Church

[rowyn]

I went to church yesterday.

A friend of mine, Sherri, took me. She used to work at Toddler Bank, but quit a month or so ago to do landscaping work. She likes gardening and growing things. She and I had talked about church on her last day, and she said she'd take me some time. Yesterday, she did.

Neither of us really planned it to be Easter Sunday. Just worked out that way. I wore a dress and nice shoes, just in case, but Sherri and her daughter wore jeans. No one was much dressed up in the crowd. But the pastor and the singers were in suits and nice dresses.

It was a modern building, with a big open area for the pews, which were fairly comfy padded benches, and a sort of raised "stage" occupying one corner of the room. When we walked in, there were eight or nine singers on the stage, along with an electric guitarist and perhaps one or two other musicians; I didn't make close note of them. They were singing, I don't know, Christian rock, I guess. The lyrics were simple and on the repetitious side, but the music was pleasant. For ... just a little while, I knew how Madden must feel.

They had big screens to either side of the stage, where the lyrics to the songs, and references to the Bible verses, and other stuff were displayed, probably using Powerpoint or some version thereof. It wasn't that big a church, though -- maybe the size of a small theatre. We sat near the back and had no trouble seeing the pastor.

He spoke on John 20, mostly. [Correct verse no. courtesy of prester_scott That's the chapter where Mary Magdalene discovers that Jesus's body is missing, and then that he's returned. And where doubting Thomas puts his hand to the holes. I thought of strangess; she was the first person to tell me that anecdote.

There were some awkward moments: they had collection plates brought by, with little envelopes to put money, or, I guess, checks in. I wanted to give something but didn't notice the little envelopes until afterwards, and I felt stupid jamming cash into the dish full of discreet little envelopes. Isn't that a silly thing to be self-conscious about? I still feel stupid over it. I sang along, some, but felt self-conscious over that, too. But it was a mostly white church, and everyone who was singing sang quietly. The Powerpoint display was nice in that respect. Made it easier to follow the music, and when I missed which chapter and verse the pastor had referred to, I could check it on the screen.

I enjoyed it, actually. Funny. I'm self-conscious about that, too. Seems to be the order of the day. Sherri offered to take me again, if I wanted. I felt a lot better about going with someone. Not as scary as going alone. But I feel bad about making her come all the way to pick me up and drop me off. Maybe I'll try to get up the ambition and courage to go to one of the churches in walking distance of my apartment, next time.

Comments

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

That's John 20.

Sounds like a fairly standard Evangelical Protestant church. Denomination-wise, many Baptists, and "non-denominational" and "community fellowships" of which Willow Creek (http://www.willowcreek.org/) is a high-profile example.

What did you enjoy, and not enjoy, about it?

[rowyn]

I liked the music. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, analytically speaking, it was not high-quality, sophisticated music, though the performers did a good job with the material they had. But I enjoyed it. I liked the sense of community in the church, the sense of people gathered together to praise the Lord. I mean, when you walk into a large room full of people watching several who are on a stage performing, the first comparison that would come to my mind is that of a theatre: we're the audience, they're the entertainers. But it didn't feel like that. Not to me, anyway.

I have somewhat mixed feelings on the sermon. The pastor had a good strong speaking voice, and his delivery was heart-felt and varied. But he got repetitive at points. I found myself wanting something weightier than what he was offering. Some new insight that I hadn't heard before. I mean, it's not as though I have much background in Christianity. It seems to me that there's a whole lot I don't know, but he didn't say much that I hadn't heard before. I wouldn't hold that against him, though. I mean, it was an Easter sermon, and the service was clearly trying to reach out to the Easter-only people, and make them feel welcome and at home.

And they did a good job of that, or at least, I felt pretty welcome. As you might be able to tell, that wasn't entirely an easy thing to achieve. I liked that.

Um. There were a few parts where I felt out of place, like over the collection thing, which didn't make me too happy. And I felt uncomfortable when the subject of their "welcome center", and the idea of leaving a card to ask for contact from the church, or praying with someone, or that sort fo thing, came up several times. I don't know why that bothered me; I'd tend to say that was my problem, not theirs.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Re: sermon. You're right, it's possible that the Easter sermon was basic because it was aimed at the C-and-E crowd -- a higher than usual ratio of unconverted, nominal and/or immature Christians -- rather than because the preacher was lacking in skill or was underestimating his audience. It would be best to give the guy a few more tries before making a judgment. :)

If you're planning to go back there, be sure and sample Sunday School, too. The quality of the teaching is very important.

Re: the "card" thing. I can understand this part, of course. Filling out a bingo card is a level of commitment you may not be willing to make. Being a member of a church instead of just an attendee is a relationship, and forging relationships takes time. But (speaking on a merely social level here) it's important that they make the effort to demonstrate that they'd like to enter into such a relationship, without coming on too strong.

Re: the "community" aspect. You say that, in spite of it having the appearance of theatre (performers on stage entertaining a passive audience), it felt cooperative to you. What made the difference? You do mention the hymn singing (the simple songs and Powerpoint being there to make it easier for newcomers, I'd imagine) as one possible cause. The offering plate is another way for promoting togetherness, although I note you found that to be awkward. But I am guessing there are a lot of other little things which you haven't put your finger on.

I ask this because I, having so much knowledge and experience of the "Catholic" way of doing things, am curious how Ev Prot liturgies accomplish this. I know how it works in traditional liturgies. The "salutation-response" structure and the use of litanies is one method for unifying the people; hymns, of course, but by this I mean "ordinary" music that is the same every week as well as "occasional" music that changes; and the chief difference, Holy Communion with its "altar-centered" and more holistic style of worship (posture, motion, sight/sound/taste/smell) as opposed to intellectual "word-centered" worship. I've always felt Evangelical services to be watery, even when done well, for this reason. But that's me. Obviously what you experienced worked for you. I'm just professionally curious as to why, which is why I'm grilling you. ;)

[rowyn]

I'm afraid I couldn't tell you why it struck me as a community. For all I know, it may have just been that I expected it to, and I pushed my expectations on to reality. :) I had that feeling almost from the moment I walked in, even before I noticed that the attendees were singing, too. (That's how quietly people sang.)

I went to a wedding once that included a Catholic mass. I think that a Catholic service would make me feel a lot more like an outsider, someone who didn't belong. And, realistically speaking, I wouldn't belong. I know enough about papal teachings to know that I don't agree with several of them. But I know you include "Anglican" as "catholic" because of the similarity in service. I'm not sure how hypocritical I'd be going to an Anglican church. I'm more drawn to Protestant because, well, there's a lot of flavors of Protestant and it doesn't seem as dogmatic. I mean, let's face it -- just to name one thing: I've been living with the same man for five years and have no intention of ever marrying him. I'm never going to be anyone's idea of a model Christian. I don't even want to be.

I figured it was professional curiousity on your part. That's OK, too. I don't mind you grilling me. Wish I had more useful information to provide. :)

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Regarding the marriage thing: although Roman Catholics make it a matter of canon law (as they make just about everything!), it's really a Scriptural issue and thus common to all flavors of Christian. Among Protestants (and for this discussion I include Anglicans) you will find some that do enforce it and some that don't, but the ideal is right there in the Bible for all to see.

Off the cuff, I would say that if you have been committed to one man for five years, and plan to be committed to him indefinitely, that's pretty much a de facto marriage. However, if I were your pastor, I'd expect you to regularize and solemnize that marriage as part of your journey into full membership in the Church. (It can be done discreetly, and it need not involve State paperwork.)

But of course, that's all way ahead of where you are. Don't say to yourself "There's no point in me going to church because I'm living in sin." That's like refusing to go to the hospital because you're too sick. :) And there is no such thing as a "model Christian"...other than Jesus.

[rowyn]

(It can be done discreetly, and it need not involve State paperwork.)

Curiously, not having the State involved would make me feel a little better about getting married. But only a little.

But of course, that's all way ahead of where you are. Don't say to yourself "There's no point in me going to church because I'm living in sin."

I'm not saying that. See, I even did go to church. :)

It's just ... I believe in certain things, and I don't expect those beliefs to change. I don't want to change them. Some of those beliefs are in accordance with Scriptural values, and some aren't. I'm not sure where that leaves me.

[prester-scott.livejournal.com]

Well, if you're going to church, that must mean that you are, to some extent, prepared to embrace Christian beliefs.

As you proceed in this, I expect you will find that, in order to be consistent, you will have to adopt other beliefs that you reject today. You will have to choose between faith (based upon revelation) and your pre-existing inner convictions (based upon whatever it is they're based upon). Even I am still in the process of refining my ethics according to what I perceive the will of God to be.

But -- once again -- I wouldn't worry about all that right now. One step at a time.