A New Church

I’d like to propose a structure for a new church, a new religion.

Conventional religious doctrines such as the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, the Living Word, etc are part of the legacy, but not an active part of what this new fellowship would abide by.

Instead, the followers don’t actually follow, they are also the leaders. Let me explain.

Where a minister, priest, reverend, rabbi, etc normally address the following with a message, in this new church everyone needs to make a contribution to the message. The fellowship agrees to a concern they wish to focus on, then research that concern until they arrive at a conclusion that they all feel is satisfactory.

There will need to be a facilitator, much like a chairman who keeps the fellowship on whatever track is chosen. This person does NOT preach, but follows the progress the fellowship makes on the agreed-to concern. In this way, each church will have a project.

A project can be to understand about how the family unit is supported within a society. If the fellowship has a number of members who have been through the prison system, then perhaps that church project will be to arrive at a conclusion regarding corrections within that society. Another project can look at how mental illness is dealt with.

… in a society. This is central to this church: The fellowship wishes to address concerns about social mechanisms that govern their community, and instead of relying on expensive government studies (Royal Commissions in Canada), they thrash through these concerns themselves.

A church project can be short or long in duration, and should probably be revisited, particularly if previous members return with new experiences to impart, to update a previous conclusion.

Members can also take on Missions (as Missionaries) to study a concern. For example, a mission might be to learn about how the sex trade is dealt with around the world, and to consider the pros and cons of the many ways observed. A person engaged in any such a mission might spearhead this concern, but others would still be required to investigate similarly, though perhaps not to the extent that the missionary had.

What is implied in this church is that everyone needs to serve an active part, however small, in the understandings and the rules of their community. In some small way, other than simply voting, the members need to say something, even if only to describe an experience they have had relating to the focal concern.

This is all socially evolving, and so this might be called the Church of Social Evolution, but I think there may be other negative connotations associated with this, so perhaps I should employ a bit of spin-doctoring: perhaps this church might be called the Church of Voice, since it wishes to bring out the voices of its fellowship. “Please Speak’ might be a holy credo, since so many people usually don’t dare.

Could this church offer solace in the same way God does in other religions? Is there some form of absolution that might comfort the following of this church? Not sure, but when one feels that they have done as much as they possibly can, what is the point in worrying further? When someone makes a genuine contribution to the discussions within his/her Church of Voice, addressing those concerns that affect him/her, they have engaged as much as they can to see a change that may bring benefits to them, even more so than if they were to address their elected representative.

Does Jesus, Muhammad, etc play no part in this church? Certainly they can. What’s more, though the terms of reference my be many centuries apart, many situations encountered back then still can be seen today. In this way, the ancient scriptures can still play a role, but only a partial role. There needs to be fresh consideration for these matters.

And what of God? Is this a Godless religion? Is God worshipped? No, God is not worshipped. Nobody is afforded fawning adulation, least of all a deity assumed to be all-powerful and omnipresent. Only insecure people require fawning adulation. Our Father who art in Heaven would only want to see His children live decent lives in peace; gushing about His greatness seems far too silly, certainly for such all-seeing wisdom.

If He’s not worshipped, is this a Godless religion? No, there’s no need to be Godless. Many people find great solace in God and that shouldn’t be dismissed for a moment. What needs to be remembered is that God as a psychological mechanism allows our minds to decompress, even in trying times.

In a manner similar to simultaneous equations in mathematics, where there is no way to find a solution to any one problem, but given many similar problems, a solution does exist. To find that solution, we need to assume that an answer exists, and we will start with any number, and work toward the correct one.

Metaphorically, God does this for us; He allows us to believe that ultimately all will be well, we need only find out how to get there.

As for Jesus, the love for his fellow man is a message that implicitly demands co-operation and forgiveness, and will never be diminished in importance.

What of God, the moral conscience for those who don’t possess one? Or God as a means to teach the proud to possess humility? Perhaps this new church is for those who already operate with a healthy degree of balance in their lives such that they dare strike out on their own to negotiate the rights and wrongs and the many shades in between.

Our laws already attempt to do this, but too often the law is best administered by lawyers. However, implicit within Law is your co-operation, because you are expected to adhere to those laws, as are you expected to preside over your peers when asked to serve on a jury. Similarly, ignorance of the law is no excuse for law-breaking; laws are supposed to be self-evident, logical. The discoveries made by this Church of Voice will ultimately be reflected within the law as such discoveries are accepted by more people.

Politicians also try to serve you in this way. The government will have committees and sub-committees to address concerns, and usually those committees will hold hearings to get a sense of the public’s concern. Again, this new church does this without the huge expense associated with maintaining large governments. Furthermore, the public could not become disenfranchised from the social mechanisms of government, law, policing, and even corrections, because they’re now a voice in the process.


Will such a church ever exist? No idea. I’ve tried to make a case for why it should. It may be a very fringe lot who adopt such a social mechanism at the outset, but it could gain momentum, if enough people feel comfortable with it.

And now: ‘Please speak.’