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.