The 2% - Know the Limitations

Defining "unreached people groups" is fraught with problems

A few years ago, I was speaking with a gentleman who claimed to be “in the room” when missionary leaders decided that a people group with less than 2% Evangelical would be considered “unreached.” I can’t speak to the veracity of this story other than to say that I believe the guy because of who he is, and he was in those kinds of conversations back in the day.

He told me that they needed some number, and 2% seemed the most logical and obvious choice, so they went with it.

Now, scroll back a bit, and read that again. They went with it because it “seemed the most logical and obvious choice.” Not because they had hard data that 2% was a large enough number for there to be a reproducing church. Not because studies had proven that 2% was a sociologically pertinent number. Not because they had evidence that 2% of the population is enough to reach the rest of the nation. They simply “needed a number” and “2% seemed the most logical and obvious choice.” To be fair, I paraphrase and am working from memory, but the point was that no research backed up that 2% number (if you know different, let me know in the comments below).

This 2% cutoff has become a cited and recited percentage within missiology. Pretty much all the various UPG lists use this number. I am a fan of the lists, by the way, because without them we would not have much sense of the task. Joshua Project, for example, has a fuller definition than the much-cited 2% (you can read their definition here: Why Include Adherents When Defining Unreached? | Joshua Project).

Unfortunately, I don’t believe (and please comment if I am wrong about this) there is any real basis for using 2% as an indicator that the people group is now reached. To be fair, none of the UPG lists make this claim, but I believe it is the way many missionaries understand the 2%.

Is this a problem? Only if people mentally frame that number as an objective indicator of “reached-ness.” If we are all aware that it is nothing more than a subjectively chosen marker upon which we might try to understand progress, we are good to go. But if we think that the 2% means anything more than that we are in trouble.

The problems of 2% are manifold. There are qualitative questions. For example, are we talking about converts or disciples? How long must one be an adherent to be considered in the 2%? Do we count groups of churches with aberrant theology like Seventh Day Adventists? The qualitative questions are endless.

There are also methodological questions like, “Who does the survey work to determine this percentage?” This may be done by governments which are often hostile to Christianity and unwilling to report what is happening. It could be missionaries or national church leaders. These could both be motivated to either inflate numbers to show progress or deflate numbers to garner resources. The list goes on, no pun intended.

The biggest issue is that most of these numbers are not highly accurate. It is just too complicated to have a standardized number for something this complex.

Yet, we need these numbers. Without some sort of yardstick, it is impossible to assess how we are doing in obeying Jesus’ command. Now, some will argue that no counting is necessary. Lately, this argument is being made because of what I would call “soft anti-Westernism.” “Bah, that’s ‘managerial missiology,’” is a charge I have heard more than once. Despite this charge and the difficulties inherent in the 2% number, we need to have some idea of how deep the church has penetrated a culture is relevant to missionary work.

This is why I am a fan of the unreached people group lists. Without them we would be flailing in the dark, unaware of where we stand and how we might deploy resources. Overall, these numbers represent a good-faith effort to understand the reality of the situation. Serious research analysis starts out with a survey of the limitations of the study. That is exactly what we need to know here.

The problem is not the 2% number. The problem is that readers of our numbers do not understand the limitations that surround them.

[Image: Created with Microsoft Copilot using the prompt, “Can you make an image of a milk jug on a table, with a label that says "UPG - 2%"]