I am an atheist, but that’s not what this post is about. This post is about the decline of church-going in North America and why we should be concerned.
Religious communities provide the social bonds that cause people to help each other. Sure, we have government programs that provide social assistance, but only those in serious trouble can use them, they have to fit a precise set of criteria and they receive the help in a predetermined way. Religious communities, on the other hand, can help out before someone gets into serious trouble and do so in a way that suits the situation.
How about an example? This blog post by a young American woman recounts what happened when she and her husband were both short on work and unable to pay the upcoming rent. This article talks about people in hard times in West Virginia, where one sixth of the population is receiving government assistance.
As real wages continue their thirty year decline, the environment becomes less able to sustain us and food and fuel prices rise, helping each other out will become more and more important. The organizations that facilitate helping each other out are the churches (of whatever religion). And that is why we need more churches.
Hey Yaacov,
I think you make a great point about the role that churches can play within a community. However, I’d like to play devil’s advocate to your comment
Is there a way to engage the secular citizen to partake in this same charitable behaviour, without the need for a church? Communities can be formed around any number of interests, which need not be religious. I wonder why it is that secular communities and organisations seem to fail to provide these same necessary, charitable roles? And more importantly I guess, is there any way to change that?
Thanks for all the great posts!
Ryan
Excellent questions, Ryan. I have some guesses, but I don’t feel very firm in them. Your evaluation would be appreciated.
I think that churches play a role unlike the vast majority of secular organizations because they cross many social lines (age, status, gender, though not so much race), they have extremely inclusive membership criteria, they are based on an ethic of mutual support and they expect and receive very long term commitments from active members. These characteristics are what make churches community hubs.
Most NGOs don’t meet any of these criteria. AA is closer, since it crosses social lines and has an ethic of mutual support, but it’s not inclusive in its membership, and term of commitment may vary. Although it’s a great organization, it’s not a focal point for mutual assistance in tough times, nor is it a focus for social justice activism.
Unions are pretty close to churches on these criteria. They don’t cross status lines and, depending on the union, may have gender line issues as well, but otherwise share these advantages. However, it’s difficult to think of any other secular organization that shares all or even most of these characteristics.
The word “community” is now being associated with a wide variety of groups, and I think it’s being misused. To me, a community is something that you’re part of regardless of who your friends are, what your interests are, whether you contribute or not. A community has a broad spectrum of people, of all ages, social roles, etc. A village is a community, a church is a community, but open source activists, local artists, etc. are not a community. That’s not to put down either of those groups, I think they are awesome groups deserving of support, but they don’t form the same bonds of mutual support that a church community does.
The big question for me in all of this, and maybe you too, is can you get an organization with the characteristics I listed without requiring some form of faith from members. Hopefully a sociologist can help us out with that one.