Community, as we discussed in part I, is a complex creature. One reason it is complex are the myriad misconceptions surrounding the topic. What follows are three more myths of belonging.

More personality = more belonging

Many people believe that some have a natural ability to belong. They assume that if a person is more gregarious, more extroverted, he or she will have little trouble experiencing community, whereas those who are shy will struggle to belong.

This misconception is based on an outward perception of what is taking place. It has very little to do with what is actually experienced. I have interviewed several extroverts who outwardly seem to have little trouble connecting, yet who speak of a deep search for belonging. I have listened also to those who are shy tell me that their lives are rich and full with significant community.

Introversion and extroversion are learned forms of social behavior that help us navigate our day-to-day lives. They are categories for helping us understand and interpret our relational experiences. But introversion and extroversion neither block nor enhance our experience of belonging. Healthy community can be experienced and developed by introvert and extrovert alike.

More proximity = more belonging

Remembering a time when the culture was less mobile than it is today, people tend to believe the fifth myth: geographical proximity creates greater community. Says Randy Frazee, “The simple fact is that in all places of effective community people live in close proximity to each other.”

This statement is both true and false. It is true that people who live in close geographical proximity may connect with one another. Yet space is in some sense a matter of perspective. The same real estate can convey a certain distance in one situation yet have an entirely different meaning in another.

Further, “close proximity” need not be geographical. Consider, for example, the significant connections that are made digitally. Online bulletin boards and chat rooms, instant messaging, and mobile phone text messaging do not require close proximity to establish significant connections among people.

More small groups = more belonging

I have often heard ministers say to their congregations, “We’re glad you’re here. But if you really want to know what it’s like to be part of our congregation, participate in a small group.”

The implication is that small groups are the best—if not the only—way to build authentic community. Almost every book I read on developing a successful church touts small groups as the key. But I have read that churches that provide small group opportunities can expect about a thirty percent involvement at best from the congregation. Even if thirty percent involvement is higher than it is in churches without small group programs, it is still not good.

Why only thirty percent? Because small groups do not accomplish the promise of fulfilling all facets of a person’s search for community. Small groups deliver only on one or two specific kinds of connection. A person’s search for community is more complex than this. The truth is that people can experience belonging in groups ranging in size from 2 to 2,000 or more. People have the competencies to pursue many different paths in their search for community. Many congregations have gone down the small group road only to find they have circled a cul-de-sac and ended up where they began.

Probably, most of us have bought into one or more of these six myths, whether wittingly or unwittingly. And most of us have probably been left feeling like we’ve been cheated out of a promise. I know I have. And so I began to search for an authentic description of “belonging” in order to enhance the “community conversation.” And I began to search for the place belonging plays in the conversation of my life.