20SP_RE201A-CI-Christianity

I was confused on why the author wrote about being uncomfortable when the worship involved speaking in tongues even though he said that he had heard this type of worship before? Mainly I am confused about his choice of words when saying that the speaking in tongues was counterfeit. 

Seeing the way huge congregations take theatrical measures such as lights, scripts, bands etc., and the charisma of people to transform a church into an appealing place for people to go has sort of shifted my thinking on if they are truly genuine. Cox's writing made it out to be like these congregations were just after money and trying to get as many people to attend services and contribute monetarily as possible. Does this affect the way big churches look and act today? and if so, are they trying to accomplish the mission of God or the mission of people such as swaggart (gaining money and fame)? 

I came away from this text reflecting on how one's lived experience through race and class impacts how they experience church on Sunday. For me, I'm now realizing my childhood church was a very intellectual, non-physical experience. We sang a lot but overall people were still. For people who for example are living with 4 grandchildren and working a minimum wage job past retirement age, they probably want more of a release on Sunday. This is what I feel like people meant when they said "we really had church today", I'm assuming they meant that they experienced a lively, passionate service. Working class people live in a system that places profit at the center and human lives on the periphery. So this to me was why it was especially to read about a sermon that mirrored that same existence, instead of giving people a break and being able to connect with each other spiritually.

I'm not gonna lie I think Swaggart is a fake believer who uses people's yearning for religion to his monetary advantage.  He's a hypocrite to the worst degree and its pretty upsetting that people believe him.

After reading the chapter I was appalled at the foreign flags. For a denomination that was composed of those who were more lower/middle class their foreign missions seemed to be a major trademark. I personally felt the the foreign flags were more of bragging statements about the spread of Pentecostalism rather than the spread of the gospel to save souls. I also felt that Pentecostals appeal more to emotion in order to have one surrender their life to christ rather than through the actual gospel. I feel that the theatrical presentation seen by the author at the Life Center supports what I gathered from the text.

In reading chapter 13, I actually paused to go youtube Jimmy Swaggart to see what Cox was referring to in his description of such a man. What I personally watched,was concise on how I thought I was feeling about this man - hypocrite indeed. I actually watched a later version, 2012, than the one Dr. Kauffman posted in lecture and am baffled that there is actually still that many people tuned into such a man. 

The fact that Cox called Swaggart a shaman. I never heard of that before. 

Jimmy Swaggart shows far more negative qualities than redeeming ones. It is surprising to me that he has any sort of following not only after his confession with prostitution but also his racial views. His denomination is all white and with today's acceptance of diversity and breaking down of racial barriers, it is amazing anyone listens to this fanatic today. 

Im not going to lie, I think it is shocking that Swaggart is still managing to keep a following in a religious sense even though he has directly contradicted everything he has been allegedly "teaching". 

I'm impressed and amused by how much wealth Swaggart was able to gain from his live telecasts.

The fact that people still listen to him even after the hypocrisy baffles me.

I think one part of this lesson that shifted my thinking was the face that how quickly race changed. In the new times of this lesson, it did not matter who was in the service, there were many different races and colors and no one seemed to care, but in the 1990s movement, race was one of the biggest things that people worried about. 

I was a little confused about the race situation because at first, during Seymour's first days, the church was very inclusive of all races and bragged about it in fact.  Then there was some division and it caused a split in Pentecostalism; however, in this church, there were some races mixed in.  So my question is: Did Pentecostalism go back to being inclusive or is this particular church just not concerned with that piece of history?

I had never put much thought into Pentecostalism. I appreciate the way that the author approached Pentecostalism from an objective viewpoint but also did not allow himself to get so far into the mindset of an objective observer that he misses out on spiritual and emotional aspects of the denomination that hold value. He spoke of it in a very respectful way but also did not hold back any hard truth from the reader in order to protect Pentecostalism. Based on what I read, I can respect Pentecostalism as something that provides spiritual value to many people but I definitely have some major issues with the denomination and could not be a part of it myself.

The right word to describe the service I just read about is uncomfortable.  There were people who were of obvious lower socioeconomic classes watching people of obvious higher socioeconomic classes preach to them that they needed money and bragging about their accomplishments while these people in their congregation are suffering from everyday occurrences.  The fact that money took priority as the finale over Jesus was unnerving to say the least and adds negative connotations to Pentecostalism as a whole.

When reading this I was confused about why the topic of money was brought up during the service and not after when all the worship was over.

After viewing the lesson I am confused to why people still listened to him after all the criticism.  

After reading chapter 13 and listening to the lecture, I can't help but wonder how on earth Swaggart still has a following. After such blatant hypocrisy how could anyone still listen to his preaching? It is disturbing to think that anyone would still be willing to listen to his message after he condemns others for doing the same thing he does.

Before this reading and lesson the only televangelist I had heard of was Oral Roberts and I now have a lot on my mind. After learning of Jimmy Swaggart my thinking on televangelism has shifted. I now see how there is so much money involved and that it can be viewed as a business of its own. It seems that to attend one of Swaggart's appearances I must pay money whereas to attend church I can simply walk in and worship.