 |
|
|
|
 Sunday Assembly founders Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans have begun to franchise their "godless congregations."
January 4th, 2014
09:00 AM ET
After a schism, a question: Can atheist churches last?By Katie Engelhart, special to CNN LONDON (CNN) - The Sunday Assembly was riding high. The world’s most voguish - though not its only - atheist church opened last year in London, to global attention and abundant acclaim. So popular was the premise, so bright the promise, that soon the Sunday Assembly was ready to franchise, branching out into cities such as New York, Dublin and Melbourne. “It’s a way to scale goodness,” declared Sanderson Jones, a standup comic and co-founder of The Sunday Assembly, which calls itself a “godless congregation.” But nearly as quickly as the Assembly spread, it split, with New York City emerging as organized atheism’s Avignon. In October, three former members of Sunday Assembly NYC announced the formation of a breakaway group called Godless Revival. “The Sunday Assembly,” wrote Godless Revival founder Lee Moore in a scathing blog post, “has a problem with atheism.” Moore alleges that, among other things, Jones advised the NYC group to “boycott the word atheism” and “not to have speakers from the atheist community.” It also wanted the New York branch to host Assembly services in a churchlike setting, instead of the Manhattan dive bar where it was launched. Jones denies ordering the NYC chapter to do away with the word “atheism,” but acknowledges telling the group “not to cater solely to atheists.” He also said he advised them to leave the dive bar “where women wore bikinis,” in favor of a more family-friendly venue. The squabbles led to a tiff and finally a schism between two factions within Sunday Assembly NYC. Jones reportedly told Moore that his faction was no longer welcome in the Sunday Assembly movement. Moore promises that his group, Godless Revival, will be more firmly atheistic than the Sunday Assembly, which he now dismisses as “a humanistic cult.” In a recent interview, Jones described the split as “very sad.” But, he added, “ultimately, it is for the benefit of the community. One day, I hope there will soon be communities for every different type of atheist, agnostic and humanist. We are only one flavor of ice cream, and one day we hope there'll be congregations for every godless palate." Nevertheless, the New York schism raises critical questions about the Sunday Assembly. Namely: Can the atheist church model survive? Is disbelief enough to keep a Sunday gathering together? Big-tent atheism I attended my first service last April, when Sunday Assembly was still a rag-tag venture in East London. The service was held in a crumbly, deconsecrated church and largely populated by white 20-somethings with long hair and baggy spring jackets (a group from which I hail.) I wrote that the Assembly “had a wayward, whimsical feel. At a table by the door, ladies served homemade cakes and tea. The house band played Cat Stevens. Our ‘priest’ wore pink skinny jeans.” I judged the effort to be “part quixotic hipster start-up, part Southern megachurch.” The central idea was attractive enough. The Assembly described itself as a secular urban oasis, where atheists could enjoy the benefits of traditional church - the sense of community, the weekly sermon, the scheduled time for reflection, the community service opportunities, the ethos of self-improvement, the singing and the free food - without God. I liked the vibe and the slogan: “Live Better, Help Often, Wonder More.” Shortly thereafter, Assembly services began bringing in hundreds of similarly warm-and-fuzzy nonbelievers. The wee East London church grew too small, and the Assembly moved to central London’s more elegant Conway Hall. The Assembly drew criticism, to be sure—from atheists who fundamentally object to organized disbelief, from theists who resent the pillaging of their texts and traditions. But coverage was largely positive - and it was everywhere. In September, a second wave of coverage peaked, with news that the Assembly was franchising: across England, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, the United States and Australia. That month, the founders launched a crowd-funding campaign that aims to raise $802,500. (As of mid-December, less than $56,000 had been raised.) Still, prospective Sunday Assembly franchisers seemed exhilarated. Los Angeles chapter founder Ian Dodd enthused that he would “have a godless congregation in the city of angels.” In November, his inaugural Assembly drew more than 400 attendees. But as the atheist church grew, it began to change—and to move away from its atheism. “How atheist should our Assembly be?” wrote Jones in August. “The short answer to that is: not very.” Pippa Evans, Assembly’s other co-founder, elaborated: “‘Atheist Church’ as a phrase has been good to us. It has got us publicity. But the term ‘atheist’ does hold negative connotations.” Warm-and-fuzzy atheism gave way to not-quite atheism: or at least a very subdued, milquetoast nonbelief. Sunday services made much mention of “whizziness” and “wonder”—but rarely spoke of God’s nonexistence. The newer, bigger Sunday Assembly now markets itself as a kind of atheist version of Unitarian Univeralism: irreligious, but still eager to include everyone. In a way, this is a smart move. According to the 2012 Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, 20% of Americans have no religious affiliation, but just a fraction of those identify as atheists. A godless congregation is likely to draw crowds if it appeals to what Herb Silverman, founder of the Secular Coalition for America, calls “big-tent” atheism, which includes “agnostics, humanists, secular humanists, freethinkers, nontheists, anti-theists, skeptics, rationalists, naturalists, materialists, ignostics, apatheists, and more.” But atheists who wanted a firmly atheist church—a Sunday Assembly where categorical disbelief is discussed and celebrated—will not be satisfied. As the Sunday Assembly downplays its atheism, it also appears increasingly churchlike. Starting a Sunday Assembly chapter now involves a “Sunday Assembly Everywhere accreditation process,” which grants “the right to use all the Sunday Assembly materials, logos, positive vibe and goodwill.” Aspiring Sunday Assembly founders must form legal entities and attend “training days in the UK,” sign the Sunday Assembly Charter and pass a three- to six-month peer review. Only then may formal accreditation be granted. This is not an East London hipster hyper-localism anymore. Selling swag and charisma Organized atheism is not necessarily new. French Revolutionaries, for instance, were early atheist entrepreneurs. In 1793, secularists famously seized the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, to build a “Temple of Reason.” They decorated the church with busts of philosophers, built an altar to Reason, lit a torch of Truth - and brought in an actress to play Liberty. A half-century later, French philosopher Auguste Comte drew acclaim for his “religion of humanity,” which imagined an army of secular sages ministering to secular souls. London has hosted formal atheist gatherings for almost as long. History suggests, then, that there is nothing inherently anti-organization about atheism. As Assembly’s Sanderson Jones puts it, “things which are organized are not necessarily bad.” To be sure, Sunday Assembly members in the United States say they've long wanted to join atheist congregations. Ian Dodd, a 50-something camera operator in Los Angeles, had long been a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church; he enjoyed it, but wanted something more explicitly irreligious. Nicole Steeves of the Chicago chapter found herself yearning for a secular community—a “place to check in and think about things bigger than the day-to-day”—after having her first child. But it is one thing to support an atheist "church" - where the ‘c’ is small and the effort is local - and another to back an atheist ‘Church’ that is global and centralized. The former responds directly to the needs and fancies of its community. The latter assumes that its particular brand of disbelief is universally relevant—and worthy of trademark. Centralized atheism also feeds hungrily on charisma, and Sanderson Jones, who resembles a tall, bearded messiah - and who, despite the SA recommendation that Assembly hosts should be regularly rotated, dominates each London service - provides ample fuel. But it remains to be seen whether the Sunday Assembly’s diluted godlessness is meaty enough to sustain a flock. “Because it is a godless congregation, we don’t have a doctrine to rely on,” explains Sunday Assembly Melbourne’s founder, “so we take reference from everything in the world.” So far, Assembly sermonizers had included community workers, physicists, astronomers, wine writers, topless philanthropers, futurologists, happiness experts, video game enthusiasts, historians and even a vicar. The pulpit is open indeed. My own misgivings are far less academic. I’m simply not getting what the Sunday Assembly promised. I’m not put off by the secular church model, but rather the prototype. Take an October service in London, for example: Instead of a thoughtful sermon, I got a five-minute Wikipedia-esque lecture on the history of particle physics. Instead of receiving self-improvement nudges or engaging in conversation with strangers, I watched the founders fret (a lot) over technical glitches with the web streaming, talk about how hard they had worked to pull the service off, and try to sell me Sunday Assembly swag. What’s more, instead of just hop, skipping and jumping over to a local venue, as I once did, I now had to brave the tube and traverse the city. Back in New York, Lee Moore is gearing up for the launch of Godless Revival - but still speaks bitterly of his time with the Sunday Assembly network. Over the telephone, I mused that the experience must have quashed any ambition he ever had to build a multinational atheist enterprise. “Actually,” he admitted, “we do have expansion aims.” Katie Engelhart is a London-based writer. Follow her at @katieengelhart or www.katieengelhart.com. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Get real. These are just clowns playing who's in the club.
You know what the real atheist church is? It's called science class.
Sincerely,
a real athiest
Oh, stop acting as if atheists are the only ones that are scientists. Absolutely abfreakinsurd.
favorite bumper sticker:
"Too stupid to understand science? Try religion."
My favorite historic fact:
"Christians founded all branches of Modern Science and the Modern Scientific Method"
They also heartlessly persecuted some of those scientists.
Aristotle was an Xtian? Don't think so.
Many people confuse human corruption with God!
Aristotle was only a philosopher, he was not a scientist.
Vic,
Total NONSENSE. Read about Archimedes or Euclid "The Father of Geometry".
Vic,
You need a new "FACT".
According to David Lindberg, Aristotle (4th Century BCE) wrote about the scientific method even if he and his followers did not actually follow what he said. Lindberg also notes that Ptolemy (2nd Century AD) and Ibn al-Haytham (11th Century AD) are among the early examples of people who carried out scientific experiments.
– wikipedia
That is not completely accurate. The modern scientific method can largely be attributed to Galileo and Isaac Newton. Much credit also goes to the Arabs who invented the modern numeric system. The Greeks and Italians (Archimedes, Brunelleschi, Michaelangelo) weren't too shabby, either. Most people forget, there was also much progress going on in Asia. With some strong evidence of science in South America. The Aztecs to this day astound people with their knowledge of astronomy and geology/climatology. Engineering feats that compare to any major wonder on earth. But also there was one other historical caveat; The main employers during most of human history were the clergy and aristocracy. That is just a fact of the way society was built.
Make no mistake about it, however. Over the centuries some very intelligent people derived and proved a means of truthfully understanding our natural world.
This is total nonsense, the roots of every scientific discipline can easily be traced to Greece, Italy and Babylon long before Christianity became fashionable. It is patently ridiculous to give Christians credit when, as a group, they did nothing to further knowledge and actively fought to suppress knowledge that ran counter to their view of the cosmos.
I clearly indicated "MODERN." That is key!
I am aware of the history that is presented here, and it continues on with the outstanding contribution of Christians—regardless of human corruption at the church, like any other system—in founding the branches of "Modern Science" and leading up to the foundation of the "Modern Scientific Method" by the Christian Francis Bacon.
"..the outstanding contributions by Christians—.."
Historic fact??!!! From where? Holy Land in Orlando, FL or the Creation Museum in Petersburg, KY?
Funny, I have listened to a plethora of Christian scientists, so your bumper stickers is foolishness!
i do have better things to do besides going to church on sundays, like mowing my lawn or filling the tank.
Xtians turn the other cheek. Sure they do.
Xtians give all they have to the poor. Sure they do.
Xtians beat the swords into plowshares. Sure they do.
Xtians love their enemies as they love themselves. Read the Xtian posts here. Sure they do.
The people who post on here represent over eighty million people of the same religion...sure they do.
Atheism is NOT a religion, therefor there is no such thing as an atheist church. So these people are just children trying to annoy the religious. Incredibly immature.
What is immature is believing there is some magical being watching over you.
Yes, I agree. I'm an atheist. But these "atheism is a religion" atheists are making us all look bad.
Every thing that exist is Prove that there is a Creater and there are so many things(matter)in the universe.the existnce of the universe itself is a Prove that some one has created it.on the other hand there is not a single prove that God(Creater)does not exist.if one think sincerely about God and look for prove about God and ask him for help.Surely He helps.People deny it or accept it but they have A Creater.One day they will find it out.If one Search for God in this life he will find it here and will face it in after this life and if one reject and ignore the existence of God he will also find it out in after life that Surely God exist. DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT THERE IS A CAREATION BUT NOT A CREATER.?
Many people who pray and ask God for help still die of diseases like cancer, they still go hungry, become or remain homeless, lose their jobs etc. Parents who chose to pray for their sick kids rather than take them to doctors (because God is all powerful and only he can heal) are charged with manslaughter and reckless endangerment of a minor when the child dies. Are they not asking God for help and placing all their faith in the healing power of prayer and God? Where is God then?? Or is it just the minor prayers he can answer – like "Oh Lord, I need $5!". You look under the dresser because you don't securely place your money in a wallet and there is $5, laying on the floor. Oh Lord, it's a miracle!!
Maybe you can answer my age old question. Who created the Creator?
You are a poor messanger for your god. I would stop if I was to to prevent any more people being turned away because of your failings.
You're pretty thin skinned if you think that people are constantly trying to personally annoy you. Or you're just a huge narcissist. Why does a small group of people getting together on the same day that you do such a threat to you?
"is", not "does". Dang margaritas!
You obviously don't know anything about what a religion actually IS. Get educated or keep your mouth shut.
Take another big ass bite of assumption, Melissa. Having a huge martyr complex is encouraged by the bible and by religious people. Any time anyone even suggests that there's another way to think makes you scream persecution.
A small group of folks who don't believe the same things you do gets together on the same day that you do and you think it's all about you. How arrogant.
Come back to me when you're not in the 90% majority.
BTW, I was a fundie for over fifty years, so I'll be glad to talk bible to you any day, rookie.
Melissa: Manners are a valuable thing in this world...telling someone to shut up because you assumed something about them is rather ill mannered.
We atheists tend to be stubborn and independent. I can see why some would want to form atheist churches but it's not for me, or most of my atheist friends. To make it work they'll just have to figure out how to divide up into like minded groups, sounds like that is what these folks are doing. Otherwise it will be like trying to herd cats.
I agree. The only place I even discuss this is here, unless I'm asked directly. I became an atheist on my own and have had no desire to meet anyone on a formalized basis. I'd rather join friends for a meal, take a walk, watch the playoffs, paint, or just relax and pet my cat (that is not a euphemism, lol).
CNN..
It couldn't be posted last day because you had it saved for today, right?
Just the kind of move that you would know would drive your christard readership up.
You believe in Gawd because you are terrified of yer own death. Is there one Gawdder here who will admit this?
We believe in God because it is evident by our existence, the universe's existence, revelation—natural & special, intuition, sentience, basic instincts, and common sense.
"I don't wanna die! I don't wanna die! It can't be true! Not for me!"
Vic,
Sorry, but "common sense" doesn't link well with unicorns, dragons, talking non-humans, slavery, discriminations, beating helpless children, etc.
Which would be fine if this were 16th-19th centuries...
Christians do not fear death because we know something you dont.
No, you don't. We've heard all your claims. You don't know anything that every other person on the board hasn't also heard a thousand times. You just believe it.
Liar
We know "Someone" that they don't.
All hail the great and mysterious Oz...
I don't believe an atheist church can survive?
Just a racket to make money.
Well, at least we're coming to grips with the reality that atheism has become its own religion now, which is unusually honest.
It is impossible for atheism to be a religion.
More thought provoking:
This is evidence that disbelief in God is unnatural. We may all disagree on who God is but to not believe in His existence is naturally unnatural.
Yeah, it's 'naturally unnatural'. That's an example of how Gawdders 'think'.
We are all equipped with the same basics instincts, intuition and common sense.
Only freaks continue with their inferiority complex to promote their delusions.
Vic,
Yep. There has been THOUSANDS of Gods. Believers were SURE EVERYONE was real.
I particularly like Lord Ganesh – the remover of obstacles, the patron of arts and sciences and the deva of intellect and wisdom. Plus he's cute with the head of an elephant and the body of a Siddha. Although Shiva (aka Parameshwara) is the Supreme God (Creator), Ganesh remains my favorite.
I would agree that disbelief in the supernatural (and/or "god", little "g") may be innate as it can be traced back to recognition errors in pattern detection but I don't believe there's a Yahweh shaped hole in our hearts.
* may NOT be innate... dang it!
Instead of attempting to disprove the existence of Christ otr any other religious figure, why don't those religion haters, for once, read the message that was given. Atheist can't see the woods for the trees.
If all the self-proclaimed BELIEVERS would actually read the message that was given- and actually follow it!- THAT would be a miracle.
It would be even better if even those non believers would also live the life.
Many atheists are atheists because they have read the message that was given them and are not convinced by the evidence regarding the message sender.
So a message, no matter the merit, becomes null in the absence of the author?
If they let Westbro survive, why not this church?
Least it's not as hateful as the others,
Who is "they" and how do "they" have any say in whether this organization exists?
Most atheists at my school have acne or are fat or are otherwise unpopular. Some are flaming and obviously uncomfortable with their "orientation."
I think being angry has much to do with being outspokenly atheist.
Most Xtians I know eat their own boogurs.
At school eh? Is that elementary or pre?
The Church of No Church. The Gawd of No Gawd. Sounds good. Where do I sign up?
Because I'm not much of a joiner, I wouldn't normally care much about this church one way or the other. But the argument does contain at least one piece of good advice. They would probably be better off retiring the word "atheist." Just as a theist is someone who believes in God more than the evidence warrants, and atheist is someone who disbelieves in God more than the evidence warrants. They are both aspects of the same basic mistake.
just a thought watch 60 Minute on CBS in about 15 minutes – you will see geology at work and the fire pit of hell maybe ?
No the disbelieve in god exactly as much as the (lack of) evidence warrants. There is exactly zero evidence for god therefore it requires complete disbelief.
–
🙂
Grow up.
Mama! 🙂
Mama's got a squeeze box
The god that christians believe in seems utterly barbaric. The main ritual that christians engage in is the drinking of human blood and the eating of human flesh. Some christian sects maintain the blood and flesh are symbolic, while others insist is it transformed in the ritual into real blood and real flesh. Partaking of this barbaric ritual is supposed to appease this god, so that he does not condemn the follower to an eternal, extremely tortuous punishment known as hell. And the belief all revolves around the blood sacrifice of a human life, exactly as primitive tribes believed if they sacrificed a goat or a lamb or a virgin from their midst, the god would be appeased.
And folks think that atheism has a negative connotation? Really?
Most Christians do not believe this is the actual drinking of blood or eating of flesh. It is a commemorative meal for the Christian to remember what Jesus did for them. It is not done to appease God.
Read the Bible for yourself.
It's the cookies isn't it? These two atheists missed getting cookies after Sunday school.
You can only keep a parody alive for so long.
An Atheist church you say? Why that must be as good as the Vegan Steakhouse...
Fifty points for that one.