Unreached Defining “Unreached”: A Short History by Dave Datema

he concept of seeing the world as people groups is arguably the most significant thought innovation in twentieth century missiology. From roughly 1970–2000, it enjoyed almost universal acceptance. While the conceptT remains a dominant one, it has since lost its shine. In the first place, the initial decades of excitement with the new idea has worn off as the low-hanging fruit was picked and it became clear that “finishing the task” would bring immense challenges. As the year 2000 has come and gone, this early optimism has faded. In the second place, issues of identity, especially in urban contexts, have challenged the veracity of the people group concept. It is argued that while people group thinking fits the rural domain, it falls short in the urban one, and a new framework for mission is needed. Thus, we have witnessed in recent years continued criticisms of the homogeneous unit principle, calls to move into a “fourth era” of missions which have been variously defined, and concerns about how the percentage criteria used in our definitions force us to look at the world. The purpose of this paper is to review the development of unreached peoples definitions and to ask whether or not they are still serving the frontier mission community well. Specifically, it deals with both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these definitions.

This final issue of percentage criteria was the impetus for the research that follows. It all began with two charts in Patrick Johnstone’s The Future of the Global Church. The first chart was a listing of countries defined as “<2% evangelical and <5% Christian” and the other was another listing of countries defined as “<2% evangelical but >5% Christian.”1 The striking difference in Dave Datema serves as one of three leaders who make up the Office of the the two lists, based on a simple tweak of the percentage criteria, caused me General Director of Frontier Ventures, to wonder what was behind the percentages presently used and the untold the missionary order of which he has been a member since 1999. He grew stories they might reveal. The other issues mentioned above are illustrative of up a missionary kid in Sierra Leone, the present missiological conversation, which deserve attention, but are not West Africa, and served as a pastor for dealt with directly herein. I will look at the historical development of different ten years in the Church of the United Brethren in Christ in the Midwest. understandings of what an unreached people is and then go a step further

International Journal of Frontier Missiology 33:2 Summer 2016•45 46 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

Figure 1. The Evolution of Definitions for Unreached Peoples through 1983

1 Barrett 1968, 137. “By the time the number of Protestant or Catholic adherents in the tribe has passed 20% . . . a very considerable body of indigenous Christian opinion has come into existence.”2

2 Pentecost 1974, 30. Unreached Peoples: “We consider that a people is unreached when less than 20% of the adults are professing Christians.” (Note: This definition does not require “practicing” Christians.)

3 MARC 1974, 26. “Unreached Peoples are those homogeneous units (geographic, ethnic, socio-economic or other) which have not received sufficient information concerning the Gospel message of Jesus Christ within their own culture and linguistic pattern to make Christianity a meaningful alternative to their present religious/value system, or which have not responded to the Gospel message, because of lack of opportunity or because of rejection of the message, to the degree that there is no appreciable (recognized) church body effectively communicating the message within the unit itself.”

4 MARC 1974, 26. Unreached Peoples: “For the purposes of this initial Directory, we consider that a people is unreached when less than 20% of the population of that group are part of the Christian community.” (Note: does not require “practicing” Christians)

5 LCWE/SWG 1977 (see Wagner and Dayton 1978, 24). Unreached Peoples: “An Unreached People is a group that is less than 20% practicing Christian.” (Note: In demanding “practicing Christians” almost all groups become unreached.)

6 Winter 1978, 40, 42. A Hidden People: “For both spiritual and practical reasons, I would be more pleased to talk about the presence of a church allowing people to be incorporated, or the absence of a church leaving people unincorporable. . . . Any linguistic, cultural or sociological group defined in terms of its primary affinity (not secondary or trivial affinities) which cannot be won by E-1 methods and drawn into an existing fellowship, may be called a Hidden People.” (Note: the first published definition of hidden peoples)

7 Edinburgh Convening Committee 1979. “Hidden Peoples: Those cultural and linguistic subgroups, urban or rural, for whom there is as yet no indigenous community of believing Christians able to evangelize their own people.”

8 Wagner and Dayton 1981, 26. “When was a people reached? Obviously, when there was a church in its midst with the desire and the ability to evangelize the balance of the group.”

9 LCWE/SWG 1980 (in Wagner and Dayton 1981, 27). “Hidden People: no known Christians within the group. Initially Reached: less than one percent, but some Christians. Minimally Reached: one to 10 percent Christian. Possibly Reached: ten to 20 percent Christian. Reached: twenty percent or more practicing Christians.” (Note: suggests a different concept for the phrase hidden peoples)

10 NSMC January 1982. “Unreached Peoples are definable units of society with common characteristics (geographical, tribal, ethnic, linguistic, etc.) among whom there is no viable, indigenous, evangelizing church movement.” (Note that this defi- nition introduces a geographical factor.)

11 IFMA Frontier Peoples Committee, February 24, 1982. Agreement to use the Edinburgh 1980 definition (#7 above) for all three phrases, hidden peoples, frontier peoples, and unreached peoples. (This action was taken in light of advance information re- garding the mood for change on the part of the MARC group. This mood was officially expressed at the C-82 meeting, see #12.)

12 LCWE/Chicago March 16, 1982. Unreached Peoples: “A people group (defined elsewhere) among which there is no indig- enous community of believing Christians able to evangelize this people group.”

13 LCWE/SWG May 21. Same as number 12 except that the SWG voted to replace, “able,” by the phrase, “with the spiritual resources.”

14 LCWE/Chicago July 9 (further revision of numbers 12 and 13 by second mail poll). Unreached Peoples: “A people group among which there is no indigenous community of believing Christians with adequate numbers and resources to evange- lize this people group without outside (cross-cultural) assistance.” (Note: new phrase italicized)3

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 47 and ask whether or not they are still serving the frontier mission commu- ut how do we know when we’ve reached “the nity well. I will specifically deal with tipping point”— when a body of believers is both the qualitative and quantitative aspects of these definitions. Bable to evangelize its own people group? My personal interest in the topic has length because of the wealth of insight it We don’t. It happens and goes unno- been nurtured by spending the last contains. Any emphases or notations are ticed. At some point, we realize that seventeen years as a member of Frontier those of Winter (see Figure 1, page 46). it has indeed happened, but we never really know when we’ve reached the Ventures (formerly the US Center This final 1982 definition hinges on the tipping point unless the group is quite for World Mission). Although I sat assumption that if there are believers small. We can only see it in hindsight, under Ralph Winter, one of the main within an unreached people group, they perhaps years later. The dilemma this architects of people group thinking, I don’t have the capacity to evangelize4 the presents is that if the very definition realized that I and many others had rest of their people group without out- of reached/unreached hinges on this one accepted unreached people group defi- side assistance.5 Perhaps there is as yet thing happening, and if we don’t know nitions without questioning them. And no Bible translation. Perhaps the num- if and when that one thing has hap- the reason this matters is that our entire ber of believers is infinitesimally small. pened, then we really don’t know if the understanding of “the unfinished task,” Just before he died in 2009, Ralph Win- group is reached or unreached. This, in and the billions of dollars spent pursu- ter co-authored an article with Bruce turn, means that we have no simple ing it, are based on these definitions. It Koch (for the 4th edition of the Perspec- way of measuring progress for mobili- also matters because each generation tives reader) that sought to explain again zation purposes. inherently questions the settled opin- the definition of an “unreached people.” ions of the previous one. Forty years Instead of the July 1982 phrasing which While this may not be a huge issue on have passed since Lausanne ’74 and the talked about “an indigenous community the field, it becomes a major issue at emergence of people group thinking. As of believing Christians” (see #14 above), home. By its very nature, mobilization the leadership of mission communities Winter and Koch substituted the words demands the translation of complex transition to new generations, scrutiny “a viable indigenous church planting field realities into simple and clear will be leveled at these definitions. I movement” and then proceeded to slogans in order to rouse those who at trust this research is an example of such define these terms in this manner: first can only grasp basic concepts. In scrutiny that conveys deep respect and What is needed in every people order to galvanize support and inspire admiration for past conclusions. group is for the gospel to begin mov- commitment, the plight of the un- Here is one example of why this ing throughout the group with such reached must be presented with black discussion is an important one. Which compelling, life-giving power that the and white clarity. The cookies have to country in each of the following pairs resulting churches can themselves fin- be placed on a lower shelf. Someone, ish spreading the gospel to every per- do you consider most “unreached”? somewhere has to draw a line between son . . . The essential missionary task is reached and unreached. In this paper • Algeria or Slovenia to establish a viable indigenous church we will be looking at how those deci- planting movement that carries the • Palestine or Poland sions have been made over the last potential to renew whole extended • Jordan or Austria forty years and what might be learned • Mali or France families and transform whole societ- ies. It is viable in that it can grow on its moving forward. Based on an even rudimentary knowl- own, indigenous meaning that it is not edge of these countries, most people seen as foreign, and a church planting The Early Players are likely to pick the first country movement that continues to repro- While Winter’s overview is helpful in duce intergenerational fellowships in each pair. North Africa and the showing the basic evolution of thought that are able to evangelize the rest of Middle East must be more unreached regarding the unreached peoples than Europe, right? But the answer is the people group. Many refer to this achievement of an indigenous church definition, one soon recognizes the dif- not that clear cut and depends entirely ficulty missiologists had in coming to on how “unreached” is defined. planting movement as a missiological breakthrough.6 (italics theirs) agreement, an agreement that eluded them until 1982 at the “Chicago con- The Dilemma of UPG Definitions But how do we know when we’ve sensus.” There were two main schools In 1983, Ralph Winter described the reached “the tipping point”—that point of thought influencing this discussion evolution of definitions for unreached whereby a body of believers is able to in the early years. On the one hand peoples. I reproduce it here at some evangelize its own people group? was C. Peter Wagner, Chairman of the

33:2 Summer 2016 48 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

Strategy Working Group (SWG) of the meeting, many Evangelical lead- task is being cataloged and put in elec- ers were in touch with each other tronic storage. A pilot country will be the Lausanne Committee for World 7 for the first time. The meeting was selected and a test will be run on the Evangelization (LCWE) along with overwhelmingly American planned, gathering and exchange of informa- Ed Dayton, Director of the Missions led and financed, and was sponsored tion among the denominations, soci- Advanced Research and Communica- by Christianity Today magazine, with eties and groups working in this coun- tions Center (MARC) of World Vi- heavy support from the Billy Graham try. . . . The ways in which proper use of sion. Together they represented what is Evangelistic Association. The reports computerized information can speed called the “Lausanne Tradition” in this and papers at the congress helped the message of the Gospel world-wide paper. On the other was Ralph Winter to illustrate the shift of Christianity’s are beyond imagination.12 and his fledgling US Center for World center of gravity from Europe and Mission (USCWM), advocating what North America to Africa, Asia and He then outlined the need for com- is called the “Edinburgh Tradition” Latin America. The 1974 Internation- municating this research. al Congress on World Evangelization in this paper.8 Before getting to their Good research and good planning in Lausanne, Switzerland was a suc- specific thinking, it will be instructive will take place only when we have cessor to this conference.10 established an effective communica- to understand the organizations they tions network throughout the Chris- represented and the context in which Of note at this conference were Don- 13 9 tian world. they worked. ald McGavran from Fuller’s School of Fuller Seminary’s School World Mission (SWM) as well as Bob In these words one can see the seeds of of World Mission Pierce and Ted Engstrom, President the Missions Advanced Research and Communications Center (MARC), be- The story of Fuller’s School of World gun that same year. In the second vol- Mission is well known and will not be ume of the proceedings of the Congress reconstructed here. It is sufficient to was the report from this “Missions and remind the reader that it began with Technology” discussion group, the coming of Dr. Donald McGavran Engstrom advocated Delegates attending the discussion with his Institute of Church Growth of missions and technology pointed in 1965. Joining McGavran that first the use of to the need for research into means year was Alan Tippett, and others and methods of evangelism, marshal- soon followed: Ralph Winter (1966), a new technology— ing of missionary information, and J. Edwin Orr (1966), Charles Kraft computers. continuous analysis of the results of (1969), Arthur Glasser (1970) and C. evangelism if the Christian outreach is Peter Wagner (1971). Under Mc- to reach maximum effectiveness in our Gavran’s leadership and direction, the time. . . . Ted Engstrom (USA) of World SWM faculty took a positive approach Vision International gave the back- ground of his interest in technology to missions and were published widely. and missions, calling for a concentra- Within a relatively brief amount of and Executive Vice President of World tion on means and methods in evange- time, the SWM was considered by Vision, respectively. Engstrom pre- lism. D. A. McGavran (USA) protested some to be the most influential school sented an article for the “Missions and the fact that much missionary informa- of world mission in America. Technology” discussion group at the tion is sealed in compartments, tucked The World Congress on Evangelism Congress. In the article he advocated way in annual reports, and appealed and the Beginning of MARC for the use of the new technology of for ways to share this knowledge with the day—computers. the world. “We need ways of find- A global meeting of significant con- Can you possibly imagine the benefit ing out how and where the Church is 14 sequence was the World Congress on to the many branches of the Christian growing,” McGavran said. Evangelism, held in Berlin October Church if all available information 26–November 4, 1966: MARC and Fuller’s School of about any one country were stored World Mission Billy Graham, Carl Henry and other in a computer?11 American Protestant Evangelicals The previous synopsis discloses the close desired to provide a forum for the He went on to say, working relationship between Fuller growing Evangelical Protestant Using our World Vision IBM Model Seminary’s SWM and World Vision’s movement worldwide. The congress 360/30 computer, a pilot project is MARC. McGavran began the SWM in was intended as a spiritual successor now being started to test the validity 1965 while MARC was established in of the 1910 World Missionary Con- of this concept. Information about var- 1966 as a division of World Vision In- ference in Edinburgh, Scotland. At ious individuals serving in the mission ternational. Ed Dayton, its first Director,

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 49 was a Fuller graduate and had studied under SWM professors. Because of or most Congress-goers, this attractive booklet this collegiality and the close proxim- was surely the first time they had ever seen a ity (9 miles) between Fuller Seminary list of unreached peoples. (Pasadena) and the then-headquarters F of World Vision (Monrovia), MARC With the addition in 1976 of the US out the team that worked on the and Fuller’s SWM had a large influence Center for World Mission, there were project. Glasser was the main author during the 70s and 80s on unreached three organizations in close proxim- of the questionnaire that became the peoples research. Of special note is the ity, each with unique yet parallel and instrument for collecting data.18 The work of McGavran and Dayton. Ac- complimentary purposes, creating a rich Directory was an attractive booklet that cording to Wagner and Dayton, environment for dialogue and debate. introduced Congress-goers to the world Since its founding in 1966, . . . MARC It is remarkable that established names of unreached peoples. For most, it was centered its philosophy of world within American evangelicalism such surely the first time they had ever seen a evangelization around the people as Fuller, McGavran, Pierce, Engstrom, list of unreached peoples. The question- group. The analysis that was done Tippett, Winter, Wagner, Kraft, Glass- naire had been sent to 2,200 people and jointly by Donald McGavran and Ed er, and others were concentrated in such 500 responses were received, creating Dayton, at the School of World Mis- a small geographical space, which some a list of 413 unreached people groups, sion at Fuller Seminary, indicated that 16 the country-by-country approach to called “Pasarovia.” Their influence on which were then sorted by group name, mission was no longer viable . . . Mc- the mission world, especially between country, language, religion, group type, 17 Gavran and Dayton worked through 1970 and 1990, was immense. population and attitude toward Chris- an analysis of needed world evange- tianity. It first defined a people as a lization, based on McGavran’s earlier Evaluation of Unreached homogenous unit, quoting McGavran, insight gained from people move- Peoples Definitions (1974—1982) The homogeneous unit is simply a ments . . . As the analysis continued, section of society in which all the it was obvious that the basic unit of The Lausanne Tradition members have some characteristic evangelization was not a country, While the “Lausanne Tradition” refers in common. Thus a homogeneous nor the individual, but a vast variety to a very broad constituency and effort, unit . . . might be a political unit or of subgroups.15 the purpose of this paper is not to subunit, the characteristic in common Ralph Winter and the US Center for give an overview of the whole move- being that all the members lie within ment, but just to underscore the role certain geographic confines . . . The World Mission homogeneous unit may be a seg- the Strategy Working Group played ment of society whose common char- Again, this story is better known and in the early years of debate regarding acteristic is a culture or a language.19 will only be mentioned very briefly. unreached peoples. Winter’s role on the SWM faculty made him an intimate witness to all ICOWE 1974 and the It went on to say, Unreached Peoples Directory that is described above. However, the distinguishing characteristics may Winter was ultimately unable to per- This story took off with the planning include race, tribe, caste, class, lan- guage, education, occupation, age, suade the Fuller faculty and board to for the International Congress on geography, and religion, or some com- create new structures to address what World Evangelization (ICOWE)—a bination of these. Usually only one or they all acknowledged to be the huge direct follow up of the Berlin Con- two of these features are the unique imbalance between mission resources gress—which was to be held in ones that identify a particular group.20 and personnel and the completely Lausanne, Switzerland in July 1974. unreached people groups. Unable to Directors Don Hoke and Paul Little TheDirectory also clearly explained fulfill his more activist tendencies, in asked the Fuller SWM, which in turn the importance of segmenting appar- 1976 he reluctantly left his professo- asked MARC, to do a study on un- ent peoples down to the appropriate rial role at Fuller’s SWM to found the reached peoples as part of the broader level, encouraging people to see US Center for World Mission (just 3 survey of the status of Christianity that many ethnic, linguistic or tribal miles away in Pasadena). Boosted by around the world in preparation for the peoples may be subdivided into dis- his presentation at Lausanne in 1974, Congress. Edward Pentecost was the tinct homogeneous groups. If we do Winter became a significant voice in Research Coordinator for this project, not see those subdivisions, we may mission circles and the Center became which resulted in the Unreached Peoples mistakenly try to approach the group in the years that followed a third orga- Directory, handed out at the Congress. as a single, unified people and fail nization of profound influence in mo- Ed Dayton, Fuller SWM Dean Arthur to see that different approaches are 21 bilization toward unreached peoples. Glasser and Ralph Winter rounded needed for different segments.

33:2 Summer 2016 50 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

at least some sociologists and mis- 30 TheDirectory then formulated its impossible to halt its further speed” sions researchers that a people has own tentative definition for unreached (emphasis mine), but this sentence was 22 a minority group attitude until that peoples (#3 in Winter’s list above). people reaches 15 to 20 percent of removed from the 1971 volume. In The First Use of a Percentage Criterion the population of the region in which the last two editions (1995, 2003) he it resides. Above the 20 percent mentioned another percentage range, As noted previously, David Barrett was point, group members are more likely such peer influence usually makes the the first to apply a percentage crite- to feel secure in their self-identity and diffusion curve take off somewhere rion (20%) to a people group in order able to reach out to others in com- between 5 and 20 percent of cumula- to suggest change in group identity, municating ideas. This is not always tive adoption (the exact percentage but he did not use it as a criterion for true but the 20 percent figure gives varies from innovation to innovation, determining “reachedness.” In fact, a practical measure which has some and with the network structure of the as we’ll see later, he would have been recognized basis.25 system). Once this takeoff is achieved, against it.23 Unfortunately, there is no little additional promotion of the in- indication where Barrett’s use of the Because Edward Pentecost was the novation is needed, as further diffu- 20 percent criterion came from. What ICOWE Research Coordinator sion is self-generated by the innova- is clear is that Barrett was fully aware responsible for the Directory, and tion’s own social momentum.31 of the imprecise nature of the 20% because of his close association with 26 Obviously, Rogers, over forty years, re- criterion, saying that MARC and Fuller, it is no surprise mained quite ambivalent about the abil- even a church as small as 0.1% of a that the 20% criterion was also adopted people can be a significantly evan- later by the Strategy Working Group ity to precisely predict a tipping point gelizing church; there are plenty of for any innovation. He identified five examples in history of a thousand categories of variables that determine Christians evangelizing their group or the rate of adoption of innovations. culture of a million people.24 These categories contained more than a There are dozen sub-variables, all of which affect TheUnreached Peoples Directory was examples in history of rate of adoption.32 It is much easier to not only the first broadly distributed understand and appreciate Rogers’ am- list of unreached peoples, it was also a thousand Christians biguity with the recognition that these the first broadly distributed list to use evangelizing their variables might vary from people group 20% Christian as a criterion. The idea to people group. The simple truth is that here was that once a people group culture of a million there is no reason to believe that any per- contained a specified percentage of centage of believers in a people group (be believers, they would be more likely to people. (Barrett) they evangelized, professing Christians hit the tipping point, having obtained or practicing Christians) will guarantee the critical mass needed to evangelize hitting the tipping point within a people their own people. These percentages (SWG), chaired by C. Peter Wagner.27 group. A corollary of this is that there is were borrowed from social science In the case of both Pentecost and Wag- no reason to believe that a specific per- research and lacked precision. One ner/Dayton, we know that the source centage that hits the tipping point in one irony is that while these percentages for the 20 percent criterion was from people group will do the same for another. are admittedly somewhat arbitrary the sociologist Everett Rogers and his and without empirical precision, they 28 In the 1995 edition of Rogers’ book, he book Diffusion of Innovations. nonetheless have had a massive impact began discussion of the concept of criti- on how we think about the unfinished Everett Rogers and Diffusion of Innovations cal mass and expanded it in the 2003 task today. Here is how the Directory This landmark book was first pub- edition. He defined critical mass as described its use of the 20% criterion: lished in 1962 with new editions in the point at which enough individuals For those who prefer a single criterion 1971, 1983, 1995 and 2003.29 The dif- in a system have adopted an innovation for deciding if a people is unreached, ferent editions of the same book reveal so that the innovation’s further rate of 33 several researchers have suggested ambiguity about the viability of such a adoption becomes self-sustaining, that 20 percent is a reasonable divid- percentage to predict the diffusion of ing point. In other words, a group but no attempt was made to promote an innovation within a particular social of people could be classified as un- a different percentage range. This is context. In the 1962 edition, he men- reached if less than 20 percent of the clearly akin to the concepts of mis- tioned a percentage only once, saying, population claimed or was consid- siological breakthrough and viability “after an innovation is adopted by 10 ered to be Christian. This 20 percent described above and the present-day to 20 percent of an audience, it may be figure is used because of the view of frontier mission community could

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 51 learn much from Rogers’ work.34 However, Rogers mentioned two vastly uch percentages remain essential to signify different percentage ranges for a “tip- comparative need, but they are clearly less useful in ping point” in diffusion of innovations: predicting diffu­sion or missiological breakthrough. 10 to 20 percent and 5 to 20 percent. S Surely the fact that such ambiguity no way is it more than an educated responding to this criticism, the Lau- emerged after forty years of continu- guess. It comes from an attempted sanne Strategy Working Group at ous study covering over 5000 diffusion application of sociological diffusion its March 1982 meeting agreed to a 37 modification of a definition worked publications and studies should pre- of innovation theory. out at the Edinburgh ’80 Congress.42 vent us from putting too much faith in They went on, and explained that the any given percentage as a criterion for 20% figure occurs at the point when However, even though the new 1982 unreached peoples lists. Or if we do, “middle adopters” are added on to the definition did not include a percent- we should not use it to decide whether “early adopters” toward a given innova- age, the 20% criterion remained in use a group is reached or not. As we have tive idea. for the purposes of creating lists of un- seen, there is no empirical basis to believe By the time 10 to 20 percent of the reached people groups. Without some that any percentage can predict a tipping persons of a group accept a new idea, type of quantifiable criterion, there point in a given unreached people group. enough momentum may well have was no way to distinguish a reached Such percentages remain essential to been built up so that subsequent in- group from an unreached one. In all signify comparative need, but they are creases of acceptance will be rapid.38 the post-1982 lists published in the clearly less useful in predicting diffu- Unreached Peoples Series, the 20% cri- sion or missiological breakthrough. Yet they also accepted that terion remained in use. The point here The Demise of the Percentage a given people could legitimately be is that even though the new official considered reached with substantially definition didn’t mention a percentage To get back to our story: Wagner, the fewer than 20 percent of its members criterion, such a criterion had to be, 39 chairman of the newly-formed SWG, practicing Christians. and continued to be, used. teamed up with MARC, directed by Ed Dayton, to once again publish an Another new feature in the 1981 edi- The Edinburgh Tradition unreached peoples list, which took the tion was the designation of categories It was an overstatement to use the title form of the Unreached Peoples book of unreached peoples as follows: “Edinburgh Tradition” to describe an series from 1979–1984.35 In Unreached Hidden People: No known Christians opposite view of Lausanne’s unreached Peoples ’80, Wagner and Dayton within the group. people definition. Winter called it thus admitted that there was significant Initially reached: Less than 1 percent, in an attempt to take the attention off pushback to the 20 percent criterion but some Christians. of himself, yet surely he had more to used in Unreached Peoples ’79, conced- do with this stream than the single Minimally Reached: One to 10 per- ing that it was on the “high side.” They cent Christian. Consultation at Edinburgh, impor- then introduced 10 to 20 percent as tant as it was. In order to integrate the new criterion, saying Possibly Reached: Ten to 20 percent Winter’s thinking with the timeline of Christian. the critical point is reached when the Lausanne definition of unreached about 10 to 20 percent of the people Reached: Twenty percent or more peoples, we will go back to his work in are practicing Christians. From one practicing Christians.40 the 1970s and work forward. point of view, the number is some- Hidden Peoples what arbitrary. But from another, Strikingly, there was no mention of it reflects a degree of realism. More any percentage at all in Unreached Two years after the Lausanne Con- research is needed, and as new infor- Peoples ’82.41 Unreached Peoples ’83 had gress, Ralph Winter conceived of the mation is available we may well de- this to say about the 20 percent issue, project that necessitated his leaving his 36 cide to alter the figure accordingly. The definition of an “unreached position at Fuller’s SWM and secured people group” as one being less than the Pasadena campus, establishing in In Unreached Peoples ’81, they gave a 20% practicing Christian was at times 1976 both the US Center for World much longer treatment of Rogers’ dif- misleading. This definition, which Mission and William Carey Inter- fusion of innovation theory. They had been based on sociological the- national University. One of the main said clearly, ory (see Unreached Peoples ’81), in themes in this period for Winter was Why was the figure 20 percent cho- one sense was so broad that people that of the sodality, the very thing he sen as a dividing line between un- had difficulty believing that there was attempting to create in found- reached and reached peoples? In were any reached people groups. In ing the USCWM.43 He gave credit

33:2 Summer 2016 52 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History to those already mentioned above as from “professing Christians” to “practic- another label–hidden peoples, a phrase suggested by a member of being the main promoters of unreached ing Christians” nor the use of 20% (see our staff, Robert Coleman.49 peoples and followed their work closely. endnote 28). Instead, he suggested that Yet right out of the gate, Winter had it is much more important to stress The first use of this new phrase and qualms about the phrase “unreached the presence or the absence of some definition occurred in an address aspect of the church in its organized peoples,” stating nakedly, “I am con- given at the Overseas Ministries Study form than to try to grapple with sta- vinced that the terminology reached/ Center (OMSC) in December 1977, unreached is not very helpful.”44 tistics that ultimately rest upon the presence or absence of the gospel later published in 1978 as the booklet I was on the ground floor when the 50 in an individual’s heart. It is not only Penetrating the Last Frontiers. He first early thinking was developed for by- easier to verify the existence of the vis- stated simply that hidden peoples were passed peoples, and felt that “un- ible church, it is also strategically very “the people of the world who cannot be reached” was a bad choice due to important in missionary activity for its previous and current use with the drawn by E-1 methods into any exist- church planting to exist as a tangible phrase “unreached people” (mean- ing, organized Christian fellowship,” or goal. We know that where there is no ing individuals unconverted) which alternatively, “those E-2 and E-3 groups determined stress upon founding an is actually a distinctly different con- within which there is no culturally organized fellowship of worshipping 51 cept from the need of a group within relevant church.” Because of the need believers, a great deal of evangelism which there is not yet a viable indige- fails to produce long term results, fails to refine what was meant by a “group,” nous evangelizing church movement. to start a beachhead that will grow by the definition ended up like this: Furthermore, and even more impor- Any linguistic, cultural or sociological tantly, I felt that the World Vision group defined in terms of its primary office assisting with the Lausanne affinity (not secondary or trivial af- Congress unwisely defined what an finities), which cannot be won by E-1 unreached people was (in the early methods and drawn into an existing stages, “less than 20% Christian”).45 The terms fellowship is a Hidden People.52 In Winter’s mind, the terms “reached” “reached” and This definition was unique in that it and “unreached” were a “concession to “unreached” were was 100% Winter, whereas the defini- evangelistic jargon” and were tainted tion was soon to be nuanced by others. by their use among American evan- a “concession to gelicals, who “conceive of regeneration evangelistic jargon.” For Winter then, there were three as an event, either taking place or not aspects to hidden peoples. First, he taking place, just as a woman cannot (Winter) defined them in terms of the type of be partially pregnant.”46 The use of evangelism needed to reach them, reached/unreached for people groups which was the main emphasis of his implied that they were either saved or ICOWE 1974 presentation. Second, itself. Thus, for both spiritual and prac- not, and did not fit the wide spectrum tical reasons, I would be much more he defined them in terms of the pres- of actual faith/belief/practice that pleased to talk about the presence of a ence or absence of a culturally relevant existed in any given group. The words church allowing people to be incorpo- church. Third, he defined them in created a stark “in or out” categoriza- rated, or the absence of a church leav- terms of their primary affinity.53 Thus tion that became meaningless when ing people unincorporable instead of for Winter we can surmise a three- attempting to understand the status unreached. I feel it would be better to fold test that determined whether or of groups. In this way of thinking, a try to observe, not whether people are not a group was hidden. group could not be considered un- “saved” or not or somehow “reached” reached unless there were absolutely or not, but first whether an individual 1. Does the people group require no believers present. has been incorporated in a believing E-2 or E-3 evangelism? fellowship or not, and secondly, if a 2. Does the people group need a Another issue for Winter was that the person is not incorporated, does he culturally relevant church? Lausanne definition of 20%practic - have the opportunity within his cul- 3. Does the people group consist of a ing Christians prioritized quantity of tural tradition to be so incorporated.48 cohesive, primary affinity/identity Christians over quality of church life. “By this definition the presence or the Winter said, within which there are no barriers absence of a culturally relevant congre- being reluctant to launch a counter of understanding or acceptance? gation is ignored.”47 He did not like the definition for the same phrase, I If the answer is “yes” to all three ques- switch made in Unreached Peoples ’79 proposed another concept under tions, you have yourself a “hidden people.”

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 53

Edinburgh 1980 Winter and other mission leaders hey accepted the “presence-or-absence-of-the-­ spearheaded E’80, the Edinburgh 1980 church” definition and convened a meeting of World Consultation on Frontier Mis- mission executives to endorse the change. (Winter) sions, which met in October, a few short T months after Lausanne’s Global Con- term. I have chosen macrosphere for the was now reinforced worldwide in the sultation on World Evangelization in immediate constituent groups, should same year at the Pattaya Conference 62 Pattaya, Thailand.54 By 1980, Winter’s there be any within a megasphere. of the Lausanne tradition. thinking on unreached peoples had co- The same process continued to the alesced to the extent that most of what The Chicago Consensus mini and micro spheres when neces- he presented there remains foundational Over the next year this dissonance sary. Stated differently, for those who follow the Edinburgh would begin to move toward consen- trail today, and is preserved in various whenever we discover that a people sus. Again, according to Winter, group is internally too diverse for a articles of the Perspectives Reader. Early in 1982, Ed Dayton approached single breakthrough to be sufficient, me with the thought that if we The convening committee created a we must then employ the term ma- would accept their term “unreached new definition for hidden peoples, crosphere and pursue the details of peoples” and give up “hidden” they tweaking Winter’s definition with his the missiologically important mini- would accept our “presence-or-ab- permission as follows: spheres which are within it.58 Hidden Peoples: Those cultural and lin- sence-of-the-church” definition and guistic sub-groups, urban or rural, for Winter felt that hidden peoples were would convene a suitably representa- whom there is as yet no indigenous generally not found at the microsphere tive meeting of mission executives to endorse that change.63 community of believing Christians level because differences there were able to evangelize their own people.55 not great enough to require additional First was the definition for people evangelistic efforts. This was the first definition to include the group in general: word “indigenous.” In Winter’s address at Finally, Winter also introduced the P- A people group is a significantly large the Consultation, he contrasted the un- scale. Just as the E-scale measured the grouping of individuals who perceive reached peoples definition with the E’80 cultural distance between an evangelist themselves to have a common affin- 64 hidden peoples definition, saying that and the people (s)he is reaching, the ity for one another because of their shared language, religion, ethnicity, the former was a “predictive” definition P-scale denoted “how far away (cultur- residence, occupation, class or caste, designed to be on the “safe side” (mean- ally) the individuals in a people group ing that once a group was 20% practicing situation, etc., or combinations of are from the culturally nearest, settled, these. For evangelistic purposes it is Christian, it was safe for cross-cultural ef- 59 congregational tradition.” He then the largest group within which the forts to subside). By contrast, the hidden used the E and P scales to distinguish gospel can spread as a church planting peoples definition “asks not how much is between evangelism (E0–E1 work movement without encountering bar- done, but how little” and considers when in P0–P1 settings), regular missions riers of understanding or acceptance.65 a fellowship of believers could “conceiv- (E2–E3 work in P0–P1 settings) and ably handle the remaining task, not when The second sentence of the people group 56 frontier missions (E2–E3 work in it can safely handle the job.” He went P2–P3 settings).60 As a result, frontier definition actually came from Winter, on to say that “it might be possible to say missions was described as “the activ- Equally important in my eyes at the that a Hidden People Group is simply a ity intended to accomplish the Pauline same meeting the group endorsed ‘definitely Unreached’ People Group.”57 kind of missiological breakthrough to a a definition I suggested (actually The Consultation also equated hidden 61 Hidden People Group.” Winter noted worked out on the plane going to peoples with “frontier peoples.” the meeting) for the kind of people the apparent dissonance in definitions: group we were trying to reach: “the Another theme at Edinburgh was Thus, as a result of this October, Winter’s concept of people group seg- largest group within which the gos- 1980, meeting, the basic concept pel can spread as a church planting mentation, using the schema of Mega- here expressed, whatever the label movement without encountering bar- sphere/Macrosphere/Minisphere/Mi- (hidden or frontier), went to the riers of understanding or acceptance” crosphere to identify the sub-cultures ends of the earth with all of the vari- and these words were duly added to that exist as layers or strata within a ous mission agency and youth del- the already existing but somewhat people group. Winter noted, egates who went back to their home indefinite Lausanne SWG wording.66 Whenever a megasphere has within countries. Meanwhile, the unreached it evangelistically significant sub-com- peoples phrase, employing the new This concept of barriers of under- munities, we then need another 20-percent (“practicing”) definition, standing or acceptance was a crucial

33:2 Summer 2016 54 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History aspect of Winter’s understanding of and the result of circumstances rather would call ‘a missiological break- unreached people groups, and was the than personal choice such as high-rise through,’ not the cessation of main conceptual impulse that led him dwellers, drug addicts, occupational need for further work from else- to recast it under “hidden peoples” and groupings and professionals. where. Thus, I believe, whether later “unimax peoples.” Though this the indigenous community pos- Unreached People Group: a people sentence wasn’t part of the “unreached sesses ‘adequate numbers and group among which there is no indige- people group” definition per se, it was resources’ is not the crucial point nous community of believing Christians highly significant in that it revealed . . . The chief question would with adequate numbers and resources the methodology for how those groups seem to be whether the missio- to evangelize this people group without were to be found. logical task has been done.”70 outside (cross-cultural) assistance. Also Then came the new definition for referred to as “hidden people group” or 4. Commenting on what the “mis- unreached people group: “frontier people group.” siological task” would be: “It An unreached people group is a should mean at least a handful Reached People Group: a people group people group among which there is of believers who had become no indigenous community of believ- with adequate indigenous believers and consciously part of the world fel- resources to evangelize this group with- lowship, capable of drawing upon ing Christians with adequate num- 67 bers and resources to evangelize this out outside (cross-cultural) assistance. the life and experience of Chris- people group without outside (cross- Let me close this section by wrapping tian traditions elsewhere, and cultural) assistance. up Winter’s view of unreached peoples even capable of consulting the Bible in the original languages. True to form, Winter never accepted In short, an unreached people this later modification and kept to the needs very urgent, high priority original one, “a people group within missiological aid until it is quite which there is no indigenous com- able to draw on other Christian munity of believing Christians able to The chief question traditions and is substantially evangelize this people group,” still used independent, as regards holy writ, in the present Perspectives Reader. is whether the of all traditions but those of the Summary missio­logical task has original languages themselves.”71 Perhaps the perspective of the Laus- 5. “I do not believe any church anne Tradition can best be summarized been done. anywhere can ever get so mature by the definitions given after the Chi- that it has no need of continued cago consensus in Unreached Peoples ’84, contact and interchange with other church traditions.”72 People Group: a significantly large so- 6. “I would prefer to stress the ciological grouping of individuals who definitions using his own words from unreachedness of a people in perceive themselves to have a com- the spring of 1983. terms of the presence or absence mon affinity for one another. From the of a church sufficiently indig- viewpoint of evangelization this is the 1. “Underlying all these definitions enous and authentically grounded largest possible group within which the . . . is the concern for evangelistic in the Bible, rather than in terms gospel can spread without encountering outreach to function in such a of its numerical strength vis a vis barriers of understanding or acceptance. way that people (individuals) have a ‘valid opportunity’ to find outside help. That is, I have all Primary Group: the ethnolinguistic God in Jesus Christ.”68 along felt in my own mind that the phrase . . . ‘able to evangelize preference which defines a person’s iden- 2. “Reaching peoples is thus merely tity and indicates one’s primary loyalty. the process whereby the realisti- their own people,’ referred back 69 to the indigenous quality of the Secondary Group: a sociological group- cally valid opportunity is created.” believing community rather than ing which is to some degree subject to 3. “The crucial question . . . is to the numerical strength of the personal choice and allows for consid- whether there is yet a cultur- 73 indigenous movement.” He erable mobility. Regional and genera- ally relevant church. From that notes, “Unreachedness is thus not tional groups, caste and class divisions point of view it is the unique defined on the basis of whether are representative. burden and role of a mission there are any Christians, or agency to establish an indigenous Tertiary Group: casual associations of whether there are any missionar- beachhead, to achieve what I people which are usually temporary ies working among them. It is

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 55

defined on the basis of whether or not in that culture there is a he Chicago definition was a remarkable viable, culturally relevant, wit- 74 achievement in that the qualitative portion has nessing church movement.” remained unchanged and relatively unchallenged. Here Winter clearly showed: 1) his T crucial about a Unimax People is the concern for every individual; 2) the felt no need to include a quantitative size of the group, not just the unified part of the definition. Perhaps this was understanding that people groups are condition of the group.76 the container wherein those individu- because they were all well aware of the als are best reached; 3) his surprisingly 20% criterion that remained in use. It Winter went on to employ the people broad idea of what the missiological turns out that the Chicago consensus group segmentation idea previously task requires; 4) his reticence to make was a remarkable achievement in that mentioned. a big deal out of missionaries leaving; the qualitative part of the definition In this series of mega, macro, mini, 5) his clear preference for qualitative remained unchanged and relatively micro, it is the next to the smallest measures over quantitative ones; and unchallenged to this day. While it may unit, the minisphere, that should, I 6) his preference for the presence of a be impossible to know exactly when believe, be considered the mission viable, indigenous church movement it happens, the idea of an indigenous relevant, Biblically important Unimax rather than the presence of Christians community of believing Christians able People. The macro is one notch too or missionaries. to evangelize their own people group large to be sufficiently unified, while remains the gold standard. the micro is unnecessarily small, being This overview of the years between part of a larger, still unified group. 1974–1982 portray a period bristling Evaluation of Unreached We can say, using this terminology, that with missiological insight and ambition. the distinctive breakthrough activity of Clearly these years were a unique flour- Peoples Definitions (1982—1990) a mission is not complete if it has mere- ishing of mission thought and practice. Unimax Peoples (Edinburgh ly penetrated a mega or macrosphere, One stands in awe of those who at- Tradition continued) and if there are still minispheres or tempted to understand the new reality Before the ink was dry from the what I have called Unimax Peoples still of people group thinking, navigate March 1982 consensus definition, and unpenetrated. On the other hand, the through the flood of new research data, in that very same year, Winter intro- unique and distinctive breakthrough and attempt helpful definitions of the duced “unimax peoples” at the Sep- activity of a mission agency (as com- mission task. Perhaps the best summary pared to the work of evangelism) may, tember gathering of the Interdenomi- of what these men were motivated by in fact, be over long before all the tiny national Foreign Mission Association comes from Wagner and Dayton, microspheres within a Unimax People (IFMA), in which he was invited as a have been penetrated.77 When we think of a people we try keynote speaker. There he said, to think of them the way God sees Various mission thinkers have been them, to understand them in terms Later, it became obvious that Win- groping toward a definition of people of reaching them with the gospel. We ter felt the term “unreached peoples” group. For me, a significant point con- are attempting to define the world began to be used as a synonym for in terms of world evangelization (em- cerns the potential such groups have larger ethnolinguistic groups instead phasis theirs).75 for rapid, nearly automatic, internal of the subgroups the 1982 definition communication. Since this is the trait intended (or he intended!). The reason that is so significant to missionary In fairness to them, the literature shows for this was that the 1982 definition that they were quick to emphasize the communicators, this is undoubtedly the reason such an entity has been did not deal at all with segmenta- limits of their research and definitions. highlighted in the Bible all along. tion level, leaving it up to individual They never claimed, for instance, that interpretation as to where people For want of a better word I have the percentages were anything more group lines were drawn. It focused on than a helpful way to clarify the task. decided to call such a group a Uni- max People, that is, a group unified what happens within a people group, While much of the discussion centered in communication, maximum in size. without giving any specific definition on a qualitative definition (“noindige - While this definition does not appar- to what the confines of a people group nous community of believing Christians ently employ Biblical language, I be- were. Winter and Koch clarify, able to evangelize this people group”), lieve it describes an entity important The term “unreached peoples” is used the quantitative definition was also to the Bible, reflecting the Bible’s widely today to refer to ethnolinguistic highlighted (20% professing or practic- missionary concern for relentless and peoples, which are based on other cri- ing Christian). Those involved with the rapid evangelism as its reason for teria and would normally be larger in Chicago 1982 definition apparently importance. In other words, what is size than groups as defined in the 1982

33:2 Summer 2016 56 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

definition. To avoid confusion and help hindered within a given ethnolinguistic is unlikely to reach, in turn, all the clarify the missiological task before us, group. Here are Winter and Koch again, sub-clans and main clans. So even we can use the term unimax peoples Beware of taking ethnolinguistic to distinguish the kind of people group within the affinity of language and lists too seriously, however. They are intended by the 1982 definition.78 culture there are many barriers that a good place to begin strategizing prevent the gospel spreading from one They rightly asked, church planting efforts, but cross-cul- clan to another. The concept of unimax tural workers should be prepared for What if an ethnolinguistic people is peoples recognized this reality and I surprising discoveries when confronted believe still warrants a wider hearing. actually a cluster of unimax peoples, by the cultural realities on the field.82 and while one of them is experienc- It seems that many if not most mission ing a church planting explosion, oth- A good example of the need for this strategists were content with the level er groups in the cluster have little or approach is the Somali people group, of ethnolinguistic segmentation, while nothing happening within them?79 an ethnolinguistic people group of 14 Winter continued to emphasize a “no- people-group-left-behind” approach. They differentiated between the different million who speak the same language levels of segmentation by highlighting but are splintered into six main genea- There will never be a complete list of logical clans, numerous sub-clans and blocs of peoples, ethnolinguistic peoples, unimax peoples because the task stated extended family networks. sociopeoples and unimax peoples. above is never done and is always The fact that Somalis share a com- yielding new insights. However, we Blocs of peoples are a limited number of mon ethnicity, culture, language, and can hope that as more of this essential religion might seem to be an excellent summary categories into which we can work is done, our lists will become place peoples in order to analyze them. more and more accurate. An ethnolinguistic people is an ethnic Winter and Koch maintained that the group distinguished by its self-identity unimax approach with traditions of common descent, has more to do with finishing, not history, customs and language. That list in the sense that there is nothing A sociopeople is a relatively small as- left to do, but in the sense that the essential first step for the gospel to sociation of peers who have an affinity could only be made flourish within a people has been ac- for one another based upon a shared with “boots on complished. The unimax approach to interest, activity or occupation. the ground.” peoples can help us press on toward A unimax 80 people is the maximum closure–our corporate finishing of sized group sufficientlyuni fied to be what is completable about Christ’s mission mandate. The value of the the target of a single people movement unimax approach lies in the way it to Christ, where “unified” refers to the identifies the boundaries hindering fact that there are no significant barri- basis for a cohesive polity, but in real- ity the Somali people are divided by the flow of the gospel, while at the ers of either understanding or accep- same time firing the ambitions of 81 clan affiliations, the most important tance to stop the spread of the gospel. component of their identity.83 dedicated Christians to pursue the evangelization of every peoples cut In other words, Winter wanted to find off by prejudicial boundaries, leaving the largest pockets of cohesiveness with- The segmentation inherent in Somali culture is evidenced by an Arab Bed- no smaller group sealed off within a in a people that could be captured by a larger group.85 single people movement. The difficulty ouin proverb: of this definition was that making a list My full brother and I against my half- One can see consistency in Winter’s of unimax peoples could only be done by brother, my brother and I against my emphases during this period. His main father, my father’s household against those with “boots on the ground.” Only concern was missiological break- my uncle’s household, our two house- by entering a people and understanding holds (my uncle’s and mine) against through—seeing a viable, indigenous the complexity of ethnicity, identity, so- the rest of the immediate kin, the witness get started within a people. cial structure, etc., could a person identify immediate kin against nonimmediate He felt that only the unimax people the spheres and know what the barriers members of my clan, my clan against approach would prevent some people were and ultimately how many people other clans, and, finally, my nation segments or groups getting lost in movements would actually be needed. and I against the world.84 the shuffle. He and others felt that Not satisfied with identification of the post-1982 era had led to a hijack- ethnolinguistic affinity, it pushed to find Obviously, one people movement ing of the 1982 definition to mean where and why the gospel was being within one extended family network something (ethnolinguistic peoples)

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 57 that was never intended. And al- though Winter and Koch spent much chreck and Barrett began by noting the “glob­al time dissecting people groups as they way” and “particularistic way” of looking at the groped for clarity in definition, they at world, each requiring a different research design. the same time were very aware of the S limitations of their task: it comes to research on people groups, the seventh and final Unreached Peo- Another reason to be cautious when his work remains the foundation of the ples Series book, entitled Unreached applying people group thinking is the three major people group databases in Peoples: Clarifying the Task.88 Schreck reality that powerful forces such as use today. Barrett’s work, therefore, has and Barrett began by noting the “glob- urbanization, migration, assimilation, significantly informed the thinking al way” and “particularistic way” of and globalization are changing the of both the Lausanne and Edinburgh looking at the world, each essential yet composition and identity of people groups all the time. The complexi- traditions, and they are indebted to requiring a different research design. ties of the world’s peoples cannot be him. His first major work was his PhD The former approach looked at ethno- neatly reduced to distinct, non-over- dissertation, published as Schism and linguistic peoples (identifying the lapping, bounded sets of individuals Renewal in Africa (1968). It contained central ethnicity and mother tongue) with permanent impermeable bound- an exhaustive analysis of independent while the latter looked at “sociologi- aries. Members of any community renewal movements in Africa and cally defined people groups.”89 have complex relationships and may included a first-of-its-kind fold-out Schreck and Barrett then listed ten have multiple identities and allegianc- people group map of Africa. Barrett subgroups within the sociological defi- es. Those identities and allegiances then spent the next fourteen years nition. I have included an example of are subject to change over time. researching the rest of the world. In the each for clarity (see Figure 2, page 58). People group thinking is a strategic same year as the Chicago Consensus awareness that is of particular value (1982), Barrett published the World The authors noted that when individuals have a strong group Christian Encyclopedia to the adulation the next worldwide total of all such identity and their everyday life is of both religious and secular peers. One sociologically defined people groups in strongly determined by a specific cannot scan Barrett’s reference-like existence today is probably huge . . . one shared culture.86 works without being impressed by the should not attempt to total such The David Barrett Factor immense amount of data and analysis groupings per country on a worldwide related to Christianity around the globe. scale to list exhaustively all unreached As if the debate covered thus far were people groups, since the resulting to- not enough to sort through, it was Even more significantly for our dis- tals will mean little or nothing. generally a debate within what David cussion, in 1985 Barrett left his base Barrett called the “Unreached Peoples in Nairobi to work for the Foreign Instead, the focus on sociological groups (now International) Mission Board was considered “a method of ministry . . . Program.” These were missiologists 91 who, while disagreeing about percent- of the Southern Baptist Convention regarded as a major breakthrough.” 87 ages and precise definitions, were in Richmond, Virginia. This was an In their evaluation of the particular- nonetheless on the same page in their unlikely marriage between an ordained ist approach (that of Fuller’s SWM, focus on identifying peoples on the Anglican priest and a denomination MARC, Winter, etc.), Schreck and basis of evangelism strategy. But there known for its strong conservative Barrett said, “there has been a signifi- were others concerned with world stances on American social issues as cant amount of controversy and confu- evangelization that looked at the task well as its exclusive perspective on the sion associated with this approach from a broader perspective. This dif- need for all non-evangelicals to be over the last ten years.”92 They showed ference, along with the fact that this saved. Nonetheless, the partnership general support for this approach, ac- stream also published widely, has made was formidable, bringing together Bar- knowledging that ethnicity is not the our present situation even more com- rett’s unquestioned research pedigree only way human beings form them- plex. Enter David Barrett, the 1982 and the FMB’s reputation as North selves into groups, and that church publication of the World Christian America’s largest mission board. Thus planting among sociologically defined Encyclopedia, and yet another twist on two heavyweights joined forces, rais- groups is legitimate. They spoke to the thinking about unreached peoples. ing the tide for all ships in the North “perceived contradiction” between the American mission enterprise. It should seem odd to finally mention two approaches: Barrett this far in to this discussion. In 1987, Barrett added his perspective Instead, there is a difference in the By all accounts, Barrett is the father of on the debate regarding people group foci of the research efforts, and this modern religious demography and when segmentation with the publication of difference is best described in terms of

33:2 Summer 2016 58 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

Figure 2. Sociological Subgroups (Schreck and Barrett) or acceptance” appear within ethnic or Group Example language groupings. Surely one of the main reasons for Sociolinguistic groups English-speakers in Guadalajara the failure of the unimax approach was that it exponentially increased Sociogeographical groups Japanese in Sydney the complexity involved. In fact, the sociological segmentation of people Sociopolitical groups Hmong refugee women in Thailand groups, mentioned as early as 1974 in the Unreached Peoples Directory, had Socioreligious groups Sikhs in Toronto always been an irritant for missiolo- gists and the average church member Socioeducational groups Chinese students in Australia alike.96 It was hard enough for people to transition from nations/countries Socioeconomic groups (poor) Slum dwellers in Madras to ethnolinguistic peoples, but to have to then move several strata down into Socioeconomic groups (elites) Copacabana apartment dwellers in Brazil macro/mini/micro etc., was more than the average person can handle. Sociomedical groups Lepers of central Thailand Missiologically, Winter’s focus was needed to inform mission strategy. To Sociodeviant groups Deviant youth in Taipei not take into account these segmented peoples was to leave parts of God’s 90 Socio-occupational groups Jeepney drivers in Manila mosaic outside the pale of the King- dom. Complex though it was, it was complementarity. Ethnicity is a suitable different but complementary purpos- necessary. Winter was right to insist unit of analysis for peoples, allowing the es. . . . Both approaches are valid. Both that the level of ethnolinguistic cat- formation of a global research design, approaches are needed for the task egorization was not enough. but it is not suitable for a particularistic of world evangelization. The former However, practically, unimax theory is research design which aims at devel- speaks most clearly to the question, still a bit too complex for the average oping ministry strategies for specific “How have we done?” The second believer and creates a mobilization people groups. Both research designs, speaks most clearly to the question, however, have a place in the overall ef- “What should we be doing?”95 dilemma. We count down the list only fort of world evangelization.93 to add more people groups to the list Summary as we become aware of them! How is Schreck and Barrett noted that while progress measured when groups are Winter twice coined new phrases the focus of the global approach was added not subtracted?! “to see the extent to which the gospel (“hidden peoples” in 1977 and “unimax has traveled to all peoples,” the focus peoples” in 1982) in order to challenge Evaluation of Unreached prevailing sentiment. While the hid- of the particularistic approach was Peoples Definitions (1990—2000) to “indicate where a people group den peoples phrase suffered the loss of is on the path away from or toward the word “hidden,” the actual defini- The Reduction of the Percentage 94 Christ.” Schreck and Barrett’s vol- tion was approved by a significant con- From 1982–1992, unreached peoples ume attempted to clear the confusion stituency of mission leaders in 1982. lists continued to include the 20 percent that had resulted from the juxtapo- But his attempt with unimax peoples criterion to measure whether the group sition of Barrett’s work (the global wasn’t as successful. Today few have was reached or not. But the viability of approach) with the work emanating ever heard of it outside the Perspectives this long-standing criterion was under largely from Pasadena, with Fuller’s course. However, Winter’s viewpoint increasing scrutiny. As people group SWM, MARC and Winter’s lives on in the Joshua Project people research became more sophisticated and USCWM (the particularistic ap- group list, which takes a unimax ap- the need for better and more nuanced proach). They posited that: proach to listing peoples in South categorization became acute, the twenty there has been a general failure to Asia, where the layers of identity are percent criterion was re-evaluated and recognize that we are dealing with more complex. To my way of think- eventually changed. Part of the reason two different ways of looking at this ing, the unimax approach is needed for this was simply that the weaknesses entire scene. These are motivated by wherever “barriers of understanding of the twenty percent criterion were now

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 59 more widely understood and prevailing sentiment led to its demise. The other he impetus for the change in the percentage part of the reason for the change stems criteria was the surge of mobilization effort in from cooperative efforts triggered by a the decade leading up to the year 2000. new massive wave of unreached peoples T mobilization that took place in the 1990s. • resulting in 100 or more Christians these networks, Johnstone was well AD 2000 and Beyond in one or more reproducing churches positioned to play a leading role in unreached peoples definitions.99 The impetus for the change in the per- • within every ethnolinguistic people centage criteria was the surge of mobili- of over 10,000 individuals The 2 and 5 Percent Criteria • by December 31, 2000.98 zation effort in the decade leading up to Finally, in 1995, a change emerged in the year 2000. With renewed vigor to One notes the interesting use of “100 percentage criteria that has endured to complete the task of world evangeliza- or more Christians” as well as the use of this day. tion by 2000, the AD2000 and Beyond ethnolinguistic peoples as a base defini- In 1995, in order to bring greater Movement was established under the tion. Such changes were exactly what clarity to the issue, a committee of capable leadership of Luis Bush to concerned Winter and why he had intro- Patrick Johnstone (then Editor of galvanize support to finish the task. duced the concept of unimax peoples. Operation World), John Gilbert (then In October, 1992, Luis Bush, IMB Global Research Office Director), international director of the AD2000 The Patrick Johnstone Factor Ron Rowland (SIL/Ethnologue re- and Beyond Movement, called together Someone who had a definitive role searcher), Frank Jansen (then Adopt- a small meeting of key unreached in establishing the new criteria for A-People Clearinghouse Director) and peoples researchers. The concern unreached peoples definitions was Luis Bush (then AD2000 & Beyond was that much of the research on Patrick Johnstone. Like Barrett, Movement Director) decided on the unreached peoples was being carried Johnstone moved from England to Joshua Project definition of “un- on independently and there was little reached.” The criteria for unreached Africa, where his research skills were real sharing of information. Out of on the Joshua Project list are: a genuine spirit of cooperation and first applied to mission work. While less than or equal to 2% Evangelical– interest in jointly producing a definitive Barrett was engaged as a full-time AND–less than or equal to 5% Chris- list of peoples, including the unreached, researcher, Johnstone did his research tian Adherent. the Peoples Information Network initially as an addendum to a full-time (PIN) was born. The eventual steering evangelistic role. And whereas Bar- Both conditions must be met to be committee of this newly formed rett sought to publish for a largely considered unreached.100 research cooperation was coordinated academic crowd, Johnstone published by Ron Rowland (Summer Institute of to mobilize prayer for the world. These Once again, the figures seemed Linguistics/Wycliffe–SIL) and chaired differences aside, both men can be somewhat arbitrary. Noted Ameri- by Luis Bush. Other members included regarded as “fathers” of sorts of people can sociologist Robert Bellah was John Gilbert (Foreign Mission Board- group research. quoted in support of the choice of 2% Southern Baptist Convention–FMB- Evangelical as a legitimate criterion, SBC), Kaleb Jansen (Adopt-A-People Johnstone published the first version but it is uncertain whether Bellah’s Clearinghouse–AAPC, now replaced of Operation World in 1965, although viewpoint was known at the time the by Keith Butler) and Pete Holzmann only about 30 countries were covered. criterion was set: (Paraclete Mission Group).97 With two editions in the 1970s, it was I think we should not underestimate fully global in coverage. Now in its Together, they agreed to create a list out the significance of the small group of seventh edition, Operation World has people who have a new vision of a of the several represented by those key sold over 2.5 million copies worldwide. leaders. A lowest common denominator just and gentle world. In Japan a very In 1980 Johnstone joined the leader- small minority of Protestant Chris- list was put forth consisting of 1,685 ship team of WEC International, tians introduced ethics into politics (later updated to 1,739) unreached peo- serving in research and strategy. It and had an impact beyond all pro- ples, all with a population over 10,000. was during these years that he became portion to their numbers. They were It was the beginning of a key collabora- involved with Lausanne’s Strategy central in beginning the women’s tive effort that continues to this day. The Working Group and the Unreached movement, labor unions, socialist’ effort, dubbed “Joshua Project 2000,” Peoples track of AD2000. With his parties, and virtually every reform had the goal to see at minimum: decades of research behind him as movement. The quality of a culture • a pioneer church-planting well as a broad understanding of mis- may be changed when two percent 101 movement sion realities afforded by inclusion in of its people have a new vision.

33:2 Summer 2016 60 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

While Bellah knew a lot about Japan a personal meeting with Jesus just The 2 and 5 percent criteria were gen- as much and be equally darkened in and was most certainly an eminent erally accepted with one solitary and their understanding of the Gospel, critical exception—the International sociologist, this statement alone does but you insult them and prejudice not justify the widespread use of 2% your outreach if this is not taken into Mission Board (IMB). Their reaction Evangelical as an established criterion. consideration. Hence my plea that was mixed. Under Barrett’s influence, His statement represents a general both criteria be retained.103 they had consistently used the 20% cri- observation from a particular case and terion. But Barrett left in 1993 and the not the conclusion of more compre- A more practical reason for the 5% Chris- new criteria (2 and 5 percent) came out hensive research. I have been unable tian Adherent is given by Todd Johnson: in 1995. According to Dale Hadaway, to find any other research or study to One reason that the percent Christian in the summer of 1997, the IMB was back up the choice of 2% Evangelical was lowered to 5% was that most of using the twenty-percent figure in as a criterion. Interestingly, Johnstone the least evangelized (50% or less by their statistics . . . within a year the per- in a later work concedes that Barrett’s method) were less than 5% centage was lowered to twelve per- many sociologists take 20% as the Christian. So this made the initial JP cent. The following year the first ver- point at which a population segment list closer to that of Barrett’s World sion of the Church Planting Progress 104 begins to impact the worldview of A peoples. Indicator (CPPI) was unveiled by the the wider society.102 IMB, featuring a precipitous drop in What these criteria lacked in empirical what had been considered the mea- The 5% Christian Adherent criterion, support they made up for by practically sure of “reachedness.” Two-percent suggested by Johnstone, fares little bet- evangelical believers became the new statistical benchmark for the IMB and ter in terms of giving us confidence as most other mission agencies. Sudden- to its origin. Again, there is no research ly the goal posts had been moved.105 to justify its use. What we have instead are reasons for why it seems helpful. While the IMB eventually adopted The 5% Adherent criterion was in- A Christianized the 2% Evangelical criterion, they cluded in the definition of unreached people is a never did adopt the 5% Christian to differentiate between a people Adherent criterion, opting for a more group in Afghanistan with 0% Evan- very differ­ent challenge exclusive view of salvation in terms of gelicals and 0% Christian Adherents evangelical faith. This remains one of with no Christian heritage, no access for evangelism. to a Bible, no church, no Christian the key differences between the Joshua broadcasts, training, literature, etc. ( Johnstone) Project list and the IMB list. The quest compared to a people group in say for a “definitive” listing of peoples has Western Europe that may have only proved elusive. a few true Christ-followers but a high The Three People Group Lists number of Christian Adherents with providing a “line” to differentiate peoples a Christian heritage and access to Bi- Thus, by the early 2000s, there were into reached and unreached categories. bles, fellowship, broadcasts, training, three distinct people group lists that literature etc. While the debate might never end as to informed the broader mission enter- what the exact percentage should be, it Certainly individuals within these two prise. The three lists are the World has served the frontier mission commu- 106 groups are equally lost, yet one peo- Christian Database, the Joshua Proj- nity well over the past twenty years by 107 ple group is considered unreached ect list and IMB’s Church Planting focusing attention on the least reached 108 while the other would be considered Progress Indicators (CPPI). in need of renewal and evangelism. peoples. And it should not surprise us A brief interlude is necessary here to The 5% Christian Adherent criterion that the 2 and 5 percent criteria were explain the relationship between the helps define the spiritual “environ- not based on empirical studies, since our ment” (for lack of a better word) of a earlier discussion on diffusion studies MARC lists which began in 1974 particular people group. has shown clearly that there simply is no (and then from 1979–1984, and again empirical proof that a single percentage in 1987) and those that followed. Patrick Johnstone makes the following can be relied upon to predict break- Todd Johnson is Barrett’s successor observation, through for innovation. Thus, the best and he was also heavily involved in all We cannot avoid the fact that a that can be done was in fact done—re- described here. According to him, Christianized people is a very differ- searchers gathered together and sought MARC collected data on peoples from ent challenge for evangelism than a God for a wise approach to interpreting all over the world but did not try to non-Christian people. They may need and presenting the data. create a comprehensive list. Barrett

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 61

had collected extensive data on Af- addressing the same topic. Likewise, the plexity with the additional layers of caste rican peoples in the 1960s and early three people group lists address similar and religion in forming primary identity. 1970s. He then created the first com- yet different issues and therefore are prehensive list of peoples shortly after The reason the JP and IMB numbers are completing the World Christian Ency- different. Would it have been better if different is because they differ in how clopedia (1981). He was working with Paul had used exactly the same list of they prioritize the different layers (lan- that list (not MARCs) for Clarifying gifts in all his letters? Perhaps, but the guage, caste, tribe, religion, etc.) in deter- the Task. I joined Barrett in 1989 and very fact that he didn’t do so is instruc- mining identity. One list may primarily helped to edit the list. The IMB broke tive. Apparently, an exhaustive and look to religion as a prioritizing factor, off with their own version of the list absolutely consistent list isn’t necessary while another may prioritize caste. in 1993 when Barrett left. Joshua Proj- for God’s people to understand and ect created a third version in 1996. use them. In a similar vein, those who Summary People group lists today are derived manage the lists appreciate the account- As the need for clarity in mobilization from Barrett’s initial work . . .109 ability and corroboration generated by became acute in the evangelical push the existence and maintenance of the to reach the unreached by the year The MARC list was thus subsumed different lists. Figure 3 below compares 2000, the 2 and 5 percent criteria were into Barrett’s list when Barrett edited 110 and contrasts the three lists: born. One result of the AD2000 and the last Unreached Peoples Series book Beyond movement was the increase called “Clarifying the Task” (1987). Figure 4, at the top of page 62, is a table showing how the three lists mea- in collaboration and unity in the body The fact that there are three distinct sure people groups.111 of Christ. But even then, the ideals lists of ostensibly the same thing (un- and passion to see “a church for every reached peoples) can be understood by One major issue with these lists has people by the year 2000” were balanced looking at the three different audiences been the number put forth for un- by continuing theological and meth- for whom these lists were compiled. A reached people groups. See Figure 5, odological differences. Concerning parallel example would be the lists of the chart at the top of page 63. the actual percentages themselves, it spiritual gifts in three different places As Figure 5 indicates, the JP and IMB seemed the only research-based criteri- in the New Testament (Romans 12, 1 lists are the most similar in what they on for establishing any kind of tipping Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4). In each are measuring. The biggest single dif- point came from Everett Rogers and case, Paul was addressing a particular ference is how list managers segment the use of a broad percentage range, audience with particular needs, and thus people groups. South Asia has proved as explained above. The 2% and 5% the lists are different even though he is formidable in this regard, creating com- criteria were not based on empirical Figure 3. A Comparison of Global People Group Lists

World Christian Database CPPI (IMB - Southern Baptist) Joshua Project

• Outside South Asia ethnolinguistic People • Outside South Asia ethnolinguistic • Globally ethnolinguistic • South Asia mixture of language Definition • South Asia by caste and caste

Unreached • Less than 2% Evangelical and • Less than 50% evangelized* • Less than 2% Evangelical Definition • Less than 5% Christian Adherent

Unreached • Exposure • Response • Response Measures

• Census and academic reports • Primarily IMB field staff • Regional and national researchers Sources • Denominational reports • Regional and national researchers • Networks, individuals, other data sets • Ethnologue • Ethnologue • Ethnologue

• Adds groups when • Assumes worst case, adds all • Adds groups once verified Philosophy documented in published potential groups, removes if by field staff research verified as not existing *This database speaks in terms of “least evangelized peoples.”

33:2 Summer 2016 62 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

Figure 4. Varying the Definition of a People Varies the Resulting Lists.

Peoples Defined By Resulting List Examples Totals

Language Linguistic peoples The Ethnologue: Languages of the World ~10,900

PeopleGroups.org / CPPI Language / Dialect ~ 11,500 Ethnolinguistic peoples World Christian Encyclopedia Ethnicity ~ 13,000 Operation World peoples lists

Language / Dialect Ethnicity Religion Ethnic peoples Joshua Project / Frontier Ventures ~ 16,300 Caste / Community Culture

Language / Dialect Ethnicity Religion Caste / Community Culture Education Unimax peoples Original USCWM / Ralph Winter estimates ~ 24,000 Ideology Politics Historical enmity Customs Behavior research but were a way to highlight Evaluation of Unreached Peoples that list to determine which groups have relative need, which remains critical. Definitions (2000—Present) been “engaged” and which ones remain “unengaged.” This initiative is alive and Another concern with quantitative cri- Since the year 2000, there have been well today due to the relentless efforts no changes in unreached peoples defi- teria was the tendency to exclude the of Paul Eshleman and the Finishing the nitions. The 1982 definition (variously qualitative criteria. This was especially Task network. Following the IMB, FTT interpreted) with the 1995 addition likely when the only definition given acknowledges four essential elements of percentage criterion is still in use for UPG was “less than 2% evangeli- that constitute effective engagement: cal.” This led to the potential danger of today. However, there were changes in overlooking qualitative criteria, such as categorization of people groups. 1. Apostolic effort in residence that which Winter prioritized: Unengaged, Unreached 2. Commitment to work in the Unreachedness is thus not defined on People Groups local language and culture the basis of whether there are any Chris- 3. Commitment to long-term tians, or whether there are any mission- During this period a new word was ministry aries working among them. It is defined added to the normal “unreached people 4. Sowing in a manner consistent with on the basis of whether or not in that group” phrase, yielding the “UUPG,” the goal of seeing a church planting culture there is a viable, culturally rel- the unengaged, unreached people group. movement (CPM) emerge113 evant, witnessing church movement.112 This emphasis can trace its beginnings Calls for Change to a global gathering of evangelists in In other words, the quantitative Amsterdam in 2000 and the infamous Having looked at definitions and the cri- criteria alone left the door open for “Table 71.” But that is another story that teria for determining who is unreached, western-style churches since indigene- will not be told here. Suffice it to say that let’s look at some of the interesting di- ity was not emphasized. If all we’re the emphasis on unengaged was a logi- lemmas they create. Let’s go back to the looking for is a certain number of cal next step. While it’s helpful to have pairs of countries mentioned earlier: “evangelicals,” we may miss the mark. a list of unreached people groups, it is • Algeria or Slovenia Qualitative criteria need to remain. another step forward to further segment • Palestine or Poland

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 63

Figure 5. Unreached Peoples Totals (2015) To bolster his claim, he found one source indicating a larger percentage List Source Number of Unreached Peoples (How Derived) for a tipping point: Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Joshua Project 6,571 (<=2% Evangelical, <=5% Christian Adherent) Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds IMB (Southern Baptist) 6,827 (<=2% Evangelical) an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority World Christian Database 4,219 (<50% evangelized) of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center • Jordan or Austria including evangelical Catholics. In fact, (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used com- only 16 of Europe’s 47 countries do.114 • Mali or France putational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where Each pair of countries is the same per- The Joshua Project Progress Scale a minority belief becomes the major- centage Evangelical. It just so happens shown below (Figure 6) gives the ity opinion. The finding has implica- that the countries mentioned first are breakdown of people groups based on tions for the study and influence of also less than 5% Christian Adherent, these criteria. The first countries men- societal interactions ranging from the while the countries mentioned second tioned above in each pair are red and spread of innovations to the move- are more than 5% Christian Adherent. Is unreached, whereas the second in each ment of political ideals.“When the it really okay to call the former countries pair are yellow and reached. number of committed opinion hold- ers is below 10 percent, there is no “unreached” and the latter countries The present criteria emphasize never- visible progress in the spread of ideas. “reached” just because of their Chris- reached peoples over once-reached It would literally take the amount of tian past? Some feel that people groups ones. Interestingly, of the thirty time comparable to the age of the in Europe with a Christian past are countries with the smallest percentage universe for this size group to reach definitely less unreached since there are of Evangelical Christians in the world, the majority,” says SCNARC Director evangelists within E-0/E-1 distance from thirteen are Muslim, eleven are Catho- Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and them. Although they may be equally lost, lic, four are Orthodox, one is Buddhist Roland Schmitt Distinguished Profes- sor at Rensselaer. “Once that number they have greater access to the gospel and one Jewish.115 and Christian literature, the Bible, etc. grows above 10 percent, the idea Back to 20 Percent? 117 Others feel that any Christian history spreads like flame.” Robin Dale Hadaway, Professor of among these peoples are mere relics of a The study, entitled “Social Consensus dead tradition, and that as long as they fit Missions at Midwestern Baptist Theo- Through the Influence of Committed the criteria for unreached they should be logical Seminary, believes that the less- Minorities,” found that than-or-equal-to 2% Evangelical crite- listed as such, regardless of the weak, flail- the prevailing majority opinion in a ing Christian influence around them. rion needs to be changed. A Southern population can be rapidly reversed There is no room for smug complacency Baptist missionary with field experi- by a small fraction p of randomly about “Europe’s Christian heritage”– ence in both red and yellow peoples, distributed committed agents who and “Christian” majority. . . . If we take he feels that 2% Evangelical is simply consistently proselytize the opposing as the criterion for being evangelized not enough to bring about a tipping opinion and are immune to influence. that a population should be more than point. He also regrets the movement of Specifically, we show that when the 2% evangelical, there is no country workers from yellow peoples or nations committed fraction grows beyond a bordering the Mediterranean that to red ones (e.g. from Europe to Asia) critical value Pc ≈ 10%, there is a dra- comes even close to that figure, even because of the present criteria.116 matic decrease in the time Tc taken Figure 6. The Joshua Project Progress Scale Category Label % Evangelical % Christian Adherent People Groups

Red Unreached <=2% <=5% 6,571

Yellow Formative / Nominal <=2% >5% 2,717

Green Established / Significant >2% 6,864

33:2 Summer 2016 64 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

for the entire population to adopt evangelical maps, however, at least it groups would be unreached! Accord- the committed opinion.118 would give a more reliable indicator ing to Bill Morrison, a researcher with of what is really happening on the They conclude, ground. The evangelization maps of Joshua Project who has spent countless we have demonstrated here the exis- Latin America and Africa would turn hours combing over people group data, tence of a tipping point at which the from green (reached) to yellow and If everyone is Least-Reached then may- initial majority opinion of a network red (unreached).121 be it’s not a very useful concept. I’m switches quickly to that of a consis- doubtful it’s possible to well-justify ANY tent and inflexible minority.119 His solution then is to cutoff figure in terms of “all groups Immediately raise the two-percent below this figure have not achieved a However, there are caveats with their evangelical population threshold meaningful breakthrough and groups approach. First, they say that their model back to twenty percent or at least above have achieved breakthrough.” is well suited to understanding how ten percent. I believe exiting a people There are too many variables involved opinions, perceptions, or behaviors group that is more than two-percent and we are unable to accurately mea- 124 of individuals are altered through evangelical is the historical equivalent sure those variables. social interactions specifically in situa- of the United States declaring victory tions where the cost associated with in the Vietnam War, only to see the According to Bruce Koch, changing one’s opinion is low, such as country fall three years later.122 Winter never liked the percentage in the pre-release buzz for a movie, or thresholds as a criterion because in where changes in state are not delib- But what does this look like in actual the many, many groups with less erate or calculated but unconscious.120 numbers? The chart below, in Figure 7, than a few hundred people (almost depicts numbers of “unreached peoples” 1200 with a population under 500!), 123 2% amounts to a handful of people, Certainly, most missionaries would not if we were to change the criteria. equate allegiance to Jesus in a Muslim or whereas in large groups it can mean Hindu context as one in which the cost The dark gray column represents our hundreds of thousands or even mil- associated with changing one’s opinion is present criteria. As you can see, if the lions. Are we really going to say that low! Neither would they be satisfied with Christian Adherent criterion is taken we will not call the Turks reached un- believers whose decisions were uncon- away, the number of unreached peoples til 1.2 million of them (2%) associate scious. The model of this particular study goes up significantly by 2000 (compar- themselves with evangelical church- es? Or 12 million (20%)?!125 tested the influence of committed agents ing the first and fifth columns). This on those who held opinions but were is simply accomplished by adding the Such an exercise reveals the astounding open to other views. Another caution peoples represented in countries like power of these criteria. How different the is that the study seems to assume that Slovenia, Poland, Austria and France task can seem based on how it is viewed! the many variables in a given innovation that have a population of Christian But it should also give us pause. Would mentioned by Rogers are static in every Adherents greater than 5%. we really want to double the present place at all times. But this is Rogers’ main number of unreached peoples? What point and reason why a given percentage One can see what happens when the would it do to morale? How would it can never work across the board—there criteria is taken up to 5, 10 or 20% affect the concept of progress? Would it are simply too many variables that affect Evangelical (columns two, three and further undermine frontier mission vi- the rate of adoption. The study doesn’t four)—the number of unreached sion and effort, already in decline? Here appear to acknowledge these variables. peoples rises considerably; for ex- ample, the 10% Evangelical criterion are some helpful observations from those Hadaway continues, would double the present number of who manage the Joshua Project list, If a ten-percent threshold replaced unreached people groups. If the mis- Joshua Project is definitely not advo- the two-percent benchmark for de- sion community went back to using cating that missionaries leave a people picting “lostness” and “reachness” on the 20% criterion, 85% of all people group when an arbitrary % Evangelical Figure 7. Total UPGs According to Various Criteria <2% E, <2% E, <2% E, <2% E <5% E <10% E <20% E <5% CA >5% CA >50% CA

UPGs 8,121 10,130 12,059 13,730 5,944 2,018 1,278

UPG % of 50% 62% 74% 85% 37% 12% 8% Total 16,238

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 65

figure is reached. Missionaries should stay on-site as long as needed regard- he bottom line reality is that without less of percentages. Their role might change from pioneer church planting quantifiable criteria there is no possible way to disciple making, administrative sup- to count unreached people groups. port, leadership development, etc. all T leading to saturation church planting have none at all. As I write, research- in mysterious ways, we should be by indigenous manpower. The time ers are scouring the world, even at the careful in forecasting exactly what for missionaries to exit would seem to village level, to ascertain the breaking he is up to. Jesus made forays into be when there is enough momentum in of the Kingdom. These efforts are to different geographical areas for and resources within the indigenous be praised. May God continue to grant reasons that were primarily spiri- church to reach the rest of the people grace and wisdom to their efforts. tual, not rational. Likewise, Paul group without outside assistance. This was guided by the Spirit and was exit point will be very different de- sometimes led in ways contrary to pending on the local situation. A Way Forward his natural way of thinking. E-2 Finally, some general conclusions are The role of FV/Joshua Project seems or E-3 distance should not be the given here as a result of the foregoing to be to encourage “beginning the only consideration in prioritiza- discussion. task” without suggesting that 2% is tion, even if it should (rightly) be a finish line or withdrawal point. At 1. The 2 and 5% criterion for the first. the same time, we need to better unreached peoples is not per- promote rigorous discipleship and 4. We need to continue to present saturation church planting. fect, but it has the advantage of being reached as a process not a having twenty years of constant point-in-time. The present crite- The term “unreached” is rather unfor- use. Changing the percentages at ria, and any that may come in the tunate as it implies an on/off or yes/ this point creates more problems future, can create lopsided/distorted no toggle, suggesting only two op- than it solves. Wise handling of views of people group realities. tions: zero happening (unreached) the lists, and the assumptions or no need to send missionaries at all 5. We need to recognize that iden- (reached). When a toggle is the mea- behind them, will prevent pre- tifying a “tipping point,” that surement, there can easily be a focus on sumption and promote mature moment when an indigenous countdowns and checking groups off a reflection on the overall health of body of believers becomes viable list when they cross some threshold. A any given people group. and able to evangelize its own better term might be “least-reached” 2. Deep questions remain concern- people, is ultimately dependent implying a scale or progression.126 ing the relationship of Evan- on the Holy Spirit. Sociologists gelicals and those of Catholic/ Summary do not concern themselves with Orthodox traditions. Are missi- supernatural phenomena when This more recent debate reinforces the ologists involved in this dialogue, they attempt to describe social fact that we are dealing with “messy- or just theologians? Better rela- change, but we do. And the Holy ology.” Field realities are messy and tionships here could significantly Spirit is surely able to use any don’t translate easily into mobilization advance the move of the gospel percentage he wishes as a tipping slogans without significant loss. Those among people groups with a non- point. We should remember that who manage these lists have in most Evangelical Christian heritage. there were 7 million Jews in Jesus’ cases dedicated their entire lives to the 3. Should an unreached people in a day (2 million in Palestine and 5 constant perusal of peoples and their historically non-Christian envi- million Diaspora), and the 120 state of evangelization, however de- ronment always be prioritized gathered in the upper room rep- fined. They are more aware of the in- above an unreached people with a resented .000017% of the Jewish consistencies and incongruencies that Christian background in the dis- nation! In a matter of a few days are part of their discipline than those tant past? Perhaps not. Any mis- after Pentecost, they had grown by of us who see them less clearly. The sionary in either group is on the thousands and this movement was bottom line reality, repeated earlier in same team, bringing the Bread of later accused of turning the world this paper, is that without quantifiable Life to hungry souls. Sometimes upside down. This reality is too criteria, regardless of their supposed certain fields are ripe and others often overlooked by missiologists. subjectivity or reliability, there is no are not. Sometimes God guides us 6. We need to recognize that dif- possible way to count unreached to a specific place, for reasons that ferent percentages will motivate people groups. Surely it is better to may not meet the requirements of different ministries for different have a number in this sense than to human reason. If the Spirit moves purposes. It is perfectly legitimate

33:2 Summer 2016 66 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

for some ministries to keep the heart of extravagant love for the these concepts more accessible to the present criteria. Alternatively, it lost. Not the obedience motivated church. It is my hope that this article is also legitimate for other minis- by numbers and the thrill of being will inspire others more qualified and tries to focus on different criteria. the generation that gets it done, experienced than I to do just that. IJFM There is much to do in seeing the but the obedience motivated by a Kingdom find expression in new deep and abiding joy in living out Endnotes people groups. Everyone can have God’s call among the nations. 1 Patrick Johnstone, The Future of the a seat at the table and fulfill God’s It has been said that “a mist in the Global Church (Colorado Springs, CO: calling for the particular focus of pulpit is a fog in the pew.” Attempts Global Mapping International, 2011), 165. 2 their ministries. The people group to clear up the mist of what exactly is Winter’s quotation of Barrett is a data is available and can be sliced meant by “unreached” has and con- bit misleading because when Barrett wrote in 1968 the concept of unreached people many ways, and should be. The tinues to be elusive. All three lists of primary blessing of people group groups was nascent. While Barrett did note unreached peoples are grounded in significant changes within a people when data is that it is there for the body decades of specific research methodolo- more than 20% became Christian adherents, of Christ. Anyone can go on the gies and tried convictions (including he in no way was making any conscious 127 put in per- Joshua Project site, theological ones), which are not likely statement about 20% or less as a criterion centages to sort the list by, and see to be set aside for the practical purpose for being “unreached.” I am indebted to what pops up. Gina Zurlo of the Center for the Study of simplicity, as helpful as that would 7. We need to be aware of the of Global Christianity for her insight into Barrett’s thinking. limitations of our numbers, which 3 Ralph D. Winter, “Unreached Peo- reflect a very basic sense of reality ples: The Development of the Concept,” in but lack precision. This will always Reaching the Unreached: The Old-New Chal- be the case when complex field lenge, ed. Harvie M. Conn (Phillipsburg, realities are necessarily simplified The concept was NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing for purposes of quantification Company, 1984), 36–37. 4 and also mobilization. We must always intended as a It is important to note that “evange- beware of “managerial missiology” lization” to some means proclamation only, while to others it means proclamation and and the tendency to reduce the “rough measure of response. The former emphasizes a person incomprehensible reality of God’s our progress.” or group’s exposure to and awareness of the activity in this world to manage- Gospel, while the latter emphasizes posi- able strategies. There is absolutely (Winter and Koch) tive response to the Gospel (“Go and make nothing about the work of the disciples . . .”). Since Revelation (5:9 and 7:9) Holy Spirit that is ours to manage predicts and promises that some from every apart from our own obedience to tribe, tongue and nation will find their place in the heavenly assembly, this author assumes Him. But we can humbly pres- be for mobilization. The two poles of the latter meaning throughout the paper. ent what we do know in order to the tension we are dealing with are the 5 Our focus at Frontier Ventures (for- fan into flame God’s heart for all complexity of people group identity merly the US Center for World Mission) peoples in every believer. The con- (reality on the field) on the one hand has historically been and remains that of cept of people groups was always and the simplicity needed for mobi- working alongside others in the frontier intended as a “rough measure of lization (reality back at home on the mission movement to bring about that “tip- our progress toward completing sending base) on the other. This tension ping point” whereby a body of believers is 128 able to evangelize its own people group. the entire task.” exists in all disciplines and the answer 6 Ralph D. Winter and Bruce A. 8. The biggest single problem in lies in effective communication from Koch, “Finishing The Task: The Unreached reaching the unreached is not a one side to the other. This takes persons Peoples Challenge,” in Perspectives on the matter of definitions or percentage who can understand the complexity World Christian Movement, 4th ed., eds. criteria, but of what Eugene Peter- and yet present it in simple and mean- Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. Hawthorne son calls a “long obedience in the ingful ways. It takes persons who live in (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 2009), 538. same direction.” Not the strident both worlds and can translate from one 7 obedience of a soldier under com- to the other. This is not an impossible The LCWE was established in Janu- ary 1975 to implement the ethos and vision mand, but the loving obedience task. The expertise and abilities exist of the International Congress on World of sons and daughters who walk within the mission community. We Evangelization (ICOWE), July 16–25, daily in intimacy with their Father owe it to ourselves and the unreached 1974. It consisted of the international body, and come to know and share His peoples we desire to serve to make seven regional committees, an executive

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 67 committee and four working groups: theol- 17 This influence was not without its from most other researchers represented in ogy and education, intercession, communi- critics, such as Latin American missiolo- this paper in that he measured evangeliza- cation, and strategy. The first meeting of the gists C. Rene Padilla and Samuel Escobar. tion as proclamation only, whereas others Strategy Working Group was in 1977. Padilla wrote a critique of the homogenous measure it as proclamation and response 8 The phrases “Lausanne Tradition” unit principle (1982), stating it had no See endnote 4. and “Edinburgh Tradition” as descriptive biblical basis as a church planting strategy. 24 Ibid. monikers originated with Winter. For his part, Escobar lashed out against 25 Dayton, Unreached Peoples Directory, 26. 9 Of course, none of what is recorded the “managerial missiology” coming out of 26 Pentecost did a master’s thesis at here occurred in a vacuum. William Carey’s Pasadena (1999), citing the tendency to turn Fuller with Winter as Mentor and Glasser Enquiry reignited concern for the heathen the mission enterprise into something that and Wagner on the Examining Com- and a steady stream of research and promo- can be managed with measurement-based mittee. The paper was published in 1974 tion toward that end can be seen to the analysis, goal-setting and strategic planning. as the book Reaching the Unreached: An present day. Twentieth century antecedents 18 Greg H. Parsons, Lausanne ’74: Introductory Study on Developing an Overall worth mention would be W. Cameron Ralph D. Winter’s Writings, with Responses Strategy for World Evangelization. Townsend’s focus on tribal peoples in (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library, 27 Their definition is “An unreached Central America and J. Waskom Pickett’s 2015), 134. people is a group that is less than 20 percent research on mass movements in India in the 19 Edward R. Dayton, Unreached practicing Christian,” in C. Peter Wagner 1930s; Donald McGavran’s continued work Peoples Directory (International Congress on and Edward R. Dayton, eds., Unreached about people movements in the 1950s; and World Evangelization, 1974), 23. Peoples ’79: The Challenge of the Church’s Un- the research in Africa of David Barrett and 20 Ibid. finished Business (Elgin, IL.: David C. Cook Patrick Johnstone in the 1960s. 21 Publishing Co, 1978), 24. While Barrett and 10 Ibid. “Billy Graham Center, Archives: 22 Wagner/Dayton both used the 20 percent It should be noted that in the back World Congress on Evangelism, 1966,” criterion, they had two very different things of the Directory, the questionnaire used Wheaton College, Billy Graham Center, in mind. Barrett was thinking of “adherents” for the research is included and gives its last modified Oct 25, 2006, accessed Oc- (professing Christians) and Wagner/Dayton own slightly different definitions:“Homo- tober 13, 2015, http://www2.wheaton.edu/ had in mind “practicing Christians.” In fact, geneous unit (people or group): A recog- bgc/archives/berlin66.htm. Wagner and Dayton used the percentage nizable segment of society having some 11 of “professing Christians” in their people Ted Engstrom, “The Use of Technol- characteristic(s) in common. The uniting group list in the back of the book (257) ogy: A Vital Tool That Will Help,” inOne element(s) may be linguistic, ethnic, geo- even though their definition above was Race, One Gospel, One Task, Volume I, World graphic, socio-economic, political, religious, “practicing Christian.” One surmises that Congress on Evangelism, Berlin 1966, Of- or any other. . . . Unreached/unevangelized they changed their definition to “practicing ficial Reference Volumes, Papers and Reports, people: Those homogeneous units which Christian” but their research still reflected eds. Carl F. H. Henry and W. Stanley have not received or responded to the Gos- the professing Christian data that had been Mooneyham (Minneapolis, MN: World pel. Thus unresponsiveness may be due to used in the 1974 Directory. In the Un- Wide Publications, 1967), 316. lack of opportunity, lack of understanding, 12 reached Peoples ‘80 edition, they correct this Ibid., 317. or because they have not received sufficient 13 contradiction. They say, “It is important to Ibid., 318. information about the Gospel message 14 note that this figure is the estimated per- David A. Hubbard, “Missions and within their own language, cultural frame of centage of practicing Christians within the Technology,” in One Race, One Gospel, One reference and communication channels to group. If the group was listed in Unreached Task, Volume II, World Congress on Evange- make Christianity a viable option. For the Peoples ’79, the figure recorded here will lism, Berlin 1966, Official Reference Volumes, purpose of this questionnaire, and for the most likely be different, because that volume Papers and Reports, eds. Carl F. H. Henry and International Congress on World Evange- recorded the percentage of professing Chris- W. Stanley Mooneyham (Minneapolis, MN: lization for which this initial study is made, tians (or adherents), which most often will World Wide Publications, 1967), 525–526. we consider that a people is unreached/ be a higher number,” in C. Peter Wagner 15 C. Peter Wagner and Edward unevangelized when less than 20% are and Edward R. Dayton, eds., Unreached Dayton, eds., Unreached Peoples ’81: The professing Christians,” 112. Peoples ’80: The Challenge of the Church’s Un- 23 Challenge of the Church’s Unfinished Busi- David Barrett, Schism and Re- finished Business (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook ness (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Publishing newal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thou- Publishing Co, 1980), 210. Ralph Winter Company, 1981), 24. sand Contemporary Religious Movements called this movement from “professing” to 16 Another significant name to men- (Nairobi: Oxford University Press, 1968), “practicing” a “fatal” change. He says, “In tion is W. Stanley Mooneyham, the Vice 137. Barrett also uses the 20% criterion in my own biased recollection, the change to President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic his World Christian Encyclopedia, “the only ‘practicing Christians’ was almost instantly Association and the Coordinating Director people groups who can correctly be called criticized . . . when the new 20-percent for the Berlin Congress. When Pierce began unreached are the one thousand or so whose definition came out, I remember calling my to have health issues, Mooneyham took over populations are each less than 20% evange- friend Peter Wagner, who was the chairman as World Vision President in 1969, a posi- lized,” in David B. Barrett, ed., World Chris- of the Strategy Working Group, and saying, tion he held until 1982. Engstrom became tian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Study of ‘This is a great mistake. Almost all groups Executive VP of World Vision in 1963 and Churches and Religions in the Modern World everywhere are now classified as unreached!’ followed Mooneyham as President from AD 1900–2000 (Nairobi: Oxford University But it was too late. The Strategy Working 1982–1984. Press, 1982), 19. Note that Barrett differed Group was an international committee, and

33:2 Summer 2016 68 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History everyone had gone home,” in Ralph Winter, computer capability, competent staff, and C. Cook Publishing Company, 1982). One “Unreached Peoples: The Development of accumulated expertise in the field qualifies it wonders if this omission had anything to the Concept,” 31. as the central research agency worldwide for do with the fact that with Unreached Peoples 28 Edward C. Pentecost, Reaching unreached peoples” in Wagner and Dayton, ’82 Samuel Wilson would begin to replace the Unreached: An Introductory Study on Unreached Peoples ’79, 8. Each volume in the C. Peter Wagner as co-editor. Was the 20 Developing an Overall Strategy for World series contains a list of unreached people percent emphasis largely that of Wagner? Evangelization (South Pasadena, CA: Wil- groups (1979: 666 upg; 1980: 1,982 upg; 42 Edward R. Dayton and Samuel Wil- liam Carey Library, 1974). Pentecost not 1981: 2,914 upg; 1982: 3,265 upg; 1983: son, eds., Unreached Peoples ’83: The Refugees only cites Rogers in his use of the 20%, but 3,690 upg; 1984: 3,815 upg). The original Among Us (Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1983), also incorporates Roger’s concepts of com- Unreached Peoples Directory had a list of 413 33. As a result, in the 1983 annual the munication channels (70), the four stages groups. Note that there is a four-year gap definitions of “Hidden People Group” and of the innovation-decision process (71) between the initial directory published for “Frontier People” were the same: “unreached and the use of indicators to measure social ICOWE in 1974 and this series. The reason people group” (499). There was now one change (79–120). This is the only attempt for this is that it took time to organize the definition. Here is a final interesting fact I know of in which diffusion of innovation LCWE (1975) and SWG (1977) after the observed: the members of the Strategy theory is seriously considered as a method Congress. Though MARC had already Working Group identified in the 1983 an- of studying gospel diffusion in an unreached helped produce the unreached peoples direc- nual represent an almost wholesale change people group. tory for the Lausanne 1974 Congress, they from the previous group. Wagner stepped 29 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of had done so with funding from Lausanne. off as Chairman at this point with Dayton Innovations (New York: Free Press, 1962). The final and seventh book of the series taking over. Only one other existing mem- Rogers defines diffusion as “the process (Unreached Peoples: Clarifying the Task) ber continued on with Dayton as Chairman. 43 in which an innovation is communicated was co-published in 1987 by the Foreign When Winter’s missiological output through certain channels over time among Mission Board of the Southern Baptist is observed side by side with his labors in the members of a social system” (2003, 5), Convention as the seventh book of the purchasing the USCWM properties and while an innovation is “an idea, practice Unreached Peoples series and the third book founding a sodality community, it is remark- or object that is perceived as new” (12). of the FMB’s AD2000 Series. It was edited able to realize that in the midst of all his Pentecost, Wagner, Dayton and others obvi- by Harley Schreck and David Barrett. None thinking and writing, the campus was in a ously saw the potential for such research to of these lists were comprehensive. constant state of fiscal jeopardy. This may be inform the frontier missionary task. Based 36 Ibid., 10. one reason why he tended to write articles, on thousands of empirical studies, Rogers 37 C. Peter Wagner and Edward R. not books. He had at least two full-time roles claims, “no other field of behavior science as a missiologist and organizational leader. Dayton, eds., Unreached Peoples ’81: The 44 research represents more effort by more Challenge of the Church’s Unfinished Business Ralph D. Winter, Penetrating the scholars in more disciplines in more nations” With Special Section on the Peoples of Asia Last Frontiers (Pasadena, CA: William (2003, xviii). Because this research includes (Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Publishing Co, Carey Library, 1978), 39. 45 many cross-cultural studies, it brims with 1981), 28. Ralph D. Winter, Frontiers in Mis- relevant guidelines and principles for mis- 38 Ibid., 29. sion: Discovering and Surmounting Barriers to sion theorist and practitioner alike. 39 the Missio Dei (Pasadena, CA: William Carey Ibid., 28–29. Wagner and Dayton 30 International University Press, 2008), 133. Ibid. 1962, 219. also show a helpful correlation between the 31 46 Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of In- growth of an innovation over time as early, Winter, Penetrating the Last Fron- novations (New York: Free Press, 2003), 360. tiers, 40. middle and late adopters are added on, with 47 32 Ibid., 221–222. the Evangelism scale (E-1, E-2, E-3), a Ibid. 48 33 Ibid., 343. Christian Nurture scale (N-1, N-2, N-3) Ibid. 49 34 Research using Rogers’ model could and a Service scale (S-1, S-2, S-3). They Winter, “Unreached Peoples: The be done on individual people groups and thus show how E-2 and E-3 evangelism is Development of the Concept,” 32. 50 then compared with others. We could de- prominent at the beginning of a movement This pamphlet was reprinted in termine our own variables or indicators that but then transitions to E-1 and N-1 work Unreached Peoples ’79. However, the parts of affect rate of adoption that spring specifi- of practicing Christians. the pamphlet critical of the SWG defini- cally from the context of gospel planting 40 Ibid., 27. The reference to hidden tion is nowhere to be seen. Did Winter cut among unreached people groups. Principles peoples was an attempt by Wagner and out this section (the bulk of his critique and/or best practices could be compared, Dayton to incorporate Winter’s alternative presented above comes from this section), contrasted and new theories put forth. to “unreached,” described later in this paper. not wanting to create undue tension? 51 35 According to Wagner, “From its Unfortunately, they reduced it to a mean- Winter, Penetrating the Last Fron- very inception the Strategy Working Group ing Winter did not intend. However, a few tiers, 40–41. 52 established a functional relationship with pages later (32) they define hidden groups Ibid., 42. the MARC (Missions Advanced Research as “people groups among which there is no 53 This issue of affinity was an impor- and Communication) Center of World viable church,” closer to Winter’s intent. tant one, as people struggled to know how Vision International. MARC pioneered 41 C. Peter Wagner and Edward Day- deep people group segmentation should run. research into unreached peoples and chal- ton, eds., Unreached Peoples ’82: The Chal- Were “nurses in St. Louis” or “professional lenged the 1974 Lausanne meeting with lenge of the Church’s Unfinished Business, hockey players” (these were in the early lists) the preliminary results. Its office facilities, Focus on Urban Peoples (Elgin, IL, David distinct people groups? While Winter and

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 69

Koch in the Finishing the Task article deal in the Unreached Peoples ’79 edition, the same 84 “Somalia – Clans,” GlobalSecurity, with this by distinguishing such segments definition is given with an added phrase, last modified April 8, 2015, accessed April as “Sociopeoples,” the idea persists today “because of their shared language, religion, 20, 2015, http://www.globalsecurity.org/ with talk of the handicapped as unreached ethnicity, residence, occupation, class or caste, military/world/somalia/clans.htm. people groups. While we would normally situation, etc., or combinations of these” (23). 85 Winter and Koch, “Finishing the see groups with a common disability as a It could be that the definition was shortened Task,” 536. sociopeople, the case of the deaf is unique for the sake of brevity. Whatever the case, the 86 Ibid., 537. because they speak a unique language. longer version reappears as part of the 1982 87 Barrett served the FMB until 1993, 54 “While Pattaya ’80 took unreached Chicago definition. 65 when he began working as an independent peoples seriously, Edinburgh ’80 was devoted Winter and Koch, “Finishing The researcher under the World Evangelization to them exclusively,” in Warren Webster, Task,” 536. Research Center, also located in Richmond, 66 “New Directions for Western Missions” in Winter, Frontiers in Mission: Discov- and its successor, the Center for the Study Unreached Peoples ’84: The Future of World ering and Surmounting Barriers to the Missio of Global Christianity (established in 2003 Evangelization, Edward Dayton and Samuel Dei, 134. by Todd Johnson at Gordon-Conwell 67 Wilson, eds. (Monrovia, CA: MARC, 1984), Dayton and Wilson, Unreached Theological Seminary, in South Hamil- 134. Winter had a unique penchant for Peoples ’84, 129. ton, Mass.). He died in 2011. Along with setting up alternatives to the status quo, 68 Winter, in Reaching the Unreached: another “DB,” David Bosch, Barrett and be it definitions, institutions or in this case The Old-New Challenge, 37–38. Bosch are arguably the most significant consultations, while maintaining congenial 69 Ibid. continental, Protestant missiologists of the relationships with those with whom he th 70 Ibid. latter half of the 20 century. disagreed. This gave him platforms for his 88 71 Harley Schreck and David Barrett, personal thinking yet also kept him on the Ibid, 39. 72 Unreached Peoples: Clarifying the Task (Monro- edge of the inside. Ibid. 73 via, CA: MARC and Birmingham, AL: New 55 Ralph D. Winter, “Frontier Mission Ibid., 39–40. 74 Hope Publishing Co., 1987). TheUnreached Perspectives” in Seeds of Promise: World Con- Ibid., 47. Peoples series, published each year between 75 sultation on Frontier Missions, Edinburgh Wagner and Dayton, Unreached 1979 and 1984, then on hiatus until 1987, ’80, ed. Allan Starling (Pasadena, CA: Wil- Peoples ’79, 23. was in some ways the authoritative source for liam Carey Library, 1981), 61. 76 Ralph Winter, “Facing the Fron- many regarding unreached people groups. 56 Ibid. tiers,” Mission Frontiers, (Oct–Nov 1982), The seventh book was a partnership between 57 Ibid. 13, http://www.missionfrontiers.org/issue/ MARC and the Foreign Mission Board of the 58 Ibid., 63. Winter concedes that “the article/facing-the-frontiers. Southern Baptist Convention as the seventh reality of human diversity is, of course, im- 77 Ibid. book of the Unreached Peoples series and the measurably more complex than these four 78 Winter and Koch, “Finishing the third book of the FMB’s AD2000 series. 89 levels imply. One can easily imagine cases Task,” 535. This article remains definitive for In the registry of peoples found within where there are far more than four levels.” Winter’s views on various aspects of people the book, several changes are noted from the 59 Ibid. group thinking. previous annuals. There is only one listing of 60 Ibid., 63–65, 79. Winter’s pre- 79 Ibid., 539. peoples by country. Both ethnolinguistic and 80 sociologically-defined people groups are list- sentation included helpful diagrams that Winter noted elsewhere, “I don’t love ed, with the latter presented in boldface type. graphically portrayed the interrelationships this term. But for the time being I have come Finally, the criteria for inclusion in the list is between three different megaspheres (and up with nothing better, and we do need some “only peoples among whom church members the sub-spheres within them) along with definition that deals with this particular unit number less than 20 percent of the popula- the type of evangelism needed from one of peoples. Otherwise, we end up with a tion” (15) or “people groups for whom it has sphere to another. megapeople like the Han Chinese, a people 61 been reported that there is less than 20% of Ibid., 65. in almost anybody’s language, but not an the population who have any affiliation with a 62 Winter, “Unreached People: The entity that is in itself an efficient mission- Christian church,” (215). This reflects Barrett’s Development of the Concept,” 33. ary target in the sense we would like an preference to count professing Christians as 63 unreached people to be,” in Ralph Winter, Winter, Frontiers in Mission: Discov- opposed to practicing Christians, which had “Unreached Peoples: What Are They and ering and Surmounting Barriers to the Missio been the definition proposed by Wagner and Where Are They?” inReaching the Unreached: Dei, 134. Dayton. Thus the Unreached Peoples series (if 64 The Old-New Challenge, ed. Harvie M. Conn According to Wagner and Dayton, you include the 1974 Directory) evolved from (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Re- this sentence up to this point is word-for- professing Christians to practicing Christians formed Publishing Company, 1984), 50–51. word the same definition defined by the and then back to professing Christians. The 81 Winter and Koch, “Finishing the Strategy Working Group (SWG) of the power of editorship! Lausanne Committee for World Evangeliza- Task,” 534–535. 90 82 Ibid., 18–24. tion (LCWE) in its first meeting in 1977, Ibid., 537. 91 Ibid., 25. “after a lengthy period of research and discus- 83 Seth Kaplan, “Somalia’s Complex 92 Ibid., 31. sion,” with the exception that the word “soci- Clan Dynamics,” Fragile States Resource 93 ological” was taken out of the original phrase Center, accessed April 20, 2015, http:// Ibid., 36. 94 “large sociological grouping,” in Wagner and www.fragilestates.org/2012/01/10/somalias- Ibid., 38–39. Dayton, Unreached Peoples ’81, 23. However, complex-clan-dynamics/. 95 Ibid., 41–42.

33:2 Summer 2016 70 Defining “Unreached”: A Short History

96 In Harvie Conn’s edited work cited Project, accessed November 23, 2015, Barrett, David B., ed. several times in this paper, Reaching the http://joshuaproject.net/resources/articles/ 1982 World Christian Encyclopedia: A Unreached: The Old-New Challenge, there is global_peoples_list_comparison. Comparative Study of Churches a chapter by James Reapsome that is basi- 111 Adapted from “How Many People and Religions in the Modern World cally a list of quotes from a “Who’s Who” Groups Are There?” Joshua Project, accessed AD 1900–2000. Nairobi: Oxford list of Western mission leaders of that time November 23, 2015, http://joshuaproject. University Press. complaining about “sociological segmenta- net/resources/articles/how_many_people_ “Billy Graham Center, Archives: World tion.” Warren Webster sums it up this way: groups_are_there. Congress on Evangelism, 1966” 112 1966 Wheaton College, Billy Graham “The use of sociological definitions of people Winter, “Unreached Peoples: What Center. Accessed October 13, groups tends to cloud and confuse the pic- Are They and Where Are They?” 47. 2015. http://www2.wheaton.edu/ ture when employed on a global scale,” 67. 113 “Frequently asked Questions,” Fin- bgc/archives/berlin66.htm. 97 Dan Scribner, “Joshua Project Step ishing the Task, accessed January 29, 2016, Dayton, Edward R. and Samuel Wilson, eds. 1: Identifying the Peoples Where Church http://finishingthetask.com/faq.html. 1983 Unreached Peoples ’83: The Refugees 114 Planting Is Most Needed,” Mission Frontiers Johnstone, The Future of the Global Among Us. Monrovia, CA: MARC. (Nov–Dec, 1995), http://www.missionfron- Church, 189. ______. tiers.org/issue/article/joshua-project-step- 115 Ibid., 237. 1984 Unreached Peoples ’84: The Future 1-identifying-the-peoples-where-church- 116 Hadaway, “A Course Correction in of World Evangelization. Monro- planting-is-most. via, CA: MARC. 98 Missions.” “Joshua Project 2000,” AD2000 117 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Dayton, Edward R. and Beyond, accessed September 27, 2015, “Minority Rules: Scientists Discover 1974 Unreached Peoples Directory. http://www.ad2000.org/joshovr.htm. International Congress on World 99 Tipping Point for the Spread of Ideas,” “Author: A Brief Biography of Pat- Association for Computing Machin- Evangelization. rick Johnstone,” The Future of the Global ery, last modified July 26, 2011, accessed Engstrom, Ted Church (GMI), accessed January 29, 2016, September 27, 2015, http://cacm.acm.org/ 1967 “The Use of Technology: A Vital http://www.thefutureoftheglobalchurch.org/ careers/115120-minority-rules-scientists- Tool That Will Help.” InOne about/author/. discover-tipping-point-for-the-spread-of- Race, One Gospel, One Task, World 100 “Why Include Adherents when ideas/fulltext. Congress on Evangelism, Berlin Defining Unreached?” Joshua Project, ac- 118 1966, Official Reference Volumes, J. Xie, S. Sreenivasan, G. Korniss, Papers and Reports, Vol. I, edited by cessed April 20, 2015, https://joshuaproject. W. Zhang, C. Lim, B. Szymanski, “Social Carl H. F. Henry and W. Stanley net/assets/media/articles/why-include- Consensus through the Influence of Com- Mooneyham, 315–318. Minneapo- adherents-when-defining-unreached.pdf. A mitted Minorities,” Physical Review E 84, lis, MN: World Wide Publications. Christian Adherent is simply anyone who 011130, 2011, 1. Escobar, Samuel self-identifies as a Christian of any kind. 119 Ibid., 6. 101 2000 “Evangelical Missiology: Peering Sam Keen and Robert Bellah, “Civil 120 Ibid., 1. into the Future at the Turn of the Religion: The Sacred and the Political in 121 Hadaway, “A Course Correction in Century.” In Global Missiology American Life,” Psychology Today ( January Missions,” 24. for the 21st Century: The Iguassu 1976), 64. Dialogue, edited by William D. 122 Ibid., 28. 102 Patrick Johnstone, The Future of Taylor, 101–122. Grand Rapids, 123 This chart used Joshua Project num- the Global Church (Colorado Springs, CO: MI: Baker Academic. bers. Note that once we put in figures that are Global Mapping International, 2011), 224. “Global People Group Lists: An Overview.” 5% Evangelical or greater, the 5% Christian 103 “Why Include Adherents when De- 2015 Joshua Project. Accessed Novem- Adherent criteria becomes irrelevant, because fining Unreached?” Joshua Project, accessed ber 23, 2015. http://joshuaproject. Evangelicals are Christian Adherents. net/resources/articles/global_peo- April 20, 2015, https://joshuaproject.net/as- 124 Bill Morrison, email message to ples_list_comparison. sets/media/articles/why-include-adherents- author, February 8, 2016. Hadaway, Robin Dale when-defining-unreached.pdf. 125 104 Bruce Koch, email message to 2014 “A Course Correction in Mis- Todd Johnson, email message to author, April 13, 2015. sions: Rethinking the Two Percent author, February 10, 2016. 126 Threshold.”Southwestern Journal 105 Dan Scribner, Bill Morrison, Duane Robin Dale Hadaway, “A Course 57, no. 1: 17–28. Fraser, email message to author, April 8, 2015. of Theology Correction in Missions: Rethinking the 127 “How Many People Groups Are There?” http://legacy.joshuaproject.net/ Two Percent Threshold,” Southwestern Jour- 2015 Joshua Project. Accessed Novem- 57, no. 1 (2014): 22. people-selector.php. nal of Theology 128 ber 23, 2015. http://joshuaproject. 106 See http://www.worldchristiandata- Winter and Koch, “Finishing the net/resources/articles/how_many_ base.org/wcd/. Task,” 534. people_groups_are_there. 107 See http://joshuaproject.net. References Hubbard, David A. 108 See http://peoplegroups.org. 1967 “Missions and Technology.” In 109 Barrett, David One Race, One Gospel, One Task, Todd Johnson, email message to 1986 Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Volume II, World Congress on author, February 8, 2016. Analysis of Six Thousand Con- Evangelism, Berlin 1966, Official 110 This chart taken from “Global temporary Religious Movements. Reference Volumes, Papers and People Group Lists: An Overview,” Joshua Nairobi: Oxford University Press. Reports, edited by Carl F. H.

International Journal of Frontier Missiology Dave Datema 71

Henry and W. Stanley Mooney- ______. clude-adherents-when-defining- ham, 525–526. Minneapolis, MN: 1983 Diffusion of Innovations.New unreached.pdf. World Wide Publications. York: Free Press. Winter, Ralph D. and Bruce Koch Johnstone, Patrick ______. 2009 “Finishing the Task: The Un- 2011 The Future of the Global Church. 1995 Diffusion of Innovations. New reached Peoples Challenge.” In Colorado Springs, CO: Global York: Free Press. Perspectives on the World Christian Mapping International. ______. Movement, 4th Ed., edited by “Joshua Project 2000” 2003 Diffusion of Innovations. New Ralph D. Winter and Steven C. 2015 AD2000 and Beyond. Accessed York: Free Press. Hawthorne, 531–546. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library. September 27, 2015. http://www. Schreck, Harley and David Barrett ad2000.org/joshovr.htm. 1987 Unreached Peoples: Clarifying the Winter, Ralph D. Kaplan, Seth Task. Monrovia, CA: MARC and 1978 Penetrating the Last Frontiers. Pasa- 2015 “Somalia’s Complex Clan Dy- Birmingham, AL: New Hope dena, CA: William Carey Library. namics.” Fragile States Resource Publishing Co. ______. Center. Accessed April 20, Scribner, Dan 1981 “Frontier Mission Perspec- 2015. http://www.fragilestates. 1995 “Joshua Project Step 1: Identify- tives.” In Seeds of Promise: World org/2012/01/10/somalias-com- ing the Peoples Where Church Consultation on Frontier Missions, plex-clan-dynamics/. Planting Is Most Needed.” Edinburgh ’80, edited by Allan Keen, Sam and Robert Bellah Mission Frontiers, Nov–Dec. Starling, 45–99. Pasadena, CA: 1976 “Civil Religion: The Sacred and Accessed September 27, 2015. William Carey Library. the Political in American Life.” http://www.missionfrontiers.org/ ______. Psychology Today, January. issue/article/joshua-project-step- 1982 “Facing the Frontiers.” Mission Padilla, C. Rene 1-identifying-the-peoples-where- Frontiers, Oct–Nov. http://www. 1982 “The Unity of the Church and the church-planting-is-most. missionfrontiers.org/issue/article/ Homogeneous Unit Principle.” “Somalia – Clans” facing-the-frontiers. International Bulletin of Mission- 2015 GlobalSecurity. Last modified April ______. ary Research, January: 23–30. 8, 2015. Accessed April 20, 2015. 1984 “Unreached Peoples: The De- Parsons, Greg H. http://www.globalsecurity.org/ velopment of the Concept.” In 2015 Lausanne ’74: Ralph D. Winter’s military/world/somalia/clans.htm. Reaching the Unreached: The Old- Writings, with Responses. Pasa- Wagner, C. Peter and Edward R. Dayton, eds. New Challenge, edited by Harvie M. Conn, 17–43. Phillipsburg, dena, CA: William Carey Library. 1978 Unreached Peoples ’79: The Chal- NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pentecost, Edward C. lenge of the Church’s Unfinished Publishing Company. 1974 Reaching the Unreached: An Business. Elgin, IL: David C. Introductory Study on Develop- Cook Publishing Co. ______. ing an Overall Strategy for World ______. 1984 “Unreached Peoples: What Are They and Where Are They?” In Evangelization. South Pasadena, 1980 Unreached Peoples ’80: The Chal- Reaching the Unreached: The Old- CA: William Carey Library. lenge of the Church’s Unfinished New Challenge, edited by Harvie Reapsome, James Business. Elgin, IL: David C. M. Conn, 44–60. Phillipsburg, 1984 “Definitions and Identities: Cook Publishing Company. NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Samples from the Ongoing ______. Publishing Company. Discussion.” In Reaching the Un- 1981 Unreached Peoples ’81: The Chal- ______. reached: The Old-New Challenge, lenge of the Church’s Unfinished 2008 Frontiers in Mission: Discover- edited by Harvie M. Conn, 61–73. Business, With Special Section on ing and Surmounting Barriers to Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and the Peoples of Asia. Elgin, IL: Da- the Missio Dei. Pasadena, CA: Reformed Publishing Company. vid C. Cook Publishing Company. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute William Carey International ______. University Press. 2015 “Minority Rules: Scientists 1982 Unreached Peoples ’82: The Chal- Xie, J., S. Sreenivasan, G. Korniss, W. Discover Tipping Point for the lenge of the Church’s Unfinished Zhang, C. Lim, and B. Szymanski Spread of Ideas.” Association Business, Focus on Urban Peoples. for Computing Machinery. Last Elgin, IL: David C. Cook Pub- 2011 “Social Consensus Through the modified July 26, 2011. Accessed lishing Company. Influence of Committed Mi- September 27, 2015. http://cacm. norities.” Physical Review E 84, Webster, Warren 011130, 2011, 1. acm.org/careers/115120-mi- 1984 “New Directions for Western nority-rules-scientists-discover- Missions.” In Unreached Peoples tipping-point-for-the-spread-of- ’84: The Future of World Evangeli- ideas/fulltext. zation, edited by Edward Dayton Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker and Samuel Wilson, 131–138. 1971 Communication of Innovations: A Monrovia, CA: MARC. Cross-cultural Approach, Second “Why Include Adherents when Defining Edition. New York: Free Press. Unreached?” Rogers, Everett M. 2015 Joshua Project. Accessed April 1962 Diffusion of Innovations. New 20, 2015. https://joshuaproject. York: Free Press. net/assets/media/articles/why-in-

33:2 Summer 2016