Why Many Member Work Programs Fall Short DO MEMBER REFERRALS ALONE PRODUCE DYNAMIC GROWTH?
If member referrals alone were the method to produce dynamic growth, missionaries ought to do extremely well in areas like Belarus and Dnipropetrovsk (Ukraine) where missionaries are not allowed to contact and where the gospel is spread exclusively through member referrals.
In Dnipropetrovsk, where missionaries are not allowed to contact but where very intense member-missionary efforts have been implemented for years, there are about 250 members in four branches. In Donetsk and Kharkhov, cities open for a comparable amount of time with comparable missionary complements through much of their history, there are over 700 members each.
There were about 150 active members in Minsk in 1994 when I left St. Petersburg. There are a little over 100 active members in Minsk now, according to a member from Minsk I spoke with recently, and perhaps 150 if many of the semi-actives who come once a month are included. Over the years, old members have been lost almost as quickly as new members have been baptized. Well over a hundred missionary years later, the church has not grown substantially in terms of active membership.
If the common missionary mantra that "working with members is more effective than contacting" was sweepingly true, certainly one ought to expect much higher (or at a minimum, similar) growth rates in areas where contacting is not permitted but where there has been a consistent strong emphasis on member referrals. But the fact is that growth has been severely stunted in such areas. Additionally, the tremendously increased time spent with members has not resulted in any higher retention or activity rates than in other areas. Is contacting ineffective? Contacting is certainly more effective than spending multiple lengthy visits trying to coax additional referrals from the relatively few members for the zillionth time. Is more time spent with members always better, or is there a point when there is too much?
Other areas where missionaries rely almost exclusively on referrals include Armenia and Mongolia. Modest growth is occurring in Armenia, but Armenians are very different from Russians, Poles, and Ukrainians. Even missionaries in the Samara and Rostov missions baptize disproportionately high numbers of Armenians. Armenians have a tremendous amount of the blood of Israel and have consistently been observed to be more receptive to the gospel wherever they are. Even in Armenia, there were 5 branches in Yerevan four years ago and there were still 5 branches as of last summer. I can't attribute success there to any fantastic member- missionary program as to Armenians themselves, and have no doubt that baptism rates would be vastly higher if street contacting were legal. In Mongolia, there are over 1500 members in 8-9 branches (as of last spring) and over 100 young people who have served or are serving missions, but the way that they are often found – by teaching English to bright, young, motivated college students -- as well as the nature of the Mongolian people are perhaps the greatest reasons for growth.
In regions where contacting is legal and where member referrals have been the major missionary emphasis, what I've seen over the years has not been any dramatic increase in baptisms from referrals or overall baptism rate but often a precipitous decline in baptisms from contacting and usually in total baptisms as well. In any area without an immense member base, any missionary program or philosophy that does not emphasize aggressive contacting is incapable of producing the dynamic results promised upon conditions of faithfulness by ancient and modern prophets.
ARE MEMBER REFERRALS EFFECTIVE IN NORTH AMERICA?
The percentage of baptisms coming from member referrals in North America has dropped from 43% a few years ago to about 20% now. In nations where many missionaries cover multiple wards and even stakes with hundreds to thousands of active members, still an average of only one-fifth of all baptisms come from member referrals! Can contacting be neglected without serious consequence? Even in the most heavily saturated LDS areas where missionaries do relatively little contacting, the majority of people brought into the church are still found by the missionaries. Is contacting not effective? Clearly, I would agree that one member referral is better than one street contact. But multiple visits with members requiring many hours (when travel time is included) may or may not produce a referral, while if the same amount of time were spent contacting, hundreds of individuals could have an opportunity to meet the missionaries. One member referral is not at all comparable to one contact, but to dozens or hundreds. To analyze the effectiveness of an approach, one must examine time efficiency (hours per referral vs. contacts per hour) as well as outcomes per person.
LESS EFFECTIVE MISSIONARY MEMBER PROGRAM
Take for example the dinner-appointment with members program common in the US. Does it work in most areas? Missionaries often miss prime contacting time for meeting families, and members feel like they are serving the Lord just by making meals and visiting with the missionaries (whether or not they make any real effort to share the gospel). I've lived in many wards where missionaries had dinner appointments almost every night, but where member referrals were rare and far between. Could it have been any less effective if the missionaries had been out tracting each night instead of eating dinner with members? Certainly it would have been difficult indeed for tracting to be any less effective, and immensely more people would have heard about the gospel. With the dinner-appointment program too often we, like the Pharisees, make the weightier matters of the law of no effect by our tradition.
TAILORING EXPECTATIONS TO LOCAL REALITIES
Referrals are a nice bonus for missionaries when they occur and should be actively solicited. However, too often missionaries wherever they serve expect that most baptisms should come from referrals because the missionary white handbook says that referrals are the "most productive" way of finding, that referrals should account for most of their baptisms anywhere. As I've pointed out it can also result in a "someone else's job" syndrome. It seems logical that in areas like Estonia, the Czech Republic, Poland, and other areas where there are only about 4 active members to each missionary, that far, far fewer baptisms should come from member referrals than in areas like the US where missionaries draw from a much larger referral base. Obviously the point of diminishing returns for missionaries with member work is vastly higher in areas with a large membership base than in Eastern European countries.
When missionaries visit a small number of members too frequently and demand too much, member burnout can result. I think this at least one of the causes of the substantial inactivity in much of Eastern Europe. As one member in the Czech Republic told me (who served a mission and holds three callings), often she feels like she can never do enough. Yet she does much more for the church than most lifelong North American members. She's talked to her friends over and over about the gospel, and there is only so much that members can do. If contacting is hard for missionaries, chances are that obtaining quality referrals is also difficult for members.
WHY MANY MISSIONARY MEMBER PROGRAMS FALL SHORT
"Too many missionaries are neutralized, and occasionally lost (excommunicated), because of oversolicitous members, member sisters who 'mother' the missionaries, and socializing occurring between missionaries and members. Because of the importance of members and missionaries working effectively together on the member-missionary program, it is vital that missionaries maintain the proper missionary image and have the reputation as great proselyting elders and not simply 'good guys'. The greatest help members can be to a missionary is not to feed him, but to give the names of their friends so that he can teach them with the spirit in their homes and challenge them, with the wonderful members helping to fellowship." Ezra Taft Benson, Mission Presidents' Seminar, June 21, 1975.
On my mission, we were told by general authorities that baptisms would double if we worked with members effectively. Member work greatly increased as a result. However, baptism rates plummeted -- not only in my mission, but in many missions across Eastern Europe. Why? Were the general authorities wrong? Absolutely not. They were, and are, completely correct. Why then the precipitous decline in baptisms with stepped-up member work which was so widely experienced, in spite of wonderful counsel from inspired leaders?
First, "working with members effectively" and spending long hours working with members are two entirely different (and often conflicting) things. As President Benson points out, when missionaries are on too familiar terms with members, missionary effectiveness suffers and the optimal member-missionary relationship is actually disrupted. Inappropriate socialization occurring between missionaries and members can harm the missionaries, it can harm the members, and it can harm the unmet contacts that the missionaries should be out meeting and teaching.
Second, many missionaries seemed to hear "work with members effectively" as "you don't need to contact." Any small gains in baptisms due to member referrals were more than lost with the decline in independent missionary contacting.
It must be recognized that the benefits of effective member work include much more than an increase in member referrals. These other benefits, which include an increased quality of church talks and lessons and, better friendshipping and fellowshipping, and improved retention, are lost if missionaries are not contacting aggressively and getting fresh contacts and investigators to church regularly.
Many serious problems occurred because many missionaries wanted to take the relatively easier and more "fun" member responsibilities of the friendshipping and fellowshipping upon themselves, while abdicating their own contacting responsibility to members. Local members, who will interact with new converts long-term, are immensely more effective at fellowshipping than transient foreign missionaries.
In April 1975 General Conference, Neal A. Maxwell stated: "Those who do too much for their children will soon find they can do nothing with their children. So many children have been so much done for they are almost done in."
Just as oversolicitous parents can cause much harm by doing "too much" for their children, so too can missionaries do too much for investigators and members. While the intent may be good, such behaviors deny the members of crucial opportunities for growth. Effective member work means helping members to independently live the gospel more fully. This stands in contrast to programs of quotas of member visits or hours, which actually may breed dependence and exacerbate the very problems they had been designed to address. Such programs too frequently produce members who constantly rely on missionaries to perform many basic functions. They produce members who may hear about their need to share the gospel regularly but who do not take these obligations seriously because they see that even the full-time missionaries are not making many fresh contacts or getting them to church. No words or exhortations from missionaries can compensate for the lack of an effective example. True effective member work involves by clearly and correctly setting forth the conditions of salvation and helping members to consistently and independently obey the laws of the gospel. When members are living the gospel, they earnestly desire to share the gospel with their neighbors.
Articles and design copyright 2000 MissionaryHelper.com. All rights reserved. These items may be for personal or home use only and may not be reposted to other lists or websites or used for commercial purposes.