The final step in the 4-D AI cycle is called Destiny. This stage in the cycle is devoted to the implementation of the propositions created in the design stage of the AI cycle. However, whereas traditional change models are vested with implementation schedules and evaluation procedures, Cooperrider and Whitney advocate a more relaxed approach to the implementation of change:

We used to call the fourth "D" Delivery. We emphasized planning and dealing with conventional implementation challenges. Then we discovered that momentum for change and long-term sustainability increased the more we abandoned "delivery" ideas of action planning, monitoring progress, and building implementation strategies. Instead we focused on giving AI to everyone and stepped back. ⁽⁷²⁾

This seems like a very radical step, to just "let things happen" after all the effort of the previous elements of the process. However, since AI is envisioned as a generative process with a cycle rather than a linear start-to-finish method, the Destiny phase allows the cycle to initiate once more with another inquiry. Organizations are seen to be dynamic and fluid, an evolving relational web which is always undergoing some degree of change. The AI cycle allows the organization to keep renewing and reinventing itself, re-visioning the future in light of past experience.

Appreciative Inquiry and asset-based community development models orient the participant to the task of community building and organizational change through a positive, anticipatory framework. Both of these methodologies are highly participatory, assuming that all members of the community have valuable contributions to make for the greater welfare of all those involved. Asset-based or capability-focused approaches place emphasis on the resources that the community or organization possesses, viewing these assets as vehicles for the formation of a strong relational matrix which functions to strengthen the community. Appreciative Inquiry utilizes the stories and memories of people to craft a powerful dream for the future of an organization.

Both of these approaches, because of their participatory nature and the high emphasis on intimate and authentic sharing and dialogue, have high potential for use as vehicles for the formation or creation of community. This person to person sharing and encounter is critical in the establishment of a strong relational web within a community or organization. Dialogue which leads to knowledge of the self and other, can lead us from "us and them" into a more loving "we." In particular, AI has tremendous potential to create meaningful relationships as people share their dreams and visions regarding their common future in community. Paulo Freire notes the power of authentic dialogue:

Founding itself upon love, humility, and faith, dialogue becomes a horizontal relationship of which mutual trust between the dialoguers is the logical consequence. It would be a contradiction in terms if dialogue-loving, humble, and full of faith-did not produce this climate of mutual trust, which leads the dialoguers into ever closer partnership in the naming of the world. ⁽⁷³⁾

There is indeed power in the language by which we describe and interpret our reality. Our use of image and metaphor can create visions of mutual empowerment within the community. But perhaps the greatest strength of language is the potential to produce authentic, meaningful relationships with our sisters and brothers, creating community through a communion of words. In the same way that the Father created through the Word (Son) by the power of the Spirit, through trusting, faithful and loving relationships in a community, creative energy and shared vision arises, transforming the community for the benefit of all. Just as the power and responsibility in the Trinity is shared, so too do ABCD and AI rely on the sharing of power, in the formation of collective vision and the carrying out of that vision. As the Father, Son and Spirit each offer their unique and essential contribution to creation and salvation, so too do AI and ABCD empower community members to offer their unique gifts, abilities and needs toward community initiatives for the greater welfare of all members of the community.

Chapter Three:Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study: Analysis and Reflection

The Study Process:

This phase of the Ministry Study began with a meeting of the membership of all five congregations participating in the study. At this meeting, entitled Five Congregation Meeting #1, Faith Parish/Bethlehem members were presented with a summary of the needs of the community, the resources and interests of the community, and an illustrative list of challenges which these congregations face in mobilizing their resources for use in ministry. ⁽⁷⁴⁾ This summary of needs, resources and challenges was developed from information gathered through personal interviews of both active and inactive congregation members.

Following this meeting, participants were invited to offer critical reflection on the material presented to them. Participants were given response forms ⁽⁷⁵⁾ which were collected by the president of each of the five churches. A processing committee, consisting of the Faith Parish president, the president of Bethlehem and the Faith Parish/Bethlehem Intern Pastor collated and organized this feedback. A series of themes arising from the responses of members of all five congregations was drawn from this feedback. Additionally themes arising from the feedback of members of each individual congregation were also drawn from this material.

The thematic material drawn from the response form data was presented to members of each congregation during a series of congregational focus group meetings. At each of these focus group meetings participants were led in small group discussion of the thematic material. ⁽⁷⁶⁾ Following these discussions participants were led in guided conversations in which participants were asked to reflect on the needs of their community, the gifts which their congregations had to offer to the community and the things which they value most about their congregation. Participants were also asked to dream about the future of their congregation, both in the immediate future as well as in the long term. ⁽⁷⁷⁾

The data recorded in the focus group meetings was collected and compiled by the Intern Pastor. The Intern Pastor then worked to create a series of ministry themes/goals which summarized the focus group data. This series of six ministry themes ⁽⁷⁸⁾ was presented to the local leadership of the Ministry Study. Following presentation and discussion of the ministry themes, the local leadership of the study was asked to choose one ministry theme to be discussed at the next Five Congregation Meeting.

The ministry themes were presented to the members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem at the Five Congregation Meeting #2. Following the presentation of this material, participants were invited to enter into small groups for a guided discussion of the ministry goal "We Want To Work Together With Other Congregations." ⁽⁷⁹⁾ Participants were asked to record their comments and to sign their names on the paper used to record these comments.

The data arising from the small group discussions at the Five Congregation Meeting #2 was collated and summarized by the Intern Pastor and Roger Pederson. This material was distributed to members of each of the congregations participating in the study, in the hope that congregation members would reflect on the material and discuss it with each other prior to any subsequent meetings. At this point responsibility for any decision-making arising from the Ministry Study was left in the hands of the members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem, Outlook.

Five Congregation Meeting #1 (January 18, 2004):

At this large group meeting participants were presented with a hypothesis of the reality of their congregations. This hypothesis, composed of illustrative lists of needs, assets and challenges to the mobilization of resources is the starting point for the remainder of this phase of the Outlook and District Ministry Study. This presentation of needs, resources and challenges is by no means exhaustive and serves only as an illustration of context. ⁽⁸⁰⁾ The function of this representation of the context in which the five congregations operate is to name reality. Through this naming, participants in the study were invited into critical reflection about the nature of the context in which their congregations function.

The data presented at this Five Congregation Meeting represents a summary of information gathered by the Intern Pastor through personal interviews and conversations with members, both active and inactive, of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. While the interview process did gather good information about the context of Outlook and the surrounding district, this approach did not maximize the participation of congregation members. These interviews were confidential and therefore strict constraints were placed upon the potential sharing of information about the community, and indeed the study process in general.

A more fruitful approach to gathering interview data might be found in the methodology of Appreciative Inquiry (AI). A typical approach to interviewing in AI involves the training of study participants to conduct interviews with each other, either one on one or in small groups. The emphasis is placed on the sharing of information rather than confidentiality. Further the credibility of the interview data is enhanced since the interviews are more public, thus raising accountability of the interviewees for honesty and openness. Reflection on the process during the implementation of the Ministry Study led to the adoption of a more participatory format based on small group discussions and congregational meetings.

The material presented at the Five Congregation Meeting #1 was compiled and organized by the Intern Pastor. While this was the person most equipped to do the work of thematic organization, the Intern Pastor was an outsider with respect to the Outlook and District community as well as the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. Even though it was a reasonable decision to rely upon outside "experts" to do the work of compiling and presenting this material, the sharing of information would have been greatly increased had local study leaders been trained and supported in these tasks.

It is likely that local volunteers would use language which is more easily accessible to members of the community. According to the principles of AI, the language which is used to describe reality has the effect of forming reality ⁽⁸¹⁾. Thus it is vitally important that any description of the context of a community be accurate, positive and easily understood. The use of outside expertise, while valuable as far as a sense of objectivity is perceived to be necessary, raises the potential that descriptions of reality will be a poor fit to the experienced reality of local citizens.

The material presented at this meeting was carefully worded to ensure that it carried an absolute minimum of pejorative language. Because of this the material presented at the Five Congregation Meeting #1 has a positive focus. It was important that this presentation carried a positive note which revealed possibilities and opportunity instead of judgement and negativity. Rather than focusing on problems within the community, this presentation highlights the needs and assets of the community. The overall sense of the presentation of the needs of the community is at worst neutral in flavor, a representation of the "facts." The illustrative presentation of resources and interests of the community (assets) is highly positive, going to the extent of re-framing elements in the community often viewed as negative, such as the role of elderly persons in congregations.

The presentation of the challenges present within the community was valuable in bringing these challenges to light, acknowledging their existence (much like "naming the elephant" that no one wishes to speak about). There is a sense in which the presentation of these challenges seems to outweigh the assets of the congregations. Taken at face value, these challenges seem to represent considerable hurdles to be surmounted before effective ministry can take place. However, this material was not received by participants as unduly negative. Here again the use of language is significant, referring to challenges rather than problems within the community, making this a factual representation of the community without the implied value judgement of the term 'problem.'

Following the presentation of the written materials, Dr. Cam Harder delivered a short speech which highlighted the value and effectiveness of small congregations. This speech was very well received, especially by members of the Faith Parish congregations, who felt affirmed in their ministry.

After this address, participants enjoyed a time of fellowship during which they were invited to discuss the presentation with each other. While the information and speech were well received, it may have been this social time which paid the greatest dividends to participants at the Five Congregation Meeting #1. Following the meeting several people commented that this meeting was the first time that the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem had gathered together in more than twenty years. They also commented that the chance to get together and talk with members of the different congregations was a wonderful experience. It is clear from the comments of these people that the Five Congregation Meeting #1 had the effect of producing a feeling of community among at least some members of participating congregations. In short, the actions of learning about their context and simple conversation had already begun to influence the shape of this community. ⁽⁸²⁾

Response Forms:

At the conclusion of the Five Congregation Meeting #1, participants were given response forms as means of sharing their interpretation of the materials presented at this meeting. Participants were invited to take these response forms home and to return them to their own congregation within two weeks. Of the sixty-three persons who attended the meeting, thirty-eight returned response forms. These response forms were the first opportunity for congregation members to engage in the study process and represent the beginning of series of feedback cycles in the study process.

The responses were collated and organized by the president of Bethlehem (John Linsley), the president of Faith Parish (Ray Derdahl) and the Intern Pastor. The role of the Intern Pastor in the collating and processing of this material was that of facilitator and coach, rather than that of outside 'expert.' Much of the actual work of recognizing recurring themes within the responses was accomplished by the local leaders. This was important as the local leaders were empowered to have control within the study and began to take greater ownership in the study process. Indeed as the Study progressed, the role of the Intern Pastor became increasingly that of a facilitator while local leadership assumed greater responsibility for the Study process.

The responses were organized according to recurring themes. A listing of the five most frequently recurring themes from the membership of each congregation was created, along with a listing of the five most common themes arising from responses from all five congregations collectively. In terms of the themes common to all five congregations, the results were somewhat skewed as the membership of Bethlehem contributed the majority of the responses. Additionally since the presentation of all of the thematic material (congregational and aggregate) is only of the most frequent responses, minority voices have been left silenced. A more public process of drawing out themes (eg. large group presentation) from the response form data would have the effect of giving voice to all of the respondents.

Focus Groups (March-May 2004):

Focus group meetings were held at each of the five congregations participating in the Ministry Study. At these meetings the major themes arising from the response forms (congregational and aggregate) were presented. Participants were invited to discuss these themes in small groups and were asked to comment on how closely these themes fit the context of their congregations. After these discussions congregation members participated in guided conversations concerning the needs of the community, gifts of their own congregation, and their values concerning their own congregation. Finally participants were invited to express their dreams and visions for the future of their congregation. ⁽⁸³⁾

These guided conversations resemble the classic interview questions found in AI process. ⁽⁸⁴⁾ However, AI does not focus on the needs of an organization or community during the interview process. Highlighting needs and problems runs contrary to the positive focus of AI. AI interviews seek to discover the best experiences of interviewees and focus on values, gifts and assets. The second question set before participants in the focus group discussions, "What is the greatest gift that your congregation has for ministry?," is reminiscent of the process of asset-based community development in that this question asks congregation members to reflect upon the greatest asset of their congregation for ministry rather than the participant's best experience of ministry.

The focus group process allowed for both the dissemination of information to participants while gathering further feedback. This process created a kind of multiplier effect in information

sharing as participants shared their reflections with each other. The guided conversations were also highly participatory, an open exchange of ideas and insight. It is likely that the sharing of these insights would be even more effective had the small group guided conversations taken place within the context of a multi-congregation meeting, with opportunity for members of each congregation to share their insights with members of the other four congregations.

Five Congregation Meeting #2 (June 24, 2004):

The information recorded at the focus group discussions was organized and processed by the Intern Pastor. From this data six major ministry themes were formulated for the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem, Outlook. ⁽⁸⁵⁾ These ministry themes were presented to the local leaders of the Ministry Study. The local Study leaders were invited to reflect upon the ministry themes arising from the focus group discussions and to choose one theme which would become the focus of small group discussions at a multi-congregation meeting. The theme chosen for discussion in small groups was "We Want To Work With Other Congregations." The Intern Pastor formulated three models of cooperative ministry, arising from the focus group conversations, for consideration by small groups at the Five Congregation Meeting #2. ⁽⁸⁶⁾

The ministry themes were presented to the membership of Faith Parish and Bethlehem at the Five Congregation Meeting #2. The presentation of ministry themes included illustrations of the focus group responses from each congregation which led to the development of each theme. Following the presentation of this material, participants were seated in small groups deliberately composed of members of differing congregations. The small groups were invited to consider three models of ministry within the theme of working with other congregations. Small group participants were asked to consider these cooperative ministry models in light of the other five major ministry themes. ⁽⁸⁷⁾ Discussion of these cooperative ministry models was framed around the questions "What excites you about these models of ministry," and the converse "What disturbs you about these models of ministry."

In recording their responses to the cooperative ministry themes, small group participants were asked to record the names of the participants within their groups. These responses were recorded on large sheets of newsprint and posted for all participants to read and discuss. In this way participants were asked to be accountable to their responses, which would be made available to all members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. Initially there was some apprehension expressed by some participants, who were accustomed to the relative anonymity afforded in previous aspects of the Study Process. However, in the days following the Five Congregation Meeting #2, several participants expressed a sense of liberty in making their opinions concerning the ministry models public.

The results of the small group discussions were collected and, along with a summary of the responses, were distributed to the membership of the five congregations for further discussion and reflection. It was hoped that the inclusion of the names of participants, along with the distribution of the responses, would facilitate private discussion of the models of ministry among congregation members. However, it is uncertain to what extent these private discussions took place.

Conclusion of the Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study:

Following the distribution of the responses arising from Five Congregation Meeting #2, responsibility for any further Study process, and any outcomes arising from the Study, was passed on to the local leadership of the Study. The congregational leadership of Bethlehem and Faith Parish made the decision to work independently, discussing the responses of Five Congregation Meeting #2 before gathering at a joint Faith Parish/Bethlehem Council Meeting to take place later in the year. In January of 2005, the Councils of both Faith Parish and Bethlehem met to discuss possibilities for a "Cooperative Parish" model of ministry. The result of this meeting was the resolution for Faith Parish and Bethlehem to begin with a jointly published newsletter which would inform members of all five congregations of events occurring within the local Lutheran community.

Reflections on the Ministry Study:

The Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study has helped the five congregations participating in the Study formulate new and exciting goals for ministry. In particular these congregations have begun to formulate a vision of cooperative ministry. Thus the Study has to a large degree satisfied the objectives set out by local leadership. ⁽⁸⁸⁾

At the same time the Ministry Study has paid unexpected dividends in the form of the creation (or re-creation) of community among the five congregations and an enhanced feeling of community among members within each congregation.

The building of community is itself a by-product of the Study process. As congregation members engaged each other in authentic dialogue around the nature and future of their own faith communities, barriers to community were lifted and relationships were renewed and created among the members of the five congregations. The changes within the congregations, as they moved to a greater sense of community, are a fine example of the principle of simultaneity, in which inquiry and change coincide.

Participants in the Study process often expressed the value of community, stating that one of the most positive elements within their congregation was the sense of the congregation being like a family. Participants also expressed privately that the time in which all five congregations had functioned as a single parish was a particularly positive experience up until the conflict which led to the dissolution of the parish. Since much of the discussion in the Ministry Study was focused on the nature of the Lutheran community and the greater host community of Outlook and the surrounding District, it is not surprising that the five congregations were drawn to the formation of goals which fostered further creation of a sense of community. ⁽⁸⁹⁾

Gervase Bushe states that change is effected when the inner dialogue of an organization changes. The process of the Study, the series of meetings and dissemination of information, had the effect of making the inner dialogue of the congregations public, while changing the dialogue through the introduction of new images and new language for describing the community. The shift of this inner dialogue has been visible throughout the Study process. Initially members of the five congregations held a guarded mistrust of the other congregations. This sense of distrust and separation was most palpable between the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. As the Ministry Study progressed it became apparent that the inner dialogue of these organizations had changed such that a greater sense of cooperation among the congregations became the object of desire. In making public the inner dialogue of the congregations the Study process has had the effect of bringing the official dialogue of these congregations into congruency with the inner dialogue. Thus the change in inner dialogue has driven the changes in the official dialogue and thus the shape of the reality in which the five congregations operate.

The sharing of information has been a critical element in the Ministry Study process. As information has been shared among congregation members, and a sense of community has been established, the creative potential among the five congregations has been increased, enabling the membership of these congregations to envision new approaches to ministry. ⁽⁹⁰⁾ Further, the sharing of information, particularly the Five Congregation Meetings, allowed the opportunity for the development of relationships between members in differing congregations, further building the relational web which is community.

The emphasis on participation within the Study process enabled congregation members to work cooperatively in describing and naming the reality in which their community operates, and the shape of these faith communities themselves. As mentioned above, greater participation by congregation members in the development of a hypothetical description of the community would have made for a better fitting hypothesis. However, the positive language used in the presentation of information in Five Congregation Meeting #1 (in addition to the very affirming message of Dr. Harder's address) helped congregation members to create a description of their community which was also couched in positive language. This had the effect of breaking a cycle of negativity (eg. problem churches) and despair or resignation among members in the five congregations, and creating an atmosphere of hope. ⁽⁹¹⁾ As congregation members shared this positive dialogue with one another a sort of multiplier effect was witnessed whereby the overall enthusiasm for the Ministry Study and the expected results of the process were magnified creating a sort of self-perpetuating positive cycle.

The time frame of the Study process also played a critical role. There was some difficulty in maintaining the positive cycle during long periods between congregational meetings. There was a particularly long delay between the collection of the responses to Five Congregation Meeting #1 and the completion of the focus group discussions in all of the congregations. This delay was in part due to the other demands upon congregation members in carrying out the usual business of the congregations as well as the demands of everyday living. At the same time the lengthy time periods between meetings did offer the potential for greater sharing of information between congregational members. It seems that there is a challenge in finding the optimal time frame for this sort of study process.

Another consideration which affected the time frame of the study is the normal rhythm of the business cycle (or life cycle) within a rural community. Because the seeding season normally begins in the month of May, there was little enthusiasm for congregational meetings in the months of May and June. ⁽⁹²⁾ At the same time the end of the school year, the beginning of family vacation time, and ongoing agricultural work restricts the feasibility and appeal of summer time meetings. Further compounding the matter, the season of Easter, with attending school breaks and family obligations had the effect of rendering the month of April a "no meeting" time. Thus the windows of opportunity for gathering in individual congregational meetings are few and far between, not to mention gathering as a group of five congregations!

Theological Insights:

The gospel which is genuinely good news speaks concretely to the context in which a community of faith lives and works. The Ministry Study allowed for the recognition of a gospel which is contextually appropriate for the congregations of Outlook and the surrounding District. The message concerning the value and effectiveness of small congregations was received as particularly good news by the members of the congregations of Faith Parish. To hear that God makes use of small congregations and that Christ (and the Spirit) is present in the midst of small and struggling congregations was a word of liberation to these people. In this context the message that small congregations are useful and needed participants in the Body of Christ helped to break the hold of the negative connotations often associated with small congregations. The message that small congregations are ineffective, wasteful of resources and, in many ways, less of a church than a large congregation, sounds like and feels like law within the context of rural Saskatchewan. ⁽⁹³⁾

The ministry goals presented at the Five Congregation Meeting #2 ⁽⁹⁴⁾ also represent the good news of the gospel for the people of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. These positive statements reveal the elements of ministry which the membership of the five congregations understand as good news. Members of this congregation affirmed the value of community as an element of the gospel. It is good news that the church can be a place in which members of the community can gather and care for each other through loving relationships. As the Father and the Son affirm and glorify each other (John 13:31-32) in a relationship of mutual giving and receiving, members at Sask River affirmed that Sunday School offers both an opportunity for teachers to be in ministry to children as well as an opportunity to be ministered to by children.

The five churches also affirmed the role of the church as a positive force within the greater community. "We Want To Make A Difference In Our Community." Members of the congregations noted the need to have a church which is at work in the host community, working to bring greater health and wholeness to the lives of local people. The five congregations also affirmed the role of the church in the revitalization of the local community. Thus the church is to help breathe life into the greater community.

"We Want To Be Open To Strangers." The members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem recognize that the church should be an open community where all people feel welcome. Further it was noted that the church also has a role in making people feel welcome within the greater community, that the church has a role in serving the host community in making newcomers feel at home.

The ministry theme which received the greatest amount of attention in the Ministry Study was "We Want To Work Together With Other Congregations." Congregation members heard the idea of working together with other congregations, Lutheran and non-Lutheran, to be good news. The concept of all the local congregations, even congregations outside the immediate area, cooperating in a collective ministry was appealing to the five congregations. The recognition that God's ministry is not to be owned or monopolized by any single congregation (or denomination) came as a liberative message to the participants in the Study, particularly to the members of smaller congregations who could now recognize a role for their congregations in God's ministry.

The five congregations also recognized the gospel in the theme "We Want To Honor Our Heritage." It is important to these people that the local salvation histories are honored and preserved. The saints which have gone before, their memories and stories, remind people of the presence of God in the local community. The idea that God is present in their own history is an affirming and heartening message. God cares about this community.

"We Want To Be A People Who Are Filled With The Spirit Of The Living God." Members of the five congregations recognized that the Church has a role in helping people to experience the presence of God in their lives. And not only this, but that their congregations also have a mission to help people outside the Church share in this experience. In this way the members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem affirm the role of their congregations in helping people to interpret their reality so that the action of God may be recognized in their lives.

The rediscovery of a genuine sense of community through the process of the Ministry Study reveals the presence of the Spirit in the community. While the action of the Spirit may not be easily recognized, the fruits of the presence of the Spirit are recognizable even if they are surprising. The reconciliation between members of two church bodies which had not spoken in twenty years is a sign of the presence of the Spirit who calls people into relationship with God and with each other. The invigoration of these congregations is also indicative of the work of the life-giving Spirit of God.

Recognition of the unity of the Church in the face of forces which place value on that which is bigger and better, emphasize territorial claims of denominations, and advocate the closure of small rural churches, is the result of the Spirit being at work in this community. Mirroring the nature of the Trinity, members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem came to realize the vital mission of all of the participating congregations, even those who are closing. The recognition that congregations can and do serve a vital purpose, changing and even closing when their ministries are coming to an end stems from the realization that this is God's ministry, not ours, and that God makes use of congregations in the way which best suits God's ministry to God's creation.

The Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study has enabled members of the five participating congregations to perceive the good news of the gospel in a way which speaks to the concerns of the local community. At the same time members of these congregations participate in the ongoing work of the Trinity in the formation and renewal of their community. The process of the Study has paid unexpected dividends in the establishment and reinforcement of a sense of solidarity among the congregations. As the members of the five congregations learned from each other about the nature of their own context, these people began to recognize the presence of God within their own community, past and present.

These churches understand the church to be like a family, which cares for the needs of its members, both physical and spiritual. Further, the five congregations see a need to carry that caring feeling to the greater community. They see the church as having an interest in the local economy. Our Saviour's sees a role for their congregation in addressing issues in the agricultural economy, interpreting these issues in light of the gospel. Bethlehem sees their congregation as a place where people could seek help. They envision their church as having a drop-in center for youth or young adults who need a safe place to gather. They also envision their congregation as a place which addresses the health concerns of the community, perhaps in providing community/parish nursing or some other visible form of healing ministry.

The five congregations envision their churches as being open and welcoming to all members in the greater community. Bethlehem, in the beginning stages of a building program, is considering how the architecture of a new building may increase accessability for local residents. Bethania carries out a ministry of hospitality expressed in table fellowship which mirrors the inclusive and caring nature of the relationships within the Trinity. The congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem affirm their desire to be a spiritual resource for the greater community. Members of Green Valley state that "We want our church to be a place where we can see, feel, sense and know joy." ⁽⁹⁵⁾

Perhaps most significantly the five congregations realize that it is time to move beyond past conflicts. They affirm God's call for unity in the Church and are pursuing an expressed interest in cooperative ministry between all five congregations. In choosing shared ministry rather than amalgamation into one large congregation, the members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem realize the value of all five congregations, acknowledging that each congregation has unique gifts and responsibilities for ministry. In the same way the no one person in the Trinity has a monopoly on power or responsibility, each of these congregations has assets, needs and insight which can be brought to bear in ministry to the people living in Outlook and District.

Conclusion:

The Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study, a participatory research project influenced by the principles of both competency-based community development and appreciative inquiry, has drawn members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem, Outlook into a deeper communal relationship with one another. Through the process of inquiry into the reality of the local context, its needs and assets, the five congregations have begun to change their orientation to their local community

Dialogue among congregation members has led to a deeper understanding of each other, leading to reconciliation and a desire for cooperative ministry. The future of these congregations has been envisioned through the formation of ministry goals which express the values of congregation members in light of their encounter with the living God. A subtle transformation of these faith communities has taken place through the power of the Spirit, leading these congregations to an understanding of unity and mutuality within the Body of Christ. Territorial boundaries have started to dissolve, evidenced in the desire for cooperative ministry between the five Lutheran congregations and the perception of possible cooperative ventures with other denominations in the Outlook area and beyond.

The highly participatory nature of the Ministry Study has increased the creative potential of the Lutheran community in the Outlook area, as more persons have been moved to recognize a vision for ministry in this area as well as some of the resources available for new community ventures. The expression of a positive vision for future ministry in this area will lead the five congregations into a more hope filled reality. Members of the five congregations have changed the inner dialogue of their organizations, perceiving an outward focus in mission to the greater community in place of an inward focus centered on the preservation of the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem, Outlook.

Through the naming of reality and the discovery of a contextually appropriate gospel message, the members of the five congregations have become empowered to embrace future change with a sense of anticipation and hope. The establishment of a positive cycle of hopeful expectation and the formation of meaningful relationships between the five congregations has strengthened the ability of the Lutheran churches in the Outlook area to respond to future needs and challenges. Bolstered by the positive expectation of future ministry, Faith Parish and Bethlehem have been moved to take the first tentative steps toward cooperative ministry in the Outlook area. While the outcome of the desire for cooperative ministry between Faith Parish and Bethlehem has not yet been realized, these congregations have been revitalized and given new energy as they formulate a vision for their approach to ministry within their own context.

This presentation of the Outlook and District Ministry Study has necessarily been limited and there are many questions left unanswered. While the ministry goals formulated by the five congregations are reflective of the values of members of these congregations, do these goals speak to the values and needs of the greater community? Since the Ministry Study has largely been an internal process of the Lutheran congregations in the Outlook area, one might wonder if the membership of these congregations is sufficiently representative of the local population? Do the voices of congregation members actually represent the ministry needs of the Outlook area? Any future work in this area would do well to consider means by which to include the voices of those "outside" the congregation.

It is also worth questioning the applicability of this type of process in an urban environment, where it may be more difficult to discern the boundaries and composition of the "local community." Does a congregation seek to address the ministry needs of the immediate area adjacent to the church building, the area encompassing the active membership or the town/city as a whole? Further, what is the impact of greater heterogeneity (economic, ethnic, etc.) among the population of a city upon the ministry focus of a congregation?

These are but a few of the issues remaining to be explored in consideration of the suitability of the Ministry Study process in other congregations and other contexts. While the principles of capacity-based community development and Appreciative Inquiry may be relatively universal (at least within North America) in their potential application, it may well be the case that each congregation may need to devise its own process of participatory research, based on the needs and abilities of congregational membership and the surrounding community.

Appendix A:

Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study:

Introduction, Objectives, Budget

Foreword by Roger Pederson ⁽⁹⁶⁾

A Brief History of How the Ministry Study Came About

Faith Lutheran Parish has functioned with the ministry services of a halftime pastor or pulpit supply since its inception. From time to time we have had informal discussions with LCBI (Lutheran Bible Collegiate Institute) regarding the shared service of a pastor, but the needs or budget cycles never seemed to quite coincide.

In the spring of 2001, at the request of Faith Parish Council, the Presidents of the four congregations, along with the President of Bethlehem, Outlook and LCBI President, Dan Haugen, met to discuss and share our ongoing respective ministry needs.

The outcome of that initial meeting was support for some kind of study/survey to access Lutheran Ministry presently and into the future. President Dan Haugen and Roger Pederson were asked to prepare an initial draft of a survey/study that would meet that objective.

One of the requirements for the survey/study was the involvement of someone from outside our district to objectively carry out the work. With the encouragement from Bishop Allan Grundahl, talks continued over the next year, leading to meetings with Dr. Faith Rohrbough and Dr. Cam Harder of the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Saskatoon.

The survey/study drafts were critiqued by Dr. Cam Harder who agreed to participate, and indeed was most receptive to assist with the study, so further details were drafted along with time lines and a budget.

In order to facilitate the study, an Intern was proposed on a shared basis between Bethlehem, Outlook and Faith Lutheran Parish, with an office located at LCBI. Pastor Merle Snustead and Pastor Daryl Olson would be the intern's supervisors and Dr. Cam Harder would help facilitate the study. Most of the work on the study would be the responsibility of the intern, and indeed it could form part of his class work at the seminary.

We began the study with no idea of its eventual course. The hope is that the results of this ministry study would form the foundation on which to plan future ministry for each congregation in Faith Lutheran Parish and Bethlehem Lutheran Church in Outlook. The study could have far reaching application for many congregations in the Saskatchewan Synod and beyond, as parishes look for ways to provide meaningful Lutheran Ministry to their communities in the changing rural environment in which we live.

Roger Pederson

Ministry Study Coordinator

Outlook and District Lutheran Ministry Study

STUDY PARTICIPANTS

FAITH LUTHERAN PARISH

- Green Valley Lutheran Church, Outlook

- Saskatchewan River Lutheran Church, Outlook

- Bethania Lutheran Church, Macrorie

- Our Saviour's Lutheran Church, Ardath

BETHLEHEM LUTHERAN CHURCH, Outlook

LUTHERAN COLLEGIATE BIBLE INSTITUTE, Outlook

LUTHERAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, 114 Seminary Cres., Saskatoon

STUDY GOALS

1. A demographic analysis of Lutherans in our communities

- age

- location

- church membership/activity

2. Potential for Ministry

- present members

- other Lutherans "out there"

- people with no affiliation

3. Explore models for Lutheran Ministry in Outlook and District

4. Prepare interim and final reports of the study findings with recommendations or proposals for future ministry.

STUDY DESCRIPTION

1. Staffing: Goals 1 and 2 (demographics and profile) will be completed by the congregations after a discussion with Reverend Harder of the information to be gathered. There needs to be a "fit" to be most useful later in the study.

Establish an intern for Faith Lutheran Parish/Bethlehem to be responsible to carry out the study under the direction of Reverend Harder. Pastoral training, evaluation and supervision for the intern by Pastor Merle Snustead and Pastor Daryl Olson.

The methodology from this study will serve as a pilot project for Reverend Harder in the development of a Rural Pastoral Institute at the Seminary.

2. Timing

Project Proposed Completion Date

Demographics Mid January 03 at the latest

Intern Identification to begin work Early January 03

on the study

Intern and Reverend Harder conduct February 14-March 2/03

personal interviews

Interview analysis March-April 03

Intern Placement-introduction to May 2003

pastoral ministry

Study findings presented to Reverend Harder June 2003

(For accreditation)

Interim Study Findings presented Early Fall 2003

to participants

Possible further survey work Late Fall 2003

(To "prove" the findings)

FINAL REPORT Christmas 2003

Introduction of potential changes January 2004 onwards

to ministry.

BUDGET

STIPEND

$1000 per month for 12 months $12000.00

when internship begins

TRAVEL

Study (60 trips from Saskatoon) $1500

Internship $3500 $5000.00

TUITION

Retreat and Travel $1250.00

HOUSING

Not included at this time

OFFICE COSTS -discussed with LCBI

-office

-phone

-internet

-photocopying

-computer

SOURCE OF FUNDS

Saskatchewan Synod

Rural Internship Fund $4000.00

Small and Struggling Congregations Fund $3000.00

$7000.00

Other Funding $2050.00

Faith Lutheran Parish $7200.00

Bethlehem Lutheran $3000.00

$19,250.00

Appendix B

Outlook and District: Geography and History

Setting of the Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study:

Geography:

The five churches in the district (Sask River, Green Valley, Bethania, Our Saviour,

Bethlehem) are located within a 15 mile radius of the town of Outlook. Sask River, Green Valley and Bethlehem are located on the east side of the South Saskatchewan River, while Bethania and Our Saviour are to the west of the river. Sask River and Green Valley are approximately 10 miles from one another; Our Saviour and Bethania are spaced similarly. The overall effect is a scattering of churches which appears much like the number five side of a playing die.

There is good logic behind the location of the churches. If one considers the context in which these churches were founded, on will discover that the distances between churches seems to have been dependant upon the primary mode of transportation used in the early days of the district: horse and buggy. There is a cluster of membership within 6-7 miles of each church. One might describe this cluster as the local sphere of influence held by a given church. Five miles, I have been told, is about as far as one would reasonably travel by horse and buggy. That being said, the ten mile separation between churches on either side of the river seems to make a good deal of sense. In the larger picture almost all of the membership in the Lutheran churches considered "in the district" lies within a 15 mile radius of Outlook with some notable exceptions. This translates into driving distances of up to 25 miles (for the majority of members) into Outlook, distances being affected by the grid-road system and access to river crossings.

A major factor in the geography of the region is the South Saskatchewan River. Prior to the completion of the Gardiner Dam Project in the 1960's the river would have been a major barrier to travel in the region. Even now the river poses as a barrier to travel as there are only two bridges within the district, one at the Gardiner Dam and another in Outlook. The location of these bridges undoubtedly has a serious impact upon traffic flows in the region, and makes the town of Outlook into a natural cross-roads for travel in the area.

The eastern bank of the South Saskatchewan River has had irrigation service since the late 1960's and early 1970's. This has led to the development of various forms of irrigation farming, most notably the production of seed potatoes. Additionally, grain crops are grown both under irrigation and in dry land scenarios. Cattle production is also a major component of the agricultural economy in this area. The west side of the river has had little if any irrigation development, due to political factors which led to the premature cessation of irrigation development following the construction of the Dam. Because of this the west side of the river is devoted to dry land farming techniques. Further there is a large proportion of land on the west side of the river which is better suited to grazing of livestock than grain farming.

The economy of the district is almost totally dependant upon agriculture with the majority of land in the area devoted to some form of farming. Within the town of Outlook the economy is anchored by government and agriculture-related industry. The largest employers within the town would be: hospital and nursing homes; schools; Barritch Farms (potatoes); Iron Solutions (web-based farm equipment); Quadra Group (hog production). Aside from the government funding which fuels both education and health-care, most of the economic activity in this area is directly related to agricultural production and services. The dependance upon agriculture may have a serious impact on the economy of Outlook and surrounding district with farm incomes suffering due to drought, low grain prices and the disruption of the cattle industry (BSE). If agriculture continues to be depressed there may be major stewardship implications for churches in the district.

History:

The churches of the Faith Parish have their origin in the early 20^th century. There is a long history of cooperation between the churches within the district, beginning in 1926 when the Sask River, Green Valley and Bethlehem congregations , located on the east side of the South Saskatchewan River, decided to jointly call a pastor to serve the area. This three-point parish continued to operate jointly until the parish was expanded in 1968. At this time the congregations of Bethania and Our Saviour, on the west side of the South Saskatchewan River, were invited to join Sask River, Green Valley and Bethlehem to form a five-point parish entitled Outlook Lutheran Parish. This five-point parish was served for a few years by Pastor W.M. Berg and interns until Rev. John Lokken accepted a call to the parish in 1972. Following the retirement of Rev. Lokken in 1985, the parish split apart into its present alignment in which Bethlehem operates independently of the four point Faith Parish (Sask River, Green Valley, Our Saviour, Bethania).

Following Rev. Lokken's retirement the Outlook Lutheran Parish had difficulty in calling a pastor to serve the five-point parish. Several proposals were considered: one pastor, two pastors or; one and one-half pastors. Additionally it was proposed that one or more of the congregations merge with others to create a new parish configuration. Several forums were held for members of the Outlook Lutheran Parish to discuss these issues. At a forum on in March of 1986 it was announced that Bethlehem intended to withdraw from the present parish if the parish were to decide against calling two pastors. Our Saviour's and Green Valley also desired that two pastors be called to serve the parish. Sask River and Bethania delegates opposed calling two pastors; it was felt that to call two pastors would increase the budget beyond what congregations could afford. A proposal to amalgamate Green Valley, Bethlehem and Our Saviour's was rejected at this time. Following the defeat of a proposal to hire two pastors Bethlehem asked to be released from Outlook Lutheran Parish. In spring of 1986 Bethlehem seceded from Outlook Lutheran Parish. The remaining four congregations created the current Faith Parish alignment, formally instituted in 1987.

The Congregations:

Saskatchewan River:

Saskatchewan River Church is the oldest of the three churches on the east side of the South Saskatchewan River. The Saskatchewan River Lutheran Congregation (SR) was first organized in 1905 with worship services being held in homes until June 29, 1913 when the Sask River Church was completed and dedicated. Worship continued in this structure until August 15, 1948 when the church bell was struck by lightening. As a result the church burned and services were held at the Nary School across the road until a new church could be built. The first regular service in the new church was held on November 16, 1952. Worship is held bi-weekly at Sask River Church, a tradition that seems to have begun during the tenure of Rev. John Lokken (1971-1985). Also during this period the Sask River Church began a tradition of closing its doors for the three months following Christmas.

Green Valley:

Green Valley Norwegian Lutheran Church was organized on May 13, 1909 with worship services being held in the homes of local members until the construction of the present church in 1917. The church was dedicated in 1918 at which time the Green Valley Church was the largest church in what later became the Canada District. Worship was held in both Norwegian and English. At present the church holds worship services on a bi-weekly basis.

Bethlehem:

The congregation of Bethlehem Lutheran Church was organized on April 23, 1911. Worship services were held in homes, in the Presbyterian Church, at LCI and above the Strand store (now I.G.A.) until the completion of the church structure in 1939. At this time worship services were held in the basement of the structure as the main floor had not yet been finished. The church was completed and dedicated on November 4, 1951. In 1956 an addition to the south end of the church was constructed, followed by further addition to the north end of the structure in 1966. The congregation conducted its business in Norwegian until 1921 when English became the preferred language. Worship services are held weekly at Bethlehem Lutheran Church.

Bethania:

Bethania Lutheran Church was formed on January 10, 1910 and a Ladies Aid was also instituted. Worship services were held in the homes of members of the congregation and in the Westar School until a church could be built. On July 28^th, 1929 the cornerstone for a church was laid and construction begun. In the late 1930's West Point Congregation amalgamated with Bethania. In 1960 Bethania joined the A.L.C. and in 1967 became part of the newly autonomous ELCC. Bethania holds worship services on a bi-weekly basis.

Our Saviour's:

Our Saviour's Lutheran Church was formed in 1911 and was affiliated with the Norwegian United Lutheran Church of America. A Ladies Aid was also formed at this time. Services were held in the homes of members with Norwegian as the language of choice. Construction of a church building began in 1920. In 1922 Our Saviour's became part of a three-point parish which included Bethania and a church in Kindersley. In 1968 Our Saviour's joined the Outlook Lutheran Parish. Services are held at Our Saviour's on a bi-weekly basis.

Demographics:

The population of the district has shrunk over the last 50 years. This is in part due to the reality of the agricultural economy, the pressure for farmers to accumulate larger holdings in order to remain viable. A close look at a map will reveal that most farms in the area comprise several sections of land, a far cry from the half-section per family of early Saskatchewan agriculture. Additionally the trend over the last century has been for a dramatic reduction in family size, from the larger families of 8 or 10 children to the family sizes roughly equivalent to those in urban populations (1-2 children per family).

The result of this demographic change can be clearly seen in the memberships of the churches in the area. The demographic data used here is taken from congregational rosters, information collected and compiled by each of the four congregations in Faith Parish and Bethlehem. The membership information collected by the congregations included data concerning the age, location and activity level of church members. Information regarding age of members has been grouped according to the following frames: (1) 0-18 years; (2) 19-27 years; (3) 28-50 years; (4) 51-70 years and; (5) 70+ years of age. Location information was grouped according to: Farm; Town and; Outside District. Finally, members were located into categories as either active (attend or contribute at least once annually) or inactive members of the congregations.

With a total parish membership of 496 people, the memberships of the four congregations is as follows: Bethlehem 539 members; Sask River 128 members; Green Valley 137 members; Our Saviour 83 members and; Bethania 148 members. Of the 496 members in the parish, 144 are considered to be active members while 352 are inactive. The breakdown of active and inactive members for each of the churches is as follows: Sask River 65 active/ 63 inactive; Green Valley 31 active/ 106 inactive; Our Saviour 20 active/ 63 inactive; Bethania 28 active/ 120 inactive members. Bethlehem has 290 active members and 249 inactive members.

The congregations reported the following average attendance in 2002: Bethlehem 160: Sask River 41; Green Valley 11; Our Saviour 14 and; Bethania 8. The average attendance figures may not in fact paint an accurate picture of church attendance as the information collected to create these averages includes information from all worship services, including major festivals, where exceptionally high or low attendance values may have a dramatic effect upon the overall average. Further, because some members of the Faith Parish worship services at more than one church per month there may in fact be some overlap in terms of average attendance. It is because of this that an aggregate Faith Parish attendance does not have much meaning. One might also wish to consider some measure of participation, that is, some means of measuring the proportion of active members which attend church services on the average Sunday. One way of measuring participation is to simply divide average attendance by the number of active members. Expressed as percentage figures the participation rates for Bethlehem and Faith Parish churches are as follows: Bethlehem 55%; Sask River 63%; Green Valley 35%; Our Saviour 70% and; Bethania 28.5%. If one can assume that active members living outside the district offer little impact to the average attendance figures (i.e. they attend 1 or 2 times per year) we can adjust the participation rates by considering only those active members living within the district. The adjusted participation rates are as follows: Bethlehem 65%; Sask River 68.3% ; Green Valley 41% ; Our Saviour 87.5%; Bethania 34.8%. In other words, one might expect on any given Sunday that 41% of the Green Valley active membership living within the district will be in attendance for worship at Green Valley.

A second element to consider is that of location. Treated as a whole the membership of Faith Parish is composed of 108 persons living on farms, 131 persons living in towns and 267 persons residing outside the district. Bethlehem's membership is comprised of 260 persons living in Outlook (29 on acreages), 49 persons on farms, 19 persons living in towns other than Outlook and 211 persons outside the district. The element of location raises an interesting question: What does the term 'rural' really mean? Although a significant number of the members of Faith Parish live on the farm, it is clear that in terms of total membership the majority of members are not located on farms within the district.

However, in considering the location of active members, one will find that the majority of active Faith Parish members are living on farms. In fact 48% of active members within Faith Parish are living on farms, with 38% in towns and 13% living outside the district. It would appear at first glance that people living on the farm are more likely to go to church but this conclusion is not really supported by this data. In reality it is more likely that people are more likely to go to the closest church than any other church in the area. Nonetheless, it is clear that at least in terms of the active members, the churches of the Faith Parish are indeed rural churches.

The active membership of Bethlehem is dominantly composed of persons living in Outlook (72%). There are only 9.6% of members living on farms and less than 2% live in towns other than Outlook. 16.5% of active members are located outside the district.

If one considers the relative location of members on the responsibility lists (inactive members within the district) of the Faith Parish churches it is interesting to note that the majority of responsibility list members (61%) live in town while a smaller percentage (39%) live on the farm. So while the majority of active members of the parish live on the farm, the 'target market' of these churches is composed primarily of people living in towns. By comparison members on Bethlehem's responsibility lists are found 24% on the farm, 59% in Outlook and 14% in other towns.

The age distribution of active members in Faith Parish suggests an aging population. While there is a significant proportion of membership in the 0-18 year age range (19 %), the bulk of the active membership is found in the 28-50; 51-70 and 70+ age ranges. The highest proportion of members is in the 51-70 year age range (26%) with the next highest being in the 70+ age range (24%) and the 28-50 range (21.5%). The lowest proportion of membership is found in the 18-27 age range (8.33%). This latter observation is not surprising and follows national trends in which 'college-age' people often abandon the church until later life changes bring them back to the church. At the same time however, this may be reflective of a general departure from the district by people in the 18-27 year age range due to either educational or economic opportunities found outside the district. As the old saying goes "You can't keep them on the farm . . ."

It is worth noting for a moment the relatively high proportion of active members in the 0-18 year age range. This high level of youth members appears to be due to the contribution of Sask River church. The Sask River church has its largest proportion of membership in the 0-18 year age range, some 34% of active members at Sask River fall into this age range. The memberships of the other three churches, Green Valley, Bethania and Our Saviour, all appear to be skewed to the right, that is with a greater percentage of older members. Sask River has a noticeably different distribution of membership than the other churches, and is almost skewed to the left in terms of its membership distribution. What is interesting to note here is that the large proportion of 0-18 year members does not follow a similarly large proportion of 19-27 or 28-50 year old members as one might expect. Is this due to the participation of large families (i.e. lots of kids) or are the parents of these 0-18 year old members not participating in the church?

The Responsibility List of the Faith Parish consists of all inactive members who live within the district. Of the 112 people included in the Responsibility List, an overwhelming proportion (47%) are in the 28-50 year old range. What does this mean? Is this age range exceptionally large in terms of the population of the district (i.e. baby boom echo)? If so the relatively large percentage of 28-50 year old people on the responsibility list may reflect an 'average' drop-out rate of members. Or the large proportion of 28-50 year old persons no longer active in the church may be the result of a failure by the church to meet the needs of the people in this age range. Or it may be that the demands of life (i.e. kids, work, etc.) conflict with church attendance.

Bethlehem's total membership reflects a more balanced demographic. 21.8% of members are in the 0-18 group; 18.7% in the 19-27 group; 30% are 28-50; 14.3% are 51-70 while 14.4% are aged 70+. The age distribution of active members shows a larger proportion of 0-18 year olds (28%) while 19-27 year olds compose only 12% of active membership. 25% of Bethlehem's active members are 29-50. 15.5% of actives are in the 51-70 group while 19% are over 70 years of age.

The Responsibility List of Bethlehem has 15% of inactives living in the district aged 0-18 years. 14% are in the 19-27 age group while fully 30% are aged 29-50. Both the 51-70 and 70+ age groups had 20% of inactive members living in the district. Again we see that the 29-50 age group has a large proportion of inactive members. This may be in part due to the size of the age group which would include a large number of Baby Boomers.

Appendix C:

Ministry Study Data

Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study

Introduction:

The Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study is a participation-oriented community development project. This project has at its core the vision of members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem Lutheran Church who desired a study which would reveal new possibilities for ministry in the Outlook area. The Study has been directed and implemented by local leadership. The Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study places priority on local knowledge. Local participants are assumed to be the experts when speaking about their own community. Intern Chris Bishopp has served as a study consultant throughout the process of the Study. As external consultants he served as a facilitator of the Study process.

Congregational self-study and community development processes can have the effect to changing the communities in which they are practiced even before the processes have been 'finished.' In the case of the Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study, the process of the study has itself undergone change. The initial interview strategy relied upon traditional sociology and external 'experts.' However, as time passed the Ministry Study soon became reliant upon participant-oriented models such as asset-mapping and appreciative inquiry.

Goals:

The Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study seeks to:

• •help participating congregations better understand their local context
• •help participating congregations better understand the ministry needs of their community
• •aid participants in discovering community assets and challenges to mobilizing assets
• •engage participants in open dialogue about their dreams and hopes for ministry
• •assist participants in forming ministry goals which are relevant to their context

Participants in this project include: Bethlehem Lutheran Church, Faith Parish (Green Valley Lutheran Church, Saskatchewan River Lutheran Church, Bethania Lutheran Church, Our Saviour's Lutheran Church) and LCBI.

Support for this project has been provided by ELCIC National Synod, ELCIC Sask Synod, Lutheran Theological Seminary, LCBI, Bethlehem Lutheran Church and Faith Parish.

Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study:The Process:

Phase One: Personal Interviews & Asset-Mapping

To begin the study process local study leaders updated and organized membership rosters for the five congregations taking part in the study project. Members were sorted according to age and activity. Five age ranges were used: 0-18 years, 19-27 years, 28-50 years, 51-70 years and over 70 years of age. Membership was also divided into groups by activity, active members being those who had attended at least one church service in the previous year.

Using age ranges and activity levels to ensure a reasonable cross-section of membership a small sample of participants were randomly selected to be interviewed. Initially it was intended that twice as many inactive members would be interviewed as active members in order to include voices not likely to be heard in later phases of the study. However inactive members were much less likely to volunteer to be interviewed. In the end fifteen persons were interviewed, five of them inactive members and ten of them active members of the five congregations.

During each confidential interview participants were asked a common set of questions which sought to reveal people's needs and hopes in the Outlook area.

Interview Questions:

1) What's been your experience of the church, past and present?

2) In your perception, what role does name of church play in your community?

3) What feeds your spirit (whether church-related or not)?

4) What are your own or your family's most significant needs at this time? (Only share what is comfortable)

5) What do you think this community needs to be a healthier, more inviting place to live? Do you see a role for the church in helping it become such a place?

Transcripts were produced of the personal interviews and were analyzed and coded by Intern Chris Bishopp. The coding process revealed common thematic material within the interviews which illustrate some of the needs and assets of the Outlook community and Faith Parish/Bethlehem. This thematic material was organized and interpreted by Chris Bishopp and was presented to members of Faith Parish/Bethlehem at the first Five Congregation Meeting.

The information arising in the personal interviews was organized according to three broad categories: (1) The Needs of the Community; (2) Resources and Interests of the Community; (3) Issues in Mobilizing Ministry Resources. The model which was used in organizing and presenting this material is akin to asset-mapping, where the strengths and assets of a community are recognized.

It worthy to note that some elements commonly held to be liabilities can also be viewed as assets. For example elderly people are often interpreted as a liability when one considers only physical abililty. However if one considers life experience elderly people can be considered as strong assets. These people may have a greater ability to empathize with those experiencing life changes or illness, for example, than those with lesser life experience.

The needs of the community presented at the first Five Congregation Meeting represent the most common responses identified in the personal interview process. This is by no means an exhaustive list. Rather this list of needs serves as a hypothesis, a starting point for further conversation and deliberation.

The resources and interests of the community are presented as an illustrative list. Congregations all have many more resources than those listed. The effort was made to demonstrate that all of the five congregations have resources which can be mobilized for ministry.

There are however some challenges to mobilizing assets for ministry. The third section of the presentation illustrated some of the challenges facing the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem in making use of their ministry resources. Again this is not an exhaustive list but rather serves to stimulate dialogue among congregational members.

Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study

Five Congregation Meeting #1

1) The Needs of the Community:

• •Health

• •people want wholeness of body and spirit

• •there is a need for adequate health care
• •there is a need for a holistic approach-physical, spiritual, mental
• •healthy lifestyle-opportunities to learn healthy living skills and for exercise

• •Young Adults
• •people would like this community to be hospitable to young adults

• •the church should be welcoming to young adults
• •people would like to see economic opportunities for young adults
• •there is a need for recreational activities for young adults
• • established people see these measures as an 'antidote' to shrinking community

• •Faith & Rural Economies

• •people need to know how to connect faith with everyday life
• •there is need for action within a gospel framework
• •there is a need to re-interpret the local economy in light of faith witness
• •there is a need for culturally relevant service and sermon content

• •Security

• •people want a sense of security in light of global events
• •there is a need for a Gospel framework to interpret global realities
• •there is a need to understand the interconnectedness of global realities-what is the impact here of what happens elsewhere or how does what we do/but/sell have an impact elsewhere

• •Spiritual Growth

• •people want to know . . . does the bible have any good news for our particular needs?
• •people want their souls to be fed in worship and church activities

2) Resources and Interests of the Community:

Green Valley:

• •Leadership

• • people with accounting and administration skills; people with experience and interest in managing environmental resources; experience in local community leadership i.e. Credit Union, R.M. council, etc.; people with an open perspective who are willing to consider all possibilities for future ministry

• •Church Structure & Cemetery

• •this church has a large building to accommodate worship, meetings, entertainment, and other community events; the cemetery provides an opportunity to care for ancestors and provides a way to serve the community through a grief ministry

• •Elderly People

• •elderly people have a great deal of life experience and are able to share their stories with others; elderly people often have experience in coping with health problems and can share this experience as a ministry to others; elderly people have experienced a great deal of change and can offer a unique perspective on crisis and change

Saskatchewan River

• •Vibrancy of Youth

• •children and youth bring energy and a sense of hope for the future; young families are able to share their stories as parents with others; with children comes the opportunity to nurture and share life experiences/story telling

• •Service

• •people with experience in service clubs i.e. Kinsmen and working in service industries have the ability to see and provide for the needs for others; E.L.W. groups have a long tradition of service within the church and in compassionate caring for the needs of others

• •Leadership

• •people who are highly creative and able to see possibilities for ministry; people with administrative and oversight skills are able to support others in accomplishing tasks for ministry; business owners understand marketing and value

Our Saviour's

• •Custodians of History

• •people who maintain the history archives and hold on to the memories and lessons from the past; people who recognize the difference between being rooted in the past and being trapped in the past; people who understand that the past propels us into the future

• •Christian Education

• •people who are able to communicate faith beliefs and stories to others in a clear and easily understood fashion; people who have experience in teaching a variety of subjects and age groups i.e. grade school, high school, Sunday school

• •Agricultural Knowledge

• •people who work with land and animals and are able to share their expertise and stories with other people; people who participate in and are able to interpret the rural economy in light of their faith

Bethania

• •Hospitality of Food

• •people with experience in creating a warm and welcoming atmosphere through a shared meal; the 'agape' tradition, the meal of fellowship and sharing of true community

• •Elderly People

• •elderly people can draw upon their own experience to support others, especially younger families; elderly people can serve as custodians of past history and wisdom and because of this can make excellent leaders and guides

• •Caring Community

• •people with experience in sharing joys and sorrows with other people; the spirit of a group which actively seeks to be mutually supportive; people who express their love for other people through empathy and listening

Bethlehem

• •Christian Education

• •people with experience in designing and implementing programs for a variety of age groups and interest groups i.e. Sunday School, Confirmation; Alpha; Senior's Studies; people with the ability to share faith stories and faith ideas in clear and understandable ways

• •Staff

• •vital support staff who can serve as resources for the ministry of the congregation i.e. clergy; secretary; youth worker, Alpha leader, interns

• •Communications

• •people with experience in publishing newsletters, writing articles, phone skills; people with computer skills and experience in electronic communication i.e. e-mail, web page design and management

• •Worship

• •worship styles and content that is relevant to contemporary culture; use of musical styles that allow a broad range of people to express spiritual feelings; use of language that is contemporary and open to a range of people; making use of traditional worship music, language and symbol to inform an open and accessible worship style

3) Challenges in Mobilizing Ministry Resources:

Overcoming Divisions:

• •Overcoming Divisions As A Result of Painful History

• •overcoming barriers to trust between Faith Parish & Bethlehem
• •overcoming past divisions in Faith Parish over clergy, etc. that still linger

• •Overcoming Isolation
• •independence is glorified while dependence is seen as weakness
• •churches are wary of cooperation that might lead to dependence

• •the Faith Parish congregations, while economically interdependent are socially independent
• •Bethlehem is economically and socially independent from Faith Parish



• •Overcoming Divisions As A Result of Ethnic Culture
• •overcoming community stereotyping of the Lutheran churches of the Outlook area as the 'Norwegian' church



• •Overcoming Divisions As A Result of Local Rivalries

• •town vs. country
• •town vs. town

Mission Orientation:

• •Sorting Out the Relationship Between 'Church' As 'Building' and 'Church" As 'People"

• •overcoming the tendency to see people as serving buildings
• •make sure that buildings serve people
• •ensure that use and change of facilities follows clear ministry goals rather than ministry being designed to fit facilities

• •church structures may not suit present congregational size and ministry needs but it's hard to let go of the structure because it's an icon of the church's identity and history

• •What Is The Purpose of This Church?
• •overcoming ambivalence about why the church is here

• •overcoming loss of clear sense of purpose
• •congregations may function as a family which can be warm and intimate but can be hard for others to enter into and may look to its own interests
• •overcoming a survival mentality that focuses on keeping the church alive rather than on its mission

• •How is The Church Related To The Local Community?
• •making the most of social relationships of members through:
• •friendships and social contacts of church members in the community
• •participation in local activities such as curling, hockey, Kinsmen, scouting, youth sports, etc.

• •the institutional nature of the church that has influence in the community makes decisions

• •Overcoming Some Isolation From The Larger Church
• •making the most of connections between the local church and other local churches
• •making the most of connections with regional and national church synods

Economics

• •there is a need to find models of ministry that congregations are willing and able to support
• •getting past economics as the only reason for interdependence
• •to develop a sense of being stewards rather than owners so that members are able to develop a freedom in giving that allows them to support the ministries that they would like to undertake

Hospitality

• •Overcoming Structural Barriers to Hospitality

• •appearance and amenities of physical structures
• •i.e. dirty bathrooms, lack of cry rooms/change stations, steep stairways, etc.
• •overcoming lack of adequate gathering space to facilitate hospitality
• •worship space that is too large for the needs of the community and feels inhospitable

• •Overcoming Confusing or Irrelevant Language And Culture
• •learning to use common language
• •find styles of music that can express the spiritual feelings of a range of ages and tastes
• •to develop vivid symbols and rituals that draw on images from local and contemporary culture



• •Overcoming Location Problems
• •helping guests to locate the church easily through maps, road signs, community billboards, etc.



• •Overcoming Passivity
• •moving beyond attitudes such as:
• •"if we build it, they will come"
• •"they already know we are here"
• •"what are you doing here?"
• •becoming more intentional in outreach and hospitality



• •Overcoming Low Self-Esteem
• •"I'm just a farmer"
• •"We're just a small church . . ."

• •'if we build it, they will come'

Phase Two: Opening Up the Conversation

Immediately following the presentation of needs, assets and challenges to mobilizing assets congregation members present at the Five Congregation Meeting were asked to fill out a response form. This response form was designed to help people express their thoughts and feelings about the material presented to them. Participants were asked to return these response forms to collection boxes at their respective congregations within two weeks of the Five Congregation Meeting.

Response Form Questions:

• •What surprised you at the presentation?

• •What disturbed you?

• •What excited you?

• •What disappointed you?

• •What encouraged you?

• •What did you regard as most important in what you heard?

• •What did you think was inaccurate-not a fair reflection of your congregation's reality?

• •What hit the nail on the head as far as you are concerned?

Sixty-three members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem attended the first Five Congregation meeting, with thirty-eight of them returning response forms. The responses were organized and processed by a committee composed of Bethlehem President John Linsley, Faith Parish President Ray Derdall and Intern Chris Bishopp. Responses were processed to reveal the five most common themes among responses from members of all congregations. The five most common themes from each congregation were also compiled. Both the Common Themes and Congregational Themes were made available to congregation members who chose to participate in Focus Group Discussions.

FAITH PARISH/BETHLEHEM MINISTRY STUDY

COMMON MINISTRY THEMES:

These are common themes arising from people's responses to the Rural Ministry Presentation. The themes below have not been ranked according to importance but are the most common themes taken from the responses of members of all five congregations (Faith Parish & Bethlehem)

Lack Of Clear Purpose

There was surprise and concern that people were not able to clearly express the purpose of the church.

Hospitality

Responses indicated that people felt that creating a hospitable church was important to them. Working to create an attitude of deliberate hospitality is clearly important.

Some Sharing Among The Congregations Should Be Considered.

People are happy to see all five congregations gathered together and working together on the ministry study project. People see the possibilities for growth and change for each of the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem and they recognize that all the congregations have strengths and assets important to ministry. People expressed a desire to see the five congregations work together more often.

Common Ground-'We're all in this together'

People recognized that all of the congregations share some common ground. For example, all of the congregations have an abundance of talents to share. All of the congregations have a positive intention to move forward in planning. There was some concern that few young adults were present at the presentation and that the voice of youth and young adult members of the five congregations may not be heard if they are not involved in planning and discussion. Finally, all of the congregations are effected by the relatively low self-esteem held by members of the community.

Small Is Beautiful

People were glad to hear the message that small churches do have strengths in ministry. Small can be beautiful and small churches can have vital and life-changing ministries.

Focus Group Discussions:

Focus group discussions were held at each of the five congregations involved in the Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study. At each of the four Faith Parish congregations the focus group discussions were open to all members who wished to participate. Bethlehem held a focus group discussion which was open to council members and ministry leaders within the congregation.

At these focus group discussions participants were presented with the Common Themes as well as the Congregational Themes of their own congregation. Participants were invited to discuss and respond to this thematic material in small groups. Following this discussion participants were asked to share in a guided discussion, also in small groups.

Focus Group Discussion Questions:

• •What does this community need so that our bodies, relationships can be healthy and whole?

• •What is the greatest gift that your congregation has for ministry?

• •What's most important to you about your congregation?

• •If there were no obstacles, what would you like to see this church be and do in the community?

• •Imagine yourself in this community 100 years from now. Some churches have changed, some have closed. Imagine that your church no longer exists. What would you like the legacy of your church to be? How would you like your church to be remembered in history?

Responses to the Focus Group Discussions were compiled and processed by Intern Chris Bishopp. This material was coded and analyzed to reveal ministry goals common to all congregations. These ministry goals were presented to members of Faith Parish/Bethlehem at the Five Congregation Meeting #2. Each ministry goal was illustrated with examples from each congregation. Additionally assets/possibilities and challenges to meeting ministry goals were highlighted.

Rural Ministry Study

Focus Group Response Summary

Please note:

• represent assets and possibilities for meeting ministry goals

• represent challenges to meeting ministry goals

Major Themes:

1."We Are A Family"

The church is like a family-a close-knit group of people who love one another and care for each other's physical and spiritual needs.

A. Sask River:

I. We want to keep growing numerically (church and Sunday School)

ii. We want to keep people (kids & parents) involved after Sunday School

• Confirmation students help teach Sunday School
• Sunday School provides ministry by and for teachers
• Rural feeling-informal and laid-back place where you can talk to anyone about anything, a community-oriented place
• Location-central to the community, convenient to rural membership

• After Sunday School/Confirmation there is nothing for the youth
• Time constraints get in the way of health/wholeness
• Paradox of modernity-with more efficient equipment there is less free time
• There is an increase in recreational opportunity and people feel they need to do it all
• Town vs. Rural-the schedules and demands on time are not always the same

B. Our Saviour's:

I. Our Saviour's church is the people, not the building

ii. There is a sense of belonging-people have things in common with each other i.e. agriculture

C. Green Valley:

I. A family atmosphere and loving relationships are important to us.

ii. Worship and fellowship with friends and family is important.

• ELW holds us together.
• We have willing workers to clean-up the church, maintain the cemetery, etc.

• We are small but not workable.
• As age increases it is harder to change.

D. Bethania:

I. The people are the church-a caring community, a church family

ii. Advantage of close-knit community, family atmosphere-helps us to care for each other

• Table fellowship after worship helps us care for each other and strengthens our relationships.

• We will close when we are no longer financially viable. There are maybe one or two years left.

E. Bethlehem:

I. It is important to be a place where kids are welcomed, taught and loved

ii. It is important to pass on values to our children.

iii. We are lucky to have so many young adults and young families in our congregation.

• Sunday School, Confirmation and Youth programs help us to care for children.
• Small groups could help us create and nurture loving relationships.
• Intentional caring-stop making up programs and 'live the life' of caring for one another and meeting each other's needs.
• There should be no stigma in expressing our needs. People could communicate their needs in the Proclaimer or bulletin.
• We need to focus all of our activities around our mission statement.

• The mission statement of this church is not very visible or easy to understand

2."We Want To Make A Difference In Our Community"

The church should have a recognizable presence in the community, providing social support to people in need.

A. Sask River:

I. We should be a focal point for the community, a place of fellowship, events, etc.

ii. We should be a source of information for the community.

iii. We want to reclaim the tasks of service to the community, instilling values in youth, and helping less fortunate neighbors.

• Our location is central to our community and convenient to our rural membership.

B. Our Saviour's:

I. We would like to be a Resource Center for the community with contact information for: pastor, help for family crises, healthcare, fire/rescue services.

ii. Our Saviour's would like to be involved with issues in the agricultural economy.

• Convenient location close to where people live.

C. Green Valley:

I. There is a need for wholeness in people's lives.

ii. There is a need for continued outreach in our community.

D. Bethania:

I. Economic development-tourism is a possible solution to provide jobs and stability.

ii. We would like our local community to be revitalized.

iii. We would like be the center in our community.

E. Bethlehem:

I. We would like to have a youth/young adult drop in center.

ii. We would like to provide support to the food bank.

iii. We would like to be a place where people come when they need help.

iv. We want people to say "This congregation impacted my life!"

• We would like to have a Parish nurse, grieving support group, specific needs groups.
• We would like an active Healing ministry.
• We would like to deliver meals to parents with new babies.

3."We Want To Be Open To Strangers"

The church should be a hospitable community which is welcoming and accessible to all people in the greater community.

A. Sask River:

I. How can we make this an open community?

• A sign in front of the church with worship service dates and times.
• Advertise in the Outlook and/or Catch-a-copy.
• Welcome package with important information about the church.
• Sunday School is an important way of attracting people to come to our church.
• Ministry of greeting
• Invite people from Saskatoon to come experience a country church.

• Services are not every week and times change-this is confusing to outsiders.
• Washrooms and basement are not easily accessible to all people.

B. Our Saviour's:

I. We would like this church to be warm and welcoming to everyone.

• Quiet and tranquil location.
• Sand point well and septic system would make washroom more inviting.
• Sign for the church would make it easier to find.

• The attitude that 'We are going to close' has prevented us in the past from making improvements to our building.
• Outhouse/washroom not appealing to guests.
• The building is closed to disabled people-steep stairs and no ramps make access difficult.
• The church can be difficult to find.

C. Green Valley:

I. There is a need for continued outreach in the community

D. Bethania:

I. We would like to be warm and welcoming to everyone.

• Table fellowship after worship services.

E. Bethlehem:

I. We would like to have an open church where members of other churches are able to participate in our programs.

ii. We would like to make newcomers to Outlook feel welcome in our community.

iii. We need to work continuously on being hospitable to guests and strangers.

iv. How can we incorporate hospitality into the design of our new building?

• Ministry of greeting-at the beginning of the service.
• Visitors can sign a guest book, we can follow this up with visitation and information.
• We have events that are visitor friendly such as Alpha, Sunday School, ELW, Easter Vigil, Fellowship Sunday, etc.
• We can design a large foyer and place to have coffee for our new building .

• Create welcome wagon information for people new to Outlook/visitors to our church.

• Current building does not allow people to visit before and after services

4."We Want To Work Together With Other Congregations"

We want to work together with the other Lutheran congregations in the Outlook area to enhance ministry to our members and the greater community.

A. Sask River:

I. We could share some ministry events and programs together such as conferences, bible studies, picnics, youth group, music nights.

ii. We could invite Anglicans to participate in Lutheran events.

iii. Faith parish could have one service on each side of the river every Sunday

• Faith Parish is about congregations working together and sharing resources.

• There is a need for a better 'sell' because there are psychological and geographical barriers to participation in shared events.

B. Our Saviour's:

I. There is room for more cooperation among the churches

ii. We could share Sunday School resources.

iii. We could have one amalgamated church-if everyone could cooperate.

iv. A Parish Nurse could be a shared ministry of all five congregations.

• LCBI worship teams can be an element of cooperative ministry

• Shared history makes us cautious-can we all cooperate?

C. Green Valley:

I. Faith Parish could have services every Sunday but alternate the church i.e service at Green Valley once per month.

ii. Faith Parish could have service at 9 am on one side of the river and an 11 am service on the other side of the river, every Sunday.

iii. We could close church(es) to regular services but keep them open for 3-4 special services per year plus funerals, weddings, etc.

iv. We could have two full-time pastors for five congregations.

D. Bethania:

I. We could cooperate with or merge with the United church in Macrorie.

E. Bethlehem:

I. We are in favor of cooperation with Faith Parish as long as there are adequate resources.

ii. There is a need for better communication between Bethlehem/Faith Parish and between the churches and LCBI.

iii. Is it time for the Lutheran congregations in the Outlook area to consider forming a new congregation in a new location with a new name?

• We will invite Faith Parish to have representative(s) on our building committee.
• We can work with Faith Parish/LCBI to announce/publish each other's events, programs.

• Past history makes us hesitant to rush into relationships with other churches.

5."We Want To Honor Our Heritage"

Our history is important to us. Traditions and structures remind us of where we came from and those people who went before us.

A. Sask River:

I. Our heritage is important to us.

• Established by Norwegian forefathers from one area of Norway
• Members are related to the founders of the church.

B. Our Saviour's:

I. We want to be remembered as a church . . . as a faithful community.

C. Green Valley:

I. We want to honor our ancestors courage, faith and vision.

ii. We have a sense of pride when former members recognize the devotion and work that goes into maintaining a church building, but moreover a functioning congregation.

iii. Roots run deep here-Green Valley is a center of community heritage.

• Celebrate church anniversaries.

D. Bethania:

I. Nostalgia and tradition are strong reasons to keep going.

ii. Our building is important as an element of our heritage.

E. Bethlehem:

I. Our Lutheran heritage is important-it is the backbone of this congregation.

6."We Want To Be A People Who Are Filled With The Spirit Of The Living God"

It is important that our church helps us to experience the presence of the Living God in our lives. We also want to share that experience with others.

A. Sask River:

I. We need to re-assess the routine of worship and make it vital

ii. We want to have spiritual education beyond Sunday School.

iii. We would like to have worship every Sunday.

B. Our Saviour's:

I. The most important thing about our congregation is the people and their spiritual journey.

C. Green Valley:

I. We want our church to be a place where we can see, feel, sense and know joy.

D. Bethania:

I. It is important to us to hear the Word regularly.

E. Bethlehem:

I. We are glad to have two styles of worship service.

ii. We want people to be changed through prayer and spiritual revival.

iii. It is important to us to have worship opportunities every week.

iv. We would like to have an evening praise and worship community in our congregation.

v. We would like 10-20 people go annually on a mission trip to Mexico.

Small Group Discussion:

Following the presentation of the Ministry Goals, participants in the Five Congregation Meeting #2 were invited to participate in a guided small group discussion. In order to further facilitate discussion among congregations participants were asked to form small groups composed of members of different congregations. In these small groups participants were asked to respond to several models of ministry which related to Ministry Goal #4 "We Want to Work Together With Other Congregations."

A small committee of local study leaders made the decision to advance this ministry goal as being the most significant for the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem. It was decided that a discussion centered on the theme of cooperation in ministry would be most beneficial in stimulating conversation and building relationships between members of the five congregations involved in the Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study and LCBI.

Faith Parish/Bethlehem Church

Rural Ministry Study

Small Group Discussion

Date: June 24^th 2004

Location: LCBI Chapel

Who: All members of Faith Parish/Bethlehem, and LCBI staff.

In the fall discussions regarding the mission and ministry of the Lutheran churches in the Outlook area will take place. We'd like you to think over the summer about what kind of ministry your church should be involved in and who you would like to engage in this ministry with. Is there something that you feel equipped to do with your present resources? Would you like to partner with another church or churches? Would you like to merge with another church?

You are invited to share your response to the models of ministry presented below.

What excites you about each of these models of ministry?

What disturbs you about each of these models of ministry?

Keeping in mind the vision of ministry you outlined in previous focus groups, which model would best help you to fulfill your vision for ministry?

Three Models for Ministry:

1) "Cooperative Parish"

• •Remain five separate congregations but share ministry projects or staff or planning functions or programs, etc. among all five congregations and LCBI.

2) "New Jerusalem"

• •Merge to form a new congregation with new building, new name, new location
• •Keep old church buildings open to special events, special services, funerals, weddings, etc.

3) "Status Quo"

• •Faith Parish, Bethlehem, LCBI remain 6 separate entities.

4) "Other"

• •Any other ideas for ministry.

Participants in the small group discussions were asked to sign their names to their responses. It was decided by local leadership that it was now time for people to take ownership of their beliefs. Further it was believed that having a public record of small group responses and small group members would make for more productive conversation following the publication of the small group responses.

The small group responses were collected and organized by Bethlehem President John Linsley, Faith Parish President Roger Pederson and Intern Chris Bishopp. Responses were clarified and reported verbatim with the names of each group attached to their responses. Additionally the responses were summarized for easier reference. Congregation members have been asked to read the responses, to discuss them and to forward any further comment to their congregational presidents.

Rural Ministry Study

Summary of Responses to Possibilities for Cooperation:

1) Cooperative Parish

Pro:

• •retain identity, heritage, sense of community
• •maybe the rural churches will stay open longer
• •lessens the financial burden but could increase ministry
• •a sense or a desire to work together in ministry
• •important to involve LCBI in our ministries

Con:

• •administration could be difficult
• •can we afford two pastors?
• •how can staffing needs be met fairly?

2) New Jerusalem

Pro:

• •Outlook is centrally located
• •it makes economic sense
• •we could be more dynamic together
• •everyone starts new, with input from all
• •access to more resources

Con:

• •we will lose some people
• •drastic change can be discomforting if made too quickly
• •we could get lost in the crowd
• •less direct contact with the pastor
• •greater distances to travel to get to church
• •maintenance of church buildings

3) Status Quo

Pro:

• •maintain our heritage
• •it feels good to belong to a community
• •we feel comfortable with what we know

Con:

• •challenging finances
• •some churches will have to close
• •not enough people
• •harder to grow
• •limited services

4) Other

• •consideration should be given to a transition period between change from the status quo to any other model of ministry
• •the church is no longer the only meeting place in the community
• •LCBI is part of our common heritage-how can we interact for our mutual benefit?

Where Do We Go From Here?

The focus group responses and summary have been distributed to members of Faith Parish and Bethlehem in the hopes that further discussion will take place over the summer and fall. Faith Parish and Bethlehem plan to have a joint Council Meeting to further discuss possibilities for cooperative ministry.

Before congregations can commit to a model of cooperative ministry it is likely that another large group session will be needed to provide a vision of what cooperative ministry among the congregations of Faith Parish and Bethlehem will look like. This might be best accomplished through another mixed-congregation guided discussion, giving participants to share their dreams and fears with members of other congregations.

The Faith Parish/Bethlehem Ministry Study has been about building bridges between congregations and relationships between people. As the congregations have entered into a journey of self-discovery they have also entered into a dialogue with friends and neighbors. The very process of working together on this kind of project changes the nature of participants, knocking down barriers and building avenues of communication.

This project itself has undergone a transformation. In the initial stages of interview and analysis the vision for the study relied on the use of expertise outside the community. However this soon changed with a shift to asset-mapping and the use of appreciative inquiry methods of community development. What has developed is a truly participant-oriented approach to congregational self-study and the development of mission orientation which responds to the local context in ways that are relevant and appropriate.

Bibliography:

Ammerman, Nancy T. et al, eds. Studying Congregations: A New Handbook. Abingdon Press: 1998.

Bibby, Reginald W. Restless Churches: How Canada's Churches Can Contribute to the Emerging Religious Renaissance. Novalis/St. Paul University, Toronto: 2004.

Branson, Mark Lau. Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change. Alban Institute, Hendon, VA: 2004.

Booth, Wayne C. The Craft of Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: 1995.

Bushe, Gervase. "Five Theories of Change Embedded in Appreciative Inquiry," Presented at the 18^th Annual World Congress of Organizational Development, Dublin, Ireland, July 14-18, 1998. Reprinted in Cooperrider, D. Sorenson, P., Whitney, D. & Yeager, T. (eds)(2001) Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organizational Development. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

Carrol, Jackson W. et al eds. Handbook for Congregational Studies. Abingdon Press, Nashville: 1986.

Cooperrider, David L. and Diana Whitney. Appreciative Inquiry. Peggy Holman and Tom Devane eds. Berrett-Koehler Communications Inc., San Fancisco: 1999.

Cooperrider, David L., Diana Whitney and Jacqueline M. Stavros. The Appreciative Inquiry Handook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change. Berrett-Koehler Communications Inc., San Fancisco: 2003.

Dudley, Carl S. Basic Steps Toward Community Ministry. Alban Institute: 1991.

Faber, Brenton D. Community Action and Organizational Change: Image, Narrative, Identity. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale/Edwardsville, Il: 2002.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum, New York: 1983.

Fryer, Kelly A. Reclaiming the "L" Word: Renewing the Church from Its Lutheran Core. Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis: 2003.

Gunderson, Gary. Deeply Woven Roots: Improving the Quality of Life in Your Community. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1997.

Hammond, Sue Annis. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry.2^nd ed. Thin Book Publishing Co., Bend OR: 1998.

Harder, Cam. "The Shame of Farm Bankruptcy: A Sociological and Theological Investigation of Its Effects on Rural Communities." Unpublished Thesis. May 2000, Saskatoon, SK. This thesis originally produced at University of St. Michaels' College. 1999.

Isser and Schwarz, "Interdisciplinary Research" Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 1:45-54, 1989.

Kolb, Robert and Timothy J. Wengert eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 2000.

Kretzmann, John P. and John L. McKnight. Building Communities From The Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing A Community's Assets. ACTA Publications, Chicago: 1993.

Jung, L. Shannon and Mary A. Agria. Rural Congregational Studies: A Guide for Good Shepherds. Abingdon Press, Nashville: 1997.

Jung, Shannon et al. Rural Ministry: The Shape of the Renewal to Come. Abingdon Press, Nashville: 1998.

Mattessich, Paul and Barbara Monsey, Community Building: What Makes It Work: A review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, St. Paul, MN: 1997.

McGrath, Alister E. Christian Theology: An Introduction 2^nd ed. Blackwell Publishers, Malden MA: 1997.

Mead, Loren B. The Once and Future Church: Reinventing the Congregation for a New Mission Frontier. Alban Institute: 1991.

Migliore, Daniel L. Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mi: 2000.

Moltmann, Jurgen. The Church in the Power of the Spirit: A Contribution to Messianic Ecclesiology. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1993.

Moltmann, Jurgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God. Fortress Press, Minneapolis: 1993.

Mudge, Lewis S. Rethinking the Beloved Community: Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Social Theory. University Press of America, New York: 2001.

Nessan, Craig L. Beyond Maintenance to Mission: A Theology of the Congregation. Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis: 1999.

Ruffcorn, Kevin E. Rural Evangelism: Catching the Vision. Augsburg Fortress, Minneapolis: 1994.

Sim, R. Alex. Land and Community: Crisis in Canada's Countryside. Univ. of Guelph, Guelph: 1988.

Snow, Luther K. The Power of Asset Mapping: How Your Congregation Can Acts on Its Gifts. Alban Institute, Hendon, VA: 2004.

Vandecreek, Larry et al. Research in Pastoral Care and Counselling: Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches.

1. Loren Mead, The Once and Future Church: Reinventing the Congregation for a New Mission Frontier, (Hendon, VA: Alban Institute, 1991), 43.

2. See L. Shannon Jung and Mary A. Agria, Rural Congregational Studies: A Guide for Good Shepherds, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1997). This work provides an excellent methodology toward understanding rural churches and their particular contexts.

3. See Appendix A pp.74.

4. For a detailed presentation of means by which community building projects can be evaluated see Paul Mattessich, and Barbara Monsey, Community Building: What Makes It Work: A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building, (St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1997). Mattessich and Monsey propose that community building projects should be evaluated in terms of a relative increase or decrease in the "social capacity" of a community i.e. a community's ability to respond to socio-economic issues, change, etc.

5. See Appendix C pp. 103-111.

6. See Appendix B for a detailed history of Faith Parish and Bethlehem, and an overview of the context of Outlook and the surrounding District.

7. Daniel L. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding: An Introduction to Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., 1991), 56.

8. Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction 2^nd ed., (Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1997), 293-294.

9. Luke 3:21-22, NIV. See also Mark 1:9-11 and Matt. 3:3-17

10. See Elwell ed., Baker Topical Guide to the Bible, 66-68.

11. Jurgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom: the Doctrine of God, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 64.

12. Moltmann, Trinity, 64ff. Moltmann engages in a thorough discussion of the Trinitarian revelation of God in the person of Jesus, the Son.

13. Moltmann, Trinity, 75.

14. This does not imply that people were not in relationship with God prior to the coming of the Christ. Certainly the salvation history of the Hebrew Bible is a story of God in community with the Chosen people.

15. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. CA VIII.1 The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 42..

16. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 189.

17. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 186.

18. Migliore, Faith Seeking Understanding, 186.

19. Eric W. Gritsch. Luther's Works, vol. 39: Church and Ministry I, (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, Ed., (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999, c1970).

20. John 1:1-14

21. Moltmann, Trinity, 112.

22. Moltmann, Trinity, 113.

23. Jurgen Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit: a contribution to messianic ecclesiology, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 300-1.

24. Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 295.

25. Matthew 28:19-20. The "Great Commission"

26. Moltmann, The Church in the Power of the Spirit, 294.

27. Lewis S. Mudge, Rethinking the Beloved Community: Ecclesiology, Hermeneutics, Social Theory, (New York: University Press of America, 2001), 161-162.

28. Moltmann, The Church, 290.

29. Appendix C pp 103-111.

30. Moltmann, The Church, 291.

31. See also Matthew 26: 39-42 ; Luke 22:42-43

32. See Acts 2:1-5 for an account of the Spirit's arrival at Pentecost.

33. Gary Gunderson, Deeply Woven Roots: Improving the Quality of Life in Your Community, (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 1997), 22.

34. Paul Mattessich and Barbara Monsey, Community Building: What Makes It Work: A Review of Factors Influencing Successful Community Building, (St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1997), 8.

35. Luther K. Snow The Power of Asset Mapping: How Your Congregation Can Act On Its Gifts, (Hendon, VA: Alban Institute, 2004), 128.

36. It is worth noting that problems which lie outside the community (i.e. forces such as monopolistic economies, oppressive political regimes, etc.) can have the effect of creating solidarity among community members.

37. Mattessich and Monsey, Community Building, 55-64. The authors give a broad sample of definitions of the term community, community development and elements of community building in Appendix A of this work.

38. Mattessich and Monsey, Community Building, 86.

39. Mattessich and Monsey, Community Building, 57. This definition is reprinted from McMillan, David W. and David M. Chavis, "Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory," Journal of Community Psychology, 14:6-23.

40. John Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, Building Communities From The Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets, (Chicago: ACTA Publications, 1993), 5-9.

41. Kretzmann and McKnight, Building Communities, 9.

42. Kretzmann and McKnight, Building Communities, 345. The authors offer an outline of a community development process which includes the five steps outlined above. The authors note that this is by no means an exhaustive list of steps towards community building

43. Kretzmann and McKnight, 13ff.

44. See Kretzmann and McKnight Building Communities, 19ff for a capacity inventory and suggestions regarding implementing the interviewing process.

45. Snow, The Power of Asset Mapping, 8-9.

46. See Kretzmann and McKnight Building Communities, 29-107 for an in depth look at how many different groups of people offer unique assets for community building. Kretzmann and McKnight observe that each of these groups can serve as a nexus for relationships within the community. Additionally each of these groups have unique relationships with other community assets such as institutions (schools, government, etc.) as well as other individuals and groups in the community. The examples provided by Kretzmann and McKnight include: youth, elderly, artists, welfare recipients, and people with disabilities.

47. Kretzmann and McKnight Building Communities, 52-53.

48. Kretzmann and McKnight Building Communities, 26.

49. Snow, The Power of Asset Mapping, 86.

50. Snow, The Power of Asset Mapping, 86-7.

51. David L. Cooperrider and Diana Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, (San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Communications,, 1999), 10.

52. Gervase Bushe, "Five Theories of Change Embedded in Appreciative Inquiry," Presented at the 18^th Annual World Congress of Organizational Development, Dublin, Ireland, July 14-18, 1998. Reprinted in Cooperrider, D. Sorenson, P., Whitney, D. & Yeager, T. (eds)(2001) Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction for Organizational Development. Champaign, IL: Stipes.

53. Mark Lau Branson, Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change, (Hendon, VA: Alban Institute, 2004), 26.

54. Bushe, Five Theories, 3.

55. Branson, Memories, 27.

56. Branson, Memories, 3.

57. Bushe, Five Theories, 3. Sue Annis Hammond, writing in the Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry (Bend, OR: Thin Book, 1996), 20 makes the assumption that "Reality is created in the moment, and there are multiple realities." If this hypothesis is accepted then it may be possible to think of the process of fitting an organization's realities within the bounds formed by other external realities. Thus the process is about finding the 'best fit' given the information available. There may be a plethora of possible visions of an organization which may allow a high degree of function within a given context.

58. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry: 27.

59. Bushe, Five Theories: 6-7.

60. Bushe, Five Theories, 4ff.

61. Bushe, Five Theories, 4.

62. David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney and Jaqueline M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change, (San Francisco: Barret-Koehler Publications, 2003), 7-8,

63. David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney and Jaqueline M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook, 35.

64. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, 26.

65. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, 11ff. The "4-D" cycle, promoted by Cooperrider is the classic presentation of AI. See also Mark Lau Branson Memories, Hopes, and Conversations: Appreciative Inquiry and Congregational Change, (Hendon, VA: Alban Institute, 2004), 141. Branson refers to the four stages in the AI cycle as: Initiate, Inquire, Imagine, and Innovate throughout his presentation of AI. Branson presents a chart in Appendix E (141) which demonstrates three varieties of AI terminologies and their relationship to AI process.

66. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, 12.

67. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, 12.

68. Sue Annis Hammond, The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry, (Bend, OR,:Thin Book, 1996), 32.

69. See Hammond, Thin Book, 34 for sample questions. See also Branson, Memories,146-9 for sets of AI questions suitable for research within a congregation.

70. Hammond, Thin Book, 37.

71. See Branson, Memories, 155 for an outline of how provocative propositions are crafted. See also Hammond, Appreciative Inquiry, 39-45 for a discussion of the crafting of provocative propositions, examples, and criteria for evaluation.

72. Cooperrider and Whitney, Appreciative Inquiry, 15.

73. Paulo Freire, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed, (New York: Continuum, 1983), 79-80.

74. See Appendix C pp. 95-100.

75. See Appendix C pp. 100-101 for response form questions.

76. See Appendix C. pp. 101-102 for common themes arising from responses.

77. See Appendix pp. 102-103 for a sample of focus group discussion questions.

78. See Appendix pp. 103-111.

79. See Appendix C pp. 111-114 for guided discussion exercise and summary of responses.

80. This material is similar to elements of an asset-mapping exercise. However, unlike asset-mapping the material presented here is illustrative and represents only a small portion of this community's resources.

81. This is a principle of social constructionism. Language describes and forms the shape of our reality.

82. This is an example of the AI principle of simultaneity where inquiry and change occur as simultaneous events.

83. See Appendix C pp. 102-103. The dreams of participants are particularly valuable. According to the heliotropic principle of AI organizations grow toward the questions which are asked. This is particularly true of visions of the future.

84. See David L. Cooperrider, Diana Whitney and Jaqueline M. Stavros, Appreciative Inquiry Handbook: The First in a Series of AI Workbooks for Leaders of Change, (San Francisco: Barret-Koehler Publications, 2003). Cooperrider, Whitney and Stavros offer an in-depth presentation of AI theory and process. Particularly valuable is the presentation on training volunteers for the interview process, and examples given of interview responses.

85. See Appendix pp. 103-111.

86. See Appendix C pp. 112-113.

87. Small groups were also asked to offer other ideas for cooperative ministry.

88. See Appendix A pp. 74.

89. The anticipatory principle states that organizations move towards the themes which they discuss and the questions which they ask. Further, the heliotropic principle of AI states that organizations grow towards life giving images which they hold of themselves.

90. See above (34-35) for a discussion of the value of sharing information within capacity-based community development.

91. This was the first step in changing the inner dialogue of the five congregations, creating an atmosphere of anticipation of positive outcomes.

92. A similar situation exists in the months of August through October during the harvest season.

93. For a refreshing presentation of the principles of economies of scale and economies of scope, see Ernst Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered, (New York: HarperPerennial, 1989) Schumacher highlights the value of appropriately sized operations in contrast with the popular, incorrect, understanding of the terminology of economic efficiency in which economy of scale is often understood to mean bigger is better.

94. See Appendix C pp. 103-111.

95. Appendix C pp. 111.

96. Material in Appendix A originally appeared in "Outlook and District Rural Ministry Study Final Report," an unpublished document. Reproduced here by permission.