I have politely asked Stephen Booth to come and discuss community.

Community, to me, is any recurring gathering of people together, with some common tie.

I'm going to re-arrange your questions a bit.

A community is a voluntary association of people with common interests.

Having goods, ideas, beliefs or interests in common, in other words sharing them, this is what defines a community, that's where the word comes from. In a spiritual community, there is also the element of intimate spiritual sharing, also known as communication and communion: communicating and communing with one another in spiritual intimacy, and/or communicating and communing with God.

All who believed were together and had all things in common. They would sell their posessions and distrubte them to those in need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the Temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all people...

Acts 2:44-47

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Pretty much the same - a community is a group of people who come together to share ideas and work towards goals.  they have to have some agreement about the language to be used, how the ideas will be shared, and what the goals are but they all have differences.  One is well organized an goal oriented - she gets things done quickly, quiently and smoothly.  Another has a visio of what the group can be if they all work together.  Anothe is artistic and can put ideas into words or music or express themselves in pictures or sculpture.  The group is fluid - some join for a short time and then move on, others move in, but there usually remains a core group who keep the community going.  And some are quiet gentle souls who hover around binding up wounds, and giving encouragement, comfort and hope.  Itis, or should be, open to all and despite differences should respect all members and observers.  I could probably think of more but I'll leave it at that.

I know that I tend to be long winded and in a good working community no one tries to hog the floor.

So, then . are you saying that there are all different communities - not just one big community? Church? workplace" jail? colleges? Internet?

What about the bigger picture?

The biggest community is the totality of being (or God, if you don't mind :-) containing communities within communities within communities, etc. This is the holistic universe, or holotheism: God as the greatest whole, containing lesser and lesser wholes, right down to the smallest particle, all of it united within the all-encompassing greatest whole.

Community is the common theme of the unitive universe: Comm-unity.

I agree with what others have said above, with an addendum:

that we help each other realize our full potential.

Good answers all. I've given Steven's a +1, though, since he pretty much said what I was going to say.

Mendalla

Not only said good things but also organized me' lol

Does anybody know the root word?   It seems to me that community and communication must have some linkage.   It would be difficult to have a community without some sort of communication between members.

The Latin word  'communis"   it means:  general, common, run of the mill, shared by all locally, public. 

Requested by seeler:

late 14c., from O.Fr. comunité "community, commonness, everybody" (Mod.Fr. communauté), from L. communitatem (nom. communitas) "community, fellowship," from communis "common, public, general, shared by all or many," (see common). Latin communitatem "was merely a noun of quality ... meaning 'fellowship, community of relations or feelings,' but in med.L. it was, like universitas, used concretely in the sense of 'a body of fellows or fellow-townsmen' " [OED]. An O.E. word for "community" was gemænscipe "community, fellowship, union, common ownership," probably composed from the same PIE roots as communis. Community service as a criminal sentence is recorded from 1972, Amer.Eng. Community college is recorded from 1959.

I'm getting shivers of excitement with this topic.  This is what I studied in my Archaeology degree - the complexities of community, social structure and civilization.

To me, a community is a group of more than one person.  The group has something in common, usually an identifier - whether occupation, interest, age, geography, faith, etc.  One of the most fascinating things to me was learning how as a community grows, it becomes more complex in its internal structure and creates sub-communities.  It's like a root structure.  A small plant can have a small system, but a tree needs an immense and intricate system to support it, both for stability and nutrition.

The other interesting thing about communities and complex societies is their commitment to identifying themselves as distinct.  The various clans of Scotland were nearly culturally identical, yet they chose to divide themselves based on family groups and distinguished their identities visually - through tartans.  The different native groups in the US Southwest had distinct pottery patterns that told them apart.  Perhaps now that we have a more global perspective, we can start accepting the idea that one community can live alongside another without having to be the same, or share the same identity.

Okay, now I've crossed over into identity.  I'm stopping now, before I get out of hand.

Thanks for getting back to me.  What about 'communication'?   Is it related to 'community'?

Faeren, that is so interesting about identity. I wonder if that is why different religions have different icons, rituals etc.?

Communication also comes from communis. They're both related apparently to the English word "common."

I guess the relationship is that one can't haven't "community" (ie, have a group of people with something in common) unless one has some sort of "communication" (ie, the ability to share with one another that something possessed in common.)

That depends, I think.  The differences I was referring to were between similar cultural groups that had interaction with each other.  For example, I have two sisters, and we're all very close in age.  Growing up so close to each other, we all have VERY distinct styles and interests.  I imagine this was at least semi-conscious, as a way to identify ourselves as independent from each other.

The case of religious communities is a bit more complex.  Shinto and Islam, for example, have never been in a situation where they 'interact'.  Their differences are not due to a deliberate desire for distinction (bwa ha, alliteration!), but rather come from cultural differences.  The differences that grew up out of the Church of England and Roman Catholicism, however, are a definite case of wanting to separate from each other and identify themselves as 'distinct'.

More for seeler:

late 14c., from O.Fr. comunicacion (14c., Mod.Fr. communication), from L. communicationem (nom. communicatio), noun of action from communicare "to share, divide out; communicate, impart, inform; join, unite, participate in," lit. "to make common," from communis (see common).

I love www.etymonline.com.

    Seelers question about the root is a good one and the replies reflect that.  There's and essence of sharing and mutal relationships.  Something common.

   Community to me like some replies is a group of people coming together who share something in common.   They can be conscious about coming together like a church or a disscussion board where the interests and commonality are more defined on the surface.  I like to call those types more proactive.  People can seek out a communites and build communities like that.  Then there's less conscious formed types which are more a result of the general human condition of needing each for survival so we have larger communities that share that basic interest, like my town for instance.  Farernach speaks to that and the complexities and types of commonalites  that make up these types.    Of course they all interact with each other to form the mega global community.

  A couple of reflections on some of the other comments.  Arminus talked about communities being voluntary associations and while at a foundational level there is a choice involved, humans can choose to live and associate with others or go out to live by themselves there are certain aspects that are less voluntary choices.  For instance everyone was born into a community  and had no choice in the matter.  Children live more by the choices their parents and family makes. 

      People can choose to live in a particular place, neighborhood, town city and form associations and relationships but have less voluntary choice about who else makes the choice to live their too.   So for instance in a perfect world I may not  choose to live with the people down the road involved in neferious business, or the man who beats his wife,  or my neighbor that thinks that the only good and acceptable hedge is one that's pruned and shaped to the point that he gets annoyed at others unpruned hedges but they are part of my larger community.   I have choices in how I relate and share our mutal community life but less choice in how the parts and people that make up that life occur. 

  Also  riffing a bit on the root of it's meaning, shared, common and common interests I also tend to look and take 'community' out of just it's human centric viewpoint.  I extend it's boundries beyond just human interest.   In ecology we talk about 'plant communities'.  Same sort of idea, groups of plants that share and have relationships with each other that support their mutal interests, living, dying, reproducing.  There are 'forest communities', plants and animals that make up that particular ecosystem.   Birders will talk about 'bird communities'.    As humans we do not live separate from these types of communities, our human communities being spoke of here are imbeded within them and our very survival depends on relationships and shared 'mutual' interest.  

     From a Christian faith perspective and at it's most macro  I would look at it as community of creation, all creation.  All of Gods creation is my community or in and of it self is a community whether I happen to exist in it as an individual or not.   Of course the same concept or idea can be framed without the Christian frame or a religious framing at all.  Different words, different phrases or coming at it from different points of view.    Many cultures such as native peoples spirituality would accept and view community as more then just human without a second thought. That's just the way it is.   You'll also find this way of looking at 'what is community?"  in reminants of older European cultures  such as the Celts.   You'll find it all around the world both past and present. 

   So taking some of the other comments relating to a community being an association or group that develops 'sense of caring and connections' and that communities are 'goal' oriented.    What is the sense of caring and connection with all of creation?  What are the goals of this community?  What are the mutual interests and shared relationships with all pieces and parts that make up it's whole?    Is it necessary or desirable to look at 'community' as a concept in this sort of light?  The consequences of doing it? The consequences of not doing it? 

  These are just thinks  I ponder.   :) 

   double post

Hi crazyheart,

You are just wondering now?  

A place where I am welcomed or a place to which I welcome others.

Not ideally.  It happens though.

Not ideally.  It can happen though.

Hopefully.  Although it can be difficult.  If difference is perceived as threatening it will most likely not be tolerated.

No less than two for a community.  One is not a community because it has no other.

Yes.  They will reach the level of evil that their citizens allow.  Sometimes that evil is more than what one citizen would stomach on their own.  The pain of isolation and loneliness often swallows the bile back for the sake of community.  When citizens are confident that the relationships which form community are stable and not threatened by difference then evil may be that much harder to manifest communally.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Anyone else get a flash of Lord of the Flies or The Handmaiden's Tale?

 Faerenach, the "Lord of the Flies" example is interesting, and leads me to some reflection on "evil communities."

I once read an analysis of that book in which the author (and I can't remember his name) tried to argue that the community the boys developed on the island wasn't actually evil. It was a result of simple immaturity, an inability to understand consequences or to really know right from wrong because they were too young. It was essentially an analysis of the novel from the point of view of child psychology. Undoubtedly if you put children into that kind of a situation there's going to be a degree of chaos. But the larger question I suppose is the "age of majority" if you will - at what point does a person begin to have the capacity to commit evil? It seems to me that we commit "evil" when we do something that's wrong even though we know that it's wrong - when we violate our conscience, in other words, what Paul describes as the law written on our hearts. (Yes, there may be other accurate definitions of evil as well, but that's what I'm working with for now.)

By that standard, the author of the analysis was wrong. The boys clearly knew they had done wrong, as evidenced by their reaction to the naval officer who shows up at the end of the book. The suggestion is of  an "uh-oh. We've been naughty" type of  reaction. They knew what they did was wrong. Therefore, they had committed evil; therefore the community they had developed was evil. It might, though, be worth pointing out that not every member of an evil community is evil. There are some who try to to fight against the evil. In LotF, the example would be Piggy, I suppose.

That's literature, but I think that there are a whole range of historical examples one could offer that would undeniably constitute "evil" communities.  I guess the one that leaps right to mind is Nazi Germany.

I don't think I have much to say that hasn't been said - I like RevJohn's idea of community as a place of welcome of/for two or more people; the answers to the rest of your questions are variations on that theme. While I suspect that all communities share SOME common thread(s) - geography/location, ideology, interests - the best ones accept differences as opportunities for growth, learning and expansion; ideally they do not behave in an evil fashion. However, not all communities are ideal. And while I can't answer your question CH about the actual relationship between community and communication as 'root words' - I can certainly say that I strongly believe that for any version of the former to function properly, the latter is necessary.

There also is a link between "community" and "commune"; both "commune" as a noun and "to commune" as a verb.

"To commune" is more that just communicating, it is communicating in intimacy of mind and soul. And the noun "commune" denotes material sharing, as it was practiced by the early Christian community and by primitve hunter/gatherer groups all over the world. The ideology of "communism" arose from that, and a "commune" is a communist community. A "commune" is also known as a "collective" or "cooperative." In the good old hippy days, I was a member of a farming collective, as we called it, but it actually was more of a co-op. We shared equipment, expertise, labour, and some produce.

Let us not forget virtual communities, like our wonderful wondercafe, where we commune in intimacy of mind and soul  via the internet.

Other communes or communities with tragic consequences were the Branch Dividians in Waco, Texas and the Jonestown community in Guyana where over 900 people died.

When does a commune or community become a cult?

Hi all... the thread puts me in mind of Cheers:

Be glad there's one place in the world
Where everybody knows your name,
And they're always glad you came;
You want to go where people know,
People are all the same;
You want to go where everybody knows your name.

It may be that my favourite activity consists in finding my way to a downtown coffee shop. Along the way I walk others are met. Smiles are exchanged. Sometimes a brief conversation. Over time a sense of community grows along the path.

Arriving at the familiar coffee shop, I notice the presence of newly met and long time friends. Each met serendipitously along the way. Among them are the town's justice seeking youth, artists and poets from the craft college in town, seniors out for their constitutionals, tourists in for a visit and curious about the town, soldiers from the nearby training base, students from the two liberal arts universities in town, and others as well.

Though Wondercafe.ca is virtual, lacking all the affective signifiers that enrich human interaction, I am much blessed by the gathered persons and the diversity of perspective brought into the mix. Surely our communications make of us a community. 

Hi gecko46:

When does a commune or community become a cult?

When it is lead by an individual who dominates the community through mass hypnosis, mesmerization, sheer charisma, force, threats, coercion, and/or intellectual or spiritual power.

Cults don't have to be evil; the early movement around John the Baptist and Jesus did have cultish aspects. A cult becomes evil when the leader uses or rather misuses his power over others for egocentric purposes.

From my experience, communities, if they need a leader at all, work best if leadership is rotated. Or, if leadership can't be rotated, be as egalitarian as possible, with everyone serving the community, and the leader leading by example and being its foremost server.

Hear, hear!

Arminius wrote:

Let us not forget virtual communities, like our wonderful wondercafe, where we commune in intimacy of mind and soul  via the internet.

I am 200% positive that the WonderCafe is a community.  I feel that the internet has provided the global society a way of interacting with nearly every cultural community out there - and that it is now up to us to learn how exactly to identify who we are, with all these potential connections and identifiers open to us.  What I feel the WonderCafe does is build community without the usual accepted anonymity found elsewhere on the web.  I love this place because people share themselves with others - in a way that is at the heart of any strong community.  Transparency and acceptance, despite differences.  Sounds ideal, doesn't it?

I remember having this same discussion with at AST. What is community.

It came up because there were several different groups at the school. And some wanted to define what was the official UC comunity and what wasn't,

One of my proffesssors pointed out tyou can not make a community, you can't create it. Community has to happen.

It happens when people get together to support each other through good times and bad. When they  build each other up instead of trying to tear each other appart. It is a positive place where growth can happen. People feel safe to share their thoughts and beliefs.They do not always have to agree, but they support each other even when they disagree.

Faerenach wrote:

Arminius wrote:

Let us not forget virtual communities, like our wonderful wondercafe, where we commune in intimacy of mind and soul  via the internet.

GeoFee wrote:

Though Wondercafe.ca is virtual, lacking all the affective signifiers that enrich human interaction, I am much blessed by the gathered persons and the diversity of perspective brought into the mix. Surely our communications make of us a community. 

 

I am 200% positive that the WonderCafe is a community.  I feel that the internet has provided the global society a way of interacting with nearly every cultural community out there - and that it is now up to us to learn how exactly to identify who we are, with all these potential connections and identifiers open to us.  What I feel the WonderCafe does is build community without the usual accepted anonymity found elsewhere on the web.  I love this place because people share themselves with others - in a way that is at the heart of any strong community.  Transparency and acceptance, despite differences.  Sounds ideal, doesn't it?

Yes, Farren, close to Heaven on Earth, eh?

"Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away,"

Rev 19:21

This has been a wonderful discussion. thank you for all the input.

I don't know where i am going with this but I am wondering about church communities. If they have to happen and are not built as alidragon quotes, why, then , are we spending so much time talking about "building communities" in churches and in the courts of the church? 

crazyheart, I think that 'creating community' and 'building community' are two different things.  You can sow a seed, water it, tend it, etc... but you have no real guarantee it will turn into a plant.  There has to be something more than just the will to be a community to create one, I think.

You guys are making me want to redo the first sermon I ever did in my UU fellowship. It was on the notion of community, the Internet as a community of communities, and where the UU principles might fit into that world, esp. the first (the inherent worth and dignity of each person). I don't even have a printout of it anymore, so I'd have to re-write it from scratch but, given that it predated social networking sites like Facebook, it probably needed a hefty re-write anyway. WC would feature prominently in that re-write, I'm sure.

Mendalla

The concept of a virtual community - such as Wondercafe - has a tremendous opportunity to change the very nature of community.

We live in exciting times - a wonderful opportunity to escape from the confines of parochialism.

Not everyone can afford to travel to other lands, other cultures - but with a computer one can travel and explore the world.

Here I am, sitting at my laptop in Australia.

It's summer here - and I'm communicating with Canadians experiencing snow and winter.

Yet we are all members of this community called Wondercafe.

A virtual community has the potential to become a global community.

And not just virtually - if I hadn't joined Wondercafe I doubt if I ever would have travelled to Canada in "real" life.

Once I did, I discovered that, despite cultural differences, folks truly are members of the one community.

Jesus talked about this one global community - he called it the Kingdom of God.

Pilgrims, I noticed you changed your profile image. Are you near the floodings in Australia? It's in times like these that the community really shines. Most people go out of their way to help those in need during a crises

Christ knew the value of community. He worked in groups and knew that together we are stronger than any individual could ever be. When he said that we should "love thy fellow man as much as thyself", He was basically saying that the "community" of humanity was just as important as the individual.

Neo,

I explained my avatar change in "Avatars and User Names" in the Social forum.

I live in Sydney, New South Wales - the floods are in Queensland. I wanted to highlight their plight, so changed my avatar.

Being part of a virtual "overseas" community gave me the opportunity.

Right on Pilgrims Progress. I think the whole world community is watching their plight with concern. If it's not droughts, it's floods. And now they are talking about the economic calamity that'll come out of this.

A little more on the affective deficit. I suspect the spiritual presence offers adequate compensation. It matters how I feel about me and you, each and all, when I key words, phrases and paragraphs.

Also, I am aware that the challenge and encouragement of virtual community translates well into the visceral experience of community in the streets of the city.

What I learn in virtual space I practice in my living relations at home, and about town.

An upper room of sorts.

This thread is providing me what lots to think about I'm glad you started it Crazyheart.  It is something that I have thought about a lot over the years, general thinking and wondering how it applies to church.  I used to think that church was about acceptance of differences, welcoming all, deepening relationships and being a safe and understanding group to share honest feelings with.  When connected to a particular church it quickly became obvious that the other people there didn't think that was 'how it worked and what they were about'.  Other people here on WC have shared the difficulties they faced with lack of welcome, no acceptance of there differences, feelings of being left out of the activities or being criticised for sharing honest feelings. For that I am grateful as I learned that it wasn't just me who didn't get absorbed into a caring community when I entered a church!

I think community can be found on different levels - theres the community where you live, the community at your gym (or service club, church etc), the community of a few long term, trusted friends, the community of those who go camping, or dancing or always take there kids to the pool on Tuesday after school. 

It must be wonderful to have a truly meaningful community at your church - but it seems hard to achieve, and is maybe an occasional thing rather than a lifestyle or dedicated group.  I think, in theory the community there somehow ought to be more meaningful because of the spiritual aspect, than a more casual grouping.  As has been pointed out here in the WC many people go to church as a purely social thing and aren't actually seeking a spiritual experience at all.

 I find community here in the WC and with small groups of friends with similar and very different interests.  Connections are made as opportunities arise or are created.

At one time I think you could call your neighbourhood a community.  Everybody did 'know your name' and probably a lot more about you.  Your kids went to the same school.  A teenager in your neighbourhood delivered your paper and another offered to walk your dog or shovel you driveway for a price.   You sat out on your front steps in the cool of the evening in the summer and spoke to the people walking by and sometimes they joined you on the steps for a few minutes. 

Now the area where I live, is hardly a neighbourhood let alone a community.  On the street where I've lived for over 30 years I don't know most of the people.  My long time next door neighbour sold her house over a year ago.  I've met the young couple who bought it, spoken to them a couple of times, but I don't know them.  I wouldn't recognize them if I met them at the mall.  They go to work during the days and seem to be away most weekends.  Good neighbours in the sense that they don't bother me, but we don't communicate.  I wouldn't know if they we sick, or if they had a parent die.  I wouldn't know if they needed help unless they came over and spelled it out.   It's a long time since people around here welcomed a new neighbour with a casserole, loaned them garden tools, and offered to watch their children.  

I am a part of several communities:  at church, in my bowling league, on the WonderCafe but not in my neighbourhood.

Hi kaythecurler:

Sometimes it is difficult if not impossible to be open in intimacy of mind within a congregational Christian community. Christians in general are imitative rather than creative—this is part of traditionalist Christianity! Imitative behaviour and thinking are encouraged, creative and independent thinking discouraged, and it is impossible for a creative or independent thinker to be open in intimacy of mind in such a situation. And if one is open, one meets resentment.

But here on wondercafe we can bear our souls, eh?

The shootings in Tucson shows how one person ( mentally ill or evil) can affect the community and like a ripple affect  the surrounding communities - the country and beyond.

The shootings in Tuscon show us what extreme polarization can lead to.

Here, in our own wondercafe community, we also experienced the negative effects of polarization. Sometimes, the most important thing to be is wrong. Or, as Loretta Lynn sang, "sometimes right is just as wrong as wrong is."