Last Post: Concluding Thoughts on Missiometrics

This will be my last post on the subject of missiometrics, the use of statistics in the field of missions, the mixture of scientific analysis with missiological strategy. Statistics can be a good thing; in fact, the sheer numbers of lostness ought to burden our hearts all the more for the mission of God to seek and to save that which was lost. But statistical errors can occur at various levels of data collection. The data could simply be wrong, it could have been gathered carelessly, or it might be presented in a way that leads to faulty interpretation of data. This can raise the issue of whether certain statistics can be trusted. But the root question as to the science of missiology and how missiometrics helps to validate that science is a different question.   

            Theological blogger Andy Rowell believes that “we, as church leaders, have got to pay more attention to appropriate use of statistics.”[1] This is not to advocate for a restriction on missiometrics but to employ “people who know statistics and who understand sociological research so that our numbers mean something.”[2] In this way, even more statistical science can be administered to inform missiology.

            In one sense, missiology itself is a science. In another sense, missiology is applied theology in its truest art form. The social science of statistical analysis can help to inform missiology as a theological expression of the church, but missiometrics is not intended to justify every theological aspect of missiology. As a pure science, missiology can nonetheless be validated by statistical analysis.  

           Missiology that observes, measures, and tests strategies is scientific. But that science is only as good as the tools it uses. Since missiometrics seeks to bring consistent and systematic measurements for demography and evangelism results, it is the one tool that readily identifies missiology as a science. The evangelism results over time must be validated, and consistent quantification of observations allows for this validation. Just as any tool needs to be sharpened or maintained, the instruments employed in missiometrics also need further development. Yet the fact remains that observations and measurements are the basis for scientific inquiry. Therefore, missiometrics defines and validates missiology as a science.

           So the question that remains is how should we evaluate what we're currently doing: with a scientific measurement, or with a different, more theological ruler?

---

[1] Andy Rowell, “Statistics,” Church Leadership Conversations. n.p. Blogpost on 19 October 2007. Cited 19 February 2009. Online: http://www.andyrowell.net/andy_rowell/statistics/index.html.

[2] Andy Rowell, “Statistics,” n.p.