Movements and Change

I’ve been researching “social movements” of late and discovered the following definition of movements:

“a collective action that leads to political, social or cultural change.”

Most of what I’ve written about movements in this blog has been about “collective action” and how movements expand thru the unified action of people (organized as decentralized cells, lead by leaders who empower others, etc.) to bring about change. I haven’t wrestle much with the concept of change, other than arguing here and there that all movements should ultimately lead to cultural change.  Certainly our organizationally based definitions of movements should be supplemented with sociological considerations.

As part of an organization whose initial rallying cry was “come help change the world,” I’ve been thinking more and more about what “change” means. I wonder sometimes if collective efforts to build spiritual movements have actually lead to real change in the world.

For example, I’ve been reading lately about the East African Revival (1930s) and how faithfully missionaries “collectively acted” to bring the gospel message to Rwanda and then into Uganda and Kenya. Unfortunately, an evil level of tribalism and racism prevailed behind a veneer of Christianity. As a result, what we would have naturally celebrated in our “organizationally defined understanding of movements” didn’t lead to an enduring “political, social or cultural change” in these countries. Instead, we see the opposite. Millions of “Christians” lost their lives to a murdering genocide of other “Christians,” to AIDs and malaria, to famine, injustice, illiteracy, etc.

On the other hand the Wesleyan Movement coupled with the Anti-Slavery Movement led by Wilberforce and friends (1730s-1830s) brought the world around a corner. Looking back from their struggle, one couldn’t even imagine the ways the world was before.  The slave trade was abolished, social laws were enacted, injustices righted, violent revolution eschewed, and “goodness became fashionable in England again.” Was this “political, social, economic and cultural change” perfect? No. Was it better? Without a doubt. Did society actually change? Yes.

I’m wondering if our thinking about movements might be advanced if we gave more consideration to the concept of change.

Some sociologists actually defined social movements by the scope and type of change--leading to such major distinctions as:

revolutionary or radical movements--leading to radical, usually political, change for everyone; these changes are primary targeted at changing leadership and/or value systems with fundamental implications for everyone. An example is the American Civil Rights Movement.

reform movements–leading to radical change for specific individuals or groups or limited changes for everyone; these movements are dedicated to changing some norms, often legal ones. Some examples are the “green movement” or the anti-abortion movement.

Up to this point in my thinking, I’ve sometimes wondered whether the literature describing social movements had direct applicability to “building spiritual movements.” Right now I’m convinced that the research into all types of “collective action leading to political, social or cultural change” applies directly to spiritual movements. The principles of “collective action” seemed certainly applicable. I have, however, wondered whether our notion of “change” could be understood in terms equivalent or similar to “revolutionary change or reformational change.” I’m increasingly convinced it can be and should be so understood.

Let’s take, for example, the twin Biblical realities that God is bringing in both a King and a Kingdom. God intends that “the kingdom of the world would become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ and that he shall reign forever and ever (Rev. 11:15).” God is reconciling all things in heaven and on earth in His Christ (His Anointed One) and is summing up all things in him. And when that King initially came, he announced that with his coming there was the launching of a new Kingdom–a “political, social, economic and cultural” kingdom to rival all other kingdoms of this world. Proclaiming the gospel, Jesus said, “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel (Mark 1:15).”

As Eugene Peterson writes:

The “political” metaphor, “Kingdom,” insists on a gospel that includes everything and everyone under the rule of God. God is no religious glow to warm a dark night. Christ is no esoteric truth with which to form a Gnostic elite. The Christian faith is an out-in-the-open, strenuous, legislating, conquering totality. God is sovereign: nothing and no one is exempt from his rule.

As we share and live out the message of King and Kingdom, the Scriptures expect that there will be change.

The allegiance to a King brings political change–a revolutionary expectation that everyone will bend the knee and call Jesus Lord. In the gospel, we are calling for political, revolutionary, and radical change beginning with individuals but ultimately applicable to everybody.

At the same time, as we choose Him as King (instead of all types of other Caesars), we seek to bring in His Kingdom and His righteousness to bear. In other words, we will work for “social, economic, and cultural” change–a reform expectation that brings specific Kingdom changes to all society.

Now, simple allegiance to the King never results in change. Americans recently elected Barak Obama as president on a platform of Change. An election doesn’t mean a thing, of course, unless President Obama and his team can bring the changes they’ve promised. Our commitment to Jesus as personal Lord and Savior means little either unless we can help bring the Kingdom change he promised and commanded us to seek.

A better understanding of movements demands, I believe, this sense of revolutionary and reformational change. We can’t assume a “trickle-down” understanding of change where our evangelical efforts at building spiritual movements (church planting movements, etc.) lead to new adherents who by nature of belonging bring change. In other words, changing a person’s loyalty will not naturally bring change the world. We’ll never change the world believing that just reforming enough hearts will reform the world. The King wants a Kingdom. We can’t just call him “Lord, Lord” and not do what he says.

Now, we mustn’t assume “political, social, economic and cultural change” implies triumphalist methods. When we conceive of “building spiritual movements everywhere” that bring real “political, economic, social and cultural” change, we can’t take a path different than our King took. He must guide us. We seek a Kingdom in which we bring such real changes, but not thru the worldly political machinations of other revolutionary and reform movements.

We build movements thru a path of service and sacrifice and a cross.