Church was/is a major component of my upbringing. Because of this focus in my personal life, I’ve found comfort in oral text through analysis and practice. I’m intrigued by methods of the speaker in order to produce a sermonic message, and even more interested as to how this plays out through gender, but I have yet to think about it in terms of culture, outside the specific community.
First I thought broadly; it is evident that religious discussion is embedded in many facets of everyday life, simply consider politics and entertainment. I can discuss many ways in which this plays out in multiple texts, both verbal and visual. Then I considered a recent sermon, and this statement from my Pastor came to mind: “Some people love church more than they love God.” Wow. What does this mean? How can the church become bigger than its purpose? What does this say about the intent of church and the members that attend? This is intriguing because it suggests that the very “space” of church is rhetorical. For some, there is something to be valued when someone says he or she goes to church, which in some ways speaks to who the person is, and less to what he or she believes. For example, consider this past New Year celebration. Did you go to watch night service or to a party? What does this answer say about you? Does the absence define you in some way? What if you went to church then to a party, and how then does this speak for you? Admittedly, this may mean nothing for some, but to speak personally, this means a lot for just as many others.
First I thought broadly; it is evident that religious discussion is embedded in many facets of everyday life, simply consider politics and entertainment. I can discuss many ways in which this plays out in multiple texts, both verbal and visual. Then I considered a recent sermon, and this statement from my Pastor came to mind: “Some people love church more than they love God.” Wow. What does this mean? How can the church become bigger than its purpose? What does this say about the intent of church and the members that attend? This is intriguing because it suggests that the very “space” of church is rhetorical. For some, there is something to be valued when someone says he or she goes to church, which in some ways speaks to who the person is, and less to what he or she believes. For example, consider this past New Year celebration. Did you go to watch night service or to a party? What does this answer say about you? Does the absence define you in some way? What if you went to church then to a party, and how then does this speak for you? Admittedly, this may mean nothing for some, but to speak personally, this means a lot for just as many others.
Additionally, culture plays a role in how the church is described, especially when comparing different cultures within the church community. You will find multiple parodies or renditions when considering black vs. white churches. Movies (such as Time to Kill) invite this comparison, as well as cartoons (Simpsons, Cleveland Show) comedians (Steve Harvey, Ricky Smiley, and Gary Owens) and academic texts (such as Beverly Moss). This is perhaps rhetorical because of the means of analysis. Many texts consider the purpose of the service being the same, but the arrangement or order of service, the style and methods, and possibly more apparent, the delivery is different.
Members, therefore, learn the rhetoric of the space. They learn the history and begin to understand what is appropriate: when to speak or respond, stand, or leave the sanctuary. This is only acknowledged or known through familiarity of each church. Knowing these components testifies to your knowledge of church decorum and church rhetoric. This is rhetorical, because it places the individual either in the community or outside of it. Thus, the member moves from the role of spectator, someone who visits or simply attends, to participant. On the other hand, Plato’s discussion of good rhetoric vs. bad rhetoric is fundamental and conflicting as I consider these roles. I am led to believe that knowing the rhetoric of church can be in conflict with being a part of the church. In other words, you can participate in the space effectively, but have no intention to do what is called spiritually in terms of good will, which in turn refers back to the comment offered by my Pastor. It’s no wonder people call church folk manipulative hypocrites.
For many reasons, the church is culturally rhetorical. Being a part of a church community in some ways speaks to your character depending on certain circles, and to pull away from the community can also be a means of denial or invitation for another community. In either case, church can be a condition of ones’ identity. Personally, I’ve seen how the space of church affects how people react to others. For example, “She is a church girl. She goes to church every Sunday and sometimes during the week.” This can have both positive and negative responses; it can speak of morals or be used to ridicule. Another example, “He is a CME Christian,” in other words, members who only go to church Christmas, Mother’s Day and Easter. This speculates some value in attending such services above all others, and what the member hopes to gain by attending.
Through this reflection, moreover I’m reminded that space is rhetorical and the power space holds over intent. Why is the digital space (watching broadcasts at home) in some ways frowned upon and in conflict to what constitutes presence? It questions why I attend church every Sunday or feel guilty when I do not. Is it for the sake of God alone, or do I have other hidden motives I care not to admit?
B,
ReplyDeleteThis is really interesting work; the idea of church having its own rhetoric that is tied to a space is something I hadn't really thought of in these terms but that make a lot of sense. See, I spent many of my formative years outside of the US or in primarily white, Northern spaces. So, the first time I went to a black church in the south(without my parents and without the protection of childhood), I became painfully aware that I was not conversant in the discourse of the space of church. Familiarity with certain hymns, call-and-response protocol, style of dress, etc. are unique to a church space. Even things from passing the collection plate to taking the sacrament have specific protocol, and a person's ability to follow those appropriately speaks volumes. Being in that space and unaware of conventions functioned to communicate to me my outsider status and a perceived judgment that came with that.
I would be curious to know how the rhetoric of church functions to construct exclusive communities and how it dictates outsiders from that community be treated. How is the narrative of the church outsider constructed and would you argue that the narrative is consistent across black church spaces?
:) Janelle