What's the Difference?

Published on by D. G. Hart

I was glad to see some push back against the urban-centric understanding of contemporary church life. Kyle Borg supplied it in the following words:

. . . the benefits of a rural community can (and should) become the benefit of the rural church. I’m not waging a campaign trying to abolish the city church. Even though I don’t want to live in the city, I pray the preaching of the cross would reach the ears of Felix, Festus, and Agrippa. But one of the immediate advantages for the rural church is that our voice can resound throughout our sphere of influence–hospitals, schools, city-boards, league sports, town halls, prisons, nursing homes–quite literally, the whole community. And, at least situationally, it’s easier for us to be heard.

This got me thinking: how would you tell the difference between a rural or urban church? Would the service be different? Would the ministers be folksy in the rural church but hip in the city — say an Amish beard on the pastor in the former and a soul patch in the latter? Would the urban church have more programs than the rural church if only because the former has more resources?

But what if both urban and rural congregations were committed merely (as if) to ministering the word of God through preaching, sacraments and discipline? Chances are that the rural church could use the urban liturgy of Calvin’s city congregation just as much as the urban pastor could. And the reason for that sameness may have much more to do with the word pastors minister and the persons who need the word irrespective of their social location, than with the elixir that urban locations supply to those addicted to seeking influence.

8 thoughts on “What's the Difference?”

  1. And wouldn’t removing instruments and fascination with the contemporary from the mix make the music part of worship a lot more “same” between urban and rural, you know — like in Scotland before David Robertson and friends came along?

    Like

  2. I don’t know guys. How can you make headlines with “For the city” if the sub-head is “Same as the country”?

    Like

  3. But what if both urban and rural congregations were committed merely (as if) to ministering the word of God through preaching, sacraments and discipline?

    Rev. Borg indeed brought us some good stuff, thanks for bringing it here, and your thoughts as well. Better days ahead, just maybe..

    Like

  4. Two thoughts:

    1. Christianity started as a city religion.
    2. Since my first four churches were in rural communities, and for the last 20+ years I’ve been in a small city of c. 250,000, the primary difference has been that rural ministry (outside the congregation) is retail – that is, one on one. Since in small town or rural life everyone knows everyone and everyone’s business, a church’s life is based on the reputation of the members who are known by almost everyone. In a city, a church’s reputation is usually based on PR work.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.