Atheist Churches? A Good Idea–But a Better Name Might be in Order

Submitted by: Tom Cara, President, FFRF Metropolitan Chicago Chapter

Copyright: October 8, 2014

The first time I heard the words “Atheist church,” my first reaction was: “Ugh! Why would any atheist want to be associated with that word?”

But as critical thinkers, we should never automatically discard an idea simply because it generates a bad first impression.

As timing would have it, an FFRFMCC member shared a recent Time Magazine article (Josh Sanburn, Aug. 4, 2014) that devoted some rare journalistic coverage of the oft ignored secular community – specifically writing about this relatively new concept of “Atheist Churches.” So it prompted me to do what any good rationalist should do when confronted with something that flummoxes them – which is to analyze it to death!

The article itself focused on what the author identified as a new movement, specifically citing examples such as Houston Oasis run by Mike Aus, and Jerry DeWitt’s Community Mission Chapel in Lake Charles, LA. Both are former Christian ministers who became atheists. These “churches” were founded to provide support and create a community for those lonely secularists living deep in the heart of Christian culture. And while it is unclear whether these gentlemen like to refer to their communities as churches, the Texas Church of Freethought among others obviously does. And the journalist covering this trend for Time Magazine certainly feels comfortable tossing this word into the world of atheism. Houston Oasis and Community Mission Chapel are made up of members who have left the shackles of religion, but still long for the structure and rituals of religious services. Many atheists across our nation identify themselves as Unitarians, with some being quite comfortable using the word “church” to describe their place of congregation. Although to be clear, not all Unitarians refer to their congregation as a “church.” And while Unitarian Universalism tries to embrace those of both religious faith and those of no faith, it is by no means dedicated to observing the Christian doctrine.

But, should the entire non-theist community be as open-minded about adopting the word “church” into our non-religious lexicon? In order to answer this question, perhaps we should first look closely at its definitions by respectable dictionaries:

Church:
Merriam-Webster: “a building for public and especially Christian worship;” “the clergy or officialdom of a religious body;” “a body or organization of religious believers, specifically the body of Christians”

The Oxford Dictionaries: “a particular Christian organization, typically one with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrines;” “The hierarchy of clergy of a Christian organization, especially the Roman Catholic Church or the Church of England”

MacMillan Dictionary: “a building that Christians go to in order to worship;” “the Christian religion as a political or official organization, and the people who work for it”

With such definitions, it is understandable why many non-theists cringe at the sound of the word and choose to distance themselves from it.

Even the Internal Revenue Service attributes the following characteristics to how they define a church*:

• Distinct legal existence
• Recognized creed and form of worship
• Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
• Formal code of doctrine and discipline
• Distinct religious history
• Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
• Organization of ordained ministers
• Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
• Literature of its own
• Established places of worship
• Regular congregations
• Regular religious services
• Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
• Schools for the preparation of its members

With the exception of a few of these, one can unmistakably attribute these characteristics to the structure of a religious community – one that follows a specific creed or doctrine usually attributed to divine inspiration. Atheism of course is the absence of religion, or the absence of a belief in a supreme, controlling god. And with the IRS defining a church as an “Established place of worship,” again we can see how the term “church” does not often sit well among many atheists. Since the term “worship” is also not something associated with atheist thought.

In the Time article, one of our most prominent anti-theists, Bill Maher, rebels against the very idea of atheist churches by saying: “It undermines the whole point of atheism, because the reason why people need to get together in religion is precisely because it’s nonsensical,” and goes on to make the point that people of faith need strength in numbers to support their belief systems.
But atheists, skeptics, rationalists, secular humanists and all freethinkers can also most certainly become more effective by organizing and gathering in the same manner that religious groups have done for millennia, while at the same time eliminating any mention of supernatural nonsense. But, is it doing us more harm than good to incorporate the word “church” into that equation?

Just over one year ago, I had the opportunity to read a book entitled “Reason’s Fifth Dawning: The End of Religion” (available on amazon.com) in which the author, Alan Jeskin, was kind enough to send me for a critique. It is a fictional story involving a massive (and optimistically successful) attempt to infuse critical thinking into religious people across the globe, thus moving the majority of the world’s population more toward secularism and away from superstitious beliefs. The story provides an eclectic array of characters, but one of the most interesting is the minister of a Texas megachurch (picture a fictional version of Joel Osteen), whose gradual realization that humanity can be better without God leads him to first leave his church, only to return to it and re-shape it into a community of rational secularists.

Like Jerry DeWitt and Mike Aus, the fictional Reverend Dan Oberly in Jeskin’s book finds that even though he has become an atheist, he misses being part of a church community and ministering to his congregation. He also realizes that his congregation misses him. Not so much because they couldn’t do without hearing him speak the word of God, but more for his ability to effectively and emotionally deliver inspirational words on a Sunday morning that help them get through the difficulties of life during the rest of the week. But as rationalists well know, inspirational words often have nothing to do with giving a nod to a supernatural deity. Some of the greatest inspirational words in human history have been written and spoken by freethinkers, and even many who hold religious beliefs, without offering any mention of a god. The greatest problem we face is that religion has simply become very good at convincing people there is a connection between inspiration and faith.

As non-theists work to inject critical thinking at every opportunity in the real world, we should consider it an accomplishment to influence a religious church-goer to make the switch from a sectarian community to a secular one. Can this be accomplished more easily by rationalizing to such a person they are simply moving to a different church? Would this help many passive church-goers – those who just seek the need for structure and community more than the bronze-era pontificating – make a more seamless transition from congregating in a building that houses ancient religious texts and mythical imagery, to one filled with books on freethought and decorated with portraits of Thomas Paine, Bertrand Russell and Robert Green Ingersoll? It’s hard to say.

The true question here when considering the use of the word “church” for atheist purposes is whether it is possible for the non-religious to transform the meaning of that word by expanding its usage beyond its traditional definitions. Also in question is whether this transformation would ultimately detract religious apologists from saying: “Aha! You go to a church. That makes you RELIGIOUS!”
But then there is also a lot of confusion over how the term “religious” should be defined. And if non-theists gather in a building to perform many of the same rituals as theists do in their churches, sans any references to a supernatural deity, does this also make them “religious?”

Religious:
Merriam-Webster: “believing in a god or a group of gods and following the rules of a religion.” But also: “very careful to do something whenever it can or should be done.”

The Oxford Dictionaries: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” But also: “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.”

As we can see from both dictionary sources, being religious is not exclusively associated with the belief in a supernatural power. Perhaps some non-theists even perform conscious and subconscious “religious” rituals with the fear that not doing them could bring bad luck or cause disharmony in their lives. And to be certain, we all perform “religious” tasks such as brushing our teeth twice daily and washing our hands before every meal to ensure good health. So is it also being religious for the non-religious to organize regular gatherings in a specific meeting place each week? Perhaps. But if we were to take a poll of the general public and ask what it means to them for a person to be “religious,” the most popular response would undoubtedly be: “It means someone who believes in God.” And it’s no secret that the terms “religion” and “religious” are ones which non-theists work hard to disassociate themselves from. As the case should be with the word “church.”

The London-based organization that created Sunday Assembly for secularists may be on the right track. This name in no way bears any religious connotation and can easily generate discussion for the non-theist to describe their community. Referring to “my Sunday Assembly” instead of “my church” in a general conversation might instill more curiosity in the listener, prompting them to ask: “What is Sunday Assembly? Some new kind of religious faith?” Whereas the non-theist can respond: “No, Sunday Assembly is a place where those of no religious faith gather as a community, support each other, and perform humanistic work for the world, without a need for worshipping a deity.” This is a respectful way of saying to the person of religious faith that we do many of the same things they do in their churches, but just with a belief they can be done without honoring or seeking assistance from a god.” “Society” is also a good term to apply to non-theist gatherings, such as with the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago.

While I don’t often disagree with Bill Maher, he should re-think his negative feelings about atheists congregating en masse. For there is something to be said about strength in numbers. If the religious can be effective with it, then by gosh so can we. And perhaps we can even get more of them to join us. This may not be every atheist’s cup of tea, but for those who do find comfort and strength by gathering in a communal building, it might just serve us better to avoid the word “church” altogether for this purpose. Muslims refer to their place of worship as a mosque. Jews and Buddhists refer to their places of worship as temples. We don’t follow their lead for applying a name to our place of non-worship, so why emulate the Christians by using the same name as their place of worship? And perhaps those non-theist organizations that have chosen Sunday as their day of congregation should even consider a different day of the week for this. Because after all, in doing so aren’t we just giving reverence to the Christian Sabbath?

Using the word “church” bestows undeserved praise on the Christian religion, a dogma we work to distance ourselves from as much as any other established religion. So, why flatter them with imitation? If atheism expands in society where it becomes commonplace to have fixed meeting locations where we commune, it would behoove us to use our critical thinking skills and at least try to be original – and consistent – with a name.

The term “church” has pretty much become synonymous with a house of worship to the Christian deity, a definition which is antithetical to freethought. And should non-theists attempt to adopt that word for themselves, the Christians will always find a way to use that against us.
Atheists having a building to congregate in is just fine. But as far as a name is concerned, let’s find our own – one that makes sense for rationalists!

*http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Organizations/Churches—Defined