Watching all the congressional visit reports last week had me thinking about the diversity of each church and how they all have different takes on religion and the way they do rituals could be the same or they could be completely different. Seeing my Hope Protestant Reformed Church and how they mixed Christian and Catholic rituals and traditions in their service was cool to me. There isn’t an outline telling you how you must teach Gods word or how you must perform a certain ritual. Every church thinks that what they do is unique and its awesome to see that everyone is accepting of their own rituals.

Chapter 5 of American Religion was talking about different congregations and how there are over 300,000 different congregations in the world. Each having a different take on the religion and the rituals that they perform. Most of these churches are very accepting of others and it talks about that in the chapter highlighting how they have more acceptance for gay and lesbian members along with the use of technology in the church and how they are changing based on the surroundings and how technology has taken over our day and age. Also, the chapter includes how informal worship is becoming a trend. It doesn’t specifically say this, but I believe that if a church doesn’t really have a dress code or standards for the way someone dresses that it’s a lot more welcoming to others whop just want to check it out. Overall the chapter does a good overview on the different congregations and how they are changing as time goes on.

In my Jane Austen centric English class, we discussed the large LDS following Jane Austen’s British Regency novels have and the various adaptations, such as Scents and Sensibility, that reimagine her novels with a Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints framing narrative. While this was surprising initially, it turns out that biographies of Jane Austen sold significantly more in Salt Lake City than other major U.S. cities with a ratio of 8:1, which is famous for its significant population of members of the church.

As it turns out, the large following Austen’s novels have in connection to the church is due to the morals and values presented in the 1800s. For example, abstinence before marriage, and a strong emphasis on getting married as quickly as possible, are values in the church and the novels. The chaste society seems to appeal to Mormon women as it is comparable to their own. What I find more interesting, however, is not the reimagining of Austen characters within Mormon settings, and incorporation of their faith into religious based adaptations, but how they seem to be misinterpreting the values Austen describes. While the societal values of this time period do seem to agree with current LDS values, Austen is not necessarily advocating for them. She portrays her female characters as being harmed by the patriarchal society they live in, and her novels feature characters attempting to have suitors and be married, not for starting a family to fulfill God’s destiny, but to survive in a society where men only receive inheritance of property. Her writings have been declared feminist by today’s standards and had she been a contemporary writer, many scholars declare she would not write about the institute of marriage as frequently. The chastity was a product of its time, and it does not attempt to glorify it.

While the adoption of Jane Austen into the LDS Church is debatable, it is worthwhile to see that such an enduring writer can be beloved and relatable with women today. More often we see reimaginations of works as being MORE “progressive” than the original, so it is interesting to see a reversal focused not on societal issues but one that is faith based and seemingly more conservative than most of society’s morals and values today. Religion can train its practicers to identify aspects of their faith in other media, which will most likely lead to an increased tolerance of religion.

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.