Over the past two years I’ve enjoyed a number of books researched by, written by, and published by Indie folk. Even those texts that I don’t necessarily agree with bring a smile and a nice dose of pride.

One aspect of this (I hope growing) scholarly production of indie history and theological voice – that it seems we have not yet come to grips with is the idea of peer review. I’m not talking about the traditional expectations of “peer review” – that just won’t work in our indie setting, besides the traditional method is being (rightly) challenged with new, more efficient, and it would seem more accountable, and engaged methods (see for example this article in the New York Times).

It would be nice, however, to have a degree of confidence that the work our own researchers are producing has been collectively edited by known experts in OC/IC history, ethos, etc. Naturally this raises the question of who are our experts. Moreover, it challenges the existing difficulty of getting those experts to engage with one another, and with other interested Indie writers.

It might be simply that we start a “trend” in the community for new books to show/state that they have been reviewed by, and commented on by three different “known experts” – thus giving other indie folks a sense of confidence that this work is relatively well put together – rather than the rantings of some grumpy crank wanting to see his or her name on the cover of a book.

In this way (or something similar) Indie writers and researchers can build their reputation in the community as solid researchers – as eventually, the “new guys” will be asked to review a work by someone even newer – and sound representatives of the tradition. Thus expanding the circle of experts, and further encouraging engagement within communities, and the wider Indie scene.

What do you think?

Via a suggestion through reading Bp. Rob Angus Jones, newest book, I’ve bought a copy of Abba Seraphim’s Flesh of Our Brethren. It is published on LuLu, which some of you know, I’m a huge fan of for producing much needed quality Indie research and resources. You can visit our own little kiosk by clicking here.

I’m only a third of the way through Flesh of Our Brethren, and so far I cannot reccomend it enough. Don’t let the typesetting put you off – Abba Seraphim has clearly done the research, and his presentation is both clear, readable, and well documented.

Flesh of Our Brethren focusses on the histories of three principal figures in our history, St. Mar Alvarez, Abp. Vilatte, and Bp. Ferrette, and their connections to the Syrian Church.

If you have already read Flesh of Our Brethren, and would like to share your own impressions, please do so in the comments below. Once I’ve finished it I might post a “proper” book review here.

I just realised this morning that we’ve been working on this project, we call the “Theo-blog” for four years and . . .one month (well 4 years, 1 month, and 3 days) now. Happy birthday blog!

When I started this experiment back in April 2006 I never imagined that it would have the staying power that it has had. Why? Because blogging is fickle and most blogs are created, and abandoned within the first year or so (at least that’s what I’ve read) – and I did not expect that our effort here would be any different from “the norm” in this regard. Try it, see what happens, learn from it, maybe make some new connections with other interested folk and move on. That was the attitude I had coming into this.

So has it worked?

Well, yes, after a fashion. Through the connections we’ve made we’ve made new contacts in the Indie community. Through the process of writing, reflecting, and engaging with others doing the same thing about the same topics I’ve come to better understand the “why” and the “process” of some elements of theology and the history of the OC/IC movement. It has also occasionally made me think about things in entirely new ways, as well as changing my mind on long held assumptions.

So here’s to another four years, one month and three days . . .

Reuters reports (Wed. 10 Feb 10) that the Synod of the Church of England criticised broadcasters – the BBC in particular – for the steep reduction in “religious broadcasting”. Claiming that this actively marginalises religion and treats religious programming as “freak shows”.

I’m sitting here thinking about the report and a few things come to mind about this. First – what qualifies as “religious” programming? Is it historical/documentary? Is it an exploration of current theological trends? Is it a balanced presentation of the positions on a current issue from the perspective of different traditions? Or, is “religious” programming praise, preaching, and televised services?

I think it is very difficult to get the shape of a program right in both categories. The BBC recently offered Diarmaid MacCulloch’s excellent History of Christianity. But much of the “documentary” programming on historical and current religious issues falls into the realm of thoughtless agenda pushing, or mind-numbing “lets stick to the script” surveys. Both extremes neither inform, nor encourage deeper interest and exploration. Then we have the worship/service category – and the “flagship” show for this here in England is “Songs of Praise”. I don’t know about you but from the perspective of one in the sacramental/liturgical tradition this sort of programming . . . is simply awkward. When I lived in the States there were often channels that televised the Liturgy once a week. “Watching” the Liturgy is not the same as “participating” in the Liturgy – it becomes an anthropological exercise rather than a participatory experience. I think if I were a non-liturgical Protestant, it would be less awkward because preaching, prayer, and praise can easily be done regardless of the environment (though I suspect if that’s your devotional bent – it is still more comfortable to be in the presence of others, sharing the experience).

Aside from the occasional well designed documentary, or exploration of a particular topic within a given tradition, or among various traditions – religious programming is awkward. It seems to me that part of this freakishness is as much about context as it is about content. Simply televising a worship service, or liturgy is not good religious programming because it takes that “experience” out of its natural context and plops it in the viewer’s lap. Something else, something more tailored to the media is needed – and that almost never happens. Even Songs of Praise – which clearly makes an effort to do this – does not quite make it.

Something like 50% of internet users connect to their faith tradition on the web. Because the net is relatively “novel” individuals and communities putting the good material up are tailoring the shape and substance of their presentation to better fit the medium of the internet. The benefit of this avenue of presentation of course is that the material can be produced for different audiences, within the spectrum of a tradition, and not be pigeon-holed to suit the lowest common denominator so as to attempt to “make good TV”. The medium throws open the doors to better quality material, more in-depth exploration, and the possibility of graduating from the mere bullet points of an issue to a developed presentation of the finer points; allowing the viewer to stop and start as needed.

Here’s an interesting article about a recent study in religous trends. I’ve not actually had time yet to look at the study itself (still reminding myself that I do indeed speak English after 2 weeks of intensive French) that’ll have to wait for a few days. But I invite you to get a head start and pop your thoughts in the comment box.

OK, so this morning I was struck by something as I quickly scanned the recent weeks of the Calendar project. Roughly – throughout the past four months – that is one quarter of the year – there have been on average only 3.5 commemorations per month of female saints!

Obviously this is not “scientific” – as there are some months in the year that have many more commemorations of holy women in the history and tradition of our faith. But I wonder if it might not be better to . . . “spread them around” a bit better to get a sense of the balance that is naturally there?

Balance afterall is a very Eastern idea – look at the liturgy – when we pray together there is a strict order of balance for all sorts of things – like the saints, the trinity, the Theotokos, and for our own needs and commemorations.

One reason why this balance is not immediately apparent in the calendar is that we tend to commemorate a given individual on the date he or she died. This introduces a bit of natural randomness. However, I cannot help but wonder too if there is not a bit of un-conscious bias in the compilation of the menaion?

Eumenios was a pious bishop who started out in Crete, and travelled to Rome, then to Thebes in Egypt. He died at a very old age, and his relics were returned to Greece.

So not wanting to discount the value of St. Eumenios – but for the purposes of our project – his commemoration will probably get bumped by someone for whom more information is available. The criteria we created two years ago when we started this project stipulated that in order to be included in the new menaion there had to be a story, something to inspire the reader, and the community. I spent 10 minutes looking in various sources and found not much more than this. Oh, and he performed a few miracles. That’s cool – but not everyone performs miracles – there must be something else – something that we can all aspire to as faithful indie catholics.

Siobhan’s newest book, the product of her Phd work, is of interest to “Indie-philes” as it is a historical exploration of the links between Western esoteric Christianity and the Independent Catholic movement.

Priests, Gnostics & Magicians traces two particular streams of esoteric links in the indie movement, first the link with French Gnostic movements, Martinism in particular, and second, the link between Theosophy, and the emergence of the Liberal Catholic tradition.

It’s worth noting that “esoteric” ideas and movements are not particular to the indie community but pre-existed us in both the Roman Catholic, and Protestant traditions. One of the earliest attempts at deciphering Heiroglyphs, for example, was heavily influenced by esoteric ideas. John Dee, Elizabeth I’s astrologer & diviner (curious at a time when religion, in particular the “Christian” religion was a political hot button issue in England and in Europe generally) as well as Newton were of a heavy esoteric bent.

You can grab a copy of Siobhan’s book at Amazon by clicking here. A link will also appear on our kiosk page very soon.

Huw had a great idea which I think is worth sharing/exploring – and that is trying to “source” sources of incense locally. He listed a few aromatic herbs like sage & juniper which are easy to grow. But I’d be curious – any other ideas?

I’m going to go rummaging around my garden & herb beds tomorrow to see what I can come up with for liturgy! This should be fun.

I realised this afternoon that I’d not yet revisited the Indie Voices Archive page to re-organise it after the move from Blogger to Wordpress. I thought – since we’re getting ready to do some more interviews – that it is well past time to get this part of the site underway. I give you the new revised Indie Voices Archive page - which will over the coming months develop to include a broader range of interviewees and interview topics. Suggestions are welcome on the topic front by the way.