The Priority of Mission
There are lots of good things, but for missions, a focus on the unreached is best
In three weeks, the ministry I lead, Missio Nexus, will gather with over 1,000 mission leaders in Louisville for our annual Missions Leaders Conference and National Church Missions Leaders Conference. Our theme is Priority. Fifty years ago, Ralph Winter highlighted the need to prioritize some people groups over others, based on their lack of access to the gospel. We have been chewing on this topic all year long and I look forward to further conversation about it.
I believe that we must prioritize the unreached in missions. That means that unreached people group ministry should be given more attention, resources, people, and prayer.
4 Reasons Why Prioritizing the Unreached is Important
“The nations” language in the Bible is too strong to ignore. Matt 28:19-20 culminates with an emphasis on “discipling the nations” but Gen 12 foreshadows the blessing of the one nation to the many. This thread is the narrative upon which redemptive history is based. This post could easily become a long list of Bible passages, but others have done that quite well. The only way to fully obey the Great Commission as a church is to understand the priority that the Bible places on reaching the nations.
The indigenizing principle, the concept that the church takes on the flavor of the culture in which it has been planted, means that indigenous people are far more equipped to reach their own, teach their own, and build up the church once the gospel seed has been planted. This is why foreign missionaries should prioritize proclaiming the gospel where there are no Christians or few Christians – a reached nation has a hope which the unreached do not have.
It is an inescapable fact that we favor the easier work of building up the church than the hard work of establishing it where it does not exist. This is why reaching people groups must be prioritized. Without that commitment, we will falter and be disobedient to the command of Jesus to disciple the nations. Most Christian resources are spent on the church, where it already exists. You can quibble about that being 2% or 12%, but even if it is 20% (and it is certainly not 20%) it is a deployment of resources that is not aligned with the need or command of Christ. Reaching the unreached must be prioritized because, without that emphasis, we (the church) historically focus on our own needs.
The testimony of Paul reveals his burden for missionary work to those who did not have access to the gospel. He wrote that he was under obligation, not to the already reached, but to the “Greeks and barbarians, the wise and foolish” *Rom 1:14. Paul is for us the most important example of what a missionary can and should be in the New Testament. We should likewise learn from his example and prioritize those without access to the Gospel. We should follow Paul as he followed Christ. Paul prioritized preaching not where Christ has already been named (Rom 15:20) and his example should spur us on to do the same.
In short, obedience to the command of Jesus to disciple the nations requires us to place the unreached as a higher priority over ministry to the reached.
Yes, There Are Critics
Many have criticized the unreached people group paradigm. There has been a struggle over defining the term and therefore the task (see my 2% article). Let me say that the how here is different from the what. Defining unreached is hard. This goal of reaching all unreached people groups requires us to evaluate and weigh their access to the gospel. This inevitably leads to statistics, lists, research, and human strategy. This opened Winter to charges of “managerial missiology” in which strategy took precedence over the move of the Holy Spirit. Yes, statistics are imperfect, human creations, but wholly needed so that we might know if we are, in fact, prioritizing the unreached.
There are valid theological concerns. The anthropology and sociology that we must necessarily lean in on as we develop our strategies are flawed. This means that we must be willing to live in the grey zone. People groups are not static. This critique does not do away with the need to prioritize the unreached.
Sometimes people are sold out to other, worthy causes. This can lead to redefining unreached to include their ministry goals. Right now, the flavor of the month is diaspora ministry. Important? Yes. The means to reaching the unreached? Partially. With only 3.2 percent of the world’s population living outside their birth country, immigrants are simply far too few to get the job done. Reframing the task around immigration will only serve to help us fall short of the goal of reaching all unreached peoples. There are large unreached people groups that will require somebody to go, even if that means they are going from a geographically near culture. Foreign missionaries, whether they are Chinese going to the Arabs, Brazilians to the tribes of Siberia, or middle-class Americans to the vast Muslim peoples of North India, are foreign. They are also foreign if they are from the next-door culture (which might be radically different). Diaspora ministry is an example of an important ministry, but it does not replace prioritizing sending missionaries to the unreached.
Priorities Matter
Within the Missio Nexus community, there are many different ministries. There is not only a great deal of creativity, but also different views of how best to accomplish the task set before us. There is room for all, and all are welcome. Even in the midst of this diversity, though, I believe that we must set a priority on those with the least access to the gospel.
There are many calls for redefining missions. The phrase, “rethinking missions” has been used so many times over the past 100 years that when I hear it, I roll my eyes. Do I think missions needs reformation? Absolutely. The biggest concern I have, however, is not about colonialism, short-term ministry, justice issues, business as mission, or even in translation or “Bible poverty” – important though these issues are. The most important priority among these good things is a focus on evangelism, discipleship, and church planting among the unreached.
Where I would like to see a reformation in missions is in our priorities. What would happen if we prioritized what Paul prioritized? What if the church took the command of Jesus to “disciple the nations” seriously instead of nibbling around the edges with things like child sponsorship and humanitarian aid? What if we differentiated between the good and the best when it comes to the Great Commission?
Now that would be transformative.
My passion and calling is evangelism, discipleship, and church planting among the least-reached. I agree that we need to keep this as a priority in missions, and I'm very grateful for how you continue to champion this, Ted.
I sometimes wonder if the problem is that sometimes we view these questions as if there is some kind of competition between disparate, disconnected activities/goals, some of which have higher *priority* than others, as if it is a zero-sum game. I wonder if a better way to think about it is to not frame this as a choice between say, humanitarian aid vs. church planting, or Bible translation vs. evangelism (or whatever vs. whatever), as if we need to choose and rank which is more important. I wonder if a better way to think about it is to work harder to help to integrate all of the above in a comprehensive, interconnected mission of the church?
Many of the church planters among UPGs that I know are active in humanitarian aid. None of them can do their work without Bible translators. A "reached" nation with better theological education will raise up and send more missionaries to other UPGs. Unjust structures and ethnocentrism among missionaries will compromise their witness among UPGs. Should we be advocating for the priority of one of these issues over the other, or perhaps should we be working harder to better integrate them all and intentionally coordinate our efforts within the collective witness of the body?
For example, as a church planter, I'd love it if those in diaspora ministry, and those in humanitarian aid, and justice advocacy, etc., did not see my work as in competition with theirs or vice-versa. I'd love it if all of them saw how their work helps and contributes toward CP among UPGs, and more intentionally integrated it with CP efforts. I'd also love it if my fellow CPers would make use of the best diaspora practices, humanitarian efforts, justice practices, etc., and integrated those into their own CP ministry, and cooperated together and learned from each other. I wonder if this might make our witness among the least-reached more impactful and fruitful.
Just something I'm wondering...
This is very well written. It doesn't deny that there are other valid things to still be done, but explains well the priority of those who have never heard and have no access to the gospel. I don't think it is all either / or. I have seen the good Compassion can do including among the unreached in India. But I do agree that we need to start with the priority of the unreached, however it is defined. Some are just too obviously unreached to quibble over percentages!