During one of the last days at the Lausanne Congress in Cape Town (Twitter hashtag: #capetown2010 or #lcwe), Paul Eshleman gave an impassioned plea for the unreached peoples of the world – and especially for engaging the “unengaged” peoples (e.g. those groups which had no work among them). In the course of this presentation he handed out a list of unengaged groups to each of the table groups and asked people to (1) submit any corrections and (2) commit to send a team to engage at least one of those groups.
Almost immediately there was an undercurrent of uncertainty about the list in the Congress. People began looking at the list and saying—why was this or that group on the list? “We have teams among this group” or “I know of teams among this group” or “This group is mostly Christian” were all pretty common refrains. No one really wants to talk about it publicly, I understand – I love Paul (as does everyone else) and his passion for reaching the unreached is perfectly in sync with mine. But what to do with a list that has a number of groups on it that we don’t think are unengaged?
With such lists as these – when we move from the abstract theoretical (“we have to reach the unreached!”) to the hardcore practical (“here is a list of groups to reach”)—it becomes difficult. Especially because we are talking about that nasty word—prioritization—where we take from scarce resources (e.g. manpower, donor dollars, etc.) and dedicate them to a particular group (and the odds are, for any particular missionary, it will not be your group or your cause). The devil is in the definitions: we can easily get mired in the “weeds” of controversy about what group is “in” the list and what group is “out.”
Well, having been in the middle of these kinds of controversies for 15 years, and not being one to shirk from a good ol’ battle over statistics, I’m wading in where angels fear to tread. Hence this post. Which I hope adds some clarity and light without too much heat.
1. Labels and Controversies
On April 1, 2004, Google introduced a brand new email service called “Gmail.” At the time everyone wondered whether it was an April Fool’s prank (as Google was notorious for them). However, it has gone on to be one of the most beloved (at least by yours truly) email services available. It has several really interesting features; among them are Threaded Conversation View and Never Having To Delete Email as well as Google’s namesake, Search Thousands Of Messages In A Few Seconds. But perhaps the most innovative feature (at least for the purposes of our discussion here) was the label.
Before Google, most (all?) email clients allowed you to organize your messages in folders, which could themselves be organized in a hierarchical fashion (e.g. a tree). It makes sense that this would be the first form of organization, since most of the people who got enough messages that they had to be organized were in corporations—which were, in themselves, organized in hierarchies. So a hierarchical tree of little boxes into which you could slot emails is obvious. But, we’ve all come in recent days to think of ourselves less in terms of hierarchies and positions and more in terms of roles and relationships. And once you’re part of lots of networks, a hierarchical view of your mail becomes more problematic.
Google did away with that. Each individual message could have more than one label. So a particular message could be “news” but could also be “from-my-wife.” Or, in my own context, a message could be labeled from “Friends/Best15” and “CapeTown” and “Events” And “Important” and “Done”. I have about 69 different labels, which have to do with a message’s status, its context, and its source. You can search by any of these labels.
Labels, whether they are hierarchical or multiple, require definition. Only messages from my wife get the “from-my-wife” label—that’s easy enough. But when does a message deserve a “News” label? Do newsletters count, or only press releases? You have to know which slot to put a message in to. It’s easier when you can have multiple labels – it’s no more a one-vs-many choice – but you still need to know whether a label applies. And thus you need a definition for a label. It can be a pretty loose definition, in terms of email. But in terms of statistics related to people groups and Christians and non-Christians we tend to want things a bit tighter.
In missions research, labels and definitions are the trickiest part. (Our own labels—but also understanding the labels that others use.) Some of the labels are all-or-nothing: Christian vs. non-Christian, for example. Some of the labels can “cross” boundaries (e.g. evangelical vs. Pentecostal vs. Charismatic vs. Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Anglican vs. Orthodox vs. Independent vs. Marginal). But all of these labels can be quite controversial. People can disagree over whether a label should be stuck on a group.
For example, just consider the label “affiliated church member.” In some denominations, children count. In others, they don’t. So to get a global number of affiliated church members, one has to account for the children—either adding them in for the denominations that don’t count them, or removing them for the ones that do. Labels! Definitions! Details!
One of the most controversial definitions in Operation World or the World Christian Encyclopedia or any other list is – Who is a Christian? Who is not? Many, many people have come up to me and said, “Why can’t we just count the true believers?” And my response– “Who is a true believer? How do you measure them?” Once we get into the nuts-and-bolts of this—that it is a heart decision, and you can’t see the heart, only God can—then we see how it’s nearly impossible to measure a “true believer.” OW and the WCE make stabs at this with measures of “evangelicalism” and “Great Commission Christians,” but the two don’t agree on the methodology (a disagreement I’m happy to say is friendly, fortunately). Ruth Padilla DeBorst at Cape Town had a great deal to say about the idea of defining who is “in” and “out” of Christianity.
A second controversial definition is—who is “evangelized”? This was introduced (to the best of my knowledge) by the first edition of the World Christian Encyclopedia: an attempt to measure how many people had heard the Gospel and how many had not. The original formula was a series of 200+ questions to ask for each country. Each question could be answered with a yes/no and on that basis you either added 1% or subtracted 1%. You could actually hit more than 100% in countries that were especially saturated with Gospel presentations, and this was indicative of oversaturation. But of course this had controversy of its own. Just because you had a Bible in your home, for example—were you evangelized? Perhaps, perhaps not. You could always find individual cases that disproved the general theory. The point was that you could have a Bible in your home, and thus had access to the Gospel (unlike some who have been fined or imprisoned for having Christian materials).
Another definition soon emerged which had to do with the church: the “unreached” definition. This emerged through a long history but was especially defined at a 1982 meeting in Chicago. Missiologists at the meeting defined a people group: “From the viewpoint of evangelization this is the largest possible group within which the gospel can spread as a viable, indigenous church planting movement without encountering barriers of understanding or acceptance.” An unreached people group was a group where such a church planting movement did not exist. In other words, to be unreached has less to do with evangelization of individuals and more to do specifically with whether there is an indigenous church capable of doing the task without cross-cultural (missionary) assistance.
- For a long and insightful piece on the history of this thinking, see “Major Concepts of the Frontier Mission Movement” by Alan Johnson in the International Journal of Frontier Missions 18:2.
Now we have three different labels over which to argue, and argue we have. Fortunately, over the past fifteen years these arguments have been for the most part resolved, and we can pretty much understand where everyone stands on these. The definitions have been worked out. As a result, we have some different lists around.
Three stand out—the Joshua Project, the World Christian Database, and the CPPI. These have a common heritage in the time of the AD 2000 & Beyond Movement and the period when Dr. David Barrett worked with the International Mission Board in people group research. I don’t have the time in this article (or the will, really) to go into all the intricacies of the “political” developments during those days (or probably all of the insider knowledge, although I was there for part of that time). But three lists came out of the roots of that period: the Joshua Project, the IMB’s CPPI list, and the World Christian Database (WCD). JP is colored by its evangelical roots & its long standing connection with Operation World; Patrick Johnstone in many ways was a mentor to the guys at JP. The CPPI list was developed by IMB and is very field-driven. And the WCD list is behind the World Christian Database and is most directly the heir of David Barrett & Todd Johnson’s work. I am honored to call all of these guys my friends. And what is interesting is that these three lists, while being different in some ways, largely agree with each other on their global numbers. Each list gives a slightly different perspective, but already the lists have more and better links with each other than ever before. (For example, look on the JP list and you’ll see for many of the people groups as “WCD” number that links JP to WCD. Enormous work was involved in that.)
Today the arguments over these labels have mostly died down. When it comes to Christianity, we acknowledge the multiple traditions of Christianity. We know evangelicals tend to focus on evangelicals as being the “true core.” We don’t say it too loudly, because it can be offensive to non-evangelicals (of which some were present at Cape Town and were indeed offended). We all know of instances where there are “true believers” in non-evangelical traditions. Be that as it may, there’s a reason why the Joshua Project definition for unreached takes into account both % evangelical and % Christian.
We don’t talk so much about evangelization any more although the World Christian Encyclopedia & its related materials still focus strongly on it. Nevertheless a lot of our statistics are derived from the concept, and a lot of our effort is geared toward it (which is kind of ironic). We talk a lot about “unreached” or “least reached” – and while there is some difficulty statistically with this, Joshua Project’s done a good job of ironing out most of the difficulties and presenting a pretty comprehensive list.
2.
At Cape Town, Paul introduced a brand new label which most of those present were not familiar with. Many in the audience would have had some picture in their mind if you said “Christian” or “evangelical” or “unreached” (or “hidden” or “missing”—still not sure why we couldn’t use “unreached peoples” instead of “missing peoples” but be that as it may). But when Paul introduced “unengaged,” there was no definition. Few people at the grass roots level had heard this term before. Instead of having a common framework, everyone immediately took the term “unengaged” and built their own mental picture from their own experience. They looked through the list examining it with this picture in mind. Because the definition wasn’t clear and shared, everyone looked at the list from the perspective of their individual passion.
When we ask whether a group is engaged, we immediately begin thinking mentally about both quantity and quality. How many workers among a group is “enough” for the group to be considered engaged? One short-term team? One long-term couple? One per 50,000 (which was the definition Paul espoused on the documentation if not so much from the presentation—and how many read the fine print? And remember, the fine print was in English. Many present were not English speakers.) Secondly, what kind of engagement was the “right” kind of engagement? Bible translation teams? Social works? Relief work? Church planters? Church planters of a particular denomination?
In some cases, a group was on the list because the engagement clearly wasn’t known about. In other places, the group was on the list because someone likely thought whatever engagement was active wasn’t the “right” sort or wasn’t “sufficient.”
And over this data, people will disagree: but we need desperately to first move from talking about data (specific cases) and into talking about definitions that will be generally applicable. When we argue not for definitions but for cases—specifically the cases we have invested our lives in—then lots of emotions boil over. At the risk of offending some folks who work in the Buddhist world, let me quote a Buddhism-laden movie series, “Star Wars”: “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” When faced with a new list that we don’t understand, we begin asking emotionally-laden questions: Why is this group on the list? Why is that group not on the list? We fear that our passion is going to lose resources—that we will be marked as “no longer priority.” We become angry. When attacked, we become defensive. If we feel our opinion or our passion is ignored, bitterness can ensue, and soon we can be slipping in our darkest moments into hatred. We don’t want to talk about it, but we can. I remember one fellow at a conference who told me how much he hated David Barrett—that Barrett was the worst thing to ever happen to the International Mission Board. I was absolutely stunned that this professedly good Baptist could stand there and tell me, “I hate him.” It’s a short, slippery slope.
If Paul erred, I think he erred a little bit to the side of “let’s go-go-go-go!” and not enough on the side of explaining the implications and challenge of the unengaged. So let me call to everyone to slow down, and take a breath, and choose the more excellent way of charity. It’s going to take time and thinking for us to understand this list and its implications. For example, consider:
- There is a need to clearly enunciate, perhaps on a website, the history and source of the list. How was the list created? What researchers are behind it? where did the data come from? how does it line up with other lists? etc.
- Since the list deals with engagement, we need to have very clearly defined what engagement is.
- Since we’re being asked to engage groups in order to “finish the task,” we need to know: who is maintaining the list of engagements? What happens when a group becomes unengaged? (Because that happens quite frequently).
- What about the sensitivities in dealing with engagement issues? Some groups, we don’t want to say they are engaged, because they are too small and it’s immediately obvious who the engagement is by.
- How is this list being corrected? Where can corrections be submitted? If corrections are not accepted, how will our submission be acknowledged and the reasoning behind its rejection communicated? How quickly will they be dealt with? (This has been addressed in some private correspondence but needs to be made clear publicly.)
- What is the intersection between engagement and already-existing Christianity? I’ve seen some groups on the list that I would label “Christian” even if not necessarily solidly “evangelical”. JP has a method for dealing with this.
- Most of the world’s unevangelized/unreached individuals are NOT within groups that are unengaged, but RATHER within groups that are engaged but not yet reached, and primarily in India & China.
- What is the purpose of engaging the unengaged groups—is it just that we want to get workers everywhere, or are we in danger of some triumphalistic “engage-them-all-and-Jesus-comes-back” thinking?
Admittedly, it’s difficult to do all that in the space of about 20 minutes, which is about what Paul had to work in!
3.
So the way forward: We need to begin talking less about the list and more about the definitions, and then once a fairly standard definition is created, let’s go back and apply it to the lists. In my own organization (Mission to Unreached Peoples) we have a team, which I’m part of, which is looking at which People Group Clusters have no existing “champions” or “partnerships” and then seeking to recruit new workers for those. Just in the few days we met after Cape Town, we in our much smaller setting also struggled with this challenge. And, in our own little microcosm, we had the same fears, arguments, storm clouds, and reassurances.
It takes time. Time to talk things out. Time to contemplate the dangers and necessities of prioritization. Time to grapple with the complexity of the task. Time to listen and hear a brother’s heart more than his words. Time to consider whether there is something more that can be done. Some will say, “We don’t have that kind of time. I don’t want to spend that kind of time.” Fine—but then you’re going to have to be patient and wait for others to spend the time and give you their reflections. Because we owe it to a brother in Christ not to make a snap judgment and then completely dismiss his passion and work.
I have heard several people say that “people are going to do all this research and get to the field and find out there’s already a team there.” My first response: if you do research the way you should with initial exploratory trips and networking, you won’t get to that point. And second: even if that “worst case scenario” happens—how “bad” is it? Is it a complete waste? If we’re talking about groups with populations from 100,000 on up, are we saying that an extra team on the field is a bad thing? I wouldn’t consider it so.
Finally, to the question that my friend Doug Lucas posed: can’t we just have one list? Can’t we all get along? I hear your heart, Doug. But I have taken much comfort in Rodney Stark’s book, “The churching of America,” in which he noted that a plethora of denominations and competition between them (not always friendly, to be sure) actually resulted in more church growth and more individual participation, not less. In European countries where there is one state church, there is a much higher degree of apathy because the church can’t appeal to everyone. But when there are many churches of different “flavors” (but same Lord, same faith, etc.) then you’re more likely to find one that gets you more involved.
I would say that a similar effect happens with multiple lists. Different lists have slightly different lenses. The trick here is that their definitions must be clear and we can hope for good interaction between the list holders. Fortunately, that is the case with the existing lists. We researchers know each other and have regular conversations. Iron sharpens iron. You can use any of the well-established and larger people group lists – the JP is the one I typically recommend because it is easiest to get to—and be confident you’re getting good data that you can rely on for strategic planning (although you should also do your own field research for up to the minute).
As for the list that Paul shared: I think it’s interesting, and I think that over the next weeks and months there should be more clarity as the list is talked about and refined. In the meantime, if you want to pick a group off that list and see if you can do something about it – I don’t see that it would be a complete waste of time. As a first stage of research, however, you might want to compare the people group you’ve picked with the JP list and see if you can more detailed information before buying a plane ticket.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Justin – I’m going to share your article with a friend of mine whose job with a major agency is to connect all those trying to work with the unengaged. He literally catalogs them and keeps up with the research. I think he can shed a lot of light on the behind-the-scenes work. I’ll suggest you two as friends.
Thanks, Rosa. Depending on who it is we may already know each other!
Wow, I’m impressed with your wide scope of research and thought into this. Admittedly, even at my table of six, we had three strong objections about the UPGs. Some said they were reached. Others said those groups didn’t exist in their country any more. And the pressure given about adopting one was a bit stressful. The spirit behind it all is good, though. The goal is that we find where Christ isn’t being named and then send workers into that field.
Thanks, Mary! I think probably the pressure to commit to a group at the time of the conference was perhaps unrealistic
Perhaps they should have asked us to signify groups we were interested in. That would have also yielded a treasure trove of resources for follow up! But as you note the spirit behind it is, I thought too, good.
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.
) 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?
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.
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
I appreciate the passion you have for this. Not sure the JP guys want to take on the idea of engagement
. Engagement is a very difficult animal to try and tackle. I know some of the story behind the FTT list but I’m going to wait for others to fully describe it rather than me try to do so with the limited picture I have. Suffice to say that the FTT list, insofar as I can see, is in the lineage of all the other big lists – but the issue is clarifying the definitions around “engagement” flag so everyone understands when/why a group is engaged (or not). And then clarifying some of the issues involved. I’m looking for example at the Han Chinese in Malaysia and not understanding how they can be said to be unengaged. I’d have to do a little further research but most Christians in Malaysia are in fact Chinese, and there’s loads of outreach to the non-Christian ones. So I’m sure there’s an issue of definition somewhere. I appreciate the “sources” of the list and how they handle engagement but that definition just wasn’t made very clear in the short amount of time Paul had. I think the plenary session was just too short to really achieve what they were trying to achieve here. It’s unfortunate.
Hi Justin,
Excellent summary. One person at the Cape Town gathering communicated with me that I would not have like to have been there because of what Paul shared. I admit I would have been deeply dismayed, because so much of the work we have done in defining categories, zipping lists together, and global researchers forming a peer group for regular cyber-meetings was not part of the presentation.
I suggest that Paul needs to be part of that researchers group and that we not only work at definitions, but also establish a code of conduct about how we do our research in such aspects of definitions, source-giving, sharing new and revised data, ensuring good and accountability to field workers in security and handling of changes suggested.
A friend emailed me the following definition of an unengaged people group on the list:
Definition for Engagement
1. A pioneer church planting effort in residence.
2. A commitment to work in the local language and culture.
3. A commitment to long-term ministry.
4. Sowing in a manner consistent with the goal of seeing a Church Planting Movement (CPM) emerge.
Hmmm, what about Comiban in Latin America? Their Unreached People Group list is different from JP, WCD and CPPI lists. What does it take to be seen as valid? Does it have to be from a North American agency? It’d be nice to find to have a list of each group and compare definitions. Definitions are not easily found on some of these source websites….very frustrating!
That’s interesting. I was pretty sure that COMIBAM has very good ties with JP. What list are you referring to?
Great article Justin. Very thought provoking.
I think when he refers to COMIBAM he is referring to the individual country level researchers lists. There are about 120 peoples on those lists that don’t appear on global lists, mainly because of the small populations or that those lists haven’t been gone over very well. I know about this because I have collected those lists.
I too think its time that we work together, that has been my burden for about 15 years as well. Etnopedia.org is definitely a viable solution. Any Christian can join the growing community here! http://en.etnopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Well, I just read your article again and should add something. You say “although you should also do your own field research for up to the minute”. Now there you go!! We need more people to get involved in field research. The global lists are just that, global perspectives that are not as field driven as they need to be. The exception is the CPPI/GSEC which is not really meant to be a global list. Global lists are needed for global perspectives however to arrive at that perspective is not very conducive to presenting all the real needs (e.g. COMIBAM’s 120).
So how do we get more people involved in field research? We allow them to be the owners of their information and present it how they see fit. We can’t superimpose our definitions on them or we will never get their wholehearted participation. I know this from past errors. Let the field researchers do their thing in their own way and in their language so that it can be used by local mobilization. They are after all, the people who went into the field to get it.
I do wish there were more local field researchers. I find it’s easier to locate “regional field researchers” than perhaps local or national researchers (except perhaps for some of the larger countries…)
Justin,
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and your heart. Well done.
Jason
Hi Justin,
Got onto this through the Brigada entry. I was also at Cape Town and was another of those very unimpressed with the presentation. Some of the concerns about the list have already been noted. It also seemed that senior church leaders in at least one country had no input into the list – and this suggests a failure in partnership methodology.
But for me the major criticism I have of the session comes back more to the point made by Patrick above about a code of conduct being necessary. However I’d extend it, not just in the compilation and presentation of lists like this but in the way an appeal is made from it. Four (4) minutes is not enough time to read the list let alone pray and wait for God to speak to you about making a faith commitment – or maybe I’m just slow!
But … Jason, I am only writing this because I am today more encouraged by your response and that of Doug. I think it would be best to bury that list after taking any perceived value and adding it to other lists.
Chris
Thanks, Chris. I think long-term the value of FTT is *not* the list but rather the emphasis on mobilization. We need to become much better mobilizers than we presently are, if only because we need so many more workers. I agree that we are not very good mobilizers YET – all of our efforts, and all of our presentations, show that. But we cannot get better if we don’t try. (And I will be at the same FTT meeting in California that Doug will be at – and I expect good things coming out of it, if only because controversial presentations aside everyone there – many of whom I have already met – are really very humble people, and passionate about the unreached, and simply wanting to do something different, because what we’re doing now isn’t working.)
{ 1 trackback }