Repurposed Church

God, LLC has recently relocated. The new digs: a humble but lovely church in NE Portland. I think it goes without saying that I am smug to inhabit such a once-holy venue—what with its pews and pulpit and stained glass windows. But as the veneer of sacredness quickly wears off, I'm struck by the brisk pace at which a space can be transformed from "holy" to ordinary.

Not that a live-in church is exactly ordinary.

In its olde role, as a proper church (that is to say, before I moved in) the building struggled to fulfill its intended function; the outside, unremarkable, nondescript, too small and outdated to impart credibility or attract prospective newcomers; the inside, similarly unimpressive, too tiny to accommodate anything more than a micro-congregation, at least by today's standards.

(In this respect [were I a little more like Oregon's own, Edmond Creffield], I'd image it a good place to start up a new faith—or a new 'radical' arm of some existing faith. Or a cult. Funny that we make these distinctions.)

But in its new role, as a new "church" (that is to say, since I've moved in), such a venue becomes a cavern of possibility. Its design is meant to invite, to accommodate, to direct attention forward and upward—but upward toward what? What shall we exalt here in this newly scrubbed cabin? this church without a name? this place now one-fewer for the spreading of simple, dogmatic memes?

These are the questions I am wrestling with of late. Pawing at more like. I have some ideas. Stay tuned.

In Atheism We Trust?

According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, godlessness is on the rise. Most notably, the percentage of young people (18 to 29-year-olds) who claim to have no religious affiliation has reached 25%, up 11% from a similar survey conducted in 1986. (See pewforum.org for the full report [and for interesting statistical tidbits like the "Percentage of Each State's Population that affiliates with Unaffiliated."])

But with Unbelievers on the rise, and Atheism receiving new branding from people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and others now emerging to disrupt the absurd placidity between Believers and Non-Believers, a certain portion of the "Unaffiliated" are getting anxious. It's an anxiety and excitement that I relate to readily; one born of the natural and healthy question "Okay, what's next?" That is to say, if you understand and accept the unlikelihood of the existence of a god that cares about you, hears your prayers and will—when comes the unique time and place of your demise—hold you accountable for the choices you made in your life in accordance with the instructions he left for you on the proverbial kitchen-countertop-of-life, before he went out on vacation (which seems like an eternity to us, but is really just a weekend to him)—if you regard that as being a little far-fetched and unworthy of your lifelong commitment and devotion, then—what next?

To some—particularly those who were raised religious I would imagine—the answer is something like "well, I see the value of Church, particularly in its ability to foster community, so why can't something like that still exist, only we won't worship God, we'll just get together?" This is an uplifting notion and an idea that excites me personally as a person who values community; but when it comes to uniting the words "Atheism" and "Church" I think it's important to bear in mind what the word "Atheism" is meant to describe, which is simply "a lack of belief in God." Let's not confuse it with anything more than that. You may be able to wed yourself to religion in unhealthy ways, but atheism can do nothing for you—it's kind of implicit in the definition I think. It's not an object of worship but a decision one arrives at, from where, one must decide where to go. In that way it's no sort of destination, it's a starting point, a clean slate, free from the nonsense snuck into to enclaves of our collective history. The last thing we "Unbelievers" need in the uphill battle to see that "Atheisism" does not become some sort of slur, is for it to be easily parodied (see: South Park, Richard Dawkins).

Then again, do I really care if the word takes on an even more pungent stigma, no, not really. We'll call it something else if need be, something more neutral. But I happen to like the word "Atheism". It's pleasing to me. And besides, it'll come up first in the phone book (an obvious bonus!).

So, my hope is that the word "Atheism" can be reserved to describe the negation of a "belief in God(s)", rather than one incorporated into some arched moniker (auster, and sans sarif most likely) denoting the new entrance to the former Church of Christ, now called—what—"Church of Modern Day Atheism?"

Maybe what we're really looking for is this.

Or this.

Read If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House? by Sean McManus, nymag.com, for more on burgeoning Atheism.