From program to movement
(I was asked by an
organization recently to speak to them about moving from program to movement.
After some negotiation we monkeyed the title a bit.
My goal was to outline 21
emphasis points to speak from. So without hearing the full context of the
speech, this will be a tough read.)
But they wanted a copy, and
since I didn’t make any. Here it is.
Perhaps when I have time I
will try to fill this out a bit and make it smoother. Until then, you are stuck
with it.
Not sure you can get there. Movements appear. You join them. Not sure you create them. They start with different leaders doing not thinking about it. Movements may coalesce.
2.
Movements are catalyzed and not programmed.
The Best examples we have are American Civil Rights and Homosexual movement. Perhaps the Conservative movement in American Politics- post Goldwater. But I am going to use Multi-Site churches as a template for my discussion. You could apply the same points to the others.
Has to begin in hearts of individual leaders actually leading something of note and value. Monomaniacs with a dream. “Fanatics” who will die for their dream in Eric Hoffer’s language. Movements are anchored around some attractive personalities – at least attractive to somebody. Somebody looks up to them. And it has to have some ego involved. There has to be enough ego on the part of the leader to want to be noticed and enough to sustain during times of attack.
Long time horizons. These things don’t happen quickly. Small battles won over time. Example in Civil rights, integration of Army, Brown v. Board, Civil Rights Act I, etc. Work various fronts of the “war” but settle for small wins along the way.
A coalition of the willing – various leaders, their groups, foundations that support, funders, some businesses that will be served by the movement if it succeeds. Never underestimate the power of money in these deals.
Coalitions coalesce at key points in the movement but for the most part they are going their own way and fighting for their own organization/cause/battle. They aren’t coordinated or planned except around key catalytic events. Expecting more slows things down.
Movements have some degree of popular support. There is a percentage of the population that really wants to see it happen and can serve as foot soldiers for the leaders.
Movements also have to have opposition. There has to be the fight between “good” and “evil” and debate and rancor and polarization. The debate increases the visibility and sharpens the arguments which gains converts to both sides. It generates media attention which serves the purpose of getting the word out. Media covers conflict, controversy and Novelty. Most church movements are bland and without opposition.
A precipatory event or catalytic event. For politics, elections serve this purpose. For others, marches and protests. For our examples, perhaps conferences and other gatherings.
Cultural, demographic and other environmental factors that passively support the changes desired. So, for example, the explosion of the suburbs helped support the creating of the megachurch and the rapid expansion of many of these suburbs supported the multi site movement.
In some ways the movements have “intellectual support” – articles written, studies made, etc. This base gives some movements legitimacy in the eyes of educators and certain media.
It also helps to give the movement some common language and terms. Everyone doesn’t have to agree to them but they help others know what you are talking about.
The role we at Leadership Network played is to serve the movement and amplify it and speed the diffusion. We can’t create them. We only find the right leaders and try to help them along. And for multi-site we have some big ego leaders.
Our method is to put them in the room and help them think through THEIR plans and goals, not to impose ours on them.
We help build the bridges between the leaders and their ideas. Help them find solutions to their problems.
In our notes and concept papers and emails we help build common language. Example – we are a multi site church not a church with multiple sites. Also helped others under
stan
d the idea.
We started to publicize what was happening. Became background source for press.
We struck gold when some leaders strongly opposed the idea. Some said that it would hurt church planting and others said that it wasn’t a biblical model of church. The debate helped to draw attention to the idea so that others could examine it for themselves.
Apparently it was a good time since church income at megachurches was strong during the formative season and enabled them to expand quickly using multiple sites.
The rest is history.
good thoughts dave. Especially the one about not creating them but joining them.
I keep waiting for the church planting churches to form a cooperative fundation for church planting that they all can draw from. think that can happen?
Posted by: Bill Easum | January 11, 2009 at 06:47 AM