If having clergy that are highly educated in the things of the world is important to you then perhaps paid clergy is best. If you think it’s important to specify one individual to administer to the spiritual needs of everyone else, rather than equally sharing that responsibility among all members then perhaps paid clergy is best. If being recognized among non-believers as having a certain level of financially produced legitimacy is important to you then perhaps paid clergy is best.

None of those things are important to me. That’s perhaps one of the reasons I belong to a spiritual organization that has no paid clergy (except for modest living stipends for the highest leadership that must devote all their time – it’s like 0.01% of the membership). In fact, the organization I belong to is one of the most financially sound precisely because donations go to projects rather than pocketbooks.

The great thing about no paid clergy is that 1) not motivated to play to the pocketbooks of the members – this keeps things pure, 2) sharing spiritually administrative responsibilities is richly rewarding for all participants, 3) you must abandon all thought of acceptance by paid-clergy organizations … this is actually a good thing to gain the confidence that you don’t need acceptance among non-believers in order to be a good neighbor with them. It’s best to win their approval by your acts of kindness and mutual well-being rather than by other means.

   0 likes

So I’m resigned to the development of a catgory of “paid Pagan clergy.”

But I don’t think that “paid Pagan clergy” rings true for the heart metal of many Pagan trads. And I don’t think that “Pagan clergy” ought to be a career.

   0 likes