TNT magazine reports:
Yesterday saw the first ‘service’ of The Sunday Assembly, London’s first atheist church.
Priding itself on its tagline ‘live better, help often, wonder more,’ The Sunday Assembly is the brainchild of Sanderson Jones and musical comedian Pippa Evans, and aims to take the best things about religion and religious ceremonies, but to do it without all the god-talk. Or, as Sanderson himself has put it, it’s “a godless congregation that will meet on the first Sunday of every month to hear great talks, sing songs and generally celebrate the wonder of life.”
The first ‘service’ was held yesterday morning at the deconsecrated church The Nave in north London, and featured a talk by children’s author Andy Stanton and was shaped around the theme ‘Beginnings’.
For those wondering what a profane liturgy might look like, the Sunday Assembly has posted an outline on its website:
The Order of Service
To begin with we are following a format which people are familiar with and it is just going to get better from there as we hone the heck out of it.
- Welcome / notices
- Song
- Guest speaker
- Song
- Reading
- Final Address
- Song
English children’s author Andy Stanton was the guest of honor yesterday (which, perhaps unbeknownst to attendees, was Christmas Eve for Christians following the Old Calendar—с праздником!). Due partly to press coverage from Gawker and CNN, attendance was high, and some have already suggested they move to a larger venue.
However, the most prescient take on the new organization comes from attendee Nick Julius, who yesterday tweeted, “The race is on… What will cause our first schism?”
January 7th, 2013 | 4:29 pm
I wonder if they’ll have “Alter” calls?
January 7th, 2013 | 5:35 pm
“The Fool(s) Who Persist In Their Folly…….”
January 7th, 2013 | 6:20 pm
This sounds a lot like the Unitarian Universalist Church/Society. I could imagine it experiencing schisms along the lines of Pure Empiricists/Humanists vs. Agnostic/Spiritual or maybe Anti-Religion/Anti-Christian vs. Kumbya Universalists. They will argue a lot about symbols, songs and sermons. They will also have differences based on their religious upbringing or lack thereof. For some it may present an opportunity to explore religion or religious practice, but for many it will function as an opportunity to share coffee or brunch with like-minded people. They will profess to be tolerant freethinkers with conveniently similar political beliefs. They will have no written or spoken creed, but they will have an unspoken and unwritten one. Fun times.
January 7th, 2013 | 7:05 pm
Didn’t Auguste Comte try this already, or is this different?
January 7th, 2013 | 10:01 pm
I don’t understand ‘why’ they feel the need to have ‘services’ anyway? If they are atheists and ‘don’t believe’ in any higher power, why are they replicating, step by step, a religious service? If religion is a ‘moot point’ why bother?
January 7th, 2013 | 10:14 pm
Is it possible to commit blasphemy by claiming “There is a God!”?
January 8th, 2013 | 4:21 am
The South Place Ethical Society traces its origins back to 1793.
It was originally a Unitarian chapel (the chemist Joseph Priestly was one of its ministers), then it became the South Place Religious Society. In 1886, they wanted to engage the American, Stanton Coit (a friend of Felix Adler) as minister. He would only come, if it were an ethical society, so God was dropped, to oblige Dr Coit.
January 8th, 2013 | 10:11 am
Virginia -
Even here on First Things, people note the power of collective human action, like concerts – singing and dancing together. It’s enjoyable and bonding on a purely human level. People compare political rallies – favorably or unfavorably – to church services.
Church services already, even leaving aside the religious components, serve to help tie communities together, and offer opportunities for networking in political, social, and economic terms.
Even if I personally don’t care, I can at least grasp why some people might want to try to replicate this in a non-religious setting.
January 8th, 2013 | 10:55 am
Ray — that still doesn’t explain why they’re replicating church life in a churchy sort of way. There are community events that go on all the time that don’t look like imitations of church life. Like, say, concerts, or people singing and dancing together. (I wonder what made me think of those examples?) Political rallies that “feel like” church services are still a different thing from events deliberately patterned after church services.
January 8th, 2013 | 11:09 am
Dear Jack Perry: Regarding Comte: Yes, that’s the first thing that jumped up in my mind, as well. Pope Dawkins, perhaps?
January 8th, 2013 | 11:32 am
pentamom,
I don’t think it is the belief of atheists that everything believers have ever done is an abomination. If they think the format of church services will serve their needs with a few tweaks, why is that so odd? If they were to attempt to design an atheist service that very closely paralleled the Catholic Mass, that would be very odd. But the format outlined above is extremely general.
Don’t be an atheophobe! :P
(I thought I made that up, but Wikipedia has an entry!)
January 8th, 2013 | 12:11 pm
Imagine you want to change yourself: lose weight, stop drinking, control your aggression, learn of foreign language, train for a marathon, whatever. You find that you keep relapsing. What do you do?
Some people find regular meetings by people with similar interests/commitments to be helpful. Seems reasonable to me.
January 8th, 2013 | 12:31 pm
The basic schism:
The Randomists, who believe everything happens by chance encounters between atoms.
The Determinists, who believe everything is the inexorable working out of physical laws.
Cafeteria Atheists, who rely on chance and determination depending on the topic. E.g., free will (chance) or creation (physical laws).
January 8th, 2013 | 1:38 pm
Ye Olde Statistician
Don’t forget the Phenomenalists, who claim we can only know our own sense impressions.
January 8th, 2013 | 5:28 pm
A subset of the Cafeteria Atheists is the Fornicationalists, who don’t want to believe in God because that belief could interfere with their sex lives. Far more common than is sometimes thought.
Note: The Fornicationalists are not self-reporting. Identifying them as a distinct group requires anthropological analysis.
January 8th, 2013 | 10:49 pm
Craig: Being heard to assert that pro-life people just want to punish other people for enjoying sex is, however, a strong marker.
January 9th, 2013 | 7:34 am
Ray — that still doesn’t explain why they’re replicating church life in a churchy sort of way…
I would say for the same reason the original Star Trek series imagined aliens as being basically white, American 1970′s men and women sometimes painted green. One works with what one knows from the culture already since church services are known it feels like it makes sense to fit you’re ‘new thing’ into that well worn groove.
When Western explorers stumbled upon Tibet, they thought the Dali Lama was a pope and the monks a type of Vatican. In fact, I think some very early explorers might have even thought they were the fabled ‘Prestor John’ Kingdom of Eastern Christians who had been cut off from the West centuries ago. When encountering something totally new, human nature is to first try to force it into the mold of the familiar.
But it’s not all that irrational. Services have been around for thousands of years. New religions have come and gone but while dogmas and gods and theologies have been dropped the idea of services has survivied. That does hint that services have some value in building a community, helping the individual fit the religious beliefs in with their mental life, etc. If atheists want to expand and deepen their belief, build a stronger community and help individuals reconcile atheism with their day to day lives experimenting with church-like services is pretty rational.
January 9th, 2013 | 10:59 am
Craig Payne -
Perhaps. Nowhere near as common as the accusation, though.
January 9th, 2013 | 6:22 pm
perhaps they are believers in denial taking baby-steps towards religion …
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact