Agnostic.com

13 3

LINK Secular Churches Rethink Their Sales Pitch - The Atlantic

They Tried to Start a Church Without God. For a While, It Worked.

skado 9 July 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

13 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Most of us would be satisfied by joining a book club.
Or meet on someones porch and have a sunday morning jam session, when the weather's good

twill Level 7 Oct 13, 2019
1

WTF is a Secular Church/Religion any way?
Any system of Belief/Religion REQUIRES a Focal point/ subject upon which that system/belief MUST be founded and adhered to.
Atheism, for example, is NOT a system of belief, it IS an understanding, given the complete LACK of tangible, empirical EVIDENCE that "there is NO Supreme Being/Deity/God/Gods and NONE have ever existed except in the fevered minds of earlier humans."
Secular- (Oxford English ( NOT American English) Dictionary, 1, adj. Concerned with the affairs of this world, temporal, profane, lay, not distinctively sacred or ecclesiastical, not monastic, etc, etc,
2, one of the secular Clergy; a layman,
3 -Secularism, - doctrine that the basis of morality should be non-religious, policy of excluding religious teachings from schools under State/Government control.
So under WHICH definition do secular churches decide to place themselves, are they 1 or 2?

@Shouldbefishing Church, definition as per the Oxford English Dictionary, - Buildings for PUBLIC Christian Worship esp, according to ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS of countries, etc, etc, โ€ฆโ€ฆโ€ฆโ€ฆ.
Ergo, a CHURCH, by any other name is merely a place of worship and for the worshipping of a God/Gods/Deities.
So, who or what do they worship in these 'Secular Churches' then?

@Shouldbefishing Yes, stand up and be counted instead of 'hiding' behind names/terms associated directly with the thing you reject or are standing against.
After all, a church is still a church no matter what you say it is or choose to call it in my opinion.
Seek out something far better to call it, something that WILL grab the attention of those you seek to include, be bold.

1

Good article, thanks for that.

The thing that gets missed is you can come together and yet not feel that bond that people are missing. Church isn't just community, it's shared practices and beliefs. Something deeper that binds people. So how do those of us who reject the nonsense of God's and supernatural bullshit build or find that without them?

I personally am a Satanist. Satanism is an atheistic religion. Unlike atheism, it has shared culture, values etc. I have a Satanic altar set up in my home, it brings me happiness and calm. Atheism says what I don't believe but says nothing about what I do believe. Satanism is that part.

Clearly there needs to be numerous different solutions. Satanism isn't the right answer for most people, each of us needs to find our path that works for us. Mine is the left hand path

3

I've long said that atheism is such a narrow opinion on a single question that it can't possibly serve as a shared belief or experience to hold a cohesive social group together.

I think this sentence is key: "Woodhead believes that communities can be hugely important to people, of courseโ€”but you canโ€™t just meet for the sake of community itself. You need a very powerful motivating element to keep people coming, something that attendees have in common."

I'd put it a little differently though. In my experience and observation, most modern church-goers really don't enjoy the experience that much. The dogma that says you "ought to" attend ("forsake not the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is" ). That places certain obligations on you ... to care about "the things of God", to worship him, to live according to his word ... this keeps you going even when, if you'd be honest with yourself, you're not really into it. Indeed, despite those negative motivators, many actual churches struggle to keep people interested and the doors open and the coffers at least adequately full.

Still, we humans ARE hyper-social creatures. So why is it so hard to form such groups?

Churches used to prosper in small communities, especially rural ones, where people had to get along and cooperate effectively to survive, both physically and emotionally. People overcame their natural tendency to fight and compete because to be a social outcast in that setting was to greatly increase your chance of not surviving. In many areas the church also was the mediator of what today are government-run social services. A local church was basically a bunch of like-minded families banding together for common good, to help and comfort each other through the ups and downs of life.

Today you don't even have to leave your house to have nominal interaction with the outside world via the Internet, maybe not even to do paying work. The government takes care (however imperfectly) of basic needs. There is no immediate threat to band together against (bitter cold winters, drought and crop failures, storm damage) that won't be handled by FEMA and similar. Education is too complex and specialized to be done at home or church. Division of labor has been taken to extreme. Young people have little experience getting along with people they're not thrilled with; it's considered lame to do so in fact. Hook up with friends or find impromptu events through phone apps. Ghost people you lose interest in. It's a different world.

And of course there are so many superficial distractions and entertainments -- binge watching TV shows, playing video games, even watching porn I guess for many. You can distract yourself and have superficial and even exciting interactions, but always with a high degree of anonymity and minimal actual commitment.

I thought my wife and I were going to find friends and common cause in our little neighborhood, where the houses are like 25 feet apart and everyone has a front porch. People respond to that by not sitting on their front porch and pulling the shades on the sides facing their neighbor. Their human contact is all from work or professional sources.

Our kids, like everyone else's, are scattered to the four winds. Our grandchildren are hundreds of miles away. My stepdaughter has actually told her mother not to even ask for help if she ever becomes infirm and incapable of caring for herself, as she doesn't want to be burdened like that. And this isn't unusual today.

In practice my community is a handful of other old men who get together for superficial conversation and to play cards on Saturday mornings. Also, my wife found a fellow writer who she gets along with, and I like that woman's husband, and we're starting to do things socially with them.

Frankly that's enough for we two introverts, but it's rather tenuous. I'm not saying none of those people will ever extend themselves to us at all in a pinch, but there's certainly no implicit agreement that we're going to rally around someone who is sick or in pain, either. All the contact is for the purpose of low-drama, low-expectation enjoyment. If we can't go on a dinner date with that other couple, then nothing else happens. They don't come to us with a bowl of soup and do our housework for us. If some guy doesn't show up for cards, after a couple of weeks we'll probably call and ask if he's okay, but if he's not, I'm not sure anyone is going to do much beyond offer condolences.

This is what Western society has evolved into -- no one has any experience or expectation of getting down in the trenches with friends or even family. Instead you pick up the phone and hire an in home care specialist and you call in Meals on Wheels, etc. You can get the practical help, but not anyone who actually CARES about you. Alienation is the order of the day. I don't know what to do about it, in practical terms.

I think the best bet is to be involved in several casual, low-touch things like my game of cards and hope for the best. For all the reasons stated above, I don't miss church, as it would be another stilted attempt to simulate meaningful community, but it's really just conditional acceptance from that quarter too now, for the most part.

Frankly part of the reason I post in places like this is to have someone to exchange ideas with now and then, to be ever so slightly missed if I disappear. That's another part of how I keep my sanity.

0

Won't work

bobwjr Level 10 July 22, 2019
0

Matt Dillihunty said it best: Go and preach the banana.

I think this may apply.

J75243 Level 6 July 22, 2019
3

I think that misses an important point, which is that secular congregations, if not churches, have always been there. Most towns I know have always had a garden group, a chess club, twenty charity shops for everything from clean water to cats, and a railway preservation trust, etc. It is hard to build a congregation around nothing, but you don't need to, the cats, hungry children, chess boards and trains are all there, and they are real. And if you don't want to join them, then either you don't really need them, you don't know how to appreciate the truly real things (sad but true for many), or you would not have anything to give, even in a church, because you are just plain lazy.

The two largest groups (online) that I belong to is a cat and a up cycling group. The up cycling group has grown huge in the year I have been with it and is now world wide. It is now organizing itself into local groups for meeting and sharing. It started with the original lady and now has volunteer moderators to help her. Also the nicest people.

1

I am not surprised. When I left religion, I never felt the need for any kind of a church or congregation.

0

What a load of crap, secular is the antithesis of a church, are the founders morons???

2

If I were younger and forced to live in a city Iโ€™d join a soccer club, a bicycle club, and some sort of philosophical discussion group. Taking college courses can be very rewarding and provides social contact. I think that to mean much social contact has to be incidental to the main interest.

Being a non-believer is not enough to draw people together. Actually believing is not what holds churches together either. Some churches require no belief and do not stress belief. What holds them together is awareness, appreciation, and reverence. Sharing those things, they then engage in artistic expressions such as rituals, ceremonies, prayers, meditation, etc.

After realizing that belief in a god was not supportable, I was sustained for several decades by hope for the future of humanity. That hope has now been destroyed by the ubiquitous regressive leftists and their support for and encouragement of the cruel, imperialistic ideology of Islam. World-wide Sharia Caliphates appear to be inevitable.

@PBuck0145 Maybe not. Muslims are a minority world-wide. Besides, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peace-loving and tolerant. IMO we should not judge one fourth of the worldโ€™s population based on the actions of a few radicals.

I am more afraid of the Antifa and radical atheistic anarchists.

@WilliamFleming
I have noted that a lot of users on this site, who claim to be agnostic and atheistic freethinkers, in reality subscribe to regressive leftist group think.

2

Religion does not need a god, just a wolf in shepherds clothing, a set of rules on who to hate and a flock of mindless sheep willing to be lead to the slaughter.

4

Isn't secular and church an oxymoron?

t1nick Level 8 July 22, 2019

Yes.

@Matias My dictionary defines church as a building used for Christian worship and its synonym is House of God.

@Matias I feel we are not going to see eye to eye on this one.

@Marionville @Matias
Yes, secular and sacred are defined as opposites.

To me, the problem is with our popular understanding of the word โ€œsecularโ€ rather than with the word โ€œchurch.โ€
Iโ€™m satisfied that church is for the sacred, but that doesnโ€™t have to refer to a literal, or fundamentalist god. In common parlance, sacred just refers to that which we value most highly; โ€œMy weekends are sacred!โ€

Setting aside a time and/or place to be mindful of our highest values, presumably something greater than our mundane, selfish interests, meets all the time-honored intent in the word โ€œsacredโ€ regardless of whether it is aligned with an ancient tradition, or a brand new practice. Highest value is highest value, with or without tradition.

I think the reason the so-called โ€œsecularโ€ churches arenโ€™t doing so well is that they, themselves, have missed this simple point. Once you have isolated and identified your highest value, whether that is
Yahweh or Science, then you have, in the most authentic sense, identified what is sacred to you.

I would call these new churches non-traditional rather than secular. Secular means ordinary, daily concerns, like mowing the lawn, or running a business. Sacred is reserved for our most venerated ideals, whether they are personified as sentient beings or not.

@skado I donโ€™t find fault with your rationale in the least...I just donโ€™t think itโ€™s desirable for us to emulate religion to such a degree as calling ourselves a church. Perceptions are important, and atheism is already labelled as a copycat religion...a religion of disbelief if you like. I donโ€™t subscribe to that view, nor do I want to be identified with a new โ€œtribeโ€ or go to commune with them in a โ€œchurchโ€. Maybe Iโ€™m a strange type of atheist, but I donโ€™t want to mix with a group of other nonbelievers...to do what anyway? To talk about how glad we are not to believe or to ridicule those that do? I canโ€™t really see any purpose to that, preferring to join clubs and activities that all strands of society, ethnicity and religion belong to. I realise Iโ€™m speaking only from a personal point of view and that others may feel the need to mix and mingle with likeminded non believers, but itโ€™s not for me.

@Marionville
I agree. Simply having no belief in literal gods is no reason to congregate... at least in person. (I donโ€™t.) But maybe online, right? ๐Ÿ˜‰

@skado Well we are both here...so that is evidently true! ๐Ÿ˜

4

I am completely against atheist churches....it only gives ammunition to our critics who label us as a religion without gods. We are not. We do not preach, have priests or try to convert others, in fact we are not an organised group at all. What we are, are individuals who have left behind (or never had) a collective mindset, but use our brains to think for ourselves.

You can have a collective mindset and still reject the existence of God's and afterlife etc.

@PolyComrade I was referring to the collective mindset of believing in what is written in the bible, koran or talmud. There is no collective belief, other than non-belief, which binds atheists together.

I think Dawkins, Harris, et al are the priests, and they very much do preach and try to convert others. They have made a full time occupation of it. And many lay atheists preach constantly. Atheism is not an organized religion, but it definitely does have proselytizers.

@skado I donโ€™t approve of any of them...and donโ€™t watch or listen to any of them. I have never had a belief and never felt a need to try to convert others,

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:377652
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.