![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the influence of mega-churches
The mega-church influence was felt as well during Friday night prayers, where 6,000 worshipers gathered in a cavernous room on the convention center's ground floor for a choreographed production of sight and sound.Now I'm all for music in worship; anyone who's heard me talk about my congregation surely knows that. But I do not attend services seeking "a choreographed production of sight and sound". I attend services to pray in community. Both parts of that, "pray" and "community", are important. Is 6000 people community? I think that's at least 5500 too many for me to have that kind of connection, personally. Maybe I'm societally deficient.Multiple cameras projected the service on several enormous screens suspended over the hall. A live band buoyed a service that was conducted almost entirely in song.
From what I understand (and have caught occasional glimpses of on TV on Sunday mornings), mega-churches are theatre, first and foremost. They are performances, deemed successful if the audience cheers or claps along enthusiastically (and maybe gets up to dance). Can you reach God by making a joyous sound, singing a new song? Of course! Is that what happens in those services? I wonder. Sometimes, for some people, of course -- but is the format an aid or a roadblock?
I don't know. I can ride that sort of wave of spirit in my 30-person Shabbat minyan and in our 300-person monthly musical service. Is 300 different in principle from 3000 or 30,000? It feels like it is. I know almost all of the 30 people and a good proportion of the 300, which probably makes a difference, but that's not all of it. I've been to services where I didn't know anyone and yet felt connected. I think it's also that among 30 or even 300, I can still feel like I matter. Among 3000? Not so much -- at that point I'm just an anonymous face in the crowd, not part of the community. Any face will do to build a crowd, but community happens person to person, soul to soul. Being just a face in the crowd is no different from being alone -- I might as well stay home and pray with fewer distractions. But that's not what I want.
One specific idea originating in mega-churches has come up in
discussions a number of times, and I find it particularly revolting:
the notion that instead of handing out prayer books, you project
the text, perhaps done up in Powerpoint, on big screens. Shoot
me now. Quite aside from the issues of doing this on Shabbat
(yeah, most Reform Jews don't care, but some of us do), quite
aside from how mood-detracting this is, there is the fact that
such a format is quite hostile to those of us with vision problems,
precisely at a time when movement leaders are telling congregations
we need to be more welcoming, friendly, and accessible. If your
quest for techno-gimmicks and new, young, hip members comes at
the expense of the committed congregants who are already
there, what message does that send?
"If the mega-churches can do it, maybe it'll work for us," said one member of Temple Holy Blossom, a large Reform congregation in Toronto. "I'm open to anything. As long as Jews are praying, I'm happy."The key phrase, treated here as a given, is "as long as Jews are praying". I hope that's what's happening in these kinds of worship services, but I'm not ready to assume it. I would like to hear from people who like this worship style. In what ways does it work for you? Are those benefits unique to this style of worship, or do you also get them through other styles (and if so, which)? What aspects of this worship style have made you struggle, and how have you overcome those difficulties?
no subject
I usually hate large services. They lack the intimacy and the personal connection that I value most when worshipping. However I am going to defend the Shabbat services in San Diego on a couple of grounds.
1. The room we were in had one level, meaning people in the back and sides would be out of luck if they wanted to see the worship leaders at all. While I know this shouldn't be a big deal, I think it is for people and it helps them feel connected with what is going on.
2. Yes, it was somewhat choreographed, but when you are leading 6000 people in song and prayer, I would think that it would need to be to keep confusion to a minimum. However, the music was decent and it didn't feel like a performance to me, and I am pretty sensitive to worship turning into performance.
3. We did have prayerbooks for both services. I know there was one evening service during the week that did the powerpoint/projection thing with the words, but we all had Mishkan T'filah for both Shabbat services (and everyone was given a copy to take home at the end of Saturday morning).
That said, it wasn't the most overwhelming service I have ever been to. Everyone told me that it would blow me away, that hearing 5000 Jews all singing the Shema at once is incredibly powerful. And yes, it is cool to have such a large room full of committed, Reform Jews saying the Shema and praying together. But, I honestly was more energized by the Shacharit service I went to Thursday morning that was entirely in song. For one, it was a much smaller crowd, maybe 200. Plus it was guitar music and totally uplifting; everyone sang and sang with such enthusiasm for what they were praying. I left there completely energized and full of spirit. I wish I could have left Shabbat services with the same feeling, but they were good nonetheless.
I will say that the large Shabbat services were interesting for another reason. There were 5 of us from my congregation, including my rabbi. None of us bow during the Barechu or kiss the Torah or bow during the Amidah. We were definitely in the minority there. I thought it would bother me, but I know why I do and don't do certain things, so instead it just made me feel happy and proud that each way of worship was valid there.
no subject
I wouldn't go to a mega-church experience on a regular basis, but I appreciated it at Biennial because it allowed all the attendees to be together. The big screens allowed everyone to see what was going on. When Torah was read on Saturday morning there was a Torah cam (my husband thinks it was in the ceiling) that allowed everyone to follow along. And the sheer volume of the music, which some people complained about at other times, allowed exuberant singing -- I likened it to being alone in your car, but with 5000 other people.
I did go to Wednesday night ma'ariv which exclusively used projectors. It was an interesting experience, and allowed for some interesting options. It also got people singing more because our heads were up at all times. But it's not something I'd want to do all the time.
My favorite Biennial services were the daily shacharit services. They were small groups of people dedicated and interested in praying. There was power there. Sunday morning I was almost moved to tears several times (although that could also be an effect of sleep deprivation). Interestingly enough all of those services were lead by young clergy.
no subject
I never made it to Ma'ariv Wednesday or Thursday due to being exhausted and needing to meet people, but I wish I had.
I also really liked the Torah-cam. I was getting ready to follow along in the Torah commentary booklet when my rabbi nudged me and said "look! Torah-cam!"
no subject
My favorite Biennial services were the daily shacharit services. They were small groups of people dedicated and interested in praying. There was power there.
I suspect you pretty much only get that at special gatherings like biennials and kallot. (I got it during the Sh'liach K'hilah sessions at HUC too.) When the density of people who are really dedicated is that high, you notice the effect.
no subject
Were the screens being used just to amplify what was going on on the bimah? I thought they were being used for supplementary materials, zooming in on the sefer torah during the reading, etc. I guess what I'm asking is: did the screens make up for imperfect vision, or did they become "part of the show"?
I'm glad it was done in a way that did not make you feel like it was a performance. Did you feel like you were able to pray? Would a steady diet of such services (e.g. if your home congregation was a mega-shul) appeal, deter, or make you say "eh, whatever"?
I'm glad everyone had prayerbooks for most of the services. I can't understate how important this is. I have been to religious services, conference presentations, and performances where it was essential for participants to be able to see projected images and no accommodations were made for those who could not. If you're putting on a performance maybe you can alienate some customers (there are more where they came from; it's a business decision), but a community has to at least pretend to care about all of its members.
Out of curiosity, did they carry the sefer torah through the congregation? How long did that take? (You mentioned not kissing the torah, and it made me wonder whether you could have had you wanted to.)
no subject
The screens were used for really a combination; they focused a lot on the service leaders and choir, they also were the "Torah-cam" which was actually kind of neat; a great way to follow along with the chanting. There was a bunch of "let's show the crowd who are all going to wave when they see themselves" which was annoying, I will admit. But as someone who was on the side during both services, being able to see the service leaders was a helpful connection that would have been lost without the screens.
I felt I was able to pray, even if it wasn't in the custom I prefer. I would not attend this style of service on a regular basis, but I think once or twice a year would be okay. I think it helps that everyone really wanted to be there; if it were just a HHD service with people who come once a year, I think I'd probably feel different.
They had many scrolls that they carried throughout the congregation. I think most people would have had the opportunity to kiss one if they wanted, unless they were in the very middle of a row and couldn't get to the aisle. I happened to be along the aisle where they were all brought in; a lot of people kissed each Torah. And then there was my rabbi and I who didn't. I would say it took a good 10 minutes to carry the scrolls around, during which time we sang a variety of things.
On a side note, during Thursday Shacharit when they took the Torah around I was sitting with a friend from HUC who kissed the Torah and then offered her tzitzit to me. When I shook my head and said "I'm a student of Sandford (my rabbi)" she just laughed and said I was funny.
So, yes, while I will defend the screens to an extent, they were not always used in the best way. However, I think that I'd rather that they were there and used in a good way most of the time then have them absent completely.
no subject
I can totally grok screens for providing a better view of the bimah. It's pretty hard to see from the cheap seats, after all. I have mixed feelings about the torah cam (I think it would weird me out were I the reader), but I can understand its appeal. It's the other stuff -- texts, lyrics, shots of the audience (and I use the word "audience" deliberately there) -- that I'd rather discourage.
I agree that there's a difference between once or twice a year and routine. I've been to lots of services that I very much appreciated doing once but will not repeat. This seems almost like HHD in terms of its different-ness -- you get this big crowd, a special liturgy, and a different style than the rest of the year. I suspect you're right that it's a lot better when people really want to be there (as opposed to coming out of obligation).
Ten minutes for the hakafah isn't bad at all (if people are singing). With that size crowd I was imagining much longer.
Thanks for your response. I'm just speculating; you actually experienced it.
no subject