Introduction
One of the things that newer Christian groups like to assert about themselves in contrast to the older, maybe more institutional groups is that their group is a ‘movement.’ “We are a movement not an institution!”
I wonder if the need to self-identify in this way shows that the group is actually no longer a movement with a future orientation, but an institution looking back over its shoulder. Like most of the religious movements spawned out of the industrial revolution around 200 years ago, the ‘moving’ has been done and the descendants are now a mainstream denomination.
The past can be a terrible burden for a group who’s predecessors have distinguished themselves by prophetically and courageously leading out of a dysfunctional paradigm to a new and healthier paradigm. The descendants of pioneers will tend to preserve and then institutionalise their inspiring past and so become unable to let go of it. They become paradigm-settlers who self-identify by their founders actions. Ironically, these children of ‘movement-makers’ tend to be somewhat resistant to change! Truly, movements become machines which become monuments.
This tendency needs to be acknowledged if we are to engage our current context and once again ‘move’ forward as we discover where God is leading us.
What makes a Movement?
The well known ‘Dancing guy video’ from a few years ago encapsulates the essence of a movement. A lone guy in a park stands and dances with rapt enthusiasm to toe-tapping music amidst the crowd of lethargic picnickers sprawled across the lawns. At first there is amused indifference to the loner. Then another brave soul joins in followed by another who drags a couple of mates with him. Soon there is a small merry band whooping like there is no tomorrow! More faces gaze longingly at them wondering if they dare jump up too. A few more dart sheepishly into the fray. Suddenly a tipping point is reached and masses of picnickers catch on that dancing rather than lazing is the accepted behaviour. Soon those remaining prone are hurrying to join in and avoid looking out of touch. The paradigm has shifted totally from resting to moving!
A social (or religious or scientific) movement happens when social behaviour shifts from a prevailing and dominant paradigm towards an emerging paradigm.
Steve Addison says: “A movement is a group of people pursuing a common cause. Movements are characterized by discontent, vision, and action. For good or for evil, movements change the world.”
The birth of a new paradigm is always chaotic. There will resistance by entrenched interests. There is no guarantee whether any of the fledgling ideas jostling to emerge will grow into the new paradigm.
Those early movement leaders are non-conformists or prophets who lead from the margins. It takes great courage to follow them. It takes significant energy and sacrifice to follow in their footsteps because the new paradigm is not yet fully formed -- and it may still fail.
Often there are competing or diverging factions or camps who will struggle fiercely amongst themselves for primacy. There will be others at the movement’s margins in a loose coalition, but with differing trajectories one to the other.
Says Seth Godin: “An organization uses structure and resources and power to make things happen. Organizations hire people, issue policies, buy things, erect buildings, earn market share and get things done. Your company is probably an organization.
A movement has an emotional heart. A movement might use an organization, but it can replace systems and people if they disappear. Movements are more likely to cause widespread change, and they require leaders, not managers. The internet, it turns out, is a movement, and every time someone tries to own it, they fail. ... The trouble kicks in when you think you have one and you actually have the other.”
The British abolitionist movement beginning in the late 1700s was probably one of the first modern examples of a movement. The most famous movement was probably the American Civil Rights Movement propelled by the courage of Martin Luther King. Other social movements include women’s rights, peace, civil rights, anti-nuclear and environmental movements. More recently there has been the feminist movement, pro-choice movement, right-to-life movement, LGBTQIA+ rights movement, animal rights movement, anti-globalization movement, and climate action movement.
There are a common characteristics to modern and historical movements. Here are a few questions to ask which may indicate whether you are part of a movement:
1. Are we committed to a cause or a pose?
People caught up in a movement are never concerned about their structure or their posture; rather they are passionately obsessed with the cause. They do not need to self-identify as being ‘a movement’. The last thing on their mind is to look back and reflect on the sort of social construct they are. Rather they look forward to the cause and the future they believe is possible.
People who change the world live in alignment with their deeply held convictions and beliefs. Their agenda for change brings them into tension with the world around them, but they are also deeply connected with their world. It’s the combination of connection and distinction that enables movements to be catalysts for transformation.
The moment a group needs to apprehensively self-identify as a movement, or preserve the sense of being a movement that was once attributed to their ancestors - they may no longer be a movement. Those who are truly moving are so aligned with the cause and enabling its fulfillment that it is that end by which they identify. It is usually others that mark them as a movement. If we need to be a movement, but no one else sees it - then we are an institution in search of a cause!
2. How fadish are we?
Movements and fads feel the same while they are happening. The difference is often only discerned by the rearview mirror. A movement produces long-term permanent change - a new normal. A fad is a fashionable idea that creates a buzz and musters some excitement but doesn’t acquire enough substance to perpetuate a real change. A movement becomes a force, while a fad becomes a memory. To use post-modern examples, “emergent” and “house-church” may be fads, as were cabbage patch dolls and Air Jordan sneakers. Conversely, environmentalism; gay-rights; missional thinking; and “orange ministry” are becoming movements. The difference is traction.
3. Do we have vision or regulation?
Says Tim Keller: “A movement is marked by an attractive, clear, unifying vision for the future together with a strong set of values or beliefs. The content of the vision must be compelling and clear so that others can grasp it readily. It must not be so difficult that only a handful of people can articulate it. Instead, it must be something that all those in the movement can understand and pass along to others. By contrast, "institutionalized" organizations are held together by rules, regulations, and procedures, not by a shared vision. Institutions are conservative by nature - they ‘conserve’ what they have received, and this is vital so that helpful processes, ideas, policies, stories, resources and boundaries are retained.
A movement’s unifying vision is so compelling that it takes pride of place. First, the vision leads to sacrificial commitment. Individuals put the vision ahead of their own interests and comfort. They are willing to work without high compensation, power, or perks. The satisfaction of realized goals is their main compensation. There is no more practical index of whether you have a movement or not. If the leader is making all the sacrifices, you don't!” (Ministry Movements 27 Jul 2010 by Tim Keller).
4. Are we compelled by white hot faith?
Steve Addison, reflecting on Christian Movements says: “The great movements of the Christian faith are unleashed through the presence and power of God in the midst of his people who are faithful to his Word, led by his Spirit, and engaged in his mission. Jesus brought his followers into the same ardent relationship he had with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. He sent them to the ends of the earth with nothing but the message of salvation and the reality of God’s power.”
A vision and passion for God that is vividly experienced precedes such movements. Whether the cause becomes care of the poor, or proclamation of the gospel, or mission to the world - at the core is a personal metanoia that transforms the heard and vision of that Christian group.
If we start with the goal of changing or improving our world or growing the church - we will fail to become a movement!" (Adapted from: Steve Addison, Movements that Changed the World, 2009). An encounter with the transcendent lies at the core of all christian movements.
Do we think our movement is perpetual?
Movements start, then they gain momentum; then they become successful. After that they decline and lastly they die. They are subject to the laws of social inertia. However, in their wake they leave a new status quo or a new norm. Almost all movements become monuments, if not museums. The "Mover" becomes a "Movement" becomes a "Machine", becomes a "Monument!"
Browse the churches and ancient cathedrals of our land; read the lichen-covered foundation stones that whisper of a dream long past. If things don’t change, we too will be soon be selling churches to maintain the few that remain!
It is in the hubris of past and present success that the seeds of failure grow. The disturbing reality is that often we are so bent on protecting the monument that there is little chance of embracing another movement. It is impossible to move forward if we have a death-grip on the paraphernalia of the past. What is God calling us to? What great cause? What new vision in which we can again risk everything in the attempt?
David Hurst (The New Ecology of Leadership: Business Mastery in a Chaotic World, 2012) sums up how movements become institutions this way: "Vision becomes strategy, roles become tasks, teams become structure, networks become organisations, recognition becomes compensation." Tim Keller, though, adds: “It is wrong, however, to draw a hard line between the two forms. It is typical in the Christian movement literature to be highly critical of "institutionalism," for good reason. But the impression is left that all authority, central control, and formal processes are bad for ministry. The reality is more complex.”
6. Can we reflect on our stage of development?
“First, people come to believe there is a problem. Secondly, people experience pain or deprivation. Someone once said that people don’t change until the pain of changing is less than the pain of staying the same. There is discontent with the current reality. Next, a possible solution takes root and becomes contagious. This is the first inkling of momentum.
Lastly, people are mobilized. This is where talking, debating, and information gathering turns into doing. Chatter slows and action accelerates. People do what needs to be done. Orthodoxy becomes orthopraxy.” Jim Molloy.
7. Is there evidence of contagious relationships
Movements all start by someone with courage asking and acting on a compelling question: “If we don’t do this, what will happen?” Whether that was Rosa Parks riding in the whites-only section of the bus or Martin Luther nailing his theses to the cathedral door.
Movements are always grassroots fueled and sustained, but a spark starts the process – a spark in the right condition - a contagious spark if you will, but it will be sustained and spread in relationships. Missionary movements grow exponentially when the gospel spreads through networks of pre-existing relationships. For continued growth, a movement must maintain open relationships with outsiders, and it must reach out into new, adjacent social networks.
Says Malcolm Gladwell: “There are exceptional people out there who are capable of starting epidemics. All you have to do is find them. ...Have you ever wondered, for example, how religious movements get started? Usually, we think of them as a product of highly charismatic evangelists, people like the Apostle Paul or Billy Graham or Brigham Young, but the spread of any new and contagious ideology also has a lot to do with the skillful use of group power.” (The Tipping Point p163 2000)
Missionary movements spread through the efforts of ordinary people. The rapid spread of the gospel requires the efforts of non-professionals who are not dependent on external funding and are not strictly controlled. Converts immediately begin sharing their faith and plant new churches. The role of key leaders is to model effective ministry; they recruit and deploy workers, then train them on the job.
8. How flexible is our structure?
All movements inherently require some form of organization. The early loose structures serve the movement well until the inevitable point when the movement becomes an organisation. “Movements have always been low-institution and high-mission. They dream, decide, and deploy. The embrace the changeability of tabernacles and shun the immovability of temples. Therefore, movements are naturally offensive.” (Adapted Jim Molloy)
Says Tim Keller: “Institutionalized organizations are very turf conscious. Members are suspicious of anyone encroaching on their area of responsibility. Positions and power have been hard-won and jealously guarded. This is done by slavish devotion to rules of procedure, accreditation, and tenure. In movements, however, the accomplishment of the vision is more important than power and position. So people are willing to make allies, be flexible, and cooperate with anyone sharing the basic vision and values.” (Ministry Movements, 2010 by Tim Keller)
There are three common structural components to a movement (Felicity Dale, simplychurch.com):
1. Decentralization–things don’t just happen with one leader or in one place,
2. Segmentation–things may look different in different places but they share similar values,
3. Interconnection–those involved in the movement are able to connect together.
9. How forward looking are we?
Movements always challenge the old, embrace the new, hope for the not yet. “...It takes a long time for a church to die. Long after evangelism ceases to become their main activity, some churches live on. The air becomes filled with 'back then’ language with token lip service to a future glory that everyone knows is not coming but won’t admit. If the mission is no longer why you have a church, then really you don’t have a church – you have a morgue. We are left to count steeples and peoples.
Movements appreciate the past but embrace the future because they stick to the issues that matter most. A movement decelerates the moment the ‘main thing’ is no longer the ‘main thing’. The minor things may be important, or even essential, but historically movements disintegrate with the onset of debates outside the scope of their prime directive. (Adapted Jim Molloy: http://leaderscripts.wordpress.com).
10. Are we organic or mechanic?
“Vision leads to innovativeness. Institutions are organized more vertically, where ideas from "below" are unwelcome. Movements are flatter because the commonly shared vision unifies and empowers. The vision is what matters - so anyone with a good idea about how to accomplish it is welcome to give it. Ideas flow out of the whole organization, top to bottom, which leads to greater creativity.” (Ministry Movements, 2010 by Tim Keller)
“Movements are self-propelling and self-propagating. Like an ocean wave, a movement is not to be made but to be ridden. We don’t create a movement; we embrace one. Therefore, movements find their leader, not vice versa. In a real sense, a movement is sovereign. There is no memo or proclamation that kick-starts it. The wind blows where it wants, and we hear its sound, but we cannot tell whether it’s coming or going. Spirit-led people simply scatter on the shoreline in anticipation and race to ride the wave as it comes.” (Adapted Jim Molloy: http://leaderscripts.wordpress.com)
People and groups align with a movement they don’t of necessity need to become part of its institutional framework. Churches who align with the charismatic movement or the missional movement, for example, do not need to affiliate with a particular ‘accrediting’ agency for their bona fides to be established. Often those who align as part of a movement maintain their affiliation or membership a diverse range of existing institutions. Politicians from across the political spectrum may share in the environmental cause without needing to abandon their party to join, say, the Greens.
11. How generative are we?
A movement is marked by spontaneous generativity. Spontaneous combustion means energy generated from within - a conflagration without the need for external ignition. A movement is able to generate its own resources, recruit its own new members and participants, and (especially) raise up its own new leaders. This does not mean that movements have no formal training programs. Rather, it means that first, the vision of the movement (especially as its content is disseminated) attracts people with leadership potential, and, secondly, that the work of the movement provides opportunities that reveal emerging leaders through real-life experience and then prepares them for the next level of leadership in the movement.
“Denominations or church networks that always have to recruit ministers and staff that were raised up in other environments, and that attract them mainly with good compensation, do not show signs of being a movement.” (Ministry Movements, 2010 by Tim Keller).
12. How adaptive are our methods?
"To fulfil their mission, effective movements are prepared to change everything about themselves except their core beliefs. Unencumbered by the weight of tradition, movements feel free to experiment with new forms and strategies. Movements pursue their mission with methods that are effective, flexible which outlast and even surpass the influence of the first generation of leaders." (Adapted from: Steve Addison, Movements that Changed the World, 2009).
It is natural for new churches and ministries to try very hard to stay informal, non-codified, and non-centralized. But part of what makes a movement dynamic is a unified vision, and that always requires some codification and control.
As time goes on, to maintain the main engine of movement-dynamics - a unified vision - a ministry will adopt some of the aspects of institutions. A strong movement, then, occupies the difficult space between being a free-wheeling organism and a disciplined organization.
"A movement that refuses to take on some organizational characteristics - authority, tradition, unity of belief, and quality control - will fragment and dissipate. A movement that does not also resist the inevitable tendency toward complete institutionalization will lose its vitality and effectiveness as well. The job of the movement leader is to steer the ship safely between these two opposite perils." (Ministry Movements, 2010 by Tim Keller).
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
- By what cause do we define ourself?
- Is being a movement more important than a cause?
- How institutionally rigid are we?
- Where are we on the continuum: Mover? Movement? Machine? Museum? Monument?
- Do we generate increasing resources and passionate leaders?
- Do ideas come from the top down or from a growing coalface?
- Do we affiliate as a denomination or form coalitions across silos?
- Are we growing, in the midst of uncontrollable chaos or declining within prescribed systems?
- How open are we to transformative encounter with the Spirit?
