Missiological Implications of Missiometrics

Missions history has produced both good and bad examples of statistics application. This has led some to question the usefulness of statistics in missiology. Because of the theological structures built around this question, certain issues emerge with serious missiological implications. For example, Rommen’s comments about potential overdependence on statistics are well-founded, but they speak more to the theology of missions than the science of missiology. Brent Lindquist’s rebuttal that “there appears to be too much adversity between psychology and the church”[1] could also be applied to statistical data collection. Even some of the same critics of missiological statistics are not opposed to using statistics for word frequency in biblical texts and comparative linguistics. However, the implications for its use or discontinuation are important. 

Ideas about what to do with statistical data abound. The main issue is just how far-reaching the data can be in determining applicable strategies and future scenarios for deployment.  “Contemporary anthropologists are seeking to go beyond simply collecting and classifying cultural data, to constructing theoretical models that somehow explain human behavior. The endless collection of descriptive information may be interesting, but it leads us nowhere. Good theories, on the other hand, may enable us to predict and control social events.”[2]

Barrett readily admits the limitations involved in applying statistics, and sometimes that has led to abuse. In reference to his own study on the instances of independence among African churches, he acknowledges that “the method employed here, the statistical analysis in particular, is more a way of indicating possible interpretations than of establishing them definitively.”[3] Over-interpretation of data can be a real problem for missiologists who have another agenda for the data than factual presentation. Perhaps a fervent trust in statistics to solve strategic problems is more of a commentary about Western Christianity’s bent toward rationality.

Anyone can easily twist, misrepresent, and lie with statistics. And it takes a bit of basic knowledge for even well meaning people to avoid common statistical pitfalls. But none of that exempts evangelicals from having to use statistics responsibly. The problem is, they often do not. Why do evangelicals recurrently abuse statistics? My observation is that they are usually trying desperately to attract attention and raise people's concern in order to mobilize resources and action for some cause. In a world awash in information and burdened by myriad problems, some evangelicals may justify the problematic misuse of statistics to get people to pay attention to what they think are good causes. But this is inexcusable.[4]

Rommen believes overdependence on statistics leads to reductionism and destroys the mystery of God’s work. But perhaps the problem is not the measurement itself but the categories that are defined by the measurement tool. Because “the only thing we can measure is a person’s outward response,”[5] perhaps the measurement tools are intrinsically limited.

But just as Dave Williams suggests, each thing measured is a symbol of a spiritual work:

Statistics are just numbers, but they represent real souls and the reality we must face in

the world today—the lack of the presence of the Holy Spirit among 10,000 Unreached People Groups. My heart has been breaking for more than twenty years at the thought of the millions of people who have no church, no missionaries, and no Jesus. The Holy Spirit used statistics to open my eyes to this reality. Statistics are not just numbers on paper or from a website on your screen. They represent the lost sheep that Jesus is trying to bring home, but so few willing shepherds are hearing the Master Shepherd’s voice.[6]

Many people have used statistics reports like Operation World or the World Christian Encyclopedia as a part of their devotional life. “The statistics have never seemed dry or made by humans. Rather, they have always represented the voices of the masses calling out for people tell them about Jesus.”[7] For Williams, “statistics, coupled with the Word of God, have been two of the main ways that the Holy Spirit has spoken to [him] with regards to where to serve and what to do there.”[8]

---

[1] Brent Lindquist, “Psychology and Missions: A History of Membercare in Cross-Cultural Ministry,” in Missiology and the Social Sciences: Contributions, Cautions and Conclusions (ed. Edward Rommen and Gary Corwin; Pasadena, Calif.: William Carey, 1996), 81. 

[2] Paul G. Hiebert, Cultural Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1983), 86. 

[3] David B. Barrett, Schism and Renewal in Africa: An Analysis of Six Thousand Contemporary Religious Movements (Ely House London W.I.: Oxford University Press, 1968), xviii. 

[4] Christian Smith, “Evangelicals Behaving Badly with Statistics,” Books & Culture 13:1 (January/February 2007), n.p. Cited 19 February 2009. Online: http://www.ctlibrary.com/40547.

[5]  Edward R. Dayton and David A. Frazer Planning Strategies for World Evangelization (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 26. 

[6] Dave Williams, “Redirecting Members of Short-Term Mission to Unreached People Groups,” Global Missiology 3 (April 2008): 14. Cited 19 February 2009. Online: http://www.globalmissiology.org/english/docs_pdf/williams_short-term_unreached_peoples_4_2008.pdf.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.