FROM: Graeme Codrington [email protected]

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.