Many years ago I had the privilege of doing some summer work in a rural parish. The parish covered 7 or 8 points (congregations, for those unused to angli-speak) spread out over what I considered to be a fairly wide area. When I came to Alberta, I discovered that distances are measured in hours of driving, rather than miles. "It's about 4 hours from here, if the roads are good, while you still have daylight."
As the diocese of Edmonton begins to select a new bishop, I want to ask a question. or two. What is the future of rural ministry? Will it be forgotten in favour of urban/suburban ministry? Will it go the way of the family farm? I'd like to see the candidates views on this one...
Our family made a camping motor holiday to Saskatchewan this past summer & the feeling of vast space is overwhelming.
We will keep the Diocese of Edmonton and the Yukon in our prayers.
Posted by: Wet Coast Tom | January 10, 2008 at 01:09 PM
Amen Joe. I do a lot of pulpit supply and interim fill in for rural Anglican, United and Lutheran churches in this area and it is hard watching them struggle to keep their doors open - especially when they are one of the remaining groups serving the needs of communities under a lot of stress.
Posted by: Erin | January 10, 2008 at 01:43 PM
I think it should one of things the candidates in our episcopal election need to address. Our rural communities have been under stress for some time now, and the church needs to retool its ministry.
Posted by: joseph | January 11, 2008 at 10:42 AM
I know at least one candidate who plans to do that...
Posted by: Tim | January 11, 2008 at 01:43 PM
That's quick. The deadline for nominations was this past Monday. So you know who the candidates are, Fr. Tim?? Please share.
Posted by: Susan | January 11, 2008 at 05:58 PM
Well, I nominated one of them.
But I'm sworn to internet secrecy until the names are officially made public.
Posted by: Tim | January 11, 2008 at 11:54 PM
All speculation on the candidates will be reserved for the back alley behind the synod office.
ps - any real speculation on actual names will be deleted...
Posted by: joseph | January 12, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Sorry for asking. Silly me. I bow to the Gnostic Secret Knowledge Types. Far be it for me or any simple parishioner to want to have any information. Every once in a while I forget that the great majority of us are just supposed to be happy mushrooms.
Posted by: Susan | January 12, 2008 at 09:29 PM
Susan - it is more about making sure that nominated names have had their checks done and are actually eligible. It would be rather embarrassing for a candidate to have their name out there and then for the chancellor to discover something, err, amiss.
My team is working on cracking the safe.
Posted by: joseph | January 12, 2008 at 09:39 PM
Rural ministry is always first priority for the Anglican Church...that's why we always send our most experienced and skilled pastors to the rural charges, and save the stable, city parishes for the more inexperienced.
Posted by: Matt | January 13, 2008 at 04:58 PM
i meant to clip it for you, but i didnt, so i am qouting from memory--but i would cut urban from that, there is much shutting down and discussion of shutting down unproductive anglican parishes in toronto recently, and RC parishes in Montreal. I think the only people who regularly go to church in large numbers any more are those in the suburbs.
Posted by: anthony | January 14, 2008 at 11:09 PM
anthony - did you see the article in the Globe and Mail about the ecclesiastical executioner? Of course, as one friend of mine remarked, the only thing more difficult than trying to resurrect a dying church is actually trying to kill it...
Posted by: joseph | January 14, 2008 at 11:31 PM
i thot it was in the star, but that was the article i was refering to.
Posted by: anthony | January 15, 2008 at 07:23 AM
Susan, I think that's unfair. The only reason I know the name of one candidate is because I nominated that candidate. I have no knowledge of any other candidates. I've heard rumours, but they're just as good as anyone else's rumours. I am not a 'gnostic secret knowledge type'.
Posted by: Tim | January 15, 2008 at 07:49 AM
Yes, Tim. It was unfair and I am sorry. Please forgive me. Not directed at you or anyone in particular. Just venting on a tired old personal secrets are harmful theme that I must get over.
Posted by: Susan | January 15, 2008 at 07:18 PM
No worries, Susan. I probably shouldn't have posted the 'teaser' that got it all going in the first place.
Joe, why shouldn't we have a rural ministries conference in Edmonton? There are all sorts of people over the past few years, in many different denominations, who have written good stuff about building healthy rural congregations. Time for us to access some of that expertise, I think - although I suspect that our addiction to full time seminary trained ordained priests as the one-size-fits-all form of pastoral ministry in the local church might make some of what these writers have to say difficult for us to hear.
Posted by: Tim | January 16, 2008 at 01:08 PM
BTW, your anti-spam word this time was 'feudyg'.
Sounds like a guy with a cold saying 'feuding'...
Posted by: Tim | January 16, 2008 at 01:09 PM
It's the welsh spelling. :^)
Posted by: joseph | January 16, 2008 at 06:12 PM
If you do have a rural ministry conference, I would pose the idea for discussion that it should be in a rural setting rather than Edmonton. It's easy to have enviroment affect discussion, and decisions.
Posted by: steve the z | January 17, 2008 at 09:34 AM
steve - that is probably a very good point. Setting and environment have a definite impact.
Posted by: joseph | January 17, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Out of curiosity, are elements of rural ministry ever covered in seminary?
It is a radically different undertaking than a city ministry...especially if it happens to be a farming community. I don't know, I've often wondered if lots of the...disenchantment?...that comes with heading out to a country church comes with the idea that it's simply a small version of a city church.
Posted by: Leslie | January 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Leslie - that's a good point. I don't recall anything in seminary about rural ministry as such. I don't think we appreciate enough the cultural shifts involved in moving from urban to suburban to rural, nor the specific kinds of ministry which are unique to each.
Posted by: joseph | January 20, 2008 at 04:09 PM
I didn't go to a proper seminary, so I can't comment directly from my own experience. But from talking to colleagues who did, I think its a rare seminary that actually deals with the difference in pastoring the rural church.
One seminary that does offer an M. Div. with a rural ministry concentration is Queen's in Kingston:
http://www.queensu.ca/theology/spages/rural_min.shtml
Posted by: Tim | January 20, 2008 at 04:55 PM