Fancy going to the atheist church?

St Ananias Church in the Christian section of Bab Touma in Old Damascus (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A news story I saw this morning: a new church for atheists has started in London. How lovely. Clearly I disagree with their theology (or lack of it…discuss) but I honestly think it’s great that some atheists are starting to formalise their belief system.

A couple of quotes from, and thoughts off the back of, the news story, if I may:

“It’s a nice excuse to get together and have a bit of a community spirit but without the religion aspect,” says Jess Bonham, a photographer.

“It’s not a church, it’s a congregation of unreligious people.”

Hm. Depends on your definition of church. The word ‘church’ comes from the Ancient Greek word ekklesia, meaning a gathering of people. So it’s definitely a church. Sorry.

Another attendee, Gintare Karalyte, says: “I think people need that sense of connectedness because everyone is so singular right now, and to be part of something, and to feel like you are part of something. That’s what people are craving in the world.”

Indeed, that is what people are craving in the world…if Christians are so stupid and atheists are so clever, how come it took atheists so many thousands of years to figure it out when community has been at the core of Christianity since creation?

The Sunday Assembly certainly did better business than at the evangelical St Jude and St Paul’s Church next door, where about 30 believers gathered to sing gospel songs and listen to Bible readings.

What a ridiculous comparison! The atheist church got 300 or so members, let’s compare that with a Christian church in North London, not too far from this atheist church, linked to the church I attend. The only statistic I could find about attendance there is that they saw over 1,000 people at one Easter service in 2011. And that’s not to mention the hundreds of other Christian churches in and around London. Comparing it to one small church doesn’t mean anything.

But Bishop Harrison, a Christian preacher for 30 years, says he does not see his new neighbours as a threat, confidently predicting that their spiritual journey will eventually lead them to God.

“They have got to start from somewhere,” he says.

Absolutely. The apostle Paul went from killing Christians to being perhaps the most influential missionary of all time. I hope and pray that the leaders of this atheist church see a similar turnaround.

Read the original article if you like. Glory to God!

Related articles

• Atheist Church (naturalpantheist.wordpress.com)
• Are Pastors Willing to Talk to Atheists During Church? (patheos.com)
• More Stupid Atheist Tricks: The ‘Atheist’ Church in London (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• ‘Atheist Church’ in the North (lunaticoutpost.com)

Four observations on the vote against female bishops

English: Logo of the Church of England (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m not really involved in the Church of England, but I’m pretty sympathetic towards it. I’ve been to General Synod twice and try to follow Anglican news stories, so I found yesterday’s vote really interesting. Just a couple of initial observations, if I may.

1. The Anglican voting system has been carefully designed; those on both ‘sides’ should accept the result within the sovereignty of God, not get bitter, and trust the system.
2. Linked to that, the Church of England has been characterised over the past decade or so by internal disagreements over homosexuality and gender roles. I think now is the time to move forward and unite over things which we can all agree are more important: the Gospel, social action, and reaching the lost.
3. I found it really interesting that the more ‘senior’ the voter, the more rebellious; the ‘yes’ vote lost (I don’t think ‘no’ really won) only because of the laity. Only two bishops voted no, and three bishops abstained despite the Archbishop’s specific instructions for people not to.
4. The result was probably the safest one for the future of the Church of England. Those voting ‘no’ weren’t being sexist, they were wanting to be faithful to the Bible, whereas some voting ‘yes’ (certainly not all) were directly challenging the Bible’s authority and relevance. If the door had been opened to female bishops it would only be a matter of time before pressure started to mount for more controversial motions to be passed. That said, it definitely leaves the Church of England in a tricky, slightly hypocritical situation in which ladies can be ordained but no more than that.

I suppose I’m glad the weight of making such significant decisions doesn’t rest on my shoulders – we should pray more for leaders.

Related articles

• Church of England votes against allowing women bishops (guardian.co.uk)
• Church of England rejects female bishops by six votes (religion.blogs.cnn.com)
• Church of England General Synod votes against women bishops despite late plea from next Archbishop of Canterbury (independent.co.uk)

This man receives tax collectors and sinners, and eats with them!

Just a thought…if a middle-aged, middle-class straight white male were to walk into a ‘typical’ British church the chances are he’d feel pretty normal.

But if Dizzee Rascal did, I imagine he’d feel a bit out of place.

As The Church, do we receive people in the same way as Jesus did, or do we judge people against some odd man-made standard?

I think I need more grace than I allow myself to think.

Are We Together? by R. C. Sproul

This book is intended to be a fair, factually accurate analysis of Roman Catholicism, with a specific focus on its differences when compared to protestantism, and whether these differences actually matter. It’s particularly aimed at correcting people who think (1) the differences aren’t important, or (2) they know about Roman Catholicism when actually they don’t. Each chapter takes one aspect of potential disagreement (e.g. Mary, papal infallibility), explains the true Roman Catholic position, and identifies anything that protestants should be concerned about.

It’s written clearly and carefully, quoting from important sources, and as someone who hasn’t really had that much exposure to Roman Catholicism it’s excellent at showing what they believe and why they believe it. It’s easily the best explanation of Roman Catholicism I’ve ever read.

That said, I’m not convinced it does exactly what it says on the tin. The introduction gives a bit of a warning that Roman catholics may be offended by the book, but it seems that from a desire not to offend far too much effort was put into explaining Roman Catholic doctrine over rebuking it. For most chapters I’d say about five sixths is explaining, and only one sixth is comparing.

So if you’re familiar with protestant theology and are looking for an explanation of Roman Catholicism, this is the book for you. If you think you know about it but couldn’t give any evidence for your position, this book is for you (you may be surprised about how wrong you are!). But if you’re looking for a breakdown of protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism I’d give this closer to three stars than five stars.

I got this book for free from Reformation Trust Publishing. I’m not required to give a positive review.

It’s all about me…

Paul Oakley (Photo credit: richbeechina)

I saw a funny video a bit ago which was basically poking fun at people who choose a local church based on how it meets their needs. Ever met that sort of person?

I went to this church for a bit but the men’s ministry wasn’t vibrant enough, so I went to a different church but the music was a bit old-fashioned so I came to this church.

Well, a couple of knee-jerk reactions: (1) if it’s not good enough, do something about it, and (2) if you find one that’s perfect don’t join it because you’ll add imperfection to the mix!

Anyway, this little video included a lovely song based on Paul Oakley’s Jesus, Lover of My Soul; the chorus has the line in it ‘It’s all about you…’ which was replaced with ‘It’s all about me…’

Funny.

But not really, because judging by the way we talk about Christianity (and I’m definitely including myself here) you’d be forgiven for thinking that this deal about Jesus dying for me and having a personal relationship with me and loving me is sort of about me. Well, me and Jesus at least.

So allow yourself to be punched in the face by this quote:

[T]he church is the meaning of human history; but it is the church as a corporate body, not the distinct individuals who make up her membership…My special destiny as a believer is to be part of the church; and it is the church that is the big player in God’s wider plan, not me.

God has a wonderful plan for my life, and it’s to be part of his army of believers as his name is glorified.

That’s very exciting actually.

HT: Mike Wittmer

Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow

Ok, headline first: every church leader should read this book.

Why Men Hate Going to Church is broken into three parts, basically explaining why it’s important that men are stuck into church, why they aren’t, and how to get them. Murrow frequently uses convincing statistics, stories and other facts to demonstrate to his readers that he’s not just some chauvinist sounding his trumpet, and to my mind succeeds – I’m thoroughly convinced but probably wouldn’t have been beforehand!

The truth is that everything about church is heavily ‘feminised’, and we’re caught in a vicious circle of a church made up predominantly of ladies who therefore influence what church looks like, resulting in a church that’s unattractive for men to join or invite their friends to. From children’s work to the way the church building looks to the songs we sing to the way we preach the Gospel, everything is designed with women in mind, and churches are shrinking and failing as a result. Murrow explains clearly and carefully why this is and what the specific problems are, before suggesting (very) practical ways to swing things more in men’s favour. He takes the time to answer critics and address peoples’ concerns.

If I had one criticism of the book it would be with its structure; the problems are listed one at a time before the solutions are presented which means that at the last sentences of most chapters in the first half of the book are something like: ‘What can we do to make things better? We’ll find out in Chapter 25.’ But to be honest, that’s me being picky.

For me, five stars. Every church leader should read this book – if you think you don’t need to, the chances are that if it isn’t already, your church is at the start of a decline.

I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.

Thinking like God thinks

Image via Wikipedia

I think it’s fair to say that my thought patterns don’t follow God’s, but it would be nice to think that I’ve been heavily enough influenced by him that in most scenarios I’d be able to determine some broad principles that would fit in with his thoughts. Seem ok to say that?

Well, I was recently challenged about church sermons in terms of what tends to get preached about in comparison to what the Bible teaches. Not so much whether or not the church teaches what the Bible teaches (although of course that’s phenomenally important), but whether or not the church teaches things with the same consistency and regularity that the Bible does.

Perhaps an example will help. I reckon most churches (most, not all) teach well to some extent on money: we’re stewards, money can be good when given to God, money can be used for evil, etc etc.

But.

I certainly doubt that most churches talk as regularly on money as the Bible does. Churches tend to talk on money maybe once a year, but money apparently features in Jesus’ teaching 15% of the time. That’s a lot, like once every six or seven weeks. Certainly not as often as I’ve ever experienced it.

So I thought I’d do a quick sense check of this blog. And, surprise surprise, it turns out I don’t think like God thinks! I tend to talk about evolution, logic, abortion, the church, sex, worship, humour, the Bible, and influential leaders in the global church a lot, and significantly less (although not never, to be fair) about sin, hell, family, the poor, work, money, and so on.

What’s funny is that my immediate response to this was: ‘maybe I need to read the Bible more,’ or ‘maybe I need to listen to more sermons by influential leaders in the global church,’ both of which are in my ‘used most often’ list. Maybe I just need to be a bit more biblically balanced. Maybe I need to blog through the whole Bible.

Maybe I just need to admit I’m still under construction.

Any ideas?

Not just a number

Image via Wikipedia

Let’s not try to deny it. Churches are generally judged based on the number of people that walk in the doors on a Sunday.

This works both ways – I’ve seen leaders of small churches shouting that they want to see higher numbers, and I’ve heard them criticise megachurches for not being personal enough in terms of the fact that their 25,000 members are individuals. I’ve also seen megachurch pastors claiming, ‘it’s all about the numbers!’ as well as being moved to tears when they discover that a member of their church just feels like a faceless mark on a spreadsheet somewhere.

So here’s the thing. I think that I’m more a numbers type of guy – the idea of preaching to a crowd of tens of thousands excites me more than sharing  my thoughts to a small group around the coffee table – but there is definitely something special about sharing personal and intimate moments with only one or two others, and that’s hard to replicate on a grand scale. Looking at my friendships, the best moments are often those that are only shared by a couple of others.

I find it hard to fit God into this. The Bible is clear about the fact that the number of people who will enjoy eternity with Jesus is large, but you can’t read it and come away thinking that God doesn’t value you as an individual; if you were the only person on the entire planet Jesus would have died for you.

Somehow God is able to take the best bits of relating to people on every scale, and bring them to perfection in Jesus. Do you know what? That just means that this is something else I don’t understand about God, and it’s something else I don’t mind not getting. God’s bigger than me, and that’s absolutely great.

Not entirely linked, but my friend David has some opening thoughts about genuine community in the local church over at his new blog here. Please pay him a visit and pass on my regards.

Can church be online?

This will be brief, but I may expand on it and clarify it over time…

Online communication is just a newer technology than writing letters – I hope we can agree on that. But it’s tempting to look at online communication as if it’s a different place rather than just a method of communication. We talk about ‘going online’, ‘meeting people on the internet’, and so on.

I’ve certainly heard of churches that have been set up online, and churches which have started ‘digital campuses’. I even think there’s a church within the Second Life community – but is this biblical?

Well, the apostle John talked about this a couple of thousand years ago:

I had much to write to you, but I would rather not write with pen and ink. I hope to see you soon, and we will talk face to face. 1 John 1:13-14

John could have written more, but he didn’t want to; he recognised that being physically present with the church was better than communicating in his letter. It didn’t mean he didn’t write the letter, only that he intentionally kept that to a minimum to maximise the time they would spend together.

Would the apostle John have approved of online church communities?

Vintage Church: Timeless Truths and Timely Methods by Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears (audio)

This book pretty much does what it says on the tin. It beings by defining exactly what the church is (a very useful task), before laying out each aspect of this definition as ‘timeless truths’. The book then moves into the ‘timely methods’ half, attempting to apply the model of the church to today’s world in a way which is relevant and appealing.

Overall I really enjoyed this book – it’s informative, challenging, and communicates its message well. But I do have one minor issue which I’d highlight. Driscoll tends to speak with a weighty, compelling authority on whatever he is speaking about, whether or not he should be the authority on that area or not. At times this means that his opinions and perceptions are presented as fact, for example when writing about the multicampus church model. It’s very interesting to hear how Mars Hill Church does it, but you could read it and think that if you disagreed you were committing a sin, which I don’t think is the intention.

The narration is clear and appropriately passionate – there are a couple of occasions where I could hear that Driscoll would have phrased something slightly differently, but I don’t think it takes anything away from the audiobook at all.

My favourite chapter was around the church’s missional role, but it’s all good stuff to be honest. I’d recommend it to every leader in every church – it will challenge and provoke, and at least make you ask questions about why you do and believe certain things.

I got this audiobook for free from christianaudio.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.