Exploring How Community Cohesion Forms in Urban Church Plants Facing a Digital Context

Since the 1960s, religious participation has been on a decline in America (Putnam, 2000). Stetzer and Im (2016) advise that the most effective way for the Church to continue to grow is to start new churches. While many may think that church growth only benefits those inside the church, according to Putnam (2000), those who attend a religious service regularly are more likely to have personal, face-to-face encounters, engage in civic activities from social clubs to community projects to hosting parties to voting, as well as give more generously to religious and non-religious organizations. When the church engages in planting new churches it is investing not only in its own success but is also improving the greater community. However, with secularization increasing and our culture becoming known as the “post-Christian” era (James, 2019; Stetzer, 2018), our communities are also seeing an increase in social isolation and lack of social cohesion (James, 2019). New church plants will need an intentional leadership strategy to build community cohesion to not only grow the church but to also bring change to the city.

Background and Context

The city of Sammamish (2018), a smaller, affluent city just outside of Seattle, Washington conducted a health needs assessment and discovered that by the time public school students in Sammamish are in the 12th grade, 21% of students have considered suicide. “By providing an outlet to talk about important issues and a sense that someone is in their corner,” is one of the solutions presented to the community (City of Sammamish, 2018, p. 79). This may seem like an inexpensive and relatively easy thing that families and people in a city could do, but James (2019) refers to The Greater Seattle Civic Health Index which ranked Seattle, “Out of fifty-one similar U.S. communities, Greater Seattle ranked forty-eighth in frequency of residents’ talking to their neighbors and thirty-seventh in giving to and receiving favors from neighbors” (p. 28). When the general population struggles with social engagement what can a city do to fill this gap? It might be tempting to think that this problem is only within the Seattle area, but indicators like: 1) fast-growing communities with a transient population and increased gentrification; 2) progressive politics: LGBTQ lifestyles, legalization of marijuana, increase in social welfare; and 3) technological advancement and connectivity, suggest that Seattle is a benchmark for where other U.S. cities are headed (James, 2019).

Considering Putnam’s (2000) research on the impact churches have on social well-being, it seems that the church could fill the gap. The challenge within the church is that the churches that seem to be growing are also the kind of churches that has become more inward, where events are focusing more on the “congregation itself” (Putnam, 2000, p. 78). The challenge that church planters are facing is that the church has been marginalized by the community (Stetzer, 2016). Perhaps it is made irrelevant because the church is so inward that those outside of the church no longer see the point of church.

Problem Statement

The church’s inward focus is a symptom of what is happening within the urban culture. It would be foolish to ignore the impact that social media and other digital connections have on our community’s cohesion. Although the hope is that people are transformed by their faith, it cannot be a surprise when the church begins to conform to the same challenges within the community (Rom. 12:1-2). Over a billion people in the world are using social network sites (SNS) to connect with one another, so it seems relevant to consider the context that people are living in on a daily basis (Aharony, 2016; Hootsuite, 2019). The complexity that exists in a community demands that church planters see the whole picture while also noting their part in the process. This is a systems-thinking approach to creating communities (Senge, 1990; Senge, 2004). Senge (1990) advances the systems thinking perspective by elevating the idea that individuals are wholes, that make up a part of another whole. After all, it seems that this is the mission of the gospel, Jesus came to fulfill what the law could not do (Rom. 8:3-10)—bring wholeness to the world. Gerkins (1993) Quadrilateral Schema presents how the changing culture impacts the functions of the church’s traditions, cultural context, the community, and individual/families. When it comes to caring for our communities, church planters should consider how influences in one of these areas are like leverages that create movement within the system, positive or negative (Senge, 1990).

Research Question.

The question that this research addressed is: how do urban church plant systems develop a cohesive community in a digitally connected culture? It examines three urban church plants in the north/northwest cities of the U.S. to find similarities and differences in church planting models and the impact they have on community cohesion in a digital context. The operational definition of community cohesion is taken from Dr. Anna Ruddick (2017) UK case study, “Cohesion occurs when people who are ‘other’ to one another become involved in a relationship consisting of the exploration of worldviews and find a degree of shared language and mutual respect together” (p. 8).

Assumption, Delimitation, and Limitation

Urban church plants are the subject of this research because the United Nations predicts that 90% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas (un.org, 2014). To clarify, urban does not mean inner-city or major metropolitan area; the U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) defines urban as 2,500 people within the identified area. The phrase digital context is very broad and complex. For this project, the research will primarily consider the main Facebook and Instagram pages of the church plants. While understanding how email and texting have impacted relationships would be interesting, these forms of communication are beyond the time limit and scope of this research project.

Project Researcher Identification

My name is Amy Crissman, a student of Life Pacific University Adult and Graduate Studies. The personal interest that I have in this research is that after graduation, I intend to plant a church near Issaquah, Washington, a city within the greater Seattle area. The hope is that through this research that any emerging church planter can gain insight into how a new community forms so that more people’s lives can be changed by Jesus. This project is a requirement for graduation in the Master of Arts Strategic Leadership (MASL) program.

Need for Community

According to Rock’s (2008) study, the need for quality social relationships is as important to a person as our basic human need for water and food. A lack of perceived quality relationships leads to a feeling of isolation and loneliness (Segrin, Burke, & Badger, 2016). Research indicates that approximately 35% of the American population struggle with loneliness and 40% have dealt with loneliness for 6 years or longer. Loneliness creates a feeling of distress which for most individuals motivates them to meet this need through reengagement with connection and reconnection (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; Segrin, Burke, & Badger, 2016). While some loneliness might be a result of perspectives influenced by a person’s mental health and not just a lack of relationships (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010), when controlling for mental health factors like depression, the impact of loneliness was still a factor for higher risk of cardiovascular, cancer, and diabetes health complications and an increased stress response (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010; Segrin, Burke, & Badger, 2016).

Adolescence seems to be particularly affected by loneliness (City of Sammamish, 2018; Gentina, Shrum, & Lowrey, 2016). Gentina et al (2016) discovered a relationship between loneliness in adolescents and unethical behavior. One of the counters to preventing unethical behavior in adolescents who struggle with loneliness is learning positive coping mechanisms (Gentina et al, 2016). Gentina et al (2016) define positive coping mechanisms as activities that directly solve the feeling of being lonely, such as pursuing reconnection with others through the sharing of possessions. Where negative coping mechanisms would be isolating and avoidance responses to loneliness, such as acquiring possessions instead (Gentina et al, 2016). Perhaps the research presented by Rock (2008), that the amygdala, where the human brain regulates how it will respond to a threat—to avoid or to approach—or as some say, “fight or flight,” provides an answer to why some adolescents confront their loneliness directly and others avoid loneliness and mask it through distractions.

Considering these neurological challenges that also manifest within organizations, Rock (2008) developed five domains of human social experience: Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness (SCARF). Rock (2008) proposed that using a model like SCARF can help communities develop a framework for labeling and reappraisal to help the brain respond to situations more effectively and reduce the threat response. Webster-Merriam.com defines community under three different meanings: 1) “a unified body of individuals,” 2) “a social state or condition,” and 3) “society at large,” (2019). The kind of community or social connection that is that of a unified body of individuals and social state is how the researcher will relate to the word community, also stated as a “sense of community” (Webster-Merriam, 2019).

The phrase community cohesion is developed through the conceptual umbrella term social cohesion. Social cohesion is related to terms like social capital and social inclusion is that there is more than one way to look at them (Cloete, 2014; Oxoby, 2009; Putnam, 2000; Schiefer, & van der Noll, 2017). Oxoby (2009) developed the study, Understanding Social Inclusion, Social Cohesion, and Social Capital, with the goal of developing “a taxonomy of these concepts that allows us to disentangle their effects in economics and social realms” (p. 1134). While Putnam’s (2000) use of social capital seemed to embrace a combination of social capital and social cohesion, Oxoby (2007) distinguished Dayton-Johnson’s from Putnam’s and concluded that “social cohesion affects the incentives to invest in social capital by increasing the return to these investments and reducing the associated uncertainty” (p. 1137). His perspective embraces the concepts behind social capital and social cohesion through a macroeconomic view. Yet, Oxoby (2009) makes a strong point that communities should not just measure productivity to determine whether a community is cohesive but should also measure altruism by considering those individuals who may be the least of us and whether those who are outliers are finding inclusion.

| Social capital.

Cloete (2014) notes that social capital is one of the key elements to social cohesion. Putnam’s (2000) book Bowling Alone emphasizes social capital’s influence on social change in America. Summarizing Putnam’s (2000) detailed account, social capital is both a public and a private good that is developed through the connections of individuals in social networks with the fruit of these connections being known as reciprocity and trustworthiness (p. 19-20). There are two kinds of forces that are at work in social capital (Putnam, 2000). The first one is bridging capital, a sense in how a network reaches out toward the greater community, the third definition of community provided by Merriam-webster.com, to create inclusion. Then there is bonding capital which is the glue that holds the group together. The balance of these forces determines the impact it has on those in the network as well as those that are outside of the network (Putnam, 2000). This tension in bridging and bonding is what spurs either positive community characteristics like “mutual support, cooperation, and trust” (p. 22) or the dark side, which manifests as “sectarianism, ethnocentrism, corruption” (p. 22). Putnam (2000) also divides individuals into two different types, machers and schmoozers. The machers are the kind of individuals who participate in social networks through more formal institutions and organizations like schools and non-profits—usually the affluent and employed fit in this category. Whereas the schmoozers have a more informal approach where they invite people into their home for a card game or go for a walk with some friends. Putnam (2000) suggests that it is the balance between the two that can do the most good at increasing social capital in communities and networks. The recommendation is that if individuals could engage in social activities whether informally or formally more frequently, they would be better off. Yet, it seems that just like adolescents are challenged with coping with loneliness (Gentina et al, 2016), adult individuals also struggle at connecting with others (Putnam, 2000). Often the barriers seem to be related to economic status of affluent or poor communities (Putnam, 2000; Schultz, 2002). While an individual can participate in social networks and thus increase social capital there first has to be an opportunity within the current system to allow them to participate (Schulz, 2002). People in poverty can be rejected by the mainstream systems, thus reducing their perception of social capital which then reduces the opportunity for cohesion to occur (Oxoby, 2009; Schulz, 2002). Social capital in economic terms can also be a good that can be experienced by individuals even though those particular individuals did not invest in the development of social capital (Cloete, 2014; Putnam, 2000).

Challengers to Putnam’s individualistic perspective on social capital critique his lack of awareness of the structural elements that create opportunities for social capital to function (McLean, Schultz, & Steger, 2002). McLean et al (2002) compiled critiques against Putnam’s (2000) Bowling Alone, and questioned whether volunteerism and community involvement just shifted to different constructs and did not actually diminish as Putnam concluded. While Putnam (2000) presents statistical evidence that volunteerism and civic involvement are important ingredients to creating social capital, the objection that many ask are that in order for someone to have any initial interest in volunteerism a person would first need to have positive social capital (Crothers, 2002; Schultz, 2002). The tension to spur more social capital then lies in the tension that exists between individualism and collective perspectives.

Beilmann and Realo (2012) developed a research project to explore this particular area of social capital: Does individualism have a negative impact on social capital? One interesting note to consider is that Beilmann and Realo (2012) were aware from a national level that individualism had a positive effect on social capital because nations that were more individualistic had higher levels of social capital. Yet, no research had ever examined social capital at an individual level. In the research, Beilmann and Realo (2012) reduced each concept, individualism and collectivism, down to three core themes respectively: autonomy, mature self-responsibility, and uniqueness; familism, peers, and society. Then they correlated the themes to questions regarding trust, honesty, volunteerism, etc. Beilmann and Realo (2012) discovered that mature self-responsibility was the only tested component of individualism that seemed to increase social capital, unlike autonomy and uniqueness, which did not foster more trusting relationships. In collectivism, familism had a negative impact on social capital while the other two components of collectivism promoted social capital: “social capital increases as the radius of trust widens to encompass people outside the immediate family and other kinfolk alone” (p. 214).

The individualistic tendencies were part of Putnam’s (2000) concerns as he linked the decline in society in America to a downward spiral of less civic engagement and more isolated activities like watching television. Crothers (2002) pokes at Putnam’s (2000) concern and asks, why did Putnam not offer any real solution to the problem? Putnam (2000) does present the tension that as private citizens we may desire a more flourishing community, but that there needs to be a resurgence among many—it needs to be more than just one person to create the group (p. 403).

Putnam (2000) underscores the importance of mass communication and the Internet’s role in helping the current culture to become more community oriented and less isolated when enjoying entertainment. He suggests that Internet use should move towards fostering community and togetherness (Putnam, 2000, p. 410). What Crothers (2002) meant in her critique is that social capital cannot be changed at such a macro view of social capital. Institutional and organizational involvement cannot have an impact on the culture except that there are leaders who are creating opportunities for social engagement and building of social capital (Crothers, 2002). She points out that someone has to do the inviting and buying the food (Crothers, 2002).

Crothers (2002) developed a street-level leadership model based on Burns transformational and transactional leadership theories as applied to how police departments empower their officers on the street to use discretion as it impacts outcome and process. An understanding that leaders need to empower those they are trying to lead while considering the maturity of the people involved built into the leadership model will allow those serving the public to have full discretion over process and results (Crothers, 2002). However, in Crothers (2002) discussion, even when community leaders are empowered over both outcome and process there will always be groups within the community that feel undervalued and not considered in policies and procedures. Ed Stetzer (Stetzer & Im, 2016) highlights this concept through the story in Acts 4 when the Hellenist widows were not treated fairly with daily rations. One of the suggestions that Crothers (2002) suggests that as decisions are made and a recapitalization is taking place there needs to be “an awareness to values, norms, and conflicts that shape their work” (p. 236).

| Social Cohesion.

While social cohesion rests heavily on the accumulation of social capital (Oxoby, 2009), the concept seems to entail much more than that (Oxoby, 2009; Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017). Schiefer and van der Noll (2017) did an exhaustive literature review on social cohesion and while the exactness of the concept of social cohesion is largely unclear, it is still a valuable concept used in shaping and adapting policies to address changes within society such as globalization and diversity. Social cohesion has a multidimensional construct in that it is seen in macro (institutional/national), meso (smaller communities and groups), and micro (individual attitudes)—but is also seen as an individual behavior by-product in response to changes happening within the larger social dynamics like government authorities or increase and/or lack of social order (Schiefer & van der Noll, 2017, p. 583). Abbott and Wallace (2011) consider social cohesion as one of four characteristics that determine social quality, and determined that frequency of social interaction with friends and relatives, and how individuals responded to civic duties like voting, as key factors in determining levels of social cohesion. The approach that Schiefer and van der Noll (2017) took to make social cohesion measurable was to develop six common dimensions: Social relations, identification, orientation towards the common good, shared values, quality of life, and (in)equality. Talò, Mannarini, and Rochira (2014) highlight that a sense of community is part of the make-up of social cohesion, but it is hard to measure what the direct influences are.

As stated in the introduction, Putnam (2000) provides compelling evidence that church involvement benefits social capital within the greater community in significant ways. Similarly, a study from Australia just came out this year that fills a large gap in understanding how social capital is created within congregations (Pepper, Powell, & Bouma, 2019). Australia is becoming more and more non-religiously affiliated in the most recent years and continues to rank as one of the most diverse nations in the world (Pepper et al, 2019). Pepper et al (2019) also commented that there does not seem to be a universal definition of social cohesion, but cited a social cohesion definition from Bouma and Ling (2007), “social cohesion refers quite simply to the capacity of a society or a group to so organize its resources and people to produce what it needs to sustain and reproduce itself” (p. 2). The purpose of Pepper et al (2019) research project was to test their hypothesis that churchgoers would experience higher levels of Putnam’s (2000) concepts of bridging and bonding found in social capital. While belonging was high for both categories of society, 96% of churchgoers reported a sense of belonging while only 84% of Australians did. One factor of social cohesion is that those who are marginalized will be more welcomed into the mainstream, which 66% of churchgoers were more likely than the 41% of Australians to accept migrants from many different countries. The list continues along almost all categories of social cohesion to be more positive among churchgoers than Australians in general. The churchgoers bond presents “adherence to the status quo” which creates agitation over concerns of climate change, because of reinforced bias. Pepper et al (2019) and Putnam (2000) present compelling evidence of the impact church involvement has on the macro view of social cohesion.

| Community Cohesion.

Considering the multidimensional nature of social cohesion, community cohesion and team cohesion are other dimensions that are necessary for understanding how community cohesion is established in urban church plants. Referring back to Ruddick’s (2017) operational definition of community cohesion, this definition was developed in response to a request from The Casey Review to make sense of why after fifteen years of attempts to build community cohesion in marginalized communities so that they could gain access to the many benefits of British life.

Ruddick (2017) emphasizes that community cohesion is created through intentional interactions between individuals to make room for changing worldviews, which happens in structures that are designed for sharing stories and relationship. The idea is that cohesion emerges from the ground up (Ruddick, 2017), much like Crothers (2002) identifies in her street-level analysis. One factor that impacts the sharing of stories is through the reshaping of meaning-systems of all involved (Ruddick, 2017).

| Systems Thinking Within Community Cohesion.

Senge (1990) says that “the nature of structure in human systems is subtle because we are part of the structure. This means that we often have the power to alter structures within which we are operating” (p. 44). Systems thinking found in Senge’s (1990) work can be applied in Ruddick’s discoveries of community cohesion between the Eden Network Christian ministry and a socially marginalized community in Britain. Using systems thinking allows people to see the interrelationships between different parts and how they make up the whole (Senge, 1990). Community cohesion is the process of people of diverse backgrounds and worldviews to join together with a shared reality and future which forms into a wholeness—mutual care for one another (Ruddick, 2017).

The reshaping of meaning-systems requires what Senge (1990) would refer to as a shift of mind—the willingness to be a learner and understand what is influencing the current outcomes. This gives room to understand the current structures and what leverages exist with the structure than can bring change and alter the outcome (Senge, 1990). With community systems, Ruddick (2017) illustrates how the structure within the church through programs actually becomes a hindrance to the process of community cohesion. A holistic view of a community should begin to see that the community has the resources within itself. Instead, often Christians attempt to fulfill the social welfare gaps in a community through needs-based programs which instill the idea of the church as the provider and the community is the client (Ruddick, 2017, p. 6). Yet, it is in these programs where the Christians often hide themselves to avoid seeing the dark side of their worldviews and being vulnerable as they acknowledge the gap of shared meaning (Ruddick, 2017).

Senge (1990) presents core disciplines that aid in the learning process of the fifth discipline—systems thinking: personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, and team learning. Without a change in approach, community cohesion will not be able to form between the church and the community they are wanting to serve (Ruddick, 2017). The problems continue to be about them, instead of being about us (Ruddick, 2015). Personal mastery uncovers the role that the individuals can play within the system and the importance of living with the tension between current reality and the personal vision that an individual has (Senge, 1990). Ruddick (2017) presents the importance of developing a shared reality that shifts the ownership of the other’s burden onto the whole community which invites an inward acknowledgment that there is a need for personal change to develop empathy for the other’s worldview. Ruddick’s meaning-systems run a parallel concept to Senge’s (1990) work regarding mental models as well as forming a shared vision. Rockwell (2011) says it simply, “Mental models are all we have to make sense of reality” (p. 13). Each person has an understanding of how the world works. When Christians step into another’s world, there needs to be a willingness to become self-aware of one’s own understanding of how the world works and how it may differ from the one, we are caring for.

The solution that Ruddick (2017) presents is a similar concept to what Putnam (2000) presents—the need for informal alongside the formal side of ministry. First, there needs to be informal activity where the Christian just sits and gets to know the people in the community. It is in this place where an understanding of each other’s reality and any inequality that exists is acknowledged so that the burden can be shared (Ruddick, 2017). Family systems are one way of understanding how social systems work. For example as one symptom of anxiety is experienced in one member can cause that person to defer to the other and then the group is weakened because cognitive clarity is diminished (Rockwell, 2011, p. 29). Rockwell (2011) suggests that those who want to be the change-agent in the system need to be able to self-differentiate through emotional maturity to see the influences that are creating misalignment in reality or shared vision.

One of the dangers of bonding social capital is the concern of a group losing its identity and the desire to hold onto boundaries to maintain a certain kind of identity (Putnam, 2000; Ruddick, 2017). Team learning prevents this kind of cohesion, which can also be known as groupthink, because it engages a reflective inquiry that invites dialogue of ideas before decisive discussions take place (Senge, 1990). To engage in these core disciplines, it is important to suspend or become aware of assumptions (Senge, 1990). The recommendation that Senge (1990) suggests is for learners to slow down their internal thinking so that they can become aware of the assumptions before they become facts. Both Ruddick (2017) and Rockwell (2011) state that as systems learns together or community cohesion begins to form, it causes each member to be willing to change and form a mutual care for one another which can be a painful process.

Church Planting Teams. The training materials for the Northwest District (NWD) church planting cohort of The International Church of the Foursquare Gospel presented the purpose of church based on Lesslie Newbigin work A Word in Season stating that “the church exists to bring the whole gospel to the whole world by being a whole people” (personal collection, p. 4). According to Stetzer and Im (2016), church planting is a valid tool of evangelism and reaches “more people per capita” (loc. 345), so the purpose and importance of church planting should be emphasized. Scripture creates a divine picture of community cohesion. Ephesians 4:15-16 defines the church as a body with Jesus at the head, “from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped, when each part is working properly, makes the body grow so that it builds itself up in love” (Eph. 4:16 ESV). Ruddick (2017) highlights that as Christians operate in a cohesive community, it is connecting with the missio Dei—participating in the purpose and work of God through the understanding of incarnational attributes and that God’s Spirit was already at work in the community.

The praxis of community cohesion in church planting begins with teams (Stetzer & Im, 2014). A team is a group of people who are deeply committed to a shared vision and are accountable to one another for attaining the purpose (Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson, 2018). Ivancevich et al (2018) acknowledges that as a group of people becomes a team, it will go through developmental stages: forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning. Leaders who can navigate these stages and understand how to navigate conflict, storming, can create cohesion (Ivancevich et al, 2018). Stetzer (Stetzer & Im, 2016) advises that one of the most important steps in church planting is to establish the structure through vision, mission, and a leadership model that is biblically-based. When structure is stable it gives clarity of the shared vision so that when persons on the team have a misaligned personal vision, the church plant can keep the team focused on the vision and purpose (Stetzer & Im, 2016). Sometimes this process will force the church planter to ask a member on the team to step off of the team (Stetzer & Im, 2016). James (2019) examines church planting in the city of Seattle, which ranks low in social cohesion, and the model that seems to address the need for community is the Neighborhood Incarnation model that emphasizes human-to-human connection and intentionally avoids using social media as a way to connect with the neighborhood. This model uses an approach of listening and learning from the people who live near the church to hear what is needed so that the church’s mission can embody Christ to fulfill those needs (James, 2019).

Although the Neighborhood Incarnation (NI) model does not directly engage online or in a digital format to reach the community (James, 2019), NI Churches seemed to make an intentional decision as how to respond to the digital context that their members are submerged in (James, 2019). It is important that when defining social cohesion to consider the context (Pepper et al, 2019). According to Hootsuite (2019) 82% of the US population is living in urbanization, 106% has a mobile subscription, 95% of those in the US have access to the Internet, 70% of them are active social media users with 61% accessing social media via their mobile phones. The average daily time spent on the Internet averages 6 hours with 2 of those hours spent on social media (Hootsuite, 2019). In addition to mobile use, approximately $19 billion dollars has been spent on mobile phones in 2018 (Hootsuite, 2019). Online giving continues to go up, in 2012 $19.2 billion dollars was given online and in 2017 that increased to $31 billion in 2017 (Nonprofits Source, 2019). Nonprofit Source (2019) says that 55% of those who engage on social media with a nonprofit end up taking action: 59% end up giving while 53% volunteer and 15% will choose to create a local community event for the organization. According to Nonprofit Source (2019), mobile online giving increased 204% in the past year.

More specifically regarding SNS, Aharony (2016) developed a research project that analyzed how relational attachment, social capital paradigm, and personality impacts an individual’s self-disclosure while on Facebook. The understanding of how social media impacts relationships within a particular community was the purpose behind Gruzd and Haythornthwaite’s (2013) research. Putnam’s (2000) concept of bonding and bridging capital were used in both Aharony’s (2016) and Gruzd and Haythornthwaite (2013) social media research projects. Aharony (2016) used age and gender as predictors plus attachment personality attributes insecure, openness, extroversion and bridging, as well as number of friends, time, frequency, and importance of Facebook usage. The research showed that the more insecurity an individual has, the more Facebook bridging capital that the user experienced (Aharony, 2016). Gruzd and Haythornthwaite (2013) highlight a different dynamic of social exchange: weak and strong social ties and how these kinds of ties on social media benefit or harm a community.

This research analyzed the twitter communication used by Health Care Social Media Canada (HCSMCA) under the #hcsmca. The findings in Gruzd and Haythornthwaite’s (2013) analysis is that the presence of a few strong contributors plus a number of active members who can be active in a discussion can indicate a strong online community (p. 6). A recommendation that came out of this research is that those who are moderating and leading posts on Twitter should make an effort to participate in other moderator’s posts—a reciprocating behavior (Gruzd & Haythornthwaite, 2013). An interesting factor discovered in this research is that those who are active in one online community are active in others as well—in-degree centrality (Gruzd & Haythornthwaite, 2013). Then there are members who are consider as out-degree centrality, where their posts are retweets of other participants. While many expressed concerns of the lack of emotional feedback through an online community compared to face-to-face community, many users found a way around the constraint (Gruzd & Haythornthwaite, 2013). Another discovery is that communication online reduced inhibition so users tended to share more online about their health than they may have in person (Gruzd & Haythornthwaite, 2013).

Online inhibition is also an important finding in Aharony’s (2016) research, users who rated high in openness and extroversion actually increased their levels of openness when interacting online. Self-disclosure on Facebook also increased as users experience more bridging social capital. Ahorony (2016) suggest that those who have more “weak-ties” actually create more bridging social capital because it is often through acquaintences that people can create business and social connections. Users who had more openness to new experiences did not necessarily disclose more personal information (Ahorony, 2016). Self-disclosure at times benefited the users, but some users were more at-risk when they disclosed information about themselves (Ahorony,2016).

Jason Chan (2017) develop a study that researched college students and the impact that racial content can have on them. Race and ethnic diversity are an area that can interrupt social capital (Putnam, 2000; Schultz, 2002). The theoretical framework that Chan (2017) used is symbolic interactionism that indicates how individuals assign meaning to objects and how that informs an individual’s beliefs. Participants in this finding for the majority grew up in areas of diversity and have a positive identity to their race (Chan, 2017). Chan (2017) states that this study reinforced the hypothesis that social media impacts “notion of ‘self as object’ (Blumer, 1969)” (p. 171). Often, students would take into account what their posts might imply to those of different racial backgrounds; they were concerned with how the content may be reinterpreted differently than originally intended (Chan, 2017). Online social media challenges how students perceived their own racial identity when they would compare their life with the kind of images found on social media (Chan, 2017). Chan (2017) suggests that academic communities could take a more active approach in addressing racial identity through social media by developing discussions which would increase students’ confidence in knowing how to talk about race.

Understanding how churches create cohesion through bridging and bonding social capital could help advance the impact new churches can have on society. One search result came up in the Worldcat.org catalog that addressed this question. Leonard and Bellamy (2015) looked into the bonding force of cohesion within Australian congregations. Five factors were used to analyze characteristics of bonding capital: participation in activities, personal connections and relationships, collective agency, unity, and homogeneity (Leonard & Bellamy, 2015). Of the five, Leonard and Bellamy (2015) reported three were correlated to bonding capital: “Collective Agency, Congregational Unity and Personal Connections” (p. 1060). And of these three, Collective Agency had the most significant impact on the sense of belonging within the members, which also suggested “the achievement of goals and the pursuit of a vision are key ingredients to a rich congregational life apart from how attendees treat one another and care for each other” (p. 1061). Talò, Mannarini, and Rochira (2014) highlight that a sense of community is part of the make-up of social cohesion, but it is hard to measure what the direct influences are.

Crothers (2002) research on street-level cohesion and the recommendation of street-level leadership should make room for outcome (transformational) and process (situational) discretion. Crothers (2002) also suggests value-based discretion will need to be implemented, which cannot be prescribed as a one-size-fits-all approach. Yet, in a diverse community, what can an organization practically do to build cohesive efforts towards unifying values so that the discretion used in decision making develops the right kind of culture where social capital/cohesion can grow.

Putnam (2000) gives advice for the many sectors that impact civic engagement and influence on the American people, but like Crothers (2002) points out, the people need leadership to create a space for civic engagement, as well as formal and informal social opportunities. The ability to transcend social identities with people that are different then one’s self could increase bridging capital.

Neuroscience in Leadership.

Change in worldviews or behavior will create pain (Rock & Schwartz, 2007; Ruddick, 2017; Senge, 1990). Understanding neuroscience in any leadership theory is important when leading people toward cohesion in diverse environments. Rock and Schwartz (2007) present how our brains are constantly trying to conserve energy through “long-standing habit” and routinization of our behavior (p. 11). When the brain flags new ideas, products, or different worldviews, the brain will then produce a lot of energy to warn the person that something is wrong, which activates our fear instinct which invokes the person to either approach the error or to avoid it (Rock, 2008). Fear signals that something is wrong when embracing something new or different can be difficult to overpower because our human nature is to fix it (Rock & Schwartz, 2007). Remaining the same and not changing may reduce that sense of fear quicker rather than embracing that fear, which can be interpreted as pain (Rock & Schwartz, 2007).

The anxiety that comes when embracing new worldviews has a similar neurological effect as when businesses attempt to introduce a new product or brand on the market (Gourville, 2006). Gourville (2006) uses Rogers’ Five Factors of innovation diffusion to create a framework for how to attract and diffuse the interest of the early adopters toward the majority, whether it is accepting people who are different than themselves or accepting new products. When the culture of an organization is to learn and learning is valued, then the people within the organization will also fall down the curve toward early adopters quicker, because the gap of adopting will not be as fearful (Senge, 2004).

A learning organization did not just start with Senge (1990), but in the mid-seventies and early eighties, Argris and Schlön (Anderson, 1994; Greenwood, 1997). The research was to understand how to bridge the gap between the theories-in-use and the espoused theories within individuals and organizations (Anderson, 1994; Greenwood, 1997). The research discovered the importance of creating a feedback loop, single-, double-, and then triple-loop learning, which caused individuals to slow down their comprehension of a situation and suspend their assumptions and mental models. Greenwood (1997) points out in a review of Argris and Schlön that it requires a safe space for individuals to be vulnerable with an internal desire to appear competent because the fear of showing weakness could mean also not being accepted into the group. Intentional leadership needs to create an organization where this kind of learning and feedback can take place.

Transformational, Servant and Postheroic Leadership.

Senge (1990, 1994) suggests that the traditional, heroic, leadership style that most American organizations operate under will not provide the kind of structure needed for learning—being a system thinker. As long as the hero mindset is intact, it will stifle self-learning teams and individuals leading through influence. The dyadic structure of organizational leadership needs to take on a more shared, horizontal, relational leadership theory approach versus the vertical leadership of leader/follower (Uhl-bien, 2006).

One of the challenges that postheroic leadership faces is that leaders cannot escape “doing-leadership” through their given gender or ethnicity (Fletcher, 2004). When a female leader attempts to lead through postheroic and cohesive manners like mutuality or reciprocation often the conceptualization of this kind of leadership looks more like “mothering” which can reduce the female’s leadership impact on the group (Fletcher, 2004). Acknowledging power dynamics and mental models of how leadership is perceived needs to be part of the disciplines of a learning organization (Fletcher, 2004; Senge, 1990).

Theological Perspective

Apostle Paul’s description of the body of Christ, where those who believe are all connected together to incarnate the mission of God in our world emphasizes the need for churches to be cohesive with a shared vision, learning and growing together (Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 3:6 and 5:23). Clinton (2005) creates a model of living together as Christians—a constellation of mentors. This framework communicates the need that each person should live in a community where they have one or two people that can model and give guidance, a number of people that the individual can teach and mentor, and the peers on the side where some are Christian and some are not (Clinton, 2005). When the body of Christ can embrace the differing kinds of relationships with humility and patience then it can begin to walk out the numerous “one anothers” that is found in scripture. Stanley (Clinton, 2005; Stanley & Clinton, 1992) shares an exchange that he had with a psychologist that if the body of Christ was more persistent with living out the “one another” commands in scripture then he would lose close to 90% of his clients. Some of the verses of one another’s that Stanley and Clinton (2009) are referring to are: love one another as Christ loved His disciples (John 13:34-35; 1 John 3:11), restore (Galatians 6:1-2), build up (2 Thessalonians 5:11), and forgive (Colossians 3:13). Stanley and Clinton (1992) note that most Christians lack meaningful peer relationships because of fear and pride. A learning culture that is more willing to approach differences within the community and be open to people with differing worldviews without a defensive response can more easily honor these Christian duties (Greenwood, 1997; Senge, 1990).

When Jesus gave what is known as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5:1-7:15, the gap between what the Kingdom of God was intended to be and the way in which the Jewish communities responded to earthly kingdoms was night and day different. The approach that Jesus took to bridge the learning gap for his new followers took on similar principles that Senge (1990) uses. As a church planter going into a community where the people will have a different worldview, there needs to be a strategy to know how to help bridge the learning gap like Jesus did. Jesus’ approach to symbolize the highly esteemed Moses contextualized his message so that the people could hear and understand his teaching. As change agents in our communities, what are some contextualized ways people think that can be a starting point to humbly lead people into God’s truths?

As the body of Christ learns to become God incarnate, the openness that the church has with those who look and act differently should become more regular. Some will have cause for concern because they value bonding capital more then the bridging of social capital. For example, in John 4, Jesus offered living water to a person who was not like him—she was female and Samaritan—both of which a Jewish male usually had no dealing with. Even Jesus’ disciples were concerned about Jesus talking with her (John 4:27). In this story, Jesus tells the woman that if she asked Him for water that He would give her living water—she will never thirst again. Soon after, Jesus asks her about her husbands. When reading this story, it could be seen that Jesus revealed her sins to her, so that she would repent. Considering what literature says about loneliness and the importance of social capital within our world, could it be that Jesus was saying the “thirst” that this woman was trying to fill through the right husband, (a coping mechanism) could be found only in Him—that Jesus would quench that spiritual need that no person or natural resource could fill.? The faith communities that come through church planting can help clarify this message and mission so it can become a reality for more people.

This research paper will use a qualitative method to explore how church plants establish community cohesion while living in a digital context. A phenomenological design allowed the researcher to understand the perspectives of church planters and the multi-demensional components of cohesion (Leedy & Ormrod, 2016). The intent of this paper is to learn from other church planting pastors what forming a community can look like. One consideration that Leedy and Ormrod (2016) point out about qualitative methods is that they cannot create cause and effect relationships. With that in mind, this research project did not intend to discover the effectiveness of each church plant’s approach.

Description of Methodology

One component to this research project was to conduct unstructured interviews of three church planters using different church planting models. The reason for this approach was to allow questions to develop as information was discovered so that knowledge could go deeper (Brewerton & Millward, 2001). Brewerton and Millward (2001) recommend when conducting interviews to have as much background information as possible. As well as, Leedy and Ormrod (2016) suggest when creating a research design to consider who the researcher has access to. The church planters that the researcher had access to and knew a significant amount of background information were located in different parts of the north/northwest U.S. cities in Minnesota, Montana, and Washington. The digital impact on culture was important for this research project so the main criteria for location was that the general population within all of these cities have access to the Internet.

In the second component, the researcher observed the attendees of the communities of faith in their natural meeting space as well as in their social media context. Using the physical meeting as well as online social networks for observation allowed the research to contrast how both face-to-face and online dynamics impact cohesion and community bonding and bridging.

The combination of both interviews and observation brings to a research project is that it allows the researcher to find a convergence of insights and ideas (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). When the researcher finds consistent and reliable data through two different approaches it strengthens the findings in the research (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The perspective of the church planters helped capture the espoused theories and models that created the framework for community formation. The observational component was to gain insight into the actual theories-in-use and how they aligned with each church planter’s intentions.

The first step of committing to an ethical process while conducting this research project, the researcher gained permission from Life Pacific University which participates in the institutional review board (IRB). A specific area of concern for the church plants was making sure that the information gathered and shared would not harm any of the stakeholders. Friedman (2006) presents three principles found in the Belmont Report: “respect for persons; beneficence; and justice” (p. 65). Each pastor interviewed received a consent form to verify their willingness to be included in the research (See Appendix A). In return, the researcher offered the reciprocity them the opportunity to read the outcome of the project. Although permission has been obtained, to maintain beneficence it is important to minimize any risks or harm that could come against the persons or organizations involved (Friedman, 2006). Church plant systems that are newly forming and are quite fragile, so the researcher thought it was best to conceal the names of the churches, pastors, and attendees. The church communities throughout the research will be referred to as Church 1 (C1), Church 2 (C2), and Church 3 (C3). The planters/pastors of these churches will respectively be identified as Planter 1 (P1), Planter 2 (P2), and Planter 3 (P3).

One of the delimiting factors of this research project was to focus mostly on the forming and storming aspects of the community that Ivancevich et al (2018) present. The criteria for choosing the church plants (-ers) was that the church community had a new location open in the last three years and be in an urban area.

Church 1 / Planter 1

This church planting community could be classified as a multi-site church. Stetzer and Im (2016) define a multisite church as “one church that has two or more locations with a shared leadership, budget, vision, and board” (Kindle version, loc. 2485). Planter 1 knowledge of establishing two previous locations and having recently planted a new church site in a different part of the same city allows insight into a longer tenure church planter. One model of multisite is the use of video instruction (Stetzer & Im, 2016). This is not the model at Church 1. Church 1 owns and operates local coffee houses where it serves the general public Monday through Saturday and then it closes on Sunday. The church then leases the space on Sundays for its purposes.

Unique to this model too is that each site has its own campus pastor who does the messaging based on a series that is used in all the different locations. The attendees sit at tables in small groups of approximately half-dozen people. Another differentiating factor to Church 1’s model is that throughout the messages, the speaker will ask a question of the attendees and give them five to ten minutes to discuss their thoughts. Each site, including the newest site, has limited seating, so the location has multiple service times. On a quarterly basis, Church 1 comes together at one service.

Church 2 / Planter 2

Of all the church communities in this study, this church plant is the newest as it is barely one year old. Church 2 created a model that it calls, hybrid missional. This is a self-imposed name that communicates the coming together of weekly home groups and a bi-monthly large community meeting. The details of these meetings will be shared more deeply in the research’s findings. Currently, Church 2 has three home groups that meet throughout the week, plus a lunch-time mid-week teen Bible study. Each meeting includes some kind of meal, a message, prayer, worship, and discussion/conversation. Prior to starting Church 2, Planter 2 served as an executive pastor at a larger, traditional church, for about a decade.

Church 3 / Planter 3

Church 3 followed a more traditional church planting model where they originally started with a small group of people which became known as the launch team. This church plant began with a simple bible study that took place in local wineries. Church 3 meets Sunday mornings for worship and teaching as one congregation and then during the weekdays encourages its attendees to connect with one another through smaller meetups like Bible studies, young adult discipleship group, or simply watching or doing sports together. Planter 3 had served as a youth leader and technical director for many years at a larger church. The controversial opinion regarding Christians and alcohol became intensified which mobilized Planter 3 to step out and form a church out of the winery community. While some churches struggle with the use of alcohol, Planter 3 found an opportunity to share that Jesus is the Vine. Stetzer and Im (2016) would term this leadership model in church planting as a Founder Pastor, one who begins the community and stays to pastor those people instead of recruiting a new pastor and moving on.

One understanding that Ivancevich et al (2018) present about cohesion is that when a new person joins a group it has the potential of disrupting cohesion. Friedman (2006) shares an experience of when he studied a homeless shelter and how he attempted to blend into the environment before conducting interviews. Being aware that I, the researcher, could potentially interrupt the very attribute under observation, I made a point to sit among the people and participate in the meetings as an attendee.

There was a technical issue that came up after Planter 1’s interview. The voice memo file got corrupted and after having a computer developer attempt to salvage the file, only 19 minutes of the interview was salvageable. Fortunately, I was traveling to the same area as Church 1’s location again and was able to re-interview P1. However, re-capturing the exact same content is impossible as the conversation picked up mid-topic and could not remember what had been said previously.

Friedman (2006) and Brewerton and Millward (2001) warn researchers of the possibility of contamination errors. The areas of concern that I had going into these interviews and on-site observations was that I knew the planters on a personal basis and knew some of the attendees. It was important for me to keep an objective perspective and not make assumptions when asking questions or observing the meetings. However, the familiarity it seemed that the planters saw the opportunity to give me advice since they had known I was a graduate student with the intention to church plant at some point. Refraining from validating the planters during the interview was challenging for the researcher, but the unstructured approach allowed the researcher to gather deeper information and explore information as it was revealed, however, some data collected was not relevant to the research. Brewerton and Millward (2001) note that this is a common flaw in the unstructured or semi-structured interview approach. However, because the church plants all have a different model any structured/provided response categorization would limit their answers and may not be accurate as to how they formed a community (Brewerton & Millward, 2001). Being that this is an exploratory, qualitative research project, having some irrelevant information is almost necessary to find the profound ideas.

The process helps understand the results of the data.

To start, Lichtman (2013) advises that before data is collected, the researcher should consider how it will be analyzed. The data collected is a combination of approaches, then for this research project, there will need to be similar ways to match coded ideas that produce a synergy of convergence (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). The questions were designed to gain an understanding of the multi-dimension that is present in cohesion (See Figure 1). Understanding the standards that other researchers have discovered when analyzing social cohesion and social capital will be key factor in analyzing the data. For instance, the concepts that Putnam (2000) presents about social capital, bonding, and bridging, will create large categorization buckets to make sense of the coded ideas. Another important factor when analyzing qualitative data, it is necessary to pay attention to the particular details of the participants and subjects. Coding the collected data should provide particular ideas and concepts and not generalizations regarding the subject (Brewerton & Millward, 2001). When collecting data on social media networks it is necessary to also know how the information will be analyzed. For this project, the application Tableau will be used to create reports and summaries of the data. In order to accomplish this kind of analysis, it was important before any data was collected that the spreadsheet was developed in a readable format for Tableau.

The data analysis method used in this project was circular as Lichtman (2013) points out. As soon as data is collected into a software program and reviewed it is the start of the analysis process. Considering that as I was collecting data, I also recorded my findings in a spreadsheet, then the analysis started and stopped as data was collected (Lichtman, 2013). The intended outcome of the data will also be a factor. The data collected from Facebook and Instagram will be charted and graphed based on a qualitative interpretation of the impression of the posts made using the Tableau application.

The interviews after being transcribed were translated into ideas first that help clarify the main topics from each church planter. Then these ideas will be related to each planter to find common ideas and hopefully powerful insights that do not just have a similarity to another church plant but is significant in the development of social capital or cohesion. Putnam’s concepts of bridging, bonding, formal, and informal were used to help filter what ideas may have significance. The Tableau application made sense of the data collected from Facebook and Instagram and formulated visual charts for understanding.

It is important to remember that analysis can be coded into themes as well as developed into a narrative story to help keep the whole story together and not separate it into single topics or themes. When it comes to cohesion, while the details can make large impacts on how people relate to one another and join in togetherness, the whole picture can bring a fuller meaning (Lichtman, 2013). For the on-site observational analysis, a narrative story tells what a person would experience coming into the meetings. A narrative approach was used to see how the ideas and patterns in the analysis of the interviews and social media bring meaning or frustrate a person looking for connection and community. Since community cohesion is difficult to measure, but not impossible, one of the areas that will be analyzed will be gaps in what the church plants are doing to create cohesion, but also to see what should be happening to form the community better.

This exploratory study intended to gain a clearer understanding how church planters in urban church plants form community cohesion within a digital context. Presenting the phenomenon through the three different perspectives created a convergence of the espoused theories while observing theories-in-use data. The interview questions were asked according to the multi-dimensional theory presented by Salas et al (2015) (See Figure 1).

Within these dimensions the researcher allowed the themes to emerge from the relevant and repeating ideas which unsurprisingly repeated concepts found in other literature relevant to cohesion (Lawanson, 2019; Litchman, 2013). The researcher allowed the unstructured nature of the interviews to elevate exactly how the churches and planters practically brought meaning to these concepts and themes: social capital, structure, and learning. How community cohesion forms can be found through the stories of the church planters to gain more insightful data regarding the explicit practices of the church planters. Litchman (2013) references Baumgartner’s approach to narrative data in that it “shed light on exploring how stories can be used as a source of data,” (p. 249).

Social capital was a major theme that resulted in the interviews with the church planters as they shared how their church plants formed. This was an expected finding because previous literature already discovered that cohesion needs social capital. Planter 2 emphasized how she personally went out for coffee with anyone who showed interest. As a church grows, it is not possible for her or any planter to sustain this practice alone, but through her modeling, the leaders who have joined the team share the practice of meeting over food and drink (See Appendix B, P2Q3; P2Q11a.). They do this with not only the visitors but regular attendees. Conscientiousness needs to be not only directed to new people, but also to those who are in the group, “not becoming Comcast. Treating existing people the worst” (See Appendix B, P1Q2).

Along similar lines, Planter 3 makes this one of the initial strategies he had when forming the faith community—creating opportunities for families to get together over food and drink where kids could be a part of the fun. This element was so important to Planter 3 that he instructs his team, “Do not even invite them to church for the first thing. Go to their house the first thing. Build the relationships, see their world before you invite them into your world” (See Appendix B, P3Q8a.).

Planter 1 told an illustrative story of how community tends to be developed in some of the American church planting communities and how it can feel towards the targeted individuals:

We in the church planting world have invested a lot in things like ‘hooks,’ meetings, and the bulk of meetings is about how to get people to come into the community, and then systems and plans to repeat visits and assimilate. Which can be so pure and beautiful, but often are designed as a hook in their heart that is shot into somebody, versus walking with a person, with a lot more intention, putting an arm around the shoulder and building a relationship. (See Appendix B, P1Q1.)

The data showed that the most significant barrier to building relationships by walking through life with someone was the sacrifice of time and vulnerability of the church leaders. Yet, the development of trust among mutual connections—establishing rapport—seemed to be the most repeated idea throughout all three planters for community cohesion. It also opened up the most opportunity. For instance, Planter 3 can walk into a local winery and the employees may never have stepped into his church, but they will call him pastor. Through these kinds of conversations, they piggyback off on another in the community with people saying things like, “If you're a pastor and in the wine community and all these people like you and trust you, then I will probably trust you and go to your church” (See Appendix B, P3Q3a).

The interviews made a few connections regarding social media social capital. However, Church 1 had recently conducted a survey to learn what were the participants’ initial first three contacts before they visit. Planter 1 disclosed that before their members visited, they would first visit social media, website, and then walk through the door, “rarely does someone do it the opposite direction” (See Appendix B, P1Q4). Even Planter 2 conferred that newcomers will first visit the social media pages or website before visiting. Knowing this, Planter 3 is very careful to only include content on its different digital platforms that meet its quality standards. It seems that the first impression on prospect members is through digital contact.

To give understanding to the data as it is related to structure, the researcher is defining this concept based on the principles that Senge (1990) presents. Senge (1990) says that “structure influences behavior … it is subtle in human systems … and leveraging structure often comes from new ways of thinking” (p. 40). Social Media (SM) provides a digital structure for individuals to interact with one another. The component most present in the three churches’ social media strategies are to tell what is, about to, or has happened at church. Planter 2 stated that SM is used to “disseminate information” (See Appendix B, P2Q6a). The opinion of Planter 2 was that most people do not use SM to find community as much and SM does not have the same importance as it used to be (See Appendix B, P2Q6; P2Q6a).

The social media data results are broken down into different types of posts (See Figure 2). While the data was collected from Instagram and Facebook for the scope of this research project both the Social Media platforms were combined in the results. The descriptions for the type of posts in Figure 2 are 1) Church Event specifies larger events, mostly created using Facebook’s event feature; 2) Church Announcement were posts used to remind or draw attention to future happenings in the church; 3) Small Group were similar to announcements but were related to a bible study, lifestyle, or hobby group; 4) Discipleship Tool represents all the communication for spiritual development through scripture sharing; 5) Journalistic posts report happenings in the church that are presently happening or have happened; 6) Funny/Meme are posts that are strictly to make a funny joke without any church-related agenda; 7) Greater Community are posts that directly relate to the city or greater area; 8) Member Highlight/Encouragement directly communicate about a staff, leader, or participant; 9) Fundraising/Volunteer Asks invite participants into donating or getting more involved in some way; and 10) Vision Sharing specifically cast vision or mission without any ask or specific announcement.

One interesting finding that came out of this list is that while collecting the data for Church 1 and Church 2 the researcher had only established the first seven post types, but when Church 3 was being recorded, types eight-ten were added to better classify the phenomena. One other important distinction that the data showed was that Church 3 almost doubled the number of posts in the same timeframe as the other two churches. Church 1 had posted 67 posts; Church 2 came in at 75 posts, and Church 3 posted 161 times from August 1, 2019-September 30, 2019. While this question was not asked directly of each planter, Planter 3 now delegated SM to another leader in Church 3 and implied that SM strategy improved (See Appendix B, P3Q5b). The researcher had the opportunity to casually speak briefly with this SM leader and she commented how she took time to read about the best practices of SM.

In Figure 3, the pie charts reveal the percentage of types of posts that each church used during August-September 2019. Then in Figure 4 the data showed the percentage of likes per type in the same months. The kind of media used, such as video, image, text-only, or weblink (video/image), was also collected for each post, which is seen in Table 1.

Some data that was collected that is not shown in the graphics are the quantities of comments and comment types (See Appendix C). In general, most comments were reactionary in nature with a handful of the comments engaged in dialogue or as an RSVP function with two comments that loosely implied an in-real-life connection. In SM programs, it is possible to share posts too which could create a wider community effect. The instances seemed fairly infrequent and beyond the scope to measure the impact that the researcher opted not to record shares.

One thing to note is that at most of the church meetings the researcher had one or two acquaintances and/or friendships except in C1Mtg2 and C2Mtg2. As Planter 2 and 3 indicate in their interviews, the researcher also experienced the intimate conversations within the group, and remaining anonymous would be quite difficult. In the researcher’s opinion, the meetings that included an element of food and drink helped increase the comfort level of being a new person in the group. The home meeting space provided a structure for Church 2 that is a comfortable, family-like feel. At the beginning of the C2Mtg2, they introduced the phrase “umbrella of mercy,” implying everyone is welcome to share openly without judgment. In C2Mtg1 that phrase was not necessarily used, but the atmosphere allowed for freedom of thought and participation. Two of the participants at C2Mtg1 expressed with the researcher how this home church model brought them back to church as the large, traditional model did not work for them. In C1Mtg1 the connection was authentic and if the researcher had not been in from out of town a friendship was likely. The second meeting at C1 was the newest church plant for the multisite model. At this location, the researcher felt welcomed to the meeting. In both C1 meetings, the pastor would interrupt the message and ask a question. Then the people at the table would discuss the question. Neither pastor nor the group implied that there was a right answer, but it was a space to share thoughts and feelings to the content. While in C1Mtg2, the conversation got a little conflicted over topics of social justice, but it was through personal passion and ended with mutual care for each other.

While Church 1 and 2 were quite similar in their smaller group meetup and dialogue style, C3Mtg1, the main gathering for Church 3, had a more contemporary traditional model with lecture-style seating and little interaction between the pastor and the participants. C3Mtg1 included an element of fun and personability in spite of the polished, professional feel. One factor to consider during C3Mtg1 observation is that they were temporarily in a new auditorium which was a very different experience than their typical meeting space. Usually, C3Mtg1 meets in an open foyer area of the local high school. This particular Sunday, C3Mtg1 was meeting in the theater of the high school. However, both of these spaces are known to Church 3 as temporary, because they are building out a permanent space a few miles from the high school. Planter 3 mentioned in his interview that because of the high relational characteristic of Church 3, if programs or systems change in general the people continue together (See Appendix B, P3Q6).

Another, element of structure found in the interview data is the people the planter brings on board. Planter 3 shared a story of choosing people who have the alignment in values and a trustworthy background that can connect the gospel contextually to the community they were reaching. There was another couple that Planter 3 had to say no to because they valued getting people to church on Sunday morning and that was not Church 3’s goal (See Appendix B, P3Q4). Building relationship is the main goal for Church 3. Planter 3 emphasizes that transformation in people is slow and it requires time for relationships to grow. One of the structures of their Sunday gathering is to French press the coffee instead of brewing it (See Appendix B, P3Q9). This helps them leverage the structure to help people slow down and talk with each other.

While aligning values is important to the structure of the church plant, all three planters referenced the importance of embracing difference by bravely approaching difficult conversations, creating a safe environment so all can share openly, and being okay with mess and failure. The church models were specifically chosen for Planter 1 and Planter 2 to bring a new way of thinking within the church. Planter 2 states that spiritual growth happens in small groups, yet the majority “80%” of a church’s resources are used towards large gatherings on Sunday morning (See Appendix B, P2Q1). When church leadership learns together and creatively designs its process to align with the vision and mission that those in the community can more easily find coherent ways for their implicit desires to become tangible.

One factor of cohesion in a new community of faith is the ability to embrace another’s perspective. P2 and P3 describe their team formation by honoring the intelligence of those they are serving alongside. While values are to be maintained, it is important to give room for the difference in others and allow growth in the team to develop organically not with forced behavior modification. Planter 3 says that they believe in Foursquare’s mantra of being unified in the essentials and flexible in the non-essentials. He also underscored how when the team sees the planter/pastor's commitment to them, even when a mess occurs, the leader’s willingness to be constant and learn alongside them models to the rest of the group that this community can be trusted. This commitment to one another shows the team a healthy way to do ministry together.

“It is a beautiful thing to see someone who goes from have never helped, to want to help, and then to have helped” (See Appendix B, P1Q6c). “So many people are so hurt that it is remarkable how many have never helped with anything—ever. It was never part of their family culture” (See Appendix B, P1Q6). Bridging this gap can be done by simply asking, “Can you help?” (See Appendix B, P1Q6). According to Planter 1, it is important to be ready when the person says yes because waiting for them to ask how to help might never come. For Church 1 they just simply provide the background check form, schedule a way to find a substitute if they cannot make a date, and then the people begin to help. Co-laboring together through shared work establishes ownership—changes the consumer mentality—which is the key to shifting participants’ minds from “This is the church I go to” to “This is my church”—changing this semantic is a goal for Planter 1.

Making sense of these results as they relate to the research question, how church planters form community cohesion facing a digital context, Friedman (2006) suggests the Force-Field Analysis which considers the driving forces for and the restraining forces against the problem. Then in the recommendation and conclusion sections, the research provides the action steps that can be taken after making sense of the data. Using this analysis will elevate the results in such a way that the leverages within a church plant system so that the leader can most effectively move an organization toward the mission (Senge, 1990).

Some aspect to groups and cohesion that the literature has already understood can be found in Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2018) which state that as a new group starts it is known as forming which will soon experience storming as the group moves toward norming so that they can begin performing effectively, then an important stage, adjourning, will take place in some way. Storming can become one of the most critical stages because if leadership does not leverage this stage the group may never enter into the critical stages of norming and performing (Ivancevich et al, 2018). Ivancevich et al (2018) identifies this stage with areas of conflict such as members competing for roles and disagreements over task-related behaviors. Conflict is a major restraint against community cohesion. All the planters in the study advised that timely confrontation toward conflicts was absolutely necessary and Planter 2 clearly identified that it is the role of the church planter to go first on confrontation.

The need for leadership is clear. Crothers (2002) identifies Burns Theory of Transformational Leadership combined with Hersey and Blanchard’s model of Situational leadership as the approach communities should take. This makes it possible for social capital can thrive at a street level—or in our case in the personal lives of the churchgoers. The element that impacts this most is allowing leaders to have full discretion over process and results (Crothers, 2002).

One aspect that the literature on cohesion that continued to surface was the concept of sharing, of physical objects, but also each other’s stories. Offline Planter 3 advised to go to someone’s home and learn about their life—this is sharing our life with another. On social media, churches should not just use it as an electronic bulletin of announcements, but use it as a place to share about the lives of those in the congregation. One other way of bridging social capital online would be by making effort to actually post on another’s online activity instead of keeping the church’s interactions only with its own page.

Planter 1, 2, and 3 all touch on what this looks like—driving forces that produce cohesion. For Planter 1 developing holistic conscientiousness within his team to care for one another by listening and supporting while also holding the vision of the organization in perspective so that the structures continue to support the mission and not personal passions. One common way that Church 1 does this is by removing the “us and them” distinction between communities or leadership to members. Collaboration and space for creative conversation are keys for Planter 2 when it comes to team development. Meeting regularly, structure, honoring the leader’s intellect, social capital, and practicing Pentecostal ministry together as the leadership team, learning, develops a unified and healthy way to approach form a cohesive group. Planter 3 emphasized the importance of modeling ministry in from of the community so that they see the importance of love over behavior modification policies.

Planter 1’s guiding principle to those in his ministry is to step outside themselves to see the other’s perspective (See Appendix B, Q7a). This can also be expressed through Senge’s (1990) system thinking term, the shift of the mind, which Planter 1 describes as understanding that another’s behavior does have logic even if it is illogical to you. It just requires empathy to see the other person's perspective and then also consider the system to see the influences (Planter 1, Q7a; Senge, 1990, p. 78). This shift of mind allows a leader to be a learner and then understand influencers like organizational structures. For instance, Planter 3 emphasized that the people who launch the church are the pillars of the structure and create the leverage within the new church plant system that will directly affect the mission.

All three churches made comments about the transient nature of the cultural context. New people are often moving into the area, which can create a purpose for bridging social capital—reaching those looking for community. Planter 2 recognized the importance of developing home groups that are constantly involved in bridging because otherwise home groups could become insular and be ineffective at bringing in new people. Planter 1 emphasized that activities within the community need to be authentically bridging for the sake of helping them with no church-related agenda.

Rockwell (2011) applies system thinking and the emotional dynamics in families to congregational dynamics. One major emphasis that Rockwell (2011) advises to church leaders is learning how de-triangle themselves from toxic and anxious members who will wreak dysfunction on the whole system. Planter 1 discusses this, shedding light on this as he addressed one of his member’s intense conviction to helping the homeless, through empathetic listening as soon as the problem began, to surface help minimize the rage. As the member was heard, Planter 1 was able to redirect her passion in a healthy way so that the mission of the organization remained a priority, but that her personal drive was also considered. Managing a community of affluent and homeless is a common situation that Planter 1 faces. The community tension that Planter 3 often faces is the different lifestyles of those in the wine community versus the congregation members who have a more churched background. One of the forces against bridging and bonding social capital is the way discrimination and prejudice impact systems that whether intentional or unintentional people create barriers to who is in or who is out.

It is important for the trustworthiness of any research to discuss the areas of the study that could use improvement (Lawanson, 2019). The results regarding the theories-in-use were more limited than the researcher had hoped for, as a more longitudinal approach would have allowed cohesion to be observed in different conditions to help control for different factors.

One of the challenges that the data cannot reflect well is the impression that the words and graphics make. From the researcher's observation, posts that had images of people’s faces, especially of people in the faith community, were the more active posts. Also, posts that used ironic humor with inclusive meaning had a strong impact.

The new classifications observed with Church 3 were after Church 1 and Church 2 had been recorded. It is hard to know if some of the posts would have classified the data differently. But, interestingly, the findings that the data did reveal was that Church 3 posted in all the categories from August through September. It asks the question; how important is it to have a consistently broad social media strategy?

Social Media structures contain so many factors that were unavailable or too complex to measure for the researcher, such as the software algorithms, whether a post was paid to have more views, the time of day when the post was made, and the number of people who saw the post but did not react.

Another area of interest for this research question, but not possible to measure within the design of this research project, is if people found the posts helpful and changed their behavior based on what they saw.

Friedman’s (2006) Force-Field Analysis says that when the research problem is viewed through the driving forces and the restraining forces it leads to action steps. Systems thinking develops a similar theory that part of understanding the structure in cohesion it is important to understand the different leverages. These leverages include: reinforcing behaviors and the balancing behaviors, which are then self-sustained or self-limited through growth or underinvestment behaviors (Senge, 1990). When these system influencers are understood, then church planters can understand leverage points that can change the outcomes (See Figure 5). Using these concepts from Senge’s (1990) system thinking theory, along with the literature and data from the research, here are a few leverage points that could help church planters:

Create clarity.

Without clarity, it is difficult to have a shared vision. Senge (1990) says that a shared vision gives people courage and enthusiasm to pursue the mission. One thing to consider is that the mission and vision should be theologically based so that agenda within the church does not become self-serving, or sometimes as Planter 1 described, the mission becomes creating boxes for people to check off their list in our consumer-driven culture. This approach will make room for the needed elements of mercy, friendship, and sharing that build social capital.

An embodied theology within the rituals and structures is a way for theology to become interwoven throughout a community (Bevans, 2002). Bevans (2002) provides a thorough understanding of models of contextualization that could benefit church planters as they decide how to communicate the mission to their congregation. Contextualization models help simplify complex realities and would contribute to a clear mission (Bevans, 2002).

Digital communications, like social media, are expected tools for message delivery within the current context. When determining an online strategy, offline principles should be considered. Such as Planter 3 suggested, that before someone invites another to experience church, that person should first build a relationship in their world. Online this could be for churches to engage by sharing stories of their members and commenting appropriately with encouraging comments on their page while refraining from ever stirring up controversies. When theories are present in both contexts it will create a reinforcing structure toward more growth.

Planter 2’s experience reveals the importance of clarity in a church plant. Church 2 thought that a bi-monthly, larger meeting would be a draw to new visitors and be a place to connect people to a home church. Yet, this meeting had a more traditional evangelical church service approach and it conflicted with the home church model. This is an example of how subtle structure can be in a system and interrupt clarity and cohesion. Church 2 has since recreated the larger group experience to match its mission and brought clarity to its strategy—which has increased participation.

Build capacity for growth. Church growth means more people, and this will put a demand on your leadership and ministry teams. Senge presents this understanding of leverage through the concept of growth and underinvestment. When leaders are underinvested, they will not be able to sustain the spiritual and personal growth required to lead others. The health of a church’s leadership team indicates the capacity church for growth—if pushed passed capacity this could result in burnout for your team, your members, and yourself.

One of the questions that came up during Planter 3’s interview was how he intended to coach others to minister in the way that he does. The ability to empower new leaders is an area of concern in church planting. Imparting transformational discipleship is a long process. Spiritual growth does not come fast.

Team development comes through an openness to learn from one another, which will be discussed in the next section, but also through the ability to engage in dialogue where creative expression can be expressed without a need to have the best view (Senge, 1990). This empowers the individuals on the team to be empowered and confident in their choices so that they embody the vision and lead new people well. The Apostle Paul emphasizes that the offices of the church are for the sake of equipping the saints (Eph. 4). Church planters need to have an intentional plan for developing those in the church to lead others to fulfill this vision.

Clinton (2005) gives an example of Barnabas with the Apostle Paul in Acts 11, which often what is the need for a mentor to bring an emerging leader from within the congregation towards God’s purpose and calling in their life. Planter 1 provides insight into the need for shared work, which helps form cohesion, but also creates a pathway for new members to become mature Christian leaders. When new church plants find ways to create moments of shared work, where it is not “us and them” (See Appendix B, P1Q7), but owning the needs of others, then those who are different from one another and/or teams that are newly forming can create shared experiences to increase social capital.

Become a learning community.

Church growth will also bring diversity to any church planting group. With diversity comes conflict, which is actually a good thing when an organization strives to learn from one another (Senge, 2014). Learning takes courage to face what appears different in our minds and pivot so that we can gain an understanding of another’s perspective and lead with respect to those around us (Rock & Schwartz, 2007; Senge, 2014).

Both Planter 2 and 3 emphasized the importance of respecting the people on the team and allowing them to engage with development from their own intelligence. Creating a new policy is a common result when church teams do not respect one another’s intellect and are afraid to face deep change, so instead, attempt to control behavior. It is important to allow people to engage with reality through internalized questions and curiosity to engage their minds and accept the differences they are facing (Rock & Schwartz, 2007). Leading through this kind of change requires attributes found in transformational, situational, and servant leadership that the Crothers (2002) and the interview data gave an explicit understanding of how these approaches can work.

Planter 3’s approach to ministry has opened up barriers to allow those who used to be unacceptable to join the communion table, now able to receive and serve. At the same time, Pastor 3 has removed people from leadership for engaging in what the Apostle Paul considered inappropriate behavior. To some P3’s actions could come across as contradictory, but Planter 3 clearly identifies his goal is not to change people but to love people. Planter 3 leads then through what Crothers (2002) defines as the discretion of what appears right—controlling process and results—rather than writing policy to determine the outcomes. This has required Planter 3 to develop a church team that can be aware of how mental models can prevent us from learning how to walk a life of faith together. Rock and Schwartz (2007) discovered in their neuroscience research that changing internal images, like mental models, is literally painful. Their suggestion to leadership is then to create moments of insight, where questions are posed in such a way that people can gain focus on the desired reality and change appropriately (Rock & Schwartz, 2007). Church planting communities that can become more understanding of differing mental models and how best to communicate with one another with respect should find it easier to have cohesion (Senge, 2004). Ruddick’s (2017) research for the Casey Review also discovered how empowering the community from within is much more transforming than attempting to just fix the problem through transactional behavior.

For the most part, it seemed that Church 3 had a more intentional approach regarding its SM posts. One of the questions that surface is if the traditional model requires more online focus because the large gathering does not give time for as much interaction among members during the service. The home group and coffee-shop multi-site churches had more structured hospitality that allowed for more dialogue among members. The nature of this study was only to explore the theories and concepts, it would be interesting to see how cohesion compares within different church models and how online communities differs between them. One question in relation to these curiosities is what kind of online behaviors participants in a faith community respond best to.

To better understand the impact of social media, research needs more than just the public data in the collection. It would be insightful to include the users’ interactions and determine if users who are more passive online, with no public reaction, still changes their real-life behavior based on the SM content? As the researcher collected the data, the more she questioned whether those who liked a post actually took the next step to meet in person. When the design for this research project was determined, the assumption is that there would be more comments and interactions to show social capital or relational interactions. For the most part, the comments were sparse and did not equal in-person connection. The planters when questioned about the social media strategies did not think people engage online much. Is this because people are disengaging from SM sites or is it because church-related social media is not building social capital?

The topic of social media and its impact on human behavior has so much more to understand. One theorist, C. M. Olavarria (Robson, 2014), explores the impact SM and digital communication is having on users. Some may be choosing to consider a “digital detox” at times where they limit their social interaction through digital technology like SM. One of the social impacts this can make on individuals is that friends may choose not to communicate through out-of-date channels like phone calling or sending a letter through the postal service—which then could leave those who are not on the active platforms of communication to miss out on invites to social life (Olavarria, 2014). This theory is mostly based on the anecdotal opinion of Olavarria, but the data in this project developed the same kind of questions. One first needs to be part of the community to get included and if social media or digital technology is how the decentralization of casual meetups is happening, those who do not want to engage with digital tools might find themselves left out.

The church would benefit from a further understanding of how users are impacted by digital life. Planter 2 gave an opinion that SM does not engage individuals to build a community like it used to, but Hootsuite (2019) presented other evidence that on average those who do use SM are spending two hours a day on it and six hours on the Internet. Then if we also include Planter 1’s internal survey that social media was the number one way that an outsider built enough trust to visit, then social media has a significant role even if it is only to bring new people into the community. Those are hours that people spend on social media could also be encouraging them towards spiritual things and enhance the community. There is potential for SM to also benefit from discipleship. In what way could churches shift their mindset regarding SM like any other kind of system structure to accomplish the mission?

Another area of recommendation as it relates to isolation and loneliness is the impact of individualism and globalization that has impacted culture this past generation. All three planters consistently commented on how many people are moving into their communities, but also moving out. To what degree is the transient nature of cities affecting individuals and churches? It would seem that as people develop in their ability to see others as part of the system, their individualistic tendency would become more collective.

Conclusion

People in urban communities are facing a culture of isolation and loneliness. The church has the opportunity to be part of the answer by providing a space where meaningful relationships can emerge through increased social capital and community cohesion (Putnam, 2000). Pepper et al (2019) underscored that those who attend church have increased social capital compared to the general population of Australia. An understanding of how church planters can practically develop a cohesive community in the offline and digital context can help other communities understand the importance of human structures and how they can impact the quality of community cohesion. New church plants can better create a space where mercy, friendship, and belonging can exist through opportunities of sharing not just belongings, but purposeful work and personal stories. While there can be many negatives floating around regarding social media, there seems to be a draw for humanity to engage in social life through these platforms. An intentional digital communication strategy has the potential to bridge people into new communities and also give a place where people can embrace diversity. When communities learn new ways of thinking, these can remove barriers of discrimination and rejection, so that every individual can have purpose and belonging.

Aharony, N. (2016). Relationships among attachment theory, social capital perspective, personality characteristics, and Facebook self-disclosure. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 68(3), 362-386. doi:10.1108/ajim-01-2016-0001

Anderson, L. (1994) Argyris and Schön theory on congruence and learning. Retrieved from https://lifepacific.remote-learner.net/mod/folder/view.php?id=156333.

Beilmann, M. & Realo, A. (2012). Individualism–collectivism and social capital at the individual level. Trames. Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 16(66/61), 205–217. doi: 10.3176/tr.2012.3.01

Bevans, S. B. (2002). Models of contextual theology. (Rev. & exp. ed.). Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Brewerton, P., & Millward, L. (2001). Organizational research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bouma, G., & Ling, R. (2007). Religious resurgence and diversity and social cohesion in Australia. In J. Jupp, & J. Niuwenhuysen, & E. Dawson (Eds.). Social cohesion in Australia, pp. 80-89, Melbourne: Cambridge, University Press.

City of Sammamish. (March 6, 2018). City of Sammamish health and human services needs assessment. Seattle, WA: Berk. Retrieved from: https://sammamishwa.civicweb.net/document/16250.

Clinton, J.R. (2005). Mentor reader – Clinton articles on mentoring 1993-2005. Retrieved from http://www.bobbyclinton.com/articles/downloads/MentoringReader.pdf

Cloete, A. (2014). Social cohesion and social capital: Possible implications for the common good. Verbum et Ecclesia 35(3), Art. #1331, 6 pages. http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/ve.v35i3.1331

‘community’. (2019). In Merriam-Webster.com. Retrieved November 10, 2019, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/community

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from amazon.com.

Crothers, L. (2002). Building social capital on the street: Leadership in communities. In McLean, S L., Schultz, D. A., & Steger, M. B. Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and “Bowling Alone.” New York, NY: New York University Press.

Crouch, A. (2008). Culture making: Recovering our creative calling. Downers Grove, IL: IVP

Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together, 2nd Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Gentina, E., Shrum, L. J., & Lowrey, T. M. (2018) Coping with loneliness through materialism: Strategies matter for adolescent development of unethical behaviors. Journal of business ethics, 2018(152), 103-122. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3329-x

Gerkin, C. V. (1993). A fresh look at our history. Journal of Pastoral Theology, 3, 99–108. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/

Greenwood, D. J. (1997). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 50(4), 701-702. doi: 10.2307/2525281

Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010, July 22). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2010(40), 218-227. doi:10.1007/s12160-010-9210-8

Hootsuite. (2019). US report. The Global State of Digital in 2019 Report. Retrieved on November 8, 2019 from https://hootsuite.com/pages/digital-in-2019.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M.T. (2018). Organizational behavior and management (11th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

James, C. B. (2018). Church planting in post-Christian soil: Theology and practice. [Kindle Version]. Retrieved from: Amazon.com.

Lawanson, R. (2019, Dec. 4). Week 7: Results/Findings and Discussion. [Video file]. https://lifepacific.remote-learner.net/course/view.php?id=2507&section=7

Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2016). Practical research: Planning and design (11th ed.). [Kindle version 1.25.2] Available from Amazon.com.

Leonard, R., & Bellamy, J. (2015). Dimensions of bonding social capital in christian congregations across australia. Voluntas, 26(4), 1046-1065. doi: 10.1007/s11266-015-9582-2

Lichtman, M. (2013). Making meaning from your data. Qualitative research in education: A user's guide (3rd ed.), (pp. 241-268). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

McLean, S L., Schultz, D. A., & Steger, M. B. (Eds.). (2002). Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and “Bowling Alone.” New York, NY: New York University Press.

Nonprofits Source. (2019). Charitable giving. Retrieved on November 14, 2019 from https://nonprofitssource.com/online-giving-statistics/

Olavarrria, C. M. (2014). Mindful rejection of digital technology at the user level: Cognitive determinants and social consequences. In G. Robson, & M. Zachara (Eds.). Digital Diversities: Social and Intercultural Experience. [e-book]. Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Oxoby, R. (2009). Understanding social inclusion, social cohesion, and social capital. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(12), 1133-1152. doi: 10.1108/03068290910996963

Pepper, M., Powell, R., & Bouma, G. D. (2019). Social cohesion in Australia: Comparing church and community. Religions, 10(11), 605-605. doi:10.3390/rel10110605

Pew Research Center. (2019). Attendance at religious services. Religious Landscape Study. Retrieved on December 10, 2019 from https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/attendance-at-religious-services/.

Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone : The collapse and revival of american community (1st Touchstone ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others. Neuroleadership Journal, 1, 1-9. Retrieved from https://lifepacific.remote-learner.net/mod/folder/view.php?id=156336.

Rock, D., & Schwartz, J. (2007). The neuroscience of leadership. Reclaiming children and youth. 16(3). Retrieved from https://lifepacific.remote-learner.net/mod/folder/view.php?id=129767

Rockwell, S. (2011). Strategic leadership starts with systems thinking. [Unpublished document] Denver, CO: Retrieved from https://lifepacific.remote-learner.net/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=23366

Ruddick, A. (2017). From the ground up: Creating community cohesion through incarnational mission. Temple Tracts, 1(3). Retrieved from: https://williamtemplefoundation.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/From-the-Ground-Up-Creating-Community-Cohesion-through-Incarnational-Mission-Anna-Ruddick.pdf

Salas, E., Grossman, R., Hughes, A. M., & Coultas, C. W. (2015). Measure team cohesion: Observations from the science. At the forefront of HF/E. 57(3), 365-374. doi: 10.1177/0018720815578267

Schiefer, D., & van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132(2), 579-603. doi: http://dx.doi.org.lpc.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Shultz, D. A. (2002). The phenomenology of democracy: Putnam, pluralism, and voluntary associations. In S. L. McLean, D. A. Schultz, & M. B. Steger. (Eds.). Social capital: Critical perspectives on community and “Bowling Alone.” New York, NY: New York University Press.

Stetzer, E. (2009, January 19). State of church planting. The Exchange. Retrieved from: https://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2009/january/state-of-church-planting.html

Stetzer, E. (2018). Christians in the age of outrage: How to bring our best when the world is at its worst. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers.

Stetzer, E. & Im, D. (2016). Planting missional churches: Your guide to starting churches that multiply. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic.

Uhl-bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The leadership quarterly, (17)6, 654-676. Doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

UN.org. (2014, July 10). World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanization-prospects-2014.html

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.) 2010 census urban area facts. Retrieved on January 27, 2019 from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/ua/uafacts.html.