Church Membership

Longstanding workplace issues such as mistreatment, the normalization of toxic behavior, and a lack of accountability for workplace culture have fueled a growing trend known as revenge quitting.

This phenomenon, on the rise since the 2000s, sees employees leaving their jobs not just for better opportunities, but as a form of protest and self-preservation against unfair treatment.

When employees resign as a final act of protest against toxic workplace conditions, the impact on organizations can be significant. One of the most obvious consequences is financial loss. The abrupt departure of employees also sends a powerful message to remaining staff, potentially leading to decreased morale, trust, and engagement.

High-profile cases of revenge quitting can also damage an organization’s reputation, affecting customer relationships and investor confidence.

Finally, revenge quitting can have lasting consequences on workplace culture. If the toxic behavior that caused the resignation remains unaddressed, remaining employees may become disengaged, leading to a decline in work quality.

Research has found that when employees feel a genuine sense of belonging, they are more engaged and loyal, they produce more innovative solutions, and they are more reliable and productive.

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Employees – Respect; Testimony - It is certainly permissible for a Christian to quit an incompatible job and look for other work. But let us be sure to leave an employer with a good testimony after giving proper notification of quitting (Rom. 12:18; Eph. 6:5-8; 1 Tim. 6:1-2); 2) Church ministry - Does any of this sound familiar in a church setting when people quit attending? Here are several biblical principles that might apply as antidotes: Respect and Integrity in Leadership - (Matt. 23:11; 1 Tim. 3:1-13); Accountability (Matt. 18:15-17; Acts 15:1-29); Promoting a Culture of Belonging, Harmony, and Unity (Psa. 133:1; Rom. 12:16; Eph. 4:3).

The city of Detroit was in a campaign to reforest its streets after decades of neglecting its depleted tree canopy. However, the tree-planters met stiff resistance: Roughly a quarter of the 7,500 residents declined offers to have new trees planted in front of their homes.

Researcher Christine Carmichael found that the rejections had more to do with how the tree-planters presented themselves than it did with how residents felt about trees. The residents understood the benefits of having trees in urban environments—they provide shade, absorb air pollution, increase property values, and improve health. But the reasons Detroit folks refused was not that they didn’t trust the trees; they didn’t trust the city.

A couple of African-American women Carmichael talked to linked the tree-planting program to a painful racist moment in Detroit’s history, when the city suddenly began cutting down elm trees in bulk in their neighborhoods. As the women understood it, the city did this so that law enforcement could have better surveilance on their neighborhoods from helicopters after an urban uprising.

However, the government’s reason was that the trees were dying off from the Dutch elm disease. But it was the women’s version that led to their decision to reject the trees. It’s not that they didn’t trust the trees; they didn’t trust the city.

The women felt that the city just came in and cut down their trees, and now they want to just come in planting trees. But they felt they should have a choice in this since they’ll be the ones raking up the leaves when the planters leave. They felt that the decisions were being made by someone else, and they were going to have to deal with the consequences.

Failing to meaningfully involve the residents in the decision-making is a classic mistake. After all, who would turn down a free tree? Perhaps these people just don’t get it.

One Detroit resident whom Carmichael interviewed told her: “You know, I really appreciate you today because that shows that someone is listening. Someone is trying to find out what’s really going on in our thoughts. And maybe next time they can do a survey and ask us, if they would like to have us have the trees.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Churches and small groups can learn from Detroit’s mistake. It is best to ask for members’ participation in planning and decision-making rather than making authoritative decisions without explanation or discussion.

A journalist for the BBC named David Lee recently moved from America to London. Rather than haul his stuff, he said, “I’ve become one of life’s subscribers.” Lee writes:

Looking around my (rented) flat, what happened to my box sets? Now a Netflix subscription. My music? Spotify. My books? Kindle. If I’m going out, forget the car— it’s Uber or Lyft. Staying in? Takeaway food via Doordash or GrubHub.

If I am cooking for myself, I get my ingredients via meal kit service Blue Apron. Recently I learned about start-up Feather, which offers subscription plans for furniture inside your home. For less than $10-per-month you can subscribe to a bed. Now there's an idea: Subscribe to a bed.

Lee notes that the subscription economy has grown 100% each year for the past five years. He points to a study by Goldman Sachs that concludes: “The must-haves for previous generations aren’t as important for millennials. They’re putting off major purchases—or avoiding them entirely.” The question is, does it matter?

Possible Preaching Angles:

1) Eternal & Temporary; Heaven; Possessions – Although a bit extreme, this story reminds Christians that we are merely travelers in this world; possessions should never be our security. 2) Church; Membership; Involvement – Care should be given lest this non-commitment lifestyle infiltrate the church. We are to be fully invested in the life of the body and not just be subscribers.