She Left Church, Wants to Go Back, and Tells Us Why

It sounds like she could find more community in a Unitarian Universalist church.  I’ve been a few times with my husband (he is Pagan) and though, it wasn’t really my deal, it wasn’t that bad. You’ll get a mixed bag of religions and even non-believers, but they could possibly provide what she’s looking for without all the hate and shame.

This is why I haven’t left church either.  All my friends are there and they are my second family.  It’s not so easy to just walk away.  My experience with church has been for the most part a positive one.  I’m not one of those people who were abused and mistreated.  I just came to the intellectual conclusion based on science and history that I could no longer accept Christianity as absolute truth.  

I like the Unitarians. When I admitted to myself I was an atheist, I tried to convince my kids to go to the Unitarian church, because they don’t seem to force any sort of particular doctrine on the congregation, and I DO miss the community of a church (and the choir!). Alas, the kids are used to the Lutheran liturgy and didn’t want to make the switch. What this means in practice is that I usually don’t bother with church at all, and in a reverse of the usual, the kids upbraid ME weekly for not going to church (even though none of them are really serious believers, either; it’s more of “we’ve always been Lutherans so we should go to church”).
However, to me Rachel sounds like she’s still a believer and thus will be happy in a liberal Christian church. Lutherans have the same heavy emphasis on “grace” that she does, so that might be a good denomination for her to explore. (I backed away from ELCA Lutheranism partly because officially, they STILL have not decided gay marriage is acceptable, but it’s a fairly liberal church and doesn’t generally bash gays on the church signs, either.) Episcopalianism might also be good for her (and since she lists “the book of common prayer” as one of her reasons for staying, I suspect that’s the denomination she’s chosen).

Online communities can work for casseroles and hugs, you just need to set up networks based on physical location.  I’ve cooked meals, driven people to airports, brought magazines to hospitals… all actions that were initiated by online communities.

I don’t think you need a “person” to create a community. But working towards common goals help. I’ve found excellent community in environmentalist groups, in the Red Cross and in Amnesty International. But yes, it helps if they’re local groups and not -only- people-on-the-internet even though that can be nice too.

I have found the fellowship I was craving from my running club.  Perhaps if she has a hobby that have clubs/groups in the area that could replace the “need” for church.  However, if Jesus is the reason…well there is not much I can say about that.   

Agreed.  She should try UU.  Someone can be christian and also UU, just as someone can be atheist and also UU.  They can be a supportive community as she finds her own way.  They won’t tell her she has to dump Jesus.  (They won’t tell her she has to keep Jesus, either.  That’s up to her.)

And there’s community and social justice projects, and potlucks and all the church trappings.

You’re like the EMT guy with the circular saw! Love it!

 Friends??? are there?  Really??
TRUE friends are there because they like YOU!
Not because of some myth you don’t believe.
Yes you may have lots of Xtain you know but but when you are friends based on silly reasons ten there is no real friendship.
But if they are important to you then stay in the closet, but when push comes to shove, don’t fool yourself, your true friends may be scarce.
I tried to live that way for 5 years, the tensions are not worth it.

You forgot an important point. Atheists need to work on community building *that does not involve out-group bashing.* Outsiders find this incredibly unattractive, and it will fail to “convert” followers from any religion. How can you be sure you’ll be met with compassion on the inside of a group if all you can see from the outside is their disdain for the group you’re already in? Besides, who wants to join a group when all you can see are a bunch of inside jokes that make fun of you and your friends? As Hemant has been pointing out lately, Christians have cornered a market atheists can’t seem to get a handle on: compassion. For as much as we put them down, they still beat us to the front door of a grieving neighbor (sometimes even the gay ones!). Like it or not, Christians and their religion aren’t all bad, and if we’re going to win them over, we have to *actually* pick up their good points while leaving their bad ones behind. I get that we’re right, and that evidence is on our side, but that doesn’t give us the right to be dicks about it.

Ahem #2:  Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve

Giberson — who taught physics at Eastern Nazarene College until his views became too uncomfortable in Christian academia…

 I share your irritation, but I also remember a time when I was in her shoes. Perhaps a more liberal religious environment can be a stepping stone to total deconversion. For some folks going cold-turkey can be an extremely stressful and even traumatic experience and I’m hesitant to judge those who might not be as ready to take that final leap as I was when the time came. Everyone is different and to one degree or another many people (not all) need to feel part of something larger than themselves. Is it a weakness? Perhaps. As I was always something of a lone wolf, getting away from organized religion wasn’t such a big deal. For me, the biggest hurdle was finally accepting that there was no evidence for a deity. She may never deconvert, but I will say with certainty that I would much rather have her in the voting booth than a hardcore fundamentalist. We aren’t ever going to see the total elimination of religion, so we may as well try to be understanding and at least tacitly supportive of those who come closer to our idea of what mankind should be. We all share the same planet, so we may as well try to get along as much as possible.

One of her reasons for returning to church which Hermant didn’t copy is

8. Sucking up my pride and embracing the fact that, like it
or not, I need community…and real community isn’t about surrounding
myself with people just like me

I’ve got to admit, this is seriously confusing to me, because to me it seems you could hardly find a more homogeneous group of people than in church. Besides all sharing the same supernatural beliefs, they are likely to be all of the same race and class.

?????

Maybe I’m being too sensitive, but the “church ladies are the first to show up” reason is offensive to me. I have a friend who lost a child and I literally showed up with  BBQ (and a pie!) and gave her my shoulder to cry on many times that day and many days since. Christians do not have a monopoly on caring about your friends and others in your community. I know I’m “preaching to the choir” here, but the assumption that only christians care and are worthy of some things really pisses me off.
Yesterday, I was reading an article about Patrick Greene receiving money from the christians. In the comments, people are going on about how other *christian* people deserve that money more. Apparently, being an atheist makes you undeserving of basic human needs, like healthcare and food and whatever else Mr. Greene uses that money for.
It’s just a shitty way to be treated. I care deeply for other people and I know from your comments that many of you do too. It hurts for it to be assumed that I’m always the “bad guy”, even after I go above and beyond to help out people in need, just because I believe something different. It hurts to think, that if I ever need help, some christians out there are going to say that I am undeserving of it because of my beliefs.
The article I read:  http://www.athensreview.com/local/x223905209/Atheist-flabbergasted-at-Christians-assistance

Christians are just as different as atheists.  Some believe in hell, some don’t.  The ones who believe in hell don’t agree on exactly what it will be like or who gets to go.  You have your inclusivists, exclusivists, universalists, complementarians, egalitarians, reformed, anabaptists, etc.  And this is just in my small church.

The only thing Christians agree on is that there is a God (or a least a pretty good possibility of one) and Jesus Christ was/is divine in some shape or form. 

 Well said, Carla. Of all the unpleasant experiences I’ve had on the internet, nearly all of them were due to atheist dickishness.

If there are those here who are in the same position as Rachel, I would invite you to have a look at my church.  I’m not preaching or evangelizing here , just showing you that there is a church out there that is not the stereotypical one.

http://www.brcc.net/

The winter game (sport) of curling does it for me. It generally involves at least one committed gathering per week, provides some exercise, the cost is relatively cheap, both genders can play together, it can be played by all age groups (except infants and toddlers), and it involves post game socializing. It also provides the opportunity to interact with curlers from other clubs. Religion, politics, social status, and life style are of no concern to curlers. Like church, curling is also an excellent means to become accepted into a new community.
To bad there aren’t more curling clubs in the Bible Belt. But, I expect there are other similar activities that fulfil one’s need for community.

An over-emphasis on social activities is a way churches bind members to them. They do everything to make sure their follower’s entire social life revolves around the church. That then makes it harder for them to leave. It’s not service or selflessness, but just another control mechanism

The other problem is that at it’s core, our community is joined together by what we don’t believe it, not necessarily what we believe in. We start off with a lack of belief in gods and from there we tack on things like being good for goodness sake and an appreciation for science, logic and reason. But those things aren’t requirements of being an atheist. (Though they do seem to be the requirements of being a big A Atheist, and this is the right direction). But when it comes down to it, as human beings it’s very cathartic to “bash” outsiders and join together at our common denominator. 

Humanism and big A Atheism actually show what we’re for (civility, reason, evidence-based beliefs) and this is how we should be living our lives. But as Hemant points out, we generally tend to lack a non-virtual sense of community. Now if there were only some sort of Atheist temple we could all start going to… 😉

I left the church when I became an atheist. A few months ago we found a new church – my local Unitarian Universalist fellowship. It has all the things I missed from my old church including community, fellowship, and exploration of humanism but minus the creeds, dogma, and devotion to blind faith.  Having a newborn it’s been helpful for us to network with other new parents who also want to raise their child in an environment of tolerance and diversity. They have a great children’s program that exposes them to different faiths free from indoctrination.

I am so happy to live in Phoenix, where we have socially active groups for skeptics, humanists, atheists–and any identifications in between. We have many sub-groups of hikers, foodies, book club, skeptics-in-the-pub, philanthropy…we’ve even made jewelry…something for all. A group will only be as strong as your individual levels of activity. When I want something particular, I ask for it by posting…we’re even thinking of a humanist choir for kids. Just make it happen! Out of 1200+ people in the atheist meet up, I’ve made 10 or more friends that I can really count on. Pretty good1 

No dogmas except the dogma that there are no dogmas. 🙂

I wonder why some of us didn’t fit? 

Most everything Hemant posts is of the faith-bashing variety. He could easily find news about loving, compassionate Christians, but chooses the “dickish” path daily.

But that, again, is an over-simplified view of Christianity. The heart of the Church (to borrow Evans’s terminology) is “selflessness and grace,” and there are many wonderful Christians, some of whom I’ve had the pleasure of knowing personally, who embody this. Problem is, these people are selfless and graceful. They aren’t the loudest speakers or the policy-makers; they’re the ones who show up to comfort the grieving and feed the homeless completely unthanked while the bigwigs cause problems. People leave because these voice, by their nature, are not the loudest. And people leave because, simply, the tenets of the religion, however well-intentioned, just don’t make sense. 

Your second point cannot logically follow your first. If the Christian church is not build on grace, then people doing good are not to be logically seen (especially by this community) as Christian. The reason we do not see an atheist community as selfless and graceful is because we’re not. We, by our nature, are selfish and graceless in the most positive ways I can mean that. Living by your rational mind alone is the most selfish act a man or woman can perform. Speaking that message unforgivingly and unashamedly is graceless. These are what define us. That is not to say that atheists cannot perform selfless acts, or act with grace. It is to say that those things are second, a product of our awareness of the sufferings of humanity and of our human nature. They are what should logically follow from the conclusion that there is no god to save us. If the atheist community were to write a manifesto, it should be that the realization that there is not divine grace gives us an urgent compulsion to show the grace of human love to other suffering humans. 

But the difference between us and the Christians is that we can never complete these acts with the sense of peace and assuredness that a Christian can. Because we know that we, with no divine guidance, can be wrong. We know that if we fail, there is no second chance in the afterlife. The gives us a sense of frantic urgency to our message and deeds that many people find unappealing. It is dissonant, and it is uncomfortable. How do we reconcile a chaotic world with our desire for peace? How do we reconcile horrible suffering with our inability to help? How do we reconcile injustice and privilege and wealth and poverty and…? 

The need for an atheist community, a “temple” of sorts, is to aid us in coping with this. People will not leave the Christian world of peace and community to enter the frantic, chaotic world of the atheist. Put plainly, reason hurts and ignorance is bliss. The reason you don’t see an atheist community is because those of us who have joined don’t need that support; we’re selfishly autonomous, able to cope with our dissonance through our own reason and some blogging. But those who remain Christians will need more than that if they’re ever going to join us. If we, as a community, can’t recognize and fill that need, then we will never accomplish our goal of a secular world.  

I’m one of those people who are comfortable with themselves and don’t mind being alone to a certain extent, but like all humans, I have a need to “belong” somewhere, with someone.  There are not many atheists (at least, people who admit they are atheists) in my area to meet with in person, but my husband, daughter and the many atheist blogs I visit and causes I support give me a feeling of community.  

I don’t mean selfish as in atheists can’t or do not do selfless acts or good deeds.  Of course they do. I mean that in the sense that this is the basis of their worldview.

I agree with everyone else. I was thinking of joining the UU with my family (all of us atheists) because, although I was raised atheistic and freethinking, I really would like to see a group of like-minded people at a potluck dinner from time to time without my daughter and I being treated like shit because we’re women. 

This is the worst article I’ve read in a while. She very clearly states that she desires a connection to her god through grace and communion. You can’t just pretend that she doesn’t. And saying, “I KNOW she SAID it, but what she MEANS is…” is intellectually dishonest and honestly, I have a higher standard set for this blog.

If you want to talk about the importance of community, do it. But don’t take words out of people’s mouths and don’t add words that weren’t said. That isn’t the rational reasonable atheism that we’ve come to know and love. It’s propaganda nonsense. 

Clearly some people get a lot out of the community aspect that church can provide and I can understand why they’d miss that. But I don’t agree with Hemet’s suggestion that there needs to be an atheist replacement. Why should we be a party to maintaining the divide between the religious and the irreligious? Why not “replace” church with a secular, as opposed to atheistic community? Why not join together over some shared interest, rather than over a shared lack of belief?

I think you’re projecting. Friendships are based on shared time, and it can be convenient to have a place and time that you know you’re going to see your friends. If Some Girl has a routine that works for her then why should you care?

The UU by me is about 50/50 theists/atheist.  The UU also hosts our freethought group’s meetings.

Stand up folks, and I’ve considered going mostly so my son can do the religious education classes which seem quite good.  From the services I’ve attended, it doesn’t seem to be a great fit for me personally though.

If our opinions on obscure theological points have no bearing on the real world then why did you feel the need to type a rude, sarcastic response?   

Except an atheist who does something for another person can be truly altruistic since there may be nothing in it for them. A christian will be expecting a reward, or seeking to avoid punishment, even if there’s no immediate material advantage. It’s an unavoidable part of the religion.

 If you haven’t read it I would suggest you read C.S. Lewis  Mere Christianity.  He explains very well why your impression of Christianity is not the correct impression.  Not to say that this impression is not warranted based upon what you see in some Christians, but it is incorrect in the tenets of the faith.  In Christianity we are taught that salvation comes from belief in the sacrifice of Christ and we are called to be more like him. So the whole premise of our deeds and how we deal with others is to follow his example of sacrifice to the exclusion of self.  An atheists doesn’t have that because at the end of the day there is only self.  

I’ve wondered about that a lot. I never fit in at my church either. I think, retrospectively, that it had something to do with my extreme analytical thinking. Doesn’t usually mesh well with those groups.

The most self-deprecating, nihilistic and inhumane things I’ve ever read all came from Christians.

Christianity forces you to believe that you’re created sick, wretched and sinful with no hope to ever be good in your life. Your only hope is to grovel to a tyrannical, vengeful being so you might have a chance to attain some happiness in the afterlife. I can think of nothing that devalues humanity and life as much as that

Well, Stev84. If you have an intelligent rebuttal, I’m happy to hear it. Part of the reason to have an intelligent discussion is to allow yourself to be proven wrong. If you can do so, please feel free. Otherwise, perhaps you should save your comments for times when you actually have something to say.

 Started a new post to deal with the narrowing of replies.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/03/22/she-left-church-wants-to-go-back-and-tells-us-why/#comment-474977188

 “If Some Girl has a routine that works for her then why should you care?”
Agreed. Everyone’s needs and life experiences are different. I really do understand the frustration and irritation from the atheist perspective, but it would be encouraging to see a little more compassion and balance when we approach topics such as this.
I think less lecturing and more listening are in order.

Thank you for the new thread. Those skinny comments drive me nuts!

I think we’re talking on different planes. I come from a school of psychology that denies that “true altruism” exists. It suggests instead that every action is based on a selfish desire, even if that desire is just to feel good about what you’re doing, and completely subconscious. I admit I’m completely out of date with the research, but it’s the line of thinking that’s influenced my perception of selfishness and altruism. And, because it seems necessary to clarify, I’m not arguing as an Objectivist either, although I’m familiar with the (slightly deranged) school of thought. 
So I suppose we disagree because I don’t believe in “true” altruism. And while I believe in true compassion for another, I think that compassion leads to action based on both compassion for the other and self interest, which in this case would probably be relief of cognitive dissonance brought on by inaction. To me, this is action based on rational self interest. Selfish selflessness. To me, “unselfish regard” describes and action set, not a motivation. The action of giving up your time or money is selfless, but that says nothing about your motivation, which I believe is some sort of self interest. The only people I think can have a “true” selfless motivation are the religious because they are willing to submit their reason to a higher power (and we’re talking saint-level religious here). And even then I’m willing to doubt the “true” selflessness of it. 

Hence my perspective that selfish thinking and selfish actions are two different things, and that neither are exclusively negative. I’ve always drawn a line between action and intention (neither excuses the other). Good actions can have bad motivations, and bad actions can have good motivations. I don’t think that’s “meta”, I think that’s the reality of being human. I’ve also never been a big fan of black and white; I think the world and the mind are too complex for that. (But, this too may be because of my upbringing. I was raised heavily in the Christian church, and actually planned to be a missionary one day. This, and a liberal arts education, would explain what you kindly call my literary style. It’s a habit I’m trying to break. Your patience is appreciated.)
So what I’m saying is that all humans are inherently selfish, unless we subvert that to a higher power, which is, I suppose, selfish if it’s done for self preservation…. I don’t think that’s bad, though, and I hate the negative connotation of the word. In evolutionary psychology, it means that we help our family because it helps us survive. It also doesn’t mean that we can’t do good things, or that good things are any less good if they’re done out of self interest, or even that self interest is bad. We began this conversation talking about outside perceptions of atheists. To Christians, the idea that we are able to be moral because we can decide for ourselves what’s right is selfish. To them that’s negative, and to me that ‘s good. Does that make sense?

In post-script… It stormed all last night, and I’m at work at 8am on a Saturday, and I’m only through half of my coffee, so bear with me. I’m not entirely sure that all made sense. But I don’t have a computer at home, and it’s gonna be a bust day, so time’s up for now. >.<
Also, awesome:
"superhumancalifragilisticexpialidocious"

 Carla,

I enjoy philosophy as a social pastime but there is a practical limit of what can be applied to the real world, this is especially true of metaphysics which is a form of philosophy. When regarding the world, or any concepts attempting to find purchase in it, I tend to be literalistic.

Terms like “selfish”, “altruism” are adjectives, describing character in relation to an action. It is like the word “On” in terms of a light switch, it can only be “On” or “Off”, “Dim” is still “On”. In philology(metaphysics) and quantum mechanics (to be fair), we can debate ad nauseam, that something can be On and Off simultaneously, or that there are varying degrees of “On”. But none of this matters in the real world or on my electric bill.

One cannot be selfish and selfless, these are opposite terms and cannot coexist in the same space. One can be selfish THEN selfless or selfless THEN selfish as separate actions, just not together, especially in terms of concluding the same action. Even if we examine time and space in a microcosmic sense, and isolate the moment in which one’s action would be “selfish” it is ultimately superseded the moment the “selfless”  act is committed.

I understand the arguments you are asserting, I am saying, they don’t apply outside of philosophy. 

Actually you are attempting to ascribe degrees of worth to “compassion”. Basically saying there is an inherit difference between Christian compassion and everything else. This is a philosophical debate, as I stated to Carla, it has limited real world significance. 

I personally think  it undermines compassion and altruism to predicate worth of such things to faith. It means a Mormon is free to devalue and discredit the contributions of Baptists, Baptists in turn can do the same to Catholics, and under the banner of Christianity, all can unite to lessen the positives done by non-Christians. Charity is charity no matter who does it, by promoting the idea that those of faith are better at it, you assert bragging rights, making charity a contest, thus evidencing the selfishness of Christianity.

Sorry, Rwlawoffice, we seem to have broken rank. I have never meant to suggest that the Christian’s worldview was in any way better than the atheist’s, nor that Christians could somehow be more altruistic. I said that Christians (well, selflessness, but we seem to be combining the two) can do good in spite of themselves. I find it ultimately it more good (Yes, I meant to do that. And yes, it works grammatically.) that atheists do good because of themselves. In other words, because we know that we’re good people doing good for good’s sake. We don’t have to put ourselves aside to do good; we’re happy to believe that we’re good people as it is. We don’t need saved because there’s nothing wrong with us. If I imagine that I’m putting aside my evil nature in sacrifice to a god who’s compelling me to do good for my salvation… let’s just say that doesn’t jive with my idea of living. Good things can come of it, yes. But please don’t pretend that makes your good better than ours. 

“But it is in the worldview where there is a difference at the end of the day.”

I wholeheartedly believe if you walked away from faith today, the sum of your contributions and character would not change. So you can argue causality till the end of time, it is the sum of one’s experiences which dictates how an individual evolves mentally and socially. Therefore being atheistic or theistic based has no influence “at the end of the day.”

Yeah, can’t we do one step better for Atheists and Humanists than the UUs? I think we can, and it is called Humanism. Check out the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard, the Humanist Community of Central Ohio, and the Humanist Community in Silicon Valley, as different examples of how do to Humanism in a community setting. 

“We cannot have this discussion if you keep using loaded, simplified versions of words that can have many meanings and connotations.”

The words in discussion are not loaded. They don’t have multiple meanings and are therefor limited in their scope of application. Don’t fault me for insisting they be used in proper context.

As for being “a bit personal”, possibly, this whole debate started after I acknowledged the deeds I perform as being altruistic (by definition). Which you called “selfish”, which is a polar opposite.

For sake of the argument, the ‘joy’ I receive (selfish by your definition) as a ‘reward’ for helping others, how are Christians above such selfishness?

15. Grace, grace, grace, grace, grace, grace, grace

I don’t even get this reason. It seems like Rachel is still convinced she’s a terrible person in need of forgiveness and redemption from a deity. So since she believes she’s an awful “sinner,” the thought of a god offering her grace for being imperfect feels necessary? Have I got that right? This is why even liberal Christianity sounds horrible to me. There’s nothing wrong with Rachel, but she can’t accept that because the notion that she’s inherently broken and sinful has been driven into her her entire life.

 Atheists don´t believe the word was created for them, christians do. Open your mind just a little bit further, you´ll see how dulusional you are.