I preface my post today as did my friend John Plummer his (slightly amended): The following is intentionally provocative. I don’t claim to have any final answers to all of these issues, and look forward to discussion in the comments.

Raising a much needed point of discussion within the community, John Plummer’s post touches off a conversation on the need for (or not) of . . . .and here’s where I fall off the rails!

John proposes – and I don’t think I’m mistaken saying he has held this belief for some time – that we ought to embody a “free” priesthood unencumbered by “jurisdiction” or “denomonation” – his argument is, and always has been, tempting but I join Tim Cravens in saying – whoah horsey!

You may have already noticed that my opening here is not as . . . “polished” as is my normal style and there is a reason. John’s post raises a raft of inter-related issues and I’m struggling to tease them all out into something I am confident of clearly discussing.

John rightly points to the legion of “synods” and “jurisdictions” that race to acquire the completely un-necessary incorporation status; build grand hierarchies of canons, monsignors, titular bishops, brothers, abbesses, archbishops, and can you believe it! “Popes”!!! If I had a pound coin for every self professed Grand Poobah I’ve met in the movement over the years I would be the wealthiest man alive (actually I suspect John – you’ve met more than me, he he he), each one scrambling for followers (not members) by handing out empty titles to every Tom, Dick, and Harriet (and sometimes their dog).

Don’t get me started on coats of arms! Yeah, this one just makes me laugh and laugh and laugh. Whenever I see a web site, email, or letter with a grandly designed coat of arms dripping with papal tiaras (excuse me – WE ARE NOT ROMANS), cardinals tassels (see previous insert), crossed crosiers (ditto), and quartered shields (ditto, ditto) it is promptly deleted or dumped in the trash. Sorry guys, I just can’t take any of you seriously – you’re an embarrassment to the movement – full stop. A logo or symbol is fine for a “real” community, with “real” people, and I suggest that developing a logo or symbol ought to be something that comes along long after the community has lived long enough to understand its identity. But a coat of arms!? C’mon folks, the medieval papacy exists only on a tiny plot of land in Italy. Why do our co-religionists insist on perpetuating an image, and a model that we do not represent?

And friends – what is it with us and ecclesiastical drag! Can we please for the Love of Jesus stop dressing like 19th century Tractarians and pre-vatican II cardinals?? It’s like our own nightmarish vision of ecclesiastical “Leave it to Beaver” – a non-existent idealised past, replicated in the 21st century.

John says that the purpose of these things is difficult to detect – I disagree. We have both been indie for long enough to know exactly what the purpose of these things are – ego. These things do not represent the spirit of study and service. These do not represent an investment in valuable relationships – the relationships that embody the faith we profess. These are a mindless quick fix to collect lackies and followers (but not real members). Those who create them, envision what their true home churches ought to be (in their opinion), they see or remember what it was like in those home churches – the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the [insert your favourite Christian –ism here] and as John rightly points out – they aim to replicate them.

John is absolutely right when he points out that all of this is rather comical – to us who are insiders. But I would also add that it is this which many outsiders see the most of in our community – and it begs the question, who is visiting our sites, our chat rooms, and our churches, seeking a unique sacramental tradition, full of the richness that ours offers, and being sent away never to return because of it? First impressions cannot be easily overturned. These things are but a smoke screen – and people are not stupid, they see right through them. The wrapper is pretty, but the box is quite empty!

All of this comes out of John’s critique of the idea of “denomination” and “jurisdiction” within our community. It is a valid critique, which, he knows (and now you know) that I share. But, like Tim I do not agree with John’s proposed “free priesthood”. I would like to take a moment and consider the concept of “jurisdiction” but I have found it difficult to enunciate my thinking from this starting point. So I’m taking a step back and will approach it from a slightly different angle.

In my post for the Three Hierarchs yesterday I said that the starting point of our sacramental Christian teaching is the teaching and example of Christ. I would argue that Jesus did not set out to establish a “jurisdiction”. What he did do, however, was to build “church”.

“Church” or ekklesia, is an assembly gathered for a purpose. I could list a series of interrelated purposes but the one that stands out as the “umbrella” of them all is an intentional relationship with Christ. Everything else – is what I call “fluffy bullocks” frankly. A “jurisdiction” that is more interested in ecclesiastical drag, perfect or competing rituals, the numbers of ignorant priests with grand and empty titles, etc., than it is in investing in Christ centred relationships is not “ekklesia” in our sacramental Christian sense. It is an “ekklesia” but it represents something else – something very unhealthy, and unworthy of being called an OC/IC community.

In baptism we are all called to be ministers of the Gospel; as we are the image of Christ in the World, it is our vocation to embody his teaching, and emulate his example. Ordained ministry is a particular vocation within the life of the community – the ekklesia.

Here, I think I diverge from John’s opinion and join with Tim Cravens who says that “healthy priesthood can only exist within covenanted communities that honour and encourage healthy individual development. . .” How those communities come together, I think is best established in the context of the relationships forged therein. But the ordained ministry is, I believe, a service to the community and not a possession of the individual.

Whilst I’m going to work from a slightly different angle, I believe that Tim is also right in pointing out the need for striking a balance. With reference to ordination, and priesthood, I have always believed that there is an important balancing role played by the ekklesia when it comes to choosing candidates for ordination. It is too often the case that an individual seeks ordination without reference to the vision and values of a given community. The reasons for this are I think, painful reading – but would take me away from my point. Too often we find people being introduced to the community one week, and ordained the next (while you may think this is an exaggeration I can assure you – many of us who have been in the movement for a while have seen it happen). Where is the “axios” of the community? Where is the opportunity for the Spirit to move and inspire? Where is the discernment? It is nowhere to be found because no one in this situation has taken the time to invest in the necessary relationship.

I think that to some extent it is safe to assert that our collective image of “church” is broken. Jesus’ example appears to have been forgotten – he came that we might be whole, that we might experience the value of relationships with one another. Without our necessarily being conscious of the fact, we have let the historic right of the ekklesia slip out from underneath us; replaced by broken models inherited from broken churches. Our models will never be perfect for sure, but they could be much healthier – and the only way this can happen is if we reclaim the voice of the ekklesia, and cultivate it so that it can once more take its proper place within the life of our communities.

I believe that we ought not ordain anyone who is not a committed OC/IC member. If an individual is straddling the fence between two traditions ours and [insert your favourite Christian –ism here], I believe that that person needs more time to choose a path. We do our community, and our ordinands a grave disservice by ordaining them before they have fully appropriated and OC/IC identity. I also believe that we ought not ordain anyone who has not lived within our communities for at least a year (preferably longer). Moreover, I believe that it is an imperative part of reclaiming the role of the whole ekklesia that no bishop on his/her own ought to ordain anyone based upon his/her own decision. Rather, the community together must affirm that they perceive the “charism” ordained ministry in the individual – they must give their “axios”. The only way this can happen is if they have had the opportunity to pray with, play with, and sit with that person.

This is not the “quality control” of “traditional” church models; based on politics and the ticking of various boxes. Rather it is the investment in the personal relationships necessary for supporting one another in our faith journey – as an ekklesia.

John says that our communities need not look like “traditional” churches to be faithful and effective – I agree with him whole heartedly and without reservation. John points to the familiar, inherited structural models of diocese and suggests that these are an impediment. I agree. Not to mention the fact that they represent an imperial model of church that simply does not fit with our indie community. Instead we ought to cultivate the ekklesia based upon relationships, rather than secular geographical boundaries. But for those to be effective I would add that it is not unreasonable to say that a bishop ought to be within a day’s travel of his/her communities. Again my emphasis here is on community – the ekklesia; and the relationships embodied in that bond.

Christianity is a religion that is firmly planted in community. In order for a community to flourish, and be healthy, it must have order, and it must live conscientious of the need for discernment and balance. Christianity cannot be lived in isolation. Jesus spent 40 days in isolation before returning to the community to teach us. St. Anthony sought solitude in the desert, there he overcame his daemons and achieved enlightenment only to return to the community and share that experience with others. The Stylites were sought out for their prayers and advice – even though they were out of physical reach of the community. St. John Chrysostom – whom we commemorated yesterday – sought to become a monk in the desert, but the ekklesia exercising its proper role, moved by the Spirit, imposed their “axios” upon him and because of this we benefit from the writings of one of the most influential theologians of the late antique church. The ordained ministry cannot be fully exercised outside the context of the ekklesia. We have done this in our community for too long – and we continue to reap the disastrous consequences.

Jesus did not set out to create a “jurisdiction” this is true. However, shortly after the assumption we begin to see the need – the real need for a degree of structure or organisation. The nascent Christian faith spent its days in prayer and fellowship. The problem was that without a clear, basic sense of order, and because of bias present within that community, people were being forgotten and ignored (Acts 6.1-11). Paul’s letters bear witness to similar abuses of members, and the sacrament, and the need for order and regulation – if only to ensure that the theological vision of the faith was maintained. Later we find the letters of Ignatius of Antioch addressing the destructive problems of dissent and politics within a community. There is no clear sense of “jurisdiction”, true, but there is certainly a firm understanding that whilst we enjoy freedom within our heritage – there is a need for basic, organic, balanced, faithful, structure and order.

Tim makes a valid point when he argues both sides: “Individualists can point to unhealthy and abusive communities and say, ‘See? Everyone is better off on their own, with complete freedom!’, with justification. Communitarians can point to unhealthy, abusive, and eccentric individuals and say, ‘See? Everyone is better off in community, with accountability!” again with justification.” My particular take on this has been to look at the starting point – the example of Christ, and the first communities; not as a means of re-creating a utopian past (a close read of these texts will disabuse anyone of this mythology) but as a means of pointing to a foundational point of our faith – relationships and with relationships community are essential to enjoying the full experience of our faith; or as Tim has put it: “In fact, God has created us with a hunger for community, so that we cannot be fulfilled human beings without being in deep, intimate, covenanted relationships . . .”

“Jurisdiction” while it might be an ugly word, is a natural outcome of being community. I think I’m on safe ground when I say that all three of us would agree that too often individual “jurisdictions” are not guided by the right principles, having placed imitating the “institution” at the heart of their vision and values rather than starting with the core of our faith, that is Christ, and the relationships that he engenders within us.