Not everyone should prioritize the unreached

The reason for prioritizing the unreached is that there is much Gospel work in largely Christian countries (like America, or Brazil, or the Philippines, etc), and very little Gospel work in largely non-Christian countries (like Yemen, Afghanistan, etc).

Prioritizing the unreached simply means that some people have to decide to do what’s necessary to start bringing the Gospel to places where people aren’t regularly bringing the Gospel. This means not just one-off work, but building the systems and processes for sustained evangelism and disciple-making. this is a long-term effort, which requires an intentional choice.

People can get a little carried away with their vision-casting. One idea should be corrected: not everyone should prioritize the unreached. The reason is obvious: if all Gospel activity left, for example, America and went instead to, say, India, then fairly soon India would be reached and America would not be. If everyone prioritizes one thing then something else goes unprioritized.

The question of prioritizing the unreached is not so much “everyone should do x” but instead helping the people who are called to do x, to do it, when presently it appears that they are not.

To put it another way: it very much appears that a lot of people are called to certain parts of the world, and none to other parts. Two things follow. Either (1) God cares only for certain parts of the world or (2) the people called to the “other parts” aren’t aware of their calling, don’t know how to fulfill their calling, or are ignoring their calling. I think God cares for all parts of our world, so helping people find their calling is the critical thing.

Related

• Should churches send only to the unreached?