Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in Missions
Albert O. Hirschman provides a brilliant new way to look at economics in Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Response to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States based on three available responses toward a product or a company. These include walking away from that product (exit), staying with that product and having a platform to express discontent or concern (voice), and finally, commitment (or lack of commitment) to that product (loyalty) that determines whether voice or exit will result. What is fascinating about this concept is its application far beyond economics. As Hirschman clearly demonstrates, this theory has application to organizations, political parties, states, and communities.
My initial thoughts upon reading this book went directly to churches. Many churches I am familiar with seem extremely comfortable with exit, because in our larger churches, leadership is held in the hands of so few that have little interest in giving voice to the masses. These leaders, being experts (consults, charismatic individuals, administrators), are far beyond the world of congregational meetings. Since there are so many church options outside my door (most are variations of my own church), and since there is little opportunity to change or influence (i.e. have voice in) the direction of my church, it seems that exit is an easy option. Why should church leaders listen to the concerns of people when there are so many disgruntled people from other churches ready to fill those empty seats? This demonstrates that extreme lack of loyalty of many church members today and the wide spread practice of church hopping.
But that was too easy!
A more instructive application for the concepts of Exit, Voice and Loyalty might be in the area of missionary work. Understanding Hirschman’s ideas, I believe, might to provide greater empathy in the missionary and encourage them to quickly establish self-government, self-supporting, self-propagating, and culturally informed churches. There are many possible missional applications that can be made from this book, but let me give you just a couple:
High Cost of Exit: It might be helpful for missionaries to keep in mind the high cost of conversion for many people. As Hirschman states, “exit is ordinarily unthinkable though not always wholly impossible, from such primordial human groupings as family, tribe, church, and the state.”[i] For many people around the globe, conversion means not only leaving your family, your religion, and your livelihood, but it means being ostracized by both the family and the community which has been your entire life.[ii] The high cost of exit should be a central consideration for those doing mission work, especially in places strongly hostile to Christianity.
Importance of Voice: In light of the extremely high cost of exit for many convert, it is imperative that these converts who sacrificed greatly to enter the faith should be allowed a voice in the church. Throughout history, missionaries have often failed at this important juncture. Often, after paying a huge price to convert, individuals are not accepted as full-members, being treated as second-class citizens of God’s kingdom due to race, culture, social standing or education. The acceptances of nationals into positions of church leadership, according to Jonathan S. Barnes, was complicated by “inherited and internalized issues of paternalism, arrogance, and cultural superiority…”[iii] This was often the case during the later colonial drive to “civilize” the world, as missionaries moved away from the Three-Self practices to a stance of cultural superiority, leaving the native church tightly under the control of the foreign missionary. However, occasional voices of wisdom challenged these practices. Rufus Anderson, in the mid-1800s, suggested that Paul’s model should be followed, “that once Paul established a church, he left that church to grow on its own, under its own leadership…”[iv] He then went on to say that missionary churches “should have, as soon as possible, a native pastor, and of the same race who has been trained to take cheerfully the oversight of…(the) local church, with the right to administer ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s supper.”[v] In many instances, national church leaders were never fully invested with authority and missionaries continued to lead the churches because of their unwillingness to view the converts as capable to take responsibility. The sad reality is that the dramatic spread of church within different countries was retarded because indigenous leaders were never given the voice to develop the church within their own cultural context, which would have clearly demonstrated to other nationals the empowerment of all individuals who came to faith. Here we see that voice is vital to both the establishment and continued growth of indigenous churches.
Further missional application from this book might include loyalty (in light of the high cost of conversion, new converts will have every reason to demonstrate a high level of dedication to their new faith); initiation (the requirements for membership); as well as further insights into exit (probabilities for leaving the newly established national church). For many who convert in areas of new missionary work, going back home for the convert or finding another church are not viable options. Understanding both the cost and opportunities (or lack of opportunities) for exit, the reasons for and levels of loyalty, as well as the importance of giving voice to nationals early on, all provide tremendous insights into the missionary process. It comes back to the original point, that the missionary must be sensitive to the realities of those who convert, by better understanding the high cost of leaving their family, community and faith, and–the most important point— by empowering the convert by insuring they have a voice in the direction of their new community of faith.
[i] Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 76.
[ii] Ibid., 96.
[iii] Jonathan S. Barnes, Power and Partnership: A History of the Protestant Mission Movement (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2013), Kindle, 251.
[iv] Ibid., 664.
[v] Ibid.
About the Author
John Woodward
Associate Director of For God's Children International. Member of George Fox Evangelical Seminary's LGP4.12 responses to “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty in Missions”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I love that you continually emphasize the “high cost” of seeing people place their faith in Jesus Christ, John. It might be that in many circumstances, at home and abroad, that our issues with exit, voice and loyalty come by losing focus on our main purpose. We tend to try and protect our own self-interest rather than consider those of the people we are called to reach. Perhaps, as you point out, we fail to recognize the inherent loyalty which indigenous new believers possess, is vastly different than the tendency toward exit and voice in our first world cultures. How would you train a missionary, church planter toward that end?
Thanks for your thoughts, Deve. Your question is an important one that I am seeking to learn myself. The beginning place would be in understanding what a radical change it is for most people to humble themselves and put their lives in hands of Jesus! Maybe we too easily forget our own conversation. Second, cultural intelligence might provide a better empathy toward those we work with and gap they have to cover to enter the faith (which, I would assume is totally different for each person in each culture). It seems our one size formula for entering the faith might make it look to easy and simple! (I think of marriage…a beautiful but also terrifying…commitment…who enters in lightly?) Do you agree? Thanks for your thoughts!
John, I was with you in my thoughts also going to the church as I read this book. You are so correct in that much of the leadership in our large churches have all their power held in the hands of a few and the masses have very little to no voice at all. I chuckled at your true statement of “Why should church leaders listen to the concerns of people when there are so many disgruntled people from other churches ready to fill those empty seats?” Ouch, the truth hurts. Our president of our agency often says to pastors coming to our conference, “you all want more church people who suck up your A/C, walk on your carpet, mess up your bathroom and have absolutely no impact in the Kingdom of God.” There are plenty of disgruntled people who give plenty of voice to their disgruntled views. I hope to be a different voice. I believe you to be another positive voice.
Mitch, your president’s statement is wonderful…very well put! I think it all comes back to what we imagine the church to be…either a dictatorship (top down power) or a family (you don’t chose your blood relations). I think we need more family than dictatorships!
John,
Thanks for sharing here. I especially appreciate your commentary on the importance of having indigenous leaders in churches on the “mission field.” Without having local leaders, we are not following Biblical wisdom.
This summer when I was on the Navajo reservation, I was in a conference with several White American church leaders who were doing work with Native people. One of these leaders in particular had been working in a Native church for 40 years and he just recently passed on his ministry — to his daughter — not to a Native leader. And this was the norm with this group of people! Only the “colonial” leaders were allowed to lead. They had not developed any indigenous leaders at all, not one. Frankly, I was blown away by this. So as you can see, your words were so encouraging to me this week. Thanks for sharing these things in your post.
Bill, what a sad story! I have seen this very thing over and over again. Can the church ever really take root when those you are hoping to reach aren’t ever accepted as gifted and Spirit-filled to be leaders? And if they aren’t accepted, how will a truly indigenous church ever hope grow up — it will always be an “outsider” church? This book provides a great way to look anew at these kinds of issues!
John, Thank you for your insightful post as always! I appreciate your emphasize the importance of keeping in mind the high cost of conversation for many people. What you said about the new believers being ostracized by both family and community is so true in my culture. The church in my community did not do well in helping new believers stay in their community; instead they uproot them from their community, which made it difficult for individuals to go back to their village. What other alternative evangelist approach do you recommend both to protect new believers safety and make the gospel relevant to community?
Telile, thanks for your thoughts. I think your post answers some of your questions. I think the church must bring a positive social influence, uplift and help to the lives of the people that will give reasons for those outside the faith to — if not accept the faith — but see the goodness and value of followers of Jesus. If the church only separates people and brings no change, causes only divisions in family and tribes, then there is no answer for new converts than to leave and find safety. As your post talks about, we need to return to Jesus’s way of being a Christian, that brings good to all people. Not all will respond positively, but many more will be less antagonistic because they see that the heart of Christianity is love and goodness. I think this is a good place to start!
John, you always take your thoughts one step further! I appreciate that about you! I, however, stopped at the easy point – churches! What a journey you took us on through exit and voice in the mission field. Thinking of my missionary friends in Uganda… They spoke of Robert, who is from an Islamic family. He converted to Christianity, and his family disowned him. He was forced to exit, not wanting to leave his family, but it was not safe for him to stay, nor did they want him in their family any longer. It was only after he cultivated a successful fishing business that he was allowed back into the village and family to sell his fish. And as he did so, he told the story of Christ. Telile asks a great question – how do we protect new believers’ safety in so many parts of the world…without them having to exit?
Ashley, what a great story…wished I read this before responding to Telile. I think you answered the question — when Christianity brings good to families and communities, I think it builds acceptance and trust. When it is only one faith against another without any fundamental change in real life, it remains just a conflict. Maybe if we taught more new converts how to fish, it would make the spread of Christianity a whole lot easier! Great insights!
This is so well though and written, John. Like the others who have already posted, I love how you prompt us to consider the cost of exit, voice and loyalty for someone leaving their former way of life and perhaps joining a radically new one. Thank you for these thoughts!
John,
Thank you for taking Hirschman’s concepts directly into missionality.
What you have noted reminded me that in some places people have “found” ways to remain both loyal to what they previously believed/practiced and to Christianity. Of course, the classic label for this is syncretism and sometimes this is realistically appropriate. However, also at times, I think people find amenable new ways forward that were previously not comprehended and I think we need to always be open to these avenues and discern each of them as we encounter them rather than dismiss them out of hand due to not fitting a current paradigm of understanding.
Thanks again for offering your thoughts on this.