I did my final MDiv Practical Theology project on rural church ministry. This is back when the whole “Emerging Church” thing was going on, so I basically took a lot of the ideas floating around and tried to contextualize it and reflect upon it with a small town in mind. Many of the questions being raised by post-evangelicals who were becoming aware of the epistemological emptiness of Modernism were not only relevant for those in big cities. They seemed very relevant to the people I was serving in a town of less than 2,000 people! They weren’t necessarily the same questions, but they were addressing many of the same assumptions that seemed to dominate and shape our church cultures.
So I found myself trying to figure out how to be more “missional” in a smaller community. Missional practitioners in Detroit are throwing Christian rave parties to reach people but that would not go over with most of the people living in a small town in Northern WI. Sure, there are people that would love it, but for most people it wouldn’t translate. Now if we had a polka or a Bluegrass festival, we’d have tons of people come out.
Do you see what I was dealing with? I had to read a ton of books and listen to a ton of talks and then try to extrapolate the principles underlying the forms being advocated in order to figure out what I could do here in the boondocks. This can be hard work, but it certainly is worth it!
One of the issues I’ve come to understand about the community I am serving is really challenging. If you are interested in Missional Theology and are concerned about reaching Post-Moderns and are immersing yourself in relevant literature and research, you’ll probably have read David Kinnaman’s unChristian or You Lost Me. Kinnaman (Barna) and Ed Stetzer (LifeWay Research) and others have wisely informed the church that there has been a significant culture shift in much of America and there are many people who are no longer “religious” or “spiritual” or “Christian.” This has caused many pastors and missiologists and missional-minded Christians to approach society without assuming that they have a “religious” framework so to speak.
Thus we have many churches attempting to remove things that fit into the “Christianese” or “churchianity” subculture. One example of this is in the removal of steeples from church building architecture. Steeples have historically been an architectural “sign post” saying, “Hey, this is a religious building,” but you’re seeing more and more churches being built without them. I know a large number of pastors and missionaries who do this because they believe it will help further the gospel and will remove barriers to relationships that are moving towards evangelistic goals. The bottom line is that some people see a steeple and think things like, “Hey, there’s a TBN church that just wants my money” or “That building is full of hypocrites” or “I wonder if that Reverend has molested any children.” My point may seem exaggerated, but it isn’t.
What does this have to do with small town missional thinking? Great questions! In our community, I have found that the vast majority of people are religious. As you can tell, I’m using the term “religious” rather loosely and without definition. That’s a conversation for another day. My point is that there is a foundational framework within the thinking of most people I’m called to reach. I’ve found that most people believe in God. Most people grew up in some sort of faith community, often as Roman Catholics or Lutherans. Most have even gone through some sort of catechism training.
Because of this foundational framework, the people in rural communities often have formed some very strong impressions of what is “religious.” And while I realize that what Jesus did (and does) is to expose the false “religious” views that we have in order to replace them with the “religion” of the Kingdom of God, I wonder if rural churches can think a bit differently about contextualization than the standard “become less religious in order to reach people” way of thinking.
I actually wonder if perhaps it would be wiser and missionally effective to adopt some of the traditionally “religious” aspects of the Christian subculture in order to gain legitimacy in the hearts and minds of our mission field.
I don’t know. I just have come to realize that people often have expectations of what “church” is and sometimes our deconstructions and “seeker-sensitive/seeker-aware” praxis isn’t as contextual as we would like to think.
All this is to say that what works in Detroit doesn’t necessarily work in Northern WI and I think we sometimes forget that rural communities often have a framework that gives you legitimacy before you’ve gotten all hipster.
What do you think? Is it possible that the more “religious” we are, the more contextual we become?
Luke is a pastor-theologian living in northern California, serving as a co-lead pastor with his life, Dawn, at the Red Bluff Vineyard. Father of five amazing kids, when Luke isn’t hanging with his family, reading or writing theology, he moonlights as a fly fishing guide for Confluence Outfitters. He blogs regularly at LukeGeraty.com and regularly contributes to his YouTube channel.
YES! The context of rural/small town ministry is as different from large city/metro ministry as earth is from mars. In many ways they truly are different planets. The lack of understanding the critical aspect of cultural context leads many well meaning, gifted, and anointed ministers to failure without ever realizing why.
I think a secondary contextual reality also bears consideration. Although rural/small towns have many similarities there are geographic differences that also make effective ministry in one area often radically different than the other.
In rural/small town Wisconsin and Minnesota the element of “religion”, as felt by most in terms of their “Catholic/Lutheran” family histories, is far different than what you find in the Bible Belt further south. I was raised in that “Bible Belt”. As a person living there I only knew of two Catholic and two Lutheran churches that even existed within some 30 miles of my home. The “religious” culture there was one that largely accepted the “born again” message. Obviously far, far fewer lived it. However, it was an almost universally accepted Gospel message in those who called the place home. What is cutting edge relevant in one of those may be totally out of place in the other.
It seems to me that you raise some key thoughts Luke. One being the differences I must embrace to be successful in rural/small town ministry over more urban settings. The second being the specific, or geographic, small town culture I am doing ministry in. To fine tune our understanding of those two questions is a key factor in more effectively reaching those communities.
Good post with intriguing thoughts Luke!
Jason… you and I are in the same boat having to figure out the same stuff.
I must say Luke that this article is so thoughtful and full of maturity my young friend.
Thanks, Sean. đ
What do you think? Is it possible that the more âreligiousâ we are, the more contextual we become?
It all depends on the area. Like you, I read a bunch of the emerging church stuff (and liked a lot of it) and had to translate the concepts into rural Idaho. One of the things I learned it that a lot of folks are actually more âemergingâ than we give them credit for â especially those raised in Pentecostalism. In other words, modernism did take over the entire culture, there are those within the USA who grew up and still have a pre-modern worldview who are ready to just past modernism.
Another point I learned is that out here is that in order for you to be a âlegitimateâ church, you need a church building. Yeah, you can survive for a while without one â but if you really want to make an impact on the community, you need to get a building. This is the opposite of what a lot of post-modern folks are saying (i.e. having church in third places like coffee shops, etc.). The reason for this is threefold: one, folks in rural areas want to know if you are going to stick it out or if you are a fly-by-night group. Two, while they may not go to church, most of them still respect the church and know that church is a good thing. Three, there arenât any coffee shops in cow pastures. =P
Joshua,
Yes, I agree with many of these same findings here in WI… it’s pretty crazy, actually.
Many “successful” foreign missionary organizations don’t spend their energy determining what historical or contemporary approaches should be accepted/modified/rejected, but rather on “being all things to all people that I might win some”. The Church must answer questions that are being asked — TODAY —— IN THIS PLACE. The Holy Spirit will guide into WHAT is to be done to facilitate the ignition of the spark of Faith that leads to hearing,belief and salvation. (Just the opinion of an older man who has embraced the need for change and is concerned that the Church is too concerned about the past.)
Cliff, what organizations are you speaking about? I’ve noticed the opposite trend… it seems like most organizations are aware of the wisdom of spending time thinking through these issues related to contextualization.
Are there organizations that are experiencing successful missional work without doing so? I’d be interested in learning more about them…
In the Muslim world, this is a huge issue right now (and has been).