Throughout Christian history, error is viewed with suspicion because it represents “novelty” and “innovation” challenging the unalterable “Tradition” and challenging revealed truth. Thus, error – and the “obstinate” maintenance of error – is treated as somehow being “impure” or “unfaithful” to Christian teaching and life. Obviously this makes the challenge of understanding and getting value out of “error” all the more difficult. If theological error is presented as impurity, and a lack of fidelity to Christian teaching and praxis, one “naturally” wants to avoid it.

This raises some serious questions about the arbiter of what is and is not “error” or to put it in its more common context – what is and is not “pure” and “faithful”. In the Indie community we have a particular challenge in relation to identifying and gaining from the experience of theological error. Unlike other traditions we do not have a widely accepted body of experts, “authorities” if you will which, among other things, debates points of “error” and presents solutions. In most communities, bishops are de facto theological authorities, even though many are ill-prepared for the task. Sadly, few Indie bishops are chosen for their theological acumen and teaching ability. I should also point out that while some, like myself have long argued for a greater reliance on lay participation in this much needed conversation, for a number of reasons it does not seem to be changing anytime soon.

Thus, in the absence of a broader conversation within the movement, and an appreciation for scholarship and teaching within individual communities, the gold standard for theological soundness and authentic “catholic” identity is ritual. Why ritual? Because ritual, liturgy, is the tangible expression of Christian teaching and praxis that most people know, and instinctively understand. Altering the ritual, so the unconscious argument goes, must necessarily mean a shift in teaching and practice. Such a shift can be seen as threatening to the core ideas and emotions associated with “Christianity”, “The Church”, and “Tradition”. In essence, altering ritual, alters the effect, which invalidates the sacramental nature of the action, and/or seriously brings into question the core identity of the community of believers. Does this change invalidate our “christianity”? “Innovations” and “novelties” then are errors that must be challenged.

To be sure it is possible to make changes to ritual without causing catastrophic distress within a community – but it must be handled very carefully, even in the most optimal settings. It is also true that a ritual change is not necessarily reflective of a theological shift – but might merely be a pragmatic, or practical decision to ensure the dignity, and effectiveness of the rite, in for example a given setting or situation. It is the case that not only in the Indie community but in the Anglican, Orthodox, and Roman Catholic communities altering the rites of the church is viewed as a threat to the members’ fidelity to Christian teaching, and to the believers’ core identity as Christians.
In an Indie setting where many consciously or unconsciously are already insecure in their sense of fidelity or authenticity changes in familiar rituals can (have done, and still do) result in the complete breakdown of the community.