Hi Tim,

Thanks for your post – it is, as always, very helpful.

I think – that in relation to your perfectly reasonable point about having the time to devote to a wider range of ideas within our community – I would say two things. Firstly – this is an area where I think the efforts of the “whole” local community are helpful. We clergy are not the only ones who can contribute to expressing and developing points of reference on wider topics from an authentically OC/IC perspective – rather the whole baptised community has a role to play in this. I’m here thinking of Paul’s description of the gifts individuals bring to the working of the “whole” (catholic) body of Christ. In this context – some can read, others can present, still others can organise communal praxis, etc. Obviously in our congregations wich rarely have more than 20 people – we must work within some reasonable limitations.

Here then is where we can talk about the “model” of community that our various groups are using and experimenting with. A topic which I’ve played with off and on here, and which I think you and I have talked about over the phone on more than one occasion. I think both of us would admit that in our OC/IC context it is important for everyone to participate – moreover it is essential that everyone both feels, and knows that he or she is empowered to take up that “cross” of responsibility within the communal life and do their bit – thus lightening the burden of others, and contributing to bringing about a better expression of the full richness of our faith. As Paul taught us, if the hand says to the arm I do not need you, both suffer, but one will surely die. If we see ourselves as truly “catholic” then we ought to strive for a wholeness in our expression of “being the body of Christ” the icon of the Incarnate Logos – in the world.

Yes, the constraints of time are an issue – but it is an overwhelming or restraining issue, only if individual clergy believe that they must do it all; and individual members of the community are unwilling to take up the fullness of their baptismal covenant – leaving the work of the whole body in the hands of a select number of body parts. Using this model – the whole body suffers, and will sometimes even die.

I would not say that I have “glibly” dismissed the matter of the ordination of women and LGBT believers. And like you I am concerned that too many communities are confusing politics and political campaigning with theology, and praxis – and LGB “marriage” rights is just such an issue. Now, I know that we disagree on some of the finer points of this important issue – but for those who might not know it – I’m a full proponent of full civic and religious equality for LGB couples. I believe that because we are baptised into Christ, and in Christ there is neither Jew, nore Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female – that that egalitarianism is an essential element of our faith, and must be expressed in our praxis – full stop. A woman who is clarly called to the ordained ministry – ought to be ordained. A gay couple who seeks to have their union blessed, and celebrated by their community of faith – ought to have the full support of that community – full stop. For theological reasons – I refrain from calling it marriage – because I believe that we must acknowledge the different gifts that each type of relationship brings to the whole body – making it truly “catholic”. A hand does not digest food, the stomach does. Both are part of the whole, both are necessary. A gay couple is not a straight couple – and that, in my opinion ought to be reflected in the theology, and in the liturgical rites we develop to bless, and celebrate these relationships.

I think that the over-emphasis of one or both of these issues places us at risk of becoming “ghetto” communities. That is to say that we are perceived as the “gay church”, and defined by our sexuality, rather than our spirituality, and faithfulness to the Gospel. Let me put it another way – as single issue, or “set issues” communities we fail to realise the fullness of being “the body of Christ” with the full complement of its attendant gifts. The result is an impoverished community.

That being said however, I would return to exploring ideas of “models” of community and say that in our OC/IC context I can envision a very effective model of community wherein out of a collective of communities within a given jurisdiction – each local community has a particular ministry, or theological interest – a “mission” if you will. Thus, I could see a local community within a synod having a mission of outreach and healing to LGBT believers – and their families (that is parents, children, friends) – who have suffered at the hands of “ministers” of other churches – and indeed sadly, within our own OC/IC movement. My only caution here would be to say that this model – in this case – would probably only be effective if there was a second or even a third local community of the same jurisdiction within that location – coming together for the major feasts, and other events as a unified body. A great place to see this model in action is the Potter’s House “network” in Washington DC. Here the individual communities constitute a “whole” but they each have a particular “mission” – one is providing free health care to the homeless, another is housing for low income elderly, another feeds the hungry and the poor, I think they have nearly a dozen different communities all concentrated in an area in DC, and all serving God, and expressing the teachings of the Gospel. How amazing would it be if we saw a similar model of community developing in our OC/IC context – rather than repeating or replicating 19th century and medieval models? If a synod functioned as a “whole body” with each local community also expressing that wholeness but in the context of a particular mission or ministry – then I think we might see some better expressions of our authentic OC/IC voice.

I have no interest in “replicating” what other churches are doing. Indeed my overarching argument for a number of years now has been that we OC/IC folk need to find our own voice(s) – rather than take what “they” say at face value. What is more – I could not agree with you more that in most cases there is no one single black and white answer – but faithfulness to the teaching of the Gospel, and thoughtful action based on that faithfulness is sometimes the best we can hope for.

Here then is where my point comes into play. Scholarship is the backbone of our OC/IC heritage – free inquiry, engagement, reflecting on how “secular” developments contribute to, and affect our praxis is largely responsible for the emergence of our tradition. It seems to me however, that we have somehow, somewhere along the line, lost essential elements of this core characteristic that makes us who we are as OC/IC Christians.

Unless I’m missing something you’ve more or less made my point (in your closing line) that our efforts ought to be placed where they will be most effective in preparing our membership for being (better) living icons of the incarnate Christ. You are absolutely right. But my argument is that in order to do this well – we must take stock of the fullness of the gifts on offer – Scripture and Liturgy are essential, but so to is the teaching of the fathers, AND the contribution of modern ideas and scholarship. This is one of the joys and blessings of having come to this tradition – and it is one that I think we ought to cultivate more.

But, let me add – that we cannot hope to be a part of that very important formation you speak of – if we do not engage with the issues. My community – for example, cannot hope to be challenged, or have our thinking (and thus our action) on X refined, if your community does not share its experience with X – both the community action, and the thinking behind that action.

That formation is an ongoing process – our individual communities and teachers will not always share the same position, nor will they work to address it in the same way – but, knowing about how other OC/IC communities are contributing to solving this problem, or are reflecting on that point of teaching is I think an untapped resource that could make a substantive, positive contribution to the movement as a whole.