I Like It, Too

Illiteracy Part Deux: Religious Illiteracy

A brief follow-up to yesterday's post.

It is often said that we "live in a post-religious society." Or "post-Christian." I don't think this is necessarily true, at least not in the United States where 75% of the citizens identify with the Christian label.

A more accurate description might be "religiously illiterate." Individuals are ill-equipped to grapple with the complex and often confusing world of spirituality. So they either opt out entirely, or embrace an easy fundamentalism.

Most cannot name the four Gospels, or tell you who wrote the book of Corinthians. They could hardly identify the difference between a Catholic and Protestant, let alone a Sunni and Shiite. A 2000 Gallup poll shows that 70% of Americans believe "you can be religious without going to church." Is it any wonder that more people are choosing to tune out altogether?

Again, what is needed is a return to basics of the faith. Clear articulation of doctrine. A more widespread understanding of religion. Personally, I believe that Religious Studies ought to be a mandatory part of the high school curriculum. A mind that is well-educated about various religions and their denominations is more free to choose his or her path, not less.

I caught this hilarious skit from That Mitchell and Webb Look on BBC America:



Comedy aside, it makes some good points. Religious belief is becoming more "me" focused, rather than "we" focused. Our communities must reach out and embrace the "other." Without being jerks, of course! Which we Anglicans are quite good at.

There has been a shift away from the wealth of information found in a community, to the individual's personal interpretations and worldview.

Or, as the Vicar says, "You've thought about eternity for twenty-five minutes and think you've come to some interesting conclusions, have you?"

Illiteracy and the Church

In the 18th century, a man was considered "literate" if he could sign his name. Later, the ability to read and write text was considered tantamount to literacy, and this perception is still widespread.

However, we must distinguish between absolute literacy (the ability to read and write text) and functional literacy. The National Assessment of Education Progress considers literacy "[the ability to] use printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one's goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential."

This is measured by the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), which measures three areas of literacy (prose, document and quantitative) with scores ranging from one to five. Prose literacy is the ability to read, analyze and comprehend a written work such as an article, novel or journal. Document literacy is the ability to interpret informational documents such as maps, timetables, or warranties. Quantitative literacy is the ability to apply basic mathematical functions to real-world situations.

Exact estimates range from one-third to one-half, but a great deal of the American adult population scored between levels one and three. According to the Survey of Adult Literacy, "nobody in the three lowest levels [can] consistently integrate complex information, take into account special conditions, or use background knowledge to state or solve a problem."


Source: National Commission on Adult Literacy

The implications are staggering. I devoted the past semester to studying adult literacy, and this is where I began my research. It all began with this article by Chris Hedges. Truthdig is a notoriously liberal webzine, and I wondered if the information was scholarly.

Unfortunately, it is. The journals and federal statistics and international surveys have precisely similar findings. (And I would be more than happy to disclose all my sources.) One-third to one-half of Americans are functionally illiterate. Read the article by Hedges. Go, do it.

Did you read it?
Okay.

Hedges writes, "in our post-literate world, because ideas are inaccessible [...] news, political debate, theatre, art and books are judged not on the power of their ideas but on their ability to entertain." This creates an atmosphere of hostility towards critical examination of ideas, political policies, and intellectual thought, which is often labeled "elitist."

This, I believe, is one of the primary reasons why mainline Protestant denominations are shrinking! Because we "function in a print-based, literate world. [We] can cope with complexity and [have] the intellectual tools to separate illusion from truth."

1. Mainline denominations are relegated to the margins, de facto. Our approach to faith is too complex. We are increasingly out of touch with society.
   
2. Roman Catholicism dumbs down its message. (Ex. "you are pro-life or pro-death, you embrace all of the dogma or none of it.")
3. Evangelical churches thrive. Their message is clear, simple, and easy to understand. Their services are entertainment. Their teachings accomodate popular culture, including consumerism and American nationalism.
   
4. Any attempt at higher-level religious discourse is drowned out by clergy abuse scandals, debates about evolution, abortion, gay rights, public prayer, etc.
   
5. Vast numbers of individuals disillusioned with the culture wars turn away from religion in disgust. Their opinions of religion are based - not on theology - but on perceived social teachings of the church and the actions of its members.
6. Mainline churches continue to lose members to fundamentalism or secularism as our increasingly polarized, illiterate society rejects notions of a middle ground. Middle ground and "shades of grey" are too complex to be easily understood or marketed.
   

We are left with a dangerous and volatile mix of fundamentalists and secularists. Fundamentalists know very little about their religion, save for how they feel about it. Secularists often know more about Christianity, but certainly not enough to develop an accurate opinion.

Those who turn to secularism instead of fundamentalism are not necessarily more literate/intelligent. The Atheism of Nietzche, Camus and Sartre is radically different from that of Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, much in the same way that Thomas Aquinas has been replaced by Joel Osteen.

What must we do? What can we do? I don't know. Being able to clearly articulate our beliefs is one step. Changing the public perception of religion and ending the culture wars is another. Most folks don't realize that "all denominations are not created equal." Yet in a world unable to take into account subtlety, Episcopalians are liable for the bullshit pulled by the Westboro Baptist Church.

The Church Is Dying

...it's true.

And it needs a holy fire under it's ass if it expects to survive the upcoming generation.

I have heard the suggestion, "Maybe we need to let the Church die, so it can be resurrected." I'm not willing to let 2,000 years of history, wisdom and seeking go down the toilet. I'm certainly not about to let so-called "born again" Christianity take its place, both as a gay man and an Anglo-Catholic.

(A side note. These are totally disorganized, stream-of-consciousness ideas that have been floating around for a while, and I needed to exorcise them. Bear with my lack of organization, with sincere apologies from the author!)

So, here are a few suggestions.

- Articulate the Message -

Why are people drawn to evangelical churches?

Evangelicals have dumbed down the Gospel.

"Are you Saved? Say this prayer to be Saved. Read this book."

Easy. Simple.

This mistake results in a generation of evangelicals who know nothing about their faith except how they feel about it. There is, however, a lesson to be learned.

If you ask an Anglican what he or she believes, you're liable to get a lot of stammering and a generally unimpressive response. We need to be able to clearly, quickly, accurately and poignantly articulate our faith. This is no easy task. Summarizing years of experience and introspection is nearly impossible, but it must be done.

We believe that Jesus is fully God and fully human, that he came to restore our broken human nature through his reconciling ministry, death and subsequent resurrection. We believe that - in spite of everything - the Church he established continues with an unbroken line of apostolic authority through the Holy Spirit. We believe that God's grace flows freely from the church and indeed all creation.

Or something like that.

Which brings me to the next point...

- Better Catechesis -

I once met a lifelong, cradle Episcopalian who asked me what a diocese is. Forehead-to-desk action ensued.

This is not uncommon. Teaching must involve the basics of the Church - history, governance, liturgy, dogmas. We cannot afford to leave our members blatantly uneducated.

- Denominational Identity -

We live in a post-denominational world. Most Americans will change denominations at some point in their life. The response has been something akin to, "Well, if folks are changing - what's the difference? Let's band together!"

No no no no no! Creating a massive mainline Protestant blob church is not the answer. Strengthening ecumenical ties is well and good, but degrading our denominational foundations is not.

Methodists must return to the theology of Charles Wesley, and teach it. Presbyterians must return to the theology of John Calvin, and teach it. Catholics must return to the wealth of information found in the catechism, and teach it. Lutherans must return to the theology of Martin Luther, and teach it.

- Assertion of Supremacy over Non-Christian Religions -

This sounds harsh. Essentially what I'm saying is, we need to be able to articulate why we believe in Jesus Christ, and not Mohammed, Vishnu, or Christopher Hitchens. What makes Christianity unique?

This must be both academic and a labor of the heart. We must encourage people to speak openly of their love for Jesus, and be receptive to hearing the faith of others with an open mind and heart. We are so uncomfortable with describing our relationship and journey with the divine.

More than ever, we need to understand why we believe in God at all. Most Christians are not converting to Hinduism or Buddhism, but rather losing interest in spirituality altogether. This is unacceptable.

- Assertion of Supremacy over Other Denominations -

We need to be able to articulate why we are Anglican and not Baptist, Roman Catholic, "born again" or even Lutheran. This is very different from saying "you're right, and I'm wrong." It's simply a matter of being able to accurately communicate your beliefs.

For example, I have tremendous respect for the Roman Catholic church, believe it to be one of the branches of the ancient Church, and accept the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter and first among equals. However, I respectfully argue that Papal authority is too far-reaching, that ecumenical councils after the 7th are invalid because of their noninclusive nature, and that many of the Roman Church's social teachings are in serious need of re-examination and correction.

Likewise, a traditionalist Roman Catholic should be able to explain why he or she does accept those things (or reject them, but remain in the communion of Rome), and we should come to a mutual appreciation of differences.

- Counter-Cultural -

A final word to the wise. Christianity doesn't need to implement rock-and-roll. It doesn't need to become "seeker friendly" or put on a special show for the unchurched. It needs to be welcoming, true-to-self, and it needs to be counter-cultural.

True Christianity will never fall in line with the culture of the day. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and freeing the prisoner are never going to be popular. Reaching out to the lonely, despondent and oppressed is not hip or cool. Loving your neighbor is a lifelong process. The moral thing is not the profitable thing. You're going to get crucified. But we have always looked with hope for the Resurrection.

St. George, St. Andrew's Cross

One of the things I've been seeing on various anti-Episcopal blogs lately is the shield of the Episcopal Church (USA) turned upside down. I suppose this is a childish and banal (you can't do anything better with photoshop? Really?) attempt at protest.

Let's just take a moment to remind ourselves that the red cross is St. George's cross, patron saint of England. The red signifies the precious blood of Jesus Christ. Blue is representative of the Mother of God, and the 9-cross pattern is St. Andrew's cross, patron saint of Scotland. The 9 crosses represent 9 dioceses of Scotland, a country which ordained American bishops when the English refused.

Normally, I'm all for protest. But like it or not, th e Episcopal shield is a Christian symbol. (One that represents Christ, Mary, and the Saints, at that.) When fellow Christians engage in its desecration, they're only shooting themselves in the foot. I can't imagine God smiling on the act, either.

Stick with photoshopping devil horns onto Katharine's head or something.

Hope

This is so sad. No matter where you stand...Have we really come to this?




Watch the video here. Pray for Bishop Robinson. Pray for my own Bishop, too.

"The language of the Kingdom of God is to speak of despair, without despairing."

Gene Robinson is a Holy Man

I love NPR, but I missed this story from Fresh Air. Bishop Robinson gave an interview last week about his struggle with alcoholism, his new book, and life in general.

Listen here.

I Like My Church Boring and my Pastors Old

Okay, major props to Fr. Craig for this one.

To the tune of "Onward Christian Soldiers."

Like a mighty tortoise
Moves the Church of God.
Brothers we are treading
Where we've always trod.

We are all divided
(Many bodies we);
Very strong on doctrine,
Weak on Charity.

On Episcopalians!
Saunter as to tea!
Taste and etiquette shall
Lead us, Lord, to Thee!

Sneering, Sniveling Papist Hatred

....Now, there's a title some of you may not have expected from a good 'lil Anglo-Catholic.

But the fact of the matter is, while browsing various blogs this past week, I happened across the Roman Catholic blog circle. Many of them were talking about, well, us.

Because it's always easier to talk about someone else's scandals than your own.
(Cough, cough, and cough.)

It wasn't pretty. Particularly the entries from ex-Anglicans. Heretics, sodomites, sinners - lovely choice words from Rome's finest. (And one Orthodox priest as well - I'm sure that's a different can of worms, though.) I'm not going to provide links to these blogs, they're fairly easy to find if you look. Oh, and depictions of upside-down Episcopal shields seems to be in vogue.

Let me cap all this by saying there are great RC blogs out there and there are even more great RC clergy and laity. But right now, I'm talking about the not-so-great.

One so-called "traditional" Catholic blog describes us as "a pseudo-religion with invalid Sacraments run by immoral perverts." Wow, what a loaded statement. (A bit funny, though. Just a bit.) Guilty conscience, perhaps?

Personally, I'm glad to practice a religion that prides itself on being open to all people, and engages in listening to them. I'm glad that, despite its shortcomings, it condemns real injustices in the world, rather than scrambling frantically to assemble some kind of sexual moral authority based on folklore and poor Biblical scholarship.

I'm proud to be an Episcopalian.

This image has been circulating among anti-Anglican circles lately. I guess I'm interpreting it differently, but I personally love this picture. I think it says a lot about us.

When an Anglican is asked,
"Where was your church before the Reformation?"
his best answer is to put the counterquestion,
"Where was your face before you washed it?"
-Archbishop Michael Ramsey

This Is Really Unhelpful, But...

....I crack up every time I see this picture:

Personally, the whole thing makes my brain hurt, but if you'd like to know what's going on...

Info on the latest Anglipiscopal shenanigans here.

Learn about Episcopal loyalists here.

Alternatively, you may wish to take the "other side" - here - at Stand Firm.



(Warning: If you experience "firmness" lasting 3 or more hours, consult your physician and/or priest.)

The Center Will Hold

...as long as Christ is the center.

The Episcopal Church is in Communion with G-d.

Can The Center Hold?

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear
the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere

anarchy is loosed upon the world..."
-William Butler Yeats, "The Second Coming"

This isn't a happy post. In fact, I deleted it last night because I hate offending people. But I've decided to re-post it after encouragement from some good friends of mine. I feel it needs to be said. Our silence is implicit acceptance of the unacceptable.

The Episcopal Church is facing a crisis.

We've tried to ignore it, we've tried to pretend it doesn't exist, but the truth is that our numbers are dwindling, and a bleak sense of apathy has settled over us as Bishops battle Primates over petty, meticulous details which the outside world couldn't care less about. We are so polarized along liberal/conservative lines, and our ideologies are increasingly defined along these false dichotomies. If you're liberal, you're automatically a revisionist. If you're orthodox, you're presumed conservative. Such oversimplified rhetoric is destructive and unhelpful.

At best, this inability to agree on anything has choked our growth to a standstill. At worst, it is tearing our church apart.

Of course, I'm no different than anyone else. Yes, I do happen to believe my progressive/orthodox stance is the "right" one, and I know this probably only contributes to the problem.

But I can't offer any solutions. I don't have any answers. And, it seems, neither does my church - only questions. The only advice we hear is to keep pretending that our "common prayer" has any semblance of integrity anymore, coming from priests and Bishops who think it's so cool that they have a blog and a MySpace account.

Always more questions.

If we are defined by a lack of definition, then we either cease to exist, or cease to be what we once were. Period.

I love the Church -I love this church - despite all its flaws and scars and violent history and yes - sins. The only way it gets better is if we make it better, and I want to see the Church still standing proclaiming Christ is Lord today, tomorrow, and for all the days to come. That's why I simply can't give up and say, "who cares?"


Right now, the question on my mind is can the center hold? Can we agree on something? Is our tent big enough for all opinions, no matter how diverse and complex?

Really?