Journal articles on the topic 'Methodist Church – United States – Liturgy'

Abstract The aim of the article is to analyze the determinants and other conditions of the religious policy of the Polish state towards the Methodist Church in the Stalinist period. The author took into account conceptual, programmatic, executive and operational activities undertaken by a complex subject of power, formed by three structures: party, administrative and special services. In his opinion, the liquidation direction of religious policy towards the Methodist Church was determined primarily by two factors: 1) the activity of Methodists in Masuria, which was assessed as “harmful activities” because they were competitive to the activity of the Evangelical-Augsburg Church (in which the authorities placed great hopes for effective repolonization of the native population), 2) strong links between the Methodist Church in Poland and the Methodist Church in the West (United States of America, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden). The liquidationa ctivities have been depicted primarily on the basis of solutions included in the action of special services under the codename “Moda”. The author also explains the reasons for the final resignation from the liquidation policy towards Polish Methodism and the inclusion of the Methodist Church in the direction of the rationing policy.

‘Uniformity’, declared Sir John Nicholl, one of the greatest of Anglican ecclesiastical lawyers, ‘is one of the leading and distinguishing principles of the Church of England - nothing is left to the discretion and fancy of the individual.’ At the Reformation the English Church was distinguished not by the decisions of councils, confessional statements, or the writings of particular leaders, but by one uniform liturgy. This liturgy, ‘containing nothing contrary to the Word of God, or to sound Doctrine’ and consonant with the practice of the early Church, was intended to ‘preserve Peace and Unity in the Church’ and to edify the people. It was also opposed to the ‘great diversity in saying and singing in Churches within this Realm’ and, abolishing the liturgical uses of Salisbury, Hereford, Bangor, York, and Lincoln, it established that ‘now from henceforth all the whole Realm shall have but one Use’. This principle of liturgical uniformity was enshrined in the several Acts of Uniformity from that of the second year of King Edward VI to that of the fourteenth year of Charles II, amended, but not abolished, in the reign of Queen Victoria. It was a principle conveyed to the churches in the colonies so that, even if they revised or abandoned the Book of Common Prayer in use in England, as the Americans did in 1789, what was substituted was called ‘The Book of Common Prayer and declared to be ‘the Liturgy of this Church’ to be ‘received as such by all members of the same’. The principle of uniformity was modified during the Anglican Communion’s missionary expansion. The Lambeth Conference of 1920 considered that liturgical uniformity throughout the Churches of the Anglican Communion was not a necessity, but the 1930 Conference held that the Book of Common Prayer, as authorized in the several Churches of the Communion, was the place where faith and order were set forth, and so implied a degree of uniformity maintained by the use of a single book.

The African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, a black Church founded in the United States in 1816, was first established in eastern Haiti when over 6,000 black freemen emigrated from the United States to Hispaniola between 1824 and 1825. Almost a century later, the AME Church grew rapidly in the Dominican Republic as West Indians migrated to the Dominican southeast to work on sugar plantations. This article examines the links between African-American immigrant descendants, West Indians, and U.S.-based AME leaders between the years 1899–1916. In focusing on Afro-diasporic exchange in the Church and the hardships missionary leaders faced on the island, the article reveals the unequal power relations in the AME Church, demonstrates the significance of the southeast to Dominican AME history, and brings the Dominican Republic into larger discussions of Afro-diasporic exchange in the circum-Caribbean.

Essay Abstract “Male Advocates in the Early Decades of the Transatlantic Methodist Deaconess Movement” will analyze the pivotal contributions in the early decades of the deaconess movement of male advocates as founders, financiers, bishops, clergy, authors, and spouses. These men, representing Methodist denominations in the United States, Canada and Great Britain, utilized their power to lobby and cast affirmative votes for denominational approval. They penned detailed studies about deaconesses that provided historical propaganda for the movement, donated buildings and capital to finance deaconess work in their city, and one male advocate, the Rev. Dr. Thomas Bowman Stephenson, a minister in the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Great Britain, founded the deaconess movement in his denomination. Still, while they vigorously championed the deaconess movement, there was not universal agreement among them about the rationale for their support.

In 1868 Ulysses S. Grant remarked that there were three great parties in the United States: the Republican, the Democratic, and the Methodist Church. This was an understandable tribute, given the active role of leading Methodists in his presidential campaign, but it was also a realistic judgment, when set in the context of the denomination's growing political authority over the previous half century. As early as 1819, when, with a quarter of a million members, “the Methodists were becoming quite numerous in the country,” the young exhorter Alfred Branson noted that “politicians… from policy favoured us, though they might be skeptical as to religion,” and gathered at county seats to listen to the preachers of a denomination whose “votes counted as fast at an election as any others.” Ten years later, the newly elected Andrew Jackson stopped at Washington, Pennsylvania, en route from Tennessee to his presidential inauguration. When both Presbyterians and Methodists invited him to attend their services, Old Hickory sought to avoid the political embarrassment of seeming to favor his own church over the fastest-growing religious movement in the country by attending both—the Presbyterians in the morning and the Methodists at night. In Indiana in the early 1840s the church's growing power led the Democrats to nominate for governor a known Methodist, while tarring their Whig opponents with the brush of sectarian bigotry. Nationally, as the combined membership of the Methodist Episcopal Church [MEC] and Methodist Episcopal Church, South [MECS] grew to over one and a half million by the mid-1850s, denominational leaders could be found complaining that the church was so strong that each political party was “eager to make her its tool.” Thus Elijah H. Pilcher, the influential Michigan preacher, found himself in 1856 nominated simultaneously by state Democratic, Republican, and Abolition conventions.

On December 5, 1963, at the end of the second session of the Second Vatican Council, a "Decree on means of public notice" was signed together with the Constitution on the Holy Liturgy. This was the first of the nine decrees issued by the Council, which expressed the views of the entire Ecumenical Church, which represented at the Council more than 2500 bishops, experts and theologians who participated in the General Assembly. Almost half of the Fathers of the Council were pastors of European dioceses. There were also 379 African bishops, 300 bishops from Asia and almost a thousand from the United States at the Council. All of them - the heirs of the College of the Apostles - saw humanity entering into a new phase of dialogue through the media, and wanted to answer the question of whether the Church could use them for their development and proclamation of the Gospel.

Formed alongside the arrival of the first Korean immigrants in Hawaii in 1903, the Korean American Protestant Church has played a significant role in the social, political, and religious lives of Koreans in the United States. However today, membership is declining and the newer generations represent a smaller part of the movement leading the Korean American Protestant Church to review and reform its current respective practices of ministry in terms of language, teaching, preaching, worship, and theological orientation. This article focuses on the critical issues that the Korean American Protestant Church is facing and examines the current common practice of Korean American worship. Additionally, this article proposes theological and liturgical suggestions that could be utilized to help realize the goal of Korean American intergenerational worship. These suggestions are formed against the background of five notable characteristics of the Trinity—flexibility (innovation), communication (sharing and empathy), interconnection, ubiquity, and holistic artistry—which are essential to achieving intergenerational worship and its design. As a sample liturgy, worship combined with a meal invites children and young adults, born and raised in the United States, to participate in leadership roles with first-generation adults, which directly correlates with the aforementioned characteristics. As such, in essence, liturgies like these will lead worshippers to experience the embodied theology of intergenerational worship, based on a practical and theological concept of interdependence and awareness.

ABSTRACTBy a measure of religious affiliation used by Gallup polls for nearly a century, the denomination with the largest following in the United States has always turned out to be “None,” ahead of Catholic, Methodist, Baptist, or any other faith. The existence of such a large flock without religious affiliation might be expected for a country with a Constitution guaranteeing freedom of and from religion. The secular portion of the American electorate has always been big enough to wield, potentially at least, political clout. Its partisan attachments have consistently favored the Democratic over the Republican side. What is limiting the electoral clout of the “Nones” today is that nearly half of them profess no partisan affiliation. They are Independents in matters of both church and state.

ABSTRACTScholars of African-American religious history have recently debated the significance of the black church in American history. Those that have, pro and con, have often considered the black church as a singular entity, despite the fact that African Americans affiliated with a number of different religious traditions under the umbrella of the black church. This article posits that it is useful to consider denominational and theological developments within different African-American churches. Doing so acknowledges plural creations and developments of black churches, rather than a singular black church, which better accounts for the historical experience of black religion. In this piece, I analyze four different denominational and theological traditions that blacks followed in the early Republic: the Anglican–Episcopalian, the Calvinist (Congregational–Presbyterian), the Methodist, and the Baptist. Each offered a unique ecclesiastical structure and set of theological assumptions within which black clergy and laity operated. Each required different levels of interaction with white coreligionists, and, although some tended to offer more direct opportunities for reform and resistance, all groups suffered differing constraints that limited such action. I argue that the two bodies connected to formalist traditions, the Episcopalian and Calvinist, were initially better developed despite their smaller size, and thus disproportionately shaped black community and reform efforts in the antebellum United States.

The Second Vatican Council, taking into account the modern needs of mankind, called for the mutual tolerance of denominations, reforms and compromise in church traditions and practices. This was a response to the practical life of the Ukrainian church in the diaspora. For the Eastern Churches (including the Ukrainian Catholic Church), the Council adopted a separate Decree "The Constitution for the Eastern Churches" 1, on the basis of which a conference of the UCP bishopric, led by the Supreme Archbishop Joseph Slipy, was convened on December 14, 1966 in Rome. It discussed a number of issues, including the case of Divine Liturgy, the liturgical language, the introduction of the Ukrainian spoken language, some reductions in the Service of God, and the reformation of church singing. It was for this purpose that the dioceses established Liturgical Commissions, in particular at the Chicago Department in the United States, which included the musicologist, composer, and musical culture activist of the Diaspora Myron Fedorov (1907-1993). One of the tasks of the commission was to preserve the traditional self-made singing, so that he "did not disappear, but he lived and developed under different kinds: single-handed, double-voiced or in choral works, which most would be out of the richness and beauty of our rite"

This paper examines the preaching at Washington National Cathedral as a response to the dual pandemic of COVID-19 and systemic racism in the United States. Drawing on research from over forty sermons from high church traditions and comparing it with analysis of sermons on Palm Sunday and Easter this paper will show how preachers in high church traditions, accustomed to preaching in the presence of eucharist, adapted their proclamation to respond to a virtual congregation and the absence of in-person communion. Then, the paper examines how Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde and Presiding Bishop Michael Curry further develop elements of eucharistic preaching in Pentecost and Trinity Sunday sermons to respond to the murder of George Floyd. Among other things, Budde and Curry’s sermons call for confession, evoke anamnesis, employ liturgical music, invite embodiment, and offer Christ as broken body and resurrected hope to target systemic racism. These sermonic examples show how the theology and rhetoric of the eucharistic liturgy can be a resource for preaching that more effectively confronts the challenges of a dual pandemic.

Abstract Introductory sentences: We use boot camp translation (BCT), a validated community based participatory strategy, to elicit input from African Methodist Episcopal (AME) congregants, leadership, and healthcare systems in Atlanta, Georgia to create culturally appropriate and locally relevant colorectal cancer (CRC) faith-based screening messages and materials for AME church communities. Brief description of pertinent experimental procedures: In the United States, CRC is the third-leading cause of cancer death and disproportionately impacts African Americans, highlighting the need for timely screening within this community. African American adults have higher annual rates of new CRC cases and are diagnosed with CRC at younger ages when compared to White adults. Regular CRC screening is pertinent to increasing the chance of early diagnosis and survival, however, African Americans are less likely to get screened for CRC than Whites. Church-based educational programs have been successful in promoting cancer screening, including CRC screening, in various racial and ethnic groups. Churches can serve as key partners in delivering health information as they are among the most trusted institutions within the African American community. As part of a collaboration among the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, AME churches and Atlanta-based healthcare systems, we will apply BCT to develop and disseminate messaging to promote CRC screening within the AME community. The BCT session aims are twofold: 1) to identify the role of the church in bringing CRC information to the AME community and 2) to define the content and format of effective faith-based CRC messages tailored for the AME community. Summary of new, unpublished data: The BCT workshops will occur in July 2022.Statement of conclusions: We anticipate preliminary findings and materials to be ready by September 2022. Citation Format: Priyanka Gautom, Jamie H. Thompson, Cheryl A. Johnson, Jennifer S. Rivelli, Gloria D. Coronado. Developing faith-based messaging and materials for colorectal cancer screening: Application of boot camp translation within the African Methodist Episcopal Church [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A102.

The Catholic Church has a long history of conducting schools as part of its mission to evangelize. This paper will contend that in order for teachers to implement the evangelistic mission of Catholic schools, they themselves need an integral formation that puts every dimension of their human nature—body, emotions, will, and intellect—in ongoing communion with Christ and His Church. A brief examination of the impact of secularization in the United States on the Catholic school mission indicates that teachers are inadequately formed to fulfill that mission. Contemplative practice, a common faith formation practice used for Catholic school teachers, will be evaluated as insufficient for achieving its goal because it does not fully account for the way God created human beings. Contemplative practice relies heavily on the work of John Dewey, who applied inadequate anthropological principles to the task of human learning and teacher education. By contrast, faith formation efforts that account for human nature engage both the intellectus and the ratio, and in so doing engage the teacher’s whole integrated person. Teacher faith formation can facilitate the teacher’s encounter with God, allowing Him to form her, by providing analogical encounters with Him through the transcendentals and sacramental encounters with Him in the liturgy.

This paper traces the developments in the Catholic law on mixed marriages beginning with an outline of the canonical provisions that were in force prior to the Second Vatican Council. The impact of the Council teaching on ecumenism and religious freedom became apparent with the promulgation of Matrimonii sacramentum (1966), Crescens matrimoniorum (1967) and Matrimonia mixta (1970). These documents put the legislation on mixed marriages on a new footing and provided the basis for the legislation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Bishop McAreavey analyses various ecumenical dialogues on mixed marriages: ARCIC, the dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Catholic Church, and ongoing dialogues between the Methodist Church and the Orthodox Church (primarily in the United States) and the Catholic Church. He notes in particular what those discussions have to say on the issue of ‘the promises’ and canonical form and comments on the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law on mixed marriages. He considers the basis of the commitment required of the Catholic party ‘to remove dangers of defecting from the faith’ and the commitment ‘to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the Catholic faith’. He accepts the view of Fr Navarrete that whereas the former obligation is of divine law the latter obligation goes no further than ‘to do his or her best’ (pro viribus in the Latin phrase). In the final section, he reflects on the pastoral impact of developments in the canon law regarding mixed marriages, noting the statements of the World Gatherings of Interchurch Families in Geneva (1998) and in Rome (2003).

AbstractHistorians like Oscar Handlin and Timothy L. Smith asserted that international migration, especially that of Europeans to North America, was a process which reinforced traditional religious loyalties. In harmony with this supposed verity, a venerable postulate in the tradition of Scandinavian-American scholarship was that most Norwegian immigrants in the New World (the overwhelming majority of whom had been at least nominal members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway) clung to their birthright religious legacy and affiliated with Lutheran churches after crossing the Atlantic (although for many decades it has been acknowledged that by contrast, vast numbers of their Swedish-American and Danish-American counterparts did not join analogous ethnic Lutheran churches). In the present article, however, it is demonstrated that anticlericalism and alienation from organised religious life were widespread in nineteenth-century Norway, where nonconformist Christian denominations were also proliferating. Furthermore, in accordance with these historical trends, the majority of Norwegian immigrants in the United States of America and Southern Africa did not affiliate with Lutheran churches. Significant minorities joined Baptist, Methodist, and other non-Lutheran religious fellowships, but the majority did not become formally affiliated with either Norwegian or pan-Scandinavian churches.

The article deals with a collection of hymns by the famous church composer and regent B. M. Ledkovsky, a representative of the Russian musical diaspora, whose creative path during the last almost twenty-five years of his life was connected with the United States of America. The verbal basis of the collection was made up of the liturgical texts of the Great Vespers service translated from Church Slavonic into English. Without making a detailed excursion into the historical past of America and without having the intention to create a picture of the formation and establishment of Orthodoxy on American soil (this topic, multi-level and multi-valued, is worthy, in our opinion, of more than one special study), the author touches only on individual events and facts of this history. Referring to the modern church-singing practice, which is accepted today in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR) only partially, and focusing mainly on some features of the services of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), the author considers "Great Vespers" as a collection that generally corresponds to one of the rites of the Russian Orthodox Church, along with the All – Night Vigil written by B. M. Ledkovsky. The English-language verbal basis used in “Great Vespers” is seen as specific to the liturgical work of B. M. Ledkovsky, who always belonged to the Russian Orthodox Church – both in Russia and abroad after the revolution, but at the same time very consonant with the liturgical practice of the OCA, which gradually switched to the national, English language. Published in 1976 St. Vladimir's Seminary Press (SVS Press), one of the leading theological educational institutions of the Orthodox Church in America, where B. M. Ledkovsky worked as a teacher of church music for a number of years, "Great Vespers", composed by the composer on the order of the Seminary, was published after his death. The final revision and preparation of the collection for publication was made by D. Drillock, a student and junior colleague of B. M. Ledkovsky, E. and J. Erikson, R. Evich. They also, as indicated in the publication, carried out an English-language adaptation of the liturgical texts. It is characteristic that the musical component of most of the Great Vespers chants is the material of Obikhod Ledkovsky (All-Night Vigil), published in 1959 in Jordanville in the printing house of St. Job of Pochaevsky Holy Trinity Monastery. Individual hymns of this collection (litanies, Sunday troparia, and others) were later included in the editions of St. Vladimir Seminary in 1980 and 1982 in English ("Holy Week"; "Divine Liturgy", “The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts”). The proposed article examines the composition of the collection, with its features, based on the material of several hymns, shows the confirming statements of the composer and the approaches to harmonization that are fundamentally important for him, which he uses here and in other works. Some attention is also paid to the analysis of musical and linguistic parameters of harmonizations, the issues of vocalization of the chanted liturgical text.

Англиканские Церкви традиционно занимают очень активную позицию по социально-значимым вопросам. В данной статье на примере Церкви Англии и Епископальной Церкви США будет рассмотрено, какой ответ на вызов пандемии коронавируса дало англиканское богословие. Речь идёт в первую очередь о сакраментологии, точнее - о богословии Евхаристии. Статья состоит из трех частей. В первой говорится о формировании англиканского подхода к причащению Святых Таин вне контекста храмового богослужения. Во второй части рассказано о современных литургических и канонических нормах, регулирующих причащение Святых Таин вне храма. Третья часть посвящена описанию и краткому анализу тех перемен в практике преподания таинства Евхаристии, которые произошли и продолжают происходить в англиканской традиции в связи с пандемией коронавируса 2020 г. Методология исследования в первых двух частях основана на анализе богослужебных книг Церкви Англии и Епископальной Церкви США с привлечением классической вторичной литературы. В третьей части основным методом является анализ недавних документов, изданных официальными органами упомянутых Церквей с привлечением данных о практических шагах англиканского духовенства и реакции на них церковных властей, почерпнутых из англиканских церковных СМИ. The Anglican churches have traditionally been vocal on social issues. In this article the authors provide a case study of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church (United States) seeking to comprehend the Anglican theological, or, more precisely, sacramentological response to Covid19. The article includes three main parts. The part one deals with development of the Anglican approach to distribution of the Eucharistic elements beyond the context of communal worship in church. The part two tells about the present state of the related norms and practices. The part three is a theological study of the changes in the Eucharistic practices caused by the Covid19 pandemic. The method applied for the first two parts is based on analysis of official liturgy sources of the Church of England and the Episcopal Church; some classic secondary works are also used. In the part three the authors offer a theological vision based on a selection of resent documents issued by Anglican church authorities in England and the US as well as on mass media information regarding practical steps proposed by some Anglican clergy in both churches.

AbstractA vigorous Protestant left existed throughout the first half of the twentieth-century in the United States. That Protestant left was the left wing of the social gospel movement, which many historians restrict to the pre-1920 period and whose radical content is often underestimated. This article examines the career of one representative figure from this Protestant left, the Reverend Harry F. Ward, as a means of describing the evolving nature and limits of social gospel radicalism during the first four decades of the twentieth century. Ward, the main author of the 1908 Social Creed of the Churches, a longtime professor at Union Theological Seminary (UTS) in New York, and a dogged activist on behalf of labor and political prisoners through his leadership of the Methodist Federation for Social Service, sought a new social order from the early years of the century through the Great Depression of the 1930s. This new order would be the Kingdom of God on earth, and, in Ward's view, it would transcend the competitive and exploitative capitalism that dominated American society in his time. Before World War I, Ward worked to bring together labor activists and church people, and, after the war, he shifted his work toward less expressly religious efforts, while continuing to mentor clerical protégés through his teaching. Ward's leftward trajectory and ever-stronger Communist associations would eventually bring about his political downfall, but, in the mid- 1930s, he remained a respected figure, if one more radical than most, among American Protestant clergy. Organic links tied him and his politics to the broader terrain of social gospel reform, despite the politically driven historical amnesia that later would all but erase Ward from historical memory.

In the Deep South of the United States, there has been a strong respect placed on the value of God and country, and this was always seen as a virtue. However, over the past few years, a healthy view of patriotism has blurred with concepts of nationalism. In a deeply divided nation, how should the Christian church view patriotism? These are weighty questions that need to be answered from a biblically evangelical perspective. This book seeks to take a comprehensive look at the topic by examining how the Bible frames patriotic duty as a proper alternative to both nationalism and cosmopolitanism. Both are misguided as nationalism seeks to exalt one's country against others while cosmopolitanism seeks to ignore divinely-ordained boundaries. This book also investigates how American history has framed the popular discourse about patriotism, which has resulted in both American unity and division. Biblical concepts such as loyalty in friendships, family, and land will be considered as a way to make sense of the nature of healthy patriotism. Approaching the subject with the Apostle Paul in mind, who was himself a dual-citizen in his own day, this book then explores the concept of patriotism with a discussion of two contemporary moral issues: the role of the flag in the church and the prevalence of patriotic liturgy.

Image 1: A Little Free Library. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.IntroductionLittle Free Libraries give people a reason to stop and exchange things they love: books. It seemed like a really good way to build a sense of community.Dannette Lank, Little Free Library steward, Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, 2013 (Rumage)Against a backdrop of stagnant literacy rates and enduring perceptions of urban decay and the decline of communities in cities (NCES, “Average Literacy”; NCES, “Average Prose”; Putnam 25; Skogan 8), legions of Little Free Libraries (LFLs) have sprung up across the United States between 2009 and the present. LFLs are small, often homemade structures housing books and other physical media for passersby to choose a book to take or leave a book to share with others. People have installed the structures in front of homes, schools, libraries, churches, fire and police stations, community gardens, and in public parks. There are currently 50,000 LFLs around the world, most of which are in the continental United States (Aldrich, “Big”). LFLs encompass building in multiple senses of the term; LFLs are literally tiny buildings to house books and people use the structures for building neighbourhood social capital. The organisation behind the movement cites “building community” as one of its three core missions (Little Free Library). Rowan Moore, theorising humans’ reasons for building, argues desire and emotion are central (16). The LFL movement provides evidence for this claim: stewards erect LFLs based on hope for increased literacy and a desire to build community through their altruistic actions. This article investigates how LFLs build urban community and explores barriers to the endeavour, specifically municipal building and right of way ordinances used in attempts to eradicate the structures. It also examines local responses to these municipal actions and potential challenges to traditional public libraries brought about by LFLs, primarily the decrease of visits to public libraries and the use of LFLs to argue for defunding of publicly provided library services. The work argues that LFLs build community in some places but may threaten other community services. This article employs qualitative content analysis of 261 stewards’ comments about their registered LFLs on the organisation’s website drawn from the two largest cities in a Midwestern state and an interview with an LFL steward in a village in the same state to analyse how LFLs build community. The two cities, located in the state where the LFL movement began, provide a cross section of innovators, early adopters, and late adopters of the book exchanges, determined by their registered charter numbers. Press coverage and municipal documents from six cities across the US gathered through a snowball sample provide data about municipal challenges to LFLs. Blog posts penned by practising librarians furnish some opinions about the movement. This research, while not a representative sample, identifies common themes and issues around LFLs and provides a basis for future research.The act of building and curating an LFL is a representation of shared beliefs about literacy, community, and altruism. Establishing an LFL is an act of civic participation. As Nico Carpentier notes, while some civic participation is macro, carried out at the level of the nation, other participation is micro, conducted in “the spheres of school, family, workplace, church, and community” (17). Ruth H. Landman investigates voluntary activities in the city, including community gardening, and community bakeries, and argues that the people associated with these projects find themselves in a “denser web of relations” than previously (2). Gretchen M. Herrmann argues that neighbourhood garage sales, although fleeting events, build an enduring sense of community amongst participants (189). Ray Oldenburg contends that people create associational webs in what he calls “great good places”; third spaces separate from home and work (20-21). Little Free Libraries and Community BuildingEmotion plays a central role in the decision to become an LFL steward, the person who establishes and maintains the LFL. People recount their desire to build a sense of community and share their love of reading with neighbours (Charter 4684; Charter 8212; Charter 9437; Charter 9705; Charter 16561). One steward in the study reported, “I love books and I want to be able to help foster that love in our neighbourhood as well” (Charter 4369). Image 2: A Little Free Library, bench, water fountain, and dog’s water bowl for passersby to enjoy. Image credit: Nadine Kozak.Relationships and emotional ties are central to some people’s decisions to have an LFL. The LFL website catalogues many instances of memorial LFLs, tributes to librarians, teachers, and avid readers. Indeed, the first Little Free Library, built by Todd Bol in 2009, was a tribute to his late mother, a teacher who loved reading (“Our History”). In the two city study area, ten LFLs are memorials, allowing bereaved families to pass on a loved one’s penchant for sharing books and reading (Charter 1235; Charter 1309; Charter 4604; Charter 6219; Charter 6542; Charter 6954; Charter 10326; Charter 16734; Charter 24481; Charter 30369). In some cases, urban neighbours come together to build, erect, and stock LFLs. One steward wrote: “Those of us who live in this friendly neighborhood collaborated to design[,] build and paint a bungalow themed library” to match the houses in the neighbourhood (Charter 2532). Another noted: “Our neighbor across the street is a skilled woodworker, and offered to build the library for us if we would install it in our yard and maintain it. What a deal!” (Charter 18677). Community organisations also install and maintain LFLs, including 21 in the study population (e.g. Charter 31822; Charter 27155).Stewards report increased communication with neighbours due to their LFLs. A steward noted: “We celebrated the library’s launch on a Saturday morning with neighbors of all ages. We love sitting on our front porch and catching up with the people who stop to check out the books” (Charter 9673). Another exclaimed:within 24 hours, before I had time to paint it, my Little Free Library took on a life of its own. All of a sudden there were lots of books in it and people stopping by. I wondered where these books came from as I had not put any in there. Little kids in the neighborhood are all excited about it and I have met neighbors that I had never seen before. This is going to be fun! (Charter 15981)LFLs build community through social interaction and collaboration. This occurs when neighbours come together to build, install, and fill the structures. The structures also open avenues for conversation between neighbours who had no connection previously. Like Herrmann’s neighbourhood garage sales, LFLs create and maintain social ties between neighbours and link them by the books they share. Additionally, when neighbours gather and communicate at the LFL structure, they create a transitory third space for “informal public life”, where people can casually interact at a nearby location (Oldenburg 14, 288).Building Barriers, Creating CommunityThe erection of an LFL in an urban neighbourhood is not, however, always a welcome sight. The news analysis found that LFLs most often come to the attention of municipal authorities via citizen complaints, which lead to investigations and enforcement of ordinances. In Kansas, a neighbour called an LFL an “eyesore” and an “illegal detached structure” (Tapper). In Wisconsin, well-meaning future stewards contacted their village authorities to ask about rules, inadvertently setting off a six-month ban on LFLs (Stingl; Rumage). Resulting from complaints and inquiries, municipalities regulated, and in one case banned, LFLs, thus building barriers to citizens’ desires to foster community and share books with neighbours.Municipal governments use two major areas of established code to remove or prohibit LFLs: ordinances banning unapproved structures in residents’ yards and those concerned with obstructions to right of ways when stewards locate the LFLs between the public sidewalk and street.In the first instance, municipal ordinances prohibit either front yard or detached structures. Controversies over these ordinances and LFLs erupted in Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, in 2012; Leawood, Kansas, in 2014; Shreveport, Louisiana, in 2015; and Dallas, Texas, in 2015. The Village of Whitefish Bay banned LFLs due to an ordinance prohibiting “front yard structures,” including mailboxes (Sanburn; Stingl). In Leawood, the city council argued that an LFL, owned by a nine-year-old boy, violated an ordinance that forbade the construction of any detached structures without city council permission. In Shreveport, the stewards of an LFL received a cease and desist letter from city council for having an “accessory structure” in the front yard (LaCasse; Burris) and Dallas officials knocked on a steward’s front door, informing her of a similar breach (Kellogg).In the second instance, some urban municipalities argued that LFLs are obstructions that block right of ways. In Lincoln, Nebraska, the public works director noted that the city “uses the area between the sidewalk and the street for snow storage in the winter, light poles, mailboxes, things like that.” The director continued: “And I imagine these little libraries are meant to congregate people like a water cooler, but we don’t want people hanging around near the road by the curb” (Heady). Both Lincoln in 2014 and Los Angeles (LA), California, in 2015, cited LFLs for obstructions. In Lincoln, the city notified the Southminster United Methodist Church that their LFL, located between the public sidewalk and street, violated a municipal ordinance (Sanburn). In LA, the Bureau of Street Services notified actor Peter Cook that his LFL, situated in the right of way, was an “obstruction” that Cook had to remove or the city would levy a fine (Moss). The city agreed at a hearing to consider a “revocable permit” for Cook’s LFL, but later denied its issuance (Condes).Stewards who found themselves in violation of municipal ordinances were able to harness emotion and build outrage over limits to individuals’ ability to erect LFLs. In Kansas, the stewards created a Facebook page, Spencer’s Little Free Library, which received over 31,000 likes and messages of support. One comment left on the page reads: “The public outcry will force those lame city officials to change their minds about it. Leave it to the stupid government to rain on everybody’s parade” (“Good”). Children’s author Daniel Handler sent a letter to the nine-year-old steward, writing as Lemony Snicket, “fighting against librarians is immoral and useless in the face of brave and noble readers such as yourself” (Spencer’s). Indeed, the young steward gave a successful speech to city hall arguing that the body should allow the structures because “‘lots of people in the neighborhood used the library and the books were always changing. I think it’s good for Leawood’” (Bauman). Other local LFL supporters also attended council and spoke in favour of the structures (Harper). In LA, Cook’s neighbours started a petition that gathered over 100 signatures, where people left comments including, “No to bullies!” (Lopez). Additionally, neighbours gathered to discuss the issue (Dana). In Shreveport, neighbours left stacks of books in their front yards, without a structure housing them due to the code banning accessory structures. One noted, “I’m basically telling the [Metropolitan Planning Commission] to go sod off” (Friedersdorf; Moss). LFL proponents reacted with frustration and anger at the perceived over-reach of the government toward harmless LFLs. In addition to the actions of neighbours and supporters, the national and local press commented on the municipal constraints. The LFL movement has benefitted from a significant amount of positive press in its formative years, a press willing to publicise and criticise municipal actions to thwart LFL development. Stewards’ struggles against municipal bureaucracies building barriers to LFLs makes prime fodder for the news media. Herbert J. Gans argues an enduring value in American news is “the preservation of the freedom of the individual against the encroachments of nation and society” (50). The juxtaposition of well-meaning LFL stewards against municipal councils and committees provided a compelling opportunity to illustrate this value.National media outlets, including Time (Sanburn), Christian Science Monitor (LaCasse), and The Atlantic, drew attention to the issue. Writing in The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf critically noted:I wish I was writing this to merely extol this trend [of community building via LFLs]. Alas, a subset of Americans are determined to regulate every last aspect of community life. Due to selection bias, they are overrepresented among local politicians and bureaucrats. And so they have power, despite their small-mindedness, inflexibility, and lack of common sense so extreme that they’ve taken to cracking down on Little Free Libraries, of all things. (Friedersdorf, n.p.)Other columnists mirrored this sentiment. Writing in the LA Times, one commentator sarcastically wrote that city officials were “cracking down on one of the country’s biggest problems: small community libraries where residents share books” (Schaub). Journalists argued this was government overreach on non-issues rather than tackling larger community problems, such as income inequality, homelessness, and aging infrastructure (Solomon; Schaub). The protests and negative press coverage led to, in the case of the municipalities with front yard and detached structure ordinances, détente between stewards and councils as the latter passed amendments permitting and regulating LFLs. Whitefish Bay, Leawood, and Shreveport amended ordinances to allow for LFLs, but also to regulate them (Everson; Topil; Siegel). Ordinances about LFLs restricted their number on city blocks, placement on private property, size and height, as well as required registration with the municipality in some cases. Lincoln officials allowed the church to relocate the LFL from the right of way to church property and waived the $500 fine for the obstruction violation (Sanburn). In addition to the amendments, the protests also led to civic participation and community building including presentations to city council, a petition, and symbolic acts of defiance. Through this protest, neighbours create communities—networks of people working toward a common goal. This aspect of community building around LFLs was unintentional but it brought people together nevertheless.Building a Challenge to Traditional Libraries?LFL marketing and communication staff member Margaret Aldrich suggests in The Little Free Library Book that LFLs are successful because they are “gratifyingly doable” projects that can be accomplished by an individual (16). It is this ease of building, erecting, and maintaining LFLs that builds concern as their proliferation could challenge aspects of library service, such as public funding and patron visits. Some professional librarians are in favour of the LFLs and are stewards themselves (Charter 121; Charter 2608; Charter 9702; Charter 41074; Rumage). Others envision great opportunities for collaboration between traditional libraries and LFLs, including the library publicising LFLs and encouraging their construction as well as using LFLs to serve areas without, or far from, a public library (Svehla; Shumaker). While lauding efforts to build community, some professional librarians question the nomenclature used by the movement. They argue the phrase Little Free Libraries is inaccurate as libraries are much more than random collections of books. Instead, critics contend, the LFL structures are closer to book swaps and exchanges than actual libraries, which offer a range of services such as Internet access, digital materials, community meeting spaces, and workshops and programming on a variety of topics (American Library Association; Annoyed Librarian). One university reference and instruction librarian worries about “the general public’s perception and lumping together of little free libraries and actual ‘real’ public libraries” (Hardenbrook). By way of illustration, he imagines someone asking, “‘why do we need our tax money to go to something that can be done for FREE?’” (Hardenbrook). Librarians holding this perspective fear the movement might add to a trend of neoliberalism, limiting or ending public funding for libraries, as politicians believe that the localised, individual solutions can replace publicly funded library services. This is a trend toward what James Ferguson calls “responsibilized” citizens, those “deployed to produce governmentalized results that do not depend on direct state intervention” (172). In other countries, this shift has already begun. In the United Kingdom (UK), governments are devolving formerly public services onto community groups and volunteers. Lindsay Findlay-King, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen trace the impacts of the 2012 Localism Act in the UK, which caused “sport and library asset transfers” (12) to community and volunteer groups who were then responsible for service provision and, potentially, facility maintenance as well. Rather than being in charge of a “doable” LFL, community groups and volunteers become the operators of much larger facilities. Recent efforts in the US to privatise library services as governments attempt to cut budgets and streamline services (Streitfeld) ground this fear. Image 3: “Take a Book, Share a Book,” a Little Free Library motto. Image credit: Nadine Kozak. LFLs might have real consequences for public libraries. Another potential unintended consequence of the LFLs is decreasing visits to public libraries, which could provide officials seeking to defund them with evidence that they are no longer relevant or necessary. One LFL steward and avid reader remarked that she had not used her local public library since 2014 because “I was using the Little Free Libraries” (Steward). Academics and librarians must conduct more research to determine what impact, if any, LFLs are having on visits to traditional public libraries. ConclusionLittle Free Libraries across the United States, and increasingly in other countries, have generated discussion, promoted collaboration between neighbours, and led to sharing. In other words, they have built communities. This was the intended consequence of the LFL movement. There, however, has also been unplanned community building in response to municipal threats to the structures due to right of way, safety, and planning ordinances. The more threatening concern is not the municipal ordinances used to block LFL development, but rather the trend of privatisation of publicly provided services. While people are celebrating the community built by the LFLs, caution must be exercised lest central institutions of the public and community, traditional public libraries, be lost. Academics and communities ought to consider not just impact on their local community at the street level, but also wider structural concerns so that communities can foster many “great good places”—the Little Free Libraries and traditional public libraries as well.ReferencesAldrich, Margaret. “Big Milestone for Little Free Library: 50,000 Libraries Worldwide.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization. 4 Nov. 2016. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/big-milestone-for-little-free-library-50000-libraries-worldwide/>.Aldrich, Margaret. The Little Free Library Book: Take a Book, Return a Book. Minneapolis, MN: Coffee House Press, 2015.Annoyed Librarian. “How to Protect Little Free Libraries.” Library Journal Blog 9 Jul. 2015. 26 Mar. 2017 <http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2015/07/09/how-to-protect-little-free-libraries/>.American Library Association. “Public Library Use.” State of America’s Libraries: A Report from the American Library Association (2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.ala.org/tools/libfactsheets/alalibraryfactsheet06>.Bauman, Caroline. “‘Little Free Libraries’ Legal in Leawood Thanks to 9-year-old Spencer Collins.” The Kansas City Star 7 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article687562.html>.Burris, Alexandria. “First Amendment Issues Surface in Little Free Library Case.” Shreveport Times 5 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/news/local/2015/02/05/expert-use-zoning-law-clashes-first-amendment/22922371/>.Carpentier, Nico. Media and Participation: A Site of Ideological-Democratic Struggle. Bristol: Intellect, 2011.Charter 121. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1235. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 1309. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2532. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 2608. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4604. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 4684. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6219. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6542. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 6954. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 8212. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9437. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9673. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9702. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 9705. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 10326. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 15981. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16561. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 16734. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 18677. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 24481. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 27155. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 30369. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 31822. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Charter 41074. “The World Map.” Little Free Library (2017). 26 Mar. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourmap/>.Condes, Yvonne. “Save the Little Library!” MomsLA 10 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://momsla.com/save-the-micro-library/>.Dana. “The Tenn-Mann Library Controversy, Part 3.” Read with Dana (30 Jan. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://readwithdana.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/the-tenn-mann-library-controversy-part-three/>.Everson, Jeff. “An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Chapter 106 of the Shreveport Code of Ordinances Relative to Outdoor Book Exchange Boxes, and Otherwise Providing with Respect Thereto.” City of Shreveport, Louisiana 9 Oct. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://ftpcontent4.worldnow.com/ksla/pdf/LFLordinance.pdf>.Ferguson, James. “The Uses of Neoliberalism.” Antipode 41.S1 (2009): 166-84.Findlay-King, Lindsay, Geoff Nichols, Deborah Forbes, and Gordon Macfadyen. “Localism and the Big Society: The Asset Transfer of Leisure Centres and Libraries—Fighting Closures or Empowering Communities.” Leisure Studies (2017): 1-13.Friedersdorf, Conor. “The Danger of Being Neighborly without a Permit.” The Atlantic 20 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/little-free-library-crackdown/385531/>.Gans, Herbert J. Deciding What’s News: A Study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2004.“Good Luck Spencer.” Spencer’s Little Free Library Facebook Page 25 Jun. 2014. 26 Mar. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Hardenbrook, Joe. “A Little Rant on Little Free Libraries (AKA Probably an Unpopular Post).” Mr. Library Dude (9 Apr. 2014). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://mrlibrarydude.wordpress.com/2014/04/09/a-little-rant-on-little-free-libraries-aka-probably-an-unpopular-post/>.Harper, Deb. “Minutes.” The Leawood City Council 7 Jul. 2014. <http://www.leawood.org/pdf/cc/min/07-07-14.pdf>. Heady, Chris. “City Wants Church to Move Little Library.” Lincoln Journal Star 9 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://journalstar.com/news/local/city-wants-church-to-move-little-library/article_7753901a-42cd-5b52-9674-fc54a4d51f47.html>. Herrmann, Gretchen M. “Garage Sales Make Good Neighbors: Building Community through Neighborhood Sales.” Human Organization 62.2 (2006): 181-191.Kellogg, Carolyn. “Officials Threaten to Destroy a Little Free Library in Texas.” Los Angeles Times (1 Oct. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-library-texas-20150930-story.html>.LaCasse, Alexander. “Why Are Some Cities Cracking Down on Little Free Libraries.” Christian Science Monitor (5 Feb. 2015). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0205/Why-are-some-cities-cracking-down-on-little-free-libraries>.Landman, Ruth H. Creating the Community in the City: Cooperatives and Community Gardens in Washington, DC Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, 1993. Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/>.Lopez, Steve. “Actor’s Curbside Libraries Is a Smash—for Most People.” LA Times 3 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0204-lopez-library-20150204-column.html>.Moore, Rowan. Why We Build: Power and Desire in Architecture. New York: Harper Design, 2013.Moss, Laura. “City Zoning Laws Target Little Free Libraries.” Mother Nature Network 25 Aug. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/stories/city-zoning-laws-target-little-free-libraries>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Literacy and Numeracy Scale Scores of 25- to 65-Year Olds, by Sex, Age Group, Highest Level of Educational Attainment, and Country of Other Education System: 2012, table 604.10. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_604.10.asp?current=yes>.National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). Average Prose, Document, and Quantitative Literacy Scores of Adults: 1992 and 2003. National Assessment of Adult Literacy. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://nces.ed.gov/naal/kf_demographics.asp>.Oldenburg, Ray. The Great Good Place: Cafés, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe & Company, 1999.“Our History.” Little Free Library. Little Free Library Organization (2017). 25 Feb. 2017 <https://littlefreelibrary.org/ourhistory/>.Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.Rumage, Jeff. “Little Free Libraries Now Allowed in Whitefish Bay.” Whitefish Bay Patch (8 May 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://patch.com/wisconsin/whitefishbay/little-free-libraries-now-allowed-in-whitefish-bay>.Sanburn, Josh. “What Do Kansas and Nebraska Have against Small Libraries?” Time 10 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://time.com/2970649/tiny-libraries-violating-city-ordinances/>.Schaub, Michael. “Little Free Libraries on the Wrong Side of the Law.” LA Times 4 Feb. 2015. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.latimes.com/books/jacketcopy/la-et-jc-little-free-libraries-on-the-wrong-side-of-the-law-20150204-story.html>.Shumaker, David. “Public Libraries, Little Free Libraries, and Embedded Librarians.” The Embedded Librarian (28 April 2014) 26 Mar. 2017 <https://embeddedlibrarian.com/2014/04/28/public-libraries-little-free-libraries-and-embedded-librarians/>.Siegel, Julie. “An Ordinance to Amend Section 16.13 of the Municipal Code with Regard to Exempt Certain Little Free Libraries from Front Yard Setback Requirements.” Village of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin (5 Aug. 2013).Skogan, Wesley G. Police and Community in Chicago: A Tale of Three Cities. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.Solomon, Dan. “Dallas Is Regulating ‘Little Free Libraries’ for Some Reason.” Texas Monthly (14 Sept. 2016). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/dallas-regulating-little-free-libraries-reason/>.“Spencer’s Little Free Library.” Facebook 15 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <https://www.facebook.com/Spencerslittlefreelibrary/photos/pcb.527531327376433/527531260709773/?type=3>.Steward, M. Personal Interview. 7 Feb. 2017.Stingl, Jim. “Village Slaps Endnote on Little Libraries.” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 11 Nov. 2012: 1B, 7B.Streitfeld, David. “Anger as a Private Company Takes over Libraries.” The New York Times (26 Sept. 2010). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/business/27libraries.html>.Svehla, Louise. “Little Free Libraries—The Possibilities Are Endless.” Public Libraries Online (8 Mar. 2013). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://publiclibrariesonline.org/2013/03/little-free-libraries-the-possibilities-are-endless/>.Tapper, Jake. “Boy Fights Council to Save His Library.” CNN 4 Jul. 2014. 25 Feb. 2017 <http://thelead.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/04/boy-fights-to-save-his-library/>.Topil, Greg. “Little Free Libraries in Lincoln.” City of Lincoln, Nebraska (n.d.). 25 Feb. 2017 <http://lincoln.ne.gov/City/pworks/engine/row/little-library.htm>.

Previous studies contend that Philippines is still a ‘collectivist’ society (Cf. Hofstede Center; Cukur et al. 2004:613-634). In this collectivist or community-oriented society, individualism is not something that is highly valued. Being ‘individualistic’ is often associated to being narcissistic, loner, asocial, selfish, etc. However, one may ask whether the youth in the Philippines are not spared from this insidious culture of individualism, notwithstanding the seemingly dominant collective and communitarian character of the society. Although the overwhelming poverty is still the main problem in the Philippines, where according to Wostyn (2010:26) “only the wonderland of movies gives some respite to their consciousness of suffering and oppression”, the Filipino youth of today are also exposed to the consumeristic values of the ‘city’ and are not spared from the contradictions and insecurities posed by the pluralistic society. They are citizens of an increasing social and cultural pluralism characteristic of many liberal societies. Is it possible that individualism may also exist within this culture, especially among the younger generation? Is individualism slowly creeping in as caused by their exposure and easy access to modern technology, to higher education, mobility, interactions with other cultures, etc. Would this individualistic tendency have any influence on their religious beliefs, especially their belief on salvation? What would be the implications and challenges of these findings to the families in the Philippines? These are the questions we wish to answer in this study. This paper is structured in four parts: first, we will discuss the theoretical framework of individualism and salvation; second, we will examine the empirical attitudes on individualism and salvation; third, we will explore the relationship between individualism and salvation; and finally, we will draw some pastoral implication especially in relation to the document “Lineamenta - The Vocation and Mission of the Family in the church and Contemporary Word” (henceforth, Lineamenta). References Atkins, P. (2004). Memory and Liturgy. The Place of Memory in the Composition and Practice of Liturgy. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society. London: Sage Publications. Bellah, R. N. , Madsen, R., Sullivan, W., Swidler, A., Tipton, S. (1985). Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. Berger, P. (1970). A Rumour of Angels: Modern Society and Rediscovery of the Supernatural. New York: Doubleday.Berger, Peter L. (1967). The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books. Bosch, D. (1995). Believing in the Future. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International. Billiet, J.B. (1995). Church Involvement, individualism, and ethnic prejudice among Flemish Roman Catholics: New evidence of a moderating effect. Journal for the Scientifica Study of Religion, 34, 224-233. Brazal, A. (2004). Reinventing Pakikipagkapwa: An Exploration of Its potential for Promoting Respect for Plurality and Difference. In D. Gonzalez (Ed.), Fundamentalism and Pluralism. Manila: DAKATEO, 50-70. Burnett, G. (2001). Paul and the Salvation of the Individual. Leiden: Brill. Capucao, D. (2010). Religion and Ethnocentrism. Leiden/New York: Brill. Carter, A. (1990). On Individualism, Collectivism and Interrelationism. Heythrop Journal, 23-38. Chaves, Mark. (1994). Secularization as Declining Religious Authority. Social Forces 72, 749-774. Cukur, C. S., De Guzman, Maria Rosario T., and Carlo, Gustavo. (2004). Religiosity, Values, and Horizontal and Vertical Individualism – Collectivism: A Study of Turkey, the United States, and the Philippines. The Journal of Social Psychology, 144(6). Washington, DC: Heldref Publications, Helen Dwight Reid Educational Foundation, 613-634. Curran, Mary Bernard. (2013). Expressive Individualism: A Change in the Idea of the Good and of Happiness. Heythrop Journal. LIV, 978-991. Davie, Grace. (2002). Europe: The Exceptional Case: Parameters of Faith in the Modern World. London: Dartman, Longman, and Todd. De Mesa, J. (1987). In Solidarity with the Culture. : Studies in Theological Re-rooting. Quezon City: Maryhill School of Theology. De Vellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and applications. Newbury, Ca: Sage. Dobbelaere, K. (2001). Individualisation: A Multi-Dimensional Process?. In A. Harskamp & A. Musschenga (Eds.), The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, 47-61. Doorman, M. (2004): The Romantic Imperative. Amsterdam: Prometheus/Bert Bakker. Dupuis, J. (1999). The Truth Will set you Free. Louvain Studies, 24, 211-263. Duriez, B., Luyten, P. Snauwaert, B., and Hutsebaut, D. (2002). The relative importance of religiosity and value orientations in predicting political attitudes: Empirical evidence for the continuing importance of religiosity in Flanders (Belgium). Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 5, 35-54. Durkheim, Emile. (2009). Sociology and Philosophy. Taylor and Francis. ISBN ISBN 978-0-415-55770-2. Accessed May 8, 2015. Edwards, D.L. (1997). Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years. New York: Orbis books. Ester, P., Halman, L. & De Moor, R. (Eds.). (1994). The Individualizing Society. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Federation of Asian Bishop’s Conferences (FABC). Office of the Laity and Family-Youth Desk.(2009). Asian Youth and the Eucharist. A Regional survey 2008. Taytay, Rizal: FABC-OLF-Youth Desk. Fiske, A. (2002). Using Individualism and Collectivism to Compare Cultures – A Critique of the Validity of Measurement of the Constructs: Comment on Oyserman et al. (2002). Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 128, No. 1, 78-88. Froese, Paul D. (2009). The Plot to Kill God: Findings from the Soviet Experiment in Secularization. Berkeley: University of California Press. Furnham, A. (1990). A content, correlational and factor analysis study of seven questionnaire measures of the Protestant work ethic. Human Relations, 43, 383-399. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and Self-Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press Giddens, A., Beck, U., and Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive Modernization: Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the Modern Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in Public. London: Allen Lane. Gonzalez, D. (Eds.). (2004). Fundamentalism and Pluralism in the Church. Manila: DAKATEO. Gorospe, V. (1988). Filipino Values Revisited. Manila: National bookstore. Gorski, Philip & Altinordu, A. (2008). After Secularization. Annual Review of Sociology 34:55-85. Gorski, Philip. (2005). The Return of the Repressed: Religion and the Political Unconscious of Historical Sociology. In J. Adams, E. Clemens, and A.Orloff. (Eds.). Remaking Modernity. Durham: Duke University Press. Goizueta, Roberto S. (1991). Democratic Capitalism and the Spirit of Individualism: An Analysis of Thought of Michael Novak. Voices from the Third World: Journal of the Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians, Volume 14, 147-69. Halman, Loek. (2001). Individualism in Contemporary Europe. In A. Harskamp & A. W. Musschenga. (Eds.). The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, . 25-45. Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. (2001). The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters. Heitmeyer, W. (2001). Lack of Recognition: The Socially Destructive Consequences of New Capitalis. In A. V. Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. (Eds.), The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters. Hellemans, S. (2001). From ‘Cathokicism Against Modernity’ to the Problematic ‘Modernity of Catholicism. Ethical Perspectives 8, 2, 117-127. Hellemans, S. & Wissink, J. (Eds). (2012). Towards a New Catholic Church in Advanced Modernity. Transformations, Visions, Tensions. Zúrich/Múnster: LIT Verlag. Hofstede Center. Philippines. http://geert-hofstede.com/philippines.html. Accessed May 2, 2015. Huismans, S. (1994). The impact of differences in religion on the relation between religiosity and values. In A. Bouvy, F.J.R. van de Vijver, P. Boski, and P. Schmitz (Eds.), Journeys into cross-cultural psychology. Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger, 255-268. Ikalwese. (2013). Family, For real? Ppeople and friends,Philippine society,thoughts, Thoughts - Philippines. Blog Entry posted October 24, 2013. Accessed from: https://whenthenailsticksout.wordpress.com/2013/10/24/philippines-japan-collectivism-and-i/. Inglehart, R. & W. Baker (2000). Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values. American Sociological Review, Vol. 65, no. 1, 2000, 81–82. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and Postmodernization. Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Countries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Iyengar, Sheena. (2010). The Art of Choosing. New York: Hachette Book Group, 34-35. Jeurissen, R. (1993). Peace & Religion. Kamken Kok Pharos Publishing House. Jocano, F. L. (1992). Issues and Challenges in Filipino Value Formation. Punlad Research Paper No. 1. Series on Filipino Values. Quezon City: Punlad Research House. Jocano, F. L. (1992a). Notion of Value in Filipino Culture. The concept of Pamantayan. Punlad Research Paper No. 2 . Series on Filipino Values. Quezon City: Punlad Research House. Kagitcibasi, C. (1997). Individualism and Collectivism. In J. W. Berry, M.H. Segall, and C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology Vol. 3. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 1-5. Kerkhofs, J. (1998). Some European Reflections about Individualism. Ethical Perspectives 5, 2, 102-108. Lambert, Y. (2004). A Turning Point in Religious Evolution in Europe. Journal of Contemporary Religion, Vol. 19, no. 1, 29–45. Lane, D. (2011). Stepping stones to other religions: a Christian Theology of Inter-religious Dialogue. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books Luckmann, Th. (1979). Persönliche Identität, Soziale Rolle und Rollendistanz. In O. Marquardt (Ed.), Identität. München: Fink, 293-313. Luhmann, N. (1989). Individuum, Individualität, Individualismus. Gesellschaftsstruktur und Semantik. Studien zur Wissensoziologie, Bd. 3, Frankfurt a.M.:Suhrkamp, 149-259. Mangahas, M & Labucay, I. (2013). “9% of Catholics Sometimes Think of Leaving the Church”, SWS Special Report, 7 April 2013. http://www.sws.org.ph/pr20130407.htm, Accessed: 30 April 2013. Martin, David. (1991). The Secularization Issue: Prospect and Retrospect. British Journal of Sociology 42 (3), 465-74. Menamparampil, T. (2012). Between secularization and Fundamentalism. Omnis Terra. n. 425, XLVI, 143- 155. Miranda, D. (1989). Loob: The Filipino Within. Manila: Divine word Publications. Musschenga, A. (2001). “Introduction. The Many Faces of Individualism,” In Harskamp, A.V. & Musschenga, A. The Many Faces of Individualism. Leuven: Peeters, pp. 3-23. Norris, P. & Inglehart, R. (2004). Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Oyserman, D., Coon H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluationof theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3-73. Ponce, R. (2005). Spirituality and quality of Life. An Empirical-Theological Exploration among Filipino Migrants in the Netherlands. Quezon City: Institute of Spirituality in Asia. Pope, Stephen. Expressive Individualism and True Self-Love: A Thomistic Perspective. Journal of Religion, 383-399. Research Hub. “Secularization”. http://wiki.thearda.com/tcm/theories/secularization/. Accessed: 28 May 2015. Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Sampson, E.E. (2000). Reinterpreting individualism and collectivism. Their religious roots and monologic versus dialogic person-other relationship. American Psychologist 55, 1425-1432. Schreiter, R. (1997). The New Catholicity. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis. Schroeder, R. (1992). Max Weber and the sociology of culture. Newbury park, London: Sage. Sevilla, C.G., Ochave, J.A., Punsalan, T.G., Regala, B.P., Uriarte, G.G. (1992). Research Methods. Rev. ed. Manila: Rex Bookstore. Singelis, T.M., Triandis, H.C., Bhawuk, D.S., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Horizontal and Vertical dimensions of individualism and Collectivism: A Theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross Cultural Research, 29. Smith, Christian. (2003). The Secular Revolution. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 240-275. Sinha, D. & Tripathi, R.C. (1994). Individualism in a collective culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. Theoretical and methodological approaches to study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application. London: Sage, 123-137. Stark, Rodney. (1999). Secularization, R.I.P. Sociology of Religion, vol. 60, no. 3, 249–73. Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65. Schwartz, S.H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New Cultural Dimensions of Values: Theoretical and Methodological approaches to study of collectivism and invidualism. In U. Kim, H.c. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism. Theory, method, and application . London: Sage, 85-123. Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S. (1985). The future of Religion. Secularization, Revival, and Cult formation. Berkeley. Stark, R. and Bainbridge, W.S. (1987). A Theory of Religion. New York Taylor, Charles. (2007). A Secular Age. Cambridge/London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Taylor, Charles. (1975). Hegel. London/New York: Cambridge University Press. Tschannen, Oliver. (1991). The Secularization Paradigm: A Systematization. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 30, 395-415. Triandis, H.C. (1994). Theoretical and methodological approaches to study of collectivism and individualism. In U. Kin, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, and G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and Collectivism: Theory, method, and application. London: Sage, 19-41. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview. Triandis, H.C. (1996). The Psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415. Triandis, H.C., & Gelfand, M.J. (1998). Converging measurements of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 275-289. Van der Loo, H. & W. Van Reijen. (1993). Paradoxen van modernisering. Muiderberg: Coutinho. Van der Ven, J. (1993). Practical Theology. Kampen: Kok Pharos. Van der Ven, J. (1998). Education for Reflective Ministry. Louvain: Peeters. Veenhoeven, R. (1996). Leefbaarheid van landen. Utrecht: Research Papers Onderzoekschool Arbeid, Welzijn en Sociaal Beleid, nr. 7. Volf, M. (2006). The End of Memory. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans. Walzer, M. (1984). Liberalism and the Art of Separation. Political Theory 12, 315-333. Wostyn, L. (2010). In Search of A Human Jesus. n.p. Ziebertz, H-G. & Kay, W. K. (eds.). (2005). Youth in Europe 1. An International empirical study about Life Perspectives. Münster: LIT.