“Our Outplacement Specialist Is Ready to Serve You”
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, December 11, 2006
- Viewed 178
- (64) comments so far
1. Expectations: transfers may consider their “last church” as God’s new default position and are perplexed when your congregation isn’t like that. Or, they may have left the last place over some issues they plan to bring with them.
2. Infrastructure: integrating transfers into the congregation consumes time, energy, and resources that could be invested elsewhere—like in evangelism
If George Barna is right, though, “More than 80% of the current growth registered by Protestant churches is biological or transfer growth – very little of the growth comes from penetrating the ranks of the unchurched.” William Chadwick’s book, Sheep Stealing deals with the same theme. So we’ve got a problem, and I lived it first hand in our congregation.
Now, let’s be clear. Since 50% of growth by conversion is considered world class, transfers are just going to happen. I’ve been one. Also, there are some advantages to this type of growth. Paul came to Antioch, for example, because Barnabas brought him. An infusion of Christian talent can be exactly what a ministry needs to get on mission.
The key for me, then, is attracting missional transfers, believers who want to live in a way that affords a credible hearing for the gospel in their community.
I want to suggest two factors that can attract missional Christians:
1. Culture: Every pastor knows that musicians are attracted to good music. I believe mission works the same way.
2. Outplacement Specialist: The back cover of every Sunday bulletin in our last church carried a paragraph about Daryl, our Outplacement Specialist. A student at my seminary working on a counseling degree, Daryl was responsible for much of the telephone follow-up for all of our visitors. But we also advertised that he would assist anyone who was not feeling like they fit into our congregation with finding another church more suitable to their preferences. We had some takers.
The existence of an Outplacement Specialist sends a couple of strong cultural messages. One is that we are unapologetic about our identity. Our culture and approach are simply not for everyone. The second message is that we do not view integrating transfers as the core of our mission and are delighted to help them find another church.
For discussion:
1. Should every church advertise the services of an “Outplacement Specialist”?
2. Transfer growth takes a beating all the time. Is it really as bad as many observers claim? Does it have benefits we overlook too often?
The last congregation that Jan and I pastored is located in a Midwestern city that serves as the home of our denomination’s national headquarters and several of our colleges. With large pools of believers (including thousands of Christian college students) in town, we faced the possibility of investing years of our lives filling seats with Christians who used to have a seat in someone else’s building. This seemed like a grim prospect for a couple reasons...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Randy Ehle on Sun, December 10, 2006
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.
Earl Creps on Sun, December 10, 2006
Good stuff, Randy. Would it be fair to say that, if most of a congregation’s growth is derived from transfers, the church is structured in suble ways to produce that result? Isn’t that the conclusion we would reach in business or politics? If that’s true, what would it take to restructure to produce a more evangelistic mix?
Jan on Sun, December 10, 2006
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.
Randy Ehle on Sun, December 10, 2006
“Would it be fair to say that, if most of a congregation’s growth is derived from transfers, the church is structured in suble ways to produce that result?” I had to think about this for a little while before concluding that it probably is a fair statement. Perhaps it is corollary to the saying that if you don’t know (or care) where you’re going, you’ll get there sooner or later. Or, if you aim at nothing, you’re bound to hit it. Maybe, if a church’s main growth is from transfers, it is because the church isn’t intentionally seeking (aka “targeting”) unchurched people.
Of course, this raises the question: Who should the church “target”? Or put another way, Who is the church for? If you say the church is for believers - a theologically-correct statement - you can easily become inwardly-focused. If you say the church should target unbelievers, then you run into that prickly thornbush of inviting the “unholy” into a “holy” place. I think both of these answers, however, betray an incorrect perspective - inside looking out. We need to change our perspective to one that is moving out. The church is not a place to come to; that’s just a building; instead, the church is an organism that moves out, demonstrating the presence of God in the world and so (according to Jesus in Matthew 5:16) causing people to see our good works and praise God in heaven. Maybe when we do more of that, we’ll see more growth from the lives we’ve touched.
Wendi on Sun, December 10, 2006
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
Peter Hamm on Mon, December 11, 2006
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. We have experienced a lot of “good” transfer growth, but our church is designed to target and attract unbelievers. We tell people in our short orientation program and in our membership class this, we are unapologetic about it, and let people know that if that’s not what you’re looking for, our church is not for you! We encourage those people who may have transferred in to transfer right back out if they wish, because in the long run, it will be worse for us than them. (This can be helped a lot by a church having no “hidden agendas” and being totally sold out to its stated mission… People will know what’s up, and they will either stay or leave…)
It’s a bad thing if someone transfers churches to try to catch the next fad or next wave. Here’s my favorite. “I just wasn’t being fed.” With all due respect, the church is not a feeding trough where the professional ministers feed the unprofessional “sheep”. It is a place where we who pastor equip the “laity” for works of service, to BE the church.
And by the way, I think an outplacement specialist is a great idea. Earl, LOVED your CCB talk a few weeks ago, I’m about to dive into “Off-Road Disciplines.” I’m psyched.
Homer on Mon, December 11, 2006
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.
Oliver on Mon, December 11, 2006
church is about 2 things, leading people to christ, and discipleship. its that simple. in a home church, people are led in bible study, they meet to pray, sing songs, lead others to christ and go out into the world to live their values and reproduce other disciples in other home churches. no gimmicks, no staff, no buildings, no fads, no cementaries, first century geniune christianity. no specialists, no church hopping. i don’t believe a outtransfer specialist will help and yes transfer growth is bad because it treats the church like a consumer driven, market driven, I want to pick and chose what i like place. i think that rather a house model works best. people should start meeting in homes. if you try it you will never go back.
Wendi on Mon, December 11, 2006
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
Oliver on Mon, December 11, 2006
i think what everyone is missing is the reaons why? why so much transfer growth? why all the church hopping? the solution will never be just to have someone to recommend something else. if we don’t fix what is at the root of the problem. i believe the root of the problem is that people are tired of seeing the corporate take over of their churches. it isn’t church anymore. Did you notice how in the above article there was not even ONE reference to scriputure? No reference to any doctrine? the books of acts said the early believers met for breaking of bread, fellowship, and the apostles teachings. they didn’t meet to be thrown into a thousand new programs, activities, and a different mission every week. We burn people out with all these programs, and then they are fed weak anemic sermons, and then they get in their cars, go home and dont see another christian until the next scheduled program. We need to address the root cause of the transfer, not get another ‘specialist’ to simply facilitate the problem!
Harold on Mon, December 11, 2006
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.
Josh Plaisance on Mon, December 11, 2006
I believe that the church needs to have the “Miracle on 34th Street Mentality”. In the movie, when the little kid came up and asked the Macy’s Santa for a present, he told the kid that if he was good, that is what was coming his way. When the mother heard that, she was not very happy and asked her son to stand off to the side while she had a few words with Santa. Santa was quick to respond to her by pulling out his little book and stating that the store on such and such road had the item and then gave the cost. She was so suprised and wondered what was the trick.
After she left Santa’s area, she immediately found an employee who happened to be the manager of that area. At first he was upset, but when she said, “I will be doing all of my shopping at Macy’s from now own.” That caught his attention. The movie then goes into the managers office with a line of ladies outside wanting to thank him for the services that Santa was offering. Macy’s whole perspective, marketing and community relations planned changed when word got out…
Now, i am not trying to say I am for or against Santa, but I am trying to say that he had the right mentality. He was an employee of Macys, but had the best interest of the customer in mind. Just like Macys, we are in the people business. Each church has a different flavor, music, etc… but the core of our beliefs… “blood red”. When people come into our church, they need to be able to see that we are kingdom minded, not just about our plans, our place and our people.
What would happen if the world saw that we actually cared about them and they weren’t fighting over them? What if they saw that we were interested about their soul and their relationship with the Father, and not about the potential size of their pocketbook.
Peter Hamm on Mon, December 11, 2006
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!
Wendi on Mon, December 11, 2006
In response to Randy’s comment about targeting unbelievers, Harold asks us: [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.]
Can you point out the scripture which uses the term “accept Christ” or the example from the book of Acts where there were regular worship services with such invitations? Not that I find a problem with either . . . but I do think we make a mistake when we insist that there is one particular way that, through our ministries, people discover and begin a relationship with Jesus (respond to an invitation to “accept Christ” in church). I know of churches that are experiencing phenomenal conversion growth and who never have an “old fashioned invitation to accept Christ.”
I think Randy’s comment was intended to remind us of the tension Jesus lived and we must learn to live; being in but not of the world . . . showing love to those yet far from God both inside and outside our church walls without compromising our efforts toward living holy lives set apart. Very difficult . . . YES. To be avoided . . . ABSOLUTELY NO!!
Wendi
Chuck on Mon, December 11, 2006
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.
Page 1 of 5 pages 1 2 3 > Last »
Post a Comment