Bože! A Grace Catholic Project
No Pain No Gain
“Liberal” churches may be sabotaging themselves by reducing the commitment of their members – so suggests a recent report in New Scientist. The persecution of early Christians may have had a dramatic effect on the spread of Christianity because the sacrifices of martyrs and confessors instilled in others the idea of sincerity: “few would willingly give their life for an ideal they did not believe in”.
Once people believe they are more likely to undertake or endure similar displays of committment. Through a mathematical model, the study suggests that this becomes a “self-reinforcing loop” enabling the belief system to persist over time.
The suggestion is that communities that expect a higher level of committment as displayed through particular behaviour endure and grow whereas those communities which do not eventually dissipate. Comparing liberal Protestant churches and fundamentalist Protestant churches appears to prove the point.
How is this relevant to OC/IC communities?
I dare say that today there might be a few confessors out there, but not too many martyrs. So lets look at the effects of more down to earth forms of “costly sacrifices”.
The study suggests that acts of sacrifice, or self-denial/renunciation by religious leaders has a stronger overall impact on the commitment of others. So, how many of our OC/IC leaders and clergy are regularly participating in the life and community of other churches? From the stand point of a visitor/observer/participant – if my local indie bishop, priest or lay leader is heavily involved in another tradition then this indie thing must not be worth my own personal investment.
This opens the door to the next question, assume our leaders are setting the example, are we doing enough to cultivate, and encourage “membership” through the right of chrismation? That is to say – if our leaders have “sacrificed” the (false) safety net of another church, then are we also encouraging the same within the community as a whole? In short are we actively giving people a reason to give a confident “yes” to the OC/IC way of life, and be willing to whole heartedly throw in their lot with us?
Keeping in mind the above two points, how might the common practice of open communion affect committment to, identification with our OC/IC communities?
Finally, in our history can we point to as an exemplar of commitment to the OC/IC ideal? I can think of a few, such as Varlet and Ofiesh, how about you?
Interesting and thought-provoking as always
. In this case, I’d say the OC/IC churches have a distinct advantage. It links to the discussion we’ve been having about OC/IC worker priests on Tim’s blog—the example of people who serve, teach, pray, etc for large amounts of their time and without pay for doing so speaks pretty clearly about commitment and belief to an ideal that is worth believing in and can instill the idea of sincerity—-and then inspire similar actions by others as the article suggests. The sacrifice and commitment are built into OC/IC church structure because nothing happens without some measure of this. For me a bigger issue in OC/IC churches is the question—what are you making these sacrifices for? If it’s for venting one’s anger at other denominations or a pet social issue (women’s ordination, LGBT inclusion, pick your topic) or ego-building rather than being grounded in Scripture and love of God, then this is problematic.
I’d throw out a bit of wrench into the machinery too on the idea about OC/IC clergy participating in the life of other churches being detrimental—-I’m not convinced it’s necessarily the case. To participate as OC/IC clergy in another church while still being committed to being OC/IC—one is still serving without compensation or formal recognition to do something one strongly believes in–this can also be a sign of commitment and sacrifice. The caveat here, of course, is that one isn’t just doing this to feel or appear “legitimate” in the eyes of others.
Finally, I’d say that I don’t think it’s necessarily only the example of leaving the “safety net” of other churches that inspires people to join an OC/IC church. There is the more negative spin on it that people left for their own ego or as an easy way to ordination. Leaving the “safety net” is only meaningful if one is also serving in faith with a degree of sincerity.
I’m with you on the participation-outside issue. That makes sense (unless the participation is as equals – I’ve seen a fair number of Indy folks being at Ecumenical events).
The open communion issue, well… historical context may be important here. Is closed communion (rejecting participation by people not in our community) a theological concept or was it a sociological reality (because of persecution) that grew in to a theological stance?
If the former, then we have only to “lapse” into more traditional modes of function. But then we – along with the other closed communions need to justify ourselves by appeal to “always done it that way” only we need to skip Jesus, who even gave communion to Judas…
If the latter (a sociological reality that evolved into theology) then I think we can simply dispense with it. It is in keepign with Jesus’ own teachings of inclusion, eating with all sorts and conditions of men and women, without asking their position on doctrine or even morals.
This, however, does *not* do away with our (the Community’s) claim on the theological requirements of “being”. I would say let’s avoid changing the liturgy just to make people feel comfortable. Jesus welcomes everyone, but there is a consequence of coming. Jesus gave communion to Judas – who then failed in that communion. But how many others in the stories told, did Jesus feast with and radically change their lives?
I know that eating in the community evolved to have a deeper theological content than only “feasting with Jesus”. Today is, after all, the Feast of Corpus Christi on the Gregorian Calendar. But despite the overlay of centuries, I don’t think we can or should obscure the original radical inclusion we see in the Gospels. Bring them in, educate them, God welcomes them over and over again, even if they make no commitment. We’re here to facilitate their salvation, not their commitment to our community.
That being said, once they come to the table, taste and see… they may then turn to us and say, “What next?” As they grow in faith they may also grow in doctrine. If we certainly teach it, it will grow in them.
I heard a priest once say that he didn’t image that there was anyone willing to go to the death over points of doctrine even, as Maximos the Confessor, at the hands of other Christians. But that’s points of Doctrine in a vacuum. Tiny iotas of issue that were meaningless to the early Christians became *political* points for later generations. *Sigh* Pagan Romans didn’t care who you thought was God. But they wanted you to follow their Gods, too: not theologically, but politically. Their Gods upheld the Roman Way. Jesus’ message that death was no more, that Gentiles and Jews were all included in God’s family, that ritually “pure” and “impure” were not a point in God’s kingdom – that the Ikon of God was visible in everyone to be venerated and loved into eternity; Jesus is Lord even over and above Caesar the teaching that God-loving-us means that we need to love each other exactly the same way was so radically frightening that Romans killed people over it – this I’d go to the death for.
I think, shortly, we may all be called to act on that message again… this is why I think it’s important that theological “liberals” and “conservatives” don’t diss each other. Divide and Conquer is the Evil One’s only M.O.
Pingback: Denominationalism and the IC/OC movement « The Gifts of God
Alex,
Provocative article and excellent replies. I agree that the level of sacrifice and committment are important for a movement to have grounding and meaning. It is also important for that sacrifice and meaning to lead to a contructive creative end. We in the IC/OC need to get beyond the hurts and obsticles and issues that we have had with previous churches. There are not many “cradle” IC/OC people. We need to stand FOR something, not just against something else.
Clergy need to really understand that we IC/OC have our own spirituality and gift to offer the Body of Christ. Bishops need to stop ordaining people without taking responsibility to train them in this spirit and history. Bishops also need to communicate somewhat with each other so that the ease of schism not splinter us beyond reproach. It is not easy to hold to any standards when at the first sign of being held to task, one bolts for another bishop, or to get consecrated to start their own. (Not that this is always a bad thing, but sometimes just too easy.)
Our little parish of 6-8 regulars and 8-10 usual congregants, sometimes a few more, sometimes a few less, requires a great deal of committment. I think this comes from the strong bond of prayer and friendship between the pastor and the bishop, and then the parish staff. We really are a base christian community, worshiping together, socializing together, picketing and protesting together, visiting the sick together, etc. Sometimes I think we are small because we intimidate new comers! But, that is who we are and our gift to the Church. We invitte all to come and worship with us, and challenge all to be real christian community, thus we have a lot of folk who stop by once or twice a year. This says something too, of our American culture and lack of ability to commit to authentic community and responsibility in a real and mature spiritual way.
Thank you for your blog and all for reading my rant.
I think it’s dangerous to be simplistic about analyzing church growth/decline statistics. I certainly think the reason you cite is one reason. But there are other factors as well. First, liberal churches have tended to have smaller families over the past several decades, whereas Roman Catholics and evangelicals have had larger families — although that is changing — just yesterday, I was reading about a Southern Baptist leader urging Southern Baptists to have larger families and lamenting that smaller families were affecting their baptism statistics. (Southern Baptists have had some membership declines in recent years.) Second, different denominations count members in different ways. For example, the United Methodists, who have shown steep declines, are also extremely quick to take someone off the membership rolls if they stop attending. The reason? Each church is assessed a per capita charge by the annual conference based on the number of members it has, so there is a strong motivation to retain only active members on the rolls. In contrast, the Episcopal Church does not have such a motivation, because the assessment the diocese charges is based on the size of the budget. However, in recent years, formal membership has been emphasized less and less — in many parishes, the only requirements for voting in vestry elections are baptism and attendance and giving for a year — so the set of formal Episcopalians who have been confirmed or received and the set of those actively participating overlap, but each has many not in the other set. The Roman Catholic denomination considers itself to be the only true church, and at least until very recently, would not take people off the rolls other than by death (I tried). I do understand that this has changed under the current pope. So, many Episcopalians, IC/OC folk, Latino Pentecostals, etc. are included in the reported number of Roman Catholics. I also think it’s dangerous to play the numbers game.
The second comment I would make is that the big danger for IC/OC folk is to be obsessed with the “mainstream”. It takes an obvious form in the many who are starving for “recognition” from Rome, Canterbury, or Utrecht and think that is what makes one legitimate — one ISM priest illicitly concelebrated at a Roman priest’s funeral and has publicly stated that “if concelebrating with the cardinal doesn’t make one valid, I don’t know what does” — and that is very troubling and problematic. But the other side of the coin, where we see ourselves as the sheep and the mainstream as the goats, and try to do everything we can to separate ourselves from them and “shun” them betrays just as strong of an obsession as the craving for recognition. There are good, bad, and indifferent clergy, laity, and communities in both mainstream and indie churches. We each have our own role to play, and they complement one another. I see my task as to follow Christ to the best of my ability, and to do the work I am called to do. If mainstreamers “recognize” that and want to cooperate, great. If other mainstreamers think I’m not “legit” and have no respect, so be it. Neither group is going to deter me from focusing on what I am called to do. (And, locally, there is a TEC priest who sometimes worships with us for respite from pastoral work and as a way of being ministered to, — and that is a valid part of our ministry, and I am happy to extend him the hospitality.)
I see access to the Lord’s table as the birthright of all the baptized. I would much rather have God ask me why I gave Communion to someone who shouldn’t have had it (after all, it was they who presented themselves) than to ask why I, an unworthy sinner, withheld it from one of the great hidden saints of the age because they weren’t IC/OC but RC, TEC, UCC, or whatever.
Joseph – I could not agree with you more! Amen my friend Amen!
Tim,
While I agree with your points – that we ought not be looking at the “other” traditions for legitimacy, nor should we be playing the numbers game (lets face it we’ll always loose anyway – grin), largely – in my opinion because it is both a futile waste of valuable talent, but more importantly – it is, I think counter intuiative to the Gospel message. Not to be flip – but did Jesus ever do a head count? Did he ever say – “X” number of believers is authentic, but “Y” number is . . .well, second rate? Of course not – so if th Master wasn’t worried about it – I think we should free ourselves from this self imposed burden, and false vision of “success” as a community of faith.
What grabbed my attention about the New Scientist article was the point that people are, it seems, drawn to a tangible sense of something worthwhile.
Tim & Huw,
The open communion aspect has been popping up in conversations alot lately – I’ve been sitting with this. Just to be on the record so to speak – I’ve not got a problem with and open communion – but it does raise some very interesting questions and challenges. More on that in a future post.
Just to clarify — the term “open communion” has used in two ways — first, for the practice of welcoming all baptized Christians to Communion — and that is our jurisdiction’s policy. But today, it is often used for eliminating baptism as a prerequisite for communion — and that is not a practice I support.
Chris,
I’m afraid you’ve mis-interpreted my point here. My point about our leadership not being in two places at once is not to sever us from other christians, nor is it to isolate us, indeed I’m all for cooperating with other communities regardless of their tradition – and have a pretty good record on that front too.
My question about OC/IC leaders (lay and ordained) taking up roles in other communities, or spending most of their time in other communities is rooted in experience. Firstly, it is rooted in experiences of people in our community choosing not to engage more fully because of the example they have seen from existing leaders. Secondly, I have, on more than one occasion found devloping real cooperation with other communities (non OC/IC) hindered by tales of their experiences with priests and bishops presenting themselves as members of that community – only revealing their true identity when convenient for them – or worse, using their “status” as a means of muscleing in on the life and roles of that community. These were causes for great disruption within those communities, causing hurt and confusion.
This is about respect not purity, or ecclesiastical politics as you have said. It is respect for our own tradition, and it is respect for the tradition and communal life of the other community.
Again, as I have said many times before – I have no problems with our folks cooperating with other christian communities, indeed I think its great when we can do so, but in order for us to do this with integrity, and building substantive relationships – we have to show that we’ve got our own house in order first.
Tim,
There is a very interesting article I read during my MA program about extending communion before baptism – suggesting that one might recieve – find that as the moment of conversion then seek baptism. Huw & I have been talking about this off & on now for over a week. I can’t say I’m a fan of that mode but I can see the logic, and even a theological justification for it; but to be sure it would turn our sense of the structure of the sacramental cult upside down (grin).
More on this though – in another post.
Hi Lyngine,
You raise a very good point here about worker priests and the day to day “sacrifices” (to use the terminology of the NS article) they/we make. I would extend that one step further to add the efforts of very active laity (grin)!
Your question: What are you making these sacrifices for – is I think, very insightful, and one well worth exploring. I think that the issues related to this which you’ve raised – political agendas, personal axes to grind, are not stricly limited to our OC/IC context – but because of the nature of our small communities these issues tend to have a much more devastating/retarding impact. And yes – service in the community ought to be rendered for no other reason than as an act of worship/devotion.
I think I’m safe when I say I hear your (and indeed Chris’) point about cooperation, and relationships with other communities, and on that level am in full agreement. I think my “caution” here would be to say to that OC/IC clergy-person sit back and ask yourself about the level of your invovlement, and the messages that is sending not only to the other congregation, but also to your own community – and those who would be interested in being a part of your community.
In addition to the general points I made yesterday in my response to Chris – I’d add that I know three OC/IC clergy who only recently were very badly hurt precisely because their active presence in another community caused confusion, chaos, and resentment – one even lost employment (in that community) because of it. On the flip-side this is not exclusively an OC/IC issue, there are any number of instances of “Big Tent” clergy and leaders doing the same – and frankly I think meeting worse ends because of it. I seem to recall not long ago an ECUSA priest who was also serving in a Muslim community has been defrocked or chastised.
The point is – that it is very much a problem on the ground. One that sends mixed messages, and one that causes (albeit inadvertently/unintentionally) the OC/IC leader in question to become a stumbling block for others. There are plenty of opportunities to be invovled in interdenomonational fellowships serving the aims of the Gospel, building bridges, and being visible – my advice would be to join one of those, and by your doing so, be an example to other OC/IC folk.
Hi Huw,
I know I’m trundling into the up-coming communion post here (grin) – closed communion/open communion is a product of our faith being a mystery cult – which, like other mystery cults, had a process of initiation/illumination. It is – as we’ve been talking via e-mail – the process, the journey, and the re-formation of one’s identity through that initiation. Today – however, we’ve more or less lost this sense of process in favour of instant gratification, and (ducking from flying rocks & debris) political correctness. I think we’ve flown headlong into open communion without – as we’ve been exploring – thinking through the knock on effects. What are we surrendering in order to be, or be seen to be, “more inclusive”?
To be sure this is a bit “theoretical” but in some respects I do wonder if it has un-intended consequences on the ground (what those might be I’m not sure but it is worth asking the question). And before everyone starts stoning me – again, I state for the record, I am not opposed to open communion – but I do think that it is worth asking some of the more challenging questions about how we might better approach it.
It’s funny you mentioning the pagan Roman attitudes – I’m just now 2/3 of the way through a book (The Matter of the Gods ISBN: 9780520259867 ) that addresses this, as well as the emergence of Christian ideas related to the cult and its role in society. You’re right the Romans saw their gods has holding up the Roman way. The Matter of the Gods makes an interesting albeit slightly off our topic observation that whereas Christian and Jewish cult practice is revealed by the divinity, under Roman paganism, the Gods were content to let the civil institutions establish the shape of the cult. This caught my eye mainly because I’m polishing up my thesis chapter on the emergence and early shape of the cult of the Theotokos (grin).
You’re absolutely right that divide & conquer is the Evil One’s only modus operandi – and if we need any evidence of this we need only look at the history of the OC/IC movement in the US in the early 20th century. When once our predecessors under Abp Lloyd were flourishing until “divide and conquer” took over. All the more reason for us to learn from the past, and put our own house in order; to learn to cooperate and collaborate, to engage, and to trust one another within our own OC/IC context – and beyond – and thereby to build a strong defence against the assault of the Adversary.
Huw was having difficulty posting this comment yesterday and asked that I insert it for him:
If I may make bold: I’d like to invite you to a discussion of Open Communion and/vrs “Radically Open Communion”
(including those not yet baptised). Alexis and I continued this
conversation in emails (after an off-topic kerfuffle erupted on my
blog) but I would certainly welcome other input!
Has anyone else been experiencing difficulty getting comments in the queue? If so let me know.
This “mystery cult” thing is where I am decidedly liberal, protestant and even, dare I say it, modern. The Young Fogey would point out here that I am refuse to believe in an infallible church.
We’re not a mystery cult: that’s a cultural overlay that the pagan converts imposed on the church like any other very-large pool of unexpected converts – eg, the current cultural overlay on Orthodoxy in America imposed by Evangelical and Ex-Anglican converts who have no clue at all (I include myself in that list).
We’re a Jewish reformation, a widening out of the Jewish path into the larger world. We’re a “cultus” sure… but not a parallel to the Mythraic Mysteries or Isis ones, etc. Again, the issue goes back to my first point: we theologised our secrecy. It was imposed by a dangerous culture and is understandable – only later did we impose it on ourselves. There is no indication of it in the NT period nor even in the earliest sub-apostolic period. We should have jettisoned it when we were no longer in danger.
As I wrote on my blog, I realise that the lack of secrecy in these periods is *not* an argument for open or radically open communion. I’m stressing the lack of earliest secrecy to undercut mystery cult ideas.
hmmm Huw, I’m curious to hear more about your thinking here, re: on our being (or not being) a mystery cult – perhaps we’re using our terms differently. Based on what you’ve said so far I’m not . . .persuaded (grin). But that could merely be a factor of bein utterly exhausted (see here for the story).
In any event – I think I see another fun batch of emails, and a blog post or two developing out of this one as well (grin).
Alexis, could I request that you comment over at my place next time if you have a response to one of my posts? I didn’t see your comment until just now.
I don’t deny that there are problems when someone pretends to be, say, an Anglican priest, only to have an Episcopal or Anglican parish discover later that they are part of our movement, not part of the Anglican Communion. Likewise with clergy who are pushy about demanding to minister as a priest or deacon in a parish of another denomination simply “because I’m ordained”, not because there is a legitimate need for that in the local community.
What I’m asking, though, is that you recognize the opposite can also be true. I, for one, was so extraordinarily shy and touchy about intruding in other churches that I stayed away when I needed local community (because my own parish plant was failing, I believe through no fault of my own), and I avoided exercising a need priestly ministry there for even longer. We have to temper our criticism of those who are too pushy in other churches — because in the “healthy”/”non flaky” parts of our movement, we instead end up fostering a kind of separatism that is not healthy. Dishonest or unscrupulous people pushing their way into other churches can hurt our perception among more mainstream churches — but cooperating responsibly, especially in areas like mine where it may be hard for a single clergy person or lay leader to sustain an IC/OC parish, can be a real boon to both churches/jurisdictions involved.
As for your point about not engaging more fully, I think that was exactly what I addressed in my post. Perhaps that happens, but I can’t believe it’s really widespread. For the most part, we foster a pretty tough divide between us and other churches. Few people try to both root themselves in our movement and do work on the side in other churches. Instead, people tend to choose either to live out a harsh anti-mainstream bias/separatism or they give up on our movement and jump to a mainstream church.
Obviously a lot of this comes out of my own experience. Starting a parish alone is tough for anyone, but it’s doubly hard for our clergy who are tentmakers and often can’t start a sustainable community without another clergyperson. (I’m in Macau right now — if I had a parish, I have no clue who would be available to celebrate the Eucharist for them this weekend or last.) On top of that, I’m not putting down roots where I am now — I’m there because my spouse was in grad school and now I’m starting. We have a not-insignificant number of clergy and lay leaders in that position, and we need to figure out how to support them in remaining IC/OC and strengthening their commitment to our movement while finding a way to minister and be ministered to in their local context.
Sorry if my posts on this have seemed harsh, or if they’ve been a little TMI.
I am trying to share how difficult this has been for me — and I know plenty of others who are in or have been in similar situations throughout the movement — without being whiny. My concern with what you’ve been posting, Alexis, is that it seems a little one size fits all, like it’s driven by a couple pet peeves that don’t really address both sides of the problems we face in the movement. Your suggestions strike me as a bit extreme, and while you may have personal experiences with one side of the coin, I have a lot of experience with the other.
Chris,
I would not say your comments are harsh – rather that they express a very real frustration that I know I’ve experienced on more than one occasion – and in some respects now. I am fully “initiated” into the experiences of “both sides of the coin” (don’t forget, I’ve been an active member in the community for 20 years now). You are absolutely right it is not easy starting a community as a sole indie priest. But therein lies part of the problem.
I sometimes think that you believe that I have something against the “mainstream” church community – I do not. Indeed I think it is fair to say that I have generally had nothing but positive encounters with communities and individuals from that quarter of our faith. This actually lends itself well to my overall point – if we are to establish solid relationships of mutual respect and cooperation with other traditions, we need to cultivate those relationships through our actions – demonstrating that we respect them; and our own tradition. Its all about being a “good citizen” in the community of Christianity if you will. You don’t show respect to your neighbours by raiding their cupboards, or dumping your trash in their garden. This is a very real problem in our indie context. I have seen it, and continue to see it happening over and over again. Likewise – being a “good citizen” also means that you cannot be a separatist, you have to engage.
It seems to me that you believe that I am a purist, a separatist, that we indie folk ought to sever all links with the “outside world” of Christianity. In fact, I believe the exact opposite. I believe that we must engage with any and all people of faith who are open and willing to engage with us. I believe very passionately that we have something to contribute to the wider expression of Christianity; and ought to actively cultivate talent and resources within our community to do just that. But, and this is a HUGE but, we have to clean up our act. When our clergy are actively pursuing communal life in other churches, and not our own – it sends a negative message not only to members of that community, but also to members of our own movement. This has had an historic and snowballing affect creating a real barrier to substantive positive cooperation with other communities as well as creating (even reinforcing) existing challenges in our own communities for cultivating continuity and “staying power”. If we are going to turn this situation around we need to be able to demonstrate that while we appreciate the contributions of, and friendship of other Christian communities – we are firmly behind the indie way of life.
You’ve shared that you’re not staying in your current location in N.C. and that this presents a challenge to establishing a community – or lets make it easier – a “project” for your synod (ICCC). Why? Do you think that it is essential for an idie project to be centred on the presence of an ordained person? You mentioned that at the time of writing your comment you were in Macau, and that had you had a project going you would not have known what to do to keep things ticking over while you were away without another clergy person being involved. I understand all of these points having had to creatively deal with them myself over the years. One thing is certain – no solution no matter how sound or creative – will work if the existing members are not confident in their indie identity – and thus feel that they have an investment in that project’s continuity, regardless of where the ordained members are. Let me put it differently, though I cannot be certain, I doubt very much that if both Tim and Joseph were to be out of town, folks like Lyngine would not step up to ensure that the community still met during their absence.
It seems to me, that our indie movement is too heavily invested in the “idolatry” of the ordained state. We see it in so many ways; the obsession with the “mystical puppy pedigree” (Apostolic Succession), the woeful problem of ordaining anything on two legs, as well as the challenge it presents to the continuity of indie projects. Yes, it is the case that 99% of the time if the priest leaves, the community folds. How sad is that!? This situation that we find ourselves in, is in no way your fault, nor indeed is it any one person’s fault – it is the momentum within our movement, and the inherited imagery and conditioning that many bring to the table when they convert – but the point is, we need to face this troubling fact, and deal with it creatively, and as a band of friends sharing a particular tradition. Otherwise “successful” projects and communities will merely dissipate every time the clergy is called to another location – I’ve seen it happen in my own community, and I’ve seen it happen for many years in other communities.
I appreciate the position you find yourself in – indeed it is a position I have been in ever since I moved to the UK. Here I find myself in a historic heartland of our movement, faced with social trends that are very unfavourable to building any community (not just a faith community). England has no sense of community spirit, no concept of civic pride, no belief in the necessity of neighbourhood or assembly – so even though many people say they believe in God – very very few people are interested in, or participating in communities of faith. I’ve been here for a long time and have and continue to strive towards building on some of the small successes we’ve made. If I compare my experience in the US with my experience here in the UK they are worlds apart. Both are challenging in different ways, both have brought wonderful triumphs, and hideous lows – but the fact remains I’m an indie bishop. I cannot help but think, therefore, that if I were to become a regular participant in the worship and life of another tradition’s community, I would be sending the wrong messages to them, and more importantly to others within my (our) own community. Essentially – I’d become a bad “citizen” and a stumbling block to others in the indie community who are struggling to be faithful to the idea of Independent Catholicism.
It is the case that wherever we go – it is more than likely that indie folk, both lay and ordained will be in a position to establish a project of some kind for our community. This is fantastic and we, all of us (regardless of our particular synod), ought to do what we can to facilitate the talent and energy needed so that these folks can do just that. It is also the case that not everyone has the vocation to plant projects – and we must respect that. But all of us do have a role to play in facilitating those who do have that urge, that vocation (and not all of those individuals are going to be clergy). And we all have a role to play when it comes to encouraging those in the movement who find themselves at a distance from another indie community to stay the course, and to not feel left out, or alone. But this will never happen unless we, all of us, stop playing church, and actually be church – that is we need to build stronger ties of friendship and cooperation amongst the sane and stable communities, so that we can all lend a hand to our friends when there is a need.
Pingback: Bože! » Blog Archive » No Paint No Gain – Update
Since my name was invoked, I want to clarify a misperception. Joseph and I would never both be gone the same weekend — we carefully plan to insure that one of us is available for coverage. The ideal for Sunday worship is a celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice, which requires a bishop or a priest — that’s not idolatry, it’s just good ecclesiology. Yes, there may be cases where it is not possible, and where a community might need to “make do” with Communion from the reserved sacrament, but it is not the ideal.
In addition, it’s great that we have Lyngine and a couple of other laypeople who could step up to lead worship in our absence — but it wasn’t always the case. We met for a year and a half before we got regular laypeople. Even after we did, it took awhile for them to become integrated enough into the community to be able to assume those roles. And some laypeople are incapable of ever assuming those roles (as are some clergy ordained in haste, but that’s a topic for another day — suffice it to say that we had two additional priests with us for a couple of years, and Joseph and I would NEVER, EVER have both been gone and left the community in either one of their hands).
And it sounds really great to say “oh, just find another sane stable indie community” — but, first, those don’t exist everywhere, and second, even a community that is wonderful isn’t going to meet everyone’s needs — a particular indie priest may find a home in the local TEC parish and NOT in the local indie community, even if it is sane — due to reasons that are from the 90% of characteristics of a Christian community that have nothing to do with jurisdictional affiliation, such as worship style, etc.
Hi Tim,
no, there’s no misperception – I was simply pointing out that “if” it were the case that it was unavoidable – there are people in the community who, because they are confident in being indie – are ready to step up and fill in as needed.
Yes, I agree with you the ideal situation is that there is always a priest at hand. But we have to be realistic – sometimes it is necessary to adapt – knowing it is a temporary situation.
I too have been in the position where for weeks on end we did not have a “regular” lay presence. And yes, it does -as it ought to – take time for even the regulars to confidently appropriate an indie identity.
I would say however, that none of those folks would have taken the necessary steps if at the same time they saw that the clergy were actively engaged in the life of another tradition. “Why should I commit to this curious expression of Christianity – if its leader(s) can’t?”
You are also right when you say that the distribution of sane and stable indie projects/communities is few and far between. All the more reason for us to pull together – be a friend to one another – and support our folks when they find themselves in that position. All the more reason to be a bit innovative to ensure that those folks who want to stay in the movement have the resources, and support they deserve – regardless of where they are.
My point is – that while I understand the challenges – having experienced them many times over myself – I also want to see the sustainable spread of (sane) indie projects. This won’t happen if we don’t help one another.
“I would say however, that none of those folks would have taken the necessary steps if at the same time they saw that the clergy were actively engaged in the life of another tradition. “Why should I commit to this curious expression of Christianity – if its leader(s) can’t?””-Alexis
It depends. We have several folk involved in various ways and to various degrees in parishes of other denominations BUT who have and express a very strong, explicitly known Indie affiliation. If I were a person in those parishes, knowing all the resources the parish has, and assuming (as most people do) that mainline is better, I might think “hey, these folk aren’t converting or switching, but are happy and proud to be what they are—I wonder what’s going on with them and this Indie Catholic thing?” It depends on the level of engagement, how a person identifies themselves, whether or not they ever blur the lines of their denominational affiliation to seem “legitimate”, and how they express being Indie (how apologetic or unapologetic they are about it). It can be a fine line and I’ve seen it both work and not work—and it also depends somewhat on the jurisdiction and how a particular jurisdiction runs.
For me, it’s been enlightening to watch several folk who are geographically isolated from us, worship in local non-indie communities while retaining a very strong Indie identity and affiliation with us. If in the midst of the siren song of a mainline denomination, a building, the status of being recognized clergy, and the gazillion other resources/programing, people are still identifying as indie, there may be something to it. Now there may be some less healthy reasons for this but it depends on the individual.
This is going to sound harsh, and I do understand all too well the challenges of an OC/IC parish with only one priest. However, in all honesty, I would find it more credibility shattering to have clergy that regularly turned over the Sunday Mass to laity for a communion service than to have clergy worship in local communities of other denominations. One of the reasons I never went to the local chapter of Dignity here is that one of the responsibilities they had listed for their liturgy committee was to find a priest to celebrate Mass. If the priest of a community can’t show up on Sundays regularly to celebrate Mass, that communicates (fairly or not) that the clergy aren’t serious about their vocation, their community, or their ministry. It throws doubt on their commitment to their priesthood and hence their ministry and the denomination they represent. Yes, this has serious personal and professional consequences for someone who decides to pursue OC/IC priesthood as a vocation, particularly those called to parish ministry, and the lived reality of that is something that I think OC/IC priests and those pursuing ordination need to think about.
I’m not a fan of asking other local Indie priests to preside and fill in for each other. On the most practical level, jurisdictions and communities are so different and it rare that anyone nearby will match well—and yeah, we have crazies in the movement.
Hi Lyngine,
As always – thanks for your ideas & thoughts. You’ve essentially made my point when you write: “If the priest of a community can’t show up on Sundays regularly to celebrate Mass, that communicates (fairly or not) that the clergy aren’t serious about their vocation, their community, or their ministry. It throws doubt on their commitment to their priesthood and hence their ministry and the denomination they represent. Yes, this has serious personal and professional consequences for someone who decides to pursue OC/IC priesthood as a vocation, particularly those called to parish ministry, and the lived reality of that is something that I think OC/IC priests and those pursuing ordination need to think about.”
You’ve raised another point worth further discussion – one that I think I’ve been trying to make for some time here, and more expressly in this thread. You express your reticence at asking other local indie clergy to fill in for one another, and list two main reasons, first that there is the diversity of style, and second we’ve got crazies (grin). I’ll be honest – I agree with you on both counts.
I believe that if we are going to minimise, marginalise, heal, ditch and eradicate the crazies in the movement, we need to make a conscientious effort at building strong friendships, and learn to trust one another, to cooperate with one another, and through these smaller acts of substance, build a “convention” or consensus on larger issues like quality control of the ordained, and how we interact with one another across jurisdictional lines. In this way – as I think I’ve said before – if a crazy comes for example to Tim seeking ordination and he realises that she’s a nutter, and then she comes to me – I talk to Tim, he confirms that he saw her as unfit, and I too will refuse to ordain her. Not only because of the unwritten “convention” but also because we’ve built that communion, or community of trust between us that says I trust Tim’s (and through him your whole community’s) judgement on this. This, to my mind, is also an area where the divergence in “style” can come into play – and I think you’ll agree (grin) that between our communities there is certainly a divergence in style – my community is eastern rite, and you guys are . . . “Anglo-Catholics” I guess I’d say – but I’m willing to be corrected here (grin). If, under the “convention” I’m describing a good candidate came to me who was more suited to your community’s style, and emphasis, I would want to see them hooked up with you (this way everyone wins – the candidate, your community, our relationship, and I’d like to think the wider indie community as a whole).
A few thoughts on your point about style, yes, I can see that. But if I can, for the moment fall back on my point about building a convention among communities. Assume such a relationship were to exist – and the “convention” of which I speak was a reality – lets speak hypothetically and say that I were in Philly for some reason, and you folks needed a celebrant, and asked me to fill in. I would like to think that, under such circumstances, because of the “convention” because of the relationship we’d built, I would conform to the norms of style in your community – regardless of the customs in my own community. Mind you this does not and cannot address points of style related to the charisma (or lack thereof) of the particular individual – but it does ensure that there is that sense of respect for the local custom, because of the substantive bond of friendship between the two communities. In essence I would be a guest in my brothers house – it would be exceptionally rude of me to disrupt the flow of the work of the household.
I’m not saying that we should be swapping priests all the time – but I am saying that through solid relationships we can be a resource to one another when the need arises – and thereby ensure continuity, and the sustainability of our projects and missions. There is a point at which if we are going to be more than a ghetto community, built on “pet issues” and the hurt and anger some have towards the Big Tent quarter, we must break out of our own internal isolation and start working together. I think that whatever we can do to provide cover for fellow indie folks who find themselves isolated from their home community – if only for a time – is an important step in that direction.
I’ve been reading this thread with great interest, it poses a number of crucial questions which go to the heart of the paradox that we as OC/IC folk have to deal with, both with-in and with-out our respective communities, on a day to day basis.
As an ideal I would agree with Alexis that if we are serious about the valid contribution that OC/IC makes within the Christian tradition then it is unwise, for a number of reasons, to be heavily involved in another Church. It suggests, at best, a lack of commitment to one or other of the ecclesial traditions that we are active in. At worst, it can demonstrate, as Tim observes, an obsession for recognition by the mainstream.
However, on the ground things can be different for a wide variety of reasons. I have been involved in OC/IC ministry since 2006, prior to that I had been active as an indie lay person. On moving to a new area, shortly after my ordination, I attempted to start a ministry, the intention being that it would meet for the Eucharist each Sunday. For a year I patiently offered the Eucharist week in week out…the ministry did not grow, during this wilderness phase I questioned how I could, secure as I was with my priestly vocation, see no fruit from all the effort that I and one or two others had employed. Then I began to realise that I was so tied to the archetypal ideal of a Eucharistic community meeting weekly that I had failed to connect with what was needed on the ground. After listening to local contacts within the GLBT Christian movement I discovered that what people wanted locally was not another denomination but an open, reflective Christian space where they could feel free to express opinions, theological and social, which would not be acceptable to many of the ‘big tent’ churches. So we now meet monthly, average attendance about 5, to offer the Eucharist and to minister to one another. I hope that the spirituality that we as community have generated, has an impact, however small and indiscernible in objective terms, on the home denominations that members of the community attend on a weekly basis.
As for myself, as an OC/IC priest I would feel odd having ‘dual citizenship’ with another church however I do need to be ministered to when the community is not meeting. I have attempted to solve this conundrum by attending welcoming local churches on an ‘ad hoc’ basis. I would not accept any office in these communities as that would be counter to my commitment to the indie movement, rather when I go I go as a guest. I appreciate that this is far from perfect, but in England in particular, we operate in an environment, as Alexis has mentioned, that is far from conducive to community building…so I’ve shifted from indie ‘idealism’ to optimistic pragmatism.
“As an ideal I would agree with Alexis that if we are serious about the valid contribution that OC/IC makes within the Christian tradition then it is unwise, for a number of reasons, to be heavily involved in another Church. It suggests, at best, a lack of commitment to one or other of the ecclesial traditions that we are active in.” -Will
I guess the question I’ve been wanting to ask on this thread is “To whom does it suggest a lack of commitment?” And I ask this because it gets to the heart of OC/IC identity and what that means.
If the concern is that involvement in non-OC/IC denominations is detrimental because of how *others* perceive us, then I’m not convinced that this is an adequate reason because it means our actions or lack thereof depend on what others think—in which case, we should just hang it up right now and walk away if our motivation rests on what others think about us. I’m resigned to the fact that a good part of mainstream Christianity and others will never see us as legitimate and that no amount of policing will ever get rid of the “crazies” in the movement. I think we’re better off focusing on building local community and on ministering to the people who God puts in our path—there’s more than enough work just focusing on that and if anything, worrying overmuch about the odder parts of the OC/IC/ISM is a huge distraction and detracts from our ability to do our ministries well.
If the concern is that the involvement is detrimental because it affects the spiritual life of an OC/IC person, then that for me is a bigger issue BUT quite frankly, that lies within the realm of internal forum—and is between that individual, God, and in most cases their jurisdictional community. For some, involvement with another denomination can feed an unhealthy seeking for external validation BUT for others it can be a saving grace in the midst of geographic isolation from their jurisdictional family. I say this even as someone from a jurisdiction that is heavily committed to building community and with members who keep in touch and pray regularly (weekly if not more often) via web and telephone as well as in person.
Finally, I should emphasize that none of our clergy have “dual citizenship”—we require that their primary affiliation is with the jurisdiction although they may be involved in local congregations of other denominations—it’s something like being an American citizen but living in a foreign country—one doesn’t stop being an American citizen, either in identity or obligation, just because one doesn’t live exclusively in the USA.
In the end being OC/IC has to be free choice in the midst of 1000′s of other choices that can seem more attractive for external reasons. At some point, any OC/IC clergy or lay person has to decide that being OC/IC is where God most calls them to be—and that means that one has to be able to be secure with that in all settings. For me, involvement with other denominations has never been about commitment to the Indie movement. In all honesty, I would find it beyond appalling if someone told me that they were in desperate spiritual need of a local community to pray with but were staying away because they were committed to the Indie movement—because in that case, they are putting the Indie movement before God and their spiritual well-being–and that to me is unacceptable and raises commitment to the Indie movement to the level of idolatry.
“to whom does it suggest a lack of commitment” Lyngine
I think that my concern was / is that by being involved in more than one worshipping community the urgency to community build can suffer….hurting both the OC/IC fellowship as well as the more established parish. This is why for over a year I celebrated the Eucharist week in, week out….my passion was to build a living weekly Eucharistic fellowship. When the fellowship evolved into something else, a monthly Eucharistic celebration…..I must admit at first I felt a sense of personal failure, but I began to see that the fact that people were now coming regularly (where as previously they hadn’t) meant that it was fulfilling a role, a spiritual need, a need that they hadn’t encountered outside the ISM.
However, the fact that we only celebrate the Eucharist monthly, and I wish to be present at the Eucharist weekly means that I do have to attend other churches (I do know of OC/IC priests who say Mass alone…but for me this presents several theological problems…). At first this did concern me, was I being true to my IC/OC vocation? Now, as I said in the previous posting, I take a more pragmatic view…which translates on the ground as being committed to the ISM but understanding that in order to be present at the Eucharist weekly necessitates that I also attend another church. I think the metaphor that Lyngine employs gets to the heart of what I’m striving to say: “it’s something like being an American citizen but living in a foreign country—one doesn’t stop being an American citizen, either in identity or obligation, just because one doesn’t live exclusively in the USA.”
However, the fact that we only celebrate the Eucharist monthly, and I wish to be present at the Eucharist weekly means that I do have to attend other churches (I do know of OC/IC priests who say Mass alone…but for me this presents several theological problems…). – Will
This is slightly off topic, but I won’t serve a liturgy alone, either: how can the gathered community (2 or 3) make the Eucharistic presence if there is no gathered community? Recently Alexis and I tried a new thing. I have been in the same situation but for a couple of times recently. Alexis and I did a concelebrated liturgy where each of us were at our altars united by internet video and audio via Skype. We each did parts of the liturgy (as normal in the cases of concelebration), serving communion at our own altars. This provided us each with the opportunity to commune and offered a couple of ideas for use of interent technology for evangelism and outreach.
Like Huw and Will – I won’t celebrate the Eucharist sole – for the reasons Huw mentions, and a few more (I’ve posted on this before) – indeed we forbid sole celebration in my community.
Our celebrating with Huw two weeks ago so he did not have to be alone was a real treat. The idea is not novel – but has been done via one media or another by other churches (and usually invovling football stadiums – grin). I can see this as one way – at least – where very small communities, or individual clergy who find themselves alone in the wilderness – can come together for worship & fellowship – to encourage one another – and to ensure a continuity of community life.
I think that the employment of modern technology in the form mentioned by both Huw and Alexis is very interesting, providing a means of Eucharistic community for those separated by geography…must try it myself.
Hi Will,
yes, it worked rather well, my tiny community here in London with Huw in NY. We took “parts” until the anaphora when we did it simultaneously at our individual altars.Then we took time to visit afterward. Looking forward to doing it again.
About two years ago . . . or is it three now. . . when we had more people in the synod – we did a Sunday evening prayer once every two weeks via skype. Each time someone else in the community would “lead” it. That worked really well too. We often had folks from three or four different places on the call (with more than two – you don’t get video on SKYPE).
I think Tim, Joseph, & Lyngine have a similar project going – you might get some ideas from them too.
It’s well worth the go.
Actually, it’s Chris T. who has the ministry that goes on exclusively on conference call
. The Traditional Liturgy Apostolate in the jurisdiction prays Compline from the Monastic Diurnal every week (Tuesday night) by conference call and has been doing a variation of this regularly for over a year. Chris T started that and heads it up. People take turns doing various parts of the Office. It’s worked very well and they’ve figured out how to pray the Office in this format.
We actually use conference calls for a lot of things—everything from weekly seminary classes, weekly novitiate formation, monthly prayer/fellowship for professed religious, etc. We also do what I call “random phone vespers”—pretty much anyone in the jurisdiction, who just happens to want to pray with other folk, can put a notice up on our yahoo group to see if anyone is up for vespers via conference call that night or the next day–as long as there’s one other person, it happens. There are some weeks when some of us are on the phone 2-3 nights—this in addition to the weekly Sunday Mass, weekly Wednesday Vespers, and monthly Friday contemplative Vespers.
So there are several opportunities for people who are at a distance to keep in touch and worship together on a regular basis. It’s not always ideal and it doesn’t replace being part of a local Christian community but it does seem to keep people connected to each other and to the jurisdiction. The majority of us are also on Facebook and that helps with having a sense of what is going on in people’s daily lives—it’s incomplete, of course, but it’s a nice way to share daily things with people in the jurisdiction.
If Skype permitted multiple people on video, it’d be something to seriously consider. The main caveat would be that there’s a range of financial and technological resources across the jurisdiction so it’s not such an attractive proposition to begin something that would automatically exclude folk due to economics or technology.
I think the trick for us isn’t so much using any new type of technology—it’s mostly phone stuff. It’s more a matter of having regularly scheduled times to interact/pray across a distance that we all commit to as a community.
(Our jurisdiction permits priests to celebrate Eucharist in private so that’s not an issue for the ICCC clergy. +Tim talks about it in John Plummer’s book (The Many Paths of the Independent Sacramental Movement).)
And, of course, all this stuff that we do can be done by individual folk across jurisdictions as you and Huw have already done
.
Pingback: Bože! » Blog Archive » Adrian & Natalia