326 Rhys H. Williams
In sum, social movement organizations range considerably, from highly organized
and bureaucratized operations like the Christian Coalition, to loosely organized, almost
haphazard bodies like Promise Keepers, to ephemeral “happenings” and kitchen-table
operations with little more than a name, a letterhead, and a website.^3
But organization matters. Promise Keepers’ very disdain for professionalism and
formal organization has generally kept the movement from maintaining itself as a na-
tional presence that it established with its large rallies from 1995–8. The organization
made its rallies free of charge, laid off paid staff, and did not allow a coherent bureau-
cracy to develop. By systematically refusing to nurture the organizational side of the
movement, Promise Keepers has been unable to build on its once considerable momen-
tum. Local groups continue to function, but more as support and prayer groups than as
any presence in the public sphere (Williams 2001). It is an open question whether the
rank-and-file who participated in stadium rallies would have followed a professional-
ized leadership into more politicized or institutionally focused action. But that option
is clearly not available now, with the national presence in disarray.
DILEMMAS OF IDEOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION
Religiously based social movements and SMOs such as the anti-abortion movement or
Promise Keepers are in many ways similar to secular ones. We live in a society in which
all organizations tend to take similar forms – driven largely by the regulation of tax laws,
accounting practices, and the standard corporate model of governance by boards of
directors. Yet religion has distinctive contributions to make, both organizationally and
rhetorically. And it presents distinctive challenges as well, both as a basis for organizing
and as a motivating force for mobilizing action.
As discussed in the first section of this chapter, religion is a great provider of the
rhetoric and symbols that a social movement needs both to attract members and to
persuade the public. It is important to recognize, however, that the same religious
language cannot necessarily perform both tasks. Ironically, the religious language that
best mobilizes church members is often that which is most likely to raise the suspicions
of the public at large, while the language most accommodating to public sensibilities
is least likely to mobilize the faithful.
Religion offers, as noted, a moral language of good and evil that clearly divides the
sides of any given issue into those who are on the side of light versus those who are not –
this can produce both passion and perseverance in collective action. Furthermore, this
kind of moral and religious language is clearly and easily understood by large portions of
the American people as a way of understanding our public life. Not only are Americans
generally religious as a people but also religion has a deep public cultural legitimacy.
Americans generally think of their society as one that has a responsibility to be moral –
in its domestic policy and in its dealings with the world. Our national “civil religious”
(^3) A promising area for research would be to look at the effect of the Internet on movement
activity. While it is certainly a good system for connecting activists across vast areas, I suspect
that the individualized nature of participation siphons off some of the ability of groups to
generate collective action. Individuals may find comfort and solidarity in chat rooms, but
movement groups may well be hamstrung by that dynamic. And the temptation for every
webmaster to form his or her own organization may splinter movements beyond effectiveness.