to have felt un-Christian about this mobile phone?

[JeanneDeMontbaston]

I have had an beautiful weekend, so I'm really not seething with anger, but wondered what you would make of this!

Earlier today I was at a church service for Advent, with a choir who'd trained very hard. They were excellent, and some of them are children, so it's hard work. The service begins almost completely in darkness, then as the choir progress very slowly up the church, lights come on level with them, until eventually the whole church is lit up. It's meant to represent the light of Christ coming into the world, so it's not just a pretty effect - if you're religious, it is something that has liturgical meaning.

The order of service explained that, because of the darkness, it would sometimes not be possible to read the booklet. We were all in there for at least 20 minutes before the service began, so plenty of time to read the note telling you about this before the lights dimmed, and in any case, we'd all been told weeks ago that the service was partly in the dark.

There was very little congregation participation, but there were two hymns we sung while it was still quite dark. A bloke near me took out his mobile phone and turned on the light, flashing it around, and used it as a torch to read the hymns.

Would you think this was both rude, and actually quite disrespectful? I really thought it was.

Ah right, when you said small group I though you would all know each other. So then likely that not that others won't agree with your opinion- he may not have spoiled it for anyone else.

It would have been nice if he could have waited if they'd been candles, but you don't know why he chose to. Lights draw a lot of attention so either he liked the attention or really weighed up whether to use or not and decided that - for him- it was the lesser of two evils.

Ask the organisers to do an announcement next time, sometimes works for the cinema.

addicted - the choir carried candles and moved slowly up the church, with the lights going on as they went, so the church slowly went from dark to light.

It was too dark to read easily, though. Depending on your eyesight you might have been able to bring the order of service very close and read it. This was because we were at the very far end, and the whole church is 88 metres long! So we were a long way from the lights at first.

But then, this was the point. We didn't have to join in, it was fine to stand and listen, because we'd been told we might not be able to see well enough to read. Then, at the end, the choir reached us and everything was completely lit up, and we got to see and hear them the best for the last bit. It was really carefully done and very moving - I just felt surprised how upset I felt by him doing that, as I am not normally terrible easily upset about religious things.

If it spoiled it for you that's fine. There was a child having a tantrum at a funeral I was at, very distracting and I was surprised how annoyed I was especially with the parents who'd dragged the kid out. Even more so as they barely knew the deceased or family.

When we build something up or want to feel something from it, anything that diverts or distracts or annoys can be a real piss off.

my - I don't understand what you mean about hypocrites.

The light was visible to all of us. The liturgical point is we're in darkness. If some people didn't mind, that's much better. But it's communal worship.

add - sorry, what I meant was, it's a small group who can come along in. I meant to explain it isn't a church where you'd easily just wander in. In fact, to be sitting where he was, he must have had some connection to the church, because it's a chapel really and so not public. I could absolutely see that if you'd happened to walk into a service, it could not work like this, as it would be unfair. But when he got a ticket, it would have explained how it would work, so he would have known. Then the service booklet would have said. And as we sat down, people told us. So there was lots of warning.

I understand why the first part of the service is in the dark. But why did they expect the congregation to sing hymns in the dark, without a hymn sheet? If there were only three congregational hymns, why were two of them in the dark? Most people only know the first verse of any given hymn, and there are variations in the words, anyway, so the words I have learned elsewhere, could be different to the words to be sung. So, it just doesn't seem very inclusive.

The man probably didn't turn on his phone because he objected to the darkness - he probably just wanted to be able to sing the hymn!

addicted - YY, maybe that is what it was (and sorry for your experience).

I wouldn't generally mind a toddler tantrum in the least - they can't help it. (Though of course I understand if you are bereaved you really notice things like that, and not being able to help it is not what you are thinking about just then).

I minded an adult who had full warning, and who chose to participate in communal worship without respecting the form that worship took.

sanity - no, I said they didn't expect us to sing, not that they did.

I can see both sides. You were obviously irritated by the light. But if he couldn't see the hymn sheet and didn't know the words what was he supposed to do. Peace on earth and all that.

Thanks. That's probably what it is. To be fair I was more annoyed with the parents who chose to come along to someone's funeral that one barely knew and the other didn't at all and bring their 5 year old who really didn't want to be there. Was very selfish to my mind. But then not everyone agree, some liked that she made the effort, some barely noticed and some like me were angry.

Probably same in your church: you were upset, others may not have noticed, some may have found disrespectful, others not so. You never know if they haven't asked in advance if it was okay either.

Yes, vivienne, I guess so. I just feel ... wouldn't you notice no one else is doing this and they're all just standing quietly?

addicted - sorry, that sounds like a very stressful time. And I agree, that sounds a bizarre choice to make.

How some people have been on this thread - the OP clearly states the lights being re-lit gradually is of religious significance and not some showy thing.

If it was meant to be dark for what-ever reason and that was explained then all people attending soudl respect that. If they don't then it is just rude.

How rude some people...

andsmile - yes! Thank you, you put that much better than me. That is what I was trying to explain and I think it is why I minded. It's a bit like, as a rule I'd say I don't like places being exclusionary, people should go where they like, etc. etc., but I'd feel very odd about someone who just decided to barge past the altar barrier and pop their feet up on the altar. It's not that I want them to feel excluded from that physical location, it's that it has a religious significance to me.

I think he was being insensitive and ruining a magical moment. It is very unlikely that he had some kind of phobia which meant he couldn't sit in the dark. He should have realised that mobile phone light would be disturbing to people.

Thanks clara.

I think he was just a knob that was tyring to show off with his phone in his eagerness to belt the song out. Some people just like attention.

Funny plenty people would agree about people doing this in the cinema...

Yes, in the cinema you really notice the light.

It's not that I think he was absolutely trying to be a twit. I just think it's a kind of arrogance to think, well, I know this is symbolic and I see everyone else is participating, but I won't bother.

It sounds as though your irritation at this man not observing the 'rules' affected the experience for you far more than the mobile phone itself.

No, it didn't ruin it at all. It was absolutely beautiful and uplifting and lovely. I felt incredibly glad to have been.

I just wondered what people thought to this. But, you are right - it certainly wasn't me thinking 'oh, a mobile phone! How rude!' it was me thinking 'why did you do that when this has religious meaning for other people?'

YANBU.

Maybe he finds singing hymns together of more significance than the level of darkness and simply didn't get that others would be troubled by it?

TBH it seems a bit odd to bother printing hymns in an order of service if people couldn't read them. Why not just put in it (to be read beforehand) that the congregation are welcome to join in with the first and second hymns if they wish (and choose well-known ones).

errol - yeah, I'm half-persuaded by that, and I know people do find singing hymns significant, but then ... I wonder if he wouldn't have thought 'argh, I love hymns but obviously everyone around me is standing quietly in the dark, and no-one is lighting up,' you know?

They printed the whole service, though. So it wasn't odd the congregational hymns were printed too - they printed all the words the choir sung, plus translations when they were in foreign, so it was not strange at all.

I did wonder why they didn't choose well-known hymns, but I think that may have been deliberate too. I really love hymns and especially Christmas music, and I didn't know over half of what they sung.

It didn't spoil it for you so whats your point?

FWIW, the first hymn we could sing was 'Thou whose Almighty word' by John Mariott and Felice de Giardini (never heard of it!) and then second was 'The Lord will come and not be slow' by Milton and William Jones (vaguely aware of the words but not the tune), then we had O Come Emmanuel right at the end in the light.

It is possible I have odd gaps in my knowledge of hymns, but I think they were quite obscure and I don't think there can have been many places in the church where there weren't people who just stood and listened rather than joining in. Though perhaps it would have been better to have a line in the service sheet saying that?!