tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36770289.post7050918645066665933..comments2024-01-20T20:11:51.589-07:00Comments on Telling Secrets: Never Heard of Him. You?Martihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04492242951732140223noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36770289.post-68111570316296987812011-01-08T13:56:39.453-07:002011-01-08T13:56:39.453-07:00Hah! Made you blog again, and on my account!
Very...Hah! Made you blog again, and on my account!<br /><br />Very informative, and very interesting. This makes a good subject for discussion, I think. We might have to toss it out there on a Sunday morning for a wrestling session. . . .<br /><br />- ScottScott Fieldsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36770289.post-59697483616323124322011-01-08T11:33:53.008-07:002011-01-08T11:33:53.008-07:00I avoid numbers when I can, but since I know peopl...I avoid numbers when I can, but since I know people who have spent years on the science of "missiometrics" (e.g., these guys, http://www.joshuaproject.net/how-many-people-groups.php) let me be serious for a bit, crack my knuckles, and summarize at least some of the issues involved. <br /><br />The 6,426 list is an attempt to identify the most meaningful ethnic and linguistic groups with fewer than 2% professing to be "born again" Christians. Hard to measure, but they often just count those who are baptized in evangelical churches/ministries - as if all baptized evangelicals were real Christians, and all non-Evangelicals were non-Christians. If that figure is below 2%, it's believed that there hasn't been a missiological breakthrough. Well, probably there hasn't. Few people are aware of the Christians and it's likely that becoming a follower of Jesus would require responding to a cross-cultural witness and imply leaving your culture to join another. <br /><br />That is then summarized as meaning these people groups haven't heard the gospel, a further stretch. And an even bigger leap, in my mind, is when "haven't heard the gospel" is extended to "haven't heard the name of Jesus" which is pretty ridiculous when you're talking about people like my high-caste Hindu friends who send their kids to Catholic school or folks in the Middle East who wouldn't be alive if it wasn't for the Christian hospitals. They may not have sat through the altar call but they've probably heard something about Lord Jesus/Prophet Jesus! <br /><br />While I stay away from numbers, I've pretty much committed my life to calling and equipping people to see church-planting movements established among the least-reached peoples. So, I'm really on the same team as these Baptist guys, even if I'd like to see them (and others) be more careful how they throw around numbers and ideas about who is a Christian and who is not. <br /><br />Strangely enough, you'll often see stats like this one in conjunction with figures that come from very different measurements, e.g., those that count all professing Christians as part of the Christian world. Because what was true a century ago is still true today, that the world is roughly a third Christian, a third "reached" (having had that missiological breakthrough and a third "unreached" (no missiological breakthrough). <br /><br />Most Christian mission efforts serve people within the first third (e.g., we set up parachurch ministries within our own communities or send missionaries to do projects among quite-reached peoples in places like Haiti or Kenya), and very few are within the third that have the lowest number of Christians among them (whether you describe them as being in 6,426 groups or slice them up quite differently). Only a small percentage of those who would consider themselves missionaries are working to make disciples within the least-reached third of the world's population. <br /><br />I continue to value and support work among reached peoples, and want to see everybody serve wherever and however God leads. But there remains a great imbalance.<br /><br />I don't think statistics like this one about the number of unreached people groups would bother me as much if, on each use, the total number of people groups or the number of reached people groups (using the same methods) was also included. That context seems essential for these numbers to be meaningful.Martihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04492242951732140223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36770289.post-43143573589434653342011-01-07T22:05:57.660-07:002011-01-07T22:05:57.660-07:00For the record: I'm kidding about that last pa...For the record: I'm kidding about that last part. I'm also suspicious enough to recognize there are those who'll think I'm serious. . . .<br /><br />- ScottScott Fieldsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-36770289.post-2348586326160626482011-01-07T22:04:05.704-07:002011-01-07T22:04:05.704-07:00I'm completely confused . . . how in the world...I'm completely confused . . . how in the world did they come up so authoritatively with such a specific number? And while we're on it--how exactly could you hope to learn about this gap of knowledge without accidentally <i>informing</i> those you're surveying about the very thing they're apparently ignorant about?<br /><br />What I mean is this: how could you go to any one of these groups and ask them if they've ever heard about Jesus . . . and get a "no" in response? By asking the question, you've tipped your hand as far as the name goes. Of course, if it's such a serious problem, why not go ahead and proclaim it to everyone who says "no?" Just get it over with, y'know?<br /><br />I don't mean to sound snarky here. I'm just far more out-of-sorts with the logistics of the information than with the information itself. Seems like a pretty suspect statistic to me. (But I'm a suspicious person. For example . . . I'm waiting for someone to jump on the fact that if you add the 4 and the 2 together, the number in question becomes the mark of the beast. Maybe the statistic is symbolic. Hmmm. . . .)<br /><br />- ScottScottnoreply@blogger.com