Requiem for Episco-patter Part 1: “Catholic Lite”

Is it time to examine some of our long-standing phraseology and place some of the Episco-patter on the shelf?

I think so.

Like most liturgical churches, the Episcopal church has amassed a lexicon of terms to describe our various theological foundations, rites, rituals, polity, locations, and the armamentarium of vestments and sacred vessels which help make it all possible. While this creates our own Starbucks-like language, this common nomenclature links today’s church to the past and to our fellow Anglicans across the globe who use the same terminology in the worship setting. Some refer to the length debates over the importance of the proper use of said items as “adiaphora,” a remarkable concept defined by Richard Hooker. Episco-patter is not adiaphora.

At the other end of the spectrum rests a cache of familiar various words, phrases, and anecdotes we have collected over the years. Once considered “cute” or “clever” turns of phrase, these old relics have suffered from overexposure and the passage of time to become old chestnuts and “dad jokes.” I refer to it as Episco-patter.

Episco-patter

noun  |  Epis·co·pat·ter |  \ i-ˌpi-skə-ˈpa-tər \

: a joke, special language, or jargon of the Episcopal Church that has become tedious because of its age and constant repetition.

Overexposure to Episco-patter holds certain risks. One’s eyes may become stuck in your head due to excessive eye rolling (though there is the benefit of actually seeing your brain). Most importantly, several examples of Episco-patter possess the capacity of inflicting real harm upon the church. And with that as a lead in, I present the case of that oft-mentioned off-the-cuff descriptor of the Episcopal Church:

Catholic Lite.

I belong to a number of Episcopal-based social media groups, one of which I am an Admin. On a weekly basis, someone exploring their faith questions the group about how the Episcopal Church differs from denomination – particularly the Roman Catholic Church. Valid question and usually a source of fantastic conversation! Invariably. someone “cleverly” posts the “We’re Catholic Lite!” response, which I believe was popularized by a quote from the late, great Robin Williams.

There’s a lot to unpack here.

First, and this is a nit, we are not Episcopals. We are Episcopalians. Episcopal is an adjective and Episcopalian is a noun, as in the sentence: Episcopalians are members of the Episcopal Church. Many tears have been shed as the result of using Episcopal where one should use Episcopalian, or vice versa. And that will be the subject of an upcoming blog post.

Episcopalians and Catholics are nearly-identical cousins. We laugh alike. We walk alike. Sometimes, we even talk alike.

Second, while the Episcopal and Roman Catholic churches share a number of similarities, we are not the same. A number of differences in theology, liturgy, and polity exist between the two Christian sects. On the surface, Episcopal and Roman Catholic Masses seem nearly identical, so much so that Episcopalians and Catholics can attend each others services comfortably. However, dramatic differences define each denomination, including (but not limited to) the theology of the Eucharist and who should receive it, the ordination of women and openly LGBTQI+ clergy, opinions on divorce and birth control, etc. Either denomination represents a viable and well-trod spiritual path, but they are not interchangeable. They are not the same.

Finally, the whole idea of the Episcopal Church being Catholic Lite just rubs me the wrong way. Now, I understand Robin Williams’s use of “lite” satirizes the Miller Lite commercials. Contrary to how this all sounds, I enjoy humor, particularly irreverent humor. As a recovering (Byzantine) Catholic, I felt no guilt at all when I first heard this. About 20 years ago.

In addition to the age of the joke, “lite” carries quite a bit of baggage which we should consider. In the advertising industry, food and beverage manufacturers append “lite” or “light” to their brands to denote a product containing fewer calories, less fat, no added sugars, etc. They have created the association in our minds that “lite” means “less of” or “less than” something. And, be honest, do the “lite” products satisfy us as much as the regular version of the product? Or do they represent something you “have to eat or drink” because it is “good for you”?

These associations have influenced the definitions ascribed to “lite” in the modern lexicon. As defined by Merriam-Webster, “lite” refers to “diminished or lacking in substance or seriousness (lite news); specifically being an innocuous or unthreatening version. ‘it was film noir lite’.” According to the Cambridge Dictionary, “lite” is “used for describing things that are not serious and that are easy to understand and enjoy: lite news about celebrities OR [after noun] humorous or disapproving; not as serious or as good quality as the real thing: She described their relationship as ‘marriage lite’.” Oxford Dictionaries offers a similar definition: “Denoting a simpler or less challenging version of a particular thing or person. ‘the film was dismissed by many of the more serious critics as Woody Allen lite’,” as does Dictionary.com: “noting a version that is comparatively less extreme, profound, advanced, etc., than the typical version: The film glossed over the dangers of the experiment with a science-lite explanation. The lite version of the app is available for mobile download.”

Words have meaning. I am a marketer by trade with over 20 years experience in practicing in the corporate world and teaching at the college level. Consumer behavior and branding studies indicated repeated exposures equating two concepts with one another (e.g., “Catholic Lite” and the Episcopal Church) strengthens the associations between them. Do we want to create or, worse, reinforce the idea that the Episcopal Church is “less than” the Roman Catholic Church? Less profound? Not as serious? Scaled down? Lower quality? Because, honestly, that is what Catholic Lite is doing.

Now, I know what your thinking. In the Robin Williams joke, he defines the “less than” in the proposition: less guilt. He does, but the entire quote is rarely provided as the explanation of the Episcopal Church or how we are different from the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, people usually comment with “Catholic Lite” which creates the “less than” associations described above. If the commentator provides the entire quote, we run into problems of misrepresentation. We are not the same in that our only difference is the presence (or lack) or guilt. In other instances, people shortcut the situation: “We’re Catholic Lite! No (or less) guilt!” While that offers some demarcation between the two denominations, we define our own sect at the expense of another. It’s pithy (and a bit true), not not very Christ-like.

You’re also thinking, “You’re crazy! ‘Catholic Lite’ isn’t hurting us. Have a sense of humor!” Well, it certainly isn’t helping us either. When people want to learn about your denomination and what is has to offer, i can bet you dollars to doughnuts they aren’t expecting a punchline – or a tagline. They want substance, not “less than.” And, unlike the “lite” connotations of “simple” and “easy to understand,” the Episcopal Church is every bit as complex as any other Christian religion.

So what should we do when confronted with “Catholic Lite”?

Think via media. The Episcopal Church represents the middle way between the Catholic and Reformation churches. Are we Catholic? Protestant? The answer is a resounding YES! Our Book of Common Prayer contains numerous examples of how elements of the Catholic Church and Protestant Reformation exist in our liturgy and theology. And maybe that’s our response to claims of being “Catholic Lite” – we’re more like “Catholic Reformed.”

So. let’s bid a farewell to “Catholic Lite”…

Give rest to Catholic Lite and may it dwell eternally with the rest of the Epsico-patter…

 

“Everybody must get stoned” (or, How Mingling Popular Culture with the Sacred Makes People Lose Their Sh*t)

“Well, they’ll stone ya when you’re trying to be so good
They’ll stone ya just a-like they said they would
They’ll stone ya when you’re tryin’ to go home
Then they’ll stone ya when you’re there all alone
But I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned”
Bob Dylan, Rainy Day Women #12 & 35

In April, San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral announced the latest heresy certain to provoke a vengeful God to pronounce judgement on the Episcopal  Church (if not all of Christendom) and cast them into a furnace of fire.

The Beyoncé Mass. (Shock! Horror!)

The Sackcloth Bow Tie^TM: Emblematic of your disdain of U2Charist, guitar mass, and most General Convention worship services. Also available in chapel- and cathedral-length mantillas.

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. No one dumped ashes on their heads as the nation’s supply had been depleted during a particularly enthusiastic Ashes to Go season. Traditionalists tearfully clutched tattered copies of the Anglican Missal or the 1940 Hymnal and sported bow ties crafted from sackcloth to accessorize their extreme disdain.

Social media exploded. People decried idolatry and bemoaned the end times were indeed nigh. My particular favorite was a blog post from Exposing Satanism entitled A Synagogue of Satan Idolizes and is set to Worship that Jezebel Whore Beyoncé.

Trust me. Many pearls were clutched in the digital stoning of Grace Cathedral.

Meanwhile, the congregation at St. Peter’s by the Sea Episcopal Church in Gulfport, Mississippi celebrated a Grateful Day Mass during the week between Jerry Garcia’s birth date (August 1) and death date (August 9). The church chose the Dead as the theme for their third annual Music Mass, which features secular music. The mass included service pieces set to the Grateful Dead’s music and received the full endorsement of the Diocesan Bishop, The Right Reverend Brian Seage, who traveled to Gulfport to participate in the mass. One who not be surprised by Bishop Seage’s approval given his website.

Fun Fact: The seed of a cherry is known as a stone. Coincidence? I think not.

And, yes, the congregation hosted an ice cream social after the Grateful Dead Mass featuring Cherry Garcia ice cream.

While St. Peter’s by the Sea did not receive the public outcry and national attention as Grace Cathedral did with their Beyoncé Mass. It is interesting to note that different generational groups planned each service: Baby Boomers played a large part in the Dead Mass which it was a Millennial who organized the Mass featuring Sasha Fierce’s music. Despite these differences, both churches experienced a boost in attendance over a typical service during that time period. Both embraced the idea of seeking out the sacred in the secular. And both seemed to have a helluva good time doing it.

Why can some of us only hear God through tunes written by long-dead composers using ancient words and archaic turns of phrase? Why does sharing one’s revelation of discovering the sacred in contemporary (even popular) works cause some people such agita? Why does the blending of the secular with the sacred bring cries of heresy and blasphemy?

At my parish in Erie, Pennsylvania (home of last winter’s record snowfalls and the infamous Pizza Bomber), the summer book group tackled The Monk’s Record Player by Robert Hudson, a noted Bob Dylan scholar and member of the International Thomas Merton Society. The book focuses on the influences of Dylan’s music on the writings and philosophies of Thomas Merton, particularly in the period following Merton’s love affair with a young student nurse.

The book’s popularity astounded everyone, requiring multiple orders of additional books to accommodate the demand. Was it the draw of the prolific Trappist monk? The equally prolific folk/rock icon? An interest in the time period?

Regardless of the motivation, the book group captured the interest of people across multiple generational cohorts, from the Greatest Generation through Millennials. Some brought a wealth of information and “fandom” of either Merton or Dylan. Others were familiar with one of the book’s subjects or the other, while the book introduced some participants to both of these men. In all, a large portion of the congregation devoured a book to uncover how Bob Dylan inspired Thomas Merton. To learn the links a monk conceived between the sacred and the words and music of a popular musician.

No spoilers here. You have to read Hudson’s book for the details.

Ad Reinhardt’s “black on black” paintings do not photograph well.

That said, Bob Dylan was not the only popular musician it whose work Thomas Merton saw the divine. While living alone in a hermitage separate from the Trappist monastery in Kentucky, Merton found inspiration in the music of Joan Baez and John Coltrane. His love of modern art brought him to fine the divine in artists like Ad Reinhardt.

 

Anyone can peer into the spiritual by visiting the works of Michelangelo or Tiffany’s church windows or the icons written by an unknown artist. We can all hear the sacred in the Psalms and our favorite hymns. But what about Bob Dylan? Or Jerry Garcia? Or Beyoncé?

Jesus called us to go into the world and make disciples of all nations. We cannot follow his command if we fail to meet people where they live. This does not mean we should abandon our traditions and links to the past. But, perhaps, we need to accept that we create multiple sacred paths to God and some must wend their way through unhallowed ground on their journey toward sacred pastures.

Listeners repeatedly perceive the voice of God in the music and lyrics of popular artists.

Why can’t we?

And if we can’t, why do we stone those who can?

Empty Pews: Why Attend? Why Not?

Declining church attendance. What gives?

Over the past two weeks, Pew Research Center has issued two reports attempting to explain some of the motivations driving church attendance, or the lack thereof: Why Americans Go (and Don’t Go) to Religious Services (issued August 1, 2018) and Why America’s ‘nones’ don’t identify with a religion (issued August 8, 2018). This blog post walks through some of the pertinent findings of these reports and offers some recommendations our churches can follow moving forward.

Findings by other research providers corroborate Pew’s contention of declining church membership and attendance. In Gallup’s Five Key Findings on Religion in the U.S., the data demonstrates a long-term membership decline for any religious organization, with some of the more marked decreases occurring in the 21st Century. Only 56% of Americans belonged to a church, synagogue, or mosque in 2016. Participation in worship mirrors these trends with a little more than one-third of Americans (36%) attending religious services in the past seven days. In other words, fewer Americans are members of religious organizations and attend less frequently.

This brings us back to Pew…

Those who attend religious services at least one or twice per month

The most important reason for choosing attend religious services at least once/twice per month is to become closer to God (61%). Of regular church attendees, large percentages state they “always” or “often” experience the following during worship:

• Experience God’s presence (8 in 10)
• Sense of community (three-quarters)
• Connection to tradition (6 in 10)

Among the very important reasons for attending religious services include feeling closer to God (81%), providing a moral foundation for their children (69%), inspiring one’s “best self” (68%), for comfort during difficult times (66%), finding value in the sermons (59%), and being part of a faith community (57%).

The least important reasons for attending services are to continue familial tradition (37%), religious obligation (31%), make friends/socializing (19%), and to please a spouse/partner or other family members (16%). In other words, guilt and a sense of obligation do not work.

Those who attend religious services a few times per year or less

Practicing their faith in different ways was the most prominent reason for those who choose not to attend religious services.

• Self-identified Christians cite this reason more often than unaffiliated individuals (44% and 26%, respectively).
• Those who practice their fail in different ways tend to be women, adults ages 50 and older, and identify/lean Republican.
• Those who practice their faith in different ways are less likely than regular church goers to belong to other community, charitable and social groups (50% and 63%, respectively), They are not joiners.

Tied for first as an important reason not to attend religious services is a overall dislike of attending services, including the inability to find the right church, not liking the sermons, and not feeling welcome.

Nearly three out of ten people who choose not to attend church services state they are not believers in a higher power. Nonbelievers are more likely to be male, younger (under age 50), more highly educated, and identify/lean Democrat.

Those avoiding religious services for reasons other than a lack of faith report a somewhat religious identity.

• Those practicing their faith in other ways are likely to identify with a religion (67%) or to pray daily (48%).
• Similar proportions among those with logistic reasons for not attending services report a religious affiliation (69%) or daily prayer (44%).
• While lower than the other two groups, those who dislike characteristics of religious services still have large proportions who identify with a religion (56%) or pray of a daily basis (36%).

Those who are unaffiliated with a religious organization

Among unaffiliated Americans who identify as “nothing in particular, the reasons specified as very important contributors to their lack of affiliation include questioning of religious teachings (51%) and dislike of churches’ positions on social/political issues (47%).

Other important reasons for a lack of religious affiliation are dislike of religious organizations (34%) or religious leaders (31%), irrelevance of religion (26%), and lack of belief in God (21%).

In a similar study by the Barna Group (Meet the “Spiritual but Not Religious”), those who identified as spiritual but not religious  where significantly less like than practicing Christians to believe…

• There is only one God.
• God is everywhere.
• “God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator of the universe who rules the world today.” (Horribly worded item, by the way.)
• Religion is not mostly harmful.
• Different religions teach different things.

---

Reflections and Recommendations

What does all this mean for us? How can we use these findings to guide our efforts to growing our congregations?

First, we should consider the questioning nature of many of the unaffiliated and non-attending. We should not abandon the core tenets of our faith. Within this context, we should ask ourselves this question: how can we construct educational opportunities, discussion forums, and marketing messages which emphasize the spiritual journey of contemporary Americans? Creating a non-judgmental environment which encouraging thoughtful questioning and exploration of spiritual issue should be paramount. By supporting introspection within the context of our denomination’s theological framework, we foster a relationship with God and our church.

Second, we must understand those social/political issues important to potential congregants and emphasize those congruent with our church. Research indicates people support those organizations whose values they share. However, our support must be authentic and not just the lip-service of a sign, sticker, flag, or website/social media proclamation. Our support of these issues should be palpable in our words, actions, and behaviors. If we are willing to endorse a specific cause or position, our endorsement of said position must be present beyond the mere mention of it.

Finally, our churches need to be more than buildings people visit on Sundays. To reclaim some of the relevance once held by religious organizations, we need to think beyond our four walls and integrate ourselves into the community. How can others utilize our facilities as a resource for the community? Where else can our small group conduct their meetings in more public manner? While deceptively simple, these small acts of thinking beyond the traditional church plant can support our other evangelism efforts.

As always, I would love to discuss these and other ideas further. Please comment your thoughts to continue the conversation.