First, you probably need to watch “Finishing the Task Vision” video at
http://finishingthetask.com/videos.html
(Just scroll down)
Then, you’ll need to watch “The History of Table 71” video, just below it. Starting to get the picture? Picking up on the concept?
Now watch this excerpt of Paul Eshleman’s talk at Lausanne…
http://conversation.lausanne.org/en/conversations/detail/11455
So everything’s making sense so far, right? Now take a look at the list at
http://finishingthetask.com/uupgs.php
Now this is the part at which things start to break down for me. How is it that this list seems so different from the list featured at…
http://www.joshuaproject.net/unreached.php
You can set that drop-down (at the top) on different criteria. If you choose “Unreached and Unengaged,” [edited] you’ll find 1279 unreached ethnolinguistic groups, all of which are ‘least reached’, with little red boxes (less than 2% evangelical, 5% Christian Adherents). Now compare the two lists. FTT’s list of 1101 groups and Joshua Project’s list of 1279 groups are extremely different. For example, the FTT list of 1101 contains 32 groups set apart by the fact that they are deaf. This represents about 3% of the number of people groups. But these deaf segments are listed as being unreached and unengaged in countries like Germany, France, Ukraine, Italy, Chile, Australia, Argentina, and Mexico. Now I grant that there are deaf people who haven’t come in contact with the gospel in those places. But, in fact, to be fair, if we’re going to list the deaf in Mexico and Australia, shouldn’t we probably list the deaf in about 180 other nations of the world? You see, the list breaks down because, partly, the deaf don’t live together. They’re scattered across an entire nation. Reaching them as a population segment will be like picking up brown gravel that has been strewn across your mother’s white gravel drive; you’ll have to pick up one brown piece at a time. By contrast, the Joshua Project lists the deaf in all 236 countries. To see them, go go
http://www.joshuaproject.net/peoples.php
Change the “letter” drop-down to a “D” and change the “People” drop-down to “deaf.” You’ll see a very different picture here and one that is, I believe, a bit more thorough and a bit more researched.
But the point is — after all these years of counting unreached peoples, why are we looking at lists that are so radically different. How is it that we could be so “poles apart” on fundamental definition of the remaining task. Haven’t there been countless conferences, congresses, and workshops? Haven’t we been talking about all these unreached peoples since 1974? And sure… it’s a complex world, but should one list simply (and dare I say, “arbitrarily”) pick out 32 nations of deaf while the other list pictures 236 nations of deaf?
Dan Scribner has done us a big favor by writing the article at…
http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/1320?pg=all
At least through this article, we finally see some reasons for the differences. Yet, I remain troubled. I want to say, “Can’t we all just get along?”
So I ask… what’s your take on these seeming disparities? Do they take away from one’s ability to picture the target or focus? Do they bother a local church Missions Minister as he/she tries to forge strategy and vision? Do other professional missions practitioners even look at these lists? … or do they just go about their business based on what they see in “X country”? Is this whole “list-mania” more of a feature of Western-oriented thinkers? … and the rest of the world isn’t worried about it? (Before you dismiss these lists, I wish you could meet one gentleman I met at Lausanne from India who had completely dissected the remaining unreached people groups in that great sub-continent. He was *not* Western, but he had *totally* bought into this thinking.
Here’s my fear: I fear that these dissensions and differences only strengthen the argument by those who say, “looking at the world as a group of unreached peoples is a waste of time.” They say, “most of the world today live in cities anyway… and in cities, the concept of people groups breaks down anyway.” I’ve mentioned this way of thinking before. I just fear that we give more voice to the objection by presenting such different pictures and I can’t for the life of me figure out why we can’t all get on the same page — or ‘list.’ What’s *your* take?
I totally agree with you Doug, I am greatly concerned that the presentation did more harm than good – both its style and content were less than helpful and perhaps the low point of the conference for me. I am totally committed to UPG approach but this presentation demeaned the whole process of determining where out priorities should be and I fear that there were many who were turned off by the whole thing.
I’ve posted on this subject at http://www.justinlong.org/2010/11/the-devil-is-in-the-definitions-or-the-controversies-around-unengaged-at-capetown2010/. There I’ve attempted to address some of the issues about “why can’t we have just one list” with some of the problems implicit in a brand new list and a lack of clear definitions. Here let me just say that the major lists – e.g. WCD, JP, CPPI – are basically on the same page and regularly interact with each other.
Justin, read your item and appreciate the work you put into composing it. Posted this message there:
Thanks for the time you invested in setting this down on paper, Justin. Or — I guess I should say… on screen. :-) Your title, in my opinion, is more telling than all of us might realize, at least at first. “The Devil is in the definitions.” We can smooth it over all we want, but to me, Satan has to pump his fist a la Kirk Gibson in the 1988 World Series. You *have* to see it at http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=3364800 . Believe it or not, I happened to watch that game *live*. I remember seeing him pump his fist at 2nd base and my eyes instantly misted with emotion — and I’m not even a big baseball fan! :-) Well all that to say this: to me, like it or not, Satan *had* to pump his fist Friday morning in Cape Town. Everything had been set exactly right. Paul could have walked up on the stage and said practically *anything* and we’d all given it a standing ovation. Anything, except what he said. Which was — here’s a *new* list, with *new* data (and it didn’t help any that inconsistencies *jumped* out at us all). I confess: I looked around to the other five members of my table group, none of which was U.S. of American, and lowered my head, and gently shook it, then just apologized. The really wild thing was — they all had to think about it for a second whether or not they’d accept my apology on behalf of Lausanne, Paul, and the USA. (They eventually *did*, but it took about 15 seconds to say so.)
To me, we *can* fix this.
But I can’t figure out how this happened. Lausanne III had gotten so many things *right*. How did this sneak past them? Did Doug Birdsall sign off on it? Was it because we’ve lost some of our senior leadership on the Strategy Working Group (by senior, I mean “experienced” not “aged”)? So a “new guard” came in without regard for what had gone on before? I happened to be in the room in 1995 when Luis Bush brought together about 25 researchers from all over the globe. I remember the reaction from our Indian brothers (sub-continent of India) when Luis said, “Nope, we need a list with 2000 or fewer unreached groups.” The guy from India humbly said, “But sir, I have here a list larger than 2000 groups just within India!” Luis said, “The USA public won’t stand for it. We can’t get our arms around that many groups. Besides, I’m convinced there will be big marketability for a list of around 2000 people groups as we approach the year 2000.” The room was stunned. But in the months that followed, everybody stayed at the table, and at the “Launch” meeting later that year, the Joshua Project List of Unreached Peoples rolled out to a fairly big fanfare (with 1739 groups listed, by the way). Patrick was there. The IMB was there. Wycliffe was there. Caleb Project was there. ACMC was there. Even Brigada was there. (OK… I’m only listing Brigada with those other guys because I’m hoping some search engine will think it’s for real. :-) ) What I can’t for the life of me figure out is — didn’t anyone tell Paul that somebody had fought all this fight before? *15 Years* before?
The way to fix this whole thing is to embrace the JoshuaProject list and add a column of data to it — or even several columns — from Paul’s list. Let’s build on what we already have. There’s no need to have a new website serving up a new list. Let’s start with the known. And Build. (It doesn’t help matters that the Finishing the Task (FTT) list didn’t provide sources, didn’t give more than just a few columns of info, and cheated so many people out of the group they were following. [Shaking my head.]) Pure and simple — this was a dropped ball. To fix it, we need unity, not what happened at Cape Town.
I understand there’s a meeting happening next month in California. I’m praying for that get-together, hoping it can not just heal this, but pole-vault it forward.
Somebody’s going to be able to use this someday as a powerful lesson in the importance of gathering the *legacy of history* prior to trying to force a future following.
Doug
Hi Doug, Long Time!
I just responded to Justin on the FB version of his ePaper. :)
As the guy responsible for herding the research “cats” in the 1990’s AD2000 & Beyond Movement context, I agree that it would be helpful to learn from history. We are not good at that in global Christianity: rather than do market research (in a sense), we tend to “hear from God” and move forward without looking at our context.
One other tidbit: we in the West have a very unbiblical weakness. One that I am repenting of. We love to manage things. We say “What gets measured gets managed; what gets managed gets done.” We want to DO the task, so we measure and manage it. But in this case, it is GOD who changes peoples’ hearts. Yes, we can measure and accountably manage our work, our finances and more.
But, based on a six month study of every use of quantity in scripture (please check my work — PLEASE! I did not want this to be true!)… God never evaluates or compares spiritual things quantitatively. No formula for spiritual outcomes. None. YES numbers tell the story. YES they have meaning. YES they influence us. But God’s spiritual math will confound you every time.
I need to write something more than blog comments on this. Pray for us!
Pete! Can’t believe it. Is it really you? I was sure I had just dreamed you.
First, in answer to your reply, I’m a believer, brother. I’m sure we talk numbers too often. At the same time, if God is going to check to see that individuals from “every people, every language, every nation under heaven,” (Rev. 7), then it just feels like we’re “on his team” when we worry about the same thing, right? :-)
But second, brother, can you believe it? You and Jonathan were the ones that first gave us the wherewithall to “Brigada-ize”!??? “Cross-Connect” was just starting. You were talking about some “library” of information (that came to be called the WorldWide Web), and you gave Brigada the wheels to get going. On behalf of Brigada and all the other entities you helped undergird, Thank you to both you *and* Jonathan.
Speaking of which, if you ever get time, drop me an email DLucas (at) TeamExpansion (dot) org to tell me where Jonathan is these days, if you happen to know. I’d love to see him again someday!
Doug