When someone quotes a statistic in a conversation with me, I\u2019ve been known to respond: \u201cDid you know that 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot?\u201d What varies is that I make up a different number, every time, on the spot.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a slightly sarcastic way to let them know that I\u2019m suspicious of how people misuse statistics.<\/p>\n
Part of my suspicion is born from the fact that I\u2019m not a numbers guy, at all. Higher maths, including statistics, intimidate me. So, the assignment to read a book called \u201cHow To Read Numbers\u201d didn\u2019t inspire me, at all.<\/p>\n
(It did, however, provide some comedy around my house. My kids have been wondering out loud, with books like \u201cHow to Read a Book\u201d and \u201cHow to Read Numbers\u201d exactly what kind of doctoral program I\u2019m in!)<\/em><\/p>\n Reading a book, I\u2019ve done a lot, and I was eager to learn how to do that even better. Honestly, though, I try to avoid reading numbers every chance I get.<\/p>\n Case in point: My first hire leading a growing church has always been a CFO. Not a worship leader, youth pastor, administrative assistant, or janitor. I can function in all those roles. I\u2019m not above cleaning a toilet or doing a lock-in with teenagers. I understand enough about those things to train someone else to do them. But I\u2019ve spent my professional life working hard\u2014and often failing\u2014to grasp balance sheets, depreciation, forecasting, payroll taxes, and investment portfolios. To this day, every time I dip into that realm, my hands get a little clammy.<\/p>\n So, I dutifully prepared to do my best inspectional reading of this book, and as I started it discovered that… I liked it! I know we\u2019re not supposed to say that \u2018we liked the book\u2019 in these blogs, but this was a \u201cGreen Eggs and Ham\u201d threshold moment for me\u2014since my teens I have been running away from numbers, but someone finally got me to sit down and enjoy them.<\/p>\n My first observation about the book is that if my high school math teachers were this winsome, clear, and simple I would have had a 78% higher chance of ending up in a STEM career. Ok, that\u2019s a huge exaggeration, but maybe I wouldn\u2019t have had such a strong negative reaction to math and numbers.<\/p>\n The brief, highly readable chapters helped me engage a subject I\u2019ve never been interested in. Each chapter gave me just enough to learn something new, and to want even more. The summary at the end of the book was also useful in calling readers, writers, and thinkers to a common standard for numbers honesty and transparency.<\/p>\n My second observation is that it\u2019s apparently very hard to trust any<\/strong> numbers we read or hear. It seems everyone has an agenda and numbers-people, like mathematicians and scientists, can make numbers, especially statistics, say whatever they want them to say. That, of course, implies malicious intent, but the eye-opening finding in this book is that even people who should<\/em> be good with numbers often don\u2019t understand the full significance of those numbers[1]<\/a> and with no nefarious scheming whatsoever get\u2014and communicate\u2014their conclusions wrong.<\/p>\n For non-number, word-focused people, (like journalists[2]<\/a> or writers) it can be even worse. If a communicator doesn\u2019t understand when it might be spurious to use a number or statistic, they might innocently (or intentionally) present conclusions that look compelling on the surface, but that are misleading, or even manipulative.<\/p>\n Mark Twain seems to have agreed that writers take liberties with numbers:<\/p>\n “Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.\u2019\u201d[3]<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n But lest I throw stones at journalists, and questionable scientists, and Mark Twain, I must come clean. As a pastor I\u2019ve misused numbers, too. There is a similar challenge in journalism[4]<\/a> and the church: There is not a universally accepted \u2018style guide\u2019 for numbers. How many people attend a church? (Is it monthly average attendance, your biggest Sunday, your biggest week, the total number of congregants, your membership or mailing list… what about now with streaming?) How fast is a church growing, or shrinking? How effective is a church? How many people are finding Christ? How many people are being discipled? Even if we had the right questions, we might engage the wrong metrics. Or we might be comparing apples to oranges. Or we may be using numbers incorrectly to prop up our reputation or ego.<\/p>\n So why use numbers in the church in the first place? Because each number represents a person who matters.<\/p>\n Clearly there is something wrong about using numbers as a point of pride\u2014we feel it in our bones, and our feelings are confirmed every time we read about the judgement David came under for counting the army in 2 Samuel 24. However, when we realize the Holy Spirit didn\u2019t shy away from reporting numbers in the Bible (the 12[5]<\/a>, 70[6]<\/a>, 120[7]<\/a>, 3,000[8]<\/a>, 5,000[9]<\/a>, and don\u2019t forget large parts of the books of Chronicles and NUMBERS!) we should be encouraged that the right use\u2014with the right heart\u2014of numbers and statistics could help us understand a little better what God might be doing among us.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> Chivers and Chivers, How To Read Numbers<\/em>, 39.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> \u201418.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> http:\/\/www.twainquotes.com\/Statistics.html<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> \u2014Conclusion and Statistical Style Guide, 163ff.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Luke 6:13<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> Luke 10:1<\/p>\n\n