mission, the church, etc.
You mention that it might take a long time without some “targeting.” I’m glad you bring that up. I honesty don’t think that we should be concerned with things like “speed” (or efficiency, or effectiveness, or reproducibility…) when it comes to missions. I recently wrote about what I see as an unhealthy pragmatism in missions here, so I won’t go into it again.
Nevertheless, I know what you mean. I’ve served in places (Western Europe) that were extremely attractive to missionaries and partner churches. Who doesn’t want to take a vacation- er, um, “mission trip,” to Europe? So mobilizing support was as easy as sending a postcard of the Eiffel tower.
I’ve also served in places that don’t quite have the same draw. Places that are dry and dusty and don’t have Starbucks. It’s quite a bit harder to attract the prayer/volunteer/financial support needed for the work in these areas. If we encourage people to only go where they feel led to go, they might not ever consider a place they’ve never heard of.
Right?
Basically, I think that our strategy should be radical obedience. God calls people to different mission fields all the time. He also brings people from “every nation” to us. If we are faithful missionaries to the people in our owns and neighborhoods, I believe God will lead us to activity among all sorts of people.
If God wants to use us to reveal Himself to a tribe in a remote part of the Indian jungle, He’ll call us to that- maybe through
-a friend or the friend of a friend
-the guy driving our cab or working on our teeth at the dentist’s office
-an article we read in National Geographic
-a rock star’s social action campaign
-news of war, famine, medical care, persecution, and injustice
-job offers, business ventures
-an unexplainable urge to explore that particular area of that particular jungle
-the pleas of men who have had dreams and visions
-the requests of believers looking for partners in ministry
When you’re living missionally, you see the Kingdom value of your relationship with the Pakistani family that lives next door. The businessman in your church has relationships with companies in China and factories in Bangladesh. When we apply this perspective, the “Save Darfur” banner on a student’s MySpace page is the beginning of a redemptive relationship with that people group.
We’re already connected to the nations (and subcultures, and groups, and tribes, etc.) We just need to realize the missionary potential of those relationships. So instead of being “assigned” a random unreached people group, missional Christians are connecting to people organically through the relationships that God (strategically) gives them.
Does any of this make sense? I’m really interested to hear what you think.
Hey…I love the post and agree with a lot of your deconstruction…What do you think are words or attitudes that we can create to give people a new framework of talking about ‘mission work’?
Justin,
Thanks for asking me to continue the thought (“If not _______, then what?). It’s really not enough to rule out words if I’m not going to suggest some replacements, is it?
I like the words “obedience.” In Acts, we read about Paul being led (or, at other times, “prevented”) by the Spirit of God as he went. I believe that’s the sort of language that should replace the “targeting” sort of language we typically use.
I think terms like “the nations” can sometimes make us forget that we’re talking about people. I prefer that- “people.” And, if we’re entering into real, personal relationships with people, why not call them “friends?” That would help remind us that we’re dealing with people, not projects.
Thanks again, Justin. What words do you think would be more helpful?
“I honesty don’t think that we should be concerned with things like “speed” (or efficiency, or effectiveness, or reproducibility…) when it comes to missions.”
Well, save a strict view of election, (which I don’t have), not sure I follow that at all. Sure pragmatism creeps in, but a little pragmatism ain’t a bad thing.
Language training matters. Cultural norms, mores, matter.
Perhaps a more “reactive” missions training program would help, where people who were drawn to an area (as opposed to being recruited) might receive the help they need.
David,
Thanks for your comment. I never thought of myself as a “strict electionist,” so I’m not sure that my thoughts here are based on that.
I totally agree that language and culture matter. Did I write anything that sounded otherwise? Your comment kind of proves my point. Language and culture matter, and those things take time to learn and understand. Many would say that cultural immersion and language learning take too long and are unnecessary. I’m trying to say that I think speed should not be the highest priority for missions.
Further, I really do think that if someone is called to a certain mission field, he/she/they will gladly devote themselves to learning the language and culture. Part of the problem is when people are railroaded into service in a place they don’t necessarily feel led to. They want to get in and get out rather than make the necessary investment.