Month: June 2013

Posted on

Church #34, True Witness Apostolic Faith Church

Date: 6/23/13

Church name/type: True Witness Apostolic Faith Church, belongs to a denomination called TCAF (True Church Apostolic Faith), a group with Pentecostal origins

Pastor: Evangelist Euthia Benson

Style of worship:Umm…shouty. Very shouty. Loose format otherwise.

Overall Impression:Wow, this church defies description. I’ll try anyway!

Thoughts:
So, where to start? They don’t keep careful track of time at this place. When I arrived at the advertised time of 2:45pm something was already happening. In fact I believe I caught the end if their afternoon bible study spilling into the actual service. Advertised ending time was supposed to be 4pm, but I was there until 5:30. The church building was the same one used by the ELCA church I attended some months ago, which is why they hold service in the afternoon. There were exactly seven people there including the pastor. All of them were black. I think this was related to the preaching/worship style, which is a type I had never experienced before in person.

Since the preaching was almost the whole show here, I’ll try to describe it. I get the feeling that biblical memorization has a huge presence with this church and perhaps denomination as well. The way the speaker was rattling off lines and passages from the bible made it clear she knew it all pretty well. The style of preaching was very unusual to my experience. For one thing, much of it was simply reiteration of parts of the biblical narrative. We heard about God’s creation of Adam and his disobedient nature, all the way up to Abraham and the near-sacrifice of Isaac. Then in terms of New Testament we got a synopsis of Jesus, Mary’s divine conception and her interacting with her cousin Elizabeth, up through Jesus as an adult. We heard how he was baptized followed by the dove/spirit falling on him, and his subsequent temptation by Satan. All this is pretty standard knowledge. The weirdest part, however was the volume and tone of delivery. The church leader started off talking and then slowly began to raise her voice as if in great excitement. Actually now I think about it, it was more like she thought she was being pushed backwards away from us and had to keep getting louder so we could hear her. I called it ‘shouting’ but the term ‘hollering’ might be more appropriate. It was nearly melodic at times, like a loud chant. And she rose to such a fevered pitch at one point I actually feared her ability to go on. Seriously, I wrote in my notes ‘Is this woman about to hyperventilate?’ She was panting hard and I really wanted to just get her a glass of water and tell her to take a break already. I honestly have never seen anything quite like it among all the churches I’ve ever been to ever. This woman preached for a whole hour, maintaining high volume for at least 30 minutes of that. Frankly, I am astonished that she manages this once a week every week.

There were several interesting bits I scribbled down which my phone has now lost. From memory: 1) Our speaker mentioned it never rained at all on earth until God brought the flood rains down on Noah. 2) Heavy emphasis on our ‘burial’ during baptism and how the Adam nature stays buried so we can rise up again in Christ leaving it behind 3) I’ve been reading about the evolution of Christology in the first couple centuries and how they reconciled Jesus as both God and man, and so found this bit particularly interesting -she said Christ was born a man and upon the descent of that dovelike spirit was filled with God. 4) I asked the preacher about who lied to Eve. Remember how I maintain the God lied when he said Adam and Eve would die upon eating the forbidden fruit? I was told their death was a metaphorical one in which they lost access to God. Convenient that.

During the break between the bible lesson the the actual service I talked with the Pastor. The most annoying thing about this conversation was the lack of normal English; I’m talking about heavy Christianese. When she first came up to me she said something about whether I knew about the rebirth in water and the spirit. I said, “Um, you mean being a Christian??” Seriously, if you suspect someone doesn’t know about Jesus, what a weird way to ask if they’ve heard. Trying to be polite, I just let her mostly ramble. She got talking about familiar spirits and the Ten Commandments and whatever. I still don’t really know if she had a point for me. I did get another interesting bit out of her though. I mentioned the small number of congregants and asked if it was usual. She replied that it was the normal amount and that this was because many will be called but very few will stay. I guess this is like a vague reference to a chosen few who make it into God’s kingdom in the end? If that’s what she meant, she was saying the church is supposed to be small and that’s how they know they are getting it right. I didn’t stay very long after the service because it was already so late. One woman asked me if I might come back again. Not wanting to lie, I said, “Probably not.” She seemed concerned about this, but I didn’t change my answer. This stuff is really not my style, and the project beckons.

Website?: None that I can find. And it’s ridiculous trying to search the web for good information on TCAF as a denomination. Pentecostal groups in general seem to be extremely fractured and reunited, making their twists and turns hard to follow. This church needs to move into the future already. All I can find is one other church using the acronym. They refer to a wider group called PCAF (Pentecostal Church Apostolic Faith). The PCAF website is rather more informative, and mentions in their history the church springing from a group called PAW (Pentecostal Assemblies of the World). So at least I now know the basic evolution of the denomination. PAW -> PCAF -> TCAF

Posted on

Church #33, Cathedral of All Saints

Date: 6/16/13

Church name/type:
Cathedral of All Saints, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:The person preaching referred to himself as Dean. This appears to be his title, his full name being David Collum.

Style of worship:formal and structured with informal bits for the kids and during announcements

Overall Impression:Seems good

Thoughts:
As with the other cathedral in Albany, the building steals the show a bit. In fact it looks much bigger once you are inside it. I think it’s probably an optical illusion due to the other relatively tall buildings around. I think I like the Cathedral of All Saints better than Immaculate Conception actually. It has almost a more ancient flavor, like Disney animated Notre Dame. It appears to be all stone (minus chairs and wall hangings) inside, in lots of arches with carved flourishes at the ceiling. There are also a couple of large metal gates separating parts of the cathedral. The altar is behind such a gate, but really nothing was done at that altar. The gospel was actually read at the center of the church. And there were some touches that made it feel like an older style service; formalities like genuflecting, swinging incense, and even some chanting. One of the few negatives was the Lord’s Prayer as a chant- it’s difficult for a first timer to follow along.

I liked the sermon. It felt very well-thought out and balanced. Dean started off by saying, “Today I will preach on sin.” Then he said that sin was not a favorite topic of his because it can easily sound like “me judging you”. The readings we got were: 1) King David and the Ducky Bathsheba 2) The sinning woman who washes Jesus’ feet. In both we have a story within a story illustrating a point. Since I’ve talked before about David, I’ll review the second story.

Jesus is at the house of a Pharisee eating. A woman who is a sinner hears about the dinner date and shows up to see Jesus. She walks right in and proceeds to wash His feet with her tears and then rubs them with expensive oil. The Pharisee must have been giving her a weird look- maybe because of her ‘sinning’ background, maybe because she waltzed right in without saying anything. Jesus answers his look with a story. Jesus describes several men with debts. One has a very large debt and one has a very little debt. Their loan shark decides to wipe the slate clean and forgive both debts. Which man will be happier? Clearly the man who had the biggest debt. The Pharisee thinks so too. Jesus goes on to say that the woman washing and anointing his feet does so out of love for him. Then he forgives her sins. The idea here is, if she has sinned so much, clearly she has the most to be grateful for and the Pharisee should cut her a little slack. Especially since he himself was remiss as a host in not washing Jesus’ feet.

The culmination of the sermon was an entreaty to us that we reflect on our own sin. We were cautioned not to simply decide for ourselves what sin is, but to consult God, the bible, and the Holy Spirit. I like how this adds an element of accountability, while still being self directed. I don’t think most people decide in a vacuum what is right or wrong. We do take advice and read scripture thoughtfully. And we listen to our hearts, where God is, as well as the experiences of others who guide us. One of the reasons I come to church is to be reminded of the things I need to work on. My anger, my negativity, and hurtful word choices are all things I can explain away as a bad mood or a cranky day. But that’s partly a cop-out. God wants me to do better and I have to keep remembering this. Another important bit from the sermon was the speed of forgiveness. Forgiveness is immediate. You ask and God forgives. He expects you to do better in the future, but leave past sins in the past. In other words, we don’t have to make ourselves suffer to be holy again. It is enough to seek forgiveness. There isn’t a need for drawn out suffering. That message is a good one I think.

After the service there were snacks at one end of the church. The kids had balloons because of the final day of Sunday school and a few of those balloons wound up in the rafters, but nobody cried about it. I was greeted by a couple members and the Dean, but he moved quickly to a new family that was visiting. I can’t really judge this one harshly, because it was probably simply a matter of order: I was first, he greeted me and moved on so as not to miss them. I chatted briefly with one of the helpers at the service- a deacon I think. We didn’t talk long; I suppose it’s possible she didn’t know what to say to me. I dressed in a tee shirt and shorts again. I probably looked like a kid.

Perhaps there’s another aspect going on here too. The church website describes a very laid back attitude towards newcomers. The tag line is “come and see”. It seems like a low-key approach is highly encouraged, perhaps even to the point of advising greeters to let visitors just absorb what they see. This can be a really great approach, especially if a church congregation is reserved. Reading the church website statement makes this even more clear. Folks wanting to visit are encouraged to do so, and (if they like) stay a few Sundays as they determine if it’s a place they can belong. The entire statement is written in a positive, realistic manner. Many churches do claim to be the ‘right’ one, but that’s something that should be up to the church goer.

Vocab examination: I’ve been pondering how I feel about the term ‘visitor’. I think there’s some subtle problems with the word when used for newcomers to a church. ‘Visitor’ implies someone who is leaving after a time. It carries a sense of otherness with it. One cannot belong if one is simply a visitor. I suggest instead using the term ‘guest’. A guest is someone special. A guest gets clean sheets and fresh flowers and the flatware sings and dances for them. (I really have Disney on the brain today.) A guest is just a couple afternoons away from becoming a friend. A visitor is someone who is always getting ready to leave. Is this distinction a major deal breaker? No. Is terminology something a church should be thinking about? Yes, absolutely. Every piece of information a newcomer gets contributes to his or her first impression of a place. What a church calls its first-time non-members should at least be part of the thought process.

Posted on

Church #33, Cathedral of All Saints

Date: 6/16/13

Church name/type:
Cathedral of All Saints, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:The person preaching referred to himself as Dean. This appears to be his title, his full name being David Collum.

Style of worship:formal and structured with informal bits for the kids and during announcements

Overall Impression:Seems good

Thoughts:
As with the other cathedral in Albany, the building steals the show a bit. In fact it looks much bigger once you are inside it. I think it’s probably an optical illusion due to the other relatively tall buildings around. I think I like the Cathedral of All Saints better than Immaculate Conception actually. It has almost a more ancient flavor, like Disney animated Notre Dame. It appears to be all stone (minus chairs and wall hangings) inside, in lots of arches with carved flourishes at the ceiling. There are also a couple of large metal gates separating parts of the cathedral. The altar is behind such a gate, but really nothing was done at that altar. The gospel was actually read at the center of the church. And there were some touches that made it feel like an older style service; formalities like genuflecting, swinging incense, and even some chanting. One of the few negatives was the Lord’s Prayer as a chant- it’s difficult for a first timer to follow along.

I liked the sermon. It felt very well-thought out and balanced. Dean started off by saying, “Today I will preach on sin.” Then he said that sin was not a favorite topic of his because it can easily sound like “me judging you”. The readings we got were: 1) King David and the Ducky Bathsheba 2) The sinning woman who washes Jesus’ feet. In both we have a story within a story illustrating a point. Since I’ve talked before about David, I’ll review the second story.

Jesus is at the house of a Pharisee eating. A woman who is a sinner hears about the dinner date and shows up to see Jesus. She walks right in and proceeds to wash His feet with her tears and then rubs them with expensive oil. The Pharisee must have been giving her a weird look- maybe because of her ‘sinning’ background, maybe because she waltzed right in without saying anything. Jesus answers his look with a story. Jesus describes several men with debts. One has a very large debt and one has a very little debt. Their loan shark decides to wipe the slate clean and forgive both debts. Which man will be happier? Clearly the man who had the biggest debt. The Pharisee thinks so too. Jesus goes on to say that the woman washing and anointing his feet does so out of love for him. Then he forgives her sins. The idea here is, if she has sinned so much, clearly she has the most to be grateful for and the Pharisee should cut her a little slack. Especially since he himself was remiss as a host in not washing Jesus’ feet.

The culmination of the sermon was an entreaty to us that we reflect on our own sin. We were cautioned not to simply decide for ourselves what sin is, but to consult God, the bible, and the Holy Spirit. I like how this adds an element of accountability, while still being self directed. I don’t think most people decide in a vacuum what is right or wrong. We do take advice and read scripture thoughtfully. And we listen to our hearts, where God is, as well as the experiences of others who guide us. One of the reasons I come to church is to be reminded of the things I need to work on. My anger, my negativity, and hurtful word choices are all things I can explain away as a bad mood or a cranky day. But that’s partly a cop-out. God wants me to do better and I have to keep remembering this. Another important bit from the sermon was the speed of forgiveness. Forgiveness is immediate. You ask and God forgives. He expects you to do better in the future, but leave past sins in the past. In other words, we don’t have to make ourselves suffer to be holy again. It is enough to seek forgiveness. There isn’t a need for drawn out suffering. That message is a good one I think.

After the service there were snacks at one end of the church. The kids had balloons because of the final day of Sunday school and a few of those balloons wound up in the rafters, but nobody cried about it. I was greeted by a couple members and the Dean, but he moved quickly to a new family that was visiting. I can’t really judge this one harshly, because it was probably simply a matter of order: I was first, he greeted me and moved on so as not to miss them. I chatted briefly with one of the helpers at the service- a deacon I think. We didn’t talk long; I suppose it’s possible she didn’t know what to say to me. I dressed in a tee shirt and shorts again. I probably looked like a kid.

Perhaps there’s another aspect going on here too. The church website describes a very laid back attitude towards newcomers. The tag line is “come and see”. It seems like a low-key approach is highly encouraged, perhaps even to the point of advising greeters to let visitors just absorb what they see. This can be a really great approach, especially if a church congregation is reserved. Reading the church website statement makes this even more clear. Folks wanting to visit are encouraged to do so, and (if they like) stay a few Sundays as they determine if it’s a place they can belong. The entire statement is written in a positive, realistic manner. Many churches do claim to be the ‘right’ one, but that’s something that should be up to the church goer.

Vocab examination: I’ve been pondering how I feel about the term ‘visitor’. I think there’s some subtle problems with the word when used for newcomers to a church. ‘Visitor’ implies someone who is leaving after a time. It carries a sense of otherness with it. One cannot belong if one is simply a visitor. I suggest instead using the term ‘guest’. A guest is someone special. A guest gets clean sheets and fresh flowers and the flatware sings and dances for them. (I really have Disney on the brain today.) A guest is just a couple afternoons away from becoming a friend. A visitor is someone who is always getting ready to leave. Is this distinction a major deal breaker? No. Is terminology something a church should be thinking about? Yes, absolutely. Every piece of information a newcomer gets contributes to his or her first impression of a place. What a church calls its first-time non-members should at least be part of the thought process.

Posted on

Works, Grace, and absolutes

So one of the churches I visited recently spoke again about works and the false doctrine of being saved by works. I’m not sure I agree. I don’t think it’s exactly false to think good works are putting you on the right track with God. But my view on it is somewhat complicated.

Works vs. Faith/Grace itself is complicated. First, does faith save or does grace? Ostensibly one needs faith to get grace. But some schools of thought imply that Jesus came to save all, and by dying saved everyone through grace. Confused yet?

Putting Faith and Grace aside for now, I want to talk about works. We are taught to believe works alone do not save. Every branch of Christianity I’ve ever heard of holds this to be true. Catholics are sometimes accused of trying to obtain salvation by works, but in reality the Catholic Church doesn’t teach this. It seems to be a common misconception based on the heavy focus on works pervasive in the Catholic church. When the idea of works dominates, people wind up seeing it as some kind of divine scorecard which they mark each time a good deed is performed. This can be really limiting, because it boils goodness down to a mathematical equation. It creates worry that one is never good enough. How many good deeds does it take to obtain heaven? It also allows those leading an immoral life to feel themselves safe as long as they visibly give enough money to charity. It doesn’t speak to emotional or metal states. It doesn’t need one to have good relationships. Works-based salvation only requires works.

I have also seen churches that take this too far in the other direction. When the focus is intensely on salvation regardless of works, works may fall to the wayside. People begin to see themselves as permanently saved, without a works requirement, and may ignore opportunities to do any works. Without requiring or even focusing on works, any person can then claim to be a saved Christian and expect others to see them as them righteous. If one has faith and expects works to naturally flow from that, it might make that person feel justified in being lazy. If God wanted works out of me they’d just pour out naturally, right? If they don’t, and I know I’m saved, it must be ok with God. This type of thinking is also problematic.

So how do we maintain a balance? I think it happens when we stop dealing in absolutes. The talk should never be whether works are the best thing to be extolled or the worst thing to be ignored. There will be a few people who don’t do works on their own and won’t push themselves to do them unless they are reminded. These people need to hear about the importance of works. Then there will also be those who do only works and drive themselves crazy trying to be good enough for heaven. These people need to hear about faith and how it is enough, so they can relax and stop worrying. And it’s ok too, to throw in a few messages about emotional well-being and good relationships with others. If you believe, AND do good works, but snap and shout at others, that’s not great.

Faith/grace and works aren’t the end. And they aren’t competing football teams. Churches need to stop treating them like absolutes and remember to balance what they preach. Because the church is a mosaic of individuals; all different. That means there’s no simple way to boil down every important lesson to a few key words, and we shouldn’t try it.

Posted on

Historical perspective on baptism

I’m reading a book with tons of good information on Christian beginnings; early practices, first leadership, and the like. One interesting section deals with baptism. Early Christian baptism was something of a drawn-out affair- really an initiation. Those wishing for baptism in the 200’s had to go through a three year trial period in during which they were scrutinized for good behavior. Certain professionals were denied outright: actors, governors, magicians, and prostitutes. Near the end of the three years, initiates would be exorcised daily by laying on of hands. The day before baptism was to take place, they fasted and held an all-night vigil. Then at dawn they would head to the spring. Those getting baptized removed their clothes and got anointed with oil for another exorcism. Then a deacon washed them each three times for all three parts of the trinity. One more dose of oil for thanksgiving, and the baptism was complete.

Adults were most commonly baptized, but kids too sometimes joined. Cyprian was pro-infant baptism. He seemed to think it would help new babies stay away from sin. Tertullian was anti-infant baptism. To him, baptism was far too serious a choice for someone else to make for you. He even worried that parents and sponsors might bring damnation on themselves if the child grew up to reject the baptism.

For early Christians, baptism differed from other cult initiations in that it was considered universal. If one was baptized in a Christian church, that baptism stood for every church he might visit. Pagan groups generally required re-initiation into the local chapter.

Posted on

Church #32, St Andrew’s Episcopal Church in Albany

Date: 6/2/13

Church name/type: St Andrew’s Episcopal, Episcopal Church USA

Pastor:Reverend Mary White

Style of worship: tight format reminiscent of Catholic masses I’ve experienced, with moderate traveling during the passing of the peace

Overall Impression: Nice!

Thoughts:
This is another church I have actually experienced before; I’m sure I visited at least once during my college days. I can’t remember what reason I never made it ‘my’ church- it could have been that I was simply looking for a better fit or that I was still holding onto the notion of a permanent Catholic Church for me. In any case, this visit showed me almost no negatives and much to like.

Inside the church looks rather Cathedral-y, with prominent stone arches and stained glass windows. The windows are actually low enough to be touched and (more importantly) this enables one to wander the church and read the names of the saints depicted. Stylistically old though it is, the church appears to be in good shape. I was on-call this past weekend, so I took a seat near the far back, in case work called me. Speakers and pastor were mic’d so the sound was good even in the back. Age wise, the church seems reasonably mixed. Ethnically there was not a huge amount of diversity. Both these factors of course change when people are missing, and this was the best and sunniest Sunday of the year so far.

The service was easy to follow, with all the parts written in a large bulletin. My only complain was the size. It was a tad difficult leafing through pages and setting them down when directed to either the hymn book or prayer book, then picking them back up again afterwards. Since most of the worship was already printed in the bulletin, seems like all of it could be. The sermon had some interesting bits. We heard from the pastor about those in the Old Testament worshipping a false god called Baal. This term apparently stood for not just one god, but several. It also could mean an official for that god. The other two readings were also about rejecting false teachings. Pastor Mary tied them all together related to our life today by asking us to remember the false gospels we face today. One example was the gospel of prosperity. The gospel of prosperity is basically the notion that the rich have been blessed by god and therefore deserve their wealth. This implies a second idea; that the poor are abandoned by god as undeserving. Dan and I actually talk about this one often. It annoys us that so many Christians take this bizarre view. To us it seems silly to imagine wealth as directly proportional to goodness/closeness to god. Pastor Mary called this idea a distraction.

She named two other distractive gospels: the gospel of works leading to salvation and the gospel of worshipping Jesus over his message. Works leading to salvation is a longer point I want to make in a later post. In any case it’s a pretty standard point for Protestants to stress, often seen as a counter to misunderstood/misused Catholic teaching. The gospel of worshipping Jesus was an interesting one to cite I think. This is another thing Dan and I (and several friends) have talked about before. Jesus as the central figure seems fine, until you make it so that his teachings are ignored and his person venerated. That’s throwing out much of the New Testament. In the New Testament we get messages to believe in Jesus, yes. But we also get messages of healing others, of helping the poor, of condemning the rich, of sharing what we have, and on and on. Those that forget these bits and focus solely on belief in Jesus are rather like someone claiming to adore Lincoln and being pro-slavery and pro-confederacy. It just doesn’t work. Pastor Mary described what Jesus taught as ‘immanent changes’; ‘the kingdom of heaven’ on the way. There would be many good things and people would be healed and happy. We see that Jesus does some work towards this. By extension she told us we are to go out and make this a reality. To me that sounds just about exactly right.

After worship:
I hung around as usual and had snacks with members of the congregation. I engaged several in conversation and mentioned my project to most of those. Everyone was really interested and I talked a bit about what I’ve seen so far and what I’m looking for. And they talked too, like they are really invested in church matters and wanting to think about such things, rather than simply having them on rote memory. I think the people at this church made the fewest assumptions about me of any church so far. You know, usually there’s questions about college or mention of single girls for me to befriend should I return. And actually after I mentioned my project and was clear that I traveled around, no one bugged me to just stay here. That was really nice. It seems to be the rule that churches want you to ‘join up’ and that can feel very like new pressure. Every. Single. Sunday…

And one more thing:
The church was described as ‘liberal’ and ‘open to all’ by two different people I spoke with. I couldn’t be exactly sure what this meant, but I have a pretty good idea. It sounds like veiled invitation to talk about LGBTQ or at least LG. I wasn’t sure exactly how to ask without being awkward. I’ve mentioned before that I grew up believing homosexuality was wrong and have since changed my views. Still it’s difficult to talk about a thing when you used to use it as a synonym for ‘bad’. So I did not ask. In the literature I took home, however, was another clue. Announcements in the bulletin included one for an Interfaith Pride Service sponsored by AWC. The announcement goes on to state that AWC (Advocates for Welcoming Congregations) encourages the full participation of LGBT persons. This event would not be advocated if the church had a problem with LGBT. Moreover the church’s website states that this church welcomes all religious seekers, then includes a list to make it clear gender identity and sexuality are among traits this church has no restrictions over. Which is pretty sweet.