Pastor LIttle Bo Peep part 2

Last week, I observed the decline in follow up with guests who come to our worship services.  I compared allowing guests to set the agenda for church participation to little Bo Peep who lost her sheep, and is waiting for them to come home on their own.  In my opinion, this is an inadequate strategy.  If you did not read this entry it is archived at www.beyondharan.blogsport.com.

Let me say that I am not advocating a return to ‘old fashion calling night’; that simply will not work.  The way we gather and use the contact information about guests must be done with great care.  People don’t want to be stalked.  We should not badger our guests and insist that they welcome us into their homes so we can hard sell them on Jesus or the church.   When people feel pressured or manipulated into letting us into their home, we will never seen them at the church building again.

So, what can we do?  If we rule out stalking and being Pastor Bo Peep, what can we do?  I will offer five suggestions or observations.  None of these are original with me, or wildly creative, but I found them effective. 

First, we need to have the priority of prayer for the lost.  As a minister for many years and now as a church consultant, I have talked to many church leaders, and I have seen a surprising low priority in church ‘prayer lists’ for the lost coming to know Christ.   Most prayer lists in churches are a listing of saints who are sick and the desire for them to get well.  The prayers for the lost are, by and large, vague and generalized.  As one wag put it, “We pray more about keeping saints out of heaven than sinners out of hell.”

Every leadership meeting, every personal prayer time, every congregational prayer, needs to include a plea to the Lover of all men to bring them to Christ, and that we be a part of that process.  Take a moment and perform a self-test.  Read over your church’s prayer list; how many lost people or communities are listed?  Compare that with the number of sick people, special projects, church business issues and personal requests.  If it is true and “you have not because you ask not”, can that explain why you don’t have the lost coming to your church?

Second, you need your laity (I don’t really like this term, but it is useful for now).  Most of the folks who visit your church will do so at the request or because of a connection with one of your members.  Even if your congregation has a strong marketing program, your guests will most likely have a personal connection to someone in your church.  Enlist the help of your laity as you follow up with the guest.  One church I served had a couple visit at the invitation of one of my deacons.  Dutifully, I went to call and found a “Beware of Dog” sign and behind the sign the largest Rottweiler I had ever seen.  Being bitten by this dog could launch a hospital ministry.  I left and drove to my deacon’s home and told him I needed his help.  We made the call together.   He introduced me to his friends, told that I was a great preacher, a good guy, a valuable friend, and really good with advice.  (We will debate another time if this was true.)  I instantly had a level of credibility with this young couple I could have never had with a solo follow up call.   I had the privilege of ministering to this couple and their families over the next several years. 

You need your laity way more than they need you.  Their presence and conversation gives credibility to your message.  They are powerful, they are loved, and they are influential; other wise, their friends would not have come to worship with them!  Next time you order or make guest cards, include a line for “Who told you about this church?”  With social media tools, the Internet, and a little information, you will be able to make the connections.  I don’t believe a pastor should be heavy handed, but if there is ever a time to use your pastoral authority it is when you phone your laity and ask them to help you with follow up.  Sometimes shepherds must be assertive. 

Third, consider hosting a reception.  Gated communities and apartments make calling visitors very difficult.  Additionally, some folks do not want anyone to come to their home.  Others have schedules that are not conducive to even the quickest of visits.  I faced these issues in one of my ministries, so I began to invite people to meet me in a ‘third space’ kind of environment, neither in their home nor at the church building.  That way, they knew that they were not going to face a one-on-one interrogation, be in a place where leaving would be awkward, or getting someone to leave their home would be difficult. 

For several years, I hosted a monthly “Coffee Reception” at a local Starbucks.  Beginning the Sunday that they visited, I began to invite them to the reception at Starbucks.  Everyone who visited in the previous month was my guest.  I bought a lot of coffee and earned a Starbuck’s gold card in record time!  I also invited the person who invited them to church (see #2).  Sometimes we almost over ran the coffee shop and often stayed till closing.  We broke the ice in relationships, had a lot of fun, and frequently prayed as folks opened up.  These receptions were a major factor for most of the folks who came to Christ, or to place their membership with our church.  At this time, our church had a growth rate as high as 40% per year. 

Fourth, use the power of appointments.  Many if not most folks are suspicious of the church, ministers, and our motives.  The power of an appointment works because it gives us an air of professionalism and legitimacy.  I once had a visitor come with one of our families to worship.  After the service, as usual, I went over the guest cards.  I noted that this family didn’t live far from my home.  So, after I finished in the office, I dropped by their house on the way home.  They were not there having gone to lunch with their friends.  I left a card saying thanks for coming and drove to my house with a sense of pride as being so conscientious.  It turns out that they found such a visit inappropriate.  It seemed pushy, needy, and stalkish.  We never saw them again.  What we perceive as concern might seem to them as a hard sell or as a cult type pressure.  The appointment can set them at ease; they will be meeting a respected professional not a crack pot with an agenda.

If a coffee reception will not work for you, make sure you use the power of appointment, and don’t forget to take your church member with you.  Some people will be busy till Jesus returns, which may mean using both a reception and or an appointment will be your best option. 

Five, follow up is hard work.  I loved visiting people, be that in the coffee shop or in their home, it was one of my favorite parts of ministry.  But I must confess, getting to the visit was one of the most difficult things I had to do.  It was and is hard work.  It is time consuming.  Scheduling was always a problem.  It is fraught with rejections in which we sometimes hear bad news.  Like the time a woman told me, “We liked the church except for the music and the sermon, we won’t be back!”  There is no getting around it, guest follow up or calling is hard work and it is harder now than a generation or two ago.  I am concerned that in some cases churches do not do follow up, not because of a deeply rooted philosophical conviction, but because we have given into the sin of sloth (we are lazy).  The Gospel of Jesus Christ often comes first in the form of a person and their personality.  If we have no contact we will likely have no impact.

When a guest walks into your services, powerful forces, needs, or even crisis in their lives, have driven them there.  I ask that you be like the good shepherd and, however you do it, follow up with that lost sheep.

In the Cause of Christ

Charlie

Pastor Little Bo Peep

When I graduated from Bible College, a sea change was underway in the way churches dealt with visitors.  Even the terms changed.  We were told not to call first timers “visitors”, but rather, call them “guests”.  This change was part of the cultural shift occurring in the church as a result of the “Church Growth Movement”. 

The old model taught that if a person visited my church and the pastor visited at their home within 24 hours there was a 40% chance they would return the next Sunday.  If a ‘lay person’ from the church visited, there was an 80% chance they would return the next Sunday.  These visits needed to be short, non-confrontational (no evangelistic calling), and positive.  The apex of these visits was ‘Cookie Calling’, in which the church member would take the first time guest home made cookies.

But a new ideal was part of the Seeker Sensitive church model.  One of the core values of the seeker sensitive model of the church was that the guest was able to remain completely anonymous.  Guests were not asked to identify themselves in any way.  They were not asked to leave their addresses and they were promised that no one from the church would visit them.  The plan was that the church’s worship service would be of such great quality that guests would continue to return.

The seeker sensitive model holds sway when it comes to how churches follow up with guests today.  Very few churches make significant efforts to gain the contact information from their guest.  Guests are rarely, if ever, asked to fill out a “Visitor Card”.  Those churches that mention the guest information cards emphasis that, “no one will contact you, we won’t add you to a mailing list, or ask you for a donation; we simply want to send you a thank you note for coming.” 

I think we have progressed to the point that we don’t know any other way to treat our guest.  When I visit a church I always fill out a guest card if one is available.  It has been over twenty years since I have had a church follow up by sending someone to visit me as a result of my visiting his church.  The point is not to offer a value judgment.  I am simply saying that we have no other concept of guest follow up other than to have guests set the pace of their involvement and contact with the church.

One question that we need to ask is, “Are we effectively reaching the lost by this model?”  I will not venture to say that the decline in church attendance has a direct correlation to the decline in churches offering an intentional calling program.  But we seem to have accepted the premise that we should not follow up with visitors without seriously questioning the reasons behind that premise.

Early in my ministry I called a lot.  Monday night was follow up with first time guests.  Tuesday night was evangelistic calling on folks who have been attending, but were not yet Christians, and Thursday nights I called on absentee members.   Early in my ministry this model worked.  I lead a lot of people to Christ, and saw weekly attendance grow.  But as the years progressed, things changed.  Gated communities played havoc on ‘dropping by’.   Busy schedules for families with young children and early bed time for families with infants and toddlers meant that these types of calls were not effective and may have had a negative impact.  I remember lamenting one day to my wife, (she would say whining), that out of eleven call attempts I only found one person at home.  People simply were not at home as much and when they were, they were not free for a conversation.  Beyond the practical questions, there is a question about the philosophy of follow up and contact with church visitors.

We can’t sit ideally by and hope that our programs and performances are so awesome that we will sway everyone to become deeply committed disciples and faithful members of our church.  I have lived and ministered in Florida, and we have a saying here, “You can’t out Disney, Disney.”  With beautiful weather, beaches, abundant golf courses, rivers, lakes, sports leagues and Disney, on any given Sunday there was a chance there was something more marketable than our church service.   Waiting and hoping that people will wander in to our church reminds me of an old verse:

Little Bow Peep has lost her sheep

And doesn’t know where to find them.

But leave them alone and they will come home

Wagging their tails behind them.

 Consider the contrast with the description of the Good Shepherd from Luke 15:4: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?”

I suppose my greatest concern is that allowing lost sheep to wander into the sheep pen is just a little too easy.   Looking for lost sheep is a real pain and can be a real chore.  With our over filled schedules and the crazy demands on our time, to hear that it is okay to open the doors and let them come in may lull us into a sense that sheep searching is not our responsibility.  I believe it is time to reorder our priorities.  Next week, I will offer my opinionated opinion on what we can do.

Part 1 of 2

Have we built a “Secular Church”.

I was recently engaged in a conversation with an old friend.  She was telling me the story of trying to find a church home.  She shared the story of visiting different churches, and the different reactions of church members she met.  (By the way those reactions ran the gambit from warm and gracious to strange and rude.  But that is a blog for another occasions.)  As we talked, she made a statement that took me by complete surprise.  She said, “When we have visited secular churches…”

I interrupted her and said, “Back up.  What do you mean by ‘secular churches?’”  I have known this young lady for a long time.  I know that she is a committed Christian; she is orthodox in her beliefs and genuine in her faith.  I also know she is not some air headed goofball to be taken in by cults, scams, or charlatans.  She has multiple college degrees; she worked in bio-medical field before shifting over to education and has a profound and deep theology.  I knew she wasn’t talking about a Universalist Unitarian, Unity Faith, or some Humanist/Atheist fellowship.  So I pressed her by what she meant by the term “secular church”.

She said, “Well, that is not a really good description to use.” 

Over the next few minutes she thought out loud, and I asked questions and what she said was pretty profound.  She talked about churches that were contemporary and traditional, some were hand-raising congregation and others would be shocked by a quiet ‘Amen’.  Some of these churches were suburban, some rural, some were old, both in age of attendees and in the age of the congregation. Some were young congregations, again in history and membership.  What she finally came up with was the sense that churches were secular because the focus was on themselves.   Please note, that her reference was not to a style of worship or music or a denomination or  age.  It was something much deeper than the forms and facades. 

It seems, at times, that the worship service can become about what a great church any given church is.  Each church has a niche on which they hang their claim to fame.  “We are great because we _______…. fill in the blank with what ever you like. (Are traditional, are contemporary, are Seeker Sensitive, are Liturgical, we baptize the right way, we are the fastest growing, have the right doctrine about blah, blah, blah.)  We get hooked on some tradition or technique, hear a great speaker, see something effective somewhere and we want to reproduce those results.  We want our members and attendees to validate our ministry or church, so we lead cheers for who we are and what we are doing.  And sometimes we get in the way, so people can’t see Jesus.

This dear lady who spoke of secular churches would never describe herself as a prophetess or the daughter of a prophetess.  She doesn’t claim that her experience is not universal, nor that what she says applies to every church.  But she does have a point that we need to examine and re-examine.  Are we impressing people with who we are and what we can do, or are we pointing people to Jesus?

Bonhoeffer’s great work, The Cost of Discipleship, may be best known for its stirring paragraph about “Cheap Grace”.  But he begins the introduction to that book with these two sentences:

Revival of church life always brings in its train a richer understanding of the Scriptures.  Behind all the slogans and catchwords of ecclesiastical controversy, necessary though they are, there arises a more determined quest for Him who is the sole object of it all, for Jesus Christ Himself.

Every day, as individual disciples and as leaders, we need to stop and consider, “Are we looking for, and helping others look for Jesus, or are we getting in the way?”

The Irrelevance of our Relevant Teaching

I don’t miss Sunday services.  I have passed the half-century mark in years and I can count on one hand (and I mean the hand with the amputated finger) the number of times I have not been in church on Sunday morning when I was not sick.  If I am not in a house of worship on Sunday morning, I have either been sick or have just had a finger cut off.

However, last Sunday the church we have been attending moved worship to Sunday afternoon for a special occasion.  So, this past Sunday, I took the opportunity to see how the 4/5ths live.  At 10 o’clock, I drove around town.  I noticed that the streets and shops were as busy as a Saturday morning.  I noticed that most churches had cars in their parking lots, but only two had more cars than the local grocery store.  At 10 AM, the mall was pretty quiet, but that would be true any other day of the week  at that hour.  Hardware stores and the big box lumber stores were doing a booming business.  The soccer field was pretty full, but it looked like pic up games, not league play.  Parks were busy and there were plenty of runners and joggers on the sidewalks.  Yard sales were available and life cruised along undisturbed and, by and large, apparently unaware of what was happening within the walls of the churches in our town. 

One of the catch phrases that has been popular in the church for the last couple of decades is “relevant teaching” or simply “relevance”.  It has reflected a shift toward preaching and teaching that focuses on the practical application of Christian faith for daily living, rather than theological preaching.  (As a side note, good theology always has a practical application, but that is a topic for another time.)  Churches and preachers have spent a great deal of time and hard work on how families should operate, how to be good parents, spouses, citizens, the benefits of financial freedom and the list goes on.  It would be impossible to compose an exhaustive list of all the relevant and practical sermons, teachings, and lessons that churches have presented.  I am not denying the value of these lessons.  I am not attempting to condemn those very practical lessons or those who present them.

However, the church is more irrelevant now than ever.  Exact numbers are not possible, but the indications are that church attendance is near an all time low.  Or put in a somewhat more crass way, when it comes to the hearts and minds of people the church is loosing market share.  We are relevant to those in our buildings, but that is a shrinking demographic.    The quality of our presentation is higher than ever, but the percentage of people who hear it, or even want to hear it, is getting smaller.

 We seem to be stuck in our own ghetto.  We have an entire Christian subculture complete with music, bookstores, heroes, fiction, movies, concerts, self-help books, sports leagues, Political action committees, even a Christian dating reality show.  The list is endless.  It is possible to be completely immersed in a Christian bubble so that we can go days, or even weeks without any meaningful interaction with non-believers.  To my shame, I must admit that for most of my 27 years of ministry, I did just that.  Church ‘members’ would bring a ‘sinner’ to church and I could build a relationship with them, share the gospel with them, and, hopefully, lead them to Christ.  Then we would immerse them in our Christian subculture bubble. 

I was pretty good at this system.  Every church I ministered with grew.  Most doubled in Sunday morning attendance; all had to add building space.  When we had struggles, is was generally over “all these new people” and the messes they made and how they didn’t “fit in”.  I am not in any way trying to disparage the people who so faithfully serve the church.  But the fact was, and remains, that for most of the people in our communities the church is utterly and absolutely irrelevant no matter how relevant the teaching is on the insides of our buildings.

I wish I had a simple solution.  I wish there was an enlightened plan that would help those outside the walls realize the good that is being offered inside the church buildings.  But I don’t have one answer.  I don’t believe there is one enlightened plan. However, when we look at the Apostle Paul we see he had the practice of going to a cultural crossroads where there was no Christian witness.  There he engaged his world.  

Here are two simple first steps; simple things I believe that we can do.  First, we need to stop inviting people to come to church!  As long as we think that “church” happens in the building, we are terribly mistaken.  As long as we believe that ministry, evangelism, teaching, and community occurs in a secluded place, we will be content to let the 80% drive by.  Second, I think every leadership team ought to make a conscience decision to not go to the church building on a specific Sunday morning.  Instead, they need to tour their community, looking for ways to engage that vast majority who aren’t coming to a church building.  This will help them move away from the paradigm that having a collection of saints in a church building is some how enough.   We need to get out of the ghetto and see how the other 80% lives.