Several people have recently asked me about the oft-cited statistic, "90% of our work goes on in Christianized/reached/finished places, and less than 10% among the unreached." The question I'm usually asked is, "has this statistic changed? isn't it old?"Yes, it's old. But getting it updated is difficult. I'm not going to try to answer with a new statistic in this blog post. I'm just going to describe some work I've been doing to try to "narrow the answer" or at least test out some methodologies for estimating it. The newest North American Mission Handbook has been released, published by MissioNexus, with Peggy Newell as editor. They've been good enough to work with me to compile some data related to the question of missionary deployment. I began analyzing this data, and then decided to go through and update the country-by-country Mission Status column in my District Survey database (not publicly available on the Internet). What I've run into is the same old problem:
So to try to get at something that's "fairly accurate," at least by country to start with, I use a scale instead. My scale of missionary engagement runs from 0 to 7.
(Caveat: At present, I'm looking at international cross-cultural workers; and these numbers are updated for the Mission Handbook and do not take into account either, for example, Koreans or Nigerians or Indonesians, etc., nor do they take into account workers from nearby countries--for example, Nigerians going to Ghana, etc.) There appear to be at least 14 countries at "level 7." These include, in descending order of estimated number of mission workers:
(I'm not saying that all of these workers are engaging unreached peoples or are working for DMMs. I'm just saying that each of these countries has at least 300 workers in place, as reported to the Mission Handbook.) The Mission Handbook reports 33,000 long-term (4-year) staff in all of the agencies. Altogether, these 14 countries probably represent about 6,000 workers, or about 20%. These are very rough numbers! What we can say for certain is that a large portion of the mission workforce is found in these 14 countries. This shouldn't really surprise us. Some of these are "Crossroads countries" and missionaries do tend to "clump at the crossroads." Others have been traditional "training grounds" for short-term missions and thus draw long-term activity afterwards. Others are easier-to-reach regions of the unreached world. Still others are concentrations of agnostics that are now drawing global diasporas. There are another 30 countries at level 6 (100+ workers). These include a lot of Latin America and European countries. Altogether they total another 3,000 workers, or about another 10% of the workforce. How does this help us answer the question of whether deployment to the unreached has changed? Well, it's not (yet) an exact answer. But it is somewhat comforting to see some heavily non-Christian regions (Thailand, Indonesia, Japan) on the "top end" of the scale, with heavy mission deployment. Still, most of the really strongly unevangelized countries are no higher than "level 3" ("multiple" engagements, though less than 15, and fewer than 50 workers). And many really hard to reach places (Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia) are only at level 1 or 2. While I cannot say with authority precisely what percentage of the mission force is deployment among the unreached, the data does appear to indicate that significantly more than half of the mission force is at work in strongly Christian and largely reached places (which may be strongly Christian and largely reached mostly because so much of the mission force has been at work there for so long). As one example of the disparity, why does Mexico have 1,000 long-term workers, and China has slightly more than 100 (at least by the Mission Handbook stats)? Why do the Philippines and Brazil have hundreds and hundreds of workers, and Indonesia does not? Although the "true picture" may be slightly better (because, first, agencies may not want to report their workers in Indonesia and, second, we are not counting local workers or non-American workers), I know from my own private data sets that the portrait of the imbalance is realistic. I'm not suggesting we need to take workers away from Mexico, but we do need to find some more who are called to the less-reached places in the world.