This sounds like a mixture of sociological, psychological and practical questions - alongside the question of what is biblical community.

I wonder if there isn’t a hierarchy of belonging; we may belong to multiple communities, but there will be some which receive a greater commitment from us than others, as they reach more deeply into our sense of need, purpose or identity. Part of this is a practical issue: if I want to get some things done, I can’t do them with everybody; there has to be some kind of selection process as to who I do them with. This will reflect a lot about my preferences, for style, goals, task, vision etc.

Congregational leaders tend by nature to want a priority of commitment from those they are leading - otherwise it might be questionable whether they themselves are committed to what they are building. Whether this sense of commitment required is matched by an equal sense of commitment given is another matter.

Belonging is not separate from cultural questions, and church congregations are not isolated from culture. There is historical culture - the moulding effects of an outlook where organisations may require a kind of exclusive commitment - perhaps as reflected in the passing era of the ‘job for life’. Maybe this is reflected in industrial community, which is part of the background that is shifting in today’s culture.

There is also youth culture - where the church leader’s idea of commitment to what she/he is building may be quite different from the young person’s idea of what they are being committed to - which may be much more in the area of immediate friendships, the context of which may change. And perhaps there is something like a postmodern culture - where people are less committed to organisations, and more committed to lower key, relational groups. Maybe this too reflects a background of changing work practices - the transferrable skills mentality.

As a congregational leader, I observe each of the above factors at play in the conregation of which I am a leader.

I think we make the danger of assuming that allegiance to one group or another in the forms of church/congregation which we have had handed down to us reflects biblical practice. The reality may be different; I suspect that early church practice was much more related to community based on social/cultural community: which the relationships of the gospel could inhabit and transform.

There is another dimension which might need to be considered in this fascinating topic: which is in the heart of the Christian faith as an exclusive commitment to Jesus as Lord. The heart of the trinity is a committed core of relationship, but which also seeks to include and share. The corollary of this is a commitment to each other in relationship. This kind of commitment cannot be worked out with all and sundry simultaneously - though it may need to have that measure of inclusivity.

There is a contradictory strain in today’s world - a strand which rejects commitment - maybe because of fear, abuse etc. But there is also a strand which yearns for commitment - in the sense of close, personal relationships.

I think it is interesting that Jesus modelled a pattern of relationships, which was not dissociated from the task and vision of his life which he came to fulfil. In calling the 12 to be with him, he had the basis of an intimate group of friends. But within that group there was an inner core of friendship with Peter, James & John, and then arguably a closer friendship still with one person - John. And beyond the group were a wider group of friends and intimate relationships - the 72, and the households, including women, with whom Jesus freely associated.

Personally, I find something similar: I need people around me at various levels of friendship, and this tends to be formed around my sense of purpose, task and vision for my life. This, as well as my immediate family, tends to constitute my core sense of ‘belonging’.

But I also need much more than that, and I am constantly reaching beyond the boundaries of the familiar, sensing that there is much more that I need to be exposed to in terms of influence and friendship. Maybe some of this is also a natural curiosity: I like variety, and differences of opinion through which I can grow and develop more fully. Maybe this is also indicating that my sense of vision and purpose needs to be constantly subjected to the possibility of change - and that I may need new friends/associates to accomplish this.

This website is a reflection of that for me; also other groups of people like the bruderhof community and their website; and different expressions of church and people round the globe. I’m a natural eclectic - or maybe I’m just like Autolycus in Shakespeare’s ‘Winter’s Tale’: “a snapper up of unconsidered trifles”.

At the moment, for whatever reason, this web community (though I find that statement something of a contradiction in terms) is quite important for me.

I would like to know how your research develops for the paper you are preparing. Maybe you could publish the paper on this site? The topic is one of continuing interest to me.

I wonder if some of the (perceived or real) lack of commitment to a "single congregation" is a reflection or result of our this generation’s general disregard for denominationalism. Perhaps, in generations past, one would be more apt to commit to one congregation because, in so doing, you were connecting to a larger group geographically (say, all the ECLA Lutherans in the world) and historically (one’s parents, grandparents, etc. were all likely ECLA Lutherans as well).

Nowadays, we choose a church based on much different criteria, and we perceive as more-or-less its own free-standing entity. Thus the community formed from modern church membership is not nearly as rich as it once was, creating the need for commitments to multiple faith-communities at different levels.

Just a thought.

I’d be very curious to know if there are any denominations that are actually acknowledging and adapting to these kinds of social changes. I do not know of any church that will allow you to hold membership in multiple churches. Does anyone have a contrary example?