Social scientists have long analyzed how change in society happens ; the dynamics are complex and multifaceted . Sometimes individuals coalesce into groups with a common cause and identity and collectively work to bring change to society . These movements can be as large as the American Civil Rights Movement or smaller and more localized , such as efforts to bring economic opportunities to a neighborhood . Some are impactful , while some fizzle . Movements change and often beget other movements . Many of us have participated in at least one social movement . We have sensed that what we are doing is important and will improve our common life — and that we can do more by working together than as individuals . We are better together .
But what mobilizes people to change a social condition or problem ? Certainly , emotion can energize , which is important , but it is not enough to sustain a movement , even though it might ignite one . Other elements also need to be present .
Stanford University sociologist Douglas McAdam identified five necessary ingredients for any movement for social change . None of them individually is enough to spark a movement . The stars must align in time and place .
Adverse social conditions
First , there must can be tolerated for decades be a grievance . ( for example , the health risks
of widespread tobacco use ). It is not until a condition is reframed as a problem that change can begin . We now see that there is a widespread problem with historic sacred places that are vulnerable because of declining congregations and the lack of resources they need to sustain aging buildings . This is not a new phenomenon but a condition that has been around for decades . As Bishop Jennifer Baskerville-Burrows described in her presentation at the Convening , many historic sacred places have been in a gradual , continuing process of decline and deterioration , but now the situation has reached a crisis point . Like the proverbial frog in the kettle , we can adapt to and even accept a reality without seeing it as a social problem . The Convening shone a bright , focused light on the issue , illustrating how much public good is lost when sacred places close and are razed or reused . But it is not enough to have a grievance , however compelling . The next steps are critical to move people beyond distress and regret .
This entails making the case , gathering data , framing the issue as a problem that we must address . The entire Convening , from invitations to prereading to presentations and breakout discussions , was all about this : framing a compelling argument and moral basis for acting . Even so , this only goes so far . Enlightening people and calling on moral reasoning does not necessarily mean that you will get them to act .
There also must be a sense of moral imperative — a growing sense of urgency that something must be done .
It can be a catastrophic event or an opening of possibility . This new reality creates a tipping point that unleashes frustration with a problem and translates into resolve to work to change it . In downtown Reading , Pennsylvania , the members of Christ Episcopal Church were facing the familiar challenges of many urban faith communities — an aging congregation , a clergy transition , and the lack of a clear sense of mission . In a video case study screened at the Convening , one congregational leader recalls being asked , “ What would happen if Christ Church Reading just closed ? Would it make a difference ? Would anyone care ?” These jarring questions were a game-changer for the congregation , which dramatically reoriented itself to engage more with its community and mobilize for the betterment of Reading .
A third essential ingredient is a shift in political opportunity , a “ sparking event ,” something that alters the status quo .
16 SACRED PLACES • WINTER 2025