Meeting of the Clergy 23 April 2016 18:00 UTC

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;