Hirschman meets Martin: Exit, Voice, and Luther
I’ve been reflecting this week on the layers of complexity and messiness within institutions, specifically during experiences of dissatisfaction. How do we respond within the church when we’re frustrated? As I’ve pondered this, I’ve also procrastinated on writing my sermon reflection for this week, which will eventually focus on the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation; perhaps this is a good opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
The Restoration Movement, my church tradition, is not particularly fond of church history, especially anything that hints of Catholicism or denominations, so I didn’t grow up hearing the stories of Martin Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, etc. The era between the biblical narratives and the present doesn’t exist in our storyline, to our detriment, I believe. But as I consider the tale of Luther’s frustration at the Church’s promotion of indulgences, “paying for salvation,” I also see parallels with Albert O. Hirschman’s triangle of exit, voice, and loyalty.[1]
Voice
As Martin the monk became aware of the disintegration of quality within the institution of the Church, he began using his voice to reform the institution from within. He taught and preached, and studied scripture to create an alternative theology to the teaching of salvation through works. He wrote, and nailed his critiques to the church door. He utilized his contemporary social media platform—the printing press—to increase the volume of his voice, translating his Latin writings into German. Throughout this initial stage, Luther sought to “use voice for the purpose of making the [Church] live up to its image.”[2]
This makes sense, according to Hirschman. Rome held a monopoly on the concept of “church”, which included vast economic and political powers: “one important way of bringing influence to bear on an organization is to threaten exit to the rival organization. But this threat cannot be made when there is no rival, so that voice is not only handicapped when exit is possible, but also, though in a quite different way, when it is not.”[3] Initially, the authorities in Rome dismissed the lone wolf attempts of Luther to call out the deterioration of the institution. Luther, himself, had no intention of leaving the Church, but desired renewal. He was loyal, and “as a rule… loyalty holds exit at bay and activates voice.”[4]
Exit
Luther’s choice of action to register his disapproval—using his voice—follows Hirschman’s expectations for what he calls “primordial human groupings”[5], as does what happened next: excommunication: “with exit either impossible or unthinkable, provision is generally made in these organizations for expelling or excommunicating the individual member.”[6]
With Martin Luther excommunicated, but continually calling others to identify Christ —not the Pope—as the head of the church, the possibility of competition with the Catholic Church opened floodgates and suddenly members of the institution had the option to exit a deteriorating organization for a new (and improved) church. Politics and social pressure played large roles in the sudden growth of this new Lutheran Church as a competitor (followed as well by other emerging Churches), as did the fresh theologies being disseminated. How delightfully freeing it is to hear that salvation is not earned through good works or payments, but given as a free gift through our faith in Jesus! But, I imagine, just as welcome was the possibility of choosing a church tradition based on its merits (or quality) rather than it simply being the only option. Suddenly, Christians could exit a church tradition if it declined in substance. This then encouraged the multiple developing denominations—as well as the Catholic Church itself—to grow into quality institutions and foster loyalty. For a time…
Loyalty
As we observe the 500th anniversary of this watershed event, it bears a moment’s thought to consider the situation of the American Church today, as many young people choose to exercise their dissent with their feet and exit the institution; and others—in their attempt to use their voice for dissent, are blacklisted and expelled from positions of influence.[7] The era of a monopoly is over, loyalty is lost, and voices silenced. Where does that leave the American Church? I’m not sure Hirschman’s thesis can answer that. I might suggest, though, that those who remain loyal to the institution of the church do so only in light of our loyalty to the head, which must always be Jesus. And if we “fix our eyes on the author and perfecter of our faith,…we might not grow weary or lose heart.”[8]
[1] Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 1970.
[2] Ibid., 114. “Country” in original text.
[3] Ibid., 55.
[4] Ibid., 78
[5] These include family, tribe, church, and state. Ibid., 76.
[6] Ibid., 76.
[7] Women bloggers, for instance: http://religionnews.com/2017/05/02/why-ill-take-courageous-jen-hatmaker-over-her-cowardly-critics-any-day/
[8] Hebrews 12:2-3
About the Author
Katy Drage Lines
In God’s good Kingdom, some minister like trees, long-standing, rooted in a community. They embody words of Wendell Berry, “stay years if you would know the genius of the place.” Others, however, are called to go. Katy is one of those pilgrims. A global nomad, Katy grew up as a fifth generation Colorado native, attended college & seminary and was ordained in Tennessee, married a guy from Pennsylvania, ministered for ten years in Kenya, worked as a children’s pastor in a small church in Kentucky, and served college students in a university library in Orange County, California. She recently moved to the heart of America, Indianapolis, and has joined the Englewood Christian Church community, serving with them as Pastor of Spiritual Formation. She & her husband Kip, have two delightful boys, a college junior and high school junior.7 responses to “Hirschman meets Martin: Exit, Voice, and Luther”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Yep, that’ll preach. Good positive spin on exiting: “But, I imagine, just as welcome was the possibility of choosing a church tradition based on its merits (or quality) rather than it simply being the only option.” How freeing to be able to choose where you want to worship. Never thought of it like that.
So what’s the call to action for your people? The American church?
Katy, you make a very powerful and truthful point about loyalty. Loyalty to an institution is one thing; while Loyalty to Jesus is something completely different. I’m also glad that you highlighted the complexity and messiness that comes with leading an organization. From the outside, it can look orderly and linear. The truth is, we often lead in the midst of chaotic situations to which only Christ can bring order. Another reason why loyalty to Christ always supersedes our secondary loyalties. I appreciate your thoughts and analysis.
Katy great connection between Hirschman and Luther. LOL at the “contemporary social media platform…the printing press” 🙂 In regards to loyalty, I think some people may feel as though they are being loyal to Jesus by being loyal to church leaders or even organizations. At times that form of loyalty can become unbalanced or even dangerous. I agree that loyalty must be to the head- Jesus! He is the author and finisher of our Faith!
Very timely post, Katy. My husband and I went on one of the Reformation Tours this summer in Germany. It was stressed there, even as you pointed out, that Luther really wanted to REFORM the church, not leave it. Hence they were called Reformers until the late 1520’s and not Protestants until after the Catholic church met and responded to the ‘voices’ of the dissatisfied people with negativity and so the people ‘protested’.
What can the American church do today? Well for openers some can stop equating it with the Republican party.
Yes, praise the Lord, I agree with you that it is wonderful that we have so many choices!
Katy,
So glad that someone made the connection to Hirschman and Reformation 500 (that’s what the kids are calling it 🙂 I thought about it, but then that is what I am preaching on this Sunday, so I decided to go a different direction….. and, of course, you did it so well.
One element that did make it right into my sermon is what Luther was trying to do. You said: ‘He was loyal, and “as a rule… loyalty holds exit at bay and activates voice.” In my sermon I am holding up Luther and Calvin as examples of what it looks like to faithfully follow Christ and this is where I went with Luther…. He wasn’t trying to be the first ‘church planter’, but rather he was seeking reconciliation and revitalization – reformation – of the catholic church…..
So good…. Thanks for the post
“I might suggest, though, that those who remain loyal to the institution of the church do so only in light of our loyalty to the head, which must always be Jesus.”
This made me thought. The Roman Catholic church of Luther’s time was a top down hierarchy with a leader that with a lot of power.
The Lutheran, Swiss Reformed, and Anglican denominations still had a lot of hierarchical structure in their D.N.A.
Later denominations held to the complete autonomy of the local church. And today we live in a time when some of the fastest growing churches in the world are “non-denominational.”
Could it be that Reformation has been a 500 year journey away from any sort of denominational hierarchy?
Thanks for that review.
Looking to Jesus is who we, the believers, should have in our view but in reality, we sometimes don’t. It always amazes me that we, the believer, speak so much about following Jesus yet we have so many variations of church beliefs. Or if we don’t agree with the church’s direction we exit. Do you think we are an organism that quickly exits rather than voice through the process of change?