“Alternative to . . .” Seeking New Ways of Presenting The Message.

I’ve been thinking a great deal over the past two or three days about John Plummer’s excellent logic why he chooses to describe himself as “independent sacramental” rather than as OC/IC. Doing so, another element of this has emerged in my own mind. We often see, for example, OC/IC communities attempting to “justify” their existence using the documents of other sacramental communities. The current vogue argument among many “Roman OC/IC” communities is to erroneously argue from Domini Iesu (sp?) that “even the Roman Church acknowledges our authenticity” (my personal response to this is a) read the next two paragraphs of the encyclical and you’ll quickly see you’re wrong and b) who cares! . . . but I digress). Alternatively you’ll read: “We are an alternative to Roman Catholicism [replace RC here with your favourite Christian-ism]” I see this phrase repeated often in web pages, emails, pamphlets, and discussion groups; increasingly I find that it makes me rather squeamish. Eight or so years ago, I would probably have affirmed that even my own community is an “alternative” to [insert your favourite Christian-ism here], but I would like to think I’ve learned some lessons along the way that have made me change my mind.

For one thing, such a “tag line” immediately establishes a negative rather than a positive paradigm for a particular community’s existence; you become a community of protest. This has a few rather awkward consequences. For example, it suggests, nay explicitly asserts, that the “alternative” is somehow “more authentic” than the original.

The cornerstone of identity of any community of protest (“alternative”) is the original community. This forces the “alternative” into a corner – for every statement that the original issues explaining or establishing a particular position, the “alternative” community must either counter it, or accept it. The natural result here is that the entire theological programme of the “alternative” community is built upon its response to or reaction against the positions of another faith community.

In our OC/IC context this contributes to a very real, and long standing problem; keeping members. This paradigm does not actively cultivate an identity linked with the vision and values of the new community; for this reason, most reactionary communities either do not stand the test of time, or do not maintain a consistent membership base. Why? Because people, while they are, for a while, happy to protest over a particular issue – at some point get tired of the protest (especially when it is having no effect), and simply go home. “Home” in this case is back into the arms of the original [insert your favourite Christian-ism here].

These participants have never appropriated the identity of the “alternative” community because it never cultivated it – all of its time being spent reacting against the positions of the original, as well as trying to maintain (often with some modification) the ritual style and organisational structure of that original community. In short, the “alternative” never offered the participant what was really valuable – an “alternative” or better still a wholly “new and renewed” Christian sacramental identity.

When presenting our communities as “alternatives” to [insert your favourite Christian-ism here] we instantly place ourselves in the position of not only having to be fully versed in the original community’s thought, theology, and practice but we must also be prepared to answer the questions of new-comers which will invariably centre not on questions like ‘what it is that makes this a great community of faith?’ but instead questions like ‘how are you different from [insert your favourite Christian-ism here]?’ Again forcing the resources of the “alternative” to focus on the life and ideas of another community.

Today, I am really uncomfortable with the realisation that I was promoting my tradition, my community, not for positive but rather for negative reasons. “You’re gay/ a woman/ divorced/ like green hair, join us, you’re welcome here – whereas [insert your favourite Christian-ism here] rejects you we do not.” What did I have to offer these people other than “we’re NOT them”? Yes, it is the case that I worked hard to provide them with good pastoral care. Yes it is the case that we did do our own thing with little regard for what the “big-tent” churches were doing. But still it is the case that rather than promoting a positively constructed identity and theology, at one time I reached out to people because they were reacting against the vision and values of their “home” church.

The result of my folly is easy to see. When, for example, I moved from one city to another; the community built in the first place collapsed shortly thereafter. If, I were to be away, for a couple of weeks, the community would refuse to meet. The most telling thing for me was that participants would never seek chrismation, the defining moment of saying “this” is my church. Instead when they would talk to others about their faith life, they would say things like: ‘I go to Fr. Alexis’ church’; rather than, ‘I’m a member of Ss. Cyril & Methodius – we’re an OC/IC community.”

Presenting our communities as an “alternative” to another body of faith is to build our identity on another’s foundation. Moreover, when presenting ourselves as an “alternative to [insert your favourite Christian-ism here]” and the positions that community holds which we find objectionable, puts us on a shifting footing which lacks integrity. Every time the boundaries of the issue shift – so too must the theology and reaction of the “alternative” community. This is not a house built on rock – rather it is a house built on sand; and anyone who has been a consistent observer of the OC/IC/ISM community over the course of the past decade can easily point to any number of groups that have had to literally “re-invent” themselves when the issues changed, and the borders shifted.

John Plummer is absolutely right when he suggests that we ought not be creating confusion between our identity and the identities and claims of other churches (thus his preference for using ISM). I think now that that sense of “identity” is no longer what it once was when I was younger – it has changed due to circumstances beyond our control. Might we not start conscientiously reshaping and reclaiming that identity by asking some very basic questions: who are we; is there really a “we”; and on a more personal level – I think its probably also helpful if individually we ask ourselves – why did I become an OC/IC believer?

If we assert the true facts: we represent an authentic sacramental tradition with a diverse history that spans nearly three hundred years, we have had, and now have talented thinkers and artisans among our members who are committed OC/IC folk (and not “wolves in sheeps clothing”); we serve the whole community by drawing upon that history, and the talents of our current membership, to not only draw out and explore some of these issues, but to also cooperate with one another to build a future based not on the identities, imagery, and ideologies of other communities – but on our own authentic voice, values, and vision. We are not an “alternative” we simply “are” who and what we are. Now the trick is communicating this within our own ranks, as well as to a wider audience.