I figure part of engaging as part of a group is that I revisit reading All The Things from many perspectives, find what is resonating with me, what isn't, and while I've been doing that all along, the context of 'aspirant', traveling a specific (even if still significantly self-defined) path, changes things for me somewhat. Being part of something bigger means I am part of a shared trajectory.
What I am leading to, and puzzling over right now is this -- in so far as witch and priest/ess have significant parallels, and in so far as I identify as witch, but not particularly priest/ess (or even necessarily called to identify that way) -- is it just a semantic difference in pursuing the shared deeper knowledge that I seek, without necessarily taking on the particular word of priest/ess?
John Beckett notes that for the role of clergy there are "three main things priests do: serve the Gods, act as mediators for the Gods, and serve their communities." I have a personal practice. I've sort of joked that I've taken Lutheranism to its extreme in one sense in that I don't require a mediator for my experience of the divine, though as I grow older, the idea of having others who can sometimes drive so I can simply participate as part of the chorus, or not have to have dual consciousness about what I am doing now, what comes next seems like a lovely thing, but that is more of a field trip coordinator than a mediation of the experience? Is that too granular of a distinction to be relevant for most (something I am often guilty of)? I am on the fence about defining what I do as "service" for a "God/dess" -- "belief" and "God/dess" is terribly complicated, and I have practices, but it seems a stretch to call that "service" especially given "belief".
This is getting into that lost territory, so dialing it back in again... both of these are granular and semantic in a way, and so grey and fuzzy in terms of definition for me. The third, to serve the community, seems most concrete to me -- this resonates, this I can do, one way or another or many ways. This is not grey and fuzzy for me, it just requires consensus between me and my community that the service I can/want to provide aligns with what is needed.
In a lot of ways my puzzle about disparity between witch and priest/ess is in parallel with my disparity of feeling about teacher training for gyrokinesis (all but certified) and yoga (eventually I may pursue, but...) -- I want the knowledge, I want the practice, I even want to be able to share my knowledge and sometimes my practice, but... I don't identify as "teacher". I don't want to teach classes... but I want to be deeply immersed and talk and practice with people who are extremely deeply immersed in theory and practice -- often that means my cohort is, for yoga and gyrokinesis, those who teach. And for spirituality, it seems often those people are priest/esses.
Which brings me to another puzzle of the moment -- how far can I follow my trajectory as witch practitioner, wanting to explore and know and experience all the way up to, and possibly well into the territory often marked as priest/ess territory while not taking on clergy, lay or otherwise, aspects.
I may be over thinking this, and I so often find in discussing this with others that my perspective is broadened by exposure to the creativity and both complexity and simplicity of others interpretations that I have so many other options that are open to me.
Yeshe Rabbit elucidates further on the roles of priest/ess as she identifies them according to her practice. Many, but not all resonate with my own practices (naturally, as she identifies as priest/ess and I do not and even in the eventuality that perhaps I do, my expression may/will likely find varying outlets because we are different people with different experiences).
Perhaps another question I have coming out of this is concurrently to discussing what clergy and priest/ess are, what are we defining against this as what non-clergy/priest/ess are? Part of defining what one is is also defining what one is not. In terms of functions of roles within an organization, even loosely defined, there is a relational aspect between roles. For paid clergy, money clarifies things somewhat for me, in that clergy is supported by the community for the spiritual services provided, whether directly (paid for services or readings, etc) or indirectly (tithing and the like where the individual services are not charged for but covered by dues, of sorts). Money, for better or worse, sort of formalizes the roles and expectations of the exchange happening.
In contrast, my analog (and maybe a more appropriate parallel) for priest/ess in my life is my professional role as a senior manager. I've managed teams as small as two, and up to four teams at a time, with 20 people reporting directly to me. I'm responsible for projects, production work, team and individual development, mentoring, coordinating in support of my organizations defined and supporting goals and objectives. I have lateral peers that I also collaborate with. I have industry groups that I participate in beyond my own organization. I know what kind of work it takes and the obligation to the various parties involved which leads me to being wary of extending additional sense of obligation as a leader within community/ies... and yet still, the draw to the deeply immersive experience lands me... somewhere, I'm not entirely sure where yet.
Dunno. It's all a long way of saying I see a parallel here with my yoga/gyrokinesis practice where I want to be so deeply immersed that my peer group is called something that I don't entirely identify with but to be not as deeply immersed is counter to my desire for such deep immersion. But perhaps I see a parallel with my professional role, except with that money clarifies my role and expectation for responsible of that specific community and I don't have that clarity within spiritual practice? So complicate!
I am deeply respectful of those who pursue the path that identifies as clergy and priest/ess, grateful for their shared knowledge and mentorship, sorting out my own trajectory within relationality of community is different from solitary practice. As Alice discovered in Through The Looking Glass, and as I have come to understand as a manager, communicating and aligning language is an important piece of community defining.
This is largely me just trying to navigate language (and the various granularities that appear as I think through implications), community, and how/where I might fit. As an aspirant, it may be way too early for me to consider my future with any specific group, but I also know that there are some areas where I will continue to pursue learning until logical conclusion (lol -- learning is forever! There is no end!).'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.''The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.''The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master -- that's all.'
In the end, I suspect I will find a way that both the semantics and actions align for my practice. I just don't know quite what that means yet.
Apologies to all the other authors and their articles that informed my questions that I don't reference directly here. I don't want to backtrack all through my feeds to find all the articles.
-------
Upon going back and reading the (new to me) comments from Sunsmith and Molly on Yeshe Rabbit's post, I am given additional thought about how broadly and simply (and complexly) we can define language, semantics, and practice. This is one of the things I love about having a community I am nominally a part of. It is the collaborative sharing of experience that allows one to break out of the unnecessary boxes one's mind and re/create, re/craft, re/vise the world into a better place.
No comments:
Post a Comment