Rural Ministries Task Force

Rural-Remote Task Force Notes
July 13-15, 2009

Task Force Members Present:

Curt Karns (facilitator)
Gary Foster
Arne Stueckle
Pat Baer
Mark Klohe
Frank Beatie
Clay Antioquia

Also Present:
Joyce Emery Synod Staff
Tim Dolan Whitworth University Staff
King Rockhill UMC Rural Ministry (Retired)

After the opening prayer, the meeting continued with a conversation on rural and remote ministry. Out of that initial conversation, the group identified the following joys, concerns and opportunities:

Special Joys of Rural Church Ministry:
• The vibrant life present in so many small churches
• The benefits of organizing churches in clusters for support and mission
• Watching two congregations find new mission by partnering together
• Ecumenical openness of small congregations
• Family belonging
• A great sense of the sacredness of the land in rural churches
• The effectiveness of laity-led ministry
• Wee Kirk

Special Concerns of Rural Church Ministry:
• The need to train clergy to become willing and energetic and patient in learning the language of a particular ministry context.
• We have failed to pass the faith to younger folks.
• In some regions “membership” and “serving on session” are foreign concepts.
• How to connect the many churches looking for pastors and the many rural vacancies. This seems largely to be a financial issue.
• What is the PC(USA) doing now to support rural congregations?
• Why do some churches grow and others fail?
• The low profit margins for farmers/fishers/producers:
Why don’t we apply “fair trade” concerns and processes to domestic products?
• What is the nature of ministry in rural settings?

Opportunities
• A possible partnership with Whitworth University’s Weyerhaeuser Institute
• A recommendation from council to design training for COM’s to better address rural church needs.
• The GA’s Pastoral Residency Proposal
• The seminaries of Dubuque and Louisville in serving rural communities.
• Strategies underway for ecumenical partnering.
• A possible ecumenical approach to CLP training and employment
• The Church’s experience with fairly traded products

Final Report: Areas of Continuing Interest to put on a follow-up agenda
After meeting to discuss the joys, concerns and opportunities before us, the Rural-Remote Ministry Task Force of the Synod of Alaska-Northwest concluded that we did not have adequate time to act on any of these issues. We therefore decided to meet again by conference call. The date for the next meeting will be announced by email.

We noted that the purpose of the synod was to provide opportunities for people engaged in ministry to network and, when appropriate, to discover ministries which require a more formal partnership between entities in the synod.

The following questions were then listed as areas of interest to explore for possible further development, either to provide opportunities for networking, or to explore more in-depth partnering:

1. Should the synod organize a rural church event (perhaps a seminar), bringing together rural church leaders from across the synod?

a. These leaders could be provided an opportunity to connect and brainstorm on common problems and successes. This would provide the benefits of

i. networking (eliminating “aloneness” with problems, sharing experiences that work, sharing ideas for resources and information, garnering the synergy of inspiration from the new connections), and
ii. partnerships (should two or more feel called to enter into a covenantal relationship to address a mission they could not do alone)

b. Some leaders could present papers or otherwise share information on areas in which they have expertise.

2. Should the task force explore the possibility of developing a more intentional model for forming the session into a leadership team?
Some on the task force believe such a model would be very useful for some (though not all) small-church ministry settings.

a. Specifically, the synod might develop an Intentional Gifts Model of forming a session in some settings, especially those unable to support a pastor. Under this model, one elder might be chosen for gifts in worship leadership, another for congregational care, and another for Christian formation, etc. Such intentional teams have worked well elsewhere.

b. This idea might be helped by researching methods used in New Zealand and Madagascar.

3. Could the synod somehow inspire ministries addressing community health?
a. We noted that addiction (and components of addiction like methamphetamine labs, etc.) is an especially acute problem in rural areas.

b. We also noted that the Parish Nurse as educator and coach to care-givers is a model already available, though not widely used in our synod.

4. Should the task force explore methods for providing better support for pastors? If so, how might the results of this effort be most usefully employed?
a. We noted the sense of alone-ness that many rural pastors experience;
b. Some hope to encourage presbyteries (others) to find ways to make phone calls/electronic connections in support of pastors (making the connection connectional).
c. We have not yet taken an adequate look at models for clergy clusters or other group methods of support.

5. What information could the Task Force put in letters to seminaries and COMs regarding
a. the special concerns inherent in rural ministry and
b. our suggestions regarding their part in better addressing these concerns?

Following the meeting, one task force member asked that we consider broadening this Task Force to include small churches, wherever they are located. So another question for the task force would be as follows:

6. Should this Task Force really be a Small Church Task Force (less than 100 members), or a Rural-Remote Task Force?

Rural/Remote Ministry Task Force