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
No comments:
Post a Comment