Wu

«Add;

-ux
--.' _ n ,

      

 

‘ 4:13 i '1 :‘fié‘
AIL; ' :/ 2

‘ N '5 ,. ,4 »
" '[Lq' f1"? ’f‘i
T

_.

{ JgL $369593

FEB Z 8 ZUDB .

ABSTRACT

CHURCH AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS:
A STUDI OF THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNITY AND
ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AFFECTING CHURCH
RELOCATION IN LANSING, MICHIGAN

by Robert K. 0rdway

The study was centered in the phenomenon of churches which
relocate from one site to another in the urban areas. Effort was
made to clarify aspects of the phenomenon through investigation of
the general thesis: structural factors of the community play a
larger role than do structural factors of the organization in the
processes of church relocation in the urban area.

The sample for the study consisted of 100 churches, or about
60 per cent of the total number in the Lansing Area. The sample was
a stratified random.sample, chosen to include churches of the three
major polity types—congregational, episcopal, and presbyterian, and
churches at various levels of experience relative to relocation, in-
cluding those which had never relocated.

A series of seven measurements were developed or adapted for
use in testing the specific hypotheses of the study. These included:
(a) a measure of the present spatial distribution of various church
types within the urban area; (b) a measure of the distribution of
church.fanilies, relative to location of their respective churches;
(c) social area analysis, develOped by EshreV'Shevky and'Wendell Bell;

(d) an index of the social rank of church groups, based on occupational

Robert K. 0rdway
and educational characteristics of church members, (e) the type of
polity existent in the church group, (f) a measure of the internal
organization of the church, expressed in terms of organizational
complexity, and (g) the size of church, alternately determined by
number of individual.members or by the number of member families.

The specific hypotheses, and the results of investigation,
were:

1. There will be a tendency for churches in the urban area to
be grouped together in clusters in their general distribution. A strong
tendency in the expected direction appeared, with.nearly one-third of
the churches included in four distinct groupings.

2. Churches will tend to be grouped together in their distri-
bution on the indices of social areas. The hypothesis was supported,
as over 61 per cent of the churches were grouped above the midpoint on
the economic index, and 80 per cent were grouped below the midpoint on
the family structure index.

3. The majority of church members will live either in the
social areas in which the church building is located, or in social
areas with characteristics similar to those of the social area in
which the church building is located. Again, 80 per cent of the
churches fit the expected pattern. Deviance was explained through
a combination of features associated with the age of the church, and
the nature of the size of the city.

4. Relocating churches will tend to move from their previous
locations to social areas with the same social area ratings, or to
social areas with a higher economic status score, or with a lower

family structure score. Only one of the relocating churches failed

Robert K. Ordway
to fit this expected pattern.

5. It is expected that churches will move outward, from the
center of the city toward the periphery. This hypothesis failed to
receive general support, though a large minority of relocating churches
did.meve in the predicted direction.

6. Churches of different polity types will have different
patterns of relocation: congregational and non-denominational churches
will move most often, episcOpal churches least often. For congrega-
tional and episcOpal polity types, the hypothesis was supported as
indicating the general tendency. Non—denominational churches failed
completely to follow the expectation.

7. In justifying relocation, churches will give mostly ”com-
munityhoriented' reasons for making a move. This hypothesis was
rejected, as only 20 per cent of all reasons for relocation were
directly’tzommmity-oriented.’I The majority of reasons given centered
in internal spatial considerations of the church as an organization.

In the entire study, polity type assumed such unexpected
importance as a controlling variable that the author believes the
original thesis should be modified to take its power into account.

The medified thesis reads: the more power which the polity structure
places in the denomination, the less influential will be the role of
community structural factors in the process of church relocation; the
:more power which the polity structure places in the local congrega-
tion, the more influential will be the role of community structural

factors.

1

Copyright by
ROBERT K. ORDWAY

' 1965

CHURCH AND COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS:
A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNITY AND
ORGANIZATIONAL VARIABLES AFFECTING CHURCH

RELOCATION IN LANSING, MICHIGAN

By

Robert K. Ordway

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1964

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study, as is true of all of its kind, was made possible
through the generous cooperation of many people. The author wishes
to pay special tribute to the following persons and groups:

To the Institute for Community Development, Michigan State
University, and its Director, Dr. Duane Gibson, for sponsoring the
project, and providing financial resources making it possible.

To Dr. Welter E. Freeman—-Chief of Research for the Institute
for Community Development, Major Professor, Chairman of my Graduate
Committee—-for guidance, advice, and.much wise counsel given freely
over the fifteen.months this study was in process.

To the Ministers of the Lansing Area, for their generous
cooperation in providing the basic data for this study.

To the Reverend John F. Howell, Executive Secretary, Lansing
Council of Churches, who provided.many helpful suggestions regarding
useful sources of information, and became a good friend as well.

To Leo Driedger, fellow graduate student in Sociology at
Michigan State University, for collaboration in development of the
interview schedule, choice of sample churches, and in administration
of the interviews themselves.

To John Jackson, another fellow graduate student in Sociology,
who assisted in the long task of interviewing.

To Dr. Donald W. Olmsted and Dr. J. Alan Beagle, members of
my Graduate Committee, for interest and thoughtful support in the

iii

choice of the topic represented in these pages.

To members of the Department of Strategy and Church.Planning
(now the Department of Responsible Church Location), of the Michigan
Council of Churches, for permitting me to obtain a working knowledge
of the strategic thinking of church leaders.

To Dr. William Form, Professor of Sociology, for a constructive
reading and helpful evaluation of the interview schedule, and for
friendly interest in the general area of study covered in this
dissertation.

To Dr. Fred Thaden, staff member of the Institute for Community
Development, for basic materials and helpful interpretations of census
material collected in the Lansing Area.

And by no means least, to my wife Eva, and our family, without
whose patience, support, and encouragement this thesis would have been

a practical impossibility.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWIEDWTS O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O I O O O O

TABIE 0F CO ms 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

LIST OF

LIST OF

LIST OF

TABIAES O O O O O O O O O O O I O O C O O O O O O O
FIGUm C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

MAPS C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

INTRODU CTION C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 C O O O O 0

Chapter
I.

II.

III.

V.

VI.

VII.

BACKGROUND FACTORS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I
Population.Mobility
Social Composition of The City: Sub-Areas
Structure and Organization of Religious Groups
The Church and Its Community Setting

Tm PROBIM O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Hypotheses
Methodology

SELECTED GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLE CHURCHES

THE CHURCHES AND THE SOCIAL AREAS OF GREATER
LANSING O O O O O O O I C O O O O O O O O C O O 0

Social Areas and Distribution of Churches
STRUCTURAL FEATURES OF THE CHURCHES . . . . . . . .

RELOCATION: COMMUNITY AND CONGREGATIONAL
1mm cm 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary

Conclusions
Suggestions for Further Study

Page

iii

vii

27

34

5O

76

97

117

APPENDIX A.

APPENDIX B.

APPENDIX C.
APPENDIX.D.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Page

DENOMINATIONS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE, LISTED
BYPOLITYHPEoeeeeoeooeceeooe131

COMPUTATIONAL PROCEDURES FOR.SOCIAL AREA
ANAIIYSIS O O C I C C I O O O C O C O O O O O O 132

THE INTERVIEW SCHEDULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

DENOMINATIONAL POLICIES CONCERNING RELOCATION . 157

C O I O O O O O O O O I C O O C O O C C C O O O 161

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14-.

LIST OF TABLES

Number of Churches with Members of Minority Races,
by Per Gent 0 O O O O O I C O O O O O O O O O C I O O 0

Distribution of Churches by Denominational
Polity Type O O O O O O O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O 0

Number of Churches Which Are or Have Been Involved
in The Relocation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of The Number of Sample Churches
Established in The Lansing Area During Selected
Intervals of Time, with The Total Number of Churches
Established in Lansing and Population Figures for
Lansing and'East Lansing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size of Church, as Indicated by Number of Members
Fourteen Years of Age and Over . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size of Church, as Indicated by Number of Constituents
Regardless of Age or Official.Membership . . . . . . .

Size Groupings of Churches, as Indicated by Number
Of Mem‘mr aneg 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Size Groupings of Churches, as Indicated by Number
of Constituent Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Per Cent of Membership Active, by Number of
Individual.Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Amount of Annual Budget, by Number of Individual
Memmr S O O O O O O O C O C O O O O O C C C C O O O 0 0

Social Areas Index:Scores for Census Tracts of
Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Census Tracts in The Social Areas of
Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Churches by Census Tracts, in
Number and Per Cent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of Churches Distributed at Same Level of SES,
Nemen.Norking and Social Area Indices . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page

37

37

39

40

43

45

47

49

57

58

62

70

Table Page

15. Number of Churches Distributed at The Same Levels
OfSOCialAreaoeooococo-000000.00. 73

16. Distribution of Churches Having A.Majority of
Members at The Same Level of Economic Status or
Family Structure, Showing Discrepancies from.The

Social Area Level of The Church Location . . . . . . . 74
17. Structural.Features: Polity and Race . . . . . . . . 77
18. Structural Features: Polity and Age of Church . . . . 78
19. Structural Features: Polity and Size of Church

(Number of Individual Members) . . . . o . . . . . . . 79
20. Structural.Features: Polity and.Total Budget . . . . 79

21. Structural Features: Polity and Socio-Economic-
Status 0 O O O O 0 O C O O O O O O C O C C I O O O O O 80

22. Structural Features: Age of Church and Size of

Church (Number of Individual Members) . . . . . . . . 81
23. Structural.Features: Age of Church and Race . . . . . 81
24. Structural Features: Age of Church and Total Budget . 82
25. Structural.Features: Age of Church and Socio-

Economic—Status0.0000000000000000. 82
26. Structural.Features: Size of Church (Number of

Individual Members) and Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
27. Structural Features: Race and Total Budget . . . . . 83

28. Structural Features: Size of Church and Socio—
‘Economic-Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

29. Structural Features: Race and Socierconomic—
S tatus O C O C O C C C O O O C O I O O O O O O O O I O 8 5

30. Structural.Features: Budget and Socio-

Economic—Status................... 85
31. Type and Degree of Internal Organization of

suplo ChnI‘CheS O O O C C O O C C O O O C O C O O O C 87
32. Type of Fellowship Groups Present in Sample Churches . 88

viii

Table Page

33. Attitudes of Churches Toward Their Neighborhoods . . . 9O
34. Offering of Church-Sponsored Activities for

The Neighborhood 0 C O O C C . C O C C O O O O O O I O 90
35. Type of Neighborhood Oriented Activities

OfferedeChurChesoeeoeoeeeeoeeeooo 91
36. Availability of Church Building for Use by

Non-ChurchGroups.................. 92
37. Types of Non-Church Groups Making Use of Church

Buildings for Meetings and Activities . . . . . . . . 93
38. Attitudes of Neighborhood to The Churches . . . . . . 94

39. Relation of Social Area Rating of Original and
Relocated Sites 0 C C C C O O O O C O C ' C O O O O C 99

40. Direction of Relocation with Reference to The
Central Business Districts of Lansing and East
IanSing O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 100

41. Direction of Relocation with Reference to The Central
Business Districts of Lansing and East Lansing, by
Polity Type, in Number and Per Cent . . . . . . . . . 104

42. Number of Churches Either in Process of Relocation
or Having Relocated Since 1950, by Number and Per
CentforEachPolityType .............. 107

43. Relocation by Degree of Internal Organization, in
Number and Per Cent for Each Level of Organization . . 110

44. Primary Reasons Given for Relocation of Churches,
With Frequency of Each Reaponse . . . . . . . . . . . 111

45 . Primary Reasons Given for Relocation of Churches,
with Frequency of Each ReSponse, by Polity Type, in
NulberandPerCent.......e.....e... 112

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 O The 30018.]. ”ea Graph 0 O O I O O O O O O O O O O C O O 54

2. Distribution of The Census Tracts in The Social
Areas of Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan, 1960 . . . 55

3. Distribution of Churches in The Social Areas
of Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan, in Number
andPerCent..................... 61

4. Distribution of Churches on Indexes of
Socio-Economic-Status and Women Working . . . . . . . . 67

5. Distribution of Churches, Keyed by location in
Lansing Social Areas on Indexes of Socio-
Economichtatus and Women Working . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.

LIST OF MAPS

Distribution of Churches in Lansing and
iEast Lansing, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of Sample Churches in Lansing and
East Lansing, Michigan, Showing Distribution of
F0111. Polity Types 0 O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0

Social Areas (Economic Status Dimension) as
Represented in The Census Tracts in Lansing,
Michigan and Adjacent Area . . . . . . . . . . .

Social Areas (Family Structure Dimension) as
Represented in The Census Tracts in Lansing,
Michigan and Adjacent Area . . . . . . . . . . .

Original Sites and Relocated Sites of Lansing
and'East Lansing Churches, Indicating Direction
of'Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

35

36

59

60

98

INTRODUCTION

This study grew out of a concern on the part of the writer for
some understanding of a phenomenon now current in the activities of
many congregations. Protestant groups in particular are most apt to be
involved in the phenomenon-—the physical relocation of the meeting
place of the congregation.

There seem.to be many speculative Opinions related to the prob-
lems of relocation, but few solid facts. In the approach to the problem
presented here, direction has been sought essentially through posing two
questions: (1) what factors in the relationship between a local congre-
gation and its community, if any, are involved when a congregation de-
cides to relocate to another site? and (2) what factors in the makeaup
of the local congregation as an organization are involved when a congre-
gation decides to relocate?

Stated in this way, these questions provide a dual focus on a
single problem: a focus on relevant community-factors which.may influ-
ence a congregation in its decisions regarding relocation, and a focus
on attributes of the church as an organization which.may influence
decisions regarding relocation.

The problem.is stated in this way, and approached through the
dual focus as a recognition finat, as a social entity operating in a
social environment, a congregation will be affected in the development
<Jf its activities and programs by both external and internal stimuli.
ZLn.this paper, the stimuli to be considered is structural in nature.

-1-

_ 2 _
Therefore, in considering the process and problem of relocation, struc-
tural features of the community in which the church is located, and
structural features of the church as an organization, are both consid-
ered to be important. One of the purposes of the study is to discover,
if possible, which structural factors, community or church, play the

largest part in influencing a local congregation involved in relocation.

CHAPTER I

Background Factors

In the approach to the general problem, and in specifying the
salient factors involved, there are several rather broad elements which
must be taken into account. These include the varied phenomena of popu-
lation.mobility, against which the mobility of social institutions must
be assayed; the social composition of the city, and of sub~areas within
the urban complex; and structural and organizational features of the
social institution in question—-in this case, the church. Cutting
across all of these is the need to consider, at least briefly, the tra-
ditional relationship between the religious congregation and its

neighborhood.

POpulation.Mobility

The movements of relatively large numbers of persons from one
place to another is not a new occurrence. Anthropological evidence
suggests that population.mobility has been a feature of life since the
dawn of human history. At times mobility appears as a regular process,
governed largely by environmental pressures—-climate, hunting success,
or natural food supplies. At other times it appears more spasmodic, re-
sulting from social pressures-the appearance of another, hostile, group
or population expansion. It should come as little surprise, then, to
note that population.mobility continues as an accepted social fact,
even though the reasons for it.may have changed.

For nearly two decades the rate of.mobility in the United States

-3-

_ 4 _

has been such that about one of every five persons changes his residence
every year: during the year March, 1960 to March, 1961, thirty—five and
a half million Americans moved.1 In order to keep up with analysis of
the phenomenon, the United States Census Bureau has develOped a classi—
fication scheme of mobility status and type of mobility with eight di-
visions and subdivisions.2

Although.many features of mobility are interesting, only those
which revolve around the metropolitan area need concern us here. In
1900, one-third of the United States pOpulation resided in metropolitan
areas and two-thirds lived in nonemetropolitan areas. By 1960 these
proportions were just reversed.3 Though part of this growth is to be
accounted for by the creation of new metropolitan areas (cities of
50,000 population or more), a more important source of growth is the
addition of adjacent counties to already existing metropolitan areas,

as the orbit of metropolitan influence spreads.4

 

1Henry-s. Shryock, Jr., POpulation.Mobility Within The United
States (Chicago: Community and Family Study Center, University of
Chicago, 1964), p. 65. .

2Ibid., p. 10. The Classes are:
Same house
Different house in same county (intracounty
moves)
Migrants (intercounty movers)
Different county in same state (intrastate
migrants)
Interstate migrants
Between contiguous states
Between noncontiguous states
Movers from.abroad

3Amos H. Hawley, Beverly Duncan, and David Goldberg, "Some
Observations of Changes in Metropolitan POpulation in The United
States," Demography, I, No. 1 (1964), 151.

4Ib1d., p. 150.

_ 5 _

Accompanying the increase of the metr0politan area, with its
inclusion of a broader population base, is the long-time trend of
migration to the city from rural areas, with the increasing growth of
industry and technology, and the decreasing numbers of persons neces-
sary to continue essential agricultural production.

Also part of the increasing metropolitan area development is the
rise and phenomenal growth of suburban developments. A whole Spats of
recent literature has dealt with study of the suburb, as an ecological
development, and as a way of life.

Alongside the movements of people into and within urban areas,
there is also a more or less constant movement of the institutions and
facilities which serve the needs of the urban population.1 An obvious
illustration is the rise of sh0pping centers, often containing branch
stores of the big "downtown" firms, located in a position of.maxbmmn
access to the new or growing suburbs. Among the institutions and
organizations affected is the church, in its various forms. we shall

return to this after considering other relevant background elements.

Sggigl Composition 9; The City: Subeéreas
Cities and metropolitan areas may be variously described, but
perhaps one of the most useful and helpful concepts pictures the city
as a dynamic interrelationship of various functional systems: politi-
cal, cultural, economic, social, educational, communicative, transpor-
tation, religious, and industrial.

These various segments of urban life are not put together in a

 

1One study of this movement, dealing with commercial establish-
ments, was done by Bradford Chase, ”An Analysis of Commercial Use

Changes in Lansing, Michigan: 1952-59" (unpublished Master’s thesis,
ZMichigan State University, 1962).

-6-
random fashion, but generally are established in some sort of framework
provided by their interdependence. Sections of the city may come to be
primarily devoted to one of these functions, with lines of access and
communication to others.

Illustrative of this functional development are such areas as
the business district, the commercial center, the office complexes,
industrial areas and the government center. Residential areas may'ime
pinge upon and be interlocked with one or more of these, but for the
most part, residential areas comprise rather solid sections in them—
selves. This is not to say, of course, that only homes are in resi-
dential areas, for small shopping areas or service establishments may
be sprinkled throughout, but there are distinctive separations of resi-
dential areas from other urban sections.

At the same time, there are two social institutions which have
traditionally been closely linked to residential areas.1 Both schools
and churches have been located within-not on the fringe, but as an
integral part of residential sections. The close relation between
church and neighborhood in particular will be examined a little later.

Several students of the city have developed frameworks for

description of the city.2 One recent attempt to classify, describe,

 

1See Donald L. Foley, “The Use of Local Facilities in A Metr0p0~
lie,” Cities and Society, eds. Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.
(2d ed.; New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1957), pp. 607-616.
Foley says that there are four general types of facilities used mostly
within or adjacent to the residential district: food stores, churches,
schools, and movie theatres, p. 613.

2Three of the best known theories of the descriptions of city
growth are: the concentric circle theory of Emnest'W. Burgess, ”Urban

Areas,” Chicago: An figperigent in Social Science Research, eds.;
T. V. Smith and L. D. White Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1929); the sector theory, reported by Homer Hoyt, The Structure and

_ 7 _
and analyze the social arrangements of the city is that called "social
area analysis," develOped by Shevky andWilliams,1 and.modified by
Shevky and Hell.2 Basically, this technique of analysis is based upon
construction of three indices-economic, family, andethnic-—from data
on relevant characteristics which are presented in the United States
Census publications. Social area analysis uses census tract areas as
the basic unit of study and classification.

The aim of social area analysis is to provide a means of differ-
entiating and systematically analyzing different types of residential
areas within the urban complex. Some idea of interest in the method
may be derived from the range of problems which have been approached
using this analytical scheme.3

In the discussion of "the Church and its community setting,"

which will follow toward the end of this chapter, detailed attention

 

Growthfof Residential Neighborhoods inggperican Cities (Washington,
D. 0.: Federal Housing Administration, 1939); and the later multiple
nuclei theory developed by Chauncey D. Harris and Edward U. Ullman,
”The Nature of Cities," Apnals of Thefigmerican_Apademy of Political
and4§ocial Science, CCXLII (November, 1945), 7-17.

1Eshrer Shevky and Marilyn Williams, The gocial Areas of
Lps Angelos: 4Analysis andgTypolo (Berkely and Los Angelos: Uni-
versity of California Press, 1949 .

zEshref Shevky and Wendell Bell, Social Area Analysis
(University of California Press, 1949).

3See for example, such articles as: Wendell Bell and Marion D.
Boat, "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social Relations,” American
Journal of Sociology, LXII (January, 1957), 391-398;‘Wendell Bell and
Maryanne T. Force, "Religious Preference, Familism, and The Class Struc—
ture," Thejgidwest_§ociologist, XIIL(May, 1957); Wendell Bell and
'Maryanne T. Force, "Social Structure and Participation in Different
Types of Formal Associations," Social.Forces. XXXIV (May, 1956), 345-350;
Maurice D. Van Arsdol, Jr., Santo F. Camilleri, and Calvin F. Schmid,
”An Application of The Shevky Social Area Indexes to A Model of Urban
Society," Social Forces, XXIVII, No. 1 (October, 1958), 26-32;
Theodore R. Anderson and Lee L. Bean, ”The Reinterpretation,” Social

-3-

will be given to two studies which have used social area analysis with
reference to religious institutions:l To facilitate understanding of
the results of those studies, and the use of social area analysis in
this dissertation, we must look at some of the theoretical and method-
ological basis of the procedure.

The method of social area analysis was formulated in an attempt
to find a new tool for community research and study which moved beyond
the non-experimental, descriptive methods of ecology used by Robert Park
and most students of the city since.2 On the basis of the existing
models, Los Angelos, with which.Shevky and his associates were con-
cerned, would have been either "unique," or "not a city at all."3 It
was also observed that "the sociologists who considered the spatial
patterning observed in the city as the ‘basic underpinning' for the
study of urban life ran the risk of becoming bounded by the particular—
ities of the urban frame taken in isolation.” To escape both of these
dilemmas, the social area methodology was devised, using two basic
assumptions: (a) that the urban phenomena of Los Angelos were regional

manifestations of changes in the total society and (b) that, in urban

 

Forces, II” No. 2 (December, 1961), 119-124. For others, see the Bibli-
ography. For a negative reaction to the Social Area Index, see Amos H.
Hawley and Otis Dudley Duncan, "Social Area Analysis: A Critical
Appraisal," Land Economics, XXXIII (November, 1955), 337-345.

1Robert L. Wilson, "The Association of Urban Social Areas in
Four Cities and The Institutional Characteristics of Local Churches in
Five Denominations” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Northwestern Uni-
versity, 1958); and George C. Myers, "Patterns of Church Distribution
and.Movement," Social.Forces, XL, No. 4 (May, 1962), 354-363.

2$hevky and Williams, g2. _c_:_l_t_.., p. 1; Shevky and Bell, 92. cit.,

p. 1.

BShevky and Bell, fl. git.

_ 9 _
analysis, facts of economic differentiation and of status and power had
a significance transcending in importance the significance of relations
occurring within the boundaries of the local community;1

The whole idea of social area analysis grows from a theoretical
foundation based on the idea of increasing societal scale. Scale, in
this sense, is conceived of as ”the scOpe of social interaction and
dependency."2 Shevky and his co-workers, in arriving at the idea of
social scale, have followed the generalizations of Colin Clark:

. . . modern economics tend to move toward more complex
organization and higher income levels in a series of
steps: first, the intensification of primary production,
agriculture, forestry and mining; second, the expansion
of secondary production, manufacturing, and construction;
third, the preportionally greater expansion of tertiary
production trade, transportation, communication, and
services."

This generalization provides a set of structural indicators
which may be used to approach the problem.of increasing scale, through
three broad and interrelated trends associated with three orders of
organizational complexity: changes in the distribution of skills,
changes in the structure of productive activity, and changes in the
composition of pOpulation.4

Upon these structural indicators, in turn, are established the
constructs and indices of social area analysis. Briefly summarized,
the constructs are derived as follows by Shevky and Bell:

1. Social Rank-this is derived from the changing distribution
of skills as a significant differentiating factor among individuals and

suprpulations in modern society at one point in time. The index of

 

1 2 3 4

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., p. 5 Ibid., p. 9.

-10...

social rank is derived, as are the indices for the other constructs,
from.available census variables which are evident elements of the
changing distribution of skills. Measures of occupation, education,
and rent1 are of central importance in making the differentiation, with
occupation the key single variable.2

2. Urbanization——this construct is derived from the changing
structure of productive activity, the second major trend outlined above.
There are two components of the urbanization construct: "a measure of
fertility, which reflects changes in the relation of the population to
the economy and changes in the function and structure of the family,
and measures of the house type and women in the labor force which re-
fleets changes in the function and structure of the family."3

3. Segregation—-the third construct reflects in structural
terms a major trend which has significantly determined the character
of modern society. This trend is composed of changes in the compo-
sition of the population which are manifested by redistribution of the
population in space, alteration in the age and sex composition, and the
isolation of groups."4 The relative concentration of specified ethnic
groups and non-whites comprises the index of segregation.

All three of the constructs outlined above also have alternative
names, used by Bell and by some others who have used social area analy-
sis as a tool for study of urban areas. For instance, Social Rank is

alternatively called Economic Status; Urbanization is also called Family

 

1One notes, however, that in Bell's description of computational
procedures, rent as a variable is omitted. See Vendell Bell, "Social
Areas: Typology of Urban Neighborhoods,” Community Structure and Anal -
gig, ed, Marvin Sussman (New York: Thomas I. Crowell, 1959), p. 90

ZShevky and Bell, gp.lgit., p. 17. 31bid. 41bid., p. 18.

-11-
Status; and Segregation is sometimes referred to as Ethnic Status. With
the first two of these in particular, the alternative names for the con-
structs seem.to be more fitting for the material which actually is
measured.

Social rank, or economic status, is actually a type of stratifi-
cation measure, associated with the more general term, social class.
Measures of social class typically use such elements as occupation,
education, and income, or some combination of these three. While the
fit is not perfect, the correlation between these three elements is
often so close that one of them alone may be used with satisfactory
results.1 Shevky and Bell use occupation and education as a measure of
socio-economic status. Social rank, used in connection with the concept
of stratification, could very well include other factors besides the
three already mentioned. For example, in.many areas, high social rank,
with the connotation of prestige and respect, may be conferred on the
"old fine families" who do not necessarily occupy a high economic po-
sition in the community. For purposes of the present study, the term
economic gtgtgg seams preferable, in light of the variables actually
used in its delineation, because this term does not carry the same
prestige connotations.

With reference to the urbanization construct, it appears that
the measures of fertility, women working, and single-family dwelling
units, are made to carry more than they can actually hear. Implicit

in the notion of urbanization, conceived in this way, is an idea that

 

1For instance, Leo F. Schnore uses "the number of school years
completed by the pOpulation aged 25 years or older" as a single indi-
cator of socio-economic status. See "Urban.Structure and Suburban

Selectivity," Demography, I, No. 1 (1964), 164-176.

-12-
the significant features of urbanization are reflected in family
structure. That is, urbanization is seen in families with fewer
children, more women working, and an increase in apartment living.

This view may be correct, but urbanization has other aspects as well.
For instance, Stein comments on Robert Park‘s theory of urbanization,
develoPed with a conception of ”natural areas" within the urban setting,
that urbanization involves ". . . forces that are constantly at work to
effect an orderly distribution of pepulations and functions within the
urban complex . . . . the struggle and efforts of its peeple to live
and work together . . . with local customs, traditions, social ritual,
laws, public Opinion, and the prevailing moralorder."1 Changes of
economic and social status are also features of urbanization, tending
to be reflected in changes of location, or the phenomenon of mobility.2
To use the term.family;§t§tu§_rather than urbanization places
a limitation on the concept involved in the construct, but the limi-
tation seems warrented, indeed necessary, in light of the variables
actually measured. At the present state of our conceptual deveIOpment,
family status is mmch.more meaningful than the much broader term
urbanization. But this term still has its difficulties, because of
the ranking implications of the term "status." For instance, to speak
of a high family status score, or a low family status score, does not
mean one is ranked higher or lower than the other, but in the context of
the constructs refers to different degrees of family form or structure—-

number of children, number of women working, and number of single—family

 

TMaurice R. Stein, The Eclipse of Community (Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1960), p. 22.

2Ibid., pp. 24, 26.

-13..
detached dwelling units. Even to speak of "family structure" is not
wholly satisfactory, but it presents fewer conceptual problems than
either "urbanization" or "family status.” For these reasons, fgrigy
structure will be used throughout this study to refer to the second
construct of social area analysis.

With regards to the segregation index, the suggested alternative
of "ethnic status" might be best regarded as a matter of consistency in
terms. However, the change seems to be not so important in this re-
spect. Indeed, to avoid the possibility of confusion later, the term
segregation will be retained in these pages, simply to provide a ready
reference to the designation of census tracts rating high on this score
as indicated by adding "S" to the social area score. (A low segre-
gation score is indicated by the absence of any designation, e.g.,
"BC"; a high segregation score for a given census tract would be desig-
nated by the addition of as," e.g., "30$.")

In summary, the terms to be used from this point forward will
be: (1) economic status, (2) family structure, and (3) segregation.
This will bring terminology closer to the actual measurements made.
Specific steps of compiling and computing these measures may be found

in Appendix B.

Structure Egg Orggnization g§_Religiou§_Qroups
After some time of comparitive neglect of the sociology of
religion, recent years have seen renewed interest in the study of re-
ligion as an important social institution. This renewed interest arises
from.acceptance of a point of view which holds that ”the student of

society must be a student of religion . . . . To neglect the study of

_ 14 -
religion is to miss one of the most fruitful ways of studying the life
of man."1 This present study continues in the assumption that religion,
and specifically, the church as a religious institution, is an important
part of all levels of social life.

In light of this assumption, there are several available ways
to approach the study of the church as a religious institution. As in
all research, the choice of method is dictated by the nature of the
specific problem at hand.

Probably the best-known approach to the study of organized
religious groups is presented in the Church4Sect Typology. Dynes2 re-
minds us that Max Weber first introduced the concepts,3 but that they
are more commonly identified with.Ernest Troeltsch,4 a student of
Weber's. The typology is deveIOped on a combination of religious and
social elements, including among the latter economic, social class

5

stratification, and social participation factors. Dynes has summa-

rized the distinction between sect and church in a series of statements,

 

1J. Milton Yinger, Reli ion Societyiandggheglndividual
(New York: The Macmillan Co., 1957), p. 3d.

2RussellR. Dynes, "ChurchsSect Typology and SocioéEconomic
Status,” gpericaanociological Review, XX (October, 1955), 555.

35cc Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capi—
talism, trans. Talcott Parsons (London: Allen & Unwin, 1930), and "The
Protestant Sects and The Spirit of Capitalism," From Max Weber, Essays
in.Sociolggy, trans. Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1946).

4See Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teachings of The Christian
Churches, trans. Olive wyon (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1932).

5For one of the most complete listings, see Liston POpe, Mill-
hands and Preachers (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942).

For some idea of the widespread use of the typology, often in
somewhat modified form, in both historical and empirical studies, see:
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Social Sourcesggf Denominationalism (New York:

-15_
which he notes should be restricted to Protestantism.in their appli-

cation:

1. The Sect renounces or is indifferent to the secular value
systems, while the Church accepts and reinforces them.

2. The Sect emphasizes a literal Biblical interpretation of
life and rejects worldly success, while the Church incorporates
some degree of scientific and humanistic thinking in its inter-
pretation of life and accepts success in this world as a not un-
worthy goal.

3. The Sect maintains a moral community, excluding unworthy
members, and depreciates membership in other religious insti-
tutions, while the Church.embraces all who are socially come
patible with it and accepts other established religions.

4. The Sect emphasizes congregational participation and an un-
professionalized ministry, while the Church delegates religious
responsibility to a professionalized group of officials.

5. The Sect stresses a voluntary confessional basis for member-
ship and its primary concern is for adults, while the Church
stresses social and ritual requisites for all.

6. The Sect values fervor in religious observance through its
use of folk hymns and its emphasis on evangelism, while the
Church values passivity through its use of liturgical forms

of worship and its emphasis on education.1

A second approach to the study of religious institutions,
especially of use and emphasis in the United States, is that based on
the tripartate division of Catholic, Protestant, and Jew. Undoubtedly

the best known use of this analytical framework is the classic study

 

Henry Holt and Co., 1929); LeOpold Von Weise and Howard Becker, System-
atic Sociology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1932); J. Milton
Yinger, Reli on in The Struggle for Power (Durham: Duke University
Press, 1946 ; S. D. Clark, Church and Sect in anada (Toronto: Uni-
versity of Toronto Press, 1948). Peter L. Berger, "The Sociological
Study of Sectarianism,” Social Research, XXI (Winter, 1954); Russell R.
Dynes, 22, g;§.; Oliver Readehitley, ”The Sect to Denomination Process
in An American Religious Movement: The Disciples of Christ," South-
western Science_Qparterly3 XXXVI, No. 3 (December, 1955), 275-282; and
Trumpet Call of Rerorgpation (St. Louis, Missouri: The Bethany Press,
1959); Bryan H. Wilson, ”An Analysis of Sect Development,” American
Sociological.Review,'IXIV, No. 1 (February, 1959), 3-15; and Benton
Johnson, ”On Church and Sect," American Sociological Review, XXVIII,
No. 4 (August. 1963), 539-549.

1Dynes, pp. 921.1.” p. 556.

—16-
made by Will Herberg.1 The best current empirical attempt to use this
typology is the Detroit Study done by Lenski.2

Still another possible type of analysis might be made on the
basis of the type of polity present in the religious organization. It
is an interesting feature of religious studies that this type of ana-
lytical framework, basically structural in nature, is used very seldom.
It is also interesting that in all the references in sociological
literature which mention these polity distinctions-Congregational,
Presbyterian, and Episc0pal-the writer found only one which provides
any definition of the distinctions.3 Apparently they are so well known
that the terms are taken for granted. Lest this error (as I believe it
to be) persist, the following definitions are offered:

Episcoral politye—a system of organization featuring an hier-
archy of authority at several levels, with authority vested in stated
persons and/or positions. While power of decision-making is generally
delegated at each level of organization, the ultimate exercise of power
is vested in the top echelon, with power of review over all lower
levels.

Congregational polity-a system.of organization which features
authority vested at the level of the local congregation (congregational
autonomy). The power of decisionsmaking resides at the local level,

unless the local group voluntarily gives such power to an agency at a

 

1Will Herberg Protestant-Catholic-Jew'(Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Co., 1960).

2Gerhard Lenski, The Reli ious Factor (rev. ed.; Garden City,
New York: Doubleday & Co., 1963).

3ElizabethK. Nottingham, Reli ion and Societ (New York:
Doubleday & Co., 1951.).

 

-17-
non-local level.

Presbyterian polity-—a system.which appears as something of a
compromise between the other two. Here the seat of decisionrmaking
power rests in a series of representative bodies, with the members at
each level of organization elected from the level which is immediately
below it.

The most apparent reason why polity arrangement has not been
more widely used is that it is limited in its generality because of its
structural nature.

The Churcthect typology necessarily involves the use of
combination of attributes, arranged together to provide a single classi-
fication scheme. The other two analytical designs mentioned here-
Protestant—-Catholic—~Jew, and polity-are much.more easily designated
on the basis of the one outstanding criterion. For the first of these,
the important criterion is historical. That is, for Jews, the distin-
guishing feature is the non-acceptance of the Christ as the central
figure of the faith; for Catholics and Protestants, the distinguishing
feature is the acceptance or rejection of the authority of the POpe in
matters of religious belief and practice. This is not to say, by any
means, that the implications of these distinctions are not important.
They are obviously crucial in the entire development of the three major
groups. The point is that one criterion-—the seat of authority of re-
ligious faith and practice-is enough to set one apart from the others.
With respect to polity, the distinguishing feature is again that of
authority, though along different lines, as has already been indicated
in the discussion of the three types. For these reasons, one might

speak of either of these three—fold categories as "single-itemfl

-18...
variables.

Without doubt, there are other single-item variables which may
also be employed in analysis of religious groups. In this work, the
variables which are considered to be most important with resPect to
church relocation are size of church, polity, age of church, and social
rank. Definitions for each of these variables will be specified as

they are utilized in later pages.

222 Church and Its Community Setting

It has been both implicit and explicit in the minds of church
leaders of all varieties that the church is closely tied to some notion
of "community" or "neighborhood." Traditionally the church is seen as
both drawing its membership from, and giving primary service to, a
particular community. In a study which is described as concerned with
". . . the creation of a human environment in the metr0polis,"1 Gibson
Winter has written concerning the role of the churches in the metrOpo-

lis.

The churches could play a significant role in metrOpolitan
planning, and yet, for the most part, they have failed to
participate reSponsibly in the metropolis. The writer has
tried above all to clarify the nature of reSponsible partic-
ipation, so that men and women in the churches may see the
alternatives which confront them. Decisions made by religious
bodies in the next decade could significantly alter the human
environment of the metrOpolis. Church planning, as it is now
called, implies planning :9; or against the metr0polis as a
human community; the building or removal of a church is a vote
£22 or against the local neighborhood.2

Thirtyefive years earlier, Douglass noted that the changing

 

1Gibsonwinter, The Suburban captivity of The Churches (New
York: The Macmillan Co., 1962), p. 9.

2Ibid., pp. 9, 1o.

-19-
urban environment has particular consequences for institutions located
in that environment. However, he posited that environmental control of
an institution is by no means absolute. For the church, in particular,

Between successful devices for avoiding the natural consequences
of adverse environmental change and the complete acceptance of the
changed situation as furnishing the slew to what a church ought to
be and do institutionally, there inter nes a considerable series
of compromises and transitional stages.

Some of these typical patterns are listed as:
A. Avoidance methods

(1) to break away and move to another location

(2) through selective Operation of the church in the
original vicinity, that is, by appealing "to a
limited number of peeple of a given sort . . . . in
many cases, at least for a time, a church can get
along fairly well in its original location in
spite of extreme environmental change, if it con-
fines itself to its own kind of peOple and avoids
the particular areas of extremist disadvantage
where its own kind is not present."

(3) to stay in the same location, but draw members
from areas completely removed from the locality
of the church building.

B. Compromise methods

(1) to work selectively and deveIOp distant constit—
uencies, as in (2) and (3) above, at the same
time.

(2) to add to the old program.distinct (but generally
limited) programs designed to meet the needs of
dominant pOpulations now in the vicinity of the
church building.

C. ‘Methods of Re—adaptation

(1) deveIOping new, loosely attached activities and
programs, which come to characterize the church
in the public mind, ultimately being adOpted as
the conscious policy of the church.

(2) to become adapted to certain broad aspects of
urban life as a whole (e.g., the labor movement),
particular neighborhood.

 

1H. Paul Douglass, The Church in The Changing City (New York:
George H. Doran Company, 1927), pp. xvii ff.

- 20 -

These methods, as Douglass calls them, are available as Options

to the centrally located church. As for the church in a deteriorating

residential district, he sees essentially four Options:

A.

Moving to a new location.
Dying, or becoming negligible.

Radical adaptation to the immediate environment, which
generally involves finding outside financial support,
and usually brings a serious warping and unbalance of
institutional structure.

Deliberately entering a hard situation, again implying
dependence on outside financial support. "This type,
if highly develoPed, often ceases to exhibit the
character of a church, and some other name, such as
'institute' fits much better."

After outlining this series of adaptive measures available to

churches, Douglass then turns his attention, both in this work and in a

companion book, 1000 City Churches,1 to further analysis and illus-

tration of all the alternatives, save one-the movement 9f churches.

In much the same manner Sanderson sets out

. . . to discover whether there is any general correspond-
ence between urban church progress and social change

. . . . To investigate this problem.requires first that
social change in the city be measured, second that the
progress of the churches be studied, and third, that

the results of the two inquiries be compared.2

However, again, in the analysis and treatment of the two sets of infor-

mation which Sanderson uses, there is no discussion of the movement Of

churches, either as a result of social change in the city, or concomi-

tant with such social change.

 

1H. Paul Douglass, 1000 City Churches-Phases of Adaptation

(New York: George H. Doran Co., 1926).

2Ross W. Sanderson, The Stratggy of City Church Planning

(New York: Institute of Social and Religious Research, 1932), p. 3.

_ 21 ._

‘Explicit in both Douglass and Sanderson is the assumption that
the church is closely tied to its community. The concept of community
involved has both geographical and social components. The community is
made up of peOple who are somewhat homogeneous. It involves an area
within the city complex where many, if not all, of the services peOple
want may be found within a convenient distance.1 In an earlier day,
when apart from the rapid transit transportation line, the primary
means of getting from one place to another was walking, all sorts of
shops and services could be found in each "neighborhood" area. Grocery
stores, schools, churches, parks, and a host of related agencies were
placed so that peOple could use them.conveniently. With technological
improvements which have changed.methods of transportation, radical
shifts have taken place. Reliance upon the automobile, in particular,
has changed not only the traditional neighborhood patterns of shopping,
but even the shape and form of the city itself.2

Technological changes have revolutionized not only means and
methods of transportation, but also the ways in which men work. Indus-
trial developments many times no longer need to rely on a large labor
pool close to the factory. In city planning circles, there is a recog—

nition that traditional neighborhoods had three aspects: (1) physical-

 

1This usage of the term community is closely akin to the idea
of ”natural area" as developed by Robert Park and his students at
Chicago. See Robert E. Park, Human Communities (Glencoe: The Free
Press, 1952).

2John Dyckman, "The Impact of Technological Change," Forum on
NeighborhoodsL_TOday and Tomorrow, No. 1 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia
Housing Association, February, 1958). Also Hans Blumenfield, "The Form
Of The Metropolis,” Forum on Neighborhoods, Today andglomorrow, NO. 5
(June, 1958).

- 22 _
a collection of houses set apart by physical boundaries, such as major
streets, railroads, and stream valleys; (2) institutional-the service
area of elementary schools, of local shOpping centers, and the like;
(3) social-—the area in which neighboring occurs. Through changes in
transportation, the second and third aspects are no longer necessarily
co-incident with the first.1
In spite of all these changes, both explicit and implicit in the

modern-day technical revolution, the notion persists that the church is
integrally related to its local area. In 1955, Murray Leiffer, in a
textbook for urban church planning expressed his concern

. . . with the interrelations between the community and

the church to the end that . . . churches may not only be

well placed but also maintain so vital a relation to the

community that they will not need to withdraw from it

when pOpulation changes.2

Though the development of modern shOpping centers evidences a

change in thinking regarding economic efficiency in the minds of com-
mercial agencies and services, there are still two social institutions
in urban American society which retain a close tie to the localized
areas of cities. One is the school system, which still Operates pri—
marily on the assumption that educational facilities for elementary
children should be available within walking distance of all its con-
stituents. The other is the church, Operating on a basis that the
church is to serve peOple gr,comnunit , however community may be vari-
ously defined. Churchmen of high denominational office make impassioned

pleas that the church has a special Obligation to serve the peOple who

 

‘Dyckman, an- 9.1.:-

2Murray Leiffer, Ere Effective (liéy Church (rev. ed.; Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1955).

- 23 -

live near the church.1

The value position which serves as a foundation
for such a concern demands that churches be aware of changes in their
environment.

Somewhat separated from.this value position is a practical con—
sideration which affects the life of the church in urban areas. It is
often remarked that particular churches become quite selective in their
membership and constituency. Or to say it differently, the church, as
represented by the total spread of denominations and sects, is strati-
fied in a way that closely reflects the social stratification of the
larger society.2 Thus, a church which has established itself in an
area, serving a clientele drawn from that area, will suffer repercus-
sions as the area changes. Note that change does not necessarily mean
change for the worse. A lower class, or "blue-collar” church.might be
as adversely affected by a change which raised the area in economic
level, type of workers residing there, and the like, as would a "white—
collar" church if its area were the scene of deterioration and lower

class in-mi gration.

 

1See, for instance, G. Paul Musselman, The Church on The Urban
Frontier (Greenwich, Connecticut: The Seabury Press, 1960). Here is
an Episcopal Bishop pleading for a renewed sense of responsibility on

the part of the urban church, espgcia;;y in areas of high social
change.

gFor more rural areas, this is noted by James West, Plainville,
U, S. A. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945), and Arthur J.
Vidich and Joseph Beneman, Smalerown ip4Mass Society (Anchor Book ed.;
Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1958):_ More generally
and for urban areas, see Russell R. Dynes, "Church-Sect Typology and
Sociochonomic Status,” grgrican Sociological Review, IX, NO. 5
(October, 1955), 555-560; Shirley E. Green, Ferment on The Fringe (Phil-
adelphia: The Christian Education Press, 1960); Thomas F. Hoult,
"Economic Class Consciousness in American Protestantism,“ American
Sociological Review, XV, No. 1 (February, 1950), 97-100 and XVII, NO. 3
(Tide, 1952), 349-350; Victor Obenhaus, w. Widick Schroeder, and
Charles D. England, "Church Participation Related to Social Class and

- 24 -

From.this it seems Obvious that to understand the movement of
church groups, as represented by moves in the location of the church
building, requires some study and analysis of changing community char-
acteristics in localized areas.

Before moving on to a statement of the problem of this thesis,
there are two relevant research projects which have points in common
with our overall interest in the church as a community institution.

Robert L.Wilson1 has used social area analysis as a basic
framework for comparitive studies of churches in different cities. He
has examined certain measureable institutional characteristics of
churches of five denominations in four cities with regard to their as-
sociation with social areas, with these results:

1. Churches of the five denominations are located in a variety
of different type social areas. Christian, Lutheran, and Methodist
churches are found in all social areas in a prOportion similar to the
census tracts of the sample cities. Presbyterian churches tend to be
found more frequently in areas of high social rank (economic status).
Episc0pal churches tend to be found more frequently in areas of high
urbanization (family structure).

2. A majority of all church.members belong to churches in tracts
with a high social rank score.

3. Churches with memberships of 1000 or more tend to be in

 

Type of Center," Rural Sociolog, XXIII, No. 3 (1958), 298-309; T. P.
Omasi, "Factors Associated with.Urban Adjustment of Rural Southern
Migrants,” Social Forces, XXXV, No. 1 (October, 1956), 47-52; and Liston
Pepe, “Religion and The Class Structure,fl Apnals Of Theréperrcanpggademy
of Political and Social Science, CCLNI (March, 1948), 89-91.

1Robert L. Wilson, 3p. _c_i_t_.

- 25 -
areas of high social rank. Churches with memberships of 300 or less
tend to be in tracts with low social rank.

4. Churches are increasing in membership in areas with high
social rank, decreasing in membership in areas with low social rank
and high segregation, and decreasing in areas with.medium.social rank
and high urbanization. In areas of low social rank and low segregation
the church.membership is remaining relatively stable.

5. Total expenditures appear to be related to the size of the
membership rather than to the social area of the tract where the
church is located.

6. NO definite pattern relating per capita expenditures to the
social area typology emerged.

7. The church school enrollment appears to be related to the
size of church.membership rather than to the social area of the tract
where the church is located. In proportion to the membership the church
school enrollment is slightly lower in areas of high urbanization and
slightly higher in areas of lowurbanization.‘1

George C.Myers,2 following the same basic theoretical per-
spective as outlined here regarding the ecological relationships between
churches and their communities, examines three propositions: (1) there
are distinct patterns of spatial distribution for different types of
religious organizations. (2) Spatial movement is a common form of ad-
justment to environmental pressures. (3) The general pattern of move—
ment by churches in centrifugal, tending towards the outer and suburban

rings of the metropolitanarea.3 ‘Myers studied the patterns of church

 

1Ibid. 2George C. Myers, 9p. git. 3Ibid., pp. 355-356.

-26—
distribution and movement for all 428 churches of Seattle, Washington,
with these results:

(1) There is an inverse relationship between both economic and
family statuses and the number of churches in those areas. That is,
areas of low economic and family status had slightly higher number of
churches than could be expected on a randombasis.1

(2) Churches still move, but apparently for different reasons
than a generation ago. Churches move, not to survive, but to expand
their physical facilities and to meet new social demands. Limited
space is a greater inducement to move than the outmigration of church
members or residential invasion by groups Of different religous, ethnic,
or racial characteristics.2

(3) In.Seattle, churches which.move most often relocate within
the same general area where they were originally sited. 0f relocations
made since 1950, there were as many moves inward as outward, providing
no dominant pattern of outward and suburbanmovement.3 This latter goes
somewhat against the sweeping outward flight of churches to a suburban
utOpia which some writers have noted.4

In the work of both Wilson and Myers, as briefly described here,
there are important points Of comparison and contrast with the research
reported in this dissertation. Elaboration of these points will be

made as they develop.

 

11bid., p. 357. zigzag” p. 362. 3Ibid., p. 361.

AFor example, see especially Gibsoaninter, 92. cit.

CHAPTER II

The Problem

The literature cited in Chapter I points up very clearly that,
ideally, there should be close ties between the church and the environ—
ment of its location. At the same time, simple observation of such
factors as a widely dispersed membership, high.mobility, and ease of
movement from.one place to another for specialized activities makes one
wonder just what sorts of ties really exist.

The problem which initiated the research which is described
in these pages centers on the relocation of churches within the urban
area. It is assumed that certain structural characteristics of local
urban areas play a part in decisions Of relocation. These character—
istics may be the presence or absence of racial groups; occupational
divisions, family types, or educational levels which differentiate one
area from.another. It is assumed that certain structural characteristics
of the churches also play a part in decisions of relocation. Specif—
ically, such characteristics are the polity structure of the church,
the amount of internal organization (the decision-making machinery),
and such variables as the age of the church, the size of the church,
or its budget.

Recognizing that each of these structural frameworks plays a
part, the thesis of this research is: structurglrgactors of the com—
munity play a larger role than dqrgtructural factorgrof the orggrr-
zation in thgrprocesses Of church relocation in the urban area.

-27...

—28—

In the pages which follow, the thesis will be approached in
several ways, each of them.intended to shed light and understanding
on the problem at hand. An early concern will be to delineate some
features of the social characteristics of local urban areas through
the use of social area analysis. An attempt will be made to estab—
lish and place some features of the social characteristics of churches
in comparison with social areas.

Features of polity and organization are considered important,
and will be investigated here, because most local churches are not
entities in themselves. Most of them.are part of a denomination,
and denominational policies and influences play their part in local

1

decisions. In their programs of new church establishment, and also
when they are consulted in matters of church relocation, denominational
Officials consider such items as: presently underchurched or over-
churched areas of the city; location of presently existing churches of
the same denomination, doctrinal emphasis, or similar patterns of
organization. There is often a conscious effort to avoid situations

of serious competition or conflict with churches which are very much

alike in these matters.2 Our concern for polity arises because the

 

1A helpful and instructive framework for consideration of

these influences may be seen in Roland L. Warren, The Community in
America (Chicago: Rand, McNally and Co., 1963). Warren discusses
the "vertical" and "horizontal" dimensions of community institutions,
and the relevance of each for what he calls "locality-relevant"
functions. An expanded discussion of these dimensions may be found
in Chapter VI.

2A long discussion of denominational policies is not warranted
at this point, but some further elaboration.might be useful to the
reader. A sampling of denominational thinking and/or policy with
special regard for relocation based on personal correspondence with
the author, is presented in Appendix D. See also the discussion of
these policies as related to relocation in Chapter VI.

- 29 -
ability of denominational officials to exercise their concerns in the
distribution patterns of local congregations depends on their power to
influence local congregations. As stated earlier, the stronger the
hierarchy the more power available to outside personnel.

The thesis dealt with here involves analysis of at least two
major considerations: (1) spatial aspects of relocation. This in-
volves the distribution of different types of churches in relation to
one another; the distribution of church.members relative to the loca—
tion of their church building; the homogeneity and social rank of social
areas in which church.members live. (2) Social and structural aspects
of churches which affect relocation. Included here are occupational and
educational characteristics of the membership, the type of polity arrange-
ment, the size of the church, and the complexity of internal organization.

To test the general thesis, a series of seven hypotheses have
been constructed. These are based primarily on theoretical consider-
ations presented in Chapter I. The hypotheses are:

1. There will be a tendency for churches in the urban area to
be grouped together in clusters in their general distribution.

2. Churches will tend to be grouped together in their dis-
tribution on the indices of social areas.

3. Either the majority of church.members will live in the
social area in which the church building is located, or they will live
in social areas with characteristics similar to that where the church
building is located.

4. Churches will tend to move from.their previous locations
to social areas with the same or higher social area ratings or to social

areas with a higher economic status score, or with a lower family

-30-
structure score.

5. It is expected that churches will tend to move outward,
from the center of the city toward the periphery.

6. Churches of different polity will have different patterns
of relocation: congregational and non-denominational churches will move
most often, episcOpal churches least often.

7. In justifying relocation, churches will give mostly "com-
munity—oriented" reasons for'making a move.

Our next step is to describe the methods used in establishing

a basis for gathering and analyzing the relevant data.

Methodolo
To test the hypotheses just listed, a sample of churches in the

greater Lansing Area was selected. This area includes the incorporated
cities of Lansing, East Lansing, Holt and Okemos, with the intervening
territory surrounding them.

At the time the study was begun, there were 203 churches located
within this area. In order to provide enough churches of different
size, polity, geographical location, racial and other variations for
meaningful comparisons, an original sample Of 110 churches was selected.
Rejecting those churches which refused to cooperate, and those whose
responses were not usable, a final sample of 100 churches was estab-
lished.1

The sample was not chosen randomly, but was selected with two

requirements in.mind: (1) there should be enough churches of each

 

1It has been suggested that the sample settling at 100,
rather than 99 or 101, making percentages easy to compute, was more
than random favor.

-31-

polity type-Congregational, Presbyterian and EpiSCOpal—-to provide
a range of size, organizational complexity and social area location
for each; and (2) there should be churches which would fit each of
these categories: (a) churches which have completed the relocation
process since 1950; (b) churches which are currently involved in the
relocation process, at some stage short of moving into a building at
the new site; and (c) churches which have not entered or been engaged
in any stage of the relocation process since 1950. To satisfy the
first of these two requirements, all the churches of the Lansing Area
were classified by polity type. A representative sample was then
chosen from each of these three subgroups, including churches which
represented various positions on the sect-church scale. It was assumed
that this type of sample would produce churches fitting the categories
of the second requirement mentioned above.

The cut-Off date Of 1950 was chosen with two considerations
in mind: (1) the immediate post-war effects of WOrld War II should
have quieted enough not to influence the study unduly; and (2) moves
made since 1950 should be recent enough to provide recall of major
determinants, and of the major events of the relocation process.

Data was gathered through personal interview with the pastors
of each of the sample churches.1 The interview was guided by a set
schedule, reproduced in Appendix C. The interview attempted to gather

relevant data for each church on the general characteristics of the

 

1Interviewing was done jointly with another graduate student,
Leo Driedger, who was conducting a study of clergy attitudes and be-
haviors in the realm of social issues. Mr. Driedger and I carried out
the interviews, with the assistance of John Jackson, a graduate
student in the Department of Sociology and AnthrOpology.

- 32 -
membership, building, organization and structure of the church.
Additional questions were aimed at discovery Of factors involved in
relocation, both as "push” and "pull" factors, and the role of non-local
persons-especially denominational officials-in the decisionémaking
and relocation process.

Specific measures which apply to the testing of the stated
hypotheses, based on material from the interview schedules include:

1. A.measure of the present Spatial distribution of various
church types within the urban area. Also a measure of the distribu-
tion of the sample churches, as compared with the total number of
churches in the area.

2. A measure of the distribution Of church.member families,
relative to the location of their respective churches. This data was
Obtained for 35 of the 100 sample churches.

3. A rough index Of the social rank Of church groups, as com-
puted from occupational, and educational characteristics of the
membership.

4. The type of polity arrangement present in the church and
its denomination.

5. The internal organization of the church, measured in terms
of its complexity, and its functional rigidity.

6. The size of the church membership. Alternative measures
were made, one in terms of individual members, a second in terms of
member families .

An additional measure used in hypothesis testing is, of course,
the social area analysis. This was computed for the census tracts of

Lansing and East Lansing, based on material presented in the report of

- 33 _
the 1960 census.1 Computation was made following the procedure of

Shevky and Bell, as described in Appendix B.

 

1U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Census of Poprlation and
Housing: 1960. Census Tracts. Final Report PHC (1)-73. (Washington,
D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1962).

CHAPTER III

Selected General Characteristics 9£_Sample Churches

A sample of 100 Of the 203 churches of the Greater Lansing
Area was studied for this project by means Of an interview schedule
administered to the pastor of each church. The following paragraphs
set out some of the general characteristics of those churches which
were included in the sample.

The distribution of the total universe of churches in the
Lansing Area is shown in Map 1. Twentyatwo of the 203 churches of
the Greater Lansing Area lie outside the tracted areas which will be
used for later analytical purposes. The distribution of the sample
churches are shown in.Map 2. In addition the distribution of the four
polity types within the sample (see Table 2) is also indicated on.Map 2.

The great majority of the churches are "white" in membership.
There were ten Negro churches and three "others" in the sample. The
“others" were: Mexican—-two; Italian-one. Though churches tend to be
almost exclusive in terms of race, there is some variation, as shown in
Table 1. The percentages Of membership which are indicated here are of
a race different from the predominant one. From this it can be readily
seen that racial endogomy is a highly established fact of religious
life. White and Negro churches are not separated in the table, because
there was no apparent difference between them with respect to the per

cent of "Opposite" race included in the membership. A few churches of
- 34 -

 

LANSING

EAST LANSING CENSUS TRACTS

     

’v‘fi'P I. bl$TR|BuT|°fl o-C

CHuRafies no LANSING—
ANE Ensr Lfinsluen

M “tuneup.

 

 

OI IOOO ZOIOO 40100 60.00 80.00
| _
S C A L E IN F E E T

4*N'0'R-T‘H

Prepared by. Institute for Community Development. Graphics Section
Continuing Education Service. Michigan State University

0-3514

 

 

 

= - -

a... t... z in a a e a a. -_ - a - \\ ./ /. .
1. a4: ”A a... t L a” v . h. T. . .. . . N . \ \-\ ._\-- 1.1....) /.,. ,
_- . r: a - t E .0.91 I a It N1- IIIFLt 1L1: ,. ..,.

‘.lll|ll:|¥l|t

 

.- : , .. ..\ a
a: 1 \ . .
rv . ..\. .II x x. \\
.__ . < \\ \ \ \\ .-
. . 1.. .K . C
. i. a a a.

t NA. .. ,. t,.

 

 

 

 

 

LANSING - EAST LANSING CENSUS TRACTS

 

     

Mae 1. Disrktfiuvuou oc
SAMPLE- CnuflaHG-s m
Lennon:- nus Efis‘r
Lflusuoo- , M!¢fil¢-fi~,
Shawnee DISTRIBO‘HAU
0‘? Foo& puu‘rq TWI$L

 

 

0I lIOfIKJ 20.00 40'00 60.00 80.00
- _

I -

S C A L E IN F E E T

4—~—N-O~RVT~H

Prepared by. Institute for Community Development, Graphics Section

‘1‘
g; Continuing Education Service, Michigan State Univeuity
O

 

 

"I

- 37 -

both racial types contained a small per cent of non-alike members.

TABLE 1. Number of Churches with Members Of Minority Races

 

 

 

by Per Cent

Per Cent Number of Churches
None 76

NO Response 1

Less than 5 18

5 to 10

Over 10

TOTAL 100

 

Moving on to another characteristic, with regard to denomi-
national structure, Or polity, the churches fall into four groups, as
shown in Table 2. Distinctions between the three major types-con-
gregational, presbyterian and episcOpal-have already been made in
Chapter I. The Non-Denominational group is a relatively important
one, in relation to the size of the group, as they generally represent
some type of ”protest movement" with regards to the main stream of

religious life. In general, their protest is aimed in one or both

TABLE 2. Distribution Of Churches by Denominational Polity Type

 

 

Polity Type Number of Churches
Non-Denominational 8
Congregational 39
Presbyterian 19
Episc0pal 34

 

TOTAL 100

 

_ 38 _
of two directions: the drift toward "liberalism" of current theologi—
cal thought, and the dominance of local church affairs by "outsiders."
The first of these protests is, of course, shared by other fundamenta—
list and sect-type groups. The second is shared by other congrega-
tionally organized groups, but non-denominational groups carry the
ideals of congregational autonomy to an extreme. In doing so they
have separated themselves from.organized religious groups, including
those organized on a wholly voluntary basis.

The sample churches cover nearly the entire range of theological
traditions in their denominational affiliations. There are repre—
sentatives of the Jewish, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant
groups. The latter includes churches from the "main-line" traditions-
Episcopal, Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran-through the middle ranges
of denominations, and a sizeable number of sect-type churches, among
them the Holiness and Pentecostal groups.

Earlier it was stated that growing populations in the urban area
call for adjustment on the part Of the churches. One method of ad-
justing to the greater numbers of peOple is the establishment of new
congregations. Of the 100 churches in the sample, 30 have been newly
established since 1950.

A second possible mode of adjustment to new, and changing,
populations in the city is the relocation of already established con-
gregations. Table 3 tells the story here. Over 40 per cent of the
churches in the sample still occupy their original sites. At the
time of interviewing (November and December, 1963) six congregations
were in process of relocation—-one for the second time since 1950.

When we come to the point of analyzing the relocation process itself,

_ 39 -
we shall concentrate upon the forty-four churches which have relocated,

are relocating, or are seriously considering relocation.

TABLE 3. Number of Churches Which Are or Have Been Involved
in The Relocation Process

 

 

 

Stage of Relocation Process Number of Churches
Never Relocated 43
Relocated Prior to 1950 13
Relocated Since 1950 37
Now in Process of Relocation 5
Relocation Since 1950, in

Process Again 1
Considering Seriously 1
TOTAL 100

 

When looking at the rate of establishment of churches over a
period of years, as reflected in the age of the sample churches from
Table 4, there is a suggestion of the relationship between pOpulation
growth and the expansion of religious facilities. The footnotes to
Table 4 indicate that some caution should be exercised in interpre-
ting the pOpulation figures presented, particularly with regards to
changes in enumeration procedures, and annexed additions to the city.
However, two general Observations may be made: (a) the figures pre-
sented in the table probably under-represent the total pOpulation to
be served, and (b) the churches have sought to keep up with pOpulation
growth through establishment of new congregations. How much churches
have tried to keep up with, or take advantage of growing pOpulations

through the adjustive mode of relocation, particularly on the growing

- 4o -

.mofimosq pmmm was mnemosq mo moons popospp one opflmpoo popcooa monohono am one odeeoH eon meow pH omdwe
Ion .moe¢ mnemosq one ma season Hopop one we pedaeso ooqoaeoofi mom soap mood ma madman menao

.mopsooo weapoooem Mom moonwam on ooqumOHmohtemoq:

some men .moeequdon pHaHH keno 0» common pooopfiz obese hHHssmd.monondbo been; .sond mnamqsn Hmeop

one ea moomemo no season one page gamma mopsoaoofl mama .ooapmxonqd he moamqsq no keno one op poops
mm: Hepop weep Mo oomr hansoz .ondmfim man» no doapsvoamnoeoe new UOHHso me ome defipomoo

.SOH on haponSOpnu dado: moosooo mnaoooonm one vmsOH as new moHdMHm one .sohs

mop ma monondno he ombhom on op maeooa Mo oneness Mo mauov dd .pobozom .mnzov omen Adoop non» Menace

mnemosq poem mo mpooofimoe ms popodoo mofion mpoopdpm hooa_nfi qupHdmoH .mpqoospm omoHHoe pom monsoocoam
scapegoaooo ad smudge s no common masseuse as me shaman meow Ho ooo.mr cos ooo.or noozpome

.cpmomo weapoooem on popseoohooofi mnemosq poem .eaHp pmefim pom monomam mnemomq poem moodHooHn

.moas ..o .n .soomaasssz .ooaooo assessed assassosoo .m .p .mamufirvoa escape Assam” .ssmaamaa
.mpospepnooH mo eonaoz opmr ”somwsflseom no mdmooo .m .b .mdmooo mo ssoadm .m .D .oohdoms

 

 

 

0 come oaomom
ano.m o asuooms
a R .m m manor?
mme.cs m aouooms
osmo.mm em m deuceae
ce~.am . an em ms monomer
oms.~m mm mm or amucmas
mam.sw mos mm as sarcoma
cama.mse ems ea am monomer
smoo.mms cams on m noncoms
sarcoma monsoon as ooaasaasaam. reassesseom. aaoaaoaaasaom
mo woeooamom pd mnemodq monondno mo monondnu mononsno Mo pednom

pmmm one mnemosq mo n.Hmom Hopes obavsddssc Ho Aoflfizz Hopoa oagamm Mo honfisz

 

mnemonq pmsm poo Madonna you monomeh_ooepsfldaom one wqamssq dd
eonmeflnspmm.mcnondno mo eonsoz fleece any nee: .oafia mo masbnoqu oopooaom
Meagan some mnemomq one ad ooAmHHnspmm mononsno afiessm no nonszz one no mafipsnflnpman .v mqmea

- 41 _
edges of the city, is a problem to which we will come later when we
look at the causes Of relocation.

It will be noted that in the years 1920-1959, the sample churches
represent approximately half of all churches established during those
decades. The thirty-four churches existent by 1919 are over—represented
in the sample, and the large number of churches established since 1960
are under-represented. The disparity results because age of church was
not controlled in the sample choice. The difference in results between
the present sample and a sample more accurately reflecting the age
structure of the congregations can only be conjectured, but it is pre-
sumed that the final consequences for this study would not be significant.

Turning to some demographic features of church membership, there
are other characteristics of the sample churches which are of interest.

Trying to arrive at reliable membership figures for church groups
is a notoriously difficult problem.1 One of the chief problems faced in
this study was to get comparable figures for all churches. The difficulty
here is that some churches baptize infants, and count all baptized persons
of all ages as full members, at least for enumeration purposes. Other
groups baptize only "adults," which may actually include children of ages
ten to twelve; here infants and children are not counted. The problem is
immediately apparent. To get around this problem, the pastors were asked
for the number of members, "excluding children under fourteen." For all
practical purposes, the result is that membership for all churches

includes only persons of high school age or Older. Distribution of

 

1For a good resume of the difficulties, and reasons for them,
see William Peterson, "Religious Statistics in The United States,"
Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion, I, No. 2 (April, 1962),
165-178. See especially pp. 168-172.

- 42 -

membership on this basis is shown in Table 5. Combining some categories
it can be seen that one-third (33) of the churches have fewer than 100
members; one-half (50) have fewer than 250 members; nearly three-fourths
(71) have fewer than 500 members; and only a little over one in ten (13)
have one thousand members or more.

TABLE 5. Size of Church, as Indicated by Number of Members
Fourteen Years of Age and Over

 

Number of Members Number of Churches
1-49 19
50-99 14
100-249 17
250-499 21
500-749 13
750-999 3
1000-1499 2
1500-1999 6
2000 and Over 5

 

TOTAL 100

 

If one considers only the membership, a somewhat limited
picture of the actual pOpulation served by a local congregation is Ob-
tained. That is, there are other persons, in addition to the members,
for whom.a church has a responsibility. This group, usually called
"constituents," includes nonemember individuals of member families, and
other persons who have no "official" connection with the church, other
than interest and/Or attendance at some of its functions. Table 6
presents the range of church constituency, including the members, and
"constituents." Disregarding the two "no response" churches, a different

picture is presented from.that of Table 5. Now only 13 per cent of the

-.43 -
churches serve fewer than one hundred persons; 37 per cent serve fewer
than 250 persons, 56 per cent serve fewer than 500 persons, and 26 per
cent serve over 1000 persons.

TABLE 6. Size of Church, as Indicated by Number of Constituents
Regardless of Age or Official Membership

 

Number of Constituents Number of Churches

 

No Response

 

1-49

50-99 7
100—249 24
250-499 19
500-749

750-999

1000-1499

1500-1999

2000 and Over 12
TOTAL 100

 

A second alternative, in addition to considering the scope of a
church’s service as its constituency, is to think of the church as render-
ing service to family groups. In recent years some denominational
Officials have been insisting that families are the most important unit
to be considered in the plans and programs of the local congregation.

With this in.mind, the pastors were asked not only how many
members, fourteen and older, their churches had, but also how:many
member families they served. A member family is any family in which at
least one person is an Official member of the particular congregation

in question. The composite answer to the question is reproduced in

Table 7.

One of the first things which may be noticed is that not all
churches are accustomed to thinking in terms other than individual
families. Six pastors, even when pressed by the interviewer, could give

TABLE 7. Size Groupings of Churches, as Indicated by Number
of Member Families

 

 

 

Number of Families Number of Churches
Don't Know 6
Fewer than 30 25
30-59 13
60-89

90-119 9
120-149

150-249 12
250-499 14
500-999 6
1000 or More 4
TOTAL 100

 

no answer to the question of "hOW'many member families?" Beyond this,
as noted in connection with Table 5, the majority of the churches are
small, serving fewer than 120 families (57). And again, only a few
can be considered very large, with just 10 claiming 500 families or
more.

Still, the number of member families does not quite tell the
story Of the influence and outreach of the local church through the
city, fer the church serves persons and families which are not offi-

cially related to it. Table 8 shows the distribution of churches by

- 45 -
the size of their constituency, this time in terms of families. As in
the case of constituent members (Table 6), there is a shift upward in
the breadth of the church's concern, expressed in terms of population,
with a drop to 44 churches with fewer than 120 families and an increase
to 17 churches with a reSponsibility list of 500 families or more.

TABLE 8. Size Groupings of Churches, As Indicated by Number
of Constituent Families

 

 

 

Number of Families Number of Churches
Don't Know 5
Fewer than 30 11
30-59 16
60-89 6
90-119 6
120-149 4
150-249 15
250-499 20
5004999 11
1000 or More 6
TOTAL 100

 

From.this discussion it might appear that, if one is to assess
accurately the role which numbers of persions play in the affairs of a
local congregation, the best approach would be that of constituency.
However, there are good reasons why this is not so. For one, constit—
uents, not having official relationship, have no voice in policy forming
or decisionemaking matters. Only members have a vote. Secondly, it
has been repeatedly shown that the great bulk of support, both finan—
cially and in progranrparticipation, for any church, comes from those

who are its members. Therefore, as long as denominational policies are

-1.6-

not violated, in questions related to raising or expenditures of funds,
or in matters related to program development, particularly in leader-
ship Of these programs, the membership is the important "reference
group" for the church. The only important qualification to this is when
a specific program is aimed at reaching "new" peOple who are prospective
members.

Later analysis in this dissertation will at times approach the
matter Of membership on the basis of individuals, at others on the basis
Of families. This is not done in an effort to be either confusing or
inconsistent, but simply as recognition that for some areas of the
church's life, one measure seems both easier to handle and.more meaning-
ful than the other. A practical consideration, not to be overlooked, is
that for some areas of its life, a church does not plan for, or think in
terms of, families, and therefore has no way to use "family" as a
criterion of measurement.

It has Often been remarked that as a church grows larger the
actual portion of its membership which takes an active part in its
program goes down. The data from the churches in the present sample
generally support this statement. "Active" for purposes of this
study was defined to mean "either making a regular contribution to the
church, or attending worship services at least once a month, or both."
Examination Of Table 9, in the light of this criterion, shows that only
one group, 750-999 members, has less than 90 per cent active participa-
tion on the part of its members. But beyond this, all 18 churches which
claim 100 per cent active membership have fewer than 750 members.
‘Ehpept for three categories (250-499; 500-7493 2000 and over) three-

fourths of all the churches reported at least 70 per cent active

 

00—. E. .N NN S. m r o r N r 1:92..

 

-47-

 

 

 

 

m N _. _. _. hobo one OOON
@ lw _. r mom Woo-m r
N r a. mom-w r1000 _.
m r N mom-Tomb
m r _. _. Q o _. ovbloom
_.N N a o m N m _. moisten N
b r N m m N N r moNtoo r
lu r m a .V r melon
9. w m _. N in _. may... r
Adm-cu. no r @0100 glow Melon. molfi mom-tom 310% mml _. 329 upon-.82
25.54. oEunonaox Mo Paco .Hom a 38 Mo h3g2

 

 

anon-ass Assets-fl so scenes .3 .8364 assesses: so soon boa .o as

participation or higher.

Another general characteristic Of the church, one which is
definitely related to the number of members, is the size of the total
budget. This appears clearly in Table 10. There are two items in the
table which call for comment. First, the six churches refusing to
give financial information were all sect-like, conservative groups.
Their attitude as represented by their pastors through the interview,
was a combination of suspicion, "Why do you want to know?" and reserve,
"It is nobody's business but our own!" Secondly, of the five small
churches (fewer than 250 members), two had total budgets of $100,000 or
over, and one very small church (fewer than 50 members) had a budget of
over 375,000. These churches were in the midst of building programs,
and their unusually high budget figures were at a one-year height. In
this sense, the figures are not "typical" budget figures, either for
churches of this size, or for these three churches in particular.

There are many other features of the life and characteristics
of the sample churches which are of interest, but these will be reserved
until they can take a place of direct relevance to the testing of the
hypotheses which are outlined in this dissertation. The major charac-
teristics presented here are intended to give some understanding of

the general range of churches included in the study.

-49-

TABLE 10. Amount of’Total Budget, By Number
of Individual Members (NI-94)a

W

Amount of Budget

 

 

 

 

Number of Less Than $20,000- 350,000
Members 820,000 49,999 or'More TOTAL
Less Than

250 31 8 5 44
250-749 2 21 11 34
750 or More 1 1 5 16
TOTAL 33 30 31 94

Chi Square-69.062 d.f.-4 Sig.=.001

aTotal is 94 rather than 100 because 6 churches refused to

'give financial information.

CHAPTER IV

The Churches and
The Social Areas 2: Greater Lansing

The setting for the study is Lansing, Michigan. The city was
established as the capital in 1847, and incorporated as a city in 1859.
After a little more than a century, Lansing has develOped an important
industrial complex, and a growing educational center in addition to
being the political seat of the state. Industrial production in Lansing
varies from automobiles, trucks, and plastics, to stationery and lawn-
mowers. Importance as an educational center comes from Michigan State
University, located in East Lansing, and Lansing Community College,
recently established.

In Chapter I, in discussion of the relation of various elements
in the urban complex, it was pointed out that the different types of
organizations which fulfill the functions of the city are not randomly
scattered over the city. In Lansing, the heart of the city is devoted
to government and business. The capital area, with its multitude of
offices, tends to attract particular kinds of people around it. For
example, tract L-14 contains the capitol building, Lansing city hall,
and many of the city's leading "downtown stores."1 In the immediate
vicinity, population density is rather light, with many peOple living

in apartments. Some features of the population in this tract are:

 

1Specific data from which the following conclusions are drawn
are taken from.an unpublished paper prepared by'Joel Smith, "An Analysis

-50-

-51-

the highest rate of population turnover in the city (14 per cent above
its closest competitor); a very high proportion of women in the labor
force; a low proportion of males in.manufacturing occupations; the
highest concentration of foreign-born population in the city; the high-
est average age Of tract residents; the highest sex ratio in the city;
by far the lowest fertility ratio of any tract in the city; the lowest
average income of families and individuals. These features suggest
something special about tract L-14; not only are there many people
living in apartments, but they are inexpensive-this is the "port-of-
entry" for the foreign—born coming into the city, the home Of single
girls working in nearby offices, and the home of aged and retired per-
sons as well.

Without going into so much detail, there are similar types of
relationship, though with other combinations of the variables, in other
parts of the city. Business and commercial firms line the main
thoroughfares-4Washington Avenue and Cedar Street, North and South;
Michigan Avenue and Saginaw to the East; St. Joseph, Saginaw, and.Willow
Streets to the West. The University in East Lansing attracts persons
of high education, the professors, college-trained people who like the
intellectual atmosphere of the campus.

Lansing is growing, like most cities, and the main directions of
growth are to the West, South and East. In the growth, white collar

workers are concentrated on the Western side of the city, in tracts

 

Of Selected Characteristics of The Populations of Lansing's Census
Tracts," The Lansing Research Committee Of The Social Research Service,
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State College (now Univer-
sity), March, 1955. Preliminary Analysis of 1960 Census Data suggest no
drastic revision in the conclusions reached. The tendency, in general,
is for differences in area noted here to be more exaggerated, not miti-
gated.

_ 52 _
Le4, 6, 16, and 25. (See Maps 3 and 4 for easy identification of tract
locations.) 'We have already noted the tendency for the "elite” to
gravitate to the East, actually beyond the corporate limits of Lansing
itself. Blue collar workers are concentrated in the North and South of
the city; in the North, in the older, established, relatively stable
sections; in the South, in much of the new housing which has mushroomed.
Without drawing fine distinctions, it seems fair to say that there is a
trend for workers to be near, and associated with, their occupational
Opportunities. Simply note that high levels of blue collar workers
are in tracts Le1, 2, 8, 26, 27, and 28, and that these areas are near
or adjacent to railroad lines, along which heavy industry also is
located.

This general picture ought to hold rather definite implications
for churches in the Lansing Area. Opportunity to investigate some of
the implications will appear in Chapter VI. Just now, however, it
seems approPriate to look again at Lansing, and its social composition,
through application of the patterns of social area analysis.

The reader should recall at this point our earlier discussion
of social areas and their meaning. What is involved in social area
analysis is a classification scheme which differentiates geographic
areas of the city into a type of stratification.system. This system
has three dimensions: economic status, family structure, and segre-
gation.

‘Economic status is based on an index which in turn depends upon
two variables: the number of craftsmen, Operatives, and laborers per
1000 employed persons, both male and female; the number of persons who

have completed no more than grade school per 1000 persons 25 years old

_ 53 _
and over.1 Standard scores computed for each of these variables are
combined and divided for a simple average, which is the index of social
rank. A low score on this index indicates a relatively high concen-
tration of craftsmen, laborers, and operatives, and a relatively high
number of persons 25 and over who have not gone beyond the eighth grade
in their formal education. A high score on this index indicates a
relative absence of these two groups, and the presence of a relatively
high number of white collar workers and professionals, and persons with
education above the eighth grade.

Family structure is based on an index which also has several
component parts. These are: the fertility ratio, or the number of
children under 5 years per 1000 females age 15 through 44; a ratio of
women in the labor force, or the number of females in the labor force
per 1000 females 14 years old and over; and a ratio of single-family
detached dwelling units.2 An average is computed from these three
ratios to provide a family status index. Because these ratios are
taken by the authors of the technique to represent measuresof urbani-
zation, a low score,representing a low level of urbanization, would
indicate a relatively high fertility ratio, relatively few women in
the labor force, and a high prOportion of single-family detached dwell-
ing units. A high score, conversely, indicates a lower fertility ratio,
more women in the labor force, and a higher proportion of multiple-
family dwelling units.

Segregation is a measure of the concentration of non-white and

ethnic minority groups within a given area. A census tract is

 

1Shevky and Bell, pp. 913., pp. 54-55. 2mm, pp. 55-56.

_ 54 _
considered to be segrated if it contains more non—white and minority
groups than the average for the city as a whole.

To provide graphic presentation of the social areas, the indexes
of economic status and family structure are used as the axes of six-
teen cell table. Census tracts are plotted on these two dimensions,
and tracts with segregation scores are indicated by a special mark on
the position indicated by the other indices.

Figure 1 shows the basic graph, with the cells marked with

their social area rating.

FIGURE 1. The Social Area Graph

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi 100
1A 2A 3A 4A
75
1B 23 3B AB
50
E 1 c 20 3c 40
U
a 25
6*
U)
:1 1D 2D 3D 41)
H
5 oo
FI-c
o 25 50 75 100
L0 Hi

ECONOMIC STATUS
In referring to these areas, high segregation areas are
indicated by the addition of "S" to the regular designation, as, for
example, 3C8. This provides a total of 32 possible social area
designations.

Figure 2 shows the distribution of the census tracts of

FIGURE 2. Distribution of The Census Tracts in The Social
Areas of Lansing and East Lansing

_ 55 _

Michigan, 1960

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi 100
75
[1
DD
(3
50
C) I)
(I
f o. F
0 ° 0
25
(3 cl!
oJ
t: I) ‘,
a: 0
5‘: e
E3 0'
a O 25 50 75 100
a. Lo Hi.
ECONOMIC STATUS
Lansing and East Lansing in their apprOpriate social areas. The shaded

circles indicate tracts with high segregation status,

dicate tracts in East Lansing.

the squares in-

It should be clearly understood that

the distribution of Figure 2 is not a representation of geographical

location of census tracts, but rather a representation of location on

—56—
the social area indices.

The index scores upon which.Figure 2 is based are given in
Table 11. Table 12 provides a tabular summary of the social areas.
Maps 3 and 4 provide a visual summary of the social areas as they are
related to one another within the confines of the total area included

in the 44 census tracts.

Social Areas and Distribution 2§_§hurghe§

Hypothesis One states that: there will be a tendency for
churches in the urban area to be grouped together in clusters in their
general distribution.

For a graphic understanding of the distribution of the churches
of the Lansing Area, the reader is referred to Map 1. Visual inspec-
tion of the map suggests that at least four general clusters of churches
do exist. The largest of these, containing 17 churches, is centered in
census tract L—18. Two others slightly smaller in number, but larger
in area appear in tract Lp8, with 12 churches, and in tracts L~30,
L912, with 9 churches closely grouped. A fourth appears in the capitol
area, tracts L—14 and L-6, also with 9 churches. There are many other
places where two or three churches are quite close to each other, but
the four areas named contain the largest groupings. These four
clusters contain 57 churches, slightly over one-fourth of the total in
the area (203) and just over 31 per cent, or nearly one-third of the
churches within the tracted area depicted. From this viewpoint, then,
the first hypothesis seems to be supported.

A second point of view is obtained when the distribution of the

churches is approached in terms of social areas. Hypothesis Two posits

_ 57 _

TABLE 11. Social Areas Index Scores for Census Tracts of
Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan

 

Census Economic Status Family Structure Ethnic Status Social

 

Tract Index Index Index Area
L-1 48.0 20.4 5 2D
L-2 44.9 28.5 11 20S
L-3 61.7 22.7 2 3D
L-4 80.1 32.7 5 4C
L-5 71.9 32.1 16 308
L—6 84.1 68.4 5 413
L—7 72.4 53.7 5 3B
L—8 51.3 10.1 13 3DS
L-9 65.9 42.9 4 3C
L-10 72.2 12.6 3 3D
L—11 71.7 49.1 6 30
L—12 52.5 20.2 7 3D
L-13 47.3 45.1 6 2C
L-14 60.0 98.0 8 3A
L—15 62.4 53.4 43 3B3
L-16 82.4 31.0 37 408
L-17 89.1 22.8 8 4D
L—18 50.1 32.5 81 BCS
L—19 70.8 80.9 10 4B
L-20 52.8 39.3 3 3C
L-21 38.0 22.5 9 2D
L—22 77.2 26.6 3 4C
L-23 72.7 30.5 4 30
L-24 68.1 29.8 8 3C
L—25 83.2 24.5 6 4D
L-26 60.4 25.8 5 30
L-27 63.6 12.8 2 3D
L-28 67.4 12.3 3 3D
L-29 27.7 12.9 4 2D
L—30 35.5 9.0 23 2DS
L-31 77.4 17.5 9 4D
Le32 42.1 17.5 4 2D
L-33 76.7 16.1 2 4D
L—34 82.9 19.5 5 4D
L—35 53.6 25.4 2 30
L36 5609 “'01 3 3D
L—37 64.5 8.9 3 3D
EL—38 80.3 42.1 6 4C
EL-39 100.4 25.1 4 4C
EL-40 101.1 38.3 4 4C
Elf-41 98.9 60.7 6 4B
EL~42 157.7 71.7 8 4B
EL-43 95.1 22.9 5 4D
EIF44 101.3 59.7 7 4B

—58—

TABLE 12. Summary of Census Tracts in The Social Areas of
Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan

W
Social Area Tract Numbers

 

1A

2A

3A 14

4A

1B

2B

3B 7, 15

413 6, 19, 41, 42, 44

10

2c 2, 13

30 5, 9, 11, 1s, 20, 23, 24, 26, 35
4c 4, 16, 22, 38, 39, 40

1D

2D 1, 21, 29, 3o, 32

3D 3, 8, 10, 12, 27, 28, 36, 37
4D 17, 25, 31, 33, 34, 43

 

that: churches will tend to be grouped together in their distribution
on the indices of social areas. The total distribution by census
tracts is given in Table 13, and the distribution by social areas in
Figure 3. This has several important features. First, two large
groups appear, in areas 30 and 3D. Together they contain 95 churches,
or 46.8 per cent of the total. Secondly, there is a striking concen-
tration of churches in the same range on the economic status index:
111 churches, or 54.7 per cent of the total fall within a range of
50-74 on this index. The third feature is the concentration of

churches on the lower half of the family structure index: 145 churches,

-59..

Map 3. Social Areas (Economic Status Dimensions) as Represented in The

CENSUS TRAC'I‘S IN LANSING MICH. AND ADJACENT AREA

 

cuu'rou
\ ‘7 ,WL‘SI‘ .5. . 33.1
°'/‘((.l' 0‘ ‘ ’II o '
L-33 5 "xiii...“ - ‘5 . '
. s,. . . . "W: '1 M4
\ ‘2. " L'.‘ 9 : bat
,, s '

 

. ~
IC KIILEV

\ ,\ . .
\ L-3\ ofwL-‘I‘

IIDIAIA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

g
8 : “no "u \ \ 3 '
. -: be 5
\ . — \ \ . \ L-\9
L-s; L-7 0: \ E A" (a
“mu! 2 ”LA 1 . . my: ‘ 1..
_r,.ll_ _; :‘> g
L" < L15 ‘ sum: 2 \ 2‘ L-IOE
o um Assn - g m: \
. \ 0 AI ‘ n 100': ‘ 3 ,
‘L. In: AI Lm L44 : L.“ a:
y. 1 \ \2\ \ "L- ‘3‘ "2
.2 . 7‘ ' L45 A ‘3 KM. uzo ' ‘
z V .. 7 L48
‘3' - . II IDAL‘ 3 I\__‘.\
= w
\
\ L-I. \ \ \
\ a
ma a‘v \ELI no
on. \
é“; _ \ L-ZO
3: _ S \
(E L 2‘ ' r I}?!

T. .
\L-25 '5

 

 

g .

. ‘.

:11 to v: n \Hc'oqu “ s nu II VL
..
-

\ \ \ ILA?
\ . .

 

 

I
'.'
’U
Q
I
I

/

  

 

 

 

\\\ an
A D c I lacuna--u-mv
3 El

 

MAP4.

-60....

Social Areas (Family Structure Dimension) as Represented in The

CENSUS TRACTS IN LANSING MICH. AND ADJACENT AREA

CUNT

 

 
  
  

 

  

 

 

 
  

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

men I > N
p l ‘.
,, . b3!
: (0L ".1.-- in _ .--
L-33 ~ “9 i
1‘ . "
‘ I L" 5‘
.2 I / 3* i w
‘ ’ IC n v "V ‘2 I
= L'3 L-2 2’ I
3 IILL :‘L I
. .‘ . I E o . I]: L-B 5'7.”
I . , ‘ _'
. I g L. E L-1 g I E I / an: [vet
,/ ma“:- 5 L032: . . on “a: : .IIAI
I LI." 5 O L- . “tre- ES I G:
I summer 4 = I
{DITAIA 2 JIIOIE ; I I
IWIG:I AV 1.. L44 2, L4] I
I 2 o E L' l I
L-‘. L-‘IB F All 00 '3 lALAI zoo
I "'L'm‘f f 'L-Ie' g ., L-Iz
’ - ‘0’“ I 2
/ L-Ie / , .
I I ml '10 'r ., L-ZI
I / 6.7. '4.
I I u.
"-320 ’5 I 2..
vino ’sz 5’ '
~42 ' _‘ L-22 _
5" I E ’ 15 '
I L- 3 E I z
5'; mum! m. I e- um: I
: I ’ ‘E.
.~ / L-ze _ "
u I
i M-
L-3C
. L-27 L-ZO

 

 

 

 

KEYTO

SOCIAL AREAS :

m

0 lacuna-Iowan
MAMA—1+1—J

-61-

FIGURE 3. Distribution of Churches in the Social Areas of
Lansing and East Lansing, Michigan
in Number and Per Centa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4

A 6 6
3.0 3.0

B 10 20 30
4.9 9.9 14.8

c 9 5o 10 69
4.4 24.6 4.9 33.9

D 14 45 17 76
6.9 22.2 8.4 37.5

23 111 47 181
TOTAL 11.3 54.7 23.2 89.2

8The figures in the social area spaces total 181; the per-

centages total 89.2. The balance is made up by the 22 churches,
10.8 of the total, which lie outside the tracted areas included
in these areas.
71.4 per cent, or well over two-thirds of the total.1 This provides
further support for the hypothesis, as churches are clustered above
the mid-point on the economic status index and below the mid-point
on the family structure index. The four cells included in this
total cluster contain 122 churches, or 60.1 per cent of the total.
This concentration within restricted areas on the indices provides
support for Hypothesis Two.

In intrepretation for the obvious groupings pointed out in

the paragraph above, one might suggest such items as: the often noted

 

1These percentages are even higher if a base of 181 churches
(those within the tracted areas included in the social areas) is used.
Then they become 61.1 per cent on the economic status index, and 79.8
per cent on the family structure index.

—62—

TABLE 13. Distribution of Churches by Census Tracts, in
Number and Per Cent

m

Census Number of Per Cent of
Tract Churches Churches

 

U115
NM
0

\OmQO\\h-PWN_‘
meow—s
. C . . C . .

ea—tox -*-*u:a3ua#-*
O O O O O O O

O

o e o o o o e 0
0v: 0 WOOOOOOOWQWQWWOOWOW-P-OQWOOOO-P-FWKRQOQWW \I'IO

-*-*#\-*AJAJAJ-*:*A> AJAJ-‘—*AJA)—*

b.)
o 0

NW on wk)ON'F-PJ-‘NWO\-‘O\\.n\a)N-L\UINAdN-F-‘NNG-PQQW-‘Nmmw—k

1

1.

TOTAL 203 100.1a
aTotal is more than 100.0 because of cumulative rounding error.

.. 63 _
affiliation of religion with the upper and middle classes particu-
lar; the use of religion as one of a set of status symbols, or as a
symbol of respectability; and the general 'familyaoriented" patterns
of church life.

Student of the expression of religious life have noted that
churches, by and large, do not reach either of two extremes of people——
the extremely disadvantaged, or the extremely advantaged—-in economic
terms. ‘With respect to the former of these two groups, churches have
tended to pass them by. As for the latter, they have tended to pass
the church by. Part of the explanation of the concentration of upper-
lower, middle, and loweraupper class pOpulation in churches is that
church affiliation is often viewed as either a badge of respecta-
bility, a status symbol, or both.1 Thus 11: should not appear too re-
markable that the bulk of churches are located in social areas falling
just above the midpoint on the economic scale, or in the heart of
”middle class" territory.

‘With regards to the family scale, a large part of the
explanation can probably be summed up by pointing to the emphasis on
the family in church planning and programming. A pastor has counsel-
ing and pastoral responsibilities for families, and for non-church-
member individuals in families. Churcheschool curriculum is written
for persons of all ages, cradle to grave. There is often a special
emphasis on children in the church school, with the assumption, often
voiced, that ”if you can get the children interested, you have a better

chance of reaching adults too.‘ Parents with children in the home

 

1Part of the importance of the "respectability” of church
membership may be inferred from the prominence given to the fact of

-64-
may have a feeling of responsibility, though only vaguely identified as
such, to see that their children have the "prOper" religious instruc—
tion. All this culminates in a situation summarized by saying "families
with young children are the best church prospects . . ."1

In summary, the social areas which contain the largest numbers
of churches coincide with elements of respectability and program which
are emphasized by church groups. But this statement involves an under-
lying assumption which needs to have the light of inquiry thrown upon
it.

Earlier we noted the emphasis in the literature upon the rela—
tion between the church and the neighborhood or community. The emphasis
is that the church should be close to people, easily accessible to con-
centrations of population in residential areas.

Hypothesis Three of this study is that: either the majority of
the members will live in the social area in which the church building
is located, or they will live in social areas with characteristics
similar to that where the church building is located.

Testing of this hypothesis involves at least two set of infor-
mation which have not been included thus far: (a) a measure or index
of social rank which can be applied to church groups, and (b) a measure
of the distribution of church families in relation to the location of

the building of the congregation of which they are a part.

 

membership by candidates for public office. ‘Without questioning
personal motives, it has been suggested that when General Eisenhower
"joined" a church after assuming the presidency, there was some signifi-
cance in his choice of churchs-Presbyterian, rather than Baptist or
Nazarene for example-as a matter of status.

1Harold A. Phelps and David Henderson, Regulation in Its Human
Aspects (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1958), p. 309.

_ 65 _

To provide an index of social rank which could be applied to
the churches, use was made of data available on three items. Ministers
had been asked to estimate the proportion of their membership which
were in each of several categories. First they were asked what pro-
portion of adult men are employed as white collar workers, blue collar
workers, what prOportion are unemployed or retired? From these, the
figures for blue collar workers were used.

Next they were asked to estimate the pr0portion of all members
over twentyefive years of age in each of five educational groupings:
eight years or less, high school graduates, some college or trade school,
college graduates, graduate degree holders. From this set, figures for
proportion with eight years of schooling or less were used.

The percentages of persons who were (1) males working in blue
collar occupations, and those (2) over twentyefive years of age with
eight years of school or less were averaged together and this figure
subtracted from 100 to provide a socio-economic status (5123) index.1
The adjustment by subtraction from 100 provides an index where a low
SES score indicates a high prOportion of blue collar persons, and a
high prOportion of persons with low education.

To assist understanding, and avoid confusion, socio-economic-
stgtus, or §E§, will be the term used when reference is made to this
index, which refers to the churches. When reference is made to the

social area index, the term is simply economic status.

 

1For example, a church whose estimated percentages of blue
collar workers was 33 and whose estimated percentage of persons over
25 with eight years of schooling or less was 23, would have an average
percentage in these categories of 28. This then was subtracted from
100 to provide a SES (socio—economic—status) score of 72.

—66-

A third set of data provided figures for an index of the
proportion of women (college age or over) who work away from.home.
This is taken directly from.the estimate given by the minister.

Figure 4 shows the distribution of the sample churches on
these two indices.1 Complete data for both indices was not available
for thirteen of the churches. The form of this figure, and Figure 2
which presented the distribution of census tracts on the social area
diagram are very similar. To preclude any misunderstanding, the
following comments need to be made. Social area designation is made
on the basis of precise information provided through the U. S. Census;
the social rank indices of Figure 4 are based upon estimate data pro-
vided by the ministers of the respective churches. Further, the social
area economic status scale is built upon figures for persons in spe—
cific labor categories; the church SES index is based upon the
estimated number of persons in the general category, blue collar
worker. Finally, the vertical dimension of the social area diagram is
family structure, a combined index of fertility ratio, women in the
labor force, and prOportion of single-family dwelling units; the
church index uses estimated figures for prOportion of women working
only.

The foregoing paragraph is not intended to say that there can

be no comparison of the features resulting from application of the two

 

1To see whether there was any correlation between these indices,
the scores for the 87 churches for which information was available were
arrayed and subjected to a test of rank correlation. The resulting
correlation was 0.46, indicating some tendency to correspondence between
the indices. To test correspondence further, each index was dochotomized
into high and low, and a four cell chi square test run. The resulting
chi square was 2.83, which is not significant at the .05 level, indica-
ting that an assumption of dependence of the two indices remains dis-
proven.

-67...

FIGURE 4. Distribution of Churches on Indexes of Socio—Economic
Status andedm n Working (N=87)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi
100
O
O O o
75
. 1
e
o . I
o 0 .
O
0 0
50 i 3 t 3: 3:: i 3:
. O. o
. .. 0.
g 0 O :. co . . . o
25 e A. 3: e: c : 4. :. e:
e o
0 0 a
C!
E “
g . . 4’ to
.0 O . .
o o
E. .
:3
o 25 50 75 100
L0 Hi

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
sets of indices. There are some arresting features which appear when
such comparisons are made. The caution is intended simply to fix clearly
the limitations of the conclusions which may be drawn from the compari—

sons.

_. 68 ..
We may begin drawing some comparisons which may shed light on
the hypothesis by looking at Figure 5, showing the distribution of the
FIGURE 5. Distribution of Churches, Keyed By Location in

Lansing Social Areas on Indexes of Socio—Economic
Status And Women Working (N-70)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi
100
E]
a mo
75
9t
0
El
6 0
El 90 6 0
5° 2 e—adfleae—e— 13+
9 8
e
E1 El cacao 4 e6 0
25 o e a
1——e e see—ee—e—Q +1
9 e 9
fa”
E o 9 EB El 0 m
0
g 0L $ 9
3 o 25 5o 75 100
L0 Hi

SOCIO-ECONOMIC sums
Key: 3A-A 313-9 413-9 2043 30.43 40—3 213.0 313-9 413.9

- 69 _
churches on the two church indices. In this figure the distributions
are keyed to show the social area location of the church. If the
hypothesis could be fully supported by the data available, we should
expect to find that churches located in a given social area should
also fall in or near the same quadrant on Figure 5. If they do not
fall into that quadrant, then we should expect that most of the churches
located in a given social area should fall at about the same level on
one or the other of our church indices.

The fulfillment, or lack of fulfillment for these expectations
is summarized in Table 14. Though the percentage totals in the bottom
row of the table are somewhat confusing because of the overlap in the
third, fourth, and fifth columns, we may approach the table from the
right-hand side and see that only 20 per cent of the churches do not
fit in with the expectations listed above.

When 80 per cent of the churches fit the expected pattern, it
seems only natural to look at the deviant cases in some detail to see
if there is any regularity to the deviance. To this end several
variables were considered. For instance, if one looks at the polity
type of the fourteen churches, there are nine congregational, one
presbyterian, and four episcopal type. The majority of nine is less
than two-thirds, and so is hardly satisfactory, even if there were some
reason why polity should effect the deviance-and no good reasons why
it should come to mind. Or if the deviant cases are analyzed by size
of church, the distribution along this line offers no clue: five are
small (0—250 members), including two of less than 50; eight are medium
sized (250-749)} one is large (750 or more).

However, if the analysis is approached by looking at the age of

- 7o _

.woamosq puma one Madonna mo does mopeds» one oefimeso OdH.Aon3 nonoemme

mr poo .oeoHosoo poo we spec been; new mooooono me opsHqu eon meow one: on %o Hopoe mean
.obamsHoNo hHHsnpse poo one mofleowoedo one omsuoon

.pooo sea o.oor op pus Hafiz mofioaoo scope one no mauve» omdeooeeoo one no oedvsoansoo oze

 

 

 

o.om <.rm r.bv o.mr no.oor ence Hem
we mm mm me son A<aoa
m m m a a me
r b me n or an
e a m mm
m m m m ow
b er or q mm om
r e um
m m m N w me
e r N mm
r r «m
soapsooq wood wood enthused send eouscoq
toad fisfioom Huecom new Hofioom non «and Heficom me me Acumen
oa.>asvm Ho>oq seesaw haflash maesemlqoom Hudoom was moooomno nean3.od
moexoo:.ooso3. was NoeoH pod noeono «assumed mo Hoaapz seed Heaven
no mam eonpfio mofixe03_ooaoz hom.xoeoH quxpoz.ooso3
oH poedHooH #02 mo Hoboq ossm doomToaeom use mam seem

moooeoou Mo nonasz

no Ho>oq seem

 

Ace-2v

moofieoH seed Heaoom was modxaoz

eases .mmm so aeoeea seem es possessemsn assesses so seesez

.dr mamma

-71..

the congregation, that is, the period of time since the congregation
was founded, a different picture emerges. Eleven of the fourteen
deviant churches were founded before 1950; one was founded during the
1940's; and two were founded since 1960. For the eleven it seems
reasonable to assume that originally they may have fit the pattern
under discussion, that is, a pattern of homogeneity along either a
socio-economic or working women dimension between the church location
and the people served by that church. ‘With the passage of time, and
changes in transportation which have occurred in recent decades, church
members move to different areas of the city, but find no reason why it
is a real hardship to return to the "home" church. Lansing is a small
enough city, and major streets are so located, that one can get almost
anywhere in the city from any other point in twenty minutes. This,
with natural changes in the local church community, could very well
account for the discrepancy found and recorded in Table 14 or Figure 5.
Of the two churches founded since 1960, one offers a ready explanation
in these terms: it is a Roman Catholic church created especially to
serve the Spanish-speaking population of Lansing. The church building
is near new modern apartments, in a social area with high economic
status, and high family structure scores (Shevky-Bell). The people it
serves are restricted, because of their nationality backgrounds, to
areas with considerably lower standing, economically in particular.
This leaves only two of the fourteen deviant churches, or two of the
total of seventy churches under consideration, as not being readily
accounted for in terms of their social rank location.

The reader may very well pause at this point (and probably

should), to consider the discussion just finished in the light of the

_ 72 _
limitations of the data which were pointed out earlier. What would
happen to this scheme, which came out so very well, if all the data
were directly comparable? Fortunately, we are in a position to con—
sider this at this point. The data is somewhat more limited, in terms
of the number of churches available, but somewhat more detailed in one
important respect. For 35 churches (half of the 70 above) it was
possible to obtain lists of addresses of member families. These ad-
dresses were then plotted on maps, one for each church, to obtain a
picture of the distribution of the members with relation to the church
building. There are two commanding features of this distribution which
we want to discuss.

First, and directly relevant to what has been discussed
immediately above, it was possible through this mapping to get a sum-
mary of the distribution of the members of each church by social area,
as well as the social area location of the church. Table 15 is a
presentation of the same information as Table 14, with the difference
that in Table 15, the similarities are entirely in terms of one
measuring device-social area.

Inspection of the table indicates that the great bulk of
churches do fulfill the general expectations: that is, the members
either live in social areas similar to the social area in which the
church building is located, or in the area in which the church is
located. However, there is a discrepancy which is not disclosed in
Table 15, but appears in Table 16. In eight cases the majority of
members were at the same level on one of the social area dimensions,
but at a different level from that of the church location. When these

deviant cases were approached by analyzing several possibilities to

-73-

.ohdeoshpm hHHsdm no mdpdvm oesooooo Mo Heaven .HoboH has
pd muonsoa mo AvHAofisa on use one mm 90 a menace Hooves ad odds on eases pooeoosam on use»
on peep woos Room .moeufioo Romeo one ad eopdaoofl poo one mm omens no momoeono obfihc

 

 

 

Em stem v.5 0.03 Boo som

ON 0 r o emm. H.308

_. m m a 3

m m m a on

m e r m am

e m 3

o m on

r e um

m o me

e r N mm

«M

endpodhpm mopspm coed popsooq

hadssh mo Hoboq oesoooom mo Hopoq send Hsaoom Huecom_oa we Achebe
seem as enemas: mo mean we unease: no osem ed unease: mo monoednu . nodnz.ofi

seasons: see: sense 526?: ssh. e352 , 326?: a»? sense no sense 8.2 Heeoom

 

Ammnzv 3.3 season as
sesame 8% .5. es eoefieseeeo assesses «6 senses .3. am:

-74..

 

 

 

 

 

m or 2 flag 0 on on flag
0 r m m a m e m N. <
r o o q r 3 S m
a r o r m < V r n N
o 0 .fi 0 o r
H384 on £35: 5H2 H25 133. oz 23.5: mafia 253
has 32 mo 5 has 93383 . Nfluzddux... mo €55 $2.3
“.6 biofiuz .8 23m mo 320?: no ogqoom
doapdooq mo noavuooq defipdooq Mo defiadooq
wanton 8383 Eaton 8333
“null Ill :11 -i- .! - i ;- -- “t‘ i - it ‘11,! u: i;

 

   

 

 

5333 songs 25 no H33
«92. Hdfioom 05.. £09m uofloqwmmhoman mafia
mndpogpm hafifiuh no 35.3w ofiaoqgfi mo Hgoq 38m 25.. Rm
2352 no 320?: 4 mafia 3598 mo 8332me .3 an:

_ 75 _
account for the discrepancy, again the age of the congregation provided
the most satisfactory conclusion. Five of the six congregations were
organized before 1940, and the passage of nearly twenty-five years,
in each of these'Six cases, has produced changes in the area of the
church building. Changes in the congregation with respect to the
characteristics under discussion are not likely to have changed greatly,
resulting in the present discrepancy.

In evaluation of the two analyses above, one based on social
area analysis entirely, and one based primarily on the social rank
index constructed from the interview data, granting the limitations of
the materials used, the conclusion seems still to point to some useful-
ness of the measure developed here. If this conclusion is correct,
support for the hypothesis may be claimed: either the majority of the
members will live in the social area in which the church building is
located, or they will live in social areas with characteristics similar
to that where the church building is located. In a city the size of
Lansing, where access to any area of the city is relatively easy,
major discrepancies from this hypothesis may be most easily explained
by allowing adjustment for the age of the congregation-that is, the
length of time transpired since its organization.

In Chapter VI we will return to the material and the conclusions
of this chapter, to examine the ways in which they bear upon the phenome-
non of relocation. Just now we are ready to turn to investigation of
features of the churches as social organizations, to pull together data
from that viewpoint which will be relevant to the process of site

relocation.

CHAPTER V

§tructural.Features 2;,The Churches

Having looked in some detail at the social areas of Lansing,
and the relation of the sample churches to those social areas, the
next task is that of delineating the major features of the churches
as social organizations. In doing so, it will be necessary to make
use of general characteristics as outlined in Chapters III and IV,
with the addition of material which provides some understanding of the
inner workings of the churches as particular kinds of organizations.
This does not mean that churches are viewed as "peculiar" types of
organizations: it must certainly be recognized that, as organizations,
they share features which are common to all organizations-a restricted
clientele, a particular type of program, relations with portions of
their social environment, interaction with other organizations, and
others. In fact, it is primarily those structural features which are
part of every organization which are our concern here. One of the
basic assumptions of this dissertation is that churches can be studied
as social entities, and meaningful conclusions reached, without con-
sidering the doctrinal, mystical, or "other—worldly" components of
religious faith. This assumption does not deny the importance of
these last-named components of religious life, but does deny that they
are all-important for understanding the church as an organization.

One way to approach the study of organizational structure of
the churches is to look at the interplay and association of several

-'76-

_ 77 _

structural features which were presented individually in Chapter III
and IV: race, polity, age of church, budget, membership, and socio-
economic-status (SE3). Significant associations of these features
may be helpful later in understanding differences in the ways in which
churches carry out their functions. The basic data for these compari-
sons is presented in.Tables 17 through 31. Accompanying the tables
are notations of the significant features which each presents.

Table 17 has as its primary point of interest the lack of non-
white presbyterian type churches. Otherwise, the distribution is about

what would be expected on a random basis.

TABLE 17. Structural Features: Polity and Race
W

 

 

 

 

Polity
Non-Denomi- Congre- Presby-
Race national gational terian ‘Episcopal TOTAL
White 7 35 19 29 90
Negro 1 4 5 10
TOTAL 8 39 19 34 100
Chi Square-4.791 d.f.-3 Non-Sig.

In Table 18 one may note at least two points: (1) presbyterian
churches seem.to have had the edge in getting an early start in the
Lansing Area, as 25 per cent of this type were founded before 1900,
compared with 20 per cent of the episcopal churches and 12.5 per cent
of the congregational churches. The difference in the rate of estab-
lishment of the various polity types points up one of the advantages of
the tighter connectional systems-the ability to place resources of
funds and personnel in a growing area with.more ease. Congregational

type groups do not always have easy access to such resources outside

-73-
the local community. (2) Non-denominational churches had a relatively
late start, with the first (at least of those included in the sample)
being founded in the 1930's. 'We noted earlier1 that these groups often
arise as a form of protest. They also frequently appear among the
socially disadvantaged. It may not be unusual, then, that they appeared

in force in the Lansing Area during the decade of the Great Depression.

TABLE 18. Structural.Features: Polity and Age of Church

 

 

 

Age of Non-Denomi-r Congre- Presby-

Church national gational terian EpiscOpal TOTAL
1960-Present 2 1 5 8
1950-59 2 11 6 5 24
1940-49 5 1 5 11
1930-39 4 5 3 4 16
1920-29 7 2 4 13
1910-19 2 2 4 8
1900-09 3 3
1880-99 2 1 5
1860-79 2 2 6
Before 1860 1 1 4 6
TOTAL 8 39 19 34 100

 

The first significant association of two of our variables
(statistically, at least), appears in Table 19. There is a definite
trend in the association of episcOpal polity and large churches, and
in the association of nonedenoninational, and to a lesser degree,
congregational polity types with small churches. The association of

polity and size is quite in line with the general direction of other

 

1See p. 37.

_ 79 _

TABLE 19. Structural.Features: Polity and Size of Church

 

‘ 1

 

 

 

 

Polity

Size of Non-Denomi- Congre- Presby-
Church national gational terian Episcopal TOTAL
Small
(0-249) 6 21 8 15 50
Medium.
(250-749) 1 13 8 1 2 34
Large
(750 or More) 1 5 3 7 16
TOTAL 8 39 19 34 100

Chi Square-13.415 d.f.-6 Sig.=.05

variables, i.e., episcOpal churches being older, and older churches
being larger (see Table 22).

The relation between Polity and Total Budget (Table 20) shows
no surprises, and no significant differences. Such differences as do

exist are easily accounted for by the combination of polity and size,

TABLE 20. Structural Features: Polity and Total Budget

 

 

 

 

 

(N=94)a
Polity

Total Non-Denomi- Congre- Presby-

Budget national gational terian EpiscOpal TOTAL
Less than

$20,000 4 10 8 11 33
$20,000-

49,999 14 6 10 30
$50,000—

or More 2 12 5 12 31
TOTAL 6 36 19 34 94a

Chi Square=5.84 d.f.-6 Non-Sig.

3metal is 94 rather than 100 because of 6 churches which did
not provide financial information.

_ 30 ..
as just described, and size and budget (Table 10), which was pointed
out in Chapter III.

The socio—economic—scale, as developed in Chapter IV, may be
considered on a low, medium, and high division (scores of less than
fifty, fifty to seventyenine, and eighty and higher, respectively).
Using these categories, inspection of Table 21, showing the relation
of polity to socio-economic—status has at least two points of interest.
(1) Four of the six non-denominational churches are in the low segments,
with the other two being in the bottom of the medium range. (2) only
two presbyterian type churches are in the low segment of the scale,
and those are in the top of that section. The remaining presbyterian

churches tend to be higher in status than any of the other groups.

TABLE 21. Structural Features: Polity and SocioAEconomic-Status

 

 

 

 

 

(new
Polity
NonsDenomi- Congre- Presby-
SES national gational terian 'Episcopal TOTAL
10-49 4 6 2 8 20
50-79 2 18 7 16 43
80-100 10 8 6 24
TOTAL 6 34 17 3O 87
Chi Square=11.894 d.f.-6 Non-Sig.

aTotal is 87 rather than 100 because date from 13 churches
was insufficient for computation of Socierconomic-Status.

Coming to Table 22 we find the highly significant association
of the length of time since a church was founded and the number of
individual members of that church. That is, 60 per cent (thirty) of
the small churches (249 members or less) were founded during or after

1950, while fewer than 25 per cent (three) of the sixteen large

-31..
churches were founded in the same period. Seeing it from.the other

end of the scale, only two of fifty (or 4 per cent of the small

TABLE 22. Structural Features: Age of Church and Size of Church
(Number of Individual Members)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,Age

Size 1940—1963 1910-1939 Before 1910 TOTAL
Small 28 20 2 50
(0-249)
Medium 12 12 10 34
(250—749)
Large 3 5 8 16
(750 or More
TOTAL 43 37 20 100

Chi Square=20.017 d.f.=4 Sig.=.001

churches are over fifty years old, while eight of the sixteen large
churches (or 50 per cent) are at least fifty years old. There is al—
most no evidence of this trend among the medium sized churches, those
of 250-749 members, with twelve of the thirtyefour established since
1940, and eleven before 1910.
In marked contrast to the high association between the age

and size of the churches, is the apparent lack of association between
the race of the church's membership and the time of its founding, as

seen in Table 23. One would suspect that the number of Negro churches

TABLE 23. Structural.Features: Age of Church.end Race

W

 

 

 

Age
Race 1940-1963 1910-1939 Before 1910 TOTAL
White 38 33 19 90
Negro 5 4 1 10
TOTAL 43 37 20 100

 

Chi Square=.706 d.f.=2 Non-Sig.

-32-

closely parallels the growth of that racial group in the city.

The absence of any churches in the upper right quarter of
Table 24 provides an interesting, and statistically significant
picture. There is obviously an important association between the age
of the church and its budget. But one should be cautioned to be aware
of the strong possibility that other factors are involved. Among
these other factors are certainly the association of both age and

budget with that of size of church.

TABLE 24. Structural Features: Age of Church and Total Budget

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(N=94)
:Age

Budget 1940-1963 1910-1939 Before 1910 TOTAL
Less than
$20,000 19 14 33
$20,000—

49,999 8 13 9 30
$50,000

or*More 10 10 11 31
TOTAL 37 37 20 94

Chi Square=21.727 d.f.=4 Sig.=.001

In Table 25, there is a significant relation between age of

TABLE 25. Structural.Features: Age of Church and SocioAEconomic
Status (N-87)

 

gAge of Churgh

 

 

 

SE8 1940-1963 1910-1939 Before 1910 TOTAL
10-49 11 8 1 20
50-79 14 24 5 43
80-100 13 4 7 24
TOTAL 38 36 13 87

 

Chi Square=fl4.296 d.f.=4 Sig.-.Ol

-83..
church and socio-economic-status, with the tendency to run in the
direction of older churches having higher SES. While the newer
churches (since 1940) are fairly evenly divided, one is stuck by the
obvious dispr0portion of the 1910-1939 group in the middle SES bracket,
and the single case of a low SES church over fifty years old.

The outstanding feature of Table 26, is the presence of white
churches only in any of the "large" church categories (750 or more).
Nearly all the Negro churches are small, with eight of the ten having
fewer than 250 members.

TABLE 26. Structural.Features: Size of Church
(number of Individual.Members) and Race

 

Size of Church

 

 

 

Small Medimm Large
Race (0—249) (250-749) (750 or More) TOTAL
White 42 32 16 9O
Negro 8 2 10
TOTAL 50 34 16 100
Chi Square=4.417 d.f.=2 Non-Sig.

Turning to the relations between Race and Total Budget (Table

27) we have another interesting pattern. White churches obviously

TABLE 27. Structural.Features: Race and Total Budget

 

 

Total Bud et

 

 

 

 

Less Than 20,000_ $50,000
Race $20,000 49,999 or’More - TOTAL
White 32 28 3O 90
Negro 7 2 1 10
TOTAL 39 30 31 100

 

Chi Square=4.687 d.f.=2 Non-Sig.

_ 34 _

have larger budgets; nearly two-thirds have annual total budgets of
$20,000 or more, while two-thirds of the Negro churches have budgets
below $20,000. The one Negro church in the $50,000 or more category
is accounted for by a building program which.makes this one year budget
quite atypical. However, relationship between the race of the church
members and the size of the annual budget of the church should probably
not be considered a peculiarity of the racial factor. Rather, it seems
to be as effectively explained by the size of non-white churches-pre—
dominantly small-and the very high association of the size of the church
and the size of the budget. The reader is referred back to Table 10,
page 49 where this high degree of association is documented. The con-
junction of race with SES score, and the high correspondence between
SES and budget (see Tables 29 and 30) adds further explanation of the
association.

Rounding out this part of our discussion are the relations
between socio-economic-status and the variables of size of church, race,
and budget. In general, it can be said that the higher the SES scale,

the wider the distribution of size of church (Table 28), but this is

TABLE 28. Structural.Features: Size of Church and
Socianconomic Status (N=87)

 

 

 

 

Size of Chgrch

 

 

 

 

Small ‘Medium. Large
SES (0-249) (250-749) (750 or More) TOTAL
10—49 1 5 4 1 20
50-79 22 1 5 6 43
80-100 8 12 4 24
TOTAL 45 31 11 87

 

-85..
simply because more churches are located in the medium and upper ranges
of the SES scale.

Table 29 is statistical confirmation of what everyone seems to
know (or believe) already--there is a highly significant relationship
between Race and SES. 'White churches are middle and high, Negro churches
are mostly low in SES. Since this reflects the general picture of social
differentiation in the pOpulation at large, it would be extremely sur-

prising if the data revealed anything different.

TABLE 29. Structural.Features: Race and
Socierconomic Status (N-87)
W

 

 

 

 

SES
Race 10-49 50-79 80-100 TOTAL
White 13 40 24 77
Negro 7 3 10
TOTAL 20 43 24 87
Chi Square=14.829 d.f.=2 Sig.=.001

In the last of this series of cross-classifications, that of

budget and SES (Table 30), a significant correspondence appears again.

TABLE 30. Structural Features: Budget and
Socierconomic Status (N-82)a

 

 

 

 

 

 

SES
Low Medium. High

Budget (10—49) (5o_79) (so—100) TOTAL
Less than

$20,000 11 14 5 30
$20,000-

49,999 3 13 9 25
$50,000

or More 2 1 5 10 27
TOTAL 16 42 24 82

Chi Square=10.078 d.f.=4 Sig.=.01

aTotal is 82 rather than 100 because of the exclusion of churches
which either refused financial information, or had insufficient data.

-35..
This is as might be expected. High SES churches have large budgets,
if for no other reason than that peOple of a high economic level can
contribute more to the financial program of the church.

To summarize briefly at this point, there are significant
relationships among all the variables presented. Both polity and age
of church are significantly related to the size of church; race, SES,
and budget are each significantly related to the other. To put it
another way, it appears that epiSCOpal churches are among the oldest,
the older churches are larger, therefore, episcopal churches tend to
be among the largest churches. Non-white churches usually rate low
SES scores, and non-white and low SES churches have small budgets.

Having looked at the interrelationships of the characteristics
presented in Chapter III, the next step is to analyze some character-
istics of internal organization and program which should have some
bearing on the process and phenomena of relocation.

The first of these characteristics is the type and degree of
internal organization which churches have, or, in other words, the kind
and amount of "decisionemaking" machinery which the church Operates.
Basic differences between the churches are shown in.Table 31. The most
outstanding point of the table is probably the high.modal point of
fifty churches with what should probably be called a highemedium level
of organizational machinery.

When the data of'Table 31 is cross-analyzed by the other vari-
ables we have already considered, neither race, SES, nor the age of
the church made any difference which could not be accounted for more
adequately by another criterion. On the other hand, polity type

produces organizational differences within the local congregation,

—87-

TABLE 31. Type and Degree of Internal Organization
of Sample Churches

 

 

 

Organization Number of Churches
No Response 3
Congregation Only 11
Congregation, with

3 or Fewer Standing Committees 7
Congregation, with

4 or More Standing Committees 2
Congregation, with

Official Board 7

Congregation, with
Official Board, and
3 or Fewer Standing Committees 11

Congregation, with
Official Board, and
4 to 7 Standing Committees 50

Congregation, with
Official Board, and
8 or More Standing Committees 9

 

TOTAL 100

 

significant at the .01 level. That is, non-denominational churches
tend to more simple organizations, while presbyterian and episcopal
churches tend to more complex organizations. This precisely is what
should be expected, as some church groups are able by their authority
to impose a required system of committees, boards, and the like upon
each local congregation of their denomination. The higher the degree
of authority held by the denomination the more effectively this re-
quirement can be enforced.

Much.more significant than the influence of polity upon the
degree of organization in the local church is the effect of the variable

of the size of the church. There is a highly significant relationship

-88-
(chi square significant at the .001 level) which indicates that, far
beyond any chance factor, the larger the church, the more complex its
organization. As significant as the relationship is, however, it would
be most remarkable if any other relationship were found. Churches are
no different from other organizations in this respect.

In addition to the boards and committees, there is another
level of organization which is often important in the life of a church.
This is the type of fellowship groups which are formal sub-organizations
in the congregation. Pastors were asked what types of fellowship groups

were sponsored by their churches, with results as shown in Table 32.

TABLE 32. Type of Fellowship Groups Present
in Sample Churches

 

 

Type of Fellowship Group Number of Churches
No Response 3
No Fellowship Groups 16

WOmen's Fellowship Only
Menis Fellowship Only

 

IOuth.Fellowship Only 9
'WOmen's and.Menis Fellowships Groups 8
WOmen's and YOuth.Fellowship Groups 25
Men's and Iouth.Fellowship Groups 2
‘Women's, Men's and.Iouth.Fellowship Groups 29
TOTAL 100

 

It is obvious here that both women and youth are better provided for
by organized activity than.men: women have groups in a total of sixty—
nine churches, youth in a total of sixtyefive, and.men in a total of
forty. Cross-analysis by the other variables provides no discernable

tendencies for difference by polity type, or SES, and only a slight

_ 89 ...
trend for the number of types of groups to vary by age of church (the
product moment correlation was only .098). By chi square test the only
significant association in differentiation of groups sponsored as part
of the church life is with size of church (at the .05 level). The
larger the church, the more likely the possibility of sub-organizations
within the church for women, youth and men.

The provision of organized groups for particular segments of
the population may be interpreted as one way in which the church
expresses its interest in a clientele beyond the membership. ‘While
these groups operate primarily for the benefit of members, and draw
their main support from the membership, they are also often seen as a
means of attracting and interesting nonsmembers. This may be partic-
ularly true of youth groups, and to a lesser degree, of women's
fellowship groups.

Moving a step beyond this indirect concern for at least part of
the peOple in and out of the church through fellowship groups, the inter-
viewers asked the ministers of the churches to characterize the attitude
of the church toward the neighborhood on a five point scale ranging from
"supportive" to "antagonistic.” In elaboration, "supportive" was defined
to mean that the church took an active interest in what was happening in
the area surrounding its building, seeking to be actively related to
peOple living nearby, and trying through its program to meet needs ex—
pressed by persons in the area. ”Friendly" was suggested as meaning
that the church was on good terms with the neighborhood, welcoming peOple
from nearby, but not making special efforts to reach theme No pastors
used the negative poles of the scale. The distribution of responses is
shown in.Table 33.

_ 90 _

TABLE 33. Attitudes of Churches Toward Their Neighborhoods

W

 

 

Attitude Number of Churches
Supportive 29
Friendly 57
Indifferent 14
TOTAL 100

 

When these responses were cross-checked by polity, age of church,
SES, and size of church, the only unusual features which come to light
were with presbyterian churches (one "supportive," thirteen "friendly,"
five ”indifferent"), and size (all but one of the’indifferent' churches
had fewer than 500 members). Otherwise, the distributions were close
to what would be expected to occur randomly.

An interesting coincidence of numbers turned up when the next
step was taken-to ask if there were church Sponsored activities, apart
from.the regular worship and educational programs, which were oriented
specifically to the neighborhood. To this there was a fairly even
split (see Table 34). It should be noted that the fifty-seven who
indicated "yes” at this point were not all the same fiftyeseven who
indicated a "friendly" attitude to the neighborhood as discussed above.

TABLE 34. Offering of ChurchFSponsored Activities
for The Neighborhood

 

 

 

 

Offered Number of Churches
N o 43
Yes 57
TOTAL 100

 

In this case neither polity, age of church, SES, nor size of church

-91...
provided any trend of differentiation.

In order to fill in the picture, and to see in what ways
churches conceived of their programs as ”neighborhood-oriented," the
fifty-seven who answered "yes" above were asked to Specify the type of
activity offered. The result is described in Table 35. "Religious

TABLE 35. Type of Neighborhood Oriented Activities
Offered by Churches

W

 

 

Type of Activity Number of Churches
None 43
Religious Program. 10
Youth Programs 4
Scouts 4
Dinners 5
Bazaars or Rummage Sales 1
Senior Citizen Program. 4
More Than One of The Above 29
TOTAL 100

 

program? was used by the pastors to mean, in.most cases, revival or
evangelistic meetings. In one case, the reference was to a Christmas
pageant presented annually, and welléknown throughout the city.

In reviewing the types of neighborhood—oriented activities, chi
square tests by the analytic variables failed to show any significant
differences. However, product moment correlations showed slight
tendencies for episcOpal churches to have several of the programs, come
pared with the other polity types (.16); for older churches to offer
programs other than religious and youth oriented (.14); and a little

higher tendency for large churches (750 members or more) to offer a

..92 -
multiple program approach to the neighborhood (.27).
Another approach to the relation of the church to the community
may be seen in the willingness of the church to let non-church groups
use their building for meetings and activities. As seen in Table 36, a

TABLE 36. Availability of Church Building for Use
by Non-Church Groups

 

 

 

 

Availability Number of Churches
No 55
Yes 45
TOTAL 100

 

large minority does permit the use of the building by outsiders. As
might be expected, because of the space available, larger churches are
more likely to allow extra use of their building (chi square signifi-
cant at .001 level). For the same reason, but the obverse side, low
SES churches are more likely not to have use of their buildings by
outside groups. Their buildings are smaller, and their smaller budgets
may not be able to absorb extra costs involved when non-church groups
use the building. Neither the relation of polity or age of church is
significant at this point.

Analysis of the types of non-church groups making use of the
church building (those in.Table 37), shows only one of the eight non-
denominational churches and one-fourth.of the low SES churches, allowe
ing an outside group; a prevalence of social clubs and service agencies
in older churches (before 1910)} and in medium.to large churches (500
members and.more). Scouting is the most pOpular single type of church-

building use, with a total of twentyefive churches hosting scouting

..93 _

TABLE 37. Types of Non-Church Groups Making Use of
Church Buildings for Meetings and Activities

—__

 

 

 

 

 

Type of Group Number of Churches
None - 55

Scouts 11

WCTU 3
Service or Social Clubs 2
Service Agencies

Scouts and Service Clubs 14

Voting Precinct 3

Other

TOTAL 100

 

groups (including the one allowed in a non-denominational church).

In sum, the churches see themselves with a positive attitude
toward their neighborhoods, with.a.majority offering neighborhood-
oriented programs, mostly aimed at special age groups (youth or senior
citizens). A.majority do not encourage the use of their building by
outside groups, and of those which do permit such use, over half are
host to scout groups, or youth. It would appear that there is a strong
tendency for churches to see their contact with young persons as an
important part of their outreach. This is, of course, not inconsistent
with the emphasis noted earlier on the use of the Church School as a
means of reaching the wider range of the total population. In all of
the material related to neighborhood-oriented program, size of church
and SES position appear as the two best indicators for marking dif-
ferences between the churches. Age of church is a secondary indicator,

but probably derives its differentiating power from its close relation

to size.

-94..

After noting the neighborhood-orientation of the churches, we
would be remiss if we did not ask how the neighborhood reaponds. On
the same five-point scale of "supportive” to ”antagonistic,“ the
pastors were asked to give their evaluation of the attitude of the

neighborhood to the church. This evaluation is summarized in.Table 38.

TABLE 38. Attitude of Neighborhoods to The Churches

 

fl

 

 

 

Attitude Number of Churches
Supportive 20
Friendly 59
Indifferent 20
Antagonistic 1
TOTAL 100

 

There is a slight, but not statistically significant, tendency
for churches in the middle range of the socio-economic-status scale to
find their neighborhoods more indifferent than supportive, and for
churches in the upper range of the scale to find their neighborhood
more supportive than indifferent. Beyond this, there were no dis-
cernable differences related to age of church, size of church, or
polity.

Some discrepancy is seen here. The positive attitude of the
churches is not always reciprocated by the neighborhood. The inter-
pretation of this statement has to be made with the understanding
that the attitudes of both church and neighborhood are made from.the
perspective of the minister alone-eneighborhood attitudes were not
derived from.aeparate interviews. However, under normal circumstances

the minister should be one of the best informed persons available.

..95 _

One conclusion to be drawn from.the discrepancy is that
evidently the churches, as they have emphasized programs for youth,
both on their own initiative and by hosting scout groups, have not
reached all the needs of the people around them. From the point of
view of the churches, and quite apart from the rationalization that
an outreach for youth has the most potential, it is probably not far
off to say that youth programs are among the easiest, cheapest, and
least time consuming types of programs to be offered. These factors
have surely weighed heavy with smaller churches, having fewer re-
sources of leadership and finance upon which they may draw. 'Whether
youth programs are also the most helpful, either for the church or the
neighborhood, is another question-a question which has apparently not
been asked, or one for which an acceptable answer for churches with
limited resources has not yet been found.1

Another possible conclusion to the differences in attitudes
between the two groups may be drawn from the pattern of distribution
of church members throughout the city. It is a rare church which
does not have its members scattered over a fairly wide territory. ‘When
the question was asked specifically in terms of neighborhood, a few
respondents had to consciously change from.thinking in terms of "con-

stituency.‘ This same person might think of the neighborhood as being

 

1111 all fairness, it should be noted that a few—notably the
large "First" churches in the capitol area, do have a different type of
program: aid for the deaf, the mentally retarded, etc. But the author
cannot help but note the contrast between the majority of churches with
their self-oriented program, and a program of English literacy for
EurOpean migrants carried out last fall by Hillcrest Christian Church,
Toronto, Canada. This program was offered as a service, to assist
immigrants in making a better adjustment to their new home, with no
thought or intention of gaining members as a result of the program.

-96...
indifferent to the church, in part because he was not used to thinking
in a neighborhood framework at all, and in part because few of his
members are in the immediate area. The only sure way to know whether
the pastor‘s preceptions are correct, when he evaluates the neighbor-
hood attitude, would be to do some survey work among the neighbors

themselves-—a task beyond the scope of the present study.

CHAPTER VI

Relocation: .Community and Conggggational Influences

Chapter IV was concerned with the relations existing between
churches at different points on a scale of social rank, and the social
areas of the city. Chapter V dealt with the organizational structure
of the sample churches, with an eye to the relations between different
degree of organizational complexity and implications for neighborhood
or communityerelatedness. The concern of the present chapter is to
analyze the actual act of relocation, using insights gained from.the
two preceding chapters.

Hypothesis Four of this dissertation has been stated: Churches
will tend to move from their previous location to social areas with the
same social area rating; or to social areas with a higher economic status
score, or with a lower family status score.

Our concern here is naturally with those churches which have
actually gone through, or are in the process of completing relocation.
Data for testing the hypothesis can best be presented on a map showing
the original position and the relocated position of the churches involved.
These are plotted on Map 4, with lines connecting the original location
(circles) and the present location (marked with an "x"). Arrows indi-
cate the direction of location. There are ten of the "x's" which are
encircled, to indicate churches which were organized in a schoolhouse
or other temporary location, and moved to their first and only permanent

site. The reason for marking these will be apparent in a moment.

-97-

 

 

LANSING - EAST LANSING CENSUS TRACTS

    

 

Nine 5. ORlG-INBL gnu-s
fine Ransom-es gives
0": LANSMUG- nub Ina-sr
Lnesmc Qnukanes.
INBIOATHJG- bJREaTleU
o-c Moveméu‘r.

 

O IOOO 20100 40‘00 6090 30.00
l -
S O A L E IN 'F E E T

 

g—‘N-O-R-T-H

Prepared by, Insiifute lor Community Development, Graphics Section
Concinuing Education Service. Michigan State Univenliy

0-3514

 

 

 

 

- 99 _

With one exception the hypothesis is borne out by the data.
One church does not fit the pattern since the direction of movement
on both scales is downward. Nine of the sixteen whose movement was
within the same social area are of the ten.mentioned above-émoving
only a short distance from.their temporary organizing location to a

TABLE 39:. Relation of Social Area Rating of
Original and Relocated Sites (N=36)

 

 

 

 

Relation of Social Areas Number of Churches
Relocated in Same Social Area 16
Relocated in Social Area with Higher

Economic Status Score 11
Relocated in.Social Area with Lower

Family Structure Score 8
Relocated in Social Area with Both

Lower Economic and Family Structure Scores 1
TOTAL 36

 

permanent site. This still leaves seven churches in this category,
moving to a new site in an area with the same social rating. One of
the advantages of social area analysis at this point is that it pro-
vides freedom from.thinking in strictly geographical terms. For
example, one Of the churches in this category moved from census tract
L—12 to tract L-27-—from the eastern to the southern part of the city
of Lansing, but remained in the type of area from which it moved.
iEleven churches moved to areas with higher economic status
ranking, a reflection of upward mobility, as reflected in the area
around the church. This is not to suggest that there is a conscious
attempt at upward.mobility, but rather that such.mobility is the

practical result of other considerations. These might include the

- 100 -
availability of land in outlying areas, the higher value of land in
these developing places, and the general economic capabilities of the
individuals and families who also seek the better sites available.

The remaining facet of the hypothesis is illustrated by the
nine churches which.moved into areas with a lower family structure
score (but the same economic status rank). This is precisely what we
should expect when we remember that a lower family structure score
means a higher fertility ratio, fewer women working, and more single—
family detached dwelling units. With the emphasis on youth in the
program of the church, and the concern of the church for family life,
areas with lower family structure scores would naturally be more
attractive when a church is looking for "a place to go.” However
logical such reasoning may be, it must be assumed that this is a sec-
ondary consideration, for no churches gave such a reason when asked why
they relocated. Mere about this will be considered later.

The fifth hypothesis states: it is expected that churches will
tend to move outward, from the center of the city toward the periphery.
The term "parallel" in Table 40 refers to those churches which did not
greatly change their distance from the central business district in

TABLE 40. Direction of Relocation with Reference to The Central
Business Districts of Lansing and East Lansing (N=37)

 

 

 

Direction of Movement Number of Churches
Toward Periphery of City 27
Parallel 4
Toward Center of City 6

 

TOTAL 37

 

-101-
the process of shifting from.one section of the city to another (from
tract L-1 to tract L-31). "Periphery” means outward from the center of
the city, or the central business district, centered on the capitol
building.

At this point, support or rejection of the hypothesis hinges
largely on how one defines a ”trend." If one means by the term, "over-
half," then, by disregarding the nine special cases, a trend is obvious-
ly established, as twenty-seven of the churches did.move outward. Howe
ever, even if a trend can be less than half, then something approaching
a trend could certainly be justified, as fewer than 60 per cent of the
churches remained fairly close to their starting point. In general,
it would appear that the results for Lansing would offer some qualifi-
cation to those recorded by Myers in Seattle, that "churches which
move most often relocate within the same general area where they were
originally sited,"1 as only nineteen of the thirty-seven followed this
pattern.

At this point it is necessary to break away from.the social area
framework of analysis, as reinspection of.Map 4 shows some important
patterns of relocation which can not be adequately described in that
framework.

In our brief description of the pattern of growth in the city
of Lansing, it was noted that the directions of expansion are West,
South, andeast. Except for three churches which have moved from
"downtown” (tract L—14) to the North, the relocating churches have
also gone mainly to the West, South, and East. In this respect they

follow rather closely the general growth of the city.

 

1Myers, pp. _c_i__t_., p. 361. See p. 26 of this thesis.

— 102 -

There are two groups of four churches each which have remark-
ably different patterns of movement. The first, centered in tract
L—18, have moved only short distances. These are Negro churches,
located in the heart of the Negro pOpulation of Lansing. Two of the
four have moved from homes to a separate church building. But none
of the four have been able to escape the restrictions of being hemmed
in by their race. This is the most striking point, and almost the only
place in the entire study, where race has played a dominant role in the
behavior of churches.1

The second group comprises four churches which were previously
situated in tracts Lp12 and L-30. In this case, all have moved out-
side their original territory. One has gone in toward the center of
the city, purchasing the building of a church which has moved toward
_the East; two have gone to the developing areas of the South. There
are definite community factors which seem.relevant to these moves.
Tract Lp30 is the center of what was known as the Urbandale section
of Lansing. Urbandale was a run-down slum area. Presently a large
portion of Urbandale has been cleared out with the placing of a new
highway, an expressway access route to the Interstate highway south of
Lansing. ‘While all four churches moved sometime before the new
expressway was built, three of them at least seem to have had knowl—
edge of impending change, and made a move in advance of the inevitable.

There is one feature which is common to both of these groups

 

1An interesting exception to the racial barriers which have
hemmed these churches in, is the movement of another Negro church,
whose plans have developed since the interviews for this study was
made. The church, formerly sited just west of the Capitol building,
is being forced to move as a result of the Capital Development pro-
gram. Rather than moving to a location within the Negro settlement,

illllllllllllllllll

— 103 -

of churches. They move to, and within, areas which contain their
”types of people." The Negro churches have stayed among Negroes; the
others, all working class churches, have gone to areas which are work-
ing-class sections of the city. In fact, among all the churches,
nowhere has a "blue-collar" church moved to a "white-collar" neighbor-
hood, nor a "white-collar" church transferred to a "blue-collar" neigh-
borhood. It seems perfectly safe to say that churches have moved,
following the movement of population settlement, so that they continue
to serve the same kinds of peOple they have always served. Not the
least important element of pOpulation settlement is the tendency for
broad occupational divisions to be grouped together. For instance,
even though both West Lansing and East Lansing are predominantly white-
collar sections of the urban area, it would be highly unlikely that a
church would relocate from.one side of the city to the other. The
occupational groups which.make the section “white-collar" are different
in each case.1
4 Another significant item growing out of the relocation patterns
is seen when we examine relocation by polity type. The basis for this
analysis is set out in Table 41.

Most discussion about the direction of relocation is expressed

simply in terms of "in” or "out." Of the four polity types, 73 per cent

 

it has purchased a large site in the Southwest corner of the city, in the
general vicinity of Holmes Road andeaverly'Road. It will be of interest
to note in the future whether this is predictive of the direction of
movement of Negroes within the city as they break away from the section
of their present concentration.

1See Gary King,'Differing Residential Adjustments in Three
Lansing Suburban Subdivisions," Ph. D. dissertation in process,
Michigan.State University.

- 104 -

TABLE 41. Direction of Relocation with Reference to The
Central Business Districts of Lansing and East Lansing
By Polity Type, in Number and Per Cent (N-37)

 

 

 

 

Direction of Non-Denomi— Congre- Presby— Epis-
Movement national gational terian c0pal TOTAL
Toward Periphery of City 3 12 2 10 27
(100) (70) (40) (83) (73)
Parallel 2 1 1 4
(12) (20) (8.5) (11)
Toward Center of City 3 2 1 6
(18) (40) (8.5) (16)
TOTAL 3 17 5 12 37
(100) (100) (100) (100) (100)

 

of the total.moved outward. Compared with this total, non—denomina-
tional and episc0pal churches are above average in outward movement,
presbyterian churches are below, and congregational churches fall near
the mean. 0n the other hand, along with the complete absence of non-
denominational churches in the other categories, parallel movements
were over-represented by presbyterian churches, with only small devi-
ations for the other two types. In addition, presbyterian churches
are greatly over-represented in the inward movement category, and
episcopal churches are rather markedly under-represented.

These results appear a little strange in the light of what
might be expected, due to the nature of available denominational
restraints, and the attitude of denominational officials (see Appendhc
D). The explanation for epiScopal churches, which vary most from the
expected pattern, is most evidently seen in the number of outward
moving churches of this type which have moved from temporary to perma-

nent quarters, often not far away, but in an outward direction of

- 105 -
movement.

The Sixth.Hypothesis may be simply stated: churches of dif-
ferent polity will have different patterns of relocation: congrega-
tional and non-denominational churches will move most often; episcopal
churches least often. The reasoning for this hypothesis lies in the
nature of external restraints which may be imposed by the denomination
from.outside the community. Non-denominational churches have none of
these restraints, congregational churches may freely ignore them, and
episcOpal churches will have the outside restraints most effectively
enforced. It should be made clear that now it is freguency of move-
ment which.is.under consideration here, so there will not be confusion
with the direction of movement which was considered in the preceding
paragraphs.

Before considering the data which bears on the hypothesis, it
seems useful to reconsider a matter which was mentioned earlier.
Roland Warren sets the framework of community study in terms of "lo-
cality relevant functions." For him, the community is "that combi—
nation of social units and systems which perform the major social
functions having locality relevance."1 The five major functions hav-
ing locality relevance, as he sees them are: (1) production-distri-
bution-consumption, (2) socialization, (3) social control, (4) social
participation, and (5) mutual support.2 Presently we are treating
only one community institution-the church—-and it is fairly easy to
see that some element of these functions is part of the church-commu-

nity relationship. For our present consideration, perhaps the

 

1Warren, 22. _c_j.;b_o, Po 9.

2Ibid., pp. 9-10.

- 106 —
strongest of the locality relevant functions fulfilled by the church
is that of social participation.

we have already seen that individual churches tend to serve
persons from a rather selective portion of the total population. Con-
sciously or unconsciously, decisions are made by the church which
govern the selection of the strata of population with which the church
is to be identified. Following this, a decision.must be made as to the
best location for offering the services of the church to its clientele—-
its membership and constituency.

To continue with Warren's analytical scheme for a moment, the
matter of polity becomes important to these decisions just mentioned,
because the choice of a "relevant” constituency and the "proper" lo-
cation from.which to serve the constituency may be influenced by ties
which bind the church to extra-community systems, as well as by the

community itself.1

One of the distinctions between polity types is
the strength of the extra-community relationships which bear upon the
decisionemaking of the local group. For non-denominational church
groups, the extra-community relationships are virtually nonexistent;
for episcopal churches, extra-community relationships are of vital
significance. For presbyterian churches, the strength of the
"vertical" extra-community ties are closer to those of episcopal
systems; for congregational churches, freedom from vertical influences
is more complete, approaching that of non-denominational groups.
Turning now to the data, Table 42 shows the distribution of the
forty-four churches which meet the criterion of relocated or relocating

among the four polity types.

 

11mm, p. 10.

- 107 —

TABLE 42. Number of Churches Either in Process of Relocation
or Having Relocated Since 1950, by Number and Per Cent for
Each Polity Type

1 m

 

 

 

 

Polity No Yes TOTAL
Non—Denominational 5 3 8
(62.5) (37.5) (100.0)
Congregational 18 21 39
(46.1) (53.9) (100.0)
Presbyterian 12 7 19
(63.1) (36.9) (100.0)
Episcopal 21 13 34
(61.8) (38.2) (100.0)
TOTAL 56 44 100
Chi Square-2.542 d.f.=3 Non-Sig.

Though the distribution is not significant statistically,
observation of the table indicates that there is a strong tendency
for congregational type churches to move most often--contrasted with
all of the three other types. This indicates at least directional
support for the hypothesis. Ikwewxg there are some discrepancies, to
which we shall return in a moment.

Additional support for the reasoning underlying the hypothesis
may be adduced from response to a question asking about the importance
of the denomination in the relocation process. The importance of the
denominational role varied greatly: it was a major consideration for
29 per cent of the congregational churches, 86 per cent of the presby-
terian churches, and 85 per cent of the episcopal churches. The nature
of the denominational role included review of building plans; making
funds available, either by loan or gift; aiding in site selection;
encouragement of local people; or some combination of these. For non-

episcopal churches, the provision of funds for relocation and/or

- 108 -
building by the denomination is one of the most effective available
means of control over the local congregation, but even here there is
much.more latitude allowed than for more tightlyAdrawn polity systems.
This serves to give added support to the general position relative to
the importance of polity which has been implicit in this study.

To understand better the probable direction which denominational
influence is likely to take, it will be helpful to see the matter from
their point of view. To this end, attention is directed to Appendix D,
where a summary of corre5pondence with several denominational repre—
sentatives is reported. For the moment, it will be sufficient to
extract part of that discussion here.1

In general, the denominations do not have hard and fast rules
governing matters of relocation, but Operate instead on a few basic
"principles." These principles, in the main, discourage relocation.
When consulted, the denominational representatives encourage a period
of survey and examination—~of the congregation and its present situa-
tion, and of the potentialities of any new area under consideration as
a site. The respondents indicated unanimous agreement that local con-
gregations should stay as long as possible in their original locations.
The effectiveness with which these views may be transmitted to local
groups is partly a function of the opportunities to share them which
would appear, from the evidence above, to be also a function of the

tightness of denominational control.

 

1The denominations taking part in the correspondence are not to
be regarded as representative of the whole spectrum.of church groups.
However, they do represent the more highly developed denominations, of all
three polity types, and so are regarded by the author as probably being in
the vanguard so far as policies which are important to us here are con-
cerned.

— 109 -

This discussion illustrates quite well the relationship which
the denomination bears to the local congregation, but leaves unexplain-
ed one of the elements of Table 42 which goes against the direction
hypothesized. Non-denominational churches did not move any more often
than episcOpal churches, percentage-wise. In the absence of denomi-
national pressure to remain in their original locations, this seems
somewhat out of place. The search for explanation leads back to the
consideration of community variables which.may be at work.

It will be remembered that non-denominational churches are gen-
erally small, and definitely at the lower end of the socio-economic-
scale. Review of the three churches in this group which have relocated
indicates that these characteristics play their part in the original lo-
cation of the churches, reSulting in a condition which serves to reduce
the need for relocation. Two of the three relocated churches in this
category were transferred from temporary meeting locations to their
first permanent sites. Typically, these churches begin as an associ-
ation of a few families, meeting in a home, or a nearby room which can
be rented cheaply. This keeps them near the heart of their membership.
When they grow large enough and affluent enough to procure their own
building, a site is chosen close-by, in a vicinity where land and
building prices are in accord with their means. The result is that
there is little need for relocation, because the church is situated from
the beginning in a satisfactory relationship to its community. The
third church which relocated is one of those in Urbandale, which.moved
only a few blocks, to a larger site in the same vicinity of its

membership.

Earlier we recognized polity as one aspect of the organization

— 11O -
of a church, and the degree of internal organization as another aspect.1
Approached in the light of this second aspect it is apparent that highly
develOped churches do not move so often (see Table 43). By chi square
test the differences were not quite enough to be significant (chi
square-5.444; to be significant at .05, it would need to be 5.991), but
the differences are great enough to be called to attention.

TABLE 43. Relocation by Degree of Internal Organization,a in
Number and Per Cent for Each Level of Organization

 

 

 

 

Degree of Organization No Yes TOTAL
Low 16 11 27
(59.0) (41.0) (100.0)
Medium 30 31 61
’ (49.0) (51.0) (100.0)
High 8 1 9
(89.0) (11.0) (100.0)
TOTAL 54 43 97
(57.7) (42.3) (100.0)
Chi Square=5.444 d.f-2 N on-Sig.

aIn the designations low, medium, and high, the following dis-
tinctions were used: low-only the congregation, the congregation and
an Official Board, or the congregation and three or fewer standing
committees; mediumethe congregation, with an Official Board and three
to seven standing committees; high-the congregation with an Official
Board and eight or more standing committees.

The reader should recognize, without specific documentation at
this point, that this matter of degree of organization and relocation
implies that small and.mediumpsized churches are most likely to relo-
cate, if he will recall the high association between degree of organi-

zation and size of church, as pointed out in Chapter V.

 

1These correspond rather closely to the vertical and horizontal
dimensions of the institution, as discussed by Warren.

— 111 -

In the last of the specific hypotheses of this study, it was
posited that: in justifying relocation, churches will give mostly
”communityeoriented" reasons for making a move.

When asked why the church had relocated, the pastor gave the
answers summarized in Table 44. The four major categories of the table
are supplied by the author, and the actual responses are summarized in
the sub-headings of the table. For purposes of comparison, the same

TABLE 44. Primary Reasons Given for Relocation of
Churches, With.Frequency of Each Response

 

 

Frequency of Response

 

 

Reason Given for Relocation (in Per Cent)
Internal Spatial Considerations 73.5
No Room, or Not Ehough.Room.for
Expansion 43.3
New Building Ready 15.1
Moved to Permanent Site from
Temporary Location 15.1
Changing CommunityeLand Use 5.7
Zoning Problems, or City Took Over
Church Land 3.8
Crowded by Industrial Expansion 1.9
Changing Communitya-POpulation 15.1
Moving Nearer University 5.7
Becoming more Accessible 3.8
Type of People in Neighborhood Changed 3.8
Former Area Had Poor Future for
Growth 1.9
Merger with.Another Congregation 5.7
TOTAL 100.0

 

data is presented, with responses indicated for churches of different
polity type in Table 45.

By "community-oriented" here, reference is to some feature of

— 112 —

 

 

 

Ao.oorv “o.oorv “o.oorv Ao.00sv Ao.oorv
mm 3. I. N m Adaoa
:33 say 3.3
m r N doapwmoamqoo eonuond Ava: aomnmz
no.rv Ao.sv assess you
r r 039a .Hoom pom dead peach
Am.mv Ao.ov “e.gv ooquno
N r r pooAHOQAMHoz ad oHaoom no mean
am.mv Ao.mv Ao.ev
N _. r 0.3.3834 one: mqgomm
As.mv “o.ov Ao.mv
m r N hpameobfiqb awesoz mndboz
. . soapeassomruspsnsaaoo mnemqmao
8 5 8 S
r r uoaqua m HafiapmspoH an awesome
3.3 8.3 33 see 3.5
m m Moon spec so .mawanosm mqaqou
omp onmquhpfiqmasoo mnamqmno
Ar.msv no.srv “o.wrv Ao.mv As.eov soapsooq assaoaama
m N N N N seam opfim pqoqdanom op echo:
AF.mrv Ao.sv Ao.mv Ao.o~v Am.mmv
m a a m a seemm unseafism_3mz
Am.msv no.mov Ao.oev Ao.emv eoamqqamm
mm m m a you saoom nmdogfi.poz no .soom oz
escapeeepamnoo Heapwmm Hmoeoqu
amaoa Heaoomfiam sesame stoapem HeeOfipso soapwooamm you nebao maomwom
lemmeam Imawooo Ifiaoqomlqoz

 

 

ammo Mom was nonsuz ea .omha meadow hp .omoommom_noom
Mo moqmdveah npaz..monoadno mo soapsooaom mom nebfiw mnomema haesaam .mw mummy

- 113 -
the environment of the church which can be understood as a community
variable. This might include such items as the type of surrounding--
residential, commercial, industrial; the attitude of the neighbors;
the composition of the population as to race, ethnic group, age, or
sex. Or, to put it another way, community variables are those which
refer to the geographical area, the type of peOple in that area, their
needs, and other institutions which serve the needs of the people.

With this is mind, then, taking the expressions of the respond-
ents at face value, a little over 20 per cent of the justification of
relocation is obviously "communityaoriented." On the other hand,
nearly three-fourths of the justification for relocation hinges on
factors which can, at best, only be considered communityeoriented by
inference.

When these two general groupings are approached from the view;
point of polity, congregational churches appear to be the most community-
oriented. With respect to internal spatial considerations, the ranking
from.high to low is non-denominational, episcopal, presbyterian, con-
gregational. ‘With respect to community orientation, the ranking in the
same order, high to low, is congregational, presbyterian, and episcopal.
However, before assuming too much difference in attitude, it should be
noted that if the congregational churches which were subject to zoning
problems, or city appropriation of land are removed, the percentage
lead they hold in community orientation is removed. The justification
for this observation is that this category represents the only one which
indicates involuntary relocation. Little credit for a ”community"
attitude should be given if the congregation really had no choice in

the matter.

-114-

The need for more space, or the ability to move from a temporary
to a permanent site may have some community related implications, but
explicitly they appear to be much.more the results of the variables of
size and budget. That a congregation has moved because its new build-
ing is ready, says much.more about the success of a fund-raising drive
than about any type of relation to the community.

Mergers of two formerly distinct congregations are a special
category, but involve some of the same elements related to what are
here called spatial considerations. In two of the three cases of
merger, a church which felt the pressure of limited space joined forces
with a new congregation still meeting in temporary quarters. The merger
represented relocations for both, but perhaps more importantly, by
joining forces each was able to have newer, more Spacious accomodations
than would have been possible for either acting on its own. The third
merger represented the absorption of a declining church into another
of its own denomination which was much stronger.

The critical point of this dissertation is evident at this point.
A review of the literature summarized in Chapter I would lead to the
expectation that there must be a close correspondence between the local
church and its neighborhood. Policy statements of denominational
officials serve to reinforce this expectation. These men, speaking from
their vantage point of concern for the entire picture, insist that there
is something inherent in the nature of "the ministry of the church"
which relates the church to its locality.

In the face of this expectation, the data presented throughout
these pages insists that something else is at work. To besure, there

is evidence that churches of particular class position are almost

- 115 -
always identified with, or located in, areas of similar class ranking.
But class stratification comes much.more being a societal variable, not
strictly one related to the community. Beyond this, there appears to
be little identification of the church with its community, as such.
Of the several variables which do appear to control the behavior of
churches, age of church, and size of church stand out as most important.
In addition, polity plays its part, though churches of different size
and the same polity, or churches of different polity but the same size,
are likely to behave in similar ways. This appears quite clearly when
attention centers on such church—community relationships as the type
of communityeoriented activities offered by the church, or in the pres-
ent matter of the justifying grounds of relocation.

The confusion, and even contradiction, between the ideal situ-
ation expressed in the literature and in the minds of denominational
representatives, and the actual empirical situation as uncovered in
this study, may be expressed by noting that each level of the church,
local and supra-local, operates on assumptions which are inherent in
their respective situations.

The permeating tone of denominational expression is in terms
of service to the locality. Locality here is not limited to a geo-
graphical area of a particular number of blocks extending each direc—
tion from.the church building. But locality does have some geographic
connotations. From.this point of view, the church is in a particular
location, and is in business to attempt, at least, to meet the needs
of persons in proximity to that location. A change in the type of
persons living in the area may present new opportunities and a new

challenge to the church. In this event, the church is called upon,

— 116 —
first of all, to be aware of changes so that they may be met as a normal
event, not as an emergency. In facing change, and its accompanying
challenge, the church is not expected to turn itself inside out, with a
complete turnover of membership and leadership. Rather, it is the hOpe
of denominational leaders, that an understanding of "the ministry of
the church” will bring together the church as it is, and the neighbor-
hood as it is becoming, in a positive, c00perative life.

The tone of congregational expression often Operates on the
basis of another assumption, which might be stated as the maintenance
of the gtgt§§,ggg, or as loyalty to those who founded the church. As
we have seen, individual churches usually attract persons from a rather
restricted portion of the social scale. If there are people who are
compatible with the social range of the church nearby, then the church
willingly centers its concern on its neighborhood. If the people who
fit the church are scattered through the city, then the church seeks to
draw its members from.the wider area.

' The point of these paragraphs is that both local groups and
denominational officials describe the service area of the church as
"the community." But denominational people think of community in
terms with spatial overtones; local congregations think of community
in terms of types of people.

When churches have relocated in the city of Lansing, the con—
gregational definition of community has prevailed. The result is
that our thesis, as stated in Chapter II, must be modified if it is
to more accurately reflect the actual situation. The corrected
thesis will be stated following the summary of the hypotheses in the

next, concluding chapter.

CHAPTER VII

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Summagy

This dissertation has been the report of a study done among
the churches of the Lansing Area. The study grew out of an interest
in a common phenomenon, the relocation of churches from.one site to
another in the urban area. Growing out of the readings, and based
on the theories develOped by other students of sociology of religion,
the general thesis was formulated: structural factors of the com,
munity play a larger role than do structural factors of the organi-
zation in the processes of church relocation in the urban area.

The study was carried out in the Lansing, Michigan area for
several reasons: (a) it is a relatively small city, a type of urban
area not often studied by those concerned with the institution of
organized religion; (b) it is a large enough urban area to provide
a variety of churches to cover a wide range of the total spectrum of
possible sizes and types; (c) it was the most feasible area available
to the author, because of limitations of tmme and resources; (d) over
a period of months preceding the study, the author had developed a
high rapport with churchmen in the area, heightening the possibilities
of cooperation for the study in question.

A sample of 100 churches was established, from an original
selection of 110 churches. These churches were chosen on a

-117-

— 118 -
stratified random sample basis, in such a way as to provide (1)
churches of each polity type—~congregational, presbyterian, and episco—
pal, and (2) churches to fit each of three types of experience: (a)
those which have completed the relocation process since 1950, (b) those
currently involved in the relocation process, and (0) those which have
not been involved in relocation in any way since 1950. Perhaps signif-
icantly, no churches appeared in a fourth possible category: churches
which have considered relocation but have decided to remain in their
original location.

Several types of measurement were developed and/or used in the
study: (a) a measure of the present spatial distribution of various
church types within the urban area; (b) a measure of the distribution of
church.member families, relative to the location of their respective
churches; (c) social area analysis, originally developed by Shevky and
Bell; (d) an index of the social rank of church groups, based on occu-
pational and educational characteristics of church.members; (e) the
type of polity existent in the church; (f) a measure of the internal
organization of the church, expressed in terms of organizational come
plexity; and (g) the size of church, alternatively determined by the

number of individual members, and by the number of member families.

The Hypotheges
To provide a test for the general thesis, seven specific

hypotheses were formulated on the basis of the theoretical work out-
lined in Chapter I. These hypotheses, and a summary of results, are
presented here.

1. There will be a tendency for churches in the urban area

- 11g _
to be grouped together in clusters in their general distribution.

When the totality of churches in the Lansing Area are plotted
on a map of the city, slightly over one fourth (57 of a total of 203)
are found in four general clusters. Of the churches within the city
limits, nearly one-third are in one or another of these four group-
ings, supporting the generalized expectation of a tendency toward
clustering.

2. Churches will tend to be grouped together in their distri-
bution on the indices of social areas.

Approached from.this point of view, distribution in relation to
social areas, there is a definite grouping of churches in the area just
above the mid—point on the economic index of social area. Over 61 per
cent of the churches located within the tracted areas of the cities of
Lansing and East Lansing fall at this point. In addition, 145 of 181
churches in the tracted areas fall below the mid-point on the family
structure index. The concentration of churches within these limits on
the social area indices provides support for the hypothesis.

3. The majority of church.members will live either in the
social areas in which the church building is located, or in social areas
with characteristics similar to those of the social area in which the
church building is located.

In testing this hypothesis, an index of social rank for the
churches was developed, and used in conjunction with (a) a measure of
the distribution of church families in relation to the location of the
buildings of the respective congregations, and (b) social area analysis.

Results of the analysis showed 80 per cent of the churches fit

the expected pattern. Analysis by polity type and size of church

— 120 -
provided no clues for understanding the 20 per cent deviance. However,
a combination of factors related to the history of the church, and
factors inherent in the nature of the small city served to illuminate
four—fifths of the discrepancy. These churches were established twenty
years or more ago, and though members may have moved away, access in
the city, because of its size, causes no great problem, and these
factors, together with natural changes occurring in the local church
community, would well account for the differences from.the pattern
hypothesized. With the qualification spelled out here, the third
hypothesis is also regarded as being supported.

4. Relocating churches will tend to move from.their previous
locations to social areas with the same social area ratings, or to
social areas with a higher economic status score, or with a lower family
structure score.

Reference is made here to the economic status and family
structure indices of social area analysis. All but one of the relo-
cated churches fit the expected pattern perfectly. Those which.moved
out of their own social area moved to economically higher areas, which
might mean an attempt at social.mobility, or more probably, indicates
that churches move to the developing, less congested areas of the city,
which also tend to be areas with higher land values. Higher land
values, in turn, attract persons who have a higher economic advantage
or potential. Those moving to areas with lower family structure scores
are going to areas with.more children, fewer working women, and.more
single—family housing-a good description of contemporary family life
in suburbia. Movement in these directions is completely consistent

with the concentration of churches in social areas in the lower right

- 121 -
quadrant of the social area diagram (cf. Figure 3); thus, this hypoth-
esis is supported.

5. It is expected that churches will move outward, from.the
center of the city to the periphery.

With regard to the direction of movement in geographical terms,
it was found that over half of the relocations took place within the
same general area of the original site. Twenty—seven of thirty-seven
churches moved outward. Four of the remaining churches made moves that
put them about the same distance from the center of the city, and six
made moves which placed them nearer the central business district.

This hypothesis is not supported fully, but there is a strong minority
trend which provides partial support.

6. Churches of different polity types will have different
patterns of relocation: congregational and non-denominational churches
will move most often, episcopal churches least often.

Since over half (54 per cent) of the congregational polity
churches have relocated since 1950, and only a little more than a third
(38 per cent) of episc0pal polity churches have relocated, the hypoth-
esis is accepted as indicating the direction of the relation of polity
to relocation. However, there was an important discrepancy in this
regard in the case of non—denominational churches, as they did not
follow the expected pattern.

7. In justifying relocation, churches will give mostly "come
munity—oriented” reasons for’making a move.

Investigation of the catalogue of reasons given for relocation
provided none which probably could not somehow be interpreted as "come

munity-related," either explicitly or implicitly. However, since only

- 122 -
20 per cent of the reasons given were directly "community—oriented,"i
the hypothesis is not accepted.

In working through the problem of this dissertation, the
importance of the polity structure of the churches has been confronted
at several points. The importance of the factor of polity, with and
sometimes above the factors of size of church, age of church, and
budget, indicate that polity is a variable which.may not have received
proper attention by sociologists studying the church as a social
institution.

Polity has proved to work its effect so powerfully that the
author believes the original thesis should be modified to take account
of its power. The modified thesis stated as the result of this thesis,
and suggested as a beginning point of further study reads: the more
power which the polity structure places in the denomination, the less
influential will be the role of community structural factors; the
more power which the polity structure places in the local congregation,

the more influential will be the role of community structural factors.

Conclusions

Guided by the theoretical perspectives which set the framework
for this study, and on the basis of the data presented in the preceding
pages, our task now is to point to some of the implications of the
study.

The jumping-off point for the study was an assumption, explicit
in the literature, that churches are, or should be, closely related to
their social environment. The assumption was operative in the work of

sociologists studying the church in the 1930's-4men like Douglass and

-123-
Sanderson. It continues to be Operative in the work of contemporary
writers studying the institutional churchr4Winter, Wilson, and.Myers.
There is empirical verification of the validity of the assumption in
the study of St. Louis done by Foley. In addition, the few contacts
which the author has had with zoning ordinances and city planning
boards indicate that the assumption of close church-neighborhood ties
plays an important role in the thinking of persons whose work causes
them to deal with the church as an institution in society.

As we have traced through the relation of various dimensions
of community, with particular reference to the matter of church relo-
cation, one Of the items we have noted is the confusion in the concep-
tion of "community" which Operates at different levels of the religious
organization. For the most part, denominational representatives in-
sist on talking of community in terms that have rather definite local-
ity overtones. ‘When local church people speak of community, they are
just as apt to be talking about community in terms that carry conno-
tations of specific types of people.

The confusion resulting from these differences in definition
of the same concept are likely to appear in force in a small city like
Lansing. By the very nature of the city, with its growing edges three
to five miles from the center, with thoroughfares to provide quick and
easy access to most points within the urban area, concepts which grow
in metropolitan contexts lose their applicability. The principles,
laid down by the denomination, Speak in terms of one or two miles as
the center of the church's life and constituency. The local pastor
sees anyone within the urban area who is "compatible" to his congre—

gation as prey for his hunting.

- 124 -

To complicate matters still more, the same type of confusion
of concepts Operates within the local church. At one level, the
minister may, with no hesitation, define the entire city as his comp
munity, or service area. At another level, and at the same time, the
program of the church is heavily oriented to children and youth, who
are eagerly sought from the immediate area around the church building.
The strength of this conclusion rests on the provision by all churches
for Sunday Church School classes for children, but not always for
adults, and the emphasis on youth—directed activities which has been
pointed up in Chapter V.

If these interpretative statements delineating the lack of any
clear-cut conception of community on the part Of the church have valid-
ity, it does not seem.too strange that there is some disparity in the
mutual attitudes of churches and their neighborhoods.

There are implications, from.the types of neighborhood-oriented
activities Offered, that even here the church has adOpted an attitude
of exploitation to the people it seeks to serve. Programs are based
on the idea of the returns they will produce. That is, youth programs
are mounted because the church needs to "do something" about youth-
but also because this is an excellent potential for added membership.
Another implication which.may be derived from.the types of neighborhood-
oriented activities Offered, is that churches do not have a very clear
awareness Of the kinds of people who surround them. If they did know
the people around them.surely a few besides the large "First” churches
in the capital area would venture into avenues beyond those trodden by
youth.

Turning to another aspect of our study Of church—community

_ 125 _
relation, the efforts to delineate the association of churches and
social areas were only partially successful in our investigation.
Again, there appear to be features of the size of Lansing as a city
which mitigate against the power Of social area analysis as an analytic
tool. The social position of church members need not be closely
correspondent to that of the church location because of the ease of
access within the city and its evirons. There are strong indications
that historical changes occurring in local areas affect the church
only slightly, as membership potential is not restricted to that chang-
ing local area.

This study is the first known to the author where social area
analysis was used in_a small city. Though we suspect that its weakness
for our study is related to the size of city, other studies using social
area analysis in nonemetropolitan areas will be necessary before the
suspicion can be confirmed.

A second major area of interpretation which rises from this
project may be presented in the specification of what appear to be
conditions Of relocation. Here we may look at the types of pressures
which appear to lead.most directly to the possibility of relocation
being raised, and Often carried through to completion.

The most Obvious of these conditions is the need for space. A
church.may develop the feeling of being cramped or squeezed in its
present location through the operation of several factors: (1) the
growth of the membership, till present space is overrun; (2) changing
standards of Space adequacy, which.make available space seem.small,
even though it was satisfactory for a membership of the same size twenty

or twenty-five years ago; or (3) changes in.modes of transportation,

_ 126 _
with large numbers of automobiles demanding space that was necessary
in the days when constituents walked, or used public mass transpor-
tation facilities. Problems growing from.extensive use of the automo-
bile for transportation may be compounded by changing standards of
required parking space which are enforced by zoning boards and planning
commissions.

A second condition for relocation.may arise when a church he-
comes aware of the changing neighborhood around the church building.
The change may be of varied sorts: (1) the growing density of a dif-
ferent religious group; (2) a larger number of minority racial or
ethnic peoples; (3) a long-time general deterioration of property in
the neighborhood; (4) a nearby urban renewal project; or (5) industrial
or commercial development in a former residential area. This list is
intended to be suggestive, not exhaustive.

Changes in the neighborhood are especially likely to act as a
condition predisposing relocation if it is coupled with an attitude Of
loyalty to the ”founding fathers" of the church—~or an attitude of the
preservation of the §t§t3§_ggg¢-in keeping the church for the "right
kind” of people.

Still another condition Operating to enhance the possibilities
of relocation is the sighting of "greener pastures" somewhere else in
the urban area. These new fields, ripe for harvest (to mix a metaphor)
are apt to be seen in the fast-growing developments on the fringes of
the city. Two or three hundred new homes, in an area without a church
nearby, provides a temptation which.may be too good to pass by. One
suspects that the temptation would be especially strong for a church

that has long been stabilized at a given level of growth, or that has

— 127 -
experienced a recent drop in membership.

One more condition of relocation is the nature of local church-
denomination relations. Polity systems which are tightly knit may
retard relocation; those which are quite loose may have little or no
effect.

The predictive power of any of these conditions of relocation
is hard to guage. To arrive at greater predictive power, an in—depth
study, following a group of churches over a period of time, would be
highly desireable. For now, we can surely say that the greater the
conjunction of the conditions outlined, the greater the liklihood
that a church will move its location.

The third area to be explored in this interpretive fashion
concerns the alternatives Open to a church when the conditions of
relocation become operative. We recognize here that, however great
the pressures, relocation is not automatic. It is a long, sometimes
painful, nearly always expansive process. The difficulties ought to
cause some concern for other possible avenues Open to the church.

There is very little in the data of the present study to
suggest that the alternatives presented by Douglass are greatly
changed (cf. Chapter I).

While it would be difficult to predict which alternative a
church is likely to select when the conditions of relocation prevail,
the experiences of the churches in the Lansing Area, based on the re-
sults of the present study, indicates that relocation, or a seeking of
people of its own kind, either near or far at hand, will be easiest
and most attractive. These alternatives are also likely to cause the

least disruption and confusion to the image in which the church has

— 128 -
conceived itself.

If these alternatives actually are chosen, our data on the
relation of the church to social areas do suggest the possibility,
within limits, Of knowing in advance the general area of the city
which will appear most attractive, either as a field for relocation,
or as a field of search for additional.members.

There are some interesting features of the church-community
relationship which have not been part of this study, but which, by
their very nature, play their part. Primary among these is the pecul-
iar situation of the church and its relation to government.

In contrast to schools, the other so—called "community" insti-
tution, the churches enjoy a kind of "second-class citizen" position.
The school is closely tied to the city governing bodies, and supported
by public funds. These funds, spent in the interest of the public
welfare, ensure that school facilities shall be so placed that all
persons of proper age have access to them. By its position, the school
must of necessity be aware of, and react to, the nature of the com-
munity around it. At the same time, the school has Opportunity to
wield its influence within the bounds of its neighborhood.

Churches, on the other hand, are also thought of as community
institutions. Nearly everyone agrees that the church is necessary.
However, for all the good influence that a church may bring, it is
prohibited by law from.receiving public funds for its support and
activity. The necessity for private support means then, in a very
practical sense, that the church seeks out, and is prone to follow,
those who willingly contribute to its support.

Both school and church property are taxyexempt. Both are

-129_
community-centered institutions. But at this point the differences
become more important than the similarities. Because the school is
supported by public tax funds drawn from.localized districts, it must
necessarily be tuned to its neighborhood. Because the church is not
supported by public tax funds, local or otherwise, it is freed from
either being required to direct the focus of its activity to its
neighborhood, or frem being obligated to be influenced by the
characteristics of its neighborhood.

These differences are reflected by the attitude of the general
population toward the two institutions. ‘Witness, for instance, the
general furor raised when a school consolidation, or a change in
school district boundaries is prOposed. People get up in arms, sides
are chosen, hearings are held, and sometimes, bitter, long-lasting
fueds develop. But when a church relocates, or two congregations join
in a merger, hardly a ripple breaks the smooth countenance of public
concern.

Sociologists who work in the field of community study, or those
who study various institutions in the community setting, should be
aware of the implications of these differences in communityhinstitution
relationships. ‘We have seen consistently in these pages that the church
is guided in its behavior by broad and general community features-—
social class, occupational groupings, land values, racial and ethnic
concentrations, to mention some examples. But it is equally evident
that features of the church, gg‘gg orggpization, particularly those
centered in the structures of polity have a profound bearing on the
roles which the community features play. In fact the nature of the

church as an organization, moves community factors to a modifying

-130-

role.

Suggestiong for Further Stpgy

From.the experiences and results of this study, the author
would suggest the following as possible areas of research which will
add to the total understanding of the community, and the church as a
social institution:

1. The usefulness of social area analysis for study of small
cities should be investigated through research which may use it as an
analytical tool in the understanding of social change. This may be
done by studying the church or other social institutions, such as
schools, in other cities of 150,000 population or less. It might be
done by using social area analysis in studies of community conflict,

a present area of concern to sociologists.

2. In-depth case studies of churches with demonstrated
differences in their relation to their communities, to discover the
salient features of community conceptions operative at different levels
Of church leaders, elg., lay leaders, clergy, and denominational repre-
sentatives. Through such studies a more adequate typology of alterna—
tives to relocation.may be developed.

3. Comparative studies of the church-community associations
developed here, designed to discover the precise nature of differences
in these associations, and the strength of their Operation, across the
range of population distributions, from rural to metropolitan.

4. Studies of the organizational nature of churches, using
polity as the independent variable, to discover the limits of useful-
ness which this factor plays as a determining factor in the behavior

and activity of religious organizations.

APPENDIX A

Denominations Included in Sample, Listed by Polity Type

 

 

 

Congregational

Episcopal

 

Assembly of God
Baptist

Christian Church (Disciples
of Christ)

Church of Christ

Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of God
Congregational

Free Methodist

Lutheran

Orthodox Jewish
Pentecostal

United Church

United Missionary

African Methodist Episcopal
Church of God in Christ

Church of The Latter Day Saints
Episcopal

Evangelical United Brethren
Greek Orthodox

Methodist

Pilgrim Holiness

Roman Catholic

Salvation Army

 

W

Independent

Presbyterian

 

Bible Church
Church of Christ
Gospel Tabernacle
Trinity

wayside Chapel

Christian Reformed
Nazarene
Pentecostal
Presbyterian

Reorganized Church of Latter
Day Saints

 

-131-

APPENDIX B

ngputational Proceduggg for Social Area Apalysis

The social position of a census tract population as determined
within this framework is a function of three basic dimensions: social
rank, urbanization, and segregation. The position of a tract with
respect to social rank and urbanization is shown graphically when
plotted on a system of rectangular co-ordinates, with social rank as
the horizontal axis and urbanization as the vertical axis. In order
to group tracts with shuilar social positions with respect to social
rank and urbanization, the plane in which a given number of tracts is
thus plotted is segmented. ‘Each segment is called a social area.
Tracts plotted in one social area comprise a single type in the classi-
fication. The third dimension, segregation, is introduced to distin-
guish differences among tracts in a given social area as defined by
social rank and urbanization.

The data required for this study were all given in:

U. S. Bureau of the Census. E;_§. Censuses g§_Populatigp;and
Housing: 1960. Census Tracts. Final Report PHC (1)~73.
U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962.

The standard score provided by the computational procedures
below provide a standardization of the present data to their ranges for
the Los Angelos Area in 1940. This is a standard procedure in social
area analysis as it has been used by all who have used the technique.
This has provided a single scale which allows for direct comparison of

census tract scores on the respective indices for different cities at

_ 132 _

-133-

the same time, or for the same city at different times. This standard-

ization does provide the possibility of standard scores falling below

0 or above 100. The practice followed in this case is to group tracts

outside the social space diagram with the nearest social area.1

I.

For each census tract compile the basic data and compute the ratios
for the indexes of social rank, urbanization, and segregation.
Compute the standard scores and combine these into index scores as
indicated below:

A. Economic Status

1.

2.

3.

Occupation ratio (total number of craftsmen . . . ,
operatives . . . , and laborers . . . per 1,000
employed persons). (In 1950 add males and females in
these occupational categories.)

a) Add:
(1) "Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred workers"
(2) ”Operative and kindred workers”
(3) "Laborers" ("Laborers, except mine” in 1950 census)

b) Subtract the total number of persons with ”Occupation
not reported” from the total number of persons WEmploy-
ed" "Employed (exc. on pub. emerg. works)" in 1940
census .

c) Divide the total number of craftsmen . . . , operatives
. . . , and laborers by the above difference.

d) Multiply the above quotient by 1,000.

Occupation standard score

a) Substitute in standard score formula:
Occupation score - 100- x(r-0)
where
x - .1336898
0 - 0
r - Occupation ratio for each census tract

Education ratio (number of persons who have completed
no more than grade school per 1,000 persons 25 years
Old and over)

a) Add number of persons 25 years old and over who have
had only eight years of schooling or less.

b) Subtract the total number of persons with "School
years not reported" from the total number of "Persons

 

1

Shevky and Bell, gp.,git., p. 67.

4.

5.

..134-

25 years and over."
c) Divide the total number of persons completing only
elementary school or less by the above difference.
d) Multiply the quotient by 1,000.

Education standard score

a) Substitute in standard score formula:
Education score - 100- x(r—0)
where
x - .1298701
0 - 130
r - Education ratio for each census tract

Social rank index

a) Compute a simple average of the occupation and
education standard scores. The average is the
index of Economic Status.

B. Family Status

1.

2.

30

Fertility ratio (number of children under 5 years per
1,000 females age 15 through 44)

a) Record total number of persons "Under 5 years.”
(For 1950 add the number of males and females
”Under 5 years.")

b) Add the number of females in the age range 15
through 44.

c) Divide the total munber of children under 5 by
the total number of females age 15 through 44.

d) Multiply the quotient by 1,000.

Fertility standard score

a) Substitute in standard score formula:
Fertility score - 100- x(r-0)
where
x = .1661130
0 = 9
r - Fertility ratio for each census tract

'WOmen in the labor force ratio (the number of females
in the labor force per 1,000 females 14 years old and
over

a) Record number of females "14 years old and over"
who are in the "Labor force."

b) Divide the above by the total number of females
"14 years old and over."

c) Multiply the quotient by 1,000. (In 1940 the
per cent of women in the labor force was given

C.

The

2.

3.

_ 135 -

as a summary figure. If 1940 data are used,
multiply by 10 to convert to ratio.)

women in the labor force standard score

a) Substitute in standard score formula:
WCmen in the labor force score =3x(r-0)
where
x - .2183406
0 B 86
r = Women in the labor force ratio for each
census tract

Single-family detached dwelling units ratio (the number
of single-family dwelling units per 1,000 dwelling units
of all types)

a) Record number of ”1 dwelling unit, detached (includes
trailers)” in 1950 census. (The definition in 1940
was "1-family detached" dwelling units.)

b) Divide by total of "All dwelling units."

c) Multiply the quotient by 1,000.

Single-family detached dwelling units standard score

a) Substitute in standard score formula:
S.F.D.U. score = 100- x(r-O)
where
x = .1006441
0 - 6
r - Single-family detached dwelling units ratio

Urbanization index

a) Compute a simple average of the fertility, women in
the labor force, and single-family dwelling units
standard scores. The average is the index of Family
Status.

Index10f'Segregation

Add the number of persons designated "Negro"; "Other
Races"; and "foreign-born white" from."Poland,"
"Czechoslovakia," "Hungary," "Yugoslavia," ”U.S.S.R.,”
"Lithuania," "Finland," "Rumania," "Greece,” "Italy,"
"OtherlEiurope,’l "Asia," "French Canada," “Mexico," and
”Other America."

Divide the above sum.by the total population in each
twat.

Multiply the above quotient by 100 to obtain the index
of segregation for each census tract.

—136-

As useful as social area analysis may be for certain purposes,
like all techniques of study used by social scientists, it has its
defects and its limitations. The most critical and searching outline
of questions raised against social area analysis is that made by Hawley
and Duncan.1 In their article they do not question the limited use-
fulness of the technique. Rather their criticism is directed at some
gaps in the theoretical formulations underlying social area analysis.

The criticisms raised fall under the heading of three ques-
tions. 'We shall here review the questions, and the substance of the
argument presented by Hawley and Duncan.

1. What is a "social area"? There is confusion as to whether
social area analysis is to be used for classifying only geographical ,
units, or whether ”population aggregates delimited otherwise than -
territorially are also considered suitable for the technique."2 If
proposed for the latter, then the proponents of the scheme "are guilty
of producing confusion and espousing a prematurely closed systems."3
What appears to have happened is that social area analysis classifies
geographical units (census tracts), calling these social areas, and
then it is maintained that these categories have no necessary geo-
graphic or areal reference. In addition, the critics note that by the
nature of the system, only such variables as are available through
census data are allowed. The fault here is that

to propose that three "dimensions" derived from these data
provide an adequate framework for urban sociological

 

1Amos H. Hawley and Otis Dudley Duncan, "Social Area Analysis:
A Critical Appraisal," Land Economics, XXXIII (November, 1957), pp.

2lbic1., p. 337. 3_I_.._o_g. pit.

- 137 -

studies is dangerous, to say the least, for it is well

known that the considerations determining what information

is tabulated for census tracts are only partly, if at all,

related to a theory of urban social structure . . . .1

2. What is the nature of the "social areas" that have been

identified empirically? Hawley and Duncan say that Shevky and Bell
make a false claim when they write that ". . . the social area generally
contains persons having the same level of living, the same way of life,
and the same ethnic background."2 If the population of a tract is 75
per cent white and 25 per cent Negro, the designation of the tract as
"segregated” does not justify a claim for ethnic homogeneity. Homo-
geneity within social areas can only be understood in a relative sense,
and only to a moderate degree.3

3. What theoretical justification is there for "social area

analysis" as a method of studying the differentiation of residential
areas in the city? The answer here, as Hawley and Duncan see the matter
is that "no such justification has been provided."4 To fill this gap,
they offer four possible approaches which.might be used as a means of
explaining the logical basis of the concept.

The four approaches to the pursuit of "social areas" may be
described as follows: First, the concept of "social area" may
emerge more or less directly from empirical observation and classi-
fication with no discernable theoretical basis. Second, the
anticipation of "social areas" in the city may derive analogically
from the region concept. Third, the "social area" hypothesis may
be a deduction from.etratification theory. And fourth, the presence
of "social areas" might be inferred from.a conception of urban
organization as a system.of functionally interdependent units.5

In addition to these criticisms, the present author has listed

 

1Ibid., p. 338. ZShevky and Bell, 22..git., p. 20.
3Hawley and Dlmcan, _p. gig, p. 339. Agog. git.

51bid., p. 340.

_ 138 _
others, centering on the names of the constructs, in Chapter I. Social
area analysis has been used in this dissertation as a descriptive devise,
for providing some order in understanding the social environment in
which churches operate, and to which churches, as organizations, are
related. The technique has proved of some value in this respect. As
with many of the tools drawn from.the sociologists bag of tricks, one
can use the tool, without becoming deeply involved in the theoretical

grounds of its invention.

2.

3.

1+.

5.

7.

APPENDIX C

Interview Schedule

In what year was this congregation organized?

 

How long have you been pastor of this church?

 

How many persons are included in the membership of this church,
excluding children under 14?

 

What is the total number of the constituency of the church?
(Members plus others for whom the church is responsible, such
as children in Sunday Church School, nonemembers who attend,

homebound persons, etc.)

 

How many family units are included in the membership of the church?
(A family unit includes members of one family living together under

one roof.)

 

How many family units are included in the total constituency?

 

What are your membership requirements?

Do you have a statement of membership requirements? GET ONE IF
YOU CAN

No

Yes ATTACHED

~139—

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

-140-

What per cent of your church membership falls into each of these

age groups?
1. Under 18 (under college age) 4. Between 50 and
2. Between 19 and 34 64
3. Between 35 and 49 5. 65 and over

How many of the total membership are active? ACTIVE IS DEFINED
AS EITHER MAKING A REGULAR CONTRIBUTION TO THE CHURCH, 0R ATTENDING
WORSHIP SERVICES AT LEAST ONCE A MONTH, OR BOTH.

No. X

What was the number of members in this church five years ago?
What was the number of members in this church ten years ago?

In what year did your congregation have its largest membership?

 

How many members was that?

 

What per cent of the men in your church, as accurately as you
know, are in each of these employment groups? BE SURE TO NOTE
THAT THESE ARE OCCUPATIONAL, NOT INCOME, GROUPS.

1. White collar (Professionals, managers, proprietors,
clerks, bookkeepers, etc.)

2. Blue collar (Factory and manufacturing employees, truck
drivers, service employees, laborers, etc.)

3. Unemployed 4. Retired

How many women are there in your church membership?

 

What per cent of these women work away from home, either part-time
or full—time? i

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

25.

26.

-141-

Does your membership include Negroes? OR WHITFB No Yes
What per cent of the total do they represent? fl

Do you have any First or Second Generation immigrants who are part
of your membership? No Yes
What per cent of the total.membership do they represent? fl

From.where have they come?

 

What per cent of your membership, as accurately as you know, is in
each of these educational groups?

1. Grade school only 4. College graduate
2. High school only 5. Graduate degree
3. Some college or trade school

How many worship services does your church regularly have each
Sunday during the school year? Morning ’Evening

'What is the total average winter attendance at worship services?
(Including children) Morning Evening

What is the seating capacity of your sanctuary?

 

How many Sunday Church School classes do you have?

 

How many of these are for adults?

 

'What is the total average Sunday Church School attendance?

 

What is the average for adults?

 

THE.FOLLOWING SECTION ON FINANCES WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO CATHOLIC
CHURCHES. FOR THESE GROUPS MOVE ON TO QUESTION 35 AND FOLLOWING.

_142_

An important part of the life of a church involves the money they get

and spend. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about this.
ENTER ONLY SIFIGURES. WE WILL CCMPUTE f LATER.

27.

28.

30.

31.

32.

33.

What was your total budget (or total expenditures) last year,
for all purposes?

 

How much did you spend for buildings and prOperty?

 

C %
How much of this was for mortgage payments, dept retirement?
3 1

 

How much of this money for buildings and pr0perty wasspent for

buildings other than the church building itself? (parsonage,
schools, etc.) 3 x

How much.did you spend for salaries (including "fringe benefits")?
THISWIILBETHETOTALFRCMBZAND33.$ 1

How much of this was for the pastor? RECORD EXACT FIGURE IF
GIVEN, OTHERWISE CHECK THE RIGHT CATEGORY.

1. Under $3000
2. 33000435999

3. 86000-39999
4. $10,000 and above 3 Z

Parsonage

Car Allowance

Other (gifts, insur-
ance, conven-
tion utilities
etc.)

TOTAL 3 S

How much was paid for other staff persons?

Assistant pastor (or
DRE)

Secretary

Musicians

Janitor

Other

ram t S

- 143 -
34. How much did your church give to missions and benevolences last

year? 3 1

Now there are some things I need to know about your church building,
that is, the place where your congregation holds its regular services.

35. Do you meet for worship in a regular church building?

No
What type of building is it?

1. A home 4. A lodge hall
2. A (vacant) house 5. A school
3. A store building 6. Other

 

Does the congregation own the building?
No Yes

Yes
How many of each of these kinds of rooms do you have?

1. Sanctuary (chapel) 5. Other offices

2. Class rooms 6. Kitchen
3. Fellowship (dining) 7. One room only
4. Pastor's study 8. Other

 

36. Would you say that the physical condition of your church is

1. Excellent 3. Fair
2. Good 4. Poor

37 . Do you have enough room for all your needs?
Yes

No What type of facilities or rooms are most needed?

-144-
38. Do you have off-street parking facilities?
No

Yes For how many cars?

 

39. What is the current value of your church prOperty (including
buildings, land, and permanent fixtures)? 3

40. Does your church have a parsonage?

No
Yes What is its value? 3

Many churches fell that it is quite important to know something about
their neighborhood and to be on good terms with the peOple who live
around them. However, other churches feel that this is not necessary
because of the way their members are distributed through the city.
would you tell me a few things about the neighborhood around your

church? For instance:

41. HANDRESPONDENT AMAPWITH HIS CHURCHMARKEDON IT.
'Will you draw the approximate boundaries of what you consider to be
your neighborhood on this map? IF HE CANNOT, AND MAKES ANY COMMENTS,
RECORD HERE.

42. How would you describe the area right around your church? Or to
be more specific, would you.say that it is predominantly

 

 

 

 

1. Residential .3. Industrial
2. Commercial 44 Mixed WHICH ONES
5. Other

 

 

43. What kinds of houses are in this area (predominantly)?

 

 

 

 

1. Single family 4. Apartments (Pre-WW II)
2. Duplex 5. Apartments (new)
3. Apartments 6. Trailer homes

 

 

(Converted Homes)
7. Other

45.

46.

47.

445-

How would you describe the condition of these homes?

1 . New 4. Good
2. Middle-aged 5 . Moderate
3 . Old 6 . Blighted

What types of families are predominant in the neighborhood?

 

1. Young families 4. Young single persons
2. Middle—aged families 5. All ages mixed
3. Aged families (widows, 6. Other

etc.

0ccupationally speaking, what kind of peOple predominate?
1. White collar 3. Evenly mixed
2. Blue collar 4. Retired

What kinds of business or commercial enterprises are predominant
in the area?

 

1. Stores and shOps 5. Light industry
2. Offices 6. Heavy industry
3. Filling stations 7. Other

4. Warehouses 8. None

That tells us something about the kind of neighborhood in which your
church is located. Now I would like to have some ideas about the kinds
of relations your church maintains with its neighborhood.

48.

Are any church-sponsored activities especially designed for
people living in the neighborhood? (Such as dinners, bazaars,
rummage sales, special services)

No

Yes
What are they, and how well are they supported?
1 Very well Some Little None

2.
3.
4.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

_ 146 _

Do any non-church groups use the church building for their meetings
and activities? (Such as scouts, WCTU, service clubs, etc.)

 

 

No

Yes What are they?
1. 4.
2. 5.
3. 6.

Does your church solicit the support of merchants in your

 

 

neighborhood?
No
Yes In what ways?
1.
2.
3.
4.

To summarize, would you say that the neighborhood around the
church is

1. Supportive (attendance, 4. Unfriendly
finances, etc) 5. Antagonistic
2. Friendly 6. Other

3. Indifferent

 

‘Would you like to give any further examples or illustrations of
why you think so?

You have told.me about the attitude of the neighborhood to the
church: now would you say that the attitude of the church toward
the neighborhood is

1. Supportive (actively 4. Unfriendly
related to) 5. Antagonistic
2. Friendly 6. Other

________3. Indifferent

‘Would you like to give any further examples or illustrations of
why you think this is so?

447-

55. How many of your clmrch members live in the neighborhood near the

clmrch? THIS MEANS WITHIN THE AREA HE HAS INDICATED ON THE MAP,
OR WITHIN AN AREA 4~5 BLOCKS EACH WAY FROM THE CHURCH

No. %

56. Would it be possible for me to get a list of the addresses of your
church membership, so that I can get an accurate picture of where
your people live in‘the Lansing area? IF THE CHURCH PUBLISHIS A
YEARBOOK, ASK FOR A COPY OF THAT. IF LIST IS NOT IMMEDIATEIY
AVAILABLE, ARRANGE IF POSSIBLE TO GET IT WITHIN ONE WEEK.

57. Can you say in what ways the neighborhoods where your members live
in other parts of the city are like, or different from the neighbor-
hood in which the church is located? LEE RESPONDENT ANSWER FIRST.
IF VAGUE OR UNCERTAIN THEN PROBE FOR SUCH THINGS AS FAMILY TYPES,
HOUSING TYPES, INDUSTRY, mIDENCE, EEC.

No response given

A. Alike B. Different
1. 1 .
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.

Churches of different backgrounds and different history have some

unique and interesting ways of doing things. I would like to know more

about your church in this respect. Let's start rather broadly and then
come back to your own congregation.

58. When was your denomination started? DOES NOT APPLY TO CATHOLICS 0R
JEWS Where? (EurOpe or USA)

 

59 . Would you describe the organization of your denomination as
1. Congregational 4. Mixed (which types)
2. Presbyterial

3. Episcopal 5. Not applicable

 

60.

61.

62.

63.

-148-
How does the practice of your church compare with the accepted
ideal on polity?

1. Very well 4. Not very much
2. Quite well 5. Not at all
3. Only moderately 6. Other

 

Do you have a chart showing the general structure of your denomi-

nation that I may'have? IF NOT, WILL YOU DRAW A SKETCH OR DIAGRAM
OF YOUR.DENOMINATIONAL STRUCTURE HERE.

Do you have a chart showing the general organization and structure
of your own local congregation that I may have? IF NOT, SHOW CARD.
This card has marked on it many of the organizational parts that
are found in local churches. 'Will you check those which your
church has, and draw in connecting lines to show what relation
they have to one another?

Will you briefly describe for me, in terms of the organization of
your congregation, where action would be initiated, and where final
action would be taken, on each of these items?.

Initiation j Final Action

1. Raising and
spendingzmoney

 

2. Changes in the

worship service

 

 

_. 149 ..
63. (Continued) Initiation Final Action
3. Distribution of

Mission money

 

4. Holding an

Evangelistic
meeting

 

5. Special use of
the church building

or grounds

 

6. Deciding what
materials to use
in the Sunday
Church School

 

 

 

64. What were the three most important decisions your church has made
in the last five years? How were these handled? (i.e., where
initiated, what steps taken to couplets the decision)

1.

 

 

 

65.

66.

-150-

'What kinds of demands or requirements does your denomination

impose on your congregation? For instance:

1.

6.

In the calling of a minister?

Financial levies or apportionments?

Program goals (in what areas)?

Program materials (including Church school literature)?

Others?

None

Are there any kinds of decisions, besides these we have Just

mentioned, which your congregation.might make, which would

reguire denominational review or approval? No

Yes

What are some examples?
1.

2.
3.

-151_

You may know that quite a few of the churches in the Lansing area have
changed location in the last few years. I am.interested now in finding
out where your church.might fit into this pattern.

67. Has your church been relocated since 1950?
No
Yes GO ON TO QUESTION 69

68. Has your church always been at its present location?
No
Yes GO ON TO QUESTION 72

69. At what other addresses has the church been located? And when?

1. Date:
2. Date:
3. Date:
4. Date:
5. Date:

70. 'What were the main reasons for moving at each of these times of
change? IN SAME ORDER AS FOR QUESTION 69.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

_152_

Did the congregation meet in a regular church building at each of
these locations?

Yes

No What type of building was used? IDENTIFY BY 1,2,
3,4,5, ABOVE.

1. A home 4. A lodge hall
2. A (vacant) house 5. A school
3. A (vacant) store 6. Other

Is your church presently involved in some phase of the process of
relocation?

No
Yes GO ON TO QUESTION 75

Are you thinking seriously about relocation in the near future?

Yes GO ON TO QUESTION 75
No SKIP OVER TO QUESTION 87

ASK THIS QUESTION I? CHURCH HAS KEIDCATED SINCE 1950, OTHERWISE
OMIT. Since you have moved since 1950, you may have a pretty

good recollection of all that happened. You have already touched
on this briefly, but will you tell me in more detail what reasons
prompted you to make the move.

1 .

2.

3.

4.

IF NOT NOW MOVING, OR CONTEMPLATING MOVING, OMIT .

Since you are moving, or contemplating moving, what are the reasons

which make this seem necessary or advisable?
1 .

2.
3.
4.

76.

77.

78.

- 153 —

In making the decision to move, and the events which (have) follow-
ed, where did you go, or who did you ask for help or advice in
these matters: SEE TABLE BELOW, AND mum ANSWERS THERE.

How would you evaluate the usefullness of each of the sources of
assistance? ENTER ANSWERS IN CHART BELOW, USING THIS CODE:

1. Very helpful 3. A little helpful

2. Somewhat helpful 4. Not at all helpful

How fully, have you used the assistance offered to you from each
of these sources? m ANSWERS ON CHART BELOW, USING THIS CODE:
‘1. To the fullest 3. Only a little
2. Somewhat 4. Not at all

 

Event or Problem Area Who Asked Usefulness Used

(76) (77) (78)

 

Making the decision
to relocate

 

Site selection

 

3.

Buying or selling
prOperty

 

Architecture

 

5.

Finances

 

Other SPECIFY

 

 

 

 

80.

81.

82.

83.

454-

If you were to single out one person, or organization, who would
you say had been.most helpful to you, at any stage of the whole

process of relocation?

In general, how important a part in the whole process of reloca—
tion was played (or is being played) by people from.your denomi-
nation? PROBE FOR WHAT LEVELS OF THE DENOMINATION, WERE THEY
ASKED TO TAKE PART BY THE CONGREGATION, WERE THEY INVOLVED AUTO-
MATICALLY, ETC.

would you have been able to progress as well as you did without
this denominational assistance? Why or Why not?
No

Yes

You.may already have mentioned this, but if you needed financial
assistance, how:much did you.borrow, and from.whom?
3 From

 

‘What would you say were the greatest 84. How were these resolved?
problems which were faced at each of

these stages of the relocation procew

1. Making the decision to relocate? 1. Resolution

 

 

-155-

 

 

 

 

 

 

83. Continued 84. Continued
2. Early planning? 2. Resolution?
3. Moving from the old 3. Resolution?
building?
4. Moving into the new 4. Resolution?
building?
5. Since relocation? 5. Resolution?
85. As you have worked through 86. Have you made any particular
(or are working through) the plans to realize these advan—
process of relocation, what tages?

do you now see as the most

important advantages of theme?

Advantages Plans

 

 

 

3.

 

4.

 

 

-156-

87. IF CHURCH IS NOT REIDCATZED SINCE 1950 OR RELOCATING, ASK
What do you see as the most promising advantages for your church
in this present location? ENTER BELOW

88. Briefly, what kinds of plans or programs are you planning or
carrying on to meet these advantages? ENTER BELOW

Advantages Plans/ Pro grams

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX.D

Denominational Policies Concerning Relocation

It has been recognized in this study, at least implicitly,
that denominational policies should have some effect on the actions
of local churches in the matter of site relocation. In order to get
some picture from the denominational level as to what the policies
are, and how well they operate, the author corresponded with seven
denominational representatives, and representatives of the Lansing
and Michigan Council of Churches.

The correspondence dealt with a series of questions, seven
in number, regarding denominational policies, and denominational in-
volvement with local churches considering relocation. Some excerpts
from this correspondence are presented here.

Question 1. Do you, as a denomination, have any stated rules,
regulations, principles, etc., which are used as a basis for working
with churches considering relocation? If so, what are they?

The replies indicate that guidelines available are not in
the form of stated rules or regulations, but rather take the nature
of working principles. In general there is discouragement of relo-
cation. The local church is encouraged to examine itself and its
community to see if a change in program‘will not provide a renewal
of the ministry of the congregation in its local area. If relocation
seems desireable, congregations are encouraged, or required (depending
on the authority of the denomination) to make careful surveys of

-157—

-158-
population, estimates of growth, and churches already in the area.
Effort is made to make sure that the new area can support a church,
and that undue competition with other churches is avoided.

Question 2. Do churches considering relocation generally
come to you for council, advice, help, encouragement, or approval?

As might be expected, episcopal type denominations require
that the congregation have denominational approval before any action
can be taken. For all denominations, some consultation is normal.

Question 3. If so, at what stage of their considerations do
they come to you: in the beginning, early, toward the end, after
crucial decisions are already made?

In general, for the denominations surveyed by this letter,
local congregations come for counsel early in their deliberations.
It is not unusual for a church to move to a near stage of gait
accompli, and then ask for a denominational blessing on their actions.

Question 4. 'With the understanding that each case should be
judged on its own.merits, do you have a general "posture" you assume
as regards relocation; move as soon as possible? Stay as long as
possible? What is your "position"?

There is unanimous agreement that local congregations should
stay as long as possible in their original locations. The flavor of
this feeling is indicated by these quotations:

So long as a church is able to adequately serve its community
we encourage them to stay. No move can be made until a com-
munity survey is taken which would indicate whether our ministry

should continue. It is our position that no community should be

unchurched and consideration is given as to other churches in
the area.

Congregations are urged to remain in their locations so long as
they are needed there and so long as they can do effective work

there.

. . . the position of the church in general, would be to
stay as long as possible in a place unless it seemed
absolutely foolhardy to do so. In that case we would
want to get out just as quick as we could and pick up
the pieces.

Question 5. How deeply do you, or another denominational
representative, generally become involved in.matters of local
church relocation? How deeply would you like to be involved?

Replies to this question largely reflect the polity of the
church. 'Episcopal type denominations must approve all.major decisions
of the local group. Others range from a single consultation to active
involvement in surveys and decisionrmaking. In general the denomina-
tions want to have an active voice in the proceedings, from start to
finish.

Question 6. Do you ever suggest to a church (before they
come to you) that relocation.might be a good idea?

Denominational representatives, aware that a few congregations
are having some deep-seated problems, have suggested relocation to a
church on their own initiative. However, the spirit in which this
is done is reflected by this comment:

I have on occasion made the initial approach with possible
relocation in mind, but I feel it unwise to state this as

my purpose. The issue in.my thinking is not location; the
issue revolves about the form and function of the church and
the nature and purpose of its mission. I therefore suggest
to a church that rethinking its purpose might be a good idea.

Question 7. What do you, as a representative of your denomi-
nation, regard as adequate and/or justifiable grounds (or reasons)

for relocation?

General agreement prevails among the men who answered these

- 160 —
queries on adequate grounds for relocation. They are succintly SUM?
marized by one representative who replied:
(a) government condemnation of the property (urban renewal,
expressway right of way, etc.).
(b) inadequate facilities or space for expansion.
(c) removal of people (e. ., industrialization of a former
residential community .
(d) originally poor location (isolation from the community, too
near other sister congregations, etc.).
One respondent added this strong statement:
. . . we favor relocation even in these instances only if
the move can be accomplished in the same general area. . . .
If a congregation no longer has a community to work . . . and
cannot relocate in the same area without competing with existing
churches. It is our view that the congregation should be dis-
solved and its members directed to affiliate with congregations
in their communities.
And another stated explicitly: "We do not believe that changing
cultural, social, ethnic or racial residence Justify relocation."

If denominational representatives feel this strongly about
the prOper grounds for relocation, and the desireability of relo-
cation in itself, it seems somewhat strange that relocation is
actually happening at such a rapid rate (44 of 100 churches in the
Lansing Area over a period of thirteen years). At least part of the
reason for the difference as summed up by a congregational type
denomination when he said, '. . . the choice to relocate is striétly
that of the local church, thus our counsel is not always acceptable
and they may relocate at their discretion.“ Thus, only those denomi—
nations which can muster enough authority to impose their position on
the local church are likely to have their ideal—athe local church

serving its local area-very highly realized.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

BERGER, PETER L. The Noise of Solemn Assemblies. Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday & Co., 1961.

BOSKOFF, ALVIN. The Sociology of Urban Regions. New York: Appleton-
Century—Crofts, 1962.

CHINOY, ELY. Sociological Perspective, Basic Concepts and.Their
Application. Doubleday Short Studies in Sociology: New York:
Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1954.

CLARK, S. D. Church and Sect ig Canada. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press, 1948.

COOLEY, CHARLES HORTON. Social Organization. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1937. Schoeken Books, 1962.

DOBRINER, WILLINMIM. Class in Suburbia. ‘Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
PrenticeéHall, Inc., 1963.

DOUGLASS, H. PAUL. The Chprchgin.The Changing City. New York:
George H. Doran Co., 1927.

. 1000 City Churches. George H. Doran Co., 1926.

. The Springfield Church Survey. New York: George H. Doran
Co., 1926.

GREEN, SHIRLEY E. Ferment on The Fring . Philadelphia: The Christian
Education Press, 1960.

HERBERG, WILL. Protestgnt-Catholic-Jew. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday & Co., 1960.

HOUIT, THOMAS P. The Sociology of Religion. Dryden Press, 1958.

HOYT, HOMER. The Structure and Growth ongegidential Neighborhoods in
American Cities. Washington, D. 0.: Federal Housing
Administration, 1939.

LEIEFER, MURRAY H. The Effective City Church. rev. ed.; Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1955.

LENSKI, GERHARD. The Religious Factor. rev. ed.; Garden City, N. Y.:
Doubleday & Co., 1963.

- 161 -

LOOMIS, CHARLES P. and ZONA K. Modern Social Theories. Princeton,
N. J.: D. Van Nostrand Wine" 1961.

 

and BEEGLE, ALAN J. Bura1g§ocial Systems. New York:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950.

LYND, ROBERT S. and MERRELL, HELEN. Middletown, A Study in American
Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1929.

 

MARCH, JAMES G. and SIMON, HERBERT A. Organizations. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.

MERTON, R. K. Social Theogyyg Social Structure. rev. ed.; Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1957-

MOBERG, DAVID C. The Church as_A Social Institution: The Sociolo
of American Religion. Englewood Cliffs, N. 3.: FFentice-
HZII, 1962.

MUSSELMAN, G. PAUL. The Church on The Urban Frontier. Greenlich,
Conn.: The Seabury Frees, 1960.

 

 

 

NIEBUHR, H. RICHARD. Radical Monotheism and Western Culture. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1960.

. The Social Sources of Denominationalism. New York: Henry
Holt 5 Co., 1929.

NOTTINGHAM, ELIZABETH K. Religion and Society. New Yerk: Doubleday
& Co., 195#.

 

PARK, ROBERT E. Human Communities. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952.

 

PARSONS, TALCOTT. Structure & Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe:
The Free Press, 1960.

. ‘The Structure of Social Action. Glencoe: The Free Press,
1937.

PHELPS, HAROLD A. and HENDERSON, DAVID. Po ulation in Its Human
Aspects. New Yerk: Appleton-Century:Crofts, Inc., 1953.

 

SANDERS, IRWIN T. The Community: An Introduction to A Social_§ystem.

Ronald Press, 1958.

SANDERSON, ROSS W. The Strate of City Church Plannin . New York:
Institute of‘Social and eIigious_ResearcE, 193 .

 

SHEVKY, ESHREF and BELL, WENDELL. légcial Area Analysis. Berkely and
Los Angelos: University of California Press, 19#9.

- 162 —

 

SHEVKY, ESHREF and WILLIAMS, MARILYN. The Social Areas of Los Angelos:
Anal sis and Typolo . Berkely and Los Angelos: University of
CaliforniafiPress, l9 9.

SHIPPEY, FREDERICK A. Protestantism in Indianapolis. Indianapolis:
The Church Federation of_Indianapolis, 1946}

SHRYOCK, HENRY 8., JR. Po ulation Mobilit Within The United States.
Chicago: Community and Eamily Study Center, University of
Chicago, 196A.

 

SPERRY, W. L. Religion in America. New Ybrk: The Macmillan Co., 19t6.

STEIN, MAURICE R. The Eclipse of Community. Princeton: Princeton
University'Press, 1960.

THOMPSON, VICTOR A. Modern Organization. New Ybrk: Alfred A. Knopf,
1961.

TROELTSCH, ERNST. The Social Teachigg of The Christian Churches.
Trans. Olive Wyon. New York: The Macmillan 53., 1932.

 

 

VERNON, GLENN M. Sociology of Religion. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., 1962.

VIDICH, ARTHUR J. and BENSMAN, JOSEPH. Small Town in Mass Societ .
Anchor Book Edition. Garden City, New York: Doubleday E
00., 1116. g 1958.

VON WEISE, LEOPOLD and BECKER, HOWARD. Systematic Sociology. New Ybrk:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1932.

WACH, JOACHIM. Sociolo of Reli ion. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 195:.

WARREN, ROLAND LESLIE. The Communigyin America. Chicago: Rand Mc-
Nally, 1963.

 

WEBER, MAX. The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism. Trans.
by TaIEottfPhrsons._Vfiondon: ‘Allen R Unwin, 1930.

. The Sociolggy of Religion. Trans. by Ephriam Fischoff.
Boston: BeaconfiPress, 1963.

WEST, JAMES. Plainville, U. S. A. New York: Columbia University
Press, 195 .

WHITLEY, OLIVER READ. Trumpet Call of Reformation. St. Louis, Mo.:
The Bethany Press, 1959.

WILLIAMS, ROBIN M., JR. American Society. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1961.

 

- 163 _

WILSON, LOGAN and.KOLB, W. L. SociOIOgical Analysis. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1999.

 

WINTER, GIBSON. The Suburban Captivity of The Churches. New Ybrk:
The Macmillan Co., 1962.

 

 

YINGER, J. MILTON. Religion in The Struggle for Power. Durham: Duke
University Press, 19h6. ‘

. Religion, SocigEyand The Individual. New York: The
Macmillan Co., 1957.

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

ABRAMS, RAY H. "Organized Religion in The United States," The Annals
of The American Academy of Political & Social Science
‘TMarch, 1998).

ANDERSON, THEODORE R. and BEAN, LEE L. "The Shevky-Bell Social Areas:
Confirmation of Results and A Reinterpretation," Social Forces,
XL, No. 2 (December, 1961), 119-124.

 

 

BEHOUT, JOHN E. and BRANDEMEIER, HARRY C. "American Cities as Social
Systems," Journal of Tge American Institute of Planners, XXIX,
No. 2 (May, 19637.964-76.

BELL, WENDELL. "Social Areas: Typology of Urban Neighborhoods," ed.
Marvin Sussman, Community Structure and Analygis. New Yerk:
Thomas Y. Crowell, 1959.

 

and BOAT, MARION D. "Urban Neighborhoods and Informal Social
Relations," American Journal of Sociology, LXII (January, 1957),
391-398-

and FORCE, MARYANNE T. "Religious Preference, Familism, and
The Class Structure," The Midwest Sociologist, XIX (May, 1957).

. "Social Structure and Participation in Different Types of
Formal Associations," Social Forces, XXXIV (May, 1956),
345-350-

BERGER, PETER L. "The Sociological Study of Sectarionism," Social
Research, XXI, No. 2 (Winter, 195k). ""'"

 

BREWER, EARL D. C. "Sect and Church in Methodism," Social Forces,
xxx (May, 1952), 900-408.

 

BURGESS, ERNEST W. "Urban Areas," in T. V. Smith and L. D. White, eds.
‘ghicago: An Egperiment in Social Science Research (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1929).

~164-

CHAPIN, F. STUART. "The Protestant Church in An Urban Environment,"
in Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Cities and Society.
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957.

 

CLARK, S. D. "The Society of Suburbia," in William Peterson and David
Matza, eds. Social Controversy. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth
Publishing Co., 1963.

DAVIS, JEROME. "A Study of Protestant Church Boards of Control,"
American Journal of Sociology, XXXVIII (November, 1932),
ElB‘KBI e

DYNES, RUSSELL R. "Church-Sect Typology and Socio-Economic Status,"
American Sociological Review, XX, No. 5 (October, 1955),

 

 

555-550-
. "Toward The Sociology of Religion," Sociolo and Social
Research, XXXVIII (March-April, 1954), -232.

FELLIN, PHILLIP and LITWAK, EUGENE. "Neighborhood Cohesion and
Mobility," American Sociological Review, XXVIII, No. 3
(June. 1963). "SEE-'7‘}? .

FOLEY, DONALD L. "The Use of Local Facilities in A Metropolis," in
Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Cities and Societ .
(New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1957.

FUKAYAMA, YOSHIO. "The Uses of Sociology: By Religious Bodies,"

Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion, XX, No. 2
(Spring. 19635. 195-203.

GREEN, BERT. "Attitude Measurement," in Handbook of Social Psychology,
ed. G. Lindsey.

 

GUTMAN, ROBERT. "Urban Studies As A Field of Research," The American
Behavioral Scientist, VI, No. 6 (February, 1963), 11-16.

 

HARRIS, CHAUNCEY D. and UILMAN, EDWARD U. "The Nature of Cities,"

Annals of The American Academy of Pelitical and Social Science,
CCXLII (nevemser, 1995), 7-17. —I'

HAWLEY, AMOS H., DUNCAN, BEVERLY and GOLDBERG, DAVID. "Some Obser—
vations of Changes in Metropolitan POpulation in The United
States," Demography, I, No. l (1969), 198-155.

and DUNCAN, OTIS DUDLEY. "Social Area Analysis: A Critical
Appraisal," Land Economics, XXXIII (November, 1955), 337-395.

HILL, MOZELL C. and WRITING, ALBERT N. "Some Theoretical and Method-
ological Problems in Community Studies," Social Forces, XXIX
(December, 1950), 117-12#.

— 165 -

HOULT, THOMAS F. "Economic Class Consciousness in American Protestant-
ism," American Sociological Review, XV, No. 1 (February, 1950),
97-100.

 

"Economic Class Consciousness in American Protestantism,"
American Sociological Review, XVII, No. 3 (June, 1952),
flg-Bso e

JOHNSON, BENTON. "A Critical Appraisal of The Church-Sect Typology,"
American Sociological Review, XXII, No. 1 (February, 1957),
88-920

. "Do Holiness Sects Socialize in Dominant values?" Social
Forces, XXXIX, (May, 1961), 309-316.

. "On Church and Sect," American Sociological Review, XXVIII,
No. A (August, 1963), 539:5K .

KURTZ, RICHARD A. and SMITH, JOEL. "Social Life in The Rural-Urban
Fringe," Rural Sociology, XXVI, No. 1 (March, 1961), 2h-38.

LANDECKER, WERNER S. "Class Crystallization and Class Consciousness,"
American Sociological Review, XXVIII, No. 2 (April, 1963),
219-228 0

LANDIS, BENSON Y. "The Church and Religious Activity," American
Journal of Sociology, XL (May, 1935), 780-787. ' " "

LENSKI, GERHARD. "Social Correlates of Religious Interest," American
Sociological Review, XVIII (October, 1953), 559-5h5.

MYERS, GEORGE C. "Patterns of Church Distribution and Movement,"
Social Forces, XL (May, 1962), 35u-363.

 

. "Variations in Urban Population Structure," Demography, I,
No. 1 (196A), 156-165.

OBENHAUS, VICTOR, W. , SCHROEDER, WIDICK and ENGLAND, CHARLES D. "Church
Participation Related to Social Class and Type of Center,"
Rural Sociolo , XXIII, No. 3 (1953), 298-309.

O'DEA, THOMAS F. "Five Dilemmas in The Institutionalization of
Religion," Journal of The Scientific Study of Religion, I,
No. 1 (October, 1961): 30-39.

 

OMASI, T. P. "Factors Associated with Urban Adjustment of Rural
Southern Migrants," Social Forces, XXXV, No. 1 (October, 1956),
[+7-52 e

PETERSON, WILLIAM. "Religious Statistics in The United States,"
Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion, I, No. 2
((April, 1962), 165-178.

 

- 166 -

POPE, LISTON. "Religion and The Class Structure," Annals of The
American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLVI
’(March, 19fl8),‘84-9l.

RIESS, ALBERT J., JR. "The Sociological Study of Communities,"
Rural Sociology, XXIV (1959), 118-130.

 

SCHAFFER, A. "The Rural Church in a Metropolitan Area," Rural Sociology,
XXIV, No. 3 (September, 1959), 256-245.

 

SCHNORE, LEO F. "The Growth of Metropolitan Suburbs," American
Sociological Review, XXII, No. 2 (April, 1957), 165-17 .

 

. "Urban Structure and Suburban Selectivity," Demography,
I, No. 1 (196R), 16h—176. ——_

 

SHIPPEY, FREDERICK A. "The Variety of City Churches," Review of
Religious Research, II, No. 1 (Summer, 1960), 8-19.

 

STANLEY, MANFRED. "Church Adaptation to Urban Social Change: A
Typology of Protestant City Congregations," Journal for The
Scientific Study of Religion, II, No. 1 (October, 1962),
Eli-73 o

VAN ARSDOL, MAURICE D., JR., CAMILLERI, SANTO F. and SCHMID, CALVIN F.
"An Application of The Shevky Social Area Indexes to A Model
of Urban Society," Social Forces, XXXVII, No. 1 (October, 1958),
26-32 0

 

WEBER, MAX. "The Protestant Sects and The Spirit of Capitalism," in
Hans Gerth and C. Wright Mills, trans. From Max Weber, Essays
in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, l9u6}

 

 

WHITLEY, OLIVER READ. "The Sect to Denomination Process in An American
Religious Movement: The Disciples of Christ," Southwestern
Science Quarterly, XXXVI (December, 1955), 275-2 2.

WILSON, BRYAN R. "An Analysis of Sect Development," American
Sociological Review, XXIV, No. 1 (February, I959TT"3215.

WILSON, CHARLES LEE. "A Social Picture of A Congregation," American
Sociological Review, X, No. 5 (June, 19h5), AIS-422.

WINTER, GIBSON. "Methodological Reflection on 'The Religious Factor',"
Journal for The Scientific Study of Religion, II, No. l
'TUctober, 1962), 53-63.

 

YINGER, J. MILTO . "Present Status of the Sociology of Religion,"
Journal of Religion, XXXI (July, 1951), 19h-2lo.

-167-

Public Documents
U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. U. S. Census of Population: 1960. Number

of Inhabitants, Michigan. Final Report PC 1 -2 . U. S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962.

U. S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. U. S. Census of Po ulation and Housin :
1960. Census Tracts. Final Report PHCEl)-75. U. S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962.

 

Unpublished Material

CHASE, BRADFORD. "An Analysis of Commercial Use Changes in Lansing,
Michigan: 1952-1959." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan
State University, 1962.

WILSON, ROBERT L. "The Association of Urban Social Areas in Four Cities
and The Institutional Characteristics of Local Churches in Five
Denominations." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern
University, 1958.

Pamphlets and Bulletins
BLUMENFIELD, HANS. "The Form of The Metropolis," Forum on Neighborhoods,

Toda and Tomorrow. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Housing Asso-
ciation, No. 5 (June, 1958).

"Contemporary Residential Development: An Evaluation," Forum on Neigh-
borhoods,_Today and Tomorrow. Philadelphia: Philadelphia
‘HOusing ASsociation, No. 6 (July, 1958).

 

 

DEAN, JOHN P. "The Neighborhood and Social Relations," Forum on
Neighborhoods1 Today_and Tomorrow. Philadelphia: Philadelphia
‘Housing Association, No. 5 (April, 1958).

DYCKMAN, JOHN. "The Impact of Technological Change," Forum on Neighf
borhoods, Today and Tomorrow. Philadelphia: 'Phlladelphia
'Hbusing Association, No. 1 (February, 1958).

 

HEPPLE, LAWRENCE M. The Church in Rural Missouri. Columbia, Mo.:
Agriculture Experimental Station Research Bulletin, University
of Missouri, No. 653 (in seven parts), l95h-196l.

HOULT, THOMAS F. The Population Revolution in Detroit. Detroit:
Wayne State University, 1965.

e168 -

MICHIGAN smre UNIV. LIBRARIES
1111111111||H||111|||1|||Hll|||11111111111W11
31293104189406