FROM: Graeme Codrington gj.cod@pixie.co.za

Keith's columns are always worth reading, but in this case (as is usually the case when we get statistics - "lies, damn lies and statistics") there are a few factors that have been conveniently forgotten. The main one is the growth rate of the population.

The Millennium edition of the Economist (as real MUST READ if you can get your hands on a copy), a population growth chart was shown on page 13. The estimated global population at 1AD was about 300 million. In the next 1,000 years it did not change substantially from that. So, this means that the Christian church (starting at Drury's 3000 people in 30 AD) accounted for 0.001% of the population of the world. At 330 AD, when the world's population had not changed much, but Christians now numbered 4m, they accounted for 1.3% of the world's population.

In 300 years, the church had experienced an increase in significance (I hesitate to use the more popular term "market share") from 0.001% to 1.3%, this being an increase of (a staggering) 129 900.00%. (I told you stats could say anything you wanted them to). Note that you cannot really annualize this figure, but at its simplest level, you just divide 129900 by 300 and get about 433% growth per year (not compounded, which is not accurate, but at least reflects deaths and removals as well as additions).

Now for the problem that Keith is really getting to (stats are always used for something, never just for the sake of using the numeric keypad on the keyboard). The world population stayed fairly stable just below 500m until about 1500. The massive technology and knowledge boom allowed for increased productivity and therefore capacity to support population. The population growth has been exponential: 1800 = .98 billion, 1850 = 1.26b, 1900 = 1.65b, 1950 = 2.52b, 2000 = 6b, ?? 2050 = 8.91b.

If Drury is correct that Christians number 1 billion in 2000, then we now account for 16.5% of the world's population. That's an increase from 330AD of a "mere" 1 169% (or +- 0.9% per year non compounded). Anyway you look at it, the numbers, when looked at in this way (i.e. relative increase to world population), are a lot more convincing than Drury's method. So Drury is not correct in his assertion that early church growth was not phenomenal. Early growth is more impressive than the "trend" of the last 1700 years by a factor of about 11000 (interestingly enough, as an aside, when linked to another thread I recently replied to - the growth slowed dramatically when the Empire-church (read nation-state-church) was established by Constantine...). On this data, if the church had continued growing IN RELATION TO POPULATION CHANGE as it did in the first 3 centuries, there would not be one non-Christian left on earth!!

The other major hassle with global figures for the so-called "Western" world/church is that most of the conversion growth of the church has occurred in third world, developing countries. In fact, demographers such as Barna, Regele and Gallop have consistently warned the American church over the last few years that although when comparing itself to itself the church (in general) is growing (although most mainline denominations have been in decline in the last decade), when compared to population growth (including immigrant growth), the church is actually slipping backwards at an alarming rate.

So, although Drury's points regarding numbers, and our fixation with them, are well taken, it should not be at the expense of lulling us into a false sense of security. Didn't Jesus Himself say that those who would follow would do greater things than He did (including influencing greater numbers of people), and aren't we told to expect that in the "last days" as God pours out His Spirit we will see not only a great turning away but also a great "coming towards" salvation (for example, of the Jewish nation)? We just need to be careful of throwing stats around. As any real postmodern knows - they can say anything. --Graeme Codrington gj.cod@pixie.co.za

 From: JoeWayWat@aol.com (by way of Keith Drury <kdrury@indwes.edu>)

It would be my suggestion that to call into question the authenticity of the church growth movement based upon hard numbers or percentages of the Christian population within the world at large is to misunderstand the use of numbers by the church growth promoters. Personally, I have never understood the interest the Church Growth people had in numbers to be related to how the church measured up to the world at large, but rather how the church measured up to itself. (Last year we had 100 members, this year we have 200 members, thus we have grown by 100%)

Were we ever given the impression, either through Christ or the Apostles, that the Church of Jesus Christ would at some point in history become a "majority" within the world community? I cannot find any biblical reference to sustain such an idea. It is true, "God so loved the world...", and thus the message of salvation is to the whole world. Christ's promise that "The word will be preached throughout the world, then will the end come", did not convey the message that the world would receive the Word, only that it would be preached in all the world as a testimony.

What is fascinating about the numbers is, that though the church has never been a majority (per se) of the general population of the world, yet look at the dominating influence Christianity has had on Western civilization. And it is Western civilization that is the dominant influence in the world today. China the most populated nation in the world wants to wear "bluejeans" not "Buddhist robes"! It is Western ethics, which are grounded in Christian thought, that is gumming up the works in the United Nations. We may not have the numbers, but still, "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump!" --Joe Watkins

 From: Amosylee@aol.com

What about those who were Christians and died? Would the figure have come up different! How do we count those?

From: daviddrury@juno.com

I've often had conversations about the QUALITY of the early church... citing that we shouldn't be all that admiring of the early church because they were pretty messed up. But I've always qualified that lack of perceived QUALITY by saying that the QUANTITY of growth at that time was the thing to be impressed by.

Come to find out that the church didn't have either... according to your calculations, which do jive. But what I still must point out, is that the church was still growing 833 times faster in the early days than in the latter days. The thought that those closer to the cross of Christ in time had something special is not just a pipe-dream... they must have had something going.

If nothing else, this teaches me to know that long-term impact on the culture and in individuals is what counts. Paul was no slacker! His churches might not have been Willow Creek centers of growth nor great holy Monasteries. Yet, their influence spreads world-wide. But -- the greatest influence lies in the hands of Paul and Luke, who wrote about the moving of the Holy Spirit in His people so others would know. So the best way to glorify the king is to do P.R. for Him. --David Drury

From: Jonathan White <holy3x7@newaygo.mi.us>

Is my church keeping up in the "great evangelistic race?" Sure. We've grown steadily at about 4.5% per year for 15 years. It isn't even noticed--not that I any longer care. I knew a guy in East Michigan who got the "largest percentage gain" award every other year for 6 years, and the church never moved past 55. 55 to 30 to 55 again. Slow but steady wins the race, but not the applause. So do we run for the prize or the glory of man, and how long is the race? To the next district conference or to the feet of God? --Jon White

FROM: David L Watkins <dllw@juno.com>

It's ironic that a country 200 years old with a faith 500 years old sends missionaries to a country 1000 years old with a faith 2000 years old. There were more martyrs in 80 years of Communism in the USSR than in the first 300 years of the Church. --David Watkins Catechumen in The Russian Orthodox Church

From: "Thomas E. Lindholtz" <tlindholtz@ucdavis.edu>

Two comments: First, speaking as a layman, I think this kind of realistic thinking about how we can normally expect God to work in our midst is vital and long overdue. I tire of Christians who need to have a "miraculous" intervention in every activity or else, they seem to imply, God isn't blessing it. Would that this kind of thinking might be applied more broadly. Second, speaking as a university analyst who uses spreadsheets all day long, it isn't necessary to have lots of memory in your computer, just do a compound growth rate calculation in a single cell (4,000,000*1.00333^1670). Or use one of the canned formulae the spreadsheet designers supplied. ;-) --Tom Lindholtz