Mission and Objectives of the Clergy

Kyber wrote: ==> Another proposal I have is to untie the authority that council has on the clergy and make our order a democratic issue, leaving the synod not with the decision function, but only with coordination, but with all decisions being voted by the members of the clergy themselves. The council could have a representative within the clergy to bring the vision of the council to us, but it is up to us to decide, obviously respecting the rules of the temple.

I do like this idea but how to safeguard the position of the Council if the Synod takes more power? Are there ways to give the Synod more power without separating them from the Council? It feels dangerous.. :blush: Maybe the Synod could Talk with the Council to make a multi year plan. A plan that allows certain freedoms without unbinding it from the Council. Maybe an idea to make it so that if the mission of the Synod where to change change it could be requested to unbind the multi year plan, or if the council (only council) feels to do something political executive, that this multi year plan comes to expire. And forced talk again returning the granted power to the Synod back to the Council? ... :blush:

Kyber wrote: ==> As for the ranks, I think we can wait to change those names until we have a really good idea. For all intents and purposes are just names that tell us how long we are on this walk and what we learn from it. Nothing else.

The ratio of people holding a rank is weird at the moment. I am not sure but maybe it is an idea to think about that too if changing rank names? Maybe a long term plan, and unbinding the pastor`s bishop rank upon resigning, make it only not to revoke if it is given saperate from the office. :blink: I do hope that the legal titles of the ranks stay.

Again I agree with you SteamBoat, I think we need go fast, and accurate, or this question go on for months.

Codex, I love your ideia, making a horizontal plan. But I just think why council choose our pastor. We can do it with own hands.
Finaly, yes. If we change the names it is for a long long time

Kyber wrote: Again I agree with you SteamBoat, I think we need go fast, and accurate, or this question go on for months.

Codex, I love your ideia, making a horizontal plan. But I just think why council choose our pastor. We can do it with own hands.
Finaly, yes. If we change the names it is for a long long time

I would love that the Clergy is being able to choose their own Pastor. :woohoo:

I like the idea of just one Councellor representative in the Clergy and off course the other way around , only one Clergy member in the Council ...

MartaLina wrote: I like the idea of just one Councellor representative in the Clergy and off course the other way around , only one Clergy member in the Council ...

That would be a little difficult : John and I - as well as the new Pastor - would be Bishops ; Michael is a Priest. Four out of the six voting members of the Council are Clergy. So, to have only one clergy member on the Council would require some extensive trimming ... :huh:

I think it is possible with what you recommend Marta for the council to become unbalanced. If only one council member represents us, the others may end up being non clergy. There would be no reason for them to attend meetingsnand get in touch with our vision as a group. They might not even understand our usefulness.

We are not an autonomous group, but a subset of the Temple. What we do must be approved by the Council. Without sufficient representation, we will be at a distinct disadvantage

I think it is possible with what you recommend Marta for the council to become unbalanced. If only one council member represents us, the others may end up being non clergy. There would be no reason for them to attend meetingsnand get in touch with our vision as a group. They might not even understand our usefulness.

We are not an autonomous group, but a subset of the Temple. What we do must be approved by the Council. Without sufficient representation, we will be at a distinct disadvantage

Alexandre Orion wrote:

MartaLina wrote: I like the idea of just one Councellor representative in the Clergy and off course the other way around , only one Clergy member in the Council ...

That would be a little difficult : John and I - as well as the new Pastor - would be Bishops ; Michael is a Priest. Four out of the six voting members of the Council are Clergy. So, to have only one clergy member on the Council would require some extensive trimming ... :huh:

I am sorry , it was banter, i realise that in a religious organisation that is the case , but i thought about what Bruno said and then realised that even the only Council member that he wants in the Clergy probably is a Clergy member aswell , i should have been clearer ...

The Temple is a Church; her clergy are more than just a "subset" of membership.

Speaking as a former Priest:

What is the role of clergy in ToTJO?

If you asked almost any member, including many of the Clergy, they wouldn't be able to give you a succinct (or coherent) response. That's a tremendous problem.

For me, the role of the Clergy is supporting this community. I am not interested in supporting the community's "spiritual wellbeing" because the concept of a "spirit" is meaningless to me, in my Jedi belief. There is the Force. That's it. I find the borrowed terminology very tedious and unnecessary.

Should we serve people?

Obviously. We're Jedi.

Is our role really supportive?

It can be, and other things the Clergy do they do for their own sake. Forcing sermons out when we don't have anything important to say, so that we can say "I did a sermon!"... the moments when someone is asking for help in the forum and someone has to remind the rest of the Clergy they should be responding to that... plenty of these "what the f-ck" moments throughout the organisation, really.

And of course for all the "supportive clergy" there's the many inactive or non-clerically-active rank holders dragging the average down. For all the busy, engaged Clergy out there, there's nothing worse than seeing 90% of rank holders doing nothing... meaning the community see the rank as synonymous with "doing nothing".

Is there a difference between being a knight and being a cleric?

Yes - although for me the Clergy are "Knights for Knights". Knights are charged with caring for their communities. Clergy have an especial responsibility for this community.

How can we support people?

Any number of ways. Primarily by training and preparing for things this community actually requires regularly (eg supporting people in crisis, rather than preparing to give funerals) and then, y'know, doing it.

What kind of support should we give?

As above

How can we work directly and indirectly for ToTJO's spiritual health?

As above

How do we understand our order? Priests? Bishops? Monks? Shamans?

Irrelevant. Jedi. What would be the point of adhering to some pre-existing structure? We are us. That's good enough.

What is our leadership profile?

No idea what this means, but I will say the Clergy of the last few years has had a huge number of leaders and pretty much no active members outside of that to lead. I would absolutely support a rolling back of the infrastructure which seems built to support far more active Clergy than we have.

tzb wrote:
No idea what this means, but I will say the Clergy of the last few years has had a huge number of leaders and pretty much no active members outside of that to lead. I would absolutely support a rolling back of the infrastructure which seems built to support far more active Clergy than we have.

I am sorry to say this but.. Why do we have 6 and maybe soon 7 bishops and just 3 priests. Just hypothetically.. what would happen if we would have less bishops compared to priests? What would change? And how would this change hypothetically affect the Clergy in doing her duties?

~

Someone explain to me what the hell a "Jedi Bishop" even means, please.

There are several. Some are involved in Clerical affairs. Others aren't even active at the Temple.

It's an honorific, which, given we're supposed to be a Jedi organisation, is laughable. How about we put down the self-aggrandising baubles and get on with being Jedi?

tzb wrote: Someone explain to me what the hell a "Jedi Bishop" even means, please.

There are several. Some are involved in Clerical affairs. Others aren't even active at the Temple.

It's an honorific, which, given we're supposed to be a Jedi organisation, is laughable. How about we put down the self-aggrandising baubles and get on with being Jedi?

The Clergy FAQ Page does not give a description of the Bishop, or what it does. Only a global description of its duties and powers.

Even if it did, given what our Bishops actually variously do and don't do, it would be meaningless. It is literally a pointless rank. And even in this thread, we're hearing the next Pastor will need to be one before they can become Pastor, meaning an ad-hoc promotion - as per the last two Pastors.

So it's not even that "only Bishops can be considered for Pastor" - we literally just give it to new Pastors, like a free boat.

Madness.

I feel confused about this.. I like what you say tzb but simultaneously I wonder were it is written that a Pastor must be a Bishop. :blink: I think that rank could have benefits if it would be not given as easily, if it would hold more duties to be met. The thing is.. what would set a bishop 'aside' from a priest? What makes a bishop 'valuable' or what should make it 'valuable'? Modern day Bishops are responsible for a large piece of land, obviously this is not possible, or I maybe better said, totally not useful in a digital Temple? So what makes a Bishop a Bishop? :ohmy: I am totally unfamiliar with religious ranks, besides my basic know how, have to mention that.. :blush:

Codex wrote: I wonder where it is written that a Pastor must be a Bishop. :blink:

I can only imagine that is the case, but that is literally rank for rank's sake... as I say, madness. What the hell is the point?

Traditionally (outside of Jediism), Bishops:

• consecrate priests
• oversee large areas of ministry (cities, jurisdictions, etc.)
• serve as ministers to ministers

It isn't a useless rank. It's simply one you may not see the usefulness of.

It could certainly do with being more useful. I'd be delighted to work as deacon and work my way up still (if I were to be given the Pastorship). Pastor is an administrative role and I dont need to be a Bishop to do my job. I would ordain as a function of my office.

I'd like to suggest a proposal to this effect be submitted to council.

[removed by me]

NB: These answers are are coming straight and unfiltered from my mind, and may not be very well thought-out, ha ha!


What is the role of clergy in ToTJO?
I think this needs to be defined first and foremost. I see the clergy as being responsible for the spiritual/mystical side of Jediism (as opposed to knights, who deal with the more practical aspects). Examples: the nature of the Force, how it works in our lives, how we can better connect with the Force, etc.

Should we serve people?
Obviously, but with the focus on spiritual/emotional well-being. I would include marriage/birth/funerary rituals, and non-professional counselling in this sphere.

Is our role really supportive?
Currently, no. But I think it should be. We need a bigger presence in the Temple. More clarity about what it is we do and how we do it. This should be easily accessible to all Temple members.

Is there a difference between being a knight and being a cleric?
As I said above, a knight deal with the practical aspects of Jediism: education, community service, self-improvement. Clerics should handle the spiritual/mystical/emotional side: exploring the nature of the Force, tending to the emotional/spiritual health of the members, etc. I would even say that they represent the masculine and feminine aspects of Jediism. Knights serve and Clergy nurtures. Knights are our outward manifestation, clerics are our introspection. Members can choose to walk one or the other path, or both.

How can we support people?
By offering chat/PM support to those in distress (or recognizing and approaching people who may be in distress based on forum posts), by offering insight when questions about spirituality arise, by regularly writing sermons and/or treatises about Jediism and the Force.

What kind of support should we give?
See above

How can we work directly and indirectly for ToTJO's spiritual health?
See above. Also, as a group, we should discuss and clarify our position on Jediism and the Force, and create/acquire material (writing, art, videos, etc) based on this, both for the benefit of the clergy and the Temple at large.

How do we understand our order? Priests? Bishops? Monks? Shamans?
I think this depends on how we want to be seen by the community. The structure needs to be clarified and organized, that's for sure. Roles out to be defined not just by level of education in Jediism, but it needs to be clear what their roles are. I also wouldn't mind finding a different set of names that doesn't borrow the Christian ones so much. Some like priest/priestess are pretty universal, but others like minister/bishop/pastor are pretty Christian-centric. I'd also like to see more clear demarcations between roles and titles.

What is our leadership profile?
It should be more comprehensive than it is now. I suggest a line of succession of some kind (for some positions anyhow), or a tiered organizational structure. If someone knows that their current role is preparing them for the next one, it would encourage them not only to keep learning/serving in their position, but ready them for the next, should the need arise. Leaders can be in charge of particular roles/projects within the clergy