Women in Missions

I ran across this quote today:

For most of history, Anonymous was a woman.

Virginia Wolf

Whether this is quote is correctly attributed or not (or even whether it is true), it did set me to reflecting on how at least in modern history - and probably in a great deal of history - much of Christian mission's activities were accomplished by women, even if their history has not been written.

Today, if we exclude the percentage of missionaries who are couples (equal share, 50/50, male/female), and look at the singles, single women in mission (and in the church generally) are known to largely (and in some agencies, vastly) outnumber single men.

This means that the majority of Protestant missionaries are women.

Further, if we contemplate Roman Catholic missionaries, we often think of well known missionary orders like Franciscans, Dominicans, Jesuits, etc. - and so we think of the stereotypical monk under vows of celibacy. But the reality is, nuns outnumber monks by about 7-to-1: in 2017, worldwide, there were 753,400 women and 191,800 men in 'the consecrated life.'

I think any mission needs to contemplate what it means to mostly consist of women. Do we write their histories and their stories? Do we consider their needs and their safety? Do we give them authority and let them lead?

Urbanization probably higher than 55%

The United Nations estimates that the world's population is over 55% urbanized (Link). When you dive deep into the statistics, you find they are messy: countries self report on urbanization, and different countries have different methods for calculating it.

Researchers using high-resolution satellite imagery estimate and a standard algorithm challenge this and instead estimate the world is over 84% urban already.

Out of curiosity, I checked my own district survey, which has the world's population broken out by provinces and districts. For each province I have the population and area in square kilometers. According to Google, 1 square kilometer = 0.3 square miles, or ~240 acres.

All of the provinces together equate to about 6.9 billion people. (This is not the 2018 population, I know, but the important thing is the relative ratios.)

Provinces with population densities (population / total area) of more than 100 people per square kilometers (or 100 per 250 acres, or 1 per ~2 acres) have a total population of 4.8 billion, or 72% of the world's population.

Provinces with population densities of more than 1,000 per square kilometer have a total population of 866 million. There are 330 such provinces. These are mostly cities. The most densely populated province in my database, right now, is Macau, with a density of over 57,000 per square kilometer.

Focusing on high-density populations can be a strategic way of penetrating a population, because people will naturally move to more-densely populated places (urbanized areas) for work, etc. And these figures seem to confirm that the world is generally even more urbanized, already, than the "floor" figure of 55%.

How fast movements need to grow

I have been frequently asked, "what size counts as a movement" and "how fast does a movement grow"? The common definition I use for a movement is: "consistently reaching four generations of church planting in short periods of time." Obviously, this leaves a little ambiguity: movements are not machines, made up of precisely engineered pieces of metal, but rather structures like forests, made up of organically growing groups of people.

This week, however, I heard a suggestion of size from a global movement coach that seemed to fit. He noted that it takes some time to get to four generations: often years. Once four generations is reached, "most movements" typically add another generation each year.

At first, this might sound as though it would take a long time to double: four generations, adding one generation per year, would take four years to double. However, we are not interested in the number of generations, but rather in the number of believers, groups, and churches. Disciples who make disciples leads to exponential growth; groups that multiply groups enhance this further. If each generation is larger than the last (and they will be, if church planting is done in multiple streams) equates to multiplying growth that takes up a larger percentage of a given population.

Let's use some numbers to illustrate this. Assume a movement that is a precisely engineered machine (just for the sake of the illustration). Each group averages 14 people, and each group plants three new groups in a period of one year.

Growth is very slow at first: months can go by with no groups and perhaps no believers. The leap between year 3 and year 4 will be easily remarked upon; the leap between year 4 and 5 even more so. Between year 7 and year 8, the movement would become very difficult to track.

How fast things can change (and how difficult it can be to track) is readily obvious from just trying to chart such growth:

... only two strands instead of 3 off the original host, and only goes down 5 generations...

This is not just an abstract exercise. The original spreadsheet above has the appearance of an arm-chair theoretical exercise, but we now have dozens of case studies of movements, many of which are either somewhat faster or slightly slower than this growth curve.

Let's do something different. What if the movement is a little messier? Let's say that only 60% of the churches make another church. Those numbers would be:

This is a much slower growth pattern, obviously, but it would still significantly impact any single district of ~100,000 population, and be closing in on 1% of a million-population province. In some unreached areas, that would be a game changer.

The point: a movement doesn't have to add another four generations in a single span of time (e.g. a year to two years); it needs only to add one. That is a huge triumph: adding another generation (e.g. each church in the furthest out generation plants 2 to 3 new house groups) each year would lead to massive doubling, and in one generation of people (~20 years) could change the course of a nation.

Christian distribution: Global South vs Global North

Over the weekend, the Center for the Study of Global Christianity shared this graph:

A few interesting things about this charge:

  • It's 0 to 100%, so it shows the share of all Christians in each of the regions.
  • Note how the "heyday" of Christianity as a Western/"Global North" religion peaked in 1500; by 1970 the shift to the Global South had been almost complete, and by 2050 it will be nearly complete.
  • While this chart shows %s, it's being driven by population. The population center for the world is in the Global South, and this won't change any time in the balance of this century at least. Christianity already claims a substantial portion of the population of the North; additional significant gains (of the kind that could alter this chart) just aren't possible. The population of the South is several times larger than the North, and Christianity has only made a small dent there: there is a much "bigger ocean" of potential Christians. The North can't get ahead.
  • That said, what this chart doesn't show is the cultural influence of Northern Christianity. So far, what cross-cultural influence there is of one form of Christianity on another seems to me to be largely Northern/Western Christianity influencing the rest of the world. We have yet to see significant broad cultural influence from non-Western forms of Christianity in the West. That said, there are already some indicators of this influence: there are outlier points where Africans or Asians have significant evangelistic impact in Europe or America, for example.
  • While the South isn't yet having an impact on the North, it seems to me from this chart that eventually, the balance of probability is that it will. It will be interesting to see what form this takes. For example, China's government has a push to "Sinify" Chinese Christianity. If it sees a form develop that the government is happy with, what might it do to push that form of Christianity into the world? (Admittedly, that's a long stretch, but it demonstrates some extreme possibilities over a century's time.)

Several people have asked about comments

Several people have asked about comments. The theme I use on this blog, typically, is P2, and its commenting system is really not the easiest to integrate with Twitter, Facebook, etc. I'm working on getting this ironed out this morning. I may end up having to permanently switch themes (I've explored other themes, but often come back to P2) in order to have a better commenting system.

Thanks for bearing with me.

The Time it Takes

“You’re not called and commissioned to attend a service once a week. You’re called to make disciples.” ~@ToddAdkins Yesterday on social media I ran across a podcast that decried what I think is a "straw man" argument: that missionaries were being pulled from "more reached" areas and sent to "less reached" areas - before the more-reached areas were adequately reached/evangelized/finished/trained. Worse, in the "less reached" areas, these missionaries/agencies were practicing a kind of "lift-your-hand" evangelism, seeking rapid converts and then leaving them without adequate training or preparation.

While I appreciate the passion of the speaker, whose primary concern was that people have adequate training and that theological error be corrected, in my experience this "problem" is just not the case. I don't pretend to speak for every agency out there, but I know numerous agencies and hundreds of leaders representing thousands of workers seeking to start movements amongst the unreached. None of those would go for a "lift your hand" kind of "come to Jesus" moment. They are all intent on the intense ongoing discipleship of workers.

The primary nuance of "movement" thinking is that believers aren't asked to wait to share their faith or make other disciples until they are somehow "fully trained." Instead, they are simply asked to share what they know with others in their circle: to be a witness now. "Disciple-making," in this context, can be as simple as sharing the Bible story I read this morning with someone else over lunch time, and the two of us thinking through how we're going to obey the story today, tomorrow, and this week, and who we are further going to share it with. It is the living, breathing, "walking together" of people in the faith, "one-anothering," holding ourselves accountable to each other, praying for each other, etc. It is 2 Timothy 2:2 in action: what we receive, we pass on to others.

Missionaries can't teach everyone, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't teach anyone. (Or evangelize, or disciple, or...). The missionary task among the unreached is about setting in motion the processes that lead to all hearing, sharing, discipling, training, pastoring, teaching, etc.

That task takes a long time. Recently, for one of Beyond's discipleship nuggets, I shared what I called the "13 stages of a missionary career." I'm including the Powerpoint below, because I think it's helpful to highlight just how long, involved, and committed the process of reaching an unreached people group actually is.

Journey Stages: 13 phases (PDF)

Throwing back starfish

Stop me if you've heard this story:

A young girl was walking along a beach upon which thousands of starfish had been washed up during a terrible storm. When she came to each starfish, she would pick it up, and throw it back into the ocean. People watched her with amusement.

She had been doing this for some time when a man approached her and said, “Little girl, why are you doing this? Look at this beach! You can’t save all these starfish. You can’t begin to make a difference!”

The girl seemed crushed, suddenly deflated. But after a few moments, she bent down, picked up another starfish, and hurled it as far as she could into the ocean. Then she looked up at the man and replied, “Well, I made a difference to that one!”

This story - or rather, this particular version of the story - is fairly well known. I think we like it - especially in this version - because it contrasts "cynical old" with "innocent young" and claims that every little thing we do (no matter how seemingly hopeless) matters. But there are actually two debates in the story:

  • whether acting actually matters
  • whether what we are doing is enough.

The second insidiously slips in.

The most obvious question of the story is whether it's worth it to act at all. The cynical old man thinks not: if you can't save them all, why bother to save one? The innocence of the child says the value of the one is enough to act. But the question we must then ask is: is it enough to save one by one? Shouldn't we get better at saving starfish?

Is it better to spend one's time doing "the simple, innocent things of life" - the "most that we can" - (e.g. throwing starfish back out to sea), or is it better to grow our skills, increase our network of laborers, and get better at saving starfish? Is it better to be the innocent, simple child ("become as a child"?) or to "professionalize"?

This is not a "should we act or not" question, but rather a "good to great" question.

Another version of the story adds this to the end:

The old man looked at the girl inquisitively and thought about what she had done and said. Inspired, he joined the little girl in throwing starfish back into the sea. Soon others joined, and all the starfish were saved.

This adaptation speaks to the idea of inspiration leading to exponential growth. But again, note how in the story it is the "innocence" and "simplicity" of the child which inspires the old man, and in some nameless way leads to a sudden party on the beach.

I appreciate innocence and simplicity. However, big, complicated problems don't really work this way. You can't share the Gospel with millions, or clothe the hungry, feed the poor, care for the orphans, eradicate diseases, etc., "one by one." Scalable strategies that reach millions require strategies that are--yes!--simple in execution yet infinitely scalable. The reality is, you can teach someone to share the Gospel or hold a Discovery Bible Study or make disciples in fairly simple ways. But getting tens of thousands of people do it is far more complex than the simple individual action itself. The higher you scale, the more complex the interplay of "simple actions."

Throwing Starfish one by one is all well and perhaps good, and makes a difference for the one - but we must admit that in the context of all the starfish, "it's not great."

This is the insidious bit. "It's not great, but it makes a difference to one," says the innocent child.

We equate I can't reach all the starfish in the world (physical impossibility) with I can't reach all the starfish on this beach (logistical challenge).

We equate what is a difficult task with the larger impossibility, and we fall back to one-by-one: "what I perceive that I can do makes a difference."

There is a middle ground between "one by one" and "you can't save them all." Unfortunately we can use this story as an excuse to avoid getting better and doing bigger things.

But this story gets stranger yet. The version we know is a stripped down and simplified retelling of a larger essay by Loren Eiseley, in a book published in 1979. I don't have the original book, but I've found a large part of the story online. It's an odd, tortured, near hopeless meditation on issues of death and the part we play. At the end of it, the poet becomes a "star thrower" himself--but more out of a desire for his own salvation rather than out of love for starfish:

I flung and flung again while all about us roared the insatiable waters of death, the burning sun, for it was men as well as starfish that we sought to save, a thrower who loved not man, but life.

In this story, throwing the starfish is a metaphor similar to "raging against the night."

I wish we would stop using (or at least hesitate to use) stories like these, which have their roots in hopelessness. The best moral of the story seems to be, "What I'm doing makes a difference to at least one person, and that's enough." The worst lesson of the story is, "Your efforts will make no visible difference against the onrushing darkness, but are an action of some kind of mystical faith, without much certainty, thrown in a protest against death."

Jesus calls us to follow him in obedience, and promises the whole world can hear the Good News if we do so. He tells us to "lift up our eyes to the harvest" and to "pray for more workers." We don't have to be alone on the beach, moving from starfish to starfish, from man to man and woman to woman and child to child in some hopeless beating of our heads against the wind. We have a promise of eternal life and Jesus' call to make disciples of others - to make fishers of mankind, who will make fishers of mankind, who will make fishers of mankind - an exponentially exploding Kingdom-party spreading throughout the world. There is no shame or loss of innocence in thinking bigger than a single starfish saved.

Are Muslim birth rates faster than Christian birth rates

Globally, Pew Research notes that "babies born to Muslims will begin to outnumber Christian births by 2035":

This top headline gets a lot of press. What is less looked at are the drivers of rising Muslim birth rates.

In an average year, Christians and Muslims both have about the same number of babies worldwide: ~210 to 220 million. Christians are often the majority in "older" population regions, however, and their average age is older: there are a lot more deaths among Christians than Muslims. In an average year, Christians have about ~100 million deaths, vs Islam's ~60 million. This means the net demographic increase for Muslims is much higher. Any upward tick in the Muslim birth rate will, therefore, have sizable effects.

Both religions are being impacted by regional trends:

  • In Europe, where the number of Muslims is low and the number of Christians is high, Christianity follows the European demographic trend of falling populations, while Muslims are benefiting from immigration and high birth rates among first-generation Muslims. Later generations of Muslims in multi-generational families see falling birth rates. Muslims do not have a high enough birth+immigration+conversion rate to "take over" the continent, despite scary videos to the contrary.
  • In Asia-Pacific, both Islam and Christianity are seeing falling demographic growth rates as the population as a whole sees declining AGR. This area was a high-growth region for Islam up until now, but the changing pattern will reduce this.
  • North America and Latin America both see stagnant demographic growth rates among both Christian and Muslim populations.
  • Middle East/North Africa, too, sees falling demographic growth rates: most populations in the MENA region are seeing crashing growth rates and emigration out, and conversion in the region has largely suffered due to wars and rising persecution (although there are numerous outlier situations of conversion movements etc).
  • The big story is Subsaharan Africa: where rapidly rising population growth is impacting both Islam and Christianity. As it happens, for a variety of factors, demographic growth in Subsaharan Africa is leveling off for Christians, while continuing to increase for Muslims.

Unfortunately the two reports on which the data is based, "The future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010-2050" and "The Changing Global Religious Landscape" are somewhat limited reports. While they explore demographic patterns in detail, they (1) in my estimation seriously underestimate % Christian in some places (such as China, estimated at 5% Christian), and (2) seriously underestimate the role of "religious switching" (conversion). The reports state they modeled "religious switching" in only 70 countries; they do not "model" (count) religious switching in either India or China. This is a significant flaw: the population of Christians in both places has grown primarily through switching over the past several decades. Further, the report goes on to estimate the growth with and without switching, and concludes switching makes no appreciable difference (but I doubt this outcome because of the flawed methodology of only modeling switching in 70 countries). (I also find it humorous that Pew's "Future of World Religions" report, on p. 187, says "Since religious change previously has never been projected on this scale..."--completely ignoring the work of the World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database, which projected religious populations for every country and every religion to 2050 nearly two decades ago).

So, while this "headline" on Muslim vs Christian births gets a lot of press, I'm not giving it a lot of credibility. The numbers between birth rates are so close and the factors driving them--and their calculation--are so variable and uncertain, that I think the headline has just as good a chance of being untrue as true.

International Day for the Unreached

Today is the first International Day for the Unreached. See the official website hereSee the live event here. Beyond has put together a resource page here, which includes a pair of new videos (I think this one is really powerful), links to articles and books that may be useful.

Kent Parks (CEO, Beyond) and I were on Point of Network to talk about the day - you can watch our interview here (now in full video!)

For more information about the unreached, you can search this website for the phrase. I use it a lot.

Eric D on the Traveling Team talks about the "hijacking" of unreached: how it's used for lots of things it's not intended for

Globalcast Video: Pastor Chris Lazo talks about the opportunity and what the church should do about it

Lausanne post: https://www.lausanne.org/content/lga/2017-05/finishing-the-remaining-29-of-world-evangelization

Ywam Organic least reached video.

Here are two Bible.com reading plans on missions/unreached:

Missiographics

Unreached/Underserved: https://missionexus.org/top-40-underserved-and-unreached-places/

Are we getting anywhere in mission? https://missionexus.org/are-we-getting-anywhere-in-mission/

God’s Big Heart for the Least: https://missionexus.org/gods-big-heart-for-the-least/

Great Commission quotes: https://missionexus.org/great-quotes-on-the-great-commission/

 

Perhaps the key thing to do on this day is to join with other believers in prayer, but also to use this day to make people at our church aware of the day - so that next year, an even greater participation can happen.

And, we can build networks of people working on this. In fact, this blog post is in large part the beneficiary of such a network: many of the links were recommended to me by my friend Jon Hirst. He is a Generous Mind.

Is Christianity growing or shrinking in individual countries

I looked at the projected growth rates of Christianity by country based on data from the World Christian Encyclopedia/World Christian Database. To determine whether Christianity is growing or shrinking in individual countries, we need to look at two factors:

  • the population's annual change, which is the net of: births - deaths + immigrants - emigrants
  • the Christian population's annual change, which is the net of: births - deaths + immigrants - emigrants + converts - defectors.

Let's consider a number of scenarios (I won't list all of the specific countries because the data is proprietary to WCE/WCD, and also the list would be too long):

1. Pop+/C+/Pop Greater. This is by far the most common scenario. In 154 countries, the net change in population and Christianity are both positive (both are adding people), but the population's annual change is greater. The largest example is India: the population is adding 61.6 million per year, and Christianity is adding about 1.4 million per year. The exact rates of change can determine whether % Christian increase or shrinks; in a little over half the countries, % Christian is projected to decrease.

2. Pop+/C-/Pop Greater. In 36 countries, the population is growing while Christianity is shrinking. The largest example is Turkey, where the population is growing by 20,000 per year, while Christianity is shrinking by about 20,000. The difference between +20,000 and -20,000 is actually 40,000, and this speed difference will greatly shrink the % Christian in the country. The cause: the conversion rate in Turkey is greatly outstripped by the number of Turkish believers who defect or immigrate.

3. Pop+/C+/C greater. In 12 countries, both population and Christianity are growing, but Christianity is growing faster. Zambia is the largest example: its population is adding a net of 549,000 yearly, while its Christian population is adding a net of 552,000 yearly. This is a very slim lead, but it always leads to an increase in % Christian.

4. Pop-/C+/C greater. In 5 countries, the population is shrinking but Christianity is growing. The largest example is Belarus, where the population is shrinking by -17,000 yearly, but Christianity is growing by +42,000. This will lead to a significant increase in % Christian. Since Belarus is already largely Christian (Orthodox), it means the high % Christian will be stable and grow. Likely some mix of conversion and immigration is causing this.

5. Pop-/C-/C Greater. In 14 countries, both the population and Christianity are suffering net losses, but Christianity's loss is less. Russia is the largest example: the population is shrinking by -128,000 per year, and Christianity by about -100,000 per year. Some mix of deaths, conversions and immigrations is at play. the result: in most instances, the country's % Christian will grow.

6. Pop-/C-/P Greater. In 13 countries, a similar situation--population and Christianity are suffering net losses, but Christianity's loss is greater. Italy is the largest example. It's losing 88,000 per year from its population, while Christianity is losing -222,000 per year. Obviously, there is a significant loss to defection. In these scenarios, % Christian always declines by a significant amount.

Understanding the exact scenario of growth, and the reasons for it, can inform strategy. In scenario 1, for example, there is growth in Christianity--it's just not fast enough. That's an issue of scale. In scenario 5, there is also growth, but it's being impacted by other factors (aging, death, immigration, demographic crash, etc). One shouldn't assume that just because the church is growing that the strategy is appropriate; nor should we assume that just because the church is shrinking, the current strategies are wrong.

 

Changes in speed of religious growth

Globally, the 2018 Status of Global Christianity reports Christianity is growing at 1.3%, outstripping the global population growth rate of 1.2%. Christianity is the third fastest growing religion in terms of annual growth rate: Islam at 1.94% and Hinduism at 1.33% are both faster in terms of annual growth rate. However, the times are changing, largely driven by changing demographics (nearly all religions gain ten times or more new members through births than through conversion, and Christianity is no exception to this). Here are the changing annual growth rates for the periods of 2000-2018 and 2018-2025:

2000 2018 %AGR 2025 %AGR
Pop 2000-18 6,126,622,000 7,597,176,000 1.20% 8,141,661,000 0.99%
Christian 1,986,537,000 2,506,835,000 1.30% 2,728,435,000 1.22%
Islam 1,288,083,000 1,820,926,000 1.94% 2,049,031,000 1.70%
Hindus 822,690,000 1,043,980,000 1.33% 1,109,602,000 0.87%
Buddhists 450,148,000 532,805,000 0.94% 566,329,000 0.88%
Chinese folk 427,836,000 431,145,000 0.04% 418,869,000 -0.41%
Ethnorelig 223,544,000 267,027,000 0.99% 267,396,000 0.02%
Agnostics 655,867,000 701,060,000 0.37% 707,416,000 0.13%
Atheists 135,975,000 137,393,000 0.06% 132,234,000 -0.55%

This is further clarified by looking at the raw number of people added per year for each of the major religions:

2000-2018 2018-2025
Pop 2000-18 +81.6m +77.7m
Christians +28.9m +31.6m
Muslims +29.6m +32.5m
Hindus +12.3m +9.4m
Buddhists +4.6m +4.8m
Chinese folk +0.2m -1.7m
Ethnoreligionists +2.4m <0.1m
Agnostics +2.5m +1.0m
Atheists +0.1m -0.7m

Right now, Hinduism is second fastest in terms of annual growth rate (AGR), but third in terms of the number of people added per year. The AGR growth rate is a bit of an anomaly. By 2025, Islam and Christianity will be #1 and #2 both in terms of % AGR and raw population gains.

Now and through 2050, in any given year, Christianity and Islam are responsible for more than half of the religious growth in the world; with Hinduism, nearly all of it. The world is getting progressively more religious, and mostly either Christian or Muslim (the vast majority of Hindus are in South Asia alone). Agnostics and atheists may be increasing in some parts of the world, but globally they are losing "market share."

The top position, both in terms of numbers added and annual growth rate, belongs to Islam--but by the thinnest of margins. Those margins are likely to be maintained through 2050, however.

Further discussion: who is growing faster: Islam, Christianity or Evangelicals

A simple recruiting/mobilization interview

  1. Invitation: "Tell me your story"
  2. Gentle challenge: "So, if I could wave a magic wand and solve all the problems of getting there, would you want to be on the field?"
  3. Four areas we probe to discover what kind of calling they have:
    1. Would you say you're more interested in a short-term involvement - a contribution you can make now - or a long-term involvement on the field? How they define long-term isn't as important as the self-declared choice between these two ideas.
    2. Would you say you're interested in blessing more unreached peoples and places? Again, how they define unreached isn't as important in the early stages, although it becomes critical to be on the same page later on.
    3. What do you think about rapidly-multiplying movements? Are you interested in (or committed to) those? to seeing "everyone" reached?
    4. What about ___agency X___? (In my case, would you be interested in serving with Beyond?)
  4. What's the biggest challenge/question/issue that you face in pursuing your missions commitment?

This last question is the big one early on. Listening is the key skill: discover the question, help them solve it, and then repeat this whole process if (with the solution) they move further down the road.

Note how there is very little argument in this interview. People who are argued or persuaded onto the field, I theorize, won't last as long on the field (if they actually get there) than people who discover their calling, and who are helped/mentored onto the field.

Ice cream or chores

God knows how to give good gifts to His children, just as fathers do. But fathers know not every "good gift" is thought "good" by children.

It's not all peaches and ice cream: sometimes God gives us vegetables and hard chores.

"Building character" isn't always the same as how we define prosperity. And God's "good things" for others may result in some discomfort or pain for us (short-term, at least in the light of eternity).

 

What keeps us from Decisions

What keeps us from Decisions - for example, "Should I commit to long-term mission" - isn't a lack of ability to make a decision. It's the decisions we have made (past Decisions) or the Decisions we might make or want to make.

Many (most?) of these decisions come out of Defaults or Desires.

  • Example of a Default: Our culture, parents, peers, etc., told us we need to pursue a degree at a big-name, pricey college, and we came out loaded up with Debt. Now the next step in our "career path" is obvious - a high-paying job to pay of the debt.
  • Example of a Desire: We want to get married, settle down, have a family - and the most likely "options" for that are here, in our town, and aren't interested in going overseas.

We can decry the Defaults and Desires that lead to choices that deny the Decision we'd like to see people make. But that won't get them to change their Decisions.

Instead, I suggest we need to help people engage with past decisions and their existing desires, and see how these might still "work" in the context of mission.

If people don't want to commit to 20 years, then let's frame a mission career as a succession of 2-year "terms," for example.

If people are afraid of not finding a spouse, let's talk about point to successful courtships and marriages.

If people are afraid for their children, let's talk about the good and bad of children growing up on the field.

Don't give into the temptation to denigrate someone's desires or decisions.

Hubs

Beyond is working on a strategy based on the idea of "hubs". In brief, this strategy is:

  1. Go to a "phase 1" hub - learn to make multiplying disciples in your home culture. (This doesn't necessarily mean in the United States). P1 usually lasts about 15 weeks or so.
  2. Sign up with Beyond (this is our application phase): onboarding, ministry partner development, and everything else that happens before you go to the field.
  3. Transition to the field, "land" at a "phase 2" hub
  4. "Phase 2" - primarily language & culture acquisition for first year or two (or longer, depending), while serving with a cross-cultural strategy to engage a people group. This is where you take what you learned about DMM/making disciples in phase 1, and add the cross-cultural component.
  5. Once you are finished with Phase 2, you can decide either to continue serving that hub, or pioneer something new - a new strategy team engaging an unreached/underserved/unengaged/pioneer people group or city.

The "hub" strategy is not new. You can see echoes of this in many existing agencies, as well as many historical ones. (There are dangers--the stereotypical "missionary compound" was a base or hub, but did not multiply out.)

What makes us different: we're working on starting movements. What's critically important about hubs:

  1. the ability to learn-and-do solves the balance between too long a time in training ("years in training") and getting to the field without any training at all. Just-in-time training means you get what you need, when you need it, plus ongoing coaching and mentoring while you implement.
  2. the idea that hubs are constantly raising up teams to send them out to new unreached places helps us avoid the "evil Matthew effect" by intentionally designing times with hubs to be short-lived, and the optimum goal to be the sending of strategy teams to new places.
  3. solves the calling problem incrementally: most people, when they first sign on, have only the most nebulous idea of where they want to end up. We need to be flexible in our exact missionary focus. Most people tend to know they want to be in this region, not that one; but out of 16,000 people groups (more, perhaps, if we count "dialects" that really are people groups themselves), how can you know which specific one you will be focused on 5 years from now?
  4. solves the time commitment problem: you can go and serve in a hub for 2 to 4 years, learn a language, experience a culture, make a contribution--and if you come to the conclusion that "missions isn't your thing," you can return home having made that contribution. It's an easier "off-ramp." We make much of how the modern generation isn't ready to commit the rest of their lives to missions; we need to engage with that and offer commitment timeframes and strategic objectives for those time frames that feed into an overall strategy.

(Want to talk to me about hubs and Beyond? Email jdl@beyond.org or justin@justinlong.org).

Read more: this post by Steve Smith in Mission Frontiers, also talking about hubs

The Matthew effect in missions

In business literature there is a well-known effect called "the Matthew effect"; it especially impacts viral startups. The rule is taken from the parable of the servants: he who is profitable in little things will get even more. In secular terms it translates to "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer." It's also known as Accumulated Advantage. Unfortunately we see this effect in missions, too. Whenever agencies, churches or denominations decide to send teams on one of two factors:

  • We send to where there are existing teams that meet certain criteria that are reinforced by the arrival of additional teams
  • We send to where there is perceived response ("the fields are white unto harvest")

... the Accumulated advantage effect can set in.

If we, for example, send teams to where there are strong teams, then the strongest teams tend to attract more teams, and weaker teams get less or nothing. Eventually all of our teams will clump in certain areas and places outside will have no access. This is in fact what is happening now.

If we send to where there is response, we tend to build on existing efforts. More effort yields more response. We don't hear about response elsewhere and make the mistake of thinking other places are therefore unresponsive. This reinforces the cycle: go where the wind is blowing.

This is a critical mistake that in part has driven us to where we are now and exacerbated the problem. Even in work among the Unreached, a lot of workers are clumped into specific areas. If we only go to the places where teams are strong and things are popping we never send teams to those who have no access.

We don't know if they might be responsive if we never go and find out. Are the Luri, Qashqai, Saudis, Uzbeks, etc truly unresponsive--or have they never had a chance?

This is an "Evil Matthew effect," so to speak.

We need people like Philip (who went as the Spirit drove him), Peter (in response to the dream), Paul (Macedonian call), probably others like Thomas (Church history says India)... if we are only going to where there are existing teams how can we follow Paul's model: "It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else's foundation."

If we are going to see the task completed, we have to break out of where our existing teams are, and brave the risk to go beyond.

Globalization, Diaspora, and where the unreached are

Yes, the world is becoming more globalized. Diaspora (refugees, migrants, students, business people, tourists, etc) are in lots of places. The UN estimates there are over 250 million migrants in the world. BUT: most of the world's non-Christians are still found outside the West. (And the unevangelized are by definition non-Christians, so most of the unevangelized/unreached will be where the non-Christians are.)

https://twitter.com/CSGC/status/978329234002214914

Over 2 billion--nearly 3 billion--non-Christians are found in India and China alone. These regions are estimated at half-or-more unreached/unevangelized. This is where the bulk of the remaining task is found.

That's why I still focus on North Africa / West Africa / Asia.

Missionaries vs Evangelists: A (Potential) Category Mistake

I recently ran across this fascinating story about Yuan Longping, an 87-year-old Chinese scientist who "is developing a new high-yield strain of rice that can grow in saltwater paddies." Aside from the potential impact of his work, what's fascinating for my purposes is this: insofar as I can tell, he's not a farmer--he's a scientist. He's not working to be a better farmer--e.g. to better use existing knowledge of how to farm rice where it's always been farmed. Instead, he's taking what works now in one environment, and working to adapt it into another. It is, in my opinion, a common yet significant category mistake to confuse missionaries with evangelists. We do it a lot. Whenever we say "I'm a missionary to my neighborhood," what we usually mean is "I'm an evangelist" or "I'm a witness." I wrote about this back in 2014:

The phrase, “I’m called to be a missionary to my city (or job, or neighborhood)” might be a mistake of semantics. Or, might be a very dangerous confession.

To get an idea, let’s consider different “scales of focus.” Someone who sees themselves as…

  • A witness… will tend to be concerned about the representation of Christianity that they give to their co-workers, neighbors, and what not. Many “witnesses” I’ve met are chiefly concerned with learning enough to give a “ready response” when they are asked about their faith.
  • An evangelist… will tend to concern themselves with the person immediately in front of them, to whom they are presenting Good News. I’ve met people who say “I’ve got a gift of evangelism;” they talk about intentionally going door to door, or actively sharing their faith with people they run across (from the checkout girl at the grocery store to people they meet on the job).
  • A pastor… tends to be concerned with the “flock” they are discipling. Pastoral approaches differ, of course, but they lean toward the side of the congregation, and away from the rest of the community. Many pastors will be focused on their church members and the members’ immediate oikos (friends and family).
  • A parish priest… (to use a different, less Protestant term) might be leaning toward the whole of the community, not just his congregation–but still, they will primarily be tending to people who have an affinity with the church.

Now, what about someone who is an “apostle” or a “missionary”? That is someone sent to the community as a whole, and most especially to those who are not yet in the church. The role of the missionary is a strategic role: the calling to actively see to it that everyone in a community has the opportunity to hear the Gospel–not just the people who ask us about the Gospel, or who we “happen to run across” in the course of our normal day, or who darken the doors of the church building. The missionary intentionally makes sure that those especially who are cut off from normal access to Christianity receive time and attention.

Let us not say “I’m a missionary to my city” when we are really saying “I’m called to be a witness” or “an evangelist.” But if we truly are called to be a missionary to our community, then we need to start thinking and acting like it.

The apostolic role is as different from the evangelist as the Chinese scientist is from the Chinese farmer.

Now, in what I am about to say, I am not speaking "a word as from the Lord" nor even necessarily a clear Biblical saying (e.g. chapter and verse). Nevertheless, I do believe it is true, and Biblical.

Let me start by clearly saying: every Christian is called to evangelize and make disciples. Whether you are an apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist, you don't get out of that.

With that understood: I believe the "gifts" - apostle, prophet, pastor, teacher, evangelist - each have different roles in the process of evangelizing and discipling a people.

I tried gardening one year and failed miserably (not a single fruit off any of the plants). My daughter, however, picked up the gardening bug. This year she has planted her own little garden in our backyard. She has plants in garden beds and in pots, and she's loving it. She spent her own money on supplies, hoed out the ground, put in good dirt and planted the seeds, and has watered and weeded and dragged me out to the backyard, thrilled, as little shoots of green came out of the ground. My role has been to encourage, to help identify which bits of green coming up are plants and which are weeds, and to occasionally water the plants when she's out to work. We both have our roles (hers is major, mine is minor right now).

I think this a useful if limited analogy: each gifting has a different "spot" or "stage" or "role" in the process of seeing the Gospel root and spread among a particular place and people. I am reminded of Paul's comment in 1 Corinthians 3: "I planted, and Apollos watered."

Yes, a missionary (apostle) may evangelize or even make disciples from time to time. (I helped her plant a few seeds, but mostly I help with the weeding and watering.) But this is not their primary function. They do these things in the course of their goal/function/objective: the apostolic gifting is a God-given passion to bring the Gospel into a place where it is not, to plant it there and let it take root, so that what grows up (IMHO) are the fruits of the apostolic work of planting the Gospel: prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and more apostles to send to more places. The apostle's job is mostly at the beginning stage: planting the garden.

(My biggest part in my daughter's garden was in fact my own failed garden. My failure was part of the inspiration for her success.)

Pastors, teachers, evangelists - these come at later stages, once the garden is started. (And their work will likely be more fruitful.)

Or, to use the Chinese scientist analogy: the apostle helps get the rice from existing rice paddies into saltwater paddies. Once that's done, other farmers will come along and perfect the farming of rice in saltwater paddies, making it efficient and spreading it and industrializing it.

The local church, once planted, is like "these other farmers." It is primarily the local church--not the apostle--who spreads the Gospel throughout the place once it is planted. The work of the apostle is to see the local church started so that this work can be done.

I love the story of Jesus calling the disciples: "Come, and I'll teach you to be fishers of men." He wasn't calling them to catch more fish. He wasn't going to teach them to be better fishermen. He wasn't calling them to be his assistants while he caught fish, or even while he caught men. He was going to teach them to be fishers-of-men.

Similarly, the apostle must occasionally fish-for-men himself or herself, but the primary job of the apostle is to fish for fishers-of-men.

When we say missionaries need to be better evangelists, or better pastors, or better at social justice, or whatever, I think it is to miss what missionaries ought to be.

  • When we say we are going on a short-term mission trip to share the gospel and win the lost, are we confusing the work of a missionary with that of an evangelist? (Really, should be a short-term evangelism trip?)
  • When we say we are going to be missionaries to our neighborhood - are we speaking of the missionary strategy of planting the Gospel in our community, or do we mean "I'm going to go over and share this tract with my neighbor"?

If you're going to be a missionary to a place, then be a missionary - embrace the strategic aspects. Get yourself a copy of Tradecraft. Think about how everyone in the place will be reached. One missionary couple or team, with a strategic focus, can reach thousands and even tens of thousands - not just their immediate neighbors. Be the missionary God is calling you to be!

The value of limits coupled with the value of diversity

This morning, I ran across this blog post: "I only follow 88 people on Twitter." In it, the author explains why he only follows 88 people, how he came to the number, and the benefits of doing so.

Essentially: the more people you follow, the fewer of any of them you'll see.

Limits enable value choices and the power of curation. If you could pick up everything in the grocery store, there would be a lot of junk in the midst of the good stuff. Imposing limits on yourself is an exercise in self-discipline that lets you express your values (what's important) and keep the junk out of your life.

However, at the same time, it's important within the scope of the limits to have some diversity. If everyone you listen to is just like you, you'll never be challenged and grow.

I've been consistently trying different approaches to Twitter. I've followed lots of people, and I've followed very few. I can say that the fewer I follow, the better the return for my time. I use lists to keep track of people I don't follow on a daily basis, around certain topics.

I'm not into social media for the sporadic dopamine hit of mining through a lot of dirt to find diamonds; I want my social media to be more valuable than that. By reducing the number of people I follow, I actually increase my chances of finding items that I'm going to star/like, and that might eventually flow into my research or into the Weekly Roundup.

Try it: cut 10 people from your follow list. Or, go for the gusto, and try reducing your follow list by 10%. Or, a big milestone: cut it to 150 (I'm not there yet, but that's Dunbar's Number).

How would you make those choices, and would the value you get from social media increase?