12 ms·

Hipster churches in Silicon Valley: evangelicalism's unlikely new home

44 points by zt 12y ago

sputknick 12y ago
I've had this idea bouncing around in the back of my head for a few years for an idea to use technology to reimagine churches into "micro churches". I feel like with communication such as it is, you could turn churches back into what they once were 2000 years ago, small gatherings of a small number of people (10-30) in an informal space (coffee shop, home) for church. It was foster stronger sense of community, and would avoid 85% of the cost of a traditional church (assuming you still gave 10% as alms). Not something I've ever built, just something I've had knocking around back there. Someone else is welcome to take the idea and make something of it.
- epaga 12y ago
  Actually, exactly that concept has actually been quickly growing in popularity for quite a few years now, it's especially been successful in developing countries like India and China. Small, highly reproducible groups which simply revolve around the core concepts of the gospel. Starfish vs. Spider, etc. A few years ago, our small church here in Berlin moved from a model where we were paying thousands in rent for a "meeting space" to simply meeting in a living room and sharing our lives. It's been a wonderful change which has really been great, not only (but also) financially. BTW, an influential book in that regard is particularly Neil Cole's "Organic Church".
  - briandear 12y ago
    In China it's out of necessity and safety, but the side benefit is that these groups become more tightly knit. I worked amongst many of the 'house churches' when I was in China. I wasn't a direct part of them, but the school I worked at had a huge underground of this type of thing. It made our IT security a bit more paranoid because from time to time we'd have government folks 'inspecting' this place far for frequently than at other schools in China in which I had worked. But that's another discussion..
    - sputknick 12y ago
      I've heard that the Chinese governments attitude towards Christianity is somewhat bi-polar. In the East they discourage and harass Christians, but in the West they openly encourage Christianity, to the point of paying the salaries of missionaries (as a way to counter the Muslim communities). Is that true?
      - technomancy 12y ago
        I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party. There's actually two sets of government-controlled Christian religious organizations (one Catholic and one Protestant). (Similarly, there is a government controlled Islamic organization.)
  - sputknick 12y ago
    Thanks for the tip, I just bought the Kindle version!
- yodsanklai 12y ago
  When I was living in NYC, a friend of mine took me to such christian gatherings (about 10 people meeting at somebody's place). I'm an atheist, but I thought it was a very interesting experience. We were discussing various topics, sometimes there were special guests and so on...
  - mercer 12y ago
    I've been involved with a number non-religious attempts to set up similar 'small groups', and people loved these things. We'd pick similar topics, but just keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). the most common feedback was "I've always been looking for a group where I could have meaningful conversations about 'bigger' things in life, or more personal things.", and people would often keep returning. I'm probably going to start something similar in Berlin in a month or so. It's really fun, and a great way to make friends.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      I hope you take this well, but... > ...keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). I generally don't feel respected when people ask me to leave part of my identity and lifestyle at the door. I understand the aversion to fiery sermons (I'm not a huge fan either), but asking people to not be overtly themselves can be very exclusionary, especially if you are shooting for inclusiveness and authenticity. But trying to have meaningful relationships is a great thing. It's certainly harder than it looks. Good luck!
      - mercer 12y ago
        I should've probably phrased it differently. 'Keep the discussion from fiery sermons' would have been a more accurate way to put it. Religious people were generally free to talk about their faith, and this was only 'discouraged' if they'd go so far down that road that nobody else could identify in any way. That almost never happened though. In fact, one of the organizers was a conservative evangelical Christian.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I've had similar thoughts, but add another buzzword: hyperlocal. So far, nothing beat shared geography for building communities. Then, again, you mention "communication such as it is", which could alleviate some of that problem. But, for whatever reason, small church communities don't tend to use electronic communication much. It tends to be very face-to-face or speaker-to-audience these days. A microchurch (well, any healthy church) needs safe electronic places to have peer-to-peer and peer-to-trusted-friends communication. And by safe, I mean medical records, bank balance, and legal advice safe. Despite the article in The Guardian (if coffee-induced anxiety is your biggest problem...), lots of real spiritual needs happen around very important but sensitive topics that any wise person would be discrete about: sex (in and out of marriage), marriage crisis, unplanned pregnancies, money, addiction, physical health, mental health, fertility problems, problems with coworkers, and the list goes on. Right now, electronically, the only options are to say nothing to nobody or post this sort of information on facebook or something similar. So I still circle back to "hyperlocal" for now. People need a lot of courage and (usually) a lot of quality time to get to the point where they'll let down their guards and be honest. I'm not sure how to accomplish that unless everyone lives in the same neighborhood. But in general, churches haven't scaled well. It's actually a serious issue that most people aren't thinking about. Microchurches might be one solution to the problem.
  - sputknick 12y ago
    I hadn't thought about the idea of communication security, but you are right, with the things you discuss in church, you would definitely need to consider that. I think you are right that these churches would also need to be "hyperlocal". A lot of that could be handled by Facebook with those "I'm having trouble, can you come over so we can talk" comments, with the meat of the discussion handled in person.
  - hluska 12y ago
    You know, there have been points where I have wanted to go to alcoholics anonymous...not because of any particular problem with alcohol, but because I want to tell people the truth when they ask 'how are you?' I crave being able to really vent. I think that you're onto something.
- mercer 12y ago
  I grew up going to a lot of 'home churches', as they're very common in Evangelical/Pentecostal circles. And even in bigger evangelical churches there is still a strong focus on these 'micro gatherings'. these bigger churches often treat the Sundays as the 'evangelism' meetings (simple sermons, a lot of often high-quality entertainment, etc.), and then have the more in-depth bible study and interpersonal connecting in the weekday 'small groups'. These are usually in someone's house, and while they have a 'leader' the evening is usually taken care of by a different person in the group each time. It's in these house meetings that people often share more personal things and make their deeper friendships. It's a very nice and very successful model, and sometimes I wish the 'atheism 2.0' attempts would take their inspiration more from these evangelical movements rather than more 'established' religions and religious practices.
- 7952 12y ago
  I wonder if it is an areas that gyms should go into and treat it like just another class.
- TheNewAndy 12y ago
  If you are looking for a more traditional model, then leaving out the 10% alms/tithe is pretty sensible. This only seems to be a fairly recent thing and not one really backed by any biblical teaching (there are no mentions of tithing for Christians in the bible).
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Right. 10% is actually a low bar. Jesus was basically couch surfing. He had high praise for what would seem like absurd giving to us. He told a rich man to liquidate his life and donate the money. The early church would sell real estate to pay each others' bills. Even in the old testament, tithes were more like 23% though they included taxes to support government. But there were additional social welfare rules on top of that, like not harvesting all of your grain so the poor could take the rest.
    - TheNewAndy 12y ago
      The percentage notion is pretty dangerous in my opinion. Even in old testament times, there was no fixed percentage. How much did a carpenter tithe? How much did a widow tithe? The teaching I have seen at churches in San Francisco (not all churches mind you - I have only been to 3, and one of them didn't do this) was teaching this absolute lie that all people should be giving God (by which they meant the church) money, and that by giving money to the church, God would repay them with more. It isn't biblical, and it is really not helping with the huge homelessness problem in the city. Anyone going to a church that is teaching this should be doing their own research, and then challenging the teaching at their church.
      - humanrebar 12y ago
        Right. There is no fixed percentage. I used the term "low bar" in an opaque way. If the question is, "How much do I have to give?" then the answer is "You're asking the wrong question." Jesus talks about money in Luke 12, and his opinions (on inheritance and accumulation of wealth) would run counter to God-loves-rich-people theology. Heck, they probably run counter to what most Americans would consider common sense.
- iolothebard 12y ago
  We have these all over my town. From small homes to full blown churches. The new 'hipster' churches do well with youths. My town is roughly 120k people and has roughly 1000 registered churches (yay bible belt!).
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
  This is exactly how I worship in New York; Boston; and Portland, OR. It works well. It mixes Quakerism’s meeting for worship and evangelical bible study. It’s popular with 20-and-30-something Christians.
- jrs235 12y ago
  I believe its just a matter of time until churches will lose their 501c3 tax exempt statuses for one or more reasons. Once donations to churches are no longer tax deductible I foresee the big church building owned by the org going away and "churches" just gathering in public spaces or people's homes. It makes the most sense from all sides. Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time (I know, not all and not always as some churches try to keep their doors open and share the building with others) to heat it, upkeep it, take away land/property taxes from the local government/community? Those saved upkeep expenses could go directly into helping the poor and those in need. Scrap ten buildings and get one, keep it open 24/7 and make it a shelter and soup kitchen. (But too many church goers/members treat "their church" like a country club or Malibu beach side home owners... "I don't want to mix let alone see those 'dirty poor rascals'".)
  - nhayden 12y ago
    I would imagine the majority of people tithing do not exceed their standard deduction and therefore don't include their donations on their tax return anyway.
    - jrs235 12y ago
      Interesting. I would imagine that the majority of financial support though comes from a minority, which probably make enough to exceed their standard deduction even without tithing (especially for the "country club" type churches). $12400 is not difficult hit exceed for a married couple with state and local income or sales taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, student loan interest?, medical and dental expenses, and charitable contributions. Also, if churches have to pay property taxes I think many will ditch the building.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    > Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time... Do you have any numbers for that? All the churches I know have activities and meetings all through the week, though not necessarily in the main sanctuary. As for tax exemption, churches routinely do other charitable work, including things that would be called social work in other circumstances. In general, doing work the government would otherwise be responsible for qualifies a group for tax exempt status, even if with a different classification. I suspect that if the religious tax exemption were revoked, the structure of giving would change, but churches themselves would stay more or less the way they are. After all, they predate the United States, its tax code, or the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.
jkot 12y ago
If church has a good wifi and some tables, I am willing to give it a try, instead of coffee shop. I promise to keep video calls at minimum during mass :-) Now bit more seriously. I could easily imagine some sort of two week 'hacker camp' organized by church. It works quite well for musicians, artist and other groups.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Traditional and contemporary (meaning full of baby boomers) churches tend to have many outlets for the artistically-inclined. I'm guessing that's because the church experience for them revolves around mass media and therefore performance: bands, choirs, sermons, and Bible studies (and accompanying books). I think most faith groups fail to identify creative-but-not-artistic types (makers, hackers, builders, etc.) as having a lot of skills and passion to contribute. It's certainly not coincidental that both the tech-oriented (and more broadly, male) portions of American society are underrepresented and probably under-served.
andyjohnson0 12y ago
The problem with targeting "hipsters" (a term I dislike, btw) is that after a while they inevitably move on to the next new thing. And I don't think that religious belief systems are immune. A few years ago the new thing was Kabala, and before that western Buddhism.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  I don't know, do hipsters go back to drinking crappy coffee? I think broad interests change with new experience. I don't know about community in Buddhism or Kabala, but in Christianity, once you experience healthy, constructive, no-judging, be-yourself community with other Christians, your tastes change. Going back to normal friendships is a little like getting used to great coffee then switching to instant coffee.
  - empressplay 12y ago
    Unless of course you're gay or trans. Most versions of "Christianity" take a dim view of those folks.
    - spacemanmatt 12y ago
      Or where I live, there are a few "pretty" churches where it's more of a meat market than a fellowship or worship organization. They advertise on the radio and hold lots of singles mixers. Big beautiful campus near the lake. Some pastor must be doing pretty well in the eyes of his CPA.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      I don't think all Christians are in "healthy, constructive, no-judging, be-yourself communities", and it sounds like you haven't had any exposure to one of those. I mentioned calling people on their crap in another post, and I've called Christian friends out for bigotry before. Part of a constructive relationship involves correcting people in a healthy and safe environment. It's certainly not biblical to hate or judge anyone. That also means I can't hate or judge people for their hateful or judgmental attitudes. But it's not worth diving into a particular community steeped in those problems either.
zellyn 12y ago
It's fun to read an article written from a somewhat "outsider" perspective (the descriptions of bands and music are particularly amusing). I'd also be interested in reading a more comprehensive insider-perspective study of churches in SF and the Bay Area. In particular, I'd love to see a deeper survey of the latent conservatism of many "hipster" or "emergent" churches here, once you scratch deeper than the surface. People get squeamish quickly if you delve too far into questions of homosexuality, past the "don't focus on it" attitude described in the article. There's also a surprisingly large "God called us to live in this dark city of sin" contingent, which I find sad: if you can't appreciate a place like San Francisco, you're only half alive: surely the antithesis of the promise of Christianity.
- bohol 12y ago
  The whole thing seem really strange to me, almost like a parody. In the technology center of the world secular community movements, which SF used to be famous for, are being replaced by churches and networking events. Why not get together and start a study circle instead, it seems a lot more apt for the place.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    Study circles and churches aren't the same thing at all, for one.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
humanrebar 12y ago
I've noticed that how churches look is really influenced by land prices and local zoning laws. In places where people have money compared to the cost of real-estate (like Texas), you see giant superchurches. In places where real-estate is relatively expensive, churches tend to be smaller since large auditoriums are basically out of the picture. Though especially in dense areas, I've also seen what I call "church franchises"; one "church" with maybe half-a-dozen locations spread across a metroplex. To different degrees, the pastoral staff and congregation will float around to different locations from week to week. It's a way to grow without having to make absurd capital expenditures.
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
  Maybe, but many cities have massive churches (e.g. Baltimore, New York, Washington D.C., et al).
quietriot 12y ago
I think many people would entertain spending time on Sundays with this non-religious alternative : http://sundayassembly.com/ http://sundayassembly.com/ The Public Charter The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that celebrates life. Our motto: live better, help often, wonder more. Our mission: to help everyone find and fulfill their full potential. Our vision: a godless congregation in every town, city and village that wants one.
wil421 12y ago
>“Have you ever looked at the ingredients in a McRib? What are pig innards?” “You don’t want to know!” called out a scientist in the second row, to rippling laughter. Surprisingly the only pork product is actually pork shoulder AKA pork picnic [1]. The preservatives are the problem. [1]http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/whats-in-your-mcrib.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/whats...
- iolothebard 12y ago
  I don't see any issues there. Pork shoulder is still meat, plus it's McDonalds, what should anyone be expecting?
parennoob 12y ago
From one of the churches mentioned in the article: https://www.c3sv.com/sites/default/files/statement_of_beliefs.pdf https://www.c3sv.com/sites/default/files/statement_of_belief... How do people who are (probably) scientific-minded reconcile themselves with this sort of thing? I love community, and I'm actually fine with all the theological stuff. But evangelical zealotry like point 5 ("All people are lost and need a new birth through Christ.") turns me off strongly, and I hope it doesn't infuse people in the tech industry, like it has in Middle America.
- Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
  It isn’t “evangelical zealotry,” it’s fundamental (i.e. inspired by “The Fundamentals”). And it doesn’t reconcile. But that’s OK. However, many Christians have a far more liberal view of theology that does reconcile. If you’re interested in a computer science perspective: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > How do people who are (probably) scientific-minded reconcile themselves with this sort of thing? There's very little in that "statement of belief" that is even within the domain of empirically-explorable fact, so I don't see what being "scientific-minded" has to do with it, unless by that you mean something beyond using science to explore questions within its domain like the epistemological view that anything outside of the domain of science is to be rejected as a valid matter of belief.

44 points by zt 12y ago

I've had this idea bouncing around in the back of my head for a few years for an idea to use technology to reimagine churches into "micro churches". I feel like with communication such as it is, you could turn churches back into what they once were 2000 years ago, small gatherings of a small number of people (10-30) in an informal space (coffee shop, home) for church. It was foster stronger sense of community, and would avoid 85% of the cost of a traditional church (assuming you still gave 10% as alms). Not something I've ever built, just something I've had knocking around back there. Someone else is welcome to take the idea and make something of it.

epaga 12y ago
Actually, exactly that concept has actually been quickly growing in popularity for quite a few years now, it's especially been successful in developing countries like India and China. Small, highly reproducible groups which simply revolve around the core concepts of the gospel. Starfish vs. Spider, etc. A few years ago, our small church here in Berlin moved from a model where we were paying thousands in rent for a "meeting space" to simply meeting in a living room and sharing our lives. It's been a wonderful change which has really been great, not only (but also) financially. BTW, an influential book in that regard is particularly Neil Cole's "Organic Church".
- briandear 12y ago
  In China it's out of necessity and safety, but the side benefit is that these groups become more tightly knit. I worked amongst many of the 'house churches' when I was in China. I wasn't a direct part of them, but the school I worked at had a huge underground of this type of thing. It made our IT security a bit more paranoid because from time to time we'd have government folks 'inspecting' this place far for frequently than at other schools in China in which I had worked. But that's another discussion..
  - sputknick 12y ago
    I've heard that the Chinese governments attitude towards Christianity is somewhat bi-polar. In the East they discourage and harass Christians, but in the West they openly encourage Christianity, to the point of paying the salaries of missionaries (as a way to counter the Muslim communities). Is that true?
    - technomancy 12y ago
      I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > I've heard there is an established church that is legal and approved by the government, but the government closely monitors them to ensure they aren't teaching anything that's threatening to the Party. There's actually two sets of government-controlled Christian religious organizations (one Catholic and one Protestant). (Similarly, there is a government controlled Islamic organization.)
- sputknick 12y ago
  Thanks for the tip, I just bought the Kindle version!
yodsanklai 12y ago
When I was living in NYC, a friend of mine took me to such christian gatherings (about 10 people meeting at somebody's place). I'm an atheist, but I thought it was a very interesting experience. We were discussing various topics, sometimes there were special guests and so on...
- mercer 12y ago
  I've been involved with a number non-religious attempts to set up similar 'small groups', and people loved these things. We'd pick similar topics, but just keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). the most common feedback was "I've always been looking for a group where I could have meaningful conversations about 'bigger' things in life, or more personal things.", and people would often keep returning. I'm probably going to start something similar in Berlin in a month or so. It's really fun, and a great way to make friends.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    I hope you take this well, but... > ...keep the discussion from being overtly religious (while respecting those who were religious). I generally don't feel respected when people ask me to leave part of my identity and lifestyle at the door. I understand the aversion to fiery sermons (I'm not a huge fan either), but asking people to not be overtly themselves can be very exclusionary, especially if you are shooting for inclusiveness and authenticity. But trying to have meaningful relationships is a great thing. It's certainly harder than it looks. Good luck!
    - mercer 12y ago
      I should've probably phrased it differently. 'Keep the discussion from fiery sermons' would have been a more accurate way to put it. Religious people were generally free to talk about their faith, and this was only 'discouraged' if they'd go so far down that road that nobody else could identify in any way. That almost never happened though. In fact, one of the organizers was a conservative evangelical Christian.
humanrebar 12y ago
I've had similar thoughts, but add another buzzword: hyperlocal. So far, nothing beat shared geography for building communities. Then, again, you mention "communication such as it is", which could alleviate some of that problem. But, for whatever reason, small church communities don't tend to use electronic communication much. It tends to be very face-to-face or speaker-to-audience these days. A microchurch (well, any healthy church) needs safe electronic places to have peer-to-peer and peer-to-trusted-friends communication. And by safe, I mean medical records, bank balance, and legal advice safe. Despite the article in The Guardian (if coffee-induced anxiety is your biggest problem...), lots of real spiritual needs happen around very important but sensitive topics that any wise person would be discrete about: sex (in and out of marriage), marriage crisis, unplanned pregnancies, money, addiction, physical health, mental health, fertility problems, problems with coworkers, and the list goes on. Right now, electronically, the only options are to say nothing to nobody or post this sort of information on facebook or something similar. So I still circle back to "hyperlocal" for now. People need a lot of courage and (usually) a lot of quality time to get to the point where they'll let down their guards and be honest. I'm not sure how to accomplish that unless everyone lives in the same neighborhood. But in general, churches haven't scaled well. It's actually a serious issue that most people aren't thinking about. Microchurches might be one solution to the problem.
- sputknick 12y ago
  I hadn't thought about the idea of communication security, but you are right, with the things you discuss in church, you would definitely need to consider that. I think you are right that these churches would also need to be "hyperlocal". A lot of that could be handled by Facebook with those "I'm having trouble, can you come over so we can talk" comments, with the meat of the discussion handled in person.
- hluska 12y ago
  You know, there have been points where I have wanted to go to alcoholics anonymous...not because of any particular problem with alcohol, but because I want to tell people the truth when they ask 'how are you?' I crave being able to really vent. I think that you're onto something.
mercer 12y ago
I grew up going to a lot of 'home churches', as they're very common in Evangelical/Pentecostal circles. And even in bigger evangelical churches there is still a strong focus on these 'micro gatherings'. these bigger churches often treat the Sundays as the 'evangelism' meetings (simple sermons, a lot of often high-quality entertainment, etc.), and then have the more in-depth bible study and interpersonal connecting in the weekday 'small groups'. These are usually in someone's house, and while they have a 'leader' the evening is usually taken care of by a different person in the group each time. It's in these house meetings that people often share more personal things and make their deeper friendships. It's a very nice and very successful model, and sometimes I wish the 'atheism 2.0' attempts would take their inspiration more from these evangelical movements rather than more 'established' religions and religious practices.
7952 12y ago
I wonder if it is an areas that gyms should go into and treat it like just another class.
TheNewAndy 12y ago
If you are looking for a more traditional model, then leaving out the 10% alms/tithe is pretty sensible. This only seems to be a fairly recent thing and not one really backed by any biblical teaching (there are no mentions of tithing for Christians in the bible).
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Right. 10% is actually a low bar. Jesus was basically couch surfing. He had high praise for what would seem like absurd giving to us. He told a rich man to liquidate his life and donate the money. The early church would sell real estate to pay each others' bills. Even in the old testament, tithes were more like 23% though they included taxes to support government. But there were additional social welfare rules on top of that, like not harvesting all of your grain so the poor could take the rest.
  - TheNewAndy 12y ago
    The percentage notion is pretty dangerous in my opinion. Even in old testament times, there was no fixed percentage. How much did a carpenter tithe? How much did a widow tithe? The teaching I have seen at churches in San Francisco (not all churches mind you - I have only been to 3, and one of them didn't do this) was teaching this absolute lie that all people should be giving God (by which they meant the church) money, and that by giving money to the church, God would repay them with more. It isn't biblical, and it is really not helping with the huge homelessness problem in the city. Anyone going to a church that is teaching this should be doing their own research, and then challenging the teaching at their church.
    - humanrebar 12y ago
      Right. There is no fixed percentage. I used the term "low bar" in an opaque way. If the question is, "How much do I have to give?" then the answer is "You're asking the wrong question." Jesus talks about money in Luke 12, and his opinions (on inheritance and accumulation of wealth) would run counter to God-loves-rich-people theology. Heck, they probably run counter to what most Americans would consider common sense.
iolothebard 12y ago
We have these all over my town. From small homes to full blown churches. The new 'hipster' churches do well with youths. My town is roughly 120k people and has roughly 1000 registered churches (yay bible belt!).
Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
This is exactly how I worship in New York; Boston; and Portland, OR. It works well. It mixes Quakerism’s meeting for worship and evangelical bible study. It’s popular with 20-and-30-something Christians.
jrs235 12y ago
I believe its just a matter of time until churches will lose their 501c3 tax exempt statuses for one or more reasons. Once donations to churches are no longer tax deductible I foresee the big church building owned by the org going away and "churches" just gathering in public spaces or people's homes. It makes the most sense from all sides. Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time (I know, not all and not always as some churches try to keep their doors open and share the building with others) to heat it, upkeep it, take away land/property taxes from the local government/community? Those saved upkeep expenses could go directly into helping the poor and those in need. Scrap ten buildings and get one, keep it open 24/7 and make it a shelter and soup kitchen. (But too many church goers/members treat "their church" like a country club or Malibu beach side home owners... "I don't want to mix let alone see those 'dirty poor rascals'".)
- nhayden 12y ago
  I would imagine the majority of people tithing do not exceed their standard deduction and therefore don't include their donations on their tax return anyway.
  - jrs235 12y ago
    Interesting. I would imagine that the majority of financial support though comes from a minority, which probably make enough to exceed their standard deduction even without tithing (especially for the "country club" type churches). $12400 is not difficult hit exceed for a married couple with state and local income or sales taxes, property taxes, mortgage interest, student loan interest?, medical and dental expenses, and charitable contributions. Also, if churches have to pay property taxes I think many will ditch the building.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  > Why are church donations paying for a building that often remains mostly empty most of the time... Do you have any numbers for that? All the churches I know have activities and meetings all through the week, though not necessarily in the main sanctuary. As for tax exemption, churches routinely do other charitable work, including things that would be called social work in other circumstances. In general, doing work the government would otherwise be responsible for qualifies a group for tax exempt status, even if with a different classification. I suspect that if the religious tax exemption were revoked, the structure of giving would change, but churches themselves would stay more or less the way they are. After all, they predate the United States, its tax code, or the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.

jkot 12y ago

If church has a good wifi and some tables, I am willing to give it a try, instead of coffee shop. I promise to keep video calls at minimum during mass :-) Now bit more seriously. I could easily imagine some sort of two week 'hacker camp' organized by church. It works quite well for musicians, artist and other groups.

humanrebar 12y ago
Traditional and contemporary (meaning full of baby boomers) churches tend to have many outlets for the artistically-inclined. I'm guessing that's because the church experience for them revolves around mass media and therefore performance: bands, choirs, sermons, and Bible studies (and accompanying books). I think most faith groups fail to identify creative-but-not-artistic types (makers, hackers, builders, etc.) as having a lot of skills and passion to contribute. It's certainly not coincidental that both the tech-oriented (and more broadly, male) portions of American society are underrepresented and probably under-served.

andyjohnson0 12y ago

The problem with targeting "hipsters" (a term I dislike, btw) is that after a while they inevitably move on to the next new thing. And I don't think that religious belief systems are immune. A few years ago the new thing was Kabala, and before that western Buddhism.

humanrebar 12y ago
I don't know, do hipsters go back to drinking crappy coffee? I think broad interests change with new experience. I don't know about community in Buddhism or Kabala, but in Christianity, once you experience healthy, constructive, no-judging, be-yourself community with other Christians, your tastes change. Going back to normal friendships is a little like getting used to great coffee then switching to instant coffee.
- empressplay 12y ago
  Unless of course you're gay or trans. Most versions of "Christianity" take a dim view of those folks.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Or where I live, there are a few "pretty" churches where it's more of a meat market than a fellowship or worship organization. They advertise on the radio and hold lots of singles mixers. Big beautiful campus near the lake. Some pastor must be doing pretty well in the eyes of his CPA.
  - humanrebar 12y ago
    I don't think all Christians are in "healthy, constructive, no-judging, be-yourself communities", and it sounds like you haven't had any exposure to one of those. I mentioned calling people on their crap in another post, and I've called Christian friends out for bigotry before. Part of a constructive relationship involves correcting people in a healthy and safe environment. It's certainly not biblical to hate or judge anyone. That also means I can't hate or judge people for their hateful or judgmental attitudes. But it's not worth diving into a particular community steeped in those problems either.

zellyn 12y ago

It's fun to read an article written from a somewhat "outsider" perspective (the descriptions of bands and music are particularly amusing). I'd also be interested in reading a more comprehensive insider-perspective study of churches in SF and the Bay Area. In particular, I'd love to see a deeper survey of the latent conservatism of many "hipster" or "emergent" churches here, once you scratch deeper than the surface. People get squeamish quickly if you delve too far into questions of homosexuality, past the "don't focus on it" attitude described in the article. There's also a surprisingly large "God called us to live in this dark city of sin" contingent, which I find sad: if you can't appreciate a place like San Francisco, you're only half alive: surely the antithesis of the promise of Christianity.

bohol 12y ago
The whole thing seem really strange to me, almost like a parody. In the technology center of the world secular community movements, which SF used to be famous for, are being replaced by churches and networking events. Why not get together and start a study circle instead, it seems a lot more apt for the place.
- humanrebar 12y ago
  Study circles and churches aren't the same thing at all, for one.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

humanrebar 12y ago

I've noticed that how churches look is really influenced by land prices and local zoning laws. In places where people have money compared to the cost of real-estate (like Texas), you see giant superchurches. In places where real-estate is relatively expensive, churches tend to be smaller since large auditoriums are basically out of the picture. Though especially in dense areas, I've also seen what I call "church franchises"; one "church" with maybe half-a-dozen locations spread across a metroplex. To different degrees, the pastoral staff and congregation will float around to different locations from week to week. It's a way to grow without having to make absurd capital expenditures.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
Maybe, but many cities have massive churches (e.g. Baltimore, New York, Washington D.C., et al).

quietriot 12y ago

I think many people would entertain spending time on Sundays with this non-religious alternative : http://sundayassembly.com/ http://sundayassembly.com/ The Public Charter The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that celebrates life. Our motto: live better, help often, wonder more. Our mission: to help everyone find and fulfill their full potential. Our vision: a godless congregation in every town, city and village that wants one.

wil421 12y ago

>“Have you ever looked at the ingredients in a McRib? What are pig innards?” “You don’t want to know!” called out a scientist in the second row, to rippling laughter. Surprisingly the only pork product is actually pork shoulder AKA pork picnic [1]. The preservatives are the problem. [1]http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/whats-in-your-mcrib.html http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/your_questions/our_food/whats...

iolothebard 12y ago
I don't see any issues there. Pork shoulder is still meat, plus it's McDonalds, what should anyone be expecting?

parennoob 12y ago

From one of the churches mentioned in the article: https://www.c3sv.com/sites/default/files/statement_of_beliefs.pdf https://www.c3sv.com/sites/default/files/statement_of_belief... How do people who are (probably) scientific-minded reconcile themselves with this sort of thing? I love community, and I'm actually fine with all the theological stuff. But evangelical zealotry like point 5 ("All people are lost and need a new birth through Christ.") turns me off strongly, and I hope it doesn't infuse people in the tech industry, like it has in Middle America.

Q6T46nT668w6i3m 12y ago
It isn’t “evangelical zealotry,” it’s fundamental (i.e. inspired by “The Fundamentals”). And it doesn’t reconcile. But that’s OK. However, many Christians have a far more liberal view of theology that does reconcile. If you’re interested in a computer science perspective: http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~uno/things.html
dragonwriter 12y ago
> How do people who are (probably) scientific-minded reconcile themselves with this sort of thing? There's very little in that "statement of belief" that is even within the domain of empirically-explorable fact, so I don't see what being "scientific-minded" has to do with it, unless by that you mean something beyond using science to explore questions within its domain like the epistemological view that anything outside of the domain of science is to be rejected as a valid matter of belief.