?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Reviewing the CTP: Rewarding Advancement and Dividing the Ordained and Consecrated - Chronarchy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Chronarchy.com

Links
Ár nDraíocht Féin
Three Cranes
MySpace
Chaos Matrix
OSU PSA

May 9th, 2010


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
10:37 am - Reviewing the CTP: Rewarding Advancement and Dividing the Ordained and Consecrated
I posted a bit ago about adding a discipline requirement to the CTP, and increasing the required discipline as our Priests "move up" in the CTP. If we expect additional work to be done on the "disciplinary" level of our Priesthood as folk progress through the program, then we must ensure both balance in their work in ADF and that there are rewards available for those who do the work.

Some of these things have been brought up before, but centrally, at this time we have effectively made "consecrated" and "ordained" Priests identical, except that consecrated Priests are required to renew their credentials. This is problematic on many levels, as it makes our system far more complicated for new (and old) members, and most members can't expalin the difference between ordination and consecration. This will need to change, and a set of "rules" that differentiate between those who are consecrated and those who are ordained can help explain those differences.

I am working from the basic assumption that our Ordained members will be more focused on the spiritual affairs of our church than the administrative portion, and also that they have devoted more time and energy than the average member (or even average clergyperson) toward building skills in order to give those skills to ADF, so ADF should also reciprocate by giving to them as well.

Some items I might recommend due to advancement to prevent work overload/burnout:
  • Removal of ability to serve on the Mother Grove for Ordained Priests (except as Archdruid or Vice Archdruid; Consecrated Priests would face no such limitation).
  • Impose a limit on offices held, elected or appointed, at any given time by CTP Circle 2 and Circle 3 students.
Some thoughts on rewarding advancement might include:
  • Paying for an ADF Ordained Priest's ADF membership from a clergy fund.
  • Offering an Ordained Priest the option to purchase a Lifetime Membership.
  • Providing weighted voting (one vote per Circle, etc.) or removing votes from Consecrated Priests.
  • Requiring Clergy Council Officers to be Ordained (or add descriptors to the CC Officers to create a "Dedicant Priest at large" and "Ordained Priest at large" and require 4/5 officers to be ordained)
  • Making Consecrated Priests' credentials available only to their own Grove
  • Limiting the Clergy Council's ability to nominate an Archdruid to the available pool of Ordained Priests (while continuing to allow the CoSD and Mother Grove to nominate using their own criteria).
These are just some first ideas.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: mellowmellow
Current Music: "I Don't Know", -JB
Tags: , ,

(12 comments Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:prophet_maid
Date:May 9th, 2010 06:10 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Obviously I've been thinking about this stuff a lot too, or I wouldn't be posting here so much :)

Conceptually at least, I think of the difference between consecration and ordination as the difference between novitiate and full orders in a monastery. Consecration recognizes that you're committed to this path, have some skills, but need further training. Ordination shows that you're fully trained. I do think having a practical difference between the two would be a very good thing.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 10th, 2010 01:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Posts are good: they keep me from developing recommendations in too much of a bubble. I'll have the recommendation document at Wellspring for comment, and will also post it to a couple of lists for comment, too. . . so continue to comment :)
[User Picture]
From:seamus_mcnasty
Date:May 10th, 2010 01:20 am (UTC)
(Link)
tell me again why would being a NOD create burnout but not Arch Druid?


I think the better solution to burn out would be to limit the Mother Grove from having alot of other titles...but again I believe there should be some limits to all positions....

Also ordained priest would not need to purchase a lifetime membership if they are getting their dues waved for service...(ACTIVE SERVICE?)

Making credentials for grove only would be worthless if they can't help their local community at large...besides you are creating another layer of preisthood...I don't know if we want to do this...

To be honest I like this line of thinking but I'm not sure if we are anywhere near the critial mass for this yet... I don't have numbers in front of me but...again I like the ideas as ideas but I want to chew on this for awhile...
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 10th, 2010 01:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The notion I'm working from here is that our Ordained Priests will be more interested in the religious side of our work than the administrative side. I would rather our Ordained Priests be engaged fully in the spiritual side of the work of Our Druidry than the administrative side. I don't see what an Ordained Priest can bring to the table as Scribe or NOD or CoSD Chief that a Consecrated Priest cannot bring. . . but I can see what an Ordained Priest, fully trained, can bring to the table if he or she does not have to deal with MG list traffic all day.

The MG should also be limited on the number of positions they can hold, but I think our Priests would also benefit from such limits. And I'm only making recommendations based on the CC, not the MG.

I see the option to obtain a lifetime membership and the option to pay for Ordained Clergy's ADF memberships as two separate things: we wouldn't do both, but we might do one or the other. As for active service, I could see us continuing to pay for an Ordained Priest who is not engaged in active service, if he or she is retired (there is, after all, a certain point where people cannot continue their service, but we owe some back to them).

You have a good point about credentials being pretty useless if they serve only a single Grove and cannot stretch beyond it. I believe I will pull that recommendation: those with credentials should serve the entire body of ADF, and their entire local community, not just their Grove. That fits with Isaac's original Vision.

I do think that there will be additional layers of clergy: I can see a second layer for Second Circle members (Initiate Priests). Part of this has to do with the notion of discipline: as folk advance, they have greater and greater commitments. We might even require completion of the IP for Second Circle work, which would mean that there will be people who cannot "make the cut" to advance beyond Dedicant Priest.
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 10th, 2010 04:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
On one hand, that's true. But on the other hand, don't they have better things to use their energy on than our list traffic?

I do see the point about isolating them from the nuts and bolts, though. There is a fine line between using their training and spiritual maturity properly and creating a caste system.
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 11th, 2010 08:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
*nods* and the aim is certainly not to create a caste: I intend to ensure that we'll never seek to replenish our numbers through hereditary right :)
[User Picture]
From:seamus_mcnasty
Date:May 10th, 2010 11:35 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Mike: The notion I'm working from here is that our Ordained Priests will be more interested in the religious side of our work than the administrative side. I would rather our Ordained Priests be engaged fully in the spiritual side of the work of Our Druidry than the administrative side. I don't see what an Ordained Priest can bring to the table as Scribe or NOD or CoSD Chief that a Consecrated Priest cannot bring. . . but I can see what an Ordained Priest, fully trained, can bring to the table if he or she does not have to deal with MG list traffic all day.

The MG should also be limited on the number of positions they can hold, but I think our Priests would also benefit from such limits. And I'm only making recommendations based on the CC, not the MG.

Seamus: I disagree here. It I had to choose between the two ( being ordained or on the MG) I would struggle. What you are saying it that my strong business background is of no use to ADF if I want to ordained. I am limited to only two jobs on the mother grove. I just disagree with this, service comes in many ways and in many forms and I think ordained priest should have the same right to serve as others in ADF. I wisdom and understanding that comes from the work and training that ordained clergy gain should be allowed to shine in any position in ADF. Also what you are not saying is that in time only ordained priest will be AD and VAD and again I am concerned about that. Someone who in ordained may not be the best choice to run ADF, you yourself talk about the difference between priest and SD this in no different...just my thoughts on it but the people of ADF should continue to vote on the MG regardless of what titles we decide to bestow on people.

Michael: I see the option to obtain a lifetime membership and the option to pay for Ordained Clergy's ADF memberships as two separate things: we wouldn't do both, but we might do one or the other. As for active service, I could see us continuing to pay for an Ordained Priest who is not engaged in active service, if he or she is retired (there is, after all, a certain point where people cannot continue their service, but we owe some back to them).

Seamus: I mis-understood this part - I agree with you, retired priest should be included.


Michael: I do think that there will be additional layers of clergy: I can see a second layer for Second Circle members (Initiate Priests). Part of this has to do with the notion of discipline: as folk advance, they have greater and greater commitments. We might even require completion of the IP for Second Circle work, which would mean that there will be people who cannot "make the cut" to advance beyond Dedicant Priest.

Seamus: Hmmmm I would like to see definitions and continued requirements for active preist.
"Make the cut" due to ability or other? I guess I don't understand are you saying we would have dedicant priest, consecrated priest, initiated priest, ordained priests? I might have missed a post or skimmed over something...
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 10th, 2010 11:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
We've been having long-term discussions about officially recognizing advancement through all three circles (rather than just two, as we do now) with Dedicant, Initiated, and Ordained Priests. Whether that happens or not will be determined by how we feel about the confusion that is presented by having names the same as the training programs.

For reference, in ADF the terms "Lay Priest," "Dedicant Priest" and "Consecrated Priest" all mean the same thing.

And "making the cut" is an ability thing: if you cannot pass Initiation, and some will be unable to pass it, then you cannot be an Initiate.

Also what you are not saying is that in time only ordained priest will be AD

Yes, I am not saying that, and yes, I am saying that. We are nowhere near a place with enough critical mass to require even consecration for the AD, but that will come. So long as we are a church, we should have a spiritual head, and they should come from our clergy, or enter our clergy upon being elected. As it stands, I don't see why the Clergy Council wouldn't want to choose its nominee from the number of Ordained Priests; and if there isn't an ordained priest for the job, then perhaps the CC shouldn't be nominating someone. . . but yes, that would be a first step toward limiting the pool of AD candidates.

I could see the Administrator being the "CEO" at some point, and the AD being the Chief of the Clergy Council.

What you are saying it that my strong business background is of no use to ADF if I want to ordained.

No, what I am saying is that your religious skills are of more use to ADF if you are ordained. We will always have people entering ADF who are skilled in the mundanities of running a business, but we are unlikely to have people come into ADF with the religious training and visionary skills required to direct our church.

There will have to be rewards, and with those rewards will come limits to what our Priests can do, and advancement will involve giving up some things or not doing things you might very much like to do.
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 10th, 2010 04:26 pm (UTC)
(Link)
To be fair, I don't have any problem with the idea of waiving membership died for ordained priests. I mean, they went to the trouble to get ordained, and it's path that carries work and responsibility with it. You might want to demand some sort of active service for it, but I don't see anything wrong with this.

As for ordained priests versus consecrated priests, I'm not sure why there IS a difference, let alone what the difference should be. Is there a benefit to having two types of priests?
[User Picture]
From:chronarchy
Date:May 11th, 2010 08:53 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The primary benefit, today, is that it helps us reach "critical mass" so that we can start talking about stuff like this. We're getting to the point where we have "enough" Priests to do some of the things we've always wanted. Also, the dual-Priest scenario has been pushing people to complete the training and become Ordained, meaning that we are obtaining more "complete" Priests.

But the two-Priest system we have today doesn't lend a good answer to your final question there: there's not a substantive difference between ordination and consecration, and our theology of the two states is a mixed bag at best.

The aim is to make those distinctions more concrete and clear, and to give people a reason to deepen their practice and their work. And, hopefully, in a decade we can look at our Priesthood and say, "There's no way this division couldn't have been clear: it's so damn obvious!"
[User Picture]
From:anivair
Date:May 12th, 2010 01:25 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Are we talking about the distinction being that ordained priests are spiritual leaders while consecrated priests are more like administrators (like a SD might be)? If so, i'm not sure I think that is what I think of as the priesthood.

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com