The study of ethnography was our focus on Tuesday.  Learning that it literally translates into “writings” about “people”; made a lot more sense.  Additionally, we found out about six stages of ethnography that ethnographers usually follow.  The more a person knows about where they stand; the better they will understand the people they are investigating.  Furthermore, writing about said people is a difficult task—but the more they explain, the better others will begin to understand the culture.  Skills required for this field are, but not limited to: “listening; recognizing one’s own cultural baggage; and willingness to be vulnerable”.  Professor Spickard even shared with us a template of what one might use in the field.  This included helpful categories like “what I observed, my thoughts, and external details”.

Thursday was a real treat to hear about everyone’s 2^nd congregation visit.  Everything from who was in attendance, to the clothing the pastor and congregants wore were all so varied—I can see why it takes a sociologist a while to collect all this data.  One of my favorites was the St. Mary’s Congregation.  The fact that mass was only about 30 minutes; nobody felt close to one another; and the pastor was rather in and out of there; it was unlike any other Catholic churches we have read about.  Another interesting one was the Light of the World Church.  Hearing that it is the second largest religious body in Mexico is a fascinating reveal; not to mention the gender politics at play with the men on the left side and the women on the right.

McGuire names four “narratives” that dominate the sociology of religion and that paint a fundamentally different picture of religion’s place in the modern world. These are: secularization, reorganization, individualization, and supply-side market analysis. She is careful to purposely call these narratives because, while each theory is based in evidence and data, data does not have meaning until a person derives meaning from it. Each narrative is a different interpretation of the same observations about the apparent decline of religious attendance in modern society.
Secularization posits that as the separation between church and state widened, subscribing to religion became something that was no longer “mandated,” but was rather a choice, and this led to more and more people choosing to be secular. Reorganization posits that there has not been a steep decline in religiosity, but rather, people are are reorganizing into smaller, more private places of worship. Individualization posits that the shift in religious attendance is due to more people treating religion as a more individual affair rather than a communal one, and are opting to practice religion in ways tailored to their individual lifestyles. The supply-side market analysis views religion like a business and posits that changes in religiosity are normal fluctuations.
In my opinion, I think that each perspective has valid points. I think some of them could even build upon each other. But, if I had to choose one, individualization would probably be my favorite theory. This is only because I feel like I have personally witnessed this theory in action. From personal experience, I feel like more people are treating religion as an individual experience and favoring interpretations of religion that benefit them.

-Posting this late because I realized I had typed up my response, but it somehow stayed sitting in my drafts and was never actually posted.

Last week in class we discussed religion in the 21st century and where religion is going now. All semester we’ve mainly been focused on American religion and how it’s changing, but as we discussed, these changes have been present all over the world. We talked about the importance of religion going global and the impact of religion on immigrant congregations. What stuck with me after this lecture was the transnational aspects of religion. Earlier this semester I read Levitt’s book called “God Needs No Passport” and it focused on religion in the lives of several immigrant groups. The ideas that the book touched on have stayed with me all semester, but this was kind of the first time we went more in depth on transnationalism as a whole class.

Religion is global and allows people to live in two places at once because it provides a community and structure. For immigrants, religion can be the one steady thing that they bring with them that helps them assimilate and adjust to their new life. I feel that I personally know the impacts of this. I moved to the U.S. when I was four and my parents used religion as a constant stability in our lives. I grew up in my Church and it has always been with me and my family no matter where we are. So I think that the one of the reasons that religion is such a large component for immigrants is because it reminds them of home. When you move, whether to a different country or just a different house, the goal is to establish a home and a comfortable one at that. So for many immigrants they put their roots into their new country via religion. We talked about a region in East London which has 300 congregations, many of which established by immigrant groups. This is their way of assimilating and connecting to their roots as well as their new home. Although religion is very individualistic it’s roots, community, and meaning stick with one, thus allowing religion to be a comforting stabilizer for people to bring with them wherever they may go.

This Sunday my partner and I attended the Hope Center, which is a Pentecostal congregation. I went in not knowing what to expect as I had never been inside a Pentecostal Church, and I knew very little of the religion other than what I have seen in Hollywood movies. The first thing I noticed was how welcoming everyone was. As soon as Claire and I walked in, we were greeted and welcomed. We were given little slips of paper to fill out and then given a pamphlet of upcoming events. After we went down and took our seats, the reverend came up and talked to us after he noticed we were students. He welcomed us as well and said he hoped we would return.

The very first thing that happened as the service started was singing; there was a lot of it! The music was definitely a main part of the service, and it lasted for about an hour. The whole first half consisted of the choir singing songs which revolved heavily around the Lord and forgiveness of sin. A couple of the singers were very highly enthusiastic, and a few were clearly having very intense spiritual experiences through the music. The congregants were clapping their hands, raising their arms, and jumping around. This was like no other church experience I have ever had. It really did feel like I was at some kind of rally or concert. After the singing portion, the reverend started his sermon. At first, it simply consisted of reading from the Bible. However, before long, he was yelling and red in the face. Some of the congregants and other religious officials would periodically yell out “yes!” in agreement to his statements. During the sermon, a few people started speaking in words I couldn’t make out; I then realized they were speaking in Tongues.

What I noticed about this particular congregation was the intensity of the religious experience. Although the message didn’t quite reach me and I didn’t feel the same sense of spirituality that those around me felt, it was obvious that many shared a very intense spiritual experience. This experience was achieved and shared through song, scripture, and stories. I did not observe much in the way of ritual, although they did talk of baptism. The main message was of salvation through Christ, and repentance of sin.

Considering I have been a member of a religious community for most of my life, a lot of my views on certain subjects have been opened up and I now have so many different perspectives of things whether they be social or political. My new perspectives branch from my original (religiously effected) viewpoint, though I always wonder what characteristics of being on a college campus influence some students to either lean to a more liberal or conservative viewpoint. Religion tends to be a big part of this campus whether we believe in it or not, considering we offer so many types of religious studies courses and obviously have a very large chapel as a monument on our campus. However, we are also known for having a very liberal stance on political and social current events and topics. For most people, your religious orientation tends to affect your political party preference and ultimately your opinion on issues. But I always question why it is that there is a stigma that whenever students go to college, a majority of them tend to change their political views. For myself, my opinions changed just from being around people from different backgrounds and being able to listen to the opinions of others. But specifically on this campus I just wonder if the fact that we have so many religious symbols, churches and classes surrounding us; does it have an affect on other students to lean in a more liberal way or if the fact that there is religion around us, if that has an effect or none at all on students.

This week our articles examined how congregations function as a source of community for their members. The article our group analyzed, titled “Reproducing Ethnicity,” specifically looked at how immigrants use religious congregations as a way to connect them to their home cultures while simultaneously helping them to adjust to their new culture. Because religion and culture are so closely entwined in many parts of the world, it is virtually impossible to separate one from the other. Being able to take part in the religion of one’s homeland even from far away is one way that immigrants are able to reproduce their heritage and pass on traditions to their children. By creating spaces where people can gather to celebrate their native languages, foods, and holidays, those cultural ties can be perpetuated.

While on one hand I can understand how church attendance is declining and  why people are moving out of more organized places of worship, I also don’t think that they will ever completely disappear. I think the desire to believe, or to at least entertain the thought that there is something “greater” than us  is something that is something that could be considered innate. Since the dawn of humankind people have practiced religion. Because we wield a complex consciousness that allows us to look critically at our place in the world and encourages us to ask questions about our purpose and the reason for our existence, I think religion will always be a part of the human experience and religious congregations will always provide a space for people to seek those answers together.

My second congregational visit was at The Rock Church, which is a Christian church. My first impression of the church was the massive size and I did notice that they had a donation center which I can imagen is where they collect food or necessary item to help the less fortunate. Walking into the main entrance I noticed the beautiful and clean architecture as well as the spacious quad area where there was a type of youth group taking place before the service. I also saw a map where the church was split into various buildings according to age group and events. For example, the was the A building that were for kids which I figured would serve as a day care or a type of youth group.  

I am not religious as it is and the fact that I was excited for the visit was unusual for me and I did not feel as much as an outsider as I expected. When I walked through the door for the 9am service I was not greeted but the mass started off with Christian songs for about twenty minutes. In my opinion when I walked in to find a seat no one seemed to notice and continued listening to the singers and singling along and within 10 minutes of listening to everyone sing along I got overwhelmingly emotional. The room where the service was taking place looked like a school auditorium and surprisingly the walls were plain and there was live recording to the entire mass on a projector on the stage during musical performance and while the pastors were speaking. Over all the service was very interactive and the members seemed to be spiritually in tune and enjoy the service.

For my second congregation visit, I visited the Hope Center which is a local pentecostal church. This visit was incredibly eye-opening to me in terms of understanding how different groups experience and practice religion. Previously I had only experienced religious practices that I would classify as calm, introspective, and reserved. The service at the Hope Center was anything but. The service began with a high volume gospel style choir singing, and as the songs continued people began to cry out randomly, speak in tongues, and weep. It was incredibly emotional all around and the emotion in the room just continued to rise into the main sermon. By the end, I was incredibly overwhelmed and exhausted. My experience here made me very conscious of how differently people can experience religion. From what I understood, the congregation felt such strong emotional responses to the religious rituals being conducted, that they felt called to cry out and express the emotions they felt in response to the service. In a way it seemed like a very pure, whole experience of religion, where the congregants truly felt their religion and what the believed with incredible strength. Observing the service was an incredible experience, because I felt I actually, finally understood the impact religion has on people and their emotions

This week I visited the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. If I am going to be honest, I was very unsure of what the experience was going to be like. I decided to visit the Kingdom Hall because I have family members who are Jehovah’s Witnesses. I wanted to experience something they consider so important. I was greeted by many friendly people at the church. They all wanted to get to know me and were very interested in my presence. I am guessing this is because they do not get newcomers very often. I thought that they would be offended that I was using their service for a project, however, they were thrilled that I was taking the time to learn about their religion. One of the women even let me share her phone to look at the Bible verses. The actual service was unlike anything I had ever been to. It was extremely structured and planned out. In addition, there was a lot of audience involvement. It almost felt like a lecture at a university. It was very interesting to see the kind of responses people gave to questions asked by the congregation leaders. I am used to being asked if I agree/disagree with something in classes. However, in this setting, there was no room for opinions, it was expected that you agreed. Overall, I really appreciated the welcoming treatment that I received at the Kingdom Hall. Although the Jehovah’s Witnesses have fundamentally different beliefs than I do, I can still say that it was a very rewarding and interesting experience.

For Monday’s class, I read From a Community of Believers to an Islam of the Heart: “Conspicuous” Symbols, Muslim Practices, and the Privatization of Religion in France by Caitlin Killian. The read was fascinating, as I have been studying French for four years and the political and religious climate has been a topic of few discussions. Historically, France has been a country of revolution; citizens do not often appreciate all-powerful rulers, both on this Earth and in Spirit. France was the heart of the Enlightenment. Salons gathered brilliant philosophical minds from all over to discuss the deepest secrets of the universe. With this history in mind, it makes perfect sense why the French are so opposed to the public display of religion.  However, it is important to not judge the decision of the French through an American lense.

In America, the banning of religious symbolism would seem a ridiculous notion. We view religious freedom as the government staying out of religion. However, in France, the view is different. Freedom of religion is closer aligned to freedom from religion.  By banning religious symbolism, the French maintain a neutral French identity where no one is being encroached upon by religion. Keeping in mind France’s catholic past, this makes perfect sense. The Catholic Church was at a time very corrupt and fueled by financial gain. This did not sit well with French citizens. To avoid Church rule in the future, the french people culturally decided to keep religion in the private sphere and out of the public sphere. Thus, to have a French cultural identity, one should keep religion in that private sphere. This helps an American to understand why half of the Muslim women interviewed agreed with the Hijab ban. They agree that to have a French cultural identity, which was more important to them that having a Muslim identity, that sacrifice had to be made.

This ban would seem awful through an American lense, but it is important to understand the culture in which this was happening.