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.

It would have a negative impact on me too.
The guy was disrespectful of a centuries old religious tradition and very selfish to use the intrusive light on his phone. He was making the occasion all about him, rather than letting the very obvious symbolism of darkness into light affect everyone equally.

I think it is quite funny.

It is also arrogant of the church to assume that humanity was in "darkness" before jesus was born.

I'm with the guy with the phone.

I think was he did was rude, because the symbolism was explained in the service sheet. It's like staying silent when the seri e calls for it.

There was explanation about the significance of light in this specific service.

If you do not like formal liturgical services, then it is better not to attend them (especially the set piece, flightless obscure, have to seek them out annual events).

Waving a torch around during a service invoking darkness is exactly like shouting during a specified silence.

I got something 'wrong' at church once many moons ago and I was very aware of the disapproval -I've never been since.

"seri e" ??

I'd try and think what Jesus might have felt/done. The man was there in church. He'd come literally 'in good faith' and probably had no intention of disrupting anything wilfully. He only wanted to join in, which is lovely. I think Jesus may have smiled at him and enjoyed hearing his voice during the hymn. That's just my thoughts.

Perhaps this guy feels closest to his God when rejoicing, and singing is his way of expressing that.
Perhaps he too was overcome with the beauty of the service and he got over-excited wanting to join in.
Perhaps it didn't occur to him that people would judge him for wanting to join in with the service.
Perhaps you should try to be a little more understanding instead of accusing him of being rude and disrespectful.

Perhaps he was hard of hearing so wanted to read along with the words even if he didn't sing?

I totally agree about the distraction of the phone, the spoiling of the symbolic atmosphere, etc, etc. I hate it when people start using their phones at the cinema, let alone in a beautiful spiritual setting like this. It sounds like a wonderful service.

BUT I think errol hit the nail on the head - why have obscure congregational hymns during the dark section, leaving the congregation to choose between not singing and possibly looking disrespectful, or using their phone and disrespectfully ruining the darkness? It's slightly excluding in itself - 'join in, but only if you already know this terribly obscure hymn' - which is fine in a recital, but not really in a service that's supposed to represent mankind's communal spiritual experience?

If he had been face booking it would be very disrespectful but he was trying to see the words and probably trying to work out if he should join in as he didn't know the words.

Perhaps he had a sight problem?

Dawn, yes exactly.

Yesterday at our advent service, I managed to leave my glasses at home (long story, won't go into it). I had to do a reading, and I was worried sick about literally not being able to see the words. I got out my phone and turned the torch on to help me see a) where in the order of service my reading came b) if I could read the large print text c) if I could see the words to the hymns (I couldn't, not even with the phone torch). I hope I wasn't distracting for other worshippers, but I hope, if I was, they managed to be charitable about it.

Acts of worship are always imperfect. We do the best we can, we offer to God the best we have. In the scheme of things, distractions are just minor. And, just maybe, the man with the phone was someone who doesn't normally go to church, and just maybe, phone and all, he met with God at that service. That's more important than anything else.

NSF - yes, and I expect I could have phrased it better for AIBU too.

I really don't get all the comments asking why we were given the words for the hymns if we weren't going to sing along - would all the people saying that have thought, since we had the words to the choir hymns (as I've said a couple of times) that we should have expected to sing those too?

We had the words because people were going to read the booklet in the time we had before the service. That was the point of it.

I don't follow what the sight problem comment is about, though? He can't have thought everyone else with better sight could see to read, because we clearly couldn't. And his sight was evidently good enough to read by the light of his phone.

If everyone else had been looking at the service sheet and singing, I would have understood - even if they'd been signing because they happened to know the hymn - because then I'd have known he thought we were all meant to be able to see and sing, and I'd have understood he was just trying to join in. But it wasn't that.

niminy - yes, that's true.

I just wondered about what people would make of it, because my sense at the time was not that he was trying to join in, but that he saw it more as a concert than a service.

If I'm at a service and there are congregational hymns and choir only hymns, and the words have been provided for the congregational hymns, I would assume I was expected to sing along as part of the act of worship. If I didn't join in, I would be worried that it would be regarded by those around me as a deliberate not-joining-in. If I couldn't see the words by the candle light provided (so not complete darkness then), I'd be gripped with a very English sense of double jeopardy - not sing and look standoffish? squint at order of service as best I could? use phone and hope that joining in with hymn is more respectful than disturbing light effects?

Yes, he did the wrong thing by disturbing the light. But I hardly think he did it deliberately to be rude, and I think the church could have make it much easier for the congregation by leaving all participation to the end of the service, rather than encourage them to sing a hymn they didn't know, from an order of service they couldn't see.

Or made a gentle point at the beginning that the gradual rising of the light was part of the worship and that all phones should be switched off for the duration of the service. Pretty depressing that it has to be said, but if you want to be absolutely sure you've made it clear...

lud, would you still have felt that way if:

• it was all explained to you multiple times beforehand?
• everyone else around you was plainly unable to read too, and was standing quietly?
• you had the manners to recognize that what you felt were 'light effects' were actually a religious service for others there?

Because you see, I think it's the last one of those three he didn't manage. not the first two.

Perhaps he was making his own athiestic point about creating your own light in the darkness

Gosh, you're so funny.

Honestly? I opened this thread all ready to agree that he was rude and that YWNBU. My phone would have been at the bottom of my bag, turned off. I hate modern technology intruding on beautiful, spiritual moments like this; the idea of light slowly reaching all corners of the church is very beautiful.

BUT having read the explanation about the order of service, I find I can't get as huffy as I'd like with the man in question. I disagree that it was explained clearly; I'd have been confused. You keep saying this: The organizers plainly didn't expect everyone to be able to read and sing along - that's why it said in the programme that it'd sometimes be too dark to read but that absolutely isn't the same thing as saying, 'Please don't sing if you can't see the hymn sheet.' Printing a hymn to most people is an expectation to join in. That's what he was trying to do.

I have no idea why this man behaved as he did, but I don't think he was being as wilfully rude as you seem to. This is AIBU, and posters have suggested that you might be U for various reasons - you might have got as less discursive response if you'd posted in Chat as 'Daft and Annoying Things People do in Advent Services.'

I have images of the OP banging her head off a wall, and I really really don't blame her. If people are not happy with a particular type of ceremony and the way it is carried out and the symbolism used then they should either not go, or grit their teeth and put up with it. To go along anyway and decide that, regardless of the importance of the gradual rising of light from the dark, they were just going to switch the light of their phone on anyway, is rude and unfair on the members of the congregation who are fully engaged in the ceremony and its liturgical significance.

Even if you're not religious, imagine if you were at a theatre and an important element of a dramatic scene was for the theatre to be kept in darkness for a particular time, and someone switched their phone on to read the programme, how would you feel about it?

Yes, I do see that lud and I do agree (as I have done upthread) that it could have been better explained.

I didn't want to post in Chat and just have a nasty thread about people sharing their experiences of other people going to church - so I don't like that idea. I wondered about this specific example.

falling - no head banging, but a little bit fed up with people being rude about it and calling it a light show or a display.

Just out of interest OP why do you go to church?

i have had to look up liturgy

i am an atheist and you would catch me anywhere near a religious ceremony so that is my defence - i am not thick