FreethoughtJournal.com

Freethought forums: micro-communities fostering a rationally compassionate world

This is my 7600-word manifesto describing a simple way for freethinkers to hold interactive meetings for fellowship and mutual learning for the betterment of their own lives and the advancement of freethought in the world. Reading time is about half an hour. For a shorter summary, see Freethought forums: an introduction.

The concept of freethought forums, as described here, is a simple and flexible way for freethinkers to come together for fellowship, mutual learning, and personal growth—while also helping to advance freethought more broadly in the world.

This isn’t about forming a formal organization. The term "freethought forums" is used here purely as a descriptive label to share an idea—one that anyone is free to use or adapt in ways that best serve their goals in promoting freethought.

Expanding the reach and impact of freethought doesn’t require an elite academic setting or intellectual gatekeeping. Freethought is relevant to everyday life and touches on practical issues that affect everyone. It’s a living, accessible approach to thinking critically, engaging with others, and improving individual lives and society as a whole.

Freethought as epistemology, not ideology

Freethought is best understood not as a belief system, but as an epistemology—a way of arriving at knowledge that emphasizes evidence, reason, and intellectual independence. At its core, freethought rejects appeals to assumed authority, insisting that beliefs should be proportioned to the evidence supporting them. As such, freethought is less about what someone believes than how someone comes to believe it.

This makes freethought inherently opposed to false reasoning, cognitive bias, and uncritical acceptance of inherited beliefs. But importantly, it also means that freethought itself should not be seen as endorsing any specific conclusions, including religious or irreligious ones. Any particular beliefs held by freethinkers—be they atheistic, theistic, or agnostic—are the result of the reasoning processes, not tenets of freethought itself.

Despite this, freethought is often closely associated with atheism and humanism, largely because many people who identify as freethinkers are atheists. As a result, some have come to conflate freethought with atheism, treating non-belief as a prerequisite for being a "true" freethinker. This framing often positions theist or agnostic freethinkers as imposters within the movement.

This conflation is understandable, given how language and social identity work. Terms like “Christianity”, for example, can refer narrowly to scriptural doctrine, or more broadly to cultural and institutional traditions. Similarly, “science” can refer narrowly to the scientific method, or more broadly to the social practice of scientific inquiry. Freethought as a social movement may be dominated by atheists, but that doesn’t mean that atheism defines freethought in principle.

Defining freethought strictly as an epistemological approach—rather than as a bundle of conclusions—helps keep its purpose clear and consistent. Epistemology, after all, is concerned with the methods and justification of belief, not the content of belief itself. From this perspective, an atheist presupposition—that is, assuming the non-existence of gods before examining evidence—violates freethought's core principle: that conclusions must follow from evidence, not precede it.

To be clear, this doesn’t mean atheism is inherently irrational. A person may reasonably arrive at atheism through freethinking. But to begin with atheism as a default or axiomatic stance—just as beginning with theism as a given—runs counter to the spirit of freethought. Freethought requires openness to wherever sound reasoning and evidence may lead, even if that includes conclusions we might personally find uncomfortable.

Simple, participatory, non-institutional freethought meetings

I’m a freethinker—non-religious, but not an atheist—and the meetings I host reflect that perspective. The format I use is simple, informal, participatory, and deliberately non-institutional. Theists and non-theists alike are welcome. All that’s required to attend—and even to give a prepared talk—is an understanding of what freethought is, agreement with our shared purpose, a personal connection to someone in the group, and an invitation. That last point exists purely because the meetings are private.

I refer to them as “my meetings” because I’m speaking specifically about the gatherings I personally organize. I have no interest in controlling how others run theirs. In fact, I strongly encourage people to start their own versions, even if they branch off from mine and take attendees with them. This kind of experimentation and organic growth is healthy—for personal freedom, and for the broader spread of freethought.

What I’m doing isn’t about creating an organization or building a branded institution. There’s no name, no franchise, no overarching group identity. Just a network of personal relationships built around shared values. Because of that, I don’t feel the need to manage a collective image or reputation based on what other groups might do.

The model I use is consciously inspired by the non-institutional, relationally based house church format—because it works. It allows people to focus on the purpose of the meetings without being burdened by unnecessary structure, administration, or formality. It’s a practical, efficient, and human-centered way to bring freethinkers together in meaningful dialogue.

I'll summarise the meeting concept and format, and then provide some background, contrasting my ideas with those of the non-religious Sunday Assembly, which is modelled after the institutional church.

The initial group: Sunshine Coast, Queensland, Australia

"Freethought forums", as I call them, are informal gatherings for freethinking friends to share fellowship and advance freethought in a way that is unapologetically influenced by a house church concept involving no registered organisation or money-handling, and allowing anyone present to speak or raise questions on freethought-related topics.

The initial approach to meetings here on the Sunshine Coast, in Queensland, Australia, is as follows:

Overview of meeting format

Overview of meeting schedule

  1. Arrival and informal mingling (15 minutes)

    Attendees arrive and enjoy snacks, drinks, and casual conversation before the meeting begins.

  2. Ice-breaker (10 minutes max)

    A short round where everyone briefly shares something about themselves to encourage connection and ease into the discussion.

  3. Pep talk (2–5 minutes)

    The host speaks briefly on a topic related to the purpose and structure of the group. If newcomers are present, a slightly more detailed introduction may be provided.

  4. Prepared talks (up to 100 minutes)

    Anyone who wishes may give a short prepared talk (2–5 minutes) on a freethought-related topic. Each talk is followed by a brief Q&A session. The combined time for each speaker, including questions, is capped at 10 minutes. Although the structure allows for up to 10 speakers, that many is uncommon.

  5. Announcements and activities (up to 20 minutes)

    Attendees may share brief announcements about freethought-related activities or initiatives they are involved in. Each speaker gets 1 minute to present, with an optional 1 minute for questions. Activities may include educational projects, outreach efforts, or campaigns to challenge false or harmful beliefs. If someone wants to explain an initiative in more depth, they’re encouraged to use a prepared talk slot earlier in the meeting.

  6. Post-meeting social time

    After the formal agenda concludes, attendees are welcome to continue socialising with snacks and drinks. Food and drink are also typically allowed throughout the meeting itself.

This model is intentionally simple, non-institutional, and focused on real relationships rather than structure or branding. It's meant to be easily reproducible, adaptable, and free of unnecessary administrative overhead—helping freethinkers engage meaningfully without turning their meetings into yet another organisation.

Meeting format and practicalities

Privacy and invitations

The private nature of the meetings is important to ensure they don't fall under the category of public events that might require public liability insurance. When meetings are held in a venue like a restaurant, that venue will typically carry its own insurance. To maintain private status, attendance is by invitation only, and limited to people who are personally known to existing group members. These may be newer acquaintances, but there should be at least some prior interaction—either through direct conversation or a shared context (e.g. having met briefly at a local sports event). The inviter should familiarise the invitee with what the meetings are about and how they work, and should ask invitees to respond to the RSVP requests.

Anyone who has attended one or more meetings may invite someone they know to a future meeting, following the same principle, but invited people attending for the first time should not bring along anyone else who is unknown to existing group members.

Confirming attendance

All attendees should RSVP by a specified date prior to the meeting. This helps us determine whether to go ahead with the meeting and to make any practical arrangements—such as reserving a table if the meeting is held at a restaurant.

Venues and times

Venues may be anywhere in the Sunshine Coast Region, but are more likely to be more often in or near Buderim than anywhere else. Venues may include members' homes, restaurants, cafes, parks, beaches, small meeting halls or rooms, and the like.

The type of venue may influence the meeting schedule. Public venues like beaches generally require daylight hours, making weekend mornings a good option. On the other hand, meetings are typically short enough to be held on weeknights, starting around 7pm. In such cases, snacks are usually included, but not dinner, unless the venue is a restaurant, in which case attendees are free to order and eat during the meeting.

Meetings are not necessarily held at regular times or places. Members are free to indicate what ranges of times and locations suit them to help ensure suitable meetings can be planned.

Typical duration

Although the rare maximum meeting time could exceed two hours—if there are 10 speakers each using the full 5-minute limit, plus mingling time—most meetings are shorter. Here's a general guide to timing:

These estimates do not include the optional announcement segment at the end, which may add a few extra minutes. Shorter meetings allow more time for post-meeting socialising or informal discussion of the topics. If needed, we can experiment by limiting the number of speakers.

Food

Participants are free to bring their own food and drink and are free to eat at any time before, after or during the meeting, regardless of whether the meeting is at a mealtime.

Meeting components

The ice-breaker

The ice-breaker activity typically involves a light question that gives everyone a chance to say something about themselves. The goal is to make participants feel relaxed and welcome—so questions should never be too personal or potentially uncomfortable. The prompt should also always include a reminder for attendees to say their first name as part of their introduction.

The pep talk

Following the ice-breaker, the host gives a short pep talk, which may include:

This segment sets the tone for the meeting and reinforces the purpose and values of the group without being overly formal or rigid.

After the pep talk follows the heart of the meeting—the talks.

Talks and speaking guidelines

Any eligible meeting attendee is welcome to present a talk, provided time permits. Speaking is entirely optional. The host, in additional to the pep talk, may also present a talk during this segment of the meeting in the same way that other attendees do, though this is also optional.

Talk requirements

Topics do not need to be submitted to the meeting host beforehand.

Speaker selection and timing

At the beginning of the talk segment, all attendees with a prepared talk indicate their interest in speaking, and numbers are drawn to determine the order. Talks are timed during the meeting as follows:

Speakers are expected to finish promptly after the final alarm, though a few sentences of wrap-up is acceptable if speakers overshoot the time limit—we aim for courtesy, not rigidity.

Post-talk discussion

After each talk, up to 5 minutes is available for audience members to ask simple questions or make very brief comments, either to the speaker or to the group. Discussion participants should actively avoid dominating the time slot, since it is so short. If a discussion looks likely to go longer, it should be:

Multiple rounds of talks

Participants are welcome to prepare more than one talk in advance. If time allows, and all first-round speakers have finished, a second round can begin. Rules for additional rounds:

Time limits and cut-offs

If time runs out before all first-round speakers have presented, they will receive priority at the next meeting. These carryover talks are drawn separately and presented first. Second- or further-round talks do not carry over.

If there are few or no speakers

If a meeting has few or no prepared talks, any spare time can be used informally for open discussion. This can be a valuable opportunity to explore freethought topics that may inspire participants to prepare talks for future meetings.

What qualifies as a valid topic for a 2- to 5-minute talk?

A valid topic is one that embodies the principles of freethought by doing one of the following: providing insight on the topic of freethought itself; promoting freethought action; or using evidence and reasoning to challenge false beliefs.

The last of these is likely to be the most common at the meetings. Concerning that category, while any topic that involves careful reasoning and sound evidence may seem appropriate, a true freethought topic goes a step further: it includes a corrective element. That is, it actively confronts and seeks to correct misinformation, flawed assumptions, or false authorities.

For example, a talk titled "We should all eat vegetables to stay healthy" would not qualify, even if it’s evidence-based, because it simply affirms a widely accepted truth without addressing any significant misconception. Freethought, by its very nature, arose as a response to flawed or dogmatic thinking. Without the need to challenge false ideas, there would be little reason for freethought to exist as a distinct movement.

The corrective element doesn’t have to be dramatic. Consider the belief that breathing through the mouth is just as healthy as breathing through the nose—a casual, common assumption. A talk that challenges this idea and argues for the health benefits of nasal breathing qualifies as a freethought topic because it corrects a false or uninformed belief, even if it's relatively benign.

This example also illustrates that freethought isn't limited to grand ideological debates or religious critique. It's not just about atheists challenging theology. Freethought is an epistemology—a way of knowing—rather than a fixed set of beliefs. It applies to all areas of life and, when pursued with moral intent, could be considered one of the greatest needs in education today.

The purpose behind the topic

The purpose of any freethought talk is ultimately to improve people's lives. That said, the benefit doesn’t always need to be explicitly stated. A talk like "Why Mormons are wrong", for instance, doesn’t require the speaker to spell out its usefulness. It may be valuable simply because it equips listeners to engage more thoughtfully with Mormon missionaries, or to expand their general understanding of religious claims.

Format and participation

The short time frame—2 to 5 minutes—and the participatory nature of the meetings serve a few important purposes: they keep the discussion dynamic, prevent any one topic from dominating, and ensure a diversity of voices and ideas.

Participants are free to return to the same topic over multiple meetings, provided they don’t repeat the same material in the same session. Each presentation must offer something new. And if a speaker’s repeated focus on a single subject becomes tiresome? Well, it’s only five minutes or less at a time. You can handle it.

Tips for preparing talks

People vary in their level of confidence with public speaking or anything similar, which in this case includes "private speaking", since our meetings are private. We want everyone to feel welcome to speak, regardless of the topics they like to address or the level of detail they cover. Some people will tend to stick to certain types of topics because of their interests, knowledge, personality type, and other factors. More variety comes from having a diverse membership. So feel free to address the topics you want to address, and if you're afraid you won't be fluent while eyes are on you, feel free to write your talk out in full and read it from the text at the meeting.

If you have trouble organising your ideas or feel like you're too slow or lacking the time to write talks on a regular basis, try using the help of AI. Having tried this myself specifically for preparing a freethought forum talk, I can vouch for its helpfulness. My test involved imagining how I would go about preparing a talk about how the gospel accounts of Jesus' birth demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the new testament. I could remember certain factors and verses that I wanted to include, and simply asked ChatGPT to find them and work them into an essay of a certain length, and it worked well for that purpose. ChatGPT wasn't good at writing to a word limit at the time, but you can edit from the starting point it provides, and it may have since improved. Other AI services may be better at various aspects of the process.

I'm not suggesting that you get AI to do all your writing for you, nor that you assume it's always factually correct. You are responsible for the talk you present, and should check all claims of fact. So consider using AI to save time, but make sure the talk is still essentially your own work.

Most people speak or read out loud at a rate of 130-160 words per minute. Time yourself reading a passage out loud to determine your own rate. Then use that for guidance on how much to write. For example, if your rate is 145 words a minute, you could write anything from 290 words (for a 2-minute talk) to 725 words (for a 5-minute talk). Then time yourself reading your talk to ensure it does turn out as you expect and remains within the time limits.

One suggestion for thinking of topics is simply to read widely. One means I've recently found is to use the app called Blinkist, which summarises books in articles that take about 15-20 minutes to read. One of my reads was the summary of Think Again, by Adam Grant. It encourages recognition of your own blindspots, being more open to changing your mind, and provides evidence that being less dogmatic or black-and-white in your explanations avoids unnecessarily provoking reactions that hinder people from becoming aware of their own false beliefs. So that's right up freethought's alley.

Branching into new freethought groups

As meetings grow—whether reaching the recommended maximum of 10 participants or simply becoming difficult to manage even with fewer people—it’s encouraged that one or more members consider starting their own groups, with separate meeting times and venues.

In fact, anyone is free to start a new group at any time, and to structure it however they wish. There’s no requirement for uniformity. New groups can be announced during the announcement time at the end of any meeting. And of course, there’s no restriction on being part of more than one group or attending multiple meetings led by different people.

Branching out may happen for a variety of reasons: group size, leadership style, meeting philosophy, social dynamics, outreach priorities, scheduling needs, preferred venues—or even personal disagreements. All of these are valid. If you feel the need to start, join, or switch to a different group, you should feel free to explore that path.

If a new group forms and draws people because of strong leadership, that’s a good outcome. It creates space for both groups to grow and diversify, advancing the cause of freethought more broadly. Personally, I would support such leaders, and may even visit their meetings to learn from them.

Anyone who leaves a group is always welcome to return—if a standing invitation remains. There’s no shame in changing your mind, trying different groups, or participating in multiple ones permanently or temporarily.

That said, because my own meetings are private, I reserve the right to exclude individuals who, after reasonable efforts to resolve issues, are still disruptive to the group. This would be a rare action, taken only when necessary.

Keep in mind: disagreement is often more common in freethought groups than in traditional churches or clubs. That’s because we welcome open, critical discussions—even on controversial topics. Our goal should be to handle disagreement graciously, rather than to avoid difficult conversations by creating restrictive rules.

For those starting new groups: you are free to make your meetings public if you choose, but I strongly recommend caution. Consider the responsibilities that come with public advertising, including public liability risks, unpredictable group sizes, logistical challenges, and whether you should register an incorporated association to manage these complexities.

In many cases, branching off is not a sign of division, but of growth. It’s an opportunity to expand the reach of freethought and adapt it to the diverse needs and preferences of different individuals and communities.

The non-institutional church background

Having addressed the practical aspects of running freethought meetings, I’d like to explain how the format is influenced by principles drawn from non-institutional, largely non-hierarchical biblical house churches—models where participation is open and every individual can contribute meaningfully during gatherings.

This stands in contrast to the institutional church model, which has also shaped the structure of the Sunday Assembly—a secular organization with around 50 congregations globally. While I appreciate the intent behind Sunday Assemblies, I’m not drawn to their institutional format, for reasons I’ll outline below.

The influence of house churches

In countries where Christians face persecution, the underground church often functions without buildings, staff, or formal structures. These non-institutional fellowships operate through shared leadership and grassroots participation. However, few Western Christians—and even fewer freethinkers—have encountered this kind of church model firsthand. As a result, it may not be immediately obvious how a freethought meeting could reflect such a structure.

Yet long before I left Christianity—after concluding it was untrue—I firmly believed that all essential church functions could be carried out without an institution and without centralized finances. That conviction hasn't changed, and it influences how I now approach the freethought community.

Why institutions seem necessary—but aren't

To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with forming an organization when it’s necessary for a group's operations. And yes, there are practical issues—such as legal liability and responsible money handling—that sometimes make registration unavoidable. But there are also workable alternatives.

Most of the elements that bind a church to institutionalism—paid staff, dedicated buildings, official names and branding, financial tithing, and property management—require centralized control and formal rules. These in turn necessitate money handling, which typically requires organizational registration for transparency and accountability.

But if you can eliminate the need to handle pooled money, you eliminate the primary justification for institutionalizing a group. In that way, designing a model that avoids shared finances becomes a key to sustaining a socially and intellectually purposeful community that doesn't need to operate as an official organization.

A model for freethought groups

Freethought groups, unlike churches, are not bound by a fixed set of biblically defined functions. They have the freedom to define their own purpose. Even so, a house church model can still serve as an inspiration for freethought meetings—especially those that value participatory discussion, peer learning, and minimal hierarchy.

By drawing on this non-institutional heritage, we can build communities that are flexible, inclusive, and sustainable—without the burdens and limitations of institutional structures.

How can a church operate without centrally handled money?

A church doesn't need centrally handled money to function. Its core activities—worship, prayer, preaching, teaching, and helping people—can all be carried out without paid staff or official buildings. If these essentials can be fulfilled without renting venues or managing pooled funds, then there's no inherent need for a formal budget or financial administration.

And, of course, freethought discussion meetings like mine have even fewer core activities, since we don't sing or pray.

The question of tithes and offerings

Some Christians argue that the practice of tithing and offering requires formal money collection, which in turn necessitates registration as an organization. This view often stems from the belief that such practices are divinely commanded for the church. However, a closer look at biblical theology—specifically the shift from the Old to the New Covenant—shows otherwise.

Tithing was mandated under the Old Covenant, and this includes the references Jesus makes to it in the Gospels, which were spoken before the crucifixion, when the Old Covenant was still in effect. Under the New Covenant, while giving is encouraged, there are no commands requiring churches to regularly collect and pool money.

Institutional expectations versus scriptural simplicity

Additionally, the idea that a church's members must all meet together in one place at the one time, or own a building, or operate a school or Bible college, has no scriptural basis. These are cultural norms, not spiritual necessities.

Worship, prayer, preaching, and teaching can happen in homes, shared spaces, or public places—none of which necessarily involve expenses. Costs arise when churches rely on rented venues, equipment, or institutional infrastructure. Even music licensing isn't essential if congregations write and use their own songs, which many have the talent to do.

Helping without handling money

As for helping others, this too often doesn’t require pooled resources. Often, financial help can be given directly to those in need, without routing it through a central fund or institution.

In short, if churches strip away institutional dependencies, they can discover that most of what the Bible states Christians should do can be done freely, collaboratively, and without financial overhead.

The advantages of private home meetings

While there’s no rule against a church handling money centrally, it’s entirely possible for a church to function without it. One obvious way to do this is by meeting in venues that don’t require payment—most commonly, the homes of its members. This is why house churches offer a strong model for other non-institutional social groups: they reduce complexity, eliminate financial overhead, and promote relational community.

Addressing the question of liability

One possible remaining objection may be the need for public liability insurance. An association without its own legal entity can't have its own public liability insurance, which means even an unincorporated association with office-bearers can't have it. As a result, any legal action for negligent harm is likely to be taken against individuals. So associations that interact with the public tend to prefer becoming legal entities so that they can hold public liability insurance, among other reasons. And certain types of associations in Australia that interact with the public are required to have public liability insurance anyway, which means they are required to be registered organisations with their own legal entity.

That alone may make it seem conclusive that a church or any functionally similar social group in Australia must be registered. But that's not the case, for a reason which is perhaps not obvious - that it's incorrect to assume that a church must be public.

Private doesn't mean illegitimate

Suggesting that a church needn't be public may trigger objections based on further assumptions—such as the belief that evangelism requires unrestricted access to church meetings. For example, people might argue that because the gospel should be freely shared, the public should be able to attend any church meeting without an invitation or personal connection.

However, this view confuses the mission of outreach with the structure of gatherings. The idea that a church must be publicly accessible is a cultural expectation, not a biblical requirement. In many parts of the world, especially where Christians are persecuted, churches meet privately and exclusively—and there's nothing unbiblical about that approach.

It's so normal for Christians in non-persecuted societies to have publicly accessible church meetings that any suggestion of closing the doors and allowing in only people who are known to existing church members may seem preposterous. But it isn't. There's nothing in the Bible that requires church meetings to be public.

The importance of questioning assumptions

At first glance, it may seem irrelevant to freethinkers what the Bible says about how Christians should meet. But exploring such topics goes to the heart of what freethought is about: questioning assumptions in order to break down limitations and reduce the harm those assumptions can cause.

As a freethinker who believes there is overwhelming evidence that Christianity is false, I want to be clear: my aim isn’t to convince Christians to worship a false god more freely, nor to argue that the existence of biblical errors means no god could possibly exist. Rather, I’m pointing out that the commonly held belief in Western Christianity—that church meetings must be public—is just that: a belief. It’s a cultural assumption, not a biblical requirement.

In fact, leading Christians to question whether they are acting biblically instead of by mere cultural habit can help them discover the truth about the Bible's falsehood. It was part of my own journey to freethought.

Helping people identify and challenge the unexamined beliefs that shape their actions is one of the most powerful things freethinkers can do. Sometimes, questioning a small assumption opens the door to rethinking everything.

Exploring the value of small-group meetings

There’s no rule against churches collecting money or meeting in venues that incur costs. But many core functions of the church—teaching, fellowship, support, spiritual growth—can be more effective in small-group settings, where personal interaction is possible and participation is encouraged.

Despite this, churches often fail to capitalize on the potential of small groups. One major reason is cultural: the assumption that large, full-congregation services should be the central expression of church life. Another reason is institutional control, where leadership imposes uniform content across all home groups—sometimes in the form of a top-down study guide tied to the Sunday sermon.

From my own experience in churches, being required to read from a centrally issued Bible study booklet in a small group was often a recipe for disengagement. It stifled organic conversation, discouraged the development of secondary leadership, and over-emphasized the senior minister’s control over the church's spiritual direction.

Many Christians are aware that the early church often met in homes. Yet today, house churches are frequently viewed as inferior—useful in times of persecution perhaps, but otherwise lacking the credibility, structure, or scale of institutional churches. To some, they seem like “backyard operations,” lacking accountability and professionalism.

But what if that perception is backward? What if the highly structured, centralized model of modern churches hides the potential for personal growth and interaction that could be found by looking at small group meetings as some of the most important meetings of the church? And what if house church meetings were more common and their members were more personally involved in ministry than most modern church-goers imagine?

House meetings were central to Christianity's first 300 years

For the first three centuries of its existence, Christianity was primarily a house-based movement. Long before churches occupied formal buildings, believers met in homes—a fact consistently supported by both biblical references and archaeological evidence.

The New Testament contains numerous examples of house churches:

Beyond these specific mentions, the New Testament includes many references to church activities—teaching, prayer, leadership, and community support—happening in private homes, even when the word “church” isn’t explicitly used in those contexts.

Both scriptural and archaeological evidence confirm that house churches were especially common in urban centers like Rome and Corinth. For nearly 300 years, meeting in homes wasn’t just one option—it was the norm. It wasn’t until the Constantinian shift in the 4th century, when Christianity was legalized and gained imperial favour, that churches began moving into larger, purpose-built structures.

This long tradition of home-based gatherings raises important questions for how we think about churches today—especially in light of the growing interest in smaller, more relational models of spiritual community.

Corinthian-style participatory ministry may have been the norm

The apostle Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church offer valuable insight into how early Christian gatherings may have functioned—particularly in house churches, where participation was more personal and interactive.

In 1 Corinthians 14:26, Paul writes:
When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation.

This brief but revealing statement suggests a highly participatory model of ministry. Rather than a single leader dominating the meeting, everyone present was encouraged to contribute. Paul's surrounding instructions focus not on restricting contributions, but on ensuring that they are made in an orderly and edifying manner—implying that widespread participation was expected and welcomed.

Today, many charismatic churches reference this passage mainly as a guideline for managing brief expressions of spiritual gifts during structured Sunday services. Some may view it simply as one example among many possible ways to conduct church meetings. However, that interpretation may miss a key point: there are no other detailed biblical instructions about how regular church gatherings should be structured. And Paul's comments suggest this participatory approach may not have been unique to Corinth.

In 1 Corinthians 14:32–33, Paul writes:
The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people.

While this statement doesn’t explicitly confirm that all churches followed the same participatory format, it strongly implies a shared standard. If the expectation of self-control and orderly contribution applied “in all the congregations,” then it stands to reason that similar interactive gatherings were the norm elsewhere. After all, why would Paul emphasize self-regulation and turn-taking in a church where only one or two people were expected to speak?

It’s true that this isn’t conclusive proof. Paul doesn’t lay out a detailed "universal model" of church meetings. But given the absence of alternative biblical descriptions for regular gatherings—and the fact that apostolic teaching visits were exceptional, not weekly events—it’s reasonable to infer that participatory ministry was common practice in the early church.

If that’s the case, then the transition to centralized, institutional church structures in the centuries following Constantine may have led to a significant loss of this participatory dynamic. What was once a collaborative expression of faith gradually became more like a performance observed by a passive audience. And that shift may have cost the church more than it realizes.

Contrasting freethought forums with Sunday Assembly

In shaping my freethought meetings after the interactive and participatory model of early house churches, my approach differs significantly from that of Sunday Assembly—a well-known non-religious movement modeled after the institutional church.

Founded in England in 2013, Sunday Assembly has grown to include around 50 congregations worldwide. Its gatherings resemble traditional church services, complete with Sunday meetings, music, inspirational talks, community rituals, and even organizational rules for branding and content use. While I recognize the value in what Sunday Assembly offers, my vision for freethought forums is fundamentally different in both purpose and structure.

First, I have a more specific and missional focus: to promote freethought as a transformative way of living and thinking. That means engaging directly with assumptions, beliefs, and systems—religious or otherwise—that limit human potential or cause harm. Second, I prefer a non-institutional, participatory format that invites active dialogue rather than passive attendance.

That said, I see much to admire in Sunday Assembly. It rightfully challenges the idea that religious institutions should have a monopoly on intentional community, celebration, and moral support. It has shown that it's possible to create meaningful, uplifting gatherings for the non-religious—without pretending religion is necessary to justify them. Its motto, “Live better, help often, wonder more,” reflects a spirit of kindness, curiosity, and compassion that deserves recognition.

In my forums, fellowship among freethinkers is also an important goal. Shared meals, friendly conversations, and a sense of belonging all contribute to a healthy community. But our primary purpose goes further: to help improve the world by advancing the principles of freethought—using evidence and reasoning to challenge harmful falsehoods, clarify thinking, and live more meaningful, informed lives. Through a wide range of topics, we aim to uncover and correct errors, not only for ourselves but for the benefit of those beyond our immediate group.

How Sunday Assembly’s purpose differs

The distinct purpose of my freethought forums becomes especially clear when contrasted with the guiding principles of Sunday Assembly. Their Start-Up Guide outlines several boundaries for what can and cannot be discussed in their meetings—boundaries that reveal a very different set of priorities.

For example, the guide states that 10- to 15-minute talks at Sunday Assembly “should not be about atheism or religion (we’re all pretty much on the same page there already).” It also notes that assemblies “must not be used to... endorse or vent about political candidates, political views or religious matters.”

Their FAQ further clarifies the kind of participant they seek. In response to the question, “Is Sunday Assembly right for me?”, they write:

Do you wish there was a community of like-minded people meeting simply to share the pleasure of being alive? Then yes! Are you keen to find a way to spread your theory on why religion is evil? Want to tell the world why you are right about everything and everyone else is wrong? Then probably, Sunday Assembly is not for you.

While it's reasonable to discourage dogmatic or hostile behavior, this framing lumps together very different motives. Wanting to “tell the world you are right about everything” is obviously a caricature, but promoting critical engagement with religion—especially when motivated by a desire to reduce harm—is a far more grounded and serious goal.

From my perspective, the social, psychological, and cultural harm caused by religion can be examined and demonstrated using evidence and sound reasoning. Doing so should not only be permitted in freethought spaces—it should be considered central to their purpose. To avoid such discussions for the sake of comfort or neutrality risks undermining the mission of freethought itself.

Sunday Assembly’s desire to avoid divisiveness is understandable. However, when it comes at the cost of avoiding difficult truths, it resembles the very institutional restraint many of us hoped to leave behind. Ironically, a “church for the non-religious” that avoids critical discussion of religion may end up reproducing the same kind of silence and sanitisation it aims to transcend.

How Sunday Assembly polices controversy

Sunday Assembly focuses on the positives that its members share in common—a goal that has value, especially in creating an inclusive and welcoming environment. To maintain unity and avoid internal conflict, the organisation sets clear boundaries around potentially divisive topics. This is entirely within their right, but it also signals a clear choice: to prioritise harmonious fellowship over deeper engagement with controversial issues that may challenge or unsettle.

In doing so, Sunday Assembly adopts an approach that mirrors, perhaps too closely, the dynamic often seen in religious institutions—where peace and order are maintained, sometimes at the cost of honest, necessary conversations. The emphasis on cohesion comes at the expense of freedom to explore complex or uncomfortable topics that freethinkers, by nature, should be willing to confront.

This philosophy is reflected in Sunday Assembly’s own Start-Up Guide, which includes a list titled “The Three Kinds of Hater,” created by co-founder Pippa Evans. One of these is described as “the hardcore atheist” (also referred to as “a certain kind of militant atheist”)—someone who “will say you are ruining atheism.” The recommended response is to “laugh, agree, move on,” based on the idea that “nothing is more disarming than kindness,” and that “we don’t like arguing.”

While the intention may be to defuse tension, laughter and flippant agreement are not necessarily acts of kindness—especially when someone is expressing a deeply held concern. Dismissing serious views in the name of harmony can come across as patronising rather than generous.

For example, if a critic claimed that Sunday Assembly was “ruining atheism” simply because it adopts some church-like structures, I’d disagree. But if the concern was that Sunday Assembly avoids meaningful atheist discourse in order to avoid controversy, I’d be more sympathetic. In fact, that’s a key difference between their approach and mine. Freethought forums are exactly the place to discuss religion and politics—among many other things.

If freethought groups adopted policies that discouraged discussion of religion, atheism, or contentious ideas for fear of disagreement, they would risk undermining the very foundation of freethought itself. To be fair, Sunday Assembly is a "non-religious" group, rather than specifically a freethought group, so it would be unfair to suggest it is undermining its own purpose. But it still creates an environment where the unspoken rule becomes: “You can question assumptions—just not the ones that make us uncomfortable.”

That kind of constraint is all too familiar to many who have left an institutional church. It can make participants feel that they must constantly weigh their words against invisible boundaries of acceptability, where the harm of a statement is measured not by its truth or evidence, but by someone’s discomfort or unwillingness to engage.

A group that defines itself as non-religious, yet avoids robust atheist argumentation, doesn’t align with the kind of missional freethinking that motivates my forums. And if it restricts exactly the kinds of conversation that could most powerfully challenge falsehoods and promote critical thinking, it’s unlikely to be the best place for me—or others committed to freethought in its fullest sense—to form strong and lasting connections associated with the freethought cause.

Freethought forums and missional purpose

Unlike Sunday Assembly, the core purpose of my freethought forums is explicitly missional: to advance the principles of freethought beyond the group itself. While the meetings are non-religious and foster community, they are also intended as a launching point for broader impact—encouraging participants to challenge falsehoods, promote evidence-based thinking, and contribute to a more rational and compassionate society.

Much like in a church context, not every participant needs to have an outwardly missional focus for the group to serve a larger purpose. Simply by attending, learning, and engaging in discussion, individuals can experience personal growth in critical thinking and its application to human well-being. These internal changes often influence others around them, indirectly spreading freethought values through daily life, relationships, and work.

For those who are motivated to engage more actively in advancing freethought, the possibilities are wide open. Whether it’s reaching out to people of different worldviews, contributing articles or media content, engaging in political advocacy, or creating educational resources, all such efforts are encouraged.

To support this, time is set aside at the end of each meeting for announcements. Anyone with a project, idea, or initiative aligned with freethought principles is welcome to invite others to get involved. I also plan to use this time myself to share and collaborate on outreach opportunities from time to time.

Conclusion: a distinctive approach to freethought fellowship

Freethought forums, as I envision and host them, are not just alternatives to religious gatherings—they are intentionally designed spaces for critical thinking, intellectual freedom, and social impact. Unlike institutional models such as Sunday Assembly, which prioritise harmony through restriction, these forums embrace open inquiry and robust discussion, even when it challenges deeply held beliefs.

By drawing inspiration from the participatory nature of early house churches—but not their theology—we adopt a structure that encourages meaningful interaction, grassroots leadership, and real-world relevance. The forums are not merely about social bonding; they are about equipping people to think more clearly, act more purposefully, and speak more effectively in the world beyond the meeting room.

Whether you're there to learn, to share, or to pursue a larger missional goal, participation in freethought forums contributes to a broader movement—one that seeks to make the world a better place by confronting harmful ideas with evidence and reason, and doing so in a spirit of mutual respect and intellectual integrity.

- James Brecknell, Sunday, August 27, 2023. Last revised and updated, Saturday, August 30, 2025.

Copyright © 2023-25 James Brecknell. All rights reserved except those granted in the Statement of Purpose and Copyright Notice.