After visiting Hope Protestant Reformed Church and writing my paper on the visit, I really reflected back on how I had made presumptions before visiting this church, and after the fact I was able to see how different this church was from any that I had previously visited. This church was actually a lot more traditional than I thought it was going to be. Beforehand, I thought it was going to be a shorter service, with less ritual, and more sermon based. However, the service was very long and had a lot of repetitiveness going on. People were very kind as expected, but I didn’t feel that they were going out of their way to make me feel as if I had belonged, which is completely understandable because people already have their formed connections and “communities” based on their weekly visits, and continued experiences with their congregation. When I typically think of a Protestant Church, I think of very welcoming, and conservative people, yet very fixed on their values and morals, which was indeed correct. But based on the service, it was very similar to a Catholic mass by means of the hymns, eucharist every week, and extremely structured. But based on the teaching, the sermon was read from the Bible and had a specific message that was given and is different every week. The church visit was different from what I had expected but I thought everyone was very deeply rooted into their beliefs and traditions which varied from what I had preconcepted because I thought it was going to be based more on attendance and going through the motions, rather than being present and understanding the message being given.

Last week, everyone did their presentations on their congregation visits, and it was really interesting to see the differences among them. My partner and I attended a Catholic Church, and I would consider it highly ritualistic and formal, especially in comparison to some of the Protestant congregations the other groups visited. The traditional church we visited was a far cry from the more “secularized” churches which implement a concert-like feel. The social component seemed to be missing from the congregation we visited, and while there was a togetherness in the sense that everyone was there for one purpose, it was very individualistic. There was not a whole lot of mingling, and each individual was there simply to worship and pray. While the dress was less formal than I assumed it would be, it was definitely not as informal as some of the Protestant churches described, specifically the Priest’s dress. Not only is the Priest dressed formally, he wears symbolic vestments. When we went, it was green, which symbolizes the Spring season of rebirth and hope.

The Protestant Churches I attended as a child were, while similar in some respects, quite different from the Catholic one. The Pastor would often talk about his own life in relation to the Gospel, and that was absent in the Priest’s sermon. The churches were typically very small and everyone knew each other and lived in the same neighborhood. The biggest difference I noticed was Communion. Although a sacred event in the Christian Church, it is much less formal in the Protestant Church. I can remember a man simply bringing the plates around and handing each person a small cup of juice and a cracker. I’m looking forward to going to a sectarian congregation. It may be uncomfortable, but I’m excited to go and learn about another congregation, and see how it differs from those we’ve already learned about.

Last week I visited the First Congressional Church of Redlands. Over all I enjoyed my time at the church and felt very comfortable there. It was obvious after viewing the service that this church was practicing official religion. It was a very formal service, sang traditional hymns, and it was very evident who the pastor was based on his suit and tie. One aspect of this church that I found interesting was how rhetorical the service was. Many questions were asked that had to do with specific events and stories from the Bible. People from the audience would often shout out the answers, so it was very evident that a large majority of people present knew the information in the Bible. For those not as familiar, the pastor would fill in and still give a lot of background, so others could follow the service. Towards the end of the service, the pastor wrapped it up with asking everyone a question allowing people to privately reflect. Going to a service like this was very new to me. I was used to the pastor giving a lot of personal stories and reflection while only referring to a few verses in the Bible. The use of stories and allowing people to privately reflect made the service seem to carry more weight for people. I felt that it gave more people a personal private relationship with God that only they knew about, rather than sharing personal stories with other people and then praying. I would feel very comfortable going back to this church and enjoyed getting another perspective on how other churches run their services.

I was recently engaged in a fascinating conversation on religion and truth. In this discussion, we pondered about how truth can viewed in the context of religion, and if it even can. It was brought up that churches cannot boast to contain a fullness of truth, as no religion can answer every question it is asked. If you asked a catholic a question pertaining to physics or biochemistry or electrical engineering, they would most likely be unable to open the Holy Bible to a verse that would solve your problem. But what if religion is not meant to contain physical truths? I believe that religion shapes worldviews more than anything else. Rather than providing evidential truth for difficult questions, religion shapes personal truths.

Think of religion as a pair of glasses. Some glasses have pink lenses. Some have clear lenses. Some may be large frames, whereas some might be contact lenses! In every case, the glasses one chooses to wear or not to wear affect how they see the world. Not everyone perceives truth the same way, but whether the shirt looks pink to one person but white to another does not matter! What matters is that they are both correct. According to each of their world views, the way they see the world is different. No one is more right than the other. I liken the study of sociology of religion to this analogy. It has taken me a long time to figure out how to study religion through a sociological perspective rather than a theological one, as I tend to veer theological myself. However, I now understand that theologians study the glasses themselves, whereas sociologists study how the world is perceived through those glasses. Though they may seem similar, they are in actuality far more different than they may seem. Both have their merits and downfalls and both reveal new truths in the study of religion.

It’s no surprise that technology has become a key part of our religious experience. With services becoming less and less formal it allows technology to play a bigger part in the spectacle of practices.  We have added projectors, monitors, amps, speakers, and LED lights all adding to the modern and concert aesthetic that many congregations are trying to achieve to appeal to a younger audience. With that, it becomes less about the what is said and focuses more on what the practitioner feels or what is calling to them through these events. Technology has ironically made the practice of faith more natural because of the removal of the feeling of forcing yourself to be something you aren’t and allows you the opportunity to express yourself. The joining of social media helps with appealing and contacting a younger market. It allows congregations the opportunity to advertise, reach out, and interact with the society around them. Making it easier to set up volunteer and out reach work, making it more appealing to people. The issue however is that technology is that it limits its audience to people who enjoy that type of spiritual experience and to those who are in touch with social media and online trends. So while these congregations are starting to get more involvement from a younger audience their elderly participants are starting to find a home in different congregations. 

In Chapter 5 of American Religion: Contemporary Trends, Chaves discusses the trend of increased informality not only in worship, but in broader American culture as well.

Growing up, the expectations for what I wore and how I acted at synagogue were made very clear to me not only by my parents, but by the example of my peers. I dressed up for Saturday services and high holidays, always sure to choose something loose-fitting, that covered my shoulders. I was taught to respect the adults of my synagogue, and make eye contact and listen intently when they were speaking, whether it be directly to me or to the group. Before I could even read Hebrew, I would follow along in the prayer book with my finger, and once I could read Hebrew, I followed along just as intently. I have retained these habits, and didn’t fully realize there was a religious reality outside of my own cultural norms until fairly recently. Doing my congregation visit reminded me of how much these norms very from one community to another. I find it interesting that while American culture is increasingly informal, I am still much more comfortable in formal religious settings than in more informal ones.

Chaves also mentions the upward trend of children addressing adults by their first names. As a child, my parents did not emphasize using titles rather than first names for adults. Instead, I would call elders and peers alike by whatever name they were introduced to me as. At the same time, I recognized the implied respect that went along with using titles. Discrepancies between how I referred to my elders and how today’s children refer to their elders is most obvious to me in the area of family members. When I was young, I found it socially appropriate to call my aunts “Aunt Lori” and “Aunt Lisa”, and use similar titles for my uncles and grandparents, as a way of letting them and others know I respect them every time I refer to them. I think I realized at a young age that when you respect others they are more likely to listen to what you have to say, but that is beside the point. My biggest pet peeve is when children (specifically in my family) call their aunts, uncles, and even grandparents by their first names. Hearing my younger brother refer to our grandfather as “Jerry” is infuriating. From what I can tell about this younger generation (from my very limited realm of knowledge), the lack of verbal respect for elders points towards less automatic respect overall, which I think has something to do with increased access to technology, but that is just my speculation.

In Chapter 7 of Chaves’ book, “American Religion: Contemporary Trends,” he discusses out when discussing religious differences, people naturally think about the differences between “Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and more recently, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and others,” yet there is a division even within these groups which is between liberals and conservatives. Chaves continues to explain how the label liberals and conservatives are often grossly generalized and how it is difficult to fully take notice to the complexity of the two.

This point brought the question to mind of how many churches, temples, synagogues and other congregations do we assume are liberal or conservative based on the stereotype society has created for each religion? Is there truth to the stereotypes of the religion or are they misunderstood? Furthermore, I think its important to analyze how this even can vary from person to person in a congregation. Yet, it is also significant to recognize any themes there might be among people of a certain religion and analyze how their religious beliefs might or might not align with their political beliefs. This also brings up the question of can you have political beliefs that are separate and different from one’s religious beliefs? How much does one affect the other?

The class thus far has made me realized the personal bias, assumptions, and preconceived notions I had about religion and certain religions. Taking a more sociological perspective has helped me realize the value and varying differences each religion can have.

I attended a worship service at New Life Redlands Church. The church identifies as Pentecostal and is vastly different from the Catholic Church I attended as I was growing up. As Pastor Dennis Evangelisto states, “the congregation’s purpose is to “embrace God’s love for your life, live with God’s love to those around you, learn God’s love to be solid, and share God’s love in practical ways”. My church at home claims to “strive to grow in a relationship with God and one another through prayer, sacraments and service”. The difference between these two churches was one that I could compare to the difference in the two churches in my case study book, The Spirit’s Tethered. The more traditional church was more like my church at home and the more casual one was like New Life Redlands.

Sacred Heart Church at home is very much like Our Lady of the Assumption in its traditional aspects, from attire to ritual to beliefs. Meanwhile, New Life Redlands was more like Saint Brigitta, open to social interaction, casual attire, and held more progressive beliefs. At Sacred Heart, religion is more about the ritual and beliefs that are incorporated into the service, whereas New Life is more about the community and welcoming environment that was created by and for the congregation. It is evident that each way is a valid form of religion that caters to the different needs of different people, but both focus on God and His kingdom.

This past week in class we finished up Case Study presentations as well as starting congregation visit reports. My group and I presented on our book, “God Needs No Passport,” which detailed the experiences of immigrants from four major religious groups living in the United States. I really enjoyed reading this book and learning about the different experiences of each migrant, and how parts of their experience were affiliated with their religiosity but for the most part, experiences and ideologies varied based on individuals, and were not solely tied to one religious group. It was also interesting because a lot of the individuals interviewed said that they associated agency and having the ability to make decisions and take control of one’s life with being American, so the individual experiences of each person were not dictated by their religion, but rather by their new identity as Americans. There were definitely similarities within each religious group, for example many Hindus valued family and cited it as something they struggled with in their new life in America, because they were so far from their roots and their home. There was also a definitive pressure to succeed amongst most immigrants, because they gave up a lot to leave their homes, and “success” had very similar definitions amongst the Muslin and Hindu migrants. Many of them came into the US with degrees, and found jobs fairly quickly whilst pursuing further education and working to gain elements of “Americanness” that they found important, such as a house or American technology.

Overall, this book and the similarities I found within it were fascinating to me, and I’m really glad that my group and I had the opportunity to learn and understand this material and share it with the rest of the class.

First, we got to finish the very last Case Study, “God Needs No Passport”.  What makes this book interesting was the focus of immigrants with four different religious beliefs and the varying countries that they originated.  The way the group split up the four faiths into three sections: transnationalism, diversity and Americanness allowed me, personally, to better visualize how each practitioner felt and how their experience in America has changed their faith, and what it does for their family dynamic.  One quote they mentioned really stood out to me: “The way people practice religion in America shapes what it means to be an American and our vision of what a good society should look like.”  Everyone undoubtedly has their own views and feelings toward America, but it sounded as if the transition of living here has allowed each group to grow more tolerant and understanding of other faiths.

This week was also interesting to learn further about my peers’ respective congregational visits and how they each either fit the mold of a traditional church setting, or they didn’t.  For the majority, everybody took their sociological eye to the test to document things like age, ethnicity, and overall attendance to give a thorough analysis of what each individual congregation was like.  Even though we all didn’t go together, the slides and everyone’s description truly brought it to life, and I can imagine what these various church gatherings looked like.  Everyone was excited to share what they learned and how their churches were either formal or informal.