ďťżIntro: Iâve spent decades working alongside nomadsâwalking with their flocks, eating in their tents, listening to their stories. And in all that time, one question kept rising: What really makes someone a nomad?
In the Nomadic Peoples Network, weâve settled on five traitsâNetworking relationships, Organized by clan structure, Mobility as a community Resource, Autonomy for their group, and a Distinct identity. But then something strange happened.
I kept meeting people who had four of the five⌠but not mobility. They still think in clans, still operate as networks, still see themselves as distinct. But they donât moveânot as a community.
Thatâs when I realized: we need a new category.
These arenât NOMADs. Theyâre something else.
I call them NO-ADs.
And understanding each may change how we approach mission, community, and even church.â
========
Hey friends, welcome back to Let Nomads Move You! Iâm Ron, your nomad guide đ¤ , and todayâs episode takes us one step farther. Weâre wrapping up our N.O.M.A.D. series and introducing a new but related idea: the NO-AD. Itâs going to challenge how we think about mission, community, and maybe even the way we do church. So letâs dive in.
NO-ADs?!? Where Did That Come From?
Extended families ideally include mutual love and respect, loyalty, protection, and provision. It says, âThis is who we are!â
For years, Iâve been working with people from around the world to define what it means to be a NOMAD. But through interviews with people across different countries, I kept encountering a pattern. I would present our working definition of NOMADs and ask a series of questions to determine whether a particular group fit the definition.
Many among the Pashtun, for example, would respond:
âWell, definitely Networking relationships externally, Organized internally by clan and tribe, Autonomy is a super high value, and they definitely see themselves as Distinct, but not on the basis of Mobility. Many people move, but it is not a community resource.â
After hearing this kind of response several times, it became clear: These groups werenât NOMADs. They are fully settled, both ethnically and sociologically. Individuals may be mobile, but that mobility is not considered a resource for or on behalf of the community. They are collectivists in general, but mobility is not part of that collective identity. The only missing element was Mobility as a community resource. That realization led to the concept of NO-ADs.
This insight raised a bigger question: Why are nomadic and formerly nomadic peoples still among the least reachedâand least responsiveâto traditional mission strategies? That question has stayed with me ever since.
The Core of NOMAD Identity
If youâve been following our work, you know our working definition of NOMADs. Itâs built around five key characteristics:
⢠Naturally Networking â Relationships, both internal and external, are the foundation of survival and success.
⢠Organized by Clan â Social structures are based on extended family groups that provide identity and security.
⢠Mobility as a Community Resource â Movement is not just about individuals relocatingâit is a strategy for survival, economy, and identity.
⢠Autonomous Communities â The group functions as a unit, distinct from the outside world, valuing its own way of life.
⢠Distinct Identity â NOMADs see themselves as a people set apart from settled societies, often with a strong cultural heritage.
In previous episodes, weâve broken down each of these five characteristics and explored how they shape worldview, kinship, and spiritual understanding. But today we turn our attention to what happens when just one of these traitsâmobilityâis missing.
What Happens When Mobility Isnât a Resource?
Take away the âMâ from NOMAD, and what do you have left? NO-ADs. These are people who still embody the networking, clan-based organization, group autonomy, and distinct identityâbut they donât see mobility as a resource at the community level.
That doesnât mean individuals donât move. Plenty of NO-ADs travel, migrate, or relocate for work. But as a group, they donât rely on movement for survival, identity, or opportunity in the way that NOMADs do. Mobility is not embedded in their way of life.
This is a crucial distinction for mission work: it changes everything about how trust is built, how leadership functions, how evangelism spreads, and how discipleship is sustained. Both NOMADs and NO-ADs often find our institutionalized, program-driven models of church and mission confusing at bestâand alienating at worst.
Examples of NO-ADs
Many groups that were once NOMADs have become NO-ADs over time. Some still carry the mindset of networking, clanship, and autonomy, but their mobility has diminished due to external pressuresâgovernment policies, land restrictions, economic changes, or even shifts in cultural priorities.
Think of communities that were historically agro-pastoralists, service-traders, or hunter-gatherers. Some of them may now live in urban centers, but that alone does not define them. If they still think like NOMADsâstill seeing mobility as a community resource, even if they do not actively use itâthen they remain NOMADs by our working definition. However, after multiple generations, often four or more, they may lose this aspect, and at that point, they would be considered NO-ADs.
But many NO-ADs have no conscious historical connection to nomadic living. They always been settled farmers or other village or urban workers. Movement was never an essential element for their collective survival. The difference between NOMADs and NO-ADs isnât just about where they liveâat some point they could well be neighbors. But it is about whether they view movement as a resource for or on behalf of the extended family community.
Why Does This Distinction Matter?
Understanding the difference between NOMADs and NO-ADs helps us engage with each type of community more effectively. But perhaps the biggest reason this distinction is relevant is because of what both NOMADs and NO-ADs have in common that makes them completely different from most of us in the so-called âDeveloped World.â
Who are we? Most of us who come from North America and much of Northwestern Europe are highly individualistic. Our relationships are based on personal choice rather than communal responsibility. We have nothing like clan or tribal identity, and almost no collectivist thinkingâcertainly none that spans generations.
Ironically, many of us are highly mobile, but that mobility has zero relevance to our community. In this way, we resemble NO-ADs.
But only a little!
Why? Well, for one, our North Atlantic cultural view of autonomy is really only about personal freedom. Over and over again, we tell each other, âIt shouldnât matter what anybody else thinksâjust do and say what seems good to you.â
We also value being distinct, but again, our distinctiveness is purely individual. âMe, Myself, and Iâ. I used to think this kind of individualism wasnât mentioned anywhere in the Bible. But then I realized that there is one statement that describes it perfectly. It appears a couple of times in the book of Judges and it is not intended as a complement:
âEveryone did what was right in his own eyes.â
This radical individualism is a modern phenomenon.
Sociologists recognize that our current style of extreme individualism is quite recent in human history. Perhaps, as Muslim historian Tamim Ansary suggested in Destiny Disrupted, it began with the Protestant Reformation. Whatever the case, itâs a shift that has separated us from how most of humanity has lived and thought for thousands of years. It is also a shift from how people in most of Latin America, Africa and Asia still think today!
This divide isnât just sociological. It shows up in Scripture too. Let me take you into a moment that reveals the tensionâand possibilityâbetween NOMADs, NO-ADs, and how God works in both.
Letâs take a look at a familiar Biblical episode. Think about Abraham, Lot, and the Priest-King Melchizedek.
In Genesis 14, Abraham hears that his nephew Lot has been taken captive. Lot had long merged his household into the urban life of Sodomâa NO-ADic society defined by fixed location, politics, and economics.
The attackers? Likely a set of mobile tribal alliances from the EastâNOMADic invaders. When Abraham gets the news, he rallies 318 trained men born in his householdânot hired hands, but clan-born allies. He also calls on his friends Mamre the Amorite, and Mamreâs brothers Eshcol and Aner, each head of his own tribe. These are fellow NOMADs who could well have had as many âhouseholdâ members as Abraham.
Why all this effort? Because Lot was the son of his elder brother Haran. In a NOMADic and NO-ADic world, that makes you responsible. You donât abandon family. You act.
After the rescue, Abraham meets Melchizedek, king of Salemâa NO-ADic leader who represents an entirely different kind of people. He brings bread and wine and blesses Abraham in the name of El Elyon, God Most High.
And Abraham responds by honoring him with a tithe.
Thereâs no power struggle. No cultural clash. Just mutual recognition that God is at work.
This moment between a mobile tribal chief and a settled priest-king might just be one of the most important biblical examples of how God bridges cultures. And it should make us pause.
This event demonstrates that not all NOMADs are good and not all settled NO-ADs are bad.
It also reminds us that mission isnât always about movement or stability. Sometimes, itâs about recognition. About mutual blessing. About naming what God is doing in a way that honors both the mobile and the settled.
What Have We Lost?
For those of us in the so-called Developed World, understanding NOMADic and NO-ADic thinking can help us grasp just how radically different we are from much of the world. It can also help us recognize what weâve lost.
We are not more civilized than these societies. In some ways, we are less.
NOMADs, even those who no longer move, still think of Mobility as a community resource. They see relationships not just as personal connections but as interwoven networks that strengthen the whole. NO-ADs may not have mobility as a key factor, but they still hold on to their collective identity, their clan-based organization, and their autonomy as a people.
Meanwhile, in much of North America and Europe, weâve lost almost all of these things. We tell ourselves that individualism is progress, but is it really? Have we achieved something betterâor just given up something essential? Tamim Ansary, in the book mentioned above, suggests this is the main reason his people, Muslims, reject Christianity. What do you think?
I Wish There Had Been A Course On This!
Wow, I really wish there had been a course on this when I was in college, or at least some kind of preparation before launching among nomads. It could have saved me a decade or more of griefâand it could possibly have saved my nomad friends a great deal of grief as well.
But hey! Thatâs exactly why we developed Nomad Connectâa course designed to help you connect deeply with the nomad worldview, both in Scripture and personally within today's nomadic communities. It may even help you connect with NO-ADic communities!
It starts with a self-paced digital course to prepare for 5 weeks of mentored interaction, camping and walking with nomads somewhere in the world. Whether you're preparing for long-term work among nomadic peoples or simply want to understand these communities better, Nomad Connect will equip you with the insights and tools you need to engage meaningfully and avoid common missteps. Learn more and sign up at NomadicPeoples.net/nomad-connect.
Ok, Letâs Keep the Conversation Going.
This concept of NO-ADs is still developing, and Iâd love to hear your thoughts. Are there groups you know that fit this description? How would you navigate your identity as compared to such people? Let me know in the comments.
Letâs dig deeper together. Sign up for Let Nomads Move You!, a newsletter that helps us walk this journey together. Go to our website and sign up to explore more and be sure to check out Nomad Connectâa place where we help people learn, connect, and engage with nomadic communities globally.
