The other day when we were discussing the symbolism of “the collar” John asked: “Is priesthood always a public office? I’ll give you that historically that has been the case most of the time….. but what about monastic priests (e.g. Carthusians) with no public ministry? Or hermit priests in the desert or on Mt Athos?”

At the time I answered quickly “yes the priesthood is absolutely a public office” and promised to explain myself more fully later. I’ve been playing with this now for a few days it will take a few postings but I’m going to begin an attempt at an explanation. This is not a systematic approach and is in no particular order – this by way of asking for your patience whilst I hap-hazardly cobble my thoughts together.

John’s example of monks is interesting. Asceticism is first and foremost an individual spiritual discipline. The ascetic withdraws from “the World” to persue a life dedicated to transcendence. This is a private, personalised discipline that was quickly drawn into the “public” life of the church in a number of ways.

Individuals, for various reasons relating to the spiritual life, sought out the ascetics, drawing them away from their isolation into the life of the community. Asceticism then evolves to take on the character of a teaching office. Famous examples include St. Antony who lived in solitude for twenty years (I think that’s right) before returning to teach others how to benefit from what he learned. The “private” evolved and became very “public”.

Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Jerome and others presented the life and discipline of the ascetic as examples for emulation. These “living martyrs” bore witness to the truth of the Gospel, and the benefits of philosophy. A community that was surrounded by ascetics, and which had a cadre of virgins dwelling among them, was a blessed and protected community. These individuals, practicing a very individualised spirituality became the first line of spiritual (and physical) defence for the community of believers. Their “private” life of prayer and discipline – was now VERY “public”.

Christianity is, in its essence an explicitly corporate, communal, public, faith tradition. This is one reason why classical and neo-gnosticism, and New Age teaching are in some respects anti-thetical to the Christian tradition.

Athonite and Carthusian monks do provide a “public” ministry because their life and example are known to be a part of the life of the “whole” body of the community of believers in their particular tradition. These individuals have withdrawn from “the World” but have not left what St. Athanasius calls the “civic life” i.e. the life, cycles, customs, and vision of the community of believers.

Some years ago, I took a course at VTS on the Theology of Priesthood. The bulk of the course focussed on OT and NT sources before exploring possibilities for the life of the church today. It was a great class. The professor, a Presbyterian elder & theologian, shared his belief that one day there woudl be no clergy, and probably no large congregations, but a group of people gathered in someone’s living room, and when the moment arrives to celebrate the eucharist the host(ess) would prepare a table, and there celebrate. This was my first serious exploration of ideas woven around the idea of a priestless society of believers.

Interstingly last night, while visiting with someone after conducting an interview for the Archive I was asked what I thought of a priestless OC/IC community? There is a span of over a decade between these two occasions but throughout the intervening period I’ve had more than one occasion to play with this idea with others. Often, its a member of the community raising the question – wondering outloud if it would be possible, and how it would affect our theology.

I think it is a very interesting question, not because I support the idea – I do not – but because it makes us sit down together as a community and expore our understanding of the role of the four fold order, the theology of ordained ministry, and finally, our theology of the sacraments.

I’ve not thought out all of the possibilities – it is afterall a speculation, a bit of theological play intended to shake things about and see what falls through the sifter that might be a real gem of discovery.

In no particular order I offer some of my own questions:

What is the role of Apostolic Succession here? If we assert that the priest is the one who secures it for the community does this not affect the efficacy of all sacraments where there is no priest present? Does this not also make a statement about the disparity between the ordained orders and the order of the laity?

What is the role of the clergy in our communities (at least those communities not attempting to replicate Rome, Canterbury, or Constantinople minus a few inconvenient dogmas)? Freed from the expectations of particular institutional models does this not give us an opportunity to revitilise the role of ordained ministry? How are we doing it already? What might be lost if we were to cultivate priestless societies within our OC/IC movement?

What is the pastoral effect on people – their visceral, undefined response to a priestless eucharist? Would this impede our ability to effectively communicate our message, and be agents of grace for others, for one another?

These are only a few of my questions. I would be intersted to read your responses, and to see the questions you raise.

I’m still very much in the initial stages of pulling my thoughts together on this.

It strikes me that in the rite of absolution the prayers and actions point to God, his love for us, his mercy, his compassion, and understanding, only once – and then only briefly is the “power to bind” mentioned – at the very end.

The theological and pastoral emphasis is NOT on the “power to bind” – quite the contrary it is on God’s overwhelming love & compassion. Again I am faced with the teaching that we must forgive as God forgives if we are to be confident in recieving forgiveness ourselves – the “power to bind” then, would seem to play a very different role than that presented by the theory proposed in another place.

In the context of recent discussions on the mechanics of forgiveness Fr. Chris Tessone & I were debating the concept of restitution (among other things); in that debate, changing tack, Chris asked: “what do you think the power to bind means, as given to the church and especially the apostolic priesthood in the Gospels?” At the time of reading his comments I was in a hotel in Paris, my “then” computer was not long for this world, and the next 20 days were going to be rather full, so I had to post-pone the conversation. Now, as promised I’m opening the door on this one to see what we find on the other side.

I’ll start by saying that these are only my initial thoughts – I’ve not yet had the chance to sit down and really have a good think on it.

I think that in order to best understand the idea of the “power to bind” as Chris puts it – one has to look at the role of the priest in the sacrament. I see a series of markers on the topology of the sacrament: the priest is the agent of the community, the priest bears witness to God’s act of forgiveness to the individual, finally the priest’s pastoral act of bringing closure to an episode/process for the individual. I’ll work with each of these in forthcoming posts, but scoping the landscape of the sacrament I think is useful because it highlights the simple fact that the “power to bind” can only be properly understood in the context of a “whole” experience. Take it out of that context and you are immediately faced with an abuse of “power”, and a mis-interpretation of the value and theology of the sacrament – thus my opposition to the theory being proposed in another place about the mechanics of forgiveness.

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).

Lent is a great time for asking questions, and jumping into the debate about the theology of our faith, our tradition, and our future, both as a local community, and as a wider movement. Lent was the period in the late antique church when converts – preparing for baptism were offered all the time in the world to ask their questions, and have them answered.

Blogs are great because they are a natural forum for this sort of thing. They allow me (your host here at Bože) to ask questions to see what others are thinking on a topic, and to to join in the fun. They also allow you to ask questions and see what sort of loopy answer I offer – thus allowing you to also join in the fun.

Lent is the time we set aside in our faith to dig a little deeper. What are you thinking about during this Lent? What would you like to engage with another believer about?

**** Note: This post has been edited 12 Feb 07 ******

An interesting question was posted in another place with respect of cultivating more unity within the indie community:

Assuming mutual respect, and a common acceptance of the basic tenets of the orthodox faith, could the issues of female clergy, and Marian doctrines be considered matters of liberty of faith (i.e. set aside between disagreeing synods for the sake of unity). The brother who posted the question observes that these two issues appear to him to be two of the most contentious points among indie synods, I am aware that the issue of ordination of women is, but I was not conscious of Marian doctrine being contentious – though that might simply be that I’ve not had the “conversation” or encountered others in the community for whom it is a matter of interest or importance.

First I’ll play with the Marian issue – being that it happens to be my academic speciality (grin). As a “good indie boy” of the “old school” I naturally reject the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception – in part because I am also free from the. . . . “anomalous” thinking and subsequent interpretation of Augustine, I also reject the Roman Catholic doctrine of “Original Sin”.

(you may now throw your rocks). . . .

feel better? . . . . Good. . . now . . . onward. . .

I’m a big fan of Mary – theologically I think she has a unique value as an image of theosis (indeed it could be argued that she was the first paragon of theosis). Without her participation in the mechanics of the Incarnation – the economy would have needed a “phase two” so to speak – because the “fullness” of humanity was required and that naturally meant that the Second Adam (Christ), also had need of the Second Eve (Mary).

Personally, I do not resonate with the western portrayal of Mary – in visual media, liturgically, or in piety . . . to me personally, she comes across in these depictions as . . .”weak”

My preferred image of her is summed up best by a line from a hymn: “to you our queen, leader in battle” She is the philosopher queen, she is strong of mind, powerful, and at the risk of being stoned again . . . I’ve got this image of her not as a “femme fatal” of so many western paintings – where she raises her limpid eyes upward, surrounded by fat naked babies with the miraculous ability to fly, glowing in powder blue taffeta dresses and white silk chitons – but instead . . . . (and I’m now ducking for cover behind my computer screen) . . . . “lesbian biker chick with a PhD”!

****Mariology is not – I think a matter hugely effecting cooperation and unity within the movement – even in the fourth century the Fathers acknowledged that some emerging aspects of Marian thinking were NOT essential elements of “orthodoxy”, moreover, much of today’s “mariology” particularly in the indie community is about spirituality, style, and custom rather than substantive theology.*****

Moving swiftly on . . .

Ordination – I’m going to expand beyond the point of ordaining women, and just say “ordination”, here’s why:

My community’s logic goes like this.

1) You are baptised.

2) You are therefore a “full” Christian – a “full” citizen – a “whole” believer. Having been robed in Christ – you are properly called “christ” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem)

3) In Christ there is neither jew, nor greek, nor slave nor free etc. (St. Paul) there is therefore “full” equality and “full” membership in baptism . . .

4) in baptism we are all the living icons of the high priest himself (St. Paul). . .

5) it is therefore absolute bunk! of the highest order that a well trained, well qualified, faithful, engaged member of the community – who has committed him/herself to the life, vision and values of that community ought not be ordained.

You see – there is absolutely no need whatsoever to even talk about gender, marital status, or sexual orientation. Isn’t scripture great!

**** The issue of women’s ordination (in particular) is one that is largely grounded in Tradition, rather than substantive theology – we neen only point to Epiphanius of Salamis (writing in AD375) to see this point in action. As indie folk – we have the responsibility and the freedom to discern the value and challenge the propriety of “T”radition. Though I sometimes think we are not always well enough equipped, or empowered to do this well. ******

The idea, that there could be a substantive unity between synods where something this fundamental to the day to day ecclesiology of a community is “set aside” – where the gifts of grace we have as individuals and as communities cannot be fully shared between the synods in question, is simply ludicrous.

***Ordination then, is an issue that proves to be problematic between two or more communities. It is not merely a matter of “respecting” differences – it is a matter of on the ground, practical . . . trust. The community that does ordain women/lgbt folk is always going to be cautious, or even self censoring when engaged with the community that does not – and vise verse. This is not a “real” realtionship – rather it is to a large degree a forced conjunction for the sake of appearances.

****”Unity” is elusive – it is a strange term too, I think it means different things to different segments within the indie community. I think we need to work at a foundational level, building relationships among individuals, and individual communities, and allow that to gain an organic momentum, and to be free to “be” what it will be. Only these relationships will last, and prove to be the building blocks for future developments. Instant gratification is not spiritually sound, in short. ****

John Plummer asked: “And other one – What are key resources in classical theology that modern indie folks can draw upon in finding our unique way forward?”

Hmmm. . .I’ve been sitting with this one since you asked it. I’ll admit that this will not be a complete answer – there are quite a few competing thoughts in my head so I’m going to pick a few to get the ball rolling so to speak.

First, I think it might be helpful to create a working definition of “classical theology” – here’s mine: the thinking and experience of the Apostolic/Late Antique church. That is to say up to about the 6th or 7th centuries.

Once you get beyond the late antique period you are no longer in the realm of “classical theology” but have entered medieval scholasticism in the west, and well, I don’t know what we would call it in the east, but scholasticism is a very different development. A development which is built upon classical theology; so you budding scholastics out there still have to go back to the source I think.

I ought to also point out here that I would not argue that a solid grounding in classical theology is an effort to re-create the apostolic church or an idealised past. I’m sure by now some regular readers are rather tired of me hammering on about this point – but it is, I think a very important point – especially in our contemporary religious climate (and I’m not exclusively pointing to our indie community here).

Rather – I believe that a solid grounding in classical theology paves the way for some really exciting contemporary theology. On one hand I think that in our OC/IC context, where we really need to invest in our voice and vision – cutting out the middle man (medieval, counter-reformation, 19th century ultra-montanism/tractarianism/spiritualism), or even just shaving his beard off, frees us to BE us – and to delve into the images, and ideas un-encumbered from the start (what we choose to bring in after we have started is an entirely different matter).

So, for these reasons, and more, I think the initial resource we might draw from classical theology is a conscious awareness of much needed building blocks – upon which we can then build, innovate, and re-develop and also to borrow (but do so fully aware of the reasons why, rather than blindly accepting an inherited image or idea)

Building blocks allow us to explore anew, and to answer for ourselves and others, questions related to central issues of our faith as we – for example – what are the mechanics of the incarnation and why do we perceive it the way we do – what value does it contribute to our understanding of Christ’s mission and purpose? What ramifications for later ideas such as (for those who accept it) “original sin” do these ideas have? How does this lead to new understandings? Are these understandings unique to our community or do we share them with other Christian traditions?

I would add that the great thing about classical theology – regardless of the theological perspectives you may now hold – is that all of us (indie or no) share this heritage and so it immediately creates a common starting point for discussion, and exploration. Once you get beyond the late antique period you begin to see quite a bit of divergence – particularly between East & West, but also within those traditions. “Classical theology” is the common denomonator to it all the bedrock upon which the vast majority of later theology is built.

There is another, more pragmatic point to make here. The works of “classical” theology are readily available, and cheap (often free if you know where to look). Moreover, there is a host of equally available, and inexpensive resources to help explain and explore them. In our indie context where many of our ministers are trained within the ranks rather than at universities (for my thoughts on this see my April 18 Post: Degree or Not Degree) I think this is a huge boon.

This also leads to another related point – if our various communities used classical theology as building blocks, and grounded the majority of our ordained ministers (and where possible our laity) in them, given the fluidity with which our folks move among synods it would ensure a confidence of “basic knowledge” upon which to work with. This is a tangent I admit – but it is not unrelated to the initial question (I don’t think).

One of the best resources that we can draw from classical theology then, is the building blocks it provides for future development and a common denomonator that would I think facilitate cooperation and dialogue.

Last week we were in Paris for a much needed get away. While there we visited the Cluny Museum which is dedicated to medieval (mostly ecclesiastical) art and artifacts. The museum is well planned and does have some fantastic pieces – ivories, the famous “lady & the unicorn” tapestries, and a great collection of medieval enamel work (a current interest of mine as I’m learning how to do it myself). Unfortunately, for both of us, after the 50th pot bellied carving/statue of the Virgin one simply wants to escape! This, from a Marian scholar, is I think rather telling (grin).

Along our escape route we found “this” (pictured) amongst a rack of other waffle irons. If you’re still puzzled – “this” is a medieval host-maker. I’ve always been fascinated by the history of the Western tradition’s manufacture and use of these characterless, tasteless, insubstantial, bone white discs of dried glue. This is the first time I’ve seen a medieval example of the method of host production.

As you may have guessed I am not a flat-jesus (nor for that matter a flat-earth) believer. Yes, it is true we are an Eastern community, so our bread will be leavened; but, and this is a big but, even if you come from a Western community – don’t you think that the leavened/unleavened bread of the Eucharist ought to be “REAL” bread? I do!

When you go to your local church supply to buy your pink or tope box of “ghostie toasties” (usually enough to last any OC/IC community for six months!) have you never thought of how these tasteless, pasty, discs are made? Monastic elves perhaps – sitting in their dank caves under the city cutting out cardboard circles? Enslaved women and children in a S.E. Asian sweat shop maybe? No no . . . a MACHINE! It is the most impersonal, in hospitable process possible. Even if there’s a smiling monk or nun pushing the button – it is still a machine. Am I the only believer who finds this . . .contradictory to the whole ethos of “Eucharist”? I doubt it very much. But, we have inherited the ubiquitous ghostie toastie and so few question it. “It is how we have always done it.”

There is another issue here which is worth a moment of reflection: the money spent on your pastel box of Christ Crispies goes to support another church – probably a church that looks upon our communities with haughty disdain. Do you really want to contribute to their coffers, when they do not respect our tradition, as we respect theirs? Granted it is not that much money, but the point is symbolic – as is the Eucharist.

The other day – when I opened the proverbial cathedral door and invited you to ask whatever thoughtful questions you had about things OC/IC – John Plummer posed a long standing, but very worthwhile question – what makes us indie folk distinctly different from the other churches? I have a long list – and am sifting through them to pick, what I think are the choicest ones – but herein lies an important example. The oft heard line “It is how we’ve always done it” – holds no water in our communities. Why? The answer is simple – if you, or your congregation is using this line – they have NOT (yet) appropriated an indie identity – but are still thinking with a Roman, Anglican, or [insert your favourite Christian-ism here].

One of the most distinctive characteristics of our OC/IC community is that we are absolutely freed from the tyranny of the “that’s how we’ve always done it” crowd. Anyone who has had enough experience amongst the “big-tent” crowd will know instantly how much of a hinderance to good ministry, and how demoralizing this crowd can be. Most of our local communities have less than 20 people, and many of them have only been “members” for a few years. Obviously this has its negative points – but the biggest positive is easily presented with the example of the Eucharistic bread.

Why do you use “Ghostie Toasties”? Seriously – and if you are answering “that’s what we’ve always done” then please go back to your original church. If, on the other hand – you answer, “I don’t know” or “I’ve never thought about it” then I invite you to keep reading – leave a comment – and possibly take your ideas on this back to your community. Here too is a distinct characteristic of our OC/IC communities: One individual’s thoughtfulenss can have a positive impact on the faith experience of the entire community – on very short notice – the moment of inspiration – is not lost or supressed as it often is in the “big-tent” community.

Why not use real bread? The question is not about using leavened vs. unleavened bread – rather it is about the substance, and the symbolism of that substance. A distinctive characteristic of our OC/IC community is that we are not bound by the rules and customs of Rome, Canterbury, Constantinople, Moscow, Alexandria, or (increasingly) Nirobi. So, why not go to your community and ask – what is the value in continuing to NOT use “REAL” bread? If the answer is “tradition” or “that’s what we’ve always done” then I strongly suggest you either encourage a thoughtful discernment process to answer the question – or find a more thoughtful and engaged community.

Let me take a moment and offer some reasons I believe all OC/IC communities ought to use “real” bread, and not the ubiquitous “Christ Crispies”.

When you consider the symbolism of the Eucharist what comes to mind? Many would say hospitality – and I think that nestled among the many layers of this complex symbol of our faith hospitality is an important image – one that has recieved quite a bit of scholarly attention in the past ten years or so. It is also the “conceptualisation” of Eucharist that often gets in the way of real and substantive dialogue, and union in OC/IC communities. “Why?” simple, because one group will not sit at table with another, because rather than celebrating our shared heritage, many in the current movement, joined for all the wrong reasons – as a reaction against a position in their home churches – if you are one of these folks – please, I am begging you, GO HOME!

Now lets think about hospitality a bit more deeply. Hospitality is about relationships – familiar and freshly emerging. Relationships are about care for, and interest in the “other”. One need not look far in the Gospel Narratives to see how Jesus taught us the importance of this message.

Relationships build and shape community, and community establishes a sense of identity. How better to develop a thoughtful understanding of belonging to, and identifying with a community, than to know that one of the most central symbols of that community, the symbol that strengthens the bonds of relationship within that community, is produced in the community, by its own members.

Hospitality, is about relationships – not just any relationship, but personal face to face relationships. Knowing the face, the voice, even the touch of the one who made the bread is an experience of relationship that cannot be replicated by mechanical means. The Eucharist is about the very personal relationship we share with Christ. Moreover, in our sacramental context, it is about our appropriating (initially through baptism) a “Christ-likeness” and with it, our going out into the World cultivating “Christ-like” relationships with others – the stranger, as well as the familiar other sitting before us.

Real hospitality is substantive – it says to the other, “welcome” in such a way as to be an unforgettable experience. Should not the Eucharistic elements be a part of conveying this “substance”? When we reflect on the message of the Gospel – that (I hope) feeds our every action – do we not agree that this teaching, this example is substantive? If not – then perhaps you ought to consider another faith all together.

Finally, in the ancient tradition, the offerings of the community, the bread, wine, wax/candles, cloth were brought into the worship space and the deacons chose, of the bread and wine, the most appealing samples, and from them the celebrant chose the one that would be offered – the offering in thanksgiving, that is the most representative of all the offerings of the community. You can still see remnants of this practice today in many E. churches, particularly in Coptic churches. What is done with what remains? This becomes the community’s offering to others – the poor, the shut ins, those who do not have enough bread. The elderly, the infirm, the lonely, those who live on a fixed income and “subsist” on the nasty mechanically aerated bricks of gluten called “bread” in today’s supermarkets, their day would be brighter if presented with home-made, bread and a friendly face.

What is distinctive about our communities? Three, five, or twenty, size does not matter, but with this one act of hospitality, of open fellowship, of care for others, a tiny handful of thoughtful people can make a substantive difference for others. It’s about relationships, its about personal interaction, its about the substance of our faith. Here we have it – with a few simple steps we have brought out one of the truest meanings of the Eucharist: encouraging, nourishing, our own self understanding as the living ikon of Christ in the World; just by thinking about, and possibly changing, the mechanics of how we offer, our Eucharistic offering.

It’s time we abandoned the ghostie toastie, and made our own bread!

I’m . . . “borrowing” (hope you don’t mind Jordan) an idea from another indie blogger. While I am not a Gnostic in the classical sense I enjoy Jordan Stratford’s Ecclesia Gnostica In Nova Albion blog. Therein, if I’m reading correctly, he has “Ask A Gnostic Priest” Giving readers an opportunity to ask a question – any question and (assuming it is a thoughtful question and not someone being . . .Oh my! Dare I use the English colloquial . . .”a wanker” (te he he – such titillation) he will post an answer.

So I invite you, dear readers, to take advantage of me. . .Oh my! You KNOW what I mean!

What “qualifies me” to serve in this way, you might ask? Well. . . I’m a “classically” trained theologian, and during my time of servitude at the feet of various universities I’ve taken advantage of their libraries to research OC/IC history. I’ve been an active Indie for over a decade and along the way have met some very sincere and interesting people, as well as the truly horrible and manipulative charlatans. These experiences and encounters have shaped and re-shaped my thinking about our heritage, the state of the movement, and my own community’s aspirations.

So, any honest question relating to theology, church history, or OC/IC issues is invited. If I cannot answer it for you, I’ll do what I can to point you toward someone who can.