Posted by Hemant Mehta on: 04.06.2006 /
This morning, I went to St. Sabina’s, an “African American Catholic Community.” There’s much more history to this church that I didn’t get to really experience as this was not an actual service, but if you’d like to know more, their website is here: http://www.saintsabina.org/index2.htm.
I went there to go to a Bible Study. As expected, I didn’t stand out. There were 12 older, African females… and 2 older, African males. And me, the younger, brown person who walked in 2 minutes late.
We began with a prayer request, and thankfully I heard the prayers requests I can relate to. There’s a lot of local violence, especially recently, so requests were made to pray for the safety and health of everyone. Requests were also made for someone with poor eyesight and a sick relative. And (there has to be at least one) a request was made to pray for the professor who said on Good Morning America that Jesus didn’t really walk on water– the Mediterranean had frozen over so Jesus actually walked on ice. I’m not sure what we’re praying *for* but I can venture that it’s a prayer request for his soul to be saved…
There was a lot of honesty and truth about the lives in the local neighborhoods. We reflected on why some young children had to be taken away from Earth so young (There was a reason, they said, but we can’t know what it is). It was heartbreaking. It’s also the main reason I can understand about why people resort to religion even when they may have conflict about it– it makes us feel better about the world around us. In fact, at the end of the Bible Study, we were told: “With all that’s going wrong in the world, we gotta pray.”
The actual Bible Study involved looking at John 13 (Last supper, Judas’ betrayal). What surprised me about this study was that it was run like an English class. We simply tried to interpret what the Bible was saying. There no real in depth analysis like I’ve seen at other churches. The people just wanted to know what the Bible said. Which made me curious because I would think everyone here has already heard this story repeatedly… but it’s a stark contrast to the white churches (I don’t know if the color is the reason), some of which I thought overanalyzed the passages. Where’s the happy medium?
A point was made about why we were studying just the story. The moderator remarked that studying the Bible fortified us. In other words, whatever bad thing hits it, won’t hit us as hard because we know the Bible. Again, the comfort factor.
I really did like the moderator because she was as “curious” as the others. In fact, while she led the discussion, she was asking as many geniune questions about the chapter as the others were. There was a lot of “How did Jesus know he would be betrayed?” “Why did the other disciples not know who the betrayer was?” Etc. These are questions I know Christians have answers to, as did the people at Sabina. But they found their way to the answers instead of hearing the answers told to them. And when that happens, you’re much more likely to not question where the answer came from.
After a long discussion on how the message of Christianity is “Love,” we began to wrap up, but not before we got on a bit of a tangent about politics and other current events. One person remarked about how some Christians don’t show love– even using Pat Robertson as an example (”He wanted to assassinate that guy… that guy… Chavez!”)… It was candid and honest and the people there grappled with the question.
The best line of the morning came the moderator. Assuming everyone did have Faith, she asked: “How can you love a God you cannot see, but you can’t love a neighbor you can see?” Great point, I thought.
Overall, it was a different type of Bible Study than I expected. I wonder what thoughts people have coming out of this type of meeting, because we simply covered the story and very little else. I’m not saying that’s bad, but I would think a studying of any text would involve more reading between the lines and figuring out the real meaning of the story. And many Bible Studies do just that. But here, it seems like the people gather just to hear the Biblical stories and refresh their minds with something positive, because when they leave, many of them are going back to neighborhoods where that attitude is hard to come by.
Leave a Reply
Comment by: Julie C.
1 04/6/06 1:22 PM | Comment Link |thanks for the report. I’m sorry you didn’t get to go to a full service there, I’ve heard it is quite an experience.
as for the bible study thing. On one hand I have been in many “white” bible studies led by lay leaders in the church that just go over the surface of what the text is saying. personally I find it annoying and a waste of time. But having talking with friends in leadership in black churches, they tell me that such an approach is common because its traditional. going back to the days when most blacks were illiterate the pastor would tell the sunday school teachers (bible study leaders) what the text said and what to say about it. apparently this method of just repeating to others what the text says is still the norm for today. I honestly don’t know if this is true across the board - I just heard this from friends who were trying to change that system…
I love the quote about loving a god you cannot see but not loving a neighbor you can see. its something we all need to learn.
Comment by: Ir
2 04/6/06 2:42 PM | Comment Link |LOL :)
This is a really good point.
I also think it’s something I understand better now than when I posted my first post here - the ‘Christian Consultant’ post.
That seems likely. I found that church often had a way of restoring my perspective when I had gotten too wrapped up in the worries and minutia of life. And my life is probably a lot easier than the lives of many people at St. Sabina.
I expect the people also come because they enjoy the opportunity to be with each other, discussing things they like to discuss. If pretty much the same people come each week then they probably know each other quite well and feel comfortable with each other.
Hemant, I’m curious - did you just listen or did you join in the discussion too?
Also, when you walked in, did they ask you to introduce yourself? If so, why didn’t you tell them you were an atheist? I can think of some good reasons not to - but I’d like to hear yours.
Comment by: Jim Henderson
3 04/6/06 11:46 PM | Comment Link |Can Hemant write or what !!
Comment by: Ir
4 04/7/06 4:30 AM | Comment Link |He sure can! :)
Hemant, thanks again for the thoughtfulness and level of detail in your survey. I will miss reading your reports when this project comes to an end. (On the other hand, if it means I have to go visit different groups myself because I can’t just sit at home and read your reviews on my computer, that might not be such a bad thing!)
I really like how these few people get together at St Sabina’s each week to find comfort a) in being with each other and b) through sharing stories that give them hope and encouragement they can take back into the rest of their life. I think that’s ideally what small groups are all about.
Comment by: Ir
5 04/7/06 4:37 AM | Comment Link |p.s. Hemant, I forgot to say - I really like how you go beyond your own reaction to a meeting, thinking yourself into the shoes (or sandals? :)) of the other people there, so you can consider reasons why they might find it enjoyable and/or meaningful.
Comment by: Peter in Pennsylvania
6 04/7/06 4:43 AM | Comment Link |I’ve been to some Bible Studies over the years, too. This sounds like it was a particularly good one. Thanks for the report!
Comment by: Hemant
7 04/7/06 12:49 PM | Comment Link |Ir– I did not participate in the conversation, but only because I had very little to contribute to discussion about things happening in the black community or what was going on in the Bible verses we were reading.
When I walked in, I did introduce myself, but I just said my name (like the others). There was no need to say I was an Atheist, and had they asked me why I was there, I’m not sure I would’ve said anything about this project. The anonynimity of it is what keeps it real. To throw an Atheist in a small group may throw off peoples’ comments, and I didn’t want that to happen. I also didn’t want to become the focus of what they were doing, which was a Bible study, which may have happened simply because I was an Atheist.
– Hemant
Comment by: Ir
8 04/7/06 1:21 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for answering my questions, Hemant. I understand about anonymity keeping things real.
Comment by: Cully
9 04/7/06 1:27 PM | Comment Link |Was this their scheduled passage? Or were they studying it in response to the NYTimes article about the gospel of Judas that was found? (See article here.) I only ask since they specifically referenced the frozen Mediterranean thing. Part of the interest in this gospel is that Jesus instructed Judas to betray him, telling him that he would be instrumental in releasing him from the flesh, and that Judas would be rewarded above all the other disciples.
Comment by: Ir
10 04/7/06 2:52 PM | Comment Link |Hemant, thanks for answering my questions. I understand about anonymity keeping things real.
Comment by: Char
11 04/9/06 7:44 PM | Comment Link |When I walked in, I did introduce myself, but I just said my name (like the others). There was no need to say I was an Atheist, and had they asked me why I was there, I’m not sure I would’ve said anything about this project. The anonynimity of it is what keeps it real.
Several people at Via Christus have been reading your blog. Did you feel the experience was less authentic or real than St. Sabina’s because several people recognized who you were?
Comment by: Mike C
12 04/12/06 8:52 AM | Comment Link |What seems unanswered about it? It’s pretty clear that the Gospel of Judas is the work of a Gnostic sect written over 100 years after the time of Christ. The Gnostics were a non-Christian group that borrowed certain Christian beliefs and melded them into their Greek mystery religion that believed that the material/physical world was evil and only the spiritual realm was good.
In other words, no legitimate scholar would take this as having any real historical value. There is no chance that this actually describes anything that really happened between Jesus and Judas.
And Christians are not going to feel challenged to rethink their faith because of what Gnostics said about Jesus anymore than a Jew would care what a Nazi thinks of their religion, or than a Muslim would listen to what a Christian or Hindu says about Mohammed.
Comment by: Eliza
13 04/12/06 11:48 PM | Comment Link |Mike C: my readings on early Christianity and gnosticism (Elaine Pagels, others) concluded otherwise - that Gnosticism was one of the early Christian sects and that they basically lost the power struggle, got defined out of Christianity, and had many of their writings destroyed (and their legitimacy in the history of Christianity slandered).
The Gospel of Thomas (a “gnostic gospel”) is thought (by several author-historians) to date from ~90 AD & to be contemporaneous with the Gospel of John (a non-gnostic but not unmystical Gospel). Some even think Gospel of John was written in rebuttal to Gospel of Thomas - hence “doubting Thomas” in John, the writer with the better distribution system and better PR.
The Gospel of Judas seems to have been from later, so agreed it’s there’s basically “no chance” that it describes real events - but that doesn’t mean that “no legitimate scholar would take this as having any real historical value” - it just doesn’t change the story in the versions written earlier & gathered together & called the New Testament.
It’s unclear to me how writings from 70-90 AD can be said to contain unquestionable Truth about Jesus, yet writings from the same time or shortly after (the gnostic Gospels) - which don’t describe miracles (at least the ones I’ve read) but only wise teachings and parables, are said to be invalid and illegitimate.
So, now I’m getting obstreperous and Jim will ask me to take it to the discussion board. ‘Nuff said.
Comment by: Canadian
14 01/17/07 8:49 AM | Comment Link |I have just read this whole series through and it’s very interesting. I wonder though, why Jim had Hemant go mostly to evangelical/non-denominational churches, and not to more mainline churches? For example, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc.
Comment by: Loree
15 06/3/08 6:49 PM | Comment Link |No offense, but these aren’t the moderator’s words, she’s quoting scripture from the Bible. Gotta give credit where credit is due…
1 John 4:20 If anyone says, “I love God,” yet hates his brother, he is a liar. For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.