What is the meaning of life?

 

What is the meaning of life? How can purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life be found? How can something of lasting significance be achieved? Many people have never stopped to consider these important questions. They look back years later and wonder why their relationships have fallen apart and why they feel so empty, even though they may have achieved what they set out to accomplish. An athlete who had reached the pinnacle of his sport was once asked what he wished someone would have told him when he first started playing his sport. He replied, “I wish that someone would have told me that when you reach the top, there’s nothing there.” Many goals reveal their emptiness only after years have been wasted in their pursuit

 

In our humanistic culture, people lose sight of the meaning of life. They pursue many things, thinking that in them they will find meaning and purpose. Some of these pursuits include business success, wealth, good relationships, sex, entertainment, and doing good to others. People have testified that, while they achieved their goals of wealth, relationships, and pleasure, there was still a deep void inside, a feeling of emptiness that nothing seemed to fill.

 

The author of the book of Ecclesiastes looked for the meaning of life in many vain pursuits. He describes the feeling of emptiness he felt: “Meaningless! Meaningless! . . . Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). King Solomon, the writer of Ecclesiastes, had wealth beyond measure, wisdom beyond any man of his time or ours, hundreds of women, palaces and gardens that were the envy of kingdoms, the best food and wine, and every form of entertainment available. He said at one point that anything his heart wanted, he pursued (Ecclesiastes 2:10). And yet he summed up life “under the sun”—life lived as though all there is to life is what we can see with our eyes and experience with our senses—is meaningless. What explains this void? God created us for something beyond what we can experience in the here-and-now. Solomon said of God, “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men” (Ecclesiastes 3:11). In our hearts we are aware that the “here-and-now” is not all that there is.

 

In the book of Genesis, we find a clue to the meaning of life in the fact that God created mankind in His image (Genesis 1:26). This means that we are more like God than we are like anything else. We also find that, before mankind fell and the curse of sin came upon the earth, the following things were true: 1) God made man a social creature (Genesis 2:18–25); 2) God gave man work (Genesis 2:15); 3) God had fellowship with man (Genesis 3:8); and 4) God gave man dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26). These facts have significance related to the meaning of life. God intended mankind to have fulfillment in life, but our condition (especially touching our fellowship with God) was adversely affected by the fall into sin and the resulting curse upon the earth (Genesis 3).

 

The book of Revelation shows that God is concerned with restoring the meaning of life to us. God reveals that He will destroy this present creation and create a new heaven and a new earth. At that time, He will restore full fellowship with redeemed mankind, while the unredeemed will have been judged unworthy and cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15). The curse of sin will be done away with; there will be no more sin, sorrow, sickness, death, or pain (Revelation 21:4). God will dwell with mankind, and they shall be His children (Revelation 21:7). Thus, we come full circle: God created us to have fellowship with Him; man sinned, breaking that fellowship; God restores that fellowship fully in the eternal state. To go through life achieving everything we set out to achieve only to die separated from God for eternity would be worse than futile! But God has made a way to not only make eternal bliss possible (Luke 23:43) but also life on earth satisfying and meaningful. How is this eternal bliss and “heaven on earth” obtained?

 

The meaning of life restored through Jesus Christ

 

The real meaning of life, both now and in eternity, is found in the restoration of our relationship with God. This restoration is only possible through God’s Son, Jesus Christ, who reconciles us to God (Romans 5:10; Acts 4:12; John 1:12; 14:6). Salvation and eternal life are gained when we trust in Jesus Christ as Savior. Once that salvation is received by grace through faith, Christ makes us new creations, and we begin the progressive journey of growing closer to Him and learning to rely on Him.

 

God wants us to know the meaning of life. Jesus said, “I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full” (John 10:10). A “full” life is logically one that is meaningful and devoid of aimless wandering.

 

The meaning of life is wrapped up in the glory of God. In calling His elect, God says, “Bring all who claim me as their God, for I have made them for my glory. It was I who created them” (Isaiah 43:7, NLT). The reason we were made is for God’s glory. Any time we substitute our own glory for God’s, we miss the meaning of life. “If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it” (Matthew 16:24–25). “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart” (Psalm 37:4).

Sacred is a quality that describes something that is dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity;[1] considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspires awe or reverence among believers. The property is often ascribed to objects (a "sacred artifact" that is venerated and blessed), or places ("sacred ground").

French sociologist Émile Durkheim considered the dichotomy between the sacred and the profane to be the central characteristic of religion: "religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden."[2]:47 In Durkheim's theory, the sacred represents the interests of the group, especially unity, which are embodied in sacred group symbols, or totems. The profane, on the other hand, involve mundane individual concerns.

Sameness and differences in a secular society

 

In this era of omnipresent diversity, we face paradoxical outcomes from practices, policies and the management of diversity in organizations. On the one hand, diversity is supposed to be adopted in terms of social justice and inclusiveness: embracing all talent and reaching out to diverse groups that traditionally were not part of the core of organizations. On the other hand, broad societal discourses of otherness are emerging, which severely limit chances for the inclusion of 'others'.

My work in religion focuses on Buddhist philosophy, practice, and the liturgical traditions of India and Tibet. My experience of religion is broader: born Jewish, raised Protestant, with compelling memories of attending Catholic Mass with a Catholic friend every New Year’s day from sixth grade through high school. Other than that, by the time I was thirteen my parents, due to their own divergent views, took a hands-off approach to me and religion. Left to my own devices, I morphed to a comfortably agnostic posture until I encountered Buddhist thought, language, and literature in graduate school and then in situ in Tibetan communities in India and Nepal. I mention this by way of underscoring an underlining principle of Christian Smith’s Religion—that the how’s and whys of religion’s impact on our lives derive as much from our historical, familial, and personal location as from the actual traditions we contact. They interact with every component of our lives, and with each other. They impact not only how we view our own religious tradition, or lack thereof, but the degree of distance we feel toward “other” religions. They also impact the kind of gulf contemporary cultures construct between “religious” and “secular” (which doesn’t really exist in traditional cultures) as well as the contemporary intermediate zone of “spiritual but not religious.”

Western monotheisms understand that a Creator with infinite creative power brought forth this world and its inhabitants. This Creator also indicated how we are to behave toward our fellow human creatures. On the one hand, there is the golden rule, “Do unto others….” That seems a pretty clear instruction, though we see it enacted or dismissed in wildly different ways by self-identified Christian groups. And of course the Ten Commandments aren’t the only behavioral referent. Biblical passages such as “an eye for an eye” complicate things. However, the larger truth is even a relatively homogenous understanding of creation does not mean that the “what then”—the way believers actually behave toward other living beings—is not extremely variable. Antipathies and estrangements among and within traditions are so widespread that we may presume them normative and unassailable.

It is also the case that Western monotheisms distance themselves more vigorously from “other” traditions than is common in much of Asia, where participation in multiple traditions are common. Japanese say they are born Shinto, marry as Christians, and die Buddhist. That’s not to say there isn’t seriously politicized and radicalized religious friction, but the overall cultural compass is broad.

Yet, if we consider things more or less objectively, it is not at all obvious why, in the face of so many basic and clearly evident human commonalities, these particular religious differences should provoke such powerful feelings of otherness, disdain, or downright enmity, with respect to people who are, in most ways, very much like ourselves. And really, every human being is much more like us than not. When we study medicine, biology, even the arts such as dance and music, we understand this. But when we study religion, do we take it for granted that difference dominates? Scholars, as well as other cultural custodians including politicians, bear some responsibility for this. Nonetheless, as is often observed, expressions of love and illuminating knowledge are a crucial essential of virtually all religious, spiritual, and humanitarian traditions. To love the divine or, in the secular context, to choose equality, is to loosen one’s own fixed sense of identity in ways that conform with Christian ideas of “becoming like a child” to enter the Kingdom, with Sufi ideas of recognizing the Friend in everyone, and Buddhist ideas of recognizing one’s true face and thereby finding a potential Buddha in every being. Sameness, or at least a potential for connection, surfaces right along with difference.

Religion, like language and like life itself, is infinitely various. A moment’s reflection establishes that variety and change are perhaps the most ubiquitous characteristics of everything we encounter. Yet, when it comes to religion and to culture more generally, we humans often exhibit powerful expectations of sameness, and seem surprised, if not dismayed and even when we don’t find it.

Recognizing the infinite variety of song, dance, and physical prowess across cultures helps us appreciate that our own expressions are part of something larger than any one modality can reveal. Do we not in fact often recognize this, at least implicitly, when we take pleasure in art or ways of being associated with traditions quite different from our own and which, partly for that very reason, surprise and delight us?

Virtually every tradition, great or small, is preternaturally interested in the issue of creation.

Monotheistic communities focus on believers’ relationship with the Creator—love, obedience, above all a sense of belonging and meaning.

This relationship generally underpins a sense of responsibility for self and kindly conduct toward others.

Other traditions emphasize not a creative person but the emergent creative process itself.

Buddhists for example take great interest in causal properties of intentions and actions, and thus are dedicated to reducing reactivity, thereby setting in motion positive causes through ethical and kind behavior.

Regardless of how a tradition characterizes the forces of which we are all the fruition, pretty much always concludes that some type of love and understanding is key. Moreover, when we look at these varied iterations, we find, as has often been noted, that the moral outcomes are disarmingly similar.

Yet, we often fasten on the arguably much less significant differences, dividing the world, our cities, neighborhoods, even families, accordingly. There are, however, compelling reasons to recognize that no matter how we understand creation, whether we believe, with Buddhists and Hindus, that the universe is born through our own actions, or see through the eyes of Jews, Christians, and Muslims that it arises through divine agency, we easily conclude that we are all the children of the same powers that be. We can interpret creative powers differently while still recognizing they are something we all share. Recognizing and calling out this variegated wholeness is a sameness that makes a difference.

What Separates Christianity from Other Religions

1.  Every other religion teaches us to earn our way to God.

Christianity is the only religion that teaches that God came to us. Romans 5:8 says, “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”

Jesus died for us before we did a thing for Him. God didn’t wait for us to get things right before He sent His Son to die. In fact, God sent his Son because He knew we could never get things right apart from Jesus!

2. Other religions have systems of rules to appease their god. Christianity is a relationship with God.

Other religions give us a list of things to do and not do. Some religions call them laws or pillars. These are things that you do in hopes of getting into heaven.

Psalm 145:18-19 tells us, “The Lord is near to all who call on him, to all who call on him in truth. He fulfills the desires of those who fear him; he hears their cry and saves them.”

We don’t have to appease God to receive His favor. He already showed us His love for us by sending Jesus to die on a cross in our place, for our sins. The separation between us and God was appeased, and we didn’t have to do a thing except believe. 

The separation between us and God was appeased, and we didn’t have to do a thing except believe. 

Christians go to church, read the Bible and obey God’s commands, not because we have to but because we want to. We want to learn about this God who would go to such great lengths for us. We want to show our thankfulness for His grace by representing Him well with our lives. And we choose to follow His plan, knowing that a God who loves us enough to sacrifice His Son for us has our best interest at heart.

3. No other religion has an empty tomb.

We’re the only people who follow a leader who died and came back to life.

Every other major religious leader is dead. People have been looking for Jesus’ body for thousands of years, and they still haven’t found Him! With all of the advancements in scientific technology, no one has been able to solve this “mystery” in the world of science. The tomb is empty, and the body is not hidden and will never be found because Jesus rose from the dead.

 In Matthew 28:6, we are reminded of this truth: “He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay.”

Christianity is unique in that it puts all of the work of salvation, of getting into heaven, onto God instead of man. Every religion in the world is about what man can do

Man made systems:

Definition of globalism. : a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence — compare imperialism, internationalism

Internationalism is a political principle which advocates a greater political or economic cooperation among nations and people.

Imperialism is a policy or ideology of extending the rule or authority of a country over other countries and peoples, often by military force or by gaining political and economic control. In this sense imperialism is not a form of government of a state headed by an emperor.

Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultra nationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Communism is a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Existentialism is a tradition of philosophical enquiry that explores the nature of existence by emphasizing experience of the human subject—not merely the thinking subject, but the acting, feeling, living human individual.

What does an existentialist believe?

Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. It is the view that humans define their own meaning in life, and try to make rational decisions despite existing in an irrational universe.

The two main types of Existentialism are the Atheist type and the Christian type. The Atheist type, made famous by Jean-Paul Sartre, is grounded in the writing of Nietzsche, which holds that every person should create his or her own morality.

Existentialism is a philosophy that emphasizes individual existence, freedom and choice. ... It holds that, as there is no God or any other transcendent force, the only way to counter this nothingness (and hence to find meaning in life) is by embracing existence.

What is the opposite of existentialism?

Answer and Explanation: The opposite of existentialism would be a philosophy rooted in the idea that everything has a specific meaning and purpose for existence. Essentialism, rooted in the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato, is the closest complete opposite.

Why do existentialists think the world is meaningless?

This means that we find ourselves existing in the world, and then we give ourselves meaning, or 'essence'. As Sartre said, "We are condemned to be free". ... Existentialists believe that our human 'essence' or 'nature' (way of being in the world) is simply our 'existence' (being in the world).

In 2006, he founded the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. Dawkins is known as an outspoken atheist. He is well known for his criticism of creationism and intelligent design.

Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL is an English ethnologist, (Richard Dawkins FRS FRSL is an English ethnologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.            evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.

 

 

 

What is BBC Future?

 

BBC Future offers a fresh perspective on the big questions in science, technology and health that are shaping lives and the world around us. Smart shareable content with a highly visual and interactive style spark the imagination of intellectually curious audiences across the globe.

 

Over the last few months, BBC Future Now has been examining some of the biggest problems humankind faces right now: land use to accommodate exploding populations, the future of nuclear energy, the chasm between rich and poor – and much more.

 

But what about the big challenges that are brewing for the future? In 30 years, what might be on the world’s agenda to solve? It’s impossible to predict, but we can get clues from how current trends in science and technology may play out. Here are just some of the potential big issues of tomorrow:

 

GENETIC MODIFICATION OF HUMANS

 

Debates among scientists started roaring last year over a new technology that lets us edit human DNA. It’s called Crisper (pronounced ‘crisper’) and it’s a means of altering people’s DNA to carve diseases like cancer out of the equation.

 

Sounds great, right? But what if takes a dark ethical turn, and it turns into a eugenics-esque vanity project to churn out ‘designer babies’, selecting embryos that produce babies that will have a certain amount of intelligence or that have certain physical characteristics?

 

While it’s still not widely used enough to be considered a current “grand challenge”, this is an up-and-coming advancement whose wide-ranging repercussions we need to be prepared for – and it’s all the more reason to ensure ethicists have a seat at the table at every laboratory, university and corporation that might be itching to alter our DNA.

 

“Proper reflection on what about us we might want to preserve takes time – it should draw on a wide range of perspectives about what it means to be human,” Nicholas Agar, professor of ethics at the Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, told BBC Future Now earlier this year. “It’s difficult to set aside this time for ethical reflection when new technological possibilities seem to be coming thick and fast.”

 

A MORE AGED POPULATION THAN EVER BEFORE

 

We won’t just be wrestling with the fact that the world’s population is exploding – but people are living longer than ever, too. Which is great – but all those senior citizens are going to require care. In fact, the number of centenarians will increase more than 50 times – from 500,000 today to over 26 million by 2100. From the UK to Japan to China, societies with large numbers of people over 65 will become more common. In the next couple of decades, as that increase starts to happen, we’ll need better care for the elderly (Japan is even eyeing robots) and perhaps policies to allow more immigrants to try and make up for ageing workforces and in some cases, declining birth rates.

Floods and rising sea levels are becoming more common in coastal regions like Florida as populations grapple with the effects of climate change (Credit: Getty Images)

 

Floods and rising sea levels are becoming more common in coastal regions like Florida as populations grapple with the effects of climate change (Credit: Getty Images)

LOST CITIES

You don’t need to look very hard in a place like Miami to see how cities are changing in the 21st Century – rising sea levels are gradually making some of them disappear. Fuelled by climate change, not only are floods becoming more common in the streets, but the changing weather patterns have also influenced building design. Aside from more seawalls, the city is requiring all new buildings be built with their first floor built higher. But that’s all a sticking plaster – if current trends continue, we may have to come to terms with losing whole swathes of cities, islands and low-lying regions such as Bangladesh. The economic impact to regions will be profound, and climate refugees could become the norm.

Pressure is already growing on cities, as urban populations grow. If climate change forces mass migration, then existing infrastructure, services and economies may be stretched to breaking point.

THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL MEDIA

Social media has complicated the way we communicate for the better part of a decade. And it’s not going anywhere anytime soon, given that most people get their news from it now. That’s before we even get into the mess of online harassment, as well. What might social media look like in 30 years, and by that time, what are some threats it might pose?

A world with no privacy, for one. That’s one problem we’re already seeing. And besides weathering away our sense of and desire for anonymity and privacy, social media brings with it the many problems of cyber bullying too. Many charities and non-profit organizations across the world have mobilized in the fight against internet trolls, but it’s an open question about whether law enforcement agencies and the social media companies can fix it or whether it will get worse.

Then there’s also the problem of our information diet to consider: if the status quo of ubiquitous fake news remains, how will that shape how people see the world? If individuals spend months, years, even decades of their life exposed only to unreliable news sources, it does not augur well for civilized society and debate.

That said, given how fast social media has arrived in the world, an optimist may suggest that those problems could soon be resolved. In 30 years’ time we may be dealing with social media issues that we’ve not even considered yet. After all, Face book is only 13 years old.

NEW GEOPOLITICAL TENSIONS

The past year has seen a complete upset of our geopolitics’ fragile balance. That could make the global stability of the next couple of decades a complete question mark.

North Korean missile launches. Thousands of refugees crossing borders to flee turmoil. Hackers meddling in other nations’ elections. Rising nationalist sentiment worldwide. Headlines in 2016 (and so far, 2017) have been dominated by never-ending political drama that’s been fuelling a ‘geopolitical minefield’ and an ‘unprecedented geopolitical shift’ – whether it’s managing unpredictable North Korea, the plight of Syrian refugees, or Britain’s transition from the European Union. Throw in widespread hacking, nuclear missiles and other dangerous technology, and it’s easy to see why maintaining basic diplomacy becomes vital.

SAFE CAR TRAVEL

Despite all the rapid urbanization and talk of bullet trains and fantastical technology like the Hyper loop coming to the fore, the car isn’t going anywhere – and in fact, in the next couple decades, there will be even more of them on the road.

Driverless car technology is swiftly rolling out, with major tech companies and automakers aggressively seeking to debut human-free vehicles in coming years. But in addition, the sheer number of cars – self-driving or not – is going to skyrocket, studies show. In countries like China that are seeing a growing middle class, the environmental and infrastructural needs that an increasingly road-faring population demands is going to be a grand challenge. How do we ensure safety, fight pollution, and make sure driverless cars aren’t a menace on the road?

 DWINDLING RESOURCES

The new tech and devices that characterize the 21st Century all require rare earth metals to make – an average Smartphone has over 60 “ingredients”. That’s putting a strain on the planet’s natural resources: in China, where 90% of the world’s rare earth metals are found, it’s estimated that its mines will run out in the next two decades – and good substitutes for those materials are hard to come by.

SETTLING OTHER WORLDS

How will space tourism companies make sure their activities are safe? How will we find ways to send humans to Mars or another planet to live there, as Stephen Hawking has urged us to figure out? Space travel might seem like the domain of space agencies and billionaires today, but as it becomes more accessible to everybody else, a whole host of new challenges will emerge. Outer space is increasingly looking less like the final frontier and more like our backyard, and with more money being shelled out to get humans up to the inky abyss than ever before, the logistics, safety and diplomacy behind the challenge all demand serious consideration.

BOOSTED BRAINPOWER

It’s already common to use drugs to boost brainpower (whether it’s coffee, or something stronger, like modafinil), and most of the developed world now relies on their smart phones as an ‘externalized’ memory – but let’s extrapolate that out a few decades. Imagine targeted pharmaceuticals that make us think faster than currently possible, and technological implants that help us concentrate beyond normal human ability for hours or days, for example – these advances are already well underway in laboratories around the world. The question it raises is: what happens to those that cannot afford such enhancements? Could it widen inequality, and allow the rich to get richer? Then there’s also the legal and ethical issues: it’s acceptable to drink a coffee before you sit an exam, but is it ok to use an implant or a smart drug? The challenges posed by intelligence enhancement are only just emerging.

AI’S DOMINANCE IN OUR LIVES

 

Futurist Ray Kurzweil has made a host of predictions – some inspirational, others downright alarming. One of them is the sci-fi-sounding notion that suggests artificial intelligence will one day become more powerful than human intelligence and improve itself at an exponential rate, otherwise known as ‘the singularity’.

It’s far from the majority view, but few would deny that AI is only going to get more powerful. So, like in the case of gene editing, the tech and AI community will need to consider the ethical and societal implications of their work as AI comes to shape more realms of our life, from healthcare to financial markets.

As for end-of-the-world extinction scenarios, it’s frankly not likely – but that shouldn’t obscure the fact that AI is poised to change how we live and work in profound ways. It is also not impossible that specific AIs could malfunction or run out of their creators’ control, leading to very human disasters, where lives are lost or millions of dollars are wiped out.

The Center for the Study of Global Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary regularly publishes the Status of Global Christianity. Evaluating their research and predictions provides an encouraging and potential surprising picture for the current and future state of Christianity.

1. Christianity is growing faster than the population.

Globally, Christianity is growing at a 1.27% rate. Currently, there are 2.5 billion Christians in the world. The world’s population, 7.7 billion, is growing at a 1.20% rate.

Islam (1.95%), Sikhs (1.66%) and Hindus (1.30%) are the only religious groups growing faster than Christianity, though followers of Jesus outnumber every other faith and are predicted to continue to do so at least through 2050.

2. Pentecostals and Evangelicals are growing the fastest and are still picking up speed.

Among Christian groups, Pentecostals (2.26%) and evangelicals (2.19%) are growing faster than others.

They are both also growing faster than they did just two years ago. In 2017, Pentecostals’ growth rate was 2.22% and evangelicals was 2.12%.

3. Atheism has peaked.

There are fewer atheists in the world today (138 million) than there were in 1970 (165 million).

Since 2000, atheism has rebounded slightly—only by 0.04%—but it is expected to decline again and fall below 130 million by 2050.

Agnosticism has maintained a small growth rate of 0.42%. After reaching 716 million this year, however, it is expected to drop below 700 million by 2050.

4. Christianity is growing in cities, but not fast enough.

Today, 1.64 billion Christians live in urban areas, growing at a 1.58% rate since 2000.

But more than 55% of the world’s population lives in cities and that is only continuing to grow.

The global urban population is growing at a 2.15% rate.

5. The center of Christianity has moved to the global south.

In 1900, twice as many Christians lived in Europe than in the rest of the world combined. Today, both Latin America and Africa have more. By 2050, the number of Christians in Asia will also pass the number in Europe.

Currently, Christianity is barely growing in Europe (0.04% rate) and only slightly better in North America (0.56%).

Oceania (0.89) and Latin America (1.18%) have marginally better rates, but the faith is exploding in Asia (1.89%) and Africa (2.89%).

6. There are more evangelism opportunities for Christians than ever.

The vast majority of non-Christians live their lives and never interact with a Christian, but that number is shrinking.

In 1900, only 5.5% of non-Christians knew a Christian. Today, that has grown to 18.3%.

Obviously, that number is still too small, but the growing percentage grants more non-Christians the opportunity to hear the gospel from someone they know.

7. The percentage of the un-evangelized is shrinking.

More than half of the world’s population in 1900 (54.3%) were un-evangelized. That percentage continues to shrink, dropping to 28.4% in 2019.

That still means, however, that almost 2.2 billion people living today are still considered un-evangelized.