The following research deals in specific church situations and makes detailed recommendations. Some readers will want to make adjustments for various church styles, but we think the principles expressed here are widely applicable.
The visitation teams headed back to the church at the close of a Thursday evening’s work. One group in particular was excited about their call at the home of Tom and Emily Kenyon. After some polite small talk, the conversation had turned to religion. The group leader followed the basic evangelistic outline they had learned and eventually asked whether the Kenyons wouldn’t like to make a Christian decision.
Tom and Emily responded affirmatively and prayed the prayer in the booklet. Follow-up material was left with the couple, along with an invitation to attend church the next Sunday. This experience, when shared with the other calling teams, was enough to qualify the entire night of calling as a fine success.
The next Sunday Tom and Emily Kenyon did indeed attend church. While they didn’t know anyone and could not find any of the three who had called that Thursday night, they tried to be friendly and enter into the Sunday morning activities. They attended the church once more two weeks later. It was their last visit. A phone call from the church, following up on their earlier decision, was met with a polite but noncommittal response. The Kenyons had just left through the ‘evangelistic back door.’
What happened? Why did these apparently genuine Christian decisions not proceed naturally into church involvement and continued growth? Why do many modern evangelistic endeavors have similar dropout patterns? In talking with pastors and church leaders across the nation, we have found that the evangelistic back door is, indeed, very large and very well used.
Some Clues
Research is now demonstrating that the process by which people arrive at a point of Christian decision is a key factor in whether they become responsible members or drop out. The effect of the evangelistic process on the eventual results is so significant, in fact, that it can be predicted which decision makers will grow into responsible church members within the first year and which will become inactive. What is particularly discomforting is that many churches and parachurch groups today use methods that actually increase the likelihood of new converts never becoming active church members.
The bottom line for evaluating the success of any evangelistic effort must be “Did those who made a Christian profession become part of the church?” To an increasing number of church leaders, successful evangelism is no longer “How many decisions were made?” or “How many came forward?” or “How many phoned in to accept Christ?” Faithful response to the Great Commission is achieved when the evangelistic process, under the Holy Spirit’s guidance, produces actual, factual growth in the church . . . growth that is measurable in one year and five . . . growth that reproduces itself in new disciples.
When this goal is not achieved, well-intentioned but usually inaccurate excuses are given: “They didn’t understand their commitment.” “Our follow-up program was lacking.” “There were no other people in the church their age.” “The results are up to God.” But research is now showing clearly that the more fundamental cause of this high “infant mortality rate” lies upstream to the actual evangelistic process.
In closing the evangelistic back door, two key areas produce significant increases in lasting disciples and growing churches. The first is process, the second concerns ratios.
The Process
What is it about many current evangelistic methods that is so counterproductive to the goal?
1. A manipulative process tends to create dropouts. It is possible to sort evangelism methods and approaches three ways:
Informative transmission sees evangelism as a one-way communication of certain facts the hearer needs to know. When the information is correctly presented, an appropriate decision can be expected. The relationship between the evangelizer and the prospect is like that of teacher and student, the goal being to impart certain correct information. Thus, the bottom line is “How many people heard the message?”
Another approach to evangelism may be called the manipulative monologue. It may center around an emotional appeal or use a set of carefully prepared questions. The relationship between the believer and the nonbeliever more closely resembles a salesman and a customer, the perceived goal being to close the sale. The bottom line in this view is “How many people said yes?”
The third approach, nonmanipulative dialogue, views evangelism as a two-way process of honest interaction. The assumption is that not all people see things the same way, and one canned approach will not be appropriate in every situation. Evangelism is an effort to respond to the other person as an individual and portray the value of the Christian faith in terms of individualized needs. The relationship between Christian and non-Christian in this case is friend to friend, the goal being to share an honest concern for the other.
In The Pastor’s Church Growth Handbook, Volume II, Flavil Yeakley reports on a study of how church members view the evangelistic process and the results of their evangelistic endeavors. The study identified three groups (240 people each) of “recipients” to an evangelistic presentation: (1) those who made a Christian commitment and are now actively involved in a local church; (2) those who made a commitment but soon dropped out; and (3) those who said, “No, thanks.” Here are the startling results.
Seventy percent (169 of 240) of those who are now active members came to Christ and their church as the result of a member who saw evangelism as nonmanipulative dialogue. By contrast, 87 percent (209) of those now inactive came to their point of decision through a member who used manipulative monologue. And, of those who said, “No, thanks” to an evangelistic presentation, 75 percent (180) did so in response to a would-be persuader who saw evangelism as a process of communicating certain facts, content, and theology. Partial results from this study:
CHART (pg. 26) GOES HERE
The corollary: Effective evangelistic training and strategy encourage a view of nonmanipulative dialogue between Christians and non-Christians.
2. An evangelistic process that sees its goal as a “decision” rather than a “disciple” tends to create dropouts. When the goal is a “soul saved,” God’s plan for making disciples is often short-circuited. The fact is that not all deciders become disciples; the two are not synonymous. The biblical goal is not simply an oral confession. The biblical goal is a life transformed and a participating member of Christ’s body. Nowhere in Scripture is the word decision found-yet, the word disciple appears again and again.
The corollary: Effective evangelism sees disciple making as a process, not an event. A “decision” is only one element of many in the goal of seeing people become disciples and responsible church members.
3. An evangelistic process that presents the gospel one time and then asks for a response tends to create dropouts. We all know stories of people who heard the Good News once, were gloriously changed, and went on to become great men or women of faith. When these miraculous events happen-and they do-we can rejoice. It should be understood, however, that this is unusual, not the norm. More often when someone comes to faith, that person has heard the message again and again and again . . . then makes a Christian commitment.
A person may hear the gospel in a Bible study class. He may hear it through music. He may see the Christian life demonstrated in the lives of friends. He may hear a testimony at a church social event. He may read it in Scripture, a tract, or a book. He may hear it on radio or television. Then, after many exposures, a season of receptivity comes into that person’s life-a time of need-when the seed that has been sown breaks into new life, takes root, sprouts, and grows.
Research underscores this fact. In comparing active and inactive members, Yeakley found (in Why Churches Grow) that those who continued as active church members had been exposed to an average of 5.79 different Christian influences prior to their commitment. The dropouts, by comparison, had seen or heard the Christian message only 2.16 times before their decision.
As an evangelistic strategy, the more times a person is exposed to the gospel message prior to a Christian commitment, the more likely he or she is to understand the implications of that commitment.
The fewer the exposures prior to commitment, the greater likelihood of dropping out.
The corollary: Effective evangelistic strategy seeks to expose potential disciples to many and varied presentations of the gospel.
4. An evangelistic process that does not build relationships with the local church, its programs, and its ministry tends to create dropouts. When the events leading up to a non-Christian’s profession of faith occur outside any relationship with the people of the local church, no ties are established, and the perceived need for involvement in the church is low. This may be true not only when decisions are made in large crusades or via mass media but even when evangelism calls are made from a local church.
When the new Christian has not built any friendships with members in the church . . . has not become part of any group where there is a sense of belonging . . . has not had prior exposure to the church, its people, its beliefs, and its expectations, some very large roadblocks are put in the path of assimilation.
What should a disciple-making strategy include to remove this deficiency in most evangelistic methods? The strategy should seek to foster genuine caring relationships between a variety of members and the potential disciple. It should also seek to involve the potential disciple in several appropriate groups and church programs where new friendships can be made. The more exposures a non-Christian can have to the person of Christ though his people and the church, the more complete his or her understanding of Christ and his love.
The New Testament compares the healthy functioning of the church body to the human body. Arms, legs, eyes, and ears come together as parts of the body. Each member has certain gifts and abilities, and not all members have the same gifts. Because of this, the whole more accurately reflects the person of Christ than any of its parts in isolation. One member brings strengths where another may be weak. Some members are able to relate to a special need of a non-Christian or unchurched person better than others. And in the process, evangelism moves from a few lone rangers to a total team effort. Then, when a Christian commitment is made, it is founded on experience with the body and a growing understanding of what this new commitment means.
The corollary: The closer evangelism is to the local church, the greater the fruit that remains.
Crucial Ratios
While the process of a person becoming a disciple and responsible church member is one key element to a successful Great Commission strategy, a second element, equally important, focuses on the church environment into which that new Christian is entering. It concerns ratios in the church.
Here are seven ratios that have significant effect in closing the evangelistic back door:
1. Friendship ratio-1:7. Each new person should be able to identify at least seven friends in the church within the first six months.
Friendships appear to be the strongest bond cementing new members to their congregation. If they do not immediately develop meaningful friendships in their church, expect them to return to their old friendships-and ways-outside the church. Seven new friendships are a minimum; ten, fifteen, or more are better.
The time factor is important as well. The first six months are crucial. New people not integrated into the body within that period are well on their way out the back door. The following chart clearly illustrates the importance of establishing friendships in the church during the first six months. Note that all fifty “converts-now active members” could name three or more friends in the church, with thirteen new members identifying seven, twelve identifying eight, and twelve listing nine or more. The “dropouts” show almost the opposite pattern in the new friendships they did, or more correctly did not, establish in their churches.
CHART (pg. 30) GOES HERE
2. Role/Task Ratio-60:100. At least 60 roles and tasks should be available for every 100 members in a church.
A role or task means a specific function or responsibility (choir, committee member, teacher, officer, etc.). Typical churches of 300 members have no more than 80 roles and tasks available. Of those 80 roles/ tasks, 60 are filled by 30 people (the willing workers with more than one job). The remaining 20 roles and tasks are filled by an additional 20 people, thus involving 50 out of 300 members. Would such a typical church have a place for Tom and Emily to find meaningful responsibility? Probably not.
The lack of variety and number of roles/tasks/ministries in most churches creates an environment that actually produces inactive members. Such a church of 300 needs to open itself to newcomers by creating at least 100 new roles and tasks-not busy-work but “kingdom work” . . . “Great Commission work” … ministries that focus on meeting needs and changing lives.
These kinds of roles are often called “Class II roles.” Whereas “Class I roles” focus primarily inward toward maintenance of the existing institution, Class II roles focus primarily outward toward the surrounding community in an effort to reach persons for Christ and the church. Most plateaued or declining churches average fifteen Class I roles to every Class II role. A more productive ratio would be 3:1 (for every three Class I roles, at least one Class II role). While this is more of an outreach ratio than an assimilation ratio, it does give an important clue to the priority of the church and, thus, the probable reception given to the newcomer.
3. Group Ratio-7:100. At least seven relational groups-places where friendships are built-should be available in a church for every 100 members.
In studying churches involved in our institute’s Two-Year Growth Process, we have found that plateaued and declining churches fall far short of this group-to-member ratio. The consequence of too few groups for members to build meaningful relationships is a high rate of inactives using the back door. Good questions to ask are “How many groups does our church have per 100 members?” “What percentage of the congregation is a regular part of one or more groups?” “How many new converts/new members have become a regular part of such groups in the last two years?” “How many have not?”
Creating an effective group life is a fundamental building block for growth and incorporation. This important ratio is affirmed by other authorities. Lyle Schaller writes in Assimilating New Members, “It usually is necessary to have six or seven of these groups . . . for each one hundred members who are thirteen or fourteen years of age or older.”
This ratio in a church will provide important answers to the question “How open is this church to newcomers?”
4. New-Group Ratio-1:5. Of every five relational groups in a church, one should have been started in the past two years.
The reason new groups are important is that established groups usually reach a saturation point sometime between nine and eighteen months after their formation. When a group has reached this saturation zone, it in most cases stops growing and no longer assimilates new people. Two or three members may leave and two or three may fill their places, but for all practical purposes, the group remains plateaued.
How do you know when a group has reached the saturation point? You make a graph. If a group has not grown in the last six months, it has probably reached saturation.
One remedy is simply to form new groups, with new people involved. This provides for continued freshness in the group life of a congregation. It decreases the number of inactives. It helps close the evangelistic back door.
5. Committee Member Ratio-1:5. One of every five committee members should have joined the church within the last two years.
In conversation with the pastor of an old-line church in the Pacific Northwest, I asked, “How long would I need to be a member of the church before I might be elected to office?”
He studied my question for a moment, then asked, “Would you attend regularly, give faithfully, and exemplify the Christian life?”
“Yes,” I responded.
“Then you would be elected to office sometime between the twelfth and fourteenth year after you joined.”
No wonder this church has a terminal illness. New board and committee members bring fresh and exciting ideas . . . vitality . . . they are positive and enthusiastic about their new church . . . ready to earn their sense of belonging . . . they provide the best source of volunteers.
A regular review of the boards and committees in a church to assure the 1:5 ratio will encourage an openness in the power structure and assure that the church never forgets its real mission.
6. Staff ratio-1:150. A church should have one full-time staff member for every 150 persons in worship.
This ratio is a good indicator of a church’s commitment to growth. If the ratio reaches 1:225-250, it is unusual to see any significant increase in active membership. While more persons may join the church, the evangelistic back door will open wider. Adding a staff person before this point is reached helps a church anticipate the influx of new persons and provides a church environment to accommodate them. Here is a rule of thumb:
CHART (pg. 31) GOES HERE
We suggest the first person added after the pastor be a person ministering full-time in the area of evangelism/church growth, including the incorporation of new members into the fellowship. This person will normally pay for him/herself through new giving units added to the church within the first year and a half. In some churches we have worked with, the new staff person’s salary was paid within nine months.
7. Visitor Ratio-3:10. Of the first-time visitors who live in the church’s ministry area, three of every ten should be actively involved within a year.
Calculating the visitor ratio provides three insights into a church’s attitude toward newcomers: (1) it indicates the present members’ openness to visitors; (2) it indicates the priority of visitors in the functioning of the church; and (3) it indicates the effectiveness of the church’s follow-up strategy.
Whether persons are transferring to a new church or trying their first church, as Tom and Emily were, they always visit before joining. Visitors are the only source of new members (except for the children of believers). If visitors do not feel genuinely welcome, needed, and wanted, they seldom return. Studies from our computer analysis center indicate that through an effective strategy, some churches are seeing four of every ten local visitors come back a second time. An incorporation strategy that focuses on these second-time visitors will result in 70-75 percent of them joining within a year (hence the 3:10 ratio of first-time visitors). We are also seeing some churches with an effective follow-up/incorporation strategy experience as much as a 40 percent return on first-time local visitors joining within a year.
The typical nongrowing church, on the other hand, sees only 10-12 percent of its first-time visitors join. Such a percentage, it turns out, is almost the exact number a church can expect to lose each year through transfer, death, and falling away.
We Can Do Better
It is important that the relatively high mortality rate from some present-day evangelistic methods not come to be viewed as normal or unavoidable. With adequate training and appropriate methods, churches can see a significantly greater harvest.
Is there really any value in investing time, energy, money, and people in the work of evangelism only to see the hard-won results drop away? Closing the evangelistic back door is possible. We can see more lasting results if we begin viewing evangelism and incorporation as two sides of one coin, interdependent, both essential for the growth of God’s church.
Most churches can substantially increase their effectiveness in making disciples and responsible church members. Let’s slam the back door.
Win Arn is president of the Institute for American Church Growth, Pasadena, California. His son Charles is the institute’s director.
Copyright © 1984 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
