Once upon a time, a young pastor and his wife planted a church. The church grew and grew. People were drawn to this pastor, and his skill in speaking and teaching. The young church recruited professional quality musicians to lead worship and still more people came. As the church grew, the church added ministries for children and youth. Within a short few years, the average attendance was 180 to 200. People who visited talked about how accepting the church was, and how sitting through one of the sermons always spoke to them… almost like going to therapy.<\/p>\n
The church’s initial target population were alternative, twenty-somethings. The people who actually came were young families. Most came from other churches, and many talked about experiencing wounding in their former church experiences. They wanted to worship God, but they didn’t want to stay where they were. So they looked at the competition and chose the exit option.<\/p>\n
As time went on, the young church plateaued. Perhaps the novelty wore off. Attendance declined a little, perhaps by ten percent, but it wasn’t seen as significant. People were still coming. The children’s programs were thriving. The teaching was still compelling.<\/p>\n
An opportunity arose to change locations and share space with another church with similar values. The church members voiced support of this move, and so it was made. All the same, perhaps another twenty-five or thirty people exited the church when it moved. They didn’t say much. They simply left. The leadership took a look at issues that might have precipitated the departures, and it was concluded that when a church experiences a significant shift, some people just leave. It was no big deal.<\/p>\n
When the church turned ten, two more significant changes came. The partner church with whom they shared space decided that they needed the space, and told the young church to move. And the founding pastor, loved by many, decided that God was calling him in another direction. Boom. Boom. Within six months nearly half the church left, most without words, simply choosing the exit option. There were other churches with inspiring teachers, closer to home.<\/p>\n
A new, younger pastor was hired after much searching and prayer. Many church members were involved in the search process. All were invited to hear the candidates speak and participated in Q&A. The Board members all experienced unique, unexplained events via dreams and prayers that this was the right man to hire.<\/p>\n
Another twenty or so members exited. The worship team became less specialized. The children’s programs were condensed.<\/p>\n
The new pastor urged the church to consider new models of being the church. Outreach. Prayer. Relationship. Through much teaching and discussion the church decided to move toward a home church model, and divided into three house churches, meeting collectively once a month. A few more exited. And then after less than two years, the young pastor left. Three house churches became two… became one.<\/p>\n
It sounds like a sad story. And at times it has been quite painful. But this one house church, now perhaps ten percent the size of the church at its peak, thrives in many ways. It serves the vulnerable and excluded in ways that it formerly did not. All of the members have a place to serve and participate – and they do. Regular service in a low income, older adult trailer park has brought new people to the church. Though the new people are … scratchy, difficult, even hard to love. But they feel like they belong. And people believe, are discipled, and baptized. People who watch this church who are not church goers say that this is the kind of church they would go to. If they went to church.<\/p>\n
The story of this church – my church – highlights some of the themes that political economist Albert O. Hirschman wrote about in “Exit, Voice and Loyalty.”(1) Hirschman argues that when quality in an organization declines, consumers\/members express their dissatisfaction through two possible options: Exit and Voice. Exit is exactly what it sounds like. They leave the organization or stop buying the product. This is typically the easiest route when there is easily accessible competition of equal or comparable quality. Those who leave first usually have the least invested in the organization or product or can tolerate the least amount of increased expense (be it time, travel or cost). Voice refers to the consumer’s choice to express their dissatisfaction through dialogue, often urging a return to the former quality.<\/p>\n
My church spent many hours, months and years engaging in dialogue and prayer. We dreamed together. We prayed together. We hosted small groups on re-defining church. We built deep friendships. Yet people still left. Why? Some opted for a church closer to home. Some wanted a vibrant children’s or youth ministry. Some just wanted the old pastor back. Some simply left and did not go to another church. (We’ll come back to that thought in a moment). For those of us who remain, each of us have prayed and sought the Lord about the status and future of the church. We have engaged in a coaching relationship with our denomination. We don’t have an official pastor, but there are a few of us who serve on our shared leadership team. Most of us have wondered more than once if it was time to go. Hirschman might argue that we stay out of loyalty. He writes:<\/p>\n
In deciding whether the time has come to leave an organization, members, especially the more influential ones, will sometimes be held back not so much by the moral and material sufferings they would themselves have to go through as a result of exit, but by the anticipation that the organization to which they belong would go from bad to worse if they left.(2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I confess that at times this has been true. But even greater is a factor to which Hirschman does not speak: God. Each of us has prayed diligently, and even asked God, “Should we close? Should we walk away?” And each of us can say without a doubt that God, so far, has asked us to stay. And so we are planning the baptism of a giant, mentally ill, impoverished, socially awkward man who came to faith this summer but who would otherwise never go to church. There is still fruit. In the eyes of man, this church is probably a failure. In the eyes of God? We continue to be blessed.<\/p>\n
A final thought: Hirschman argues that people exit to other competition. He even says that people can’t leave certain social institutions, namely church.(3)\u00a0 And yet many of those who left my church, didn’t go to another church. And as one of our cohort posted this week, research by the Barna group suggests that a growing number of Americans who don’t go to church, used to go to church. (4) They are opting out. Exiting. I wonder what they are choosing as an alternative? Perhaps our friend Carol McLaughlin will discover the answer in her research about post-church boomers.<\/p>\n
\n(1) Albert O. Hirschman, Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Forms, Organizations and States, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970.<\/p>\n
(2) Ibid, p 98.<\/p>\n
(3) Ibid, 33.<\/p>\n