FreethoughtJournal.com

Freethought forums for the advancement of evidence-based rational beliefs

The concept of freethought forums that I describe here is a simple way for freethinkers to meet for fellowship and mutual education for the betterment of their own lives and the advancement of freethought in the world.

It's not about an organisation called "Freethough Forums". I use the term "freethought forums" only as a descriptive label for sharing information about the meeting concept. I encourage people to use or modify any of the ideas or terminology as they wish for the advancement of freethought.

And "the advancement of freethought" doesn't have to be some kind of pie-in-the-sky academic pursuit reserved for intellectuals. It has real bearing on all kinds of everyday issues affecting everyone - such as the ethics of animal farming, how we can identify our own prejudices, or how we can dismantle any false assumptions we may have because of such things as cultural expectations, upbringing, or involvement with religion, just to name a few ideas.

Freethough as a raw and open epistemology

My definition of freethought holds that freethought itself comprises no beliefs except that beliefs need to be based on evidence and reasoning. But it's fair to say that freethought is also a stance against false reasoning. Anyone who agrees with these things can participate in freethought meetings like these. This is what I would describe as "raw and open" freethought. A common and more value-laden view of freethought tends to conclude that because many freethinkers are atheist humanists, atheism and humanism are attributes of freethought itself - virtually framing any theists in freethought groups as imposters.

This is not my idea of freethought. In fact, I would describe holding an atheist presupposition as fundamentally opposed to freethought's basic principles. Even if the vast majority of freethinkers share certain views, freethought itself is primarily an epistemology rather than a body of beliefs - that is, "a theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope". (Put simply, an epistemology is a way of arriving at knowledge.)

I'm a non-religious but non-atheist freethinker myself. Theists and non-theists alike can be part of my meetings. All that's necessary to attend and even present prepared talks is to understand what freethought is, agree with our purpose, have a connection with someone in our group, and be invited (because the meetings are private).

A simple, informal, participatory, non-institutional way of meeting

I'm deliberate in referring to the meetings as "my meetings" because I intend to refer only to the way I run the meetings I organise, and have no intention of controlling anyone else's. Even those who start their own meetings by branching off from my own may take people with them. I wholeheartedly encourage this kind of branching and experimentation, both for the sake of personal freedom and the multiplication of freethought groups.

The way I choose to organise meetings for freethinkers has nothing to do with forming an organisation or building an institutional empire with a recognisable name. And I have no need for the control of image or reputation based on what other groups do, because there is no name, no organisation, no franchise, and no institutional affiliation - just personal relationships. It's unapologetically modelled on a relationally based, non-institutional house church concept because of the efficiency of such a model in letting participants get on with the purpose of the meetings without unnecessary administrative or logistical work.

The meeting concept and format

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.

"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.

Make the meetings private, by invitation only, and only for people aged 18 or over; hold them generally no more often than fortnightly in a group member's house, or in a somewhat private area of a restaurant, or in a public space such as a beach or park barbecue area; and ensure the meetings are no larger than about 10 people, probably ideally 6-8, and no smaller than 4. (If there are fewer than 4 RSVPs, the meeting doesn't go ahead.)

Start with a brief time of informal mingling with snacks and drinks prior to the meeting proper (15 mins); begin the meeting proper with a brief "ice-breaker" activity allowing everyone to say something about themselves (max 10 mins); have the meeting host do a quick pep talk about the purpose of the group and its approach to meetings (with slightly more information if first-timers are present) (2-5 mins); and then allow everyone with a prepared talk to speak for 2-5 minutes on any freethought-related topic they wish, following each speaker with an opportunity for anyone else to ask the speaker questions (max 10 mins for the talk-plus-questions for each speaker, totalling a maximum of 100 minutes if there are 10 speakers, which would be rare).

Follow the prepared speakers with a timeslot for attendees to make brief announcements (maximum 20 minutes, involving a maximum 1-minute announcement per speaker with 1-minute question time) of any freethought-related activities they are leading or involved in, with information on how others can either be involved or do the same kinds of things themselves. Some of these activities may be outreach-related - that is, ways of encouraging the use of freethought in the world or challenging false beliefs in various areas of life. This final segment of the meeting is usually likely to last much less than the theoretical maximum of 20 minutes. Attendees may do prepared talks in the main part of meetings if they need more than a 1-minute announcement time to explain the rationale of a particular activity.

Follow the meeting with more informal socialising, snacks and drinks for whatever time is left - although people can also usually eat and drink throughout the meeting if they wish.

The private nature of the meetings is important to ensure that it's not the kind of public interaction that would require the group to have its own public liability insurance, though a venue such as a restaurant will have its own. To be a private meeting, it should be by invitation only, and involve only people known to existing members of the group. They can be relatively new acquaintances, but not without either some chance for the inviter to get to know the invitee to some extent first, or some other connection in life (eg met briefly at a touch football event). Anyone who has attended one or more meetings can invite a new person that they know to a subsequent meeting. Everyone planning to attend a meeting should RSVP by a certain day before the meeting, so that we can determine whether to proceed, and to help with any other practical arrangements - eg table bookings for restaurant-based meetings.

On the topic of meeting venues, obviously some public-space venues, such as a beach, may require a daylight meeting time, meaning most likely a weekend, with Sunday morning being a good option. But meetings can be short enough to be held on a weeknight, starting about 7pm, with snacks included but not dinner unless the venue is a restaurant, though anyone can eat throughout the meeting, including a proper dinner if they haven't had time previously.

Unlike the rare maximum meeting time of just over two hours if we are counting initial pre-meeting mingling time and if there are 10 speakers all speaking for the maximum 5 minutes, a normal meeting duration is shorter. So, as examples, a meeting with four speakers lasts up to 1 hr 10 minutes, a meeting with 6 speakers up to 1 hr 30 minutes, and a meeting with 8 speakers up to 1 hr 50 minutes. Or the time is slightly longer if you count the brief announcement timeslot at the end. Shorter meetings can be better for allowing more time afterwards for socialising, or for people to discuss the topics informally in more detail if they wish. We can experiment by limiting the number of speakers if necessary.

The ice-breaker activity usually involves asking people a question that allows attendees to say something about themselves. The intention is to make people comfortable in everyone else's presence, so the question shouldn't pressure people to say anything too personal, which risks having the opposite effect. Also, the ice-breaker prompt should always remind people to state their first name.

The pep talk following that involves the meeting host doing anything from reminding people of freethought definitions and our meeting purpose, to brief perspectives on freethought itself, commenting on what constitutes freethought-relevant topics, or sharing specific ideas for talk topics, to addressing any housekeeping issues such as meeting practicalities, and future meeting dates, times and venues.

Anyone eligible to be at a meeting is eligible to present a talk, provided time allows. Presenting a talk is optional. Topics don't need to be raised with the meeting host in advance, but the talks do need to be over 2 minutes and under 5, should have a title that can be announced to the group, and need to be rehearsed in full prior to the meeting so that the speaker has verified the duration. All meeting attendees with prepared talks start by indicating their interest in speaking, and then numbers are drawn to determine the order of speakers. People may read their talks from fully written text if they wish. Talks are timed during the meeting. A warning beep goes off at the 4-minute mark, and a final alarm at the 5-minute mark. We don't need to be brutal about cutting people off at 5 minutes, but the speaker should finish up ASAP after the final alarm. The meeting host should always at least do the opening pep talk after the ice-breaker and before the main round of talks, and may also address another topic during the main round of talks, but is not required to.

After each speaker, a time of up to 5 minutes can be used for others to comment on or ask questions about the topic - addressed to the speaker or the whole group. Any issues looking like taking longer to discuss should be discussed informally by those interested after the meeting, or used as separate topics for future prepared talks.

Meeting participants are encouraged to prepare more than one talk at a time if they wish. Then if the meeting runs out of first-round prepared speakers, anyone with a second prepared topic may continue, as long as their second talk is on a different topic (not just different content on the same topic). For any second- or further-round talks, the order of speakers is drawn again. In this way, multiple rounds are possible.

No one may present a talk in a second or further round of talks until all available speakers of the current round are finished. No one may present an unrehearsed talk even if there are few or no prepared speakers, but informal discussion is fine after all prepared talks are complete, if time permits.

No new talks should begin if the meeting duration reaches two hours. If the meeting runs out of time even for first-round speakers, they are drawn separately for a first round of talks at the next meeting, but no undelivered second- or further-round talks are prioritised for that meeting. After any previously undelivered talks are done at the new meeting, the order of other speakers is drawn.

If a meeting ends early because there are few speakers or none at all, the meeting time can become an informal time of discussion, which would obviously be well spent on discussing things that would inspire multiple group members to prepare talks for future meetings.

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

A talk topic can be anything that uses evidence and reasoning to identify and argue against false beliefs. It's not enough to simply present evidence and reasoning to form a conclusion on a topic, because while doing that may involve a process consistent with freethought, the lack of a corrective element leaves it without freethought distinctives.

An example would be a topic such as "We should all eat vegetables in order to be healthy". Since this is widely believed, there is no corrective element. The freethought movement began as a reaction to thinking based on false assumptions. If there was no need to break free from false thinking, freethough itself would be an unnecessary term. Freethought topics should generally have a corrective element that overcomes misconceptions, false assumptions, or false authority.

The false assumption may not be something dramatic. It may be something as simple as thinking it's just as healthy to breath through the mouth as through the nose, because "why wouldn't it be?" And yes, breathing through the nose is healthier, and arguing for this claim qualifies as a freethought topic for the simple reason that it corrects a false assumption that some may hold. This is just one example that demonstrates that freethought is not just a worldview reacting to falsehoods in other worldviews, and is not just about a bunch of atheist humanists arguing against religions. It's not primarily a body of beliefs, but an epistemology, a way of arriving at knowledge, and can touch on any and every aspect of life to the extent that I would describe the adoption of morally purposeful freethought as the world's greatest educational need.

So, what about the purpose of a freethought topic? The ultimate purpose of addressing any topic at the meetings is to improve people's lives, but it's enough for the means of improvement to be implicit.

For example, if someone presented a talk called "Why Mormons are wrong", there would be no need for the presenter to explain why the topic should be considered specifically useful to the individuals attending the meeting. It's enough to assume that the topic is useful to know about for a purpose such as explaining it to someone else, whether that's a person who has been visited by Mormon evangelists, or anyone else for their general knowledge.

The partipatory nature of the meetings and the 5-minute time limit helps to provide variety and interest while also ensuring that no singular obscure topic can dominate. In the interests of freedom, participants may speak on the same topic at as many successive meetings as they wish, as long as they don't do two talks in one meeting on the same topic, and each talk covers mostly different material. So, what if one member's persistence with a particular topic annoys you? You suck it up, since it's only 5 minutes at a time.

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. I can't say that ChatGPT is good at writing to a word limit, but it can get you in the ballpark, and you can edit from there. 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 to guide you in 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 or prompting your own thinking about what to address in meetings 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 recent 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.

The branching of meetings into new groups

If meetings reach the recommended maximum of 10 people, or become unwieldy even with a smaller number, it should result in encouraging one or more members to start their own groups with separate meeting times and venues.

Anyone can do that at any time anyway, and of course is free to run their own group completely differently if they wish. People can announce the meetings of these other groups in the announcement time at the end of meetings. And of course there's no rule against being part of more than one group or attending multiple leaders' meetings on a regular basis.

Regardless of whether the branching off of new groups is due to the size of the initial group or any number of other factors, from different meeting philosophies to different leadership styles, to different friend groups, to different outreach priorities, to preferred venues or times, or even if just due to sheer disagreement, I encourage it. If people have a reason to branch off, or split or switch groups, they should explore that.

If the leaders of new groups take people with them because of their good leadership, I will support them, and will also be left with more space to grow my own group with new members, which contributes to advancing the freethought cause. I may also want to visit new groups to learn from them.

Anyone who leaves one group to join another should feel free to return if a standing invitation remains, since there's no shame in changing your mind about which meetings you prefer, or in visiting temporarily or participating permanently in more than one group.

Bear in mind that since my meetings are private, if I need to temporarily or permanently exclude someone I see as a troublemaker, I will do so, though usually only after exploring other means of resolving a problem, and I would expect it to be very rare. However, bear in mind that disagreement may be more common in groups like these than in the average church or community club, since it encourages robust discussion of controversial topics. We should all endeavour to learn how to handle disagreement graciously rather than making rules about what can't be discussed.

Since the leaders of any new groups that have branched off from mine are free to run their meetings however they wish, some may even wish to advertise and make their meetings public, but I strongly recommend not doing so without first carefully considering public liability risks and responsibilities, the unpredictability of meeting sizes, the impact on logistics and administration, and the question of whether you should register an incorporated association in order to handle that way of operating.

The non-institutional church background

Having now mentioned the practicalities of running the meetings, I hope to shed light on how they are influenced by concepts of non-institutional and largely non-hierarchical, participatory biblical house churches where everyone has opportunity to contribute to the ministry during the meetings. And I'd like to contrast that with the way the institutional church is the model for the non-religious Sunday Assembly that has about 50 congregations around the world, and why I don't like that model.

While the underground church in places where Christians are persecuted often has plenty of experience with non-institutional fellowship, not many Western Christians do, so without some explanation, it may be difficult for them to see how such a church could work. Likewise it may be difficult for freethinkers to see how a particular type of freethinkers' meeting is based on a house church model that few in the West have experienced.

Long before I figured out that Christianity isn't true and left the church, I firmly believed that all the functions of the church could be carried out without an institution and without any form of institutional money. That's not to say there's anything wrong with forming an organisation whenever an association's way of operating requires it, nor that anything but the simplest kind of church is possible without forming an organisation. Nor do I pretend that there aren't other issues relating to responsibility - such as public liability.

But, as I will discuss, there are ways to overcome all these issues for the non-institutional church or social group, and ultimately money-handling is the biggest issue. And while I'd prefer to discuss a non-institutional way of meeting without so much reference to money, it's necessary because handling money on behalf of other people in an accountable way is one of the biggest factors requiring registration as an organisation. So it's also true that figuring out a way of operating that doesn't require any pooling of money is a key to creating a purposeful social group that doesn't need to be an organisation.

Many of the normal trappings of the Western church bind it to institutionalism - the employed staff, the building, the registered name, the "branding" (and the rules regarding who can represent the brand, and how), the practices of tithing and offering, and the need to make decisions about property. All of these require central handling of money and/or institutional rules. So believing that none of this is necessary requires being able to accept that there is a different way of operating that can still fulfil all necessary functions of the group.

Freethought groups are, of course, free to decide for themselves what the functions of their group should be. Churches arguably are not so free, since the purpose and functions of the church are biblically defined - and yet it's possible to show why even a church can operate without an institution or centrally handled money, which is why a house church concept can be a model for non-institutional freethought meetings.

How can a church operate without centrally handled money?

The church doesn't need paid leaders, and its core activities are worshipping, praying, preaching, teaching and helping people. That's it. So if these can be done without requiring paid places to meet, there's no requirement for centrally handled money. And, of course, freethought discussion meetings like mine have even fewer core activities, since we don't sing or pray.

Some Christians will object by saying that the need to take up a collection in itself creates a need for a registered organisation because it is God who commands the practice of tithing and offering, and therefore money must be held in the name of an organisation. But holding beliefs consistent with the biblical theology that shows the New Covenant was instituted at the crucifixion makes it clear that there are no commands given under the New Covenant that require the church to take up any kind of money collection at all.

The only commands to tithe were given to Old Covenant Jews while the Old Covenant was still in force, and that includes where Jesus mentions it in the gospels. No New Covenant commands about giving require a collection of money. And there are no rules that a church needs all members meeting simultaneously, or that it needs a building, a Bible college or a school, or any kind of paid venue.

Worshipping, praying, preaching and teaching at home or in someone else's house or a public open space don't require money. Doing the same things in a hired or institutionally owned hall or with a community-owned PA system does. A church doesn't even require a copyright licence. Churches usually have enough talented people to write their own songs.

Helping people is sometimes done in non-monetary ways, but when it does involve money, it often doesn't require the money to be collected first rather than simply being given directly to those being helped.

The advantages of private home meetings

While there's no rule against a church's central handling of money, the church can operate in a basic way without money. An obvious way to do so is to meet in free venues, the most obvious of which are the homes of its members. This is why a house church can be a great model for other kinds of non-institutional social groups.

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. Making that suggestion will, of course, provoke all kinds of presumptuous and incorrect reactions from some people, based on other incorrect assumptions about how churches should do outreach. For example, the idea that the gospel should be freely shared might come with an assumption that members of the public should be free to attend church without having to be invited or having to know anyone in the congregation.

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 whatsoever in the Bible that requires a church to be public.

The importance of questioning assumptions

Ultimately it doesn't matter to freethinkers what the Bible says about how Christians should meet. But it's interesting because it goes to the heart of what freethinkers should be doing - questioning assumptions in order to remove limitations and other kinds of harm from people's lives. And as a freethinker who claims to have overwhelming evidence that Christianity is false, I'm not at all suggesting my aim is to show Christians they should feel free to worship a false god differently, or even that there can't be a any kind of God just because the Bible is clearly full of errors and fabrications. I'm simply illustrating that any western church assumption that the Bible requires churches to be public is just as much of an assumption as anything that causes Christians not to see that the Bible is false. 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. I know, because that was part of my own journey to freethought.

Exploring the value of small-group meetings

There are no rules against a church centrally pooling monetary collections, or rules that the church should avoid meeting places that incur expenses. But many of the functions of the church are arguably more effective on a small-group basis anyway, where people can interact more personally. The failure to be more effective on a primarily small-group basis may often come from a cultural view that full-church meetings should be the main meetings, or from institutional control, such as church leaders dictating what all home groups of the church must discuss during the week following a particular Sunday sermon.

From my own involvement in churches, I found that the instruction to read from a dictated top-down Bible study guide at a small group meeting was a great way to stifle secondary leadership, generate boredom, and remind the congregation that the senior minister has an inflated sense of importance. And I say "he" not to be sexist but because in my experience, the senior minister virtually always was a man.

Many Christians know that the Bible shows that some early churches met in homes. They may see house churches as just one option for how to meet, perhaps a necessary one during persecution, but perhaps otherwise an inferior way to meet because of its smaller capacity or lack of credibility, as if it's a "backyard operation" with less appearance of credibility and accountability compared to a more visible, more structured, and more established institutional church.

But what if the status quo of modern institutional 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 churchgoers imagine?

House meetings were primary for Christianity's first 300 years

There are references to house churches in many chapters of the New Testatement.

Acts 2:46 shows that early Christians in Jerusalem met for fellowship in their homes as well as at the temple. Acts 16:40 refers to Lydia's house, where the church first met in Philippi. Romans 16:5 shows that Priscilla and Aquila, prominent co-workers of the apostle Paul, hosted a church in their home in Rome. 1 Corinthians 16:15 refers to the house church that the household of Stephanas hosted in Achaia. 1 Corinthians 16:19 shows Priscilla and Aquila also hosted a church at their home in Ephesus after they moved from Rome. Colossians 4:15 shows that Nymphas, a believer in Laodicea, had a house church, and Philemon 1:2 refers to the house church that Philemon hosted in Colossae.

And there are many more references than these to various church-related activities that happened in homes, including teaching and praying, even if they don't specifically refer to churches that hold meetings there.

Biblical and archeological evidence particularly show there were numerous house churches in Rome and Corinth, and Christians generally met in homes for the first 300 years until Constantine legalised Christianity and churches moved into larger buildings.

Corinthian-style participatory ministry may have been the norm

The apostle Paul's discussion of order in church meetings at Corinth is particularly revealing about how early house churches functioned.

In the midst of much discussion of self-centred and inconsiderate behaviour in the Corinthian church is this comment of Paul's in 1 Cor 14:26: "When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation." And the discussion involves ways to ensure all believers can participate in at least a bsic level of ministry an orderly fashion.

Charismatic churches today have often mainly referred to this instruction as either just an insight about handling brief periods of operating in the spiritual gifts in an orderly fashion during their institutional full-congregation Sunday meetings, and some may see it as just one example of many possible ways that a church can hold meetings.

What's often ignored is the fact that we have no other biblical instructions on the process of conducting regular church meetings, plus the fact that the same passage hints that things may be done the same way in all the churches.

In 1 Cor 14:32-33, Paul says, "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."

Now while that doesn't explicitly say all churches used the same process of turn-taking interaction to allow everyone with a contribution to the ministry to participate, what else could Paul mean? If the principle of reflecting God's orderly nature is the same in all congregations of the Lord's people, and that involves prophets practising self-control, it seems likely that the other churches had a similar interactive, participatory approach to ministry. Because why would self-control reveal God's orderliness in the other congregations as well if there was no need for it in the form of working out who should speak when?

It's an indirect comment, and not conclusive evidence that all churches operated the same way, but to me it seems the best explanation for the comment. And why would would one church have multiple people ministering while others didn't? Especially given that no other biblical passages describe a different meeting process when everyone came together - except for brief mentions of occasions when visiting apostolic teaching was the focus, which obviously wouldn't have been the norm from week to week?

So I think it's highly plausible that the church may have lost a great deal of interactive, participatory ministry when it transitioned to more institional structures after the first 300 years.

Contrasting freethought forums with Sunday Assembly

In modelling freethought meetings somewhat in the way of interactive, participatory house churches, my approach to freethought forums is very different from the non-religious meetings of the organisation called Sunday Assembly, which models itself after the institutional church.

Originating in England in 2013, Sunday Assembly has grown to about 50 congregations around the world, holding church-like meetings for the non-religious - complete with Sunday services, pastors, inspirational messages, singing, and its own rules for the use of its branding and concept. I'm essentially not interested in that kind of institution or meeting model, for two reasons: I have a different and more specific and missional purpose; and I prefer an interactive, non-institutional approach to pursuing the mission.

I see many positive qualities in Sunday Assembly - especially the recognition that there's no reason why the church should have a virtual monopoly on cultivating intentional community in society, and also that the church has shown us some good ways to do that. Sunday Assembly deserves congratulations for feeling free to re-purpose aspects of church life without fearing it will seem like an admission that religions are true.

Sunday Assembly's purpose is to foster good and the celebration of life in community in a non-religious way. Its focus on kindness and compassion is commendable, as is its motto, which says, "Live better, help often, wonder more."

It is one purpose of my meetings to foster fellowship among freethinkers, which also brings some celebration of life and community. But the primary purpose is to help make the world a better place by advancing freethought. That primarily involves using evidence and reasoning to address a potentially wide range of topics in our meetings to dismantle harmful falsehoods in order to live better lives, and work out ways that we can use evidence and reasoning to help people outside our group.

How Sunday Assembly's purpose differs

The fact that my freethought forums have a very different purpose from that of a Sunday Assembly can be seen in a few notable points in Sunday Assembly's Start-Up Guide for establishing a new congregation.

The guidelines for speakers indicate that the meetings' 10- to 15-minute talks "should not be about atheism or religion (we're all pretty much on the same page there already)". It also says assemblies "must not be used to ... endorse or vent about political candidates, political views or religious matters".

And in its FAQs, it addresses the question, "Is Sunday Assembly right for me?" And part of the answer includes: "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."

Telling the world you're right about everything is over the top, but spreading a theory about why religion is evil, which the Start-Up Guide mentions virtually in the same breath, is in a completely different class of activity. My view is that the harm religion does can be objectively, qualitatively and quantitatively demonstrated, and should be, for the betterment of our world, and that doing so can be legitimately among the core work of a very reasonable missional freethinker.

So Sunday Assembly's decision to frown on that activity reminds me of churches where the elders have a stern word with the new pastor after the preaching for mentioning salvation from hell in the sermon "because we don't want to scare the parishioners". Who would have thought we could leave this kind of sanitising culture behind in the church only to find a parallel universe in a "church for the non-religious" where people are just as afraid of discussing the truth?

How Sunday Assembly polices controversy

Sunday Assembly majors on the positives that people have in common, which is good. And to guard against negative influences and division harming their congregations, it is, of course, free to make whatever rules it wishes against addressing the difficult types of topics that have a greater chance of resulting in disputes. It just means that their focus is much more on fellowship than on influencing the world by addressing difficult topics, and on peaceable fellowship at the expense of freedom. So to me, they are too uncomfortably similar to the church in the way the church often avoids discussion of some of the most important issues.

The Sunday Assembly Start-Up Guide even has "the hardcore atheist" (contextually also referred to as "a certain kind of militant atheist") on its list of the "three kinds of hater" - a list created by Sunday Assembly co-founder Pippa Evans. It says this is the kind of person that "will say you are ruining atheism", and says the solution is "laugh, agree, move on" because "nothing is more disarming than kindness", and "we don't like arguing".

But laughing about what a hardcore atheist has to say, or agreeing flippantly, isn't kindness. It's not necessarily meanness, of course, because if the atheist is being toxic, there might be little else that can be done - but it's difficult to call it kindness either, since people don't find it disarming to have their serious views dismissed.

Of course, if an atheist said Sunday Assembly was ruining atheism by using church forms of meeting, I'd disagree. But if an atheist said Sunday Assembly was unnecessarily watering down non-religious fellowship by disallowing typical atheist discussions for fear of division, I'd agree. That's exactly what its rules do, which in some ways would make me feel like I did in the church - sometimes wondering which completely true things I'd like to say would cross some uptight leader's arbitrary boundary about what constitutes peace and order in the organisation, and which only become harmful because of someone's choice to see it that way or because of their inability to handle robust discussion.

A group specifically intended to be non-religious but which doesn't want to deal with atheist argumentation doesn't interest me. A group that forbids or limits some of the exact things that can very legitimately be among the most important activities of a missional freethinker is not a place where I would expect to develop many strong connections.

Freethought forums and missional purpose

Unlike Sunday Assembly, ultimately my own purpose in running a non-religious fellowship is to practise missional freethought, which means advancing the cause of freethought beyond the group. Like church meetings, my meetings can involve people whose participation can indirectly advance the missional purpose of a movement regardless of whether or not all of those people have a missional focus in their participation. By this I mean that being involved can advance freethought even if people don't take other deliberate action outside the meetings. The growth in their knowledge, the refinement to their way of thinking, and the influence on their decisions and actions can change the way others think and improve their lives.

Those who wish to do deliberately missional freethought activities beyond the meetings - such as freethought "evangelism" to people with various worldviews, lobbying politicians, or writing for publications - among many other possibilities - are encouraged to do so. You can use the annoucement time at the end of meetings to invite others to join you, and I hope to do this myself from time to time.

- James Brecknell, Sunday, August 27, 2023. Updated and expanded Friday, January 3, 2025.