As for ordination, I’ve been reading your blog since the beginning and can’t recall any post that explained why (beyond vague “distinctiveness” questions) we should not ordain people who, under certain circumstances, might be willing to return to Rome. Can you point to a specific post? I know some bishops do hold the same views as you, but I still haven’t heard a good argument for those views, which would exclude a number of phenomenal Independent priests I know from our movement. (And would just encourage the bad ones to lie about how much they hate Rome.)

Please be careful and not project ideas and attitudes that do not exist.

As I’ve said previously I’m happy to talk about issues of our theology of the eucharist – but it deserves another post.

I would like to return to the issue – which is my own discomfort with ordained ministers in our community maintaining two – often incompatible identities – i.e. being half in and half out of our community.

My thoughts on this are far from vague – indeed I have voiced them throughout my posts here since the very beginning last year. But I am consciously taking this opportunity to open the debate – because Chris, while my own arguments are from own perspective and experience, I know well that I am not the only progressive indie bishop who holds this position.

You most certainly have expressed a prejudice against non-liturgical Christians at the Eucharist, in your comment to this post on my blog. Why is it “only fair” that you be allowed to interogate someone who happens to be Disciples of Christ (a non-liturgical, non-creedal church where Communion is a central, perhaps THE central, practice)? I’ve met a lot of RC folks with ideas about the Eucharist bordering on heretical, and lots of orthodox Disciples folks. “Liturgical” is not a label I recognize as having any value when Christians come to the Table.

To address the other issue — if the fullness of the Church resides in humanity past and present, and not in any one expression or denomination of Christianity, then I don’t see how we as a movement can justify not ordaining mature, committed candidates who will vow to serve Christians by celebrating the sacraments and providing pastoral care. Demanding life-long loyalty is just acting like Rome does.

Please explain why we should not ordain such people, beyond vague comments about “retaining our distinctiveness”. I did not vow, nor did any of us vow, I’ll wager, to “uphold the distinctiveness of the independent sacramental movement” at my ordination. And if anything, I think people who have a closer relationship to Rome than you or I do bring a lot of positive things to the movement, things that make us quite distinct anyway.

You write that I am “prejudiced against non-liturgical folks at Communion”. This is both false, and an issue not at all related to the matter at hand. Though I am more than happy to discuss the point – I think it is better served in another post. As I do think that one contribution we indie folk can make to the wider church is a thoughtful re-think of Eucharistic theology and practice.

Neither do I suggest – here, or elsewhere that the “fullness of the Church” resides in our movement. Indeed I have done, and always will, vigorously argue the exact opposite.

It is clear from your comment, that we are both approaching this thing we call “church” from completely different reference points. Mine is not as straightforward and “black and white” as it seems to me you believe.

I confess I’m finding your model rather alien – and I think it is because I do not yet know enough about it yet to fully appreciate it.

For the moment, however, let me just offer the following:

I believe that we can be very open and ecumenical without surrendering our unique identity. I also believe that it is worth while – given the state of play in our contemporary movement to openly consider what that identity is, and what it means to be an indie. Fifteen years ago it was easy – now. . . not so much. Things change, that’s great, but I believe it is worth our while to take stock of these changes, and invest some time exploring them in relation to our identity. How does this renewed understanding offer unique perspectives allowing members of our community to confidently participate in the debates of the wider Christian “family”. What do we bring to the table from our heritage, and from the current developments of our theological and pastoral talent?

I’ll have more on this aspect in the next edition.

Except that they ARE! They are our Christian brothers and sisters.

The problem with this whole line of argument is that we do not ordain people to be Independent Catholic priests. We ordain people to be priests in Christ’s church, who happen to reside currently in the independent sacramental movement. Otherwise, we are acting just like Rome.

The independent movement CAN be an alternative or a second home for someone without that someone believing it is inherently second-best. There is nothing about seeing Rome (or Canterbury, or whatever) as one’s own home that requires one to disparage the ISM.

Those are the folks I meant in my previous comment. If they love Rome (or whatever church) but also love the ISM and are willing to serve the movement and all WE serve without worrying about “what Rome will think”, I’m happy to have them. Even if they would (theoretically) like to return someday.

I am just too ecumenically-minded to go down the roads you’re suggestion — being prejudiced against non-liturgical folks at Communion, closing our presbyterate against everyone who won’t swear lifelong loyalty to us alone, etc. The fullness of the Church does not reside in our movement any more than it resides in the Roman church or Eastern Orthodoxy. We are a handful of Christians among many, and the fullness of the Church resides in the whole of humanity past and present.