Unreached: we haven't finished, and mostly haven't gotten started

In today’s issue of Missions Catalyst, Marti Wade asked about how to talk about unreached people groups and the 10/40 Window.

There have been a few other conversations about the idea of the unreached in email newsletters (see Esler 1 and Esler 2) as well as in some e-groups that I am part of. As I have been, to some extent, part of both the research on and the advocacy of unreached peoples, World A, the unevangelized, and so on, for nigh unto 30 years now, it seems reasonable for me to say something on this topic as well. Probably several somethings, but this is at least the first post.

I should start by acknowledging “unevangelized,” “unreached,” and “unengaged” are all man-made measurements. The terms are not in the Bible.

That’s not to say that the concept isn’t Biblical. The most obvious example is Paul’s “to preach the Gospel in the regions beyond” (2 Corinthians 10:16). The idea of “unevangelized” or “unreached” is implicit in the Great Commission–the places we haven’t gotten to yet. If you’d like to learn more about how the concepts were developed, I suggest Dave Datema’s exellent article, Defining Unreached: a short history (IJFM 33:2, PDF.)

People can argue about Biblical concepts; how much more might they argue over concepts the Bible doesn’t specifically speak to? Especially concepts that determine where church mission dollars are spent? We argue about the name for the measurement (unreached? unevangelized? untouched? unengaged?), what the measurement should be (% Christian vs % Evangelical), and whether there should be any prioritization of the unreached at all. I think there are answers for those arguments, and I think some of the arguments are good to have.

Regardless of the messy arguments about the concept, I think the concept as a whole is important to retain. I think this because, at its core, the concept of “UNs” (whatever we name them) is driven by the reality that (1) some places are more Christian and others are less, and that (2) some places have more gospel activity and others have less.

Calculating the share of a place that is Christian is not without argument as well. But I think it’s fairly clear to all of us - even if we disagree on the exact number - that there are some places with a lot of people who would think of themselves as Christians, and there are some places where most people would think themselves not. In order to simplify this, I use a “Stage of Christianity” scale, which I described earlier this month. The world’s countries fall into this stage of Christianity scale as follows:

One might argue about the precise % Christian for one of these, but it’s fairly easy to understand that Morocco is closer to stage 0, if not at stage 0, then America, which is almost certainly over stage 4 (considering Christians as a whole). Also, obviously, countries in stage 5 (over 90% Christian, probably lots of cultural Christianity and issues of nominalism) are in a very different state than countries at stage 0 or stage 1.

And that fact gives rise to the next: the distribution of these countries was largely the same in the 1990s when the AD 2000 & Beyond Movement called for “A church for every people and the Gospel for every person by the year 2000 & Beyond.” Nearly all of the countries at the “low end” of the Stage of Christianity scale were considered “unreached” or “unevangelized” in the 1990s–and virtually all of them are still at the low end, 30 years later.

Why? There are a lot of explanations for that, ranging from the difficulty of the field to the scandal of a church unwilling to do what it takes to bring the Gospel to unreached places. The explanations are complex. Setting aside the nuances of the “why,” the simplest thing to say is that % Christian in many of these places hasn’t changed tremendously because Gospel resources (people, materials, evangelistic and disciple-making activity, etc) aren’t present and focused here. In less reached areas, there are far fewer Christians of any sort, either insiders (local believers) or outsiders (missionary types).

Countries at Stage 4 and Stage 5 have lots and lots of disciple-making resources aimed at making disciples there; countries at stage 0 to 2 have comparatively few.

They are unreached both because “the Church hasn’t finished yet” (there are few disciples) and “hasn’t really even gotten started” (few disciple-makers or evangelistic influences).

That’s why we still need the concept, and we still need to talk about it.