.mwuwfimaficfliw an»
my». ‘

I 33

$5

I
w _ ,_ . ..
V! c
. t.

I
E l...
_

«cut.-

.
fir

. ‘ L
. ‘v'a.
. .

fr:

.iQKfl

93%“?

a? r . . I i.
YbfimWNrfln- saw}... Nut
, EH13 VI. .33..

5..

. , m J?

.. r ,1. ;
Zmafi:flam. 4
. . Liking .
0| . 5.01.1- 0.5. t .

La¥‘..m.bmfla +3?
i .1- ov '5.
in 1 a q

.. mmtwéfl

 

.§..

 

 

unmr

.4...

(K.
\I1|-.}...‘~
‘ , 9
_ :uufi...»\

I...

_ rm.

 

THESE

r)

ZLCl

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF CHURCH MEMBERS
presented by
Thomas M. Bulten
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

M.A. degree in Geography/Urban Affairs

 

 

ajor profe r

Date August 18, 2000

 

0—7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State

University

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

Al

 

 

 

U

Q) 65 gnsnr:

 

IUUJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

moo mm.”

COI. I'JI

COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF CHURCH MEMBERS
By

Thomas M. Bulten

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of ‘

MASTER’S OF ARTS

Department of Geography
and
Urban Affairs Programs

2000

C
09.19.“

her RI
pr .ela‘
beCX'rr‘ J:
an fit.)

It mg
1811‘ <
e m
X3 .0
an min
a 6 th e
n:

0ft
E
Side

ABSTRACT
COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTIAL LOCATION OF CHURCH MEMBERS
By

Thomas M. Bulten

Rapidly changing urban form and concepts of community have obscured
the relationship between physical distance and social distance—residential
proximity and community social capital. The interplay of these factors has
bearing on the development of communities and the ability of faith-based
institutions to facilitate community development in urban settings. This study
examines the relationship between the physical dispersion of church members
and the strength of the social bonds in the congregation. Church congregations
are considered communities of interest comprised of memberships with degrees
of residential dispersion or concentration. These residential patterns are
quantified. In addition, the study assesses the sense of community or social
capital present in congregations. Residential proximity is found to have little
impact on the ability of a congregation to create social capital. Several other
socio-spatial relationships are examined. Understanding these relationships can
contribute to the use of social capital as an asset in developing livable urban
places. The study speculates on the implications of residential patterns and

social capital for community development.

This (0;

This work is dedicated to the people of Ukuru County in Uganda who walk many
miles to participate in interest groups of their choosing.

The I
CL‘W’IDELIUO"
of a just an:
my expiora:
DI June It
community
Dmiect Is hi

Support of l

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges the encouragement and helpful
contributions of Dr. Assefa Mehretu. His guidance in thinking about the creation
of a just and positive society was stimulating. He provided valuable direction in
my exploration of the Spatiality of social life. I also thank Dr. John Schweitzer and
Dr. June Thomas for their contributions regarding social capital, sense of
community and faith-based institutions in neighborhoods. Their support of this
project is highly valued. Finally, I acknowledge the patient encouragement and

support of Lisa Bulten.

List of Tab'
List of FIG-
lnerG'UChc
Chapter I

C“- n
age 2

C
heater 5

C.
hapter 7

Cha
‘ Dter E

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... vii
List of Figures .................................................................................................... viii
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1: Faith-Based Institutions and Development ......................................... 7
Chapter 2: Community in Postmodern Society ...................... . ............................. 16
Chapter 3: Social Capital and Sense of Community .......................................... 26
Chapter 4: Urban Form and Social Practice ....................................................... 36
Chapter 5: Building Community: A Congregational Opportunity ......................... 46
Just Social Order .......................................................................... 47

Diversity ....................................................................................... 48

Territoriality ................................................................................... 52

Church Congregations and Community-Building Strategies ......... 56

Chapter 6: Space and Social Interaction ............................................................ 58
Theory of Urbanization ................................................................. 60

Distance Decay Model and Central Place Theory ......................... 61

Social Distance Theory ................................................................. 63

Social Impact Theory .................................................................... 65

Social Network Analysis ............................................................... 66

Chapter 7: Theory, Methodology and Data Collection ........................................ 70
Preliminary Data ........................................................................... 71
Congregational Spatial Organization ............................................ 74
Demographic Variables ................................................................ 77
Congregational Social Capital ...................................................... 78

Chapter 8: Analysis of Spatial and Social Data .................................................. 80
Congregational Character ............................................................. 80
Congregational Spatial Organization ....................................... 8O

Demographic Variables ........................................................... 85

Congregational Social Capital ................................................. 86

Variable Correlations .................................................................... 88

Multiple Regression Models .......................................................... 91

Theoretical Regression on Social Capital ................................ 91

Assumptions of Multiple Regression ........................................ 94

Regression of Principal Components on Social Capital ......... 100

V

Chapter
Chapter

Appendi

Append;

Appendx
ADpendix
Appendix
Appendix

Interpretation of Social Capital Multiple Regression Models.. 102

Theoretical Regression on Neighborhood Interest ................ 104

A Socio-spatial Typology of Congregations ................................ 106

Chapter 9: The Socio-spatiality of Congregations ............................................ 115
Chapter 10: Conclusions .................................................................................. 121
Appendix A: Variables in the Study .................................................................. 135
Spatial Variables: ........................................................................ 135

Social Capital or Sense of Community Variables: ....................... 135

Other Congregational Variables: ................................................. 135

Church Building Neighborhood Variables: .................................. 136
Congregation Neighborhood Variables: ...................................... 137

Social Distance between Congregation and Church: .................. 137

Appendix B: Sense of Community Survey ........................................................ 138
Appendix C: Correlation Matrix ......................................................................... 141
Appendix D: Congregational Clustering: Cluster Tree ...................................... 143
Appendix E: Congregational Clustering: Cluster Statistics ............................... 144
Appendix F: Congregational Clustering: Cluster Diagrams .............................. 145
References ....................................................................................................... 146

vi

 

Table 1' Su
Table 2; 0L
Table 3: Cc
Table 4 R:
Table 5: 0L
Table 6. 0L
Table 7: Rc

Table 8_ Pc

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of Selected Congregation Statistics ..................................... 86
Table 2: Output of Theoretical Regression on Social Capital ............................. 93
Table 3: Correlation Coefficients for Independent Variables and Residuals ....... 96

Table 4: Rotated Loading Matrix of Principal Components for Regression ....... 101

Table 5: Output of Principal Components Regression on Social Capital .......... 102
Table 6: Output of Theoretical Regression on Neighborhood Interest .............. 105
Table 7: Rotated Loading Matrix for Principal Components Analysis ............... 107

Table 8: Potential for Congregation to Facilitate Community Development ...... 112

vii

 

Figure 1' LII
Figure2 C?
Figure 3' 8;
Figure 4 5.
Figure 5. St
Figure 5 8:
Figure 7 A:
Figure 8 P
Figure 9 H
Flgure 10 I
Figure 11; :
Figure 12: :

Figme 13; 1

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Linkages lntemal and External to Groups and Neighborhoods ........... 28
Figure 2: Christian Reformed Churches in Grand Rapids, MI ............................ 73
Figure 3: Spatial Bias in Address-Matching by Zip Code ................................... 76
Figure 4: Selected Concentrated Congregations ............................................... 83
Figure 5: Selected Dispersed Congregation ...................................................... 84

Figure 6: Scatterplots of Independent Variables against Dependent Variable... 95

Figure 7: Added-Variable Plot for MEDPOPPSQMI and SOCINDEX ................. 95
Figure 8: Plot of Residuals against Estimates of Dependent Variable ................ 96
Figure 9: Histogram of Residuals ....................................................................... 97
Figure 10: Probability Plot of Residuals ............................................................. 98
Figure 11: Social Capital Regression Residuals ................................................ 99
Figure 12: Socio-spatial Congregation Types .................................................. 111
Figure 13: Congregations Clustered by Outreach Potential ............................. 114

viii

 

 

 

'The n

Corr
meaning ol
Diayed by r
5008‘“); an-
SF‘ECIfic Cc
Church co
Mlchigan
CongIEga

EXDICIES

INTRODUCTION

“The man who lives in a small community lives in a much larger world.”
G.K. Chesterton, 1919

Community is an important but elusive concept. This study explores the
meaning of community in a postmodern world. It recognizes the pivotal role
played by community as the “meeting place of the individual and the larger
society and culture” (Warren, 1978, p. 21). The study examines characteristics of
specific communities of interest in a metropolitan setting. These communities are
church congregations of the Christian Reformed denomination in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. A particular focus is on the ability of social groups such as
congregations to be cohesive communities of interest. More abstractly, the study
explores the relationship between physical space and social relations. The study
also addresses the capacity of congregations to engage their world, especially
their own neighborhoods, promoting community development in a disintegrating
social environment.

A socio—spatial examination of church congregations can make important
academic and practical contributions. Faith-based institutions are especially
valuable as repositories of social capital that could facilitate neighborhood
development and social change (Pacione, 1989). From a geographic perspective
faith-based institutions are a worthy object of study because of their “socio-
environmental impact” (Levine, 1986, p. 435). Levine calls religious institutions
“world-founding” because they “grapple overtly with the profound desire to
comprehend the significance of life” (p. 434-435).

1

   

organizatrci‘
spatial orgai
of the mere:
congregate
GGVelopmec
facilitate I10."

The c

 

Community.

0998}. Were.—
bonds OI Corr
mobility and ‘
indIll/ldual life
CommUOIIiES
literature OIte
alRObIRSOn‘ .
DIOIeSSOr of s
more as $00.;
$0an orgamz
Seem to have
an Urban-Iling

As social and moral entities, faith-based institutions play a key role in
urban society. However, this role is circumscribed by the socio-spatial
organization of the institution. A primary purpose of this study is to compare the
spatial organization of church congregations, especially the spatial concentration
of the members, with the social capital or sense of community in the
congregation. Assuming this social capital can be instrumental in community
development, the study then speculates on the ability of congregations to
facilitate human, social, and especially community development in urban space.

The community literature has attempted to clarify the meaning of the term
community. Reviews of the concept are available in Chaskin (1998), Morris
(1998), Wellman & Leighton (1979) and Effrat (1974). In summary, the social
bonds of community in Cities were once embodied in ethnic neighborhoods. As
mobility and prosperity increased, ethnic neighborhoods became less central to
individual life worlds. Urban residents became free to choose from a hierarchy of
communities with fewer spatial constraints. The community development
literature often relies on spatially defined communities (see Christenson, Fendley
& Robinson, 1989). However, Amitai Etzioni (1998), a communitarian and
professor of socio-economics at George Washington University, sees community
more as social relations than as spatial ones. Church congregations and other
social organizations and networks, once defined by ethnicity and neighborhood,
seem to have transcended space. A collage of modern communities is now set in
an urbanizing environment characterized by fragmentation. However,

communities—including faith communities—still exist in space, act in space and

are acted
oommunrt:
Mcr
to Include l
In the Untr
supportive
the restzes:
forces Of SL
lower dens.
the apparer
l998). The
evolving Ul't
forms of 50C
Space In the
the cream”

are acted upon by space. Understanding the evolving spatial nature of
communities is an important component of community and urban development.

Models of urban form have evolved from Burgess’ simple concentric rings
to include a variety of sectors, spokes, ghettos and nuclei. Pre—World War II cities
in the United States were populated by immigrants that congregated in
supportive ethnic enclaves or neighborhoods. Transportation technologies and
the restlessness of capital have made cities increasingly mobile and fluid. The
forces of suburbanization have scattered urban residents across larger regions at
lower densities. A postmodern urbanism recently has been theorized to explain
the apparent fragmentation and disintegration of the urban place (Dear & Flusty,
1998). The community as a social structure has been profoundly impacted by
evolving urbanization. In addition, changing concepts of community produce new
forms of social and spatial organization. A better understanding of the role of
space in the formation of strong communities can have important implications for
the creation of social capital, the promotion of social change and the
development of vibrant, sustainable urban places.

More abstractly, physical space and social interaction are reciprocally
related as noted by geographers (e.g. Harvey, 1973, p. 26, Knox, 1994, p. 199,
Ley, 1983, p. 184). Studies by sociologists, social psychologists and geographers
seem to verify that “distance matters” in social groups or communities (Latané,
Liu, Nowak, Bonevento, Zheng, 1995; Ley, 1983; Wellman, 1996). Evidence

suggests that social ties are stronger between spatially proximate individuals.

AfthOLgi‘
they haw
Tr
literatu'e
Interact}:
distance I.
Social im;
Impact of
physrca: d
the role of
This
Congregarr
Cong-Vegan
gather at a
the Strange
suggests th.
dISpeston C
The Study he
has a h‘TQI‘ler
mnm’ly In F

Stu
dy “moth,

membe’s IDh'

r _
‘SOCI
6’ ”0er

Although geographers are particularly well equipped to conduct spatial analyses,
they have made few contributions to this literature in recent years.

This study draws on theory from a variety of disciplines and bodies of
literature. Geographic distance decay or gravity models help explain spatial
interaction and the creation of central places. The sociological concept of social
distance is usually measured in relation to comfort levels of spatial distance.
Social impact theory, developed by a social psychologist, suggests that the
impact of individuals on each other is a function of three terms, one of which is
physical distance. Finally, social network analyses have included some studies of
the role of space in networks.

This study investigates social relations in space by examining church
congregations as communities of interest in an urban environment.
Congregations are considered social organizations of members that regularly
gather at a specific location (typically a church building). The research examines
the strength of each church congregation as a social network. Broadly, the study
suggests that the physical parameters of a church congregation, especially the
dispersion of its members, impact its ability to mobilize and expend social capital.
The study tests the hypothesis that a more spatially concentrated congregation
has a higher sense of community because of the importance of physical
proximity in promoting social contact, interactions and bonds. In other words, the
study hypothesizes that decreased residential distance between congregation
members (physical proximity) is associated with increased “sense of community”

(social proximity) in the congregation.

Th
analyses
These ty:
ofchurch

F In
Community
indicator 0
SOCIaI Capr
A 9an
develoDIng
meaSUres t

and In QUfrE
WQYEQaIic
”EIthorhoc
are WEak an

The s
0mg'regatlor
space and Sc
he

tell to human
Community In

CODCthS Of Sc

The study uses several variables in principal components and cluster
analyses to construct broad typologies of congregations in a metropolitan area.
These typologies contribute to an understanding of the socio-spatial organization
of church congregations in and around Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Finally, the study is interested in the implications of spatial dispersion for
community development. In this study, sense of community is considered an
indicator of the presence of productive social capital. The study assumes that
social capital can be used by organizations to promote change in urban settings.
A growing literature argues the importance of networks and social capital in
developing civic society (Putnam, 1993, 1995). The study includes data that
measures the amount of interest the congregation has in its local neighborhood
and in outreach more generally. Of particular interest is the potential of
congregations to facilitate development in divested and distressed urban
neighborhoods. The construct validity and the data for this portion of the study
are weak and the results should be considered exploratory and speculative.

The study organization progresses from specific arguments about church
congregations and community formation to more general abstractions regarding
space and society. The review begins by addressing the capacities of faith-based
institutions in general and churches in particular to facilitate human and
community development. Because community, as both an end and a means, is
key to human and social development, the interwoven meanings and scales of
community in postmodern society are analyzed in chapter 2. The related

concepts of social capital and sense of community are discussed in chapter 3.

 

 

.1

 

The review
setting forc
concludes
and lnteg'g
C32 and st
diversrty a

CF.
Space an:
examma:
mSIOOdQI

Chemist ‘.

i‘l'aor'ne
analysis
ge“e?az

spatial:

The review expands in SCOpe by describing the postmodern urban place as the
setting for contemporary social practice in chapter 4. This portion of the study
concludes with a normative review of community-building. Chapter 5 summarizes
and integrates the previous chapters by suggesting that church congregations
can and should develop communities that promote a just social order with
diversity and territoriality.

Chapter 6 reflects more abstractly on the relationship between physical
space and social interaction. This theoretical review transitions the study into an
examination of congregational social capital and Spatial organization. A
methodology is presented for the exploration of social interaction in space in
chapter 7. The results of spatial manipulation and statistical tests are reported in
chapter 8. Correlation and multiple regression are used to test specific
hypotheses. Conclusions are drawn where statistically appropriate. Cluster
analysis uses congregation characteristics to categorize congregations into
general types. Finally, chapters 9 and 10 draw conclusions about the socio-

spatiality of church congregations and community development.

 

As I
institutions
based inst;
they conta
co‘glegati
Pieces whe
ngntly WOV
Charadeliz
them, Daftrc
Environme.
especially 1
mleaIEn Cl“.

Pom
and thSIQ

Chapter 1

FAITH-BASED INSTITUTIONS AND DEVELOPMENT

As social and moral institutions, churches and other faith-based
institutions‘ can and should be instrumental in transforming urban society. Faith-
based institutions exist as collective pursuits of religious understanding. As such
they contain both social and Spiritual facets. Ammerrnan (1997) calls
congregations “social collectivities no less than—indeed perhaps more than—
places where ideological work is done” (p. 57).2 In addition, congregations are
tightly woven into the social fabric of urban space. This multi-faceted
characterization of congregations as physical, social and spiritual entities gives
them particular transformational power. As key components of the social
environment, congregations play an important role in social development. This is
especially true where relationships have disintegrated and social problems
threaten civil society.

Portions of urban America are severely distressed—socially, economically
and physically.3 Pacione (1989) argues that the church (or, what he calls, the

ecclesiastical community of interest) can be a “vehicle to challenge the moral

 

' While the ideas here apply to most religious faiths and faith-based
institutions, this study focuses on church congregations, especially those of the
Christian Reformed Church denomination in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The study
will typically use church to mean either the Christian faith in general or an
individual church building and congregation to refer to a specific group of church
members.

2 The concept of church congregations as communities is discussed further in
chapter 2
3 See chapter 4 on Urban Form and Social Practice.

7

phéosoph,
(p. 194) A:
urban pro:

institutions

 

For :
bree
justr
esch
OISDE
not C

 

 

CIIUICI'I con
urban $04238
ThEy
because of
Secretary 0
reasons the
' F

' C
' F
F

o
Similarly T
idemogy air
to be insim

The

IOTCe IOr so

philosophy of capitalism and promote the interests of the urban disadvantaged“
(p. 194). According to Green (1996a), the disharmony between the existence of
urban problems and strongly held spiritual ideology compels faith-based
institutions to engage in developmental activities:
For churches with a theological mandate to seek the peace of the city, to
break down the dividing walls of hostility, to create communities of love,
justice, and hope that anticipate—even in fragmentary parable—the
eschatological divine commonwealth, this local and global paradigm of
disparity, suffering, and injustice is an unavoidable context of all ministry,
not only urban ministry (p. 9-10).
Church congregations have both the mandate and the opportunity to respond to
urban social problems.
They are particularly well equipped to promote community development‘
because of their unique ideological and physical characteristics. Former
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Henry Cisneros (1996) cites four

reasons that faith-based institutions (or, what he calls, faith communities) are

able to promote development:

Faith communities are still there [in central city neighborhoods]
Community is central to the mission of charity

Faith communities have unique resources

Faith communities touch the soul

Similarly, Thomas and Blake (1996) suggest that the presence, the values and
ideology and the “ready-made leadership” of faith-based institutions equip them
to be instrumental in developing communities.

The ideological foundation of faith-based institutions provides a powerful

force for social and spatial transformation (Bjorklund, 1964; Cisneros, 1996,

Levrne 15
based ins
asocety

Reformed
work” (p I
Centuryfor
that pr0pni
fundamen:
care. servm
all of these

517),

Levine, 1986; Pacione, 1989; Ramsay, 1998). This foundation enables the faith-
based institution to insert sets of ideals and beliefs into the routine interactions of
a society. For example, Bjorklund (1964) argues that ideologies of the Christian
Reformed denomination such as “obligation to perform both physical and spiritual
work” (p. 230) and “individual responsibility” (p. 231) played a role in the 19th
century formation of settlements near Grand Rapids. Cornell West ‘believeisj
that prophetic Churches, prophetic mosques, prophetic synagogues can all play a
fundamental role in nurturing children by transmitting non-market values...love,
care, service to others, sacrifice, risk, community, struggles for justice, solidarity,
all of these are non-market values against a market culture“ (Ramsay, 1998, p.
617).

Faith-based institutions can also hold tenets that discourage engagement
with society. The Christian Reformed denomination, for example, has a long
history of isolation (Bjorklund, 1964; Snapper, 1980). Snapper describes its
separating itself from surrounding institutions for the sake of theological purity
and orthodoxy. Ideological outsiders were also spatial outsiders through the
creation of what Bjorklund identifies as “church-centered communities” (p. 237)
where “outsiders have little place. ..since they do not belong to the institutions
around which life revolves” (p. 231). To maintain its authenticity, the
denomination established its own educational system that includes day schools
and Calvin College in Grand Rapids. Even 20th century evangelistic efforts were

marked by spatial separation. Instead of inviting converts into existing churches,

 

‘ By development I mean more an improvement in the human and social

the denOr

 

 

of new be
Ho.
being part.
denomina:.
PUbIICatIOR
Ullfoldrng a

Weekly deni

 

activist Eva
fundal'l‘lenta
tranSIOIW-afi
1950 to a g,
the denomsr
sustainabje
CapaCnY‘bUI
DiesenCe at
conferenCe
blien SUbSta

M0re

”Eighbomw

Church 300”

the denomination established spatially separate “gospel halls” for congregations
of new believers (Snapper, 1980).

However, the Calvinist theology of the denomination can be interpreted as
being particularly transformational. A recent doctrinal statement of the
denomination suggests members should “do God’s work in his world” (CRC
Publications, 1989, p. 955) and proclaims that “God uses our skills in the
unfolding and well-being of his world” (p. 956). John Suk (1999), editor of the bi-
weekly denominational publication, describes the denomination as "thoughtful,
activist Evangelicalism". He notes that Christian Reformed theology is both
fundamentalist (ideologically rooted in scripture) and liberal (socially active and
transformational). Snapper (1980) documents a denominational shift around
1950 to a greater willingness to engage the world. A good example of this lies in
the denomination’s international development agency which facilitates
sustainable development based on indigenous organizational development and
capacity-building in dozens of countries worldwide. The Christian Reformed
presence at the annual Christian Community Development Association
conference, which attracts thousands of participants from around the nation, has
been substantial in recent years.

More specifically, Baker (1995) finds that members of nine urban Christian
Reformed congregations in Grand Rapids are open to interaction with their
neighborhoods. For example, 63 percent of members surveyed believes their

”church should be [racially] integrated” (p. 48). In addition, a large majority (83

 

condition and less the construction of the built environment.

10

\ .-
peroent; :

 

opportun:

 

percent 56
also finds ‘.
about its r.
seems to h

the Urban p

 

The
landscape, ,
O(li'ISI-trEggario
IIIS Church I
Provides a p
the DUblIc 3;
Church Cong
Chum build
ire congress
the Common

realwond br

conseWatrve

I .
he only ”ism

l .
Amme'man

percent) sees “racial differences between the church and neighbors as an
opportunity to learn from the neighbors about racial sensitivity” while only 47
percent sees these differences as a barrier to outreach (p. 47). Baker’s survey
also finds that 72 percent of members surveyed believes “[m]y church cares
about its neighbors” (p. 48). Despite an isolationist past, this denomination
seems to hold religious ideologies that cam motivate urban residents to address
the urban problems surrounding them.

The church congregation typically has a physical presence on the
landscape, another potentially valuable community development asset. A church
congregation is a private interest group (a social network) with a public presence
(its church building). Unlike many other social networks, its public presence
provides a potential conduit for the flow of resources from the private sphere to
the public sphere. This public presentation of private resources enables the
church congregation to facilitate urban development. Ammerman (1997) calls
church buildings both “resource and artifact” and she notes that “[tlhey provide
the congregation with the ability to carry on certain activities, to be a presence in
the community. (p. 336). Because of its foundational ideology, and its physical
rootedness, the congregation is able to interject its moral and physical assets into
real-world problems and neighborhoods.

As an agent of urban development, the faith-based institution can be both
conservative and transformational. Churches are central institutions, sometimes
the only institutions, in a neighborhood and are “anchors for community”

(Ammerman, 1997, p. 36; Twombly & De VIta, 1998; Ramsay, 1998). Their

11

 

presence

 

 

 

Uansrtlon '
neigthrr
In a
trans‘orma
1998). Soc
for the {XOR
CthCh~bas
to mobilize
Change.
Whil
institutions
aSSOCiation

presence can slow the flight of both residents and capital from marginal or
transitioning neighborhoods. In this way they preserve the vitality of a
neighborhood facing decline.

In addition, community organizing activists are tapping into the
transformational power of the religious presence (Warren, 1998; Wood, 1997,
1998). Social organizations imbued with moral values have proven fertile settings
for the projection of political power on behalf of disenfranchised people. The
church-based community organizing movement is realizing the ability of churches
to mobilize resources and convert them into political power that promotes
change.

While many congregations adopt a service-provision model, faith-based
institutions have more to offer than social service agencies. As tightly knit
associations, faith-based institutions are able to promote the integrated, holistic
development necessary in urban areas (Thomas & Blake, 1996). Congregations
are repositories of substantial stores of information, technical knowledge and
expertise (Green, 1996b). These resources can be especially valuable in
divested urban neighborhoods.

The Spatiality of church congregations is of particular interest in this study.
The spatial organization of a congregation will likely influence both its own social
network and its ability to impact society. For example, in a series of self-
published monthly reflections about his community development efforts in
Atlanta, Dr. Robert Lupton (1999b) notes that both Judaic and Muslim theologies

promote spatially concentrated faith communities. Neighborhood development

12

IES'UIIS. ir
of worsh;
commcter
‘has been

together In

 

 

 

Should pror
<3ISDErsed c

(1999b) sta
Con".
Chub
that I
Deny
they
Conn
Churr
80d 5

results, in part, because members desire to live in close proximity to their place
of worship (1999b). Lupton (1999a) also describes the powerlessness of
commuter churches to transform urban neighborhoods. “Community,” he says,
“has been redefined as the interaction among commuters who participate
together in church activities”. While churches and other faith-based institutions
should promote social and neighborhood development and cohesion, spatially
dispersed congregations may actually contribute to fragmentation. Lupton

( 1999b) states:

Community disconnected from the places where people live is transitory;

church disconnected from the soil of neighborhood is impotent. Church

that extracts the best of its members’ time, talent and tithe out of their
neighborhoods rather than mobilizes members to invest their lives where
they live actually serves as the competitor to community life. The
commuter church may be successful as an institution but, unlike the parish
church, it no longer has the power to infuse neighborhoods with the moral
and spiritual glue needed to hold them together.

The subjects of this study are the 101 congregations of the Christian
Reformed Church in greater Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Christian Reformed
Church in North America was comprised of 285,864 members in 1997 (Office of
the General Secretary, 1997). The 101 congregations examined in this study
contained 52,166 or 18 percent of the North American members. This
denomination is the second largest in the greater Grand Rapids area with

approximately 13 percent of the area population and 19 percent of the area

religious population as members (Grand Rapids Area Center for Ecumenism,

13

1998) 5. I

 

. . I
ImmlgflIl:

Ar

   
   

denomina
percent 07'
wealthy an
survey res;
h0usehorc
httpill‘m.
percent of
OIIhe geni
education
ec“Ran r
the origins
not mam,“

Ba;
REIOrmEd
Wiser“ Of

1998) 5. This substantial presence in West Michigan is due largely to 19th century
immigration from the Netherlands (Bjorklund, 1964).

A recent survey (Rice & Annis, 1997) of 488 members shows that the
denomination has not strayed far from its northern European origins. Only one
percent of the members is a racial minority. The denomination is relatively
wealthy and well educated. The median household income for United States
survey respondents’ was $48,690 in 1996 compared to a national median
household income of $35,492 (U. S. Bureau of the Census,
http://www.census.gov/hhes/incomelincome96l in963um.html). Similarly, 65
percent of respondents has more than a high school education. Only 49 percent
of the general population greater than age 25 has more than a high school
education (U. S. Bureau of the Census, http://www.bls.census.govlcpslpubl1997/
educ_att.htm). While the response rate for this survey was only 44.4 percent of
the original sample, casual observation suggests that these characterizations are
not inaccurate.

Baker (1995) documents substantial differences between nine Christian
Reformed churches and their urban neighborhoods in Grand Rapids. Only 20
percent of 277 congregation members surveyed live one mile or less from their

urban church. While 100 percent of the congregational respondents was

 

’ These data from an unpublished survey by the Grand Rapids Area Center for
Ecumenism (GRACE) coincide with those from a survey by The Grand Rapids
Press (Honey, 1999) of 800 West Michigan residents which finds that 16 percent
of the area population belongs to the Christian Reformed Church or the very
similar Reformed Church of America. Both the unpublished study by GRACE and
the survey by The Grand Rapids Press indicate that the Roman Catholic Church
is the largest denomination in Grand Rapids.

14

Caucase
Elsew‘ier
congrega
neighborr
Th1
oommunit.
entties, ti:
lays the IOi
distribution
add'esses
UanSl‘OFmat

Caucasian only 37 percent of 227 church neighbors surveyed was Caucasian.
Elsewhere in the Grand Rapids metropolitan area the Christian Reformed
congregations more closely reflect the economic and racial composition of the
neighborhood of the church.

The congregations in this study reside in communities, and they are
communities. To begin understanding the communal nature these socio-spatial
entities, the following chapter explores the concept of community. This review
lays the foundation for an analysis of the sense of community and the spatial
distribution of the members of the Christian Reformed churches. The study then
addresses the capacity of Christian Reformed congregations to be
transformational, especially by promoting community development in distressed

urban neighborhoods.

15

M:
understan
COHIUSIOR
communit
far as to de

moral Older

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wmmahgi
labels this n
meaning of
fac‘EIS and L
are to be bu
Ofcommumj

COmI

Redfieid (1

9

'Iamhlopolo

QSOQraphy OI

Chr'Slenson.

Within a g

Chapter 2

COMMUNITY IN POSTMODERN SOCIETY

Most of us value community; but it often eludes us. Indeed, defining it,
understanding it, and ultimately building or developing it is complicated. The
confusion grows as the concept of community evolves over time. Yet, living in
communities remains central to the human experience. Fischer (1975) goes so
far as to describe the discipline of sociology as, largely, a study of “How can the
moral order of society be maintained and the integration of its members achieved
within a highly differentiated and technological social structure?” (p. 67—68). He
labels this moral order Community. This chapter reviews and critiques the
meaning of community. It seeks to understand the interplay between different
facets and understandings of community, an important objective if communities
are to be built and strengthened. The chapter concludes that substantial features
of community are lost as the term is liberalized.

Communities have traditionally been defined by geography and ethnicity.
Redfield (1967a) describes these communities as distinctive, small,
homogeneous and self-sufficient (p. 4). Elsewhere, he notes that
'[a]nthropologists have seen the primitive isolated community as several kinds of
complete and self-contained systems” (1967b, p. 23). Many theorists still include
geography or locality in the definition of modern community. For example,
Christenson, Fendley and Robinson (1989) define community as “people that live

within a geographically bounded area who are involved in social interaction and

16

have one
they live'

Ho

 

Some cor.
definition I
less relevz
oommumt
1989. p, 8.
As
OO’Tilliunit}
‘ISIOClolog
QGOQraph"
35800330,
commUnit)
CIUstered-
My ID. 32)

one anorhe

have one or more psychological ties with each other and with the place in which
they live” (p. 9).

However, the geographic basis of community has been debated of late.
Some community theorists downplay the role of space in the formation and
definition of community. “...[Edward J.] Blakely...argues that place is becoming
less relevant, that it is being replaced by networks. People can form their own
community of interest independent of spatial boundaries” (Christenson et al.,
1989,p.8)

As contemporary society has grown in complexity, the meaning of
community has diversified and liberalized. Warren (1978) explains that
“[s]ociologically, the term community implies something both psychological and
geographical. Psychologically, it implies shared interests, Characteristics, or
association, as in the expression ‘community of interest’ or the term ‘the business
community.’ Geographically, it denotes a specific area where people are
clustered” (p. 5-6). Warren calls community shared values and a “shared way of
life” (p. 32). Similarly, Baker Brownell describes community as ”people who know
one another well’” (cited in Warren, 1970, p 15). Harold Kaufmann (1959),
searching for an adequate description of modern community, calls it an
“interactional arena.”

Jnanabrata Bhattacharyya ( 1995), a geographer and Director of the
Community Development Department at the Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale, suggests solidarity as one of the more simple but comprehensive

definitions of community. He says, “Defining community as solidarity, and

17

solidarity as deeply shared identity and code for conduct serves to bound the
concept in a distinctive and intrinsic manner” (p.61). This definition, while limiting
the concept, implies that community can be experienced in varying degrees.
Effrat (1974) calls community an ordinal variable. “This means”, she says, “that
instead of saying something either is a community or it isn’t, we can talk about
the degree to which something is a community. ‘Ordinal’ indicates that we can
have more or less ‘communityness’ in any given situation” (p. 21).

Among the most common indicators used to identify community are those
found in the 1955 study of 94 community definitions by George Hillary. He
discovered that social scientists describe community as area, common ties and
social interaction (Effrat, 1974). Willis (1977) revisited Hillary’s Definitions of
Community study and showed that social scientists still saw community as area,
common ties and social interaction. He found, however, a slight relative decrease
in the importance of social interaction to the definition of community.

Many theorists have specified community types and attached to them a
linear model of community change. Ferdinand TOnnies conceptualized types of
social organization as gemeinschaft and gesellchafi. Emile Durkheim used the
similar mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Robert Redfield distinguished
between folk society and urban society. While a strictly linear model of
community change is generally discounted today, these types and others help
one understand the form and character of contemporary social organization.

Wellman and Leighton’s (1979) review of community literature categorizes

several conceptions of community. Community lost researchers, echoing WIrth’s

18

  
 

1938 Ur:
indIVIdua
and Leg.t
presenting

Ot'
has not D
such as t

than tem-

1938 Urbanism as a Way of Life essay, suggest that fast-paced urban
individualism has rendered territorially-defined community irrelevant. Wellman
and Leighton point out that several studies have refuted this assertion,
presenting evidence that territorial urban or neighborhood communities still exist.

Others claim, according to Wellman and Leighton (1979), that community
has not been lost but rather liberated. Community, here, refers to interest groups,
such as bowling leagues, office friendships and professional affiliations rather
than territories. Social network analysis is a helpful tool for the study of liberated
community. These communities of interest, while still existing in space, have
become deterritorialized. The most absolute example of the liberated community
is the virtual community created over computer networks between people that
rarely if ever occupy the same physical space (Adams, 1998; Blanchard 8. Horan,
1998; Wellman et al., 1996). Wellman et al. (1996) call virtual communities “a
technologically supported continuation of a long-term shift to communities
organized by shared interests rather than by shared neighborhoods or kinship
groups (Fisher 1975; Wellman 1979, 1994)” (p. 224). They point out that the
virtual community may be more socially diverse than other communities because
it is “based more on shared interests and less on shared social characteristics”
(p. 231).

Between the poles of the neighborhood community and the liberated
community is the community of limited liability concept developed by Morris
Janowitz in 1952 (cited in Effrat, 1974). Limited liability community members

pledge only limited allegiance to their neighborhood and participate in a variety of

19

other communities as well. As individual prosperity and mobility have increased,
ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods have become less central to individual

life worlds. Urban residents have become free to participate in and spread their

allegiances among a variety of social groups and networks.

Knox (1994) echoes Wellman in summarizing the possible conceptions of
community as community lost, community saved, community transformed and
community commodified. Community lost suggests that the traditional holistic
community has been supplanted by atomistic individualism. Community saved—
the community of limited liability—asserts that community still exists with both
territorial and nonterritorial attributes. Community transformed seems to refer to
the new deterritorialized associations or networks formed by interest groups.
Finally, the commodified community is characterized and defined by conspicuous
consumption. To further clarify the terms, Knox (1994) presents a rough
hierarchy in which neighborhood refers to place, community refers to social
interaction and communality refers to community spirit. He notes that, “[l]ike
community. . .communality does not necessarily have to be based on territorial
cohesiveness” (p. 275).

Urbanization has been the backdrop of much of the community last
debate. However, Fischer (1975) contends little evidence exists that population
concentration (urbanization) produces the “alienation, disorganization, or apathy”
(p. 72) hypothesized by WIrth. Ammerman (1997) agrees that community has not
been “lost” in urban places. “Urban life,” she says,” is not best characterized by a

decline in the number and closeness of a person’s ties, but by the fact of their

20

chosenness and their embeddedness in a larger matrix of the very sorts of
segmented relationships that are indeed a new feature of life in modern cities” (p.
351).

Liberated communities and those of limited liability are characterized by
choice. They have emerged as a response to competing values of freedom and
cooperation. Berger (1988), for example, critiques the parochial nature of
community as solidarity, saying, “The history of liberation from the authority—
sometimes the tyranny—of communities is a great psychological adventure story”
(p. 326). Fukuyama (1999) acknowledges that modern individuals seem to want
both individuality and community. He suggests that people may be able to
‘reconcile [these] contradictory desires” by engaging in “smaller, more flexible
groups and organizations whose loyalties and membership can overlap.” “Each
community,” says Fukuyama, “shares less with neighboring ones, and has
relatively little hold on its members.” He calls this shift the “rise of moral
individualism and the consequent miniaturization of community” (p. 72, see also
Wellman et al., 1996, p. 232).

Sociologist, Amitai Etzioni (1993) says that “...communities are best
viewed as if they were Chinese nesting boxes, in which less encompassing
communities (families, neighborhoods) are nestled within more encompassing
ones (local villages, towns). . .. Moreover, there is room for nongeographic
communities that crisscross the others, such as professional or work-based
communities” (p. 32). Individuals are now able to join communities that suit their

interests with little regard for spatial constraints. In addition, more intimate,

21

 

 

needs to

A:
lateraiize
interplay
'the ”MK

cohesive communities can be nested inside communities of less relevance or
solidarity. Each community is limited in scope, meeting only a portion of one’s
needs for communal living.

Aginsky (1952) calls these nonterritorial or spatially liberated communities
lateralizations. His study of “California Town” illuminates the coexistence and
interplay of spatial and nonspatial communities. “We might define,” he says,
“the modern American community of California Town as being the nexus of plural
lateralizations” (p. 129). He suggests that

the American community should no longer be considered as an integrated

population confined to a definite geographic locus with its members having

a majority of like interests in common. Rather, with increasing rapidity the

various lateralizations having membership beyond the local community

and in the majority of cases being headquartered in distant places have

much influence upon some portion of the local population. (p. 131)
Aginsky continues by reflecting on the ramifications for community development:

Recognition of the two groupings—the locus community and the

lateralization—is important. Any plan for community development which

does not include the problem of integrating into a functioning
interrelationship these two types of participation is omitting one of the

most important aspects of the American community. (p. 131)

In addition to growing more specialized, communities increasingly are built
on an economic foundation rather than a social or geographic one. Material
consumption has become the basis for the formation of both social networks and
physical space. Knox sees the development of “landscapes of conspicuous
consumption” (1993, p. 26) and “commodified” communities (1994). He calls
shopping, the search for and purchase of goods, a “framework around which

increasing numbers of people structure their lives” (1993, p. 26). The pursuit of

leisure, amusement and entertainment has become a primary objective of life as

22

  
  
  

the cap:
the cons
competit
and other

An
communltj
options tr
communit:
about a Q:
”1le is wl
Example. .'

Unl

mmmltrne

the capitalist system enhances productivity and frees individuals from many of
the constraints of labor. Communal and cooperative relations are replaced by
competitive ones as neighborhood and community members compete for jobs
and other resources (Gottdiener, 1985, p. 210).

An individual’s role as a consumer of goods and services, including
community, has come to dominate his or her daily life. Choosing from a menu of
options, the individual makes utilitarian decisions about participation in
communities. Community consumers base these decisions on their knowledge
about a community’s ability to meet needs and provide benefits. This perceived
utility is what compels individuals to travel long distances to be members of, for
example, a church congregation that they value.

Unfortunately, the impulse to accumulate and consume corrupts
commitment to individuals (see Schaal, 1970) and places. Social space
surrenders to economic space (Friedmann, 1988), and a “balanced community
life” is threatened (Gottdiener, 1985, p. 291). In a barrio economy, for example,
Friedmann hypothesizes an inverse relationship between employment and
productivity in the exchange economy and “investment of...resources in the
tenitorial community of the barrio”(p. 119). Needs are increasingly met in the
marketplace rather than in communities. The disintegration of life spaces
(Friedmann, 1988, p. 79) has rendered churches, for example, spatially irrelevant
as their functions are appropriated by marketplace actors. The use of utility
economics in social decision-making promotes spatial separation and

segregation. In particular, it marginalizes low-income individuals. “Andrew Mair

23

 

totallzatlc
'...[N]otr
social reia
contempor
imoerative
communltle

The

 

pOStmOderr
lVElevant. V
no longer b,
Shared lntEr
Unable to Sp
Communities

associatmns

(1986) has argued that the nature of the post-industrial city, with its emphasis on
materialism, demands the invisibility—through displacement, removal, exclusion
or segregation—of the homeless and the poor" (Knox, 1993, p. 28).

The domination of daily life by economic decision making is, in part, the
totalization of capital to which Harvey (1987) refers when he exclaims,
“...[N]othing appears more “totalizing’ to me than the penetration of capitalist
social relations and the commodity calculus into every niche and cranny of
contemporary life” (p. 374). Apparently, the totalization of capital and the
imperative of choice have displaced the integrated holism of territorial
communities.

The voluntary, fluid, fragmented, overlapping and exclusive nature of
postmodern communities of interest leaves them degraded and spatially
irrelevant. When the geographic rootedness of a social group decays, space can
no longer be used as a bonding or organizing asset. lt no longer is a feature of
shared interest or concern. In addition, nonterritorial communities of interest are
unable to speak to or act upon neighborhood-scale spatial concerns. While
communities of interest are of value, they are more appropriately called
associations or networks. The label community should be reserved for a social
organization that holistically retains both geographic proximity and
“interdependent relationships” (Lupton, 1993, p. 30). According to Effrat (1974),
“[Fjull-scale community studies people have suggested that the limited liability
community is only an anachronism, a remnant of a once strong and full

community now in the process of disintegration” (p. 18). It is a strong, inclusive

24

   
    

and con
mane;
Congreg
commur
liberalize:
interest to
and COW:

Th
the asset
in this st;
in promc
Capital a

mitesw.

and comprehensive community that is equipped to promote human development
in a neighborhood setting. (See chapter 5, Building Community: A
Congregational Opportunity, for a more thorough description of this type of
community.) Limiting the use of the term community is difficult in light of its
liberalization in the literature. Therefore, this study uses the phrase community of
interest to denote the specialized associations that are differentiated from holistic
and comprehensive communities of territory.

This chapter has reviewed the evolution of community. It began to address
the association between space and communities of interest. Especially important
in this study is the cohesiveness of communities of interest and the role of space
in promoting or weakening that cohesiveness. The next chapter reviews social
capital and sense of community as conceptual indicators of community

cohesiveness and as potential assets for neighborhood development.

25

S:

 

f0
{(30li

th
.e rela'
tiO

Ca _
Mal is

Chapter 3

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY

Social capital is both an indicator of community strength and a resource
for community development. Social capital is a productive “asset” that exists in
the relationships between people (Coleman, cited in Greeley, 1997; Putnam,
1993, 1995). Social capital describes those features of relationships such as trust
or expectations of returned favors that produce benefits for participants. Putnam
(1993) calls it ”features of social organization, such as networks, norms, and
trust, that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit”. Similarly,
Portes (1998) concludes that the term refers to “the ability of actors to secure
benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social structures” (p.
6). Adler and Kwon (1999) focus less on internal benefits and more on collective
action calling social capital “the features of social structure that facilitate action”.

Concern has been expressed about the imprecision of the term social
capital and its use as a concept (Greeley, 1997; Newton, 1997; Portes, 1998).
Therefore, it is important to distinguish between social capital as a resource and
the social interactions in which the resource resides and is developed. Social
capital is useful conceptually because it explicitly acknowledges resources
available in and the transformational power of social networks and communities.
The benefits of community participation can be tangible or psychological. Social
capital is capable of generating valued goods and services for its holders. Like

financial or physical capital, social capital can be accumulated, drawn-down,

26

expended or invested. However, unlike other forms of capital it increases when
used (Putnam, 1993).

Adler and Kwon (1999) note that definitions of social capital can be
categorized by whether they concentrate on the internal or the external
relationships of an actor. The internal orientation describes the relationships
between members of a group and, in particular, focuses on the “features [of the
group]...which facilitate the pursuit of collective goals”. Social capital can both
improve the collective efficacy of a group and be valuable to members as they
receive benefits from the relationships in which they are engaged. A focus on
external relationships considers the resources available to an individual or
collective actor as a result of the actor‘s relationships with others. Figure 1
contains a diagram of dense linkages within social groups or congregations and
less dense ties between individuals inside and outside of social groups and

neighborhoods.

27

   

Geographic
Neighborhood

  
  
 

Social Group or
Congregation

 

Linkages

Figure 1: Linkages Internal and External to Groups and Neighborhoods

Perhaps most helpful is a combination of the two perspectives, since, as
Adler and Kwon (1999) note, “[a] collective actor such as a firm is influenced both
by its external linkages to other firms and institutions and by the fabric of its
internal linkages...” The relationship between the composition of a group and its
linkages with outside entities is of particular interest in this study.

For example, high levels of social capital within a group could correspond
to an insular organization with few outside linkages. Some evidence suggests
social groups concerned about survival may experience a high sense of
community. Small or declining congregations may have particulariy high levels of

28

commltr

MC illia

 

Congreg
the-wag:
littie ene.
friendshi.
beacause
network.
“Small gr
Congreg;
but may
mentioni
Referme
enSUre t
WOrSt‘ Sr
groups a
T
Mun-”hat
describe
linkageS
Howeve
promise

externa:

commitment, for example (lannaccone, cited in Ammerman, 1997, p. 327;
Mchfilliams, cited in London, 1997; Wilson, cited in Ammerman, 1997, p. 386).
Congregations buffeted by outside forces and in decline may exhibit “circling-of-
the-wagons” behavior that appears to be a sense of community but that reflects
little energy for concerns outside the group. Olson (1989) finds that high levels of
friendship within a congregation may limit growth or social attractiveness
because new members find it difficult to penetrate the strong existing social
network. Similarly, Wunthrow warns of the privitized, consumptive nature of
“small groups” (cited in Putnam, 1995). According to Newton (1997), church
congregations are particularly well suited to producing dense networks of trust
but may be prone to an associated withdrawal from the outside world (p. 578). As
mentioned in chapter 1, this type of behavior has been common in the Christian
Reformed Church. At best, the presence of social capital within a group does not
ensure that its benefits will be projected outside the community of interest. At
worst, social capital in an interest group can inhibit engagement with other
groups and a surrounding neighborhood.

This interplay of the internal and external relationships of a group is further
illuminated by Woolcock in his study cited by Adler and Kwon (1999). They
describe Woolcock’s two-by-two matrix of high and low internal and external
linkages. Three of the cells characterize somewhat weak organizations.

However, the organization with strong internal and external linkages “holds great
promise” to contain social capital. One could also assume that the strong

external linkages could become conduits for making the social capital within the

29

congref
linkage

and ma',

  

capital v.

Th
interest rr
in urban l
and flow 1
Oomprlse
that bene
CongrEga

Fir
SWOund,
its intEmE

Would be

congregation available to those outside the congregation. Without external
linkages, the social capital within a congregation can institutionalize the exclusion
and marginalization of those outside the network. While the presence of social
capital within a congregation does not guarantee the production of tangible
benefits for those outside the congregation, this capital is a resource that could
have a transformational influence on distressed neighborhoods.

This study contends, for example, that social capital within a community of
interest may be capable of producing change and promoting human development
in urban neighborhoods outside the group. This occurs as resources reside in
and flow through both internal and external relationships. A congregation,
comprised of private and public facets, embodies ties of trust and cooperation
that benefit not only its own members but also, potentially, those outside the
congregation. These benefits could be extended in a couple of ways.

First, the congregation can make an intentional effort to influence its
surroundings. Presumably, a congregation could choose to expend a portion of
its internal social capital outside of the congregation. This resource allocation
would be especially valuable in distressed urban neighborhoods that have been
divested of both financial and human capital. The simplest mechanism is the use
of what Ammerman (1997) calls the “remarkable organizational energy
generated in and by congregations” (p. 3). Organizational cohesion and energy
(which are related to social capital) can be an effective tool for producing change.
It an represent a strong basis and large capacity for planning collective action

by the congregation on behalf of a neighborhood. In addition, a congregation can

30

use its internal goodwill and cooperation to release time and other resources of
members to the neighborhood. Similariy, informational linkages can be made
available to residents of the neighborhood as they seek jobs or services.

Second, and more generally, Putnam (1993) argues that participation in
private networks produces public benefits. He notes a “close correlation between
social trust and associational membership” (1995, p. 7). Those who are members
of associations, he says, are more likely to participate in society at large.
“Community associations provide especially valuable social capital when they
cross ethnic or other cleavage lines” (Putnam, 1993; see also Newton, 1997, p.
579). By participating in numerous overlapping groups, participants interact with
diverse individuals and communities (Ammerman, 1997, p. 357). Thus, group
membership benefits society, in part, through the “cross-cutting ties”
(Ammerman, 1997, p. 357; Newton, 1997, p. 579) it fosters. Networks expand
and become more dense as bonds of trust grow. As ties extend outward from a
congregation, they strengthen the entire fabric of which the congregation is a
part. According to Ammerman (1997) citing Hawley, “The social ties formed in
the congregation are essential links in the community’s infrastructure” (p. 361 ).
These “external effects” (Newton, 1997, p. 579) of social capital are an important
supplement to the self-evident internal benefits of social capital.

Interestingly, a mutually reinforcing, relationship may characterize the
presence and extension of social capital in a congregation. First, the presence of
social mpital in a congregation can be an asset that attracts others to the

congregation. The Bama Research Group (1998a) asked church congregation

31

membe'
Two tac
respond
and “ho
second a
the quail:
and seve
they valu

DI’OVIdes

members to rank 22 “factors that you might consider as you look for a church”.
Two factors related to social capital are ranked highly in the survey. Survey
respondents considered “how much the people seem to care about each other"
and “how friendly the people in the church are to visitors” very important (ranked
second and fourth most important, respectively). In comparison, the pastor and
the quality of the sermons (two intuitively important factors) were ranked third
and seventh respectively. Obviously, new members join congregations because
they value a sense of community and the social capital the congregation
provides.

In addition, congregational growth may be enhanced by the external
expenditure of congregational resources. The Bama Research Group (1998a)
survey found that the fifth most important factor to individuals looking for a church
is “how much the church is involved in helping poor and disadvantaged people”.
Group members seem highly attracted to a social group concerned about issues
other than its own survival or maintenance. In other words, group attractiveness
seems related to the ability of the group to address needs of those that may be
outside the group membership. In this way, the external expenditure of social
capital need not drain the organization of resources. Rather, expending
resources, including social capital, outside the congregation can be an
investment—creating goodwill in the neighborhood and potentially attracting new
members and resources to the congregation. This growth mechanism both
increases congregational resources and builds new linkages between the

congregation and its surrounding environment.

32

The distinctions between internal and external relations are also clarified
when the sense of community is used as an indicator of social capital. Sense of
community consists of those psychological and emotional feelings of closeness
and belonging by the members of a social group. Social capital, on the other
hand, refers to the transformation of these bonds or feelings of closeness into
productive assets. Social capital suggests that social bonds are capable of
producing positive change and benefits, including tangible goods and services.
The link between sense of community and social capital is evident in this
description of the traditional, rural Mennonite church: “The church itself
represents the most concrete expression of the ‘fellowship of believers.”
Members of the community can count on each other for aid when necessary.
(Smucker, 1986, p. 274). Smucker (1986) shows that as Mennonites urbanize,
however, this linkage may weaken. They alter their conceptions of community
and responsibility to the community to correspond more closely with a modern,
individualistic understanding of a community of interest. Again, sense of
community can be beneficial to those that comprise the network, but does not
necessarily benefit those outside the network.

The measurement of social capital is complicated and problematic (see a
brief discussion at http:/Iwww.worldbank.orglpovertylscapitalISChowmeas1.htm,
a World Bank site dedicated to social capital). Cleariy, social capital and sense of
community are not synonymous. At best, the observation of sense of community
suggests or indicates the possible presence of an intemally—oriented social

capital. In other words, sense of community may be a necessary but not a

33

 

seiner
wmmu
dcomr
captali
0". sens
metal

social

$08.18)
into is
group
intern
Outslc
mflec
negh
some

00ng

beln”
69861
than a
Daltécj

sufficient prerequisite of social capital at the scale of a social group. Sense of
community is used in this study as an indicator of social capital. Because sense
of community is a psychological feeling, it is more easily measured than social
capital with a survey instrument, such as the one used in this study. The concept
of sense of community is more tangible to survey respondents than that of social
capital. Sense of community also may be more observable than social capital by
social group members.

The use of sense of community as an indicator of social capital is
somewhat problematic. It does not confirm the transformation of positive feelings
into tangible benefits. In addition, sense of community focuses only on the
group’s internal relationships and benefits. It provides no evidence that these
lntemal relations are instrumental in promoting social development for those
outside the membership of the organization. Still, high sense of community
reflects organizational strength and is a resource that could be used to promote
neighborhood development. The use of sense of community as an indicator of
social capital is, therefore, considered satisfactory for the discussion of the
congregation and community development in this study.

In summary, church congregations and other faith-based institutions can
be important repositories of social capital. Putnam’s (1995) analysis of the
General Social Survey reveals that Americans join faith-based institutions more
than any other type of organization. Coleman (1988) suggests that the church, in
particular, has an ability to provide social capital to developing youth (p. 9). The

psychological sense of community in a church congregation is an indicator of the

34

the
ln 2

ll€ll

ONT
neg
{El/if;

ofmt

lnfiue
Callie
tern,

OUTCOI

presence of productive social capital. Community development for a community
of interest becomes strengthening the linkages between members for the benefit
of the group. “Maintaining these bonds [in a congregation] is a central “good” in
the moral universe of congregational life”, according to Ammerman (1997, p. 57).
In addition, a congregation can contribute to change in distressed urban
neighborhoods by mobilizing and disbursing social capital, intentionally directing
its benefits toward people and places of need. In this way, the congregation
promotes community development for the territorial community of the
neighborhood surrounding the church. This strengthening of social networks
revitalizes civic society, and potentially extends the assets of strong communities
of interest into distressed communities of territory.

Presumably, the spatial organization of a congregational network
influences the ability of the congregation both to generate and to distribute social
capital. Before these relationships are explored the spatial context of community
life must be examined. The next chapter examines the metropolitan setting as an

outcome and an agent of community formation.

35

bee.
hay.
faith
in in
the;
spa:
the r
lmpi

Thee

Oldel
sons

and fl

Chapter 4

URBAN FORM AND SOCIAL PRACTICE

The nature of urbanization should be examined as a context for
community formation, evolution and development. Urbanization is a key feature
of contemporary society. It is the lived experience of most Americans and is
becoming increasingly important elsewhere in the world. Urbanized populations
have unique problems to be addressed by their component communities and
faith-based institutions. A brief review of urbanization and urbanism is necessary
in this exploration of the church’s role in urban community development. This
chapter specifically addresses the reciprocal relationship between urban social
space and urban physical space. A better understanding of this relationship and
the role of space in the formation of strong communities can have important
implications for the creation of social capital, the production of social change and
the development of vibrant, sustainable urban places.

Geographic conceptions of urban places have evolved from simple and
orderly models to complex and fragmented postmodern collages. Increasingly,
social relationships and social distance can explain the formation, maintenance
and destruction of urban lives and space. In this way, the spatial organization
and form of the city can be seen as a documentation of the human processes
which initiated and maintain it (see Miggins, 1996).

A sociological framework for the city proposed by erth (1938) suggests

that the city is a sizable number of people and activities—a “characteristic mode

36

 

 

 

3i

3:

wt
Con
lnve

of it

i

Clicu
i0 8C1

Cila'e

of life” (p. 18)—densely packed into a physical space. The “characteristic mode
of life” can be seen as a “physical structure”, a “system of social organization”
and a “set of attitudes and ideas” (p. 18, 19). As such, the city becomes primarily
a concentration of social relations or functions.

More specifically, urban places can be characterized by relations of the
capitalist mode of production. Harvey (1989) describes three circuits of capital,
which encompass most of the social relations of the city. The primary circuit is
comprised of production and consumption. The secondary circuit includes
investment in productive or consumptive assets, and the tertiary circuit consists
of the bureaucratized relations necessary in a complex capitalist society. As
capital flows through these circuits it is accumulated by individuals, corporations
and places. Both capitalism and urbanization, Harvey notes, are processes that
accumulate and concentrate capital.

These processes become mutually reinforcing but unstable as capital
circulates. Both are plagued by inherent contradictions (Harvey, 1989). The drive
to accumulate capital produces a “restless urban landscape” (KnOx, 1993)
characterized by uneven development and stark inequalities (Gottdiener, 1985,
p. 19). Both capitalism and urbanization are agressively transforming society and
the landscape in attempts to resolve their internal contradictions and perpetuate
themselves. “Capitalism,” Lefebvre says, “has found itself able to attenuate (if not
resolve) its internal contradictions for a century, and it has succeeded in
achieving ‘growth.’ We cannot calculate at what price but we do know the means:

by occupying a space. by producing a space” (cited in Gottdiener, 1985, p. 144,

37

145). These processes of concentration and accumulation mold the built
environment of the city and the relations of the people in it.

Industrialization, in particular, has produced massive social and
geographic changes over the last two centuries. For example, the scale and
pollution of industrialization required that residences and workplaces be
separated spatially. This was one of the simplest but most far-reaching changes
in modern society. Marsten (1988), citing Katznelson’s Urban Trenches, says,
“for [him] the urban setting of spatially separate workplace and domicile fostered
distinctive sets of [‘partial’] relationships. (p. 415). Certain types of
relationships are formed at work, others in the neighborhood, and still others at
church. The fragmentation of community caused by these partial relationships
was described in chapter 2. According to Gordon, spatial separation in a
deconcentrated city was used by capitalists to protect their factories and assets
from potential labor unrest (cited in Gottdiener, 1985, p. 75). lndustialization has
clearly had a huge impact on the development of urban space and community.

Technological advances in transportation, construction and
communication continue to be instrumental in developing the form of the
contemporary city (Borchert, 1967; Massey, 1996). The spatial impact of the
streetcar, the private automobile, the elevator, the telephone and now the
Internet are observable in the built environment and in the social relations of the
city.

The development of the built environment of the city can be traced to

interrelated historic forces as humanity learns to manipulate and control the

38

 

 

er
the

Chi

Kilt;
den
CONE
modl
Envlr
such
just a

407),

hlSlon'
mam.
deVeIo
”magi:
DlOpQSE

e”tern

natural environment to accomplish its ends (Harvey, 1973, p. 310). Once it is
established, the built environment conditions and congeals social change. “[A]
particular spatial form. . . institutionalize[s]. . .the future development of social
process", notes Harvey (1973, p. 26). Gottdiener (1985) calls the built
environment both “a barrier to use as well as a potential for use” (p. 179). More
than a passive “container”, the built environment acts on humanity as an agent of
change. The influence of the interstate freeway system is an example of the
power of the built environment. It was intended only to link cities (Hyman &
Kingsley, 1996, p. 116). By entering the urban core it entrenched the automobile
dependence that influences daily life and land use a generation after its
construction. The freeway system now prevents the emergence of alternative
modes of public transportation. In ongoing iterations, social practices shape the
environment, which then shapes social practices. A circular causation unfolds
such that “the context is directly involved in the constitution of social practices,
just as these practices, in turn, are forming the context” (Simonsen, 1996, p.
407)

Clearly, social relations, capital accumulation, technological advances,
historic trends and the built environment itself are instrumental in producing and
maintaining urban form and function. Comprehensive models of urban
development seek to synthesize many facets of urbanism, particularly its recently
emerging deconcentration and fragmentation. Gottdiener (1985), for example,
proposes a holistic and dialectical explanation for the city that takes into account

economic, social and political forces. A postmodern perspective is also being

39

 

 

 

Oppo
Engvt
a City
place:

”tend

DOITIIS (
eXCIUS“

With dii‘

used to describe urban fragmentation and unevenness (Cooke, 1988; Dear &
Flusty, 1998; Knox, 1993). Cooke (1988) calls the postmodern city a “terrain of
paradox” (p. 74). Here, global capitalist forces extract and invest capital in an
apparently random fashion (Massey, 1996) producing a “noncontiguous collage
of parcelized, consumption-oriented landscapes” (Dear & Flusty, 1998, p. 66).
The deconcentrated, fragmented character of the postmodern city is receiving
particular attention because of the social and economic disparities it exacerbates.

Although partially a response to market forces, deconcentration is
inconsistent with the goals of urban places. It restricts opportunities for
interaction. In a summary of his book, urban design expert David Engwicht
(1999) calls cities “an invention to maximize exchange opportunities [including
exchanges of ‘goods, friendship, knowledge, culture, work, education or
emotional and financial support’] and minimize travel.” Yet contemporary urban
form and individual locational decisions often maximize travel and limit exchange
opportunities. “The more diluted and scattered the exchange opportunities,”
Engwicht says, “the more the city begins to lose the very thing that makes a city
a city: a concentration of exchange opportunities.” The primary asset of urban
places—density—no longer accomplishes the promotion of interaction that was
intended.

In addition, deconcentration deepens social divisions. Gottdiener (1985)
points out that the consequences of urban deconcentration are ”residential
exclusivity and spatial distance” that have “sheltered [individuals] from others

with different socioeconomic statuses” (p. 248; see also Frug, 1996). Harvey

40

(1973) has observed “. ..the paradox of capital withdrawing from areas of greatest
need to provide for the demands of relatively affluent suburban communities”.
Ironically, “[ulnder capitalism this is good and rational behaviour—it is what the
market requires for the ‘optimal’ allocation of resources” (p. 112). Again, one
sees social space and needs submitting to the accumulation of capital
(Friedmann, 1988).

The contemporary urban landscape is plagued, therefore, by uneven
development and persistent (even increasing) segregation by race and class
(Darden, 1995; Dear & Flusty, 1998; Jargowsky, 1994; Knox, 1993, p. 28;
Krumholz, 1996; Massey, 1996; Orfield, 1997; Rusk, 1993). Harvey (1973, 1989)
attributes this phenomenon to the internal contradictions of capitalism, which
have produced both spectacular skyscrapers and dingy urban slums. Massey
and Denton call segregated communities “an institutional tool for isolating the by-
products of racial oppression: crime, drugs, violence, illiteracy, poverty, despair
and their growing social and economic costs” (cited in Nyden, Maly & Lukehart,
1997, p. 492). Accompanying the social separation is a privatization of urban
space and life (Aurigi & Graham, 1997; Gottdiener, 1985, p. 248-249) and a
subsequent marginalization of disenfranchised individuals.

The theory that segregated neighborhoods develop because similar
people simply prefer to live in close proximity is attractive but only partially valid.
Rather, powerful social forces produce segregated landscapes and
homogeneous communities. Lieberson and Carter, for example, “...estimate that

85% of the Black segregation in the 1970s was due to involuntary causes” (cited

41

in Darden, 1995, p. 682). In addition, Anthony Downs (1998) demonstrates the
emergence of “almost total segregation. . .from free choice of locations” (p. 10)
despite individual willingness to experience some racial integration. He points out
that both African Americans and Caucasians value some racial diversity, albeit in
different proportions. Typically, African Americans that integrate a Caucasian
neighborhood will surpass the Caucasian integration comfort level before
reaching their own integration comfort level. This mismatch in preferred levels of
racial integration precipitates the “white flight” which produces a homogeneously
black neighborhood.

Ian Thrall (1987) explains the process of socio-economic segregation with
his Consumption Theory of Land Rent. According to him, each household in an
urban place attempts to maximize utility using the financial means at its disposal.
The poor, unable to bear high transportation costs, live on small plots of more
expensive land close to the city center. The poor tolerate high land costs by living
at very high residential densities (Harvey, 1973). According to Thrall’s theory,
suburban land will have lower land rent than urban land. The basis for these land
rent differentials is an attempt by the system to equalize utility. The rich enjoy
more land in the suburbs to compensate for the high cost of transportation there.

Regardless of the explanation, racial and economic segregation are
harmful (Massey, 1996). Fragmented and low-density urban landscapes that
promote isolation are most damaging to already disenfranchised communities
and individuals. Darden ( 1995) notes that the “...overconcentration of Blacks in

the central city of Detroit has continued to have severe social and economic

42

consequences, and jobs have continued to leave the city, reducing the
opportunity for social and economic mobility for the Black population left behind”
(pp. 685, 686). Isolation and marginalization usually accompany involuntary
segregation, ensuring the persistence of poverty for those that are already low-
income (Sommers & Mehretu. 1994). Orfield (1997) describes the circular
causation and fiscal strain that develops as disparities between contiguous
municipalities grow. He shows that the tax bases of the most wealthy, typically
suburban, jurisdictions are expanding. Meanwhile, central cities and suburbs that
are most in need of social services and investment experience the flight of
financial and human capital.

Despite the deconcentration and segregation of the city, urban residents
continue to form local communities (Mesch & Manor, 1998) and territorial urban
communities still exist (Wellman & Leighton, 1979). However, urban residents
increasingly form communities of interest to meet social needs (see chapter 2).
This phenomenon further contributes to the fragmentation of the city. It weakens
the social network on which the functioning of the city relies.

The spatial behavior of church congregation members contributes and
responds to metropolitan spatial patterns. At one time, individuals attended
neighborhood churches. Snapper (1980) suggests that Christian Reformed
churches in Grand Rapids, for example, may have been established near to the
residences of members (p. 100). According to a former leader of one central city
congregation, board members previously divided annual house visitation

responsibilities by block: one taking the south side of the street, another taking

43

the north side of the street (personal communication). In this way, neighborhood
churches integrated communities of interest and communities of territory. As
congregation members became more mobile, they took up residence outside the
neighborhood of their church building. The spatial decisions of congregation
members have transformed churches into communities of interest with little
territorial grounding. The model of membership in a church parish (more common
in the Roman Catholic tradition) has been replaced by that of a marketplace
whereby consumer members “shop” for the congregation that meets their needs.
As urban neighborhoods change demographically, the neighborhood
church has a number of choices, according to Ammerman (1997, p. 44-45). It
can decline, move out of the neighborhood with its members, adapt to the new
residents of the neighborhood, or become a “niche congregation” (p. 36),
attracting members from outside the immediate neighborhood. The niche
congregation has identified a specific type of person by which it defines itself. Its
membership can be drawn from across the metropolitan region. The church
building remains the public presence of the congregation in a neighborhood.
However, commuter members have limited interaction with the neighborhood of
the church. These members divide their attention between their residential
neighborhoods, their religious community and other communities of interest.
While faith-based institutions are inherently concerned with the spiritual
lives of individuals, they must adopt a holistic perspective that includes social and
urban development as well. Bishop Anthony Pilla (1996) and Phillip Bess (1999)

call the church to engage in positive land use because of the “moral implications

of regional sprawl” (Pilla, 1996, p. 49). Faith-based institutions can be
instrumental in reintegrating severely segregated urban spaces and
communities. This holistic, integrated praxis is necessary because, “...man will be
reshaped to fit whatever environment he creates. The long-range question is not
so much what sort of environment we want, but what sort of man we want“
(Sommers, cited in Harvey, 1973, p. 46). As an institution equipped to decide
“what sort of man we want”, the faith-based institution must examine its spatial
decisions and those of its members, understanding how its spatial organization
influences its social relations in the urban environment. With intentionality,
congregations can reblend communities of interest and communities of territory.
Bess (1999) calls cities “competitive and cooperative enterprises that
human beings have built to achieve the good life.” “The good life for individual
human beings,” he says, “ is the life of virtue lived in community.” Unfortunately,
urban places do not often live up to this standard. In particular, the
deconcentrated and homogenized spaces of segregated, postmodern cities
inhibit social interaction, especially between people with differences (Bess, 1999;
Frug, 1996; Gottdiener, 1985, p. 248). Faith-based institutions can and should
pursue the vision of a “life of virtue lived in community”. The next chapter
summarizes and synthesizes the preceding chapters, presenting a case for the

development of communities that are territorial, diverse and justly ordered.

45

Chapter 5

BUILDING COMMUNITY: A CONGREGATIONAL OPPORTUNITY

Community is clearly an important social unit that should be intentionally
built and strengthened. Humans are social beings that enhance their lives by
residing in groups and communities. While not comprehensive, even the recently
emerging communities of interest, such as niche or commuter congregations,
sewing circles and gardening clubs, play valuable roles in society by stimulating
Ieaming and promoting collective action. Yet the dilution of comprehensive
community into narrowly-focused interest groups has left this core social unit
without some key components that should be restored. Communities of interest
cannot offer, for example, the integrity and holism one finds in an all-
encompassing community. Typically, communities of interest lack the ideological
roots, the diversity of membership and the territorial groundedness necessary to
be foundational social units.

The communities that should be built are those that are capable of
promoting a just social order. These communities will require a degree of
heterogeneity and territoriality. As mentioned earlier, church congregations
frequently exhibit themselves as insular communities of interest. However, they
have the ideological and spatial foundations necessary to be at the forefront of a
powerful community-building movement. This normative chapter summarizes the
previous ones by describing important features of integrated and holistic

communities of justice. It links the disintegrated nature of postmodern society

46

with the responsibility of church congregations to use their unique capabilities to
build valuable communities. Strategies that could be used in that endeavor are

outlined.

Just Social Order

Communities worthy of pursuit promote social order characterized by
justice. Roland Warren (1970) has lamented that “...there must be a way to love
and to care, but our local communities today fail miserably in measuring up to
this simple image of what human life might be. (p. 15). Sociologist Amitai
Etzioni (1993) echoes Warren, calling for strengthened communities that are
deeply meaningful. “Our society,” Etzioni says, “is suffering from a severe case of
deficient we-ness and the values only communities can properly uphold;
restoring communities and their moral voice is what our current conditions
require” (p. 26). Etzioni sees the community as a framework for moral
socialization. “[T]o the extent we have lost community,” he says, “we must rebuild
it, not only because community life is a major source of satisfaction of our deeper
personal needs, but because the social pressures community brings to bear are
a mainstay of our moral values” (p. 40). The socializing role of communities is
particularly important when the potency of the nuclear family has diminished, as it
has in many urban neighborhoods.

Community-building efforts must focus, therefore, on strengthening a
shared pursuit of higher values and ideals, particularly those which characterize
social justice. According to John Schaar (1970), Professor Emeritus of Political

Philosophy at the University of California at Santa Cruz, Aristotle argues that

47

the pursuit of justice and goodness [“must characterize the political bond”]

and that without this capstone all the rest is defective- sociability and

fellowship become mere herding together undistinguished by any nobler

purpose of gain, and the community itself becomes little more than a

commercial enterprise.

Citing Plato’s myth of Prometheus, Schaar claims that “political community is
possible only. . .where, first of all, men are bound together by a common
reverence for the same conception of justice and of virtue”.

The community that is defined by common higher-order values has the
capacity to promote true well-being for its members and for those around it. Bess
(1999), for example, calls the city a “community of communities” the objective of
which is “nothing less than the good life [moral and intellectual excellence] itself’.
According to Bess, the city traditionally has modeled itself on, among others,
Jerusalem, which exemplifies a city of excellence in terms of the “care it exhibits
for its weakest members”. Faith-based institutions, which claim to mediate values

such as justice, mercy and goodness, are, therefore, well equipped to form the

basis for truly valuable community.

Diversity

Community must be comprised of members with some commonality. Key
to the building of significant communities, however, is understanding what
features of individuals and groups should be held in common and what features
should be diversified. As society develops, the features held in common should
increasingly be values and principles of goodness rather than the tangible
attributes of culture, race and wealth by which community has traditionally been

organized.

48

Of course, some common attributes, values and interests are necessary
for any community to exist. Both Harvey (1973) and Warren (1978) allude to the
value of homogeneity in promoting unity and minimizing urban conflict.
Traditionally, community bonds have included kinship, ethnicity, culture, and
geography. More recently, other attributes such as age, gender, education,
occupation and avocation, have formed the bases of communities of interest.
The specialized social units that have emerged promote innovation, create
tremendous material wealth and provide other benefits. R. J. Johnson points out
that “congregation and segregation are obvious means to this end, ensuring that
one’s neighbors are potentially valuable social contacts, even if that potential is
never realized” (cited in Knox, 1994, p. 201). “Extreme heterogeneity,” according
to Herbert Gans, “is likely to inhibit communication and to encourage mutual
resentment...” (cited in Frug, 1996, p. 1061). Most valuable, perhaps, is the
sharing of a common purpose or goal by community members. Bess (1999), for
example, defines community as “a group of people with a shared objective, and
[with] specific roles and duties performed for the achievement of that objective”.
Obviously, the emergence of a community requires some commonality among
individuals.

However, the natural inclination for similar individuals to reside and
interact together can degenerate into fragmented social misunderstanding.
Members of racially homogeneous and segregated communities, for example,
have little opportunity to learn about or correct misconceived stereotypes about

other races. Economically homogeneous and segregated communities

49

perpetuate injustice and marginalization by limiting the access of outsiders to
resources and power (Harvey, 1973; Blizek & Cederblom, 1973). In this way,
community form reinforces existing and unequal power relations. Social capital,
for example, can be excessively insular (Wall, Ferrazzi & Schryer, 1998; Portes,
1998) benefiting insiders at the expense of outsiders (Putnam, 1993). F rug
(1996) contends that the misguided objective of a faulty, romantic notion of
community as solidarity perpetuates segregation and fear of “otherness”. The
insistence on complete homogeneity in community encourages
misunderstanding of people and groups that are different and promotes the
fragmentation of urban landscapes.

Community must be characterized by unity of purpose, but not by
homogenaity in all aspects. The pursuit of the community objective can be
enhanced by the intentional inclusion of members with a variety of attributes.
Interaction among different individuals promotes Ieaming and understanding.
“[Mjoderate heterogeneity,” says Gans, “provides enough compatibility of
interests and skills to enable communication—and therefore Ieaming—to take
place” (cited in Frug, 1996, p. 1061). According to Etzioni (1993), “What we need
now are communities that balance both diversity and unity“ (p. 122). A
community-building effort should focus, then, on the creation of a common values
commitment by a group of racially, culturally and economically diverse
individuals. A community of shared values and intent, but which includes a
plurality of backgrounds, resources, experiences and skills will have both the

depth and the breadth necessary to be an effective institution in contemporary

50

 

 

society. This community will be comprised of the strong bonds of clear purpose
and mutually held values. Yet, it will be flexible and robust enough to survive and
thrive in a complex and evolving environment.

The building of community characterized by racial, cultural and economic
diversity is difficult but not impossible. Research has shown that most people are
willing to experience some racial heterogeneity (Fariey, Fielding & Krysan, 1997)
and that diverse communities do exist (Nyden, Maly & Lukehart, 1997). Frug
(1996) presents a case for its importance based on the work of Iris Marion
Young. According to him, community-building should entail “not cultivating a
feeling of oneness with others but fostering a recognition that one has to share
one’s life with strangers, with strangeness, with the inassimilable, even with the
intolerable” (p. 1049). For Young, “city life” (and, for Frug, “community') should
promote “social differentiation without exclusion, variety, eroticism [‘pleasure and
excitement derived from the unusual ’1, and publicity [‘feelings generated when
entering a public space. . .that. . . provides exposure to opinions and cultures very
different from one’s own’]” (p. 1051). “Living in a heterogeneous community,”

F rug says, “increases the kinds of otherness found to be bearable” (p. 1062).
Civility in the context of diversity is what Young and F rug seek. Similarly,
Chesterton (1919) applauds arbitrariness and difference as qualities that make
life a romantic story. The valuing of difference and diversity is an important goal
of community-building efforts. Of course, diverse members of a community must

be bound together by mutual commitments to core values. Through these efforts

51

communities can be created that promote social well-being and the “good life”

among complementary individuals.

Territoriality

Territoriality is an important component of holistically significant
community. More specifically, the territorial community is important because it is
a socially inclusive arena for the political negotiation of access to resources. Of
course, a commitment to territoriality must be tempered by an acknowledgement
that contemporary metropolitan landscapes are unevenly developed and
inherently unjust. However, territorial communities remain socially and politically
important, despite the unequal distribution of resources across regions and the
advent of communities of interest.

The territorial community remains the most appropriate venue for
organizing the sustenance of life, including the use of resources. Territorial
jurisdictions are still the primary organizational mechanism by which society is
governed (Aginsky, 1952, p. 132; Friedmann, n.d.). While representative
democracy is influenced by electronic town meetings and the powerful special
interest groups, the foundational role of geographic jurisdictions has not been
usurped. F riedmann (1979) is a strong proponent of the importance of territorial
community. “The territorial force,” he says, “derives from common bonds of social
order forged by history within a given place” (p.7). According to him, a relevant
community will be grounded in tenitory because

...we are social, that is political, beings first and foremost, which means

that we have a collective history and a stake in the political institutions in
which we make our home. We belong, by nature, to a territorially defined

52

political community. Deprived of this community, we lose a vital dimension
of ourselves. (n.d., p. 5).

Especially important to Friedmann is the political discourse that is possible only
in a territorial community. “The active, non-exclusive participation of the
community in a discourse concerning human needs and the means for their
satisfaction therefore becomes itself a high-order need.” (n.d., p. 6). He
summarizes a communalist order as “a new concern with territorial values,
disaffection from crude materialism, struggles for a technology compatible with
human needs, a politics of self-reliance, [and] democratic movements of
liberation” (n.d., p. 13).

Warren (1978) also affin'ns the importance of territorial community as the
mechanism for organizing the maintenance of daily life. “People’s lives and their
behaviour are significantly influenced by their propinquity,“ he says. “Living
together in physical proximity requires social structures and social functions that
sustain life in the locality and provide the satisfactions that people seek” (p. 8). It
is in a territorial community such as a neighborhood that all members can be
included in processes that use the available resources to sustain and enhance
life.

Unlike exclusionary social groupings, the territorial community retains the
potential for inclusion. By definition, each person within the geographic boundary
of a territorial community is a member (Friedmann, n.d., p. 5). Everyone has a
“place” in a territorial community. Chesterton (1919) acknowledges the inclusive,
but, therefore, uncomfortable, nature of territorial community. “We make our

friends;” he concludes, “...but God makes our next-door neighbour.” The resident

53

of a street may feel uncomfortable with his or her neighbors because they hold
the resident accountable for daily actions. Chesterton suggests that a person
flees “from his street because it is a great deal too exciting. It is exciting because
it is exacting; it is exacting because it is alive.” The inclusiveness of tenitorial
community is uncomfortable and can intensify the development of communities
of interest. Participation in territorial community is then displaced by an
allegiance to communities of interest. Those that reside in a neighborhood are
frequently preoccupied with individual pursuits or communities of interest at work,
at church, or in recreation. A renewed commitment to comprehensive territorial
community is necessary to secure the inclusion of those isolated from
communities of interest and the resources they command.

Youth, for example, can benefit from spatially compact, supportive
neighborhood communities. Because of their limited mobility, youth require
proximity to access resources. Urban planners Andres Duany and Elizabeth
Plater-Zyberk point out that “[clhildren in the postwar suburbs are kept in an
unnaturally extended state of isolation and dependence because they live in
places designed for cars rather than people” (cited in Frug, 1996, p. 1097).
According to Coleman (1988), the social capital embodied in families and
communities is “a resource that can be employed to aid in. . .the development of
youth” (p. 8). This happens, Coleman says, when youth can “turn to adults other
than their own parents, when necessary and find support” (p. 8). Spatial proximity
is essential if children, and other less mobile members of society, are to access

the social capital inherent in personal relationships.

54

Both communities of interest and territorial communities can empower or
marginalize, provide or deny access to resources. Some territorial communities
are relegated to marginal status because of the uneven distribution or
development of metropolitan resources. Communities of interest can, in that
environment, provide access to power and resources. However, admittance into
these social networks remains limited. Since only those with certain
characteristics are eligible for inclusion, communities of interest tend to be
defined by exclusion. Particularly problematic is the coupling of exclusionary
communities of territory and interest. Gated communities in high income
neighborhoods, for example, exclude outsiders with both physical and financial
barriers.

Still, a sustainable social order demands equality between territorial
communities, not a retreat into unequal and competing communities of interest
which further marginalize already isolated individuals or groups. Some policy
makers are realizing that the unevenly developed landscapes which perpetuate
injustice must be changed (Orfield, 1997). The reorganization of landscapes will
permit a commitment to tenitorial communities that engage all members in
political discourse regarding social well-being, justice and progress. Despite the
increasing importance of virtual and other nonterritorial communities of interest,
the development of cohesive, effective and spatially coherent communities

remains an important social objective.

55

Church Congregations and Community-Building Strategies

An intentional community-building effort will be necessary if diverse,
territorially grounded communities that pursue a just social order are to thrive. An
overlay of competing “lateralizations” or communities of interest can drain the
territorial community of resources (Aginsky, 1952, p. 133). For this reason,
society must avoid investing in exclusive and specialized communities of interest
at the expense of inclusive and holistic territorial communities. Instead,
commitments must be made to and strategies developed for building
comprehensive communities characterized by justice and integration.

Several efforts have modeled or envisioned the holistic and integrated
community. Nineteenth century anarchist geographer Peter Kropotkin
“...observed and stressed the role of co-operation and mutual aid in both organic
evolution and peasant society. He opposed political centralization and economic
concentration and favoured small-scale, self-sufficient social units living in
greater harmony with their natural surroundings” (Agnew, Livingstone & Rogers,
1996. p. 139). Intentional communities and eco-villages are presented as viable
social alternatives (see Conrad, 1995; Korten, 1994; Eco-village Information
Service, httpleww.gaia.org, Intentional Communities, http://www.ic.org). Peter
Boothroyd envisions “a new ‘community in non-gemeinschaft forms” (cited in
Robinson, 1995, p. 22). Robinson says,

In essence this is a. . .face-to-face association in caring neighborhoods

which retain individual liberty to act, open access to knowledge, and global

inter-connections. The goal of non-gemeinschaft communities is fulfillment

of basic human needs and the promotion of sustainable economies with
reduced dependence on the industrial economy and the state. (p. 22).

56

Finally, holistic community-building efforts and comprehensive community
initiatives are gaining attention (Kingsley, McNeely & Gibson, 1997; Smock,
1997). These efforts seek to integrate “peOple” and “place” strategies addressing
multifaceted urban problems by building on community assets.

As argued in chapter 1, church congregations can be well placed (both
ideologically and spatially) to promote the development of these types of
movements and communities. However, ideological and spatial disintegration will
limit the effectiveness of congregations to facilitate community development in
urban places. Faith-based institutions perpetuate excessively homogeneous,
segregated community structures by not adhering to their own core teachings
about racial unity and social justice (Thomas & Blake, 1996). Martin Luther King,
Jr. (1956) has called 11:00 on Sunday morning “the most segregated hour of
Christian America.” According to Sack (2000), “90 percent of all congregations
are at least 80 percent one race”. Church congregations should rely on their
ideological foundations to provide leadership in the development of diverse and
just communities. In addition, the spatial organization of a congregation will
impact its ability to build networks and promote change. Congregations and their
members should make spatial decisions that help them promote strong and
integrated communities of interest and territory. The spatiality of congregational

communities is a central concern of this study.

57

Chapter 6

SPACE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION

As suggested earlier, the spatial environment is one factor influencing the
type of people and communities we become. Space is more than a passive
“container”. It becomes an actor or an agent in the creation and transformation of
daily life and social relations. Simonson (1996) describes a social spatiality such
that “the spatial forms an integrated part of social practices and/or social
processes” (p. 502; see also Soja, 1980). For this reason, an examination of
space and its role in human and social development is important. Humanity may
be transcending space by technologically reducing the friction of geographic
distance. However, a disregard for the importance of spatial proximity may incur
social and psychological costs (Wellman, 1988).

The deconcentation and fragmentation of urban space and community
generates the theoretical question: What type of reciprocal relationship exists
between physical space and social relations? The answer to this question will be
an important step in constructing strategies for strengthening institutions
(including church congregations). Understanding the relationship can also
promote the development of deteriorated neighborhoods and their residents. This
chapter reviews theory related to space and physical distance at an abstract
level. It seeks to discover how physical distance affects the quantity and quality

of social interaction that occurs between actors.

58

Theoretical and empirical studies from a variety of disciplines argue that
social interaction is enhanced by physical proximity. For example, Ley (1983)
states that “ [rjeciprocal identification and understanding occur most usually and
easily in the immediacy of a face-to-face interaction, where time and space are
shared” (p. 172-173). Expanded daily action spaces have been made possible by
a technological “time—space compression” (Harvey, 1990, p. 241). Still, Harvey
(1989), describing Hagerstrand’s work, notes the need to have “...time—space
paths of two or more individuals intersect to accomplish any social interaction” (p.
210)

Hagerstrand illustrates how physical proximity can facilitate the quality of
social interaction necessary for relevant community. He explores space and time
by mapping the daily paths of people. Interactions are shown as “bundles” or
meetings in both time and space (cited in Gregory, 1994). These face-to-face
interactions are clearly valuable for strengthening community. Increased value is
being attributed to spatial proximity in the New Urbanism planning movement
(see http:/Iwww.cnu.org). The spatial neighborhood can become a relevant
community of solidarity as relationships are built through daily interactions.
Without the time or space for personal interaction, communities of interest
become shallow and anemic.

Five concepts related to socio-spatial interaction are briefly reviewed here.
First, theories of urbanization and urban social behavior are described. Second,
geographic distance decay or gravity models help explain spatial interaction and

the creation of central places. Third, the sociological concept of social distance,

59

usually measured in relation to comfort levels at spatial distances, is mentioned.
Fourth, social impact theory suggests that the impact of individuals on each other
is a function of three factors, one of which is physical distance. Finally, social
network analysis provides a methodology for studying the spatiality of
communities of interest. This type of analysis provides evidence that physical
proximity is important in networks. Four of these five theoretical streams suggest
that interaction is enhanced by proximity. They contribute to an understanding of
the socio—spatial organization of communities of interest, including church
congregations, especially the relationship between physical distance and social

distance.

Theory of Urbanization

The Wirthian theory of widespread alienation in cities has not been
supported (Fischer, 1975; Frug, 1996; Massey, 1996). As mentioned before,
urban residents continue to form localized communities (Mesch & Manor, 1998;
Wellman & Leighton, 1979). lntuitively, the proximity afforded by urban life would
seem to enhance opportunities for relationship-building rather than constrain
them.

However, urban relationships seem different from more traditional, rural
relationships. Proximity likely does influence the types of relationships and
communities that form by offering the numerous choices craved by contemporary
society. Wirth (1938) acknowledged that urbanites might have more numerous
but weaker social ties than the kinship ties of rural residents. Hofferth and Iceland

(1998) find evidence that supports this characterization of urban social relations.

60

The existence of diverse and specialized urban ties proposed by VIfirth has also
been supported by Wellman (1988). Fischer (1975) conceptualizes the fluid,
hierarchical nature of urban social structure. “[l]ndividuals can be seen,” he says,
“constructing personal social worlds by ‘recruiting’ people from categoric ‘pools,’
as in choosing which co-workers or neighbors to befriend (Whitten & Wolfe 1973,
White 1965)” (p. 79, 80).

Density and proximity may influence the quality of relationships in addition
to the number and type. After examining studies of territorial communities,
Ottensmann (1978) presents evidence that either high residential density or low
social class or both are positively associated with sense of community. Coleman
and Segal show that the number of friends a group member has seems to reach
a threshold as the group continues to grow in size (cited in Olson, 1989). Kochen
claims that, typically, intimate relationships are limited to about 20 although a
person might know 1000 other persons (cited in Wellman et al., 1996). Specific
communities of interest and social networks develop in dense and highly
populated urban places because of these limits on the number of meaningful
relationships that can be maintained. Still, the close proximity afforded by urban
living seems to present an opportunity for intentional community-building if a

relationship saturation point is not surpassed.

Distance Decay Model and Central Place Theory

The distance decay model of spatial interaction states simply that the
closer two objects are to one another the more they will influence one another.

More precisely, the attractive pull of an object on another is, like gravity, a

61

function of the sizes of the objects and the inverse square of the distance
between them. When one or more of the objects is human, the interaction
assumes rational decision-making that decreases cost (of travel over distance)
and increases utility (of interaction with the other object). When one object is
human and the other is a place, a pattern of central places develops on a
featureless landscape. Places are ordered hierarchically according to the number
of functions or level of utility they provide. Economically rational humans will
patronize the nearest place that provides the function they require. Places that
provide a greater number of functions or higher utility will exert a stronger
attractive force and will draw patrons from a greater distance.

A distance decay or gravity model and central place theory are often
invoked to explain economic activity and the spatial behavior of consumers in
relation to retail centers. For these pecuniary functions an urban resident will
clearly maximize utility (and minimize cost) by traveling to the nearest provider of
a good or service provider. For non-pecuniary utility such as that obtained by
participation in a church (Ammerman, 1997, p. 326), the costs and benefits are
more difficult to quantify. For example, an individual may appear to irrationally
travel great distances to participate in a specific church. However, the theory also
can explain social interaction and community formation. Humans seek to
maximize utility by engaging others in relationship. One should be able to classify
church congregations, for example, into orders in a hierarchy based on the utility
each provides. One could then predict that a church member would participate in

the nearest congregation that provides the level of utility she or he demands.

62

These interactions would be very complicated to model, however, because of the
many types of utility individuals seek: economic, social, cultural, theological,
nostalgic and others.

In addition, transportation networks have made time—distance and cost-
distance more important than Euclidean distance in determining interaction. The
congregational participant may travel further than otherwise expected to
participate in some community through which he or she can obtain higher levels
of perceived utility. Traditionally, social interaction and community formation were
determined by utility based on kinship, ethnic identity and Euclidean distance
minimization. Now, however, some church members seem to find optimal utility
by living on one side of the city and attending a traditional church on the other.
The city, then, becomes a set of overlapping layers of spatial and aspatial

communities, each defined and understood by a type of utility maximization.

Social Distance Theory

Social distance, a conceptual integration of “geometric and metaphoric
distance” between individuals and groups (Ethington, 1997), is a “product of
similar biographical situations” (Ley, 1983, p. 174). Ethington claims that
Simmel’s original emphasis on geometric distance is deemphasized in later work
by Park, Burgess and Bogardus. They treat “instincts” and “attitudes” about
social difference as the cause with geometric distance being only the effect.
Ethington, like numerous other geographers, calls for the study of the “reciprocal
reproduction of social and spatial relationships”. Geometric distance, he

suggests, both represents and causes difference.

63

 

fl/f’z

63/7/36
seem r
causat

1973

struct

\st

Comma/nit
‘iepiobab.

Conversely,
50ml Interai

91M 01 phi

Social difference and social mobility exhibit themselves in physical
distance and mobility. Technological and economic advances have permitted
some social groups in urban society to voluntarily segregate themselves from
other groups. The result is the postmodern metropolis of “fortified cells of
affluence and places of terror where police battle the criminalized poor” (Dear &
Flusty, 1998, p. 570). These spatial behaviors and patterns also reinforce social
difference. “Space...consolidates the social structure by limiting intergroup
contact...” (Besher, cited in Ley, 1983, p. 159). This practice of institutionalizing
social relations and social isolation in the built environment reinforces a circular
causation and a widening social and economic gap between groups (Harvey,
1973). In contrast, Ethington (1997) notes that “...geometric distance is the
structure of everyday life in space-time that permits or promotes the formation of
familiarity...”

Paul Knox ( 1994) asserts the reciprocal relationship between space and
community using social distance terminology. He says,"...physical distance and
social distance continue to act as mutually reinforcing aspects of social
interaction..." (p. 199). He continues, ”The less the social distance, the greater
the probable physical proximity between people-their residential propinquity.
Conversely, the greater the residential propinquity, the greater the likelihood of
social interaction.” (p. 200). Social distance, then, becomes both a cause and

effect of physical distance.

64

.5;

awo’fi

of. the

Bone

of pi
recei
\h‘

Because I

\Rsis

”#7017375
Mose
{EIatIOhShlp
Chance 0t 02

‘Ialinnvidu

ralio. In addlt

Social Impact Theory

Dynamic social impact theory is another very spatial theory of social
interaction and effect. \Mth this theory social psychologist Bibb Latané is
interested in explaining the creation of culture. He notes that “[dlifferences in
spatial location turn out to have significant theoretical and empirical
consequences for the dynamics of social interaction” (Latané, 1996, p. 14). More
specifically, the theory posits that individuals are influenced by other individuals
' and this influence depends on the number, strength, and immediacy or distance
of those doing the influencing (Latané, 1996; Mullen, 1985). Latané, Liu, Nowak,
Bonevento & Zheng (1995) test the spatiality of the theory by asking three groups
of people the residential locations of the persons with whom they have had
recent “memorable interactions”. They find that the “density of memorable
interactions decreased regulariy with distance” (Latané et al., 1995, p. 801) for
residents of Boca Raton, for Chinese students and even for social psychologists.
Because the interaction is shown to be a function of the square of distance, the
study by Latané supports the geographic gravity model for interaction between
individuals.

Most valuably, Latané and his colleagues posit reasons for this
relationship. It is not, they suggest, “simply a matter of proximity increasing the
chance of casual contact” (Latané et al., 1995, p. 803). Rather, they speculate
that individuals seek out nearby relationships because of their high benefit to cost

ratio. In addition, nearby relationships bring with them an accountability due to

65

”(59/

The

TESOL

Weft of

SOC/,-

Wellman W

Whites

Rathe
Wm
SiUdy]
Search

anticipated future interactions. Both reasons have important implications for the

production of social capital in church communities.

Social Network Analysis

Social network analysis promises to clarify some of the confusion over the
existence and form of community in the contemporary era (Ethington, 1997;
Fischer, 1975). Wellman (1988) uses the concept of social network to define the
liberated community as

the basic metaphor for that most important class of relationships: the

primary ties extending outside of our households which articulate people

with larger social systems and provide them with imaginative, flexible

means for gaining access to the resources of these social systems. (p. 96)
The linkages of a social network are useful, therefore, for the distribution of
resources (Wellman, 1988). However, Wellman (1988) points out that “most ties
specialize in the kinds of aid they provide” (p. 88). Network members must,
therefore, maintain a diverse set of ties at different locations and scales to meet a
variety of needs. This aspect of network analysis interfaces with social capital
literature and contributes to a framework for discussing the ability of a church to
facilitate urban development.

Social networks or communities of interest tend to be somewhat unstable
(Wellman, Wong, Tindall & Nazer, 1997) and less holistic than neighborhood
communities might be. According to Wellman et al. (1997),

Rather than dealing with one densely knit set of community members who

provide a wide range of support, these Torontonians [in his longitudinal

study] must maneuver among thinly connected partial communities and

search among their supporters who are willing and able to provide the kind
of help that is needed at the moment. (p. 48)

66

 

 

 

at, 7997,

”assess

In this study, Wellman and his colleagues find a “relative weakness of intimate
neighbor ties as compared with intimate ties with immediate kin and friends” (p.
46). Elsewhere, Wellman (1996) notes that the strongest, most important ties in a
network are not necessarily the nearest ones geographically.
However, Wellman (1996) also finds that proximity does play a role in the
frequency of face-to-face contact between members of the network. They say
“[Tjhe physical availability of neighbors means that contact with them
forms a relatively large proportion of a household’s interaction time
(Wellman, 1996)....[W]e cannot dismiss the fact that any move out of a
neighborhood will increase the difficulty of meeting network members in
person. The Torotonians we have studied are in more contact with their
neighbors than with their intimate network members (Gates et al., 1973,
Wellman, 1996). (p. 40, 41)
Interestingly, the ability of contact to preserve ties has limits. Weekly telephone
contact is as effective in preserving ties as more frequent telephone contact. In
addition, daily face-to—face contact (likely through weak ties with neighbors or co-
workers) is associated with less durability than less frequent contact (Wellman et
al., 1997, p. 33). Mile interpersonal contact may reach a saturation state or
even a point of diminishing network returns, the potential value of proximity is
clear. While proximity does not ensure intimacy, it can obviously be used as an
asset to develop mutually beneficial relationships. Wellman (1996) concludes

that

...we cannot base an analysis of community solely on the neighborhood
because so many intimate and active ties are not local. Yet the
predominance of frequent contact with neighborhood and workmates
should lead network analysts to bring proximity back into their
investigations of community, along with the existing criteria of intimacy and
supportiveness. (p. 353)

67

 

//'7/€a

as my
speci-

relat

Spat/a/ity

. 11“:
Spatial) (1,5

”important
magnitude 3
My fUliher

Residential d

Wellman (1988) notes with some concern that this turn in community
research toward network analysis tends to neglect public communities (p. 87). As
suggested earlier, the private-public divide in society may be bridged in part by
church congregations. The congregation, like most social networks, is comprised
of linkages between individuals. However, unlike many social networks, it also
has a public presence embodied in its church building.

The spatial concentration of urbanization has changed the nature of
interpersonal relationships, although not necessarily toward increased alienation
as originally suggested. Instead, urbanization presents opportunities for more
specialized relationships. Social distance implies an inherent spatiality in
relationships. Distance decay theory posits decreasing social interaction with
increasing distance between actors. Some empirical evidence from social impact
theory and social network analysis suggests that more spatially concentrated
social groups may have more opportunities for interpersonal interaction.
Spatiality should be considered in any attempt to build community, those of
interest or those of territory.

A recent transportation survey suggests that church congregations are
spatially dispersed communities of interest. According to the National Personal
Transportation Survey (Center for Transportation Analysis, 1995), the mean
vehicle trip length for religious activities was 6.49 miles. Trip lengths of this
magnitude also confirm society’s automobile dependence. Data gathered for this
study further quantify the dispersed spatial organization of congregations.

Residential dispersion likely impacts communities of both interest and territory.

68

This study builds on theories described here to argue that the spatiality of
congregations is consequential. The following methodology tests the relationship

between spatial dispersion and social relations in church congregations.

69

 

 

spa

Je/E/Z
sit) ar

tinder

sociat ctg

\esxber

WHEY/‘Di :
”Wiles/Zr
associated xi
A sec
Q‘iaiaciensi
Capital within

DIOl'note Com

Chapter 7

THEORY, METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION

This study has suggested that faith-based institutions, such as church
congregations, can be instrumental in promoting human, social, community and
urban development. The study has reviewed the status of community in urban
space and concluded that the concept of community is changing and becoming
deterritorialized. However, evidence was also presented that spatial proximity is
still an important factor in social relations. The objective of this study is to better
understand the relationship between social organization and space for the
purpose of improved community development praxis by church congregations.
Assuming that the residential locations of church members reflect the spatial and
social decisions of these individuals, this study seeks to answer the question:
What if any impact does the spatial organization of a congregation have on its
social organization? Based on the evidence presented, the study expects that the
residential concentration or dispersion of members influences the level of social
capital or sense of community in a congregation. More specifically, the study
hypothesizes that higher levels of social capital in a congregation will be
associated with greater spatial proximity between members of the congregation.

A second objective of the study is to address how congregational
characteristics including the residential locations of members and the social
capital within the congregation might impact the ability of a congregation to

promote community development by extending its social capital outside of its

70

 

 

ya

“7,776

dWhe‘

ana”)
any

\V

reef/0’75”

PfQ/{ZZZ/Z

The :

lhhflmd
mnliguous fol
maximize the
WW7€MM

smaller study

I
C

greater percer

membership. Because the data and construct validity for this second objective is
weaker, the second portion of the study should be considered exploratory and
speculative.

The research methodology consisted of data collection from three
sources, data processing and analysis of patterns and relationships.
Congregation member residential locations were identified and patterns were
quantified. Data for this spatial analysis consisted of an address list processed
with a geographic information system. Demographic data from the U. S. Bureau
of the Census was assigned to churches and members based on their locations.
Finally, a survey instrument was used to assess the sense of community or
social capital present in the congregation and, to a limited extent, the
congregation’s engagement of the broader society. These data were processed
to generate 21 variables for each congregation. A complete list of variable names
and their meanings is included in Appendix A. Patterns were identified and

relationships between variables were analyzed.

Preliminary Data

The area under study was an eight county region including the four-county
Grand Rapids-Holland-Muskegon Metropolitan Statistical Area. Four counties
contiguous to the metropolitan statistical area were included in the study area to
maximize the percentage of household addresses georeferenced and to
minimize boundary effects for congregations at the outskirts of the study area. A
smaller study area may have increased biases for congregations that have

greater percentages of members residing outside the study area.

71

The ARC/INFO® and ArcView® geographic information system software
programs were used for geographic processing. U. S. Bureau of the Census
TIGER6/Line® base files were obtained from three sources. TIGER/Line” files
released in 1995 and 1997 were obtained directly from U. S. Bureau of the
Census compact discs. TIGER/Line® files were also obtained from the World
Wide Web site of Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI)
(httpzllwwwesricom). The TIGER/Line® files from ESRI were found to provide
the best address match rate. Church buildings were georeferenced using the
ArcView address-matching process so that their proximity to member residences
and their neighborhood characteristics could be assessed. Figure 2 is a map of
91 churches that were successfully georeferenced. Measures of spatial
organization and demographic variables were unavailable for the 10 churches

that were not georeferenced.

 

6 Topographically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
72

‘ l
. . ,. ’
i l r

l '

I '/

@\

- - 2.1 4’. J"
Ottawa County E. i

  

/ Kent County
.1 r I
,/ 1,, /
i I
// (9’ ,,/ , / 1
/ ,. / ’1. .
r/ / / i /
/ 2 / ; r, .7 /‘/ l
.« 1 /’® / ’ x l
,. / , ,x ,4
n l _ , / l
. ' x r /' , ,r/ f" / '
. " _/‘" [I f/ // ./ I
, . , , , ,. .»
/ ,.»" j ,x' ,r’ (x /* l
i/ ,. 1/‘ ,/ /.’ / [at l
’ I”, / 2’ / x ‘, / //
.1 t ,/' ,--’ / // v
. , . .
. / 1‘ r, / / I l/
/

Allegan County a Q ©Barry County

,___.___ __A_

,/ / / I 1“ I
N I _/ ,I/ [’1/ . ‘ a ' ' j
jig/:4 Urbanized Area j < ., M'Sh'gal‘

w e (9 Churches 1 5

/

_ 1 Grand Rapids ‘- K
0 10 7 20 Miles ; Meme”

l
. L. . l
a ‘__,‘7 7,

Figure 2: Christian Reformed Churches in Grand Rapids, MI

73

Congregational Spatial Organization

The Christian Reformed denominational authority provided 22,129
addresses of the church members of 101 congregations in the Grand Rapids
area. Some of the addresses (1,087 or 4.9 percent) were eliminated from the
dataset because they clearly could not be georeferenced. These included faulty
addresses, post office boxes and those addresses obviously located outside the
eight county study area. ArcView®’s address-matching process successfully
georeferenced 78 percent (16,506) of the remaining 21,042 addresses.

Two tests were conducted to assess bias in the sample of addresses.
First, the number of addresses georeferenced was compared to the number of
families in the congregation. The original number of addresses (21,204) is
greater than the number of families (13,461) as recorded in denominational
membership records (Office of the General Secretary, 1998), but less than the
number of total members (50,996). These differences occur in part because
single member households are not considered families in the denominational
census. The number of addresses georeferenced per congregation correlates
very well (F093) with the number of families per congregation.

Second, spatial bias was assessed by regressing the number of
georeferenced addresses in each zip code area on the number of original
addresses in each zip code area. Only 42 zip code areas with 30 or more
addresses expected to be georeferenced were included in the regression. The
association between the number of addresses actually georeferenced and the

number expected to be georeferenced was high (r=0.97). The residual for each

74

zip code is mapped in Figure 3. The spatial distribution of residuals reveals some
spatial bias. The highest positive residuals are in the center of the urbanized
area, while the highest negative residuals are on the southern and eastern edge
of the urbanized area. This bias is likely due to the changes of some zip codes in

this part of the study area’.

 

7 The TIGER/Line® files probably contained older zip codes than those in the
address list.

75

 

/ .’ '
/ /
/’ M x' I
’0 f I ‘1‘”, // x
/. ’1', ’f x’
,—’ . I, 2 ,1" ‘5, f /.
.2“ /’ ’ / , + " ,r
/” 1/ r/ / / // / ,
.4 ,r f/ , ,w I/ //
,1 i/ , // J. / / // /
- .1" , I ,/ ,t .1 /"V
1 a ,"' (7, ./ ,1 ' , 1 +
x 4 a 1 tr,“ / r” (z {if / /
_, j / , /. / , , / / ,J
z ,1 J f, / ’[f a // /'
- ’- ,
,' ’/ r / ,r . ,1 j,
. ’ _ / / /' ,’ l
-’ / ‘1’ / 1 x .r _.
x - f I r” /
+/ " ’/"’ I /' ’/ ” x/ ///‘/’
x ” ’ -’ « ’l l/ r" ' /‘
,- . r ,1 ,g‘ , / / / .
2 ‘ / a ,1 p; [I 1; f ,— /
V/ ’ 1’ f, {a I/ f, f: /"
f ,1 j 1’ r/ A, . ’11 l/
I J ‘ l
/ O I (I
I x /
r' / a 1’
O r / .r
+ ’ ‘ r /’
. f/ /,
qr” ” +
‘ A l
r" . i
. _/ ‘
'r/V ’ I O O ‘
a", n, ‘1 ‘
,r" 4" J 1,, i 7 A v i g_,_i¥.. #
7/_I»’ I“ A 7 7 i '
/ ,1"
,
./"

Residuals by Zip Code

"-gL-jiiiijg’ . O -3.6 - -1.o
Urbanized Area 4.0”0'5
O 05- 0.0
+ 0.0- 0.5

0 10 20 Miles "' 05-1-0

Li, 2, LL, T 272,, + 1.0- 2.3

Figure 3: Spatial Bias in Address-Matching by Zip Code

76

Demographic Variables

Congregation variables include congregation size, three-year growth rate
and youthfulness. Data for these variables was obtained from the annual
yearbooks of the Christian Reformed Church in North America (Office of the
General Secretary, 1996, 1997, 1998).

Additional demographic information was inferred about the members of
each congregation by attributing to them the characteristics of the neighborhoods
in which they lived. The racial, social and economic character of the
neighborhood (census block group) was determined with data obtained from the
U. S. Bureau of the Census Summary Tape File 3 through ESRI. These variables
included the percentage of the population that is white, the percentage of the
population that is college graduated and the poverty rate.

Values for these variables were assigned to each congregation member,
and the median value for the congregation was used as a characterization of the
congregation. Given the segregated nature of American cities (see chapter 4),
this inference is not unreasonable. However, congregational heterogeneity was
also inferred from the standard deviation of the poverty rate of the members’
neighborhoods.

Similarly, neighborhood variables were assigned to each church building
based on the census block group in which it was located. These demographic
variables were included in the study to establish more comprehensive

descriptions of the socio-spatial organization of the congregations.

77

Congregational Social Capital

The mobilization and expenditure of congregational social capital was
measured with a two-page survey instrument (see Appendix B) mailed to pastors
or council clerks of 101 congregations. The items of the survey included
indicators of social capital and assessments of the congregation’s valuing of
lntemal and external congregational functions. The pastors or clerks were also
asked to have two other key individuals complete the survey. Participating
congregations could, therefore, provide up to three respondents, one of which
was likely the pastor. The number of surveys returned was 103 from 49
congregations. The use of key informants in this study was the most manageable
way to assess the social capital of numerous congregations. This methodology
often provided data for survey questions that were left unanswered by some
respondents. In addition, the methodology moderated the responses by
producing an average response for a congregation with more than one key
informant.

The methodology for assessing congregational social capital is not ideal.
First, key informants can provide only limited, individual assessments of
congregational social capital. Pastors may have perceptions of the church
different from those of lay members (Bama Research Group, 1998b). Since
responses were anonymous the study cannot differentiate between the
perceptions of pastors and those of other key informants. A preferred
methodology would have been to survey a sample from each congregation.

Second, the sample of congregations was not random and could be skewed

78

toward those pastors with a greater interest in congregational social capital.
Third, the study uses sense of community as an indicator of social capital. A
more direct and sophisticated measure of social capital would be valuable. For
these reasons, this study should be considered exploratory of possible socio-

spatial relationships in church congregations.

79

Chapter 8

ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL AND SOCIAL DATA

The spatial, demographic and social capital data formed a composite
socio-spatial picture of each congregation. These data were analyzed to identify
patterns and draw conclusions about relationships within the congregation. The
analysis was comprised of four parts. First, the spatial organization, the
demographic character and the social capital of each congregation were
quantified. Second, the analysis used simple correlation as a preliminary
examination of potential relationships. Third, regression models were developed
to explain social capital and neighborhood interest. Finally, two cluster analyses

were conducted to identify sets of socio-spatially similar congregations.

Congregational Character

Congregational Spatial Organization

The most common measures of central tendency and dispersion of a point
distribution are the mean center and standard distance. Unfortunately, both of
these measures are sensitive to extreme observations (Barber, 1988). To
minimize these effects, two alternative measures, a median center and a median
distance, were used in this study. A median center of a congregation was
determined by calculating the median of the x coordinates and the median of the
y coordinates of the members’ residential locations. This measure of central

tendency is a simplified modification of the Manhatten Median (Barber, 1988). In

80

addition, the median distance rather than the standard distance of residences
from the median center was calculated as a measure of concentration or
dispersion.

Two other statistics were calculated to describe the spatial organization of
a congregation. The median distance of residences to the church building was
considered important since the church building is the primary meeting location for
most congregations. Not surprisingly, the median distance to the church
correlates very highly with the median distance to the median center (r=0.94).
Finally, the distance from the median center of the congregation to the church
building was calculated as a measure of displacement of the congregation from
its church.

Measures of spatial organization and demographic variables (see below)
were not calculated for eight congregations with fewer than 30 households
georeferenced. This sample was considered too small to adequately describe the
congregation. The most spatially concentrated congregation had a median
distance to its median center of 0.63 miles. The most dispersed congregation
had a median distance to its median center of 6.24 miles. The mean median
distance for all 93 congregations was 2.04 miles. Displacement of the median
center of the congregation from the church was measured for only 84
congregations. The maximum displacement was 3.19 miles. The minimum
displacement was 0.04 miles. The mean displacement was 0.75 miles.
Dispersion is not merely a function of congregation size. The correlation between

dispersion and size is nearly zero, although displacement is positively correlated

81

with size (r=0.22). Graphical examples of concentrated congregations are shown
in Figure 4. Graphical examples of dispersed congregations are shown in Figure
5. The figures contain both urban and suburban congregations as well as

centered and displaced congregations.

82

. \\

   
 
          
   

1,, Cor/gregatio/n’A /:
, .'~/// //, ’1 . /; , :

V \ \. \ \ '\

/

gational Density

_ _ Cor’t'gre
N Clty 0f Grand RaPIdS (member families per

square mile

(a Church _——. )
, l 0 - 1

// . Fmi 1 - 3

//fi Urbanized Area ’ ,, _.

 

0 5 #___-110 Miles

Figure 4: Selected Concentrated Congregations

83

.‘\\

  
   
   

. lei
/ , / g .
5; g ’ / Congregation D
/ /’L.
// 7 4
/, /’ . é“ /. /
:,/ / // / . , J (I // /
y/ f , // /
”/6; , / , // /

\
\\
\\

Congregatr . ' ' f . " . , .

/://{;/’ ///// I; \ .I“ / /z/ /
, / ,i /. /w, . I“

///,/// ///.' j, ,
/:/ / /

Congregational Density
N City of Grand Rapids (member families per

square mile)

(9 Church -2, r 04
/ 4’” - 1 .3
566 Urbanized Area 3_ 7 N
me 7 - 15 w
0 5 -10 Miles - 15-100

 

Figure 5: Selected Dispersed Congregation

84

.\\
\\

Demographic Variables

A broad range of characteristics were represented by the congregations in
the data set. The smallest congregation is 71 members, the largest is 2727
members, and the median size is 485 members. Some churches are located in
highly urban neighborhoods with population densities greater than 14,000
persons per square mile. The most rural church is located in a census block
group with a population density of 44 persons per square mile. Church
neighborhoods also range from 99.7 percent white to 3.3 percent white and 75.7
percent poor to 0 percent poor.

The median members of the congregations live in neighborhoods from
85.3 to 99.6 percent white and from 1.3 to 14.9 percent poor. The social distance
between members of the congregation and residents of the neighborhood of the
church building was calculated as the difference between values of demographic
variables. Again, a complete list of variable names and their meanings is

included in Appendix A. A statistical summary of the data set is shown in Table 1.

85

 

Congregation Statistics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Median size 485 members
Maximum median distance of members to median center 6.24 miles
Mean median distance of members to median center 2.04 miles
Maximum social capital (1-5) 4.21
Median social mpital (1 -5) 3.58
Maximum percent poor (location of church building) 75.7%
Maximum median percent poor (location of median congregation member) 14.9%
Median median percent poor 4.3%
Maximum standard deviation of percent poor (congregational heterogeneity) 17.4%
Median standard deviation of percent poor (congregational heterogeneity) 4.9%
Maximum growth rate 25.0%
Median growth rate -1.4%

 

Table 1: Summary of Selected Congregation Statistics

Congregational Social Capital

An index of social capital was constructed from 12 Likert Scale-type items

on the survey instrument. These items included:
Compared to other CRC congregations in the area...

...the sense of community in this congregation is...
...the level of intimacy in this congregation is ......

...congregation members are in each other’s homes...

mammewwe

...the level of trust between members in this congregation is. ..

...congregation members borrow belongings from each other...

...members socialize with each other outside of church events...
...new members find it easy to make friends in this congregation.

In a time of crisis almost all families in this congregation would

immediately turn to other families in the congregation for support.

primary or most important community.

Almost all congregation members have many friends in this congregation.
Almost all members have a sense of belonging to the congregation.
Almost all members feel a sense of obligation toward the congregation.
Almost all congregation members would consider the congregation their

Respondents were asked to choose one of five responses on scales such

as “very weak, weak, average, strong, very strong” and “strongly disagree,

disagree, unsure, agree, strongly agree”. The five possible responses were

86

 

assigned values from one for low social capital to five for high social capital.
When a congregation was represented by more that one respondent, the mean
of the responses for each item was considered the congregational response for
the item. The mean of the congregational responses. for all 12 items was
considered the measure of congregational social capital. This self-reported
measure of social capital had a median of 3.58 with a standard deviation of 0.33
on a scale of one to five. The maximum congregational social capital score was
4.21; the minimum was 2.83.

The items in the scale measured a relative strength of social ties within the
congregation. Most of the items in the scale measured an aspect of sense of
community. The study assumes that this sense of community and the social ties
it represents were indicative of the presence of productive social capital.
However, two of the twelve items, related to borrowing belongings and support in
times of crisis, addressed the productive potential of social capital more directly.
Other items in the survey instrument also attempted to measure the presence of
social capital directly. For example, two questions asked the number of volunteer
hours and the amount of financial gifts given by the congregation. A scale of the
above 12 items was considered the most valid measure of social capital. The
internal consistency reliability of the index, as measured by coefficient alpha, was
0.81.

The effectiveness of the congregation in promoting community
development in the neighborhood of the church was not assessed by this study.

However, respondents were asked to indicate the “priority most of your members

87

would give each of these [13] external or outreach church functions” on a scale
from “not important” to “priority”. External functions included items such as prayer
for others, food programs and counseling ministry. These responses were
compared to a similar prioritization of internal church functions, such as Sunday
worship, fellowship and Bible study to create a ratio of external orientation. This
ratio indicates the extent to which the congregation is interested in the world
outside itself relative to its emphasis on the maintenance of the congregation and
its members. In addition, one of the external functions, “neighborhood
ministry/mission”, was used as a specific measure of the importance to the
congregation of neighborhood outreach.

These variables permit a cursory comparison of congregational social
capital with congregational outreach. This comparison forms the basis of
speculative commentary on the extension of social capital outside the
congregation into the neighborhood. The results of the study would be far more
conclusive if it measured the positive impact by congregations on neighborhoods.
Still, this study argues merely that social capital is a potentially valuable resource
that congregations can use to improve distressed neighborhoods surrounding

their churches.

Variable Correlations

Pearson’s product moment correlation coefficient was calculated for each
pair of variables as an initial analysis of relationships between variables. The
complete correlation matrix is available in Appendix C. The correlation matrix

reveals the potential presence and absence of several interesting relationships.

88

The congregational social capital (SOCINDEX) has no significant
relationship with the spatial measures of dispersion (MEDDISTMEDCE) (r=0.15)
or displacement (DSTMEDCENTCH) (r=0.21). The study had hypothesized that
social capital would increase as spatial dispersion decreases. These correlation
coefficients provide no evidence of a strong relationship between social capital
and distance and suggest that the hypothesis should, be rejected.

Other relationships between variables were not hypothesized; however,
several potential patterns emerge from the data. First, and not surprisingly,
congregational social capital seems to decrease as the size of the congregation
(AVGTOTMEMB) increases (F-OAZ). Congregational social capital increases
with interest in neighborhood ministry (NEIGHBINTER) (r=0.40). This correlation
is supportive evidence that congregational social capital is a resource that could
be transformed into positive benefits for a surrounding neighborhood. In addition,
congregational social capital increases as the socio-economic status of the
neighborhoods of the members (MEDPCTPOOR) declines (r=0.30) indicating
that social capital could be an especially valuable resource in lower income
neighborhoods.

Second, congregation dispersion (MEDDISTMEDCE) apparently has no
relationship with congregation size (AVGTOTMEMB) (r=-0.06). Large
congregations do not appear to be more dispersed than smaller congregations.
Congregation dispersion is significantly associated with population density of the
neighborhoods in which the members live (MEDPOPPSQMI) (r=-0.42). The

finding that rural congregations tend to be more dispersed than urban

89

congregations is not surprising. Dispersed congregations seem also to be
characterized by growth (GROWTH) (r=0.27) and youthfulness
(YOUTHFULNESS) (r=0.30). In addition, dispersed congregations seem to have
a high rate of voluntarism (VOLUNTRATIO) (r=0.37).

Third, interest by the congregation in the neighborhood of the church
(NEIGHBINTER) seems highest for congregations that are displaced from the
church (DSTMEDCENTCH) (F048) and for churches located in neighborhoods
with urban characteristics such as high population density (POPPSQMI) (r=0.38)
and high poverty rate (PCTPOOR) (F039). Similarly, an external orientation in
the congregation (EXT ERNALRATIO) increases with urban characteristics of the
church. Congregations that have an external orientation also appear to be more
heterogeneous (STDEVPCTPOOR) (r=0.41) suggesting that heterogeneity may
contribute to a greater understanding of and concern for others.

Fourth, the further a congregation is displaced from its church building
(DSTMEDCENTCH) the greater its social distance (racial, social and economic
differences) will be from the residents of the neighborhood surrounding the
church (r=0.41). However, social distance (SOCDIST) seems to increase with the
congregation’s interest in neighborhood ministry or mission (NEIGHBINTER)
(no.45). This association may indicate that congregations that attend churches
located in low-income neighborhoods are interested in the development of those
neighborhoods, although the congregants generally are not willing to live in the

neighborhoods. The social and physical distance between congregation

90

members and neighborhood members will likely limit the effectiveness of these
congregations to facilitate neighborhood change.

Finally, congregations with members that live in poorer neighborhoods
(MEDPCTPOOR) seem to be dispersed (r=0.57) and live far from their church
(r=0.51). One might expect members in lower income neighborhoods to be less
mobile and more likely to attend a nearby church than those in higher income
neighborhoods. This result could reflect the general displacement of
congregations (DSTMEDCENTCH) from churches in poor neighborhoods

(PCTPOOR) (r=0.48).

Multiple Regression Models

Multiple regression was used to develop a model that explains the level of
social capital in a congregation more fully. This technique identifies the impact of
each explanatory variable on social capital. Independent explanatory variables
should be selected for potential inclusion in the model based on previous
research or theoretical reasoning that suggests a relationship between them and
the dependent variable. This practice permits specific hypotheses to be tested.
The first regression model developed for this study included only terms that

appear to be theoretically related to social capital.

Theoretical Regression on Social Capital

Of particular interest in this study is whether spatial distance influences
the sense of community or the level of social capital within a congregation. The

literature reviewed in chapter 6 supported a hypothesis that decreased spatial

91

distance between actors will increase opportunities for social interaction and
increase the level of social capital in the congregation. Several other potentially
important variables were also included in the development of the model.
The distance of the members from one another (MEDDISTMEDCENT)
was expected to contribute negatively to social capital because physical distance
will inhibit social interaction. The rate of voluntarism (VOLUNTRATIO) was
expected to contribute positively to social capital since social capital increases
with use (Putnam, 1993). Because voluntarism could also be an indicator or
result of social capital, inclusion of this variable may constitute a specification
error in the model. The size of the congregation (AVGTOTMEMB) was expected
to contribute negatively to social capital because of the greater intimacy available
or perceived in smaller groups. Sense of community, for example, seems more
easily observed in smaller groups. The rate at which members leave and join the
cOngregation (VOLATILI‘IY) is expected to contribute negatively to social capital
Since membership change inhibits opportunities to develop relationships of trust.
The economic diversity in the congregation (using STDEVPCTPOOR as an
i ndicator) was expected to contribute negatively to social capital since diversity or
i "Greased social distance between members may inhibit relationship-building.
M E DPOPPSQMI, the population density of the neighborhoods of the
congregation members, was also included in the development of the model.
ACCording to Wirth (1939), density or urbanization would contribute negatively to
soCial capital since urban residents have numerous relational resources readily

aVailable and depend less on any particular set of relationships. Rural residents,

92

on the other hand, may depend more on their interest group (congregational)

membership for social capital support. That population density would decrease

social capital and member proximity would increase social capital is not

contradictory because two separate mechanisms may be at work. Finally, the

expected contribution of the poverty level of member neighborhoods

(MEDPCTPOOR) was unclear. It could be expected to contribute negatively to

social capital because increased member wealth may make more time available

for volunteering within the congregation (Qiaoming, Ryan, Aurbach & Besser,

1 998). Alternatively, lower income congregation members may depend on social

capital relatively more than on financial or other types of capital.

Five cases were eliminated from the dataset because they were identified

as being outliers or having high leverages. The case with the greatest positive

residual and the case with the greatest negative residual were also eliminated.

The results of the multiple regression are shown in Table 2. Significant

 

  

Contributions are shaded.
N
:I Set: Var: SOCINDEX
: 33
1 Multiple R: 0.766
I <lyared multiple R: 0.586
I Adjusted squared multiple R: 0.471
§tandard error of estimate: 0.201 . . ‘ ‘ _
- , ct Coefficient Swami 9 MW :T‘ot‘erancefg‘, at i 1», itinerant.
CONSTANT 4.042 0.231 0.000 17.518 0.000
I MEDDISTMEDCE -0.065 0.069 0172 0.493 -0.940 0.356
I VOLUNTRATIO -8.119 6.558 -0.180 0.786 -1.238 0.227
I AVGTOTMEMB -0.001 0.000 -0.588 0.688 -3.791 ‘ “$0.001 ‘
j VOLATILITY -1.810 1.014 0239 0.925 -1.785 0.086
t STDEVPCTPOOR 0.054 0.028 0.457 0.303 1.954 0.062
t MEDPOPPSQMI -0.000 0.000 -0.609 0.237 2304 ' 10.030" 1
MEDPCTPOOR 0.058 0.031 0.293 0.703 1.912 0.067

 

 

 

Ta ble 2: Output of Theoretical Regression on Social Capital

93

The output in Table 2 indicates that group size (AVGTOTMEMB) and
neighborhood population density (MEDPOPPSQMI) contribute significantly
(01:0.05, one-tailed test) to the model, explaining 47.1 percent of the variation in

congregational social capital. Both of these variables have a negative influence
on social capital.

A ssumptions of Multiple Regression

Several assumptions of multiple linear regression must be satisfied for the
results to be valid. First, an assumption is made that linear relationships exist
between independent and dependent variables. A scatterplot of relationships
between variables is shown in Figure 6. Most variables have little apparent
relationship, satisfying the assumption of linearity. Only MEDPOPPSQMI
appears to have a possible curvilinear relationship with SOCINDEX. To examine
this relationship further, an added-variable plot, shown in Figure 7, was

constructed. This plot also reveals a possible curvilinear relationship between

l"esiduals indicating a potential problem with the satisfaction of this assumption.
A second assumption of regression is that weak correlations exist
between independent variables. The correlation coefficients for pairs of
independent variables are shown in Table 3. The highest correlation, 0.761, is
near to the 0.8 level of concern. The lowest tolerance, 0.237, is approaching
29 To- Tolerances should be above 0.5 to provide evidence of no multicollinearity.

TWO condition indices, 17.533 and 19.328, fall between 10 and 30 indicating

moderate multicollinearity between variables.

94

VOLATILITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 U I I 010 I I I l I I
0 09 :‘ -
6 - 5
I» 0 08 r J
in 5 - -' O o 07 c .1 in
8 50‘... a m: '
g 4 I' - E ' II E
5’.) Z 0% '- " .9
8 3 " ‘ g 0.04 - - g
3‘ 2;. .r . > 0.0:» . - < 100°” 7
° 0.02 I- -1 , ."c
1 _ Y -‘ ‘ ‘ . > .4 '3‘ .
0-01 - . 3 q a or U
0 r 1 r 0.00 r “a at e. 1 - 0 r r ” ° 1
2.5 3.0 3.5 40 4.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2 5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
socmoex sccmoex sccmoex
o 4 I I I 15 fir r I m I I I
8000 - -
0.3 — - g z, ‘ E m r- ‘1
2 10 I' o " O o t.
I— - . E 4000 - “ -
0-2 — a 8 n‘ o “ .
a g 3000 _ 2 j .
t o N
' 5 .. 0 . x .1 In
a r— a
o- 1 — A 2': 7 ‘1 d U) c ‘7‘ S m - a 6 '1
' p; ° ° 1000 - “ ° -
0-0 I I ° I c l l I c I 10 e l 2
2-5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
socmcex socmoex socmcex
F - 15 I t I
Igure 6: Scatterplots of Independent
Va nables against Dependent Variable a,
g 10 - -1
6
l
E] .
S 5 - L 3 Ac. I B -I
3000 s 1 i 1 i r c ° » ’*‘ ‘ '.
C l l I
2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
2000 ‘_ A sccmcex
E
Q
to 1 000 *- °~
Q '7 ii ‘ g
Q Q
Q 0 —- ‘ at
$1 (:7
e
-1 000 - ‘ a
_2000 I I l l I I l
-O.5 —0.4 -O.3 -O.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
SOCINDEX

l= ‘ . . - .
'9 Dre 7: Added-Variable Plot for MEDPOPPSQMI and SOCINDEX

95

 

 

 

u.i g _
8 9 g o 5 ‘5
“J '— m >- “- (D o a)
E § 5 L- 5 a o. -J
a) I'- I" :I. 0. (L I— g
:1 l- 3 Lu 0- 0- _
S 6' 9 0 1°- 3 8 3
2 > < > a) 2 2 ix
MEDDISTMEDCE 1.000
VOLUNTRATIO 0.119 1.000
AVGTOTMEMB 0.028 -0.483 1 .000
VOLATILITY 0.165 0.761 -0.071 1.000
STDEVPCTPOOR 0.1 50 0. 182 -0.057 0.1 74 1 .000
MEDPOPPSQMI -0.374 0.110 0.054 0.105 0.575 1.000
M EDPCTPOOR 0.454 0.205 -0.304 0.042 0.395 0.093 1.000
R ESIDUALS 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1.000

 

 

Table 3: Correlation Coefficients for Independent Variables and Residuals

Third, a valid multiple regression assumes a lack of relationship between
residuals and independent variables. These correlation coefficients, all zero, are

also contained in Table 3.

 

0.2 i- -

RESIDUAL
O

.6
00
l
I

 

 

 

_04 I kl I l l
3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2

ESTIMATE

F59 ure 8: Plot of Residuals against Estimates of Dependent Variable

96

Fourth, the assumption of homoscedasticity was examined.
Homoscedasticity is the extent to which the residuals have no pattern relative to
the dependent variable. The plot of residuals against estimates of the dependent
variable in Figure 8 appears fairly random, indicating homoscedasticity in the
data.

Fifth, a valid multiple regression assumes that residuals are normally
distributed. The distribution of residuals was examined with a histogram, a
probablity plot and the Lilliefors goodness-of-fit test. The histogram and

probability plot, shown in Figures 9 and 10, indicate some possible non-normality
in the distribution of the residuals. However, the Lilliefors goodness-of-fit statistic
provides evidence that the residuals are normally distributed. The test statistic is
0-088, which is less than 0.154, the critical value of this test statistic (n=33,

a=0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis that the distribution is normal is not

rejected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 I I I I I I
8~
7..
~02 33
6— s
o
”c“ 5e 3.
a 3
U 4— '8
3 -0.1 “
F” (D
93
2_
1
0 0.0
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -O.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3

RESIDUALS

Figul'e 9: Histogram of Residuals

97

 

C

2 3 I W I I r l

H

3

E 2"” -1
.‘2

O

E 1" "‘
a *

L. 0_ U y”‘ 4
2 :5

g .

a '1’ —
> .-

'8 '1.

a ‘27: ‘
8.

x l I l l l I

Lu

 

 

 

-3
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
RESIDUALS

Figure 10: Probability Plot of Residuals

Finally, spatial autocorrelation, the principle that geographically proximal
units behave or are characterized similarly, can invalidate multiple regression.
Figure 11 is a map of residuals for the regression on social capital. As the map
indicates, some spatial patterns may be present in the residuals with highly

Positive residuals clustered toward the west.

98

 

Residuals for Social Capital Regression

N O -0.39

w //,/ -0.20
E l’ / .

7.4/4- Urbanized Area 0 -0.10

s ' + 0.00

Il' 0.10

0|

. #10 Miles

FIQlIre 11: Social Capital Regression Residuals

99

+ 0.20 -

--0.20
--0.10
- 0.00
- 0.10
- 0.20
0.30

In summary, the examination of assumptions of multiple regression
reveals some potential problems with the regression, calling into question the
validity of the model. Interpretation of these results should be made with the
understanding that some assumptions of regression may have been violated.
More credible results may be achieved through further manipulation of variables

and the use of a larger sample.

Regression of Principal Components on Social Capital

A second regression model was developed using principal components of
the data. Variables (excluding social capital, the dependent variable) were
grouped into five sets of similar variables called components or factors. One
variable (that which “loaded” most heavily on the component) was selected from
each component to represent that set of variables. The components were broadly
defined as urbanness, dispersion/commitment, size/social status, youthful
Stability and outreach orientation. The variables selected to represent these
components were racial composition of the neighborhood of the church
(PCTWHITE), distance of members to the church (MEDDISTCHUR), education
'eVel of the neighborhood of the church (PCTCOLLGRAD), youthfulness of the
congregation (YOUTHFULNESS), and relative importance of external to internal
Cior‘Qregational functions (EXTERNALRATIO). The matrix of how each variable

contributed to each extracted component is shown in Table 4.

100

 

 

if VARIABLES _ ' ‘ ‘ ' FACTORS
SIZE]

'l i" 335,13; Eitéitii’i emit.
PCTWHITE } .0900, —0.042 0.008 0.223 -0.102
MEDPCTWHITE 4189.7 3; 0.020 0294 0.001 -0.026
POPPSQMI ', . 0.895. 1 'r “ —0.147 -0.144 0.087 0.059
soccrsr ‘. -. {10.851 1, 1; ‘1 0.059 0140 -0.321 0.165
PCTPOOR 308.220 ‘ - 3‘ 0.259 -0.136 -0.341 0.227
MEDPOPPSQMI 0.707 f : ' -0259 0.033 0.323 0.231
STDEVPCTPOOR . 0.684 ‘ 0.223 0.072 0.259 1‘ 0.514
MEDPCTCOLLGR 0.559 , -0.020 0.701 0.010 0.127

\ CONTRIBRATIO - , 0.526: , 0.416 0.327 0.133 0114

I MEDDISTCHUR -0.102 :3 10.971 ‘ ~ 0.032 0079 0.061

‘1 MEDDISTMEDCE -o.271 0.825 0.009 -0.146 0.136

I DSTMEDCENTCH 0.369 0.821 0.089 -0.078 0.200

1 VOLUNTRATIO -0044 0.744 -O.280 0.136 0392

I MEDPCTPOOR 0.269 0.670 -0.401 0.095 0339

I1 PCTCOLLGRAD -0.257 0.005 0.774 0.313 0024

1 AVGTOTMEMB -0.024 -O.481 0.598 -0.167 -0.076

i YOUTHFULNESS 0.186 0.346 0.030 0.760 0058

| VOLATILITY 0.109 0.400 0.135 . 0.726 -0.206

I EXTERNALRATIO 0.299 -0.085 0.002 0122 ‘ 0-877
NEIGHBINTER 0.458 0.264 -0.389 0.020 0.561
GRowTH 0.272 0.338 0.435 -0.302 -0.241

 

 

Table 4: Rotated Loading Matrix of Principal Components for Regression

Two cases were eliminated from the dataset because they were identified
as being outliers or having high leverages. The case with the greatest positive
residual and the case with the greatest negative residual were also eliminated. A
regression of these five variables produced the results shown in Table 5.

Significant contributions are shaded.

101

 

 

 

 

        

FDep Van SOCINDEX

N:
Multiple R:
Squared multiple R:
Adjusted squared multiple R:
standarderrorof estimate:
CONSTANT 2.913 . 0.000 5.487
MEDDISTCHUR 0.145 0.442 0.817 2.743
YOUTHFULNESS -0.759 -0.170 0.757 -1.017
EXTERNALRATIO 0.701 0.270 0.802 1 .661
PC'TWHITE 0.001 0.150 0.750 0.893
PCTCOLLGRAD -0.011 0.004 -0.389 0.878 -2.507

 

 

 

Table 5: Output of Principal Components Regression on Social Capital

This outcome indicates that the distance of members from their church
(MEDDISTCHUR) and the social status of the church neighborhood (using
PCTCOLLGRAD as a proxy) are significant factors in the equation, explaining
28.0 percent of the variation in social capital using a two-tailed test with 01:01.
Assumptions were not examined for the regression on social capital by principal

com ponents of the data.

Interpretation of Social Capital Multiple Regression Models

The two regression models described above provide some evidence that
the level of social capital in a congregation may be influenced positively by
distance of members to the church building and negatively by congregation size,
Population density of member neighborhoods and educational attainment of the
Church neighborhood. This finding fails to support the hypothesis that physical
PVOXimity promotes social interaction and stimulates the development of social
capital. Based on this evidence, the hypothesis that social capital increases with
Spatial proximity is rejected. In contrast, the social capital in the congregation

102

 

seems to increase as members disperse and their residential distance from the
church increases. An alternative hypothesis is discussed in chapter 9. That social
capital seems to be lower for congregations in more urbanized areas seems to
support Wirth's argument that cities breed a certain amount of individualism.

While not statistically significant, the contributions of the economic status
and economic diversity of the congregation may be meaningful. Social capital
seems to be higher for congregations that live in a variety of somewhat low-
inoome neighborhoods. These relationships suggest that social capital may be
serving as an alternative to financial capital. Surprisingly, the effect of
congregation economic diversity (STDEVPCTPOOR) on social capital appears to
be positive, opposite to that anticipated. Volatility of the congregation (rates of
members leaving and joining) seems associated with lower levels of social
capital, as expected, although the contribution is not statistically significant.

Finally, that several other variables do not contribute to an explanation of
SOCial capital is itself an interesting finding. It may indicate that sense of
community is fairly robust and could be intentionally developed in a variety of
settings. These results suggest, at least, that complex relationships are at work
bet\llleen the variables measured for this study and others not included here.
Future research with more carefully constructed causal processes, additional and
more precisely defined variables, and larger datasets is required for more

conclusive results regarding the development of social capital in organizations.

103

Theoretical Regression on Neighborhood Interest

A congregation can strengthen its own sense of community and generate
internal social capital. It can also promote external community development by
facilitating social development in the neighborhood surrounding the church. A
regression model was constructed to explore potential correlates for
congregational interest in the neighborhood of the church. This portion of the
study relies on subjective data to draw speculative or exploratory conclusions
about congregations and community development. The dependent variable
selected was NEIGHBINTER. This survey item asked key informants to identify
the "priority most of your members would give [to]...[n]eighborhood
ministry/mission". Respondents were expected to circle one of five choices from
"not important" to "priority".

Several explanatory variables were selected for potential inclusion in the
mOdel. The distance of the members from the church building (MEDDISTCHUR)
was expected to contribute negatively to concern about the neighborhood
because physical distance from the neighborhood of the church will decrease
cor'lcern for or interest in the neighborhood. As mentioned earlier, the social
Capital of the congregation (SOCINDEX) may be indicative of a survival
mentality. However, here the assumption was made that social capital represents
a generally healthy organization and will contribute positively to concern for the
neighborhood outside the church. The size of the congregation (AVGTOTMEMB)
is expected to contribute positively to a prioritization of neighborhood in that a

IarQer organization would have more resources (human, financial and physical)

104

available for outreach work. Finally, the poverty level of the neighborhood of the
church (PCTPOOR) is expected to contribute positively to an interest in and
concern about the neighborhood. The output for the neighborhood interest

regression model is shown in Table 6. Significant contributions are shaded.

 

 

 

          

 

 

Dep Var. NEIGHBINTER
N: 37
Multiple R: 0.696
Squared multiple R: 0.484
Adjusted squared multiple R: 0.420
-33“an °"°'°'°5“male? 0:615 W .. a .. a...
CONSTANT -2.949 -1.955 .
MEDDISTCHUR -0.022 0.150 -0.021 0.789 -0.145
SOCINDEX 1.443 0.368 0.577 0.746 3.924
AVGTOTMEMB 0.001 0.001 0.301 0.661 1.927 ’7 g . .
LPCTPOOR 0.052 0.013 0.575 0.787 4.021 gjjj 5

 

 

Table 6: Output of Theoretical Regression on Neighborhood lnteres

The sense of community of the congregation (SOCINDEX), the
congregation size (AVGTOTMEMB) and the poverty level of the neighborhood of
the church (PCTPOOR) all contribute significantly (a=0.05, one-tailed test) and
Positively to an explanation of 42.0 percent of the priority a congregation places
on ministry in the neighborhood of the church. These results suggest that large
congregations located in poor neighborhoods have both the interest and the
re$0urces necessary to actively promote positive change. That sense of
community is positively related to a high interest in and concern for the
neighborhood again provides evidence that the social capital of a community of
interest or social network could be transformed into benefits for those that are
external to or on the fringes of the network. Assumptions were not examined for

this regression on neighborhood interest.

105

A Socio-spatial Typology of Congregations
To conclude the statistical analysis of this study, principal components
were again extracted from the data and congregations were clustered into similar
sets. These analyses produced a general socio-spatial categorization of the
congregations.

Because no time series data is included in the dataset, an R-mode
approach was used with 21 variables. Only 33 cases had data for all 21
variables. The low ratio of cases to variables gives an exploratory tone to this
analysis. Because the variables in this dataset are measured in different units,
the correlation matrix (rather than the covariance matrix) was used in the
analysis. Only five of the six factors with eigenvalues greater than one were

retained. The sixth factor had a marginal eigenvalue of 1.058, and five factors
Were most easily interpreted. The resultant factors were rotated (using the most
Common varimax rotation) to assist in the interpretation of the factors. The
rotated loading matrix for five factors is shown in Table 7. The loading of the

Variables contributing highly to each factor is shaded.

106

 

 

’ VARIABLES l ‘ FACTORS ‘ " , .
SIZE]
URBANNESS DISPERSION] SOC'AL YOUTHFUL OUTREACH

 

 

COMMITMENT STATUS VITALITY VITALITY

' PC‘IWHITE -0.922 -0.050 0.008 -0.181 -0.083
SOCDIST 0.906 0.060 0150 0.259 0.157

,I MEDPCTWHITE , -0.905 -0052 0.258 -0.015 0021

/ PCTPOOR 0.822 . 0.216 -0.171 0.200 0.252

’ POPPSQMI 0.816 -0.112 0.023 -0.012 -0.016
/ MEDPOPPSQMI 0.805 0.233 0.147 -0234 0.148
f STDEVPCTPOOR 0.654 0.100 -0.062 -0.284 0191
l MEDPCTCOLLGR 0.522 -0002 . 0.768 - - 3 0.062 0,012
’ MEDDlSTCHUR 0093 0.940 ‘ . , 0.063 0.102 0.165
{ MEDDISTMEDCE -0.253 0.804 ' 0.052 0141 0.224
I VOLUNTRATIO -0.098 0.781 0259 -0.101 -0.310
DSTMEDCENTCH 0.383 0.773 0.102 0.111 0.253
MEDPCTPOOR 0.294 10.707 » 0392 0093 -0.173
PCTCOLLGRAD -0.216 0.045 . 0.834 ; ; -0.284 -0.086

, AVGTOTMEMB 0070 -0.468 1" - 0.553 K *1 0.264 -0.126
1 SOCINDEX 0091 0.340 0501 ‘ . i 0043 0.627
YOUTHFULNESS 0.181 0.338 -0052 ' r 0.752 0.002
VOLATILITY 0.152 0.426 0.073 ' 0595 0173
l EXTERNALRATIO 0.412 -0.147 0.082 0.086 ‘ 0.803
l NEIGHBINTER 0.444 0.242 -0.188 0.002 g 0.676
’G ROWTH 0.132 0.353 0.357 0.409 0249
’1’ E’yagzngxplalned 5.994 4.223 2.413 1.718 2.031

c:°"1|)onerlts
1 PemeMOfTota, 28.545 20.109 11.490 8.179 9.673

 

Variance Explained

 

Table 7: Rotated Loading Matrix for Principal Components Analysis

The variables combined to create five factors or variable composites.
Combinations of different types of variables made clear interpretations of the
Com ponents somewhat difficult. The variables that loaded highly on factor one
incll-Ided demographic variables and social distance. This variable composite was
called Urbanness. The variables that loaded highly on factor two include the

spatial variables but also the variable of volunteering. This variable composite

was called Dispersion/Commitment. The variables that loaded highly on factor

107

three include the congregation size and the percent of adult population that are
college graduates in both the neighborhood of the church and the neighborhoods
of the members. Social capital also loaded moderately on this component. This
variable composite was called Size/Social Status. The variables that loaded
highly on factor four include high youthfulness and low volatility. This variable
composite was called Stable Vitality, assuming youthfulness is a sign of a
healthy, vibrant organization. A congregation scoring low on this factor may be
elderly and in decline. The variables that loaded highly on factor five include an
interest in the church neighborhood as well as an external orientation in general.
High sense of community or social capital also loaded highly on this factor. This
variable composite was called Outreach Vitality, assuming social capital or sense
Of community indicate a healthy organization, strong enough to be both internally
cOhesive and externally engaged. A congregation scoring low on this factor may
be traditional and formal, neither warmly communal nor active outside its walls.
These factors explain 78.0 percent of the variance in the data.
Factor scores are a measure of the impact of each factor on each case.
These standardized scores were used to group cases into clusters. First, Ward’s
minimum variance method was used in a hierarchical clustering. The resulting
dendogram (see Appendix D) indicated that congregations were likely to form
three or five clusters. The K-means partitioning clustering method was used with
fiVe cluster seeds and two cases removed. Only 21 of the 31 cases were

dassified the same by the two methods, reflecting the complexity of both the

108

principal components and the clusters. Cluster statistics are contained in

Appendix E.

The cluster parallel coordinate plots and cluster profile plots in Appendix F

are graphic representations of the cluster descriptive statistics. They suggested

the following characterizations of the clusters:

Cluster one contains congregations that scored low on Urbanness,
Size/Social Status, and Outreach Vitality. These congregations are
likely to be small, rural and traditional.

Cluster two contains congregations that scored very high on factors
one and four indicating that they are urban and somewhat youthfully
vital.

Cluster three contains congregations that scored high Size/Social
Status but low on Outreach Vitality. These congregations tend to be
large and traditional with limited social capital or outreach orientation.
Cluster four is the largest cluster. The congregations in this cluster are
typically characterized by a moderate score on most factors. They may
be somewhat smaller, possibly in decline but with some social capital
or outreach orientation.

Finally, cluster five contains only three congregations, which are large
and dispersed but, apparently, comprised of committed, outreach-

oriented members.

The five clusters of congregations are mapped in Figure 12. Not

surprisingly, these classifications manifest themselves spatially. Many of the

109

variables have a spatial component. Because American metropolitan places tend
to be highly segregated, demographic data and other social patterns are often
clearly evident on the landscape. The spatial patterns correspond, perhaps, to
congregational responses to an evolving urban landscape. This type of analysis
is helpful for beginning to understand what Ammerman (1997) calls the “religious
eoology’ (p. 310) of greater Grand Rapids. For example, as the neighborhoods
around the most urban churches have changed, these congregations may have

reinvented themselves as stable "niche congregations" (Ammerman, 1997, p. 36)
with a youthful orientation.

110

//:
....,///
..////////U.//..
/.../////// , /NyH//.././
.///,// ////// ”WW/”WV.
////
:,/
, //..././ ,/////
. .. ._
// ,//.// can-x. k//
1.».trr

rul~I/nfi

. x. /,.//./..,.. /,,// /// / ....r/ r///.// //// z

s a / /. (I o/ufi /// /,. ;
.// /./ , /./. / .. l.
// /// 'Q/ //../ ///
/

.. . r . /.,/ .
/ / / /,.. /# ,xz/ 4/
/ .n / /.
,1, z, (211/ 2 a z z// 1.,» / // ,/// /.,

../
x , a/xr/ 1.
i a/ 1.,
/ r v
a 3,, x .1, I
,,.._ a. I.
.i. ......L.
I c a s, . , z,
,, , . , ,
I. a , // .. .I/
/. ,/, I r. x I. .

I
Types

IO“

10 Miles

111

41

tial Congregat

io-spa

City of Grand Rapids
Soc

Urbanized Area
Five Congregation Types

Average, smaller congregations, possibly in decline
but with some social capital and outreach orientation

-
I
0
O

o.

r
/

,’ I

I
1) I
s
o

0

0 Large, dispersed, congregations but committed and outreach-oriented

. Very urban congregations with possible youthful vitality

I Small, rural, traditional congregations
A Large, traditional congregations

II-

/
z
u
0
a
l
I

 

.1‘

Figure 12

A simplified cluster analysis was conducted to classify the congregations’

ability to facilitate neighborhood development. The analysis used only two

variables of high interest in this study: social capital and distance of members to

the church. It assumed these two qualities, social capital and the proximity

necessary to build relationships, were valuable resources for the effective

facilitation of community development in the neighborhood of the church. Table 8

is a simple matrix describing the expected effect of each variable on

 

 

 

 

 

Congregation efficacy.
High Soclal Capital 1 Low Social capital 7 ‘
within the Congregation within the Congregation j
‘ g L .- Low Potential Low Potential
, Hloh Distance ~
to Church . Many organizational resources but few Few organizational resources and few
: Neighborhood ‘ opportunities to extend benefits to the opportunities to extend benefits to the
~ ‘ neighborhood through relationships neighborhood through relationships
. . ‘ ‘ ’ . High Potential Low Potential
to Church ‘ I Many organizational resources and many Few organizational resources although
NeighborhOOd ' opportunities to extend benefits to the many opportunities to extend benefits to
j * neighborhood through relationships the neighborhood through relationships

 

 

 

Table 8: Potential for Congregation to Facilitate Community Development

To improve the cluster analysis, two cases were eliminated from the

dataset. Two factors were constructed from the two variables, and three

congregation clusters were identified based on how the cases loaded on the

factors.

Cluster one contains congregations relatively high in social capital and low

in distance from the church neighborhood. These congregations will have the

best chance to use their proximity to build relationships that project the benefits

of social capital into the neighborhood. One must remember, however, that even

112

 

the most concentrated congregations are still relatively dispersed. The minimum
median distance of members to their church is 0.71 miles and the median
median distance of members to their church is 2.04 miles. At these distances
relationship-building based on frequent face-to—face interaction remains difficult.
Cluster two is comprised of congregations of varying dispersions. These
congregations also tend to be quite low in social capital. This type of
congregation has few interpersonal resources to share (due to limited social
capital) and, in some instances, few opportunities to facilitate neighborhood
development (due to geographic distance). Finally, congregations in cluster three
have moderate levels of social capital but are high in distance rendering difficult
the transfer of their social capital. All three clusters are mapped in Figure 13.
Cluster one is mapped with a plus sign to indicate high congregational potential
to facilitate development. Clusters two and three are shown as circles to suggest
lower congregation potential. Figure 13 also identifies the low-income
neighborhoods in the Grand Rapids area. Those high potential congregations

located in low-income neighborhoods have an excellent opportunity to be

instrumental in community development.

The analysis in this chapter has identified several relationships between
variables of congregations. The mapping of congregation types partially
describes how congregations of specific character relate to metropolitan
environments. The next chapter summarizes and interprets the findings

regarding congregational socio-spatiality and presents some implications for

community development.

113

W/W/WH/ 222/. 2/////// 2

     

.2... ,. .2 .2 ._
. 2 . ./ // 2 / 2 2
2 ...-I12.” .2 2.2 . 2.
2 2.2.. L. HM. / 2222/2/ 2.. 2. {/H/ .../2.2/2. 22 . /
22/ ‘.‘War9 g / / .22 / 2 22 .2. 2/ 2 2 . / 2.
. .2/ V171 “:7 / / /Nw// 2.2/ 2
.2222 13.22 2 22 22/ 2 .2 2. /
2 .22. 2 2 2. 2 2 ..22 // 2.2/2. 22
.2./..2....2. 22 2../../.. .2../. 2//// 2 2.2

  

.. . . 2 22 2222 .
2 22 / ..2. .
...2. ......22/./ NAM/...w/ 222.. 2 /22..2//2.2 2/22/ 2. 2.2
2, /2 2
222.2//222/222//// // 2.2.

z/J. 2
2.2.2. 2. .
. 2 2 ./
-.. . 2.
/ 2../2 .2/2.2/ 22
.22 22222 2.. .
. ./.2. 2 22 22
.. .. 2 2 .. .
.2 2. 2. / 2 2

 

Urbanized Area

’2‘, /

]

://,//
1 0 Miles

114

5
ions Clustered by Outreach Potential

G) Low Potential: low social capital, variable distances
0 Low Potential: moderate social capital, high distance

'I' High Potential: high social capital, low distance

60 - 80 percent poor
Congregational Neighborhood Development Potential

[:3 40 - 60 percent poor

High Poverty Areas (percent poor by census block group)
C] 20 - 40 percent poor

 

 

Figure 13: Congregat

Chapter 9

THE SOClO-SPATIALITY OF CONGREGATIONS

This research explores associations between spatial and social variables
of church congregations. The results presented in the previous chapter reveal the
presence of several possible associations between these variables. These
findings lead to a greater understanding of the composition of social
organizations in space. The analysis of the data focused first on the relationship
between distance and social capital. It also examined other potential influences
on both social capital and neighborhood interest. Finally, it constructed a more
comprehensive socio-spatial portrait of congregations.

This study expected the physical distance between the homes of
congregation members to negatively influence the ability of the congregation to
accumulate social capital as indicated by its sense of community. A negative
association was expected because increased dispersion inhibits opportunities for
face-to-face social interaction and the creation of social capital. An alternative
rationalization for the same relationship is that high social capital and sense of
community in the congregation motivate congregation members to reside near to
one another. The data in this study indicate only weak relationships between
physical and social distance. Of interest is the potential positive relationship
between physical distance and social capital found in the regression of principal

components of the data. This finding suggests that social capital may increase as

115

the members of congregations in this study disperse. Several explanations for
this phenomenon are possible.

First, numerous variables, not measured by this study, will affect the
mobilization of social capital. For example, a pastor or other key individuals in the
congregation can promote a high sense of community. The dataset does not
contain information about the charisma or capacity of the pastor, which may be
important factors in this relationship. Historic trends in organizational culture of
the congregation clearly play a role in the sense of community in a congregation.

Second, the impact of distance on social capital may be very difficult to
detect for a nonlinear function of distance with respect to social capital. Gravity
and distance decay models suggest interaction is a function of the inverse
square of distance. In addition, the private automobile has afforded tremendous
mobility and flexibility in contemporary society, further distorting a simple function
by decreasing the friction of distance for moderate distances. For example, the
level of interaction may be highest and most highly dependent on physical
separation for distances less than 100 meters. At this scale face-to—face contact
depends only on pedestrian transportation. At all distances from 100 meters to
1000 meters, the number of social interactions may be lower but constance with
distance because each of these moderate trips is perceived to require the use of
an automobile. At distances greater than 1000 meters, the number of face-to-
face contacts may again decline with distance as the friction of distance limits

automobile tn'ps. In other words, increases in levels of social capital in

116

congregations may be observable only after a certain member concentration
threshold is achieved.

Third, while Euclidean distance is used in this study, more subtle forms of
distance, including time distance, may play a role in the amount of social
interaction that occurs. Similarly, physical dispersion could increase interpersonal
contact by other means (telephone or e—mail, for example). A positive association
between distance and social capital could be explained, then, by an increased
level of participation in virtual community. Social capital can be generated in
virtual communities but is enhanced when these communities are associated
with physical proximity (Blanchard & Horan, 1998). Research by Wellman (1996)
shows that network members with local social ties (less that one mile) have both
more face-to-face contact and more telephone contact than those with long
distance ties (greater than five miles)“.

Other causal mechanisms could be at work to explain a positive influence
of distance on social capital. For example, higher income congregation members
have the means to travel greater distances to church. They are also more likely
to volunteer time to the church congregation (Twombly & De Vita, 1998), a
practice that builds social capital. That high member income would explain both
member dispersion and high social capital, however, is unlikely. The data in this

study showed social capital increasing with the poverty rate of member

 

8 Telephone contact is the greatest for those at intermediate distances (one to
five miles). Wellman points out that, “...local ties have more contact (by
telephone and face-to-face) than those who live further away. . .. Although most
contacts are outside the neighborhood, local ties are important sources of
people’s routine interactions” (p. 350-351).

117

neighborhoods and decreasing with the level of education in member
neighborhoods.

One could attempt to explain a positive association between distance and
social capital by calling social capital, not distance, the independent or
explanatory variable. Congregations that have intentionally developed a strong
sense of community and high social capital may have a “product” attractive to
potential members. Central place theory suggests that high-order centers
(congregations) which offer more or better goods and services (such as high
sense of community, for example) will exert a stronger gravitational pull on
potential members and command a greater range attracting members from great
distances. These congregations may draw members from outside the immediate
neighborhood of the church. However, distance decay and gravity theories
maintain that these congregations would draw even more members from nearby
the church. The gravitational pull exerted by ‘products' such as social capital is
exerted on nearby residents more strongly than on those at a distance.

Most likely, a positive relationship between dispersion and sense of
community is explained by the nature of dispersed or commuter “niche
congregations' (Ammerman, 1997, p. 36). According to Ammerman, one option
for a congregation faced with a changing environment is to target a specific
market segment. This congregation reinvents itself to appeal to a specific type of
person. It attracts this type of individual from across the metropolitan area.

Because its members fit a certain profile, the congregation is likely to be very

118

homogeneous. The low social distance within niche congregations would
correspond to a high level of cohesion and sense of community.

Contemporary urban neighborhoods are typically characterized by ethnic,
social and economic homogeneity. Yet, paradoxically, neighborhood
congregations, which members attend because of proximity rather than "choice”,
may be more diverse than dispersed congregations. Communities of interest,
such as niche congregations, may draw members out of socially homogeneous
neighborhoods into even more homogeneous social groups (Rheingold cited in
Wellman et al., 1996).

Earlier, the possible positive relationship between social capital and the
economic heterogeneity (STDEVPCTPOOR) of the congregation was noted.
Economic heterogeneity refers simply to the range of neighborhoods in which
members reside. That social capital is higher for congregations of members from
a variety of neighborhoods seems to conflict with this explanation for the
relationship between distance and social capital. Still, this explanation remains
the most compelling. Further research is necessary to clarify the causal
processes in these relationships.

The data provides evidence that variables other than distance between
members may have more impact on the development of social capital within a
social group. The results suggest that social groups require a stability of
membership for relationships to develop. The negative impact of group size on

the formation of social capital coincides with the movement of many large

Churches toward a small group or “cell” model. These small groups of 6 to 12

119

provide members with an opportunity to develop more intimate relationships in
the context of a large congregation. Low economic status and high economic
diversity within the congregation both seem to contribute to the development of
social capital. This finding supports to the idea that social capital is used as an
alternative to other forms of capital as members draw on the skills, talents and
resources of one another.

The analyses in this study have provided some understanding of the
socio-spatial organization of Christian Reformed church congregations in west
Michigan. The results suggest that a variety of variables contribute to a unique
congregational socio-spatial character. Some evidence is presented that social
capital or sense of community grows as residential distance between members
increases. A possible explanation for this relationship is presented in this
chapter. The concluding chapter summarizes the results of the study and

comments on the implications for faith-based community development.

120

Chapter 10

CONCLUSIONS

This study has explored society and space. More specifically, it has
examined the evolution of social organization in urban space. It has been
particularly interested in church congregations as communities of interest and the
potential relationship of congregations with distressed neighborhoods. The data
indicate that congregations may be able to generate social capital despite being
physically dispersed. However, this study has argued that spatial proximity can
still be used as a resource for community-building, enhancing the ability of a
community of interest to generate social capital. In addition, proximity to the
church building can promote the linkages necessary to extend social capital into
lives outside the membership of the community of interest.

The data and analyses in this study provide evidence that the spatiality of
congregational communities is associated with congregational sense of
community and the ability of the congregation to generate internal social capital.
Surprisingly, however, social capital, as defined by this study, seems to be higher
in dispersed congregations and lower in those congregations of members that
live relatively near to one another. Several potential explanations for this
phenomenon were presented in the previous chapter. The most compelling is
based on the concept of 'niche congregation” developed by Ammerman (1997).

This congregation has become relatively homogeneous by serving a specific

121

market niche. Physical distance between members of this congregation may be
indicative of low social distance and high social capital or sense of community.

In addition to testing the hypothesis regarding physical and social
distance, the study identified several other relationships to construct a socio-
spatial portrait of Christian Reformed church congregations in Grand Rapids,
Michigan. It mapped clusters of similar congregations and speculated on their
ability to facilitate community development in distressed neighborhoods.

This study should be considered exploratory for several reasons. Some of
the variables used by this study were proxies of actual congregational
characteristics. In addition, only a limited number of congregations was
examined. All congregations in this study are members of the same
denomination and are located in one metropolitan region.

The study could be improved with more sophisticated data collection on
more observations from a variety of denominations and locations. However, the
study provides some insight into social patterns in space. It permits an
elementary exploration of the way variables (including spatial ones) may interact
to promote, restrain or otherwise change the life of a social organization.

This study offers no direct evidence for the impact of space and spatial
decision-making on neighborhood development. Nor is congregational efficacy in
facilitating community development measured by this study. Still, the data allow
for some speculation about the ability of congregations to facilitate neighborhood
development based on assumptions about important factors This type of analysis

can be valuable as social organizations seek to shape the daily life of urban

122

places. The data permit reflection about the importance of space, its use as a
tool for building community, and the potential for investing accumulated social
capital in distressed urban neighborhoods.

Despite the evidence that social capital may decrease with physical
proximiw, this study has argued that proximity can be a valuable asset for
strengthening social relationships and developing social capital within a
congregation. Individuals and congregations intent on building relationships can
use proximity to increase the amount and intensity of social interactions. By
residing near to one another members of concentrated congregations can more
easily develop and benefit from the social capital inherent in their relationships
and interactions. Multiplier effects occur as members decrease their expenditures
of valuable resources such as time and gasoline, redirecting those resources
toward other productive activities.

The study has also maintained that social capital internal to a
congregation can be used by that congregation to facilitate community
development and promote change, especially in the neighborhood of the church
building. It is here, at its building location, that the congregation is publicly
manifested or embodied. In the neighborhood of the church the congregation will
have the potential for greatest impact. However, the extension of social capital
depends on the existence of interpersonal relationships. For this reason,
proximity of church members to the neighborhood of the church building is
considered a valuable asset for community development by this study. The role

of congregations in community development is summarized here for three spatial

123

configurations: urban congregations residing near to urban churches, suburban
congregations commuting to urban churches and suburban congregations
residing near to suburban churches.

The data in this study indicate that urban churches and urban
congregations (as identified by neighborhood population densities) are
associated with an external orientation and high interest by the congregation in
the neighborhood of the church. In other words, urban congregations seem
interested in addressing needs typical of urban places. The urban congregation
that resides in the distressed neighborhood of the church clearly has a spatial
opportunity to facilitate community development. This type of congregation can
draw on and expend the social capital inherent in its network. Neighborhood
cohesion is reinforced when the relatively weak ties typical of neighborhoods
(Wellman, 1996) are complemented by the stronger, more intimate ties present in
a choice-based social network such as a congregation. The community of
interest is also developed by the benefits of proximity between members. When a
community of interest overlies a community of territory, both are strengthened.

Second, congregations that are displaced from and commute to an urban
church have limited opportunities to build the relationships necessary for
community development. The data in this study show that the social distance
between the neighborhood of the church and the neighborhoods of the
congregation increases as the location of the church becomes more urban. Not
surprisingly, this social distance is accompanied by a physical distance between

members and their church (the center of the congregation becomes displaced

124

from the church building). Unfortunately, both types of distance limit the ability of
the congregation to understand the unique needs of the neighborhood of the
church. Physical distance discourages interaction and inhibits the development of
relationships for the effective transfer of congregational social capital to the
church neighborhood. Occasional visitors to a neighborhood simply do not have
the time, or the vested interest, necessary to develop strong relationships with
neighborhood residents. Social distance also presents an obvious barrier to
understanding and relationship-building.

These distances are mutually reinforcing. Physical distance increases as
individuals avoid the 'othemess’ of those that are socially distant. Social distance
increases when physical distance prevents an understanding of the “other”. Each
type of distance both reflects and muses the other.

Still, commuter congregations, especially those of relatively wealthy
suburban residents commuting to churches in low-income urban neighborhoods,
can be instrumental in neighborhood community development. While their ability
to form intimate personal relationships will be restrained by their spatial and
social distance, they do bring valuable resources to a divested neighborhood
(Green, 1996b, p. 287). Green notes that commuting to churches in urban
neighborhoods provides some opportunities for Ieaming by congregation
members. The “windshield surveys” that commuters conduct an serve as a
starting point for more empathetic understanding of complex urban social
problems. However, the congregation must be intentional about understanding

those in the neighborhood if these arms-length observations are not to merely

125

reinforce negative stereotypes. Green also notes that a commuter congregation
has some opportunity to translate increased understanding into racially and
economically diverse social networks. Connecting urban residents with the
resources available to suburban residents is a valuable role of the commuter
congregation.

Again, opportunities for interaction must be intentionally planned if
commuters are to develop relationships with neighborhood residents. For
example, congregation members can choose to buy goods and services from
neighborhood establishments such as stores and restaurants. Church events,
opened to the public, can be held in neighborhood parks. Families can also visit
the parks and other facilities in the neighborhood of the church when selecting
locations for recreation. Church-based community organizing, Green (1996b)
suggests, can provide a forum for interaction that builds valuable, diverse social
networks.

Relationships between members of a congregation and the isolated
residents of a distressed neighborhood are an important conduit for resource
transfer. “Femandes-Kelly (1995) notes how the dense but truncated networks of
inner-city black families not only cut off members from information about the
outside world, but simultaneously support alternative cultural styles that make
access to mainstream employment even more difficult” (Portes, 1998, p. 14).
Commuter churches that are intentional about developing relationships mitigate
this isolation and help reconnect marginalized urban areas to the broader

economy and society. Through these relationships mutual Ieaming can occur.

126

Neighborhood residents benefit as information about jobs and other resources is
shared. Congregation members benefit by Ieaming about the values of different
races and cultures.

Finally, churches and congregations located in relatively high-income
neighborhoods can also play a role in urban development, despite their spatial
separation from many urban problems. Some suburban congregations develop
partnering relationships with urban congregations (Green, 1996b). Suburban
churches can also promote mixed-income neighborhoods in suburban
communities. For decades urban neighborhoods have been divested of human,
financial and physical resources. Political and economic barriers have prevented
the development of moderately priced, affordable housing in suburban areas,
further exacerbating metropolitan resource disparities. The concentration of
poverty in certain neighborhoods (and wealth in others) is being recognized as a
core problem in metropolitan spatial organization (Massey, 1996; Orfield, 1997).
Reinvestment in urban neighborhoods is one important strategy for urban
revitalization. However, gentrification—the relocation of middle-income
households into low-income urban neighborhoods—can displace long time
residents (Quercia 8. Galster, 1997). Regionalists are calling for the more
equitable distribution of both wealth and poverty across the region (Orfield,
1997). While gentrification can bring valuable resources to divested
neighborhoods, it must be accompanied by opportunities for low-income
households to move to better-resourced, typically suburban, communities.

Suburban resistance to the immigration of low-income households is usually

127

strong. However, suburban faith-based institutions can advocate for and facilitate
the successful incorporation of poor families into suburban communities.

Congregations evolve with the changing metropolitan landscape. New
congregations emerge; older ones decline. Neighborhood congregations are
transformed into commuter congregations with a new character and capacity for
action. The composition of a congregation and its presence in space and time will
influence its ability to effectively facilitate community development. Some
congregations are not located near to distressed neighborhoods. Others have
geographic opportunities but few resources with which to promote change.
Metropolitan deconcentration has divested core cities, transferring resources to
suburban political jurisdictions. Correspondingly, suburban church congregations
may be vital, energetic, and well resourced but geographically distant from
neighborhoods of need. The typical urban congregation, on the other hand, is
older, more traditional and, possibly, in decline. Unfortunately, these struggling
congregations are ill-equipped to address the physical and social needs
surrounding their churches. Exceptions certainly exist. Some congregations that
worship in urban locations are growing and have a keen interest in community
development. However, if the members of urban churches maintain a physical
distance from the neighborhood of the church their ability to promote positive
neighborhood change will be limited.

A broad vision is necessary to address urban problems at a regional scale
(Orfield, 1997; Rusk, 1993). Faith-based institutions have been instrumental in

Promoting a comprehensive regional agenda (Orfield, 1997; Pilla, 1996). Green

128

(1996b) calls on the faith community to have a metropolitan vision in addition to
its neighborhood focus. The cross-cutting ties established in diverse, interlocking
networks (Ammerman, 1997, p. 357; Putnam, 1993; see also Newton, 1997, p.
579) are an important asset for promoting metropolitan action. Church
congregations, both suburban and urban, can play a key “bridging” role, linking
disparate jurisdictions across the metropolitan region.

According to McIntosh and Alston, religion “is a major source of social
cohesion...[and, in a certain sense.) the church can be viewed as the symbolic, if
not the physical hub of local communities in urban places” (cited in Qiaoming et
al., 1989). However, congregations that are merely communities of interest can
lose their grounding in the real world. “Many congregations”, says Ammerman
(1997), “are already relatively disconnected from the communities in which they
are located” (p. 64). Congregation members frequently choose a church based
on social characteristics rather than spatial or historic ones. Ammerman calls
congregations “gatherings of people who form a network of primary (face-to-face,
familylike) relationships” (p. 57). She argues that choice promotes increased
commitment and stronger congregational organizations (p. 354). As with other
communities of interest, this internal sense of community can be a very valuable
resource.

However, congregational choice also contributes to an increasingly
fragmented metropolitan region. Robert Lupton observes this phenomenon as he

facilitates community development in Atlanta. “On our street,” he says, “the most

129

unneighborly residents are those most involved in their churches” (Lupton,
Lupton & Yancey, 1995, p. 86). He continues,

Our urbanizing society is coming apart in large measure because of the

disintegration of our communities. . .. If our contemporary model of church

encourages—implicitly or explicitly, by its demands or its theology—the
withdrawal from active, redemptive community participation, it may

unwittingly be promoting this disintegration. (p. 87-88)

In other words, the community of interest displaces and may contribute to the
destruction of territorial communities.

To explore the interaction of spatial and social organization, this study
addressed two questions. First, does the spatial dispersion of a congregation
inhibit the development of a sense of community within the congregation? Might
congregants that live in close proximity have more opportunities to interact
socially than those that are widely dispersed? Evidence was presented that they
do not. However, the study argues that proximity remains an asset that can be
used to develop sense of community and social capital. Second, the study
explored the question: Might the spatial organization of a congregation influence
its impact on society? Again, this study argues for the value of proximity. It
contends that the personal relationships and face-to-face social interactions
made available through proximity are an important means by which
congregations can facilitate community development.

The influence a congregation can extend in an urban neighborhood
depends, in part, on its own spatial organization. The dispersion of congregation
members has likely diminished the capacity of congregations to maintain or

improve neighborhoods. This trend mirrors a broader change in contemporary

130

society. “Low cost, efficient and widespread transportation and communication
facilities have made it easier to sustain long-distance ties, but at a possible large
social cost. If cars, telephones and modems may have liberated community, they
may also have fragmented it" (Wellman, 1988, p. 95). Church congregations
have ideological and physical assets conducive to community-building and urban
development. These assets become useful when the spatial decisions of
congregation members promote social interaction that builds a sense of
community and generates social capital. In addition, the congregation must be
spatially capable of extending its lntemal resources into neighborhoods of high
need.

Long-time community developer, John Perkins (1982) summarizes an
effective community development process as being comprised of three
components. He calls for relocation of practitioners “in the community of high
need”, reconciliation ”across racial, cultural, and economic barriers”, and
redistribution “of our skills, our time, our energy. . . in ways that empower people to
break out of the cycle of poverty and assume responsibility for their needs” (pp.
54, 55). It is this integration of spatial, social and economic lives that will produce
vibrant, empowered communities and individuals. However, this type of
integration becomes particularly difficult in the segregated, commodified
environment of most American cities. Faith-based institutions are founded on
Principles that transcend the self-interest of the marketplace. They have the
legitimacy and capacity to inspire change, motivating individual spatial decision-

makers to revitalize distressed urban spaces.

131

Faith-based institutions (especially commuter congregations) typically
adopt a service-provision model to address social problems. What Perkins
envisions is a fundamental solidarity of congregation members with a distressed
neighborhood. Only when congregation members are integral to the
neighborhood in need will the congregation be able to build the relationships
necessary to effectively facilitate lasting change.

This study finds that the members of many Christian Reformed
congregations are spatially dispersed and displaced from their urban churches.
This avoidance of declining central city neighborhoods is similar to more general
patterns in most United States cities. Snapper (1980) attributes the flight of some
churches and members from the central city, in part, to a denominational failure
to develop a transformational theology. He declares that “...the Christian
Reformed churches of North America have not developed a uniform, consistent
theology of church and neighbor” (p. 149). He suggests that

...until most recently. . . [tlheology failed to integrate historical and eternal

categories. The willingness to treat neighborhoods and housing as

[disposable] “no deposit, no return” bottles underscores the discontinuity

between the world and the Christian Reformed Church. The lack of

commitment to community is currently evidenced in at least two ways:
wholesale abandonment of inner-city housing, related to a score of
declining congregations within the city; and a decrease in evangelism...

Congregations have existed—and still do exist, generally—independent of

their neighbors. (p. 149,150)

Similarly, in her study of nine urban Christian Reformed churches, Baker (1995)

concludes that '[n]ot enough church members live in the neighborhood [of the

church building]" (p. 69). The practice of spatially separating residential and

132

church life restricts congregational ability to use social capital to facilitate
neighborhood social development.

Robert Lupton (1999b) argues for an enhanced ”community-friendly
theology” that “causes Christian churches to be agents of transformation of the
neighborhoods in which they are located”. A compelling theology of location, that
prompts congregation members to reintegrate their residential and church lives,
would equip congregations to better use their social capital to develop positive
and holistic communities. In this way, people of faith can blend communities of
interest and communities of territory, creating vibrant, sustainable and just

human habitats.

133

APPENDICES

134

APPENDIX A

VARIABLES IN THE STUDY

Variables used in this study include:

Spatial Variables:

MEDDISTMEDCE is the median distance of members’ residential location
from the median center of the congregation.

MEDDISTCHUR is the median distance of members” residential location
from the church building.

DSTMEDCENTCH is the distance from the median center of the
congregation to the church building. It is used as a measure of
displacement of the congregation from the church building and its
neighborhood.

Social Capital or Sense of Community Variables:

SOCINDEX is an index of 12 items on the sense of community survey and
measures sense of community of the congregation.

VOLUNTRATIO is a ratio of the number of volunteer hours to the number
of volunteers to the number of members of the congregation. It is an
alternative indicator of social capital in the congregation.

CONTRIBRATIO is a ratio of the budget of the congregation to the
number of families to the neighborhood income level of the median
member of the congregation. As a proxy for the level of financial
commitment by members to the congregation it is an alternative measure
of social capital in the congregation.

Other Congregational Variables:

AVGTOTMEMB is a three year average of the number of members of the
congregation.

AVGFAMILIES is a three year average of the number of families of the
congregation.

YOUTHFULNESS is a measure of the youthfulness of the congregation
and is calculate as a ratio of nonprofessing members (often children)

135

professing members who are under 18 to total members. This measure is
a variation of one used in a previous statistical study of Christian
Reformed churches (Knight, 1997).

GROWTH is a measure of the three-year growth rate of the congregation.
It is the difference between congregational growth and decline but
excludes growth or decline by births and deaths. By excluding births and
deaths it is more a measure of social ”attractiveness” than of organic
growth.

VOLATlLlTY is a measure of the turnover or stability of membership in the
congregation and is calculated by summing both growth and decline.

STDEVPCTPOOR is the standard deviation of the percentage of the
population that is poor in the census block groups of the members of the
congregation. This variable is a proxy measure of the heterogeneity of the
congregation.

NEIGHBINTER is the level of interest within the congregation in
neighborhood ministry or mission on a scale of one to five.

EXTERNALRATIO is the ratio of the importance of external
congregational functions to the importance of lntemal congregational
functions. This variable measures the relative extent to which the
congregation has an external or “outreach” orientation.

Church Building Neighborhood Variables:

POPPSQMI is the population per square mile of the census block group in
which the church building is located. This variable measures urbanization.

PCTWHITE is the percentage of the population that is white in the census
block group in which the church building is located. This variable
measures the racial character of the church neighborhood.

PCTCOLLGRAD is the percentage of the adult population that is a college
graduate in the census block group in which the church building is located.
This variable measures the social character of the church neighborhood.

PCTPOOR is the percentage of the population that is poor in the census

block group in which the church building is located. This variable
measures the economic character of the church neighborhood.

136

Congregation Neighborhood Variables:

MEDPOPPSQMI is the population per square mile of the census block
group in which the median congregation member resides. This variable
measures urbanization.

MEDPCTWHITE is the percentage of the population that is white in the
census block group in which the median congregation member resides. By
inference this variable measures the racial character of the congregation.

MEDPCTCOLLGRAD is the percentage of the adult population that is a
college graduate in the census block group in which the median
congregation member resides. By inference this variable measures the
social character of the congregation.

MEDPCTPOOR is the percentage of the population that is poor in the
census block group in which the median congregation member resides. By
inference, this variable measures the economic character of the
congregation.

Social Distance between Congregation and Church:

SOCDIST is the average of the differences between the racial, social and
economic characters of the church building neighborhood and the
congregation. This variable measures the social distance between the
congregation and the neighborhood surrounding the church building.

137

APPENDIX B

SENSE OF COMMUNITY SURVEY

138

 

 

   

.. ,.’, r... . ,"
.. ,,.A...... ..x-grmur

 

 

Mmdmmnybbmumdmmflyhmwmhmnmmum
rooidmtidlocdionofitsmonbors. misqtmnaioisintondodtoosoossthosuongmolooddboruinho
congromtionandsormofitsalsidorolatiormips. Thoubontbcmdsobecollod ‘sonsoofoornmfity’, oodolcmial.
mmmmm,mmamm.lmwudommm
mumdmoonuoalion. Immwmhmmmhmbmomm
ofthonduoofthooonaw Almwilbolmptoorfimnfiol Wwilboroferrodmaiybym
doom. Plonmmosmvyofthofolloufimqmnospossiblo. meouhovooonplolodthosuvoy,
ploosomailitbodttomeinthostanpodorwelopo. Traikyouverymuchforyouholp.

[hwmsmmmmutammI-IMMIGQL

It In W to o sodoo dunno. ‘:____"“:‘~% Goo-slow Vlslors
who! m of bulb would ho In ,....»’”::fi Howl-r m an no our mm
och m‘ . ”____1‘_9__6Ebb monitors (Mud W boyond Sunday m)
r ..... ,fi in” members
’ ‘5, z 3......3 Wampum ~-
K ‘1‘“ .. ‘2 I," {a

J.
n. ..o

“mum-mwmmamtmmmmwm
WbWCRCWhhm"

 

 

 
 
  
 

 

 

...thosonsoofoonmliyhtlisoormis... :1 "t “'I' i"- a
2. ...tholovolofinfimcyinttisoongogdimis... "’" "' ""'" “'"' a
3. antholovolofmstbotooonmhflsmogfionio... '1'" '- ""l' '0 g
4. ...Wmonborsaohoochohor’sm... = no» u— a... z
6. ..nlomborssociolizowithoodiothoromidoofmummm :1" W '- ‘I z
7. ...nownmsfndioooybmfiondshlisw ..." ""' "" ""' 2,":
8. mamdmmnuaumhmwmm g: “I" n- v- on»

ttmtoottiorfuliifiosirimoorwioriloropport T“
9. muwmmmtmnuw “*- ‘IU- .— U- :3
tamallmormorohmooonooofbolorWIothoW “I, “I” "'I' .- a
11.nmummnuamdoummouw r” ‘IIF -- '0- =3
12m1Wmoonmmanwwmm ...” "" "" "' ”=3!

primormootrrrportmtoorrwmnmy.
“MHMMdmmMfiofidmmmm
Cl Sundayworshlp null-ous- sun-ou- houn- who-nu m
0 mm uni-om new Ins-s- up“ ping
El Elysium!“ our-oun- sou-nu.- out. out" an.
El Fatbaship non-I our-un- on
D Biblom hon-s uncut-s an.
El Fmalstpportloronom n-n- uni-..n— no
D mmmamtforonom ou- nor—- on

'Ia‘WMhflm '

 

139

 

 

 

 

D Sumsohod adios-i salons—no hon-s .7“ you.
D WandYouhmwm anus-n- ...-...- I-u-n-n IrI-oI-I our
13 Modsaruwomon'smiislry uni-— ----- Inp- q...- ....
0 mm nth—- --o-- l-o— union-t so.
[3 Rm uni-n- “W‘ I... ooh-sou III-
U 0616' solo- on.” run-o out... In.
mmnmumammwnmhdmmummm
D Evmgoism ant—n- uni—u— u..- urn-u no
0 Prawform runs-o- sun-annu— Ins-nu coho-u p...
0 Pentium auto-nos mun-sou hon-s mus- pun
D FWWDNM nut-oun— nun—n- Ins-u v-vI-I-II-I III-o
D MoonsniriotMrriooim_ nun—n nun—- nun-n sun-p- ....
CI Nebtorlmdninistrytmission nun—— ...—...... hun- v-vI-oo-I III-o
U Pmtydloviotionorsocidjwtioo duo- ----—-- ~— ...—— an
D Em onto-I- u—I-u-a- Inn—I- nay-ou- In.
El Subotmoowusomflsty nun—— uuuo-u— noun-I noon-I III-
0 WWW alt-unit oil-hott- hon-s mun-o you.
D Hoolhcaomirlsly III-onus anon—non non-u quot-s so.
0 Youhmiridry at“ who... hos-s syn-nos m
D Housim sol-Ion nun-oo- a... only—— In.
D 0018 It'll-Ii III-hooku- loo-III nylon-s my
Cl Other nous-nu onus-I— “ who-n- uh-
MwbockudMMolmmthWbmw
“momMmmhhm

1. WisUnmnnDorafpooplotl'udtondatypicdmningsorvioo? _ __
2 WhmmdMMMoWMs-vioo? ___.
3. mummniborofbtmuodporw _
4. mammmamwmoummmammmp _
5. mummmammummmmamm __
6. mouwmummmmumw __
7. mummmcmmwnmwmamm __
a mammmammmw - __
9. mummmdmmwM? ......
10. Mmmumuww __
11. memuoudgmmmmjmmm __
12. Mmmamnmmdmm __
13. memmmaamm . ......
14. mmmmmnmhwmmuoadduwmmmw _

15 lfyouarowrlling pleasandcuoflnaruolmdgotofmeWmMommonsaiy) 3...

,. wrw :r V‘m. r‘ ,‘ZY'Y', "

 

   

140

APPENDIX C

CORRELATION MATRIX

141

 

 

 

 

.ooumcw 9m A89 8:9 oz: m .2
modna F8 mEQoEooo cozfiotco E8536 >=mo=m=Sm Shos— Eo_o_tooo cos-29:00 EoEoE 6300...... 9:02am...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0 8.? 3.0 «0.? 00.? 00.? 5.? 00.0 «0.0- 5608 8059508
F 9.? 00.? 8.? 9.0 8.0 moofiomoms.
F and 8.0 8.0 8.? 8:0 mm? 2.? mojooeomoms. ghwfifiMb
F 3.0 8.? 00.0 «0.? 3.0 9.0 00.0 2.0 mtxstomnms 8036.008
F 2.? 8.0 9.0 mm? 0F? Eammmonfimz
F 8.0 2.0 «0.? «0.0. 2.0 9.0 8.0 00.0 «60051,
t? 8.? C? «0.? 2.? 8.? 9.? mF? oéouuooeoa 08MMMNMWD
«0.0 «F? «0.0 8.? 00.0 8.0 6.? 8.0 3.135; 050.30 023.5
«0.0 «0.? 00.0. m0? 00.0 0F? 8.? iconic“.
F 8.0 8.0 8.? «0.0 «0.? 00.0 8.? 00.? o_F<m._<zmmbm
F 8.0 9.? m0? mF? 00.? «0.? 30 F0.? mmezaxomz
F 8.? 8.0 8.? 8.? 00.? «0.? 9.0 8.0 moofiogmoem 8505>
lid 8.? 8.? 00.0 8.0 9.0 >553? 32.002008
F '8? 8.? 00.0 1565 .050
F t? FF? no.0 0F.0 mmmzuaquocF
F «S 00.0 mm:_s_<u_o><
F 8.0 00.? mzwzkoho><
2.0 8.0 8.0 928.528 8.00:;
F «N0 0.25239 3825.08
F 3.0 9.0 x3268
:oezmoomzewo $520>
F 555.com: 30.00»...
F 3825682
0 d d d d d O M d 3 9 M W O I. d I. m n l W m m
IOOOOOOHSBH uMHVOHNNall
miimdonuowmmnHammmioomm
mmeuwBM1Mhu mmawmmmmm
uwum w mum 03mmm mmm
H O H S H 3

142

 

APPENDIX D

CONGREGATIONAL CLUSTERING: CLUSTER TREE

Cluster Tree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Case ——----—I
Case I 1
Case 9° ::::1—I
Case 94
Case 10 .- . ~
Case 6 WWII I
Ease 3:3
ase F, Ft...
Case 11 -~---l . I
Case 44 -}_
Case 98 __
Case 40
Case 32 11
Case 7 f
Case 41
Case 49 2...; I
Ease g; -———~—~
ase -—--—-—--
:2. ”-3— -—
ase —---
Case 85 ——-:}_I
Case 87 -——-----—-—-J
Case 89
Case 82
Case 19 -—-—-—-
Case 72
Case 56
Case 20
Case 58 J
I I l I I I
o 1 2 3 4 5

Distances

143

k—means splitting cases into 5 groups,

APPENDIX E

CONGREGATIONAL CLUSTERING: CLUSTER STATISTICS

Summary statistics for all cases

Variable

FACTORIl)
FACTORIZ)
FACTORI3)
FACTORI4I
FACTORIS)

** TOTAL **

Between
19.

5

23.

9.

15.

74.

SS
825

.462

537
994
983
801

df

bub

Within SS

6.159
7.449
6.905
.224
.742
.479

df
26
26
26
26
26
130

F—ratio
20.924
4.767
22.155
3.061
9.671

distance metric is Euclidean distance

Cluster 1 of 5 contains 7 cases

Members

Case Distance
Case 19 0.32
Case 20 0.55
Case 56 0.24
Case 58 0.87
Case 72 0.80
Case 81 0.62
Case 82 0.57

 

Variable

FACTORII)
FACTORIZI
FACTORI3)
FACTORI4)
FACTORIS)

Minimum
—1.19
—1.24
—1.90
—0.58
—1.80

Statistics

Mean

—0.
_o_
—0.

0.
-0.

71
35
73
64
57

Maximum
.31
0.94
.01
1.81
0.05

St.Dev.
0.37
0.67
0.61
0.92
0.60

—‘——____-_________.._.—...___———_________—_____.___---....__.—-.---—-—-————.—————————-w-—

Cluster 2 of 5 contains

Members
Case Distance
Case 4 0.43
Case 5 0.52
Case 7 0.88
Case 9 0.16

4 cases

Variable

FACTORIl)
FACTORI2)
FACTORIB)
FACTORI4)
FACTORIS)

Statistics

Mean

.82
.13
.32
.92
.81

Cluster 3 of 5 contains

Members

Case Distance
Case 6 0.28
Case 10 0.64
Case 11 0.28
Case 23 0.38
Case 44 0.48
Case 93 0.50
Case 98 0.52

7 cases

 

Variable

FACTORIlI
FACTOR(2)
FACTORI3)
FACTOR(4I
FACTORIS)

Minimum
—0.41
-O.79

0.46
—0.97
-1.82

Statistics

Mean

0.
-0.
0.
—0.
—O.

24
38
98
14
80

Maximum
1.10
—0.00
1.62
0.75
—0.17

—-_—_—_—_——-—————_——_____—_____——___._——————_———__...---..—_____--—-______—___———____

Cluster 4 of 5 contains

Members

Case Distance
Case 32 1.02
Case 39 0.62
Case 40 0.88
Case 41 0.64
Case 49 0.46
Case 71 0.38
Case 80 0.56
Case 85 0.56
Case 87 0.61
Case 89 0.59

10 cases

 

Variable

FACTORIl)
FACTORIZI
FACTORI3I
FACTORI4)
FACTORIS)

Minimum
-1.05
~l.30
—1.23
—2.25
—0.18

Statistics

Mean

-0.
-O.
-0.
-0.

0.

38
31
48
60
70

Maximum
0.74
0.63
0.70
0.44
2.54

Cluster 5 of 5 contains

Members
Case Distance
Case 1 0.62
Case 90 0.36
Case 94 0.60

3 cases

Variable

FACTOR(1)
FACTOR(2)
FACTORI3)
FACTOR(4)
FACTORIS)

144

Minimum
-1.32
0.71
1.71
—1.40
0.70

Statistics

Mean

.0_
1
1.

—O.
0.

65

.04

87
08
83

Maximum
0.19
1.28
1.99
0.99
0.93

St.Dev.
0.77
0.30
0.14
1.22

0.12

Index of Case

Index 01 Case

APPENDIX F

CONGREGATIONAL CLUSTERING: CLUSTER DIAGRAMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

D
‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

L

 

 

 

 

 

FACT 03(3) FACT (31(3)
FACT (31(1) '- -l FACT 03(1) -
3‘;
FACTGKS) - - E FACTCEIS) -
mama) - - FAcronrz) -
FACT 4 F 4
W I .3 3 AUTO“ I .3
FACT 01(3) FACT 03(3)
FACTGMI) - - FAcronn) -
2°?
FACTCHS) - - E morons) -
FAcroarz) - - FAcrontz) -
F 4 4
ACT CR( )0 3 FACT m ).3
l I I
- '—‘—‘I "I FACT 013)
I
‘ —‘ I ‘ FACT m1)
- -—-—I - FACTOHS)
- -—-:—— - FAcronrz)
.- —1—— u FACTOR“)
l l I
I l I
.. ...—J. 4 flowers)
I
)- t—hr " FACT m1) "'
r- O-FQ—O I FACTmS) t-
u- o—:—_ a: FACTmQ) .-
I- '——r' " FACT-(3‘4) '-
l l 1

 

 

 

d

d

-

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

 

 

FACT 013) I
- FACT 61(1) -
i
- B FACT 03(5) '-
- FAcronrz) -
L
3 FACT 0:1(4).3 1 1
3
I [ I
FAcronra) - I --— -
|
FACT (III) - -‘
FACTMSI - w I -
FAcronrz) - -—-+ -
FACTOR“) :- —T— -4
L L J

 

 

FACT 03(3)
FACT 03(1)
FACT (33(5)
FACT W)

FACT W4)

FACT 03(3)
FACT 03(1)
FACT 04(5)
FACT 03(2)

FAcronra)

REFERENCES

146

References

Adams, P. (1998). Network topologies and virtual place. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 88, 88-106.

Adler, P. S. & Kwon, S. (1999). Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly
(draft in progress, version: Aug. 14, 1999). [Online] Available:
http://www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapitaVlibrary/adler.pdf.

Aginsky, B. W. (1952). The fragmentation of the American community. The
Journal of Educational Sociology, 26, 125-133.

Agnew, J., Livingstone, D. N., & Rogers, A. (Eds.). (1996). Human geography:
An essential anthology. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, Ltd.

Ammerman, N. T. (1997). Congregation and community. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers University Press.

Aurigi, A. & Graham, S. (1997). Virtual cities, social polarisation and the crisis in
urban public space. (paper published in the Journal of Urban Technology,
4, 19-52). [Online] Available: http://www.ncl.ac.uk:80/~ncut.

Baker, F. L. (1995). A study of nine urban churches and their neighborhoods.
Unpublished master’s project. Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand
Rapids, MI.

Barber, G. M. (1988). Elementary statistics for geographers. New York: The
Guilford Press.

Bama Research Group. (1998a). Americans describe their ideal church (press
release). [Online] Available: http://www.barna.org/Press
AmericansDescribeTheirldealChurch.htm. Accessed February 19, 1999.

Barna Research Group. (1998b). An inside look at today’s churches: Bama
survey reveals current statistics on Protestant churches (press release).
[Online] Available: httpz/lwww.barna.org/PresslnsideChurches.htm.
Accessed February 19, 1999.

Berger, B. M. (1988, January/February). Disenchanting the concept of
community. Society, 324-327.

Bess, P. (1999, June). The virtues of the traditional city. Keynote address

presented at Building Our Neighborhoods and Towns conference of the
Grand Valley Metropolitan Council, Grand Rapids, MI, June 10, 1999.

147

Bhattacharyya, J. (1995). Solidarity and agency: Rethinking community
development. Human Organization, Spring, 54, 60-69.

Bjorklund, E. M. (1964). Ideology and culture exemplified in southwestern
Michigan, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 54, 227-
241.

Blanchard, A. 8. Horan, T. (1998). Virtual communities and social capital. Social
Science Computer Review, 16, 293-307.

Blizek, W. L., & Cederblom, J. (1973). Community development and social
justice. Journal of the Community Development Society, 4, 45-52.

Borchert, J. R. (1967). American metropolitan evolution. Geographical Review,
57, 301-332.

Center for Transportation Analysis. (1995). National Personal Transportation
Survey. [Online] Available: http://www.cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/
index.shtml.

Chaskin, R. J. (1998). Neighborhood as a unit of planning and action: A heuristic
approach. Journal of Planning Literature, 13, 11-30.

Chesterton, G. K. (1919). Heretics (12th ed.). New York: John Lane Company.
[Online] Available: htth/wwwccel.org/c/chesterton/heretics/ch14.html.

Christenson, J. A., Fendley, K. & Robinson, J. W., Jr. (1989). Community
development. In J. A. Christenson & J. W. Robinson, Jr. Community
development in perspective (pp 3-25). Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press.

Cisneros, H. G. (1996). Higher ground: Faith communities and community
building (fifth in a series of essays). [Online] Available:
http://www.huduser.org/publications/hsgpolicy/secessays/essays.asc.
Accessed September 25, 1998.

Coleman, J. S. (1988, April). “Social capital” and schools. The Education Digest,
53, 6-9.

Conrad, J. (Ed.). (1995). Eco-villages and sustainable communities. Forres,
Scotland: Findhom Press.

Cooke, P. (1988). The postmodern condition and the city. In M. P. Smith, (Ed.)

Power, community and the city (pp.62-80). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books.

148

CRC Publications. (1989). Psalter hymnal. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Author.

Darden, J. T. (1995). Black residential segregation since the 1948 Shelley v.
Kraemer decision. Journal of Black Studies, 25, 680-691.

Dear, M. & Flusty, S. (1998). Postmodern Urbanism. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 88, p. 50-72.

Downs, A. (1998, Fall). The big picture: How America’s cities are growing.
Brookings Review, 16, 8-11.

Effrat, M. P. (1974). Approaches to community: Conflicts and complementarities.
In M. P. Effrat. (1974). The community: Approaches and applications (pp
1-32). New York: Free Press.

Engwicht, D. (1999). Summary of chapter one of Street reclaiming: Creating
livable streets and vibrant communities, (1999). [Online] Available:
http://www.Iesstraffic.com/lost_tdn.html. Accessed: April 3, 2000.

Ethington, P. J. (1997). The intellectual construction of “social distance": Toward
a recovery of Georg Simmel's social geometry. Cybergeo, 30. [Online]
Available: http://1 9355.107.3/revgeo/essoct/text/socdis.htm.

Etzioni, A. (1993). The Spirit of Community: The Reinvention of American
Society. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Etzioni, A. (1998, April). Community as social capital. Keynote address presented
at Social Capital: An lntemational Conference Bridging Disciplines,
Policies and Communities conference, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, April 20, 1998.

Farley, R., Fielding E.L. & Krysan M. (1997). The residential preferences of
Blacks and Whites: A four-metropolis analysis. Housing Policy Debate, 8,
763-800.

Fischer, C. (1975). The study of urban community and personality. In A. lnkles,
(Ed.) Annual Review of Sociology (pp.67-89). Palo Alto, California: Annual
Reviews.

Fried mann, J. (n.d.). Communalist society: Some principles for a possible future.
Los Angeles: School of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of
California.

Friedmann, J. (1979). Territory and function. London: Edward Arnold, Ltd.

149

F riedmann, J. (1988). Life space and economic space: Essays in Third World
planning. New Brunswick, N. J.: Transaction Books.

Frug, J. (1996). Geography of community. Stanford Law Review, 48, 1047-11 14.

Fukuyama, F. (1999, May). The great disruption: Human nature and the
reconstruction of social order. The Atlantic Monthly, 283, 55-80.

Gottdiener, M. (1985). The social production of urban space (2“ ed. ). Austin,
University of Texas Press.

Grand Rapids Area Center for Ecumenism. (1998). Religious population of the
Grand Rapids Metropolitan Area. Unpublished raw data.

Gregory, D. (1994). Geographical imaginations. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Greeley, A. (1997). Coleman revisited: religious structures as a source of social
capital. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 587-594.

Green, C. J. (1996a). History in the service of the future. In. C. J. Green, (Ed.).
Churches, cities, and human community: Urban ministry in the United
States 1945-1985 (pp. 1-22). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co.

Green, C. J. (1996b). Seeking community in the metropolis. In. C. J. Green,
(Ed.). Churches, cities, and human community: Urban ministry in the
United States 1945-1985 (pp. 280-307). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.

Harvey, D. (1987). Reconsidering social theory: A debate. Environment and
Planning D: Society and Space, 5, 367-376.

Harvey, D. (1989). The urban experienceBaltimore: The Johns Hopkins
University Press

Harvey, D. (1990). The condition of postmodemity: An enquiry into the origins of
cultural change. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

Hofferth, S. L. & Iceland, J. (1998). Social capital in rural and urban communities,
Rural Sociology. 63, 574-598.

150

Honey, C. (1999, May 23). Free-lance faith: Our faith in God is strong, but a third
are not beholden to any particular church. The Grand Rapids Press, pp.
A1, A18, A19.

Hyman, W. A. & Kingsley, G. T. (1996). Transportation and land use. In George
Galster. (Ed.) Reality and research: Social science and U. 8. urban policy
since 1960 (pp. 113-130). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.

Jargowsky, P. A. (1994). Ghetto Poverty among Blacks in the 19803. Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 13, 288-310.

Kaufman, H. (1959). Toward an Interactional conception of community. Social
Forces, 38, 8-17.

King, Jr., ML. (1956). Paul’s letter to American Christians: Sermon delivered at
Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, Montgomery, AL, November 4, 1956.
[Online] Available: http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/sermons/

561 104.000_Paul’s_letter_to_American_Christians.html

Kingsley, G. T., McNeely, J., B. & Gibson, J. O. (1997). Community building:
Coming of age. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Knight, D. (1997). A statistical survey of Grand Rapids Christian Reformed
congregations, 1970 to the present, unpublished paper. [Online] Available:
httpz/lwww.reformednet/grcrc/index.html.

Knox, P. L. (1993). Capital, material culture and socio-spatial differentiation. In P.
L. Knox (Ed.) The restless urban landscape. (pp.1-34). Englewood Cliffs,
N. J: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Knox, P. L. (1994). Urbanization: An introduction to urban geography, Englewood
Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Korten, D. C. (1994). Sustainable livelihoods: Redefining the global social crisis”,
The People Centered Development Forum. [Online] Available:
http://iisd1 .iisd.ca/pcdf/t 994/suslive.htm.

Krumholz, N. (1996). Metropolitan development and neighborhood revitalization.
In W. D. Keating, N. Krumholz & P. Star (Eds), Revitalizing urban
neighborhoods, (pp. 211-221) Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Latané, B., (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by
communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13-25.

151

 

Latané, B., Liu, J. H., Nowak, A., Bonevento, M. & Zheng, L. (1995). Distance
matters: Physical space and social impact. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 795-805.

Levine, G. J. (1986). On the geography of religion. Transactions of the Institute of
British Geographers, 11 , 428-440.

Ley, D. (1983). A social geography of the city. Harper & Row: New York.

London, S. (1997). On fraternity, social capital and the American community.
[Online] Available: http://www.west/net/~insight/Iondon.wcm.htm.
Accessed: September 30, 1999.

Lu pton, R. (1993). Return flight: Community development through reneighboring
our cities. Atlanta: FCS Urban Ministries.

Lupton, R. (1999a). Urban perspectives: The church in community. [Online]
Available: http://www.ccda.org/fcs/up/199901.html. Accessed: September
22, 1999.

Lupton, R. (1999b). Urban perspectives: Community-friendly theology. [Online]
Available: http://www.ccda.org/fcs/up/199902.html. Accessed: September
22, 1999.

Lupton R, Lupton, P & Yancey, G. (1995). Relocation: Living in the Community.
In J. Perkins (Ed.) Restoring at-risk communities: Doing it together and
doing it right, (p. 75-105) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Marston, S. A. (1988). Neighborhood and politics: Irish ethnicity in nineteenth
century Lowell, Massachusetts. Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 78, 414-432.

Massey, D. S. (1996). The age of extremes: Concentrated affluence and poverty
in the Twenty-First century. Demography, 35*. 395-412.

Mesch, G. S. & Manor, 0. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and
local attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504-519.

Miggins, E. M. (1996). America’s urban mosaic: Immigration and minority
neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio. In W. D. Keating, N. Krumholz & P.
Star (Eds), Revitalizing urban neighborhoods, (pp. 9-23) Lawrence, KS:
University Press of Kansas.

Morris, E.W. (1996). Community in theory and practice: A framework for
intellectual renewal. Joumal of Planning Literature, 11 , 127-150.

152

 

Mullen, B. (1985). Strength and immediacy of sources: A meta-analytic
evaluation of the forgotten elements of social impact theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 1458-1466.

Murray Zoba, W. (1996, February 5). Separate and equal. Christianity Today, 40,
14-24.

Newton, K. (1997). Social capital and democracy, American Behavioral Scientist,
40, 575-586.

Nyden, P., Maly, M. & Lukehart, J. (1997). The emergence of stable racially and
ethnically diverse urban communities: A case study of nine U. S. cities.
Housing Policy Debate, 8, 491 -534.

Office of the General Secretary. (1996). Yearbook of the Christian Reformed
Church in North America. Grand Rapids Michigan: Author.

Office of the General Secretary. (1997). Yearbook of the Christian Reformed
Church in North America. Grand Rapids Michigan: Author.

Office of the General Secretary. (1998). Yearbook of the Christian Reformed
Church in North America. Grand Rapids Michigan: Author.

Olson, D. V. A. (1989). Church friendships: boon or barrier to church growth,
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28, 432-447.

Orfield, M. (1997). Metropolitics, Washington, D. C.: The Brookings Institution.

Ottensmann, J. R. (1978). Social behavior in urban space: A preliminary
investigation using ethnographic data. Urban Life, 7, 3—22.

Pacione, M. (1989). The ecclesiastical community of interest as a response to
urban poverty and deprivation. Transactions of the Institue of British
Geographers, 15, 193-204.

Perkins, J. (1982). With justice for all. Ventura, California: Regal Books.

Pilla, A. (1996, Spring-Summer). The moral implications of regional sprawl: The
Cleveland Catholic Diocese’s Church in the City vision and process.
National Civic Review, 85, 49-52.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: It’s origins and applications in modern society.
Annual Review of Sociology. 24, 1-24.

153

Putnam, R. D. (1993, Spring). The prosperous community: Social capital and
public life. The American Prospect, No. 13. [Online] Available:
http://epn.org/prospect/1 3/1 3putn.html.

Putnam, R. D. (1995, June). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital.
Current, 373, 3-9.

Qiaoming, A. L., Ryan, V., Aurbach, H. & Besser, T. (1998). The influence of
local church participation on rural community attachment. Rural Sociology,
63, 432-450.

Quercia, R. G. & Galster, G. C. (1997). Threshold effects and the expected
benefits of attracting middle-income households to the central city.
Housing Policy Debate, 8, 409-435.

Ramsay, M. (1998). Redeeming the city: Exploring the relationship between
church and metropolis. Urban Affairs Review, 33, 595-626.

Redfield, R. (1967a). The little community. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press. (Original work published as Gottesman Lectures, Vol. 5, Sweden:
Uppsala University).

Redfield, R. (1967b). Peasant society and culture. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press. (Original work published 1956)

Rice, R. R. & Annis, AW. (1997). Foundations for the future: The 1997 survey of
the Christian Reformed Church. Calvin College Social Research Center,
Grand Rapids, MI. (Available from Calvin College Social Research Center,
3201 Burton SE, Grand Rapids, MI 49546)

Robinson, M. (1995). Toward a new paradigm of community development.
Community Development Joumal, 30, January, 21 -30.

Rusk, D. (1993). Cities without suburbs, Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson
Center Press.

Sack, K. (2000, June 4). Shared prayers, mixed blessings: Integration saved a
church, then the hard work began. The New York Times On the Web.
[Online] Available: httpz/lwww.nytimes.com/Iibrary/national/race/
060400sack-church.html. Accessed: July 6, 2000.

Schaar, J. (1970). Observations on community. Transcript of speech given in

Cambridge, Massachusetts. [Online] Available:
gopher://gopher.civic.net:2400/00/cdiscv/cmtyandneighb/ed4.

154

 

Simonsen, K. (1996). What kind of space in what kind of social theory. Progress
in Human Geography, 20, 494-512.

Smock, K. (1997). Comprehensive community initiatives: a new generation of
urban revitalization strategies. Paper presented on COMM-ORG: the On-
Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. [Online]
Available: http://uac.rdp.utoledo.edu/comm-
org/papers97/smock/cciweb2.htm.

Smucker, J. (1986). Religious community and individualism: Conceptual
adaptions by one group of Mennonites. Journal for the Scientific Study of
Religion, 25, 273-291.

Snapper, D. N. (1980). An examination and evaluation of the responses of the
Christian Reformed Church to its communities in historical perspective.
Unpublished master's thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids,
MI.

Soja, E. W. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, 70, 207-225.

Sommers, L. M. & Mehretu. A. (1994). Patterns of microgeographic marginality in
Michigan. In U. Wiberg (Ed.), Marginal areas in developed countries (pp.
45-59). Umea: CERUM, Umea University.

Suk, J. (1999, March). Trends in the CRC. Sermon delivered at Sherman Street
Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, MI, March 14, 1999.

Thomas, J. M. 8. Blake, R. M, Jr. (1996). Faith-based community development
and African-American neighborhoods. In W. D. Keating, N. Krumholz & P.
Star (Eds), Revitalizing urban neighborhoods, (pp. 131-143) Lawrence,
KS: University Press of Kansas.

Thrall, l. G. (1987). Land use and urban fomr: The consumption theory of land
rent. New York: Methuen.

Twomby, E. C. & De Vita, C. J. (1998, May). D.C.-Area ties to religious
congregations. Charting civil society: A series by the Center on Nonprofits
and Philanthropy, (No. 3). Washington, DC: The Urban League.

Wall, E., Ferrazzi, G. & Schryer, F. (1998). Getting the goods on social capital.
Rural Sociology, 63, 300-322.

Warren, R.L. (1970). The good community—What would it be? Journal of
Community Development Society, 1, 14-23.

155

 

 

Warren, R. L. (1978). The community in America. Chicago: Rand McNaIly
College Publishing Company.

Warren, M. R. (1998). Connecting people to politics: The role of religious
institutions in the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation network. Paper
presented on COMM-ORG: the On-Line Conference on Community
Organizing and Development. [Online] Available:
httpzlluac.rdp.utoledo.edu/comm-org/papersQB/warren/faith/warren.html.

Wellman, B. (1988). The community question re-evaluated. In M. P. Smith, (Ed.)
Power, community and the city (pp.81-107). New Brunswick, New Jersey:
Transaction Books.

Wellman, B. (1996). Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian
reconsideration. Social Networks, 18, 347-354.

Wellman, B. & Leighton, B. (1979). Networks, neighborhoods, and communities.
Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14, 363-390.

Wellman, B., Salaff, J., Dimitrova, D., Garton, L. Gulia, M. & Haythornthwaite, C.
(1996). Computer networks as social networks: Collaborative work,
telework and virtual community. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 213-238.

Wellman, B. Wong, R. Y., Tindall, D., Nazer, N. (1997). A decade of network
change: turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities.
Social Networks, 19, 27-50.

Willis, C. W. (1977). Definitions of community II: An examination of definitions of
community since 1950. Southern Sociologist, 9, 14-19.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. The American Journal of Sociology,
44, 3-24.

Wood, R. L. (1997). Social capital and political culture: God meets politics in the
inner city. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 595-605.

Wood, R. L. (1998). Faith and power. Paper presented on COMM-ORG: the On-

Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. [Online]
Available: http://uac.rdp.utoledo.edu/comm-org/papers.htm.

156