Welcome to Gaia! ::

So, here's something we can get stuck into. I'm going to avoid the standard list of questions because I think rather than helping get discussion going as I thought it did it tends to limit conversation to the questions, which is rarely what I intend sweatdrop

One of the things about modern Paganism that's a little distinct, I think, from palaeo-Paganism is that people who are in it tend to be really into it. You don't get as many "Christmas and Easter" Pagans, or ones who believe but don't really do anything or read anything. You don't get the more-or-less-not-bothered masses. I always thought that was related to being religiously-inclined generally; people who aren't that into religion just wouldn't bother looking into it, and if they were religious at all would be more likely to default to non-practising whatever religion is most common in their area. That could be changing now that more people are being raised Pagan, of course. People who do become Pagans, like convert, seem to be the sorts who are into religion enough, or at least into the occult and metaphysical enough, to read into the subject and find something that appeals to them. But then I wonder if that's sort of based on discussions, which maybe less active Pagans wouldn't be bothered joining in in the first place. What describes the non-practising Pagan?

Anyway, I was thinking about priesthood and laity, which sort of made me think of non-practising Pagans. Some Pagan religions don't have a laity, of course, like Wicca. But otherwise, what really defines laity in Paganism? In some cases is it more or less the same as being non-practising, or is it a distinction based on hierarchy and so on? Is there, like, a middle-ground between laity and priesthood in Paganism?

I suppose we can compare with Christianity. The masses are the laity, and the priest is, well, the priesthood. The people who perform the rituals and those who observe them. In modern Christianity, you don't get as many people with home shrines and so on, but now I think of it, they do exist, particularly in the more ritualistic forms of Christianity. Performing a ritualised prayer like praying a rosary or lighting a candle before an icon would be a form of lay ritual. It's initiation and the formal taking on of the role of priest (or vicar, or whatever) that is the distinction.

So what's the parallel in Paganism? Depends on the religion, I guess. I mean... I know Nuri has mentioned in the past that in Hellenism, the "priest" generally is whoever performs the family rituals. In Heathenry there are similarities; the goði was a political leader; it was sort of his job to lead the rituals at times of celebration. (Of course in both there were more formal elements of priestly service; Greeks had their temples and there's mention of priests of Freyr dancing with bells on in.... lord I can't remember now of it was Tacitus or Ibn Fadlan or whoever.) What does this sort of thing mean for us now? Older roles of priesthood are integrally related to community practice, which is massively different now, not just because so many people practise alone. Families might practise all different religions even if they're all under the Pagan umbrella, with different people leading or taking part in different ceremonies. Political leaders are highly unlikely to be of a Pagan religion and even if they are and are vocal about it, it's not really their position nowadays to lead religious rituals. Group leaders, priests or so on, aren't likely to also be your political leader; leadership seems to mostly be one of performing rituals and providing spiritual guidance and assistance across religions. So for recons this is one of those issues that has to be modified because of the time we live in.

I'm not really asking what defines the priest insofar as what one must do to become one. That's sort of interesting in its own right but not really what I'm thinking about at the moment. I'm more sort of wondering what distinguishes priest from layperson in different Pagan religions, whether there is a specific distinction, how much general knowledge or education is required, whether recognition as a priest by others is important or even relevant..... Basically it's just an interesting subject to me. I don't know why. Maybe it's a part of my general interests in service to the gods and in ritual.

I guess there are elements of taking on responsibility, of possible "initiation" by the gods to that role. But then, worshipping the gods I do, I wonder sometimes whether it's the sort of thing you could ask about one day and They'd be all "what are you talking about? You've been My priest for years".

I might make this into a blog post at some point. Right now I'm just looking to stir the thought-pot.

That's an interesting point. I feel that way sometimes too. And I think you get that in other religions, like some Christians will consider non-practising people to be non-Christians. But on the other hand I guess you can have religious beliefs but not really do anything about them. Maybe you're theistic or you believe in reincarnation or something but you don't have much of a spiritual life.

I mean what would you call it, if you did believe, but never really worshipped? I knew a guy at university who would pray but only once every few months when he had a need to do so, whatever that might be, and otherwise he just didn't do anything. But I always got the impression from him that he did genuinely believe in the gods.

Maybe most of them don't really call themselves Pagans. They might be sort of "well, I guess I'm a Pagan, but....." if asked.

I think there's lots of reasons for non-practicing pagans. One, many people are raised in households where belief may exist, but is never acted upon. Passive belief is pretty common in modern Western society. Two, some are simply 'stuck' -as in they don't have time, space or opportunity to enact their religious practice at the current time. Three - some people find ritual of any kind awkward or embarrassing, as if they're play-acting to empty space. If a person's expecting something more visual or tangible to interact with, ritual can be really difficult to maintain as a practice.

I personally know several people whom I would describe, and they themselves agree, as pagan. It is no kind of specific pagan religion - they simply have a belief in one or another forms of deity that are non-Abrahamic. They don't practice or express religious affiliation - more that it's a form of personal spirituality that they keep extremely private. It just isn't that important to them to outwardly express those beliefs with practice.



Well...

Wicca is, and Wicca isn't. All initiated Wiccans are certainly priesthood. However, since every coven has its' own autonomy, the outer court structures around a coven can really vary. Operating procedure for covens isn't standardized by any stretch of the imagination.

My high priestess is pretty happy having an outer court 'congregation'. We always have students who are not initiates present for our sabbats. She is not violating the core practice of Wicca in any way by doing this; she still maintains the oathbound material and only initiates may attend oathbound rites. It means, of course, we have lots of outer-court ritual, but that's her prerogative as HPs.

She views these non-initiates as a kind of laity, and doesn't believe that everyone needs or is called to be an initiate. Some of our students may never reach initiation - but she doesn't see that as any sort of impediment to them being outer-court members of the coven, so long as they work well with our group. It seems to fulfill both her needs, and the needs of the people who circle with us.

Other covens don't have outer-court at all. Some are closed and don't train. Others maintain a student group separately from the coven, and only those who are to be initiated ever join or circle with the main coven. It really depends on who's running the coven and the quirks and personality of both the individual and their lineage.



It's really hard to try to nail down a definition simply because, as you rightly noted, the idea of what a priest is and does really varies across cultures and faiths.

I tend to think of priesthood as facilitators. It's service. It's a priest/ess' job, regardless of how they come across that role, to facilitate not only the needs of the deities they honour, but the needs of the religious community they represent. In some cases that may require more specialist knowledge than others. Priesthood is a bridge - you create the space where the Gods and their people meet and interact. Some people are really touchy over that. They would prefer not to have an intermediary - to the point where some people are very vehement that priesthood is unnecessary.

I think it very much depends on the culture and pantheon you're working with. Sometimes religion is entirely personal. Other times it is integral to community, or even nationality. Sort of the Almond Joy/Mounds argument: Sometimes you need a priest, sometimes you don't. And of course there will always be cases where deity is only interested in interacting with the priest, and no-one else.



I think that's bang on. Initiation happens in many different ways. The problem with it tends to come when people assume all forms of initiation are valid for every religion. There is a difference between an initiation from the Gods and an initiation into a group of people; while both are powerful and important, they don't necessarily represent the same thing or have the same requirements.

I don't know, I don't really feel like it counts as "non-practising" if it's because of limitations you can't control. Like, if you would practise, but can't, I wouldn't describe that as a "non-practising Pagan". I feel like that term is mostly for people who believe but aren't really bothered.

My two cents on the subject is that I think the reason for non-practicing Pagans/laity is more or less the way most people become Pagans. The vast majority of people convert. They have an urge, some drive that makes them convert. Because of this and the fact that Paganism is broad and lacks for the most part very neat, cut and dry hierarchies that are doing the converting and/or open to newly converted Pagans you get a lot of Pagans who don't practice because they don't know how. I know I have periods of intense worship and practice and periods where I don't. And this is a lack of knowing what to do for myself.

For instance I would love to have a set of daily rituals and prayers but its hard to find these things for Pagans. There are some recorded for Heathens but not all and they don't always fit the way we would like. And like Morg said I do sometimes feel awkward or like I am just play-acting so I try to let the Spiritual and Divine come to me. And in those rare moments where I feel it is amazing.

The second thing is something I am trying to do more as of recent. I re-found the line in the Game of Thrones series in which one of the character says. "If one does anything well enough it becomes a prayer to the Gods." I wish to make my life that. I wish to live my life in such a manner as to be a prayer to the Gods.

Well, like there are different kinds of initiation, there are different kinds of priesthood. Initiation is a simply a catalyst for change. Before initiation one is preparing to fill a particular role; afterwards, you inhabit that role. The act of initiation itself changes you to better fit what you are undertaking. But what role a priest/ess might play varies.

Some priesthood is all about the Gods you serve. And some priesthood is all about bringing the Gods to a community and their needs. The two things are apples and kiwi fruit - they're both fruit and they both have seeds, but after that there's not much in common. Many priest/esses are juggling
apples and kiwis together, and that's how their readiness is judged - you earn initiation by having a foot in both the spiritual and the physical, and you can function while balancing the two.

Nailing down a definition for an 'eclectic priesthood' isn't possible, I think. After all, it's impossible to say eclectic paganism is a tradition of any kind...so it's equally as difficult to try to find a standard model for their priests. I think eclectic priesthood still tends to be a matter of meeting requirements, as with other, more traditional, forms of paganism - but it really wildly varies between groups and organizations. Some may require you to already have been 'initiated by Spirit' before becoming a priest/ess for their group. Others will have a initiatory training structure. Others still might have a rotating roster in which all members are priest/ess for a ritual, and no-one has any kind of elevated status from the others - everyone is both laity and priesthood. Still others will have formed around one person, who simply has more knowledge or experience in practice than everyone else, and they become priesthood by default.

All of this, of course, predicates on the existence of a group. Priesthood is largely a group dynamic, the way most of us would think of it. Service to the Gods and leading ones' community in faith practices seems to be the common thread for priesthood - but remove the community, and the role shrinks to focus solely on the needs of one's Deity.

Solitaries, I think, are often initiates of Spirit - initiated by their Gods, who wish them to give the proper rites and acts for their needs. This sort of initiation is pretty much UPG, but I don't think solitaries need more than that. They get whatever they need from their practices, by performing them for themselves and their Gods alone. Because of that I do tend to think of solitaries as laity, devoted lay worshipers who are most comfortable without becoming involved with any one community and its' particular type of leadership.

It's such a complicated subject, tied up in culture and society. At some point we're all laity, when we are not actively involved in a leadership role, a community role, or a ritual role...but I think it's all one big Venn diagram of overlapping edges.

I'm trying to think about how I can show this, through my own experiences...

- When I started out on this path, I was a non-practicing Pagan. I did not follow any specific path, and I did not have the space or the urge to have a physical practice. My spirituality was entirely satisfied by my beliefs.

- When I was called by my primary patron, initiated in Spirit by her, the experience changed me and I devoted myself to her service. I became her priestess at that time - but only for her. I honour many deities at this point - I have other patrons, even - but my relationship with my Lady is the only one where I was specifically named a priestess.

- Eventually I began to desire physical practice, and so I began practicing ritual. I started out using those written by others. At that point, I would consider myself laity - I was following others' directions as written by them, essentially walking in their footsteps until I became sure enough of my own footing. Eventually I began to write my own rituals, when I better understood what different parts of ritual were for.

- When I began to circle with others, as a guest or at open circles, I was most certainly laity. I was not a part of these group's leadership structure, and my UPG regarding my patron could not be a claim towards priesthood in the traditions who hosted these open events.

- When I began to lead ritual for a group of close friends, and then created a set of unique rites and practices for that group, I became their priestess. In this instance it is purely a leadership role based on experience and knowledge, for a community. My role is primarily service as an adviser, counselor, and facilitator.

- Lastly, I have been both laity and priestess within the coven I am a member of, as first an outer-court student, and then an initiate.

So I've been all three - non-practicing, laity, and priesthood - and even now I am both laity and priesthood.