I was going to respond to this, but since I'm Clergy and already have too much say in the org, fuck it. Let the early heart attack I suffer from trying to read all of those posts and the ones to come be the check and balance against me.
I suspect you are trying to bring a levity to this Rob but this comment is EXACTLY what I mean. I (and others) have expressed concerns with the power clergy yields in ADF. When we do we are accused of "hating" clergy or "blaming" clergy or trying to "derail" clergy.
I am not attacking you or any other clergy or ADF member. I am expressing my concerns about the specific situation and ADF as a whole. To coach it the way you have is unfair to me and unfair to everything I just posted. It dismisses everything I said, while ironically validating everything I just said, by coaching it in terms as a personal attack. It isn't.
Do you know what happens in an organization like ours when power is so one sided? Every little thing becomes a huge thing because the folk do not feel like their opinions count or their voices heard. It creates an "us against them" structure. It is exactly what happened this time and last time and will continue happening.
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
( ... )
just for the record no one asked me about the idols and I knew nothing about them until I got there and I know that to be the case for many people (clergy or not) so I'm not sure where I have all of this power but....
again, I am not talking about individuals. I don't know the inner workings of the Clergy Council because that is a closed group but I was told that the focus of the annual meeting ritual, the Earth Mother and Gatekeeper together as the primary sending, are based on the work done by the Clergy.
but, again, my point here is not about the idols themselves but in the way a great deal of decisions appear to be made in ADF and the way we react to disagreements.
I saw the idols first at the nemeton (actually, I did not see their "fronts" until about the middle of the rite, as I was behind them). The inclusion certainly wasn't a clergy thing; I don't recall any discussions anywhere, and I guess I am pretty "inner circle."
The EM and GK (identified as Manannan) were on the mound prior to the clergy doing work that enshrined them as patrons of our work. . . In fact, it is possible that the "juice" from the work we did as collective folk brought the GK & EM into that prominence within the clergy.
But there was certainly poor conflict resolution involved in the discussion. I am a bit isolated from it, mostly because I don't see myself as really caring what a grove puts in their nemeton (and despite occasionally seeing it called a "national" nemeton, I always knew that there was nothing official about the designation). And, I admit, I like the idea of Brushwood having a "Manannan of the Nemeton" who represents himself in an interesting and new way. It is like having a bit of UPG in our scholarship,
( ... )
Comments 21
Reply
Reply
I am not attacking you or any other clergy or ADF member. I am expressing my concerns about the specific situation and ADF as a whole. To coach it the way you have is unfair to me and unfair to everything I just posted. It dismisses everything I said, while ironically validating everything I just said, by coaching it in terms as a personal attack. It isn't.
Do you know what happens in an organization like ours when power is so one sided? Every little thing becomes a huge thing because the folk do not feel like their opinions count or their voices heard. It creates an "us against them" structure. It is exactly what happened this time and last time and will continue happening.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Also, in that case maybe we need a conflict resolution course somewhere in there.
Reply
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
but, again, my point here is not about the idols themselves but in the way a great deal of decisions appear to be made in ADF and the way we react to disagreements.
Reply
The EM and GK (identified as Manannan) were on the mound prior to the clergy doing work that enshrined them as patrons of our work. . . In fact, it is possible that the "juice" from the work we did as collective folk brought the GK & EM into that prominence within the clergy.
But there was certainly poor conflict resolution involved in the discussion. I am a bit isolated from it, mostly because I don't see myself as really caring what a grove puts in their nemeton (and despite occasionally seeing it called a "national" nemeton, I always knew that there was nothing official about the designation). And, I admit, I like the idea of Brushwood having a "Manannan of the Nemeton" who represents himself in an interesting and new way. It is like having a bit of UPG in our scholarship, ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment