We’ve talked about the “numbers game” in relation to notions of “success” in ministry (here). There is however, another branch of this “game” which we often bemoan, and joke about behind the closed doors in OC/IC circles; but rarely, constructively, in the open. For lack of a better term I’ll call this “High-speed Zapping”.

High-speed Zapping is giving offices and orders to incomers or participants who have literally just walked in the door. They have not been chrismated. They have had neither the time, nor the opportunity to discern whether this community is the one with which they will “throw in their lot” and live the spiritual life. They have not had the opportunity to invest in the community, neither has the community had time to invest in them. In short, their suitability for such offices, indeed for life in an indie community has not been intelligently assessed. The consequences of High-speed Zapping are known to all. We have, all of us, either seen it in our own communities, or have helped to pick up the pieces, and heal individuals and communities that have been caught up in it.

If we sit and honestly assess the situation I think we are all painfully aware of the root causes; in addition to the pull of the other branch of the numbers game (false sense of success), we face the challenges of ego, empire building, and a lack of authentic leadership. But what can serious OC/IC believers do to make a positive change in this situation?

To be sure I don’t have the answers. I can describe what my tiny community has formulated as its rule over the past 15 years of debate, experience, and observation of other communities. One is chrismated after a year as a participant (can.2.3a). You may not hold office, you may not vote, until you have converted and are chrismated. Members are not eligible for ordination before one full year after their chrismation (can. 8.3e); there must be a need within the community for a new ordinand (can. 8.b,c,m), and the community must approve the ordination (can. 8.3). Don’t even think about a mitre! You have to be a lay or ordained member for at least five years (can. 8.6c), the community elects new bishops (can. 7.8); and there must be a real need for a new bishop (can. 8.1n).*

This is but one model answering the problem in one community, how can we address it as a group of fellow indie believers seeking to improve our lot? A symptom (or consequence?) of High-speed Zapping is Synod Hopping (I really need to start an OC/IC dictionary!), where individuals, in order to acquire the orders and titles that they want for their own personal purposes, jump from one bishop to another, leaving a wake of hurt and destruction behind them.

Here again is where I think a working theory of friendship and collaboration comes into its own. If I enjoy a friendship with Bishop X and his/her community, and an individual from that community starts Synod Hopping and comes to me for say – a mitre because she is not going to get her way with Bishop X; out of respect for my friends, and in solidarity with another faithful OC/IC community that I trust, I’ll refuse and send her back to her community. It’s that simple. There is no formal organisation here, just a simple convention, and act of respect for my friends.

I suspect that if enough solid friendships are built, and acted upon, that the problem of high-speed zapping, and synod hopping would quickly wane.

*[For those interested you can acquire a complete copy of our canons here.]

Stability within our communities is and has always been a challenge, created in part by small group dynamics. The vast majority of OC/IC projects have 20 people or less. This means that unless a higher proportion of the assembly is “committed” to the project – any minor fluctuation in say membership or even attendance can be demoralising. Congregations in the Big Tent Churches average between 75 and 50 members (there are notable exceptions) which means that a smaller proportion of their membership needs to get their hands dirty for the whole project to maintain a stable momentum, and not experience negative effects caused by fluctuations in membership and attendance.

How do we overcome this challenge of group dynamics? One answer is to grow the community. However, large communities are not the norm within our tradition – and most of us like it that way. We’ve been discussing (here) ideas of identity over the past few weeks, and I think that there is a connection between stability in our movement and what we see as the defining marks of our identity (perhaps the topic of another post).

If a higher proportion of members and participants strongly identify with the OC/IC “brand” (both locally, and on the wider stage) then it seems there is a real possibility of a project surviving and thriving in the face of the challenges presented by fluctuations in attendance and membership. If on the other hand a higher proportion of members and participants are actually incomers (this community is merely convenient) the result can create real challenges for the project and it might not successfully adapt.

My community in DC (which had 15 regulars and an odd handful of intermittent attendees) literally died when I went to study in the UK for 5 months. I thought everything was in place for them to carry on as usual without me – they had a deacon, a priest was only 15 min away if they needed him, they had access to the worship space, and they knew what to do. I even thought that my absence would encourage them to explore new directions and fresh ideas. The community was unable to adapt to a brief, planned absence, of one member, and fell apart.

Take this problem in a different direction. How often do members (not participants or incomers) move away and begin a project in a new place? In my experience, unless they are in orders, never; and it is rare even when they are in orders. Why is this the case? Is it because our bishops and synods are unable or unwilling to support such projects? Do we not encourage them enough? One of my working theories has to do with the sense of isolation OC/IC clergy and communities “feel” living in our tradition – but that will have to wait for another post.

It would be helpful, for all of us, if we were to collaborate and explore ways that we – together can cultivate stability in our movement. The challenge of small group dynamics currently, un-necessarily “clips” any momentum a community or synod might develop.

Any ideas?

This is one of my quick “sketches” in preparation for something more patiently done, or as in this case, exploring a new technique or tool. Sometimes, words are . . . . not quite right – I’m all for images!

There is definitely something working within our OC/IC context that inhibits engagement generally, and sustained engagement particularly. I am not entirely certain what this “something” is, I have some working theories and would very much like to read yours. However, I find it disheartening to compare our sites (or lack thereof) with, for example, Episcopal, Gnostic, or Eastern Christian sites. Where theirs are hopping with activity – some of it interesting – in our corner it’s a dark, silent night in a cold empty desert!

I know that there is an overflowing well of creativity, thoughtfulness, and energy within our community; mainly because I’ve spoken to, emailed, and Facebook message swapped with so many of us. I am also fully aware that there is a quantity X99 of Nutters in the movement; but folks, I’ve got news – we are not unique in this arena, EVERY tradition has them – the fact that so many nutters also have web sites admirably demonstrates the point. While we don’t have the institutional mechanisms to rehabilitate nutters, or when needs be to dispense with them, we do have an effective tool at our disposal: a voice of sanity. Through engagement, collaboration, and friendship we can build a positive momentum that will not only express our best OC/IC voice(s) but which will create solid resources serving the needs of our communities. By cultivating this positive momentum, the quality OC/IC voices will collectively overshadow the ranting and antics of His Most Serene Holiness, Grand Pubah Mar Elijah-Athanasios-Vilatte XXIV and act as an effective form of quality control.

Encouraging conversation in God-blogging is perhaps the most difficult aspect of the project. You’ve got your niche, you’ve developed a discipline of writing, and you know people are reading it because your stats tell you so. Why then is there relative silence on site? Over the next few posts I’ll try to draw together some tips from the pros, and from the experience of working on this site.

Making my morning rounds recently I’ve been struck by the number of essays, news items, and “other” that in one way or another touch on the idea of why religion matters to us, to the world around us. This morning, for example I read a discussion guide of Krista Tippet’s book Speaking of Faith: Why Religion Matters – and How to Talk About It. Not long ago in the Guardian’s belief section, one writers commented on how contemporary Christianity has lost its sense of purpose. The Pew Forum’s site on Religion and Public Life too – often touches on why religion matters – not only to its adherents, but also to the “Public Square”.

I have been asked on more than one occasion recently to answer the question – why does religion matter – or more spcifically, why does the church, “this church” matter? What does it “do”?

Having thought about it off and on over the past weeks and months – I am struck by one thing. Unlike most other traditions, whose adherants often have a particular style of answer: a vocabulary, a turn of phrase, a particular point of reference, as an OC/IC beleiver I find it is more challenging to answer the question.

How do you talk about your experience of faith, and the value of life in our community? What vocabulary do you find yourself using that you’ve also noticed other OC/IC folk using? What has been your experience of other people’s reactions to your sharing your religious experiences – discovering that it is completely out of the expected collection of traditions and denomonations?

Last week Lyngine observed: “. . . the focus isn’t on numbers, but on living out one’s faith in a particular way and then inviting others to share in that if it fits them.”

It made me think of how certain trends and even established ideas in the wider Christian community can be a trap for OC/IC missions and projects creating a damaged image of “success”. Not only are we judged by others according to these measures, but we also judge one another using these metrics.

“Success” in contemporary ministry is largely measured by the number of participants, and/or the amount of money collected per worship service. I have lost count of the number of times that I have been interrogated by ministers in other denominations about our membership numbers, and finances. “Mega-churches” artificially imposed monstrosities, products of demographic studies, marketing campaigns, and pollsters have popped up like unwanted dandelions. They are not the cause of the problem, rather they are the synthesis of the streams of ill-concieved ideas of what it means to be faithful. They are indeed “successful” but is this model of “church” really a reflection of faithfulness?

A regular posting schedule gives readers the confidence to keep checking in, and to keep contributing with their ideas and responses. It keeps the conversation fresh, and the momentum going. It builds “community”. Without a regular flow of new posts, new ideas to explore, readers stop visiting (or visit less often), conversation stops, and before you know it – your vibrant interesting blog is quite dead.

Integrating regular posting into your blog-discipline takes a little thought. A blog collective (multiple authors) will have an easier time of this than a single author site.
Keep in mind that you’re aiming for a “base-line” X posts per week (or for the more ambitious X posts per day); anything over that number is a bonus. Be careful not to overwhelm your readers with posts – just as it takes time for you to produce them, it takes as much time for readers to digest, and hopefully comment on them (here is where the word limit discussed earlier comes into its own). If they feel it is too much work they’ll either go silent, or abandon your site altogether.

I keep a folder of half written posts, ideas, and notes (often gleaned from your comments). I sit with these pieces and develop them over time – but they also come in handy for those days when I really don’t have the time or energy to make my rounds of news and theology sites for inspiration. This bank of posts ensures that I can stick to the discipline of writing and posting without being overwhelmed myself.

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).

Lyngine posted an interesting comment today which not only deserves to be highlighted but which has inspired in me at least 4 additional post topics (way to go Lyngine!). In her comment Lyngine points to a very important issue in our communities – using a clear sense of identity as a valued resource.

We have a history of refusing to define who we are, and to proudly, confidently present that vision and value set to all (and to even remind ourselves of it when needed). There are a few reasons for this but I’ll only mention three that I’ve seen repeatedly over the past 15 or so years in ministry. Many incomers (non-converts who participate) are uncomfortable making a clear distinction, a fresh break from their “Home Church”; another is that some incomers, wounded by their “Home Church” perceive anything that might create a solid identity as authoritarian, and unwelcoming. Finally, there is a very real problem of commitment and accountability that is intimately tied into the problem of forging and shaping that sense of identity. Many incomers arrive not necessarily out of a conviction that this community is the right one for me, but more out of a sense of I will get what I want, so I can do as I please because they don’t have any quality control, no “institutionalism” like my Home Church does.

The result is that many communities in the movement either don’t establish a clear, communicated (and communicable) “this is us, this is who we are”; or they cannibalise from the collections of the dominant “Home Church” with no intention of it being anything other than a show-piece. Both scenarios undermine the community’s cohesion, and are detrimental to long-term morale. Result – as we all know too well, few OC/IC communities last more than 5 years, before dissolving into a chaotic array of competing visions and value sets.

The caveat here is that you can’t draw up an identity over-night. It takes time – it took my community over 10 years, and indeed there were consequences when we finally arrived at some decisions – but what remains is “the community” those who are not just incomers but real members, people who are totally invested in the life and vision of the community.

One tip I see over and over again is be consistent. That is to say restrain the themes of your blog to a particular set. You may have noticed that I never write about the politics and issues of other sacramental traditions here – it is a conscious decision one that keeps this site focussed on Old and Independent Catholic ideas and issues forcing me to consciously explore and develop them, and I hope challenging regular visitors to do the same. It turns out that readers become regulars because your blog covers a specific set of ideas or issues. Blogs that meander all over the place – here one day, there the next, don’t get off the ground really. It is therefore difficult to build an ongoing conversation within a “community” of readers both regulars and sporadic visitors. Moreover without that seed and the momentum that builds from it – the circle of regulars does not change and grow, bringing in fresh perspectives and new stories.

Again we are faced with the “discipline” of writing. Not only does consistency require a focus from the author, it also means the occasional shepherding the panel of commenters to stay within the blog-niche.

As this series is about encouraging other OC/IC bloggers perhaps this is the place for a “relevant nudge”. What are some of the themes other talented OC/IC folk (i.e. YOU) might pick up? Keep in mind that you don’t have to go it alone – blogs can be community affairs, a writing collective, a parish, a mission, an entire synod can organise and collaborate to produce some fantastic thoughtful content. Our OC/IC community is relatively silent – we need to begin to work together to change that; blogging is one simple inexpensive way to not only create resources within our individual communities, but also to speak with a wider audience in and out of the OC/IC frame.