So, this week on TIJ I’m not going to read an article to begin, as is my wont, but rather just dive into the subject itself. I was inspired by a Washington Post article by Perry Bacon Jr. who is a professional journalist, who wrote an article entitled: I left the church — and now long for a ‘church for the nones’…but there seem to be other titles including I’m no longer religious. But I still want Church and I used to be a Christian. Now I miss Church.
The article is quite long—pushing 2,400 words—so, as I said, we’re not going to read it. But I will give a very brief summary. This man who claims to have been a Christian—though he admits he never actually believed in God or the Resurrection of Jesus—has lost whatever faith he had because Trump et cetera. But now he realizes how much he misses what a church provides.
Now, there is much to criticize in this man’s article. He makes ludicrous claims and demonstrates a failure to understand rudimentary theological truths. But the article is extremely useful because he’s honest enough to admit two things.
First, he states that churches provide encouragement, fellowship, moral instruction, and more.
Second, he laments that despite many American youths having a “church-shaped hole,” and his desire for there to be a secular church neither he nor anyone else is willing to put forth the effort to create one—and even though he thinks it would meet the needs of many that it wouldn’t succeed.
Let me read an excerpt from the conclusion:
Kids need places to learn values like forgiveness, while schools focus on math and reading. Young adults need places to meet a potential spouse. Adults with children need places to meet with other parents and some free babysitting on weekends. Retirees need places to build new relationships, as their friends and spouses pass away.
Our society needs places that integrate people across class and racial lines. Newly woke Americans need places to get practical, weekly advice about how to live out the inclusive, anti-racist values that they committed to during the Trump years. The anti-Trump majority in the United States needs institutions that are separate from the official Democratic Party, which is unsurprisingly more focused on winning elections than in creating a sense of community for left-leaning people.
There are lots of organizations trying to address those needs. But strong churches could address them all. That isn’t some fantasy or nostalgia. Many Americans, including me, were once part of churches that were essential parts of our lives. It’s strange to me that America, particularly its left-leaning cohort, is abandoning this institution, as opposed to reinventing to align with our 2023 values.
I can easily imagine a “church for the nones.” (It would need a more appealing name.) Start the service with songs with positive messages. Have children do a reading to the entire congregation and then go to a separate kids’ service. Reserve time when church members can tell the congregation about their highs and lows from the previous week. Listen as the pastor gives a sermon on tolerance or some other universal value, while briefly touching on whatever issues are in the news that week. A few more songs. The end. An occasional post-church brunch.
During the week, there would be activities, particularly ones in which parents can take their kids and civic-minded members can volunteer for good causes in the community.
I don’t expect the church of the nones to emerge. It’s not clear who would start it, fund it or decide its beliefs. But it should.
And personally, I really, really want it to. Theologically, I’m comfortable being a none. But socially, I feel a bit lost.
As I’ve already said, I could take a very ungenerous and uncharitable read of this article, and I could just dunk on it. But I don’t think that would be helpful. And I don’t think that it would be of any benefit to Christians. Because the purpose of this broadcast is to apply the word of God to current events. This means helping believers (and curious unbelievers) to understand how the Bible relates to what’s going on in the world. This article very much addresses things going on in the world. There are, he’s correct, many people not going to church who are experiencing appreciable social, moral, and personal deficits. Or to put it another way: the author is right that people need church and they aren’t getting enough of it.
And he’s also right that the idea of a Godless church is a bit of a lead balloon. There are certainly lots of people who want the benefits of church without all the fusty and politically-incorrect theology and dogmatism. He mentions the Universalist Unitarians, a denomination of hyper-liberals that started in the 1960s. But this denomination has always been small—never having total membership over 300,000 people.
Moreover, the Universalist Unitarians aren’t exactly the same thing—they at least pretend to be Christian—what Mr. Bacon is talking about is a church that wouldn’t have any pretense of being Christian. Of course, it will borrow an awful lot from Christian morality and ethics and just call it universal or self-evident…and that’s one of his biggest theological failings…but he wants to go further.
But, again, as he laments: there is little to no significant interest in such a project.
And then he accidentally reaches the most important truth (or at least he comes dangerously close to addressing it). He recognizes that it is unclear who, and I’m quoting directly, “Would start it, fund it or decide its beliefs.” Once more, I must say, that it would be very easy to dunk on him claiming that directing the beliefs of the church of universal values would be a challenge. I could do that, and I must admit I want to. But I’m not going to, because I think deep-down, his use of the term “universal values” is more wishful thinking than an actual anthropological assessment.
He's dangerously close to stumbling on an earth-shaking and atheism shattering truth here. So close, methinks, he may have written this to distract himself. You see, friends, he says that he can’t imagine who would lead, fund, guide, and direct an atheist church. He can’t imagine it because he can’t see how a significant number of people who have a “why.”
Human behavior needs a “why.” People do things for “why”s and when the “why” is lacking so is the behavior.
Atheists lack a why. And this is true in MANY domains. But it is especially important here.
Now, don’t get me wrong; atheists and agnostics have motivations. I don’t find their motivations to be particularly compelling or philosophically consistent. But they have them. But if you look at what motivates the atheist or agnostic to organize it’s often a utopian political gambit. Republicanism in France, Marxism/ Leninism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Progressivism in America—these atheist/ agnostic organizations often mirror the church with ceremony, rites and rituals, ecclesiastical vestments, et cetera. But the motivating factor, the why is political and social change. There’s something to do. There’s a reason to show up. There’s a call to action.
That’s why Socialism continues to be such a powerful force in world politics. It’s not because Marx was on to something. Communism is one of the most thoroughly busted theories out there. People don’t become communists or socialists because the supporting arguments are rigorous and there’s meaningful experimental data. Just the opposite. People become communists because they want to be part of a movement that will change the world. It’s an ethical claim. Heeding the call, and becoming a communist is like taking the first step in the hero’s journey, answering the “call to adventure” to borrow Joseph Campbell’s monomyth language. Communism has a “why.” I think it’s a bad why—but it’s a why.
There’s a reason people join utopian political movements. It’s because there’s a motivating factor.
But despite the gigantic cohorts of people in this country who are, in Bacon’s own words, “woke” and who are atheist/ agnostic and who realize that they would gain from the social and personal benefits of a church, he doesn’t believe that an atheist/ agnostic woke church that is divorced from the Democrat party is feasible.
What he wants is quite literally an organization that he knows he wants but which has no reason for existing. Sure, there are philosophy clubs, and debating organization, and choirs, and political organizations, et cetera. But what’s to bring all these groups together? And why should they sing songs? And why should they have potlucks? And why should they avoid ties to a political party? And how can they determine their guiding values? He speaks of children doing “readings.” Whence come these readings?! Martin Luther King? Ghandi? MLK is being problematized and will be cancelled soon and very soon and Ghandi has been problematic for a long time!
What he wants can’t happen. Or at least not on any great scale, because it lacks a motivating principle. Why should atheists and agnostics join together to do church things? Because it will benefit them?! So will a brisk walk.
What I think that Mr. Bacon is dangerously close to realizing, and what he may have already realized, is that the motivating principle for Christian churches is being in Christ. That’s what makes sense. If you’re in Christ you will desire to be with the rest of you. Christians, real Christians, real Christians who are walking in the Spirit desire to be with other Christians. You can’t help it. If you’re a real believer walking with the Lord you’re going to desire to be with other believers. Magnets attract. You want to be with yourself. And like the phantom pains of a truncated limb or finger, to be separated from other believers is painful. We desire to be one. We long to be together.
We don’t sing because we wish to experience the psychological magic that comes when we put our faith into rhythmic and rhyming poetry—though that’s true and a benefit—we sing because we cannot keep from singing! We sing because we’re in Christ. Because we have something—Someone—to sing about. We sing because we want to be one with the rest of our-self making something beautiful.
We share meals because when we share a meal with other believers we’re sharing with our own self because we’re all one in Christ. Just as the man and wife are one flesh so believers are all one in Christ. We long to be together because only together are we complete.
We read the scriptures because they’re about Christ—in Whom we are and Who’s in us. We preach sermons because we desire to become more of what we already are, to reach maturity. We’re in Christ and we desire to be like Christ and to experience Christ in us all the more.
We celebrate the sacraments because we wish to experience oneness with Christ and unity with eachother.
The church service exists because of a desire for believers to be together and to experience God and to worship Him.
What would an atheist/ agnostic service exist for? Make no mistake, I know that there are all sorts of atheists and agnostics who go to churches and whole denominations that are practical atheists and people experience encouragement and fellowship. But this is mimicry. And the evidence seems to suggest that that mimicry matters to people who grew up in a Chrisitanized society, but that people who have never had it struggle to fake it. Liberalism has had a good long run, running on the fumes of people who were part of groups that had a why. Liberalism has come out of a tradition that had a why—being in Christ—and that’s been enough to keep it going, as erroneous or half-hearted as it may be. But they were able to sing a song from memory. Liberal boomers kept going to churches that abandoned orthodoxy because they were used to it, and many of them, genuinely believed that they were getting to the TRUTH of Christianity and still believed that they were experiencing God. Their motive was the same motive as the orthodox. They may have believed that God was just like them, but they believed that there was one and that He had something to say and something for them to experience.
I think they’re wrong about who God is—but God is their why.
But the atheist/ agnostic doesn’t have that why. Their church wouldn’t be about anything. Sure they could make it about utopianism and make it a political organization. Sure. But then it would be a party and not a church. I think Mr. Bacon realizes that the only way for church to work is through faith. Church needs faith. It doesn’t work without it. Again, I think that a lot of, ahem, “churches” have a heretical and false faith—but it’s faith all the same. And heretical movements have a way of dying off over time. But the orthodox faith survives. If the Lord tarries Progressivism and Wokism will come and go and if he tarries longer they will come and go again in another form. But the true faith will remain.
And in closing that’s the encouragement and the instruction I hope to bring. Everyone in Christianity is trying to find the silver bullet to regrow our churches and to win the world. People ask—why are people abandoning church? It’s simple. Either they don’t have Christ in them—or they have been trained to believe that they won’t find Christ in Church.
The answer to our present woes is simple. We have to give people Christ. That’s what churches must do is present Christ. Give people Jesus in our words, in our readings, in our songs, in our sermons, in our sacraments, in our meals, and service, and in how we love. Christ is the answer. Not leadership. Not transformation. Not marketing or outreach or visions or missions or growth strategies or focus groups or committees or gurus or consultants. And it isn’t getting in touch with the young people or knowing the latest slang. And it’s not in trying to be relevant.
It's Christ.
It’s only Christ.
It’s always been Christ.
Christ is the answer.
Christ is the why.
We need to give people Christ. That’s not just they why for church, as a Sunday gathering. That’s the why for the Church as the body of Christ and our existence on this earth as individuals.
We need Christ.
The world needs Christ.
Let’s seek Him and seek to share Him.