A friend and I are undertaking a project and this is an excerpt of the rough (working) draft of my contribution. The whole thing will be available soon.

This is a “rough” “working” EXCERPT of a larger draft – having said that, I welcome your considered thoughts, reactions and ideas.
_____________________________________________

In many traditions, authority lies with “the church” represented by the formal institutions and hierarchies of a particular ecclesiastical body. No such institution exists in our tradition, and most of us within the community would not like to live to see the day when it did emerge.

Most churches hold that the mind of the church is infallible, some invest that infallibility in an individual, or group of individuals. Our heritage is in part born of a rejection of the former, but has not, to my knowledge, addressed the possibility of the latter.

I believe it is time for us to abandon the traditional belief in the infallibility of the mind of the church, particularly if we are to seek to do theology in our OC/IC context with integrity; this doctrine is both an affront to reason, and contrary to scripture.

Paul writes, “for we know only a fragment [of the whole] and we prophecy only from a portion [of the whole].” Even with the movement of the Spirit teaching us, aiding us, urging us on towards the truth, there is no condition under which, in the World, “we” the communion of believers are able to claim individually or collectively any degree of infallibility. Perfection has not yet come to humanity – we need not look hard at our world to see that this is true.

We believe that theology is a gift of the Spirit; that the Spirit lives and moves among us, teaching us, guiding us, urging us on towards a true knowledge of God. One might argue that as the Spirit, who is infallible, is resident in, and working in the activity of the church, and the lives of her members, that the “mind” of the church, rooted as it is in the Spirit, is in fact infallible. The flaw in this argument is plain to see, we are human, and our capacity to understand the whisperings of the Spirit is limited by the finite nature of our intellect. Moreover, what happens in transmission between the voice and activity of the Spirit, and the realisation of that voice or activity among the communion of believers in the World is an indeterminate “X” factor of uncertainty. All we can hope for is to strive towards faithfulness, having confidence in God’s love for us.

A doctrine of the infallibility of the mind of the church serves to bolster the confidence of the community in the pronouncements and teachings of the institutions of that church. Infallibility also has the effect of imposing (??) a perception of the institution as being an authoritative voice of the theology of that particular church. At the current time, in the wider community, there is no identifiable authoritative body of trusted theologians, interpreters, men and women of integrity who speak to our needs and express our understandings. Since we have no such institution in our OC/IC community, does it mean that there can be no authoritative source articulating the authentic theology of our OC/IC tradition?

We must face the simple fact that in our community at this present time, there is no respect for authority within our own ranks. When I speak of “authority” I am speaking not of the power to enforce, or coerce, but to say that an “authority” is an individual, or coherent group within our community, that is trusted, and widely accepted as reliable, because of their knowledge, skill, and experience of the OC/IC life, spirit, history, and belief. The voice of such an authority is heeded not out of fear of reprisal, nor from coercion, but out of respect for, and trust in the one (individual or body) speaking. We read in the Gospels how people responded to Jesus, and how they were inspired by his teaching “. . . because he spoke with authority.”

One reason for this is the lack of staying power in relation to our leaders. Because we have not as yet cultivated a strong sense of identity, and membership; because we have not invested in community, and in relationships, no sooner does an authoritative voice emerge, then it is overwhelmed by other issues, other agendas, impatience, and competing, rather than complimentary voices.

Given the personal history of many people within the movement it is easy to see how there is no active forum for cultivating this needed authority. Most now in the movement have fled other churches precisely because of a real or perceived abuse of authority. Moreover, within our own ranks, how many of us have not at least once, experienced the effect of misplaced, or mis-used authority in individuals and in jurisdictions? There is, therefore, a real need for conscientious efforts to build bridges of trust within our own community, as well as healing the wounds of those who have been seriously injured because “authority” was not properly understood and exercised by individuals and groups who claimed it.

Many in the OC/IC movement, respect the authority figures of other traditions, almost with envy, and from afar – even when disagreeing with them, rather than to firmly align themselves with the known authoritative voices in our community, or to invest in cultivating the potential in those (groups and individuals) who in time will become such authorities; and God forbid that known authoritative voices band together to seek ways of best representing our tradition, in all its wonderful diversity!

Diversity is a double edged sword on one hand the diverse voices in our community “might” compliment and inspire one another – when voiced in respect and mutual admiration, (even when in disagreement); on the other hand, and what is unfortunately in our OC/IC/ISM context, the most common paradigm, diverse voices in our ranks compete, often attempting to overshadow, overthrow, and silence one another. This is both destructive for the whole of our community, and painfully demoralising.

We have no consistent, widely recognised forum for engaged, intelligent debate and dialogue on matters of OC/IC theology – a “place” where our known authoritative voices assemble, and where anyone else in the community may observe, and participate; to borrow a phrase from another context, we do not have an OC/IC commons, no debating chamber, or public-square.

These historic forums have developed, commonly recognised norms for engagement, to ensure that issues are thoroughly explored, thoughtfully considered, and that contributors may still walk out of the square with both their dignity, and their person, in tact. These are historic places where authoritative voices emerge in politics, philosophy and social issues. Because we do not have an OC/IC commons, we have no place for our own authorities to emerge.

There have been nascent efforts in the past. Unfortunately these fail miserably and repeatedly. The reasons for this regrettable and regular failure are myriad they include competing agendas, and unspoken desires of one or more participants to “become” authoritative. They, then campaign in various ways to bring about their recognition. But because “authoritative” often equates with “authoritarian”, both in its realisation, and in its perception, this campaign creates further division, and demoralisation amongst participants; division, and demoralisation that spreads like a sickness beyond the chat rooms and retreats, blogs, and web pages, into the wider OC/IC community.

Given these obstacles, how then can we find and cultivate the much-needed authority in our theology? I cannot say as though I am able to offer a singular model. I can see that any number of models would be very effective. I can however, point to an attitude which regardless of the model that emerges, is essential if we are to overcome the existing obstacles and develop a uniquely OC/IC Commons. Jesus said: “I give you a new commandment: love one another. As I have loved you, so you also should love one another. This is how all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” The attitude of love for one another is so important that Jesus makes it a condition of our expressing discipleship.

Through baptism we have each committed ourselves to be students of the Master – disciples of Christ, indeed we are images of Christ in the World – ambassadors of God’s Word to the World. We therefore live an active life, striving to say “yes” to God’s activity within and among us, to remain open to the movement of the Spirit. Responding affirmatively to God, being receptive to the movement of the Spirit among us, requires that we interpret, discern, and seek to understand this action, these suggestions. This is the essence of theology.

Theology is the medium through which we articulate both to one another, and to others, our experience of our discipleship; it is a living language and cannot be repeated in another context. Because theology is the language of our discipleship, it is also the language of love. Seeing how we love one another (or not) is how others will know we are truly disciples of Christ, ikons of the Living Word in the World.

Unfortunately, “love” is an overused, and little understood term in contemporary Christian vocabulary. If we are to approach developing an OC/IC commons with an attitude of love as the means of overcoming known (and unknown obstacles); then we owe it to ourselves to have a clear understanding of its meaning – and through that meaning, its value to the goal of cultivating authoritative OC/IC/ISM theological voices.

Part of the key to understanding “love” agaph in this context is the last half of verse 34: “As I have loved you, so you also should love one another.” Christ’s love for us is one that is both self-giving, and confers upon us value and goodness. When God first created man, he did so and immediately loved him – conferring goodness upon him. He did not evaluate or grade the degree of Adam’s goodness – he simply said that he was good, and blessed him. There was no expectation of reciprocity, because God the Logos needs nothing from us, in order to achieve personal fulfilment. Thus, as Luke Johnson has written: “Given worth by Christ’s agape, we become the channel of passing that love on to others whom we love, not evaluating their goodness and without motivation.”

How does this shape our attitude of love in developing an OC/IC commons? If commons members approach one another with no expectations other than to acknowledge the goodness in other members – that is free of all other motivations; the value of their voice; the worth of their contribution (even when we disagree with them); the fact that as a committed member of the OC/IC community they are the image of Christ before us, then we have entered the realm of loving one another, as Christ loves us.

Paul teaches us the central characteristics of this attitude of love when he writes: “Love is always patient and kind; love is never jealous; love is not boastful or conceited, it is never rude and never seeks its own advantage, it does not take offence or store up grievances. Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but finds its joy in the truth. It is always ready to make allowances, to trust, to hope and to endure whatever comes.” Each characteristic of love points to an openness in dealing with others. Consider for a moment some antonyms of these qualities: impatience, jealousy, conceit, mis-trust; each signifies a closing off, or restriction of the point of reference, each lacks openness.

The attitude of love – to be able to actively strive to fulfil Christ’s command to love one another as he loves us, is not easy, and requires conscientious effort – discipline on the part of the one who loves – the true disciple. The discipline of love is one way each of us seeks to say “yes” to God.

The attitude of love in relation to developing an OC/IC commons, and an authoritative theological voice within our community is not an argument for relativism, where everything presented is accepted and affirmed as a true representation of the spirit of our heritage. There is such a thing as “bad” theology; to say “yes” to a theology that is lacking in one area or another lacks integrity. Theology that has no integrity is not authoritative. Moreover, a commons that has no integrity does not command the respect, and consideration of the community. Approaching one another with a loving attitude does not mean we do not challenge the ill-considered, the ill-formed proposition; but we do so recognising the goodness in the person, seeking to draw from their work, benefit for the whole community. Thus, building the community up, encouraging one another, we fulfil the teachings of the Gospel, and demonstrate our discipleship.

Theology is the ongoing work of seeking to know God, to unpack, interpret the mysteries and meaning of revelation. Thus, “[w]hoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. In this way the love of God was revealed to us: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might have life through him. In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as expiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also must love one another.” Theology undertaken without the discipline of love produces nothing more than meaningless noise, it has no value, it is not “good” and ought therefore not be given voice in our community.

Abandoning the traditional doctrine of the infallibility of the church in favour of an openness, a freedom to go where the Spirit will lead us, is not irresponsible, but it does require a great deal of personal and collective discipline. Moreover, in love we find that we are more accountable to one another, as well as being far more vulnerable. It is for this reasons that an OC/IC commons is a necessary development in our community. Here, our authoritative voices emerge it is also the place where our OC/IC theologians actually do theology. Just as the commons needs an attitude of love to bring together our best voices from diverse parts of the movement, so too doing theology requires love.