Even positive examples of statistical
integration with missiology have their unique flaws. While admittedly not a
prime example of missiology in the first place, Jerome’s statistical data
gathering can be accused of being politically inflammatory. Although a father
of the church, Jerome occasionally made biased reference to situations where “savage
tribes in countless numbers have overrun all parts of Gaul.”[1]
Even though political statements were not atypical during this period of
schismatic church history, the use of the same statistics for both missiological
expansion and political conquest is questionable.
William
Carey’s use of statistics to justify the Western church’s involvement in
missions has created ongoing missiological controversy. Some argue that Carey was not being
spiritually led but statistically influenced. Some, like Dave Williams, "may fear that statistics
alone and a desire to be 'strategic' will cause people to be assigned to serve
among a specific Unreached People Group without a clear sense of God’s leading.”[2]
Although this fear might be grounded in truth, Carey’s method did lay the
groundwork for missiological decisions based upon statistical information.
David
Barrett was instrumental in the formation of the AD 2000 movement during the
latter part of the twentieth century and for compiling a mammoth amount of
statistics on global Christianity. Although Barrett’s contribution is
monumental and praiseworthy, the ensuing response to his data by missiologists
was frightening and potentially dangerous. Arthur Glasser remarked that Barrett’s work
“instantly renders obsolete all previous studies of the worldwide Christian
movement.”[3]
Donald McGavran hailed Barrett’s statistical information as unrivaled with
“nothing more authoritative”[4]
for the purpose of missiological strategy. While exaggerated statements are
often made for marketing purposes, this perspective can be precarious. If
Barrett’s books become the authoritative bible for missiological strategy, missiology could arguably be
reduced to mathematical formulas and predictive human resource management.
Even David
Garrison did a good job in describing church planting movements, but his initial booklets somewhat failed to communicate that his statistics are intended to be
descriptive rather than prescriptive. Moreover, he even devotes an entire
section of his latest version as a functionary workbook for identifying existing universal elements
and locating barriers to movements in an individual context. These diagnostic
tools might lend to a prescriptive approach for creating what he terms a “launch pad”
for a church planting movement.[5]
Garrison suggests that “creating alignment is a simple matter of devising plans
of action to close the gap between where the community is now and God’s vision
for them.”[6]
This reductionist approach to statistical analysis has led to ongoing
frustration in some parts of the world where missionaries have yet to see any notable numerical results and still live on what some have termed "the left side of the graph."[7]
[1]
Jerome, “Letter CXXIII To Ageruchia.” n.p. Cited 20 February
2009. Online: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001123.htm.
[2] 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.
[3] World Evangelization
Research Center
[4] Ibid.
[5] David
Garrison, Church Planting Movements: How
God is Redeeming a Lost World (Midlothian ,
Va.
[6] Ibid, 285.
[7] Although coined by others, the first time I heard this phrase was in 2005 in an encouraging sermon by Dr. Gordon Fort, IMB vice president, in an address to missionaries at the Missionary Learning Center near Richmond, VA.
No comments:
Post a Comment