The Mechanisms of Christian Social Movements

1. Part I: Foundational Architectures for Social Transformation
   1. Chapter 1: The Theological Engine: Keller’s Tripartite Model of Faithful Ministry
   2. Chapter 2: The Sociological Machinery: A Primer on Social Movement Dynamics
2. Part II: A New Synthesis: Integrating Theology and Sociology for Movement Building
   1. Chapter 3: An Integrated Framework for Christian Social Innovation
   2. Chapter 4: Navigating the Inevitable Tensions: Dr. Sears’s Strategic Imperatives
3. Part III: The Framework in Practice: Case Studies and Recommendations
   1. Chapter 5: Historical Precedents through the Synthetic Lens
   2. Chapter 6: A Blueprint for Action: Recommendations for New Christian Social Movements
   3. Conclusion: Toward a Future of Faithful and Fruitful Transformation

Part I: Foundational Architectures for Social Transformation

The impulse to reshape the world is a perennial feature of human society, giving rise to movements that challenge, reform, and sometimes overthrow existing social orders. Within the Christian tradition, this impulse is often rooted in a theological conviction that the present state of affairs is misaligned with divine intention, compelling believers to act as agents of reconciliation and restoration. Yet, the path from theological conviction to effective social transformation is fraught with complexity. Well-intentioned efforts often falter due to strategic naivete, a failure to understand the cultural context, or a gradual erosion of their founding principles, leading to irrelevance or assimilation.

To build movements that are both faithful to their theological foundations and effective in their social engagement, leaders require a robust and integrated conceptual architecture. This paper proposes such an architecture by synthesizing three distinct but profoundly complementary frameworks. First, it examines the theological model for ministry articulated by Timothy Keller and applied by Dr. Andrew Sears, which delineates the relationship between a Doctrinal Foundation (what to believe), a Theological Vision (how to see), and a Ministry Expression (what to do). Second, it explores the parallel concepts developed within the sociology of social movements, which analyze the dynamics of Framing (constructing meaning), Repertoires of Contention (available actions), and Context (the socio-political environment). Finally, it integrates the strategic imperatives highlighted by Dr. Sears concerning the challenges of organizational alignment, the tension between tradition and innovation, and the persistent threat of secularization.

By weaving these theological, sociological, and strategic threads into a single, cohesive framework, this paper aims to provide leaders, scholars, and practitioners with a powerful analytical tool. This integrated model will be used to dissect historical Christian social movements, revealing the underlying mechanics of their successes and failures. Ultimately, this analysis will culminate in a set of actionable recommendations—a blueprint for designing and launching new Christian social movements capable of navigating the unique challenges of the 21st century with theological integrity and transformative impact.

Chapter 1: The Theological Engine: Keller’s Tripartite Model of Faithful Ministry

At the heart of any sustainable Christian endeavor is a clear understanding of its own internal logic—the relationship between its core beliefs, its worldview, and its practical activities. The model popularized by Timothy Keller in his seminal work Center Church provides a lucid and powerful framework for mapping this internal architecture.1 Adapted and applied by Dr. Andrew Sears in the context of ministry leadership and innovation, this tripartite model serves as our foundational theological engine, consisting of the Doctrinal Foundation, the Theological Vision, and the Ministry Expression.3 Understanding the distinct function of each component, and the critical flow of logic between them, is the first step toward building movements that are both orthodox and effective.

The Unchanging Core: Doctrinal Foundation as Ideological Bedrock

The starting point and immovable anchor of the entire structure is the Doctrinal Foundation. This is the “What to Believe” component of the model.3 It comprises what Dr. Sears, referencing Keller, describes as the “timeless truths from the Bible about God, our relationship to Him, and His purposes in the world”.3 This foundation is not subject to cultural trends or strategic adjustments; it is the repository of the movement’s non-negotiable convictions. It includes the core tenets of a given theological tradition, an organization’s formal statement of faith, and the systematic and biblical theology that undergirds its existence.4 While some pragmatic approaches to ministry might view doctrine as a secondary concern, in this model, it is the absolute prerequisite for everything that follows. It is the source code from which all other programs are written.

The Doctrinal Foundation functions as more than a mere collection of abstract beliefs; it serves as the movement’s essential boundary system, a kind of theological immune system that distinguishes the core identity of the movement from the surrounding environment. It sets the ultimate parameters for what constitutes a faithful innovation versus what constitutes mission drift, syncretism, or outright secularization. Dr. Sears repeatedly highlights the historical pattern of Christian-founded institutions—colleges, hospitals, social agencies like the YMCA—that gradually lost their distinctive Christian character as they scaled and sought broader societal acceptance.3 This process of secularization is not primarily the result of external attack, but of internal ambiguity. When the Doctrinal Foundation is unclear, unarticulated, or unreferenced, a movement’s vision and practices become highly susceptible to being reshaped by powerful external forces, such as the demands of secular funders, the pressures of political polarization, or the desire for cultural respectability.3 Therefore, the clarity, robustness, and consistent reaffirmation of the Doctrinal Foundation are directly proportional to a movement’s long-term theological resilience. It is the primary bulwark that ensures the “Christian” in a “Christian social movement” retains its meaning over time.

The Contextual Lens: Theological Vision as the “Middleware” of Mission

If the Doctrinal Foundation is the timeless operating system, the Theological Vision is the crucial application layer—the “middleware,” as one commentator on Keller describes it, that connects unchanging truth to the ever-changing world.5 This is the “How to See” component of the model.3 Tim Keller provides a concise and powerful definition: a Theological Vision is “a faithful restatement of the gospel with rich implications for life, ministry, and mission in a particular culture at a moment in history”. It is not the doctrine itself, but a Spirit-led application of that doctrine to a specific context. It answers the critical questions: What does the Gospel mean for these people, in this place, at this time? What are the specific cultural idols that the Gospel confronts here? What are the unique hopes and fears of this community that the Gospel can speak to?

This vision-making process shapes what Sears calls the “Ministry DNA”—the unique identity, philosophy of ministry, and theory of change that distinguishes one ministry from another, even within the same theological tradition.4 Crucially, the Theological Vision determines a movement’s priorities and emphasis. As Sears notes, an organization cannot have ten number-one priorities; the vision forces a strategic focus.4 A good theological vision, therefore, is rooted in the Doctrinal Foundation but is not a simple repetition of it. It is inspirational, it defines the mission, it sets practical boundaries, it fits the context, and it protects against mission drift by providing a clear, contextualized reason for the movement’s existence.3

The Theological Vision is the locus of strategic adaptation and the engine of new movements. Dr. Sears argues that “a new movement happens when someone aligns a new Theological Vision and Ministry Expression with what God is doing in a particular context in a way that enables it to spread”.3 This reveals a critical dynamic: major movements are not typically born from the invention of new doctrines, but from fresh, powerful, and resonant applications of existing ones. This is the work of discerning the kairos—the opportune and decisive moment in history.4 It is what Keller himself did in planting Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan. He did not alter his conservative Reformed doctrine, but he developed a unique Theological Vision that could speak that doctrine into a highly cosmopolitan, skeptical, and upper-middle-class urban context—a context radically different from the norm for his denomination.4 This work of “recontextualization,” of creating “new wineskins” for the “new wine” of what God is doing, is, as Sears cautions, both “difficult and dangerous”.3 It requires a leader to hold the timeless and the timely in tension. The success or failure of a movement often hinges on the quality of this vision—its profound faithfulness to the Doctrinal Foundation on one hand, and its incisive resonance with the contemporary context on the other.

The Tangible Form: Ministry Expression as the Embodiment of Vision

The final component of the model is the Ministry Expression, which represents the “What to Do”.3 This is the practical, tangible, on-the-ground outworking of the Theological Vision. It is where belief and sight become action. The Ministry Expression encompasses the full suite of a movement’s activities and structures: its specific programs, its internal organizational culture, its operational systems and policies, and its funding model.3 If the Theological Vision is the architectural blueprint, the Ministry Expression is the actual building, with all its materials, wiring, and plumbing. It is how the gospel is “expressed in a particular ministry in one community at a point in time”.3

This is the component where the integrity of the entire framework is tested. Dr. Sears places enormous emphasis on the critical danger of a disconnect between what he calls “espoused values” (the combination of the Doctrinal Foundation and Theological Vision) and “enacted values” (the reality of the Ministry Expression).3 This gap, he argues, is a primary cause of organizational misalignment, ineffectiveness, and eventual decline.3 Many of the challenges ministries face are not due to a lack of passion or effort, but to this fundamental lack of strategic alignment.3

Consequently, the Ministry Expression serves as the diagnostic field for the health of a movement. Its outputs can be empirically observed and measured against its stated vision. If a movement’s Theological Vision proclaims a commitment to racial justice, but its leadership structures and cultural norms perpetuate racial homogeneity, a critical misalignment exists. If its vision emphasizes radical community and mutual care, but its programs are primarily transactional and its funding model is based on impersonal, large-scale direct mail campaigns, a misalignment exists.4 The Ministry Expression is not merely the “output” of the theological engine; it is a constant feedback loop. Auditing a movement’s programs, its budget, its leadership culture, and its operational systems provides the clearest possible data on whether its Theological Vision is truly operative or merely aspirational. It is in the concrete reality of the Ministry Expression that a movement’s espoused beliefs are either validated or exposed as hollow.

Chapter 2: The Sociological Machinery: A Primer on Social Movement Dynamics

While Keller’s model provides a powerful internal map of a Christian movement’s theological and strategic logic, a movement does not exist in a vacuum. It operates within a complex and often contested public square. To understand how a movement translates its internal vision into external impact, one must turn to the field of sociology, which has developed a robust set of tools for analyzing the mechanics of collective action. Three concepts are particularly vital: the process of Framing, the use of Repertoires of Contention, and the influence of the socio-political Context. These sociological concepts run in a striking parallel to the theological components of Keller’s model, providing a complementary, external lens through which to understand how movements function, mobilize, and effect change.

Forging Reality: The Framing Process

At its core, a social movement is a contest over meaning. It seeks to persuade a society to see a particular issue in a new light. The sociological term for this “signifying work” or “meaning construction” is framing.6 Framing is the process by which movement actors identify, interpret, and package grievances in a way that legitimizes their cause and motivates collective action.7 A problem, no matter how severe, does not become the basis for a movement until it is successfully framed as an injustice that can and must be addressed.6

This process involves three core, sequential tasks that must be accomplished to build momentum.7 First is diagnostic framing, which involves identifying a problem and, crucially, attributing blame or responsibility. It answers the question, “What is wrong, and who is at fault?” This act of diagnosis transforms a private trouble into a public issue, a misfortune into an injustice.6 Second is prognostic framing, which articulates a proposed solution, a plan of attack, and the strategies for carrying it out. It answers the question, “What can be done about it?” This provides a sense of direction and efficacy, assuring potential recruits that there is a viable path forward.7 The final task is motivational framing, which provides the “call to arms”—the rationale, urgency, and moral imperative for action. It answers the question, “Why must we act now?” This often involves appealing to deeply held values and creating a sense of duty, efficacy, and propriety.7

The success of a movement, therefore, does not depend on the objective reality of a social problem alone, but on its ability to craft and disseminate a compelling frame that resonates with a target audience. For a frame to be effective, sociologists have identified several key characteristics: it must have resonance, meaning it aligns with the existing cultural beliefs and personal experiences of the audience (what is often called “cultural stock”); it must have credibility, stemming from the consistency of the message and the trustworthiness of the messengers; and it must have salience, connecting to issues that the audience already perceives as important.10 A movement that fails in this framing work, no matter how just its cause, will fail to mobilize the support necessary to achieve its goals. It is the engine of legitimacy and mobilization.

The Arsenal of Action: Repertoires of Contention

If framing is the “why” of a movement, the repertoire of contention is the “what.” Coined by historian Charles Tilly, this concept refers to the limited set of tools, tactics, and forms of action that are known and available to a group of people at a given point in history.11 A movement’s repertoire is its arsenal of action. This includes a wide array of activities, such as creating associations, holding public meetings and rallies, organizing petition drives, issuing public statements, conducting boycotts, engaging in sit-ins, and, in some cases, participating in riots or strikes.11 In the contemporary era, this repertoire has expanded to include a vast array of digital tactics, from online petitions and social media campaigns to hacktivism.11

Crucially, repertoires are not infinite, nor are they chosen from a purely rational or strategic calculation of what might be most effective. They are culturally learned, historically contingent, and shared within and between movements.13 People tend to use the forms of protest that are familiar to them, that they have seen others use, and that carry a shared cultural meaning. As such, movements tend to innovate “at the margins” of the existing repertoire rather than inventing entirely new forms of action from scratch.13 The repertoire is not just a strategic “grab bag” of tactics but a “structured cultural space” where certain actions are understood to convey specific meanings and are seen as appropriate for certain grievances or goals.14

This means that the choice of tactics is not a neutral, pragmatic decision; it is a deeply expressive act, weighted with moral and cultural significance. The repertoire a movement chooses says as much about its identity and values as its official statements. For example, the American Civil Rights Movement’s strategic adoption of non-violent direct action—sit-ins, freedom rides, marches—was not merely a pragmatic choice. It was a repertoire deliberately selected because it was deeply congruent with the movement’s theological framing of redemptive suffering and loving one’s enemies.15 The means of protest (the repertoire) must align with the message of the protest (the frame) for the movement to maintain its moral authority and credibility. A movement that advocates for peace while employing a repertoire of violence creates a fundamental contradiction that undermines its own legitimacy. The selection and deployment of a repertoire is therefore a critical site of strategic and ethical decision-making.

The Field of Play: Political Opportunity and Social Context

A brilliant frame and a powerful repertoire can be rendered ineffective if the external environment is hostile or unreceptive. The success of any social movement is heavily dependent on its context. The “political process” or “political opportunity” model in sociology argues that movements emerge, grow, and succeed not just because of their own internal resources or framing skill, but because of the opening and closing of opportunities in the broader political and social landscape.17

This context, often called the “political opportunity structure,” includes several key variables. These include the relative openness or closure of the formal political system (e.g., are there channels for dissent, or is the state highly repressive?); the stability or instability of elite alignments (e.g., are there divisions among powerful actors that a movement can exploit?); the presence or absence of influential allies or supporters; and the state’s capacity and propensity for repression.17 Beyond the formal political sphere, the broader social context also matters immensely. This includes prevailing cultural moods, major economic shifts, the occurrence of crises (like wars or depressions), and the availability of new communication technologies that can alter the dynamics of mobilization.

This sociological principle finds a direct theological parallel in Dr. Sears’s constant emphasis on the need for leaders to understand their “place in history” and to discern the kairos moment.3 His analysis of the current American context—marked by deep political polarization, major denominational splits, and intense cultural pressures to secularize—is a strategic assessment of the contemporary political opportunity structure for Christian movements.3 For a new movement, this means that a successful strategy requires a shrewd and realistic reading of the external environment. The rise of the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s, for example, was not a random occurrence; it was a direct response to a specific contextual crisis created by shifts in U.S. immigration policy toward Central American refugees, which opened a political and moral space for churches to act.18 Discerning the context is not a passive act of observation. It is an active, strategic assessment of the threats that must be navigated and the opportunities that can be seized. A movement that misreads its context is destined to fail, regardless of the righteousness of its cause or the passion of its members.

Part II: A New Synthesis: Integrating Theology and Sociology for Movement Building

Having established the foundational concepts of Keller’s theological model and the sociological machinery of social movements, it becomes clear that these are not disparate fields of inquiry. Rather, they are two different languages describing the same fundamental reality: the process by which deeply held beliefs are translated into collective action to change the world. Keller and Sears provide the “inside-out” perspective, charting the course from doctrinal conviction to ministry practice. Social movement theory provides the “outside-in” perspective, analyzing how that practice interacts with and is perceived by the broader culture.

This section moves beyond parallel description to forge a new synthesis, weaving these frameworks into a single, cohesive, and powerful analytical tool. By explicitly mapping the concepts onto one another, we can construct an integrated model that is more robust and practical than any of its constituent parts alone. This synthesis will illuminate the deep, functional interconnections between theology and sociology, providing a richer and more nuanced understanding of how Christian social movements are built, sustained, and ultimately succeed or fail.

Chapter 3: An Integrated Framework for Christian Social Innovation

The core argument of this paper is that the key components of Keller’s theological model and social movement theory are not merely analogous; they are functionally equivalent. A Doctrinal Foundation serves the role of an Ideology. A Theological Vision operates as a Collective Action Frame. A Ministry Expression is, in practice, a Repertoire of Contention. Recognizing these equivalences allows us to build a powerful, cross-disciplinary framework.

Table 1: A Synthetic Framework for Christian Social Movements

To visualize this integration and establish a shared vocabulary for the remainder of this analysis, the following table maps the core concepts from each framework. This table serves as a cognitive map, providing a heuristic for understanding how the different pieces of the movement-building puzzle fit together. It moves from mere comparison to a functional synthesis by defining the integrated role each component plays within the larger system.This synthetic framework provides a powerful lens for both analyzing existing movements and designing new ones. It clarifies that building a movement is a multi-layered task that requires attention to the deep ideological foundations, the persuasive public narrative, and the concrete forms of action, all while navigating a dynamic external context.

Theological Vision as Master Frame: Crafting the Narrative of Redemption

The central insight of this synthesis is that a Theological Vision is a Collective Action Frame. It performs the exact same sociological functions of diagnosis, prognosis, and motivation, but does so by drawing upon the unique resources of a theological tradition. A Theological Vision is the “interpretive schemata” that a movement uses to “signify and condense the ‘world out there'”.19 It takes the raw data of a social problem—poverty, racism, environmental degradation—and interprets it through the lens of a biblical worldview.

Consider Keller’s own theological vision for Redeemer Church, which was organized around three core commitments: being Gospel-centered, City-centered, and Movement-centered.1 This vision functions as a perfect example of a collective action frame.

• Diagnostic Framing: The “City-centered” commitment involved a diagnosis of the city’s spiritual condition. It identified the cultural idols of money, power, and self-actualization as the root causes of both personal anxiety and social breakdown in a place like Manhattan. It framed the problem not merely as individual sin, but as a flawed cultural system.
• Prognostic Framing: The “Gospel-centered” commitment was the proposed solution. It argued that only the gospel of grace could truly liberate people from these idols and create a community of humility and service. The formation of a church that lived out this gospel was the strategic plan.
• Motivational Framing: The “Movement-centered” commitment provided the call to arms. It was not just about building one successful church, but about seeking the peace and prosperity of the entire city, inspiring people to join a larger mission of urban renewal led by the Holy Spirit.1

This example reveals the unique power of theological framing. Social movement theory posits that for a frame to be successful, it must resonate with the pre-existing “cultural stock” of its target audience.10 Christian social movements have access to one of the deepest and most powerful cultural repertoires in Western history: the narratives, doctrines, symbols, and eschatological hopes of the Bible.6 The story of the Exodus, the prophetic call for justice, the concept of the Kingdom of God, the narrative of death and resurrection—these are not just stories, but potent, pre-existing frames for understanding oppression, liberation, and hope. Martin Luther King Jr. masterfully deployed the Exodus narrative to frame the Civil Rights struggle as a divine drama of liberation, giving it a moral and spiritual weight that a purely political frame could never have achieved.21 A Theological Vision, therefore, is not just any frame; it is a frame that can tap into these deep, resonant meaning structures, giving it a potential for motivational power and resilience that purely secular frames often struggle to replicate.

Ministry Expression as Repertoire: Choosing the Means of Faithful Contention

Following the same logic, a movement’s Ministry Expression is its chosen Repertoire of Contention. The “What to Do”—the programs, systems, and culture of an organization 3—is the tangible set of actions through which it contends for its vision in the public square. The alignment between the vision (frame) and the expression (repertoire) is paramount for credibility and effectiveness.

The choice of a repertoire is, therefore, an act of theological expression. The tactics a movement employs are not value-neutral; they are embodiments of its core beliefs. The Salvation Army provides a compelling case study. Founded by William and Catherine Booth in 19th-century London, its mission was to bring salvation to the destitute by meeting both spiritual and physical needs.22

• Theological Vision (Frame): Their vision was one of practical, holistic salvation, framed with a sense of urgency and spiritual warfare against the forces of poverty, addiction, and sin.
• Ministry Expression (Repertoire): This vision was expressed through a highly distinctive and congruent repertoire. They adopted a military structure—with a General, officers, and soldiers signing “Articles of War”—to signify discipline, organization, and commitment to the cause.22 Their tactics included open-air preaching, brass bands to attract crowds, and the establishment of a vast network of social services: homeless shelters, soup kitchens, addiction rehabilitation centers, and disaster relief operations.22 This repertoire was a perfect expression of their vision. The military structure embodied their sense of spiritual warfare, and the comprehensive social services embodied their commitment to meeting human needs “in His name without discrimination”.24

This demonstrates a critical principle for movement builders: the discussion about tactics cannot be separated from the discussion about identity and message. The question is not simply, “What works?” The more fundamental question is, “What set of actions and structures faithfully embodies who we say we are and what we believe?” A movement whose vision emphasizes peace and reconciliation but whose repertoire includes intimidation and violence suffers from a fatal contradiction. The repertoire is a form of non-verbal communication that must be in harmony with the verbal communication of the frame to create a coherent and compelling whole.

Doctrinal Foundation as Boundary and Resource: The Grammar of the Movement

Finally, the Doctrinal Foundation provides the essential grammar for the entire movement. In sociological terms, it functions similarly to what Snow and Benford have called a “master frame”—a broad, overarching belief system that provides the cultural and ideological resources for the creation of more specific collective action frames.19 The Doctrinal Foundation dictates the core principles, concepts, and narratives (e.g., the Imago Dei, justification by faith, the sovereignty of God, the doctrine of creation) that must be present in any faithful framing of a social issue. It is the wellspring from which the Theological Vision is drawn.

This function is twofold: it is both generative and constraining.

• Generative Function: Doctrine is not a static list of prohibitions but a dynamic source of creative potential for social critique and action. The doctrine of the Imago Dei—the belief that all human beings are created in the image of God—can generate a powerful Theological Vision that frames racism not just as a social problem, but as a theological heresy, an assault on the very character of God. The doctrine of Creation can generate a vision that frames environmental pollution not merely as an ecological issue, but as a desecration of a sacred trust given to humanity by the Creator.27 This generative capacity provides a Christian social movement with its unique voice and rationale for existence.
• Constraining Function: At the same time, doctrine provides necessary boundaries that preserve the movement’s identity and protect it from mission drift. The same doctrine of Creation that generates a passion for environmentalism also includes a clear distinction between the Creator and the creation, providing a theological constraint that prevents a Christian environmental movement from sliding into pantheism or nature worship. The doctrine of sin, which affirms the fallenness of all human institutions, provides a constraint against the utopian idealism that can plague secular movements, fostering a sober realism about the prospects for change.

This dual function is critical. Without the generative function, a movement has no unique message to offer. Without the constraining function, a movement risks losing its theological identity, becoming indistinguishable from its secular counterparts and ultimately succumbing to the very process of secularization that Dr. Sears warns against.3 The Doctrinal Foundation is the grammar that makes coherent and faithful speech—the Theological Vision—possible.

Chapter 4: Navigating the Inevitable Tensions: Dr. Sears’s Strategic Imperatives

An architectural blueprint is static. A living organization, however, is a dynamic system subject to internal and external pressures that threaten to pull it apart. Dr. Andrew Sears’s contributions to this discussion move beyond the static framework to highlight the strategic imperatives required to lead a movement over time. He identifies three critical tensions that every movement must navigate: the peril of misalignment, the dilemma of tradition versus innovation, and the gauntlet of secularization. Integrating these dynamic challenges into our synthetic framework provides a more realistic and practical guide for movement leaders.

The Peril of Misalignment: When Vision and Expression Diverge

The most immediate and persistent threat to a movement’s health is the one Dr. Sears identifies as the disconnect between “espoused values” and “enacted values”.3 In the language of our synthetic framework, this is a misalignment between the Theological Vision (the Frame) and the Ministry Expression (the Repertoire). This is the point where the entire integrated structure breaks down. A powerful, resonant, and theologically rich vision is rendered impotent if the movement’s daily activities, funding streams, and internal culture contradict it. Sears is unequivocal that this misalignment is a primary driver of organizational decline.3

The fundamental consequence of this misalignment is a catastrophic loss of credibility, which is the essential currency of any social movement. This credibility crisis operates on two fronts. Internally, adherents and participants are not blind to hypocrisy. When they see a gap between the movement’s soaring rhetoric and its sordid reality, the result is cynicism, disillusionment, and demobilization. Trust in leadership erodes, and the passion that fuels volunteer effort and financial sacrifice evaporates. Externally, the movement’s moral authority in the public square is destroyed. Opponents will seize upon any hypocrisy to discredit the movement’s message, while potential allies and the broader public will dismiss it as just another self-serving organization.

This establishes a clear causal chain: Misalignment between Vision/Frame and Expression/Repertoire leads directly to a Credibility Crisis, which in turn leads to Demobilization of the base and a loss of public legitimacy, culminating in Movement Failure. Therefore, the work of maintaining alignment is not a secondary, administrative task; it is a primary, strategic necessity for survival. Leaders must constantly audit their Ministry Expression—their programs, budgets, and culture—to ensure it remains a faithful and transparent embodiment of their Theological Vision. Dr. Sears provides the Operationalizing Values & Avoiding Mission Drift Ministry Best Practices Checklist and has created the course Aligning Strategy with Theology and Values as tools to conduct a values alignment audit

The “Overton Window” Dilemma: Balancing the Demands of Tradition and Innovation

A second critical tension arises from the inherent conflict between preserving a movement’s core identity and adapting to a changing world. Dr. Sears insightfully analyzes this dynamic using the concept of the “Overton Window”—the range of ideas and policies considered acceptable for debate within a group.3 He observes that many Christian movements and organizations polarize into two distinct camps, each with its own narrow Overton Window.

• The “Tradition” Camp: This group is primarily focused on guarding the Doctrinal Foundation. They are typically less comfortable with change, theologically more conservative, and often drawn from operational or administrative roles. Their primary concern is fidelity and avoiding secularization.4
• The “Innovation” Camp: This group is primarily focused on adapting the Ministry Expression to be more effective in the current context. They are more comfortable with change, often theologically more moderate, and tend to be entrepreneurial and big-picture oriented. Their primary concern is relevance and fruitfulness.4

Sears warns that a movement becomes unhealthy and dysfunctional when these two camps inhabit separate ecosystems—attending different conferences, reading different books, and engaging in mutually exclusive conversations.4 This separation prevents the necessary integration of their respective strengths. The solution he proposes is the cultivation of “dual expertise”—leaders who can understand and value both the “how and why” of their tradition and the emerging trends of innovation.3

Within our synthetic framework, the Theological Vision emerges as the essential negotiating table where these two forces must meet. The Tradition camp, left to itself, would calcify the Doctrinal Foundation into a rigid and irrelevant ideology. The Innovation camp, left to itself, would endlessly chase new tactics and programs (Ministry Expression) without a stable anchor, eventually drifting from the core mission. The difficult work of crafting and continually refining a Theological Vision is the only conceptual space that forces these two camps into a productive dialogue. A healthy movement is one that is constantly asking: “How can we faithfully restate our timeless doctrine (satisfying the Tradition camp) in a way that has rich implications for our mission in this present moment (satisfying the Innovation camp)?” A narrow Overton Window is thus a symptom of a weak or non-existent Theological Vision. The vision is the bridge that connects the anchor of doctrine to the sails of expression, and a healthy movement requires leaders who are skilled at maintaining the structural integrity of that bridge.

The Secularization Gauntlet: Building Movements with Theological Resilience

The final and most existential tension Dr. Sears identifies is the long-term threat of secularization. He points to a clear historical pattern: many social sectors pioneered by Christian movements—from K-12 and higher education to hospitals and mental health facilities—eventually became secularized, particularly once society decided to address the issue at scale and the sector became professionalized and state-funded.3 He issues a stark warning that movements currently addressing large-scale crises like homelessness and addiction are facing immense pressures to follow the same path, especially in progressive, urban contexts where government funding often comes with secularizing requirements.4

This threat forces a crucial question: why do originally faith-based movements secularize? While external pressures are real, our integrated framework suggests that secularization is not primarily an external attack but the result of an internal decay of the Theological Vision. When a Christian organization finds itself in a new and challenging context, it faces a choice. It can do the hard, creative work of articulating a compelling and distinctly Christian Theological Vision that speaks to that new context, or it can simply adopt the prevailing secular frames and repertoires to maintain its relevance, funding, and social standing.

The historical secularization of many Christian colleges illustrates this process. As they sought greater academic prestige and broader student appeal, many found it easier to adopt the secular academic world’s frame (knowledge for its own sake) and repertoire (specialized, value-neutral research) than to articulate a robust theological vision for what a distinctly Christian university should be in the 20th century. Over time, this adaptation of their Ministry Expression, unmoored from a continually renewed Theological Vision, led to a hollowing out of their core identity. Their “why” became fuzzy. The primary strategy for building theological resilience and resisting secularization, therefore, is not to build defensive walls around the Doctrinal Foundation. It is to continually invest in the difficult intellectual, spiritual, and creative work of articulating a compelling Theological Vision for the current kairos. A movement that can clearly and persuasively answer the question, “What unique, gospel-centered contribution do we offer that the world cannot replicate?” is a movement that has built an immunity to the slow, creeping decay of secularization.

Part III: The Framework in Practice: Case Studies and Recommendations

A theoretical framework, no matter how elegant, proves its worth only when applied to the complex realities of the world. This final section transitions from theory to practice. First, it will employ the synthesized framework as a diagnostic tool to analyze several historical and contemporary Christian social movements. By examining these cases through the integrated lens of Doctrine/Ideology, Vision/Frame, and Expression/Repertoire, we can gain a deeper understanding of the sources of their strength, the nature of their challenges, and the reasons for their enduring impact or eventual decline. Second, this analysis will be distilled into a practical, phased blueprint for action. This concluding chapter will offer a set of clear, actionable recommendations for the doctoral students and aspiring movement builders for whom this paper is intended, providing a guide for constructing new movements that are theologically grounded, sociologically shrewd, and strategically agile.

Chapter 5: Historical Precedents through the Synthetic Lens

By applying our integrated framework to real-world examples, we can move from abstract principles to concrete analysis, demonstrating the framework’s power to illuminate the inner workings of complex social phenomena.

The Abolitionist Movement: Framing Slavery as National Sin

The American abolitionist movement of the early 19th century provides a classic example of a movement driven by a powerful and uncompromising theological frame.

• Master Frame (Doctrinal Foundation): The movement was deeply rooted in the theological currents of the Second Great Awakening and the long-standing convictions of Quakerism. Its master frame was built on an Arminian theology that emphasized human free will, the moral responsibility of the individual, and the universal love of God for all people, regardless of race.44 This stood in contrast to an older Calvinism that might have been more accepting of fixed social hierarchies. The central, non-negotiable doctrine that animated the movement was the belief that chattel slavery was not merely a political or economic problem, but a profound
  sin against God and a violation of His law.46
• Framing (Theological Vision): From this master frame, abolitionists constructed a clear and potent collective action frame.
  • Diagnostic: They diagnosed slavery as a grievous moral evil and a national sin that defiled the country and violated the inherent dignity of human beings created in the imago dei.47 Blame was placed squarely on slaveholders, but also on the complicity of the entire nation, North and South.
  • Prognostic: The only acceptable solution was immediate repentance. This led to the famous abolitionist doctrine of “immediatism”—the demand for the immediate, unconditional, and uncompensated end to slavery, rejecting all gradualist or colonizationist schemes.46
  • Motivational: The movement’s call to action was framed as a matter of urgent Christian duty. It appealed to the conscience of believers, invoked the threat of divine judgment upon a sinful nation, and cast the struggle as a holy crusade against injustice.49

• Repertoire (Ministry Expression): The primary repertoire of the abolitionist movement was “moral suasion”.46 Believing that the key to ending slavery was to awaken the conscience of the nation, their tactics were overwhelmingly focused on persuasion and proclamation. This repertoire included itinerant lecturing, fiery sermons, the publication of abolitionist newspapers (like William Lloyd Garrison’s The Liberator), the mass distribution of pamphlets and tracts, the circulation of slave narratives (such as Solomon Northup’s), petition drives aimed at Congress, and the organization of fundraising fairs and anti-slavery bazaars.50

The Salvation Army: An Enduring Model of Integrated Action

The Salvation Army, founded in 1865, stands as a remarkable example of a movement with exceptionally tight alignment between its core components, which helps explain its longevity and global reach.

• Doctrinal Foundation (Ideology): The Army is rooted in a clear Wesleyan-Holiness theology. Its doctrines emphasize the necessity of a “new birth,” the possibility of “entire sanctification,” and a commitment to the authority of the Protestant Bible.22 This provides a stable, non-negotiable theological core focused on personal transformation and holy living.
• Theological Vision (Frame): The Army’s official mission statement serves as a powerful and concise collective action frame: “The Salvation Army, an international movement, is an evangelical part of the universal Christian Church. Its message is based on the Bible. Its ministry is motivated by the love of God. Its mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and to meet human needs in His name without discrimination”.24 This vision performs the three framing tasks perfectly.
  Diagnosis: It identifies a world of people with unmet physical and spiritual needs. Prognosis: The solution is the preaching of the gospel coupled with practical, loving service. Motivation: The work is motivated by the love of God and is a direct command from Jesus Christ. This frame is simple, powerful, and easily translatable across cultures.
• Ministry Expression (Repertoire): The Army’s repertoire is a direct and iconic embodiment of its vision. The quasi-military structure—with its uniforms, ranks, and disciplined order—is a tangible expression of its self-perception as an “army” engaged in spiritual warfare against sin and social evils.22 Its vast array of social programs—homeless shelters, disaster relief, thrift stores, addiction rehabilitation centers—is the concrete outworking of its commitment to “meet human needs”.22 The high degree of alignment between its Wesleyan doctrine, its holistic vision, and its disciplined, service-oriented repertoire has created a coherent and resilient organization that has effectively resisted mission drift for over 150 years.

The Civil Rights Movement: The Black Church as the Engine of a National Transformation

The American Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s provides one of history’s most powerful examples of our synthesized framework in action, demonstrating how a deep theological foundation can fuel a world-changing social movement.

• Doctrinal Foundation (Ideology): The movement was profoundly rooted in the theological soil of the Black church. Its doctrinal foundation was not a formal creed but a lived theology drawing from core biblical themes that had sustained the community through centuries of oppression. These included the doctrine of the Imago Dei (all people are created in God’s image), the Exodus narrative of God’s liberation of the oppressed, and the prophetic call for justice found in books like Amos and Micah (“Let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream”).29 This foundation provided the unshakeable conviction that segregation and racism were not merely unjust social policies but a profound sin against Almighty God.31
• Theological Vision (Frame): Led by figures like Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., the movement masterfully framed the struggle in theological terms. This was not presented as a mere political dispute over rights but as a spiritual battle for the soul of America and the realization of the “Beloved Community”.31
  Diagnosis: Segregation was framed as a sin that “scars the soul” of both the oppressor and the oppressed, a deep separation from God’s will.31
  Prognosis: The solution was not just legislative change but a “revolution of values” leading to a reconciled and integrated society, achieved through the power of non-violent resistance and redemptive suffering. Motivation: The call to action was rooted in Christian love (agape), the moral arc of the universe bending toward justice, and an unshakeable eschatological hope in God’s ultimate victory.30 King’s own theology, a synthesis of the Black social gospel tradition, Protestant liberalism, Gandhian methods, and personalist philosophy, was the intellectual engine of this powerful frame.33
• Ministry Expression (Repertoire): The Black church itself became the primary Ministry Expression of the movement. It was not just a source of inspiration but the operational base—the “movement church”.16 Churches served as meeting halls, organizing centers, and sanctuaries for activists.15 The chosen repertoire of contention was a direct outworking of the theological vision. Tactics like boycotts, sit-ins, marches, and voter registration drives were all forms of
  non-violent direct action, a repertoire that embodied the theological principle of “soul force” over physical force and the command to “love your enemies”.15 The sermons and speeches delivered in mass meetings were the primary vehicle for disseminating the frame, sustaining morale, and mobilizing participants for action.39 The profound alignment of the movement’s biblical doctrine, its theological vision of the Beloved Community, and its repertoire of non-violent resistance created one of the most successful and morally resonant social movements in history.

Contemporary Movements: Analyzing Christian Environmentalism and the New Sanctuary Movement

The framework can also be applied to more recent Christian social movements, helping to clarify their structure and strategy.

• Christian Environmentalism: This movement, often known as the “Creation Care” movement, has gained significant traction in recent decades.
  • Doctrine: It is grounded in the biblical doctrine of Creation, specifically the Genesis mandate for humanity to “dress and keep” the garden, exercising responsible stewardship over God’s earth.27
  • Vision/Frame: It diagnostically frames environmental destruction as a sin against the Creator, a failure of stewardship, and an act of injustice against the poor, who suffer disproportionately from its effects. Its prognostic frame calls for a shift to sustainable living, corporate responsibility, and government policies that protect the environment. Its motivational frame appeals to the love of God, love of neighbor, and the responsibility to preserve creation for future generations.43
  • Expression/Repertoire: The movement’s repertoire includes advocacy and lobbying, educational campaigns within churches, promoting “green” practices (like recycling and energy conservation), and, for some groups like Christian Climate Action, non-violent direct action and civil disobedience.43

• The New Sanctuary Movement: A revival of the 1980s movement, this contemporary effort responds to stricter immigration policies.
  • Doctrine: It is founded on clear biblical mandates to “welcome the stranger,” show hospitality, and provide refuge for the vulnerable, drawing on the Old Testament concept of “cities of refuge”.18
  • Vision/Frame: It diagnostically frames punitive immigration policies and deportations as unjust, inhumane, and contrary to God’s command to care for the sojourner. Its prognostic frame proposes that churches and communities of faith should act as places of literal and political sanctuary. The motivational frame is a call to radical solidarity and prophetic witness against unjust state power.18
  • Expression/Repertoire: The repertoire includes providing physical shelter to undocumented immigrants facing deportation, offering legal aid and financial support, public advocacy, and accompanying individuals to immigration hearings as a form of witness.

Chapter 6: A Blueprint for Action: Recommendations for New Christian Social Movements

The preceding analysis is not merely an academic exercise; it yields a clear, practical, and phased guide for those called to build new movements for social transformation. The synthesized framework provides a blueprint for action, outlining the critical work that must be done at each stage of a movement’s lifecycle.

Phase 1: Excavating the Foundation – Articulating a Robust Doctrinal Core

Before any strategy is devised or action is taken, aspiring movement leaders must do the foundational work of theological excavation. A movement without a clear Doctrinal Foundation is a house built on sand, destined to collapse under external pressure or internal confusion.

• Recommendation: Leaders and their core teams must engage in a rigorous process of clarifying their non-negotiable theological commitments. This involves deep study of Scripture, engagement with their theological tradition, and honest debate about the core truths that will define and constrain their work.3 The goal is to move beyond vague platitudes to specific, foundational affirmations. What are the core biblical doctrines that animate this cause? What are the non-negotiables that cannot be compromised for strategic gain or cultural acceptance? The output of this phase should be a clear, concise, and compelling statement of core beliefs that will serve as the movement’s constitution—the ultimate reference point for all future decisions about vision, strategy, and tactics.

Phase 2: Reading the Times – A Methodology for Discerning Kairos and Framing the Theological Vision

With a firm foundation in place, the next task is to build the bridge to the present context. This is the work of crafting the Theological Vision—the collective action frame that will give the movement its public voice and persuasive power.

• Recommendation: Engage in a disciplined, multi-faceted contextual analysis. Leaders must ask: What is God doing in our particular context at this moment in history? What are the pressing social crises and injustices that demand a response?3 What are the cultural “idols” (e.g., consumerism, nationalism, individualism) that the gospel must confront? What is the unique, indispensable role that a Christian movement can play that secular efforts cannot?4 This requires developing what Dr. Sears calls “dual expertise”: a deep understanding of one’s own tradition
  and a shrewd analysis of emerging cultural trends and social problems.3 The goal of this phase is to craft a compelling Theological Vision that performs the diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational framing tasks for a specific time and place, translating timeless doctrine into a timely and resonant call to action.

Phase 3: Building the Structure – Selecting and Innovating a Faithful and Effective Ministry Repertoire

A vision without a structure to carry it is merely a dream. This phase involves the difficult and creative work of designing the Ministry Expression—the repertoire of contention and the organizational form that will faithfully and effectively embody the Theological Vision.

• Recommendation: The choice of actions, programs, and organizational structures must be a direct and congruent expression of the Theological Vision. Leaders must move beyond simply asking “What works?” to ask “What repertoire of contention faithfully embodies our message?” How can we design our programs, our internal culture, our operational systems, and, critically, our funding model to be perfectly aligned with our espoused values?3 This phase demands both faithfulness and creativity. It requires a willingness to innovate and create “new wineskins” for the work God is doing, while ensuring that these new forms are authentic expressions of the movement’s core identity.3 Every element of the Ministry Expression should be a sermon in action, communicating the movement’s core message.

Phase 4: Sustaining Momentum – Strategies for Alignment, Adaptation, and Avoiding Mission Drift

A movement is not a static object but a living organism that must be nurtured and protected over time. The final phase involves building in the rhythms and structures necessary for long-term health, resilience, and faithfulness.

• Recommendation: Leaders must implement structures for ongoing evaluation, renewal, and strategic adaptation.
  • Conduct Alignment Audits: On a regular basis, the movement must systematically assess for gaps between its espoused values (Theological Vision) and its enacted values (Ministry Expression). This involves a frank look at budgets, programs, and power dynamics to identify and correct misalignments before they become credibility-destroying crises.
  • Intentionally Widen the Overton Window: Create formal and informal spaces where the “Tradition” bearers and the “Innovation” drivers can engage in constructive, robust dialogue. This is essential for the ongoing refinement of the Theological Vision, ensuring it remains both faithful and relevant. This prevents the polarization that Dr. Sears warns against and fosters a culture of healthy, integrated leadership.4
  • Build for Theological Resilience: Leadership development programs, board recruitment, and funding strategies must be designed to explicitly prioritize and protect the movement’s Doctrinal Foundation and Theological Vision. This means being willing to refuse funding that comes with secularizing strings attached and cultivating leaders who possess the “dual expertise” to navigate the pressures of the modern world without compromising the movement’s core identity, thus actively resisting the historical trend of mission drift.3

Conclusion: Toward a Future of Faithful and Fruitful Transformation

The challenge of building effective Christian social movements in the 21st century is immense. The landscape is marked by deep polarization, widespread skepticism toward institutions, and powerful cultural currents that can easily sweep a movement off its theological moorings. Navigating this terrain requires more than passion and good intentions; it requires a sophisticated and integrated architecture of thought and action.

The synthetic framework developed in this paper—uniting the theological insights of Keller and Sears with the analytical tools of social movement theory—offers such an architecture. It clarifies that a successful movement must be built upon the bedrock of a clear Doctrinal Foundation, which provides both the generative source and the necessary constraints for its identity. It must articulate this doctrine through a compelling and contextualized Theological Vision, which functions as a collective action frame to diagnose problems, propose solutions, and motivate a constituency. And it must embody this vision in a congruent and credible Ministry Expression, a repertoire of contention where its enacted values align perfectly with its espoused beliefs.

By understanding these interconnected components, leaders are better equipped to navigate the inevitable tensions of movement building: to maintain alignment, to balance the crucial demands of tradition and innovation, and to build organizations with the theological resilience to resist the siren call of secularization. The historical case studies of the Salvation Army and the Civil Rights Movement demonstrate that when these elements are held in powerful alignment, the result can be transformative, world-changing impact.

For the doctoral students of innovation and movement building, this framework is presented not as a rigid formula, but as a diagnostic and prescriptive tool. It provides a vocabulary for analysis and a blueprint for construction. The task ahead is to take this architecture and use it to design a new generation of Christian social movements—movements that are theologically deep, sociologically shrewd, and strategically agile, capable of speaking and acting with a clear, prophetic voice to bring about meaningful and lasting change in a world in desperate need of redemption and justice.

This report was generated by Google Gemini 2.5 Deep Research using the prompt:
“You are a professor in a doctoral course on Innovation Networks, Thought Leadership & Movement Building at City Vision University. Write a paper for graduate students in the course that explores relates the following three frameworks

1. Tim Keller’s model from Center Church of What to Believe (Doctrinal Foundation), How to See (Theological Vision) and What to Do (Ministry expression)

2. to similar concepts in the Diffusion of Social Movements like the alignments of Repertoires, Frames and Contexts.

3. To similar concepts in Dr. Andrew Sears’s attached presentations (which correspond to the attached YouTube Transcripts)

Then apply that to provide recommendations on how new Christian social movements can be developed.”
It was reviewed by Dr. Andrew Sears for accuracy.

Works cited

1. Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry in Your City, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.wtsbooks.com/products/center-church-timothy-keller-9780310494188
2. Center Church – Timothy Keller, accessed September 6, 2025, https://timothykeller.com/books/center-church
3. Dr. Andrew Sears Lecture Slides https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1zGx-onlBQc36vJPcFI6Wt-PMr89ZuNW_ECtF6xnM77g/ 
4. Dr. Sears YouTube Transcripts How Theological Vision Informs Strategy & Creates Movements and  Understanding our Place in History in Developing Theological Vision 
5. Center Church by Timothy Keller – “Gospel” – Aaron Armstrong, accessed September 6, 2025, https://aaronarmstrong.co/center-church-by-timothy-keller-gospel/
6. (PDF) Framing and Social Movements – ResearchGate, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319581126_Framing_and_Social_Movements
7. Framing Theory | Research Starters | EBSCO Research, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/framing-theory
8. Framing – (Intro to Sociology) – Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable, accessed September 6, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/intro-to-sociology/framing
9. Framing (social sciences) – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
10. (PDF) Framing and social movements – ResearchGate, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369099831_Framing_and_social_movements
11. Repertoire of contention – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repertoire_of_contention
12. Chapter 23: ‘Repertoires of contention’: examining concept, method, context and practice in: Handbook of Research Methods and Applications for Social Movements – ElgarOnline, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.elgaronline.com/abstract/book/9781803922027/book-part-9781803922027-30.xml
13. Building an Electronic Repertoire of Contention – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/14742830500051945
14. culturally constrained contention: mapping the meaning structure of the repertoire of contention – Mobilization: An International Quarterly, accessed September 6, 2025, https://mobilization.kglmeridian.com/downloadpdf/view/journals/maiq/19/4/article-p405.xml
15. The Role of the Black Church in the Civil Rights Movement, accessed September 6, 2025, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/c3f33177f4874bbea9be032bb4ebd7cc
16. The Role of the Black Church in the American Civil Rights Movement – UITS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://uits.edu.bd/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/05-The-Role-of-the-Black-Church-in-the-58-68.pdf
17. 1 – VU Research Portal, accessed September 6, 2025, https://research.vu.nl/files/39138086/Leiden_revised_Final.doc
18. The Sanctuary Movement: A Brief History | Center for Religious and Spiritual Life, accessed September 6, 2025, https://sites.smith.edu/religious-spiritual-life/2017/03/01/sanctuary-movement-history/
19. Considerations on collective action framing from a discursive turn – MARC W. STEINBERG Smith College, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/SOC924/Articles/SteinbergTiltingFrame.pdf
20. Theological Vision and the 3-Part Balancing Act – ChurchSource, accessed September 6, 2025, https://churchsource.com/blogs/ministry-resources/gospel-city-movement
21. The Underlying Role of Christianity in Political and Social Reform During the Civil Rights Movement as Exhibited by Dr. Martin Luther King, accessed September 6, 2025, https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/downloads/rn301998s?locale=en
22. The Salvation Army – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Salvation_Army
23. Salvation Army | History, Organization, & Facts – Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Salvation-Army
24. About The Salvation Army, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/about-us/
25. The Salvation Army USA, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/
26. About us | Salvation Army International Headquarters, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.salvationarmy.org/about-us
27. Christian views on environmentalism – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_environmentalism
28. Evangelical environmentalism – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_environmentalism
29. The African American church: A catalyst for social change | Texas …, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.texasbaptists.org/article/the-african-american-church-a-catalyst-for-social-change
30. The Civil Rights Movement as Theological Drama: Interpretation and Application, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.livedtheology.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/marsh.pdf
31. Civil Disobedience and the Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. – Westmont College, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.westmont.edu/civil-disobedience-and-legacy-martin-luther-king-jr
32. This Far by Faith . 1946-1966: from CIVIL RIGHTS to BLACK POWER | PBS, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_4/p_2.html
33. Faith Fosters a Dream: The Legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., accessed September 6, 2025, https://truett.edu/news/archive/faith-fosters-a-dream-the-legacy-of-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/
34. Introduction | The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/introduction
35. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, Legacy | Christian Research Institute, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.equip.org/articles/martin-luther-king-jr-s-legacy/
36. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Conception of God | Church Life Journal – University of Notre Dame, accessed September 6, 2025, https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/martin-luther-king-jr-s-conception-of-god/
37. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Theological Evolution and the Impact of the (Black) Social Gospel on His Political Views, accessed September 6, 2025, https://journals.akademicka.pl/adamericam/article/view/6101/5802
38. The Role of Religion in the Civil Rights Movements – Center for American Progress, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-role-of-religion-in-the-civil-rights-movements/
39. Eleven Speeches by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. – Csumb, accessed September 6, 2025, https://csumb.edu/media/csumb/section-editors/college-of-business/eJ62jq9STtW89ey3k7D7_MLK-Speeches-(1).pdf
40. The Legacy of the Modern Civil Rights Movement (Chapter 6) – Religious Speech and the Quest for Freedoms in the Anglo-American World, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religious-speech-and-the-quest-for-freedoms-in-the-angloamerican-world/legacy-of-the-modern-civil-rights-movement/BEA607B7D09CAFC8E219EDC13FF8FC07
41. Analysis: Martin Luther King, Jr.: “Beyond Vietnam” | Research Starters – EBSCO, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/analysis-martin-luther-king-jr-beyond-vietnam
42. The Birth of a Leader: Sermonic Discourse in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Address at Holt Street Baptist Church – Digital Commons @ Cal Poly, accessed September 6, 2025, https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1101&context=comssp
43. Christian Climate Action – Direct action, public witness for the climate, accessed September 6, 2025, https://christianclimateaction.org/
44. The Evangelical Environmental Network, accessed September 6, 2025, https://creationcare.org/
45. American Abolitionism and Religion, Divining America, TeacherServe©, National Humanities Center, accessed September 6, 2025, https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/nineteen/nkeyinfo/amabrel.htm
46. Social Gospel – Wikipedia, accessed September 6, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Gospel
47. The Abolitionists | Christian History Magazine, accessed September 6, 2025, https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/abolitionists
48. How Faith Helped to Abolish Slavery from the World? – Countercurrents, accessed September 6, 2025, https://countercurrents.org/2025/01/how-faith-helped-to-abolish-slavery-from-the-world/
49. The Legacy of Abolition of Slavery (Chapter 5) – Religious Speech and the Quest for Freedoms in the Anglo-American World, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/religious-speech-and-the-quest-for-freedoms-in-the-angloamerican-world/legacy-of-abolition-of-slavery/CD0866EA5CC1F33CE994C00ADB0D5D98
50. The Religious Roots of Abolition – America in Class – resources for history & literature teachers from the National Humanities Center, accessed September 6, 2025, https://americainclass.org/the-religious-roots-of-abolition/
51. Abolitionist Strategies | “I will be heard” – Online exhibitions across Cornell University Library, accessed September 6, 2025, https://exhibits.library.cornell.edu/abolitionism/feature/abolitionist-strategies
52. 8 Influential Abolitionist Texts | Britannica, accessed September 6, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/list/8-influential-abolitionist-texts
53. CVU Internal Use Only Gemini Link