The past careers of languages are as diverse as the worlds that each language has created for its speakers. They have suffered very different fates: some (like Sanskrit or Aramaic) growing to have speaker populations distributed across vast tracts, but ultimately shrinking to insignificance; others (such as the languages of the Caucasus or Papua) twinkling steadily in inaccessible refuges; others still yielding up their speakers to quite different traditions (as in so many parts of North and South America, Africa and Australia). Some (such as Egyptian and Chinese) maintained their speakers and their traditions for thousands of years in a single territory, defying all invaders; others (such as Greek and Latin) spread by military invasion, but ultimately lost ground to new invaders.
Often enough, one tradition has piggybacked on another, ultimately supplanting it. One big language parasitises another, and in a ‘coup de main’ takes over the channels built up over generations. This is a common trick as empires succeed one another, in every time and continent: Persia’s Aramaic made good use of the networks established for Lydian in seventh-century Asia Minor; in the sixteenth century, Spanish usurped the languages of the Aztecs and Incas, using them to rule in Mexico and Peru; and in the early days of British India, English and Urdu gained access to power structures built in Persian. But the timescale on which these changing fortunes have been played out is astonishingly varied: a single decade may set the pattern for a thousand years to follow, as when Alexander took over the eastern Mediterranean from the Persians: or a particular trend may assert itself little by little, mile by mile, village by village, over thousands of years: just so did Chinese percolate in East Asia.
– Ostler, Empires of the Word, pp. 11-12
A few thoughts:
The Central Asian language we have learned is a mountain language, one of those “twinkling steadily in inaccessible refuges.” This is how it survived as successive larger and more powerful languages of empires washed over one another down on the plains. Never underestimate the power of mountains to preserve languages and cultures.
‘Coup de main’ means a surprise attack or a quick, forceful military action, “blow with the hand” in French. Had to look this up just now since Ostler didn’t provide a translation or footnote. It’s curious how many authors still assume their English readers don’t need the translations of French terms like this one. This is probably from our own language history where French was viewed as the language of the educated elite during the period of Middle English, a tradition that still leaves traces like this here and there.
It is remarkable and unpredictable how quickly a language’s fortunes can change in a given area. In our region, the past several decades have seen the “backward” language of the mountains and nomads become more dominant in our area than the three massive surrounding languages. This is largely because of accidents of American foreign policy in our people group’s favor. This surprising takeover has happened even while little pockets of the languages of ancient empires still barely manage to hold on among minorities. And all the while the internet and globalization mean that English is making massive inroads into each of these language communities. Thirty five years ago this picture would have seemed impossible.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
But unknown to the disciples, a fellow Asian of their own time, a Greek geographer from Pontus in Asia Minor, had recently capped a lifetime of study with the most successful attempt in the early history of Greek science to outline the bounds of the inhabited earth. It is true that none of the apostles would ever read Strabo. Even the scientists of that century tended to ignore him. But Strabo’s Geography, appearing about A.D. 20, presented to the world of the apostolic church a better picture of the planet than its people had ever before possessed.
Its basic shape was startlingly modern, for the Greeks knew much that the Middle Ages forgot. Strabo’s world was no flat-sided cube. It was a globe, with arctic and temperate zones, in size about twenty-five thousand miles around at the circumference. True he knew only the three continents – Asia, Europe, and Africa – but with remarkable prescience he conceded that there might be continents or other worlds unknown to him, for he remarked that the only land masses he could describe were too small for the size of the round world his astronomical measurements convinced him existed.
Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. I, p. 4
They say that Paul never met Strabo and was therefore unaware of his work. But just imagine the conversation that might have taken place if they had met – and if Paul had gotten ahold of this map.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
We expect it in the West, but it’s a curious thing when believers from unreached people groups wrestle with the classic “man on the island” question. You know the one – “But if a good man stranded on an island dies with no chance to hear the gospel, does he still go to hell?”
On the one hand, it makes sense that they would wrestle with this issue, especially if they are among the first generation to come to faith from their people. It’s not just some of their ancestors, but potentially all of them who have died and now inhabit a Christless eternity. Every parent, grandparent, great-grandparent, and renowned member of the family tree died with no witness to the gospel message and is now beyond hope. The costs of the exclusivity of Christ land differently when you haven’t come from a Christian heritage at all.
On the other hand, it’s somewhat ironic when these individuals struggle with this question. Because they in some sense are that man on the island, and they have now been unexpectedly reached with the gospel. As members of unreached or unengaged people groups, they previously had no access to the gospel. They were cut off culturally, linguistically, or even geographically from the truth. And then one day they weren’t.
I remember a new believer in Central Asia posing his question about a hypothetical man in India, which to him must have felt like the remote ends of the earth. I smiled, knowing that many in the West might pose the same question, but place their hypothetical man in the very region where we were sitting having our discussion. I wanted to take my friend by the shoulders and say, “Brother, you are the man you are asking about. And look what happened to you!”
Ultimately, everyone struggles at some point with the exclusivity of Christ, no matter their language, culture, people group, or relative remoteness. This means that disciple-makers need to be ready to give an answer to this common question, whether they are mentoring Gen Z believers in the American Midwest or a tribal patriarch in Southeast Asia.
A good way to begin that answer is with a call to look in the mirror. Any believer asking this question was also at one point truly “without hope and without God” (Eph 2:12). Yet because Jesus has other sheep that are not of this fold, and those sheep hear his voice, they were sought out and enabled to hear the voice of the shepherd (John 10:16). Jesus’ sheep are scattered throughout the world and cut off from the truth, yes. But the shepherd will find each and every one of them, just as he found the particular believer asking the question.
There is a second angle by which those struggling with this question can be called to look in the mirror. Often, the emotional weight of the question is based on the assumption that there are people out there who are better than the question asker. “I’ve got this holy uncle,” as it was once put to me. But in the real world, there are no holy uncles. When we look in the mirror, the person who looks back is someone who is deserving of hell because of their sin. And everyone else in the world, when they look in the mirror and their conscience is honest, feels that same truth down in their bones. We all intrinsically know that we have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom 2:15). Yet we are easily deceived into thinking others are not like us. The classic response to the man on the island objection holds up; namely, the question doesn’t work. There are no good men. Only sinners, just like us.
We must ultimately call the one struggling with this question to look from the mirror to The Book. The Bible clearly commands that we take the gospel to the ends of the earth (Matt 28:18-20). From the very beginning, Jesus has tasked his Church with proclaiming the good news, without which salvation is impossible (John 3:18). We are clearly called to do whatever we can to get the gospel to every man who is on an island (1 Cor 9:22). The logic of scripture is clear – unless they follow Jesus, “the way, the truth, the life,” they are lost (John 14:6). If there were some kind of exception to this rule based on never hearing the message, then it completely clashes with the emphasis of Jesus and the Apostles and their global mission. If sinners can be saved by never having the chance to hear the gospel, then the Great Commission makes no sense.
Further, the logic of the scriptures is not that we are first condemned for rejecting the gospel, but that we are condemned for rejecting the light we have. According to Romans, the man on the island has the law of God in some way written upon his heart (Rom 2:11-16). He has a conscience. He has access to creation, which preaches to him daily that there is a creator who is worthy of his worship (Rom 1:18-23). He himself is a witness to this truth, being made in the image of God, and even his pagan ancestors passed down to him fragments of truth that have clung on in his fallen culture (Acts 17:23). Yet universally, each of these witnesses, whether a small or great light, is suppressed by each and every human heart (Rom 1:18). That’s why we are universally condemned, whether growing up on an island alone or with the strongest possible Christian heritage. Hell awaits in either case, unless God miraculously intervenes and causes the sinner to hear the gospel and love the light, rather than suppress it.
How can it be right and just that after 2,000 years, some people’s ancestors were granted access to the gospel while others weren’t? This doesn’t seem fair. Here, we must hold on to the mystery of how God has scattered his chosen sheep throughout time and history. There is much in this mystery of election to which we are not yet given access (Rom 11:32-36). Yet we also need to remember that what we know of church history is only a very small picture of everything that has transpired. As with history in general, the vast majority of records have been destroyed, lost, or were never made in the first place. And yet what has been discovered is far more global in scope than most Christians are aware of. The ancient church didn’t just preach the gospel in the Roman empire, but also far beyond it. Ancient and medieval Christianity stretched from Ireland to Korea, to Ethiopia, India, the Arabian peninsula, and on up to Scandinavia. There are even old claims of Irish missionary monks striking out for North America in their one-man coracle boats.
Far more people groups than we might expect do indeed have a Christian heritage, or at least a period in history when their ancestors were exposed to gospel preaching. In fact, for many of the unreached people groups of the 10/40 window, the churches planted represent a renewed witness rather than the first one in history. As one mission leader said when in Uzbekistan visiting the tomb of Tamerlane, the great exterminator of Central Asian Christianity, “You’re dead, and we’re back.” Even now, medieval Christian graveyards are being discovered in far-flung places like Kazakhstan, demonstrating that the Church throughout the ages took its Great Commission mandate seriously. Certainly, eternity will present some fascinating missions history that has never been told here on Earth. In this, there is a degree of comfort for the believer who feels that until his generation God had left his people without a witness.
The exclusivity of Christ and the man on the island are questions that all believers are likely to wrestle with, regardless of their background. Fallen human logic simply struggles to understand the wisdom of the sovereign God. Yet there is a wealth of answers in the mirror, in the Scriptures, and even in church history that help us equip the struggling believer with solid truth. This is truth that grounds, but even more, truth that lifts our eyes to wrestle with what it will take to reach those islands – to reach the ends of the earth.
Better get the coracles ready.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
I’ve been enjoying listening to the recent Titanic episodes on the The Rest Is History podcast. This famous tragedy really is an amazing window into the world as it was around 100 years ago. One of the biggest surprises of the series for me was hearing that the Titanic was, in fact, the safest ship in the world at the time of its christening – and the time of its sinking.
The idea that the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats – and this being the result of arrogance – is something I had certainly absorbed as fact, right along with so many others who have heard the disaster referenced in popular culture. Indeed, the Titanic didn’t have enough lifeboats for all of its passengers. It only had 20, which was enough for only about half of its passengers – and even less than that if the ship had been carrying its full capacity. But this shortage of lifeboats being the result of hubris is a historical fiction.
Instead, the Titanic’s number and size of lifeboats meant that it had the best lifeboat-to-passenger ratio of its time. It surpassed all of its competitors in the number of lifeboats to passengers, and in its other safety features as well. See, during that period, it just wasn’t obvious that a ship should have a lifeboat seat for each and every human on board. This had never been done before, and it wasn’t seen as necessary or realistic.
When the RMS Republic sank in 1909, it had put out a distress signal with new wireless technology, and another ship was able to rescue its passengers as its lifeboats ferried them off of the slowly sinking vessel. This was the emergency plan for the Titanic also. The assumption was that if necessary, there would be plenty of time to evacuate the most safety-conscious vessel of any that had yet sailed the ocean.
Oh, the benefit of hindsight. One hundred years later, it seems like the most obvious thing in the world to us that a ship should have enough lifeboats for all of its passengers and crew. But if anyone had pointed out the danger to White Star, the company that owned the Titanic, they would have laughed as they positively compared themselves to every other ship out there. See, the standard they relied on was the lifeboat-to-passenger ratios of the other ocean liner companies. In this light, they looked completely safe and wise. But we know now that it was the wrong standard. When the iceberg struck, their error – and their doom – was suddenly and tragically revealed.
We shake our heads at the foolishness of shipping standards a century ago. But in likewise manner, heaven will shake its head at any one of us who seeks to justify ourselves by comparison to the sinfulness of others. If, when we think of the day of judgment, we seek comfort with thoughts of how others are really so much more sinful than us, then we make the same mistake the designers of the Titanic made. We use the completely wrong standard. And just like them, trusting this errant standard as our measure will result one day in a sudden and terrible moment of revelation.
In light of what we can now see so clearly, not only the Titanic, but all ships in the early 20th century were utterly failing when it came to the safety standard that counts – enough evacuation craft to keep each human on board from drowning in the frigid North Atlantic. Likewise, in light of what we will one day see so clearly in eternity – and what is seen by heaven now – all of us fail the true spiritual standard, that of the righteousness and glory of God (Rom 3:23). In light of that standard of sinlessness, depending on the fact that we sin less than others is as foolish as bragging that only half of our passengers will drown in icy water, as compared to the other guy’s two-thirds.
We must stop comparing ourselves to the other woefully inept vessels of our age. We are just like them. When the iceberg of divine justice strikes, we will all fail the test. And one day, when the true standard is revealed, all of the cosmos will marvel that we could have missed something so obvious.
The key then is to have the right standard, and second, to be alarmed that we cannot possibly keep it. Then, to do whatever it takes to be found in the only one who can.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
The Runestone of Harald Bluetooth at Jelling, Denmark
Have you ever wondered about the little Bluetooth symbol on your phone or computer? If you’ve ever thought that the name of the tech and the shape of its symbol are peculiar, that’s because they are. The Bluetooth logo comes from the overlaying of two old Scandinavian runes for H and B. And these letters stand for Harald Bluetooth, a Viking king of Denmark, and the first Christian king of Denmark and Scandinavia. Who knew that all along a little piece of missions history was hidden in plain sight in a technology many of us use every day?
First, King Harald was nicknamed Harald “Bluetooth” either because he had a dead tooth that was conspicuously blue-gray, or because he had a particular fondness for berries, which stained his teeth blue. Or, my favorite theory, because some Vikings sometimes carved black line pattern tattoos into their teeth. King Harald may have had bluish tooth tattoos that flashed anytime he smiled, laughed, or snarled.
There is debate about much of Harald’s life and story, but the traditional accounts state that he became a Christian around the year 960 through what is known in missions as a power encounter. A power encounter is a spiritual showdown of sorts between the power of Jesus and the power of the indigenous spirits or gods. These can vary greatly. Earlier missionaries to Germanic tribes were known for boldly cutting down the sacred trees of the tribes they were trying to reach. One missionary I knew in Melanesia unintentionally stunned the tribe he was working with by emerging unscathed from a car wreck soon after lightning had hit his house. In their tribal beliefs, anyone whose house was hit by lightning was doomed by the spirits to die. But when this missionary’s vehicle afterward tumbled down a mountainside with him in it and he came out of it all just fine, the tribe knew that whatever power he possessed was greater than what they knew. Yet another missionary team in Africa demonstrated Jesus’ power over the spirits by the wives wearing their babies strapped on their backs out in a gathering area at night – something the local women would never dare to do. Even in our experience in Central Asia, we once prayed for a woman and saw her miraculously healed after the mullah’s prayers had failed to accomplish anything. Of course, Elijah’s encounter with the prophets of Baal is one of the most famous power encounters in the Bible.
The power encounter that allegedly led to Harald’s conversion took place because of an argument. During this period, the Viking peoples of Europe were mostly polytheistic, worshipping Odin, Thor, Loki, Freya, and other gods who have now been coopted and Disney-fied by superhero movies. But the true Viking religion was very dark, including sacred groves where they would hang bodies of their human sacrifices from the trees. But at last, in the 900s Christianity was making major inroads. Not only were missionaries actively preaching within Viking areas, but the politically Christian powers of Europe were exerting state pressure from without. Apparently, some Vikings were willing to absorb Jesus into the pantheon, similar to how a Hindu today might “accept Christ” but merely add him to the many gods they are devoted to. Well, a group of Vikings in Harald’s court and one Christian cleric, Poppo, were arguing about whether Christ was more powerful than the Viking gods or merely a kind of peer. Poppo insisted that Jesus was the one true God and that all the Viking gods were, in fact, demons. So, King Harald, observing this disputation, asked Poppo if he would vouch for his beliefs with his own body.
Poppo courageously agreed, not knowing what this would mean. Harald had him locked up overnight and in the morning set up the showdown. He had a heavy piece of iron heated up until it was red hot and then asked Poppo to carry it across the room. Poppo then proceeded to pick up the scalding iron in his hand, carry it calmly across the room, set it down, and then show his hand to Harald, healthy and unburnt. This demonstration is what later Christian chroniclers claim led to Harald’s conversion and baptism and made him the first Christian king of Denmark, which he had earlier unified. He later went on to briefly control Norway as well, as he famously claims on his Jelling Stone, “that Harald who won for himself all of Denmark and Norway and made the Danes Christian.”
Of course, there’s a lot of debate about the legitimacy of this conversion story among historians. They debate whether Harald’s motives for switching religions were really because of personal conviction, like in this story, or whether it was really a politically shrewd move to protect his kingdom from the encroaching Christian powers, the Franks and the Holy Roman Empire. In this world of complex motives, it may have been both. Probably only God knows at this point if Harald was a truly born-again Christian or if it was merely a switch of identity categories in this world, something that seems to have been true of many “conversions” in this period – and can still be true even in our own corner of Central Asia. Many a young Central Asian has become a “Christian” in an Islamic society merely because it felt like the hip and rebellious thing to do.
But there’s also debate surrounding the ordeal of Poppo, the alleged miracle at the heart of the power encounter. Of course, secular historians write this off as the typical Christian embellishment of the period. But many modern Christians also find themselves skeptical of miraculous power encounters like these, even if there were no dispute about motives or the sources themselves. For my part, I do think medieval scribes were prone to overly-embellish their accounts of Christians’ lives. But I also think there is a good case to be made that even in this post-apostolic age, miraculous events will occasionally accompany the preaching of the gospel. This seems to be true especially when the gospel is newly breaking into a people group. Missions history demonstrates much of this going on, particularly in fear-power cultures, where the primary question being asked is not “How can I be forgiven?” or “How can I buy back my honor?” but “How can I not live in abject fear of the spirits’ power?” And though I am a continuationist, even well-known cessationists like Augustine went to great lengths to document that miracles were still quietly happening in his circles in order to confirm the truth of the gospel and to strengthen the faith of God’s people. So, I leave the door open that Poppo’s power encounter may have really happened.
But how in the world did Harald Bluetooth become the inspiration for a new kind of wireless network technology? The answer is to be found in the late ’90s when two engineers from Ericson and Intel were at a bar discussing what to name this new prototype technology. Both of them were history nerds, so one mentioned recently reading about Harald Bluetooth, the Viking king who united the Danes, and how his nickname might work for a new wireless technology that would unite various devices. The name was supposed to be temporary, but it stuck and is still with us today.
Today, Bluetooth tech is everywhere, far more widespread than the name of King Harald ever was. Perhaps the next time you see that peculiar runic symbol on your smart devices, you can remember Harald Bluetooth, who may have been a brother in the faith, and praise God for the way God used him to bring Christianity to his people. And you can remember the power of Jesus, his superiority over any and all spirits and “gods,” and his power to reach even the hardest to reach peoples.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
Every language is learnt by the young from the old, so that every living language is the embodiment of a tradition. That tradition is in principle immortal. Languages change, as they pass from the lips of one generation to the next, but there is nothing about this process of transmission which makes for decay or extinction. Like life itself, each new generation can receive the gift of its language afresh. And so it is that languages, unlike any of the people who speak them, need never grow infirm, or die.
Every language has a chance at immortality, but this is not to say that it will survive for ever. Genes too, and the species they encode, are immortal; but extinctions are a commonplace of palaeontology. Likewise, the actual lifespans of language communities vary enormously. The annals of language history are full of languages that have died out, traditions that have come to an end, leaving no speakers at all.
Ostler, Empires of the Word, pp. 7-8
Even more than the linguist, the Christian knows that every language has a chance at immortality. The presence of the world’s diverse languages in the Son of Man vision of Daniel 7 and the heavenly throne room vision of Revelation 7 imply that many languages will indeed be immortal, living forever on the lips of their redeemed speakers. This makes practical sense since no one human language is sufficient on its own to describe God in all his wonder. In fact, we may need to invent some new ones to account for the new experiences of finally seeing God face to face, having friends who are angels, possessing spiritual bodies, etc.
What do we make of the languages that have gone extinct in world history? If we take the promises of “all languages” literally, then we would need to insist that there were believers somehow present in all of those language groups in time past. More likely, the “all” of these passages is symbolic, meaning that the vast majority of the world’s languages will indeed be represented in heaven. A third intriguing possibility would be that of language resurrection, where there is a return in the new heavens and the new earth of languages long dead, just as my kids and I hope for a return of dinosaurs, wooly mammoths, and giant sloths.
After all, if we’ve got billions and billions of years to enjoy, I would certainly sign up for a class on old Sumerian were the library of New Jerusalem to offer such a course.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
What are the common barriers that keep the gospel from spreading from one group of humans to another? How can one group have a strong presence of believers and churches and yet live side by side with other groups that are completely unreached? The answer to this question is not as simple as it might seem.
The modern missionary movement mainly used geographic and political lenses when they sought to evangelize the world. William Carey’s An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen featured a list of the world’s countries, their population sizes, religions, and other statistics. Mission agencies followed suit until the late 1900s, focusing mainly on countries and political boundaries when they sought to organize their missions strategy. This is not without biblical precedent. In the book of Acts, we see that Paul’s missionary strategy is focused on the cities and provinces of the Roman Empire. Paul and Luke are using a geographic lens when they seek to apply the Great Commission (along with a very broad ethnic lens of Jew vs. Gentile). Paul’s ambition is to preach to the Gentiles in places where no one else has yet laid a foundation (Rom 15:14-24).
Political and geographic borders and systems can absolutely provide barriers to the gospel. Consider the great contrast of the two Koreas. South Korea, one of the most Christian nations on earth, neighbors North Korea, one of the most unreached. With the same language, ethnicity, and historically the same culture, what is the barrier? The DMZ and the North’s communist/cult of personality government that seeks to stamp out Christianity.
However, the nation-state lens of modern missions was insufficient to recognize other massive barriers to the gospel. 20th-century missiologists like Donald McGavran and Ralph Winter demonstrated that this political and geographic lens meant that there were thousands of “hidden peoples” who were completely overlooked because of the ethnic, linguistic, or cultural barriers that existed even within countries. A missions agency might consider a country reached because of a strong presence of Christianity among the majority ethnicity, but with their nation-state lens fail to see that the minority ethnicities were completely without a witness.
Starting in the late ’70s, this led to a paradigm shift in missions, where agencies adopted the primary lens of unreached people group (UPG). This ethnolinguistic lens also has biblical precedent, with a strong thread of God’s heart for all peoples (panta ta ethne) evident throughout the Bible. We see this focus on ethnicity and language in passages like Psalm 67:4, Isaiah 66:18, Daniel 7:14, and most famously, Rev 7:9, “a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages…”
This lens seeks to recognize three other significant barriers to the gospel: ethnicity, language, and culture. It recognizes that humanity typically divides up into groups that identify as distinct from others around them along significant ethnic, language, or cultural lines. Sometimes ethnicity is the main barrier, where the same language is used and similar cultures exist, but neighboring people groups struggle to influence one another because of longstanding ethnic tensions. This is the case with many ethnic Christian groups in the Middle East and their Muslim neighbors, all of whom are fluent in Arabic.
Other situations show that focusing on ethnicity alone is not enough. Our own central Asian people group share a common ethnic identity with neighboring groups, but their languages are not mutually intelligible. In this case, language is the primary barrier, not ethnicity or culture. A missions agency might see the church take off in one of the dozen or so language groups of this ethnicity and consider their job done. In reality, this language barrier is going to prevent the spread of the gospel to the other segments of this ethnicity unless there is a very intentional effort.
Yet other situations show that culture can be the primary barrier. This is where things can get really murky, yet an honest appraisal of how humanity actually functions shows that this is often the case. Cultural differences provide significant barriers to the gospel. This is where socio-economic, religious, and even generational differences come into play – and evil things like caste. For evidence near at hand, consider how hard it is for middle-class churches to reach the poor and working class, and vice versa. It is very difficult for any of our churches in the West to truly impact subcultures different from ours that live within our own cities and towns, and this is with a shared history of Christianity. How much more might cultural differences prevent gospel impact among groups that have no Christian heritage? Even here there is biblical precedent for acknowledging this barrier. Many of the Jew-Gentile issues that Paul deals with in his letters are not just issues of religious background and conscience, they are issues of differing systems of culture and meaning – head coverings being one example.
The key is to recognize that multiple barriers exist to the spread of the gospel from one group of humans to another. These barriers might be political, geographic, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural. The Bible acknowledges all of them. That means we don’t have to lock ourselves into only one lens; rather, we should make use of all of the lenses the Bible gives us when we are seeking to discern why the gospel might be making inroads in one group and not among others.
Once we’ve recognized the primary barrier or barriers, then we are in a good place to discern if they are significant enough to warrant a separate church planting focus or not. Typically, I believe that geography and language do warrant separate approaches, while ethnicity and culture need to be taken on a more case-by-case basis. This needs a post of its own, but in brief, we must remember that the New Testament church brought Jew and Gentile, Greek and Barbarian together into the same churches, messy and scandalous though that effort was. The splintering of missions strategy into hyper-specialized church planting efforts can often reinforce natural human divisions, rather than overcome them.
Deep divisions cut through lost humanity, cutting off whole countries, peoples, languages, and cultures from the good news of salvation through Jesus. Yet the Bible shows us that these can and will be overcome. To play our part in this we will need to take these barriers seriously, on the one hand, even as we trust that the simple gospel is powerful to conquer each and every one of them. We must work hard to understand and undermine these barriers, though our faith must not be in our ability to figure them out.
Carey understood “the Obligations of Christians to Use Means in the Conversion of the Heathen,” even as his faith was in the sovereign power of God to save the nations. May we follow in his footsteps – til every barrier falls.
As of the publishing of this post, we’ve raised 24% of our family’s support needs to return to the field! Some are giving directly through the blog, here. Others are giving through our non-profit. Both are very helpful, whether monthly or one-time gifts. We would be honored for you to partner with us in this way and help us bring in the remaining 76%. Write us at workman.entrusted@gmail.com for more info about how to give or with any questions you might have.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
Before the end of the first century the Christian faith broke out across the borders of Rome into “Asian” Asia. Its first roots may have been as far away as India or as near as Edessa in the tiny semi-independent principality of Osrhoene just across the Euphrates. From Edessa, according to tradition, the faith spread to another small kingdom three hundred miles farther east across the Tigris river, the kingdom of Adiabene, with its capital at Arbela, near ancient Nineveh. By the end of the second century, missionary expansion had carried the church as far east as Bactria in what is now northern Afghanistan, and mass conversions of Huns and Turks in central Asia were reported from the fifth century onward. By the end of the seventh century Persian missionaries had reached the “end of the world,” the capital of T’ang-dynasty China.
Moffett, A History of Christianity in Asia, vol. 1, pp. xiv-xv
If you want to look up these locations on a map, their contemporary names are as follows:
Edessa, capital of Osrhoene – Şanliurfa, Turkey
Arbela, captial of Adiabene – Erbil, Iraq
Bactria – Region including Kunduz, Afghanistan, Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and Samarkand, Uzbekistan
Chang’an, Capital of the T’ang dynasty – Xian, China
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
Here’s a helpful list over at Biblical Archaeology Society of the 30 New Testament people that have also been found mentioned in other sources from the period. Those other sources are letters, books, inscriptions, and coins. Here are a few takeaways from this list:
Jesus is mentioned in five contemporary sources other than the New Testament. I wasn’t aware that it was that many.
Josephus! It’s surprising just how many New Testament figures are confirmed by this Jewish writer, and only by him. We owe this strange figure a debt of gratitude.
The New Testament is clearly careful and accurate with its historical information. The tendency to dismiss it as unreliable for historical data because of its theological agenda is muddle-headed.
I can’t wait for more figures to be confirmed as more sources are discovered and deciphered. If you think that’s unlikely, consider the fact that the Herculaneum scrolls are just now being deciphered for the first time in history. Could they contain references to other figures mentioned in the New Testament, but not yet found elsewhere?
Here’s a sample of the chart. Check out the full one here.
To support our family as we head back to the field, click here.
For my list of recommended books and travel gear, click here.
One of the greatest surprises we experienced during our first term on the field was discovering that most of our locals did not want to meet in homes for Bible study or church. All our training, all the books, and all our expectations said that house church methodology was going to be the most effective form of church planting. We bristled at locals’ suggestions that we meet somewhere “real” for spiritual activities, like a church building. We cringed at how excited they seemed by all the trappings of Western church – sound systems, worship teams, pastors wearing collars, church budgets, even church buildings.
What took us quite a while to realize was that for our particular people group, this attraction to “official” Christianity was simply the result of where God had sovereignly brought their culture. As a newly post-tribal culture full of corruption and nepotism, and one exposed to the ravages of terrorism, they longed for order and healthy organization. They hungered for institutions that would balance strongmen, and the kind of solid, public Christianity that did not feel like a secretive ISIS Qur’an study. Our locals, the ones we were commissioned to reach, were deeply drawn to what to us felt like traditional, Western Christianity. And they found our ideas about house church movements unconvincing, even dumb. Even worse, none of their desires were technically unbiblical.
We were faced with an unexpected choice. Either we ignore the overwhelming feedback of the local believers, or we shift to a church planting strategy that risked looking very traditional and very Western, which missiology said was doomed to fail in an Islamic context. By God’s grace, our team eventually came around to the idea that the wiser thing was to contextualize to our actual people group, rather than what the books had told us was supposed to happen. We surrendered to the mysterious providence of God that had ordained that, for our people group, the most contextual and effective methods would feel, to us, like the most traditional and the least effective. This was the right call. When we let go of our fear of cultural contamination and started doing more traditional church planting ministry, the work finally began to get traction.
The missionary who believes his Bible knows that God is utterly sovereign over the trajectories of the world’s people groups and nations (Acts 17:26, Deut 32:8). There is no development which God has not ordained – and this includes developments of cultural transmission. After a missionary has labored hard to make the gospel the only stumbling block, yet still finds that the locals have adopted some of his home culture, he can rest in the sovereignty of God. The power of the indigenous church has not been forever ruined because the missionary (or someone else) introduced a certain service order which the locals have eagerly taken ownership of. No, God is sovereign, even over cultural transmission. In fact, the transmission that he ordains may become one of the particular strengths of the new indigenous church, such as when Middle Eastern believers gain a witness because Jesus (and emulating their missionary mentor) has made them more direct and honest in their speech.
Looking to missions history, we see many examples of how the sovereignty of God was working through the very culture the missionary introduced along with his gospel work. The missionary Bruce Olsen, in his book, Bruschko, writes of the farming improvements he introduced to South American tribes, which greatly improved their crop yields. The Lisu people of China became known as a singing people for Christ because the missionary who reached them, J.O. Fraser, was an accomplished pianist. And the illiterate, pagan Irish surprisingly became the great scribes and missionaries of Europe in the centuries after the fall of Rome. Why? Because Patrick had taught them of the love of Christ – and the love of books.
As in any area of practical theology, the sovereignty of God is no excuse for laziness or carelessness. Missionaries should be conscious of the ways local believers are adopting Western versus local forms, and act as mentors who try to guide this messy process. But we must embrace a deep trust in the sovereignty of God as we seek to plant healthy indigenous churches. Their cultures exist in their unique historical positions for God-ordained reasons. They are drawn to certain things and repelled by other things for God-ordained reasons. “The secret things belong to the Lord,” but we know that at least some of those reasons of providence are so that many will hear the gospel message, understand it, believe it, and become the indigenous church.
God is sovereign, even when one culture bleeds into another. Our approach to the fear of cultural contamination begins with the Bible’s call for direct ministry in word and deed and call to guard against false gospels. It ends with a deep trust in the sovereignty of God. Alongside these truths we draw from cross-cultural common sense, which invites us to take a realistic view of how cultures and relationships actually function. And we also lean into personal humility, which asks us to remember our equality as well as our limitations.
When missionaries are shaped by these truths, they are helped to keep the danger of cultural “contamination” in its place – as a real, but secondary danger. Gospel workers should keep a wise eye on it, but not let it be a primary driver of their missiology or become a fear that keeps them from the timeless task of preaching the gospel, making disciples, and planting churches.
This post is part of a series. Total series posts are:
Entrusted to the Dirt 
