A point of contention on the PB has been whether or not there should be priorities of world evangelism and what those priorities should be.
I.e. should we prioritize the least-reached peoples of the world and if so, how?
Opposition to this has been phrased as "A soul is a soul is a soul and each one is just as valuable as the next".
My response of course is, "If each is as valuable as the next, why are not equal resources given to all...and why are some areas of the world lacking in resources at all?"
My thesis is this:
That we should seek information about what groups in the world have the least access and understanding to the Gospel and target these groups. I.e. we try as best we can to make prioritizations in world evangelism.
This necessitates research into these different groups and some attempt (albeit far from perfect) at classififying these groups into language groups or ethnic blocks, to be more easily targetted separately. Then, we actively pray and seek workers to engage each of these language groups so that there are no geographical walls and linguistic walls isolating people from the Gospel. We will remember the large role of language in evangelism and see linguistic barriers as significent as well, and not merely consider geographical isolation.
This would mean, of course, that all things being equal, if we had 100 willing persons we would try to send them to the Middle East or Asia rather than Atlanta, Georgia - of course, taking into account each person's individual call (however, recognizing that some people are called to be open and research the neediest area as per their definitions of need and then place themselves there). This presupposes that we consider some areas and peoples "needier" as far as allocation of resources.
Here are some articles below.
What do you think. Is it legitimate to try to figure out who has the least geographical, political, and linguistic access to the Gospel and specially target those groups? If so, on what categorical bases?
Joshua Project - Definitions and Terms Related to the Great Commission
MMRC: The myth of the 10/40 Window?
Lausanne World Pulse - The Global Status of Evangelical Christianity: A Model for Identifying Priority People Groups
http://www.joshuaproject.net/assets/AffinityBlocPeopleClusterArticleJohnstone.pdf
One practical implication of all this for the local church is this:
In our missions budget we would prioritze church planting missions to the least-reached areas of the world rather than giving disproportionately to support ministries in the already-reached part of the world.
I.e. given 1,000 USD per month as a missions budget we would pick a church planter to Pakistan over a soup kitchen in New York (unless perhaps the soup kitchen operator has a close personal tie to the sending church, etc, or other relevant factors).
NOTE: Some will charge me with undervaluing all Western ministries or thinking that missionary church planters in Asia are more important than pastors in the West...as happened on a recent thread. Note that things can be of equal importance despite a prioritization. I would ask a reverse question: If all things are of equal importance, why are there so many resources in the West and why are some areas of the world then being short-changed as far as allocation of resources? Does the Middle East deserve less and are they less important? Why do we hog the resources?
Note also: No one can argue much with individual calling that is within Biblical guidelines. If one is absolutely certain they are called to go to the "mission field" of Atlanta Georgia over India then who can argue with that? However, God calls people in a process that includes the larger body of Christ and it would be God-honoring to bring the needs of the neediest parts of the world before the Western church so that God may use that to call more people to East Timor rather than East Illinois.
[ready to dodge the tomators now...let'em fly!]
I.e. should we prioritize the least-reached peoples of the world and if so, how?
Opposition to this has been phrased as "A soul is a soul is a soul and each one is just as valuable as the next".
My response of course is, "If each is as valuable as the next, why are not equal resources given to all...and why are some areas of the world lacking in resources at all?"
My thesis is this:
That we should seek information about what groups in the world have the least access and understanding to the Gospel and target these groups. I.e. we try as best we can to make prioritizations in world evangelism.
This necessitates research into these different groups and some attempt (albeit far from perfect) at classififying these groups into language groups or ethnic blocks, to be more easily targetted separately. Then, we actively pray and seek workers to engage each of these language groups so that there are no geographical walls and linguistic walls isolating people from the Gospel. We will remember the large role of language in evangelism and see linguistic barriers as significent as well, and not merely consider geographical isolation.
This would mean, of course, that all things being equal, if we had 100 willing persons we would try to send them to the Middle East or Asia rather than Atlanta, Georgia - of course, taking into account each person's individual call (however, recognizing that some people are called to be open and research the neediest area as per their definitions of need and then place themselves there). This presupposes that we consider some areas and peoples "needier" as far as allocation of resources.
Here are some articles below.
What do you think. Is it legitimate to try to figure out who has the least geographical, political, and linguistic access to the Gospel and specially target those groups? If so, on what categorical bases?
Joshua Project - Definitions and Terms Related to the Great Commission
MMRC: The myth of the 10/40 Window?
Lausanne World Pulse - The Global Status of Evangelical Christianity: A Model for Identifying Priority People Groups
http://www.joshuaproject.net/assets/AffinityBlocPeopleClusterArticleJohnstone.pdf
One practical implication of all this for the local church is this:
In our missions budget we would prioritze church planting missions to the least-reached areas of the world rather than giving disproportionately to support ministries in the already-reached part of the world.
I.e. given 1,000 USD per month as a missions budget we would pick a church planter to Pakistan over a soup kitchen in New York (unless perhaps the soup kitchen operator has a close personal tie to the sending church, etc, or other relevant factors).
NOTE: Some will charge me with undervaluing all Western ministries or thinking that missionary church planters in Asia are more important than pastors in the West...as happened on a recent thread. Note that things can be of equal importance despite a prioritization. I would ask a reverse question: If all things are of equal importance, why are there so many resources in the West and why are some areas of the world then being short-changed as far as allocation of resources? Does the Middle East deserve less and are they less important? Why do we hog the resources?
Note also: No one can argue much with individual calling that is within Biblical guidelines. If one is absolutely certain they are called to go to the "mission field" of Atlanta Georgia over India then who can argue with that? However, God calls people in a process that includes the larger body of Christ and it would be God-honoring to bring the needs of the neediest parts of the world before the Western church so that God may use that to call more people to East Timor rather than East Illinois.
[ready to dodge the tomators now...let'em fly!]
