Meeting of the Clergy 23 April 2016 18:00 UTC

Phortis Nespin wrote: I also think the new names are unwise. I agree with most of the dissension. I would use Deacon, Missionary, and Monk. Abbot for the Pastor's rank. As we are a growing Religion, These names fit historically with our mission to spread the word. I am not however, "going to the mattresses" over this. I feel a consensus should be made.

Just a lowly apprentice here - I am, however, one of the one's that have always had issues with the current ranks of the Clergy. However....I also am not in favor of the new one's either

"Guides" Make me think of MMORPG NPC's who tell you how to get to the Trader on the map :woohoo: Do we get EQ1 pathfinders as well? hehe And "Magister" Reminds me of Harry Potter and the Magistrate of the Ministry!

Joking Aside - I do appreciate the fact that the Rank/Names are finally being looked at. It's something I have griped about for some time because of it's "Catholic" appearance.

As much as I am not a fan of "Minister" (For the harry potter reference above) and it's Catholic/Christian heavy background. I do like BR. John's suggestions since "Legality" and "Public Appearance" seems to be such a big deal.

Mm.. inside the temple, the word 'guide' reflects the responsibilities of the clergy quite well. The word 'minister' reflects better when speaking to someone who is unfamiliar with Jediism. But using two different ranks for the same would not be very handy I guess.
I was minding about the idea of Acolyte, and as told before, it does not fit in well. I would be more useful and effective if there is more unity in the system. So people can understand better that all the ranks of the clergy have one united purpose.

I would suggest to remove the word 'Acolyte', and to remove the word 'Master.' To change it a little bit as shown on the example below.

The word 'Elder' means 'old one'. And should reflect a Ordained Jedi that has long experience as a clerk.
The word 'Nestor' means 'old and wise person'. And should be seen like a surpassing of Elder, to reflect their tasks.

Secondly the 'assistant Magister' sounds a little bit patronizing. Change it to 'Magister' and 'Senior Magister'. It would symbolize both offices in a improving way to show the improving responsibility rather than the opposite. Removing the word 'Master' to avoid conflict with the knight degrees, and to make it more simple and less loftily.

Idea:

'Seminarian' --> 'Seminarian'
'Licensed Minister' --> 'Guide'
'Deacon' --> 'Senior Guide'
'Priest' --> 'Elder Guide'
'Bishop' --> 'Nestor Guide'

Secretaries --> Secretaries
'Assistant Pastor' --> 'Magister'
'Pastor' --> 'Senior Magister'
'Pastor Emeritus' --> 'Magister Emeritus'

Aqua wrote: Idea:

Seminarian --> Seminarian
Licensed Minister --> Guide
Deacon --> Senior Guide
Priest --> Elder Guide
Bishop --> Nestor Guide

Secretaries --> Secretaries
Assistant Pastor --> Magister
Pastor --> Senior Magister
Pastor Emeritus --> Magister Emeritus

Why not just get rid of the second? Example....

Seminarian --> Seminarian <---Id change this, but I don't know what yet...I don't like it though Edit:: Minor


Licensed Minister --> Brother/Sister
Deacon --> Senior
Priest --> Elder
Bishop --> Nestor

Secretaries --> P.A. (Personal Assistant)
Assistant Pastor --> Assistant Reverand
Pastor --> Reverand
Pastor Emeritus --> Emeritus

So Phortis, the clerical handbook is required before any futher promotion

tzb wrote: It seems to me our Clergy does about... 10% of what ministers traditionally do, and it comprises about 10% of the actual role.

I would like, just for the sake of argument, for someone here to make a comprehensive list of what "we do" as clergy as opposed to what "standard minsters" do.

My own minister, when I was a child, performed important rituals including weddings, funerals, and holy rites, visited hospitals and other places where people were hurting, volunteered at the soup kitchen or shelter, tried to create new ways to help people if he realized something more was needed (as he was one member of the community that was empowered to do so), taught via sermons or informally one-on-on, heard confessions, offered to listen, showed tenderness to those who needed it, gave swift kicks in the behind to those who needed it, and guidance to folks who were lost on their path or seeking one. He led by example and was all of those things we hope our kids will be.

How is this any different than what we do as a clergy members, whether literally or metaphorically? What is the 10% extra that we do that these folks don't? What is the 90% of this that we exclude?

When I head out into the world wearing my title as a member of this clergy (and I 100% intend to), I intend to do all of these things, because these are the things that need doing. What else could we even be FOR?

Please keep in mind it's perfectly legal for us to have dual names for a position. It can be our law that all 'Whatever's' are also Ministers and may use Minister as their position on legal documents.

I do not like Guide BTW.

I'd love for the Pastor to be the Abbot with the assistant being the Costello. Am I the only one old enough here who gets that?


Clergy or not - rank or not - all opinions of how it comes across are valid and valuable.

Br. John wrote:
I'd love for the Pastor to be the Abbot with the assistant being the Costello. Am I the only one old enough here who gets that?

hahaha!! I would not complain if we had Abbots, Monks and Costello's Reminds me of Redwall Abby!

Br. John wrote: Please keep in mind it's perfectly legal for us to have dual names for a position. It can be our law that all 'Whatever's' are also Ministers and may use Minister as their position on legal documents.

I do not like Guide BTW.

I'd love for the Pastor to be the Abbot with the assistant being the Costello. Am I the only one old enough here who gets that?


Clergy or not - rank or not - all opinions of how it comes across are valid and valuable.

Hmm how little i know about you Br John..i really took you for a Cheese and Chong kind of guy :laugh: and Monk reminds me of that OCD detective :silly:

Br. John wrote:
I'd love for the Pastor to be the Abbot with the assistant being the Costello. Am I the only one old enough here who gets that

I feel like too many people would assume we're on a spiritual journey to answer the question of Who's on First?

I'd like to make a few points for consideration, but first I'd like to point out that Ros specifically asked people to send her a PM with their suggestions so I wouldn't expect anything to come of posting here in terms of moving along the discussions happening in the Synod and the Council.

First off, I'm all in favor of changing the names associated with the clerical ranks. I've always felt they were too Christian and while I am trying to be more at peace with Christianity, I'm not a Christian and I don't want to be perceived as a Christian minister. Furthermore, regardless of what religion you associate the rank names to, they carry with them a lot of historical baggage that I really don't think we need or want. Yeah, Guide might sound impersonal or too much like it disregards the work put into being a minister, but if we're going to be all about humble service then shouldn't we have a name that doesn't have the same prestige and bragging rights as our current rank names? Sometimes it feels like all these ranks and titles have just become accolades and self-congratulatory adornments, but perhaps I'm the only one and I just need to examine my attitudes about clergy ranks.

When I tried to think of what could replace Guide as a rank name, I actually had a hard time doing so. Guide is actually a fairly accurate and honest descriptor of what we do as clergy. tzb is right, we don't do what other ministers do, although I must confess I'd like to do more of that. I'd like to create a psychodrama specific to Jedi teaching that is faithful to the doctrine of the Temple but also approachable to the casual seeker. I'd like to create ritual to go along with teachings, a physical reminder of the importance of what we believe. Nothing's stopping me except my lack of time at the moment, but I just wanted people to know it's something I desire. Maybe not everyone does, I think that's okay, but I don't want all that dismissed out of hand simply because it's not being currently.

Lastly, this is a thought in regards to respect... What the actual fuck?! I get that people have really strong opinions, but was it really necessary to act that way during the meeting? I'm not even talking about any person in particular, but as a whole I got the distinct impression that nobody thought, "y'know I bet the Synod has really good reasoning for what they're proposing right now." Was there any good faith effort to give the Synod the benefit of the doubt that maybe they weren't doing this all willy-nilly to upset the established order? Furthermore, I realize there were some people there that weren't aware of the protocol for clergy meetings, but Ros explained it and people just kept talking without any regard for that protocol. How can any of us expect people to take us seriously when we can't treat other with respect and dignity? I'm not saying you have to agree with everything the Synod does nor am I suggesting you blindly obey every decision handed down. I'm suggesting that there is a fine line with productive dissent and disruptive disrespect. I would say that there was too much disruptive disrespect in that meeting.

To all who are worried that the suggested names won't be recognized or taken seriously


We are over here dubbing ourselves Jedi...


Why go for something like Jedi and not just stick to something that is majorly known and accepted? If you are worried about these clerical titles, you might as well be worried enough about being called a Jedi and not Christian or Catholic or Buddhist. But we are here going with Jedi and using it to redefine and / or shed widely recognized conventions for the sake of presenting (or even re-presenting) a deeper example of what a human being is. This is at the cost of not being understood or taken seriously by society around us. So why are we here calling ourselves Jedi?


In the same purpose and spirit were these proposals for the clergy titles.

How much do you care about the point behind calling yourself a Jedi? Because if you don't much care, then you can continue to cling to those safe, "recognized" titles at the cost of being branded with ignorantly assumed imagery attached to them. If you insist on doing that, then you might as well not say you're a Jedi either and stay safely in your conditioned conventions.

This "if you don't like it, get out" stuff really has to go away.

Not everybody calls themselves a Jedi for the same reason, Proteus. Not everybody is trying to rebel against religious stereotypes like you.

I'm asking you: is being able to communicate with the layman by using a term like "priest" or "minister" really that damaging to who you are and what YOU are doing here? Can you really not compromise for the sake of those we're trying to help?

Snowy Aftermath wrote: This "if you don't like it, get out" stuff really has to go away.

Not everybody calls themselves a Jedi for the same reasons, Proteus. Not everybody is trying to rebel against religious stereotypes like you.

I'm asking you: is being able to communicate with the layman by using a term like "priest" or "minister" really that damaging to who you are and what you're doing here? Can you really not compromise for the sake of those we're trying to help?

A bit of a cheap, shallow and directly inaccurate assumption on what I have said.

May I ask you to take some time on it?

A bit of a cheap, shallow and directly inaccurate assumption of what I have said.

May I ask you to take some time on it?

You basically just told me to leave the temple if I don't like your social experiment.

So no, you may not.

Snowy Aftermath wrote:

A bit of a cheap, shallow and directly inaccurate assumption of what I have said.

May I ask you to take some time on it?

You basically just told me to leave the temple if I don't like your social experiment.

So no, you may not.

I don't recall anywhere in what I wrote that it says "if you don't like it, then leave". The questions in my post were honest ones. I am asking you to compare being called something other than a Minister to being called something other than a (for example) Christian, and then to contemplate what the point is behind calling yourself a Jedi. Nothing about those questions were telling anybody to leave if they do not like it.

When you read words in a post, take some time to make sure that you are reading them without your own inclinations of what you feel they must be saying to you.

I am done replying.

Proteus wrote: Because if you don't much care, then you can continue to cling to those safe, "recognized" titles at the cost of being branded with ignorantly assumed imagery attached to them. If you insist on doing that, then you might as well not say you're a Jedi either and stay safely in your conditioned conventions.

But you are not telling people if they dont like it leave? I agree with Snowy here. Your statement is if we dont view things the same way as you do then we might was well give up the title Jedi and find something else. That is exactly how I read your statement. The fact is that some members of the clergy might well have a harder time because a name change to something like Guides which to me sounds like a boy scout troupe title. This can clearly be see in the case of Akkirans interview where he argued for the ability of Jedi ministers to be able to preform weddings in his nation. If you are meeting with officials to debate such a topic I know which name will give more initial credibility and not having to fight against misunderstood concepts more then we will already have to. At the end of the day its all aesthetics to me and really of minor concern but people are raising legitimate points and your statement was rather bluntly coming off as if you dont think as I do then dont bother calling yourself Jedi.

tzb wrote: It seems to me our Clergy does about... 10% of what ministers traditionally do, and it comprises about 10% of the actual role. It seems silly to perpetuate the idea our Clergy are or should be Ministers, because from years of practice I can say... we aren't. We won't be. And, critically, the actual community here doesn't need us to be.

Then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of ministry. Ministers minister; that is, they serve the congregation to which they minister. They serve the needs of those that are part of their sect. That's exactly what you're saying we do/should do/ought to do. Your stance that our clergy don't do what ministers do is not consistent with what you feel the clergy actually does.
[hr]

Trisskar wrote: Joking Aside - I do appreciate the fact that the Rank/Names are finally being looked at. It's something I have griped about for some time because of it's "Catholic" appearance.

The terms TOTJO currently uses are in widespread use among most major religions in the Western world, not just Catholicism. Buddhists have taken up the terminology for Western ears, as have many neo-pagan and reconstruction groups.
[hr]

Jamie Stick wrote: Was there any good faith effort to give the Synod the benefit of the doubt that maybe they weren't doing this all willy-nilly to upset the established order?

In my never-humble opinion, that sort of thing goes out the window when the Synod clears the changes with the Council before asking the Clergy and Seminarians what they think. That's completely backward of the way those suggestions should run; this is a conversation that should've happened among clergy first before being taken to Council.

MadHatter wrote:

Proteus wrote: Because if you don't much care, then you can continue to cling to those safe, "recognized" titles at the cost of being branded with ignorantly assumed imagery attached to them. If you insist on doing that, then you might as well not say you're a Jedi either and stay safely in your conditioned conventions.

But you are not telling people if they dont like it leave? I agree with Snowy here. Your statement is if we dont view things the same way as you do then we might was well give up the title Jedi and find something else. That is exactly how I read your statement.

It is not telling anybody to do anything. It's an expression saying "I don't quite understand the logic in worrying about one thing, but not another from which it is coming from. According to this logic, one would THINK that if one worries about the clergy titles to reject it, then one would worry about the term Jedi enough to reject that too."

See what I'm saying?

I feel that "minister" is a very neutral term here, and it's one that doesn't seem to be going anywhere no matter what decision is made. We'll still have Licensed Ministers and Ordained Ministers, no matter how many times we add, subtract, or re-label our Ranks. We're a legally recognized church that has the capacity to license and ordain ministers, whatever we call them.

As I said in the meeting, regardless of what we call our ranks, if I'm going to be speaking with someone outside the Temple in any capacity of a clergyperson, I'm going to start the conversation with "I'm Darren, I'm an ordained minister of the Temple of the Jedi Order." IF rank comes up, I'll explain what I'm called, even if by that point I'm High Heffalump. In my experience, "outsiders" get more hung up on the Knight part, and don't give a damn about the Deacon part anyway. I've found this way to be the easiest to communicate what it is that I might have to offer.

So, in regards to what we call the ranks, I don't think it matters all that much. Can we pretty-please not fight about it?

Billy Shakespeare wrote: What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;