Meeting of the Clergy 23 April 2016 18:00 UTC

Proteus wrote:

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 can get your intent. I can even see the logic behind it. However that is not how it comes off when reading it without this explanation. Now not to sound arrogant but I am fairly clever and being a sailor I am far from sensitive to things. So if I read it that way I can see where others are going to take it that way. I even asked my boyfriend to come read it to make sure I wasnt going nuts. He agreed. So it indeed sounded like you were saying like it or lose it.
Now onto the concern about the terms of clergy vs the term Jedi. It is one thing to be a Jedi in your day to day life and not give a flying fig what others think of your path. Its quite another for someone say like me that while I was in the military might have gone Officer as a Chaplin if I was ordained here before I got out. Now I know for a fact which set of titles will make my life easier and lend my words more weight while dealing with the chain of command. That is the point that is being made. That we are not worried about it when just being ourselves but when acting in an official capacity. If the clergy were never going to do anything outside this Temple I doubt people would care. But because we may well have to act in official capacities outside the Temple then we do need to at least lightly take into account how we appear to others.

Darren wrote: I I'll explain what I'm called, even if by that point I'm High Heffalump.

Ok I am in favor of using this title along with Grand Poobah.

If I may...

Someone brought up a point a few pages ago that seems to have gone somewhat overlooked, though not completely. By changing the name of the ranks currently used to "Guide" or what have you, you will be inherently making it more difficult for individuals to perform clerical duties outside of the site. Hospitals and public service buildings/organizations are not going to take "Guide" as a religious term or a spiritual leader. Even with a license, a person still has to get approved by their local jurisdiction in order to perform as basic of a clerical role as presiding overing a wedding. As that person pointed out, there are non-Christian organizations that utilize the word "minister" in their rankings.

Now, in response to that someone else responded that what the clergy of TotJO does is only about 10% of what a clergy typically does. Otherwise the role is different. I would disagree.

Take into account the definition of the word minister:

A minister

1. Leads church services. Check. Our ministers, priests, and so forth lead our church services in the form of the sermons, both written and live.
2. Performs religious ceremonies. Mostly a check, depending on the individual. Some preside over weddings where they are legally able. But beyond that, religious ceremonies could include the ordination of future clergy members.
3. Provides religious or spiritual guidance to members of the congregation. Check, check, and check again. I mean, that's why you want to use the word "guide" right?
4. Is a member of some Protestant churches Eh... not a check. You got me there.

Minus the whole protestant business, based on my understanding of the purpose of our clergy, you all are indeed ministers.

Ok, well someone recommended the use of the word "priest" instead. A priest is an individual authorized to perform religious ceremonies. Not much different from a minister.

How about we evaluate our current rank of "deacon". "One of the laymen elected by a church with congregational polity to serve in worship, in pastoral care, and on administrative committees" Deacon is a bit less applicable to what our clergy do. I see a point for wanting to change that one.

"Pastor" is someone who is a "spiritual overseer". Somewhat applicable... a bit.

Now let's look at the word "guide". Guides are people who lead other people on a journey. Or someone who directs another person's way. Or someone who provides another with "guiding information". "Guide" has the connotation that the person doing the "guiding" has superior knowledge and the ability to say what is right and wrong. But at no point in time does it mention anything about spiritual growth. At least priest and minister are specifically guiding a person's spiritual growth.

To be fair, I fail to see how this quote is accurate, based upon the definitions of what ministers and priests do:

So we could say "The guides are our ministers, our mentors, our lecturers and professors, here to help in times of need and guide in times of uncertainty". And so a Guide is still a Minister, but we don't DEFINE them as Ministers... because most of the time that's not the term for what they're doing. In fact, more often than not, we're guiding.

Based on precisely that quote and the definitions, you are in fact ministers. You are priests. Why change the name to something completely obscure to the outside world, when we can provide names that continue to show the same spiritual meaning and are identifiable to that outside world? And why take on the attitude of "if they want to know, they'll ask" or whatever it is that is the reasoning behind making it something that has no spiritual connotation what so ever? I'm sorry, but that just makes the whole thing less relateable and less approachable.

I happen to think that "minister" is precisely the title that is most applicable. Are we Christians? No. But again, as has been pointed out, minister is used by non-christian religions. As has Priest. But "guide"? No... no, I don't think that quite cuts it. "Guide" takes away the religious aspect of what is the site. And "Guide" just won't cut it for your average individual's public officials or local hospitals either, which really is something that should be taken into very, very strong consideration. Otherwise, why be a recognized religious organization? Why have a clergy? Please, keep it relateable, spiritually and religiously, to the general public.

Take 2:

I kinda like the suggested names, even if they could be adjusted. Regardless of if they are taken or changed at all, it kind of gives me a bigger understanding of the actual intention of the clergy, while stripping away the stigmatic image that more religious terms tend to hold to it.

I kind of feel like doing something like this is in the spirit of shedding the baggage of mainstream convention, and giving us a chance to put our own meaning to terms that we choose. I kind of feel like that has been an underlying factor behind the overall essence of using a term such as "Jedi".

Legally speaking, I understand that it may come with some obstacles to adapting it to official events. Could there be a way to get around this a bit easier? Maybe. There are some very clever minds around this temple afterall!

I've always been one to consider the "rose by any other name" quote in almost the majority of my experience here. But something about this particular proposal kind of informed me of a lot of things surrounding our roles and the potential of how we choose to define what we do in a different and un-binded light.

Even if we don't go with those names or just keep it as it is, that's fine. It just seems to me that if I'm going to redefine myself with the term "Jedi", why not go the next step and do the same thing with [insert whatever replacement name for clergy title here]?

Hi everyone,

I plan to allow after-meeting conversation for a week. So please try to get your points in by next Saturday. Sorry if there was confusion as to where to put your input. Please post it here. Synod will look at everything once the week is over. Thanks,
Ros

Avalonslight wrote: If I may...

Sum things up perfectly in my opinon? Yes indeed Seriously I'll post my own thoughts below but you kind hit the nail on the head with a sledgehammer here.

Proteus wrote: Take 2:

I kind of feel like doing something like this is in the spirit of shedding the baggage of mainstream convention, and giving us a chance to put our own meaning to terms that we choose. I kind of feel like that has been an underlying factor behind the overall essence of using a term such as "Jedi".

Legally speaking, I understand that it may come with some obstacles to adapting it to official events. Could there be a way to get around this a bit easier? Maybe. There are some very clever minds around this temple afterall!

I can get this. I even agree with it to a degree. I simply think that what you had originally said was misunderstood and when clarified was much better received, So seriously thanks for explaining. Further thank you for seeing the concerns that are being brought up. Not a lot of people are willing to cede ground in debate so thank you.

---

My thoughts are as follows:
1) I dont care for the suggested names as they sound like boy scout troupe titles to me but that is really a minor matter
2) I think that we should consider the outsiders view for clergy titles as this can impact the work of the clergy
3) I think Avalonslight's post is a slam dunk on why we should consider other titles.
4) If we insist on going with the current titles a system of titles for outside use would be handy as someone else suggested

Those are my thoughts on the matter and I think that this post is important not only for debating the issue at hand but for us clarifying the role and goal of the clergy. This thread has a lot of great material and frankly brought up some important concepts that I think we should all mull over.

steamboat28 wrote:

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.

O, such arrogance! "If things don't go my way, I'm going to disrespect everyone and everything that created the space for me to be here." It's moments like this when I think the Synod should go full-on oligarchy and forget trying to include the rest of the Clergy in the decision-making process.

Consider this: Given the tendency for every single change at the Temple to cause an uproar and that the Synod falls under the authority of the Council, wouldn't it be prudent to get an okay from the Council before making plans to change something about the structure of the Clergy? If the Synod announces that they're in the planning stages of a change that will affect the whole Clergy and then the Council comes back and says, "We didn't authorize this, stop right now!" then the whole Clergy and possibly the Temple at large will be thrown into an upset over nothing.

[hr]

Apparently I misunderstood that you can in fact submit comments and suggestions directly to this thread.

After considering the arguments of everyone present at the meeting I feel as though the reason for changing the clerical rank names is a good one: eliminating or negating the historical baggage that comes with our ranks. I have long felt that those terms were uncomfortable and whenever I have conversations about my ministry with people outside the Temple they are often taken aback to hear the word "Synod" I take from this that if any singular point of historical baggage exists within the clergy then it is within the name of our clerical governing body. That said, I'm all in favor of changing the rank titles and I'm generally not the type to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I must agree that the names decided upon feel a bit too uninvolved or dispassionate. I wouldn't go so far as the camp counselor metaphor Snowy used, but guide definitely implies to me less of a role in the spiritual formation and care of the Temple congregation than the baggage-heavy minister/deacon/priest/bishop rank names.

On the other hand, I like the term guide because it has less prestige. Frankly, I feel that too often these ranks and titles are more of a burden than they are of a help. Too often it feels like just another notch in the belt or a virtual trophy to display rather than a symbol of the obligation we have to the Temple and to Life itself. I think the Synod and presumably the Council were on the right track with acolyte/guide/senior guide/master guide rank names in both reasoning for wanting to change the name of the ranks and in choosing something that speaks to what we do as Clergy. The only one I really don't like is Acolyte as a replacement for Licensed Minister. It really does feel like a demotion. Maybe that’s pride and I just need to let that go and accept the new name, but perhaps Acolyte could be the name for Seminarians? When I think of an acolyte I think of either Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic (in the game low level Sith baddies were called Sith Acolytes) or I think of laypeople in the Catholic Church (altar boys, musicians, etc).

In regards to the legal credibility of the proposed rank names, can anyone cite me a legal precedent that would suggest Guide is any less legitimate than Deacon, Priest, or Bishop? To me, this argument seems like the least plausible considering there are so many cultures and religions with their own titles, names, and ideas about Clergy that to regulate what titles are acceptable seems absurd. In my research on laws regarding Clergy responsibilities for the Seminary, I did not come across anything that suggested there was any legal definition of what constitutes of member of the Clergy except that the religious organization designates them so. Maybe its different in other states or countries, but in Illinois the law simply uses the generic term "clergyperson" to speak to the rights and responsibilities of a person of the Clergy.

In thinking about what names might be given to the Clergy I tried to ask myself what it is the Clergy do. I'll admit, guide is pretty apt word considering we don't really teach (a la Rabbi) nor are we officiating some vastly complex ritual in series of liturgical rites in hopes of appeasing the gods (a la Priest). I came up a few one-sentence descriptions that articulate what it is we do as well as including guide.

“Temple clergy guide the congregation in their spiritual journey.”
“Temple clergy care for the spiritual wellbeing of the congregation.”

And then there’s a few that utilize metaphor:

“Temple clergy endeavor to walk alongside Jedi who have chosen to take the Path as a spiritual journey.”
“Temple clergy are the gardeners of the parishioner’s soul, helping the seed of spiritual truth germinate and grow to maturity.”

From these sentences we get the original idea of guide as well as caretaker, walk along, and gardener.

Another aspect of this that I think bears consideration is whether it is truly necessary to have separate titles for LM, Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. Whatever is decided, be it guide or something else, does it really need a modifier to indicate what level they are? Since we don’t use ranks in hierarchical command structure, it seems like the modifiers are unnecessary. The only time it seems to matter is when it comes to ordination for the purpose of privileges associated with that responsibility (eligibility to serve on the Synod, for example). In that case, adverts for Synod positions could say something like, “this position is open to ordained guides/caretakers/gardeners/walk alongs.” We could either eliminate the distinction between Deacon/Priest/Bishop altogether or refer to them as degrees or levels Priest = 3rd degree/level Guide where Guide would simply be how the Temple refers to all clergy and the level/degree would only be used internally among the clergy whenever that distinction was necessary.

Minister and Priest seem pretty universal, perhaps just use them (plus Seminarian) and throw on some latin words for the ranks of each.... like Latin colors;
Licensed Minister -> Minister Caeruleus
Deacon -> Minister Indicus
Priest -> Priest Indicus
Bishop -> Priest Violaceus
:lol:
The latin being just for internal use.

Jamie Stick wrote: 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.

Mmm.. If the clergy consist out of different ranks, completing different tasks, it must be displayed within the clergy. If a person is requesting the help of a clerk, they only seek a clerk that is identified as a clerk to help them. I feel a little bit double about this. Giving more information can be like an overkill for the image of being humble, but on the other side it is also a way to identify the different tasks and responsibilities. When a system becomes more simple, the weight on the remaining parts will be more heavy, and should be credible.

MadHatter wrote: Its quite another for someone say like me that while I was in the military might have gone Officer as a Chaplin if I was ordained here before I got out. Now I know for a fact which set of titles will make my life easier and lend my words more weight while dealing with the chain of command.

"It will be a hard life; one without reward, without remorse, without regret. A path will be placed before you. The choice is yours alone. Do what you think you cannot do. It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are."
―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker


In a modern time where everyone is accepting everything and against discrimination and......so forth and so on.

I feel it is incorrect and spiritually unwise to simply accept some other Religions system just to make life easy in a Christian heavy world. We may as well just call ourselves Christian. Or Catholic. Or....Whatever.

Which is why I have been against the ranks since the beggining.

We are Jedi.

We are unique

We are spiritual not religious (At least to me)

We should have our own system and not bow down to greater powers just to appease other people.

If everyone else can fight for there rights to be heard and appreciated. We should as well.

But.....Thats just me

In my opinion, the clergy of any religion are there to support and serve their community.

If the names are changed, I believe they should be changed to something that is more easily identifiable to newcomers and those unfamiliar with our Temple structure. Guide may be an accurate term for what clergy do here, but it is a bit ambiguous. "To make my life easier and lend my words more weight" is on the right track, but I think it would be more accurate to say "To better facilitate my serving my community."

I completely understand the idea of getting rid of the old terms and their baggage. I don't completely disagree with that, either. But I think if the the names are changed, they need to be a bit more descriptive. If the community is going to change the name to make themselves "sound" more humble or "sound" more unique, at the expense of the ease of serving others, I have to question whether the name change is not egotistical in nature itself. Make others see you are humble by your actions, not by your titles. But make it easy for those who need to know you are there to serve to find you.

Jamie Stick wrote: 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?

I have never in my life been accused of holding a clerical title that held "prestige" or "bragging rights." Clergy might be appreciated, but they're not congratulated. The titles themselves are marks of ever-increasing selfless service to their community, every rung of the ladder taking more and more time and effort away from personal pursuits to be put toward aiding the community toward finding itself, helping itself, fixing itself, and teaching itself.

If anyone views the clergy as having "bragging rights", then either we need to fundamentally change the clergy, or they need to get an eyeful of what the clergy actually do, because it denotes there's a problem somewhere. Being clergy is not prestigious or glamorous. It's g**damned exhausting on every conceivable level.

I PM'ed this....but was asked to post it here instead so....

Just tossing out a suggestion/idea Keep...don't..... I went to the clergy page and edited according to my suggestions.

---

---

Clergy ---> Jedi Shepherds

---

What Shepherds are not: Our Shepherds are not mental healthcare professionals, or medical councolors. It is adviced that if you require such, to seek out your local health care provider or contact your your regions help line phone contacts which should be available in your phone book or easily googled online.

Our Shepherds of Temple of the Jedi Order are specifically trained with the spritiual well-being of the community as a whole. Our Shepherds are not spiritual authorities, but they are entrusted with helping guide people along their Jedi journeys.

As a non-profit religious organisation TotJO has the ability to licence and ordain ministers to serve in a clerical capacity. All Ministers can officiate weddings and conduct other religious ceremonies. Both licenses and ordinations are Legal in every state in the USA and may be in foreign countries (check with your local civil authorities for guidelines).

To become a Minister of the Force you must be Licensed or Ordained by TotJO; it is not a Certificate that makes you a minister but our records on file.

---

Synod ---> Shepard Conclave

---

(Note:: I honestly don't see why this is here. Just pick your team and hold your meetings and call it the Shepards Conclave - For the record I feel the same way about the Rank "Council" It shouldn't be a rank...just the deffinition of meetings.)

The Conclave is made up of lead Shepherds that oversees and facilitates the process and organization of the Shepherds duties. Providing direction and implementing changes and updates.

---

Seminary ---> Assembly

---

The Assembly is the section of TotJO that deals with the Shepherds Training Programme. To join the Shepherds you should first contact a Priest. You will then be interviewed by one or more members of the Shepherds Conclave and, if successful, invited to join the Assembly.

There is a difference in the kind of training done for the Shephards Training Programme in the Assembly compared to the training done for the Degree Scheme. The degree training is there to help individuals and members with their own understanding of the Jedi path as it applies to them. The seminary training is there to provide assistance and to further expand another individual's understanding of their Jedi path.

Training consists of a series of exercises that require your understanding of various topics including: relevant terms such as “liturgy”, the duties of a member of the Shephards, legality, empathy and role-play situations.

Upon completion of the Shephards Training Programme your work will be reviewed by the Shephards Conclave and, if your work meets the expectations required of a member of the Shephards, you will be interviewed by the Shephards Conclave which, if successful, will promote you.

There is a requirement of having reached the rank of Initiate and being at least sixteen (16) years of age prior to being admitted into the Assembly (our Shephards training area).

If you would like a certificate detailing your Priesthood Licence, these may be sent, for a small fee, by post.

---

5. What are the Shepard Ranks? What are their roles?

---

Seminarian ---> Shepard Novice

Temporary Minister---> Shepard Adept

Licensed Minister ---> Shepard Priest/Priestess

Deacon ---> Lvl I - Brunis (Brown) Priest/Priestess

Priest ---> Lvl II - Viride (Green) Priest/Priestess

Bishop ---> Lvl III Album (White) Priest/Priestess

Trisskar wrote: I feel it is incorrect and spiritually unwise to simply accept some other Religions system just to make life easy in a Christian heavy world. We may as well just call ourselves Christian. Or Catholic. Or....Whatever.

No. See, the funny thing about being Christian is that you have to actually hold Christian beliefs to be one. Same with Catholicism; you're not a Catholic unless you're a Catholic. Buddhism, Shinto, Hinduism, Santeria, a whole host of neo-Pagan and reconstructionist groups, and many, many other non-Abrahamic religious groups use terms like "deacon", "priest", "bishop", "abbot", "monk", "nun", etc. when speaking to Western audiences so that they are understood. These terms are not owned, trademarked, or otherwise indicative of Catholicism. People who believe they are have not experienced them in use among other faith groups, or have a serious issue with Catholicism they need to work out on their own. I am growing very tired of rebutting this point which has zero factual evidence to support it, and is only borne out of the overwhelming anti-Christian bias evident in so many in this Temple.

We are Jedi.
We are unique

But we're not speshul snowflaykes. Being unique is great from a doctrinal standpoint. Being too unique, in terms of accessibility to outsiders (which, btw, is already ludicrously difficult) is just going to make everything the clergy do outside of this digital site immeasurably more difficult.

We should have our own system and not bow down to greater powers just to appease other people.

That's what these new proposals are doing, though, Trisskar. They're bowing down to the pressure against these specific terms because of the associations that other people have built up against them in their private lives, and are a move to appease those people. Those people who will hold a bias rather than explore the origins of the terms or their meanings, or how they're put to use in myriad other faiths in the English-speaking world. The Synod is, by proposing these name changes, doing exactly what you're claiming is a bad thing: they're bending the knee to opinion to please others. Rather than help disassociate these terms with whatever problems people have with them (which can be done, mind you, by changing the way the clergy act and not what the clergy call themselves), we're choosing to safety-pad the clergy for their benefit, which actually obfuscates the role the clergy should have in the Temple, and makes their lives more difficult when dealing with outsiders.

In the meeting, you'll note that many of the concerns brought up about interaction with non-Jedi were hand-waved by a simple "if they get confused, they can ask." This is, to me, indicative of what's wrong with TOTJO-style Jediism. They shouldn't have to ask. They should either intuitively know, or we should go out of our way to tell them. The former is best when dealing with legal and secular bodies, like trying to get on approval lists for hospital visits or prison ministry, or when attempting to deal with local authorities about authorization for weddings. The latter is best when dealing with journalists, who are the only people who will really sit down and take the time to listen to any longwinded nonsense about how clergy are "just guides" now (which, for those of you in the back row, is exactly what clergy are, no matter what you choose to call them), rather than having a more accessible term.

The reason clergy use clerical titles and modes of address is so they stand out--not out of arrogance, but so the people who need them can find them. "Guide" is too generic and non-specific in a religion where we also have Masters. It doesn't say "Hi, I'm clergy!" instantly to anyone outside of Jediism, and those are the people who are most likely to need to know without an explanation. We keep circling the same three or four points, and there are only so many ways I can explain that if this name change takes effect, the job of the clergy will become much, much harder on people who attempt to do their clerical duties out in the real world. Everybody scoffs at the notion that we should be taken seriously, but sometimes it actually matters. This is one of those times.

Trisskar wrote:

MadHatter wrote: Its quite another for someone say like me that while I was in the military might have gone Officer as a Chaplin if I was ordained here before I got out. Now I know for a fact which set of titles will make my life easier and lend my words more weight while dealing with the chain of command.

"It will be a hard life; one without reward, without remorse, without regret. A path will be placed before you. The choice is yours alone. Do what you think you cannot do. It will be a hard life, but you will find out who you are."
―Qui-Gon Jinn, to Anakin Skywalker


In a modern time where everyone is accepting everything and against discrimination and......so forth and so on.

I feel it is incorrect and spiritually unwise to simply accept some other Religions system just to make life easy in a Christian heavy world. We may as well just call ourselves Christian. Or Catholic. Or....Whatever.

Which is why I have been against the ranks since the beggining.

We are Jedi.

We are unique

We are spiritual not religious (At least to me)

We should have our own system and not bow down to greater powers just to appease other people.

If everyone else can fight for there rights to be heard and appreciated. We should as well.

But.....Thats just me

No Triss its not just you !

Humility is an admirable trait but can be detrimental if taken too far. "time and a place". I've always been one to prefer proper application.

I understand the idea of changing the titles. I've never had a problem with it, I remember being a bit confused but I wasn't raised with those specific titles in that way and had to learn them.

"Guide" however, is too...general. Honestly if I walked in brand-spakin' new and saw someone with "Guide" under their name I would assume they were there to direct me to where the IP is, or if I had questions on the workings of the Temple. It doesn't sound at all as if they were intended to guide me in a SPIRITUAL sense. It just doesn't carry the proper weight. By the same token, Acolyte, although I like the term, at it's current position for LM, it is a demotion. Magister makes me think of government.

As far as what they SHOULD be instead? I still need more time to think about it

To the comment on legal legitimacy, or lack thereof, following such a change... It's not a matter of an actual lack of legal legitimacy so much as it is a matter of perceived legal legitimacy. And perception is everything. Even in the US, where most jurisdictions simply say "ordained clergymen", some locations require the registration of said "ordained clergymen" to perform roles such as marriage officiate. In my own state, state law does not require said registrations, but some county and city laws do. I imagine that anyone one of us going to do such a registration and saying "I'm a Jedi Guide and I want to [insert clerical thing here]" would get scoffed at and their certifications of ordination heavily scrutinized. That is within the US; we need to remember that we have many active members, both regular and clergy, in other countries which are far more restrictive over who can and cannot perform such duties.

As someone else already stated, this is one of those instances where an effort to make it relateable to the outside "non-Jedi" public is necessary and where the ability to take such things seriously should be taken into strong consideration. If you simply don't care about that, that is to say the relateability to the general public or the seriousness of it when performing clerical roles off site (marriages, hospital visits, prison visits, etc etc etc) then why do we have an official clergy to begin with...? And don't say it's for the benefit of the site, because as we all know, anyone can conduct sermons.

I appreciate people giving this issue so much attention and, I hope, some sober reflection. I am also pleased to see people not directly involved with our Clergy taking time. I believe some good will come of this.

Also, we should be mindful not to let a disagreement about this become fuel for further division and suspicion. If we disagree, it can be amicable disagreement. Bear the code in mind as we move on.

The goal of these name changes was never imposition. In fact, it was meant to take some useless weight off of those called to serve in this capacity.

Our titles come from traditions that express the role of the spiritual helper in terms that are paternalistic, if not explicitly parental, or with shepherd imagery. But, as an ordained clergy person, I cannot regard the people of this Temple as either children or sheep. Nor am I willing to go where those names would tend to lead me. They were chosen for their familiarity, and I do not think that was a mistake. They have certainly served their purpose, but I do think it is time to move on. There are elements of this spiritual endeavor that are quite different than those of the traditions from which we might borrow labels. I believe we are strong enough to forge our own identity.

If we want to talk about familiarity and legitimacy, we need to be honest with ourselves. Yes, the term Priest is highly recognizable, but throw Jedi on the front of it, and you are communicating less than you think. In my experience, and talking to people in the public about it, I find it causes more confusion. As it is, I describe myself as an OCP, an ordained clergy person. And that will still be true if the term Guide (or some other term) is adopted. The Rev. title will remain before one’s name, as well as the OCP after one’s name. Those legal bits serve a purpose and there is no reason to abandon them.

I also know that the seminary though which I passed did not make the same demands of me that the seminaries of many other traditions do. I did not set aside two to four years of my life, setting aside all other ambitions or the hope for a family, to get where I am today. If the concern is legitimacy, consider then people who call themselves doctors but have no MD of Ph.D. No, it is not quite the same thing. The difference is not, in my opinion, great enough. The mantle we put on ourselves may have diminished us.

If people within our community, be that the larger Jedi community or our Temple in particular, have questions, we should have no fear of making an explanation. It is just another occasion for exploration. We would be making something of a break with the past, yes, but I have no fear of that. As I write this, I am willing to give people credit for being reasonably bright. People will ask questions. We will be up to the task of answering them. I believe people will be able to make sense of it.

One might argue that they should not have to, but to that I would say, again, that I think co-opting the titles of other faiths and appending them to this spiritual endeavor that we are constantly refining and redefining actually obscures more than it clarifies. I suspect the explanations will get better with a clean slate upon which to work.

But, all that aside for a moment, this attempt at renaming speaks to a reorientation of our mission and I ask you to be flexible in considering it.

Some of you have read my last sermon. I meant what I said. It is time for us to step away from the conceit of “providers of spiritual Truth.” Our mission should be, when invited, to share the journey with anyone who asks, walking side by side with them. Even the Master Guide does not provide answers as such. That title simply denotes their greater education and experience in the hows and whys of walking alongside. This is, and must be, about service. The terms Acolyte and Guide are not particularly lofty. But, is that what we need?

Could a friend do it, or a Teaching Master? Sure. Why not? But, should one need such a spiritual partner, here are those called and committed to that task. The Guide listens, presents the unasked questions, points to what may not yet have been seen, and reminds you to stay on your own Path when ease or expedience would beg you to do otherwise.

All of it will have to be explained. That was always true. A Deacon here is not the same as a Deacon elsewhere. And any change can be difficult, if not outright intimidating. All that being true, the Clergy must evolve. I suspect most of you sense that. The push for change has been present in this Temple longer than I. These title changes were designed to introduce and reflect the Clergy that we must, in my opinion, mature into.

Sit with this for a moment. Take at least a few hours to think it over. I am very interested in your considered response. You will agree, or you will not. I do not demand consent. I simply ask that you roll it over in your mind for a while.

Quite frankly, if I am asked to choose a much better term that more effectively describes the Clergy that seeks to serve this Temple, as the Jedi seek to serve the world, a term that I did not imagine before, that seems like a pretty good problem to have.

Thank you for your time. Please give each other the courtesy of remembering that we have such strident opinions because we care about what comes next. We may see the problem and potential solutions differently, but I think we all care. Do bear that in mind.

Shephard (See post above)- Is something that I like It is much more (in my opinion) What I see the Clergy as it is now. A group of people helping to Shephard members towards the doctrines, beliefs, and structures of this temple. It has the same idea behind the "Guide" and in Latin it actually means Pastor haha but also maintains the humbling factors desired.

Priest/Priestess is used for Jedi even in the Star Wars universe and fits alot of what the more spiritual sided Jedi do. So the two. Shephard and Priest fits well IMO.

Which is why I made the suggestions I did above after a night of reflection. Good luck guys and again. Thank you for considering the cry for change

I am not yet a member of the clergy or even a seminarian. I intended to so so between finishing the IP and becoming an apprentice but I got scooped up pretty quick (oh darn, right? :lol: ). It is still my intention to join the Clergy but I chose to focus solely on my apprenticeship at the moment as Edan and tzb can tell you I like to take my time on things. :laugh:

It has always seemed a bit odd to me that we used such Catholic sounding terms for our clergy. I get it, but it still seemed odd. I am in favor of finding terms that are more...for lack of a better phrase here...more Jedi in nature. We are our own thing, separate from anything else, so having different names isn't a problem for me. I can understand the arguments of not having them recognized, but I think it was said earlier that we could use two names. I see nothing wrong with having our own term for things and being able to say "It's like a minister." Easy, quick, explained, done.

I'm not super keen on the term Guide though. I see where it's going and I like it, but it just seems off still. I like Shepard but it does carry implications of the non-Shepards being sheep, which I don't like (though I have said as much on more than one occasion, different context though ). I'm also not too fond of Acolyte, but that's probably just because it's a term I'm less familiar with.

I like Priest. It carries the recognition in the general public as a religious title but isn't super specific to another religion as I'm pretty sure many others use it. To me it also feels a bit more spiritual than Minister. I'm not sure why, but Minister just doesn't feel as spiritual as Priest/Priestess does. If we could have the title all center around Priest/Priestess in some way I think that would be the best naming convention. Priest, Senior Priest, High Priest, Head Priest, Junior Priest, Grand Priest, etc.

I was asked to explain my reasoning behind the Leveled Preiets ranks. Thought id share it here....

I just looked up the Latin Name for each color And then used the common colors seen in druidry and other pagan circles.

Deacon ---> Lvl I - Brunis (Brown) Priest/Priestess
Priest ---> Lvl II - Viride (Green) Priest/Priestess
Bishop ---> Lvl III Album (White) Priest/Priestess

Brown being the Earth and Soil in which seeds grow from

Green being the foliage and growth of plants and life

White being the usual "Purity" symbolism it usually holds

---

Which, Depending on who you talk to ---- Is just another level of beginner In other words one went from one level of begginer to another level. In which case the White will eventually return to brown with the hardship of training ((White Belt Japanese theory))