| Feature Article – April 2007 |
|---|
Let me state from the outset that the contents of this column are based on personal experience and observations. I have no scientific evidence and have done no polls to support my conclusions. (Though Dr. Libby who has done extensive work on the subject, and you may have read his reports.)
Bringing settlers to the Prairies accelerated in the mid 1800’s, and with that the establishment of small communities consisting of a store with limited postal services, an elevator, if not a rail station then a flag-stop. and yes, a church building (or two). This was repeated in hundreds of places throughout the Prairies. Outside of settlers’ houses and outbuildings, there were probably more church buildings than any others. Most farm operations were accomplished with horses and horse-drawn equipment.
Almost as soon as the building of church buildings had reached their optimum level the social landscape began to change. With the advent of increased communication (the telegraph) and the introduction of self-propelled equipment, this allowed people to keep in touch with the outside world. With the new farm machinery they were able to acquire additional acreage from those settlers that were living ‘on the edge’. These would either settle in the nearest village, or move on to places where there was work for them. The de-population of the rural areas began even back then. The small faith communities began to be hard pressed to maintain worship centres with so few people to depend on. As a result, with great reluctance the heart wrenching decision was made to close.
Not belittling the events of the late 19th century, I believe the traumatic events of the WW1 &WW2 were the triggers that were most disastrous to the church communities. Perhaps not so much WW1, for it was seen to be the war to end all wars. People, in part, were optimistic. The victory they had gained through the sacrifice of thousands of lives was theirs because God was on their side (it seems to me that the ‘enemy’ claimed God was on their side, too). Events in Europe were continuing to simmer but, on the whole, that was seen more as a regional problem.
Then the drought of the ’30s hit the prairies. If people had been leaving the small communities and farms before this, the drought must have increased the exodus many-fold. This would have closed many churches through sheer abandonment.
The momentum of this exodus carried the prairie population right up to WW2, which was not only devastating to the whole world, but just as devastating to the rural churches.
We need to remember that both WW1 &WW2 took hundreds of thousands of Canadians off the land into military service. Many went because of the poverty experienced, especially on the prairies during the drought. At least there would be some kind of income to give some support to the destitute families. It should also be mentioned that during both of the above conflicts vast numbers of women were recruited to work in factories to produce the war materials needed for the fighting forces.
With the men overseas and the women not only doing their factory jobs, but also going home after a long day’s work, to do what housework they could, and spend at least some time with children, for six days a week, would be exhausted. I wonder how many of them put church attendance at the top of their list?
Finally the war is over! The men come home. The women are reluctant, or downright refuse, to give up their jobs. Great social upheaval on the home front. Many men who left the farm in 1939 do not go back after the war. Many re-connect with the church but do not find the peace and solace they seek after the horrific events they have witnessed. Many others cannot reconcile their experiences with what the church professes, and never go back.
Of course, the children grow up and leave to take up post-secondary education. Too often, during that time, they wander away from the church, and upon graduation stay where they can best use the education they have acquired.
Some rural churches continue to barely hang on because a former parishioner has left them a small bequest, but there is no energy to reach out to bring former parishioners back. or invite the odd newcomer to join their fellowship. It reminds me of a terminal patient in palliative care.
Now what about south-western Manitoba, more particularly the Diocese of Brandon? Anyone who would deny the Anglican de-population within our diocesan borders would be living with their head in the proverbial sand. Even during Bishop Jim’s episcopacy parishes have been consolidated or closed.
How does one deal with third, fourth, fifth generation of parishioners when they are faced with the inevitable? You know the decision to close has to be made but how does one deal with the generations of flesh-and-blood memories, some recent and some going back to the founders? Some years ago I was directed to an abandoned Anglican church out in the country. When I first saw it (approaching from the south) I was very much impressed by its architecture and the fact it was built with bricks. But upon examination I found that the north wall was going north. In other words, from nature’s actions the wall was bulging away from the building. With the support of the bishop we managed to find some people who had a past connection with the parish, and they were challenged to take action to rectify it. To make a long story short, the decision was finally made to have the building demolished. In the process there was still some dissent because of the memories that people held dear. All that is left to mark this former parish is a cairn, and, of course, the memories are intact.
My first parish was two points. A year and a half later the parish was expanded by the addition of a three-point parish. It was obvious from the beginning that the three points should be reduced to one. I undertook to persuade them to do this, which they resisted at every turn. One went on record that they would if the other one would. Eventually I moved to another parish. My successor, after a short while, announced that from the date of the announcement the three would reduced to one
For any parish in dire circumstances, whether for lack of people or financial resources to continue, it would be ultimately better served if they took the initiative to bring the life of the parish to an end. Not an end to the faith practiced in the parish. It may be painful but not as traumatic if the decision was imposed from an outside authority. With the help of the Bishop, or his representative, this could be a positive growing experience both in mind and spirit.