Despite the complaints leveled against one another and the (now) common tone of discussion that it was "hate filled" and/or ridiculous I actually saw absolutely ZERO examples of hate language and what, was for the most part, pretty respectful exchange of ideas.Oh I know! I totally did not understand why people were told to stop discussing it. It's like every time people DON'T agree with something that the inner circle comes up with, the thread is shut down and people are told to take it off-list. And I have to ask why. We're adults, we're leadership. I think by NOT letting us all hash it out amongst ourselves, it is extremely disrespectful. In essence, they were saying, "OK kids, that's enough, break it up." As if we, the leadership of the organization, are still not trusted and respected enough to come up with an eventual resolution on our own. I'll admit I'm STILL rather irked over that, and I didn't even participate in it
( ... )
and now I have been told, privately, that to say the thread shouldn't have been moderated is an insult to Drum. Which is ridiculous because I have a great deal of respect for that man.
Here's the thing. I can disagree with people I respect and not lose respect for them. I disagree with the thread being moderated and I think, whatever the formal complaints that were filed were, are baseless and petty.
I know. Rod and I just discussed it, and he explained to me why the thread needed to be moderated (and he was one of the people who had to be moderated, too!). But personally I still don't agree 100% that it needed to be moderated, even though it has been explained to me nicely again
( ... )
The moderation was basically a way to shut down Cei, who was in full blown rabid dog rant mode. Anything anyone said provoked a comment from Cei that was becoming inappropriate and lacking in a useful dialog
( ... )
I disagree. Cei asked questions that no one was answering. When they attempted to change the topic he continually brought it back to his original questions
( ... )
Oh yes, the ADF Precepter is Clergy as well. I love Crystal, I think she is made of awesome, but when Raven retired I was told flat out that that only Clergy would be considered for the office.
I have begun to suggest that our Priests should be less involved in administrative positions. Mostly, I am concerned that we have Priests who do not produce; administrative jobs just do not benefit from "Rev." designations.
I would love to require our Senior Priests to either "max out" on positions at a very low number (like one), or to just be prevented from running for admin positions altogether.
I would do the same for Consecrated Priests, but there would be less will for that, I expect.
I think some of our clergy make excellent admins. I know there are some who serve as RDs who do great work and that sit on the board as well. It would be tragic to me that they not be allowed to do this work but at the same time I do wish for a greater non-Clergy voice on the MG.
This is not because I do not trust clergy, btw. It is because our organization is mostly non-Clergy. I think it is important to have minds and voices in the decision making process that are not privy to what happens within the Clergy Council. I think it would reduce the numbers of misunderstandings and make the entire process appear more open, inclusive, and balanced.
why would clergy NOT lead a church? Is this baggage left over from other religious experience? Is this the standard "you are not the boss of me and you are doing it wrong" or is their a reason that any religion should not be "ran" by it's trained clergy....Jamie I'm not sure I agree that the best clergy might not be the best admin but I'm not sure what the complaint here is? Please explain to me? It sounds like you don't want organized CHURCH but a local coven that does it's own thing. Or that somehow a large membership should have equal voting on every decision. I'm not trying to be dismissive but I am very confused. I mean it's pretty clear in Isaac's documents that this would be the way ADF would develop and that clergy would lead...
Your misunderstanding me, the clergy SHOULD lead the church. They should lead the church spirituality. I have no issues with the Clergy Council as is now and the reported roles (with the exception of one thing, which I will mention below). My concern is that there should be a division of responsibilities and we should assure that there are positions within our Board of Directors that are reserved for non-Clergy, perhaps a majority
( ... )
I disagree. Cei asked questions that no one was answering. When they attempted to change the topic he continually brought it back to his original questions
( ... )
Reply
Here's the thing. I can disagree with people I respect and not lose respect for them. I disagree with the thread being moderated and I think, whatever the formal complaints that were filed were, are baseless and petty.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I would love to require our Senior Priests to either "max out" on positions at a very low number (like one), or to just be prevented from running for admin positions altogether.
I would do the same for Consecrated Priests, but there would be less will for that, I expect.
Reply
This is not because I do not trust clergy, btw. It is because our organization is mostly non-Clergy. I think it is important to have minds and voices in the decision making process that are not privy to what happens within the Clergy Council. I think it would reduce the numbers of misunderstandings and make the entire process appear more open, inclusive, and balanced.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment