My experience as an American has given me the impression that loyalty is expected, except when it\u2019s not, that choosing to leave is disloyal, except when it\u2019s not, and those who protest should shut up or leave, except when it has worked out nicely for Americans to stay and complain.<\/p>\n
For many of us, our country, our religion, and even our current occupations come out of seemingly disloyal protests and exit from a system we could no longer support or endure. The United States of America was once a colony of Great Britain \u2013 until that colonization became to stifling and our protests were ignored and we \u201cleft.\u201d For those of us who are not Catholic, our religious affiliation was born out of protest and exit. I mean, we even call ourselves Protestants. And is there any one among us who has never left a job because it was no longer \u201ca good fit?\u201d<\/p>\n
Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,<\/em> by Albert Hirschman, provides a common sense look at how exit, voice, and loyalty interact in American economics and organizations. I say it\u2019s a common sense look because it does not take a degree in applied economics to understand that a capitalist economy revolves around keeping customers from \u201cexiting,\u201d by either building their loyalty (making it hard for them to leave even if they want to), or by taking expressed concerns and dissatisfaction to heart and improving goods and services (voice). But I don\u2019t really want to talk about economics.<\/p>\n I suppose I could bring Hirschman\u2019s thoughts to bear on our current political climate. We live in an extraordinary time where there are new protests every day. There are protests against the government and governing systems, there are protests against the economic powers that be, and there are protests against the protesters. Amidst these protests, one can always hear the taunt, \u201cIf you don\u2019t like the way it is, you can always leave!\u201d Leaving is seen in some situations as more loyal, or at least more acceptable, than voice. But I don\u2019t really want to talk about politics either.<\/p>\n What I want to ponder is how exit, voice, and loyalty work within our churches. I am totally approaching this from my own point of view and in no way could ever assume to understand how these things interact within every denomination or faith community. What I have seen, however, is a tendency towards exit within the church denominations and communities of which I have been a part. My first tendency is to say that there is little loyalty in churches anymore. People rarely speak up when there is a problem (except for those few \u201csqueaky wheels\u201d who, shall we say, relish the use of their voice), but simply choose not to return. Some call this a consumeristic approach to church, where \u201cchurch shopping\u201d is a real thing, and people struggle to commit. But reading through Hirschman, I was struck by the idea that our churches do not honor the use of voice as a hallmark of loyalty. Again, speaking only for those churches which I have been a part of, I get the feeling that speaking against decline in the church or denomination is actually seen as disloyal and that many leaders would rather those who are speaking up leave if they can\u2019t keep from rocking the boat. Why is that? Why do we not choose to see that someone who cares about the health of our church community will obviously speak up when they see an issue that will cause decline?<\/p>\n I don\u2019t know the answer to that question for sure, but I am beginning to wonder if it is a little like someone refusing to go to the doctor when they suspect there is something wrong with their body. At some level, the fear that the doctor will expose the issue and, naturally, put in place a plan for healing that may involve more pain, is enough to push us in to denial. If we ignore it, maybe it will go away on its own. Another way to think about it is this: if I developed a small rash on my face would I rather my friend suggest I get it looked at, especially if they had seen something like it before, or just ignore it? And if that rash later turned to something serious, would I feel like my friend had been disloyal for not telling me they were concerned? I know that\u2019s a pretty simplistic example, but it seems to fit every church community of which I have been a part. Something small that could be treated turns into a festering wound that requires major treatment and sometimes that treatment has not been enough to save the community.<\/p>\n So here is my question: if protest and exit are the \u201cAmerican way,\u201d[1]<\/a> what is the Kingdom way? When should loyalty speak up and when should it be silent? And is there ever a time when exit is best for all considered?<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n