In this fourth post, I want to share with you the limitations to studying people groups in the United States and Canada. We have excellent databases (i.e., Joshua Project, Global Research Department–International Mission Board, World Christian Database) on the peoples of the world, living outside of the United States and Canada. Whenever we turn our attentions to these two highly ethnically diverse nations, our research is woefully inadequate.
With globalization and transnational migrations, a failure to understand the peoples “here” is not only a significant hindrance for missions in the United States and Canada, but a significant hindrance for missions across the world.
Case Study #2: The Strangers Next Door
Each year, The United States and Canada receives a large number of international migrants. In 2010, the United States had an estimate number of international migrants of 43 million, representing 20% of the world’s international migrant population—the largest of any nation. While Canada received 3.4% or 7 million, the nation’s population is much smaller than her Southern neighbor,and thus has a much greater amount of ethnic diversity.
What We Know
At 15,000 feet, we are able to estimate the following:
The number of unreached people groups—which I assume is between 368 and 641 groups found in the United States and Canada. While I address this number in The Strangers Next Door: Global Migration and the Great Commission Opportunity for You and Your Church (Biblica, forthcoming March 2012), I plan to blog about this matter in a future post. The countries of birth for these groups are known as well.
We also know the number of international students who are studying in the United States (and I’m sure Canada has similar data) and their countries of origin.
We also know the number of refugees in these countries and those seeking asylum , and their nationalities.
Limitations Affecting Strategy
At present, we do not know the ethno-linguistic characteristics of the peoples living in the United States and Canada. In other words, we know the number of Nigerians living here, but we do not know how this population is divided according to tribes. Therefore, our best numbers on the total people groups in general and the unreached people groups in particular, are educated guesses. The irony is that in many of the world’s most remote places, we have more accurate data on their people groups than we do on those peoples—oftentimes from the same nations—living in North America.
Closely akin to this limitation is the realty that we lack knowledge of the Evangelical percentages of such people groups. What percentage of those living among us are followers of Jesus and not simply “adherents” to some Christian tradition?
Third, many of the international migrants continue to remain in contact with family and friends “back home.” While there is a growing body of secular research on the social networks of transnational migrants, mission strategists would be wise to recognize and understand the importance of these global connections and how to minister accordingly to those “here” as well as to their family and friends “over there.”
Fourth, we lack knowledge of the peoples’ receptivity levels to the gospel. While some research has been accomplished related to this matter, much more is needed. When it comes to the development of mission strategy for the third largest country in the world (United States) and a country the size of Canada (second largest in geography)—including the enormous amount of ethnic diversity—wise stewardship is necessary. The gospel is not to be withheld from anyone. Yet godly wisdom and limited time and resources require that we ask questions such as, “Who is presently asking the Philippian Jailer question?”
Finally, for the most part, we lack an understanding of who is working among the peoples of the world in our communities. What Great Commission Christians are presently laboring in evangelism and church planting? At present, no such database exists. In some situations, individuals within the same people groups are likely creating redundancies on the field.