In my response to John Plummer’s comment the other day I wondered out loud:

“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, recognizing and honouring their shared heritage as constituent groupings in the movement, engage with one another, further developing constructive relationships.”

Taking this thought one step further, I’ve been wondering, what would offer a solid methodology for such a sifting? My first reaction was to say that the obvious place is commitment to Christ and the Gospel. Unfortunately, the understanding of this, within and across groups in the movement is too . . . . “subjective” – I guess is the best word.

Looking then at a “prayer book” or informal collection of the rites used by the other community, is equally problematic as the “substance” of the theology expressed in our rites is, in equal measure, intimately woven into matters of style and custom – the very characteristics that so often get in the way of real relationships within the community.

I should point out here that I’m not ignoring one of the most important elements of this process – that is establishing personal relationships between members of various communities. Over the years I hope I have done this. There is however, and operating factor in this process. While I might enjoy personal relationships with others in the movement because they are personable, interesting, intelligent, even challenging, this does not automatically mean that that person, or the community in which he or she worships, is theologically compatible with my own. So while I honour them as a constituent member of the wider movement, I must also acknowledge and respect our divergent theological attitudes.

I wonder then, if one thing (in addition to – or even helping to initiate – personal relationships) that might aid this process of filtration is the “canons” or other written documents of any given community. I’ve previously stated my belief that every community, no matter its size, will have a set of written, un-written and often both, “rules” or “principles”. Consciously and unconsciously this collection filters the “membership” of that community. Since we already undertake the process locally; the hard part is done! All that remains, is to take that result, and seek out other local communities in the movement whose filtration settings are similar (not an exact match!) to that of your local community, and open a dialogue with them. Through one group meeting another, they will then (in theory) suggest, or introduce one another to individuals of other communities.

What about those individuals and groups within the movement, which for whatever reason, have no such documents? I suspect that they are best served by looking at those of other communities that do, and if they find and affinity between these writings and their own vision and values, they might then benefit from opening a dialogue.

This process would, I think, evolve into a natural progression of sifting and filtering. It’s natural because it is built upon personal interaction and an honest exploration of the issues. I think we have all learned from the many (often scandalous) failed attempts in the 80’s and 90’s at artificially “forcing” communities and bishops to unite. These were often built upon a false ideology that there is a need for a “monolithic” or “institutional” OC/IC body in the US.

I say it is a false ideology because it is built upon two erroneous ideas. Firstly, that any one individual or group ought to be “the leader” of the community. This is both (and I think in equal measure) the egotism of “empire” and the delusion that by mimicking the other churches and traditions, we will somehow be more palatable, and thereby receive invitations to the “cool kids table”. Secondly (and not entirely un-related), once more we find that we are faced with the ugly head of “insecurity” within the movement. Far too many of our co-religionists desperately seek the approval of, and sanction by the other sacramental churches; not, I believe because we need it – we most certainly do not – but because too many of our “members” are not truly “Members” of the OC/IC tradition. They are instead – “wolves in sheep’s clothing” – using, borrowing, biding their time, sucking the life out of the rest of us, until the arrival of some fabled day when their “real” churches come around to their particular position. These folks should be very rapidly “filtered” out of the mix of our OC/IC/ISM community – they hold the rest of us back and do great damage to the entire movement.

There is no need for a monolithic body. There is however, a real need for, if you will, informal blocs of like-minded communities within the OC/IC/ISM spectrum. These blocs then, could more effectively engage with one another. These blocs could more efficiently get authentic, native, OC/IC ideas out to a wider audience. These blocs would contribute to a much-needed development of an OC/IC/ISM identity. What is more, they would be informal, not rigid, and so allow for one community to perhaps participate in more than one bloc.

This little bit of “wondering out loud” does have its holes however, and these ought not be glossed over. One “hole” for example is that with John Plummer’s working definition of “ISM” many more groups, with different origins from the original identifiable set are now included. This is not necessarily a bad thing. While it does suggest another method of sifting, it also allows for a community whose origins are, say in the continuing Anglican strain, to constructively engage with a community whose historic origins are in the original Old Catholic strain of the early 19th century.

Another “hole” is the possibility that either some of these groups do not consider themselves a part of a wider ISM community – at all. This is fine, and out of respect, we should not therefore include them, in our sifting. Moreover, through the process of sifting and filter it may emerge that one or more of the “strains” finds itself quite separate from the rest – and therefore acknowledges that it represents an entirely different tradition or grouping. Again we ought not be afraid of this – as long as it is a natural evolution, and not something devised by and forced by a particular group or individual.

With the recent and very public fracturing of the “big tent churches” over particular issues we find that there are more groups now that fall into the ISM category than ever before. A “negative” side effect of this has been that, a movement that already had difficulties establishing a clear sense of identity “who are we” must now content with an expansion of the possible characteristics that consolidate such an identity.

One question that does not appear to have been raised (at least not that I’ve seen) is how many of the communities now classified as “ISM” actually perceive themselves to be a constituent member of a wider phenomena? How many, actually see themselves as either entirely independent of the ISM and their “original” tradition, or who see themselves strictly as the “true” continuation of their original tradition, and the rest of us as heretics and schismatics? Obviously this too contributes to the process of sifting and filtering. It also helps weed out some of those characteristics that do not contribute to our identity as a tradition or heritage of the sacramental Christian faith.

Tim Cravens, and others have rightly pointed out that unity cannot be forced. It must be organic, and it must be based on relationships – or it will not endure, and will not be authentic. I would add that unity does not necessitate the creation of another institution. It will require a little bit of organisation – but this too should evolve naturally, over time, and with the conscientious effort of the membership of our community. If we truly want unity we can bring it about, to my mind however, to this point “we” have not actually wanted it . . . really wanted it, because our motives have not been authentic, and shared.