"He wanted to talk to me about God again, but I went up to him and made one last attempt to explain to him that I had only a little time left and I didn't want to waste it on God. He tried to change the subject by asking me why I was calling him "monsieur" and not "father." That got me mad, and I told him he wasn't my father; he wasn't even on my side."
I've been following a series of blog entries from several ISM clergy: Tim Cravens, John Plummer, and Laura Grimes. Each person has interesting ideas on the use of clergy titles, but I am much more in line with the opinions of Tim and John. I think Laura makes some compelling points, but I think she is too caught up on gender and makes problems where there need not be problems. Additionally, not everyone in the ISM approves of women's ordination and clearly the mainstream Catholic Church doesn't approve of the ISM in general, let alone the involvement of women in the ISM.
Onto the discussion of titles...
Titles in general are contextual. In a Masonic lodge I am Brother Kling. In an ISM context I am Bishop David or perhaps Bishop Kling, and within a Gnostic context I prefer Tau Athanasios. In a Druidic context I'm Druid Adept or Archpriest Athanasios, and in Nova Roma I'm Gaius Fabius Buteo Modianus, censor, augur, pontifex, et al. Does this mean that when I am at the University I attend that I should expect my professors to refer to me as "Right Reverend David, bishop of Springfield?" Or how about expecting my classmates to address me as Tau Athanasios, Gnostic Bishop. Oh, silly me. Maybe I should wear a clerical suit to class, or better yet, I could wear a toga praetexta! Actually, David or even Dave works just fine - in most contexts.
Don't get me wrong. I think there is a time and a place for everything. In a liturgical setting I AM a Gnostic (ISM) Bishop and I expect to be accorded the dignity of such when in a liturgical function. Additionally, if I'm at an AODA event I expect the same treatment of any other Druid Adept and Archpriest. However, that doesn't mean I expect people to acknowledge my status within the ISM community who are not involved in that community. Additionally, I conducted the program this past Sunday at the Unitarian Universalist fellowship I attend. The program was on Samhain and I conducted a ritual in honor of our collective ancestors in a Druidic fashion. I wore a suit, because that is the more appropriate dress and I didn't introduce myself as an Archpriest or Druid Adept, although if anyone would have asked I would share that information. Its contextual.
I am all the things I am at all times. They don't cease to be when I am doing something else. It is, however, how you represent yourself that is important. Just like the book The Stranger, Meursault was not interested in dealing with the priests identity issues -- he was dealing with his own pending death. I think we (i.e., those folks engaged in the conversation on titles) need to consider the people in which we are ministering, they are dealing with their own issues and need not be tools for our identity issues.
3 comments:
"I think we (i.e., those folks engaged in the conversation on titles) need to consider the people in which we are ministering, they are dealing with their own issues and need not be tools for our identity issues."
Perfect! Interestingly, the comments section on Tim Craven's blog includes perspectives from two lay persons on why each uses or doesn't use titles and what it means to their individual spiritual lives. It'd be an enlightening exercise for ISM clergy to ask the ISM laity about the use of titles and what it means to them. I like the option of giving the people one ministers to a choice over title use, though this also depends on context.
Very thoughtful and interesting post, as always, David!
Great post as always David,
I've been reflecting on the posts you've mentioned over at John & Tim's and trying to put my own thoughts into words. You've been able to draw out much of what I've been thinking.
It's funny - you say we ought to give people a choice - and that's exactly what I've done for many years (nice thing about being an Easterner there are added options) - it's a great bonding experience with people because it is a way in which "we" claim that relationship as "ours".
You've also hit the nail on the head with an aspect of this - when functioning liturgically - there is, and I dare say, ought to be, an expectation that the title is used - not for my sake, but for the sake of the office (what I represent) in that moment. Once the omophor comes off - please by all means revert to your preferred tag.
There is something valuable in setting aside - marking out that time, that space, and the functions/roles people have there as "other".
Post a Comment