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