My last post addressed the new stats released by the Institute of International Education. The United States has reached a record high in the number of international students now enrolled in its colleges and universities. I consider this a very good situation. It is a wonderful opportunity for the Church to serve the nations.
Go back to that post and look at the chart on the top countries of origin. China and India are the two largest sending nations. Turkey, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Taiwan also make the top ten list. Many of the top twenty-five countries have experienced large percent increases of students sent within the past year.
But, do we see the hand of the Lord in such movements?
Many of the least reached and unreached peoples of the world are coming to our communities to study, learn American cultures, and make friendships. Unfortunately, many churches in the United States are not aware of such wonderful migrations. While the greatest needs for the gospel are by far outside of the United States, the sad reality is that while many of us struggle to figure out ways to get into other nations, we fail to recognize the Sovereign Lord at work in our own communities.
We often pass the peoples we are trying to reach at 35,000 feet somewhere over the Pacific. They fly past us at 530 miles per hour on their way to our neighborhoods. They are willingly coming to our communities while we’re struggling to get into theirs.
We are called to go into all the world and make disciples. We are supposed to continue to go into all the world to the least reached and unreached. Again, the greatest need is absolutely “over there.”
However, what kind of theology and missiology supports going “over there” and fails to advocate going “down the street”?
What kind of stewards are we if we are willing to spend large amounts of money, time, and energy on reaching people groups–at great risk–and are not willing to connect with someone from that same group who wants to have tea or coffee with us at the local shop?
The Great Commission knows no geographical boundaries. The churches, networks, and denominations that will be the most effective in making disciples of all nations in a highly globalized twenty-first century world are those who strategically integrate all of their missional activities. They will bring together the domestic and international realms.
And there is no better place to start than by loving and serving those wonderful students who have come to study in our backyards.
“…what kind of theology and missiology supports going “over there” and fails to advocate going “down the street”?” – To answer your question, I don’t know of many (or any) who advocate going over there who don’t also advocate going down the street. It is certainly a field ripe for harvest. As a mobilizer, I try to get folks to start with the international population nearest them.
However, the issue is your following statement: “What kind of stewards are we if we are willing to spend large amounts of money, time, and energy on reaching people groups–….” Here is your error – we DON’T spend large amounts of any of those to working with UPG’s. In my area, we have 3 major, world renowned universities with thousands of the students you mentioned. We also have churches on every corner, and missionaries from other countries on the ground here. As of 2001, over 27% of ALL Christian workers in the world were at work INSIDE the USA. There is more than ample resources and Christians here to reach these international students and scholars, if local Christians would be obedient.
The problem is an imbalance in foreign missions. An average Christian gives 1.8% of their income and about 5% of that giving goes to missions ($15 billion annually). Of those mission funds — between 0.1% and 1.66% is focused on UNREACHED peoples – especially in the 10-40 window.
David Barrett states, “…if the same money and time spent to win one person to the Lord in the West were put to use in the 10/40 Window nations, the effort would yield a harvest of 100 souls added to the kingdom of God. It is 100 times more cost effective, therefore, to reach those in the 10/40 Window. But for a sizable number of [unreached people] groups, cost-effectiveness reaches 1000 times more than in Western countries.”
Mobilization is needed, but let’s keep our facts straight please. 🙂
Thank you, Charles for your comment. I greatly appreciate them. I am very thankful to hear that you are advocating a both/and approach to global disciple-making.
Regarding your comment on the fact that “we DON’T spend large amounts” of resources on non-North American missions, I think we are both correct, depending on the perspective behind the facts. You are absolutely correct that when we examine how much money remains in the United States and how little goes to missionary work outside of the country, there is a great difference. This is the macro-level perspective. A very small percentage of our dollars leaves here. However, the micro-level perspective (the one to which I was referring to in the post) is that at the individual and church level it is very costly to send a missionary family to another country. For example, I know of one mission organization that spends an average of $100,000 per family from the start of their interviews to the time they arrive on the field. While at the macro-level $100,000 is a small amount, at the micro-level it is a large amount.
I completely agree with you that an imbalance of resources exists. Keeping our facts straight requires that we ask about the perspectives supporting our facts. Take care.