Are Nations Really People Groups?

A few months ago, I saw a video of Douglas Wilson and Vishal Mangalwadi, an Indian Christian author and speaker, saying just the opposite of the majority of those in modern missions – that a nation is not simply a people group.

Here’s why they’re wrong… mostly…¹

The core question is this: What is a nation? This question matters because, for decades, we’ve been aiming people and dollars toward reaching the unreached people groups.

Here’s a key part of their discussion that hits at the disagreement:

VM: “American Christianity is a defeated religion. Billy Graham won tons of souls and lost the nation. Should the Nations be discipled? That’s the big issue. [The] American church has the capacity to do that. It does not have the theology or the vision […] to disciple the nation. That’s what is affecting our nation such as India.”

DW: “And that American error has global ramifications.”

VM: “Yes, that to disciple nations means reach unreached people groups.”

DW: “No.”

VM: “That it doesn’t mean to disciple the nation because Nation itself is misdefined.”²

An implication here is that we should shift our money and efforts away from reaching unreached people groups and toward lobbying and reforming governments.

Besides blame being given to Billy Graham, Magalwadi also lays some at the feet of Ralph Winter, Presbyterian missiologist, who in 1974 in Lausanne, Switzerland, changed how the global church views the Great Commission with his speech to a large gathering of evangelicals in which he popularized the concept of people groups.³

So what’s the other side of the argument? For a people group to be a nation, it needs self-governance.

DW: So then, if I’m following you here, a small independent tribe like the Navajo would be a people group, an ethnic group, a nation.

VM: If it is governing itself. Without governance, it’s not a nation.

DW: You’re saying if there are multiple people groups involved but there’s a principle of coherence or unity in the law and ultimately worship and Faith, then it’s a great nation, which just because it’s a great nation doesn’t make it an Empire.⁴

Governance takes a central role in their view, where it is secondary in mainstream missiology.

Who can help us settle this debate? In 2022, Canon Press published Stephen Wolfe’s book, The Case for Christian Nationalism. A number of reviewers in a social media firestorm came out to give their warnings about it. Naturally, my non-conformist side came out, and I decided to read the book everyone was saying not to read.

Far from incendiary, the book is mainly one of definitions, and that is why it is helpful in answering what a nation is. Wolfe states, “The idea of nation is notoriously difficult to define, and identifying true nations is equally challenging. This is especially true in an age of the nation-state, which tends to conceal difference under a homogenizing state project.”⁵ Here he makes a clear distinction between a nation, like the British, and a nation-state like the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which also has other people groups within it.

His definition of nation is a group of people having “particularity and sharing that particularity with others. Particularity is distinctive to a people not only with regard to the people but also to a people in place.”⁶  So English-speaking Christians in America are different from English-speaking Christians in Australia, emphasizing that places actually matter. Using “the terms ethnicity and nation almost synonymously,” ⁷ he clarifies, “no nation (properly speaking) is composed of two or more ethnicities.” ⁸

Wolfe and Winter both push forward this idea of nations as people groups or ethnicities. Wilson and Mangalwadi seem to disagree with the way modern missions are done on a principle basis. In an attempt to steel-man their argument, let’s say they mean “to disciple nations doesn’t just mean to reach unreached people groups.” That is, once each people group has been effectively evangelized, it doesn’t mean we can kick our feet up. There is more work to do, especially as the people group learns to obey Christ qualitatively in society, law, government, art, music, and customs. That is where I would agree with them.

Most of the Sent Ones I know would not be satisfied with stopping at the quantitative benchmark of 2% of an unreached people becoming believers. Jesus is worthy of all the glory. Any who would be happy with 50% born-again believers in a nation would be much happier with 75%. And part of the Christian Nationalist argument is that the quality of a nation giving honor and glory to Christ matters as well. The point here is not to let our definitions get muddled because we may have perceived disagreement where there is actual agreement.

So what problem is there with the definitions?

Mangalwadi starts at the tower of Babel. In answer to the question of how he delineates between nation and nation-state, he says, “the concept of sovereign nation-state is a Jewish idea in Genesis 10-11, particularly 11. All the people living in Babel are one people, descendants of Noah, speaking one language.”⁹ When they divided, “what divided people into nations was not ethnicity… [but] languages, linguistic groups.”¹⁰ He also says, “American missiology […] reads too much into ethnos, that Nation means people group- no.”¹¹

It’s a strange start to the disagreement, because the predominant understanding of a people group also particularly emphasizes language. Here is the Joshua Project definition: “For evangelization purposes, a people group is the largest group within which the Gospel can spread as a church planting movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance.”¹² There is actually a good degree of alignment here, even if he thinks there is disagreement.

Later, Mangalwadi proposes a unique framework that goes like this.

1. A nation or tribe is a people group.
2. A collection of similar people groups can make up a “great nation.”
3. An empire is a nation assimilating and conquering dissimilar people groups without much natural cohesion.¹³

That idea of Empire is worth reflecting on as it poses interesting questions like, “What happens when a nation-state or ‘great nation’ tries to combine too many different people groups politically and socially?”

A Different Framework

To throw my hat in the ring, I’d like to propose a different framework to clarify nations, nation-states, and people groups.

1) Nations are people groups or ethnicities.

2) Countries or nation-states are the governmental structures. They are the sovereign modern states defending their territory and borders and writing laws for their people.

3) Cultures are the glue that holds similar but distinct people groups together socially and politically.

In this view, the predominantly held definition of nations as people groups stays the same. Countries are the envelopes that hold one or more nations. When cultural assimilation has occurred enough that they can stick together, through language and broad customs, you have a cohesive country. To explain overlapping or overarching cultures, let’s look at some simple stereotypes of White and Black Americans. White Americans prefer rock ‘n’ roll and country, while Black Americans prefer rap and hip-hop. Black American men spend time communally in the barbershop, where Whites typically don’t. White Americans go hiking while Blacks typically don’t. Some of the cultural glue, however, is that everybody celebrates the 4th of July and watches football in the Fall.

Using this new framework, let’s try to answer some of the gray area questions raised in the interview and see if any more clarity comes as a result. Here’s the first question.

DW: If India comes together as a nation, it would be a great nation according to your definition because there’s many, many different people groups and that sort of thing but the only way groups that disparate could be held together would be something like the Bible. One worldview. One truth. ¹⁴

Although I’d love for India, the Country, and each of its people groups to worship Christ collectively and holistically, I think the question misses the mark. I think India has already come together as a Country since 1947, and what unites them is one culture. There are surely differences among the different nations within India, but they are all India in different flavors. In the South you get dosa, and in the north you get naan, but it is all India. When Indians believe in Christ, what matters is how they will transform and submit their culture and government to Him.

At one point, Wilson asks another question, “Why are the Swiss the Swiss?” They speak four different languages, and they all have their own mountains, so why are they not German, Italian, or French instead?¹⁵ The simple answer is that they are distinct Nations within one Country that has created their own unique Culture. Here’s another question.

DW: “Everybody seems to know what a Jew is. Are they a people group? Are they an ethne? […] Israel is a nation now.”¹⁶

This is a question not really answered by Mangalwadi. Israel is a Country. Judaism is a religion. Even if you don’t have a people group list, you can get pretty close by combining religion, language, and place to isolate most of the unique characteristics that make up a people group. Before AD 70, the glue for Israel was religion – Levites and worship at the Jerusalem temple. The Jews were one religion, speaking one language, and living in one place, but have not been since the dispersion at the destruction of the temple in AD 70.

Now they have formed multiple ethne or Nations and share the same religion. This isn’t too different from Islam. There are Muslims in Bangladesh and Saudi, and Uyghurs in China, but none of them are the same.

Weak Glue and Strong Glue

The cultural glue is weak in a Country when each Nation or ethnicity is only trying to get advantages for themselves to dominate the other ethnicities civically and politically.

Malaysia poses an interesting example. If you go to certain countries, you can start to pick up on the culture in a matter of days. Everything about Japan, for instance, screams, “Oh that’s Japanese!” But when you visit Malaysia and realize it is 60% Muslim Malay, 20% Chinese, and a smaller minority of Tamils, you can’t really pick up on any discernible unifying culture. Go to the malls and the tourist areas with the big towers and you can see the tribalism. You spot the Chinese red lanterns, you see the hijabs and recognize the occasional South Indian, but what makes someone proud of being Malaysian? The less you can point to, the weaker the glue. Contrast that with Japan, America, Germany, or Great Britain for the last hundred years, and you will see much stronger glue.

Tribes or sub-groups matter too. A number of states or regions in America have their own strong cultures. Let’s look to Texas. Texans are independent and self-reliant. They love guns, the great outdoors, and watching football. Cowboys then and oilmen now. Pro-trucks, anti-littering. Geopolitically, they were their own country before joining the United States, and as they perceive America declining, they share a spirit of being ready to be independent again. Right now, Texas is full of Texans, but it’s also full of Americans with a lot of overlap. The sub-cultural glue of Texas is very strong and could lend itself to a new nation or country forming.

On a large-scale timeline, new nations are still forming even now, and old nations are still fading away. Think about this: At the time Matthew wrote down Jesus’s Great Commission, it would still be 1600 years before Americans as a nationality would come into being. Conversely, it has been about 1500 years since any Romans have been around. Yet, God wanted both Americans and Romans to be represented around Christ’s throne.

Potential Objections

Aren’t we all made in God’s image? Yes, but defining nations as people groups actually goes against the modern idea of the global melting pot, the idea that all distinctions should be torn down. We have to be biblical in our definitions of other ethnicities and nations, as well as in our treatment of them.

What about things like immigration and race relations? Without spending much time, foreigners or sojourners, according to Leviticus 19:33-34¹⁷, should be treated well without wronging them. We should treat them as we would our other countrymen. This also implies assimilation. Foreigners should assimilate to the predominant national culture, and one might argue that distinct people groups within a country should assimilate as much as possible to the unifying country’s culture.

What about something like interethnic marriage, then? For Christians, they should marry a fellow believer in line with New Testament teaching. If they marry someone from a different people group, they might be at the forefront of creating a new nation, like Mexicans arising from Spanish and Mesoamerican ancestors, or maybe they are a one-off nationally speaking. Neither is inherently better.

Final Thoughts

In contrast to our brothers arguing that the definition of nation includes governance, the definition of nations as people groups stands up well, as does the goal of reaching all the unreached ones. Revelation 7:9 still shows the uncountable crowd as having representatives of all nations and tribes and peoples and languages. Governments are not in view here. It would not be enough, for instance, to disciple the government of China to have biblical laws if the Mandarin-speaking Chinese believe in Christ but the Cantonese-speaking Chinese don’t believe in Christ.

I think it is a fair assumption to say Wilson and Mangalwadi want the global body to focus on discipling peoples and nation states to govern themselves as God would want. But my main critique is about the foundation. Where do you start? You could try to go win over Constantine for the top-down approach, but most of us don’t have access to the king.

It seems the most obvious starting point to help an entire nation or ethnicity submit to Christ would be to share the Gospel and make some disciples of that nation and help them devote their lives to Christ. From there, multiply Gospel seeds and seed sowers. The Apostle Paul started by sharing the good news with people groups within an empire. Only later did he get hauled before governors and kings to share with them as well. Following his example, if we want to disciple a country, it still makes sense to start with the people.

Nobody said we got the people group lists completely right. They were always meant to shine a light on the darkest places and on the people farthest from hearing the Gospel. In Wilson and Mangalwadi’s view, it honestly might be a good idea to create a list of countries without godly governance.

However, unreached people groups should remain in focus for the completion of the Great Commission, because nations really are people groups. God made nations for our good and for His glory and amazingly as a part of the way He draws the lost to Himself. He wants each unique people group to be represented in heaven, worshipping Him for eternity.

“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.  God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.” Acts 17:26-27

Until all hear.

Endnotes

¹ Vishal Mangalwadi, “Unpacking Nationalism and Imperialism w/ Dr. Vishal Mangalwadi,” video, 1:03:23, posted by Canon Press, February 5, 2025, YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZFD4Qmu2XU.

² Ibid, 36:57.

³https://missionexus.org/people-groups-a-missional-priority-or-a-problematic-paradigm/

⁴ Mangalwadi, “Unpacking Nationalism,” 18:22.

⁵Wolfe, Stephen. 2023. The Case for Christian Nationalism. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 134.

⁶Ibid.

⁷ Ibid, 135.

⁸Ibid.

⁹ Mangalwadi, “Unpacking Nationalism,” 6:26

¹⁰Ibid, 7:12.

¹¹ Ibid.

¹²“What Is a People Group?,” Joshua Project, Joshua Project, 2025, https://joshuaproject.net/resources/articles/what_is_a_people_group.

¹³ Mangalwadi, “Unpacking Nationalism,” 21:30.

¹⁴ Ibid, 26:42.

¹⁵ Ibid, 14:27.

¹⁶ Ibid, 23:35.

¹⁷ Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture references and quotations are from the New International Version

The Holy Bible, New International Version®, NIV®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc.