For me sports clubs fill that niche. From my local lawn bowls club I meet people of all ages, the oldest member is 84, the youngest are kids of parents and there is everything in between and from all walks of life. You can do this without even playing sport but if you participate you can meet an even wider range of people.

Much of this activity is centered around various sports and the bar of course. If that's not your deal then there are all sorts of other local communities, you just have to look.

Though, lacking a unifying shared habit of proscribed worship at a single place those things tend to be interest, activity, or goal based.

However, from a Catholic religious perspective, crosses are all the more bearable as one learns to experience them as a means of personal sanctification (closer personal union with Christ crucified) and an opportunity to practice and grow in virtue – "dying to self" more and more so that joyful generosity truly becomes the rule of life. In this way, community-life-as-a-cross becomes a means for both individual and community to give glory to God and work toward the salvation of souls.

Can secular motives truly substitute for that transcendent motive and outlook? I certainly think it's an interesting question.

I'm intrigued that he suggests secular communities should "put fellowship first" and "appeal to all kinds of people" in order to do so, when the traditional religious communities that he says succeed don't set out to do those things.

In a functional Christian church (and granted, many US churches are not), the community's shared goal is to love and serve God and the people around them.

The community, and any appeal it has, are side effects.

This shared goal comes straight from the Bible. If you read the whole thing, you'll find the theme appears throughout, but Jesus espouses it very clearly in Matthew: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2022:36...

As a Christian who grew up in the church, and has watched various Christian communities function (and sometimes dysfunction), I think this belief, at the very core of Christianity, is exactly what makes many churches wonderful communities.

Each member of the church believes that the crafter of particle physics, the shaper of Mount Everest, the painter of the auroras, loves them so intensely that he took on human form and died to save them from the worst decisions they have made, the betrayals that devastated their friends, family, themselves, and him.

You may think that belief is ludicrous, and that we are naive, irrational fools for holding it.

Even so, it should be clear that those who believe it would feel compelled to follow that example, as much as they can. Caring for others that well is nigh-impossible, but it's the unattainable standard a church strives for.

Many churches have long forgotten what they once believed. Even when it's remembered, humans remain frail as ever. It is not easy to put others before yourself even when you like them, let alone when they belittle and insult you.

When it works, though, it's amazing to see.

I think that's why few secular communities or institutions have outlasted the Christian church. Right or wrong, the Christian vision has caring for others as an essential imperative.

That seems to me to be the very essence of a community.

I may be blinded by my bias, but I don't see how an explicitly secular organization could have as rich a community.

It cannot point to the perfect exemplar of their ideals and say "This is how you should strive to be." It cannot say "The earth and its works will be unmade and remade, but the communities you forge now will live into eternity."

"If we don't make better communities, we'll be sadder before we die" just doesn't seem as compelling.

There are plenty of other ways to meet that need nowadays that are especially attractive given the poor example that some Christians set. My hope is that people find satisfaction in life one way or another.

Cycling clubs and board games groups can bring people together, but they don't ask for the same kind of commitment or engender the same sense of shared identity.

It isn't that they cannot substitute and create many of the benefits, but are unlikely to.

Church is way more meaningful than that. Baptisms, deaths, marriages are run by churches and the meaning can survive the majority of attendants not showing up.

The problem in modern society, is teaching the meaning behind churches. It takes longer than a couple cycling classes and is more demanding on the spirit.

but, one thing many religions provide is a social club. Every Sunday and for some religion even more days, you meet up with people socially. Churches have festivals, dances, classes, even singles events that you're encouraged to attend regularly and at which you'll likely make friends and possible more

Vs outside where sure I can join a club or go to a Meetup but some part of that just doesn't seem to hit the same levels as church type stuff. Maybe it's a stronger feeling of obligation to participate. Maybe it's shared beliefs ...

Let pitch a non-religious social club to YC :p

I guess you could also try joining a church where it’s basically acceptable to be an atheist like the Unitarian Universalist church although that would maybe be too spiritual.

That said, you aren't wrong! But I think you underestimate how many people think communion is the most important part and don't actually participate in the community aspect of it!

Personally, I'm more in your camp, especially for Protestant churches. I've often referred to the local Methodist church that my friends go to as "the poor man's country club". Not disparaging them in any way, but for them it's more about the community than it is about God.

Humans are emotional, physical, and (whether you interpret it as supernatural or not) spiritual creatures. The ritual and belief in something bigger than oneself are an essential part of the process. If you look at other organizations that serve similar roles to conventional churches (such as the Grangers, Freemasons, Shriners, The Lions Club, etc.) they all replicate the ritual and higher purpose commonly associated with churches.

And at least their object of praise provably exists.

In my experience, when secular people start this, it ends up being a club for other secular people 'like them'. In America the starkest examples of this are when these community clubs founded by whites end up being essentially white only, or black-only if founded by a black. Not due to any racism on part of the founder but simply that, without an explicit shared value system, no one quite knows what to believe except those 'already in the know'.

I notice this with my own in-laws, who are white WASPy types. I am a Catholic obviously, and not white. Sometimes, they'll talk in ways that make me feel out of place and that I can't relate to. On the other hand, when white Catholics talk about Catholicism, I feel we're on the same wave length.

> I would love to see a concerted effort at government funded secular churches designed to serve a parish-sized community.

I think it's sad we have to replace grassroots decentralized community efforts with centralized government funded ones in this day and age. It's like we've regressed.

That's my observation. I'd be interested in seeing this thing come around, and i'll continue to watch from the sidelines with interest. Maybe I'll even show up after church.