Spotlight on Evangelical Christianity IV: My visit to Park Street Church

Not all evangelical churches include ecstatic worship like Jubilee, nor are all evangelical   churches anti-intellectual. Park Street Church was founded in 1809 and ever since it has been a major part in the intellectual life of Boston. At the time of Park Street’s founding there was a Boston based debate between Unitarians and the Trinitarians. The congregants of Park Street decided that they would found a Trinitarian, specifically Congregational, Church. 

What is Congregationalism? It is a form of church governance which allows each church to determine its own leadership structure. Often the leadership in these churches are non-hierarchical, where the lead minister is not overburdened with all of the leadership decisions. The senior minister of Park Street, Gordon Hugenberger, proudly told me that if I really wanted to know about the workings of the church I should ask the congregation and some of the other leaders.

Park Street Church is such a fixture in downtown Boston that many people walk past it without realizing it is a working church. As you enter, there is a large modern room straight ahead, complete with high tech screens for announcements. Displayed on one wall is a quilt depicting the history of Park Street Church. Just past this quilt is a small library and a description of future foreign missions needing volunteers. The sanctuary is located on the second floor and has an old fashioned appearance complete with organ pipes, old, but well maintained, pews, and a balcony. In the morning service, most of the seating in this large sanctuary was filled with congregants. With a weekly attendance of 2000, Park Street Church is technically a megachurch.

The service started with worship, but the choir was away at retreat, so in the morning service the congregation was the only source of music. The worship consisted of traditional hymns sang in a traditional fashion. There were a few who threw themselves into the worship, but mostly people just stood and sang.

The title of the sermon was 'Why the Bible'? Rev. Dr. Gordon Hugenberger. Hugenberger started the sermon talking about romantic relationships and how conversation dwindles over time the longer one has been married. He then compared this relationship with one's relationship with God and how reading the Bible is necessary for this relationship with God.  

Sometimes the term 'Bible' is used to denote authority (i.e. the Bible of Gardening). Based this usage, we understand that the term 'Bible' indicates comprehensiveness, authoritativeness, and an ability to be understood by both expert and novice. The Bible is a comprehensive, authoritative, and understandable guide to a spiritual and moral life. Unlike the Vedas and Buddhist Sutras written by 'religious geniuses,' the Bible claims divine inspiration, which is the source of its authority. Later holy books, such as the Quran and the Book of Mormon copy the Bible in their attempt to be comprehensive, authoritative, and understandable.  

According to Hugenberger, the Bible, in its comprehensiveness, authoritativeness, and ability to be understood, began with Exodus. This is both the first book written and the first time religion made moral and legal demands. The Ten Commandments was a covenant similar to other governmental covenants written at the same time that Moses lived. God, through Moses, was trying to build a kingdom, not just to have followers who worshiped Him. But, even in the Old Testament there was grace. God did not say 'follow these laws then I will redeem you', God redeemed the people of Israel and then told them the moral rules. Thus, being ethical is merely our gratitude for being redeemed by God. Covenants are relational, and having a relationship with God seems to be the essence of Christianity for Hugenberger. 

After the service I was able to speak briefly with Herman, one of the candidates for a leadership position. He is a lawyer by training and judge by profession. This conversation was exactly what you would expect from a conversation between a philosopher and a lawyer. I asked him my traditional first question "What is religion?" Reluctant to answer this question, he said it depends on definition and who you talk to. Eventually he did answer a couple of my standard questions. In a mostly non-committal way he offered that Christianity was a relationship with God. He also gave a non-committal answer to the question of whether Christianity was a religion. Christianity was more than a religion; it transcends religion. 

The morning service ended around 12:30 and I came back for the 4:00 evening service. The evening service's worship was quite different. Instead of traditional hymns there was a contemporary worship service, with drums, guitars, and even a piano. As they set up, I noticed a guy covered in tatoos, but unfortunately did not see him as a worship leader during the service. The music itself was standard contemporary Christian worship songs and I wondered if the extensive set up was worth it. Like the first service, the congregation's participation in the worship was mostly somber, with a few excited worshipers, including a middle aged black man in the balcony area,

The second sermon had the same title "Why the Bible?," but mostly different content. In this sermon he relayed the struggles of the famous Rev. Billy Graham and how early in his career he was starting to have doubts about the veracity of the Bible. Graham then had a revelation by a tree stump when he was out walking that confirmed his belief in the authoritativeness of the Bible. While its true that you can look into the history of Exodus, find that it does match the covenant structure that kings made, and that God was trying to build a kingdom. You don't really know this until you have the experience.

Like the first service, there was communion, in the first service it was made plainly clear that only those who trust in Jesus and are Christian should partake in the Lord's Supper. In the second service this was more implicit, but was still rather obvious that non-believers were prohibited from this ritual.    

Bottom Line:

Park Street Church would be a great place if you are an educated Christian. Virtually everyone I talked to not only had a Bachelor's, but also either already had a graduate degree or was working towards one. There is also a large Asian contingent and on their website they bill themselves as international. In comparison to Reality, the average age appears to be older. Though there was nothing that wowed me in the services, Park Street Church is historic, well attended, and is generally a solid church. The sermons are scholarly, but that is to be expected given their congregation. Stay tuned for my interview with Associate pastor Walter Kim. 

Spotlight on Evangelical Christianity III: My two visits to Jubilee

   

          Jubilee is a historically black church in Mattapan, located outside of Boston. The aesthetic of Jubilee is contemporary and non-traditional. The exterior has the appearance of a converted car dealership or restaurant. Looking to your right as you enter, there is a small cafe/bookstore; looking straight is the sanctuary. The cafe serves Starbucks coffee and sells devotional materials, including videos of previous sermons. The sanctuary is contemporary with no crosses, images of Jesus, or other Christian paraphernalia. The sanctuary seating is spacious and can fit 400 or more people. Jubilee prides itself on being a 'church without walls,' but other than living a moral life outside of the church, most of the emphasis was on its own community.

          I attended two services at Jubilee and both services started with amazing praise and worship. The singers could have easily performed at The House of Blues and the lighting was equally professional. However, there was too much audience participation to consider it just a concert; the worship leaders excelled at encouraging the congregation to participate. The best way to describe the worship is the sociological term 'collective effervescence'. Collective effervescence, coined by the sociologist Émile Durkheim, describes a situation in which a group of people experience the same thing at the same time such that they lose themselves in the process. For Durkheim, the function of this collective effervescence is to promote unity, and unity was a major theme in both services.

          In the first service, after the worship, there was a brief pause, and the pastor asked us to listen to the church announcements. These announcements were prepared in a commercialized form complete with voice over and slide show advertising their various ministries and services. This was a jarring interruption of the collective effervescence experienced earlier.

          But the emphasis on community and unity resumed during the call for tithes and offerings. During the offertory, the majority of the congregation was able to recite the verse: "give and it shall be given unto you, pressed down, shaken together and running over," Luke 6:38. This verse was chosen by the Jubilee leadership and is quite popular among evangelicals when asking for tithes and offerings. Also, the congregation was encouraged to be cheerful givers, a reference to 2 Corinthians 9:7. Most of the congregants knew the proper (ritualized) words to say when making their offering. This unison likely encouraged the congregants to give more money than they would otherwise.

         The sermon further encouraged community by emphasizing responsibility, particularly being responsible about health issues that disproportionately affect black communities. Remedies included, not drinking too much soda, not eating too much junk food, and exercising. The details of the sermon seemed extemporaneous (made up on the spot) though there was a clear outline. He also encouraged the younger people to go out and protest the non-indictment decision in the Michael Brown case, but he wanted them to do so responsibly. For instance, if you have kids (i.e. more important responsibilities) don't go out and protest, but if not then by all means protest.

           After the sermon the pastor asked all the men ages 16-18 to come to the altar for prayer, then men aged 19-20, and then men in their 20s, and then 30s, etc... until all the men were at or near the altar. He then asked all the women, the sisters, wives, and daughters of these men, to outstretch their hands in support of these men. The men were supposed to receive power and influence over their life and their family's life. This emphasis on gender roles is a common theme Jubilee. For instance, the men's ministry is called Dominion, and Dominion encourages men to exercise "God given Dominion over himself, his family, his finances, and his sphere of influence." In contrast, the women's ministry is called Chosen where women are "selected by God, as instruments, to do his work and to speak out for him." Men have influence; women are instruments of influence. 

          The second sermon I attended was given by the first pastor's father, also a pastor. This undoubtedly extemporaneous sermon moralized from the pulpit and often bordered on the political. The preacher chastised anyone who was having sex out of wedlock, anyone who supported a woman's right to choose (which he called a 'myth'), and also chastised those who do not spank their children. This latter part was probably the bulk of the sermon and even included him taking his belt off and snapping it a few times in the middle of the sermon. There was also an anti-intellectual moment, where he stated that he didn't care whether a marriage counselor went to Harvard (in a condescending tone), but rather how he lives his life, stating "a man can't teach what he doesn't know." (I want to make it clear that I mostly agree with his opinion about the need for practical experience in a counseling career. It is only this opinion on which I agree. I also disagree with the mocking tone in which he conveyed this opinion).

         (Normally I conduct interviews as well, but after repeated attempts I was not able to obtain an interview with the leadership of Jubilee)

Bottom line: 

          There were definitely in-group/out-group barriers in this church. First, both racially and culturally I am a white male. Second, I am admittedly a liberal. And as a liberal I was generally appalled by a good portion of the sermons, particularly the second sermon. That being said I can only write from my perspective. Other than the music, I can recommend nothing about this church. In particular, I was taken aback by the political nature of the avowedly pro-life moment in the second sermon and how the congregation encouraged the pastor with amens and other forms of vocal support. Also, the emphasis on separate gender roles made me cringe. But any good critic should take a moment and think about their own reaction to what they have experienced.  

          I admittedly come from a particular perspective; a perspective that makes it difficult to engage with people who are this different from myself. A perspective which, admittedly values the individual over the community. For instance, it is hard for me to understand the moral code that expects men and women to fulfill different roles. I can only maintain that my position is the moral one, but I must acknowledge that when I enter Jubilee I leave the moral world that I am comfortable with and enter a different moral world, one that is necessary to engage with in 21st century America. Even after much thinking, I am still unsure of how best I can engage these people and their moral world.