Bože! » Archive » Shifting Sand – Where Do We Go From Here?

I stumbled across this article about the current state of the Ecumenical Catholics (+Shirilau) this morning. The overarching theme of the text is that “alternative” Christian communities (in this case a rather large OC/IC community) are suffering a loss in membership now that the “mainline” churches are becoming more LGB friendly.

To my mind it is sad to see a successful OC/IC community not doing well in the shifting sands of contemporary Christian issues. On the other hand, I’m embarrassed because it raises the spectre of an issue I’ve been banging on about for a while – if we present ourselves as a single issue community, or as an alternative to [insert your favourite Christian -ism here] we will never bee seen as more than a reactionary movement, and our individual congregations and synods will always suffer the upheaval and loss brought on by the shifting sands of contemporary issues.

My argument has been that we need to focus on cultivating our own dialogue and resources within our OC/IC setting. What ideas do you have?

http://www.inclusivecatholics.org Lyngine

I think there’s a latent insecurity and lack of confidence in many OC/IC communities about being “legitimate”–and being reactionary can alleviate some of this insecurity. So, OC/IC churches will never be seen as more than a reactionary movment unless they stop seeing themselves in that way and then convey that to new members as well as provide a place where new members can have the space and time to work through various issues they have with their original faith tradition so they can be part of OC/IC churches because of what they find instead of what they are running from.

But another issue, quite frankly, is that some OC/IC folk have a large investment in being part of a reactionary movement and want that. Some folk see the OC/IC churches as reactionary, are attracted to them because they are reactionary, and continue to base their involvement in the OC/IC on their latent anger/resentment/etc—it can be a hard thing to give up. In all fairness, this isn’t limited to OC/IC and a number of mainline churches also have this dynamic.

On a more hopeful note, I’m woefully over-committed at the moment, but I’m playing with the idea of taking some of the blog postings (with permission!!!) between several sites that discuss various aspects of being OC/IC–what it means to people, what are the charisms of the OC/IC, main issues, differences between mainline and OC/IC churches, differences in how various folk do OC/IC church or non-church, etc–and putting it out on Lulu through Rene Vilatte Press. A kind of primer with some depth to it on the various conversations going on about what it means to on be an Indy Catholic and the range of what it looks like to live that–as well as why people stay.

And, yes, in terms of cultivating an OC/IC identity (which I think is at the crux of all this) it does help greatly NOT to put Dominus Iesus on the website .
admin

Hi Lyngine,

you raise a point that I’d not previously thought of – and it is one, that I think, is well worth being aware of:

“But another issue, quite frankly, is that some OC/IC folk have a large investment in being part of a reactionary movement and want that. Some folk see the OC/IC churches as reactionary, are attracted to them because they are reactionary, and continue to base their involvement in the OC/IC on their latent anger/resentment/etc—it can be a hard thing to give up. In all fairness, this isn’t limited to OC/IC and a number of mainline churches also have this dynamic.”

This is so spot on I can’t believe I’d not seen it before!

First, you’re dead right when you say it is a problem not limited to our OC/IC sphere – I think for example of hardcore conservatives who join the Orthodox because their Anglican/Roman setting is becoming “too” liberal. We need only look at the schism in ECUSA happening right now to see this in action.

Second, you raise the point of this anger/reactionary desire being a hard thing to give up. I’ve seen this in action within a number of communities I’ve served in. That overarching theme, that sense of this is all we do – celebrate liturgy and bitch. In my experience, trying to get people over that hump of the “bitch stage” and moving on to something healthier – enjoying THIS community for what it is – is a very trying task. Anyone with ideas on this – please, comment here!

It is one reason why I’ve often said that I don’t think many now in the movement have actually converted. It is also one reason why I think, it is worth while for our various synods to establish an insistance on chrismation, and that candidates for ordination ought to be active chrismated (converts) OC/IC members for a year or more before they can even embark on the journey of exploring ordination. We have too many clergy with a chip on their shoulder, too many priests and bishops whose sole purpose in being ordained is to make a negative statement about their home church – an ecclesial identity which they still cling to in some twisted fashion. It leads to a great deal of unhappiness and as you’ve rightly pointed out, insecurity.

I’ve often wondered though – how much of this insecurity fed by reaction against X is actually an impedement to our communities developing to their full potential. How much of it really turns people off, turns them away from the community. Many of our communities and ministries are keen to be open and welcoming, but, if once you walk through the door all you hear is bitch bitch bitch about the Romans, the Anglicans, or the Orthodox – it sends a clear message to someone who has no issues with that tradition, and simply wants to “be” church.

St. Vincent of Lerin’s axiom – if you want to know what they believe see how they worship – is I think apropriate here – if you want to know what they beleive, what they “feel” about their faith – listen to their conversation.

But this takes us back to the original question – how do we collectively, and in our individual communities, cultivate a healthier, more OC/IC centred outlook? Some of the things I do include: as much as possible, I refrain from mentioning the other sacramental denomonations, and I never attend a non OC/IC church. What are your ideas?
http://www.inclusivecatholics.org Lyngine

I can’t take credit for any of the observations. It’s part of an on-going conversation in our community and this set of observations goes to Tim and Joseph. It’s grist for the mill isn’t it…

“I’ve often wondered though – how much of this insecurity fed by reaction against X is actually an impedement to our communities developing to their full potential. How much of it really turns people off, turns them away from the community.”—It’s more than just turning people away. It’s also an impediment to really forming a distinct community if the majority of members are very attached to the former tradition in this very negative way. Yes, it does turn newcomers away too…very unfortunate.

Good question at the end there. Yes, I definitely restrict mention of other sacramental denominations in conversations where there is a negative agenda. Being raised RC though, it’s helpful for me to talk about other sacramental denominations just to learn about them and their traditions–but that’s just comparative information–no negative spin. I *visit* non-OC/IC churches and other jurisdictions churches—not as a replacement for my own worship, but again, only to learn about what other folk do. But I also make it clear during introductions that I’m a *visitor* and OC/IC.

Ah, one more thing, we never, ever, ever apologize for who or what we are–never–most especially to new visitors looking for a parish or to friends of the parish from other denominations. And we don’t change what we do or how we act towards one another to conform to visitors expectations. We’re welcoming, but we stay true to our core and never make excuses for it. What you see is what you get–no apologies about our size, the location we’re worshiping in, how we train clergy, what we do or don’t do, our liturgy, our level with formality with each other, etc. We also never say that we are affiliated with this or that larger organization and therefore, “legitimate” because we’re part of a numerically larger group—it’s irrelevant and really just another way of apologizing for who one is. It’s a bit of a take-no-prisoners approach, but I think one of the strengths of our particular community is this absolutely unapologetic way of being OC/IC. It’s been a journey getting there and we’ve had to re-examine our brochures, website, etc to reflect this (and I’m sure we’ve missed something somewhere) so it’s not necessarily an automatic thing and something communities grow into as they begin to define their own identity and gifts.
http://www.inclusivecatholics.org Lyngine

A few more things. When we do a particular liturgy, like one for marriage or holy orders in particular, we do it the same way for LGBT (for marriage) couples and women (for holy orders) as for anyone else. I’ve seen several instances in other places where the main thrust of the homily is a diatribe on the lack of same-sex marriage and women’s ordination in *other* churches and how one should protest *other churches* for this—that’s a no go with our jurisdiction. We make sure to keep the focus on the sacrament that is occurring NOT make liturgy into a protest march with slogans. It’s that problem with defining oneself in a reactionary way as well as the hubris of telling any other church what they should or should not be doing in terms of their worship/sacraments.

Finally, in homilies and other settings, some preaching on relevant OC/IC history or along the lines of “As an OC/IC parish, we….(something positive here about being OC/IC and what that is like lived out)” also go a long way.
admin

Hi Lyngine,

Yes, I think you’re absolutely right – that insecurity is an impediment to our developing a distinctive identity. Only two years ago I saw it happening within my own community and it is very destructive; especially when you have “members” from competing “home churches” who want to be sure that their home church’s agenda is integrated into our OC/IC community. My own response is less than diplomatic – “Bullocks to that! We’re indie, not X – we do not copy others, it’s disingenuous, and shows an enormous disrespect to other communities.”

Your no apologies, no nonsense approach is great – I’m the same way, though some former members in my community were not so comfortable, and would apologise, make excuses, or worse, make things up to “cover” – it forced me into an awkward position of having to find diplomatic ways of both correcting the record; and reminding our own that we do not mislead or apologise for who and what we are – it is against everything Jesus taught us to do so.

I’m constantly re-examining things to make sure that we’re not apologising, or misleading anyone. It’s a good exercise – it makes me sit and think about who we are, what we believe, and what we are doing.

Your point about integrating positive expressions of OC/IC living and history into things like homilies is a good one. I’ve not often heard this in action. Though, I can say that here – in this space – I’ve tried to do just that, focussing solely on our people, and not jumping all over the ecclesiastical board.

I think part of the key here – and it sounds like you are already doing this in your community – is to talk positively and creatively about who we are, and what we are doing – looking forward rather than over our shoulder. I think a corollary to that though is that individual OC/IC communities engage with one another – share ideas, and collaborate on, for example, collecting a reader (as you suggested the other day), or supporting a charity (as I’ve suggested a few times in the past) or . . . . (suggest something here). Mutual friendship, collaboration, encouragement these will dispel insecurity, isolation, and the urge to walk in the shadow of another tradition.

You’ve raised another really good point – and that is using liturgy . . . . as a weapon, a means of protest. I’d like to sit with that for a bit, and give it its own post.

As always, thanks for posting. I’m hoping that some of the other regulars will join in on this one too.
Pingback: Bože! » Blog Archive » Furthering Discussion - Shifting Sand, Raising the Level of Engagement
http://www.eccaustralia.org Archbishop Ronald Langham

I almost wept when I read the article. Once again an OC/IC church misreprsents itself to the world at large. I am not sure if it is Olson or +Shirlau that gives the inmpression that the Ecumenical Catholic Church (+Shirilau) has 500 members across 20 churches but, unless I am missing something, this figure is over inflated by around 499 members and 19 churches (If you include +Shirilau and his chapel)!

+Shirilau has not had a real congregation under his omiphor since around 2002. He has never pastored a church and his jurisdiction has basically been idle since that time. Perhaps Olsen is referring to the Ecumenical Catholic Communion (+Hickman)? They certaionly have numbers like this but they are not to be confused with +Shirilau.

The problem is of course that there are probably 500+ OC/IC Bishops in North America alone (shake a tree and a few more may drop), many of whom call themselves Ecumenical Catholics. OK, maybe I exagerate just a tad, but we all know I am speaking the basic truth. The OC/IC Moement continues to be a shambles, and at times a sham, and will contine to be so as long as we have religious delusionals in the world.

As to being single issue – I think most miss the point. Whether they be single issue or not, the last thing the world needs is a continuation of the failed examples of Church or Christianity that Rome, Canterbury et al have given us. It is not a matter of church polity, it is a matter of theology.

So much to speak about, so little time Perhaps I will continue another day

Blessings
+Ron
Sydney Australia
http://www.eccaustralia.org
admin

While the overarching point still holds – that is, that OC/IC communities will suffer with the shifting issues of contemporary Christianity if we do not cultivate our own scholarship, our own theology, our own set of ideas (a point you also picked up on), you raise a VERY important issue, one that has been a real concern for me over nearly twenty years in OC/IC ministry, and that is mis-representing ourselves, not only to one another, but also to society at large.

We do this in a number of ways – both as outright lies (misrepresenting our numbers) and in more “subtle” means for example how many OC/IC bishops have created and employ Roman Catholic heraldry for themselves? How many OC/IC clergy insist on dressing, and being addressed by Roman and Anglican titles that have absolutely no bearing on how we live our faith on the ground (at one point here in the UK there was a group making “cardinals”!)? How many synods in the movement “establish pseudo-seminaries handing out meaningless “degrees” so that their clergy (namely bishops) can have lots of letters after their names? These are just a few examples that immediately come to mind.

These things make us all look ridiculous, they are an embarrassment, and disrespect not only our brothers and sisters in other sacramental traditions, but also – and more importantly, our own tradition. But this is not the worst part of it as far as I can see – rather this deception, conscious, and unconscious (for some of it is just that – people not thinking about what it is they are doing, and merely employing inherited imagery and constructs without critically assessing how they fit within an OC/IC context) is a contradiction of the very teaching we all claim to practice. Jesus said let your yes mean yes and your no mean no (Mt. 5.37), so why do so many of our brothers and sisters in the movement feel it is necessary to misrepresent the number of members of their community? Jesus points to the religious leaders of his day and says that their works are performed to be “seen”, their dress is to make them look pious and holy, they like to be seen being addressed with grand titles, and given the seat of honour at assemblies (Mt. 23.5-7); why then do so many of our bishops, and clergy draw up mediaeval heraldry (comically employing Roman Catholic and Anglican symbolism), make sure that there are lots of posed “formal” pictures of them in full ecclesiastical drag, and have more incomprehensible letters after their name than those of us who have actually earned them? The issue is simple – they seek the approval of men rather than of God (1Thes. 2.4-6).

But, its not that simple – as this thread has already been exploring – and we owe it to ourselves to ask the tough questions of how we got here, and how do we collectively get ourselves out of this hole. If we don’t begin the process of taking action, we will be (at least in part) responsible for condeming those who come after us repeating the mistakes of the past 90 years, over the course of the next 90 years.
http://www.eccaustralia.org Archbishop Ronald Langham

How true these words are; they describe a situation that I have been regaling against for some years. That being said, I too have fallen into the trap of shields and pontifical drag at times. The question arises though, do we throw all the bath water out or just the really dirty stuff on the bottom?

Sacramental Christians are not the only ones to have Bishops, Archbishops, etc. There are many examples among our Protestant brethren. They are titles only and for that they are descriptive generally of role and responsibility. Of course they been badly misused by OC/IC churches in that anyone who has the inkling can have the title.

Titles, vestments etc are of little use if thay fail to lift up the people of God and for that to happen the OC/IC Churches have to have people of God in their pews, something very few have. A reason for us all to close down? I don’t think so, but certainly a reason to make us ask what it is that the “lost sheep” are looking for. I doubt that it is pale imitations of what they have already experienced.

Pax
+Ron
Pingback: Bože! » Blog Archive » The Liturgy Bat, Swing & Miss & Swing Again
http://www.aihmfriars.org Fr. Joseph Augustine, AIHM

First, Amen, Lyngine!

Second, +Alexis, you must come visit us in Philadelphia sometime soon! It is the best way to see about what Lyngine is talking.

Third, I was recently asked if I would ever “return to Rome.” My response was an immediate “no, I have grown in a different way.” My being IC/OC was not a protest against Rome, or a quick means to ordination because Rome has denied me. They never really denied me anything. My journey into OC/IC Catholicism was and is part of a vocation God begins in us all at birth. The spirituality of IC/OC fits with WHO God is calling me to be, HOW God is calling me to live, and thus enabling me to DO what I believe God is calling me to do. OC/IC fits my vision of a smaller, less autocratic, earlier communal model of Church that worked for several centuries. It brings me joy, not because of what it is NOT, but because of what it is that allows me to be who I am and do what I feel called to do.
admin

Fr. Joseph,

Thanks, as always for speaking up. Your story, and the stories of others like yours, needs to be heard more often within the movement, not only by our own people, but also by those looking in from the outside. Thank you for sharing part of it here.

Bože! independent catholic ideas, identity & theology

Shifting Sand – Where Do We Go From Here?

Related Posts:

Pages

Other OC/IC Blogs

Recently Scrawled

Seek & Ye Shall Find (usually)

Holy Tweet!