As an aside, its interesting to me that you include non-historic-episcopate communities in your working definistion of ISM. I think of the Lutherans for example – who I’ve always considered as a sacramental community, though most until recently do not strictly speaking have “apostolic succession”. This raises an interesting question about what exactly we mean when we use the term “sacramental” and what effect, if any does this have on our self understanding as OC/IC folk.

While this is a digression it is an acknowledgement of a very real problem which you & I and others have talked about before – and that is that there is no cultivation of thoughful OC/IC/ISM/?? scholarship and “voices” in our community. The reasons for this – as you have pointed out in your book, and as we have explored in other conversations are many – but it is a fact that has and will continue to have a lasting impact on our communities and our movement unless we begin to address it (I say this knowing of course that you and I and a few others are currently engaged in opening this particular can of worms) but I digress (grin).

What interests me about your working model – and I’m not suggesting that there is an answer as yet – is how this ever expanding “working understanding” of OC/IC now ISM impacts our repeated efforts over the past 20 years to bring about some degree of “real” unity and cooperation amongst us.

I know it is something that many in the community “fear” or “dislike” for a variety of reasons, but I do wonder if it would in fact be beneficial for the whole movement if we actively engaged in a process of “sifting” discerning common groupings of theology (substance – not the window dressings of ritual and ecclesiology).

I’m not suggesting that we then pit one aggregate against the other – rather that playing to the strengths and the resulting developments in theology of the two – they might then, recognising and honouring their shared heritage as constituent groupings in the movement, engage with one another, further developing constructive relationships.

In my own mind this creates a raft of problems – not only in terms of communicating who we really are to others, but also the development of a clear sense among our own of that identity.

There is also something dis-ingenuous about it. As though we are somehow trying to slip in undetected through the servants entrance of these other communities; riding their coat-tails, and often snapping at their heels.

For me this is distasteful not only for the obvious reason that it suggests we are somehow “second rate” Christians, but also for the simple fact that it is disrespectful to other traditions to “claim” their identity, and not actually “be” a member of their community.

The knock on effect of this is that we unconcsiously enable those who “join” the community not out of a conviction that this is the community, and tradition for them – but because they are reacting to/against a teaching or policy of their “real” home church. They are, in effect, ecclesiastical leeches. A point readily proved when we consider some of the causes of the transience of our membership.

Thanks for your comments – as always they are appreciated.

Personally, I increasingly use “independent sacramental” to describe myself – although I know it is far from perfect. Nowadays, I am avoiding *any* use of Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, (Methodist, Lutheran, etc) – as these words point (in most people’s minds) to other, larger communions. I have no desire to compete with those communions, or cause confusion. Same with “Old Catholic” and confusion with Utrecht. I’m finding it easier to communicate with others (inquirers, mainstream clergy, curious onlookers) without these words. But I think we all have to do what seems best in our own unique settings.

Later!
John