Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Justin Long 3:45 pm on April 11, 2018 Permalink  

    Projecting Cluster Populations to 2050 

    Joshua Project organizes People Groups into Clusters. Whereas there are thousands of people groups, there are only about 255 clusters. These clusters of groups are related to each other, and generally fall into one of three categories: a cluster that’s nearly all one group (e.g. Koreans), a group with a very large majority group and a few small minority groups (e.g. Turkic), and a cluster that’s made up of lots of small groups somewhat related to each other.

    For each cluster, I calculated the portion of the population of that cluster’s constituent groups in each of the various UN regions. I then grabbed the UN region’s population in 2025 and 2050, and calculated what the Cluster’s population would be if it’s percentage of the region remained the same (this is a big assumption, but it’s a doable initial one). This helps us to see which clusters generally get bigger or remain the same or smaller, based on fluctuations in regional populations.

    The result, for the least-reached clusters, is the following. It’s interesting to see where the remaining task could get bigger, and where it might even shrink.

    PeopleCluster LR TOTAL 2015 TOTAL 2025 TOTAL 2050
    Aceh of Sumatra Y 4,346,000 4,805,146 6,050,321
    Afar Y 3,136,000 4,134,919 9,309,380
    Aimaq Y 1,643,000 1,839,059 2,402,812
    Altaic Y 398,330 411,338 399,688
    Arab, Arabian Y 25,841,900 30,393,189 46,764,611
    Arab, Hassaniya Y 5,750,800 7,257,711 15,490,037
    Arab, Libyan Y 4,380,600 5,200,611 8,350,225
    Arab, Maghreb Y 70,293,300 83,087,648 132,186,860
    Arab, Shuwa Y 4,471,000 5,858,573 13,390,174
    Arab, Sudan Y 35,004,100 41,683,948 67,637,840
    Arab, Yemeni Y 25,211,200 29,762,355 46,253,815
    Assamese Y 5,116,300 5,726,827 7,482,354
    Atlantic-Wolof Y 6,776,900 8,731,480 19,778,683
    Azerbaijani Y 31,378,500 35,762,555 49,867,141
    Bali-Sasak Y 8,619,700 9,530,353 11,999,990
    Baloch Y 13,971,800 15,712,798 20,872,556
    Banjar of Kalimantan Y 5,550,000 6,136,346 7,726,480
    Bedouin, Arabian Y 20,639,800 24,328,199 37,570,507
    Bedouin, Saharan Y 3,551,100 4,218,334 6,778,349
    Beja Y 3,763,000 4,502,722 7,445,270
    Bengali Y 349,886,480 391,599,171 511,579,642
    Berber-Saharan Y 1,000,800 1,189,768 1,921,837
    Berber-Kabyle Y 6,552,300 7,663,757 11,866,540
    Berber-Riff Y 1,867,100 2,173,351 3,325,333
    Berber-Shawiya Y 2,495,500 2,920,232 4,530,504
    Bhil Y 20,507,300 22,954,431 29,990,984
    Bhojpur-Maithili Y 13,070,500 14,630,200 19,115,005
    Bhutanese Y 633,900 706,040 907,605
    Bouyei Y 3,202,000 3,336,271 3,303,882
    Bugi-Makassar of Sulawesi Y 11,101,600 12,274,460 15,455,188
    Burmese Y 36,093,800 39,907,763 50,262,093
    Kanuri-Saharan Y 11,021,400 14,295,126 32,530,536
    Chinese-Hui Y 14,590,700 15,207,445 15,074,497
    Filipino, Muslim Y 5,243,000 5,796,912 7,299,088
    Fulani / Fulbe Y 39,826,400 51,778,450 119,435,539
    Gond Y 20,707,400 23,178,409 30,283,621
    Gorontalo of Sulawesi Y 1,211,600 1,339,603 1,686,739
    Guera-Naba of Chad Y 494,700 673,789 1,702,765
    Gujarati Y 60,034,900 67,457,391 89,882,151
    Hausa Y 44,084,800 57,165,245 131,175,276
    Hindi Y 368,513,000 412,492,911 539,090,967
    Japanese Y 127,116,700 132,383,933 130,985,726
    Jat Y 72,051,100 80,648,941 105,371,422
    Jews Y 14,763,810 16,445,214 22,236,993
    Kannada Y 32,449,800 36,320,918 47,450,738
    Kashmiri Y 10,301,190 11,530,373 15,064,710
    Kazakh Y 15,440,200 17,581,824 23,474,661
    Kyrgyz Y 4,865,900 5,606,273 7,707,921
    Kurd Y 35,525,900 41,262,526 61,080,972
    Lampung of Sumatra Y 1,755,000 1,940,412 2,443,238
    Lao Y 3,782,200 4,172,441 5,240,330
    Li Y 1,897,000 1,973,886 1,942,305
    Madura of Java Y 7,678,000 8,489,164 10,688,994
    Maldivian Y 416,100 465,753 608,527
    Malinke Y 11,083,800 14,342,111 32,770,508
    Malinke-Bambara Y 6,143,700 7,926,202 17,995,310
    Malinke-Jula Y 2,385,400 3,090,072 7,077,356
    Marathi-Konkani Y 65,703,200 73,562,646 96,239,510
    Melayu of Sumatra Y 6,497,660 7,184,124 9,045,774
    Minangkabau-Rejang of Sumatra Y 7,613,000 8,417,297 10,598,504
    Mongolian Y 12,058,300 12,508,836 12,254,652
    Musi of Sumatra Y 4,548,000 5,028,487 6,331,537
    Nepali-Pahari Y 14,583,100 16,321,105 21,329,696
    Nosu Y 3,246,000 3,377,561 3,323,522
    Nubian Y 2,708,070 3,228,471 5,263,967
    Nuristan Y 350,900 392,773 513,175
    Ogan of Sumatra Y 562,000 621,374 782,393
    Oriya Y 18,235,700 20,410,037 26,660,116
    South Asian, other Y 26,393,730 29,492,319 39,288,801
    Ouaddai-Fur Y 3,982,100 5,032,096 10,256,077
    Parsee Y 161,200 178,605 228,687
    Pasemah of Sumatra Y 1,667,000 1,843,115 2,320,728
    Pashtun Y 51,767,700 57,966,715 75,878,654
    Persian Y 55,075,300 61,741,642 81,215,549
    Punjabi Y 96,734,080 108,324,807 141,898,235
    Rajasthan Y 24,943,160 27,906,864 36,436,671
    South Himalaya Y 6,317,740 7,071,160 9,236,822
    Shan Y 4,748,800 5,250,838 6,612,793
    Sindhi Y 15,854,300 17,775,839 23,413,881
    Somali Y 23,521,100 30,750,306 67,775,039
    Songhai Y 6,475,400 8,390,981 19,230,323
    Soninke Y 3,055,900 3,948,208 8,991,717
    Sunda-Betawi of Java Y 44,564,000 49,272,092 62,040,158
    Susu Y 1,716,600 2,224,584 5,099,561
    Tai Y 8,308,700 8,908,095 10,001,348
    Kadai Y 118,100 124,391 129,428
    Tajik Y 9,269,900 10,709,178 14,845,388
    Talysh Y 923,900 1,038,205 1,376,015
    Telugu Y 62,350,990 69,813,114 91,337,204
    Thai Y 55,184,900 60,991,902 76,744,746
    Tibetan Y 6,381,180 6,667,037 6,686,514
    Tuareg Y 3,397,100 4,371,184 9,802,974
    Tukangbesi of Sulawesi Y 1,233,580 1,363,905 1,717,339
    Turkish Y 60,819,300 71,042,767 107,354,809
    Turkmen Y 8,046,100 9,235,549 12,734,284
    Urdu Muslim Y 45,165,900 50,555,536 66,053,053
    Uyghur Y 15,590,100 16,553,146 17,785,355
    Uzbek Y 30,707,800 35,483,588 49,253,763
    Yao-Mien Y 6,266,000 6,567,294 6,686,304
    Zhuang Y 19,437,500 20,442,178 21,128,517
    Unclassified Y 3,200 3,440 4,099
    Luri-Bakhtiari Y 5,445,000 6,101,689 8,004,653
    Bantu, Swahili Y 5,902,500 7,654,689 16,568,128
    Banjara Y 7,694,000 8,612,123 11,252,121
    Domari Y 3,679,700 4,274,762 6,387,264
    Bania Y 44,371,300 49,666,117 64,890,987
    Brahmin Y 94,997,500 106,333,530 138,929,477
    Rajput Y 90,704,600 101,528,359 132,651,308
  • Justin Long 12:43 pm on April 10, 2018 Permalink  

    Levels of mission involvement 

    When we use the term “mission,” what kinds of things can we be referring to? People who “Go on missions” or who “do mission” often are doing one of the following. I think it’s helpful to have some broad categories:

    1. Serving the local church. Typically short term or recurring short term trips of service to the Christian community,things like medical trips, children’s ministry, building construction, legal or financial services, vocational training, etc.

    2. Serving the local (Christian+secular) community. Some variant of the first option aimed at the broader community, often as a stepping stone to enabling the local church to witness etc.

    3. Witness. Some variations of short or long term enable the individual to be a witness in a secular context: eg tent,among, business investment, teaching, sports ministries, etc. Here I am thinking of people who do not go necessarily to evangelize, but rather to be a witness through the demonstration of the Christian life lived.

    4. Evangelism. This is perhaps what we most often think of in terms of mission: overtly sharing the gospel across languages and cultures. Forms can range from door to door sharing, House to house, literature distribution, film teams, dramas, large or mass crusades, evangelistic concerts, etc. The key here is the sharing of the gospel with the intent to make converts who are usually funneled toward churches. Billy Graham was an evangelist. Unfortunately evangelism that does not yield or is not service to stages 5-8 will often be unharvested fruit. We must be careful of flinging seed without a thought for harvesting.

    5. Disciple making. This is a next step beyond the first step of evangelism and profession of faith. Disciple making is a longer term relationship of spiritual mentoring and accountability. In my view this cannot be done in the context of a single short term trip, and it’s hard to do with recurring. It requires language and culture acquisition. It is most effectively and efficiently done in the same culture context but for the gospel to spread it must sometimes be done cross-culturally.

    6. Church gathering/planting/pastoring. As disciples are made and gathered, church structures of some kind must be developed. This is another area where missionaries can help, though we must caution is a high risk endeavor. Culture creep can happen at the evangelism and disciplemaking stages but I think nowhere is it more possible or dangerous than here. Whereas broad cultural imports often neuter evangelism, a small amount of bad culture can cross through high trust channels at the church planting stage, get translated into a different culture and go on to infect the church structures that are reproduced. Culture at the evangelism level often yields spiritual sterility; imported culture at the church level can spark metastasizing cancers. Nevertheless when missionaries serve the local church by helping them develop accountability to biblical patterns, strong healthy systems can thrive.

    7. Reproducing and multiplication. Missionaries are most effective when they help new church networks etc become rapidly multiplying movements. This requires encouraging simplicity, accountability to scripture, and wide implementation of disciplemaking not just by “professional clergy” but lay believers too. Catalyzing movements is how we “move the needle.”

    8. Movements birthing movements. The most effective movement starters are existing movements that know how to implement these 7 stages. Missionaries who help movements jump the cultural barrier into nearby peoples can help birth astronomical change.

    Note that as missionaries move into 6-8 above, ironically, their efforts will be increasingly questioned by other missionaries who are more used to/comfortable with areas 1-5 and some 6.

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on April 3, 2018 Permalink  

    Student debt 

    One of the big things keeping new American workers from going to the field: student debt.

    Several people known to Beyond are students working on finishing their degrees or paying off their debts.

    In this piece for the WSJ, student loans are shown to be the biggest form of debt, and 6x larger than they were in 2004.

    One piece of helping young missionaries get to the field could be teaching about student debt issues before they get to college, providing scholarships, and helping students get their debts paid down.

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on April 2, 2018 Permalink  

    Resurrection vs. Raising 

    People don’t often get that “resurrection” and “raised from the dead” are not technically the same thing.

    People who are raised from the dead will still die one day – Jairus daughter, Lazarus, the boy coming out of the village.

    People who are resurrected receive a new body that is immortal, and will never die.

    Jesus was the first resurrection, and unless I misunderstand Scripture, everyone else is still waiting for the resurrection.

    Resurrection is what I look forward to!

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on April 1, 2018 Permalink  

    Easter is the proof 

    I’ve heard in several places the line that “the death of Christ was the most important thing – it paid the sacrifice.”

    I suppose that’s theologically true; I’ll let people who are theologically smarter than me comment on that.

    But to me – perhaps as I grow older – Easter & resurrection are far more impactful.

    It’s Easter and the resurrection that proves the death paid the sacrifice.

    People have died for other people. Easter proves that God died for man.

  • Justin Long 6:27 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink  

    Success and Failure Bars 

    In my work both with research and recruiting at Beyond, I do a lot of experimentation and testing. Especially in recruiting, we are constantly testing new ways of communicating vision, gathering potential candidates, and identifying high-potential prospects: people who are telling us they are serious about pursuing missions as a career.

    I’ve been reading a lot from business literature about designing experiments, and trying to apply that practically. We have discovered what probably every good business major/entrepreneur knows, but seems like a rare thing in missions: the key to a good experiment is to set a clear bar both for “success” and “failure” before running the experiment!

    Unfortunately, we often “do something as an experiment” in missions, and only after do we ask whether it was a success or not. “Well, we had a couple of people respond…” So, is that a success? Is it a good ROI? (“How do we measure the value of a soul? How do we know what kind of impact they will have on the field?”) We end up shooting the arrow, then painting the target around it.

    We’ve found it’s a lot easier to set the win conditions first. In one of our recent small experiments, we defined a “win” as three levels: (1) at least 20 people show up, (2) people ask questions, (3) one to three people self-indicate they are “potential candidates.” The “failure” bar was an inverse: (1) fewer than 20 show up, (2) few are interested (=asks questions), (3) no potential candidates come out of it. An “abandon” failure bar was (1) no one shows up, or (2) no questions are asked.

    If the experiment failed, we would then have clear questions to ask about how we performed the experiment: were there things we could to improve the show-up and participation rate? Are we inviting the right people (e.g. likely to be potential candidates)? do we have the wrong discussion topics? From every experiment we should be getting feedback and learning how to improve our success rates, before the next iteration.

    The challenge for a lot of missions – especially smaller ones – is that we don’t know where the candidates are, how to find them, and how to mobilize them into mission. Experiments are a way to remove the “fog of uncertainty.” But experiments need to be run with clear conditions to know whether they should be amplified, modified, or abandoned.

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on March 28, 2018 Permalink
    Tags: recruiting   

    Four marks of a good candidate 

    At Beyond, there are four “basic requirements of a good candidate” that I generally look for:

    1. They have to say “yes” to “long-term.”  If they start with, “Do you have any short-term trips? I love to take a short-term missions trip every summer,” I say, “No.” We may have differing definitions of what “long-term” means, but if you’re starting by definition from a short-term perspective, I’ll redirect you to other agencies. On the other hand, if you say to me, “I’m interested in doing something about _X_ place, maybe long-term – do you have anything, like a vision trip or a summer internship, where I can explore what that’s like?,” then I’ll be happy to connect you with some possibilities.
    2. They have to say “yes” to the “unreached.” Again, we may not be quite on the same page as to who the unreached are. But if your calling is to Christians (revival) or the people on the fringes of Christianity, then I will likely redirect you to someone else. Beyond is about focusing on the people few others are focusing on: the people who will not hear the Gospel unless something about our strategy and resource deployment changes.
    3. They have to say “yes” to “movements.” We see movements as the only thing that gets ahead of population growth. We’re all about disciples who make disciples who make disciples who make disciples. We know this is slow at the start, but we also know it has the capacity for exponential growth. Being about movements means there are some things we don’t do – things we say “no” to. So we need to be on the same page about that.
    4. They have to say “yes” to “Beyond.” (Or, at least a strong “maybe.”) But if you’re interested in a different agency and you just need help getting in touch, let me know, and I’ll do everything I can to make the connection for you.
    • joey 4:33 pm on March 30, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      what about character issues? “yes to an all out fight for holiness”?

      • Justin Long 6:12 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink | Reply

        To clarify: “Candidate” = “a person who might be indicating an interesting in applying with Beyond.” In other words, of all the people we talk to at a given conference, Perspectives event, who come to the website, who send us an email, how can we tell who to focus the “most energy” on? When they self-identify with answers to these four questions, that’s how we know.

        After this, there is an application process, followed by a two-phase training where character issues are evaluated. Phase 1 is a 15-week in-person “practical” training where people learn and then go out and do, and we can evaluate for character issues, teachability, humility, etc. before they ever go to the field.

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on March 27, 2018 Permalink  

    Church Gathering 

    Recently I overheard the phrase, “He’s trying to start a church, and having difficulty.”

    I began to wonder, immediately if idly, about the perspective we have when we say “start a church.”

    When we say we are “starting a church,” precisely what is the activity involved?

    Is it setting up procedures? Filing paperwork? Getting licenses? Organizing services? Arranging staff? etc?

    This gets back to the question: what is a church?

    Is a church something that can be started?

    If a church is a gathering of believers, then perhaps it is not something that can be started–only discovered.

    Maybe, instead of “starting a church,” we need to be “gathering a community” and see what emerges.

    It may be a nitpicky nuance, but perhaps changing the language would also help us to shift our mindsets.

  • Justin Long 1:27 pm on March 26, 2018 Permalink  

    What we mean by “unreached,” and the importance of reaching them 

    Although “unreached” has a technical definition, with complex nuances, sometimes when people use “unreached” they mean something very different. Exploring the different ways people can use “unreached” shows how easily we overlook or forget the people “unreached” is intended to help us remember.

    • “There are lost ___________ (insert favorite denominational group here) sitting in the pews, who are just as unreached as anyone else in the world. Maybe more so.” Here, “unreached” is being used to refer to people whose spiritual condition is in need of revival. They may claim to be Christian (e.g. “sitting in pews”) but are showing little fruit (at least in the eyes of this observer). While not denying the need for revival amongst many Western churches, this is not what we mean by unreached.
    • “I was raised in a Christian home, and my parents took me to church on all the major holidays, but I never heard the Gospel until…” Here “unreached” is referring to the “hardened” or “semi-hardened” sinner who has not yet responded to the Gospel. Two variants of this abound: those who “never heard the Gospel” from their supposedly Christian culture, and the “I heard the Gospel frequently but it never made sense to me until ____[I heard it this way]____.” Generally, people have more access to the Gospel than they think, but it often takes a number of Gospel-exposures for it to “stick.” (In fact, some studies suggest the ratio of Christian to non-Christian friends is perhaps the biggest key; if more non-Christian friends, it is less likely for any single exposure to stick.)
    • “All those atheists in Europe are just as unreached as all the groups that are getting so much attention.” This example is essentially equating all non-Christians. It is true that lost is lost, at least in terms of the net effect of eternal salvation or lostness. But the major point that unreached makes is: reached non-Christians have had the Gospel brought to them, or will have it brought to them early in their lifetime. Virtually all Europeans know a Christian of some kind (many European non-Christians were once Christians themselves); many if not most know an evangelical Christian. And, for those who do not have a personal friendship with an evangelical, the fact is virtually all are within easy relational distance of evangelical Christians if they were so mobilized. (For example, every place/person in France is within a 30 minute drive of an evangelical church.)
    • “This group has missionaries and they are engaged; we should go to the unengaged groups only.” I appreciate what FTT and their friends have done for raising attention and focus on people groups that lack any work at all. But–and FTT themselves would say the same thing–unengaged is not the same thing as unreached. Engaging a group is the first step on the road. Reached means that missionaries are no longer needed; the indigenous church can do the job.

    The point of “unreached” isn’t that a person hasn’t heard. The same thing could be said of any child under about 5 years of age. The unreached are important because they will not have a chance to hear in their lifetime. It isn’t that the Gospel hasn’t gotten to them yet or that it hasn’t gotten to them in a way they can understand or that few of their friends are Christians. It’s that the Gospel will likely not get to them at all, and there are few plans (or none at all) to change that. They are forgotten: left out of our minds and strategies, which are largely focused on the people above.

    • Mark Kordic 5:56 am on March 28, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      Thanks for your thoughtful review of the term “Unreached” when applied to the Great Commission. Spot on. As part of the Alliance for the Unreached, we’ve spent the best part of the last year clarifying this term. Knowing the definition is vital to adopting the heart of Jesus for the lost as he “is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).

    • Thomas Hieber 10:02 am on March 31, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      ‘Unreached’ is a term that is used very liberal. I feel it has also its dangers to use it in mission circles. Many are talking about unreached people groups and unengaged unreach people groups. Lists are out and organizations are ‘ticking’ the groups that they want to engange. I appreciate all these efforts but are we not making it to easy when we are refering to lists only? Organizations that have to ‘tick’ them so that we all can relax and sit back: ” Now all the UPG’s” have been reached!

      What does ‘unreached’ mean for me in Europe? I look at the South Asian communities (people from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanca) and see hundrets of cities with unreached people groups. Virtually all the Sikhs on the continent of Europe are unreached. Every major city in Germany where I live and many larger cities in Europe where do reserach have unreached Sikhs.For example in northern Italy there are more than 100 000 Sikhs in more than 25 cities with a sizeable Sikh community and no one is engaging them. I could go on talking about the Hindus or specific Asian Ms.lm groups that are unreached like the Ahmadiyya’s. They are not even mentioned in any UPG statistic (Joshua and others) as an unreached people group!
      I would suggest to look closer into our neighborhoods and cities, do some local research and see where are the unreached groups that no one is looking out for. Then we should mobilize the local churches and the mission organizations that live and work in our cities and maybe start befriend one of the waiters of the chef in a local Indian restuarant.
      If we only leave the work of the unreached to the experts we will never see the Kingdom of God being established among all people.

  • Justin Long 9:00 am on March 24, 2018 Permalink  

    Categories of Difficulty 

    Just because a country is in the 10/40 Window doesn’t mean it’s uniformly hard to reach. There are (at least) three categories of countries (and these likely apply to peoples and cities as well):

    Small populations, difficult to enter: places like Afghanistan, Libya, Maldives, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, the -Stans, and Yemen. These are relatively small population sizes, but their borders are tightly defended and the smallness of the population makes it easier to monitor them. These can be considered among the “last lines” for the Gospel to penetrate–it is difficult and dangerous to do so. “Reaching closure” in these places will require perseverance, prayer, and creativity–and if we’re honest, most of the people in these places may be “unreachable” at the moment insofar as human eyes can see.

    Moderate populations, easier to enter: places like Chad, Turkey, Egypt. It is not easy to get into these countries, and some are harder than others (some even bordering on category 1). Still, their population tends to make them “larger markets” which makes them at least slightly more open to the world. Better still, many of these have fairly direct ties with the Category 1 countries listed above.

    Very large populations, ease-of-entrance varies: places like Indonesia, Bangladesh, India, China. The bulk of the unevangelized individuals are in these countries (simply by virtue of their large populations). It’s fairly easy to enter as a tourist or on business, but it’s far harder to remain in place. Strategies to reach these places will need to scale, and hundreds of movements to Christ will be required. These places are home to many internal sociopolitical and ethnolinguistic barriers the Gospel will have to jump across.

    • Jon Hirst 2:03 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink | Reply

      Justin, but isn’t there more to what distinguishes these three categories than size of population? Things like government posture, access to transport etc? Is it wise to simplify it down to size of population?

      • Justin Long 6:15 pm on March 31, 2018 Permalink | Reply

        Yes, I agree. I have *generally* found that the smaller populations with higher non-Christian %s are more difficult to enter, and larger populations tend to be easier. This is kind of a two-axis problem, but the two axes tend to correlate with each other. I’m running down a list of countries in my head, and I can’t off the top of my head think of a small population that is uniformly non-Christian (e.g. mostly another religion) that is easy to enter.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc