Ship of Fools: 'Exotic' or off-site MW reports

Thread: 'Exotic' or off-site MW reports Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024984

Posted by Ektenia (# 17453) on :

(Firstly, my apologies if there is a board where this post could have been more appropriately placed.)

I've been following Mystery Worshipper on and off for about five years now, and when I first came across it it inspired me to pay my own visits to a wider range of local churches than I might otherwise have seen the inside of, sparking an interest in liturgy, theology, Christian history and church architecture that has continued ever since. Many thanks to all MWs for introducing me to this.

I've always noticed, however, that very few 'exotic' denominations are visited by MWs, and have now discovered an explanation: the rule is that only reports from trinitarian worship are permitted. I ought to have realised such a rule was in force a long time ago, but was thrown by the presence of a few exceptions, including a Mormon funeral and the Qur'an being read in a synagogue at a multi-faith service. Now I quite understand that this website is home to a community of trinitarian Christians, and so do not seek to argue with that policy, but I do wonder if anyone has paid MW-style visits to services outside the remit of the official Mystery Worshipper project and written about them either on these message boards or elsewhere on the web. If you have, I would love to read your reports!

One of the reasons I bring this up is that since moving away from where I was a few years ago when I did my own personal tour of churches, my interest in matters liturgical has been rekindled, and I'm tempted to start a blog chronicling my experiences at as many public services as interest me (that's most of them) in my new home, a small-to-medium-sized English city. If anyone else has attempted something similar, or has any advice for me, I'd love to hear it.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

My first MW Report, some years back, was from a Quaker meeting in Cairo.

Not sure that Quakers regard themselves as trinitarian.

I think the rules have been tightened up since then.

[ 02. December 2012, 16:17: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Nice first post, Ektenia, and a good angle. Welcome aboard.

Zappa
tamely unexotic Ecclesiantics host

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ektenia

I'd be interested in hearing about a Unitarian service, as we never hear much about them at all. It would also be intriguing to hear what would be said about an Apostolic/Jesus' Name Pentecostal church. (Both of these would be considered non-Trinitarian, although they'd also be very far away from each other, in terms of theology, culture and worship.)

But would the MW format be appropriate? The vistors always have to answer the question as to whether they'd be happy to make a particular church their own. This strikes me as a slighly unfair question, because obviously most people prefer a particular style of worship and theology. A Trinitarian MW visiting a non-Trinitarian church would be there primarily for anthropological purposes, and so this question would surely be redundant....

Posted by Ecclesiastical Flip-flop (# 10745) on :

With experience myself of MWing, I understood that because a Unitarian church is non-trinitarian, it was against the rules to MW such a church. A visit to a Unitarian church has been written about elsewhere and I have read such a report.

My very limited experience of a Unitarian church, I popped ino one a year or two ago; a wedding was in progress, but the welcome at the door was such that I was encouraged to stay, and no need to leave because of it.

What I remember from my mini-visit, the minister was vested in cassock-alb and stole; there was a two-candlestand with the lit candles representing both parties; the blessing went something on the lines of, "May whatever God you believe in, bless each of you". I took some literature, such as the church magazine as I went on my way again.

Unitarianism left me with the impression that it is all things to all faiths and I would want something more definite than that as is taught by the mainstream denominations.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Are 'Jesus name' Pentecostals non-Trinitarian, or do they merely differ from the rest of us in using a different baptismal formula? Does any shipmate know?

I know there's a cluster of them in South Somerset, but I'm not sure I've ever met one.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not sure that Quakers regard themselves as trinitarian.

Interestingly, and unlike the Unitarians who ony have Observer status, the Quakers are full members of Churches Together in England.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

To Enoch: this is the Statement of Faith of a local Jesus-only Pentecostal church (not related to the worldwide Bethel movement, as far as I know). To me there appear to be certain contradictions at the core of its Christology, but I may be wrong.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
To Enoch: this is the Statement of Faith of a local Jesus-only Pentecostal church (not related to the worldwide Bethel movement, as far as I know). To me there appear to be certain contradictions at the core of its Christology, but I may be wrong.

I'm no expert in these things, but that seems to me to be "confounding the Persons", Sabellianism or modalism.

Posted by sabine (# 3861) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

Not sure that Quakers regard themselves as trinitarian.
]

Each Friend is free to have the theological beliefs he/she has been led to or has encountered in the prayerful quiet of their own hearts and in relationship to that which they consider divine.

So it is difficult to categorize all of Quakerdom as trinitarian or not. Consequently, I suspect that the MW system doesn't do many Quaker Meetings because it can't be said that trinitarianism is a tenet of the faith.

sabine

[ 03. December 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: sabine ]

Posted by Mark Wuntoo (# 5673) on :

My experience of 'Jesus only' or, as many prefer to be called, 'Jesus Name' churches is amongst the black majority pentecostal groups in London. It has always been my understanding that they are Trinitarian and that they baptise in the Name of Jesus (only) according to one of the Gospels.

As for exotic! Depends on your point of view. I have MW'd many weird and wonderful / exotic churches from shop-front to mega pentecostal churches. [Snigger]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

So many of the MW questions wouldn't apply to a Quaker meeting -- opening words of the service, books used, length and topic of the sermon...

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I've read texts that describe the Jesus Name churches as non-Trinitarian, although it's probably not especially noticeably to the casual visitor.

According to the Anglican vicar who chairs our local Churches Together ecumenical meetings, the Jesus Name churches can't be invited to join, because they don't believing the same things as the other churches. There has to be more to this than just the baptismal formula. After all, the Baptists don't normally recognise infant baptism, yet noone suggests they shouldn't be involved in ecumenical meetings....

Furthermore, I once had an interesting experience with my Jesus Name grandfather before he died. On Sundays he and my grandmother used to hold their own little 'service' at home, because they couldn't get to church. On this occasion I was asked to choose a hymn from their ancient hymnbook, and chose 'Holy, Holy, Holy! Lord God Almighty'. We all sang along happily - until we reached the bit that goes 'God in Three Persons, Blessed Trinity', at which point they started singing completely different lyrics!Unfortunately, I'd forgotten that it contained that line, and I was rather embarrassed to have my 'otherness' highlighted in this way!

I wasn't raised in the Jesus Name tradition so my knowledge of it is vague, but I know that members do believe in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; however, they have a distinct way of relating these parts to each other.

The Christadelphians aren't Trinitarian either, so I understand.

Posted by Ektenia (# 17453) on :

Many thanks to all for your replies, and I was very interested to read the accounts of Unitarian and Jesus Name encounters. I agree with those who have suggested that there are problems applying the MW formula rigorously to 'exotic' denominations, though I note that several reports on Quaker meetings in the MW archives simply answer the 'opening words' question by mentioning straightforwardly that no one spoke until towards the end. If I embark on my little project I will use the MW template as a jumping off point rather than a rubric to follow.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
But would the MW format be appropriate? The vistors always have to answer the question as to whether they'd be happy to make a particular church their own. This strikes me as a slighly unfair question, because obviously most people prefer a particular style of worship and theology. A Trinitarian MW visiting a non-Trinitarian church would be there primarily for anthropological purposes, and so this question would surely be redundant....

I agree and think where there are significant doctrinal differences, like disagreement over the Trinity, this question becomes inappropriate. I suppose I am looking for somewhat anthropological 'participant observer' reports on churches, as it is this aspect of MW that has really held my interest since I came across it. In a previous thread I found discussing the limits of the MW remit, it was suggested that offence might be caused by having someone from one religion critique the worship of another as if part of their flock. I can see how this would occur if the report was written in a hostile or dismissive manner (though this applies just as much to MW visits within trinitarian Christianity), but personally I would love to hear about what a thoughtful Christian experiences when going along to a Gurdwara, or what might strike a Sikh about evensong in their local Anglican cathedral, even if some of their impressions are strongly negative. I value open discussion and criticism, and I suspect one reason that interfaith endeavours are often regarded as worthy 'politically correct' committee meeting stuff is the somewhat insipid "that's nice" attitudes people may adopt towards each other's belief and practice, which to me signifies a failure to engage with the challenge of something unfamiliar, or, on the receiving end, to respond healthily to outside criticism.

Again, I'm not trying to argue for a change of the rules (nor for those involved in interfaith matters to launch into interminable theological debates with each other), just advocating the practice of going to doctrinally as well as liturgically different churches or other places of worship and writing about the experience somewhere for the benefit of those of us who love to learn about religious practice.

There is a related question here about the extent to which certain forms of worship are open to outside visitors. I know most churches love to see newcomers at any service, but there is quite a continuum between welcoming all comers with open arms and conducting a private ritual for initiates only (e.g. Mormon temples, which please note are very different places from their much more churchy Sunday meetinghouses). The middle ground on the continuum involves such matters as strangers being theoretically welcome but getting funny looks if they don't adhere to a particular dress code, or don't know when to cross themselves, stand up, sit down and so on. I for one have no idea what would happen if I turned up at a mosque for Friday prayers, not to pray but to sit at the back and watch. I don't imagine I'd encounter hostility, but I might feel pretty awkward! A person completely new to church and visiting a Catholic mass might get swept along with everyone in their aisle going up for communion, and not know that they are meant to sit that part out, potentially causing great offence. I don't know the first thing about Christadelphian worship, nor do I know how a super-energetic pentecostal congregation speaking in tongues and being slain in the spirit left, right and centre would react to me not experiencing those things.

A tangential question then: Has anyone attended services in unfamiliar churches where it's not quite clear that newcomers are encouraged, or not clear how you're meant to behave?

It is my firm belief that one of the main obstacles to people who have never set foot in a church doing so is that they honestly have no idea what to expect. If someone doesn't know what "Sung Eucharist" or "Solemn Vespers with Benediction" even refers to, will they turn up and risk embarrassing themselves or simply stay away? Incidentally, this problem is not addressed by giving services dumbed-down names.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ektenia

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

I think it can be extremely difficult for visitors to know what to do in any unfamiliar place of worship. This can even be the case in your own denomination, let alone a different one, or for a different religion!Imagine how it must feel for someone who never goes to church, doesn't know the beliefs, the rituals, or the songs, but turns up one day, for some reason! But I don't think the answer is to remove all the complicated names. The truth is, any religious organisation is a culture, and changing names won't neutralise that. In fact, it might just come across as patronising. Isn't the distinctive and ancient terminology one of the appeals of Catholicism?

As for just turning up to a mosque to 'watch' - how do you know that this is culturally and theologically acceptable? How would you know how to dress so you don't give the impression of insulting their beliefs? If you lived in a multicultural area, you'd realise that this might not be a wise thing to do! I've visited mosques, but not during prayers or sermons, and always as part of an invited group. If I wanted to attend worship, that would be a different matter. I'd speak to a Muslim colleague and make arrangements to attend with her, clarifying what clothes I should wear. In fact, I could talk to my neighbour! I think it's a good idea of make use of any contacts you might have.

It's also wise to have some understanding of the beliefs of the people you're planning to visit. Otherwise, your criticisms won't be well-informed.

I'm fortunate that my area has a good Churches Together network, and there are occasional joint services and preachers' exchanges. In the neighbouring area there's a functioning interfaith group. There's a neighbourhood forum with multicultural staff, and they could probably arrange group visits to a local mosque. I think relations are fairly good. There is already some joint work in terms of collecting food for local people in difficulty. This is good, practical stuff.

If your goal is to conduct wide-ranging sociological fieldwork, though, it would surely be essential to consider your methods (as well as your aims) first.

[ 05. December 2012, 00:17: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by PRESBY DUDE (# 16035) on :

An interesting "exotic" website worship service to watch on your PC sometime might be the Swedenborgians, a very small but fascinating denomination. I think that they're not Trinitarian, yet they do proclaim Jesus Christ as God. I've never seen a cross in their churches, but they do believe in the Resurrection. Different! (We Presbies and most Christians would say that the cross is essential for that empty tomb!) As the Christian Scientists read from the Bible and Mary Baker Eddy, and the Mormons proclaim both the Bible and their Book of Mormon, the Swedenborgians read from the Bible and the writings of the Swedish philosopher/theologian Emmanuel Swedenborg. I find him to be a verbose and ultra-mystical writer, but a short bit of his writing can merit some brief attention. A little of Swedenborg's theological writings may go a long way for you. It does for me. You can, of course, fast-forward through some of the readings and the sermon. I like the liturgy and music.

If anyone wants to watch a service, you can find many videos archived on BRYN ATHYN CATHEDRAL's website, which is an impressive structure outside Philadelphia, PA. It's their "Mother Church" in the USA. I recommend choosing the adult service video, rather than the family service, as the former has more liturgy. The service has a formal Lutheran feel (must be the original Swedish background)---traditional hymns, confession of sins while kneeling, robed clergy, etc.--- and the organist is good. Sometimes their nearby college provides some respectable "special" music for the service.

The only well-known Swedenborgian I know of was Helen Keller. As I mentioned, the church is quite small but, I think, interesting. I have an interest in "different" denominations, although I'm not hastening to join any of them.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PRESBY DUDE:
An interesting "exotic" website worship service to watch on your PC sometime might be the Swedenborgians, a very small but fascinating denomination.

We have a Shipmate, Freddy, who is a Swedenborgian. He often posts in Purgatory.

Huia

Posted by Ektenia (# 17453) on :

I think actually we are on the same wavelength here.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Imagine how it must feel for someone who never goes to church, doesn't know the beliefs, the rituals, or the songs, but turns up one day, for some reason! But I don't think the answer is to remove all the complicated names. The truth is, any religious organisation is a culture, and changing names won't neutralise that. In fact, it might just come across as patronising. Isn't the distinctive and ancient terminology one of the appeals of Catholicism?

Perhaps my post was unclear. Rather than suggesting the replacement of 'complicated' names with something more transparent as a starting point, I was dismissing it as pointless. I value the terminology and do not think changing it does anything to welcome in outsiders, hence my use of the pejorative "dumbed-down". I do think that if I was ever in charge of a church website, then as well as keeping the schedule of forthcoming services up to date, I would also link names like "Mattins" to a brief couple of paragraphs explaining what the service consisted of, what the significance of it was and what a first-time visitor should expect. It always surprises me that this isn't done. It would seem to be a far greater factor in encouraging the curious outsider to pay a visit than changing the name of a service.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
As for just turning up to a mosque to 'watch' - how do you know that this is culturally and theologically acceptable? How would you know how to dress so you don't give the impression of insulting their beliefs?

That I don't know it to be appropriate, or how I ought to dress if it is, is precisely my point. Likewise a non-Catholic might have no idea whether they are welcome at Mass, and if they do realise that they are, still have no idea what to wear, whether to join in genuflecting and crossing themselves if they are not sure at that stage that they believe in the theological bases of such actions, and whether they are expected to go up to receive communion when everyone else does, or are very definitely expected not to. Even in proselytising religions, information for the curious who might want to join in worship is often remarkably hard to come by. Evangelicals and charismatics do a much better job of this than those engaged in more traditional forms of worship (actually I think their attention to such matters as branding often goes too far). My local Anglo-Catholic church is very happy to see newcomers, and greets them warmly, but does nothing for those who have not got to the point of deciding to attend beyond having a noticeboard giving the times of its services, in sharp contrast to the evangelicals down the road.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
If your goal is to conduct wide-ranging sociological fieldwork, though, it would surely be essential to consider your methods (as well as your aims) first.

As it happens I do too much academic stuff in my day job (in a completely different field) to want to embark on the kind of formal research that others have no doubt done far better already. My motivation for visiting unfamiliar churches lies somewhere between the educational and the spiritual. I want to learn about other ways of doing things for my own curiosity, and also see if I might derive the same kind of spiritual benefit in an unfamiliar setting that I get from more familiar worship. Reading Mystery Worshipper reports is a sort of vicarious way of doing this, and I started this thread wondering if others felt the same. My thanks to all who have replied, and I shall be sure to look into those Swedenborgian videos!

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

It would be interesting (and very possible salutary) if we could see some MW reports written by complete outsiders. Most of the current ones are (naturally) written by Christians about Christian worship, and indeed probably most often by Christians of a particular tradition about worship with which they are familiar or sympathetic.

Obviously there would be have to be some deliberate recruiting (or even arm twisting) of volunteers, but most of us know a number of people with no church connections or experience who might welcome the challenge. Probably the standard MW questionnaire would need to be amended - eg 'did this make you glad to be a Christian?'

I often wonder what the proverbial Martian would make of our church services, and this would be the most feasible alternative.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ektenia:
I would also link names like "Mattins" to a brief couple of paragraphs explaining what the service consisted of, what the significance of it was and what a first-time visitor should expect. It always surprises me that this isn't done. It would seem to be a far greater factor in encouraging the curious outsider to pay a visit than changing the name of a service.

That's what we do on one of our notice boards and in our welcome leaflets: well 3 lines of explanation, anyway.

Posted by Ektenia (# 17453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That's what we do on one of our notice boards and in our welcome leaflets: well 3 lines of explanation, anyway.

I congratulate you and your church on that!

I agree with Angloid that it would be very interesting to know more about how non-believers see church services. I get the impression from a lot of people unfamiliar with churches that they are essentially invisible buildings, a kind of gap on the street between shops or houses. For example, I know people who are reasonably educated and generally aware of their surroundings who live just round the corner from a church with a prominent spire which to me is a landmark, but they did not know its name or even its denomination. In an age when most people are not brought up in a churchgoing household, church can seem like a mysterious world opaque to all but the initiates. If I ask the above-mentioned people what services they think take place in their local church, when, and with what significance, I suspect they would not have much of an idea. I would be very interested to read something like an MW report from such people!

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

While stomping through Spain, I was several times in churches for evening or pilgrims' masses sitting with pilgrims who had never (repeat, never) been in church services before. They were concerned -- quite nervous --over what to do (stand, kneel, etc) and I told them that they should generally follow what everyone else was doing. If kneeling really bothered them, for physical or ideological reasons, then just to sit quietly.

They were observant and curious, and usually caught the flow of the action-- as Spanish churches use the Novus Ordo, this was not that difficult. On the trail in the next few days, on at least three occasions, I answered probing questions as best I could, occasionally wondering where on earth some of them had come from. Two of my interlocutors, both university staff, only knew of Xn liturgy from channel-zapping past US evangelists' broadcasts and one said that she was startled by the calmness and serenity of the services--- she had no idea that they were like that.

I feel fairly certain that none of them would otherwise enter a church other than to attend a funeral or a wedding, which they might not view as religious services. However, this is anecdotology, and I would agree with Angloid and Ektenia that it would be interesting to learn more of non-believers' experiences and perceptions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Ektenia

quote:

My motivation for visiting unfamiliar churches lies somewhere between the educational and the spiritual. I want to learn about other ways of doing things for my own curiosity, and also see if I might derive the same kind of spiritual benefit in an unfamiliar setting that I get from more familiar worship.

Well, I suppose some would say that right doctrine and belief come first, and that 'spiritual benefit' should proceed from these, rather than existing indepently of them. The idea that a Christian (an Anglican, say) can benefit from a little Islam, a tot of Buddhism, and a dash of raucous Pentecostalism is very postmodern, though perhaps not exactly new. (And I should say that I'm between churches myself, so I'm benefitting from a certain variety at the moment, though more of an ecumenical than an interfaith kind.)

The analogy you make between Islam and Catholicism is interesting, because I don't get the impression that the 'friendliness' of mosques is of great importance to the Islamic proselytising strategy. I've read one book about conversion to Islam in the UK, and the concept of just drifting into a mosque for a 'service' and being overcome by the spirituality of the rituals doesn't seem to be how it 'works'. Spiritual sensibilities seem to be awakened as a result of interaction with people, not by sitting quietly in a mosque and hoping for a certain atmosphere. Perhaps one weakness of modern Christianity is that we expect people to come and find a faith in a particular building, whereas for Muslims, faith is part of everyday life, and can be explored, discussed and lived anywhere, and conversion doesn't involve a mosque. If faith were something to be caught, practised and expressed in everyday life, then we wouldn't need to worry so much about how to get people into 'church'.

Re non-believers, I went to Greenbelt a few years ago, and attended a workshop on interactive worship. The leaders told us about the experience of taking a group of non-teens to a lively charismatic church. The kids weren't terribly impressed, because during the service noone had asked them what they thought. Someone up the front preached, and they had no opportunity to respond, to question. We live in a world where people think that everyone's point of view is valid and should be heard, but that's not how the church service works; one voice takes priority, and comments at the end tend to be brief and superficial. Either that, or discussion is exiled to the 'controlled environment' of a Bible study group.

You do occasionally come across accounts online or in books as to how adult non-Christians feel about attending church - e.g. in relation to parents trying to get their children into a CofE school. The responses tend not to be very flattering. I mean, most people just think church is boring, don't they? Let's not beat around the bush!

Posted by Ektenia (# 17453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The idea that a Christian (an Anglican, say) can benefit from a little Islam, a tot of Buddhism, and a dash of raucous Pentecostalism is very postmodern, though perhaps not exactly new.

Yes, as I hope was clear but perhaps wasn't, this crude kind of 'let's have a bit of everything' syncretism is not quite what I am advocating! I do think though that a respect for the thoughtfulness and spiritual commitment of people beyond one's own particular faith position, however strongly held, gained through observing and having contact with such people, must lead one to some kind of appreciation that there is often something of genuine value in unfamiliar worship even when one rejects the underlying theology. This is distinct from maintaining that everyone's religion is in some sense true, or that the well-rounded worshipper ought to be attending a different church every week to get a dose of all the medicine on offer. I know that if visiting another church I don't want to come across as a kind of spiritual dilettante looking to get whatever their congregation gets out of their worship without any of their faith or commitment, with the struggles and challenges such engagement entails.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
the concept of just drifting into a mosque for a 'service' and being overcome by the spirituality of the rituals doesn't seem to be how it 'works'.

I am sure you are correct.

Many thanks for everyone's responses. A lot of interesting things have been said here!

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0