You may recall that I closed a recent post, Morphing Martial Metaphors, with this quote:
The potential consequences of such metamorphoses make me very uneasy and give me yet another reason to look forward to the demise of theistic religions.
A few weeks earlier, I said:
Any religion that requires people, particularly children, to despise their humanity is utterly inhuman, inexcusable and intolerable. Until such religions are rejected, I will weep for all of the children who are victimized by their spiritual leaders.
The Deacon finds those statements a bit “hard-edged” and has chided me that, even though we have legitimate criticisms of Christianity and religion in general, in all fairness, we should not overlook all of the good things that churches have done and continue to do.
I will begin by noting that, consistent with the statements quoted above, my rejection of religion is not identical with my distaste for churches. I unapologetically reject any and all religious dogma. I do not, however, reject the useful social functions that churches serve. Having said that, I don’t believe that churches are the only venues in which such functions can or should take place. I also think that, if humanism is to successfully supplant religion, humanists must devise means for fulfilling some of the roles that churches play in believers’ lives, three of which I will discuss now.
The first social function that churches have accomplished historically, and continue to do rather well today, is the building of communities. Churches do this by providing an array of activities for people of all ages and by providing venues in which these activities can take place. People look to churches to run these activities because they provide venues in which believers are assured that they will be joined by others with beliefs and lifestyles similar to their own. Moms and Tots clubs provide fellowship, often including snacks, with other mothers, as well as babysitting and games for young children. After school clubs provide crafts, outings and other activities for schoolchildren. Choirs and worship bands provide creative expressive outlets for musicians of all ages. Sports leagues provide recreational opportunities for men, women and teenagers. Name almost any recreational activity and you can be sure that some church, somewhere, is doing it. All of these and more are in addition to worship services, prayer meetings and Bible studies.
The second social function that churches do well is the marking of life transitions. Church leaders have long known that certain life events mark pivotal turning points in people’s lives and they’ve developed elaborate, meaningful ceremonies to acknowledge those times publicly and to pledge their community’s support of those who are undergoing these changes. Teens and young adults are welcomed as adult community members via adult baptisms. Babies are welcomed into the church via infant baptism and young children are confirmed during their elementary school years. Churches are the sites of most weddings, which mark the formation of new families, and pastors console mourners when death forces families to reconstitute themselves yet again.
The third social function that churches do well is the provision of material and financial assistance to those in need. Sometimes the needy are members of the congregations that are helping them. In these cases, congregations believe it is incumbent upon them to care for their own members, just as they care for their families. Often, assistance is offered to people regardless of their religious affiliations or lack thereof. Generally speaking, there are at least two motives behind Christian good works. First, churches often hope that, by being good neighbors, they will attract people to their congregations. Sometimes testimonies and invitations to church services and activities are offered along with the material or financial goods. Rarely (I wish I could say never) is assistance contingent upon acceptance of such invitations. Second, many Christians simply believe that Jesus commands them to care for their neighbors and communities. Even though many good secular charities exist, one cannot deny that many charities are funded and operated by religious organizations.
I believe that social functions like these tie people to their churches much more strongly than beliefs do. If that is so, then simply encouraging people to abandon their superstitious religious structures will not be enough to move many of them. Indeed, many will not be able to discard their creeds until they are confident that they will be able to replace their cozy communities with enriching alternatives. Our challenge as humanists is to learn from what the churches do well and to start doing it better.
– the chaplain
Posted by plonkee @ the religious atheist on January 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm
This I agree with. There just is no replacement for the community of a church in my area, complete with awkward folks who get in the way, people of different generations, people like me, and people not like me.
Rightly or wrongly, I get the impression that a lot of humanists aren’t as interested in this sort of thing. And that for a lot of people go to church just for the community, it would take a lot of persuading to overcome their inertia.
Posted by carriedthecross on January 15, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I agree wholeheartedly that religious institutions are able to provide a sense of community that secular humanists have thus far been unable to emulate (to my knowledge). I am a student at a Christian university. Since I “came out” as a de-convert at the beginning of my senior year, I’ve decided to stay for practical reasons (graduation, namely). Although I have avoided the ‘elephant in the middle of the room’ problem for the most part, there is a profound way in which I am not ostracized from important parts of my friends’ lives. Often my roommates or friends will leave together to attend church or some kind of religious service and I am obviously left alone. After abandoning a centerpiece in most friendships here, faith, I find I have much less in common with those around me. If ever I were to admit missing a part of Christianity, it would be the sense of community.
Posted by JP Manzi on January 15, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I agree with you, that is why todays emerging/emergent churches suceed so well. The dogma, doctrines and the do’s and dont’s do not compare to the importance of community within these churches. As long as these churches continue doing what they are doing, christianity, for me, will still have a glimmer of hope for tomorrows generation.
As a non-believer the lack of community is probably the hardest sting I feel day in and day out.
Posted by John Evo on January 15, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Historically, it’s been exceedingly difficult to create humanist communities because we have been so marginalized, at least here in the States. I think you are seeing a thaw in that deep-freeze due to what’s going on here in the Atheosphere and due to the phenomonally selling books about atheism. As this continues to unfold, I think you will see more and more humanist-based community.
There is no doubt that you are on target about this being a bigger issue than even the beliefs themselves (not in all cases, but certainly for many).
Speaking from a personal standpoint, I was utterly without any sense of community in my atheism for 35 years. Part of that was my fault. Part of it was lack of outlets available. They are becoming more within reach. Part of what you and I do is fortifying that sense of secular community, but there is much more to be done, isn’t there?
Posted by The Exterminator on January 15, 2008 at 11:50 pm
I think that people who have been affiliated with churches all their lives before becoming atheists find it difficult to break away from the social circle they’ve known and loved. And why should they? But as a lifelong atheist, I can definitely tell you that I’ve missed none of the benefits you say accrue from church membership.
First, although churches do build communities, those communities are predicated on a shared belief system and the conformity police’s monitoring of one another’s activities. (I didn’t make that last part up; I basically got it from deacon’s post, Intervening in Love. I’m not convinced that one’s community needs to be anything other than — one’s community. Granted, if you live out in the woods someplace, this might not work too well.
I also think there’s an appropriate online community available for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection, whatever that person’s interests. I’d like to think that our very own Atheosphere is an example of that.
Second, life transitions can be marked perfectly well without the aid of a church. Just the other day, I was taken out by some friends for a birthday dinner. We didn’t say one prayer in the restaurant. Seriously, graduations and new jobs are life transitions that already aren’t marked by the church — unless you’ve graduated from some bible school or gotten a new job as a preacher someplace.
Third, I agree that some churches, mosques, and synagogues do a bang-up job at providing material and financial assistance to those in need. But I think secular organizations could do so just as well, and without any strings attached. Part of the reason to object to funding for faith-based charities is that it earmarks government funds that could better be spent on similar services provided by organizations without a doctrinal ax to grind. There are plenty of faith-free people who believe in lending a helping hand.
So, I guess I disagree with your basic premise here, although I understand where you’re coming from. But may I ask: Have you or Deac ever been members of any close community that wasn’t church-affiliated?
Posted by athinkingman on January 16, 2008 at 3:03 am
From my perspective from ‘over the pond’ what you say is true of larger churches (apparently we hear such things exist in the US) but I would guess that many UK churches are much smaller (certainly outside the cities), often providing little real sense of community, having none of the activities you have described. The congregations are often small and elderly. And certainly, these same churches are struggling to survive financially, often in debt in decaying buildings, with very little charity.
I’m not sure if it is culturally acceptable in the ‘land of the free’, but over here you can have humanist celebrants at weddings and funerals. I am considering training to become one.
Posted by the chaplain on January 16, 2008 at 9:24 am
Exterminator:
You asked, Have you or Deac ever been members of any close community that wasn’t church-affiliated? I think the answer is, no. We’ve been, and currently are, in secular sports leagues, community, political and university organizations, but those were usually geared toward specific purposes or goals. Once the goals were met, the groups disbanded. We’ve never been part of a group which, like a church, provides lifelong fellowship for us as a couple or for our entire family. Then again, we’ve never sought out such a group before now.
You also asked why de-converts should break away from the social circles they’ve known all their lives. In religious groups, the social structures are intertwined with belief structures. They are designed to make it nearly impossible to give up one and hang on to the other. Believers find it hard to retain relationships with those who once believed but have rejected their belief systems. It’s easier for believers to associate with lifelong atheists than with former believers. Social pressure like this is a large part of how religions retain at least nominal creedal conformity.
With regard to your three points. First, the negative aspects of religious communities are real, as the Deacon and I have pointed out more than once. Second, I agree that some life transitions, such as graduations, are well marked in secular ceremonies and third, that secular organizations do good charitable work. What I tried to do in this post is show how the benefits of religious affiliation appear to someone who is inside the system. When that system is all one has known, it’s difficult to break away if one is not aware that there are similar alternatives elsewhere. If we want people to de-convert, we’ve got to show them that they are not trading in personal connections for four bare walls and a modem.
Posted by the chaplain on January 16, 2008 at 9:29 am
Thinking Man: There are many small, struggling, dying churches in the USA too. The denominations that are holding their own or growing are technologically up-to-date and are sustaining the critical mass (in members and income) required to offer an array of services and activities.
Humanist celebrants are becoming more common in the USA too.
Posted by paulmct on January 16, 2008 at 11:13 am
How refreshing to see such frank admissions from someone who was not only a believer, but a preacher.
I’ve also noticed that something is needed to replace religion if people are to be weened off of it. A rational, common sense system of ethics that isn’t underpinned by fear of a god, that is taught to children in school the way religion has been taught.
I don’t think we need ceremony to mark every stage of life, though. There’s no need to replace baptism, for instance, with a secular welcome-the-new-child ceremony. This is probably best done at the family and friends level.
As for the charities, would you be able to publish or provide a list of secular ones? Some encounters I’ve had in the past make me very wary of the motives of religious backed ones. I think charity should be offered not only without strings, but without the invitations you mentioned. Many people who receive aid plus an invitaation would feel obliged to accept, even if they didn’t want to.
Posted by Ric on January 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm
What’s missing is a community for cranky people who mostly want to be left alone, dammit! There’s a real need for that. Not that I know anyone like that. But there are rumors and whispers.
I think Ex has done a good job on the counter-argument. My cynical nature prompts me to add that people who are delusional are considerably more comfortable among those who share the same delusions, with no questions asked. The ancient and modern art of stoning wouldn’t be out of the question if I walked into a Baptist church Sunday morning and announced “Hi, I’m an atheist. I’m just here to observe your activities for a book of religious skepticism.” However, I’m risk averse and would wear a helmet.
Posted by the chaplain on January 16, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Ric,
I agree with you and Ex that churches are not the only venues in which social functions like those I mentioned can happen. I also agree that not everybody has the same social needs. I’m just saying that atheists may need to step back a bit from our rational arguments and recognize that de-converting is not simply a matter of changing beliefs. It also entails, for many people, a change in social relationships that may be more difficult to cope with than the cognitive shift.
Posted by the chaplain on January 16, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Paulmct:
Follow this link for a good post on secular charities. I won’t repeat it because it’s already been done quite well.
Posted by heather on January 16, 2008 at 7:11 pm
You’ve really put your finger on what a church provides that we miss out on. I don’t think that it’s the ritual marking of life transitions makes much difference as there are lots of non-religious alternative rituals.
A church’s strength comes from providing a focus for community activity. I like the idea of going to half-meet people for no set purpose.
The Latin countries’ “passeata” (people going out just to walk around, maybe sometimes chatting, but not having to have a purpose)would be a good substitute. Except that, at this latitude, only a lunatic would choose do do that during most of the year.
Posted by The Exterminator on January 17, 2008 at 2:13 am
chappy:
I think I appreciate how difficult it is for a recent de-convert not only to have his or her worldview shaken up, but also to risk losing the warmth and succor of old “friends.” In some ways, it’s similar to getting a divorce from everyone you know.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s the job of atheists to proselytize and I don’t think they need to offer a substitution for an institution that is, when all is said and done, pretty damn oppressive. The enrichening alternative to a church community that atheism can offer is the opportunity to be ruled by one’s own mind, maybe even for the very first time in that person’s life. While I agree with you in principle about “four bare walls and a modem” (apparently your recent de-convert used to be a Trappist monk), I have to say that I’ve made some good friends online and they rank right up there in my mind with friends that I’ve made in the physical world.
And you have only to check out this post of Hemant’s to find out how the Atheosphere reaches out to help one of its own.
Posted by The Exterminator on January 17, 2008 at 2:16 am
enrichening?
Posted by the chaplain on January 17, 2008 at 5:55 am
Exterminator:
It looks like you’re making up new words again.
I agree that atheists shouldn’t proselytize and I recognize that lots of atheists are, by nature, pretty independent agents. I think it’s just helpful if we realize that many de-converts need to know there’s some sort of community for them.
I’m not crazy about billboards, in general, but I can see the value in some of the atheist billboard campaigns that are going on now. The signs reassure doubters that they are not the only ones questioning religion.
My atheospheric friends, including you, have become an important community for me in just a couple of months. But I’m pretty introverted by nature. Some others may need more flesh and blood contact in addition to the instant, worldwide resources available through the Internet. It’s just something for us to think about.
Posted by The Exterminator on January 17, 2008 at 10:34 am
chappy, you said:
I’m pretty introverted by nature.
Well, you couldn’t prove that by my experience. I wonder what kind of whirlwind you’d be if you thought you were extroverted.
Posted by PhillyChief on January 17, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Part of the reason why people may be looking to churches is because of the erosion of community in the US. Suburban sprawl, increased distances between home, work, shopping, and things like doctors meaning the people we interact with are mostly strangers and we are further isolated in our cars as we travel to and fro, and entertainment experienced mostly at home (shopping, too) all contribute to an erosion of community.
Still, it’s a mistake to say because religion is good because it provides community by way of churches. The Klan has little outings, meetings and maybe even pot luck dinners for all I know, but they’re still the Klan. Instead of pointing to these goods and saying therefore religion is good, it’s better to focus on those goods and try to foster them in alternative ways.
Posted by the chaplain on January 17, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Phillychief:
I think your analysis of the erosion of community has merit. As traditional communities have disappeared, people have had to look elsewhere for similar connections. Churches, which were always a part of older community structures, were well positioned to assume even larger roles in community building.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding some of the comments that have been made, but I’ll try to state my position clearly here since I apparently failed to do it in the post. I unequivocally do not believe that religion, particularly of the theistic sort, is good. Far from it. I do believe that some of the success of religions has been due to the fact that they do some things reasonably well. I’d like to see secularists take over those roles and do them even better, without the superstition, manipulation, etc., that accompany the religious models.
Posted by Ric on January 17, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Chappie -
I understand and agree that the social aspect of church, especially for those who have a lifetime invested, makes it difficult to leave the life. And I’m a consummate loner! I’m just saying that I don’t underestimate the difficulty people feel about that. But I’m also not the person to turn to for sympathy and support and politeness. I’m one of those who rages against the so-called light. That’s my job.
I had a friend, woman I’ve known since high school, a girlfriend back in the day. A few years ago she started getting sucked in to the Witnesses. Every once in a while she’s say something like “You’ll come around.” I finally stopped being polite and tolerant and told her what I thought about the Witnesses and religion in general. She thought that was rude and I haven’t heard from her since. Life goes on. I’ve no tolerance for people inflicting their nonsense on me.
It’s good that cats aren’t religious.
Posted by theprofessor on January 18, 2008 at 1:59 pm
As a sociologist/criminologist I gotta say that you nailed it here. Much classical and contemporary social theory and research agrees that these are indeed the primary functions of religious institutions, particularly once the knowledge function was stripped away by science (well, almost).
Studies on the relationship between delinquency and religiosity continue to find a strong relationship between participation in religious institutions and delinquency, but a weak or non-existent relationship between religious beliefs and delinquency. So the “community” function does more than just make us feel good, it is also an effective form of social control. Not even necessarily an onerous one either, it simply takes the form of community support that motivates the individual to not transgress against that community.
Finally I’d like to point out that there is an intermediate institution that fulfills these functions, and that is the Unitarian-Universalist Fellowship. I joined one in my town, after years of wanting just to be alone on Sunday mornings to read the paper and drink coffee. I found an enlightened groups of spiritually-inclined freethinkers. There were deists and meditative Buddhists. There was even a snarling pack of atheists that I regularly joined for a Friday night “Macho Man” meeting at a local pub. The UUF served all those functions and openly welcomed any belief system. A good alternative model.
Posted by Spanish Inquisitor on January 18, 2008 at 9:50 pm
As an ex-Catholic, being brought up in a religion that virtually forces you to meet with hundreds of people every Sunday under penalty of mortal sin, when I stopped attending church at age 18, I found much relief in solitude. Frankly, 35 years later, I have not lost that sense of relief. I don’t miss it.
However, I understand the need for social companionship for some, and for community interaction. I’ve always thought that churches provided that, and that that was the primary benefit obtained from church worship. Certainly the preaching and rituals did nothing for me, though I guess some might find comfort in them.
I would be willing to investigate joining a humanistic center, that tried to provided the three things you mention, Chappie. However, such an endeavor would have a hard time with one thing that churches seems to have little problem with – tithing and donations. Most churches rely on ample memberships, especially those willing to contribute at every plate passing on Sundays. In the Catholic Church, and most Protestant churches I’ve been to, it’s a part of the formal ritual to collect money. The ritual is necessary for the survival of the church and what it does for the community. I don’t know that, without the guilt and exhortations of a god who’s looking over your shoulder, humanistic centers would be able to sustain themselves.
Although, it sounds like the UU fellowship that the Professor mentions comes closest, without hitting the bull’s-eye, to such an organization. And UU does seem to thrive. We have one in my town.
Posted by the chaplain on January 19, 2008 at 10:18 am
Ric: It’s frustrating when people get so obsessed with their religions that they can think and talk about nothing else.
Professor: There are several UU churches in my area. I’ve considered visiting one sometime.
SI: Money is an issue. Religions have built-in mechanisms for sustaining themselves. Where humanist organizations would meet and how they would pay any bills they accrue are significant issues. Vjack wrote recently about an “atheist Sunday school” held at a humanist community center. I wonder where the center gets its funds?
Posted by John Evo on January 19, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Chappy said (much earlier on): it’s difficult to break away if one is not aware that there are similar alternatives elsewhere.
Personally, I wouldn’t care. Honestly, I had NO community to turn to when I realized religion was bunk. It probably was a mind-bender for a couple of years. But after that, I created my own communities that had nothing to do with religion or atheism (until quite recently). Life goes on.
I think it’s interesting to discuss this, but I honestly don’t think people are religious primarily because of fear of “losing” that community or because they fear that they would start robbing and murdering without the moral codes of their religion. They hang on to religion because it explains the unknown for them (particularly death).
We are a species that craves explanation. That’s why we love science. And why we love religion even more. For most people, a terrible explanation is vastly superior to NO explanation.
Posted by the chaplain on January 20, 2008 at 12:11 am
John Evo said, They hang on to religion because it explains the unknown for them (particularly death). We are a species that craves explanation. That’s why we love science. And why we love religion even more. For most people, a terrible explanation is vastly superior to NO explanation.
Compare his final sentence to what Christopher Hitchens says in his introduction to The Portable Atheist: …we are pattern seeking mammals and…owing to our restless intelligence and inquisitiveness, we still prefer a conspiracy theory to no explanation at all.
You know what they say about great minds and all that.
You’re right about the human craving for explanation. We want to explain things so that we can control them and use them to our benefit, or at least alleviate the harm they can do to us. I also agree that fear of death is a large part of what holds people to religion. I don’t doubt that it’s more effective than social pressure. Nevertheless, since people’s social needs vary greatly, I think it’s a mistake to underestimate the power of social pressure to enforce conformity. Religions have spent countless millenia honing a vast array of tools for keeping people in line. Social pressure plus the carrot-and-stick of heaven and hell is one of the most powerful combinations they have at hand.
Posted by A Little Light Reading: Carnival of the Godless Edition : the religious atheist on January 20, 2008 at 11:14 am
[...] What Good do Churches Do? @ An Apostate’s Chapel, what they do well, is community and fellowship, is there a need for a humanist/atheist equivalent? No belief required but coming together for fellowship and discussion. [...]
Posted by John Evo on January 21, 2008 at 12:30 am
Chappy, my honesty requires that I admit to hearing or reading that phrase from Hitchens. It probably resonated with me and hung around in my brain. Anyhow – whether it’s an original thought or not, I agree with it! And I like that you compare my mind to an intellectual like him.
Posted by the chaplain on January 23, 2008 at 8:45 am
John Evo:
How can you, a nonbeliever, be honest? I’ve heard that if don’t have religion, you don’t have morals.