The question, asked in another honourable place is one I’ve pondered for a year or so now. Is the OC/IC movement a “New Religious Movement” (NRM)? I would take it one step farther and ask, that for those of us old school types who understand Old and Indpendent Catholic as having certain distincitive qualities; are those communities that fall more clearly into the ISM category (sometimes without any reference to the historic OC tradition) a New Religious Movement? Ugh!

First, lets take a few moments to “define” a New Religious Movement (I think the definition has shifted slightly over the past 10 years since I first encountered the term). It is worth pointing out that there are recognised problems in crafting a clear definition of what an NRM is, as is evident in this very interesting essay by George Chryssides. He suggests three bench marks for identifying an NRM:

1) An NRM is relatively recent – he is purposefully vague here allowing for the need to recognise that other definitions using for example WWII as a bench mark, or the early 19th century, either already find groups included that are “not” generally percieved as an NRM, or because they are on their second or third generation of believers – cannot realistically be considered a “new” religious movement.

2) An NRM is outside the mainstream. Erm . . . ’nuff said I think (grin). Though, on second thought, there is in our community a wonderful, if not frustrating mix of synods and local communities striving to be more mainstream than the very tradition they draw their converts from – as I’ve noted in other posts I think this is to our detriment. We are best served by being fully indie, who we are, and not constantly judging our belief and praxis against that of another “Christian-ism”.

3) An NRM draws its membership from the surrounding culture/society (i.e. it does not have a tradition or heritage).

Chryssides’ definition is imperfect – and he openly points this out; but it is still, I think the best definition I’ve seen.

Now to the question are OC/IC communities an NRM? Erm . . . Um . . . well . . . . by now you may have guessed why it is that I’ve made a distinction between OC/IC and ISM in this instance. Our heritage, our tradition can be easily traced to the 18th century – it is not “recent”. We are “outside” the mainstream in some things, and not in others – what is more the spectrum of OC/IC communities is such that some are “more” outside the mainstream than others but can still be classified as representative of the historic OC/IC tradition. I think, making a quick mental survey, I’d have to say that based on ekklesiology, and in some cases theology, and praxis, the OC/IC community does qualify as being “outside” the mainstream. Finally do we draw our members from the surrounding culture – yes. But more importantly, unlike other commonly acknowledged NRM’s we do not generally acknowledge, celebrate, or even consider the value of conversion. Many of our members “drift” in, and eventually “drift” out (or in some cases explode). I think it is safe to say that the OC/IC community falls within a gray area it is and it is not an NRM.

Now lets take a second and talk about those groups that are ISM but which are also clearly (and often self identified as) NON-OC/IC. Based on the examples I can quickly call to mind I think it is right to say that all of them are indeed NRMs – most having emerged quite recently, being often VERY much outside the mainstream, and drawing their membership not from a stream of history and tradition, but from society at large.

I do find it curious . . . no interesting that the lists and references to NRMs I’ve seen in print and online do not mention the OC/IC community with the exception of the LCC (because of its links to Theosophy) and the Mariavites; why? Is it because we are so little known? Is it because we are not considered by those who research NRMs to be one? Is it because we are strictly speaking not ‘one’ group?

Another thing that emerges in my own mind reflecting on this question – other groups that might be classified as NRM (at least for a time) that are now reaching another important bench mark – that is the second or third generation of believers – or people raised in the tradition. This is something that our OC/IC and ISM community has consistently failed to achieve over the past 75 years. Does this mean that we are somehow, something different? NRM’s for various reasons have a sustainability that OC/IC communities do not appear to have or engender – largely because so many of our members see our communities as a nice transition space, or a stopping off point to other things, or a temporary refuge from the disquiet of their own home traditions.

In all of this it is worth asking if we are comfortable being classified as an NRM? I see myself as rooted firmly in the OC/IC camp and its tradition and heritage so that means we pre-date most of the mentioned date-lines such as the early 19th century and WWII. In my own community how “outside” the mainstream are we? I think its fair to say that once you cross the border there is no need for worry. My own family has a long connection to the OC/IC tradition – but I know I am very much a rarity in the wider movement. Am I comfortable then being classified as a member of a New Religous Movement . . . .sure! I’m proud of my tradition, I’m both comfortable and confident in my own life in, and belief in this tradition, our heritage. Though, I must confess that each day I find I encounter on the one hand persons and groups that I want to have as much distance as is humanly (and superhumanly) possible between them and me, whilst on the other, I want to turn toward and embrace and support my faithful brothers and sisters in the wider community – who strive to exemplify the best in our tradition. Hey – that’s no different from any other faith tradition maybe we’re not as “outside” the mainstream as we might think (grin).