Resource: Books on Paul the Missionary

I think that sometimes we forget who Paul was. Oh, we always remember certain things about him. For example, he was an apostle - and not just any apostle. He was an apostle of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, upon whom special revelation was showered, who acted with a special authority. This is the Paul we know. Is that the whole picture though?

Perhaps it would be convenient for us if that was the whole picture. It would allow us to remain satisfied with our faith, our methods, our results. We could continue to justify, "We are not apostles as he was, therefore we cannot expect his results, nor can we bind ourselves to his methods. Rather, we must work to develop our own methods, that will work in our time, in our contexts." However, if Paul is much more than the above, then we have serious grounds for self-examination.

Yes, Paul was more than that. Let's not forget that, though he was an Apostle of Christ, he was also an apostle of a church in Antioch. Always remember that he was Paul the apostle of Christ, but let us also remember that he Paul the missionary. He was fulfilling the same commands that bind us still. Not only that, but the principles that guided his missionary methods should be those that guide ours. I am convinced that, if we follow the same principles, we will use much the same methods, and get in many places much the same results.

That is where these resources come into play. I suppose there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of books written about Paul. However, it seems that relatively few have been written about Paul the missionary. I would now like to point to a couple that have been beneficial to my thinking.

Missionary Methods: St. Paul's or Ours? by Roland Allen

This book shook my world when I had to read it for a class (I'm not sure my fellow classmates were nearly as enthralled). So often we hear people claim to use Pauline methods. But Roland Allen dared to suggest that we aren't really Pauline in our approach at all. As a result, we have long since lost hope of Pauline results. Perhaps the aspect of Allen's work that struck me most was the deliberate movement away from dependency upon the missionary toward dependency upon the Holy Ghost in our methods. Also significant was his suggestion that there are very few, if any, conditions present on any mission field today that would rule out doing the work the way Paul did, expecting the results that Paul obtained.

Allen was an Anglican. Therefore, as an Independent Fundamental Baptist, you will have to spit out the bones. In places, he is heavy on the "sacraments," and he would promote an ecclesiology that is foreign to us and Scripture (though he is closer than most other Anglicans). So read discerningly, but in the many places where he is Scriptural, learn and heed.

Paul the Missionary: Realities, Strategies and Methods by Eckhard Schnabel

Not all of Allen's suggestions are in line with Scripture and history. In many of the places where Allen lacked, Schnabel adequately supplements. Paul the Missionary is a much larger book, but it is well worth the time. His recollection of Paul's work is challenging to us today. You would do well to pick up this book and take the time to read it thoroughly.

I want to include here a few quotes from the Preface and Intro to Missionary Methods. They will give you a taste of what's coming:

"The fact remains that, where St. Paul conspicuously succeeded, we have conspicuously failed. May it not be because we have worked upon widely different principles?" (Henry Whitehead, in the Intro to the 1st ed.)

"We can more easily believe in His work in us and through us, than we can believe in His work in and through our converts: we cannot trust our converts to Him. But that is one of the most obvious lessons which the study of St Paul's work teaches us."

"Like the rest of the Holy Scriptures it (the record of Paul's church planting ministry) was 'written for our learning'. It was certainly meant to be something more than the romantic history of an exceptional man, doing exceptional things under exceptional circumstances - a story from which ordinary people of a later age can get no more instruction for practical missionary work than they receive from the history of the Cid, or from the exploits of King Arthur."

"Either we must drag down St Paul from his pedestal as the great missionary, or else we must acknowledge that there is in his work that quality of universality."

Are you willing to have your minds and methods challenged by Paul the missionary? Do you want to find the secret of his success as a missionary? Do you want to truly work from the same principles?

These books are a good place to begin that challenge. Read them, and tell me what you think.

Missionary Support in the Bible (Part 4): Single Male Missionaries

OK, before I start, let me say this. No, single male missionaries are not presented as a major issue of missionary support in the Bible. In fact, this post could just as easily have gone under another heading. However, teams of single male missionaries are evident in the NT. Their benefits to modern field effectiveness (demonstrated in Scripture) and to our current support struggles will be plain, I think.

"For I would that all men were even as I myself (single). . . . I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I (single). . . . I suppose therefore that this (singleness) is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be (single). . . . seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such (the married) shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you. . . . But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. . . . And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."

- excerpts from Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 7, emphasis and parentheses mine

It is clear from 'The Beginning' that God wanted most people to be married, to serve one another, to serve Him, to raise a godly seed. Then, why on earth would Paul encourage the Corinthians to remain unmarried? Well, he states that it is due to "the present distress." Paul anticipated the difficult times that would soon come upon them. He doesn't elaborate on the exact nature of this distress, only that there was something that could help many endure it and remain faithful to the Lord: singleness. This was a somewhat unnatural state to remain in, considering The Beginning, yet is was a recommendation that the Lord moved him to make (7:40).

Notice carefully the marriage realities that Paul emphasizes. He does not rebuke the husbands for caring "for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife." He doesn't rebuke them for not being able to "attend upon the Lord without distraction." No, he merely states these as natural, accepted realities of married life. These are "distractions" which have been built into the marriage relationship by God. It does not mean that the married man doesn't love the Lord with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. It does mean that his concerns, time, energy, and efforts will be divided between actively serving the Lord and caring for his wife. If he did not care for his wife in this way he would surely be "worse than an infidel" (1 Tim 5:8). He has a God-given responsibility to do so. So, he is rightly "distracted" in caring for things of the world, i.e. pleasing his wife.

Such difficult times may come, Paul says, that the Corinthians would do better to be wholly undistracted. Can we think of any times like these today? Related to missions?

Let me ask it this way. Why are there so few missionaries in the most hostile Muslim areas? Sure, these are often restricted-access nations. But could reservations on the part of a husband be another reason? Could it be that he has Biblical reservations about putting his family in such a situation? I cannot say for sure, but I believe it is a likely scenerio.

Or, why aren't there more missionaries today doing the work like Paul did? Sure, I could think of several hinderances (often illegitimate). But could the demands of such itinerant travel and the hostility that comes upon the family be one reason?

I am married. I am a father. For this I praise God. However, I sense within myself a hesitation about going into such places and doing such a ministry. Why? Because I have a family that I have a God-given responsibility to provide for and protect. Yes, I do not doubt that some of it is a lack of faith on my part, but some of it consists of a natural, God-ordained "distraction." While I believe that I would yet go wherever the Lord led, I do not doubt that I would have much less reservation about going to some more hostile fields if I were not married. I don't mind dying, but I have an instinct and a responsibility that insists that I avoid putting my wife in such situations.

Here we find one of the factors behind Paul's ability to do ministry the way he did. In the above passage, Paul used himself as the standard of distractionless ministry. One of the reasons he was so free of distraction had to do with his singleness. Just a little bit later Paul again emphasizes how he and his team had died to their right to be married in order to better fulfill their ministry (9:5).

What did their single condition allow them to do that married missionaries might be hindered from doing?

• They were able to be more "reckless" with their lives, not having to concern themselves with the God-ordained care of a wife and children.


• They were able to move much more rapidly than a family man. In this regard, notice how very, very few are itinerant/Pauline-type missionaries today, and how many use a mission station approach. This allows them to stay in one place, providing stability for their families (for almost all have families).


• In the end, they were able to plant more churches in a shorter amount of time.

While singleness was not the only factor that contributed to the above, it was no doubt a significant factor (as any married man would surely affirm). It is my conviction that today we should give the same advice that Paul gave to the Corinthians. Only now, it should be given to those considering the foreign mission field. In many churches and Bible colleges, marriage is presented as the only legitimate option. While this is the option that nearly all should choose, the prohibition on singleness is simply not Biblical. Instead, considering "the present distress" in many mission fields, would it not be wise to encourage some to remain single in order to attend upon the Lord and His Work "without distraction," as Paul also recommended?

As a married man, I don't believe that I can do the same type of work that Paul did. I believe that a single man has a much higher likelihood of fulfilling such a ministry even today. Furthermore, I don't believe we are likely to see some fields reached without the Pauline-style work of single male missionaries. However, in order for this to be realized, we must reverse our prohibition on singleness, and some must die to themselves in order to attend unto the Lord and His Work without distraction.

There are a few objections that need to be considered now:

1. In many of the remaining unreached fields, only a married man will be taken seriously. True, there would be some cultural obstacles. But tell that to Paul, a single man with a team of single men, who preached the Word in 1st century Jewish synagogues, seeing many people saved and churches planted.


2. This would create too much temptation for the single male missionary. Of course there would be such risks involved. Paul mentions this in the above passage as well (v. 9). It is not for everyone (v. 7). Also, much of this risk could be reduced through team and sending church accountability measures.


3. The man will not function well without his help meet. There is no doubt that a wife does wonders for the life of the man. God meant for it to be this way. But again, "every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner (married), and another after that (single)" (v. 7). God is sufficient for these things as well.

Recognizing all the difficulties, there are also two benefits that I want to emphasize:

1. As I have already tried to make clear, singleness has tremendous implications for field effectiveness. This is true in nearly any field, but especially in some of the most unreached.


2. And the benefit you were waiting for me to get at: there are significant implications for the coming missionary support crisis. If some single male missionaries were sent out in teams, costs could be reduced. It would take much less money for a team of men to survive than it would for a team of families to survive.

Again, in order to realize these possibilities, we must overcome our aversion to male singleness in missions. I pray that we will look to the Biblical precedent and begin utilizing this resource. Not only will we see benefits in terms of missionary support, but we will reap benefits in terms of field effectiveness.

In closing, keep in mind that this is not for everyone. I am not suggesting that all, or even most, should take this road. I did not, and that is no shame. I am suggesting that some should, and this is no shame either.

These Weeks in the Mission Blogosphere

It has been a bit since I had time to include one of these end-of-the-week posts. As a result, this one will include good Bogosphere discussions over the past several week. However, I will not comment on them as much as I normally would.

1. Pragmatism in Missions: Missions Mandate provided a link to a very good article on this subject, worthy to be read. How much of our method is pragmatic? How much truly Scriptural?


2. Desiring God Posts: the ministry of John Piper, Desiring God, had several good posts. I cannot endorse a lot of what Piper puts out (such as his Calvanism and Christian hedonism), but his missions-related material is often good. I encourage you to read these posts: Bad Times are Good for Missions, 10 Ways to Help Kids Love Missions, and Piper's new book free for download, Filling Up the Afflictions of Christ.


3. The Best Way to Start a Church is to Start a Church: This is from The M Blog. It is a good post concerning obedience oriented education. Let me suggest that our education must be obedience oriented or it is not Christian. Remember: "Teach them to observe (obey) all things whatsoever I have commanded you."


4. Sending Church: Blogger, Larry McCrary, spends much time focusing on the role of the local sending church. He is in a series of posts on the subject. This post was particularly good.

The recent series here:

Urgent Need: Solutions for the Coming Missionary Support Crisis

1. Initial Post: demonstrating the facts behind the crisis


2. Solutions: an offering of several solutions for the crisis


3. Paul and Secular Work


4. Secular Jobs as Partial Solutions


5. The Missionary Support Model of Jesus

Coming Soon:

1. Single Male Missionaries, their contribution to the current crisis and to field effectiveness


2. Supporting Fewer Missionaries at Higher Levels


3. Resource: Mission InfoBank
   

Missionary Support in the Bible (Part 3): Who is Supposed to Support Them?

Who is supposed to support missionaries? This is an issue that we often presume we have the right answer for. However, we may be surprised with the Bible's answer.

Our Independent Baptist answer to this question would be, local churches. This is absolutely right! But which churches? Do any churches have an obligation to provide support? Again, we would say, "Sure, all of the churches that missionaries go to on deputation. The churches back home have that obligation." Then we proceed to the Bible and show how the Macedonian churches and others provided some support for Paul. And we go to 'support passages' and point out that Paul 'raised' support from local churches. However, we are usually committing an error of anachronism. That is, we are forcing our modern methods onto the ancient text. We are assuming that things were the same then. I propose that if we deal with the Biblical Text honestly, we will come to some surprising conclusions (at least for some).

Jesus and Missionary Support

Jesus Himself gave us the first missionary support model. When Jesus sent out the 12 and then the 70 He gave very clear commands concerning their support. He gives the same orders on both occasions.

Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way. And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house, And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon it: if not, it shall turn to you again. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. And into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you. (Luke 10:4-8, emphasis mine; compare Matt. 10:9-13)

Christ sent these first missionaries out with nothing but the clothes on their backs. They were to rely upon those God provided (sons of peace), whom they would minister to, to provide them their necessities. They were specifically directed not to bring any other preparations in the way of clothes, money, etc.

Jesus gives us at least two reasons why He made such commands.

First, they were based upon an abiding principle: "the labourer is worthy of his hire." As we saw in a previous post, this is an abiding Scriptural principle which was stated in the OT (Deut 25:4, 18:1), affirmed by Christ here, and continued in teaching by Paul (1 Cor 9:9, 13; 1 Tim 5:18). Those who minister spiritual things have a right to receive 'carnal' or physical necessities from those for whom they minister (1 Cor 9:11).

Second, Jesus was trying to teach them a lesson on faith and the faithful provision of God, as we see by His later statements (Luke 22:35).

This is the most strictly Biblical model of missionary support. It is an obligation upon those being ministered to (I know, I know, I'm ending sentences with prepositions!). It is a right of those doing the ministering. Strictly working by this principle (law?), missionaries would not primarily be supported by churches 'back home,' by other outside churches on the field, or by working a secular job, but only by those to whom they are currently ministering! This is a sobering thought, considering that those we usually minister to on the mission field are significantly poorer than we are before coming to the field. But remember the 'deep poverty' of the Macedonian churches who were the most faithful supporters of Paul, even when he wasn't currently ministering to them (2 Cor 8:2, 11:8-9; Phil 4:10)?

Paul on Christ's Model

"But Debtor," you say, "Paul's practice didn't line up with this principle." Again, this was dealt with a bit in an earlier post. But, as already mentioned, Paul did teach it consistently as an abiding principle (See particularly 1 Cor 9:1-19). He taught it as a right he had, and an obligation that they had. Also note that Paul yet practiced the principles laid out by Christ to the 12 and 70. It is obvious to me that he sought and God provided persons of peace in nearly every city that he entered into for ministry (e.g. Lydia, the Philippian jailor, Jason, and other fulfill this role. All of them provided him shelter and certainly some food. Already established Christians provided necessities as well, such as Aquila and Priscilla, the disciples at Tyre, the brethren at Ptolemais, Philip the evangelist, Mnason of Cyprus, the Jerusalem brethren, etc.). He also followed the command to wipe off the dust of the city against those who did not receive him or the Word (Acts 13:51). More significantly, he implies that he did, at times, take upon himself the right of support from those he was ministering to at the time (2 Cor 12:13). (For reasons why Paul died to this right sometimes, see the post that I am continually referencing.) So, we can see that the missionary principles and methods taught by Christ were applicable to the later ministry of the churches. Are they not today?

"Hold on Debtor! Jesus changed His orders in Luke 22:35-37 just before His crucifixion. These rights and obligations are no longer binding! Christ's methods can now be discarded for whatever 'works'." Wrong. As we already saw, Jesus' original commands were continued in teaching and/or practice by Paul and the early churches. Further, this is a difficult text (at least for me), which the disciples themselves seem to have slightly misunderstood when it was spoken (v. 38). Further, He was expanding His original support allowances only in light of specific circumstances that were about to arise (v. 37). He was not overruling the principle that was the foundation for the original command, as Paul makes clear when he references Him (1 Cor 9:14). He also told them to carry swords, but the NT doesn't reveal that they ever defended themselves in this way. I would suggest (not dogmatically) that Jesus wasn't telling them to actually make these changes, but was impressing upon them the difficult times that were coming, though I do believe they often began taking purse and scrip with them, while yet maintaining the original principles.

Which churches have a Scriptural obligation to provide support for the missionary? Those churches who are currently receiving the missionary's ministry, no matter where they are or what condition they are in. They alone have this Scriptural obligation. Other churches, as with Paul, may be moved by the Holy Ghost to send to his necessity, but they have not Scriptural obligation to do so.

How should this be applied today? I believe, it should be applied just as Paul applied it.

1. Teach It: This obligation should always be taught to new churches, no matter how poor they are. We have no right to withhold this command from them.
2. Practice It: This right should, in many cases, be taken by the missionary, as he receives support from those new churches he has planted and is ministering to on the field. This will not be popular with many, but it is Scriptural. I don't know of anyone practicing it now, but it should be.
3. Sometimes Die to It: This missionary right should be died to by some missionaries. Some should receive support from elsewhere (sending and supporting churches, a secular job, other Christians on the field, etc.). Principles that guided Paul in making this decision were discussed in that other post.

Remember, the deputation process is not found in the Bible. While churches would send missionaries on their way to their next destination with certain necessities, missionaries did not go church to church to raise support, and regular support was not usually provided. Instead, missionaries relied upon those they were currently ministering to, their own jobs, and the sporadic support of outside churches.

This does not mean that deputation and State-side support is wrong. It should be seen as one way in which more prosperous churches die to themselves to provide the Gospel freely to others (for these supporting churches aren't under obligation). I don't know that this is how it is usually viewed, but it should be.

Let us seek to apply Scriptural principles and commands before we begin relying upon other methods and models.

Thank you for reading this series. I know that it seems very academic (like a textbook, yuck!), but it is not. It is very practical and important to modern ministry methods if we seek to be guided by Scripture. Please continue to read and comment!

Missionary Support in the Bible (Part 2): Secular Work

The last post may have introduced some Biblical facts that surprised you. Mind you, working in a secular job for a missionary is not a doctrine. However, it is something that should be considered as an option for every Independent Baptist missionary. It should be considered by all and sought by many, seeing that it has such significant Biblical precedent in Paul, our primary missionary model. There is no Biblical or practical reason to maintain our extreme aversion to it.

That being said, just because it was a viable option for Paul doesn't automatically make it a viable option for us today. Having explored its Biblical implementation in the last post, it is still necessary to explore the possible modern implementation.

Like with Paul, there are many reasons why we should consider working on the field:

• There are some instances where living on full support would hinder the spread of the Gospel. Perhaps it would bring accusations of laziness, covetousness, or mixed motives from the locals (though these accusations would most likely be false, as they were when directed at Paul). This could especially be true in nations where native ministers are already seen as greedy and corrupt. These nations are not few in number. In some of these countries it is said that, "Full-time ministry is not the highest calling, but the last resort." It is only a money-making scheme in the eyes of the natives (sometimes a just accusation!).


• It provides an opportunity to be an example to new pastors you are mentoring. Without this opportunity new pastors may seek to receive more than to give. How else could Paul have given the exhortation that he did to the Ephesian elders with any legitimacy (Acts 20:32-35)? Could you?


• It provides an opportunity to model work ethic and a normal Christian life to all new converts. How else could Paul have given the admonition that he did to the Thessalonian believers (2 Thess 3:7-12)? Could you?


• Having a job or business can provide a legitimate means of remaining in a creative access ('closed') country.


• Doing so can relieve some of the current missionary crisis by decreasing the amount of money you need to raise.


• Doing so is a means of dying to ourselves and our rights, which is good for all of us.

These and other factors make it desirable to consider secular work on the field. However, there are several unique characteristics of Paul's trade that should be considered when making a decision about working on the field.

Think of Paul. Paul was very mobile. He had no family to care for. His trade (tentmaking) was mobile and laws did not restrict him from practicing it. He could set up shop about anywhere he went. Not only that, but his product was surely always in demand. Further, it was something that he could stop and start without much difficulty. Not only did it provide a large portion of his income, but it allowed him to avoid criticism and to be an example to the believer, all while allowing him enough mobility and flexibility to continue ministering as he needed to.

This brief picture of Paul's work reveals some good guidlines to use when deciding whether or not to work on the field.

1. Is it legal for a foreigner to work for income in the country/state?
2. Would being an employee make your schedule so unflexible that your ability to care for new believers and churches is rendered nearly impossible?
3. If so, would having your own income-producing business be a better way to go, giving you more control over your schedule?
4. Would the job significantly detract from or contribute to your overall purposes?
5. Would the type of employment or business make your position in the country more or less fragile, socially and legally?

These questions should help you to weigh your options when considering working.

Now, I have heard plenty of objections to working on the field. Here are some of the more significant objections:

Objection 1: The missionary's time must be totally dedicated to the work at hand. If he is working, his effectiveness in the ministry will be significantly diminished.

• Answer: Paul worked nearly everywhere he went, yet he was perhaps the most effective church planter the world has ever known. In fact, his willingness to work while planting probably increased his overall effectiveness. The new believers, leaders, and churches not only heard his teaching concerning the totality of the Christian life, but they saw his teaching as he lived out his doctrine before them in ways they could relate to. However, in order to maintain Pauline effectiveness while working, the missionary must have a job or business which is both mobile and flexible. High mobility is often less of a concern today though, since most missionaries (due to having families) move around much less on the field than Paul did. Fortunately, the modern world market along with communication and internet technologies allow the creative missionary many options that are both mobile and flexible.

Objection 2: The missionary working on a foreign field may be 'stealing' a job from the often impoverished locals, making for a bad testimony.

• Answer: This doesn't have to be the case. In fact, his business may provide jobs for the locals, or it may do nothing to change local unemployment one way or the other. Again, the internet and modern communications could allow creative modern missionaries business opportunities that have little to no affect upon the local economy. However, it may be best if his job/business contributed to the local economy and workforce.

Objection 3: If the missionary lost his job or business it would devastate his income, whereas he could tolerate losing the support of one or two churches.

• This is a risk that every employee and businessman takes, no matter where he is or what he does. While there needs to be extra care taken when a foreign missionary enters into the marketplace, I believe many stable options could be found. In the end, he could always trust God to be faithful!

Let's review: In light of the multiple benefits and significant Biblical precedent every missionary and prospective missionary should consider working on the field to provide for his own needs and the needs of his team. He should do this:

1. To teach native pastors to work with their own hands in order to be in a position to give to those in need, rather than just receive, and to avoid the appearance of covetousness.
2. To be an example to the believers.
3. To not be burdensome to the new believers who are yet obligated to support you.
4. To be able to provide the Gospel 'free of charge' in a way that the natives can see (rather than providing it free merely through the agency of 'unseen' churches).
5. To avoid the appearance of greed or mixed motives which often comes upon workers in underdeveloped foreign fields.
6. When it is feasible to do so in the location you are in (considering geo-political-cultural factors).
7. When doing so will not endanger your ministry legally, hinder your ability to minister to the needs of new believers in terms of flexibility, or hinder the spread and reception of the Gospel in the long term (it may seem to in the short-term, but the long-term results may prove the wisdom of working).

This has just been a brief and scattered look at an important issue in missionary support. Sadly, it has yet to receive serious consideration by Independent Baptists. May this discussion prompt more thinking concerning the benefits and viability of missionaries working secular jobs on the field.

Leave your comments below.

Bringing Our Strategies in Line with God's Goals (Part 1)

The Missionary Goal of God is this: His glory expressed in the worship of a maximum number of people from every people group. The question was asked in the last major post, "Will we align our strategy and resource deployment with God's goal?" Another question is immediately begged,

"How do we know exactly who the groups are that God wants reached, so that we can reach them?"

Are they political nations, divided only by geography? Are they smaller and more specific than that? Who are they? Are we ignoring any of them?

It may be (and I believe it is) that we have ignored many people in our Mission work. We have ignored them because we often hold to a faulty understanding of the biblical people groups that God is targeting. This has left thousands of groups, and millions of people, without any real Gospel witness.

Biblically, who are the 'people groups' God is trying to reach, some of whom are being ignored today?

The Language of the Commission

Looking at the 'Commission' first given to Abram (Gen 12:1-3) and then to the church (Matt 28:19-20), God primarily used two (English) words to describe the objects of His Mission: ‘Families’ (Gen 12:3) and ‘Nations’ (Gen 22:18, Matt 28:19). Other corporate terms He used in relation to the division at Babel until the consummation of the Mission include Tongues, Lands, Kindreds, and Peoples (Gen 10:31-32; Rev 5:9, 7:9).

Without going to the original languages (which is not needed in this case), what do these words tell us? The words in isolation do not give us a complete missionary strategy (as some would press us to believe). However, they do point to a reality that impacts God's view of the world and His Mission, and should impact our view of the world and Mission strategy.

There are at least two realities involved.

Reality #1 = God’s Goal: restore the divided

God seeks to reconcile all things to Himself (Col 1:20). This reconciliation is aimed at every individual who is separated from God (2 Pet 3:9). However, at the beginning of the separation in the Garden, the Mission was much ‘simpler’: just one family/people/nation/tongue to reconcile to Himself.

Reality #2 = Man’s Situation: division of peoples

Things didn’t stay that ‘simple’ though, did they? The Mission of God was ‘complicated’ when mankind was divided at Babel by language, ethnicity, and geography. This reality impacted the object of God's Mission. God’s acknowledgment of the new reality is reflected in how He speaks of the objects of His Mission from that time forward (e.g. - as divided peoples).

God desires all to receive the Gospel and worship Him (Reality #1), but these new realities (language, ethnicity, geography, etc.) produced new barriers to the spread of His Good News through His servants. Together, these two realities necessitated a different view of the world and of the Mission.

God overcame the language barrier briefly on the Day of Pentecost. But He usually chooses to overcome the barriers through the less spectacular Spirit-empowered toil and sacrifice of His people. He overcomes geographical division as we traverse great distances at great cost to reach the “scattered” peoples. He overcomes the division of languages as we strive untiringly to learn new tongues. He overcomes the division of ethnicity and culture as we demonstrate Christ-like humility, being sensitive to the ways of a people.

These divisions are realities that have affected the way God deals with the world in His Mission. He now deals with them in their division according to their language, ethnicity, and geography (tongues, nations, lands).

The Answer (finally)

I still haven’t really answered the initial question have I? "How do we know exactly who the groups are that God wants reached, so that we can reach them?"

The answer isn’t found in a complicated study of the Greek and Hebrew words God uses to describe the people groups. The key is in the various forms of division (Which was very important to God after Babel). A biblical people group is any group divided from God because of sin and from others because of language, ethnicity, geography, culture, etc. These all pose significant practical barriers to the spread of God’s Gospel. Because of His passion for people and His glory, He is driven to overcome these.

God wants to be worshipped by all of these groups in their distinctness (Rev 5:9, 7:9), but how can we know a biblical people group when we see one? The answer: any group of people divided from others due to a combination of the above barriers is a distinct biblical people group that God desires for us to target. Let’s call those that have little or no access to the Gospel, Unreached People Groups.

There was a time when we could look at people simply in terms of the country they were from, for there were many entire countries that had no Gospel access and few had been truly penetrated. So, we were called and sent to France, Haiti, China, etc. Eventually, most countries had some significant or growing Gospel witness. However, little attention had been paid to the many distinct people groups within these countries. Today this has resulted in multitudes of unreached people groups, though we have had missionaries in their countries for years. The time for our former country-oriented thinking has largely passed. It is time that we think in smaller units, as God thinks, in people groups. Think in terms of His division of language, ethnicity, geography, etc. Sometimes there are thousands of these distinct people groups in a single country, waiting to be reached for Christ.

Fortunately, we are in a better position than ever to reach these unreached people groups. As there are now few countries which have no significant witness, God has provided the knowledge we need to penetrate the biblical people groups which have not been reached within these countries. This knowledge is now coming through research done by Joshua Project, PeopleGroups.org, and others. We can now align our Mission strategy with the final Missionary Goal of God. We can reach every unreached people group of our generation.

Within the next couple weeks we will see who, where, and how many these people groups are. We will also begin to entertain some strategies to reach them.