Reaching Postmodern Rural Communities - Part Three - The Rural Church as the Social Center of the Community

In my previous two posts I explained how technology has changed rural communities by bringing postmodern ideas and people into rural areas. These postmodern ideas are a challenge for the rural church. Those churches have typically enjoyed significant support from their community. Though postmodern people are interested in spirituality, they often do not think of the local church as the exclusive source of such spirituality. Rural churches often struggle to reach people who think differently than what they are used to. But rural churches can reach postmodern people by capitalizing on four reliable practices, each of which I will deal with in separate blog posts. The first of those practices is helping the church regain their place as the social center of the community.

The smaller the community the more likely that the rural church was once the social center of the community, which is a good historical reputation for a rural church. When I first moved to Vermont in 1993 I served as pastor of the Washington Baptist Church. It was a small rural church that was located in the middle of a village of 500 people. Though the church had dwindled down to less than 20 and had become less active, there had been a time when it was the social center of the community. Though that time had passed nearly three decades before I arrived, I discovered that many people in the community still thought of the church as the place that should be the social center of the community.

Our rural church began to host a variety of concerts, outdoor bar-b-ques and sports activities that helped the church regain their position as the place where exciting social events happened. The community responded positively to those efforts because in the collective consciousness of the community, the church had a long history of doing such events even though the church had not done them recently.

Rural churches should look for a variety of new ways to enhance the concept of the church as the social center of the community. This is going to require more than just having church services on Sunday. New people who move to an area are normally looking for connections with the community. Therefore these new people are prime candidates for the church to reach, even if they have a different worldview than the church. Regretfully, the church often never connects with those new people because they do not know how. Churches often make announcements in their church bulletin, but since new comers are not present to read those announcements, they are not very effective in encouraging new comers to take advantage of the social activities of the church.

The easiest way to connect with these new people is with the use of technology. Just as technology brought postmodern ideas and people to rural communities, churches can use that same technology to draw people to their social functions. Postmodern people who move into an area are typically more technological than the average American. This means they socialize and communicate more via electronic media than in person. To reach these people, rural churches must discover how to use Facebook, MySpace, text messaging, Web sites and other technological opportunities for promoting their social events. These types of technological gateways are often the "front door" that postmodern people come through. Having a church Web site is a must. Starting a Facebook page for your youth group or some other ministry is important. A church might consider collecting everyone's cell phone number so it can send out text message announcements about church events. There is not a single "easy" answer to connecting with new comers, but using technology to promote the church's social functions is a place to start.

A rural church that already has a wide variety of ongoing activities may continue to do many of the same activities and programs that they have always done, but they must learn to promote those programs and activities through the technological methods that postmodern people are accustomed. Churches must learn how to connect socially through technology if they want to attract all those new people in town to church. The historical memory of the church as the social center of the community gives the rural church an advantage, but in order to capitalize on that advantage, rural churches are going to have to discover how to use technology to attract and engage newcomers.

Will creating a website or Facebook page alone be the answer to connecting with postmodern people? Of course not, it is but one step in an ongoing effort to reach out. In my next three blog posts I will discuss three additional ways that churches can reach out to postmodern people who now live in rural communities.

Reaching Postmodern Rural Communities - Part Two - How Change in Rural Communities is Affecting the Church

In my previous blog post I discussed how technology has brought the world to rural communities. This has caused progressive ideas that are more typical of urban areas to now become more common in rural areas. Technology has also allowed people to move to rural areas who would not normally live there. How are these changes affecting the local church?

The influx of new people and new ideas into rural areas is rapidly transforming the rural mindset into a more postmodern way of thinking than what the rural church has been used to dealing with in the past. Postmodernism at its core is the idea that individuals have both the intelligence and the right to decide what truth is for themselves based on their own experiences and relationships without any objective external standards. Because most rural churches would see the Bible as objective truth, people with a postmodern mindset are not as supportive of the rural church as the rural community at large has traditionally been.

Though postmodernism is built on a person's individual experience and relationships, not on any type of absolute truth, many postmodern people are actually interested in learning about spirituality. They just may not be prepared to accept the church's traditional brand of spirituality the first time they hear it. Rural churches will have to work harder to reach these postmodern people. But postmodern people who live in rural areas can be reached because the Gospel is a powerful truth that penetrates even the hardest hearts!

But how should rural churches attempt to reach these postmodern people? Rural churches may be under the false impression that they must toss out everything they practice and believe and find some radical new way of doing church in order to reach the postmodern people who now populate their communities. While many rural churches may indeed need to examine some of their methods and programs in order to be more effective, they do not need to throw out everything and start over. With a few simple adjustments, there are a number of reliable practices that rural churches can continue doing. Four practices that are the easiest to modify and implement are: the church as the epicenter of the community socially, the church as the epicenter of the community ceremonially, the church as the epicenter of the community physically and the church as the epicenter of the community philosophically. I will discuss each of these four reliable practices in separate blogs posts over the next four days.

Reaching Postmodern Rural Communities - Part One - Rural Communities are Changing

In the stereotypical rural American community everyone knows everyone and there are lots of interpersonal connections through school, church, and community organizations. In those types of communities, it is common for many people to be related by blood or marriage to a significant portion of the local population. All the natives know the unofficial way of how things get done, which usually has a lot more to do with who you know than any official policies and procedures. Such communities are often more conservative than urban areas. Such communities are normally more respectful of religion in general, though not everyone goes to church. Such communities are normally more Caucasian than urban areas, have lower crime rates and frequently have a lower educational level than the national average. This is the stereotype many people have of rural American communities and, in the past, many aspects of that stereotype were probably accurate.

However, rural American communities are rapidly changing. Though the rural stereotypes can still be found, they are increasingly the minority culture in rural areas. As well-educated and socially active families have grown frustrated with urban life and disenchanted with suburban sprawl, they are increasingly moving to rural areas. Sometimes they are people who once lived in the area who have now moved back. But more often they are urbanites seeking to escape all the problems of urban living. With the advent of computer and Internet technology, urbanites can now live anywhere and still have the same income level they once had to live in the city to attain.

But it is not just the newcomers who are changing the nature of rural communities. The same technology that made it possible for outsiders to move in has also brought the outside world to rural communities. Rural teenagers can now be just as connected and up to date on music, clothing styles and philosophical concepts as their urban counterparts. Rural adults are now exposed to more progressive ideas and concepts than ever before and some of them are buying into these new ideas.

Rural areas have traditionally been the strongholds for religion and faith in American life. But how do these changes in the rural community impact the local church? I will address the impact of these cultural changes on the rural church in my next blog post.

Penetrating the Darkness

Earlier this week I attended a strategy planning meeting in Atlanta. The meeting was with various leaders from the denomination which I am a part. We were discussing ways to penetrate the spiritual darkness that pervades our land. At that meeting we heard the latest statistic, which is that 258,000,000 people in America do not have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

That huge number represents individual people who do not have the hope, joy, peace, comfort and strength that faith in Christ brings. From a theological perspective, we must penetrate this spiritual darkness and help these people discover faith so that they can experience eternal life. From a practical perspective, numerous studies have shown that people who have an active faith are happier people and more responsible members of the community. This means that from both a theological and practical perspective, if we want our nation to continue to be great, we must think of ways to engage that large portion of the population in a meaningful discussion of who Christ is and what part He plays in their lives.

The good news is that recent research shows that 70% of those people would be interested in having such a spiritual discussion if it were with a friend or relative who was living out their own faith in an authentic way. The two challenges that we Christians face are making sure we are living our faith in an authentic way and that we are courageous enough to share that faith with those who are close to us. They need the message we have to share. They are willing to listen. Are we willing to share?

Never Let Conflict Affect Our Mission

Preached by Dr. Terry W. Dorsett, pastor, Faith Community Church, Barre, VT

January 17, 2010

Scripture Passage: Acts 15:36-41

Verse 36 - After some time had passed, Paul said to Barnabas, "Let's go back and visit the brothers in every town where we have preached the message of the Lord, and see how they're doing."

• Paul and Barnabas had come to Jerusalem in order to get advice about the controversy regarding legalism and grace. After clearing up that difficulty in favor of grace, they felt led to take a missionary trip.
  
• The point of any missionary trip is to share the Gospel with others and encourage the believers who are already there. In this situation, Paul and Barnabas wanted to see how the churches were doing that they had helped start on their previous trip.
  
• We must remember that it takes time to build relationships and learn how to minister effectively in any particular situation.
  
  

  
  

  Verse 37 - Barnabas wanted to take along John Mark.
  

• As Paul and Barnabas prepared to go on this mission trip, Barnabas wanted to take John Mark along with them.
  
• Barnabas was known for being a great encourager. In fact, he was one of the few people who encouraged Paul when he first became a Christian.
  
• We all need great encouragers in our lives.
  
• Barnabas thought that if he and Paul took John Mark with them on this mission trip, it would encourage John Mark to grow in his faith.
  
• On the job training is one of the best ways to learn about our faith and grow in the Lord.
  
• John Mark was Barnabas's younger cousin, so Barnabas was particularly interested in encouraging John Mark in his faith.
  
  

  
  

  Verse 38 - But Paul did not think it appropriate to take along this man who had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not gone on with them to the work.
  

• Paul did not think it was a good idea to take John Mark along with them because on the last mission trip John Mark had quit half way through the trip and went home.
  
• Sometimes we volunteer for things that we later realize are really not right for us.
  
• But it is important to finish what we start and fulfill whatever commitments we have made.
  
• When we fail to keep our commitments, it has lasting effects on our reputation and our usability for future endeavors.
  
• The Greek word for "appropriate" actually means "worthy." Paul does not think John Mark is worthy of going on this trip because he was a quitter.
  
• John Mark's reputation as a quitter robbed him of the joy of future service. Though he did eventually reunite with Paul, it was many years later. (2 Timothy 4:11)
  
• Scholars take different sides in this argument.
  
• Some say Paul was being harsh for not giving John Mark a second chance.
  
• Others say Barnabas was overly influenced by the fact that John Mark was his relative.
  
• In reality, both men probably let their emotions get in the way of clear thinking.
  
  

  
  

Verse 39 - There was such a sharp disagreement that they parted company, and Barnabas took Mark with him and sailed off to Cyprus.

• The disagreement between Paul and Barnabas was so sharp, they parted company.
  
• The Greek word used for "disagreement" is also used through the New Testament to describe anger, irritation, and exasperation. It is also used to describe God's wrath at idolatry. It is a strong word.
  
• Remember, these were two godly men who had served the Lord together for years and undergone significant hardships and difficulties together.
  
• They were not only professional colleagues, they were also dear friends. Yet their friendship ended over this disagreement.
  
• It is sad when Christians cannot resolve their differences and friendships end as a result.
  
• Obviously we want to avoid this if at all possible, but sometimes we can't avoid it.
  
• Regretfully, sometimes even godly people just have differences of opinion that cannot be overcome.
  
• If we realize that we must end a relationship for irreconcilable differences, we must end it well and in a way that honors Christ.
  
• Notice that Barnabas did not get so angry that he dropped out of church. Instead, he became more involved in missionary work.
  
• When a relationship ends, we should not let it take us away from the Lord.
  
• The goal of conflict resolution between Christians should always be to build up the Body of Christ, not to "win" or "be right."
  
• Disagreements between Christians need not hurt the testimony of Christ if all the people involved keep the "big picture" of God's redemptive purposes in mind.
  
• In this situation, Paul and Barnabas decided to each engage in different missionary efforts.
  
• This resulted in two missions being launched instead of just one.
  
• The missions were not in "competition" with each other because they went to two completely different places.
  
• Barnabas and Mark went to Cyprus, which was Barnabas's homeland and where Mark also had many relatives.
  
• The Bible does not record the results of their efforts but church tradition says that Barnabas became the first Bishop of Salamis, his native city, where he was eventually martyred and was secretly buried by his cousin Mark.
  
  

  
  

  Verse 40 - Then Paul chose Silas and departed, after being commended to the grace of the Lord by the brothers.
  

• Paul chose Silas as his new assistant and they followed through on Paul's original plan to revisit all the places he had previously evangelized and started churches at.
  
• Little is known of Silas other than he was a Roman citizen, which gave him certain rights that most Christians did not have, and that he had been active in reaching non-Jews for Christ.
  
• Notice that Paul's trip was "commended" by the church.
  
• This phrase was not used of Barnabas's effort.
  
• This seems to indicate that the church supported Paul's efforts and perhaps did not support Barnabas's effort.
  
• This does not mean that the church thought Paul was "right" and Barnabas was "wrong." It simply means that the church was not in a position to support every missionary cause and had to choose one of the two.
  
• Churches often have to make difficult decisions about which missionary efforts to support. Such choices are a reality of limited time, energy and resources and not necessarily an indication that the church thinks a particular missionary effort is not worthy of support.
  
• Paul's particular effort seemed to fit the church's overall mission efforts more than the trip Barnabas undertook, so they supported Paul's effort.
  
  

  
  

  Verse 41 - He traveled through Syria and Cilicia, strengthening the churches.
  

• As Paul traveled, his focus was to strengthen the churches. God has ordained the local church as the primary method through which He will reach the world for Christ.
  
• Missionary efforts should be primarily focused on helping start and strengthen local churches similar to the ministry of Paul. This does not mean that other efforts are not important; it just means that local churches should be the focus.
  
  

  
  

  Conclusion:
  

• Sometimes Christians have honest disagreements that they are unable to reconcile.
  
• When such disagreements end a relationship, it must be done in a way that honors Christ.
  
• A church, or individual, can only do so much, so we should find a cause and be faithful to it.
  
• Our causes may differ from other good Christians and that okay so long as God is lifted up in whatever our cause is.
  

The Idolatry of Tradition

A few months ago I visited a rapidly growing church in South Carolina that is primarily attracting young adults to their worship services. It was an exciting experience and I wrote about it in my blog the following week. That blog was recently published in the Baptist Courier, which is the official newspaper for the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Though many in South Carolina read the article and rejoiced that God was doing such a powerful thing among young adults in their area, one pastor wrote to say he disagreed with my observations. Though I want to be careful not to judge my brother in Christ, his comments highlight what I see as a disturbing trend developing in some traditional churches. I call it "tradition idolatry."

When I refer to tradition idolatry what I mean is the tendency to assume that following one's religious traditions is that same thing as following God. Don't get me wrong, many cherished church traditions are very meaningful and it would be sad to see them neglected. But cherished traditions are not equal to Biblical mandates. Churches must never give up biblical mandates, but they may alter their traditions many times over the lifetime of a congregation.

After all, most traditions in churches were simply products of their time and were convenient ways to do things when they were developed. Times have changed but in many churches, the traditions remain. For example, many traditional churches have Sunday morning worship at 11 AM. That was a time that worked well for the farmers that made up many congregations when American culture was more agricultural oriented. But that particular time slot is not as convenient as it once was, yet the tradition remains in many churches. Churches that forget the point of worship, which is to honor and glorify God in spirit and in truth, and instead focus on the time slot are in danger of practicing tradition idolatry.

Perhaps the time slot is not important to some churches, but what about the instruments used in worship? Certain instruments were popular a generation ago, but different instruments may be popular today. The point is not the instruments themselves, but how those instruments are used to glorify God. More traditional churches may use a hymn book while less traditional churches may project the words on the wall. Both are products of the times and neither is mandated in Scripture. What congregations need to be taught is how to worship with a heart that is focused on God not on self. While traditions may have an allure of "godliness," they are often simply catered to "self" because we feel comfortable with our traditions. Sadly, when people choose to follow their traditions instead of following the Bible, the boundary of tradition idolatry has been crossed.

Churches that have begun to hold to their traditions more than to timeless Biblical principles cannot expect to be blessed by God. God has never blessed idolatry, nor will He ever bless it. Let us each examine our hearts to see where we are placing our trust. Is it in the traditions of men or in the Word of Truth?

Is Truth Still Truth If No One Knows It?

Years ago I remember having the most challenging philosophical discussion with a group of friends regarding whether a tree that falls in the woods when no one is around still makes noise when it falls. Looking back on that discussion, it does not seem nearly as important now as it did then. But that old conversation did come to my mind last night when the teen youth group at our church discussed the essence of truth.

The subject of the discussion was whether truth was still truth if no one knew it was the truth. Though I am sure that there were still differing opinions when the 69 teens who had gathered finally ended the discussion, it was clear that the vast majority agreed that truth is truth even if no one knows it. What was even more challenging in the discussion was how we should respond to truth once we become aware of it. We discussed how hard it is to accept the truth about ourselves, especially truth about our imperfections and problems. We also discussed the truth about Jesus.

Though it has become popular in our culture to deny the truth about Jesus, if what Jesus said about Himself is true, then it is true whether we choose to learn it, believe it, or follow it or not. Simply choosing not to learn, or not believe, or not follow the truth about Jesus in no way negates that reality of that truth. The bottom line is that truth is the truth and once we come to know it, we are responsible for doing something with that truth.

As we consider the essence of truth, we are left with two important questions to consider.

1. What is the REAL TRUTH about ourselves and how will we respond to that truthful assessment of ourselves?
   
2. What is the REAL TRUTH about Jesus and how will we respond to a truthful assessment of His life, His death and His teachings?