Sorry, I misread your post, substituting "Sudan" for "Darfur" there. I haven't seen those numbers before but I see no reason for them to be wrong. Evangelical congregations in Africa are often described with inflated figures but the Catholic Church's records are very reliable. Given that, I would assume that most of these Christians are in Southern Darfur, probably, no?
I have no desire to minimize the Christian population's visibility in Darfur but I do resent posts on Darfur threads that paint Darfur as a land of oppressed Christians that need to be armed against the bloodthirsty Muslim hordes. Something about their tone makes me think that they would be less willing to work to keep Muslims from being murdered and that's an attitude I find very un-Christian.
Thanks.
Sometimes it helps when we speak plainly to start with, and then our real concerns are more apparent.
You might be partially correct, or more correct than some will admit; I am really not sure.
Here is why.
The Christian groups working in Darfur have been there a long time, but not in the numbers they are now until the Christian Sudanese in the Southern Sudan starting trekking across to regions like Darfur to get away from the slaughter they were experiencing in Southern Sudan.
It might be true, that had the Christian Sudanese that Christian groups had been helping in Southern Sudan not expanded their prescence and refuge in Darfur, there may not have been as forceful of a Christian witness coming from Darfur.
One would not like that is true, but I see your point.
If you had a Lexis-Nexus account and the time, you could probably track the human rights reports from the Christian groups working in Sudan, for the last 12 years, and see if their own reporting of their concerns about Darfur have equated to the time frame of the migration to Darfur of groups they started supporting in Southern Sudan, and not before. That would tend to confirm or refute your concerns.
We should pray you are wrong.