Here’s an update on last week’s “BackPage” editorial. You’ll recall I was fairly direct about the fact that I felt Paul Eshleman had fumbled the ball a bit, at least in the opinion of the members at my own table group in Cape Town. Recall that they felt the list was poorly-cited, the unreached people groups ill-contrived, and the presentation itself a four-minute rush-job. Well did you ever write something, assuming few people would ever read it… only to find out that at least one person did. :-) Within 24 hours of releasing that edition of Brigada Today, Dr. Eshleman himself called me personally. See his biography at…
http://www.lausanne.org/issue-strategy/paul-eshleman.html
His message to me? “Come to a meeting to help us fix this. Help us get it right.” So, in a couple of weeks, about 30 of us will be gathering near Paul’s “Finishing the Task” offices. The goal? Figure out how to do a Finishing-the-task push all-the-more effectively.
My first conclusion: “Lord may we all be as humble.” This guy practically *invented* the Jesus Film, he has degrees and initials after his name, and lots of major donors ready to sponsor big-time initiatives. He doesn’t really have to listen to little guys — like me. Many of us would have become defensive, partisan, and even critical. But his posture is a real model: “How can we make this better?” By including me, sure he’ll get input from my Cape Town table group. But he’ll also get something else. He’ll get broader *ownership* of his initiative. If you stop and think about it — that’s genius, for more than one reason.
My second question is this: What message would you have me take to that meeting in California? What would *you* say to the Finishing the Task initiative? See their website at:
http://www.finishingthetask.com/
Click “Comment” below and give me a mandate… Please. After all, if I’m going to *go*, I’d like something to say! :-)
Thanks in advance for your input.
That is an interesting story…glad he was such a humble man. God was surely at work here. I am God will give you something to say. Looking forward to hearing about the meeting on Brigada Today.
As you mentioned in the original article Doug, why not use lists which are already out there and which are being used by organisations already? Also, there are several networks which are already looking at engagement amongst specific groups – don’t recreate the wheel! But perhaps my biggest fear is that we are in danger of approaching this in a very western, task orientated mindset. Lets declare that we move and engage at the leading of the Holy Spirit as we seek the Lord in prayer.
I guess another question I have is who is this campaign aimed at? Just a US audience or worldwide? I heard from a co-worker that this kind of approach is viewed very negatively in the Antipodes, so it might be interesting to consider how to include the church there. Also Gen Y does not tend to respond to a ‘list’ style of challenge – how will FTT engage with them?
Yikes. Great questions, Miriam. I’m afraid I don’t have a good answer, especially about the Gen Y question. But I’ll take these notes to the meeting. Thanks again.
Doug! Sorry I missed you in Cape Town – not sure how that happened :)
About the Finishing the Task topic…
1) Eshleman may be aware that Renee Padilla sent out a note (in Spanish – I saw a translation that I’ve since misplaced) just a bit critical of the Unreached presentation, among other things. Too heavy on statistics, too “American” in approach, etc. I know Padilla is getting older, but he’s still one of our senior statesmen and needs to be heeded. So in this I would agree Miriam above – the US church is not “in charge” of finishing the task, and we need to be careful of coming across that way in our legitimate enthusiasm for it.
2) You know my favorite topic – creation care. You will have noted, I’m sure, the prominent place it took in the Commitment document, if not in the program itself. Along these lines, I wonder if the FTT folks need to start thinking about “message” as well as “strategy”. If the goal is mature disciples, not just pray-ers of the sinner’s prayer, then our emphasis on restoration of ALL the relationships broken by sin becomes part of the task, and creation care finds its place, along with personal healing and healthy social relationships in the church.
Looking forward to your report.
Ed, noting your points in my write-up to take to the meeting. Thanks for the response. Sorry we missed each other in Cape Town. I was probably out recycling some cans or something. :-)
I haven’t seen any of this from the FTT people, but I hope we can be careful with our eschatology. I really want to avoid the: “let’s make Jesus come!” approach. When the word “finish” is used, it leads right into this kind of thing.
However, I am all for conscientious obedience to the Great Commission, which is what I think this should be about.
May God speak very clearly to the group.
Blessings!
Stanley
We talked about some of these things Doug when we met up in that dialogue session with Paul. I just ran through Justin’s article real quick and he has a number of concrete things.
Here are a few things that are issues…
1. The need for clear definitions at some point for each term. The problem with using common language words like “unreached” and “unengaged” in a technical sense is that they are continually getting pulled back to some other meaning than what is intended. So any kind of list needs to have some kind of definition clearly stated up front. So if they are going to use JP to define what “unreached” means then it needs to be right there.
2. There needs to be a clear place to go to report info so if a group turns out to be engaged with CP teams, there is a place to easily put that info.
3. I queried Paul as to why Japanese in some countries were turning up on the unengaged list. Japanese in Japan are by the JP list an “unreached” people (less than 2% evangelical with less than 5% pf any form of the Christian faith) but they are not “unengaged”. His explanation was that they wanted to leave diaspora unreached groups in the list, even though they are not unengaged in their homeland because nobody is reaching them where they are at. If you are going to do this it needs to be very clear in the list and in some other kind of category.
4. The same thing was done with diaspora Filipinos who are not even an unreached people group in their homeland. So again, if you are going to do that on the list, it is a different kind of thing than “unreached AND unengaged” in their homeland and everywhere else.
5. Winter’s idea of unimax people needs to be revisited because for him it was never about trying to break humanity down into its smallest ethnolinguistic units, it was to simply find by experience when a barrier to acceptance and understanding in sharing the Gospel arose, which then indicated the need for another cross-cultural church planting effort. So in some cases the FTT list is breaking out groups that in reality can respond to the same “mode” of faith, they are a unimax people the maximum unified group that can respond to the Gospel without barriers to acceptance or understanding. This kind of info comes from those on the ground closest to the situation.
Valuable stuff, Alan. I’ve saved it to the file of info that I’m taking to the meeting. Thanks!