[Oe List ...] The Order and Oaxtapec

[Joyce Sloan via OE]

Thanks for this, John. I totally agree and long for ways to sustain
ourselves in our scattered state.

Joyce

On Jun 14, 2017 4:57 PM, "John Epps via OE" <oe at lists.wedgeblade.net> wrote:

> It has long been claimed that at the Oaxtapec gathering, the Order was
> called out of being. That assertion has long troubled me, and it seems time
> to clear the air.
>
> IMHO, the statement is both sociologically and theologically inaccurate. A
> more accurate formulation of what happened in Mexico was that we went from
> a structured to a dispersed form. Something was definitely dissolved at
> Oaxtapec, but it was not the Order, only a particular form of the Order.
>
> On the sociological side, there is still a lively “we” that once went
> under the name “Order Ecumenical.” This list-serve and the archives
> workshops represent some manifestations, but more significant are the
> personal collegial relationships that persist despite great demographic,
> cultural, and geographic differences. “We” continue to communicate and to
> celebrate the life milestones of each other.
>
> “We” continue to engage in the mission of catalyzing and caring for those
> who care – in multiple sectors and with far greater impact than a single
> organization could have managed. Some examples include the ToP Network, the
> IAF, ICA community development work in India, Nepal, Australia, and South
> America, and environmental preservation efforts in the USA. “We” have
> published a good number of books making insights available to a wide
> audience. Colleagues could fill out the list.
>
> Theologically, the Order is a historical dynamic that we’ve been
> privileged to participate in. It is not something we can disband, even if
> we wanted to. Just as Niebuhr described the Church as the “sensitive and
> responsive ones…” that takes many forms, so also is the Order composed of
> those awakened and catalytic ones who care for those who care. The notion
> that some of us could dissolve that dynamic confuses the form from the
> content (the baby from the bathwater to use a less abstract metaphor). I’ve
> come (reluctantly) to see that we were led to dissolve a particular
> structure so that the historical dynamic might continue in an enhanced
> fashion.
>
> Why does this matter? Is it simply a verbal difference having little to do
> with anything except the neurosis of an old theologian?
>
> It matters because thinking that there is no longer an Order prevents us
> from wrestling with pertinent questions: How can we remain in touch with
> the Profound Mystery? How can we continue to access our common insights?
> What rites and celebrations are appropriate to a dispersed body? How can we
> account to each other and support each other? How can we stay on the
> religious and secular edge? What (if any) forms are appropriate for the
> global and diverse participants in this historical dynamic? In a time when
> hatred and fear of differences is so rampant, what new experiments might
> make a difference? What might we learn from *Journey to the East*?
>
> Collegial comments, clarifications, corrections, and additions are most
> welcome.
>
>
> Thanks for reading this.
>
> John Epps
>
> _______________________________________________
> OE mailing list
> OE at lists.wedgeblade.net
> http://lists.wedgeblade.net/listinfo.cgi/oe-wedgeblade.net
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wedgeblade.net/pipermail/oe-wedgeblade.net/attachments/20170630/c75e2432/attachment.html>