The 2% criterion wasn't established until 1995. From the mid-70s until then, 20% was the criterion. The 20% was based on Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations books and the 2% was based, partly at least, on a comment made by sociologist Robert Bellah. For an in-depth look at these issues, see https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/33_2_PDFs/IJFM_33_2-Datema.pdf.
The early number was 20%. Ralph Winter didn't like it b/c 20% may be way too little for a larger group and way to big for a smaller group (or a tribe, we as have all seen or heard). Even though he was an engineer, Winter never like %-ages and argued with his son-in-law (Todd Johnson) as well as Todd's boss, David Barrett...and even Luis Bush (and others) that we can't really know that level of info, or trust what it means. (Winter never really pushed for a list at all.)
But those guys (and Joshua Project today) needed to have a number to put in to have the lists make sense. (JP uses 5% Christian of any kind and 2% evangelical...they become triggers for when a group appears to be closer to being reached, or that a movement may be happening.
Todd used to say that when you are looking at things on a global scale, numbers need to add up. The spreadsheet needs to equal, say, the U.N. global population numbers. But how some numbers were arrived at wasn't simple.
Winter much preferred a approach like: get people on site among a people, they (hopefully) become experts in that people and culture and then you will know if the group can "disciple to the fringes" (to use McGavran's wording about People Movements).
That is why he moved to the idea of a "unimax" people = the MAXimum sized group sufficiently UNIfied to be the focus of a single people movement to Christ.
Many of us follow Winter that the KEY thing for a people, is whether they have access to the gospel or not.
That doesn't mean that other people, who are not yet in the kingdom aren't important. It is just a way to say, let's not forget those without much chance of hearing/understanding/responding to what Jesus is offering (humanly speaking that is).
The 2% criterion wasn't established until 1995. From the mid-70s until then, 20% was the criterion. The 20% was based on Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations books and the 2% was based, partly at least, on a comment made by sociologist Robert Bellah. For an in-depth look at these issues, see https://www.ijfm.org/PDFs_IJFM/33_2_PDFs/IJFM_33_2-Datema.pdf.
On behalf of Joshua Project, we agree with your take on the necessity and limitations!
This is really well stated, once again. I'm forwarding this to several of our leaders as it's very relevant to our current discussions.
The early number was 20%. Ralph Winter didn't like it b/c 20% may be way too little for a larger group and way to big for a smaller group (or a tribe, we as have all seen or heard). Even though he was an engineer, Winter never like %-ages and argued with his son-in-law (Todd Johnson) as well as Todd's boss, David Barrett...and even Luis Bush (and others) that we can't really know that level of info, or trust what it means. (Winter never really pushed for a list at all.)
But those guys (and Joshua Project today) needed to have a number to put in to have the lists make sense. (JP uses 5% Christian of any kind and 2% evangelical...they become triggers for when a group appears to be closer to being reached, or that a movement may be happening.
Todd used to say that when you are looking at things on a global scale, numbers need to add up. The spreadsheet needs to equal, say, the U.N. global population numbers. But how some numbers were arrived at wasn't simple.
Winter much preferred a approach like: get people on site among a people, they (hopefully) become experts in that people and culture and then you will know if the group can "disciple to the fringes" (to use McGavran's wording about People Movements).
That is why he moved to the idea of a "unimax" people = the MAXimum sized group sufficiently UNIfied to be the focus of a single people movement to Christ.
Many of us follow Winter that the KEY thing for a people, is whether they have access to the gospel or not.
That doesn't mean that other people, who are not yet in the kingdom aren't important. It is just a way to say, let's not forget those without much chance of hearing/understanding/responding to what Jesus is offering (humanly speaking that is).