Why Geography?
Geography is an important aspect of the biblical definition of the nations. First, the biblical origin of the nations included geography as a significant category by which the nations were divided. Genesis 10:5, 20, and 31 stress that the descendants of Noah were divided according to their nations (gôy), families (mišpāḥōṭ), languages (lešōn’), and lands (’ǎrṣōṯ). The descendants of Noah, constituting what would later be referred to as the ethnē, were complex in their divisions. While language was certainly one of the factors, it was certainly not the only defining, or even primary, characteristic.
Missions, as depicted in the New Testament, does not neglect any of these categories, but it does tend to focus extensively on geography. Paul makes frequent geographic references in his letters.[1] While Paul used ethnic designations in Rom 1:16 (Ioudaios and Hellēn), he used geographic designations to describe the extent of his missionary activity in Rom 15:19 (“apo Ierousalēm kai kyklō mechri tou Illyrikou”) Roland Allen observes that Paul constantly speaks of the Roman provinces regarding his missionary endeavors.[2] Eckhard Schnabel similarly argues, “The basic strategy of Paul was simple: he wanted to proclaim the message of Jesus Christ to Jews and Gentiles in obedience to a divine commission, particularly in areas in which it had not been proclaimed before.”[3] Schnabel specifies “areas” in contrast to Allen’s “provinces” allowing for a broader understanding of geography. Provinces were strictly Roman geopolitical divisions, but other areas such as Arabia/Nabatea were distinct geographic entities but not Roman provinces.[4] Since geography is a significant category in the scriptural definition of the nations and in the early mission of the church, the matter of contextualization needs to be taken into consideration.
Geography is not isolated from other cultural factors. While geographic features can be empirically observed, the way that geography is understood arises within a cultural context. J. B. Harley urges, “Any appreciation of the historical importance of maps depends upon a clear conception of their nature, of the factors that have shaped their making and transmission, and of their role within human societies.”[5] In order to develop a scriptural missions strategy that accounts for geography, the local geographical factors must be taken into consideration. Concepts of what are important and unimportant geographical divisions cannot be imported from the outside (etic) but must be considered from the perspective of the people groups themselves (emic).
If geography is culturally informed, as much as maps are visual representations of geography, then a missions strategy must develop methods of contextualizing strategy according to local geographical views. Dean Flemming defines contextualization as “the dynamic and comprehensive process by which the gospel is incarnated within a concrete historical or cultural situation. This happens in such a way that the gospel both comes to authentic expression in the local context and at the same time prophetically transforms the context.”[6] In order to incarnate the gospel within a specific culture, all aspects of the culture must be carefully considered. Robert David Sack asserts, “We humans are geographical beings transforming the earth and making it into a home, and that transformed world affects who we are. Our geographical nature shapes our world and our selves. Being geographical is inescapable—we do not have to be conscious of it. Yet, realizing that we are geographical increases the effectiveness of our actions, the clarity of our awareness, and the inclusiveness and generosity of our moral concerns.”[7] In order to develop a missions strategy that has a scriptural foundation, is theologically relevant, and can be applied transculturally, geography (but not necessarily geopolitical entities) must be recovered as a major factor in distinguishing people groups.
