Article
Is People Group Thinking still relevant in today’s more-urban world?
Author: Doug Lucas
Date: 06.09.2010
Category: Unreached People Groups, Urban Mission
Translations
Earlier this week, I had to leave a meeting early. After I left, I understand there was a discussion about the relevancy of unreached people group thinking. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to participate in the discussion. Here’s my chance to make up time. :-) Is your agency or church still concerned with unreached peoples, or do you think the concept is no longer relevant? Here’s my thinking on the matter (below). The cool thing is -- you can write your own opinion in the comment box below mine. If I disagree, I’ll just delete your comment. (I’m kidding.) No seriously... you can respond. Tell us what you think:
Regarding unreached peoples and unreached people group thinking:
My original take on all this people group thinking is that it’s largely a mobilization tool. I tell people… imagine you’re trying to recruit volunteers to water the trees and plants in the mulched beds at Emerald Hills. We could describe the ones close to the building that get lots of water (if we had water sprinklers, that is). And we would say to the volunteers, “The problem is, there are many trees too far from the building, too far from the sprinkler system. These are the trees for which we really need volunteers.” Now… having said that… when the volunteers come, we’re still going to hop in the golf cart, drive them past a batch of mulched beds, and even get out of the golf cart to feel the mulch. Once we’ve felt the mulch, we can make a final decision about which flower beds we’d like them to water. But talking about the concept of beds *close* to the sprinkler system and beds far away is a useful tool to help prospective volunteers understand why they’re needed. Otherwise, the automatic sprinkler system would take care of all the watering.
Likewise, in partnership with a mega-church here in Louisville, we recently used people group research tools in the process of mobilizing them to pray and launch toward a new outreach project. After tons of prayer and research, they chose a group in Asia. I lined up a few researchers to talk to us prior to going — but the truth is, not even *I* had been to this particular land. When we arrived, the people group was all but M.I.A. But the general area was filled with people groups that hadn’t heard. Thankfully, I had talked a lot with them about “not freezing in until they did the site visit.” (By the way, that’s the concept we would advocate for all these Restoration Revolution UPG-type projects.) We ended up moving several hours to the Northeast in the country we had chosen. The district has 12 million people … and, to everybody’s knowledge, about 8 missionary-types in the whole region. Most folks agree there are way less than 300 believers… probably only around 50 known believers. They’re all Muslim.
Does the church regret the power of people group thinking? Not a bit. It was a mobilization tool — and it needed verification on-site. Upon returning, we sent our findings to Joshua Project and they were ever-so-thankful for the error-correcting research. That’s the only way, in my opinion, that we’ll ever improve on their list of 6800 groups: When all of us work together to set them straight.
Regarding whether or not urban areas un-do the concept of people group thinking:
I guess, to me, it’s a bit like saying, “If there exists any situation that doesn’t fit the model, then the model is bad.” I trust we all agree that that logic is bogus. A model is just that — a model. It *always* breaks down somewhere. Missiologists have been talking about the breakdown of people group theory in urban contexts since 1987, as far as I recall. It’s absolutely nothing new. That’s why we have practically always suggested that adopting entities say “people groups or cities.” In October, I’m scheduled to participate in the 3rd Lausanne congress (in Cape Town). The track I’ll be attending is the Unreached Peoples Track. Lausanne has called together 4000 people from over 200 countries. There are 10 key concepts that will be discussed, all 10 of which are the most critical and most relevant themes in modern missions. These concepts have been carefully conceived and represent literally two years of preparation prior to including them in Lausanne. They wouldn’t be including unreached peoples as a major component if they thought the concept was dead or irrelevant or useless.
Now one could call all of this “managerial missiology” if one would prefer. But to me, the point is to get at least some of the folks out, away from the building, where there are no sprinkler heads. Then and only then will we start understanding the need to carry the water in buckets in the back of the Gator. Or we’ll buy more water hose. Or pray for rain. To me, when we advocate the demise of unreached people group thinking, we might be risking the demise of any sense of prioritization. We live in a big world. For example, there are about 68 cities with a population of 3 million or more. How in the world do we decide which city to focus on? One could argue that it doesn’t help to look at unreached people group thinking in those cities. But I think one would be wrong. Look up unreached peoples in Chile. (Go to www.joshuaproject.net … specifically to this page…
http://joshuaproject.net/countries.php
and set the drop down box in the upper right on Chile.
The two “unreached groups” are measured in the hundreds or so. Some jews, some Turks, and that’s it. That should tell us something about Santiago. There are 17 million people in Chile. *Many* of those 17 million are non-Christian. But *most* of those 17 million have the capacity to meet a Christian today. That tells us something about Santiago. Now set the country to Bangladesh. There are 372 groups considered unreached/least reached. The majority of those have zero percent Christian, zero percent evangelical, zero percent adherent. The population of these unreached groups represent *millions* of people. *tens* of millions. These folks are way out, away from the sprinkler heads. We need some very proactive folks to get involved in reaching these people. Most of these millions have no capacity whatsoever to know or even meet a Christian today. That’s the power of using unreached people thinking.
It’s not unlike Nehemiah 3, where we get the sense that Nehemiah had assigned certain parts of the wall-rebuilding to certain families. We note that many of the most important “public” sections (like the Fish Gate or such-and-such a fountain) were embraced by particular clans. Only when those clans accepted responsibility for that public area would it be truly repaired effectively. Why? Because nobody lived there, building their house as a lean-to against those walls. So — those walls were “unreached” walls; someone had to accept responsibility for them.
By the way, at the beginning of this piece, I said "My original take on all this people group thinking is that it’s largely a mobilization tool," but I’ve broadened my thinking on that. My good friend, Greg Fritz, wrote me, saying, "I agree that the people group paradigm has been a helpful mobilization tool. However, it is more than that. It also helps in setting strategy, focusing prayer, and evaluating progress. Moreover, several biblical references cause us to wonder if God himself sees the world through a people group construct. People group thinking has power and continues to be relevant!"
Based on all the above, I’ve come to the conclusion that we are missing the point if we somehow conclude that "unreached people group thinking" is no longer relevant. I like the "both/and" thinking -- Reach Unreached Peoples now *and* reach urban settings now... and realize that our data/descriptions might not be perfect, but they’re the best we’ve got -- so let’s use them as starting points and send in corrections -- to groups like JoshuaProject.net -- when appropriate.
So that’s my story -- and I’m sticking to it. :-)
Does any of that make sense?
What’s your response?
Keywords: unreached peoples, people groups, people group thinking, urban, cities
Reach Map and Statistics
Views: 4794
Comments: 9
Recommendations: 1
One Click To Action
Connect me with people interested in this conversation:
Join related conversations
- DFW Diaspora Alliance - Launch Document
By Brian_Considine
-
- Mobilize DFW to Reach DFW
By Brian_Considine
-
- Regions Beyond: A response
By Miyon_Chung
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | The Lausanne Global Conversation is powered by World Wide Open | What is World Wide Open?
Conversation Post Comment
China
The first question that came to my mind when reading this (not a point of criticism, just an observation)... but, aren’t ALL people unreached? What about the immigrants, the disabled, the mentally ill? I understand the formal definition of "unreached" as being one who has no likelihood of meeting a Christian or in a place where no church is established and where no Bible is written in their language. However, do we ignore the people who come right to our door because our mission is the "unreached"? Especially if you’re talking about the urban setting.
I am not disagreeing with your article- in fact, I completely agree with it. However, in my experience in China you have the dominant Han Chinese, and then 55 other minority groups, most of them unreached. A group from another organization was spending time in China- when we (my team) told them about Chinese friends of ours that were wanting to have a Bible study to learn about this Jesus they had heard about. We (my team) were short staffed and were looking for ways to partner with other organizations to reach our community. The first question these m’s asked was "are they minorities?" No, they are Han, but they still need Jesus. And they are the ones who are there hungry and asking the questions. Do we ignore the majority "reached" for these minority groups that may or may not have any desire for relationship? That doesn’t mean we don’t pursue those relationships as the focal point of our ministry, but aren’t we supposed to serve those God brings to our doors? "Well, that’s not my ministry." Yes, actually it is.
I am all about narrowing the focus of our ministry. If you’re called to the urban poor in Latin America, then go. If you’re called to the university students in China, then go. If you’re called to be involved in the development and reconciliation process in Africa, then go. If you’re called to reach unreached peoples, then be all there. I guess my point is, reach the unreached, yes, but don’t discriminate. All people need Jesus.
12.10.2010
United States
Hello Doug, good conversation. I have said this on other conversations. Call them people groups, tongues, tribes, clans, peoples, nations, ends of the earth, far corners where water doesn’t get to the trees. It’s all about world evangelism. (what Lausannes is about) But more importantly GOD is concerned with people. People who have no access to the Gospel message.
I have a conversation that you might be interested in. We need to know that the research we have is not complete. So when we take church groups half the way around the world we had better have a plan B. It’s great that you did not come home. We have known people to go home because they found churches in "their" people group.
How many unreached people groups are there? http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/groups/conversation_detail/1128
Take care!
10.10.2010
United States
Responding to Doug Lucas’ article, “Is People Group Thinking still relevant in today’s world.
Thanks Doug for sharing your thoughts on People Group Thinking. They will surely be helpful at CapeTown2010 in order that this important model and tool doesn’t get lost in the other discussions. An important contribution to this ongoing discussion concerning people groups is the May-June 2010 edition of Mission Frontiers dedicated to the topic, “Do People Groups still matter?” http://www.missionfrontiers.org/pdf/2010/03/summary .
I agree with you that the relevance of people group thinking is more than just a “mobilization tool”. The idea has strong foundations in the missiology that was developed by Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter to stress preaching the Gospel as a witness “to all the nations” and the “discipling all nations”. McGavran himself was quick to emphasize that the “discipling ta ethne” (all nations) is actually a command of the Eternal God in Romans 15. 25-26, and so this “tool” is clearly more than just “managerial missiology”
I liked your analogy of the trees and plants needing water in the company garden. Yours and other kinds of “story-telling” parables/ analogies will be essential to keep the attention of missions on where and how we can identify our missionary task of reaching “the unreached”. I currently live Brazil where only about half of more than 258 indian tribes are still without established indigenous churches. Likewise, in the Amazon basin and in Brazil´s Northeast there are thousands of communities still in need of evangelization. Geographic isolation is part of the challenge to reach these peoples, but these communities also present challenges because of the cultural and socio-linguistic differences they present for existing evangelical churches. Mobilizing the Brazilian evangelical church has benefited by research and information that has focused on these communities as “unreached people groups”.
A popular Brazilian mission agency (JUVEP) in Brazil’s Northeast emphasizes reaching out to three groups: Afro-Brazilian communities, tribal groups, and “sertanejos” (northerners) as part of a “Tri-radical” missions project. Significant church planting also has been accomplished by mobilizing prayer and encouraging churches to adopt cities and people groups that present the lowest percentage of evangelicals or churches in their communities. Beyond mobilization, we are seeing practical ways that obedience to the Great Commission is taking place.
For the past sixteen years my family has lived in capital cities in Brazil, including Cuiaba, Recife and São Paulo. In the larger Brazilian cities you often see the highest percentages of evangelicals, as compared to the rural areas. The Evangelical church appears to be present in most neighborhoods in the cities. Before the 2010 census it was estimated that evangelicals count for 12-15% of the population in Brazil. While appears that churches are present in all segments of Brazilian society, People Group Thinking (PGT) represents a viable tool for assisting churches to understand the breadth and depth of the challenge still remaining to “disciple the nations” in Brazil. I think the article in Mission Frontiers by Brad Gill is descriptive of the role that PGT will continue to play in evangelization and mission to urban areas. Gill describes how globalization has affected the identity and dynamics of people groups are reacting in an increasingly urban global and urbanized world. Gill uses four words, lifting, pushing, squeezing and blending, to describe who people groups are responding. I recommend this article. The descriptive affects of globalization on people groups that are increasingly found in the world’s major cities will certainly call for a renewal of ideas and strategies to effectively reach out to these remaining nations that the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One fact is certain: people groups and PGT are not going to go away.
Douglas Lamp (douglamp@oci.org)
21.09.2010
Thailand
Real quick I want to jump in here with an observation. The notion of “unreached peoples” as has been hammered out by the frontier mission movement (not the popular use of the term) still has huge relevance for the church at large and all mission sending structures. When Winter first started articulating this he used the term “hidden peoples”. He saw vast implications from what McGavran was saying about cultural differences and evangelism. McGavran saw the need for “bridge people” but did not see the implication if you don’t have such a person…that those without near-neighbor witness are sealed off from the Gospel, even if living geographically proximate to Christians. They are hidden from view because we “see” people like ourselves. Unless there is a cross-cultural effort where people from the outside take the Gospel to root it in this segment without the Gospel, they will not hear. Check out the first part of this essay http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/20_3_PDFs/Perspectives.pdf
Also in the IJFM archives I did some work on assessing the frontier mission movement looking at core contributions as well as weakness that appears in 18:2 and 18:3 in 2001
So while the concept can be used for mobilization, etc. it is a key missiological insight and the power behind the E an P diagrams (see http://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/19_4_PDFs/winter_koch_task.pdf) needs to continue to be taken seriously my mission agencies for development of strategy.
19.09.2010
Belgium
My english and writing skills are not as good that I can write a whole article, but on this one I like to sent a little comment.
"Greg Fritz, wrote, saying, "I agree that the people group paradigm has been a helpful mobilization tool. However, it is more than that. It also helps in setting strategy, focusing prayer, and evaluating progress. Moreover, several biblical references cause us to wonder if God himself sees the world through a people group construct. People group thinking has power and continues to be relevant!"
I think we need to think in "peoples groups term" within our own societies, countries, areas: how do we think, pray and set strategy to reach the minorities in our mits, etc. In my case off my personal intrest, what about disabled people? How to reach learning disabled people? How to give appropriat pastoral care to people with a disability?? So that they can become messagers themselfs. Love to read your response. Therese
12.09.2010
United States
@ Therese:
Actually Therese, your English is much better than my French... or Flemish... or ??? German (not sure your native language; please forgive). But as to your question, it’s actually a great one. It goes back to the question of how to define a people group. Some advocate that a people group is any grouping of individuals who perceive themselves to have a common affinity with one another. In other words, "anyone who hangs out together." For my part, that has always seemed too impossible to number. I prefer a definition that relies on something a bit more objective -- like language and/or ethnicity within one political entity. However, that leaves your question without an answer. The people you mentioned would most likely be a sub-group of a larger people group... or, to make things even more complex, a "super-sub-group" that slices across several people groups in an urban or geographic area. In cases like these (for example, the special needs example you’ve given), the truth is, the people group paradigm doesn’t help us as much. Does that help any?
12.09.2010
Belgium
@ douglucas:
Thank you for your answer and yes it gives some insight in the toughts that are comming our off the Conversations.
By the way, my native tongue is Flemish.
In this case I just like to say: Where do people with a disability fit in? How shall we meat them with the wonderful message of the gospel. 1 cor 12:22. And how can we get aware of their God given gifts in the church ? If any one out their can tell me where they fit in the Global Conversation, that would be wonderful. Thank you!
13.09.2010
United States
Great discussion and conclusion.
I know of North Koreans living in South Korean cities who cannot be reached easily by South Korean Christians. The refugees live in fear that one of the "South Koreans" around them might be an agent from the North bent on reprisal. They must be approached with a "people group" strategy. I know of Vietnamese Christians in South Korea who live in cities but are not blended into the urban mix. They respond to Vietnamese-style approaches even in their new setting.
A good project might be looking at immigrant people groups in urban settings to find relevant means to reach them.
Anyways, thanks for the thoughtful and thought-provoking conversation starter.
08.09.2010
South Africa
I once heard it said that we are often like a drunk man climbing on a horse, we fall off either side. We love to argue for either or scenarios. But I think it’s definately "both/and".
Similar debates happen around the idea of short-term mission trips, yet getting people in our "Jerusalem", so to speak, to think about the ends of the earth may just help them be more effective in reaching out to people on their doorsteps, and even beyond. Often the two dynamics are linked. (Or so I’ve seen with youth ministry...)
07.09.2010
You must be logged in to post a comment. If you don’t have an account, you can sign up now (it’s free and easy!).