What ever happened to initiation into the cult (mysteries) of our tradition? This was the question that popped into my head whilst doing some reading this afternoon on an entirely un-related topic. I spent some time playing with the idea – and while I have no answers (as yet) – just lots of questions to play with – it has been a worth while thought exercise.

I have always thought that there is a value in the process of initiation. It might be due in part to the organisations I was active in in my youth, Scouts, and Christian fellowships both in High School and through the first two years or so of my uni experience at Pitt. In Scouts there were any number of initiatory rites, moving from say Weblos to Boy Scouts, to ascending the “ranks” towards Eagle, as well as being selected for, and initiated into the OA. Two of the Christian fellowships I was involved with during my first two years at university worked – informaly – along the lines of initiation; to be asked to participate in the “inner circle” of prayer, Bible Study, and planning for example. I was never invited because I was thought to be quite dangerous – even deamonically posessed. At the time I was part of these groups I was not conscious of the iniatory characteristics of some of our activities – it is only with distance and the passage of time and reflection that I “see” it now.

Here in the UK there is a popular evangelical program designed to bring people to Christianity which also works on the same principal as the Christian groups I participated in at Pitt. They begin by holding events that everyone is welcome to. Throughout the course of the program some are invited to participate in events and retreats that are separate from the whole – and have a different focus. An undercover reporter for the Guardian exploring this program, in an article I think it was two years ago now, wrote how wanting to see what the “next level” was like he tried to get invited and was rebuffed because it was deemed that he had not converted, or committed to Christ (true he had not – he was I seem to recall Jewish). But here again, in a very consicous formula though not formally recognised or structured or even celebrated as is the case in a sacramental community – there is (for good or for ill) a process of initiation.

In the liturgy of John Chrysostom – in the older (more traditional) form of the rite, there is a point at which the unitiated – the catechumens are “expelled” from the sanctuary. St. Germanus (d. 733) says that they go out because they are “uninitiated into the baptism of God, and the mysteries of Christ” Cabasilas writing 7 centuries later echoes Germanus when he writes “we are about to proceed to the sacrifice, at which the uninitiated have no right to be present . . .because so far they have only received Christianity orally and by instruction” adding that the priest first prays for them that in the proper time they may complete their initiation. Today, the assumption is that those in the sanctuary are baptised (and thus able to recieve) so the prayers for the catechumens are often omitted.

There are quite a few examples in the Gospels where Jesus takes the “initiated” to one side and teaches them, or as in the case of the transfiguration invites them to participate in or witness a theophany, or manifestation.

What is the value of initiation? It seems to me that the primary value is that it allows for a considered transition from not having an identity as a member of the community to sharing in the experience of, and development of the exploration of the community. Initiation is a movement from a surface knowledge – an “intellectual” appreciation of the theology and cult of the community to an intimate, appropriation of that thinking and experience. I’m sure there are others – perhaps some more mystical, “esoteric”, or symbolic but this is the one that jumps to my mind right now. The value of initiation rituals is that it allows the person to be fully a member when he or she crosses that threshold.

In our OC/IC context we appear to have all but dispensed with initiation into the cult of the local community. Other sacramental communities have done this too – though some, like the Romans, and the Lutherans are actively reclaiming it. Why? Because we lost something when we surrendered the traditional rites of initiation. What exactly is lost is I think difficult to name.

Why have OC/IC communities dispensed with initiation? I’m not certain I’m able to name all of the causes but there are three that come to mind which I think are well worth exploring. First – and I’ve already pointed to this above – the vast majority of those joining our communities are already baptised; second we live in a culture that in many respects is driven by a demand for instant gratification ; third it seems to me that our having abandoned rites of initiation reflects the fact that unfortunately, the theology of (and even the impetus for the existence of) many OC/IC communities is shaped not by the experience of faith – an encounter with Christ – but by socio-political ideas about inclusivity, and exclusion.

That the vast majority of newcomers to the movement are already baptised poses a practical problem for any initiatory rite that a community might develop. What if the person comes from a sacramental community – do we say that for a period of time they are not to receive? How is initiation into a new and different sacramental Christian identity undertaken (i.e. what is the process what is the rite – when the person has already been “initiated” in the traditional sense of the word)? Ought initiation into a new community, with a new identity, be undertakend or re-claimed so as to allow for the person to mourn and heal over the loss of their former community, and prepare to enter fully their new community, with a fresh outlook, free of the past? How long should such a process be – I don’t know – but surely it ought to be longer than a few weeks – one only gets his feet wet in that time.

Germanus’ comment that the uninitiated have not recieved the baptism of God and the mysteries of Christ – might be helpful when considering how to approach the already baptised converting. That is to suggest that with those who have already experienced baptism elsewhere, and even reception of the Eucharist have not received initiation into the thinking and experience of the OC/IC community. What I have observed over many years is that our communities often have no staying power precisely because too many of our “members” have not had the opportunity to experience a transition from having the identity associated with church/tradition X to having an identity as an OC/IC believer. We have over the past forty years unconsciously surrendered the value of identity and belonging.

We live in a culture of instant gratification. Flip a switch, push a button, bing bing and its ready – having to wait for something, or invest personal effort over the long term in something is not at all popular in our culture – if I have to wait beyond my attention span, I abandon the endeavor and go elsewhere where they’ll give it to me NOW. This by the way is a very real problem adversely effecting our community with respect to ordinations and even more devastatingly consecrations – leading to wholly unsuitable candidates being ordained and consecrated – leaving them to cause no end of damage not only to the spiritual well being of others but also the reputation of our community as a whole. One of the joys of our community is the freedom to explore and experiment – not all experiments work – but we owe it to ourselves to ensure that those leading our experiments are well formed, and have integrity. Because we unconsciously fall prey to the NOW mentality – which drives our culture, we do not always take the time needed to choose wisely, or form well.

Formation – allowing a new identity to sink in, allowing someone the time and the breathing space to invest in, and value our tradition is almost entirely absent from the way we receive new “members” in most communities. In my own experience of trying to foster formation in a number of ways in community – I have learned that it is one of the most difficult things to do because of the overwhelming demand of NOW.

The fact is, however, that the spiritual life is a life of discipline, of observation, of experimentation, exploration, engagement . . . all of which require time, investment, patience, and the conscious abandonment of NOW. Ought we not offer something new to those coming into our communities – a consicous pervasive attitude of allowing the Spirit to infuse, to allow the person to experience that Peace of Christ, to find a moment of quietude? This is something our small communities, can effectively offer; we have the time to do this, and it can only benefit those joining the community if right off the starting gate they are introduced to an entirely different attitude toward and method of approaching the spiritual life.

I have posted on this next point in some depth previously, but it is one that is pervasive in the wider OC/IC community: it seems that we frequently shape our theology, even our ecclesiology via the lense of political ideology – rather than, grounding our vision and values in the Gospels and allowing that to shape our socio-political outlook. This has a very limiting affect creating, paradoxically – swathes of exclusivity in our communities.

Inclusivity is an issue in most progressive OC/IC communities. In relation to welcoming new members into our communities inclusivity is a front and centre matter – and rightfully so. But I wonder if in trying to be welcoming and inclusive we are not also surrendering something that is equally valuable – and independent identity. By not investing in, or developing a period of initiation giving it a context that says this is about making sure you the seeker/enquierer/new convert are fully included in the life and cult of our community, we are I think doing a great dis-service to our movement, and our tradition.

In our desire to address issues of inclusivity we have, I think over-emphasised some elements at the expense of others; what is more, it seems to me that the over-emphasis on things like the use of inclusive language, and our having abandoned a process of initiation, substantially narrows the possibilities for innovative and more effective expressions of our inclusivity as OC/IC believers; indeed I would argue that in some cases it actually reproduces the exclusivity many are fleeing from, or seeking to avoid.

One might like to argue that a program of initiation is exclusive – as I’ve said already I think that a well developed program does the exact opposite: it cultivates a new identity, it allows for the appropriation of that identity, and a sense of full belonging and inclusion in the life and mission of the community. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with saying to a seeker/convert this is open to you and this is how; or this is available to all members of our community when they are ready. To my mind this communicates to the seeker/convert both the welcome and inclusive character of our community, but more importantly the willingness to invest in the people and relationships that shape that community – it goes beyond the fluff, and surface layers of politically correct inclusivity to the substance of what it really means to be included.

There is value in re-claiming the idea of initiation – even for those seeking to join our community who are baptised. I think it would be a worth while investment in the relationships that form and shape our community, and in the future of our tradition. Initiation cultivates a sense of belonging, and can encourage a fresh approach to the spiritual life.