In recent years, a sense of community has declined throughout the United States. This trend is especially evident among younger generations, whether measured by civic participation, political involvement, or religious affiliation. Central Community Church - an intercultural congregation located in Tampa Bay's urban corridor - has responded to this trend by promoting "community" as an organizational metaphor. An organizational emphasis on community, however, still does not answer the question of what community is or how it is constituted through the communicative processes and practices of an intercultural congregation. For that reason, this book explores particular ways in which that metaphor was co-constructed by Central Community's racially/ethnically diverse leaders and members, as well as limitations and tensions that emerged from those efforts. In Part One, I begin by surveying the three prevailing views of community: community as physical space, community as disembodied concept, and community as communicative process.
I continue by positioning this study within relevant literature on the social construction of race, the sensemaking process, organizational metaphor, metaphoric understanding, tension-centered approach, and dialectical theory. In Part Two, I build upon four years of ethnographic fieldwork in order to outline this study's context and qualitative research methods: participant observations, semi-structured interviews, photography-driven interviews, and World Cafe. In Part Three, I discuss (a) specific ways in which "community" was understood by the racially/ethnically diverse leaders and members of Central Community Church, (b) unintended consequences that emerged from the metaphor of community, and (c) ways in which dialectical tensions were managed in order to maintain this metaphor. I then introduce an original theoretical concept called the diversity paradox: an emphasis placed upon one potential understanding of diversity which, paradoxically, limits opportunities for alternative expressions of difference. I conclude with three practical implications, as well as potential directions for future research.