Of course, it is also a church for theists. It is also a church for all kinds of other "ists."
I was speaking with a member of my congregation yesterday who said her friend wouldn't want to come to church because he's an atheist. I waited for more... yeah? and? Oh, I get it! He thinks that church is not for atheists. He's right of course - usually...
Just about no one who calls him/herself an atheist would expect to be welcome in a "church", much less to find something there to nurture, inspire, and sustain them.
They would be wrong - at least in the case of some Unitarian/Unitarian Universalist congregations, such as mine in north London. [I've heard it said that a Unitarian is an atheist who likes to sing hymns - as long as the words are suitably modified!]
What! Atheists in church and not to be forcibly converted or burned at the stake? I know it's unexpected, but yes, atheists sitting beside monotheists, polytheists, pagans, humanists, agnostics... all of us trying our best to find meaning in life, to be more deliberate and present in the moment, and to figure out how we can work together to make our world more just and peaceful.
In general "I am an atheist" really means "I am not going to believe the unbelievable supernatural stories that traditional religions present as truth. I have my own mind and I'm going to use it!" If that's our definition, then I am an atheist too. Do I believe that a personal God literally created the world, that the whole earth shook when the Buddha achieved awakening, or that the Goddess is a personal reality in our lives? Do I believe that praying to God can make something good happen or prevent something bad? Not at all.
I do believe though that when we come together in community with an openness to hear each other's stories and beliefs, and when we deliberately commit to working to grow and be our best selves, that something very worthwhile, sustaining, and inspiring happens. And - for historical reasons - I call the place where this happens "church".
My idea of "church" is a place where we step aside from the hectic lives we lead - lives that are awash in the materialistic, individualistic messages of the world of business. And in this place, we pause to consider who and what we truly are and want to be - what creates meaning and satisfaction in life - what is important to us. We turn to one another and we share the answers we have found and then we ask more questions together and we search some more. It is a place where we care what happens to each other, where we aim higher, where we strive to include everyone. It is a place where we envision the world we want and then we go out and try to create that loving, just world of our dreams.
Atheists - come to this church. You are welcome.
This rocks, Andy! I will share it around.
ReplyDeleteAnd for anyone else reading this: Andy is my favourite foreign bearded radical preacher. (Radical equality, radical love.) He and his congregation certainly managed to overturn my prejudices about what "church" means. Not that he and I agree about everything.
Linked, with a story of my own.
ReplyDeleteIf we would all agree about not believing in any of those traditional religious metaphores, perhaps the problem is that we keep focusing on those "-isms" that Unitarian-ism seems eager to collect as if they were still important (for us anyway). Thus the creedless church becomes the multi-creed church, which is totally the opposite. What about having persons in our pews rather than "-ists" of this or that kind?
ReplyDeleteThis is a great message Andy - thank you for sharing it. Andy is just about my favourite Unitarian (tied for first place).
ReplyDeleteHi Andy! Brother, you and I need to talk. Check my blog:
ReplyDeleterobmacpherson1.blogspot.com
and please get in touch.
Great post Andy!
ReplyDelete@Jaume - many Unitarians have difficulty defining which -ism we fit into, and it doesn't matter, because we are people first :)
I still don't understand the concept of all this "love" and "wanting to make this world more just and peaceful" talk without the concept of an all loving, all powerful and just God. What makes love, justice and peace good qualities? Coincidence? Just curious.
ReplyDeleteErnie - the question you raise has many different answers and philosophers and theologians from many perspectives have argued this forever and continue to...
ReplyDeleteI guess I'd just ask if you personally would turn into an evil murder, rapist, and their if there were no God to set moral guidelines. I wouldn't, and I suspect you wouldn't either.
My very optimistic view is that people who have not been terribly injured by life tend to recognize that being loving, generous, grateful, and compassionate makes everyone - themselves included - happier. Most of them just need help in becoming that way more of the time. Hence the value of spiritual community for the non-theistic.
I hope that makes some sense..
I really like this, Andy.
ReplyDeleteA well expressed and thoughtful blog, Andy. When I read the bit about a church for atheists I cheered. Yes - why not? I'd come to that church. Well - a church for Humanists at least. But then you tell me that I have to share it with polytheists, monotheists, pagans (and, God forbid, flakey New Age beliers spouting bogus nonsense about energy, crystals and healing! - yes they do exist in Unitarianism). Meeting, discussing and arguing with people of different beliefs is important in a plural society but in a 'discussion group' not in a religion. I run a pub discussion group in Kent that does exactly that (http://www.stoa.org.uk). It is deliberately non-sectarian, meeting in public location, a neutral space, where no assumptions are made about your beliefs. We call this a 'philosophy group'. What I want from a religion, on the other hand, is a feeling of solidarity with people who share the same beliefs as me, and mutual support in walking the path prescribed by that religion. What all religions have in common is that they offer both a diagnosis of the human condition and a prescription for curing that condition - and they all offer *different* prescriptions and solutions. That is what is interesting an challenging about them. A religious person believes that the choice of faith that they make is the most important they ever make in life and what they reject is important as well. What you seem to be doing is trivialising the differences between religious committments. You are saying that differences *don't matter*. But they *do* matter. It's the most important thing in the universe for the believer. It seems that one can only join your church if you give up passionate committment to your beliefs. I have to admit that I am very attracted by Unitarianism. I like the possibility of learning from different traditions. But it's the Religion Lite aspect that repels me: the attempt to experience religious sentiments without having to pay the price. You evacuate religion of passion, committment, identity because in the end you assert (in a credal, if covert manner) that religious difference don't really matter - or worse - it's just a matter of personal preference.
ReplyDeleteBTW - I am not alone in this concern. Here's a blog by a theistic Unitarian on the same topic, albeit from a different angle... http://reigniteuk.blogspot.com/2008/04/is-humanism-theologically-tolerant.html
Rob Wheeler
Faversham, Kent
Sea of Faith
http://www.sofn.org.uk
You raise some important points here, Rob, and the last point is one all Unitarians should take note of - we are seen as being "religion-lite", and often very unattractive to outsiders.
ReplyDeleteBut you miss a core point, which is that most Unitarians are not saying that your holding of personal faith (and atheism is a form of personal faith) doesn't matter.
Instead I agree with Andy that when we come together in community with an openness to hear each other's stories and beliefs, and when we deliberately commit to working to grow and be our best selves, that something very worthwhile, sustaining, and inspiring happens.
The primary purpose of such a community is neither discussion nor belittlement of others personal faiths , it is to enable personal spiritual growth. The community is united by shared desire for spiritual growth - becoming better human beings - and not by shared personal faith.
Barry Bell, Glasgow
barrybell@hotmail.co.uk
Thank you Barry. I appreciate your insight into this.
ReplyDeleteI hear Rob's points as coming from a struggle that many people face of being both drawn and repulsed by the religions in which they have been immersed.
We are not about rejecting those (or any) faiths, but rather about delving into them and our relationships to them to draw out what is sustaining and nurturing. If that means we set aside the self-diminishing, tribal, and hateful parts of most religious traditions, I cheer that loss! Those are not prices we should have to pay (in Rob's words) for our faith.
Andy
OK. Here's a practical and personal example. I was recently at an evensong service in our local Anglican church and the priest prayed for various healthcare workers including "alternative medicine" practitioners. I had recently been reading Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science' and where previously I had been a bit sceptical about alternative medicine I was now horrified by some of the damage it can do. I complained to the priest in question saying that he should not be offering prayers to 'snake oil salesman' (a bit tongue-in-cheek I admit as I enjoy giving the local clergy a bit of a prod from time to time). I just could not say 'amen' to a prayer I thought was plain wrong. I am all for tolerating people who believe in alternative medicine. I am not campaigning for thought control. I am all for continuing to discuss and test alternative medicine and learn from it. (One doctor in London used to get a faith healer in to teach his students bedside manner.) But you cant avoid taking sides in some matters. I think alternative medicine is bad medicine. I might be wrong, and I am open to be persuaded, but I have given it thought and all the arguments go against it as far as I can see. While I will talk and discuss with alternative medicine folk, and learn from them (mainly how NOT to do science!), how can I experience fellowship and solidarity with people who, to my mind, are engaging in wishful and sloppy thinking?
ReplyDelete(Afterthoughts: Is failure to even attempt to think critically and indulge in lazy, wishful and sloppy thinking a sin in Unitarianism? Would you ever condemn someone for bad thinking? I dont just mean making an honest mistake. Or are Unitarians relativists, believing that everyones beliefs are as good as everyone elses? I have never met a Unitarian who could take Scientology seriously - so are there practical limits to your tolerance?).
Rob Wheeler
Faversham, Kent
Sea of Faith
http://www.sofn.org.uk
Hello Rob
ReplyDeleteBelief and practice are different and can not be compared in the same logical ways. If a supposedly therapeutic practice is not, in fact, efficacious or is actually dangerous, it should be regulated.
Belief is not a thing of the same sort. Instead, I'd measure a belief by its consequences. From my perspective, any belief that has the effect of making a person more compassionate, kind, open-hearted, loving, and justice-seeking is a good belief for that person.
So the question we have come round to is this - how do you evaluate a religious belief? What criteria do you use? You suggest that the criteria we should apply is whether it makes a person morally better. If that's right then most religions do not come out very well when you think of all the cruelty and conflict engendered by religions throughout history. But it is also possible for completely mad religious ideas to have good consequences. Look at the way the Rudolf Steiner organisation cares for the mentally disabled. They accord great dignity to their residents and provide a high level of care and yet the ideas of the Anthroposophists are (I believe) quite false. The truth of someone's religious beliefs has no relationship with the good or bad consequences of that belief. For instance, you may be a firm believer in reincarnation and it could make you more compassionate to other people's suffering or it could make you quite indifferent. The same belief can have different effects. However, all of that is quite irrelevant to whether or not people are actually reincarnated after death. That, surely, is the key question.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that resistance to critical enquiry is the acid test of whether or not a religious belief should be accepted as worthwhile. You cannot 'prove' such beliefs in any scientific or mathematical way but you can go a long way in testing them.
(1) Ask yourself: what question or problem is this religion, religious idea or doctrine an answer to? The great world religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism all offer answer to the deep questions of the human condition and how to overcome the limitations of the self-centred ego. New Age beliefs by contrast tend to offer "me, me" type philosophies which are totally ego-centric and about feeling good about yourself rather than overcoming yourself.
(2) Is the belief coherent or does it involve internal self-contradictions?
(3) Does the belief solve more questions than it creates?
(4) Is this the best solution to the problem when you compare it with competing ideas?
(5) Is it the simplest and most elegant solution (apply Occam's Razor)?
(6) How does this belief fit in with my other beliefs? Does it support of contradict them?
(7) How does this belief fare when subjected to open, public debate?
The worst reason for adhering to a belief is that it 'feels' right or is intuitively convincing.
Rob Wheeler
Sea of Faith
http://www.sofn.org.uk
Rob says
ReplyDeleteThe truth of someone's religious beliefs
has no relationship with the good or bad
consequences of that belief.
If that's the case Rob, then I'd say that truth is highly overrated. Is it better to believe something true that makes us nasty or something false that makes us loving and compassionate?
For beliefs then, I would like to say: "By their fruits shall you evaluate them!"
Andy