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.