home

The Church and Change in the Structure of Agriculture

To understand the "farm crisis" of the 1980s, we need an historical overview of agriculture as an industry. The situation to be discussed in this unit has been referred to as the farm crisis, family farm crisis, crisis in agriculture, and rural crisis. While these terms typically refer to the events of the early to mid-1980s, each carries somewhat different connotations of the difficulties rural areas face. Until about 1920, the United States had been a rural, if not agrarian, nation. Figure 1 shows that our nation's population at the turn of the century was about 75 million people, of which nearly two-thirds (50 million people) lived in rural areas. A major transition occurred in the 1920s and 1930s. The urban population continued to grow while the rural population remained relatively stable. By 1990, the nation's urban areas accounted for over 75 percent of the population, while the rural areas made up slightly under 25 percent.

Several factors account for this demographic change, one of which was the decline in the number of farms. Between 1900 and the mid-1930s, there were between 6 million and 7 million farms in the United States (Figure 2). That number declined to about 2 million in 1987, or a drop of nearly 100,000 farms per year. The drop in the number of farms was sharpest between 1935 and 1974, and leveled out somewhat thereafter.

At the same time, the average size of farms increased dramatically from about 150 acres/farm during the first part of the century to the current 450 acres/farm. As shown on Figure 3, the number of smaller acreage farms (less than 100 acres) and medium size farms (100-999 acres) have seen the largest declines since the mid-1930s. At the same time, the number of larger farms (1,000 or more acres) grew. It would appear from Figure 3 that the number of larger farms remains relatively small and inconsequential. But, the 170,000 large farms (or 8 percent of all farms) accounted for 602 million acres (or 62 percent of the nation's farmland), whereas the nearly 2 million small and medium farms (or 92 percent of all farms) made up 362 million acres (or only 38 percent of the farmland) in 1987(2)!

What brought about this drop in number of farms, particularly medium-sized farms? To hear some of the breakfast patrons at the local cafe tell it, the loss of farms is the result of a well-orchestrated conspiracy. Co-conspirators range from a variety of ethnic and religious groups, and typically involve their accomplices, the U.S. federal government and the Federal Reserve System. Gary Comstock in "Is There a Conspiracy Against Family Farmers?" (article 5-1) discusses some of the common themes in conspiracy and complicity theories and offers a rebuttal for them. He concludes his article with a plea for economic justice.

Another approach to understanding the decline in number of farms, particularly that of the past two decades, involves an understanding of agricultural economics and farm policy. The 1970s were prosperous years for farmers in many parts of the United States. Given high inflation and relatively high commodity prices, farmers experienced an increase in the value of their means of production--their land, as well as the price of their inputs, such as seed, fertilizer, and equipment. Many farmers were encouraged to expand the size of their operations during these prosperous years and incurred a substantial debt as a result.

A turnaround in prosperity began around 1980 as domestic and international markets for U.S. farm products began to collapse and inflation was brought under control. Although land values dropped dramatically, the debt farmers held on their land did not. With lower market prices and higher expenses, many farmers were not able to obtain sufficient cash to service their debt. Being unable to meet their loan obligations, many farmers faced bankruptcy and the loss of their farms--thus, the farm crisis!

The farm crisis directly or indirectly affected a substantial proportion of the members in rural churches. In some cases, farmers and their families--members of rural congregations--were forced to leave farming. While some of them could find employment in the community, others could not and had to leave the community and the church.

The farm crisis also affected others in the community. With declines in numbers of farm families and the loss of income that would have been spent in the community, business incomes dropped. Businesses had to limit service or inventory and reduce the number of their employees. Some were forced to close or relocate their businesses elsewhere, which, in turn, forced other reductions in the community and the church. Thus, the ripple effect of downturns in a community's primary industry--agriculture--involved not only farmers, but local businesses, schools, hospitals and clinics, libraries, and churches as well.

Edward Schuh's challenging article "Death and Resurrection in Rural America" (article 5-2) sets the economic and policy stage for this section. He observes that as Americans' per capita income rises, a smaller proportion of their budget will be spent on food and a larger proportion will be spent on non-food items. At the same time food production levels continue to increase. We, as Americans, may eat better and cheaper than ever before, but it has not been to the farmers' benefit. Schuh describes the causes for the signs of "death" in rural America. As for "resurrection," he suggests that there may be hope for some, but not for others. What proportion of your congregation has been hurt by low farm prices? What proportion has not?

In "Is the Church Open to Victims of the Rural Crisis? " (article 5-3),Judith and William Heffernan, rural sociologists from Missouri, offered a pointed challenge to the rural church. The Heffernans conducted a series of interviews with families being forced out of farming. Forty-four percent of the families reported that their church not only failed to offer them support but that they found condemnation from the church. An additional 11 percent stated that their church failed to offer them support and ignored them.

How can the church respond to the Heffernan's challenging questions? The following articles address this issue. Roger Fjeld in "The Rural Crisis and the Church's Ministry" (article 5-4) described a shift from an anti-urban bias to an anti-rural attitude that appears to be taking place in this country. Urban America may be unwilling to be part of the solution to the rural crisis because of the growing anti-rural sentiments. Instead, the rural church must assist in the solution. Fjeld recommended that the church offer consolation and a sense of community to those who are losing their livelihoods and become an advocate for economic justice for farmers. He suggested that seminaries become more involved in understanding the problems their rural constituency face. What anti-rural and anti-urban biases have you experienced? To what degree do you believe this is a problem?

Frank Dorsey in "The Churches' Response to the Rural Crisis" (article 5-5) wrote from a United Methodist perspective. He observed that over 58 percent of that denomination's churches and nearly 24 percent of its members were located in population areas of 1,000 or less. Thus, supporting farm families was in the denomination's best interests. He recommended that church members, whether rural or urban, should know what is the denomination's position regarding agricultural issues and that the church should serve as an agent of reconciliation in the midst of the rural crisis. He believed that the United Methodist Church must join with other churches to make an impact.

Figure 1.(not yet available on-line)Population of the United States, 1900-1910

Figure 2. (not yet available on-line)Number and Size of Farms in the United States, 1900-1987

Figure 3. (not yet available on-line)Number of Farms by Size in the United States, 1900-1987

Gary Farley in "The Response of the Christian Denominations to the Farm Crisis" (article 5-6) offered a Southern Baptist viewpoint. Farley applied the parable of the Good Samaritan to the farm crisis. He suggested that churches should minister to ease the pain immediate needs caused. He recommended that churches should provide care that would lead to a restoration of wholeness and should follow Jesus' example of personal action, the "Golden Rule."

In "Toward Wholeness and Community: Strategies for Pastoral and Political Response to the American Rural Crisis" (article 5-7), David Ostendorf said the churches' response to the farm crisis was twofold. First, the church could serve as a "listening post" for the financial and personal pain people hurt by the farm crisis suffer. In so doing, Ostendorf believed that pastoral counseling with individuals and families would increase. Second, the church could serve as advocates, organizers, coalition-builders, and leadership developers.

While the church as a whole may find ways to respond to farm families in crisis, pastors themselves can play key roles in ministering to families. Walter Thiessen in "Farmers in Crisis: A Pastoral Response" (article 5-8) and Marcia Smith Wood in "What Do I Do New on the Rural Scene" (article 5-9) described how pastors could respond to farm families. Thiessen saw network and coalition building, counseling, and preaching as vitally important roles for rural ministers. Wood described characteristics that rural ministers must have to be effective in a rural congregation. They must choose to be actively involved in the lives of their members, seeking them out rather than waiting for the members to come to them. The rural minister "must have an illogically devoted love" for his or her rural flock (p. 62). Rural ministers must "stir the water" on occasion to bring healing and life. They must be teachers and learners and must be willing to cooperate with others in the community to bring about healing. Rural ministers need to see beyond their own congregations and become ministers to the entire community.

In a very practical manner, Sherri Brown in "How You Can Help" (article 5-10) listed ways Southern Baptists (and, no doubt, others also!) can offer hope to those who struggle from the farm crisis. The list applies to rural ministers and to lay persons. Some of her suggestions included listening, providing food and clothing, sponsoring rallies, and praying. Which of these has your church done? Which ones could it do?