Friday, March 04, 2005
On Church Leaving
Boy am I glad to see the stuff I found today. (HT: SmartChristian) Next Reformation has a post that links to two articles, both by Alan Jamieson, a New Zealand sociologist that works in a ministry to people that are leaving church. The articles appear in in 'Reality' which appears to be a New Zealand based Christian magazine.
The articles appear to be part of an on-going series. Jamieson has interviewed a significant sample of people who have left church and has some interesting findings. In the second article, he finds four categories of people that have left church.
Forgive me while I make just an awful, worldly point, but this can be disastrous. After all, young people are generally not the source of the church's major income. When you chase them at the cost of your middle aged and senior members, you put yourself on a very caprious financial footing. Is that good stewardship?
There is an old maxim, "You get what you measure." It is quite possible to focus so much on who is coming in the front door that you never notice who is slipping out the back.
How do we measure 'church performance?' Should we even bother to measure 'church performance?' Is it even truly measurable?
Most of the recent movements we have seen in church have been achieved by applying business and political models to church. But is that really valid? To borrow more business lingo, churches operate on an entirely different paradigm than any other organization, or at least they should.
The next time your church is approached by a consultant that offers you the prospect of amazing church growth, why don't you tell him you already have the best consultant in the universe -- the Holy Spirit. That's a consultant that always produces consistent, lasting, and real results.
The articles appear to be part of an on-going series. Jamieson has interviewed a significant sample of people who have left church and has some interesting findings. In the second article, he finds four categories of people that have left church.
- Displaced Followers
- Reflective Exiles
- Transitional Explorers
- Integrated Way-finders
Interestingly, he finds that most, regardless of category, maintain a vibrant and active faith.
But it is the first of the articles that I find truly fascinating. In that article he debunks ten common myths about why people leave church. I want to look at two here:
Myth TwoI have been a part of churches that have torn themselves apart chasing young people. They have done so by trying specifically to cater to them because they are the "crucial" demographic. But in so doing they have ignored other demographics, much to their chagrin.
The people who leave are young adults, people on the fringe of our churches, and people who have not been in the church for very long.
Obviously some leavers are in these categories, but they are not the only ones to leave. In the research I did - based on 108 interviews with church leavers across New Zealand - I found the church leavers from Pentecostal and charismatic churches were predominantly middle aged (70% were aged between 35 and 45 years) and had been involved in their respective churches as adults (ie beyond their 18th birthday) for an average of 15.8 years. While there are other categories of leavers, here is one category of leavers that few seem to consider.
Forgive me while I make just an awful, worldly point, but this can be disastrous. After all, young people are generally not the source of the church's major income. When you chase them at the cost of your middle aged and senior members, you put yourself on a very caprious financial footing. Is that good stewardship?
Myth OneBoy, have I ever watched this in action. I call it the 'revolving door syndrome.' Jamieson points to a study that shows that a church that appeared to be growing rapidly still lost slightly more than it gained. That doesn't sound so good to me.
It is only the traditional mainline churches that have large numbers of leavers. While it is true that people are leaving the traditional churches people are also leaving evangelical, charismatic and Pentecostal churches. These are the churches which have been growing both in New Zealand and overseas. They are the churches which - with their focus on overt biblical teaching, vibrant worship and greater opportunities for participation - have attracted many young converts as well as those disillusioned with the traditional churches.
However, these growing churches also have a 'back door'. Estimates as to how large this back door is vary depending on who you're talking to. But studies like those done by Elaine Bolitho on the back door in the Baptist churches in New Zealand have shown something of the degree of loss in these so-called 'growing' churches.
There is an old maxim, "You get what you measure." It is quite possible to focus so much on who is coming in the front door that you never notice who is slipping out the back.
How do we measure 'church performance?' Should we even bother to measure 'church performance?' Is it even truly measurable?
Most of the recent movements we have seen in church have been achieved by applying business and political models to church. But is that really valid? To borrow more business lingo, churches operate on an entirely different paradigm than any other organization, or at least they should.
The next time your church is approached by a consultant that offers you the prospect of amazing church growth, why don't you tell him you already have the best consultant in the universe -- the Holy Spirit. That's a consultant that always produces consistent, lasting, and real results.
