Coping With Same-Other

The size, the density, and the heterogeneity of complex culture can be intimidating. The mixture and percentages of the complexity are different for each community. Some of it is observable, but other aspects are less perceptible. Visible complexity will be characteristics like race, language, culture, or class. Less visible might include generational, ideological, or religious aspects. Whether visible or obscure, each church has a unique cultural context in which to minister.

The likelihood is that most metropolitan churches are already ministering in communities where the majority of people living there are different in some way from those attending the church. This prospect raises the question, “How does the church cope with other?”

Whatever the mixture or the percentage of complex culture, each church needs to discover several things. First of all, “What is the make-up and size of the complexity in your church’s community?” Secondly, “What are the needs your church might be able to meet?” And finally, “Will your church reach out to them?”[1]

Other questions we can ask are, “How do people cope with large numbers of people who are different?” “How are people able to navigate and remain oriented in complex culture?”

Lyn Lofland, an expert in dealing with issues surrounding “same—other,” suggests that we can learn to cope with large numbers of strangers by identifying the differences between us, while being respectful of other people.[2] There are several strategies people use to cope with their perception of “other.”

1.      One of the first ways people deal with the “other” they experience is to observe appearance, or how people look. For example, Roman citizens wore white togas. Purple in Europe has been the color of royals; professors and lawyers (along with wigs) wore unique robes. Today, professionals like priests, nurses, bus drivers wear occupation specific uniforms. Business executives wear dark suits. College professors often wear tweed jackets, slacks with a loose or an absent tie, and professional women often wear suits.

In complex culture the variety becomes so great and the appearance so varied that one can come to false conclusions. One example is that many people mistakenly consider Sikhs to be Muslims because they wear turbans.

2.   A second way people attempt to cope with “other” is by considering where they see someone they do not know—or place. Young people on a campus can often be assumed to be students. People dressed in suits in an office district are presumed to be business people. One negative example of this, African-Americans driving cars in predominantly white areas are often stopped by the police, because it is assumed they are not in the right place (DWB—driving while black). Most people tend to keep to places where they feel safe.

3.   If appearance does not let us know, or geography tips us off, a third possibility of coping with strangers is personal interaction; ask social class questions. For example, when a visitor comes into our church, their appearance may not help us. We know where they are, so some our first interaction is to ask the questions, "Where are you from?" "What do you do for a living?" or "Where do you go to school?"

If the church is a community, what should it look like?

What kind of a community is your church?

How do your people engage new people who visit your church? 

How does your church compare with the examples above?

Do you view your church as a community?

---

[1] A good resource to find answers to these and other questions, is “Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture,” by J. Timothy Kauffman.

[2] Lofland, Lyn. A World of Strangers. New Your: Basic Books, 1973, p. 45.

Jacob Loewen's Insider-Outsider Model

Another aspect of dealing with “Same—Other” can be understood in how others perceive us. This concern is particularly significant for the Church as communities experience increasing percentages of complexity. One tool that helps us to understand the dynamics involved is the “Insider-Outsider” model by Jacob Loewen.[1]  The design is the intersection of two axes which form four quadrants (see figure). Each quadrant describes how a person or group is perceived and/or received   in a particular environment. It can be used in many situations when a person or group enters a new situation, or when new dynamics are at play in an older situation. The process can go in either direction. The possibilities for the use of this model are almost endless:

•    A new neighborhood

•    A new job

•    A new school

•    A new congregation or pastor

•    A church attempting to reconnect with its community, etc.

This model is also useful in assessing the attitude of the community. What is our church’s reputation in this community? What have we been doing or not doing to earn this reputation? How can we improve our standing?

Ask how the people they know feel about the Church in general. Ask about your Church’s reputation in the community. After they tell you, ask yourself in which of Loewen’s quadrants your church is located? Ask what more you and your church can do better to serve the community.

The Vertical Axis

The vertical axis is the cooperator-competitor continuum. The question is, “Does this person or group cooperate or compete with the community (context)?” “What is our standing with the community and what needs to happen to improve it?”

•    A reputation needs to be worked on

•    People to be worked with

•    Values to be adhered to

•    Tasks to be done,

•    Relationships to be developed

The question is: “Does this person cooperate or compete with us, our purpose, and our values?”

The model is dynamic. Each individual or group is placed anywhere along the continuum, based on whether that person or a church is competing or cooperating with them and their needs. Using interviews, we can learn the needs and views of the context. As the picture becomes clearer, what is needed to access a more advantageous position becomes more apparent.

The Horizontal Axis

The horizontal axis measures the insider-outsider component of the model. It seems to be fairly straightforward to plot someone either as an insider or an outsider.

A few questions help to clarify. “Do the people of your church live in the community?” “Is the demographics of the community reflected in the church membership and leadership?” “Is the church actively involved in meeting the needs of the community?” The answers to these questions alone will tell you a great deal about where on the insider-outsider axis your church resides.

I have been in situations where I knew I would always be considered an outsider based on who I am. You have been there as well. The question then is what can you do to get as close as possible to being considered an “honorary” insider? As you work on it, you may be surprised by the results.

People who are normally insiders can become outsiders. For example: Roman Catholics who are excommunicated; or family members who are disinherited. Contexts are constantly changing. Churches that have been in a community for fifty or one hundred years must keep their fingers on the pulse and the needs of their community.

Each of the Quadrants

Your church will be found somewhere in one of Loewen’s quadrants. The church found in the lower right quadrant is seen as both an outsider and a competitor. Of this church it is said, “It does not belong here and must be avoided.” The Church in this quadrant, whether knowingly or not, will probably have no involvement in the community. Justified or not, it will also be considered to possess attitudes or values which are in competition with the community.

One example is when a community’s demographics are changing and most church members move out. And the church does nothing to minister to the community’s new make-up.

In the second quadrant, the Church is considered an insider-competitor. People say, “This church may belong to our community, but it cannot be trusted.” This church has often been in the community for a long time. However, for some reason, it has not given the community enough reason to trust it.

The third quadrant declares, “This church may not be from here, but it has our interests at heart.” A scenario of a church in this quadrant would be one that has at least begun to reconnect by asking the community how it can serve their needs.

Finally, the upper left-hand quadrant is where it is said, “They belong to the community, and can be trusted.” This is the quadrant where the Church should aspire to be found. In this scenario, the Church is not only cooperating with the community but the community is cooperating with the church.

The church in this quadrant has been discovering community needs and serving its people. This church has reconnected with the community and is in the best quadrant.

The life-applications of Loewen’s model are almost limitless, particularly in the complex culture of the workplace or the community.

•    How your new colleagues see you when you start a new job.

•    How the members of a church evaluate their new pastor.

•    How another culture sees us when we attempt to minister cross-culturally.

•    How the general public views and feels about the Church in general and/or your church in particular.

Without knowing how it is perceived in the community, the Church will find it exceedingly difficult to know where it should begin reconnecting.

How does your church perceive its community? Why?

Do you know how your community perceives your church?

For more information and practical projects you can do to discover the make-up of the complex culture in your community, I would refer you to: Kauffman, J. Timothy. Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris, 2010. It can be purchased at Amazon.com, Barnes&Noble.com, the iBooks Store, and Xlibris.com; it is also in Kindle and Nook format. Check it out.

---

[1] Adapted from Kauffman, J. Timothy. “Reconnecting the Church: Finding Our Place in Complex Culture,” Bloomington, IL: Xlibris. 2010, pp. 164-169.

What is a Community? Understanding Same-Other

The form and significance of community in current social life is still a topic of some discussion. Suzanne Keller and Claude Fischer have proposed that urban neighborhoods serve only minimal function.[i]

Weber submits that the modern urbanite can have "community without propinquity" [nearness]. One example of understanding community without nearness, in our contemporary cultural context, would be virtual relationships—available in cyberspace.

CATEGORIES OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES

Neighborhoods are not all the same. They are impacted by geography, threats from without and within, size, cultural composition, and a whole host of other concerns. For these and other reasons, communities have varying degrees of commitment to their residents, and visa-versa. They range from extremely protective, to communities in name only. Keller and Fischer speak of four types of communities:

1.   The Defended Community – When local residents feel threatened by external change, the community bands together in order to defend itself. The desired outcome is for the community members to feel protected and secure. Examples of such defensive postures are: neighborhood watches, blocked-off streets, and gated communities.

2.   The Community of Limited Liability – The term “limited liability” calls attention to a voluntary and limited involvement of the residents in a local community. Local organizations and particularly local communities have a vested interest in maintaining the identity and boundaries of the community. For example, in Greater Boston, there are two regional newspapers. However, many of the local cities and towns have their own newspapers. Two of the major functions of local newspapers are to maintain the identity of, and communication with, the local communities.

3.   The Expanded Community of Limited Liability – An expanded community is larger and more spread out than the previous model. There is also much less real cohesion. There are many examples this phenomenon. In the Boston area one possibility would be the “Back Bay” or the “South End.” On Manhattan it would be “The Village” or “Bedford Stuyvesant.”

4.   Contrived or Conscious Communities – Often, in expanding populations, new communities of hundreds of houses are built by contractors who then name it. Ghettos will often have names. Condominium associations are also conscious communities. One thing they all have in common is that the boundaries are clear. With some exceptions, they tend to be generally homogeneous.

Each of these types of communities has its own identity, cultural makeup, attitudes, and its own set of rules to live by. It is the responsibility of each congregation to understand and find a way to minister to its community. The long-term survival of a local church is very dependent on its ability to find ways to minister meaningfully to its ever-changing community.

One way some churches respond to “other” is to defend themselves from any disturbing influence from outside. Another angle are churches that focus on programs that are designed to serve those already in the church. Such approaches can be characterized as being insular.

What kind of community do you live in?

What characteristics does it have?

Where is your church located?

Where do your congregants come from?

Do they have to cross community boundaries to worship?

If so, how comfortable are they?

---

[i] Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood, New York: Random House, 1968; and Claude Fischer, The Urban Experience, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich, 1976.

Guder - On the Missional Church

“… God’s mission is calling and sending us, the Church of Jesus Christ, to be a missionary church in our own societies, in the cultures in which we find ourselves. These cultures are no longer Christian; some would argue that they never were. … Neither the structures nor the theology of our established Western traditional churches is missional.”[i]

“But it has taken us decades to realize that mission is not just a program of the Church. It defines the Church as God’s sent people. Either we are defined by mission, or we reduce the scope of the gospel and the mandate of the Church. Thus our challenge today is to move from church with mission to missional church.”[ii]

 

---

[i] Guder, Darrell, ed. Missional Church: A Vision for Sending the Church in North America. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998, p. 5.

[ii] Ibid., p. 6.