Office - 116 LaRonge Rd. Saskatoon, SK. S7K 8E5
Phone - 249-4844 Fax - 955-7462

From April to June of 2003 we, Naomi Unger and Eric Olfert, carried out 'congregational interviews' with the ten smallest Rural congregations of Mennonite Church Saskatchewan, in the context of the Vibrant Rural Churches Project. Information on how the interviews were conducted, copies of the notes from each meeting and a compilation of responses according to selected themes are available on request.

This analysis will attempt to draw out some of the meaning of the responses we were given in those interviews, according to somewhat subjective categories, chosen by Naomi and Eric.

I Issues Related to Being Rural Churches:

A. Small Rural Churches have Much to Teach Us about being 'Missional'.

We are beginning here from the understanding that 'Missional' refers to the model of church that is emerging as Christendom reaches its end. Under Christendom (the union, or at least close symbiotic relationship between church and state dating back to Constantine) the 'playing field' was clearly tilted towards the church, tending to keep the church full, however nominal the commitment of those Christians might be. As we move into a society where the playing field is at best neutral, and increasingly tilted against the church (as it was against the early church); nominal Christians drift away, and the church that is left is (forced/able) to be more clearly defined and active. Commitment, dedication and active involvement become increasingly important criteria for membership.

We are certainly not arguing that the societal 'tilt' against the church is stronger in rural than in urban communities; in fact we would suspect that this dynamic may be stronger for the urban church. But the larger rural-urban dynamic in our society has had a strong tilt in favour of the urban for at least a half-century in this province, and our rural communities are under severe stress. This stress has clearly impacted heavily on our rural churches in the same ways as on their communities, draining away their youth (seeking education and employment), their elderly (seeking an easier retirement and better health care options), and many of their productive members (tired of the struggle to survive in the rural economy).

It is our sense that the stress our rural communities (and thus our rural churches) are under has accelerated and increased the urgency of developing new models of doing church that was described in the first paragraph of this section. Those small rural churches who have found ways to survive have done so by involving everyone, by calling out the commitment and gifts of all their members and in doing so have found new vitality and vibrancy; new meaning for the concept of church.

Comments we heard in support of this analysis included; "We are so few that we can't afford and don't need to tolerate 'pew sitters'." "Everyone gets involved and out of that comes incredible energy, and 'work' becomes 'fun'." And "Sometimes we feel sorry for those big city churches where the majority just warm a pew."

B. There is Life in Working Together with other Churches in the Community

Mennonite Churches have a history, and certainly a reputation, for working on their own; for separating themselves from other churches by seeking to be 'deliberately different'. We have historically sought a niche that was 'neither Catholic nor Protestant', and often worked harder at defining our differences from, rather than our similarities to, our neighbor churches.

In those rural communities where population loss is felt strongest, our rural Mennonite churches are finding new life in working closely together with churches of other denominations. The Mennonite history of isolation from other denominations has deep roots, but it is clearly no longer 'useful' in today's rural Saskatchewan communities in the ways it was in the past. Examples of finding life in ecumenical cooperation range from responding to disasters together (including offering 'Mennonite' housing to a pastor of another denomination when a manse burned), to community projects and worship events, to sharing pastors, to welcoming those of other faiths to participate fully without forcing them to become Mennonite, to dreaming of 'churches without signs'.

The dynamic in many of these small rural communities tends, as the population shrinks, to be one of 'survival of the fittest'. The last church standing tends to get the most dedicated Christians left from the other denominations, but many just drift away from church. It is our sense that the reputation for deliberate separateness described above makes it extra hard for a Mennonite 'last church standing' to attract members of the closed churches of other denominations.

Two of the ten churches visited (Fiske & Mayfair) have found ways of lowering the 'Mennonite cultural barrier' and have attracted very significant numbers of adherents from non-Mennonite background. How does this happen? What can be done to help it happen elsewhere?

At least two of the ten congregations (Rabbit Lake & Superb) are daring to begin to examine the question: 'What would it look like to try to do a multi-denominational church in our community?' Will we need to close our Mennonite church buildings in order to participate in a multi-denominational church plant? What would such a church look like?

Variations of these questions are a part of the fabric of all ten congregations. Is there permission to explore these and related questions and possibilities?

C. Creative Solutions to Pastoral Leadership Needs

The search for Pastors is an ongoing issue for these churches, as they are generally seen as 'undesirable' assignments by seminary graduates and experienced pastors. The reasons are often similar to the reasons others feel drawn or pushed to the city: financial uncertainties, distance from 'amenities', worry about opportunities for their youth and concerns about the prospects for the future.

The amazing part is how creative and generally successful these churches have been in finding good and varied solutions to this problem. Multi-charge pastorates, part-time or tentmaking pastorates, creative use of lay ministry teams, putting trust in young and/or relatively untrained pastors, identifying, calling and nurturing gifted pastors from their ranks, and learning to thrive through long interim periods between pastors, are all part of the experience. One church said "We've been without a pastor for 11 years of our existence, and we know we can be church quite well without a pastor; the problem is that new people won't join a church without a pastor."

While finding a pastor is an ongoing concern and too frequent task for these churches, they are, for the most part, still able to find good and creative ways of resolving it.

D. Strengths of the Rural Community Mindset

The above lines of thought and possibility arise out of the very real flexibility and resourcefulness of our rural communities. The strong sense of survival, the farmer's irrepressible hope for tomorrow, and the adaptability and ingenuity to find a way through all stand these churches in good stead. The historic Mennonite sense of preservation remains strong, and together with a sense of being under siege makes change difficult. At the same time, the immigrant/homesteader spirit of overcoming all difficulties is alive and well, and the ongoing rural-agricultural crisis itself forces ongoing adaptation. At times one smells whiffs of desperation, but mostly the sense we got was of 'thankfulness for what was good' and of 'buckling down to find a good way through'.

II Issues Related to Being Small Churches

A. Hollow Core vs. Solid Core Churches

At the ministers and Deacons Conference that preceded this summer's MC Canada Assembly, Gary Martens talked of a growing sense that our larger urban churches are increasingly feeling like they are 'hollow core'. He said it is increasingly difficult to find people in those churches who feel as if they are at the centre or well-connected to the decision-making processes of their congregation. Everyone seems to feel in some way alienated from where the decisions are really made. No one will admit to feeling as if they have their hand on the levers.

Our sense of the situation in these small rural churches was exactly the opposite. While not everyone felt like their input was always considered as fully as they would like, people consistently felt strong ownership of the process and results of decision making. Several congregations said that a Church Council meeting was basically a congregational meeting, implying that all decisions were group decisions.

B. The Dynamics of Smallness

Many books have been written about small groups and small churches, and we will not try to review all that material here. There are obviously both strengths and dangers in the small group dynamic. The following is a quick analysis of how these factors were talked about in the interviews.

Many of these churches felt like (and used the self-description) 'extended family'. The banter, the trust, the ability to forgive each other personal quirks, the knowledge of each other's weaknesses and strengths, informality of worship, fellowship and decision making and much more felt like functional family dynamics. In some cases there was a high degree of biological family connection. All of this helped to create a tight-knit group that could put their energy into 'being church' rather than into sorting out internal relationships. Where this 'family' dynamic is an open and inviting one, it can be a powerful way of witnessing to God's love. In several cases new members from non-Mennonite background talked of how natural and warm their welcome into the church had been; how much it had felt like coming 'home'.

The danger is obviously that a strong sense of family can be excluding. People who are not part of the biological cluster can feel like they are outsiders for a long time. For instance when significant church business is done in the context of biological family encounters outside church, it can make those who are not part of the family circle feel very isolated from the process.

C. Intergenerational Empowering and Engaging

The sense of healthy family described above tends to be empowering for all ages. The intergenerational relationships that become possible are wonderful, powerful dynamics that produce growth, understanding and sense of self-worth and of belonging. Children and youth know how to talk to adults and elderly and vice versa. Children, youth, young adults and all the rest, right through to the elderly are accepted, known, loved and encouraged. There is reduced age-group stratification, and a greater sense of solidarity and common commitment.

Mentoring dynamics develop naturally, without formal organization. Handicaps are made 'normal' and abilities emphasized. Gifts are identified, talents brought into the light and developed further and all are drawn into the tasks and rewards of being church. Producing well-polished, professional output takes a back seat to drawing the widest possible group into the vibrancy of participation, involvement and commitment.

And out of this come some amazing events and processes!

D. Creating Experiential Loyalty

We are told that the shift from a modern to a postmodern world view brings with it the demise of institutional loyalty. In the Postmodern world, loyalty is/will apparently be limited to the community of those with whom we share meaningful personal experience.

If this in indeed the tomorrow we face, then we cannot expect to attract people to the church by appealing to the institution or denomination. It would seem that what is described above, that is church where intergenerational dynamics empower and encourage, and church that functions like a healthy, welcoming family, is what can provide the experiences that create and foster loyalty. It is in these areas that we find much hope, especially for youth and young adults who are so much a part of the post modern thinking.

E. Youth

In most rural communities it has already been many years since the cycle of young farm people growing up to become farmers has slowed or stopped. As a result, in many of these small churches there are few young families left with children and youth. As these few children move into their teens, this often becomes a real concern, and some families feel forced to leave small rural congregations to look for churches with larger youth groups. Their concern to give their youth a meaningful peer-group church experience and help them be solidly connected with Christian youth as they move through important transitions and into the years where they prepare for courting, is appropriate and to be respected, but their leaving is painful.

Many of these small rural churches have done an excellent job of helping their youth to 'belong' and blossom in the strong inter-generational congregational dynamic described above. This doesn't work as well for everyone, however, and there is still a strong 'worry' about how to help youth build peer-connections to other Christian/Mennonite youth.

Some churches and families have used RJC and earlier SCBI very effectively to this end, and camps and SMYO continue to play very important roles, but there still seems to be a sense of deep concern in this area. One thought voiced was that church-sponsored and supervised internet chat rooms might help nurture and maintain connections between camp and SMYO activities.

Conclusion

While the struggle of these small rural churches is very real, and the future will clearly call for yet more courage, change and adaptability, the vibrancy identified in our project title is also very real. In their search for survival and meaning, these congregations are discovering some truths and possibilities that can benefit us all. Can we unite in giving them permission to change, to explore possibilities and find new ways of being vibrant church communities in their settings?

Eric Olfert

Go to next page