The Impact of Church Membership in Organizational Health
SUMMARY
In Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, Albert Hirschman argues that people respond to organizational decay by leaving the organization (exit) or by voicing their concerns (voice). The degree in which people engage with these two behaviors is directly determined by the levels of loyalty to the organization, cultural perceptions, and the nature of the organization. Consequently, the combination of these responses is more complex than what economists or political scientists like to admit. Nonetheless, it is important to understand these dynamics because they can function as recovering mechanisms that ensure organizational health.
Even though the book was written in 1970, the relationship between exit and voice as ingredients of organizational health have been subsequently corroborated by other empirical studies. Jim Collins, for instance, points out that data shows that great organizations create an environment where truth is heard (encourage voice). They also create mechanisms that seek to expel people who are not compatible with the values and vision of the organization (encourage exit) as well as attract the most compatible ones (encourage loyalty).
For some church leaders, there seems to be a tension between these leadership concepts and the nature of church ministry. However, I believe that Hirschman has a valid point that relates directly to church ministry. After all, the Bible does encourage us to speak the truth in love, to set boundaries for koinonia and requirements for leadership.
REFLECTION
Leaders work as organizational architects, and pastoral ministry is no exception. The New Testament describes the role of pastors not only in terms of shepherds and teachers, but also as overseers. In other words, we are called to care for the sheep, but we are also called to safeguard the organizational health of the church. Thus, we must carefully ask, to what degree should voice and exit be intentional ingredients in our ministry framework?
My ministry experience reveals that when a church does not have voice and exit carefully designed in her organizational mechanisms, it results in a diversity of dysfunctions, including tensions, divisions, and chaos. In order to prevent some of these dysfunctions, the church needs to have clear parameters that define the requirements and responsibilities of membership.
In order to understand the importance of defined membership, we must differentiate between being saved, on the one hand, and being a team player, on the other. Even though this is not a biblical distinction, it is an organizational distinction that facilitates organizational health. Anyone who is saved is part of the universal church, but in order to be a team player in a local church, a person must embrace accountability by agreeing to certain expectations and responsibilities. This is the line that separates a person who is saved from the person who is both saved and a member of the local church. If pastors fail to make this distinction, they may remain trapped in a cycle of organizational dysfunctions that characterize many churches of all sizes.
Based on my experience coaching pastors, I can summarize the organizational dysfunctions that I have observed in three categories:
Category 1: No Membership Model.
A church that has no defined membership tends to create confusion because it lacks the mechanisms that provide accountability.
Dysfunctions:
(a) People are given authority to lead without selecting them with the proper filters.
(b) The church becomes driven by political interest. People with more financial power or more political connections become more influential.
Core issue: Voice (how should we determine whose opinion should be more influential?).
Category 2: Lifetime Membership Model.
A church that has not designed a way of exit tends to increase chaos.
Dysfunctions:
(a) If people no longer want to belong to the membership, they tend to leave in a dramatic way, creating chaos and division.
(b) Forsaking membership in a local church leads to damaged relationships because exiting is perceived as treason.
Core issue: Exit (how can we facilitate a way for members to leave in a godly manner?)
Category 3: Light Membership Model.
A church that has simplistic parameters for membership tends to increase tensions.
Dysfunctions:
(a) If anyone who attends the church or is baptized at the church automatically becomes a member, then the church ends up giving voice to people who are not spiritually mature.
(b) When spiritually immature people feel entitled to shape the ministry or treat it as democracy, they end up creating drama and political games.
Core issue: Voice (how can we define who can have a voice in the matters of the church?)
In order to prevent some of these dysfunctions, we designed a membership system at Ethnos Bible Church that seeks to achieve our own balance between voice and exit. We believe that membership is defined by contribution, so we call it a Ministry Partnership. Thus, a member is not simply a person who attends the church or was baptized at the church; rather, a member is a team player committed to our ministry mission, vision, and values. Consequently, our loyalty is to the vision of the church. This commitment is reflected in our membership agreement, which includes specific requirements and expectations that seek to provide accountability. We value the opinions and views of these members and we have created ways in which people can share their ideas and concerns. Yet, we also believe that a person must feel free to exit whenever they no longer desire to be part of the team. For this reason, we designed membership to last only a year and can be renewed on an annual basis.
As Hirschman points out, there is no magic formula—each organization must figure out what combination of voice and exit works best in their context. As for Ethnos, we hope that by including voice and exit in our ministry framework in this way, we will be able to maintain organizational health. After all, for a church to thrive, it must first be healthy.
About the Author
Pablo Morales
Pablo Morales serves as the Lead Pastor of Ethnos Bible Church in Texas. He is currently pursuing the Doctor of Ministry degree in Leadership and Global Perspectives at Portland Seminary in order to understand what it takes to develop a healthy multiethnic church.13 responses to “The Impact of Church Membership in Organizational Health”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Pablo:
Very enlightening post with great overview on church membership. You seem to have taken serious your words that pastors are “organizational architects”.
Of interest is your criteria of “contribution” for membership. I understand that people need to not only express the vision but help contribute to the vision. My question is do you monitor, and if so, how do you monitor the “contribution”? Is there a minimum contribution that is considered? Do you use “tithe” as the standard? If not what do you consider as an adequate amount?
Phil
Phil, part of my interest in the organizational architecture of the church has to do with my Christian background. I grew up in church and have served in different ministry teams in different countries. Based on my experience, I have observed that most of the drama in church ministry is related in one way or another to lack of organizational health. Reading Hirschman helped me realize that voice, exit, and loyalty are closely related to the aspects of dysfunction that I have observed. At this point of my life, I have therefore tried to pay much more attention to the organizational framework of the church, and we are not done yet… there still a lot to do.
When we decided to redefine membership in terms of being a team player, the entire mindset has changed. By contribution we do not only mean financially, but also emotionally, and spiritually. It is much like a sports team. If you are part of the team, that means that you are actively pursuing the game, even if sometimes you may have to seat at the bench. The same happens with with membership. We call it Ministry Partnership. We encourage people to give financially, but we do not monitor it. We do not want to police, but we want to inspire. If people believe in the vision, they will be willing to give sacrificially (keeping 90% of your resources and only giving 10% is not necessarily sacrificial giving. We encourage tithing, but we prefer to speak in terms of sacrificial giving).
This is why we have implemented our ministry partnership agreement. In our yearly membership agreement, people agree to the expectations of membership. These include: Investing time, serving in some capacity, investing financial resources, and contributing to a godly atmosphere of koinonia. If a person is not willing to invest the time to serve or invest the financial resources, then that person is welcome to attend the church, but is not considered part of the ministry partners. Only ministry partners have voice. I am not sure how this system would work in a larger congregation, but at this point it works well for our size.
Pablo
Pablo,
Through your leadership team at Ethnos Bible Church and your coaching experiences, you have come up with some very novel and pragmatic ways to integrate the concepts of church membership and responsibility for organizational health. You have very diligently outlined the factors that create confusion, chaos, and dysfunction in the church and the necessary proactive steps to combat it.
Particularly enlightening is the fact that, “the church needs to have clear parameters that define the requirements and responsibilities of membership.” One does not become a church member merely by being saved, baptized, or through church attendance. (Ultimately, I think that is probably the key factor for the confusion, dissatisfaction, and exit). For Ethnos, membership entails being a team player by exhibiting accountability and responsibility for the goals and values of the church, thereby promoting organizational health. You hit the nail on the head in your profound statement, ”If pastors fail to make this distinction, they may remain trapped in a cycle of organizational dysfunctions that characterize many churches of all sizes.” Thanks for these fresh and innovative ideas.
Claire, thank you for your encouragement. It is humbling to see the level of attention you paid to what I wrote. Thanks!
Pablo
Pablo,
Are there times when you actually encourage church members/participants to exit (besides blatant and unrepentant sin)? You say people must “embrace accountability.” How do you keep that from becoming legalism?
Does having an annually renewed membership create any anxiety in the culture?
Marc,
Only on one occasion I encouraged a member to consider the option of exiting because it was obvious to both of us that he no longer embraced our vision. He ended up leaving. On most cases we want people to remain in the partnership. The accountability is increased because clarity is increased. Since the agreement has a list of general expectations, it gives us a context to address any specific issues that may arise. Only on one occasion I had to sit down with a person in order to confront certain behaviors that were not necessarily “sinful” but that were affecting the team environment. Having the agreement was helpful because it gave me a concrete document to confront the person in specific areas that he had originally agreed to and was no longer fulfilling. I have found this system freeing because rather than leading to legalism it protects us from it. It provides us with clear expectations that we all agree to. In that way it keeps us on the same page and gives us a sense of objectivity and relevance that legalism lacks. The fact that it is renewed annually does not accentuate exit (oh no! the partnership is ending!); rather, it accentuates teamwork (yes! I’m serving this coming year again!). It also gives us the opportunity to honor those who have served for several years. So far it has been positive.
Pablo
Sounds good, and it sound like your accountability and evaluation looks at concrete, identifiable behaviors.
Pablo,
Great view and processing of the information. I completely agree with you. Although, I did not see the book from your given perspective. You are spot on! How do you give proper voice, to whom do you listen and to whom do you discard?
Aaron
Aaron,
The beauty of the concepts brought up by the author is that they have many different ways of application across organizations. I haven’t read your blog yet, but now I’m curious to see what perspectives you gained from the reading. Guess what I am doing next!
Pablo
Thanks Pablo for a great blog!
This one statement grip me, ” Jim Collins, for instance, points out that data shows that great organizations create an environment where truth is heard (encourage voice).” It seem that statement hold truth in the 21st Century for the church. Are the leaders/pastors teaching /preaching the gospel of Kingdom of God that is creating an environment where truth lives and voices are heard. I also think that being a “disciple-maker” requires that we invest in the lives of others, and that takes a level of commitment that often intimidates people.
The leaders of many churches are not mature in their faith therefore are not creating an environment of growth in the church. With out this they only want a place to gather to “WORSHIP” because that is all the time they have to give the Savior. It is vital that the church environment is a place of truth, room to grow, voices are being heard and only God’s in charge of the exit that are taking place.
However, your statement also reminded me of something I read in a book by Leonard Sweet: “We live in a ‘Bible-based’ country, full of people who never read the Bible.” In essence, we’re surrounded by people who think they know what in the Bible, yet have never truly read it.Do you think, this could be a possible reason people exit the church? Do we need to ask WHY?
I really enjoyed your blog! Rose Maria
Really great communication hear Pablo. I think you have some important things figure out for your church. Well done!
Pablo,
Great post. One of the takeaways that you suggested that you made a priority, “an organizational distinction that facilitates organizational health.” Growing up in the church, our congregation was one where we had limited voice. We could vote (exercise our voice) on some things but for the most part, we were told what to do. In the Assemblies of God, we’re able to vote on most things. While this was different for me, I understand that this was an organizational distinction necessary for this growth. We have to learn how to create an environment that facilitates freedom to have a voice. As I read your blog and notice your experience coaching pastors, I thought about the dangers of giving the wrong people a voice. Either way, each organization has to determine what will be their distinction in determining who has a voice and the right to exercise it.
Garfield