Suchergebnisse

The heyday of studies of the rural church was the 1920s-1940s. Even then researchers noted that structural rather than ecological characteristics were especially im portant in understanding it. A more recent focus has been on rural-urban differences in religiosity. Research done in the 1960s and 1970s indicated differences only on the ideological (belief) dimension. Data from two 1975 studies—one involv ing children in Minnesota and the other adolescents in a national sample—are reported, showing continuing rural- urban-metropolitan differences in religious belief. There are higher rates of fundamentalism for Protestants in the first two residential categories. For the first sample, the relationship between SES and fundamentalism virtually disappears in the rural area. The importance of residential (and church) propinquity of social classes is suggested as an important intervening variable, and this brings the focus full circle in terms of ecological versus structural and organizational characteristics. Finally, the future of the rural (small) church is discussed. Negative effects of inflation and the overall de cline in national church membership and participation and the positive effect of church decentralization as they impinge upon the rural church are discussed.

Focus is on Ru-Ur differences in religiosity. Research done in the 1960's & 1970's indicated differences only on the ideological (belief) dimension. Data from 2 1975 studies -- one involving children in Minnesota, & the other adolescents in a national sample -- are reported, showing continuing Ru-Ur-metropolitan differences in religious belief. There are higher rates of fundamentalism for Protestants in the 1st 2 residential categories. For the 1st sample, the relationship between SES & fundamentalism virtually disappears in the Ru area. The importance of residential (& church) propinquity of SC is suggested as an important intervening variable, & this brings the focus full circle in terms of ecological vs structural & organizational characteristics. The future of the Ru (small) church is discussed, as are negative effects of inflation & the overall decline in national church membership & participation, & the positive effects of church decentralization as they impinge upon the Ru church. 2 Tables. Modified HA.

AbstractWith one‐third of rural areas in the United States living in persistently high poverty, churches are some of the most prolific—and often only—sources of resource‐provision in rural places. This paper qualitatively examines the complex role that churches play as resource providers in rural areas. Further, we examine the ways churches are helpful and/or harmful in meeting the needs of those experiencing vulnerability. We fuse hegemonic Christianity with social exclusion and neoliberalism to argue that rural people may not only experience ostracization and othering, but can also lose access to already‐limited resources in rural areas as a result. Using community‐based action research, ethnography, 47 semi‐structured interviews, and research participant‐driven photography from a town we call Gordon, we find that while churches are important resource‐providers, they perpetuate hegemonic Christianity, hold exclusionary power, and act as critical gatekeepers for resources. This often results in ostracization and jeopardizes resource provision for those most vulnerable. This is a critical finding that demonstrates the complexity of resource provision, church influence, and rurality. We highlight participants' suggestions for ways to expand services in rural places without solely relying on religious organizations.