I’ll let others respond to question #1, but I’ll launch into #2.  I’ll start by saying that transfer growth is “amoral” - it is neither good nor bad.  Transfer growth happens - in large measure, I suspect - simply because we live in a mobile society.  We’re not exactly nomads, but we certainly do a lot of moving around.  There is clearly nothing bad about someone transferring from one church to another when they move across the country. 

Neither should we fret about much of the local transfer that happens.  We must recognize that our church cannot be all things to all people, and thus as personal situations change, it may be very appropriate and perhaps even best for someone to change churches locally.  It sounds like Earl recognizes this in his comments; indeed, it would seem that this fact offers justification for the position of “outplacement specialist.”

Where transfer growth becomes particularly worrisome to me is when it becomes excessively consumer driven - focused on meeting my needs and preferences, irrespective of how effective a ministry is at reaching others for Jesus; this leads to church hopping, both “serially” and in “parallel”.  (Serial church hopping: I attend one church for a while, then move to another, then another, etc.  Parallel church hopping: I attend Church A for “worship”, Church B for Sunday School or an evening service, and maybe even Church C for midweek events.)

The other concerning aspect of transfer growth is when it is church-initiated - when a church targets people who attend other churches.  This is is sometimes subtle and perhaps not even intentional; e.g., with ad campaigns proclaiming “we are different than those other churches.” Ostensibly, the target is people who don’t go to church, but would if they could find one more amenable to their tastes.  But I have a hunch that those ads are more likely going to reach people who are already in other churches, and just not satisfied.

We have had very bad experiences from transfer growth.  Honestly, I can’t remember a person who switched churches and ended up happy with ours!  And the last thing we want to do is target ourselves to attract these unhappy folk.

Our best results, if you will, have been with either new believers, or with those who have been out of the church for a long period of time and are ready to try it again.

As to having an Outpatient Specialist, I’m not sure that’s truly practical or a good use of our resources.  Frankly, I think we have a lot of immature Christians hopping from church to church to church, looking for something that only exists in our heavenly future.

And former pastors are the absolute worst.

Earl said: “Would it be fair to say that, if most of a congregation’s growth is derived from transfers, the church is structured in subtle ways to produce that result?”

And then Randy said: “if a church’s main growth is from transfers, it is because the church isn’t intentionally seeking (aka “targeting") unchurched people.”

I agree with both of these statements.

We are currently seeking a new church.  We will become “transfer growth” to some church.  One question we are asking is about conversion growth.  We want to know what percentage of growth in the church we choose is from previously unchurched people.  We want to know what the church is doing to assess this factor (if they are doing anything or just guessing).  We want to know this because our experience is like Randy’s statement. Too many churches TALK missionally but don’t keep themselves under a missional microscope, examining their missional effectiveness.  Thus they end up with more transfer growth than they want or even realize they’re getting.

We are the kind of missional transfers Earl described, but we’re finding not many are welcoming of our missional line of questioning.

Wendi

I will address the first question: “Should every church advertise the services of an “Outplacement Specialist”?”
The answer is yes.  There needs to be some one in every church that has the freedom and the integrity to recognize that not every person who enters the building will match the spirit or personality of the congregation.  This will require that people know the strengths of the other communities of faith that exist around them. 
We experienced this in a church once.  Being one of those nomadic people we transferred from city to city.  In one city we began the process of visiting the churches with in our denominational pool.  One pastor after visiting with us noted that we would be a better match in a sister church. 
We went and found the place God wanted us to be.  We joined and soon became active in the operation of the church’s mission. 
He knew his church and he knew the strengths of the sister church.  This has always been a benchmark for me as I have served in a pastoral office.

Peter says:

[I say transfer growth is a good thing… if… a person is transferring FROM a legalistic church that has totally lost sight of the Gospel TO one that hasn’t.]

I agree . . . as long as the receiving church is as intentional and unapologetic about being missional and focused on reaching the unchurched as yours is Peter.  But . . . I’ve watched churches with missional tendencies that are less focused and intentional about it, get their missional hearts sucked right out of them as they experience growth and the local Christian consumers begin arriving and looking for ways to “get fed.” One day they wake up and realize they simply stopped reaching people, but are not sure how or when it happened.

And speaking of that tired “I need to get fed” excuse . . . have you ever heard of a person leaving a church and saying, “I’m just looking for a place where I can serve and contribute to the mission, have more opportunities to sacrifice time, talent and money helping more lost and broken people experience Jesus.”

An outplacement specialist sounds good in theory, but I’m not sure how it would work without the person (the specialist) communicating a pejorative attitude toward the churches to which they refer.  If I were such a person for example, I could refer to a more traditional or high church without cynicism, or to an urban over a suburban church, or to a different denomination.  But, if that “I just want to get fed” person asked for my advice, I’m not sure I could hide my real attitude toward the “it’s just about us Christians” church to which I’d be referring the person.  Plus, I’m not sure that kind of talk by Christian leaders is honoring to the Lord or good for unity within a community, any more than it is good for the other church to put up billboards that say “for those who want a church that preaches THE REAL gospel.” Nor do I think helping an inward focused person find an inward focused church is all that good for the kingdom.

Wendi

Randy commented… If you say the church should target unbelievers, then you run into that prickly thornbush of inviting the “unholy” into a “holy” place. 

My frustration is to be surrounded by great sermons, and then there is rarely an invitation for the “unholy” to become “holy”. 

How many of your churches have had an old fashioned (not sure why I said that, it shouldn’t go out of fashion) invitation for people to accept Christ during the church service?,, let’s say in the last service, last year, etc.

Wendi, YES, amen! I think you were just expanding on what I was saying. If the vision of doing God’s mission on earth is white-hot, the church will be more successful at it than if we are just spinning our wheels.

Oliver, about the “house church”. Amen! We have that very thing in our small groups here, that more and more of our people are involved in all the time. I still believe there is a place, a good place, for the large gathering of God’s people.

I kinda like that Macy’s analogy, too!

All of our guests determined to be from other congregations are followed up on by me with the pastor or other staff from their departing churches. I’ve had a narrow range of responses from other pastors. Some have said and still say, in essence, “We’ve got troubles in our ministry that are forcing people out. They will be a blessing to you. Feel free to recruit them heavily.” Others have asked that we encourage the folks to “come back home” and reconcile their issues, which I gladly do. And still other pastors have said flatly, “Keep them… PLEASE!” Naturally, I do not invest much in these folks if a pastor is that enthusiastic about ridding himself of them. I sit back and wait to see what they strive to become- problems or solutions- then go from there. Literally, I have helped hundreds right back out our doors to where they came from or elsewhere, but have warned other pastors of these church-roaming and church-seeking malcontents. I’ll just say that, for our experience here, in this city, transfer growth has been 20% positive and 80% negative. The 20% are people ready to live missionally. The 80% negativity was/is borne out in a few things, but, primarily, malcontentment with their previous church is the driver of most transfer traffic to ours. Almost as a rule of thumb, there are 2-4 things they really like about how we minister. The trouble comes when, investing about 6-14 weeks (or less) in our congregation, they begin missing the 6-8 things they did enjoy about their previous church. It is then they begin projecting their need for those things onto us. When we refuse to morph, the conflict begins. At that time they get the “put up or shut up” speech from me. Sure, I offer it in a tone of love, and how that comes out is, “Since we are not going to change our philosophy or God’s vision for this ministry, you’ll have to decide to fit into this system or find another that is more of a fit.” Honestly, I have found nothing more distracting than shift growth in my ten years here; nothing has caused me more grief and that’s a fact. I have spent 10 years in Nehemiah mode- building with one hand while fighting with the other for the heart and soul of this church’s vision and mission, not with Satan, but with “saints.” Praise be to our God for the harvest of souls we’ve enjoyed so far. From the vocational standpoint, it has been the most motivating thing here.

Friends
Outplacement specialists, kangaroo christians, sheep stealers......., the church has become a big business.  One wonders how the early church ever survived without all these great programs......
Truthfully, are we getting to the point where the sheep as well as the pastor need to sign a “pre-nup” before assuming membership or any other activity in the church?
I once read something about the Holy Spirit in the Bible (any translation will do) and what His position is in all we do for the Lord.
What next - the sinners prayer “Lord I accept you as Savior and Lord, but if I don’t like all you offer, I will leave and expect You to return all that was taken from me full value plus interest!  AMEN.
We best all remember 2 Chronicles 7:14, for it is interesting the the outside world believes we are a christian nation (small letter on purpose), yet look at the malls and public parks on Sunday morning and Wednesday/Thursday evenings.........Sometimes I believe Jesus is lookiing across the Nation’s Capital and saying the same thing He did to His Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37.

Transfer growth happens no matter what.  People are spiritual nomads in this culture.  The “Outplacement Specialist” OS is a role a well trained group of people could play.  We target people.  I do not know who sits behind the door of most houses in my ministry area.  I know what surveys tell me, but not much more.  I know that on any given Sunday 5% are in a bible believing church church.  So we target people.  In the targeting of people we are seeking to build relationships with others not in light of their church attendance but in light of God’s love for them.  This is what it means for us to be kingdom minded. 
People who transfer into our church rarely stay, people who come in by invitation of a friend (still by far the most effective way to reach people) often find themselves staying, connecting, service and bringing another friend.  BTW, we give people an opportunity to respond to Christ in regards to salvation every week.  Nearly every week someone does. 
Wendi, while I appreciate what you are saying about the term “accept Christ” I think we can make an argument for “accepting Christ” from scripture.  I believe your point is that we cannot get bogged down by prescriptive demands for engaging in a relationship with Christ.  (correct me if I am wrong.) But within the terms of relationships, for example, bride groom there is an acceptance required.  Just because the exact verbiage is missing does not mean the issue of accepting Christ is not biblical. 
Much of what we see in the book of Acts is descriptive not prescriptive, meaning that while we can learn about the church greatly, it is not necessarily a manual on doing church in America, the 21st century or even planting a church in my neighborhood.  I am not saying I cannot or do not use the book of acts, I am saying because the term accept Christ is not there, is not reason to void the term.

I agree Lenonard.  I think it’s nit picky (sorry Wendi) to debate the Christianeze phrase “accept Jesus”.  We all know what we mean.  I wouldn’t necessarily use the same terminology when discussing making a life decision with an individual.  But I understood what was meant.

Anyway, we don’t give invitations (another one of those terms!) every week, but we do it often. 
We didn’t for the first year and a half at our church, but then one day, realized that though some may not be reached through an upfront invite, others are.  And we’ve seen response, especially among the elderly. 

Most churches are targeting a younger audience, but there are still lost seniors.  And it has been interesting to note that our new believers who are older have been the most excited about it.  One lady has been bringing a new friend just about every week.  And these aren’t old people that are coming to church with her.  They are all ages, yesterday a 25 year old.  So, I think it would be a shame not to give an invitation, because we think that that’s yesterday’s culture.

And I think in the right setting younger people respond as well.  We’ve found that going back in that direction has added vibrancy to our ministry and challenged those who had been putting off the moment, to go for it.

Transfer growth will always happen.  But I do think we have seen a shift in our society due to the consumerism we live with every day, and Christians are church shopping and hopping more frequently than in past decades.  Some of the reasons for leaving churches are so petty.  I think we have a lot of immmature believers who think church is there for them and have no desire or inclination to serve the Lord.

Jan and Leonard,

I agree with both of you.  I responded as I did to Harold because I sensed (correct me if I’m wrong Harold) he was implying that any church which did not invite people to “accept Christ” through a weekly Sunday morning alter call was not calling people into a relationship with Jesus, and not inviting the “unholy” to join “the holy.” For many, conversion is a long process without a clear and definitive conversion experience.  For many others there is a moment in time when the HS gets through and they absolutely need to make a public statement and pray the “sinner’s prayer.” I think we could easily make a case for “accepting Christ” through scripture.  Phillip and the Ethiopian come to mind.  There are many others.  Yet, I think we could make a case for long (and painful) process conversion w/ out any “accept Christ” moment.  The disciples for example.  When exactly did they become Christ followers.  It may have been the day they decided to leave everything, but it’s pretty clear that they had practically no idea at the time what that decision meant or would come to mean.  So I want to be part of a church that offers many different types of entry opportunities to a relationship with Jesus.

And if I’m reading Harold correctly, I guess I also responded as I did because, while I like invigorating discussions with differences of opinion about innovative ideas (I even had some dissenting opinions about the idea), I tire of comments that automatically accuse a new idea of compromising the “old fashioned” (read: right) way of doing ministry.

Wendi

Don’t like the idea of an outplacement specialist, but it does mean that we would have to care more about peoples relationship with God then them joining our church.  Pastors swallow your pride and if poeple don’t fit in your vision, give them freedom to leave and do it quickly.  Who needs one mote unhappy person in the pews?