Is New England the new “American missional frontier?” Vermont pastor Jared Wilson thinks so. He writes about it in a recent post on the Resurgence. Wilson points to statistics showing that the Northeastern U.S. is the least churched region in the country, and that existing churches are not thriving. “New Englanders have little desire for anything to do with Christianity or church,” he writes. “Even those who have it have little opportunity to explore it.”
I agree with Jared. And my friend David Phillips. We need to focus more attention and resources on church planting efforts in New England. For too long, the Northeast has been neglected.
I’m fascinated by how familiar Jared’s post sounds, so similar to posts I wrote here while I was in Western Europe. More and more, there are places like Europe and New England that have returned from Christian influence to the status of “unreached.” This isn’t a case of “my people group is loster than yours,” it’s a heartfelt call to action by someone who God has called to service.
To be sure, chasing the least-reached regions of the United States is like trying to put out flareups after a wildfire. The west coast, the southwest, the east- each are defined by their sins ans spiritual strongholds. Vegas rife with debauchery. Seattle stricken with irresponsibility. San Francisco overrun with homosexuality. Boston filled with post-Catholic angst. The Bible Belt rife with cultural Christianity and political moralism. All of these places need the freedom that is only found in Christ.
What we’re seeing is the rise of a new category of missions. Some missionaries focus on unreached people groups. But God is raising up faithful people who recognize that “reached” isn’t a permanent status. Just as the gospel comes to a people through the obedience of some, it can soon be forgotten through the disobedience of others.
Surely some would say, “New England! The birthplace of the Great Awakening? They’ve had their chance!” To them I would ask, is our task to give everyone a chance to hear, or to proclaim the gospel where it is not proclaimed and cross cultures as we’re led by the Spirit? In the present age, unreached people groups are constantly emerging.
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.
A really good post. Thanks for calling our attention to this much needed area of the US.
i like that… “reached isn’t a permanent status.”
you know i have heard this mantra a lot as well. why are you in france? they are reached. blah blah blah. it has always pissed me off. people would look me in the face and with the conviction of a hell, fire and brimstone preacher say that i needed to pack up and move on to a place that really needed the gospel. the whole time i would sit and think where is the compassion? where is the brokenness and sorrow over the lostness of a “reached” country? i’m convinced that the absence of compassion and grief over lostness is how we know that we are treating people like projects and missions like a duty. and God forgive us for that!
good post.
“Is New England the new “American missional frontier?”
Good post, but another misuse of the word missional. It has little to do with describing a geographical region or the people of a post-Christian cultural area.
Rick,
Yes, I see what you mean. Many have taken to using the word “missional” to be the adjective of mission. As in, “Missionaries do missional work on mission trips.” Of course, missional means something different- it’s a posture and approach to our presence in culture and community.
I would argue that what we need in these “unreached (again)” areas is not more missionaries, but more believers who will incarnationally engage communities that are foreign to them. In that sense, the word was being used correctly here, both in my post and in Jared’s.
The point is that there is a dearth of missional (not missionary) ministry in places like New England. The “missionary” aspect comes into play when Jared invites outsiders (like himself) to move from their home contexts in order to be where incarnation is desperately needed.
I appreciate the sincere concern of people for New England. But allow me to be a little picky. Terminology is the key to avoiding conflicts with folks who argue about whether France is reached or not, or whether Ne England is. While needing more evangelistic efforts, New England is neither unreached nor a people group. A people group is an ethnolinguistic group defined by language and culture, not by location or sociopolitical segment. New Englanders are by and large Americans who speak English. (Granted there are minority groups and many of them might qualify as a UPG.) Further, an unreached group is a group lacking the spiritual resources to evangelize themselves without outside cross-cultural assistance. Cross-cultural assistance would mean French or Nigerians or Russians coming to do the work because the American Home Mission Boards were nonexistent or unable. (Unreached does not have to do with unwilling.) They might be unchurched and even perhaps many individuals might be unevangelized but the “unreached” label cannot really be applied here. If Americans feel New England is in need of the Gospel then they need to get off their duffs and do something about it. At least in America, you can. Unlike some places in France (which is more and more unreached, particularly amongst the huge numbers of minority immigrants.) I do not say this to minimize the effort needed here. In that respect I clearly agree with Ernest above.
Justin,
I appreciate your effort to clarify the terminology. The point I was trying to make in the post was that because culture is a dynamic and changing thing, and that the existing vocabulary (the one you defined so well here) is not helpful. I know the definition of the term “unreached people group” (per the late Dr. Ralph Winter), but I don’t agree with it. The globalization and sub-culturization of peoples around the world make the term obsolete. People groups die out. New ones (distinct cultures with similar but unique languages) are emerging.
Forty years ago, it might have made sense to say that all English speakers belonged to one people group. Today, it would be naive to say that there are not significant barriers to the spread of the gospel even among English speakers. Americans from the deep South are not the same people group (language, history, values, culture) as Americans from the Pacific Northwest. Ostensibly, they speak the same language, watch the same TV shows, and drink the same coffee, but any attempt to transplant models of ministry from one to the other will be met with significant cultural barriers.
Beyond that, the formal missiological definition of “reached-ness,” (2%) is a totally ambiguous attempt to create a subjective measurement of our missionary progress. It is extremely unhelpful, as the tipping point for any particular people group can vary wildly. As in the case of France, a “reached” nation can clearly become “unreached” even according to the definition. Some of the “least reached” peoples in the world live in places where Jesus Himself walked and taught.
Willingness does, indeed play into this discussion. I’m sure you’re familiar with the various “receptivity scales” that are used to measure how open a people group might be to receive the gospel. Many emerging people groups are inoculated against the good news because of the prevalence of false gospels and wrongs committed in the name of Christ.
Does New England fit the category of “unreached?” Maybe not yet. But the trend is in that direction, and the label must be adjusted to include the hundreds of emerging people groups that will not have an indigenous expression of the church.
I am encouraged, though, that God is raising up faithful people to go to the Unreached (Again) places.
My most despised tweet (most recently from a higher-up in a missions agency we know and love): “Nobody has a right to hear the gospel twice when there are those who have not heard it once.”
What??
Thank you for bringing up this topic. I said this before on another blog, and I’ll say it again. I’ve heard the “Europe had their chance” attitudes. I’d like those people to come over here, look a young person in the eye and say, “Your ancestors had the Gospel but failed to share it with your generation, so I’ll share it with someone else. You lose because your ancestors failed.” Wow, considering the sins of my own immediate ancestors, I’m glad God doesn’t choose to deal with me this way!
While I think Justin brings up a good point about wording, I think the real intent (and perhaps new wording?) is “going where there is a call and a need”. Jared even mentions it in his post, “Missions: Someone Else’s No is Your Yes”. I’m quite weary of American Christians asking how I, a native Californian, could live in such a cold place. I’m here because of a calling and a need, not because it fits my comfort or fits people’s preconceived notions of missions.
And Ernest is right about the difference between areas of the States. We Californians used to get our Southern Baptist pastors from the deep south, and they seemed just as foreign to us as if they were from France or Africa. (Interstate? Catfish fishing? Larapin? We hadn’t a clue what those were or why you would do that!)
–C. Holland
Hey, I appreciated your blog post and referenced it in one of my one. Keep up the good blogging.