October 13th, 2009
|11:06 am - On the role of an ADF Priest|
I have been spending a lot of time, recently, on examining the role of the Priest in ADF (and, slightly more broadly, in Neo-Paganism in general). In a lot of ways, I find it very straightforward and simple, while in other ways it is very complicated. There is a lot of good information in a variety of sources that expand on the basic question of "What is a Priest and what does he or she do?" Really, reading a few articles answers a lot of questions.
Ian's words ring very true: we are not shepherds, we have no flocks.
The "ritual specialist" language is too simplistic, though, and speaks to a very limited role. I'm not overly pleased with it, so I expect to mostly abandon it soon, or at least modify it with additional terms.
Over and over, though, I come back around to three things: partnership with laity, commitment and training.
The commitment is really the central piece; training is an addendum, really, that leads to obligation and commitment, a sort of *ghosti relationship where when you do the work to get trained, you find yourself committed to training others in the ways of Our Druidry, and to use the skills provided by that training to ensure that the proper rites and sacrifices are made in the proper way at the proper time. In many ways, an ADF Priest is first and foremost a person committed to serving the folk through their training and making sacrifice to the Kindreds.
In any case, there is a two-way commitment: one to the Kindreds, and one to the Folk. I am generally not of a mind that a Solitary member cannot become a Priest, but I think about the oath I took and I wonder how I could fulfill it from a Solitary point of view. I also, though, accept that every individual will find a different vocation, and that they will be called to serve the Folk in different ways. Because of that, my own notion of how someone else might fulfill their oath is fundamentally flawed: not knowing their vocation, I cannot question their fulfillment of it effectively.
It occurs to me that there is also an ineffible quality to priesthood, within ADF and (I suspect) outside of it: those who have been through the processes of consecration and ordination (and now, initiation) will view their role differently than those who have not passed those boundaries and have not made those commitments, and differently than those who have not done the training. I suspect that there is an element of intent to the training, as well, since a trained Liturgist might find similar courses but a very different experience in them, as I know I have.
I think that, because of this, I can only see the role of the Priest in ADF as a partnership of sorts: just as you cannot define a "partner" in ballroom dancing without discussing dancing, one cannot define Priests without discussing the relationship and interaction between Priest and laity. If we consider separating the Priest from the laity at all (either by defining one group as "useful" or one group as "useless"), each category must understand and express the value of the other in order to find value within itself.
A book that I love describes it like this: "We can ask, What is a wombat or an edible dormouse?, but not, What is a priest? The priest is no independent species – the 'laity' are part of the picture of what the priest is, and the priest is part of the picture of what the laity are." The notion that priests can be defined in isolation from the congregation is a ridiculous one, and I suspect that the true issues that surround "defining a Priest in ADF" likely revolve around insecurity about what an individual's role is in relation to the ADF Priest, not insecurity about the role of the external priest.
My initiation into the ADF Initiatory Current was a very reflective thing: I am deeply engaged in retrospective thinking and considering new things that are coming up. My actual essay on this topic (meant for Oak Leaves) is already stretching several pages, because the question of the role of ADF Priests is so very complicated, so I won't dwell on it here much more.
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: peaceful
Current Music: "Who's the Blonde Stranger", -JB
I think I see, and I thought that this might be where you were going with this, though I wasn't entirely sure.
In terms of Consecration/Ordination, I might argue that my consecration was affirmed by the people at Summerland who attended the ritual. . . there was a moment where they were asked to support me, and they said they would. Additionally, several of the offering sections specifically asked blessings for my consecration (talk about a humbling experience), and the bull-slaying/shared meal and ingesting of waters from those blessings could be construed as further affirmation. In that respect, there was definite voice there: they could have all shouted, "Hell no!" or avoided the waters.
I think that the question I would respond with is this: is it only in terms of selection that the laity seem left out? Or is there another place?
One of the things that we tried to do in our Wellspring retreat
a few years ago (which didn't work well at all
, though not because of lay participation, more due to organization of the event) was to involve the laity in half our retreat activities. It turned out that we shot the weekend in a pretty crappy way and failed, but we did try. I would like to see something like that happen again, with an open retreat day and then a closed one or two. The problem is, we're only doing them once per year now, and not everyone can get to Cleveland, so it's hard to fit everything in and still manage to have an open portion that everyone gets to comment on. Heck, it's virtually impossible, especially when a major part of the weekend is something like initiation.
One of the nice things about the CC, though, is that we've done very little in terms of acting as a whole. We've even been discussing giving up the one bit of "external" influence that we have (the bit about "Determine ADF liturgical standards" in the SOP): it was seriously raised at the retreat as one option going forward.
Part of the issue of "acting" is that we make very few decisions. We made one, and we learned a heck of a lot from it: the COoR is likely to be the last decision for a long time, and it still astounds me that something designed specifically to clarify "what a High Day ritual has to have" for Dedicants turned into "OMGLiturgyPolicemenAreGonnaBeatMeWithCO
oRNightsticks!!!111!" I mean, it really was just a clarification on what most of us where doing. It's been handled like holy writ more by people outside the CC than by people inside the CC (I should know: I'm one of the biggest deviants from the COoR).
Most of us, oddly, rely on the lists and on personal forums to help define and decide on what we'd like to see as "policy" and then we just talk it to death as individuals. Think about the "Nine Tenets" I wrote: totally not a CC thing, but it started a new conversation about "what makes an ADF ritual" that didn't involve steps, and received serious consideration at the CC Retreat as a possible "endorsed model" as a result. And anyone could write something like that.
The CC actually doesn't do much at all as a body. Mostly, it's just a scary monster in the closet: if you turn on the light, you'll see that no one is there except perhaps a few moths.