Four Characteristics of a Movement VS an Institution

The word "movement" is often used to describe a kind of vital, dynamic human organization, in order to distinguish it from what are called "institutions." Both of these words can have broader meanings, but for the sake of this discussion let us define them in the following ways.

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 esoteric or difficult that only a handful of people can articulate it. Instead, it must be something that all members of 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.

This 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.

Second, the vision leads to generous flexibility. 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.

Third, the 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.

Finally, 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.

David Hurst, a Harvard scholar, summed up how movements become institutions this way - vision becomes strategy, roles become tasks, teams become structure, networks become organizations, recognition becomes compensation. It is wrong, however, to draw such 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.

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 must 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.

This article originally appeared on the Redeemer City to City blog, here. To find more great content on city ministry, go to RedeemerCitytoCity.com.

8 Comments »

1. A very great contribution! Thank you so much Dr Keller for this. I wish every church leader knows this and also apply it

   Comment by Pastor Emeka - Aug 17, 2010 @ 04:31 AM

2. This is good stuff!  I never commented before on an article but I am sending this to my leader friends.  The article is good all the way through the last paragraph, which is often rare!  May God give us the grace to execute such a balance.
   Thank you so much.
   Charlie

   Comment by Charlie robinson - Aug 17, 2010 @ 07:17 AM

3. By these definitions, what Jesus was doing in the Gospels was neither a movement (his vision was NOT easily grasped outside of a handful, was it?) or an institution. What does one do with THAT?

   Comment by Jeff Straka - Aug 17, 2010 @ 10:03 AM

4. No! His vision was not just grasped by a handful, but by so many. That’s what the apostles did, a movement. That’s what Paul did, and that’s what so many of us are doing today, setting up a strong movement that is fast taking over the whole world! JESUS of Nazareth is wining…..........

   Comment by Pastor Emeka - Aug 17, 2010 @ 10:31 AM

5. I am not talking about the “movement” AFTER his resurrection (that’s a whole ‘nuther story). I am talking about Jesus and HIS movement. His talks largely went over the heads of the crowds, and time and time again, Jesus’ more intimate teachings went over the heads of his close disciples! They ended up SCATTERING when he was arrested because they misunderstood what kind of messiah he was!

   And I would STRONGLY argue that the church of today is not anywhere CLOSE to the kenotic Way Jesus was trying to teach.

   Comment by Jeff Straka - Aug 17, 2010 @ 12:41 PM

6. hmmm…makes me think how an institution could become an attractive movement again. I think empowering all levels of the organization by giving them some sort of voice in the larger creative process would be a good start. It would probably be a sloooow transition though.

   Comment by Norm Hamre - Aug 17, 2010 @ 12:46 PM

7. I’m intrigued by the (NIKE)RED ad to the right. The cause is valid, but I really wonder if Jesus would be that jazzed by the whole thing on THIS web page. Why do WE need to GET something out of giving to others? Is THAT how Jesus wants us to love the Other? What if we just gave the whole $4.00 (cost of the red shoelaces) to an HIV/AIDS organization instead of whatever “net proceeds” Nike decides to give? Can’t we STOP being a CONSUMER even for one MINUTE and just GIVE? Now I GET why this tactic may be necessary for engaging those that don’t follow Jesus, but why HERE?

   Comment by Jeff Straka - Aug 17, 2010 @ 02:40 PM

8. I like the article, and if more people would write their articles, rather than criticizing others.
   There is a lot in the Bible to be said about judging, and stone throwing.
   I do agree Jesus and his teachings changed the world, and it continues to change people and motivate them. He is the center point of this movement, that so many have dedicated their lives to.
   I have been told, if you are not getting booed, you are not in the game.
   Dr Keller thanks for your article, had you not placed it here, I would not have seen it.
   God continue to bless you, and your work.

   Comment by R.L. Fry - Oct 05, 2010 @ 10:09 AM

Sorry, but commenting is no longer available for this post.