# Time to prioritize urban missions?



## steadfast7 (Jul 15, 2011)

What think ye? is it time for the world missions movement to start prioritizing the evangelism of the mega cities of the world, rather than isolated tribal areas?

some quick facts
- tribalists tend to be much more responsive to the gospel
- uncontacted and highly isolated tribes are few and far between
- mass movement of rural dwellers to the city
- greater use of lingua franca in our world today
- many villagers today have internet, mobile phones, and satellite TV!


----------



## N. Eshelman (Jul 16, 2011)

Yep. The world has come to the city. Let's evangelize them and as the world goes back to their areas- they will evangelize their people. Look at the impact of Peter's preaching in Jerusalem at Pentecost- those people took the Gospel back to their people. 

Of course, we need to be doing this AS we are doing the other thing, both have their parts. But my thing is that there are not too many solid reformed churches in the urban areas of our country (I can only speak of what I know). Reformed people tend to like to stay out of the ghetto- or even the blue collar areas of the cities.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 23, 2011)

I would prefer a both/and answer to an either/or answer.


Many isolated tribes must be reached through heart-language ministries. While 2/3rd World national church structures might be able to evangelize their own ethnicities in urban centers, in the isolated tribal areas there are often no same-ethnicity believers with linguistic training in order to get the Gospel into an understandable form to reach those people, and so a specially trained outsider must help facilitate the work. 

Thus, a prioritiization of small and isolated tribes by specially trained missionaries is still a major part of missions work.

Also, if you believe that there is an eschatological motive for missions (this gospel must be preached unto all ethne, and Christ will have representatives from every tongue, tribe and nation before the throne), then there is an understandable intentionality to survey remote areas and to reach the lost no matter where they are - and the unreached are often unreached for a reason (and that reason is often geographic isolation).

Our job is not merely to reach as many people (singular) with the Gospel as possible; our job is to reach all the peopleS (plural), with the Gospel. We must intentionally cross every ethnic and linguistic barriar with the Gospel.

However, I do agree that more missionaries need to be raised up for urban centers. There are only like 11 cities of over a million people in the US but around 150 cities of over a million people in China, for example. 

The true Christians in the West (and throughout the world) could be fielding and funding missionaries in numbers ten times what they presently are now.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 23, 2011)

I've heard that 7/10ths of the people in America have never heard the true Gospel. Can anyone confirm that?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 23, 2011)

One of the most powerful things I heard was D.A. Carson lamenting something he said to his father when he was a brash teenager.

He lived in a small town in Canada where his father labored as a minister of the Gospel. Little fruit seemed to appear from this work and, in frustration, D.A. Carson told his Dad one day (please forgive me if I have the words imperfect): "Why are you wasting your time here?"

His father simply said: "I believe God has many people in this city." He turned and walked away.

I could hear the pain in D.A. Carson's voice and the shame he felt for ever wondering if his father's work in a seemingly fruitless work was worth it.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 24, 2011)

I agree with the both/and rather than either/or, but what about '_prioritizing_'? There's only so much that the worldwide church can or is willing to pour their efforts? Many believe that the strategy to reach the tribes is to reach the cities, not the other way around.

Also, I recently heard of NT scholars (like DA Carson?) arguing that _panta ta ethne_ does not mean the evangelization of all "people groups" but merely a way saying the evangelization of _all_. thoughts?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 24, 2011)

Dennis,

I believe _panta ta ethne_ refers to all ethne, meaning all peoples, not merely all people. Therefore, I believe there is cause to find those neglected and isolated people-groups, even those small tribes, and to target them. 


Here is a link to a sermon by John Piper which defends this view:

Unreached Peoples The Unique and Primary Goal of Missions - Desiring God



> Romans 15:18-21 gives a startling answer.
> 
> For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has wrought through me to win obedience of ethnon, by word or deed, by the power of signs and wonder, by the power of the Holy Spirit, so that from Jerusalem and as far round as Illyricum I have fully preached the gospel of Christ, thus making it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation, but as it is written, “They shall see who have never been told of him, and they shall understand who have never heard of him.”
> 
> ...



Prioritization should not merely be based on the question of "How many people are in this group or this region" but also, "How reached is this group and what access do they have to the Gospel." Thus, size of the harvest field is not the only consideration when picking a place of service, but "reached-ness" or "access" to the Gospel is also a priority, no matter how many people are targetted.

And again,




> 3.6 The “Great Commission” in Luke
> 
> We ask now whether this conception of Frontier Missions was the intention of Jesus as he gave his apostles their final commission. Paul’s conception of his own missionary task, which he received from the risen Lord, would certainly suggest that this is what the Lord commanded to all the apostles as the unique missionary task of the church.
> 
> ...






And finally:




> Our question today should be: What persons or agencies in the various churches and denominations should pick up this unique Pauline mission? It is not the only work of the church. Timothy-type missions are important. He was a foreigner working at Ephesus, continuing what Paul began, but Paul had to move on because he was driven by a special commission: “Depart, for I will send you far away to the ethne” (Acts 22:21), and by a grasp of God’s worldwide mission purpose revealed in the Old Testament.
> 
> There is no reason to think that God’s purpose has changed today. Who then is to pick up the mantle of the apostle’s unique missionary task of reaching more and more peoples? Should not every denomination and church have some vital and strategizing group that is recruiting, equipping, sending and supporting Pauline-type missionaries to more and more unreached peoples? That is, shouldn’t Frontier Missions be an essential goal of every church group?



These unreached people-groups should be pursued wherever they are, and no matter how many there are....and many of them are in remote, isolated places and in small tribes.







> 4. Conclusion
> The implication of this sketch of the biblical picture of the missionary task seems to be that there should be in every church and denomination a group of people (a missions agency or board) who see their unique and primary task
> 
> 1.NOT to win as many individuals to Christ as possible before the end comes,
> ...


----------



## steadfast7 (Jul 24, 2011)

Amen. I needed a good reminder, Trev. My time in India honestly jostled some convictions and left me a little jaded ...


----------



## he beholds (Jul 24, 2011)

I think Japan is the largest unreached people group, and I believe it is mostly urban.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 24, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Prioritization should not merely be based on the question of "How many people are in this group or this region" but also, "How reached is this group and what access do they have to the Gospel." Thus, size of the harvest field is not the only consideration when picking a place of service, but "reached-ness" or "access" to the Gospel is also a priority, no matter how many people are targetted.



I recently watched some of the Southern Baptist Convention for 2011. This seems to be the emphasis--reaching unreached people groups and especially those who have had no access to the gospel.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 24, 2011)

Dennis,

In India there are many people-groups and some are more reached than others. 

Even if living in a large city, you will find that your time is limited and you will have to prioritize some sort of task or people. Given the unequal proportion of Christians in some ethnic groups versus others, I would think that there would need to be an intentional focus, perhaps, on one ethnicity in order to learn their language and culture in such a way as to become a communicable Gospel witness to them. You would need to be intentional in this focus because the most unreached groups are often the least receptive and it would be easy in an urban setting to spend all your time nurturing those who are most receptive but already have an indigenous Christian witness rather than targetting those that have no works among them.

This does not preclude supporting efforts by indigenous Christians to try to reach the rest of their own people among those groups who already have the start of a solid gospel witness, nor does it mean that leadership-training or pastoral training of local evangelists is not needed, but I would pray that you would look for those groups who are still closed to the Gospel and strive to make a Initial Gospel Beach-head into that group so that an indigenous church, which can then carry on the work, can be founded. 

In an urban setting, where the population is mixed, it might be harder to focus on one minority culture/language and, for this reason, relocating to a rural setting might actually be a better setting to become immersed into the specific culture and language of the particular target population that you feel called to.

To navigate broadly in India, it might be helpful to learn a language of wider communication or national language or much-spoken language such as Hindi, but successful pentration of a least-reached group with a true Gospel witness may require you to, later, also learn the Jaun-Sari or another language that still abides as the "heart-language" of one of these least-reached groups so that the Gospel can be truly understood for the first time through your works by one these neglected groups. 

This seemed to be your calling when you went to India and I would pray that you would safeguard this call.


----------

