WHY CHURCH IS GOOD FOR YOU AND SOCIETY
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

By David A. Nock, Ph.D.

Polling organizations in North America report that about eighty percent of respondents claim “I don’t think you need to go to church to be a good Christian.” This was a finding reported on by The Globe and Mail, April 22 2000. Although what “a good Christian” might be is left unspecified and up to the respondent, I imagine it has something to do in people’s minds with desirable values that are still paid lip service to, if not actually followed. The parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind as an example.

This shocking finding does raise the question what we as individuals and society get out of regular church attendance, if anything. Maybe it is just the hypocrites who go to church. It may be that churchgoers are actually worse Christians than those who rarely darken the doors or warm the pews. The well-publicized failings, sins and even crimes of some associated with the institutional churches suggest this in many minds.

Thankfully, recent research in several distinct fields, ranging from sociology to medical research, has started to give the lie to such ideas. Research finds again and again that regular church attendees enjoy more favourable outcomes on a wide variety of indicators ranging from the practice of moral values to better health and longevity.

My own interest in this topic was raised by the pioneering work of sociologist Emile Durkheim(1858-1917), in his classic Suicide: A Study in Sociology (1897 orig.) who found that lower rates of suicide were associated with involvement in social groups; higher rates of suicide he found associated with individuals who had little in the way of group connectedness. Religion was one of several social “variables” that Durkheim used to establish this fact.

The advantages of regular church attendance for individuals and society have been re-emphasized in the recent work of sociologist Kurt Bowen as reported in his book Christians In A Secular World: The Canadian Experience(2004). Bowen is a distinguished sociologist of religion at Acadia University who has published other books on the implications of religion in Mexico and Ireland, and who has a professional research interest in the workings of the Anglican Communion worldwide.

Before presenting his findings, I should comment on his methodology. Although he draws on secondary literature and qualitative observations, Bowen relies on quantitative summaries relating to four categories of spiritual belief: these include the Very Committed (VC) who attend church on a weekly basis and who regard themselves as “religious (20% of the entire Canadian population)); the Less Committed who attend church at least once a month but less than weekly or who attend church weekly but say religion is not important to them(12%); the Seekers who define themselves as religious or who consider religion to be important in their lives but who rarely or never attend church((28%) and the Non Religious who rarely or never attend church and who say religion is not important to them(40%)(Bowen, p. 44).

Drawing upon surveys he was involved in ( about charitable giving and volunteering) and those of other researchers, Bowen finds that regular attendance at church is strongly associated with a variety of desirable individual and social outcomes. These favourable outcomes include satisfaction with life and happiness (p.71), a stronger sense of meaning and purpose in life (p.85), a greater emphasis on forgiveness, generosity, concern for others and several other related values such as honesty and friendliness (p. 87).

In Chapter 4 we find that regular churchgoers have lower rates of divorce or separation than others (p.115). Lest it be thought that Committed churchgoers are just putting up with bad marriages, other studies undertaken by Statistics Canada (the government data collection agency) find the marriages of regular worshippers to be considerably happier than non-attendees and such regular attendees also report much less stress in their lives. One such article, by Jane Gaad in the Globe and Mail for September 16, 1998 commented that “It’s not only grim determination that’s keeping these marriages together” and Walter Clark speculates that “acceptance of biblical teachings about the sanctity of marriage may act as a barrier to divorce by reducing infidelity.” Alan Mirabelli, formerly director of the Vanier Institute of the Family suggests that “it has less to do with the prescriptive side of religion than with the sense of community it provides,” surely the sort of sociological explanation that would have appealed to Durkheim. We see in these exchanges the classic debates about causation. My point in this article is not to definitively settle such questions but to point out the overall desirable outcomes of regular religious attendance. Nevertheless, I would suggest that these desirable outcomes may reflect several causes: both the social connectedness that regular attendance provides and the prescriptive messages we receive in formal worship and Scripture probably influence us equally.

For example, how often have we heard texts urging us to be charitable and caring with our offerings of time and money to help others? There are many such texts ranging from the prophets of the Old (Hebrew) Testament through to Jesus, Paul, and James. But do such admonitions have any effect or is it just a matter of pious verbiage? This was the question that activated Kurt Bowen. He became involved in several comprehensive studies to determining the sorts of people most involved in volunteering their time and in charitable giving.

Here surely was an opportunity for the non-religious and the seekers who rarely attend church to show that they can be just as “good Christians” as those who sit regularly in the pews as is claimed by the 80% responses in polls cited above. Since Bowen carefully distinguished between “religious” organizations and causes and “secular” ones (the latter meaning groups with no direct tie to churches) surely commonsense would suggest that the non-religious and seekers (together accounting for 68% of the Canadian population) would outshine the religiously involved in supporting such secular causes while the religiously committed would tend to concentrate their efforts in “religious” activities and organizations. Sounds logical, right? Well it sounds right—but it’s wrong!

Regular worshippers outshine non-attendees in all categories as reported in considerable statistical detail by Bowen in his chapter 5 on “Civic Sensibilities: Volunteering and Charitable Giving.” Bowen points to religion’s “substantial” impact in volunteering and “the pre-eminent role of the Very Committed”(145-146). Table 5-17 looks at all the social variables one could think of that affect volunteering, and religion heads the list ahead of education, income and a host of others. The same basic finding shines through for charitable giving and Table 5.29 once again finds religiosity as the social variable most associated with charitable giving. Bowen refers to this as “the central, inescapable conclusion” of his work, that “religiosity has…the greatest independent impact on how much we Canadians give to charity.”(172).

But the gnawing voice of the cynics (as Bowen puts it) that the contributions of the religiously Committed “are largely directed inward, serving themselves or those close to them”(156) is hard to silence. Hence Bowen’s distinction between “religious” and “secular” organizations referred to above. Secular organizations without religious associations include cultural, recreational and sporting groups, groups oriented toward providing social services to various categories in need, organizations dealing with education and health, and others dealing in advocacy, political, environmental and international causes. The surprise comes in finding that not only do regular worshippers outrank the non-religious and seekers in volunteering for religious organizations but also the secular organizations as well!(p.157) Interestingly, a higher percentage of the Very Committed volunteered in secular organizations in the previous year (35%) than in religious organizations (26%). The non-religious “obviously” volunteered little to religious organizations but even for secular organizations only 25 percent of them and 27 percent of the seekers volunteered. It appears that if you want volunteers, go to the religiously committed.

I should also point out that so-called “religious organizations” focus on social and community projects and not only on worship activities. Bowen is very good at explaining how these go hand in hand and discusses at length the social involvements of “religious organizations” such as helping refugees, supporting food banks, assisting the homeless, the lonely, the needy”(p.162). Thus the religiously committed help good social causes in more ways than meets the eye initially: by being the most active volunteers in secular and religious organizations alike (including the social non-worship activities supported by religious organizations) and also by making their physical facilities and networks available to secular organizations (177-178).

The same basic finding is also true for charitable giving as the Very Committed rank highest and the Non-Religious lowest both for secular as well as religious organizations (p.173). As Bowen comments, “In the hierarchy of social forces that we can track, religiosity is the major determinant of charitable giving in Canada”(p.172).
Bowen’s studies also had tried to explain the motivations for giving that are offered by the various religious and non-religious categories. For charitable giving, Bowen’s study found 74% of the Very Committed, 53% of the Less Committed, 23% of the Seekers, and 11% of the Non-Religious are motivated in donations “to fulfill religious obligations.” Another response found that 70% of the Very Committed, 58% of the Less Committed, and 51% of the Non-Religious were motivated by the feeling that we “owe something to [the] community”(p.179). Much the same motivations had been explored earlier for volunteering of time. Bowen comments on what he calls “a widespread conviction among those with whom I talked that religious faith calls for service to others”(p.164).

Finally we end with how regular attendance and religious commitment affected longevity and general well-being. Ironically, the finding here is that those with the most active hopes for a “promotion to glory” to their “heavenly home” find that religious involvement causes a delay!. That is to say, “Belief in Afterlife Can Make You Live Longer” to quote the article title of a National Post article by Richard Foot (April 29, 2000). Foot reported on the research of Dr. Chandrakant Shah, a professor of public health at the University of Toronto, who points to the “beneficial results from being a spiritual person.” Using data from Canada’s National Population Health Surveys, Dr. Shah concludes that “If as many as 80% of Canadians participated in weekly worship, the research predicts the number of deaths attributable to low levels of spirituality would fall to 23,000.” Another similar article based on researchers at the University of Iowa was reported in the English Weekly Telegraph newspaper with the headline , The secret of living a long life…go to church”(December 2004).

Just as important as longevity is the evidence that various other measures of good health are associated with regular church attendance. This was emphasized in Ron Csillag’s article from the April 2, 2002 Globe and Mail article “God is good medicine,” which reported from the 1200 studies and 400 reviews as of that date emanating for North America and Europe which find lower rates of illness and higher rates of recovery among the religiously committed, notably as related to such important causes of death as heart disease, cancer and hypertension (the leading causes of death in North America). This article summarized on the collected studies and reviews as described in Jeff Levin’s “accessible” God, Faith, and Health, and the Handbook of Religion and Health, edited by Harold G. Koenig et al., designated by Csillag as “a 712-page bruiser.” The article concludes, “all things being equal, there does seem some epidemiological advantage to being on a faith path.”

Perhaps we should end this article with a caution that while I have discussed some of the advantages of religiosity to personal well-being, this does not relate to narrow egotism or hedonism. Surely lower rates of suicide, illness, marital separation, and higher longevity plus superior performance in volunteering and charitable giving among the religiously committed show that regular church attendance is good for individuals and for society in general. Since church attendance from the 1960s on has been in decline, certain sociologists and commentators have drawn attention to the possible negative consequences for society. Reginald Bibby, Canada’s best-known sociologist of religion, brought this to light in his 2002 book Restless Gods: The Renaissance of Religion in Canada, “It can be argued that, historically, Canada has benefited considerably from the ethical and moral contributions of religion….Gentleness and caring did not come out of a social vacuum. Religion’s contribution to civility continues to be needed. For some time now, I have been among those who have maintained that many observers superficially dismissed the drop in national service attendance…as simply ‘the problems of organized religion.’ What was not sufficiently examined by academics and media alike were some of the possible implications for civility in Canada”(212-213). Bibby looks at various alternatives to organized religion for instilling positive values and behaviour: namely the mass media, the educational system, and the family. He finds them all ineffective in filling the void and comments that his latest data survey on Canadians’ religiosity suggests “something of the costs that we may be paying as a result of our inability to find adequate replacements for organized religion when it comes to instilling values”(p.215).

To end on a more spiritual note, some of the above discussion may lead us back to Jesus’ parable of the Good Shepherd in John 10:10 in which we are told that “I came that they [believers] may have life and have it (more) abundantly.” (or, “have it to the full” in another translation). It does seem that these words intertwine the spiritual and earthly realms. Even though we often think of them as separate realms, we probably know in our hearts that they are interconnected: the individual, the wider community, and our connection to the transcendent world beyond. Perhaps all healthy-minded religion (to use the phrase of pioneering psychologist William James) tends in the same positive direction and outcomes as is suggested by the previously cited research of Dr. Chandrikant Shah of the University Toronto, himself a member of the Jain community. I think, however, that even if eighty percent of respondents disagree (as cited in polls referred to above), the information and data examined explode the widely held belief that it is easy to “be a good Christian” as a Lone Spiritual Ranger! The evidence, at least, points instead to the necessity of regular church attendance in producing good Christians and spiritual persons who are concerned about their wider communities.