I was able to get through to Greg, a representative from New Tribes’ Mobilization department. I asked him, in view of “List-mania,” where did New Tribes get their total of “2500 unreached peoples.”
http://www.ntm.org/missiontrips/wayumi
His response? ” We get our figures from our department in NTM that handles such things. They suggest we use the figure of 2500. I do not believe they would claim that the number is precisely 2500 people groups but more a rough estimate.” He went on to say, “In NTM, with our focus primarily on language groups as people groups, we would generally consider such estimates in light primarily of distinct language groups who do not have the Scriptures, do not have or have not had what we would consider a viable Gospel witness in their mother tongue, and obviously no contingent of true believers.”
Well, you already know where I’m going on all this. Once again, I’ll opine, “Can’t we all just get along?” I could see a variance of, say, 1000 people groups. I just regret when there’s a variance of *thousands*. I continue to campaign for a simple solution: Everybody give their corrections to joshuaproject.net. In my opinion, it’s the most *developed* site, the easiest to grasp, and the one with the data out there on the table. If they’re wrong on 3000 groups, please give them the correct figures, for Pete’s sake. If they’re not wrong, then why not quote them?
That’s my two cents. What’s your opinion? Just click “comment” at the web version of this item (noted below). I’ll be looking for your response.
Doug
I guess when we get down to only 100 unreached people groups left on somebody’s list then I might need to give more scrutiny to the various lists.
In the mean time with thousands of unreached people groups out there by anybody’s figures then I think we just need to get to work!
Thanks and let’s get going!
Sounds like great advice, Garry. Thanks!
I agree with Garry. Also, keeping this information simple and available for use in our churches is necessary if we’re going to improve in mobilization efforts for these unreached gorups.
Doug,
The main difference in the data is language groups and people groups. since different things are counted.
Good field reporting about language groups and people groups helps
The authoritative count on languages with needs can be found here.
http://www.wycliffe.net/ScriptureAccessStatistics/tabid/73/language/en-US/Default.aspx
runner632 athotmail if you want to discuss more–I’d consider myself an expert in this topic.
Nate
It is exciting to see so many mission groups contributing to the task of reaching the unreached. Thanks, Brigada, for facilitating and promoting this effort. Yet, each mission has a particular calling and particular roles to fill in completing the commission. That means that each must focus on the particular factors that are crucial to the identifying and fulfilling their specific assignment.
Some missions must count language groups, noting how many still lack the Scriptures. Others focus on the presence of indigenous congregations; others focus on organizational structures, others are concerned with certain doctrines or practices to identify a valid gospel witness. Thus, each mission’s list of “unreached” peoples will not be suitable for use by everyone else. Nor should it surprise us that Joshua Project’s list must be as specific as possible while New Tribes’ list can work with more general information.
The key is that they clearly communicate to their constituencies what they are looking at so they can understand what it will take to meet their goals.
I think the discussions about the discrepancies between the various lists of unreached people groups should be taken advantage of to help the Christian public better understand the missiological issues involved. People need to know that language and social data help us APPROXIMATE where we think people group lines exist, but as Ralph Winters said, you won’t really know for sure until the Gospel is being proclaimed in an area and you see where it flows and where it hits some barrier not easily surmounted.
Sometimes there may be barriers we didn’t forsee, while other times apparent barriers (e.g.dialectal variation and clan affiliation) may not be as big a hindrance to the flow of the Gospel due to other factors that link those groups that we hadn’t anticipated (e.g. intermarriage, common markets, relationships built in common diaspora areas). And sometimes once on the ground we may learn that the Gospel has in fact already taken root in the group, but researchers had not yet been aware of that. Lists give us a ballpark figure and help us mobilize and point individuals and organizations in a good direction.
So, in our use of the data from these lists, let us humbly couch them in more tentative terms, acknowledging that none of them are the definitive snapshop of where we are at in fulfilling the Great Commission, but rather respectable approximations. Only God has the definitive list!
I have heard a couple of sources say 6,500. The Baptist’s group, IMF holds to this… Yes, the issue is not how many, but what we are doing to reach them with a viable gospel message, and to disciple them and get indigenous, self-multiplying churches planted. Maybe the Lord will decide when we finally get ‘er done!
I have been doing research on unreached peoples for over 25 years. No one knows the number of people groups. See: How Many Unreached People Groups Are There? http://www.etnopedia.info/?p=506. Also Identifying Points of Missionary Need (people groups) http://www.etnopedia.info/?p=328 Blessings to all!