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.

I'm guessing this was a service in a University college chapel or something similar where it has been done in exactly the same way since 1472 or whenever so everyone is supposed to know how the service works.

I do sympathise, Op and I can see how it would have been both irritating and distracting. However, I do think it would be worth having a word with the Dean if possible and asking him to do a short explanation at the beginning of the service and ask people to turn their phones off. That should get the point across and if that was ignored, they would be VVUR.

I'm not sure that the reading in the dark Christmas service is something you can easily learn about, even with the power of google.

I do take the point it would have been better to have it said phones should be off. I think that is a completely sensible suggestion.

I am very new to it all too (not to Christianity, to this chapel - it's the first service I've been to there).

I knew it would be dark for parts of it, so we couldn't read, because it said so. Repeatedly. merry, why would you ned to google if you'd been told about it several times?

I would understand he might have misunderstood and thought everyone else could see - if he hadn't been surrounded by other people who patently couldn't see to read too.

dawn, it is absurd and quite hurtful to suggest I'd be exclusionary towards your child in that situation. No one would have cared about a child talking or making verbal tics or anything else.

I didn't say anything at the time. It didn't spoil it for me. But I did surprise myelf with how much I felt it was inappropriate.

- you had the manners to recognize that what you felt were 'light effects' were actually a religious service for others there?

You need to do two surveys here to know whether you are being unreasonable, I think.

Survey A:
Population: year round church-attending Christians. Ask them whether this is a liturgy they recognise without being told, and whether it's a ceremony they find meaningful now they know the intent.

Survey B:
Population: Christians who only make it to church for the main festivals. Ask them whether this is a liturgy they recognise without being told, and whether it's a ceremony they find meaningful now they know the intent.

The whole thing sounds like the equivalent of the musician's musician, whose music is only accessible to fellow musicians. The Vicar's Vicar?

I have been to a service like this, and only the choir sang during the darkness.

Mmm.

Tt was made really, really, really clear it was an odd service. You couldn't have wandered in thinking it wasn't. And even if you had, it was all explained in the order of service, which we'd got ages of time to read before the lights went down.

TBH, I don't care if some Christians wouldn't find it meaningful. That's how it is with lots of things. I don't find the kind of worship my mate likes best, where there's lots of dancing and singing and speaking in tongues. I have anything against it - it just doesn't do it for me. That's ok, surely?

I don't follow why a religious service should have to try to be meaningful to absolutely everyone.

I'm not telling you it has to be meaningful to everyone. But people have to realise it's meaningful to someone else before they realise their own behaviour may be perceived as rude.

Oh, sure. I do see that.

But I think given it was explained, multiple times, what would happen and why, it's not entirely the point.

I think he knew it was meaningful for others but either he didn't really believe it was (so didn't care) or he just didn't think it mattered enough.

merry, why would you ned to google if you'd been told about it several times?

It was really more the idea that this was an example of somebody not educating themselves or respecting the culture that I was replying to. I think this was a specific event, that demonstrated why theatres usually have an announcement about turning off mobile phones.

Ah, gotcha, yes.

I'm an atheist but I would love the atmosphere and "performance" for want of a better word. And I would hate it if somebody turned a torch on because it would a)spoil the performance people had worked hard at producing and b)detract from the believer's experience.

I think he was just being thoughtless. Think yourself lucky he didn't hold it up in the air and take photos with it.

I think he knew it was meaningful for others but either he didn't really believe it was (so didn't care) or he just didn't think it mattered enough.

In that case, that's your AIBU answered. You think he was pretty much deliberately disrupting the service, so given that, YANBU.

True, countess.

I am only nit-picking because I do that.

I now feel like a medieval peasant in my superstition.

I suppose it doesn't really matter whether h was "just" thoughtless(never understood that concept, by the way) or disrespectful, the result was the same- th atmosphere was spoiled. And YANBU to be cross. I would have been too- and as I said, I am an atheist!

www.bbc.co.uk/5live/films/code_of_conduct.pdf

You need an appropriate version of this, and it needs to be read out before the service.

OTheHuge That is complete nonsense. There are situations in which these things cannot be helped and the colour of religion has bugger all to do with it. That is UKIP nonsense.

I think not being able to sing would have detracted more from the service for me than seeing the light from someone's phone (although, obviously, I wasn't there, so I can't be 100% sure).

I do understand why, if singing is not all that important to you, and you were happy to stand in silence during congregational hymns (!) the opposite might have applied to you, in this case.

(FWIW, I could've joined in the first verse of Thou Whose Almighty Word, and that would have been it. I would have thought that was a bit of a con, frankly. Please tell me you got to sing Oh Come Oh Come Emmanuel when the lights went up.)

Was he a tourist?

We had an American visitor in the office on 11 November and he filmed us on his iPhone, oberving the 2 minutes silence. I couldn't believe it. He seemed to think, in the manner of people picking their noses in cars when you are right next to them at the traffic lights, that somehow being - American? A visitor? Very senior and rich? - that he could see us, and delight in our quaintly entertaining behaviour, but we wouldn't be able to see him.

I didn't have the guts to ask him to stop but I wanted to. Apart from anything else, it isn't fair to film people without permission and I felt unable to ask him not to film me because of the nature of the silence and being unable to speak at all. I actually felt - ok this is weird and probably too strong - violated.

However in Jeanne's position I think I might have felt able to say quietly "I think it's supposed to be no lights, please could you turn it off" - if I thought he understood English and it wasn't going to turn into a disruptive hissing exchange of mutual incomprehension.

But surely church is a place to welcome everyone? I don't think it's anyone else's place to tell someone else how to behave? It can't have been that bad as the OP said it didn't spoil the service. I remember all sorts of goings on during my church going days, I either ignored it and concentrated on why I was there or I stared transfixed trying not to giggle like an unruly teen(which I was.)

I dunno, I guess I was just raised to believe that the polite thing to do when in a ceremony you don't really understand is to stfu and try and do what everyone around you is doing. And if in doubt don't draw attention to yourself. Doesn't matter what religion or culture. It's basic good manners. This guy failed to follow those basic good manners and I think he was rude and selfish.

(For the obligatory disclaimer, obviously this doesn't apply to individuals whose age / additional needs make judging those kinds of nuances difficult.)

My secondary point is that I think on MN there is a presumption that religions other than Christianity are to be treated respectfully in the way I described above if one happens to be an 'outsider' in a ceremony; but that Christianity for some reason doesn't get accorded this courtesy. I don't understand it.

"But because it's Christianity there is no obligation for people to educate themselves or behave with respect. And yes blah blah faith schools bishops in Parliament cry me a river Christians hold all the cards. But in fact this religious ritual deserves respect and an attempt to fit in just like any other, didn't get it, and MNers mostly seem to think that's fine. "

Ohthehugemanatee- do you recognise my name from other threads about religion?

Turning on his phone to read his texts, take a photo, follow the verse the choir were singing, admire the architecture, etc - VVVVVVVVVU.

Using his phone in order to join in with congregational hymn on service sheet provided by church - U-ness on a par with that of the church organisers for asking congregation to join in with unfamiliar hymn in near darkness. If the service had been clearly choir-only until the lights were up, he'd have had no reason to get his phone out in the first place.

I don't think I've ever noticed you on a thread about religion, Hakluyt, why?

I think you are being unchristian - but I do emphasise too. I understand about the liturgy. Im a Christian, but Id have probably felt the same as you, as I get a lot from such services. BUT when I get irritated by others who don't come to church regularly, I try and remember WE are there for others. OTHERS are not there for us. It is not a show. What would Jesus do? He probably would have turned on all the overhead lights, immediately. Jesus said we are not make ANYONE feel uncomfortable about our worship. I think we often forget this.
If it really represented the light of the world coming - then Jesus came to do away with religious and rules and regulations that keep ordinary people away. It is hard though as I sometimes feel Ive ' missed out on something special and reverent' in such circumstance. I do sympathise - we're only human - but I also know Im wrong when I get irritated. Ill pray for more tolerance for us both ;-)