Before we left for Spring Break, we watched the film “Born Again”. It explained the lifestyles of a Fundamentally Baptist Church in Massachusetts. It was very visible that things there on the East Coast are a lot different from that of here on the West. The movie took place in the 1970s-80s, and it was wide opening to see how they practice their religion. There were a lot of things that I had never witnessed before, especially the pledge of allegiance to the Christian flag. It was very interesting to see that happen because of the definition of the separation of church and state. I don’t know if that is their conforming to making a political environment within their own religion that they can argue is still a separation because it is not an American flag, but something they made themselves for expression. However, if they are adapting political ideals into their own religion it can be seen as a form of politics. It was also interesting that it took place in the 70s-80s, because they hold very traditional familial ideals and they still hold on to those things today. It looks as if there hasn’t been much change within their traditions and they uphold the same rituals and traditions that they have had since the beginning. This is similar amongst other religions as well, but I feel that there are others that are better at conforming to societal changes and incorporating that amongst their teachings, as well being accepting of different family styles and people, rather than being opposed to them.

Last week we watched a film detailing the lives of Fundamentalist Baptist constituents in a Massachusetts congregation. This was a really interesting film to watch because I felt that it portrayed an extremely truthful description of the church itself. I was surprised to see the honesty of congregants during their interviews, who chose to relay both their feelings of happiness as well as feelings of disappointment with their church, where it would have been easy to highlight only the positive aspects of their congregation.

One of the most interesting relationships within the film, for me, was the relationship between the married couple who had recently split up, as well as the pastor’s engagement in the conflict. Despite the fact that the husband had treated his wife very poorly, because the wife had chosen not to return to church, the pastor chose to support the husband in his decision to restrict their children’s access to their mother. I found this relationship to be very interesting because, while watching the film, I found myself sympathizing with the wife, rather than the husband. This was indicative of how my own upbringing and morals affected my view of the situation. I also found it interesting how the husband chose to leave the church after his wife filed for divorce. In this sense, I found that the church’s emphasis on how the text of the Bible can explain and resolve issues ultimately did not resolve the husband’s situation. As a result, he left the church because he felt that it could not fulfill what he desired in his religious life. This was really interesting to observe because, on some level, this mirrored my own relationship with religion, as I left because I did not feel that religion is something that would contribute to my life significantly. In the case of the husband he felt that the Fundamentalist church in Massachusetts could not fulfill his spiritual needs because the Bible text did not resolve his relationship issues.

Before break, we watched a film about a Fundamentalist Baptist Church. It was shocking to me how much church was involved in their everyday lives. The pastor inserted himself into the relationships of his attendees as well as into the education of their children. One of the people focused on by the film was a man whose brother wanted him to become born again. The man had been going through a tough time, especially with his marriage. His brother had also gone through marriage troubles, but tried to convince his brother that becoming born again would save him. The man clearly was very torn, because he did not feel like he was in place where he was ready. During a “discussion”, his brother and other members of the church tried their best to convince him to accept, making the man extremely emotional. It was an intimate moment that I’m surprised happened while a camera crew was in the room.

Throughout this course I have tried to remain objective and not pass judgements based on my own feelings. However, following the story of the woman who was not able to see her children because she was living with another man and would not accept the faith was emotional to watch. Her ex was clearly abusive towards her and the kids, but she was made out to be the “bad guy” but her ex and the pastor at the church because she was not going to church and was living in sin. Although I have no actual way of knowing, I was of the feeling that her ex was using religion as an excuse to punish her for leaving him. No matter his motivations, it was frustrating to also see the pastor try to convince her to return to her previous relationship. Overall, this documentary opened my eyes to how all encompassing religion is for some.

Last week in class we watched a film that followed the lives of a few individuals inside of a religious organization. It really aided to highlight the point that we have been learning about; that individual experiences within a religion are unique and cannot be generalized. The reasons people join religious organizations are varied, but this is not to say that generalizations cannot be made. As we discussed after the film, the people whose lives were followed seemed to use religion as a coping mechanism for many things occurring in their life. Things that may have been beyond their control. Equally important to note is that theywouldn’t necessarily define their religiosity that way, it was an outside observation.

This made me think about vulnerability in general. When people are, vulnerable or experiencing a hardship, it seems like an opportunity for change. A form of change is through joining religious organizations. But furthermore, I thought about cultic traditions and those that might pose dangerous or exploitive lifestyle changes. It must be easier, through individual conflicts or lack of control to enter something like a cult compared to people who might be more settled or have internal senses of purpose. It must be extremely difficult at that point to ween from clinging to a religion/organization that provides answers to those problems. This is an extreme example but through the film I began to understand the ways that a sense of conflict or lack of purpose can create an environment that becomes a catalyst for wholehearted belief and devotion.

This week’s McGuire reading for Tuesday focused on religion in the modern world, and what exactly is its present position. Four different narratives (secularization, reorganization, individualization, supply side market analysis) currently dominate the answer to the future of religion. The supply side narrative is the only one of these that I had not before heard of as an explanation to the changes in religious trends over time. It is explained that the U.S. has a free market for religion, and what makes a church successful is the participation and amount of members. The reading states that by redesigning a religion to be more popular, “church members will flock through your doors.” (299)

The connection between church and religion, however, is not always present.  Strange but plausible is someone who considers themselves to be Christian and reads the Bible daily, yet never attends church, and because of the religious free market, it is easier than ever to find ways to practice different forms of religion or even start a new church. When people are reminiscing about the “good old days,” McGuire points out, they include the singular neighborhood community church everyone attended, but fail to bring up the “gravely restricted individual freedom” people were subjected to, particularly women. These authoritarian, patriarchal structures found within churches and congregations were non democratic and placed no emphasis on the individual. Additionally, as other cultures and Eastern religions make their way into Western culture, there become more mainstream options for church attendance. Supply side seems to ignore that religion and church can coexist separately as well as together. The success of a church is not always due to religion itself, but the members, charisma, hospitality, and physicality of the church rather than its actual beliefs. As religion becomes more individualized with the growth of spirituality, we may find that while churches become less frequently attended, religion still has the same amount of presence within people’s lives, just differently than it may have with religion.

It has become part of human nature to try and maximize our profits, whether it’s working in the stock market, finding the best deal on discounted goods, or even spiritual fulfillment. In the religious market, costs and benefits take a different form from what we are used to thinking about in a “standard” market. Most churches are on a “subscription” based pay system, where the subscriber shows up and pays via time or sometimes financially. It’s hard to find a supplier (a church) to subscribe to because of the vast customization options of religions and subsections and beliefs in different branches. So this creates a market of infinite options in which the suppliers react slowly to a fast paced change in want in the consumers. It’s hard to try and find the pulse on the religious consumers because of their ever changing wants and shifting beliefs. Its hard to gage the ration behind the choices of the consumer because of the difference between what is promised and what is actually fulfilled by the church so at the time of starting they think they are maximizing their profit when in actuality they aren’t. The equivalent of this is a  damaged good or a malfunction in a product, its out of the consumer’s hands. Determining if a consumer is rational or not in their decision making, is almost impossible due to the vast varying scales of priorities and definitions in what they believe is the most important aspect of their time and faith.

The week before break we watched a movie in class about a Fundamentalist Baptist Church in Massachusetts. I found the movie to be very interesting because it was completely different than anything, we had studied in class thus far. The church would have been placed in a more sectarian bracket which was interesting to compare to all of the denominational churches we just discussed in the presentations. The movie followed the stories of some members of the church and their experiences. One mom discussed how surprised she was when she read her kids textbooks and did not agree with what they were learning, so she pulled them out and put them in a school that taught ideas that readily aligned with the church’s views. The kids were also interviewed and expressed how they did not like how close and personal all the families were. They felt that sometimes it would be nice for everyone not to know each other’s business and for that reason public school appealed to them. I felt bad that the kids felt like they were under a microscope and that even if they wanted to go to public school, that was not an option for them. The fact that the church was so focused on themselves internally and did not want to mix with the outside world was interesting. This was very different than the denominational groups that generally love to welcome new members and share their stories, whereas the church in the movie, did not want to involve outsiders and risk it contaminating their space. It was evident that for these members the church encompassed all aspects of their lives and they were okay between this invisible wall between themselves and the outside world. The movie was a great way to get a glimpse into the outlook involved with sectarian churches.

In the last few chapters of Chaves’ book, he summarizes the changes and fluctuations which have been observed in American Religion in the past few decades. One of these major changes has been the steady increase and stabilization of practicing Conservative Evangelical Protestants versus the decrease of practicing Liberal Mainline Protestants. He discusses how Conservative Protestants are becoming more conservative, and Liberal Protestants are becoming either less religious/unaffiliated or moving to more Conservative Churches later in life. He also points out though, that Americans seem to be, overall, becoming more liberal. Although the more liberal stance on social and political issues has been increasing much more slowly among those who are more religiously and politically conservative, it is still happening. For example, even among conservative congregations, homosexuality has become more acceptable and tolerated.

Chaves discusses the increasing polarization among religiously/politically liberal and conservative individuals, providing evidence that division among them has increased since the 1970’s. I found it somewhat striking that despite America’s trend toward more liberal views, the Conservative Christian Church seems to be growing, or at least staying steady. When I was reading this, my mind went back to chapter two of McGuire’s book when she mentions the term, “anomie”. If a Conservative Congregation feels pressured to conform to social norms, even if they go against the Church’s teachings, they may feel that their morals are being threatened. This can potentially increase secularization within the church or, at the very least, push the congregants to hold tighter to their beliefs and follow them more strictly.

When Chaves mentioned that the term “Christian” has come to denote the Evangelical Protestant, it finally gave me a potential answer as to why I have come to be an adult who no longer feels she can call herself a Christian. Politically, I consider myself to be “left of center” and I typically lean more toward the Democratic political party. I also found it interesting when Chaves stated that the largest group of Mainline Protestants are Methodists, as I went to a Methodist Church as a kid. It appears I would be one of the many Americans who have moved from a more liberal religious stance to being religiously unaffiliated.

Previously in class we viewed the film Born Again: Life in a Fundamentalist Baptist Church located in central Massachusetts. The film presented different perspectives of families lifestyle in the church community. The pastor discusses his early struggle with his wife and the elements that tested their relationship which triggered self reflection within themselves and their relationship with God. This allowed them to be born again with a now stable and fulfilling relationship. However, this had a chain reaction onto other families relationships and the pastors brothers relationship with his wife and how multiples couples need to be reborn again because that will fit all their problems in their relationships.

I found this church highly intriguing due to its laid back atmosphere and certain points in time to freely speak during the service. Furthermore, the way in which individuals perceived themselves prior to being born again is a perspective I have never heard. They would describe themselves as stubborn, self centered, bitter, etc., and after being born again they have to constantly remind themselves and work at not falling into the negative mindset that these members of the church had been prior to being reborn. From a sociological perspective there is a consistent pattern that the wife made sacrifices to satisfy their husband than found it within themselves that they are worth more than what they are getting out of their relationship. When the wife becomes absent the husband realizes that they have lost something great and are humbled by this experience. This is a common factor that is being portrayed in todays society and is implemented even more due to the recent Women’s movements to be able to help women recognize their worth and realize their full value.

I grew up in a predominately catholic house hold which also include many similar beliefs as Christianity with the belief in God and follow the bible and holy scriptures. These churches ethically are made up Hispanics, Caucasian, African Americans or Asians, but what caught my attention was the religion of Judaism because this is a Jewish based religion. It would be am interesting experience for me to be in a different cultural environment that I am not accustomed to. Although Judaism is a part of Christianity, I would have somewhat of an advantage for having a basic background of religious knowledge to understand the scriptures possible read or translated in Hebrew.

The Rock Church was also another interesting congregation that I found interesting for the reason that it is commercialized on a huge billboard off the 10 freeway, which I not a normal act from a church. I have noticed that it is a well known church and was drawn to by the photographs of the layout of the institution with bright light to attract new members in my opinion while also keeping the interest and faith from current members. Hopefully I am drawn in during the service and not doze off or get bored like I normally do in a traditional Catholic church that I am used to.

Also, the other congregation that I found interesting was the Salvation Army, because the first thing that I connected this church to was the salvation army thrift store that are located around the Inland Empire. I am curious if there is a correlation with the two and why or not. If not, why was the congregation named “Slavation Army”?