According to the Pew Forum on Religion in Public Life, 76% of Americans describe themselves as Christian. However, only 45 % are able to attribute the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. A majority of Americans self identify as Christian, however, nearly half of that group don’t know what it is that they are identifying with – at least not according to the usual definitions. This raises the interesting question of what is Christianity “now”, and do we perhaps need to renew or reform our commonly understood academic markers of Christian identity. The inability to identify key markers of Christian teaching and culture is not an exclusively “American” problem. Similar studies have been done here in the UK and the results are not significantly different. This is an element “religious illiteracy” – and it is having a corrosive effect across religious interactions, as well as within British and American society.

“New Atheists” use religious illiteracy to promote their agenda. Dawkins and Hitchens are fully aware that they are being less than honest about the nature of religion and belief – but to do so serves their rhetorical purpose. Using religious illiteracy Christian fundamentalism here in the UK for example, can promote false ideas about the persecution of Christianity. Religious illiteracy allows televangelists in the US to amass vast fortunes on the backs of the poor and the lonely. The shameful decline in the understanding of the nature of science in the US and now the UK is firmly grounded in religious illiteracy. Religious illiteracy has a very tangible impact on our day to day lives. It effects how people view one another. It effects our praxis, as well as our own self understanding as people of faith.

But lets take a moment to talk about religious illiteracy in the our OC/IC context. And yes – it does exist for us – which is both sad and amusing when you consider that our history is grounded in the ideas and protests of the intellectual elite. A number of recent conversations brought this home to me in a way I never before considered. A friend attending an indie liturgy over the course of a few weeks, was asking people in the congregation about what brought them int to he OC/IC community. They could not answer the question because – they did not know that they were worshipping within the OC/IC umbrella! Indie websites are a hard thing to view sometimes – precisely because of the overwhelming amount of religious illiteracy published there. One example of religious illiteracy that pops up repeatedly on OC/IC websites is that on one hand the community prides itself in its Old Catholic credentials – the usual: apostolic succession, liberal thinking, and adherence to the Declaration of Utrecht, while on the other splashing pictures and homilies online showing the community’s celebration of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception! These are simple, easy to see examples. They do however, demonstrate that the challenges we face in the Indie community are not that different from those of other Christian communities.

Why call it religious illiteracy, and not religious ignorance? I prefer religious illiteracy because it is active and not passive. Religious literacy is about participation in, and engagement with the ideas and praxis of faith communities – the religious literate has the skills to participate, and actively seeks to better place him- or herself in that context. To be a religious literate is more than “knowing” historical facts, and official teaching, and being able to reproduce them. Centuries ago people who could read would still call themselves “illiterate” – not because they did not have the ability to read the text on the page, but because they did not have the skills to participate in the literary culture of the day. These “illiterates” were not participating in the production and consumption of literature and its surrounding ideas and practices. Religious illiteracy functions in the same way. Thus, to be a religious literate is to participate in one’s religious culture – to be engaged with its ideas, and to contribute to those ideas through the life of the community.

People who have left their religious community seem to do so in part because they seek to become more literate. I read an article that detailed a project in a Roman Catholic diocese that conducted “exit interviews” with people who had left the church. One of the issues highlighted in these interviews was that when people sought to explore issues and questions, they were more often than not simply given the “rule” or “official teaching”. In essence these folk were shut out of becoming religiously literate – and it (rightly) made them angry enough to leave. I confess that this point in the project surprised me. First – I have observed over many years of OC/IC ministry that people generally expect our clergy to be religiously literate for them rather than with them – essentially handing over their baptismal rights to someone else to manage on their behalf. Is this conditioning due to the fact that so many OC/IC folk are “former” something else? I’m not always certain. The response to the exit interviews conducted in the Roman Catholic project were also counterintuitive. I have frequently been told by folks within the Indie community that people are simply not interested in the theology, that they don’t care about the background, or the foreground for that matter. People want to hear about their hot button issues (one reason why they join Indie communities in the first place), they want to receive communion, throw a few quid in the collection and get the hell out. Here again I find myself asking is this purely due to conditioning – having had that exact experience in their previous community setting – or is it an active choice on their part? Do we not owe it to our membership to offer something better? I think we do – but first it seems we must break through the barrier that produces or maintains this unsatisfactory situation – we need to challenge religious illiteracy within our own ranks.

One challenge to tackling Indie religious illiteracy is the simple fact that our clergy and lay leaders are not usually religious literates themselves. The impact of this fact is plain to see – we have no voice. Not only are the laity “conditioned” to hand over their baptismal authority to others, but our clergy rarely offer anything beyond the stock answers and official pronouncements of another institution. This is a conscious strategy in part – at least as I have observed it over the years. Regurgitating the doctrine and rule of another, “larger” “more authoritative” institution is safe, comfortable, non-threatening. It is, many believe, what the people wish to hear. Really? If so then why is it that they are worshipping in a tiny, marginalised independent sacramental community if they did not wish to hear a different voice a bolder voice, a different perspective? The leaders of our own movement are letting us down. These are the men and women who ought to be forward looking, engaged, zealous for the tradition. What we find instead is that they are consciously and unconsciously promoting religious illiteracy! We ought to all be asking – of ourselves, and of one another – where is our Indie Voice? How can we possibly tackle religious illiteracy if we are not willing to be bold enough to break away from the stock answers of another “Church”? Rather than slapping up pictures of bishops in liturgical drag, or producing websites dripping in fake medieval coats of arms, why not instead publish the transcript of the community exploring an interesting aspect of praxis or theology? This speaks to our voice – this expresses the willingness of the community to lead, rather than follow – and it develops the religious literacy of Indie folk by drawing them into the conversation. Our own leadership fails to pass on the history and ethos underpinning our Indie identity – is it any wonder then that we encounter “Indie folk” who don’t even know that they are Indie?

We ought to expect and demand better. The only way that we, all of us, are going to receive the fullest possible benefit from the experience of being baptised believers and belonging to our individual OC/IC community of choice is to be religious literates; to be, all of us, well informed participants in our OC/IC religious culture. Being able to perform a flawless liturgy, and barf up Bible bytes, to know who ordained whom, and when A schismed from Z, is not what I mean when I say that we ought to expect better – the net is actually a much wider one, one that is truly “catholic” in that it allows for everyone who desires to be a religious literate – to fully experience such literacy, and thereby to contribute to the religious literacy of others through art, research, hospitality, teaching and conversation. The net of religious literacy encompasses the grand arcs of history art and theology to be sure, but they also include our personal histories, and the story of our collective journey. These experiences informed by all the other elements from the story arc of “us” and create our understanding of being religious literates “now” while also laying the groundwork for what might come tomorrow. Being religiously literate is an active forward looking process one that demands investment from each individual, as well as from the collective. Without it, we condemn ourselves to be fossilised samples of “The Church” of the 19th century – a common affliction among Indie groups. With religious literacy we become icons of the Living Christ. Tackling religious illiteracy within our own ranks will I believe result in stronger, stable, engaged, creative Indie communities. It is an opportunity to see an old problem in a new light – and together to take action and do something positive about it.
Where would you begin? What tools would you use within your small Indie community? Finally can you envision ways in which you and your community can reach out to collaborate with other Indie folk – widening the net, and becoming just that little bit more engaged?

How many Indie folk are there? This is a question that has been in the back of my mind for over a year now. I keep seeing hints – but nothing concrete. I’ve assumed that nobody is counting us. And even with what I found yesterday on the ARDA site – I’m not sure that there truly is an overarching study.

I suspect that such a study would be a nightmare to design. Who is and who is not “Indie”? This is one reason why John Plummer coined the term ISM – there are so many possibilities, so many branches, so many “tributaries” if you will that feed the stream we know as the OC/IC ISM . . . “Indie” movement. For my own part I generally only “count” those tributaries that have a direct link to either Mar Julius, or the Old Catholics. Everything else, while it can be loosely classified as “Indie” does not share the same historical thread as the rest of us. I know this is arbitrary on my part, but I also wonder if it is not also true to say that some of the other tributaries do not see themselves, or identify themselves as being a part of the OC/IC stream.

Yesterday, I saw this on the ARDA website. I found it quite by accident – through another article, that pointed to the section, but to another denomonation (UCC I think it was). At first you’ll think, this has nothing to do with Indie communities and getting a feel for how many of us are out there. But I urge you to take a moment and dig a little. You’ll find, for example, that the Liberal Catholics (both branches) are accounted for, so too is the Apostolic Episcopal Church, and the African Orthodox, among quite a few others. The stats account for both active and inactive jurisdictions. I was plesantly surprised that they were not all the big names like the PNC.

While these figures are drawn from various years and are not all consistent – that is up to date, and thus we can’t simply add them all up and get “a picture” of the current state of the movement, they do give us an idea of the shape of the Indie community over the past 50 years or so – and yes, in some cases up until relatively recently. It is not a perfect resource, but it is perhaps a starting point for talking about how many of us there really are, and what that could mean for our future sustainability – especially in relation to my post the other day about the supposed decline of “the Church” in Western society.

Decrying the decline of “christianity” in Britain has come from various angles over the past year or so. Church attendance is diminishing, its membership ageing. “Unbelief” appears to be growing. Though I would argue that it was always there and only now is it getting better, perhaps more accurate, press. Fifty percent of people living in Britain today describe themselves as being of “no religion”. How many of those are believers (in a real or vague sense) is difficult to ascertain – only that they do not see themselves as a member of a particular church or denomination. Ninety percent of those who are raised not associated with a religious tradition, do not later join one, or identify with one. That last figure, is interesting, but not entirely unexpected. Religious practice is something that you need exposure to to get below the surface of watching a liturgy, reading a few patristic writers, or looking around a darkened medieval church. Christianity in Britain seems to find itself in a situation where it is no longer a force to be reckoned with. Politicians and social and public figures, according to Rowan Williams, see religion as a “problem”, an “eccentricity” practiced by fringe elements and ethnic minorities. This last point should come as no surprise. Consider for a moment what popular media covers when it reports on religious issues: radical fundamentalists, and other “fringe” groups. Sadly, we Indie folk get lumped in with the latter group. We are viewed as a novelty, even though we represent a 200 year old tradition within sacramental Christianity.

Are we getting an accurate picture? Thinking about the possible numbers of Indie OC/IC folk for a moment. I am unaware of any accurate figures detailing the number of OC/IC believers. The last such figure I know of is from the 1920 US census. When the surveys are conducted there is not a space for Indie folk. Many people in our “sub-group” will say that they are “catholic” simply to make things easier, or because there are no other options. By the way – I always pick “other” and then fill in the blank if one is provided. If we had an accurate statistic of our own numbers then we might not be asking – is Christianity declining – because we would be asking a different question: How is Christianity changing, such that we are observing people abandoning large parish buildings in favour of smaller more intimate groups? Why? For starters I think that the Indie movement is larger than we think. When you are only counting church membership in the big-tent denominations I think you’re not getting an accurate picture of the health of the faith.

Is it that Christianity is declining, or is it perhaps more accurate to say that the nature of Christian expression is changing? I have seen quite a few pieces over the past couple of years suggesting that people simply cannot identify “Christianity”. When you consider the statistic I mentioned earlier – that the majority of those not raised in a religious tradition will not then seek to participate in the life of one – it is no surprise that people are ill informed, or wholly ignorant of what “Christianity” is. Thus, if people are no longer seeing the church building as a part of their life, they are no longer learning about the faith and its praxis, we should not be surprised to see figures suggesting that Christianity is in decline in Europe. It is! I’m not being alarmist. This is only one feature, in a much larger picture. I actually think that there are more “believers” out there than the statisticians have found. I think that what we are seeing is that the nature and expression of Christian practice are changing. People are relying on their online interactions more and more. People are avoiding or abandoning the scandal and infighting of the “institutional” churches. What we are seeing is an absence of “brand loyalty”. That is to say that people are not committing themselves to a particular “christian” identity. A Pew study a year or so ago showed that in the US even those who openly identify themselves as Christian are picking and choosing elements of praxis and belief from a variety of religious traditions, and spiritualities. The nature and expression of Christianity is changing.

Where do we Indie folk fit in this picture? Because Indie communities are less likely to be your stereotypical parish, it is safe to say that we are a feature of this change. However, I wonder, are we in a leadership role giving shape to the change, or are we merely following the path of least resistance to gain a few followers here and there? Are we allowing old models of “church” to die out, while thoughtfully examining and testing new ones? I believe we should be – the shape and nature of Indie communities is such that we have the creative advantage that could strengthen existing communities, and bear witness to the life and faithfulness of the OC/IC tradition. We need to be careful not to fall into the trap that so many of us witnessed in the late 80s and early 90s of reform or change, simply for the sake of change and reform. Change is adapting to new circumstances, it has substance and meaning. Change is not successful, it does not build up the community, when it is done on a whim of an individual, or a community.

Below are some of my ideas. They are not novel in themselves, but in a context, in our context I think that they can bring something useful to the table.

•        We live in a mobile society; people want to take it with them. I wonder if the decline in church membership is a product of our mobile society. Generally, we no longer live in the same geographic location for as long as we once did. You no sooner move to a place, settle into the life of a faith community and you move – again. I seem to recall once seeing a statistic that in the US people don’t stay in the same job for more than five  years on average. Jobs being a main cause of people moving from one place to another. It is easy to see how this can be disruptive, it is no wonder that many people have turned to less stationary sources for spiritual growth and communion. Our increased ability to be, and remain interconnected, wherever we are through such things as social networking, the internet, mobile phones, video phones (e.g. SKYPE), allows us to participate in an active, engaged community scattered over a wide geographic region, that may only meet in a given place quarterly, or once a month. Outside of that physical meeting however, the conversation, and the relationships within the community continue wherever individual members might be in real time. This reality – and it is already a nebulous reality in the Indie community, may mean that we develop further adaptations consciously managing issues related to this new way of being in communion, being church. For example, we might find it necessary to continue the oft maligned practice of ordaining more people than is traditionally deemed necessary – if it means that an increasingly mobile membership can easily “take it with them”, sharing with others the OC/IC tradition, introducing them to our expression of sacramental Christianity. This would mean however, that we have a much needed conversation within the movement about ordination, what it means, how it works. It also means that we will need to take serious steps to reign in the abuse of the office, laying out broad principles of quality control, that heretofore have not existed in any real or consistent manner.
•        Who are you? A lack of understanding or knowledge about the basic shape of Christianity is certainly a contributing factor to the notion that the faith is in decline. “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles. . .” Luke’s idealised image of the post-Ascension community in Jerusalem is not pure myth. Surveys have shown that a congregation that has a clear understanding of who they are and what they are about thrives. This is not to say that Indie communities ought to take on the Fundamentalist perspective of everything is a black and white choice. We are after all sacramental Christians and that means we are those who revel in the grey. We stand in the tension between black and white, and celebrate it. Can you put your finger on a few lines to give a total stranger an idea of what Indie Catholicism is? Indie communities tend to “assume” a knowledge of sacramental christianity, of the historical OC/IC ethos, and “Christian culture”. I think that this is a mistake – we are missing an opportunity here to not only empower and breathe new life into our existing communities, but to reach out to nones. We need to have the conversation about our core identity from one bishop to the next, one community to the next. More importantly however is the very real need to empower individuals within the community to own that identity and put it into action. Only then will we find our communities adapting well to new circumstances, weathering trials, and flourishing.
•         Make resources, and make them accessible. Home grown Indie resources (such as this, this, this, this, and this) designed for individual and communal use are sorely lacking. Just as we “assume” an understanding of Christian ideas and culture, we tend to “borrow” (or continue to use) the resources of other churches without adapting them to a new situation, a new setting – an Indie OC/IC setting. If we are to see stronger communities within the movement, people need to have access to clear useful resources. Prayerbooks are one of the most popular Apps for phones and tablets. Books, blogs, and pamphlets covering a wide variety of topics of theology and praxis from an Indie perspective not only aide existing members in their participation in the community, but they can also be an effective way to reach out to new people. People may not necessarily participate in a specific community, but they are seeking moments of solitude, reflection, engagement, nourishment. I have on more than one occasion heard someone describe their path to conversion from one tradition to another. A common thread through them all is how reading one book, one essay, hearing a talk, or watching a video or documentary inaugurated the process. I have met many others who, while never setting foot in a church, regularly read or view resources from a particular set of writers, artists, creatives within a given tradition. These resources feed their hunger for spirituality and engagement with God. Who is my neighbour – the one I will never know.
•        Its all about “attitude”. A group’s attitude colours everything they do. Indie communities have a number of historic attitude challenges, for example some communities are reactionary, others look to the idealised past, rather than the now, and the future, still others emphasise a particular issue almost to the exclusion of all others. I have discussed these and other elements of OC/IC communal life throughout the blog. A community’s attitude can have the effect of narrowing its ability to adapt to the changing landscape. Attitude can greatly strengthen the community’s ability to adapt, develop, and grow – not just in terms of numbers of members, but more importantly, in terms of its engagement with the active life of a sacramental believer. What is the overarching attitude of your local community? What is the tone, the approach to change, and issues of bishops, clergy, and laity in your community? Is the boundary set too close, or is there plenty of room to expand into the unknown, the unexpected?
•        Be visible. There are no accurate numbers on the size of the Indie community. One reason for this is that it is difficult to create a clear “category” for OC/IC ISM and “other related, but not related” groups. The reasons are relatively unimportant, however, it does mean that we have no idea if the tradition is growing, declining, or static. Nor do we know more nuanced demographic data such as the age range, the continuity of Indie adherence within families etc. This lack of statistics says a great deal about the nature of Indie Catholicism, and how we are perceived by outsiders. It means that if we are to be, or continue to be leaders of adapting to the modern sacramental Christian landscape, we must actively seek to engage, befriend and learn from one another. Moreover, those conversations held in appropriate forums can expose nones and others to the living OC/IC tradition, challenging or dismantling historic stereotypes some have about OC/IC communities.

My list is not about “getting bums on seats”. It is about a much needed conversation about how Indie communities can and in some cases are already adapting to the changing expression of sacramental Christianity we see around us. I think it is better that we use the existing shape of OC/IC communities to be proactive, to lead, rather than to follow (or struggle to keep pace). I believe that any adaptation we undertake ought to focus solely on strengthening existing communities, and empowering Indie believers. Growth in any given community is perhaps a beneficial by-product, but faithfulness is the first objective.

Have a look at these videos over at the Guardian. I thought it was a very well put together “intro” to Green-theology. Where would you start if you were to put together an Indie Green Manifesto?

If you’re not already a fan of Retronaut – I cannot recommend it to you enough – it is one of the most interesting, quirky sites on the net.

In a recent edition are these pictures of an abandoned church in Buffalo, looking through them I started “feeling” a sense of loss, mourning even, for the many individuals who contributed to the life of that place.

Then I started thinking about the two churches my own family were associated with – one Old Catholic, the other Roman – both now defunct.

Nothing we do is permanent – but it is rather unsettling to view a place with so much individual and collective “spirit” invested in it – even during your own lifetime – as you would a Roman temple, or Egyptian tomb.

Stepping away from the physical building for a moment I find I’m more interested in the loss of community, identity, and with it belonging. My grandmother lived through the change of her local parish church slowly shutting down, its community dissipating, people she’d sat with and visited in church for years no longer there – having had to find another parish – and there feeling like a stranger no doubt. She often commented on how she felt the loss, how sad it was, and how odd it felt.

Indie communities have an unfortunate tendancy to be highly fluid and very impermanent. It is perhaps one of the more difficult aspects of being active in the movement; you no sooner get settled in the life of a community when it shifts or dissipates.

I’m not merely talking about change – change is a natural part of life, and to think that it would not not also be reflected in our faith communities is naive (I guess this is perhaps one of the most effective arguments against “Traditionalists”?).

Some changes are more than that however, they quickly, dramatically alter the nature of a thing. The priest moves and the community dissipates because there is no replacement. A clique within the community “makes its move” and fractures the whole. A dispute with a bishop, or within the wider synod throws everything into chaos. Many of us in the movement have seen this, or lived through this at least once.

What if we were to reflect on the images of hollowed, empty, abandoned church buildings from a generation earlier and use these as a point of reference?

Consider how people, individuals and groups, invested their time, creative talent, hard earned money, and most importantly their spiritual activity and alliance in making this “place” (community) their spiritual home.This community was an integral part of their personal and collective identity. This community was an expression of their faith and devotion. These are only a few of the points we might reflect on.

Now put it in the context of our own Indie setting. For most of us the “building” can be little more than a metaphore – an “icon” if you will – drawing our conscious thinking to bear on our actions. If we kept in our mind’s eye the most haunting shadow of a former community – such as one of the images in this photo essay – asking some of these questions not only of ourselves, but those within whom we have each invested our own time, talent, and relational energy – would we then find that we have more creative ways to overcome the challenges of the historic fluidity and impermanence of our Indie communities?

The spirit of a place, the shadow of the soul of the community that called it home, can I believe be a moving “icon” for Indie folk seeking to invest in their long-term relationship with one another, and within the tradition.

The BBC has an interesting – if not slightly ghoulish – article about a new technology for disposing of corpses.

Two methods are described. First is called alkyline hydrolysis – which basically turns the soft tissue into sludge, which is then sluiced away into the sewage system; the remaining bone and metal are sorted, and reduced to dust – ready to be returned to the family. Second is “promession” or freeze drying. This method is as described on the box – the corpse is subjected to liquid nitrogen, agitated to break it down, dried, and returned to the family.

Over the centuries humans have had many “technologies” (can we use that word in this context?) for disposing of the dead. Egyptian mummification, being one of the more famous, involves eviscerating and drying the corpse, while also preserving key organs to be interred outside the body. In the Himalayas there is (increasingly rare) sky burial – the body is broken up by a specialist and fed to vultures. Cremation – long popular in pre-christian Europe and the Mediterranian was revived (I think I have the time-line right) in the 19th century – and “industrialised” very quickly thereafter. Charnal houses are another method – the body is buried for a period, exhumed, the bones cleaned and sorted, and in some cases (I think this is still occasionally done on Athos) the biography of the individual written on their skull. In Indonesia one community wraps the dead in layers and layers of cloth and keeps them “resident” at home for up to five years before moving them to a communal storage facility. We humans have many ways of ditching the dead.

Each method reflects that community’s approach to an individual’s place in the community, the link the living community shares with its dead, death in general, as well as that community’s understanding of the nature of the body – and indeed the corpse.

So here’s my question – what do these “new technologies” for corpse disposal say about some fo these deeper questions we have about relating to the living, and the dead?

From a Christian standpoint how does liquifying granny’s corpse fit into our theology of the body? Our sense of respect for the life and identity of that individual?

The BBC article puts these new technologies in the context of being increasingly green in our approaches to corpse disposal. I’ll be the first to support that – but I wonder is something lost when it becomes a purely sterile, industrial process? Do we who remain loose out on important psychological and spiritual stepping stones when the corpse is “processed” whether by modern industrial cremation, liquifaction, or freeze drying?

And is this really any different from sky burial, and mummification? I suspect one thing is very different – there is no “ritual” linked to corpse liquifaction – thus, the process of saying goodbye seems somehow disjointed or interrupted. Likewise with modern industrial cremation.

I’ve been doing some research in preparation for a possible paper on Vilatte and have been struck by the regular appearance of ethnicity as a theme in the early history of the OC/IC movement. It has me wondering what – if any -  is the legacy of “ethnicity” in the contemporary movement?

When Vilatte was first installed as an Old Catholic mission priest in the Episcopal diocese of Fond du Lac in the late 19th century his principle target was the Belgian and French Canadian inhabitants. They did not use the Episcopal BCP, but the Old Catholic liturgy in French, as well as traditional French & Belgian festivals and customs. The mission was an effort, on the part of the then Episcopal bishop J.H. Brown to address the needs of the 30 different ethnic groups he found in his diocese. The Francophone inhabitants would not accept an Episcopalian priest because they believed that the Anglicans did not have valid Apostolic Succession, and that they were Calvinist heretics. What is more their uniquely English prayerbook, with customs and traditions that were aligned with the Episcopal Church’s English-Scottish heritage, where unfamiliar to the French and Belgians who were by and large “nominally” Roman Catholic.

Brown’s problem was not unique. The Roman Catholics were also struggling with ethnic tensions. When for example Fr. Charles Chiniquy was sent by Bishop Van der Velde of Chicago to Bourbonnaise, Illinois he noted that it was because the largely Francophone population there were suspicious of Irish and German priests. When Frederick Katzer became Archbishop of Milwaukee in 1891 his nomination was opposed by some in the Irish Catholic community who saw his appointment as part of a program of “germanisation” of the archdiocese. The emergence of the PNC in 1917 was largely the result of tensions between the Polish and Slovak community and the largely Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Vilatte’s work, the work of Charles Maguire, and that of the PNC (which also has some historic connections to Vilatte and his work) all have a common theme – a strong emphasis on a particular ethnic group. If we look at the Old Catholics on the continent they are organised along national (ethnic) lines – the Dutch, Germans, Swiss, Slovaks, and Czechs – so in some respects it was only natural the Vilatte and the leading figures of the PNC, for example focussed on particular national groups – enabling them to build communities and provide a continuity of mission, ministry, and identity.

There does however, appear to be a significant flaw in this model when carrying it from Europe to the US – where there are no “national boundaries” or even significant ethnic regions. It creates a situation whereby the Independent Catholic community from its very beginning serves a specific niche constituency. The problem has not gone unrecognised – as early as the 1970s OC/IC clergy were struggling to overcome the problem of being shoved into a particular niche.

While the ethnocentricity of the movement has been slowly dissipating, it seems that the niche seed, having been sown and set root in the late 19th century, now produces a different but equally challenging fruit. A quick survey of OC/IC communities and their self descriptions will easily demonstrate the point. There are indie communities that reject the ordination of women, reject the use of modern language in liturgy, object to the ordination of gays, and actively abhor particular theologies. On the other end of the scale we find indie groups that are focussed solely on a particular theology, that encourage the ordination of women and gays, will only use modern or “politically correct” language in worship. Obviously these are “extremes” however, across the spectrum of the OC/IC community it is not difficult to find this niche mentality in what seems to be the majority of synods and congregations.

So what is the problem with this model – it has been around for over a century?

“Problem” might be too strong a word – but it certainly has established a challenge to indie communities in that an emphasis on particular issues, theologies, and identities limits the mission and vision of a community. This effectively creates limitations and barriers to that community handling change, and the challenges of being an all volunteer community. If our communal focus is on a particular spiritual discipline, or theological school, and one or more members start to explore another discipline or theology this poses an uncomfortable challenge to the identity and praxis of the whole.

By accepting the status of niche communities I cannot help but wonder how this might negatively effect our identity as truly “catholic”. That is to say that a catholic sacramental community is one that strives to benefit from the whole collection of gifts within the whole body of the baptised, practising community of faith. Thus, to over-emphasise a particular “set” at the expense of the rest would seem to weaken an identification with catholicity.

Independent Catholic communities face the very real challenge of continuity and cohesiveness. One might think that maximising on the niche mentality would easily bring stability, and ensure a cohesive identity. While this has some truth to it – the PNC is a good example of this – consider the added challenges of the niche culture in our movement and it might be time to examine some other models.

I’ve long argued that “Gnosticism” or as I generally refer to it “neo-gnosticism” has no place in the Indie community. It is, has been, and will always be, antithetical to Christian teaching and praxis. Tom Write, the Anglican bishop of Durham, offers in this video a wonderfully refreshing take on Gnosticism.

I’m a huge fan (read pusher) of home-grown scholarship in the Independent Catholic community. I’ve argued many times on this blog that we “appropriate” too much from other traditions without necessarily thinking it through in our own context. I also think that with the availability of modern technology it is now, more than ever before, more feasable to circulate Indie scholarship within the community and beyond – cultivating our own voice, rather than simply riding on the coat-tails of the voices of other traditions.

Recently I’ve been playing with a great new research tool called Zotero – it is a plugin for Firefox (and I think Explorer and Chrome) that allows you to archive articles from the web, take notes in them, sort them, and tag them. It also handles PDFs, pics, video clips and collects all the relevant bibliographical data so you can automatically create a bibliography when working in say Word.

Speaking of working in Word – Zotero makes inserting citations and your own notes a snap with a handy plugin.

I could go on and on about how useful this little program has been for me in my own research projects over the past two months; and cannot reccomend Zotero enough.

Ekklesia has an interesting post today outlining Stanley Hauerwas’ Ten Theses about the church as social ethic; inviting reflection & engagement.

Barrow observes that Haurwas’ theses assume that the ekklesia is a wholly voluntary community, and that its total independence from the state liberates Christians to best realise their vocation as believers.This is nothing new to OC/IC believers – we’ve been living the faith in this context for over 100 years. What interests me however, is the challenges being a wholly voluntary community brings with it, and how we might better establish relationships of trust within the context of our tradition – for the purposes of better realising our faith in the Christ.

Most famously, he has declared: “The church does not have a social ethic; the church is a social ethic”. What is interesting to me is that over the past 20 years of active involvement in the OC/IC community – too often it seems that, clergy in particular, treat their role in the indie community as a “hobby” or an “employment scheme” rather than as a praxis, a way of life interconnected with other OC/IC believers. This statement of Hauerwas’ is a sharp reminder that while we have lived with part of the idea of radical reform of our ekklesial life for over a century – we’ve wandered off the path a bit, into the bramble bush.

Barrow suggests some of the “edits” he would potentially make to Haurwas’ theses before offering a useful summary of all ten. I’m interested to play with these ten ideas in the hopes that it might also be a useful in an OC/IC context. Just as Barrow invites readers to engage within his Anglican/Protestant context – I’d be very glad to enage with other Indie folk as I play with them.