# D.G. Hart on rural ministry



## Josiah

I follow a blog called the Front Porch Republic and found this post by none other than D.G. Hart. I thought I might share it with you all, since I found it to be a very interesting and thought provoking read (as most of what he writes tends to be). I hope you enjoy. 



> Any self-respecting Christian should come down a few rungs on his ladder of self-esteem after reading Wendell Berry on the all-too-common view of organized churches toward farms, farmers, and rural communities. In his essay, “God and Country,” Berry complains rightly that American denominations treat rural congregations invariably as “a training ground for young ministers, and as a means of subsidizing their education.” This stems from a two-fold disrespect for rural people. First is the assumption that persons not yet eligible for ministry are qualified to shepherd country folk. The other assumption regards successful ministry as one that occurs in conditions of high modernity, such as big cities. In other words, churches encourage young ministers to leave rural parishes as soon as possible and find a “normal” congregation. According to Berry, “The denominational hierarchies . . . regard country places in exactly the same way as ‘the economy’ does: as sources of economic power to be exploited for the advantage of ‘better’ places.” Rural congregations can’t help but gain the impression that “they do not matter much.” Or as one of Berry’s Christian friends put it, “The soul of the plowboy ain’t worth as much as the soul of the delivery boy.”
> 
> Part of Berry’s account of this phenomenon is the deep problem of modern Christians being severed in their economic efforts from the land. Because of this division in a modern Christian’s experience, Berry writes, “it is no wonder that [the church is] most indifferent to the fate of the ecosystems themselves.”
> 
> And yet, one could argue that Christians supporting Community Support Agriculture farms, or shopping at Whole Foods Market indicates some awareness of the choices consumers make and the environment that sustains them. If more church folk are turning into “crunchy cons,” does that translate into the spiritual equivalent of, say, the “organodox”? Almost two decades ago, in All God’s Children and Blue Suede Shoes Ken Myers made interesting connections between fast food and popular culture, and wondered if believers who were being fed spiritual junk food in the form of contemporary Christian music and P&W worship would turn out in their souls like the bodies of those habituated to eating at McDonald’s and snacking on Twinkies?
> 
> Signs are not encouraging though that the growing concern among evangelical Protestants about the environment is having any effect on their church’s estimation of the people who work on farms and live near them. A recent story in Christianity Today on Tim Keller, a popular Presbyterian pastor in New York City, suggests that for all the desires that evangelicals have to be cutting edge and socially aware, a ministry accessible to the rhythms of farming and local communities does not qualify as hip. The story fawns over Keller for his ability to carve out a multiple-congregation structure in the Big Apple, for a theology of the city that says cites are where redemption happens, and for the model of ministry he exhibits to a crop of younger pastors who aspire to make an impact.
> 
> According to the news story, “New York attracts the best and the most ambitious.” Keller senses this and ministers accordingly. He told the reporter, “Suppose you are the best violist in Tupelo, Mississippi. You go to Manhattan, and when you get out of the subway, you hear a beggar playing, and he’s better than you are.” One of Keller’s former colleagues puts Keller’s understanding of ministering in the city this way: “Paul had this sense of, I really should go talk to Caesar. He’s not above caring for Onesimus the slave, but somebody should go to talk to Caesar. When you go to New York, that’s what you’re doing. Somebody should talk to the editorial committee of The New York Times; somebody should talk to Barnard, to Columbia. Somebody should talk to Wall Street.”
> 
> Lost in this understanding of ministry among cosmopolitans is the sense that one might be trying to elevate one’s own status by hobnobbing with the influential, that the church’s egalitarian streak has a preferential option for the meek and lowly, or that touting pastoral success in New York City leads to a generation of prospective pastors who will not remain in rural communities once they have seen the lure of church life in the cosmopolis – not to mention that the scale, anonymity, and standard of living in places like Manhattan skew church life in ways that may not be compatible with the agrarian imagery that comes straight from the pages of holy writ.
> 
> Of course, the reasons why evangelicals fawn over the city may stem from sources other than the obvious appeal of bright lights and big buildings. One of them may a born-again infatuation with celebrity and the disillusionment that follows when public figures like Mark Sanford or Miss California, Carrie Prajean, fall from grace. Evangelicals are disposed to understand grace and faith in extraordinary categories and so overlook stories of ordinary believers, routine piety, and even rural congregations as insignficant. Discontent with the average and routine aspects of natural life and of grace appears to breed a similar dissatisfaction with humble ministries in places of little interest to the editors of the Times.
> 
> But is it wrong to wish that Christians, who have discovered the value of wholesome food and the farming practices that produce it, would translate their choices about diet and carbon footprints into congregations and pastors more circumspect about cities and more respectful of the fly-over sectors of the greatest nation on God’s green earth? I hope not.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Good article. I believe that it is important for presbyteries to look at the interests, ambitions, lifestyle, etc. of each candidate as counsel is given on where one should minister. 

I enjoy what city life has to offer me, but that does not mean (in my mind) that every pastor should seek a call in LA, New York, or Chicago. I have good friends (like Sven) who enjoy hunting, fishing, and a more quiet rural life- and since God has placed these things on his heart, I would assume that Sven (and others) will seek calls in those places. It is a shame to think that some ministers believe that the flocks in big cities are more important... of course, I have heard the other extreme as well: it is easier to be Christian in rural America, etc. etc. 

The Lord knows which shepherds belong with which sheep. Let's let him put them together accordingly.... now back to my latte.


----------



## Wannabee

I prefer the country. In the end, each soul is eternal. Each has equal dignity as an image bearer of God. Each will either call Jesus Lord on earth, or on judgment day. No value can be placed on it and none can be placed on one soul above another. It's a sobering thought when we consider how much we tend towards being "respecters of persons" and how much God doesn't.

And I still like lattes. But I make them at home.


----------



## Wayne

[Pipe-dream #5]

This thread seems like a good place to share an idea that I'd like to see adopted by Presbyteries:

Let's call our program (for lack of another name), "A Weekend in the Country" 

Take a Presbytery with one or two small struggling churches, often rural, as well as a few large churches in excess of 200 members (or about 50 family units each).

Pass the clip-board among the membership in the larger churches and have members sign up to visit the small church(es). Often this will involve a drive of several hours on a Sunday morning, so some sacrifice is involved. 

Everyone is informed that they are to pay their own way. And they might put their normal offering for that week in the plate at the small church.

Several churches each sending a single family or a few people per week to the small church would:
1. Build connectionalism among churches, whereby we pray for one another more intelligently
2. Turn heads in a small community--"Hey, their parking lot is starting to fill up."
3. Encourage the saints in the small churches and teach the members of large churches to be more sacrificial and prayerful on behalf of others.


----------



## Pergamum

Wayne said:


> [Pipe-dream #5]
> 
> This thread seems like a good place to share an idea that I'd like to see adopted by Presbyteries:
> 
> Let's call our program (for lack of another name), "A Weekend in the Country"
> 
> Take a Presbytery with one or two small struggling churches, often rural, as well as a few large churches in excess of 200 members (or about 50 family units each).
> 
> Pass the clip-board among the membership in the larger churches and have members sign up to visit the small church(es). Often this will involve a drive of several hours on a Sunday morning, so some sacrifice is involved.
> 
> Everyone is informed that they are to go expecting to minister and not to be ministered to. And they might put their normal offering for that week in the plate at the small church.
> 
> Several churches each sending a single family or a few people per week to the small church would:
> 1. Build connectionalism among churches, whereby we pray for one another more intelligently
> 2. Turn heads in a small community--"Hey, their parking lot is starting to fill up."
> 3. Encourage the saints in the small churches and teach the members of large churches to be more sacrificial and prayerful on behalf of others.



Would this strategy cause country churches then to get an inferiority complex, because they are geting ministered to by city slickers and are not doing any of the ministering? I.e. they are recipients of the welfare of the city slickers?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pergamum said:


> Wayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Pipe-dream #5]
> 
> This thread seems like a good place to share an idea that I'd like to see adopted by Presbyteries:
> 
> Let's call our program (for lack of another name), "A Weekend in the Country"
> 
> Take a Presbytery with one or two small struggling churches, often rural, as well as a few large churches in excess of 200 members (or about 50 family units each).
> 
> Pass the clip-board among the membership in the larger churches and have members sign up to visit the small church(es). Often this will involve a drive of several hours on a Sunday morning, so some sacrifice is involved.
> 
> Everyone is informed that they are to go expecting to minister and not to be ministered to. And they might put their normal offering for that week in the plate at the small church.
> 
> Several churches each sending a single family or a few people per week to the small church would:
> 1. Build connectionalism among churches, whereby we pray for one another more intelligently
> 2. Turn heads in a small community--"Hey, their parking lot is starting to fill up."
> 3. Encourage the saints in the small churches and teach the members of large churches to be more sacrificial and prayerful on behalf of others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would this strategy cause country churches then to get an inferiority complex, because they are getting ministered to by city slickers and are not doing any of the ministering? I.e. they are recipients of the welfare of the city slickers?
Click to expand...


Just as anecdotal response that is how I would have taken it when I was a member of a small country church.


----------



## Pergamum

I do like the idea of collectively helping out bi-vocational pastors, many of whom are rural. But if this help were too visible it would not be appreciated for the good that it is, but would seem demeaning, much like many of the Western strategies for missions funding (i.e. treating our US farmers like some groups are treating Indian indigenous evangelists).

How could this good basic idea be better implemented?


----------



## SolaScriptura

My wife and I have talked about the possibility of sticking with the chaplaincy until retirement and then going to pastor a church in rural America.


----------



## jonmo

I have spent the first half my life in small country churches and the second half in large, urban churches, mainly in London and New York (including Tim Keller's church, which was mentioned in the article). I think the piece misrepresents how somewhere like Redeemer thinks about the city and, likewise, I think the broader accusations against some evangelicals of "hob-nobbing" and "born again infactuation with celebrity" don't match what I have experienced much of in 20+ years attending evangelical churches in big cities. I am sure there may be some people who think that way but I certainly didn't experience that Redeemer, where I felt the leadership had/has a genuine love for the city and want to see it regenerated with the gospel.

I am not convinced either that the appeal of the "bright lights and big buildings" is as "obvious" as the article suggests. For many pastors the reality of surviving in a small, cramped apartment with perhaps several kids, no yard and earning a salary which doesn't really match the cost of living in the city, isn't always that appealing. I've seen several pastors over the years come to NYC or London for a short period of time and essentially retreat to a suburban or rural church, where their family has a "better" quality of life.

According to UN data, 81% of Americans live in urban settings so I would hope that a large number of ministers would have a heart for working in cities. If anything I feel that we don't enough people wanting to serve God in the cities. And of those that do, I don't get any sense that they regard the rural ministry as inferior or just a training ground.


----------



## Robbie Schmidtberger

jonmo said:


> I have spent the first half my life in small country churches and the second half in large, urban churches, mainly in London and New York (including Tim Keller's church, which was mentioned in the article). I think the piece misrepresents how somewhere like Redeemer thinks about the city and, likewise, I think the broader accusations against some evangelicals of "hob-nobbing" and "born again infactuation with celebrity" don't match what I have experienced much of in 20+ years attending evangelical churches in big cities. I am sure there may be some people who think that way but I certainly didn't experience that Redeemer, where I felt the leadership had/has a genuine love for the city and want to see it regenerated with the gospel.



thank you! those were my thoughts exactly.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I had the opposite experience in my mainline seminary (we did not really talk about ministry categories at RPTS). Nearly all my classmates looked down on rural ministry as inferior to urban ministry in practically every way. Many could have Full-Time Rural Solo Pastorates and turn them down to work in the city or not work at all. So the rural churches end up with the "leftovers" (i.e.- the awful ones that could not get jobs other places). I even had a Professor say that rural ministry was a waste of time and resources that could be spent in the city.


----------



## Romans922

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I had the opposite experience in my mainline seminary (we did not really talk about ministry categories at RPTS). Nearly all my classmates looked down on rural ministry as inferior to urban ministry in practically every way. Many could have Full-Time Rural Solo Pastorates and turn them down to work in the city or not work at all. So the rural churches end up with the "leftovers" (i.e.- the awful ones that could not get jobs other places). I even had a Professor say that rural ministry was a waste of time and resources that could be spent in the city.



Yes, indeed...I am the awful one, just not one to look at to be full of awe. Go Mississippi Delta!!!


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

That is why I said "nearly all" Rev. Barnes. There are looney ones like myself who are pursuing small, rural churches.


----------



## N. Eshelman

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> I had the opposite experience in my mainline seminary (we did not really talk about ministry categories at RPTS). Nearly all my classmates looked down on rural ministry as inferior to urban ministry in practically every way. Many could have Full-Time Rural Solo Pastorates and turn them down to work in the city or not work at all. So the rural churches end up with the "leftovers" (i.e.- the awful ones that could not get jobs other places). I even had a Professor say that rural ministry was a waste of time and resources that could be spent in the city.



I am sorry to hear that has been your experience, Ben. May God make you a powerful backwoods preacher of the Gospel! May he fill your hand sawn pews to capacity- for his glory and the church's good!


----------



## Sven

Hey, Nate, thanks for your thoughts.

I enjoyed Hart's article for several reasons; one of which is that I am a fan of Wendell Berry. The other reason is that I think Hart lays bare the secret desire of many who want to go into the ministry: they want to make a name for themselves. With superstars such as Piper, Driscoll, Keller, and others in the pastorate, it is easy to be tempted to jealously at the prestige and position these men have attained. Many look at these men and think, "Ah, now that is what success looks like."

No one ever thinks, for example, that when a minister like Floyd Haan in my presbytery has been at the same Church in Pollock, SD (think podunksville) for over 30 years, or that my dad who has been at First Presbyterian Hinckley, MN for 20 years is a success. This way of thinking, however, is totally foreign to the Biblical understanding of a successful ministry. There is too much corporate ladder climbing going on in Churches today. Both of these men I mentioned are highly respected by the others in the Presbytery and by many in the PCA. They don't have to be in New York City with 2,000-3,000 members to be a success. They have faithfully preached the word for 20 or 30 years and have led many to the Lord, seen children grow up in the faith, helped families bury their loved ones, married many young couples, and led many bible studies. This my friends is success. Give me this kind of ministry any day.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Sven said:


> Hey, Nate, thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> I enjoyed Hart's article for several reasons; one of which is that I am a fan of Wendell Berry. The other reason is that I think Hart lays bare the secret desire of many who want to go into the ministry: they want to make a name for themselves. With superstars such as Piper, Driscoll, Keller, and others in the pastorate, it is easy to be tempted to jealously at the prestige and position these men have attained. Many look at these men and think, "Ah, now that is what success looks like."
> 
> No one ever thinks, for example, that when a minister like Floyd Haan in my presbytery has been at the same Church in Pollock, SD (think podunksville) for 30 years, or that my dad who has been at First Presbyterian Hinckley, MN for 20 years is a success. This way of thinking, however, is totally foreign to the Biblical understanding of a successful ministry. There is too much corporate ladder climbing going on in Churches today. Both of these men I mentioned are highly respected in by the others in the Presbytery and by many in the PCA. They don't have to be in New York City with 2,000-3,000 members to be a success. They have faithfully preached the word for 20 or 30 years and have led many to the Lord, seen children grow up in the faith, helped families bury their loved ones, married many young couples, led many bible studies. This my friends is success. Give me this kind of ministry any day.


----------



## Wayne

Pergamum [& Ben]:



Pergamum said:


> Would this strategy cause country churches then to get an inferiority complex, because they are geting ministered to by city slickers and are not doing any of the ministering? I.e. they are recipients of the welfare of the city slickers?



In modest defense of my pipe-dream, my underlying intent was to prevent someone from showing up with the attitude, "I drove all this way and you're not going to feed me?" So that line in the thesis could be reworded, "Pay your own way." [A good rural sentiment, to be sure.]


----------



## N. Eshelman

Sven, 

The interesting thing about your dad's ministry was that it started here in Glendale- very urban- and will, most likely, retire from Hinkley. Completely the opposite of what young bucks are trying to do!


----------



## Pergamum

Wayne said:


> Pergamum [& Ben]:
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would this strategy cause country churches then to get an inferiority complex, because they are geting ministered to by city slickers and are not doing any of the ministering? I.e. they are recipients of the welfare of the city slickers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In modest defense of my pipe-dream, my underlying intent was to prevent someone from showing up with the attitude, "I drove all this way and you're not going to feed me?" So that line in the thesis could be reworded, "Pay your own way." [A good rural sentiment, to be sure.]
Click to expand...


I like your pipe-dream. I am just pondering through the details.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Many reason that the cities must be targeted because they have more people, but more importantly, more cultural influence at large. Change the city, and you change the culture.That is true to a point. But that overlooks the fact that many people in the cities grew up rural and moved to the city for work. And what kind of people do you wish to send to the cities? Hopefully, well-grounded, well-prepared believing Christians, who will impact the city to which they move. It won't happen without a good rural ministry. You need good gospel ministry in both settings. It's not either/or.


----------



## Pergamum

Paul seemed to target cities and centers of culture.

Also, most of the "success stories" in missions have been rural and animistic peoples coming to faith. We have yet to really do well in urban ministry throughout the world in comparison to how well missions has done in rural settings.

However, maybe things are different in the States, where rural life is often more "wholesome" as the rumor has it (though I don't believe that to be true by and large).


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> Paul seemed to target cities and centers of culture.



True... but Jesus tended to target small towns.


----------



## Pergamum

Did he?


----------



## Curt

Funny, I missed the usual sense of adulation in that piece!

I am an older, experienced pastor, who is intentionally ministering in a rural community. There are souls here that need to be nourished - and others who need to hear the Word which will not return void.

BTW, I grew up in the city and never imagined that I would live in the country.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> Did he?



He did.

-----Added 7/21/2009 at 09:55:20 EST-----

I think my time in the chaplaincy is preparing me to minister in a rural environment: I'm well versed in dealing with the problems and sins that attend a red neck culture and I know how to relate to it and apply the Gospel to those in it.


----------



## glorifyinggodinwv

As a full-time pastor in a small town in a rural part of West Virginia, I see many benefits to the rural life and ministry. I like the fact that I constantly run into parishioners at the local grocery store, post office, and restaurants. I know where they all live, where they work, members of their extended family. It is not the life for everyone, since you do live in a fishbowl and this can be hard on the pastor's wife and children. Like Benjamin said though, many see it as stepping stone to larger more prestigious churches. I see this place as where God has called me, and unless it is clear I am called elsewhere, I go about my ministry as if this is the place where I will live out my calling to be a minister of Word and Sacrament. Patrick is also right when he says we need good gospel ministry in both settings.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

As someone that knows the place Chris is quite well, a super duper  and a giant Thank You!


----------



## LawrenceU

Fascinating article. He brings out some very good points. The ladder climbing that exists in most ecclesiastical circles is odious. I agree that rural / small town churches are often seen as stepping stones. I've even heard leaders from those churches call themselves that. They aren't taking pride in it, they are just stating the obvious. Most of the time they get young, immature pastors and the congregation suffers for it.

My father worked in rural churches. He is a very well educated man. (Just about the entire alphabet can be written behind his name.) He never ministered in a large congregation - by choice. Several of the church buildings we were in had no electricity. Most where heated by wood stoves even if they did have electricity. None of them had water ( outhouses only ). These dear people lived in the hills and hollers and many of them became very well grounded in the Word. One community was able to end a long time feud due to the spiritual growth in the area. I think that men like my father will surprise the church in eternity at the impact they have had as they faithfully serve the Lord and his body while being tucked away in some holler.


----------



## greenbaggins

Sven said:


> Hey, Nate, thanks for your thoughts.
> 
> I enjoyed Hart's article for several reasons; one of which is that I am a fan of Wendell Berry. The other reason is that I think Hart lays bare the secret desire of many who want to go into the ministry: they want to make a name for themselves. With superstars such as Piper, Driscoll, Keller, and others in the pastorate, it is easy to be tempted to jealously at the prestige and position these men have attained. Many look at these men and think, "Ah, now that is what success looks like."
> 
> No one ever thinks, for example, that when a minister like Floyd Haan in my presbytery has been at the same Church in Pollock, SD (think podunksville) for over 30 years, or that my dad who has been at First Presbyterian Hinckley, MN for 20 years is a success. This way of thinking, however, is totally foreign to the Biblical understanding of a successful ministry. There is too much corporate ladder climbing going on in Churches today. Both of these men I mentioned are highly respected by the others in the Presbytery and by many in the PCA. They don't have to be in New York City with 2,000-3,000 members to be a success. They have faithfully preached the word for 20 or 30 years and have led many to the Lord, seen children grow up in the faith, helped families bury their loved ones, married many young couples, and led many bible studies. This my friends is success. Give me this kind of ministry any day.



Amen to this, Steve. The other big problem (as both Darryl and I noted in the comments on that post) is that if anyone does go to the rural ministry, they and _the people of the congregation themselves_ start to view it as preparation to something bigger and better. Even at WTS, everyone was always saying "come to the city" ad nauseum. Well, sorry to break it to the city slickers, but we farmers feed you guys. Show a little respect. I imply zero disrespect to city ministries. They do an equally vital work. But to say that rural ministry is less vital is just stupid. They need shepherds just as much as city folk do. And yes, it is quite a bit less rewarding in a human sense. There may be more people in the city, but by the same token, there can be a sense of hopelessness (as rural areas continue to shrink due to machines taking the place of people) that desperately needs addressing by faithful shepherds. Not only that, there definitely needs to be solid teaching given to these folks, many of whom are far less literarily inclined (some folks in my two very rural churches; Pollock is a metropolis compared to the two towns I serve, which both together contain a grand total of about 25 people). In fact, some of my people are actually proud of the fact that they have not read a single book since the eighth grade. Of course, not everyone is like that, by a long shot. Still, there is desperate need of teaching in these areas.


----------



## SolaScriptura

greenbaggins said:


> Even at WTS, everyone was always saying "come to the city" ad nauseum.



I'll never forget the chapel service at Moody in which this mantra reached a feverish pitch...

The guest speaker, a pastor of a large metropolitan church, actually said that God wants us to be where the people are at... and the majority of people are in urban centers... so while it is possible that God has called you to a non-urban environment, it is a statisical improbability... (this is where my mouth dropped) so chances are (his words) if you DON'T want to go to an urban center then you're likely sinning by resisting God's call.

Oh yeah. Good times.

Interestingly, I don't ever recall at SBTS any appeals to go to any particular place, urban or rural (or suburban). That was nice.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even at WTS, everyone was always saying "come to the city" ad nauseum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll never forget the chapel service at Moody in which this mantra reached a feverish pitch...
> 
> The guest speaker, a pastor of a large metropolitan church, actually said that God wants us to be where the people are at... and the majority of people are in urban centers... so while it is possible that God has called you to a non-urban environment, it is a statisical improbability... (this is where my mouth dropped) so chances are (his words) if you DON'T want to go to an urban center then you're likely sinning by resisting God's call.
> 
> Oh yeah. Good times.
Click to expand...


Heard a nearly verbatim sermon at my mainline seminary.


----------



## Montanablue

As someone who lives in an extremely rural area and who loves the city, I simply don't understand why it has to be either/or. The city needs the gospel. The country needs the gospel. Different people with different personality types and gifts are called to serve in both places. If you love cities and have a heart for them, then great, go to a city. If you love the country and have a heart to serve in a rural area, then go there. I just don't get why one is below the other.

Its interesting to see that the general feeling is that cities are raised above the country. I've experienced the opposite - but this is probably because of where I currently live and where I grew up (both small towns in Montana)>


----------



## VictorBravo

Montanablue said:


> Its interesting to see that the general feeling is that cities are raised above the country. I've experienced the opposite - but this is probably because of where I currently live and where I grew up (both small towns in Montana)>



I know what you mean, especially in Montana. If you leave the farm for the city, you are almost an apostate!


----------



## jonmo

Two completely unrelated general points:

1. The term "city slicker" has been used occasionally to describe people living in cities. There are a lot of people living in urban areas who simply do not fit that bill. There are large pockets of poorly educated, often immigrant/ethnic minority working class, folks who probably aren't living in the city because they want to "hob-nob" with celebrities. 

2. More broadly, I wonder what the urban/rural split is amongst PBers? Based on a quick look at where people list their hometown, I wonder if we are actually the reverse of the US (ie, we might have closer to 80% in rural/small towns, as opposed to urban). I don't know because I don't have the data, but I get the feeling we have a disproportionately smaller percentage of folks on the list versus the broader US population, which I suppose isn't a big surprise.


----------



## Montanablue

victorbravo said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its interesting to see that the general feeling is that cities are raised above the country. I've experienced the opposite - but this is probably because of where I currently live and where I grew up (both small towns in Montana)>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean, especially in Montana. If you leave the farm for the city, you are almost an apostate!
Click to expand...


The first time I went to New York to visit a friend, many of my friends feared for my life!


----------



## jonmo

A few mentions have been made of the rural churches being sometimes used as a training ground for those moving on to larger churches in the cities. I am sure that happens in some cases but I have also seen a lot of the reverse happening (especially here in London). Several of the large evangelical churches here not only have apprentice schemes for men considering the ministry, but also provide extensive hands-on and structured training for new ministers. Many of these minsters then move on to smaller, often rural/suburban churches and bring the benefits of that training to churches that simply don't have the resources to do that themselves.


----------



## lynnie

The holy spirit CALLED Keller to NYC.

Some people are called to the country, or suburbs.

This author writes as if a person makes the decision. Maybe some of them do make a decision on their own, but if they do, the problem is people making decisions on their own instead of obeying the calling of the Holy Spirit. 

I don't think a true pastor has any choice at all about where he ends up. Martyn Lloyd Jones loved Sandfields but God CALLED him to London. It is all about calling....or should be.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

lynnie said:


> The holy spirit CALLED Keller to NYC.
> 
> Some people are called to the country, or suburbs.
> 
> This author writes as if a person makes the decision. Maybe some of them do make a decision on their own, but if they do, the problem is people making decisions on their own instead of obeying the calling of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> I don't think a true pastor has any choice at all about where he ends up. Martyn Lloyd Jones loved Sandfields but God CALLED him to London. It is all about calling....or should be.



The problem is, too many pastors seem to always find that God is calling them to bigger salaries and bigger churches in bigger areas. To which I think we should all be reacting in this way:


----------



## Montanablue

> The problem is, too many pastors seem to always find that God is calling them to bigger salaries and bigger churches in bigger areas.



I am sure this is often true. However, to be quite honest, a pastor living in a large city is going to have to deal with a much more expensive standard of living than a pastor living in the country. And I highly doubt that most of their salaries compensate for this.

An example: A friend of mine attends a PCA in Boston. Almost the entire pastoral staff lives in Dorchestor. Anyone who knows anything about Boston knows that this means they are not living high on the hog.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Interestingly, in some of the largest cities - NYC, LA, Chicago, etc.. -there are plenty of very insular neighborhoods and within those contexts the social dynamics are surprisingly similar to those found in rural areas.

What I've found is that - guys like Keller and Piper aside - often, when folks talk about going to churches in the "city," they often mean nice _sub_urban churches. Oftentimes, churches actually IN the city are located in poor or dirty sections - certainly not on that city's equivilant of Michigan Ave... I know that in Chicago there are gobs of inner city chuches that can't get a pastor - at least not a good one - because they're poor, they're small, etc... 

So by all means, go to the city... just leave the superstar churches to the superstar pastors with superstar egos.


----------



## jonmo

I largely agree with your last comment, Ben - it ties to my point above re most people in cities not being "city slickers" (I spent two years living in southside Chicago so got to see some of the problems you describe there). The DG Hart article might have been stronger if it had referenced "comfortable" suburbia rather than cities - I doubt that the people he refers to in the article would really be keen on the "glamour" of city living as experienced by most pastors there (often cramped living, poor public schools, limited disposable income, limited church facilities, etc).


----------

