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.

We’ve often talked about the ideas and images of what constitutes “church” many converts to the indie life inherit or bring with them into the community. Tim Cravens has just posted a reflection on one aspect of this – the sense of embarrassment many indie clergy feel over not having our own buildings, salaried clergy and so on. Tim makes a good point that we need to not allow ourselves and our fellow ministers to become overwhelmed by this to the point that it inhibits our ability to be ministers in the here and now.

I tink part of the solution is to cultivate within each one of us, and within our communities, a confidence in our identity as OC/IC believers – or as I’ve said here before – we are not second class or second rate christians – we “are” the real thing.

One of Tim’s commentors pointed out, and I agree with her whole heartedly, is that there is a real need for cooperation, collaboration, and through that the cultivation of mutual support (i.e. confidence) within our movement. John Plummer’s phrase “we all need friends” in relation to relations within the OC/IC community are equally applicable here.

But that “friendship” must be deeper than merely, clicking the “lets be friends” button on our Facebook profiles – never to utter “Boo!” to one another again. Friendship – true frienship is deeper, and requires openness, and cultivation – it lifts us up out of the isolation we can sometimes feel within our smaller OC/IC jurisdictions, scattered as we are in the “Diaspora”.

Through frienship we can dissolve the barriers of suspicion and mistrust from within the community as a whole. Through frienship we can collaborate, and share, without the compulsion to create “larger” artificial organisational structures (every one of which that I’m aware of over the past 20 years of active OC/IC life has failed – with a body count!). Through frienship we might see an organic improvement in the quality of our communities, and the individuals chosen to serve and lead them (both lay and ordained). If for example, my friend Bishop X won’t ordain you – why the hell should I? If I trust Bishop X, if he/she is my friend – it would be disrespectful to undermine his/her judgement because he/she is my friend, and a fellow bishop.

But lets get back to Tim’s post – and his point that indie clergy are nearly always working in the world – holding down a job, running a household, having a life, and on top of that – doing ministry. Through friendship – through real collaboration – we can build a solid netowrk of mutual support to encourage, bring relief to, and cultivate confidence for our fellow ministers in the movement. Making the vocation of a “worker priest” (or worker bishop) that much more enriching both for the minister, and those he or she serves.

Through frienship we can radically change the dynamic of the way our OC/IC movement has dys-functioned over the past 75 years. And all it takes is a bit of openness, and a willingness to collaborate.

Rummaging around PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly this morning I fell into this report from this past November exploring religion on-line that I had not previously seen. The report is interesting because it looks at a number of real-time examples of how more than 1 in 4 adults are now using the internet solely or in part for their spiritual needs.

A group in one congregation lived according to the rules of Leviticus for a month, and journaled their experiences on Facebook. A group of friends – through the process of mourning for one of their number – slowly came to appreciate the spirituality, and exploration of theology – in a a safe environment provided by their conversations online (I think they too were using Facebook).

I’ve been banging on now for over two years about how new tech, like the internet, can be a powerful tool for OC/IC communities, writers, and explorers. This well done report might inspire, it may even lead you to ask more questions about the how to, and the affects it might have on existing projects in your community.

Huw, another OC/IC Easterner has created this wonderful compilation of Paschal Troparia – sit down, relax, and have a good giggle over it.

I’ve stumbled across two articles this week related to Ekklesia 2.0 (a long running topic here) which are worth a read – and I hope, some discussion. The first is from Christian Today reporting on a recent meeting on “Web Church” such as St. Pixels a project of the Methodist Church in Britain, and iChurch a project of the Anglican diocese of Oxford, that actively bring people together for prayer, fellowship, discussion and study online. Meeting participants discussed familiar challenges such as difficult participants, time commitments, and community cohesiveness. They also explored issues of effectiveness of the project (which we’ve talked about here to some extent). The second article comes from Newsweek and picks up an important thread that we’ve talked about here, and that participants of the Web Church meeting raised, that is, about the “embodiment” of church – thus, touching on ideas of sacramentality.

Two years ago our community experimented with a bi-weekly evening prayer via SKYPE. It was a great experience that brought members together scattered across two continents for prayer and fellowship. Our project also empowered individual members to explore new ways of contributing to the life of the wider community by taking on roles of organising the gathering and/or the discussion afterward. Other OC/IC communities such as the ICCC have recently embarked on similar projects.

It is fair to say that the online assembly, when done well, is sacrament. I do think that there will always be an important need for a live embodied presence of the assembly. Baptism, eucharist, ordination, marriage, adelphopoeisis, these are the core rites of the church, and always serve as a reminder of the intimate, interpersonal connection we share as the “body” of Christ in the World. It seems to me that they cannot be effectively, or validly imparted on line.

Web Church does raise some interesting questions about the awareness of being sacramental, about being community, and about the incarnality of being the ekklesia. What do you think about Web Church? Is it merely an outreach tool? Can it become (as it is for some already) an exclusive experience of “being church”?

You may have noticed I’ve added a new page to the site? I’ve been seeing a number of ministry sources encouraging the use of social networking – especially Twitter. I’m not entirely convinced yet but I’m more than willing to give it a go: though I’m still reading to see if I can fully understand why Twitter is now ministry tool du jeur.

I can see two possible uses for this. First you get to peek behind the curtain to see what I’m thinking and what actually ends up on the site. Second if something you see there inspires you – then you can nudge me to post on it by responding either via Twitter, or the form (which will be inserted shortly).

I regularly rummage around the net looking for tips on better blogging. My thinking is, if this site is going to be a useful resource for the OC/IC community then I need to invest in making it as attractive and user friendly as possible. Most of the articles and sites I’ve read are designed for businesses and entrepreneurs who are earning a living from blogging. This means that they are not always immediately related to our needs as representatives of a faith tradition. However, I have stumbled across a host of useful bits and pieces over the past three years that have made a difference in the visitor numbers of this site. Since I recently posted urging all OC/IC folk to get involved in blogging – I think it’s only fair that I now invest in helping people to do just that, and do it well by sharing these tips in a series of posts. Obviously I don’t have all the answers, only ideas gleaned from other places that seem to work here (and some that don’t work so well, but are still worth mentioning) that I hope you will expand on, and “tweak” from your own experiences in comments.

Over the next week (18-25 Jan), Christians across the globe are praying for reconciliation and unity among believers. As I stumbled across this article (and this one) and the prayer specifically written for this year’s event (see below) – it made me think of Paul’s admonition to Timothy that a necessary quality of a leader/minister in the community is that he (she) has their own household in order.

Our OC/IC house has been in disarray now for over 70 years. Perhaps this week of Christian unity is an opportunity for us to reach out to one another and be a part of the healing process, witnesses of Christ’s teaching to one another. A small act here, a kind word there, an offer to collaborate, a sharing of ideas – no grand gestures or pseudo-organisations will do it, no one person or synod will stand at the centre (the rest of us won’t allow it, thank God), but we can, in the interests of fufilling our baptismal calling to bear witness to the teachings of Christ, and in the interests of professing our OC/IC identity, stand together, and begin the process of building relationships – “community” among our own people.

Prayer is only the first step. It is an acknowledgement that we need help, but it is also a focussing of our own mind on the issue at hand. Prayer must be lived, it must be followed up by praxis, or it is hollow and without substance. Here then is the prayer composed for this year’s week of Christian Unity:

We pray to you for the unity of all Christians
According to your will,
According to your means,
May your Spirit enable us to experience the suffering caused by division
To see our sin and to hope beyond all hope.
God, you alone are our hope
You alone are our hope

Not entirely un-related to yesterday’s post from Emergent Village – I offer you this from the Guardian Belief section:

It can’t be claimed that the tendency to break into regional or temperamental units has entirely vanished from contemporary Christianity, but it is easy to forget what a strange phenomenon the Christian church is in crossing racial and national boundaries and asserting a commonality that defies all more natural divisions. . . .  We still tend to make it smaller, confuse it with one cultural expression, exclude those who witness in a different idiom and with different emphases. Paul’s fight to make people see past their own insular divisions is still not quite won.

I think we have all seen it at least once – even if you’ve only been in the OC/IC community for a short while. “Bishop” (Grand Pubah) X refuses to even sit down with “Bishop” Y because of some minor technicality of ritual, or because Bishop Y is a woman, or ordains women, or has a more open approach to communion or . . . . you get the idea.

It seems to me that we often fail to appreciate how simple acts of “communion” – friendship, collaboration, a shared idea, goal, or understanding of a single point sets us on the road to greater collegiality among OC/IC communities; similarly one act of pushing another away, of pointing fingers, of judgement or condemnation can widen an already enormous chasm.

I am not a proponent – as some are – of a sweeping unification, or the formation of an orgnised “body” of the OC/IC community. That, to me is not a way forward, rather it is a regressive step, one that will condemn us to repeat the mistakes of our own past, as well as the mistakes of the historical past of the “catholic” tradition. I do think, however, that it is about time that we stop seeing ourselves as isolated individual units, and begin to activly approach one another as collaborative partners in faith.