This week in class we watched a documentary focusing on the experiences of two different characters in their churches, which were across the street from each other. One character was a man who went to a first Baptist church and the other was a woman who went to an Episcopal church. The man’s experience was one where he felt very connected with Jesus and believed that he was saved by him and wanted to share this news with everyone. His experience was one where everyone in the church was very outward about their beliefs and wanted to make others see the way they did. The woman, on the other hand, went to a church that focused on one’s relationship with God rather than Jesus. In contrast, people at her church were very personal about their connection with God and religious beliefs were not talked about with others, of the church or the general community.

While watching this documentary, I was able to relate to the journey that the woman was going through. In my family, religion has never been something that is discussed as my parents stopped going to church but did not share why. That reason has always seemed personal to them so I have never asked. My journey with my spirituality has always been connected to the struggles of my identity and beliefs. When the woman was talking with her priest about how her past is affecting her current relationship with God I was able to relate to that because my past and where I am from has always affected my ability to explore my religion.

Last week in class we watched the film “Separate Realities” where two people who go to church across the street from each other lead completely different religious lives. I found two things in this movie to be quite interesting, first how differently they view religion and second what led them to their church. The woman in the movie goes to St. Paul’s Episcopal Church, while the man goes to First Baptist Church across the way. For the woman, her religious journey was focused on herself. She was trying to establish a relationship with God in order to help her figure out who she is as she felt she’d lost herself. She attended a woman’s retreat to help her connection with God, but even after that she still struggled with her faith and even being open to discuss her faith with others. She felt that religion was private and shouldn’t be talked about with others.

Across the street the man in the film had a completely different view. He believed God had “saved them” to tell people about their Christ the Savior, so that is exactly what he did. He went out and became a minister by teaching classes at the church and spreading his faith with friends and strangers. He turned to religion when he was having a drinking problem and was looking to quit the habit, he feels that his faith saved him. His experience with his faith was far more community and preaching centered than the woman’s was, but they had one important similarity. They both found their beliefs and religion when they were struggling. Their religion affected them in the same way as it allowed them to find guidance in their lives when they felt lost. I found this interesting because although they came from different religions, they were drawn to a faithful life when they needed it most. They both turned to religion, to their faith, seeking answers and guidance and I feel this is the case for many people. 

There are so many religions out there because everyone relates to different things and is spiritually fulfilled in different ways. Religion allows people to form a community and find answers that they would not encounter otherwise. Although they practice their religions in different ways, they came to know their faith for similar reasons. As discussed in McGuire’s chapter 5, every religion differs based on their stance and the way they are organized. If all religions were the same and fulfilled everyone, then there would be no need for a variety. Religions evolve and change over time, but there will never stop being a need for a variety of beliefs.

There is an interesting point made in Chapter 2 in Chaves’s book, “American Religion, Contemporary Trends,” which is that

“In American society as a whole, increasing interracial contact within American religion mainly means more instances in which African Americans participate in small numbers in predominantly white groups. It does not mean more whites participating in predominantly black groups, nor does it mean a large minority presence in congregations, no matter which ethnic group is in the majority.”

This statement brings up the question of how does race effect religion? It would appear that race and ethnicity effects how and if people participate in religion according to the statement above. It reveals how minorities are proven to be the outnumbered in religious contexts while they are usually outnumbered in many other contexts of life as well. While it would be assumed that religious sanctions and churches are places for many to be welcomed, that is not the case. There has been much progression away from racism and civil rights in America yet there still seems to be disparities between races and racial tension among races. This can be proven and connected to how there have been many reported instances of African Americans having negative encounters with police officers and how groups like the Ku Klux Klan still exist today. Of course, this topic of race and the overarching theme of how it effects society is an extremely complex case and hard to summarize in one post. Yet, I believe it’s important to recognize the similarities and differences of how each race navigates through their religion in American society. How do you think race effects religion?

In chapter 2, McGuire talks about religious legitimations: any form of established explanation given to justify a course of action.

What is interesting is that when I think of religious legitimations there is always a negative connotation. For example, certain conservative churches legitimizing the Pulse Nightclub shooting as a work of their God to punish the LGBTQ+ community. However, this is not how McGuire approaches legitimations in chapter 2, and rightfully so. It was interesting for myself to read about legitimations and think, “yeah, alright that makes sense” etc. etc. From an objective standpoint legitimations aren’t inherently evil as my brain likes to think they are. It is enlightening to see that legitimations are really just ways for religions/churches/social groups to explain their past behavior and shape future actions. For example, at my own church they encourage tithing (which is always optional by the way) not only as a way to obey God but also to provide resources for other members such as youth programs and other church locations. To explain this future course of action there is an appeal to the tradition of Christian tithing and compassion. I realize when I’m sitting in church I don’t necessarily think of this as evil. Perhaps that is because I am brainwashed (worst case scenario). Or it just isn’t evil? I suppose that is for others to decide as I am too embedded in the group.

I suppose that my takeaway from this is that not every legitimation from every religion is bad or has some underlying scheme. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t ones that can and are hurtful to some groups of people, but that isn’t necessarily the norm. As a result, I will work on (and try my best to) being more objective when it comes to these legitimations.

This week in class we discussed our own religious experiences and how Meredith McGuire explains the definitions of religion and how they are viewed within the context of sociology in her book Religion, The Social Context. McGuire’s description of the importance of community resonated with me and my own experiences. McGuire says that “Religious groups… hold in common important collective memories and exist through the continuity of those memories” (p.20). Being American and living in Asia, I always felt as though I could not connect with the common religions there as I did not share those memories with them. Asian religions are special to those from there and I did not want to encroach on those traditions and rituals when I felt as though I did not have a part in it. Reading this chapter made me be able to put into the words the separation I was feeling from religion in Asia.

McGuire also discusses the role of religious experience in different religions and its varying degrees. She mentions that the culture in Americans “does not particularly value [spiritual] experiences” but rather “on rational, intellectual, dispassionate ways of knowing” (p.20). I connected with this as my own beliefs in science never allowed me to connect with the religion that was presented to me as my own culture—Christianity—because I did not believe in the existence of God or the creation story that is presented in the religion. Reading this in the book allowed me to put my own experiences with religion into words. My journey has not been one that I’ve put into words as I’ve gone through it as I’ve never had to share it with someone else. Seeing these ideas that McGuire has presented has allowed me to shape my own journey in a way that allowed me to write it down in essay form to share with my peers in class.

Meaning systems. We all have them; we all interpret situations and events in our own way, but what formed them? Why do I see a certain situation differently than the person next to me?  Reading McGuire’s chapter two made me think about my own meaning system and how it was formed. McGuire discusses how each individual’s meaning system is learned from socialization, especially through religion. It is important to have a meaning system in order to define or find answers to things we don’t comprehend. Meaning systems help us define things such as death, poverty, illness, and other misfortunes. McGuire goes on to describe groups that all have one meaning system, or people who, for their whole lives, only surround themselves with those who share similar views. She describes these groups as “plausibility structures” and gives examples of religion in parts of Latin America where, “Most people spend their daily lives solely in the company of people who share major elements of their worldview” (38). This baffles me. I believe that we would all grow if we surround ourselves with people who think, see, and believe differently than us. I find it more beneficial for people to surround themselves with others who think differently in order to learn different views than to just stick with what they know and not expand outside of that.

I grew up in a devoted Catholic home and attended a Catholic high school where students did not need to be religious nor be specifically Catholic to attend. One might think that going to a religious school with the beliefs and meaning system that I already agreed with would cause my points of view to remain limited, but this is the opposite of what happened. Because my school accepted all religious backgrounds, I learned from many others with different meaning systems than those that I knew. This allowed me to grow as a person both in my religious views and in my evolving meaning system. Now in my life, I like to surround myself and talk with those who think differently than I do. I will admit that I am closest with those who have similar values as me, but when it comes down to it, it doesn’t matter if someone has different political or religious views, because as long as they respect mine, I will respect theirs too. These are the people from whom we learn most. We cannot learn from those who already know what we know and see life as we do. We must expand, go outside of what we know, and go outside of our comfort zones so we may grow. Once this is achieved,  I believe we will prosper.

In Chapter one of McGuire’s book “Religion: The Social Context”, they discuss how different definitions of religion shapes one’s explanation of its role in society. Religion is difficult to put in a box of words when there is a large and varying understanding as to what religion is. Some definitions can be misleading and construe the view of religion in society with a negative connotation when used carelessly. Furthermore, religion is commonly paired with spirituality, in which many argue that they are different or the same.

This point from McGuire reminded me of a discussion I had in my African American Religion and Spirituality class regarding the difference,  and if there is one, between religion and spirituality. In my discussion we attempted to come up with key words under each category that would help define and create an understanding of that category. For instance, under “Religion” we came up with words such as: God/Creator, Common belief system, Set of Rules, Formal, and Traditions/Rituals. On the other hand, under “Spirituality” we wrote words such as: Individualized understanding, Less strict, different approach, Choice, and Higher power. We went back and forth on whether these two words have different meanings, how much their meanings overlap, or whether one was a subcategory of the other. In my opinion and understanding  of the words, the two overlap more than they are separate. I believe that there is a sense of spirituality in religion, but not necessarily a sense of religion in spirituality. Meaning that someone can subscribe to a certain religion and be spiritual but someone being spiritual does not necessarily mean they subscribe to a certain religion.

I think looking at these definitions through a sociological lenses creates an interesting conversation due to the different interpretations that can be presented while doing so.