Sloppy Statistics

This article highlights in Evangelicalism at large a problem that I'm seeing and commenting on in Fundamentalism in particular. There is more desire to prove a point than to be scrupulous about being accurate. Bradley Wright comments often on sloppy statistics used by (and about) Christians as well.


Here's another, more recent article on the subject.

I see this all over the place, and it's become even easier in the world of email forwards. It goes back beyond emails, though, and runs far deeper. Back in college, we'd have well-known missions speakers come and address us, and they'd often give us numbers and statistics. (Some things never change.)

On the one hand, people proclaimed that all the missionaries are coming off the field - hardly any go back for a second term, and the long-term ones are all getting old, coming home, and dying. They would give numbers and statistics depicting the decline of world-wide missions.

Yet on the other hand, I heard statistical complaints that it's incredibly difficult to get support for new missionaries, in part because there are so many competing for the missions support out there!

Unless missions support is drastically decreasing across the country (and I have seen no statistics suggesting that), both statements can't be true. Either we have fewer missionaries going out, which would mean less competition among the remaining ones for the available support, or we have more missionaries going out, which means foreign missions is increasing, not decreasing. Yet those assertions are both often supported with statistics, and ironically, sometimes it seems that they're both made by the same people!


I'm not saying this to bash missiologists, much less missionaries. That's just one of many examples where I've seen statistics applied in sloppy ways. Really, it's nowhere near as bad among Christians in general I know as it is among the politically-involved in general that I know. (Though some make the case that Christians tend to be among the worst at abusing statistics.)

But then, Christians ought not be the world warmed over - we should be something radically different. Being like the world but not quite as bad... this tells me we've gotten very sloppy about truth in general, and about statistics in particular.

Now, I don't think this comes from an evil desire to deceive. I think the thought process runs something like, "My position on this issue is correct, and what I want people to do about it is right. Therefore, any statistic that supports my position MUST be true, since my position is correct. People who take my position must be honest, because we are on the side of right - so why should I waste time verifying statistics when instead I could be proclaiming the truth they support and urging people to the action they endorse?"

If an action is according to Scripture (such as going into all the world and preaching the gospel), then feel free to urge people toward it. If the Bible says something, you don't need statistics to prove it - the Bible itself is truth. But if you're going to use statistics, please do what you can to make sure they're reliable. Otherwise, you undermine your reliability in every area.

Who's the Boss?

No, I'm not asking whether your wife bosses you around or not. That's pretty much a given. (Just kidding, honey, just kidding! Ouch!) Um, anyhow.... I'm asking what the authority in your life is.

Too many times in the last months, I've talked to someone about an issue and brought up Scripture. Yet instead of interacting with that Scripture (even to discuss other ways it might be interpreted), the response has been to invoke tradition ("Well, I've been here 25 years, and we've never done it that way"), popular opinion ("I don't know a single other Fundamental, Independent Baptist preacher in this part of the state who believes that"), emotion ("But this is what I really feel is right"), theology ("But that can't be right, because this doctrine might be affected, and I'm committed to this doctrine"), human authority ("The Sword of the Lord (or Bob Jones University, or whatever other publication or institution the person has an affinity for) takes a different stance on that"), and simple unbelief or self-superiority ("I know what the Bible says about this, but I really think what I'm doing is right.")

If I had a dollar for every time I've heard someone say "I know what the Bible says, but...," I could live like a prosperity-gospel televangelist without ever wearing the makeup. The shattered lives of the people I know personally who have made those statements, then reaped the catastrophe they sowed by ignoring the Bible in favor of some other authority, could occupy a daytime talk show for seasons.

I'm not talking about issues with hazy interpretations of a single word in a single verse. I'm not asking people to fall into line with abstract inferences from Ezekiel and Revelation. I'm talking about matters clearly addressed in Scripture, typically with multiple references, taken in context, teaching the same truths. (And no, I'm not talking about getting all those responses to a single hobby-horse issue of mine, either - these responses range across a variety of subjects and conversations.)

The sad thing is, many of these conversations have been with deacons, with preachers, with long-standing members of good churches. These are people who claim to believe in Biblical authority.

What does Biblical authority mean? It means that whatever the Bible says, we believe. Whatever the Bible commands, we do. It should be that simple. Obviously, we must take Scripture in context and interpret carefully, seeing the Bible as a whole, rather than pulling out little proof texts for pet positions. It doesn't mean we have to change our minds the first time someone hits us with something new and quotes a Bible verse to support it. But when the Bible speaks clearly on an issue or behavior, we ought to listen and obey.

Historically, this was a defining trademark of Fundamentalism. It set the early Fundamentalists apart, probably more than anything. They refused to reinterpret or ignore the Bible based on tradition. They rejected human intellectualism that discarded Biblical accuracy. They determined not to be swayed by the pronouncements of scientists or the pressures of popular culture. They decided that if the Bible said it, they would believe it, and if God commanded it in His Word, they would strive to do it. This was the public stance of the movement, and I applaud it, for it is right. According to Jesus Christ, the Word of God is truth, and according to Paul, it is the means by which we mature and are equipped for every good work. It ought to permeate our lives, directing us in every decision through its precepts and principles.

Yet the spiritual fruit of those who made these pronouncements (however well or poorly those individuals lived out the pronouncements themselves) seems to be falling farther and farther from the tree. Biblical authority is lifted up so long as it can be used as a weapon to enforce what the person already thinks and does, and it is swiftly set aside when it doesn't fit into the preconceived package of ideas the person has.

I'm glad there are many I know in Fundamentalism and even in my church who do truly regard the Bible as the final authority. There are still some left who will search His Word and allow it to change them.

For the rest, I weep. A life or ministry built on any authority other than that of the Word of God stands upon treacherous sands. That house will fall.