Country Folks and Cosmopolitans in Rural Churches
Newcomers and long-term residents of rural communities may misunderstand and disagree with each other, and when this happens, the local church suffers. This article highlights common differences between agrarians and cosmopolitans and offers ways church leaders can reduce friction and move forward together.
- Rural “agrarian” and “cosmopolitan” perspectives can shape expectations about success, growth, planning, and decision-making.
- Misunderstandings often come from differing cultural orientations, not personal rejection.
- Wise leaders affirm strengths in both groups and guide the church toward health and shared purpose.
By Barney Wells, Ron Klassen, and Martin Giese
Newcomers and long-term residents of rural communities may misunderstand and disagree with each other. When this happens, the local church suffers.
This issue of Christian Standard examines why the two groups sometimes clash—and suggests how to ease the friction. After the introduction on these pages, you’ll find an extended article examining the differences in perspective usually held by those in these two groups. For the purposes of this discussion, agrarians are those who have always lived in the country. Cosmopolitans are newcomers moving into rural areas from diverse walks of life.
The articles in this issue are adapted from Leading Through Change: Shepherding the Town and Country Church in a New Era, by Barney Wells, Martin Giese, and Ron Klassen, available from ChurchSmart Resources in St. Charles, Illinois (http://www.churchsmart.com/store/viewItem.asp?idProduct=1116 or 800-253-4276).
Country Folks & Cosmopolitans: They Can Understand Each Other and Work Together! (main article)
Country folks and those new to a rural community may see every aspect of life differently. Understanding these differences can help not only those in each group, but also those hoping to minister to and through them.
Look at the differences highlighted here and decide how the smaller church you know could cope with them.
Success or Survival?
Because of ongoing economic hardship and other crises regularly encountered by agrarians—such as fluctuating markets (sometimes drastically so), bad weather, cattle diseases, and crop failures—they may define success as “making it another year.” Many of their friends have not made it, which makes their survival an achievement. But for many cosmopolitans, surviving is not good enough. Success to them is when this year’s sales exceed the last. Taking this perspective into the church, they often see success in terms of measurable progress such as increased attendance and giving, and the addition of programs.
A newcomer pastor who is not from an agrarian background may struggle with a “survival is success” mentality, in part because church growth books place his “plateaued” church in an unfavorable category.1 If the church does not respond to his ideas for progress, he may take this as personal rejection; however, the real problem is probably different cultural orientations.
Pastors or leaders who find themselves in a survival is success congregation need to first affirm survival. To say, “All we are doing is surviving,” is to not understand the agrarian culture that views survival as the pinnacle of a pyramid, in contrast to cosmopolitans who view it as the foundation of a pyramid upon which are built more ambitious goals. Instead of minimizing survival, leaders should applaud it: “Praise God, we’ve survived!” Then they can further say, “God must still have a purpose for us. Let’s move forward!” And then they can nudge the church toward measurable areas of progress.
If the pace of progress in the town and country church seems too slow, pastors and church members might consider taking loops of ministry that extend beyond the local context: Go on a mission trip. Work with a parachurch ministry. Write a book. Help plant a church in a neighboring town. Many rural Christians have ministries that extend beyond their local church. This not only helps relieve their frustration of being in a static church, but also means they can come back to the church and share what God has done through them, which may encourage others in the congregation to move out of their survival mode.
How Beautiful is Big?
Small is attractive to most agrarians. Large might be threatening. One reason they are likely to fight school consolidation is because they do not believe bigger is better. They may have similar mixed feelings about growth in their church. Many cosmopolitans, on the other hand, see a direct correlation between a church’s size and its vitality. Just as bigger stores offer more choices, so do bigger schools and churches. Thus bigger is better and growth is important. This is an example, by the way, of how newcomers to rural communities are conflicted within themselves. They move to a smaller place because small is attractive to them; however once there, they want things to be bigger!
Church leaders need to make sure their theology is right. God does not view small as inferior and neither should we (e.g., Deuteronomy 7:7, 8, Zechariah 4:10). Leaders need to make sure they do not speak condescendingly when using the word “small.” A smaller youth group is not, of necessity, inferior. In fact, there are certain dynamics that can take place only in a smaller group setting. Fewer worshipers does not, of necessity, mean inferior worship. Some of the most meaningful worship happens in intimate contexts. Might the fact that small has its advantages be why many large churches work hard at finding ways to be small? Is it a coincidence that the small group movement has coincided with the megachurch movement?
Because cosmopolitans have chosen to move to rural turf, perhaps they need to be gently reminded from time to time that a major reason they moved out of the city is because they thought small is better. And, perhaps church leaders’ greater focus should be on church health rather than numerical growth. Hopefully the growth will come, as it often does, even in sparsely populated areas.
Independent or Interdependent?
Agrarians and cosmopolitans often differ in their approach to community. Historically, agrarians are independent, likely due to their isolation. Today they continue to be protective of that independence. Cosmopolitans, by contrast, tend to be more interdependent. They are more accustomed to working together to achieve strategic goals.
For agrarians, interdependence and cooperative effort are concessions they make only for survival. When an essential task is too big or complex to accomplish independently, they will form a temporary alliance to see it done. In the past, barn raisings and threshing bees reflected this: “If you help me build my barn, I’ll help you build your barn and we will both survive.”
Today, agrarians are still very willing to be “neighborly” in times of crisis or need, but may have difficulty cooperating when the crisis or need has passed. Within their local church, agrarians may help one another when calamity strikes but may not be so cooperative when serving on a standing committee.
Cosmopolitans, while perhaps not as neighborly as their agrarian counterparts, are more accustomed to working interdependently to achieve strategic goals. In a complex urban environment, this is essential for achievement. Within a local church, cosmopolitans are apt to be more comfortable with group process.
Many agrarians view working with others as a last resort. Cosmopolitans, on the other hand, view interdependence as a first resort in a strategic plan to accomplish a mutually beneficial goal. Agrarians cooperate to survive; cosmopolitans cooperate to achieve.
Why Plan?
On the farm there are constant reminders of limitations and inability to control surroundings, because of unpredictability due to factors beyond one’s control. We already listed some of these factors under “Success” above—like the unpredictable behavior of animals, crop failures, bad weather, and fluctuating markets. In contrast, cosmopolitans live and work in controlled environments, for example: precision manufacturing, technology that operates like clockwork, room temperatures set by thermostats, regular paychecks. Consequently they live with the assumption (agrarians would say “illusion”) that they are in control of life.
These two vastly different environments may spawn key differences between how agrarians and cosmopolitans think. For instance, with so many uncertainties, establishing vision and setting goals—the subject of numerous books and seminars in recent years—may be regarded by agrarians as presumptuous, foolish, and perhaps even sinful. How can we make plans when, as stated in James 4:13-16, we don’t know what tomorrow will bring? What if the wheat harvest is a total loss? But cosmopolitans also have verses, such as 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, to back up their conviction that planning, vision, and goal-setting are essential for a sense of direction and purpose, and for progress and success.
These differing perspectives can be balanced by realizing that agrarians do set goals. They have things in mind to do for the day, as well as an idea of how much land they would like to eventually farm and how big they would like their cattle herd to become. But they tend to hold these goals loosely and somewhat privately.
Church leaders in this kind of context can find ways to satisfy both the agrarian and cosmopolitan perspectives. Leaders can set private goals for themselves. They can work with the congregation to establish flexible goals that can easily be adjusted or postponed should something like a crop failure happen. These goals might best be kept informal, rather than carefully scripted. And the whole concept of vision should probably remain more subtle and low-key.
Who Should Do Everything?
Agrarians tend to be jacks-of-all-trades but masters of none. Their work requires that they be a welder, carpenter, plumber, mechanic, electrician, farmer, trucker, livestock handler, commodities trader, accountant—the list goes on and on. This means they cannot possibly be proficient in all things. And so, rather than ask, “Can I do the job well?” agrarians ask, “Can I do the job well enough?” This doesn’t mean one cannot find perfectionists among agrarians; it just means that one cannot possibly fill all of these roles as adeptly as a specialist who fills only one of the roles.
Cosmopolitans are generally more accustomed to specialization. They tend to do fewer things, which often means they do those fewer things well. Then they hire experts to do what they cannot do, and these people, being specialists, also do a quality job. Cosmopolitans resonate with the Wizard of Id cartoon that in one frame shows a sign that reads “Podiatrist” and in the next frame “Right foot only.”
This contrast could create friction. Agrarians’ approach to ministry might be, “We’ll do the best we can.” They will likely be satisfied with an adequate keyboard player, whereas a cosmopolitan may be satisfied with nothing less than a high level of ability. Agrarians will likely be satisfied with financial record keeping that was done as well as the church treasurer knew how, whereas cosmopolitans will likely be looking for computer-generated reports and bar graphs. Agrarians may not complete church maintenance projects quite as proficiently as a specialist would, but they are thinking, “At least we didn’t have to hire it done.” Cosmopolitans, meanwhile, continually find their eyes drifting toward the mitered pieces of wood trim that don’t quite fit together like they should.
Wise pastors and church leaders will realize that the agrarian perspective has more to applaud than condemn. A willingness to serve is better than a “Let’s hire it done” mentality. Participation is usually a higher virtue than perfectionism. At the same time it is good for pastors and church leaders to, in a gentle and noncondescending manner, nudge their people in the direction of quality.
Show Me the Money!
Few things are more baffling to cosmopolitans than the agrarian’s approach to finances. For one thing, an agrarian might think others are far better off financially than he, not because they make more money but because they have a regular paycheck.
Cosmopolitans don’t understand the “poor-rich” farmer. That’s because farmers’ asset-to-income ratio is generally imbalanced. Though they have considerable assets, they may live at near poverty level, often because their assets are nonliquid and nonmonetary (land, machinery, livestock). When there is a money crunch at church, the cosmopolitans might wonder why the agrarians don’t sell a cow to help out. But agrarians are reluctant to do so because the cow is their source of income. On the other hand, agrarians may have a hard time understanding why cosmopolitans invest so much in their homes, not realizing their homes represent a primary part of their net worth.
Because life is unpredictable and income not guaranteed, agrarians tend to find ways to get by and save for a rainy day. They do not view excess funds as excess because sooner or later they will be needed. Agrarians tend to spend only what’s absolutely needed. They are more likely to fix broken plumbing than spend money on paving the parking lot. Budget is a foreign term to some agrarians. How can income be budgeted when no one knows what the price of calves will be this fall? Budgeting may be viewed as presumptuous or an exercise in futility.
The Pessimist vs. the Optimist
Frequent disappointments can produce a pessimistic outlook. This is the agrarian’s defense mechanism, a protection against dashed hopes. It works this way: If they expect the worst, then whatever happens isn’t so bad. Say “Good morning!” to a farmer and the farmer might guardedly reply, “Oh, I don’t know. It looks like rain.” To which you might respond, “That’d be great for the crops.” The farmer’s response: “Might drown us out.” A farmer seemingly never expects a profitable year. Yet, at the same time farmers are some of the most optimistic people around, as evidenced by the fact they keep putting a crop in the ground no matter how many times they’ve been hailed out or how low the price of wheat is.
Cosmopolitans might tire of the agrarians’ negative outlook, tire of a “But what if?” mentality, tire of a hesitancy to take risks—even when times are good. They need to understand why agrarians tend to be more chronically pessimistic and not allow the agrarians’ pessimism to become their pessimism. Church leaders also need to make sure the church is an oasis in the desert of discouragement. And, while sympathetic to the agrarians’ outlook, they should not allow it to impede the progress of the church or put a damper on the church’s optimism.
Task vs. Time
Even if by personality agrarians are time oriented, the nature of their work forces them to be task oriented: “First I’ll do chores, then run to town for repairs, then fix the bailer, then go a few rounds in the field.” This task orientation often is due to imprecise timing because of factors beyond their control. It is impossible, for instance, to anticipate the behavior of animals and schedule accordingly. Rounding up cattle may take an hour or half a day.
To strike up a conversation, someone asked an agrarian child: “How old are you?”
“Five.”
“When do you turn six?”
“When my daddy plants corn again.”
If the church needs a new roof, in response to the question of when, the agrarian will say, “After planting.” When is that? Answer: “When it’s done.” This can be frustrating for cosmopolitans who carry a DayTimer® and plan their calendar many days ahead and in 15-minute increments. (We know one cosmopolitan pastor in an agrarian community who budgets eight minutes a day for unexpected phone calls!) An agrarian might show up late to a meeting saying, “I had one more round to go in the field.” Church leaders would probably be wise to not make an issue of this task orientation. To some degree, timeliness is cultural. To many agrarians, 7:00 pm means “more or less around that time.”
Many pastors plan their work by the clock. But agrarians are not likely to understand if they can’t see the pastor because it’s “the pastor’s time to study.” The farmer might live 40 miles away, and this is the time when he needs to come to town and while in town he needs to drop in and talk to his pastor.
What Do You Call Work?
A new pastor was assisting in a feed store, helping to fill sacks with corn. As he pulled his first bag off the scale and started to close it, the pastor noticed a look of concern on the face of the store owner. “When we tie sacks, we use a miller’s knot,” the owner said. “I don’t suppose you can do that.” He had forgotten that his pastor had farmed for 10 years. When he easily tied the knot the store owner was impressed. “You’re the first preacher I ever saw,” he told him, “who knew anything at all about working.”
An agrarian is likely to define “real” work as manual labor. Desk work, or mental work, may not be viewed with the same respect. Cosmopolitans, on the other hand, might think Manual Labor is the president of Mexico! They can be real klutzes when it comes to doing physical work, either because they aren’t accustomed to it or because they don’t have the muscle or stamina for it.
Cosmopolitan pastors may not understand why they are accused by agrarians of not working hard. This can be a threat to their credibility. This difference in perspective can be eased if pastors get out of the study from time to time and do some manual labor. As they earn credibility, they can back off from physical labor and devote more time to pastoral ministry.
Relationships or Roles?
Agrarians tend to think in terms of how they relate to each other, as opposed to functions and titles. Cosmopolitans might say, “He chairs our church board. He is a senior partner in a law firm and also serves on the town council.” But agrarians will probably think of people in terms of relationships: “This is Bob, Jim and Nadine’s boy. He lives down at the old McPherson place.”
A cosmopolitan pastor may think his people care about his degrees, theological expertise, and career experience, when in reality what they care most about is how he relates to them. He needs to, as quickly as possible, work himself into the web of relationships by doing things like attend ball games, go to parties and celebrations, invite people over, visit elderly shut-ins, go to cattle sales, join the volunteer fire department, and frequent the coffee shop. Having impact in a rural community doesn’t just happen when the pastor fulfills his official duties; relational bonding is also necessary.
How Do We Decide?
Because they are more informal and less structured, agrarians tend to view committee and congregational meetings as opportunities for fellowship. Dialogue will drift from the business at hand. Ultimately decisions will likely be made informally. This may not settle well with cosmopolitans who believe meetings should have an established agenda, focused discussion, motions, and votes.
Agrarians are accustomed to being “CEOs” in their business. This means they are involved in every decision, great or small. But if this method of decision making is evident in the church, then cosmopolitans, who are accustomed to giving and following orders in the workplace, may react with frustration at the seemingly petty issues that are brought up in meetings.
Some agrarians are reluctant to talk in public meetings, perhaps because they don’t want to risk conflict. After all, they have to live with each other the rest of the week! Thus it is likely that some decisions will be made apart from the meeting through an informal but carefully worked out way of exploring how everyone feels. Often these grassroots informal meetings convene in the church foyer, on the phone, in the cafe, or on the street. While agrarians may give assent to formal decision making processes, they don’t put a lot of stock in those processes. Any formal way of arriving at a decision can be rendered meaningless by informal discussions.
Cosmopolitans might get frustrated when their agrarian counterparts easily approve a decision at a meeting, only to later hear them complain about it, ignore it, or reverse it. Church leaders are wise to first talk about ideas and issues informally, letting people come to a consensus, then bring the issue to a meeting and a vote.
1In recent years church growth writers have often quoted the statistic that more than 80 percent of churches in America are plateaued or in decline, the implication being that these churches are not healthy. The statistic cited does not take into account that thousands upon thousands of churches are located in town and country communities with declining populations, where corresponding statistical decline is virtually inevitable in the church. Such a generalization, made without considering this demographic phenomenon, has unnecessarily added to the discouragement that many are facing in town and country churches today.
Barney Wells is minister of the Walnut Grove Christian Church in Arcola, Illinois, and adjunct professor at Lincoln (Illinois) Christian College and Seminary. He serves on the steering committee for Standard Publishing’s Energizing Smaller Churches Network.
Ron Klassen is executive director of the Rural Home Missionary Association in Morton, Illinois.
Martin Giese is senior pastor with the Faith Baptist Church in Park Rapids, Minnesota.
