Albert W. Hickman is Research Associate at the Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton, MA, USA. He is Associate Editor of the Atlas of Global Christianity (Edinburgh University Press, 2009).
What is “Finishing the Task”?
According to its website, “Finishing the Task (FTT) is an association of mission agencies and churches who want to see reproducing churches planted among every people group in the world.”[1] This network includes some 319 denominations, mission organizations, and churches. Its origins lie in a strategy session held during the Billy Graham Conference on Evangelism in Amsterdam in the fall of 2000, where its organizers were seated at Table 71, inspiring the original name for the organization.[2] Participants in the session were challenged to reach with the gospel those people groups among whom there was no known evangelism or church planting work. Ministry leaders at Table 71 committed themselves to mobilize workers among people groups not engaged by any of the other session attendees and to enlist the help of other ministries (such as Bible translation) needed to accomplish it.[3]
What is the list of Unengaged Unreached People Groups?
In 2006, distribution of the list from Amsterdam among the organizations represented at Table 71 and their field personnel resulted in the compilation of a list of 639 Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) with populations of 100,000 or more.[4] A “people group” was defined as “the largest group through which the gospel can flow without encountering significant barriers of understanding and acceptance.”[5] “Unreached” meant “less than 2% of the population are Evangelical Christians,” with “Evangelical Christian” defined as “a person who believes that Jesus Christ is the sole source of salvation through faith in Him, has personal faith and conversion with regeneration by the Holy Spirit, recognizes the inspired word of God as the only basis for faith and Christian living, and is committed to Biblical preaching and evangelism that brings others to faith in Jesus Christ.”[6] Finally, “unengaged” meant “as far as could be ascertained, no one was even trying to reach them.”[7] These 639 UUPGs represented over 500 million people.
Evangelism and church planting have begun among many listed in the original 639 UUPGs, while others have been “adopted” (that is, a commitment has been made but work has not yet started). As a result, the UUPG list has been expanded to include people groups with smaller populations. The Finishing the Task website includes a “UUPG List” (last updated February 16, 2011) of peoples with populations of 50,000 or more.[8] The list is color-coded to show the status of each group, with green representing the presence of full-time workers engaged in church planting, blue indicating those groups who have been adopted but not yet engaged, and white denoting those groups who have yet to be engaged. A quick look through the list reveals that relatively few of the groups are completely unengaged.[9]
Why is the UUPG list controversial?
A slightly different list, entitled “632 Unengaged Unreached People Groups – Population over 50,000,” was given to participants at Cape Town 2010, the first time such a list had been distributed in eight different languages simultaneously.[10] The list—and indeed the entire plenary presentation made by Paul Eshleman, Director of the Finishing the Task Network—proved to be immediately controversial.
Perhaps the most prominent critic has been René Padilla, a Latin American theologian and plenary presenter at the 1974 Lausanne Congress on World Evangelization who was present in Cape Town. For example, Padilla’s assessment of Cape Town 2010 published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research included the following critique:
… a whole plenary session was dedicated on Wednesday [the session actually was Friday] to the strategy for the evangelization of the world in this generation (made in U.S.A.) [emphasis in the original] on the basis of a chart of so-called unreached people groups prepared by the Lausanne Strategy Working Group. Their strategy chart reflected the obsession with numbers typical of the market mentality that characterizes a sector of evangelicalism in the United States. Besides, according to many of the people participating in the congress who have firsthand knowledge of the evangelistic needs in their respective countries, the chart of unreached groups failed to do justice to their situations. Curiously enough, no unreached groups were listed for the United States![11]
Some of Padilla’s criticisms are justified. For example, in response to an appeal by Eshleman for updates and corrections to the list, Cape Town 2010 participants provided information indicating previously unknown engagement of 110 people groups.[12] A number of Padilla’s points, however, might have derived as much from the perception of what was said as the reality of it. Indeed, while some in Eshleman’s audience reacted negatively to his call to adopt and engage with one or more peoples from the list,[13] 1,558 delegates committed to initiate ministry among 187 different UUPGs over the next three years.[14]
Furthermore, lost in the controversy surrounding Eshleman’s presentation was the update given by Dr. Alex Abraham of India after Eshleman spoke.[15] Abraham noted that when Finishing the Task shared the UUPG challenge with partners in India in 2006, the resulting prayer movement gave birth to a national resource center. In collaboration with the India Missions Association (IMA)—which was already working to reach India’s peoples—this center has collected extensive information on all the UUPGs with populations over 100,000 listed in India: 310 of the global total of 639. Over the last 5 years, seminars to build awareness among Indian churches have led to the adoption of 307 of these 310 UUPGs. Training courses for evangelists and church planters have yielded the active engagement of at least 260 of these 310 UUPGs with intentional evangelism and church planting.
Definition of “Unengaged Unreached People Group”
Term – Definition
- People group – “the largest group through which the gospel can flow without en- countering significant barriers of understanding and acceptance”
- Unreached – “less than 2% of the population are Evangelical Christians”
- Unengaged – “as far as could be ascertained, no one was even trying to reach them”
Sources: Finishing The Task, 2011; Peoplegroups.org, 2011
Unengaged Unreached People Groups (UUPGs) differ from Unreached People Groups (UPGs). The table above shows the definition of the terms, illustrating how the term “unengaged” narrows the focus of Finishing the Task.
The most apparent disconnect between what was presented and what was heard, however, might be the failure of many to grasp the distinction between unreached people groups (UPGs) and unengaged unreached people groups.[16] The difference between UPGs and UUPGs explains why, for example, the United States was missing from the list (that is, there were no known people groups of population 50,000 or greater in the United States in which a church planting movement was not active) as well as why certain peoples from other countries were absent. Indeed, the concept of UPGs might have been so familiar to most of Eshleman’s audience that the mention of UUPGs did not register properly. Others have said that the concept of “unengaged” was not explained sufficiently.[17]
Non-evangelicals have raised a different sort of criticism. Danut Manastireanu, an Orthodox observer present at Cape Town 2010, reacted with “great disappointment and, I think, legitimate anger”[18] to the inclusion of groups identified as “traditional Christian” on the list of UUPGs distributed during Eshleman’s plenary session. Eshleman’s response[19] to Manastireanu is noteworthy for several reasons. It offers an apology for “the ecumenical insensitivity shown in the list presented” and graciously affirms that brothers and sisters in Christ can be found beyond what are considered traditional Evangelical churches. Thus, Eshleman counters in one sense Manastireanu’s suggestion that the UUPG list assumes “only Evangelicals are true Christians.” At the same time, however, Eshleman agrees with Manastireanu, although perhaps not in the way the latter might have expected (recall the definition of “Evangelical Christian” quoted at the beginning of this paper). By referring in his reply to both “followers of our Lord” and those who “identify themselves as adherents to the Christian faith” (including, presumably, even some who call themselves “Evangelical”), Eshleman draws a distinction that might not be apparent to every reader.
A third critique questions the necessity of FTT’s list of UUPGs given its divergence from similar lists. Doug Lucas[20] notes the differences (particularly in the number of deaf peoples) between the FTT list and that of the Joshua Project.[21] Lucas also makes reference to a paper by Dan Scribner that sheds some light on the differences. Scribner[22] describes the three principal databases used by people studying Unreached People Groups: the World Christian Database (WCD; www.worldchristiandatabase.org), the Church Planting Progress Indicators database of the International Mission Board (IMB) of the Southern Baptist Convention (CPPI; www.peoplegroups.org), and the Joshua Project database (JP; www.joshuaproject.net). Both the CPPI and the JP databases have their origins in the WCD, although they contain significant modifications, while all three databases owe much to the work of SIL International and its Ethnologue.
An earlier paper by Justin Long provides an instructive analysis of the differences among the databases:
- The primary distinctive of the WCD is its emphasis on Christianity as a whole (all traditions, not just evangelicals) and its focus on the activity of evangelization: which groups have “not heard” (World A [those ethnolinguistic groups that are less than 50% evangelized]).[23]
- The primary distinctive of the [CPPI database] is its emphasis on evangelical Christianity and church planting. A population that is less than 2% evangelical will always be considered unreached by this methodology, no matter how many resources (like radio broadcasting, JESUS Film distribution, etc.) or how many non-Evangelical Christians (generally, Catholic or Orthodox) there are.[24]
- Joshua Project weighs several factors, and its methodology represents a “combination” position between the IMB and the WCD. More than the other lists, the JP list incorporates factors like caste. To be [considered unreached], a group must have a small percentage of evangelicals (less than 2%, like the IMB) but also a small percentage of total Christians (less than 5%).[25]
Both Long and Scribner affirm the usefulness of multiple databases from which to draw. Likewise, Scribner and Long[26] note that the researchers who put together the people group databases maintain close contact with each other.
An example of the usefulness of multiple perspectives (and data sets) is provided by Ted Bergman and Bill Morrison.[27] Bergman and Morrison begin by asking how many languages remain to be learned in order to evangelize the least-reached peoples. Using data on Christian adherence from the WCD; on “the existence of disciples and churches” from the JP and CPPI databases; and on the existence of Scripture translations (also from the JP database), Bergman and Morrison conclude that 138 “language groups” including more than 4 million people have no known Christians and no book of the Bible in their native languages. While noting that their list is preliminary and that the databases contain differences that must be reconciled, the authors find it useful nonetheless, concluding, “It must be emphasized that this list will surely contain inaccuracies. But having such a list to start from and sending it to knowledgeable missionaries working in the same country might help us make the needed corrections.”[28]
Doug Lucas came to a similar conclusion after the December 2010 meeting of the Finishing the Task Task Force:
Is there dissonance among the lists of various presentations of unreached peoples — a “list-mania?” To a certain extent, yes — there is. Because the lists were all launched for different purposes, by different people, looking at different perspectives. But the core message is still the same: Let’s find out who hasn’t heard, then get there with the Good News of redemption.[29]
Ironically, overcoming the confusion surrounding Finishing the Task’s list of Unengaged Unreached People Groups might be as simple as providing more information to users. For example, the online list would benefit from including details present in the downloadable version.[30] In addition, Dan Scribner[31] notes that the UUPG list derives primarily from the CPPI database, with engagement updates coming from a variety of sources; yet that information seems to appear nowhere on the list itself or the FTT website. Furthermore, whereas the downloadable list defines “unengaged,” the online version does not, and “unreached” is defined on neither.[32] The simple knowledge that the FTT list combines CCPI data with JP criteria might do much to explain why the list resembles, yet differs from, its parents. Finally, FTT should consider sharing more stories of how mission agencies and networks around the world, such as those mentioned by Alex Abraham, are partnering with FTT to both utilize and update information on UUPGs. Those who consult the UUPG list might then find it not only more understandable, but also more useful in fulfilling its purpose of advocating for those to whom no one has yet gone.
This article is a part of a pilot version of the Lausanne Global Analysis. A planning team has begun working on the production of the new Lausanne Global Analysis. The Analysiswill provide multi-lingual analysis of issues facing the church and wordwide evangelization from a global network of regional leaders, researchers and writers. The launch as a monthly publication is tentatively scheduled for April 2012. (Learn more)
[1]. Finishing the Task, “About us,” http://finishingthetask.com/about.html (all websites last accessed May 25, 2011).
[2]. Table 71, “Frequently Asked Questions about Table 71,” http://www.table71.org/T71-FAQs.asp.
[3]. Call2All Media, “The history of Table 71” (video presentation with recollections of those seated at Table 71), available online at http://finishingthetask.com/videos.html.
[4]. Table 71, “Frequently Asked Questions about Table 71”; Finishing the Task, “About us.”
[5]. Peoplegroups.org, “What is a People Group?”, http://www.peoplegroups.org/faqs.aspx#WhatIsPG. A more technical definition of “people group” is available at Orville Boyd Jenkins, “What is a People Group,” http://www.peoplegroups.org/WIAPGfaq.aspx.
[6]. Peoplegroups.org, “What is an Unreached People Group?”, http://www.peoplegroups.org/faqs.aspx#UnrchPG, and “What do you mean by ‘Evangelical’ Christians and churches?”, http://www.peoplegroups.org/faqs.aspx#WhatDoECC.
[7]. Table 71, “Frequently Asked Questions about Table 71.”
[8]. Finishing the Task, “UUPG List,” http://finishingthetask.com/uupgs.php?sort=Country. The downloadable table further notes that an additional 1,226 people groups with populations between 10,000 and 50,000 are not listed.
[9]. This is more apparent in the downloadable version of the list (http://finishingthetask.com/downloads/FTT_UUPG_List.xls), entitled “1,012 Unengaged People Groups – Population over 50,000.” A note below the table indicates that 99 of the 1,012 groups listed had been neither adopted nor engaged as of February 11, 2011. An additional 350 had been adopted only, with no known engagement. The remaining 563 (almost 56%) had been engaged to some degree by “international churches, missionaries, or near-neighbor believers.” An examination of the list shows that 303 of these 563 “engaged” groups (or about 30% of the list) had at least the recommended 1 full-time worker per 50,000 population.
[10]. This list, along with other documents distributed at the “Unengaged People Groups” plenary during Cape Town 2010, may be downloaded in all eight languages at http://finishingthetask.com/downloads.html.
[11]. C. René Padilla, “The Future of the Lausanne Movement,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 35:2 (April 2011), 87.
[12]. Communicated by Paul Eshleman at a meeting of the Finishing the Task Task Force in Laguna Woods, California, December 8–9, 2010.
[13]. See Justin Long, “The devil is in the definitions (or: the controversies around Unengaged at #capetown2010),” The Long View, November 1, 2010; at http://www.justinlong.org/2010/11/the-devil-is-in-the-definitions-or-the-controversies-around-unengaged-at-capetown2010/.
[14]. Paul Eshleman, personal communication, received June 10, 2011.
[15]. A video of Abraham’s presentation, “Priorities – India’s Unreached People,” is available online at https://lmconversation.wpengine.com/en/conversations/detail/11456.
[16]. Doug Lucas of Brigada illustrates quite well a change in perspective based on an evolving understanding of Eshleman’s presentation. See “Give your Opinion on This Lausanne Appeal –”, October 31, 2010, http://www.brigada.org/2010/10/31_5720; “How do we Fix UPG List-Mania? [edited 13 of Nov.] [sic] –”, November 7, 2010, http://www.brigada.org/2010/11/07_5765; “’Finishing the Task is the Real Deal –”, December 12, 2010, http://www.brigada.org/2010/12/12_6035.
[17]. Long, “The devil is in the definitions.”
[18]. Danut Manastireanu, “Open Letter to Paul Eshleman – UPDATE – On the list of so-called ‘unreached people groups,’” December 8, 2010, http://danutm.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/open-letter-to-paul-eshleman-on-the-list-of-so-called-unreached-people-groups/.
[20]. Lucas, “Give your Opinion on This Lausanne Appeal –.”
[21]. Joshua Project, “Unreached Listings,” http://www.joshuaproject.net/unreached.php
[22]. Dan Scribner, “A Simple Guide to People Group Lists for World Mission”, Lausanne World Pulse, September–October 2010; available online at http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1320/09-2010?pg=all.
[23]. Justin Long, “Which Peoples Need Priority Attention? Seeking Agreement on the ‘Core of the Core,’” Mission Frontiers (January–February 2007), 20. A more detailed comparison of the databases is available online at http://www.joshuaproject.net/people-list-comparison-detail.php.
[26]. Long, “The devil is in the definitions.”
[27]. Ted Bergman and Bill Morrison, “No Christians, No Scripture, No Missionaries: Priority People Groups,” Lausanne World Pulse (September–October 2010); available online at http://www.lausanneworldpulse.com/perspectives.php/1321/09-2010.
[28]. Ongoing comparison with data from other sources indicates Bergman and Morrison’s list is “significantly smaller yet.” Ted Bergman, personal communication, May 26, 2011.
[29]. Lucas, “‘Finishing the Task’ is the Real Deal –.”
[30]. These details include the summary statistics, the full range of resource information (such as availability of written and oral Scriptures), the color-coding distinction between “partially” and “fully” engaged groups, and the final explanatory paragraph that the downloadable version has.
[31]. Scribner, “A Simple Guide to People Group Lists for World Mission.”
[32]. Definitions are available in “A Simple Guide to People Group Lists” (no author listed; available for download at www.joshuaproject.net/assets/GlobalPeoplesListComparison-General.pdf) and Table 71, “Frequently Asked Questions about Table 71.”