COMIMEX and Another
Attempt at
Assessing Whether Groups are Reached or
Unreached
Michael Jaffarian
Missionary Researcher,
Published in Global
Missiology, Contemporary Practice, July 2006, www.globalmissiology.org
At the HIS (Harvest
Information System) meeting in
He is living and
working in
Dave and the
COMIMEX people are writing people profiles, in Spanish, for the Latin American
missions movement. So far they have written 1000 profiles (wow) and consider
themselves to be 1/3 of the way through the job. Most of the groups of which
they write are in
The
1.
The people group has no knowledge of the gospel.
2.
The people group has knowledge of the gospel, but no believers.
3.
The people group has believers but no congregations.
4.
The people group has at least a nascent church, a church in birth.
5.
The people group has a church and at least 2 of the Signs of a
6.
The people group has at least 4 of the Signs of a
7.
The people group has all 5 of the Signs of a
The Signs of a
Contextualized Church:
1.
The church is reproducing other churches within their people.
2.
The indigenous people are leading and governing the church.
3.
They are sustaining themselves without outside help (in the form of money,
books, outside conference speakers, and so on).
4.
The church is culturally adapted to this people (meaning that it is not a
replica of the culture of the missionaries).
5.
They have at least the New Testament and portions of the Old Testament in their
language.
So, according to
the COMIMEX people profile series, which groups are Unreached People Groups?
The answer: any that have not reached point 7 on the
Morelia Scale. Which groups are they giving priority attention to, when it
comes to writing these 3,000 profiles? The answer: (1) those that are at 3 or
lower on the Morelia Scale, (2) some groups that may be at 4, but still have a
relatively large population and relatively few churches, and (3) they’re giving
priority status to peoples needing a Bible translation.
I told Dave Markham
I might be writing about his work and publishing it somewhere. Among his
comments: “We appreciate the promotion of the project. We are still raising
funds for it if you happen to know of interested parties that could help. We
have a detailed proposal we can send.”
You can learn more
at their website: www.infoglobal.org. They hope to put all the profiles on the
Web, and show adoption status for the Latin missions movement. COMIBAM is
organizing a big international missions conference for
November of 2006, in
Some comments from
me (Michael):
1.
This is a great project. I commend these people. I’m delighted to see such
serious and extensive Unreached Peoples research, publishing, and mobilization
in
2.
I am not surprised to see them invent, in and for their context, their own
criteria or scale for assessing whether groups are reached or unreached. This
is healthy. It’s an exercise in missiological contextualization. It reflects
their own regional (Latin) experiences and perspectives in missions
mobilization and ministry.
At the same time,
this sort of thing can sow confusion. The Latin missions
movement does not stand alone on the earth. There’s a lot of flow between it
and other regional, local, or organizational missions movements, and, of
course, the global missions movement overall. If different researchers keep on
inventing different scales or criteria, it will get harder and harder to talk
about ‘Unreached People Groups’ and be understood.
So it’s healthy,
and it sows confusion. Both.
Regional missions researchers (like COMIMEX) have to
think, write, invent, and apply criteria that make sense and work in their own
context. Global missions researchers have to think, write, invent, and
apply criteria that make sense for the whole world, for all regions and many
kinds of Christians. This latter task is not as impossible as it sounds,
especially in our era of globalization. Global researchers need to listen to
regional researchers, or their work won’t make sense or be usable around the
world. Regional researchers need to listen to global researchers, or their work
will lead their regional audience to places that keep them from learning from
the rest of the world.
3.
About some of the points on their Morelia Scale.
“1. The people group has no knowledge
of the gospel.”
I’m not sure what
they mean by this, or how they are applying it. ‘Percent evangelized’ I
understand. As developed and used by the World Christian Encyclopedia
and the World Christian Database, ‘percent evangelized’ answers the
question, “What percentage of the people in this group have heard the gospel in
a way they can understand, and have had a valid opportunity or opportunities to
become Christian?” ‘No knowledge of the gospel’ I can understand for an
individual. I have a hard time understanding it for a group. I would be
interested to know what sort of criteria qualifies a group for this position.
“2. The people group has
knowledge of the gospel, but no believers.”
‘No believers’ is a
workable category, in Evangelical missions. I imagine it’s the same as the
common Evangelical category, ‘no known believers’. A group has ‘no known
believers’ if the Evangelical missions community knows of no
Evangelical converts in the group. Later in the process, ’30
known believers’ or ‘1000 known believers’ might be reported. Such
statistics don’t count Christians of other kinds than Protestant Evangelicals,
and don’t add estimates for believers that likely exist but are not personally
known to an Evangelical missionary or worker.
But again, I’m not
comfortable with the phrase, ‘the people group has knowledge of the gospel’.
This is not a light switch, yes/no situation. It’s always a percentage. Maybe
1% of the group has heard the gospel, or 25%, or 85%. 0% (which the Morelia
Scale point 1 seems to imply) is rare. So is 100%, which seems to be implied in
the wording of this 2nd point. To have 100% of a group knowing the
gospel and still have zero believers – that just doesn’t happen.
“3. The people group has
believers but no congregations.”
OK. This is easily
understood, and can be counted.
“4. The people group has at
least a nascent church, a church in birth.”
Is there a number
to this? If there is one church of 5 members, in a group with a population of
250,000, do they qualify for point 4 on this scale? If not, what are the
quantified criteria? Be transparent with us, please. I suspect the COMIMEX
researchers do apply a number here, a quantified criteria,
but this statement, standing alone, does not reveal it.
4.
About some of the points on their Signs of a
“1. The church is reproducing
other churches within their people.”
Good … although
there is such a thing as a dead church. A stagnant, non-growing, non-reproducing
church is still a church. It may not be a very good church, and certainly not a
healthy church, but it’s still a church. It can even be a contextualized
church. Every culture can develop their own
distinctive kind of dead church.
“2. The indigenous people are
leading and governing the church.”
Good. This marks
the transition from a missionary-led church to a national-led church. Also,
it’s appropriate to appear in the number 2 spot, since a missionary-led church
can still be reproducing.
“3.
They are sustaining themselves without outside help (in the form of money,
books, outside conference speakers, and so on).”
Interesting. In this era of globalization, I think
churches of all kinds, all over the world, will use resources of all kinds,
from all over the world. This 3rd point seems to be prescriptive as
much as descriptive. It seems that someone in
The sign of
maturity for an indigenous church is not that it uses no resources or accepts
no influences from the global Body of Christ, but that it sends its own stream
of resources and influences, out to the global Body of Christ.
“4.
The church is culturally adapted to this people (meaning that it is not a
replica of the culture of the missionaries).”
Good in principle. Hard to judge. Very subjective.
Different workers, both nationals and missionaries, will have different
perspectives on this. Thus tough to use as a research
category. Also, this will differ greatly from one denomination to the
next. In
“5.
They have at least the New Testament and portions of the Old Testament in their
language.”
Good. This one is a
firm, clear research category.