# John Piper on the Unreached People Group Concept



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2008)

Unreached Peoples :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library

A snippet below....


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 

NOT to win as many individuals to Christ as possible before the end comes, 
BUT to win some individuals (i.e., plant a church) among all the peoples of the earth before the end comes; NOT to focus merely on the most “fruitful” peoples outside our own culture (and thus win more individuals to Christ), 
BUT to press on to more and more unreached people (even if they are less responsive than other more-reached groups). 

In other words, the biblical measuring rod for the success of a mission agency is whether it is fulfilling the unique missionary task of the church 

NOT primarily by the number and quality of churches planted in other people groups besides its own, BUT primarily by the number of different unreached people groups in which it plants quality churches.

If this is so, then should not every church and denomination and mission agency seek to discover the number of unreached peoples, compare this number to the size of its constituency, and then at least carry its proportionate load of responsibility in reaching specific unreached peoples? 


THOUGHTS?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 9, 2008)

Sounds like an interesting and practical approach...


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2008)

But, Piper's point is that it is not only interesting and practical but Biblical as well.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Nov 9, 2008)

Do you agree?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2008)

Yes. I agree with the people group concept. 

The rub comes in that this all involves a prioritization of need. It involves, practically, setting some peoples and souls up as greater priorities of evangelism than others. I agree with this also.

The other issue is eschatological. If we are to try to target the world in such a way that Rev 5 is fulfilled, "some from every tongue, tribe and nation" - then once we have labeled all the families of the earth (a hard to impossible task) and evangelized them, we appear to have reached some evangelization "end-point" where Jesus can now come back.


But I agree with the concept - but not sure about all the logical implications.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 9, 2008)

If I can interject, "every church" and "mission board" is the only verbiage I have trouble accepting and would need further evidence of to fully accept that part of his proposition.

Beyond that, it's biblical. I believe the local church has the means to send out equipped men even if smaller but not every single church has the means nor should send missionaries if capable men are not present able to go out. Instead of "mission board" I would say the elders and deacons qualify for that decision-making body.


----------



## staythecourse (Nov 9, 2008)

> The other issue is eschatological. If we are to try to target the world in such a way that Rev 5 is fulfilled, "some from every tongue, tribe and nation" - then once we have labeled all the families of the earth (a hard to impossible task) and evangelized them, we appear to have reached some evangelization "end-point" where Jesus can now come back.



Good point Perg, thanks for the theological fodder for me to chew on.


----------



## kvanlaan (Nov 9, 2008)

> The other issue is eschatological. If we are to try to target the world in such a way that Rev 5 is fulfilled, "some from every tongue, tribe and nation" - then *once we have labeled all the families of the earth (a hard to impossible task) and evangelized them, we appear to have reached some evangelization "end-point" where Jesus can now come back.*



Interesting concept, but this is what the Bahais hang their hat on as well. Their take is that somewhere in the late 1800's, the world's people (in a very broad sense) were all reached in world missions. Then Bahaoullah (the Messiah) came, because some sort of theological vault combination had been dialled in. It also has the danger of leaning the idea of missions into a sort of Pelagianistic system where we can hasten or delay Christ's return by how based on how fast _we_ evangelize every tribe and nation.

I may be off on this, and I don't mean to be setting up a straw man, these things just popped into my head when I read the quote above.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 9, 2008)

Not sure how this is related to the Bahia faith....



But if we accept that there must be the full number of the elect saved and the full number of the martyrs filled up before Christ returns than, yes, Christ's return hinges upon our evangelistic activities and are martyrdom activities.


Staythecourse: Let's not turn this into a church, parachurch, mission agency debate where we condemn all parachurches and mission agencies. There's already some threads on that one...


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 9, 2008)

My concern, as has been stated, is the sweeping language used. I know a man who desired to reach muslims in France. We talked in seminary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of missionaries in France. But he had his eyes on muslims. Interestingly, he got interested in a young lady while in seminary, and it turns out she's a French major. They hooked up with a guy who trains muslim immigrants who receive Christ and prepares them to return to their native countries to preach the Gospel. According to this thought process, if I understand right, and it's being presented as "the" biblical pattern, this guy and his wife are sinning. I don't think he means that, but it is implied in such statements. Even if I totally misunderstood that aspect, it still seems that this would be frowned upon. 

I appreciate that the focus isn't on numbers. That's a pressure that many succumb to. I do wish that it focused more on personal faithfulness to Christ being the measure of success, regardles of whether or not a church plant ever reaches a level considered "successful."


----------



## OPC'n (Nov 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Unreached Peoples :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> A snippet below....
> 
> ...



Paul and the apostles did go to new places to preach the Gospel where the Gospel had not been preached, but they did not forsake the places in which they had begun. They still spread the Gospel in their motherland. Our motherland *might* be full of the Gospel, but I think we are doing a pretty good job of keeping from those who have not heard it. I am always shocked to meet a person here in WI who has never heard of Jesus much less the true Gospel. That is astounding to me!


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Nov 10, 2008)

The fact that the gospel must be spread to every tribe, nation, and tongue is clearly and repeatedly said in the scripture. It's both prophesied and commanded. Jesus will not return until the gospel is preached in those places. God's sovereignty is never an excuse to be fatalistic and sit back. I wholeheartedly agree with you Perg.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 10, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> My concern, as has been stated, is the sweeping language used. I know a man who desired to reach muslims in France. We talked in seminary. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of missionaries in France. But he had his eyes on muslims. Interestingly, he got interested in a young lady while in seminary, and it turns out she's a French major. They hooked up with a guy who trains muslim immigrants who receive Christ and prepares them to return to their native countries to preach the Gospel. According to this thought process, if I understand right, and it's being presented as "the" biblical pattern, this guy and his wife are sinning.."




I don't follow you; what would be sin? And why?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 10, 2008)

sjonee said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Unreached Peoples :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> ...



Can you explain this?


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 10, 2008)

ManleyBeasley said:


> The fact that the gospel must be spread to every tribe, nation, and tongue is clearly and repeatedly said in the scripture. It's both prophesied and commanded. Jesus will not return until the gospel is preached in those places. God's sovereignty is never an excuse to be fatalistic and sit back. I wholeheartedly agree with you Perg.



How does this square with my partial preterism tendencies? Is there a way to incorporate the two?


----------



## Matthias (Nov 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Unreached Peoples :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> 
> If this is so, then should not every church and denomination and mission agency seek to discover the number of unreached peoples, compare this number to the size of its constituency, and then at least carry its proportionate load of responsibility in reaching specific unreached peoples?
> ...



There are many who profess Christianity who themselves have never been truly "reached"...I would think finding an accurate number would be ....difficult to say the least


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Unreached Peoples :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> A snippet below....
> 
> ...



I would agree with this in general. Every local congregation should investigate their area and see if there are any unreached people groups close by. Certainly you can send a missionary around the world to find one. But all too often those unreached groups are coming here already via immigration or for education. And if your local church is close to a Native American reservation, you're living next to one of the most unreached people groups in North America.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 10, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> I don't follow you; what would be sin? And why?



I tried to tone down my statement, realizing that I may have misunderstood. My point was that this "seems" to be stating that it's wrong to send missionaries into places where this already a strong missionary presence. And, it seems to be stating that this is the biblical mandate. If that is so, then it "could" be assumed that to do otherwise is sin. I didn't mean anything more than that.

Thanks for asking though.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 10, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > I don't follow you; what would be sin? And why?
> ...



Okay.

I see this a a calling issue and also a stewardship issue.

If one is called to Atlanta Georgia, that is fine. There is still work to do in every corner of the world.

However, to plant a church 10 miles from another church that is faithfully preaching the GOspel when one has a call to "fill up the dark places with the Gospel" is poor stewardship and poor strategy.

Someone's personal calling may be very "unstrategic" It wouldn't be sin, however, as you seem to possibly hint at.

If we had 100 willing men wanting to plant churches in the darkest corners of the world, then it only makes sense that data should be gathered and some sort of formulation and statistical method could be arrived at to splice different populations in order to better use the limited resources that we have.

The Greek world had many needs and yet in Romans 15 Paul speaks of fulfilling the Gospel in those areas and moving on to where the Gospel has not been preached. If we had folks wanting to serve wherever, it would seem that we would strive to somehow quantify and prioritze need and send them to Jakarta rather than Atlanta.


Piper goes further than mere pragmatism and actually states that there are theological reasons to define unreached people groups and target them.




And yes, immigration allows us to reach these far away groups that come to us. Missions-minded churches should be trying to minister to their immigrant populations and also reaching out to those in their communities. However, there is always an outward thrust in the NT with the Gospel, not waiting for the heathens to come to us, so we should just stop there, our eyes should be on the far reaches of the world.




About home missions and our many needs here on the homefront:

I cannot help but think that this can be used as an excuse by some as to why they are not more active overseas. Many of not even active on the homefront, and then when the issue of foreign missions is raised many say, "Well, there are so many needs right here." We have enough resources to fill needs both far and near and one need not compete with the other.


----------



## TimV (Nov 11, 2008)

> However, to plant a church 10 miles from another church that is faithfully preaching the Gospel when one has a call to "fill up the dark places with the Gospel" is poor stewardship and poor strategy.



If that's true, then planting a church 100 miles away is poor stewardship and poor strategy ;-) and not only we confessional Reformed but you independent Baptists are engaged in poor stewardship and poor strategy 99% of the time. In fact, any church planting other than planting a church in unreached ethnic groups would be poor stewardship and poor strategy, and at the least all of us here belong to churches that are being very foolish, if not in outright rebellion.



> But if we accept that there must be the full number of the elect saved and the full number of the martyrs filled up before Christ returns than, yes, Christ's return hinges upon our evangelistic activities and are martyrdom activities.



Just as food for thought (and you know I've spent 10 years of my life in third world areas so I'm not trying to get out of my responsibilities) I would suggest that the word "hinges" is wrong.

We have no idea how many of each tribe, nation and language are to be part of the elect. None at all. It's not as if the moment the Gospel is preached in every village the End will come. We just don't know. To make it seem like some sort of race, or military strategy with a clear end point is dangerous because we just don't know who the elect are, or the level of personal sanctification the Lord will have of them before the end.

To demand that all the resources of the church be diverted to reaching the unreached as a means to the End of Days may be missing the big picture.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 11, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Someone's personal calling may be very "unstrategic" It wouldn't be sin, however, as you seem to possibly hint at.
> 
> The Greek world had many needs and yet in Romans 15 Paul speaks of fulfilling the Gospel in those areas and moving on to where the Gospel has not been preached. If we had folks wanting to serve wherever, it would seem that we would strive to somehow quantify and prioritze need and send them to Jakarta rather than Atlanta.
> 
> ...


I wasn't saying it was sin. I was commenting that the article seems to at least give room for that interpretation. 

You have some good points. Let man's conscience toward God be clear and may each serve where God calls him. A lawyer in Atlanta is no less a missionary than the man paid to plant churches in Jakarta. He may not work as many focused hours proclaiming Christ. But he does have a sphere of influence where he has a responsibility to proclaim Christ. If we take the article too far it seems that we're saying that even this faithful slave of Christ is falling short of his duty because he did not "go." We have to keep in mind that the great commission doesn't say to "go." It says, "having gone." We are to "make disciples" wherever we are. This is one reason I struggle with using the term "missionary." It can so easily imply that others are not to witness within the sphere of influence God has given them.

Having said that, I agree with what you're saying in principle. I think it should be a key factor in where we plan on supporting missionaries. We DON'T support them in places we want to visit.  We don't send them where there is already a missionary for every 1000 people. But this must be tempered with the fact that some are called to ministries near strong Christian witness, perhaps among a certain people group in that area, or in a particular social strata. When Paul went to Rome there was already a strong Christian witness there. This is clearly evident in Romans. If we're to only go where there isn't a strong witness, then perhaps he should have gone elsewhere.

Tim offers good balancing thoughts.


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Nov 11, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> ManleyBeasley said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that the gospel must be spread to every tribe, nation, and tongue is clearly and repeatedly said in the scripture. It's both prophesied and commanded. Jesus will not return until the gospel is preached in those places. God's sovereignty is never an excuse to be fatalistic and sit back. I wholeheartedly agree with you Perg.
> ...


I have no idea how that would fit with partial preterism. It does fit with my historicism view quite nicely in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2008)

TimV said:


> > However, to plant a church 10 miles from another church that is faithfully preaching the Gospel when one has a call to "fill up the dark places with the Gospel" is poor stewardship and poor strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



When did I ever say ALL the resources of the Church? Right now it is probably less than 2% that goes to those groups labeled "unreached" - it is not unreasonable to ask that this be bumped up to 25-50% of resources. A tithe towards the least-unreached would do nicely. You twist my words.


Also, I would say that planting a church 10, 20, maybe 30 miles and duplicating services in one region when other regions lie fallow and untargetted is bad stewardship if one is not also targetting places where whole cities of 100,000 lie without a single church.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 11, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Someone's personal calling may be very "unstrategic" It wouldn't be sin, however, as you seem to possibly hint at.
> ...




Yes, there is a tension between personal calling and trying to priortize and go to the "darkest" area one can find. One can be personally called to Atlanta Georgia even if there are plenty of churches, the bible in Englsih and Christian radio there.

Yes, Paul went to Rome, but he was trying to enlist aid to go to Spain wasn't he - because he had already "fulfilled the Gospel" in those other regions (Romans 15).


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 11, 2008)

Thanks Pergamum. You are right, of course. But we might look to the beginning of Romans for a more reason Paul desired to go to Rome. "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established-- that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles... I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also." Also consider Jesus' statement to Paul, "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome."
Was Rome merely a place to gather support for his journey to Spain? Though he desired to "be helped on his way" to Spain, doesn't that seem tertiary to his desire to minister in Rome? Not to quibble, but we can get a lopsided view of Paul's mission if we're not careful. 

You might deduce that part of my reaction is the tendency to elevate "missionary" work above what the pew sitter does. As the puritans clearly understood, each man is called to a vocation that fulfills a need of society. He must see that as his divine calling and work as unto the Lord, regardless of what God has given his hands and mind to do. With this in mind, we all stand on equal plane, whether Greek/Jew, man/woman, black/white, missionary/elder/deacon/garbageman/bag boy. Though a position might require a measure of respect because of God's decree of order, the man's calling is based on who God is, not who he is, and his success is based on his faithfulness to God where he is, regardless of his calling. A pastor is not necessarily more faithful than a butcher, bus driver or even a lawyer, if all are pursuing Christ and working as unto Him. Though I doubt they intended to, and have not read the whole article, I think that it makes a case against such a thought process.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> Thanks Pergamum. You are right, of course. But we might look to the beginning of Romans for a more reason Paul desired to go to Rome. "For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established-- that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me. Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles... I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also." Also consider Jesus' statement to Paul, "Be of good cheer, Paul; for as you have testified for Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome."
> Was Rome merely a place to gather support for his journey to Spain? Though he desired to "be helped on his way" to Spain, doesn't that seem tertiary to his desire to minister in Rome? Not to quibble, but we can get a lopsided view of Paul's mission if we're not careful.
> 
> You might deduce that part of my reaction is the tendency to elevate "missionary" work above what the pew sitter does. As the puritans clearly understood, each man is called to a vocation that fulfills a need of society. He must see that as his divine calling and work as unto the Lord, regardless of what God has given his hands and mind to do. With this in mind, we all stand on equal plane, whether Greek/Jew, man/woman, black/white, missionary/elder/deacon/garbageman/bag boy. Though a position might require a measure of respect because of God's decree of order, the man's calling is based on who God is, not who he is, and his success is based on his faithfulness to God where he is, regardless of his calling. A pastor is not necessarily more faithful than a butcher, bus driver or even a lawyer, if all are pursuing Christ and working as unto Him. Though I doubt they intended to, and have not read the whole article, I think that it makes a case against such a thought process.



Yes, I agree with you - my intent is not to elevate the missionary call above others, my post is not even missionary-focused at all but rather focused on the neediest areas as targets of evangelization. I.e. I am not focusing on who is to go, but where they should go to - and in a world where thereis great discrepancy between areas where the Gospel is or where Gospel materials can be accessed, we ought to be researching to see who the least-reached are and aiming towards them. I.e. the darker the area, the greater effort we should be making to stick people and resources there.


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 12, 2008)

I do enjoy these chats, Pergy. They are edifying and help me think through my missiology. You've given me much to think about many times. And, as you probably can tell, I love mission work. Thank you.

I fully agree that churches need to be more strategic in their missions program. Good grief, most churches need to be more strategic period, rather than jumping on the latest and greatest program designed to draw more people. Is our vision God focused? Is it multi-generationally focused? Is it eternally focused? For most churches it seems that the focus is on immediate results and gratification. We could learn much from the pilgrims, who saw themselves as stepping stones for later, and, prayerfully, more godly, generations.

What do you think of TETM? We have a missionary from them coming to see us this winter. They're going to the mountains of central Mexico.


----------



## Pergamum (Nov 12, 2008)

Wannabee said:


> I do enjoy these chats, Pergy. They are edifying and help me think through my missiology. You've given me much to think about many times. And, as you probably can tell, I love mission work. Thank you.
> 
> I fully agree that churches need to be more strategic in their missions program. Good grief, most churches need to be more strategic period, rather than jumping on the latest and greatest program designed to draw more people. Is our vision God focused? Is it multi-generationally focused? Is it eternally focused? For most churches it seems that the focus is on immediate results and gratification. We could learn much from the pilgrims, who saw themselves as stepping stones for later, and, prayerfully, more godly, generations.
> 
> What do you think of TETM? We have a missionary from them coming to see us this winter. They're going to the mountains of central Mexico.





I think David Sitton is doing a fine job - and he was written an excellent book on animism. He is also mobilizing believers in sovereign grace to go out and do missions so that sovereign grace churches can support sovereign grace missionaries. 

His center for tribal church planting, however, is not a replacement for a college or seminary degree. Anyone going through there should get linguistics training before they go to a remote unreached tribe in my opinion. If one fails at language among the most-unreached then one ultimately fails to cross the highest barrier to the Gospel for many people. 

Also, many training centers have some sort of "bush training" or "jungle camp" or courses focused on marriage and family issues, where one learns how to deal with the personal and marital stresses of living with spotty electricity, fetching the water from the river one's self, making your own toilet, dealing with guests 24/7 and how to cook in bad conditions (sifting wheat, killing and preparing chickens, etc, which are skills being lost to Western culture).... these "daily living" stresses often take families away from the field and constantly wear on people in third world settings. 

My whole family has had ameoba again this week and last (my 18-month old daughter has it the worst and was up 4 times last night crying and soiling the bed) despite trying to stay tidy and so we are reviewing how we cook and prepare meals.




About the vision of the pilgrims: 

I would disagree that trying to create a "holy commonwealth" is the best strategy for missions, and this is precisely what many of the pilgrims desired.

In Pre-Constantinian times the early chuch grew like wildfire from a position far removed from power and they did not have the arm of the state to "help" their church planting efforts. The Reformation times suffered from the myth of "Christendom" and we still have folks on this board looking back to some glory day when the civil state could punish transgressions that were purely ecclesiastical in nature and who still long for a theocracy. Many on this board even disagree with the 1788 revision of the WCF.

Now, in the world the West is losing its direct colonial power and so in many parts of the world the missionary and the colonial powers are no longer in cahoots and I see this as healthy for missions. While we ought to emulate the fervor of the pilgrims, let's leave their ecclesiology behind.


----------

