• The most valued denominational examples are where pre-existing large programmes (e.g. a diocesan Bishop’s Certificate in Discipleship course) are adapted for a more bespoke approach to training local rural congregations. Such adaptation provides local delivery; limited focus; small modules; limited time-span; and links people from different churches. Training in practical areas is more valued than solely knowledge- based material. The local participants need to be the drivers of the programme. Some lay training programmes benefit rural churches by focusing on key practical skills and continued support within churches after training as these skills are honed.
3. PROBLEMS WITH PROVISION?
Are There Adequate Resources? Some feel adequate resources for rural churches already exist, though there are significant failures of signposting, publicity or accessibility. Others adapt pre-existing material to suit their rural circumstances, or create new material from scratch. Many feel tied to materials decided on or provided by their denomination. There is a need for tools to help access and evaluate what is currently available for rural churches.
Reservations with Current Resources or Training • Some training providers help rural churches make the best use of what already exists in the material provided for lay people. But plenty have reservations about current resources and training, perceiving a bias towards urban or suburban contexts, or larger congregations and single churches.
• For many rural ministers the smallness of their churches means struggling to find sufficient numbers motivated to participate in training or people prepared to lead local-church training.
Wider Church Attitudes to Rural • Some Anglican diocesan leaders appear not to take rural ministry seriously, bypassing the needs of rural parishes. Other denominations demonstrate similar tendencies. The wider church can easily marginalise rural, failing to value realistically their rural churches, and failing to recognise rural churches’ perceptions of their own situations. This can result in overly negative general evaluations of small and rural churches and their contributions to the wider ministry of the church.
Page 12 of 111
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111