![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldMohammed Adam's "In Canada, church clings to relevancy as congregations dwindle" is one of the more recent news articles taking a look at the collapse of traditional organized religion in Canada.
The statistics, as Adam goes on to note, are grim.
It's not, as Adam notes, as if these religions are necessarily doing much better themselves. Non-traditional Christian sects like the Pentecostal might be doing better, or, as evidenced by their highly fluid congregations with people moving in and out, they might not be. I continue to agree, mostly, with the thesis of Norris and Inglehart's Sacred vs. Secular, that societies might be relatively irreligious compared to others not because societies with relative religious monopolies tend to discourage theological interests as someone I quoted in a 2008 post said, but rather that in relatively stable and prosperous societies there really is no need for a religion that would provide extra support in times of stress. Canada's stable and prosperous, then, hence religion's not going to do well. And no, religion does not lead to below-replacement fertility rates, as evidenced by the pairing of France and the Nordic countries against Italy and Poland, and people born into religious families don't necessarily stay religious: if not, how did societies become secular in the first place.
The only thing that I can contribute to this debate is the observation that, before I attended St. Thomas's Anglican Church in downtown Toronto back in spring to witness some friends' conversion to Anglicanism, I wouldn't have started going to attend that church fairly regularly. I'm not quite sure what I'm getting out of the experience, in addition to a sense of community and an interesting feeling of something beyond, but I can say that this new venture of mine hasn't come about as the result of despair. Norris and Inglehart were only talking about general rules, after all, and certainly would allow for exceptions. It is interesting to me, though, that I, a relatively main-line Canadian of mixed Roman Catholic and United Church heritage, is drawn to an Anglicanism presented in a moderate and intellectual and appealing style that not only appeals to me but is quite traditional. Perhaps people who want to revitalize religion in Canada shouldn't expect new sects to do any better, or even to do as well, as the same old religions which continue to colour Canada's reality even though rates of practice might be low.
Thoughts?
For 41 years, the Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes church was like a second home to George Laplante.
The Catholic church, which dates to 1873, was his spiritual foundation; the congregation, an extended family.
Now, Mr. Laplante, 68, is facing a harsh truth.
"It is sad, it is too bad, but that's the reality of life," he says of news that his Ottawa church will close by the end of this year. "The parishioners who go there cannot keep it going. Our church is fairly old. It is a big monument to look after. There's not enough of us to sustain it."
Mr. Laplante has attended Notre-Dame-de-Lourdes for 41 years. "I raised my kids in that church. Now it is me and my wife. I have to get used to going to another place."
The statistics, as Adam goes on to note, are grim.
The numbers show that Canadians have been fleeing the church for decades. In the mid-1940s, about 67% of adult Canadians attended church weekly.
By 1985, the number had plunged to 30%. In 2005, the number hit 20%. In 2006, a Canwest News Service poll found that 17% of Canadians attend church at least once a week, even though about half of those surveyed said they believe in God.
More worrying for churches is the number of young Canadians who are turning their back. In a sweeping study last year by renowned Canadian sociologist Reg Bibby, 47% of the teenagers surveyed said they never go to church. Another 20% said they "hardly ever go," while 21% said they go weekly.
Experts are quick to caution that it does not mean Canadians have given up on faith.
Potworowski suggests it instead reflects a rejection of "organized religion."
Mr. Tardis agrees, but says underlying it all, is a seismic shift in mentality, spirit and values. "People now will say, ‘I am spiritual but not religious.' They will say, ‘I have my own relationship with God and that's it. They have no need or desire to live the religious experience with others, as was the case before."
Unlike today's generation, the early European immigrants, who built many of the churches, found strength and purpose in religion. Attending church on Sunday was a time-honoured tradition. They showed their faith by filling the pews and emptying their pockets.
As older generations passed on, they left behind gaps in the pews and fault lines in church foundations. Their children drifted from the church as values changed, fortunes improved and new interests took hold. Immigration patterns were also changing: A majority of new arrivals were from Asia, the Middle East and Africa, and they practised Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism -- religions that have grown exponentially.
It's not, as Adam notes, as if these religions are necessarily doing much better themselves. Non-traditional Christian sects like the Pentecostal might be doing better, or, as evidenced by their highly fluid congregations with people moving in and out, they might not be. I continue to agree, mostly, with the thesis of Norris and Inglehart's Sacred vs. Secular, that societies might be relatively irreligious compared to others not because societies with relative religious monopolies tend to discourage theological interests as someone I quoted in a 2008 post said, but rather that in relatively stable and prosperous societies there really is no need for a religion that would provide extra support in times of stress. Canada's stable and prosperous, then, hence religion's not going to do well. And no, religion does not lead to below-replacement fertility rates, as evidenced by the pairing of France and the Nordic countries against Italy and Poland, and people born into religious families don't necessarily stay religious: if not, how did societies become secular in the first place.
The only thing that I can contribute to this debate is the observation that, before I attended St. Thomas's Anglican Church in downtown Toronto back in spring to witness some friends' conversion to Anglicanism, I wouldn't have started going to attend that church fairly regularly. I'm not quite sure what I'm getting out of the experience, in addition to a sense of community and an interesting feeling of something beyond, but I can say that this new venture of mine hasn't come about as the result of despair. Norris and Inglehart were only talking about general rules, after all, and certainly would allow for exceptions. It is interesting to me, though, that I, a relatively main-line Canadian of mixed Roman Catholic and United Church heritage, is drawn to an Anglicanism presented in a moderate and intellectual and appealing style that not only appeals to me but is quite traditional. Perhaps people who want to revitalize religion in Canada shouldn't expect new sects to do any better, or even to do as well, as the same old religions which continue to colour Canada's reality even though rates of practice might be low.
Thoughts?
