3.1.2 Network and Movement Approaches

To perceive the movement and its parts from the point of view of organization theory requires models of still greater complexity than Mintzberg offers, like for example „network approaches” (Pröpper 1993: 295-343). Scharpf observed that institutional contexts may frustrate the pursuit of the goals (Pröpper 1993: 295-313). Accordingly, one may remark that parts of the movement appear limited, by interests of foreign Christian institutions who sponsor them, and unable to move as they would regard appropriate for their local situation. Individual core leaders can also follow their own interests at the expense of common goals. The various groups and their institutional means appear interdependent and limited by their ideological differences. The movement's culture appears differentiated and fragmented. Technical, material resources are limited, and sub-goals contradictory. The consensus appears only partial, temporary, in flux and at times even enforced by external pressure. Inter-organizational structures appear dynamic and not centrally determined. The interaction with and dependency on external entities limits internal homogeneity.

Godfroij (Pröpper 1993: 315-326) criticised organization theory for its blindness for the interdependency between organization and environment. Individual and collective actors need not act necessarily in a rational way, and can be conditioned by their environment. Culture presents itself as an inconsistent whole of views. Accordingly, certain aspects of the movement become plausible if relating them to the Christian and Jewish context of the movement. Implicit, not explicit goals contribute to making up the movement and its parts. Physical and social restrictions condition individual and collective actors, yet they again shape and reshape these conditions, or at least try to do so. Constructive communication, competition and strife contribute to the appearance of the movement.

Also Kastelein's ideas apply to the Israeli Messianic Jewish movement when he presupposes „multicentrality” (Pröpper 1993: 339-341). The movement obviously has more than one centre, each pursuing its own interests, and usually cooperating only if joining forces and resources does not endanger them. Individual and collective actors reveal a need for autonomy and insight into the reality that they constitute. Fragmented culture and social structure become perceivable by regarding their particular historic and economic horizon. Democratic and hierarchical processes are observable. Even the parts of the movement that contradict another and question each other's right of existence condition one another partially. Cultural specialisation, ecclesiastical versus synagogal, can alienate elements from another, as can charismatic and non-charismatic attitudes.

Viewing the movement as a sub-cultural social movement in terms of Duyvendak again views it too much in political terms (Duyvendak 1992: 24-25). In section 2.6.3 I explicated already that the movement is not a political movement but a religious movement. I will not repeat that here. However differentiated and limited these different organizational views may be, they all can contribute to their degree to a perception of the movement. Yet most of these theories imply a central governing body that at least attempts to steer the whole into a particular direction towards efficiency and effectivity regarding a particular output, which the movement does not have at all. To the researcher, such a cultural and social-structural centre appears absent in the movement. The movement appears organized partially. It embraces a considerable variety of organizations, if I may call churches and synagogues such. Yet the movement surely is not an organization in common terms.