TEMPLES, COVENS AND GROVES -OH MY!

by KHALED

There appears to be a fair amount of ongoing confusion as to what each

of these is and what each of them should be doing, so let me stick my

oar into it, too. But first, let's play the definition game.

CIRCLE Three or more people who gather together to work ritual or

Craft. Some are ritual only, some worship only, but most do

both. The following are all special cases of a Circle:

GROVE Circle usually led by, and under the auspices of, a coven.

Frequently eclectic in practice, Groves are commonly used as

an introduction to the Craft as a whole but not necessarily

to any given Tradition. Groves usually don't initiate. May

also be called a study group.

COVEN Circle gathering at least once per month (with a majority

gathering twice) for worship and/or magic. Membership tends

to be stable with gradual personnel changes. Normally practicing

within a single Tradition, Covens typically have strong group

rapport. Most train their members to whatever standard they use.

Rites of passage (the "I" word) are the norm.

TEMPLE Two or more Circles, generally at least one Coven (the Inner

Circle) and a Grove (the Outer Circle), the latter being open to

the public. Serves the public as a place to worship and/or learn about the

Gods with advanced training for those seekers who meet the Temple's

standards. I'm on shakier ground here, never having run a Temple, but I see

a Circle/Grove open to the general public as essential to the definition,

while the strong affiliation to one or more covens is a matter of observation

(as is the relationship between Groves and Covens cited earlier.)

A fair number of practitioners do not distinguish among these terms (nor, for

that matter, among Wicca, Paganism and New Age). Feel free to take issue with

any of these definitions, but they are what I have in mind as I write this.

Let's take a closer look at what each of these is and how they tend to

function within Neo-Paganism.

A Circle is a gathering of, preferably like-minded, individuals for purposes

of magic and/or worship. None of those gathered need be of the same

Tradition, nor even Initiate, though it makes for better results if at least

some of them are. All Groves , Covens and Temples are therefore Circles. The

reverse, however, isn't always the case since many Circles do not also meet

the criteria for a Grove, Coven or Temple.

A Grove, or Study Group, is a Circle of students learning the basics

of Neo-Pagan (or Wiccan or any of the other subsets of Pagan) worship

and Circle techniques. While normally under the tutelage of one or

more Initiates, the members are not necessarily being trained towards

Initiation in any particular Tradition, nor need the tutors be of the same

Tradition(s) as the students (nor even of each other).

Mystery religions, by their very nature, aren't for everyone, nor is any

given Mystery suitable for all Initiates. The Grove is a way for potential

Initiates to take a good look at one or more Traditions while learning how to

handle themselves in just about any basic Circle. If this isn't for them,

they can easily drop it. If it is, they can focus on the specific Tradition

(or family of Traditions) which seems to speak most clearly to them (assuming

they were exposed to more than one). Similarly, the tutor(s) can teach

general techniques to any serious Seeker without worrying about an implied

commitment to Initiate someone unsuited to their particular Tradition.

Groves do not normally do Initiations (they're done by the sponsoring Coven,

if any), and tend to be oriented more towards teaching and worship than

towards magical practice. They are also more likely to be fairly open to new

members or even the general public than is the case with established Covens,

while study groups, in my experience at least, are more likely to be

invitation-only. The most effective Groves (or study groups, of course) are

under the helpful eye, if not out-and-out sponsorship, of an established

Coven or family of Covens.

A Coven, on the other hand, is a regularly meeting Circle, all of the same

Tradition, at least some of whom are Initiates (and at least one of whom

holds Initiatory power if the Coven is to survive or grow).

Such a group tends to become very close ("closer than kin") and is bound by

the rules and styles (deliberately non-existent in some cases) of its

Tradition, and by its own internal rules and customs. A member of a Coven is

normally provided training and, when deemed ready, Initiation or Elevation by

that Coven's Priesthood/Elders.

There are also magical considerations which go into the making of a Coven

which further differentiate it from a Grove/study group, but it isn't my

intention to go into them here. Suffice it to say that they are connected to

the closeness and tend to enhance it. Because the bond is tight, and because

a Coven generally intends to be around for a few decades, they're kinda fussy

about who joins. The wise Seeker is equally fussy about which, if any, Coven

s/he eventually joins. You're not joining a social club here, you're

adopting, and being adopted into, an extended family. And this time round you

have some control over who your kin will be!

Neo-Pagan Temples are a fairly new phenomena combining many of the

characteristics of Covens and Groves. I think that the clearest description

of just what they're about comes from the (draft) Constitution of the

proposed Victoria (B.C.) Temple:

a) To minister to the Pagan community by way of providing support, education,

and sponsoring religious celebrations;

b) to establish and maintain a religious sanctuary and place of worship

accessible to all who would worship the Goddess and the God;

c) to provide a seminary for the training of Wiccan clergy;

d) to provide accredited ordination for Wiccan clergy;

e) to provide accurate information about Witchcraft to all who would ask and

to engage in dialogue with other religious groups with the purpose of

furthering understanding and friendship between us; and

f) to do other charitable acts of goodwill as will benefit the community at

large.

As stated in my definition of Temple above, I consider the provision of Neo-

Pagan (not necessarily Wiccan) religious instruction and services to the

general public to be essential, and provision of community services to the

local Neo-Pagan population highly desirable. To be taken seriously in the

wider world, we need to have our clergy recognised by our government(s),

which in turn means that we need to be visibly providing training and

ordination which meets government accreditation criteria (which can vary

significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). Such accredited ordination

is most easily administered through Temples.

To address a diatribe current on the Nets (computer Network Bulletin Boards:

Ed.) so long as the governments we seek accreditation from think in Christian

terms, then we will have to use Christian terms, carefully defined to earmark

differences in us age, to describe ourselves to them. Sure, there's some

danger of picking up some inappropriate (to Wicca) ways of thinking along

with those terms, but we're more likely to import them with converts who were

raised as Christians. The solution to both problems is the same: clearly

understood (by the tutors above all!) religious instruction. And if a

Christian notion isn't inappropriate, and if it's truly useful, why shouldn't

we adopt it? Religious intolerance itself is inappropriate to Wiccan thought,

and I think we should be clearer in condemning it.

So how does it all tie together? I think that the Neo-Pagan community

needs a mix of solitaires, coveners and templers, along with significant

variety among their Traditions, to remain intellectually and spiritually

healthy. We also need umbrella organisations capable of meeting the needs of

each of them, not only for credibility with governments and the general

public, but to spread new (and not so new) ideas around the very community

they should exist to serve. I'll talk more on what this umbrella organisation

should look like in a bit. For now, let's get back to roles of the different

types of Circle.

One of the things that fascinates about the Craft is our teaching that the

Gods don't need a Priesthood to run interference between Them and Their

worshippers. Nor is this a new idea. Heroditus recorded with a certain

amazement that Persians must call on a Magus to perform every little

sacrifice, whereas among the Greeks of his time, anyone, including housewives

and slaves, could sacrifice at any time, assuming they had the desire and the

means. We have a Priesthood because some people feel called to a deeper

understanding and expression of their faith than is the case for many. And

while They don't need Initiated Priesthoods, humans find them very useful

both as a source of thoughtful religious instruction and as a ready source of

warm bodies to stick with the administrivia of organising group ritual.

Like sex, however, effective worship isn't something that just comes

naturally. It must be learnt, and practised. Groves, festivals and Temples

are all good places to learn the fundamentals, assuming you weren't fortunate

enough to learn them at home . They are also good places to socialise with

people who think much the way you do, a deeply-seated human need we do well

not to overlook. If your need runs deeper, you will find Priesthood there to

talk to. If your needs prove more mystically oriented, they should be able to

arrange contact with one or more Covens, who can in turn, if appropriate,

Initiate you into whichever flavour of the Mysteries they practise.

Different Circle structures serve different needs. None is superior to the

other except to the extent that it serves your needs better. For those of us

simply seeking to express our religious feelings in sympathetic company,

whichever form best serves that expression is all we're likely to need. But

those of us who feel called to serve the greater community will need all of

them to achieve the mandate we have set ourselves.

To return to our model umbrella organisation, to serve a significant majority

of the community it will have to address as many of the rather different

needs of solitaires, Covens and Temples as is feasible without stepping on

the concerns of any of them. To be effective, it has to have some standards,

but it can't impose them from above without violating the sovereignty that

all three segments of the community value rather highly.

One of the difficulties with any ideal is that it manifests imperfectly, if

indeed it can be brought to manifestation at all. Rather than a

discouragement, however, I find that a challenge: to bring about the best

fit possible between reality and our ideal. Here then are my ideas on some

of the attributes such an organisation can aim for. To start from the top, I

think the stated purpose of the organisation should be to serve as a liaison

between member clergy and the Establishment, whether government or public.

Why clergy? Because we don't need government approval simply to worship our

Gods, especially if we're doing so discreetly and on private property.

It's our institutions which need public recognition in order to be able to

avail themselves of public resources available to other, already recognised,

religions, not the worshippers themselves. And institutions effectively mean

the clergy. Note I don't say Priesthood. It's one of the earmarks of the

Craft that all Initiates are clergy, but in many of our Traditions,

Priesthood requires a deeper understanding of traditional lore and

techniques.

The immediate needs such an organisation should attempt to fulfil are

essentially three:

1) Establishment of a Seminary to provide the training necessary for

government accreditation as a minister of religion for those who need or seek

said accreditation. To achieve this it will be necessary to look into the

minimal training expect ed by any intended licensing bodies and ensure that

those standards are being met or exceeded by all graduates of said

certification program. This accreditation is to serve no other purpose within

the organisation: all of our members will be recognised by us as clergy,

whether or not they seek further accreditation.

2) To act as a public relations and information office on the Craft to the

general public. If we exist, we will be used as an information source,

so we might as well plan on it and do the job properly.

3) To act as a Craft contact and social network to facilitate Pagan

networking among members and non-members alike.

To expand upon the seminary somewhat, any member should be able to sit

for an examination without taking the associated classes (a process known in

Ontario as "challenge for credit"). If s/he passes, s/he is given the credit,

if not, the associated courses must be taken before s/he may sit for another

examination on that subject. In this way we can grant credit for existing

knowledge without in any way compromising our standards. I think it would be

a very bad idea to grant an exemption from this procedure to anyone.

Because very few of us are likely to be able to drop everything for a couple

of years to travel to wherever we happen to establish the campus, one should

be able to complete the courses necessary for certification by

correspondence. Nor should the to pics of instruction be limited for those

required for accreditation with government.

Let's also see to it that our ministers have a grounding in the philosophy of

religion, comparative religion (especially comparative Pagan religion) and

chaplaincy as well. Note too that I keep referring to the document as a

Certificate, not a college degree. A university level of education, while

great for the egos of graduates, is unnecessarily high to meet the needs of

our Pagan laity - a Community College is much more appropriate. The stages of

learning in a guildcraft are apprentice, journeyman and master, NOT

baccalaureate, master and doctor! Mind, I have no objection to our Seminary

offering college level courses, nor any other course or seminar it may choose

to offer.

I merely object to the insistence in some quarters that since most Christian

ministers must hold graduate degrees, then by golly ours must too!

Horsefeathers!

Our Organisation then breaks down into a Seminary to provide internal

education, and accreditation, to Pagan religious tutors; a PR office to

provide external education, and referrals to the public; and one or more

Festivals, and no doubt a periodical (e.g. a newsletter), to provide for

contacts and networking both internal and external.

Further, I see our Organisation as an ecclesia in the ancient Athenian sense

of the term, and assembly of all those having the right to vote in our

affairs. I don't feel the ecclesia should either set or attempt to enforce

any standards beyond those required for government accreditation and a

minimal ethical standard for membership. I feel that membership should be

restricted to ordained clergy within a Pagan tradition, nor should the

ecclesia itself set any standard as to what does or does not constitute

clergy (though I expect it may have to define criteria for determining what

is or isn't Pagan). All this because any other approach compromises the

essential sovereignty of our Covens and Temples (for which purpose I see a

solitary as a Coven of 1).

Since our membership is composed of clergy, not Covens and Temples, I

favour one-person-one-vote. Certainly, groups with a large number of

ordained members will thereby gain a larger number of votes in the ecclesia,

why not? The ecclesia has no authority over individual members nor the

organisations they may represent. Its most extreme power is to suspend the

membership of persons found to be in violation of the ethical code, which

code is set and policed by the members themselves. Or to appoint officers to

manage the ecclesia's property and affairs, which officers will be legally

and constitutionally answerable to the membership.

On the topic of polity, I see the ecclesia/AGM as setting policy which is

then administered and interpreted by the officers. The officers should have

no power to set policy themselves. Our structure should be absolutely

minimalist to avoid unpleasant takeover bids later. Any office or function

which doesn't need to be there, shouldn't be there.

If someone has grounds for an ethics complaint, an ad hoc committee should be

assembled to look into it. If amends are made or the objectionable behaviour

corrected, then the case should be dropped (i.e. the committee is focused on

correcting unethical behaviour, not punishing it).

On the subject of officers and their terms of office, I rather like the

notion of electing them in alternate years for two- year terms. A one-year

term is too hard on continuity. One possibility to avoid little fiefdoms is

to provide each function with two officers, one senior and the other junior.

Each year the senior officer retires, the junior officer becomes the senior

and a new junior officer is elected.

Continuity is preserved, and each officer gains an assistant who has a year

in which to learn the ropes. I think that barring the outgoing senior from

seeking re-election as a junior would be wasteful of resources, myself, but

it would certainly serve to break up fiefdoms even further, should the

ecclesia happen to be particularly paranoid about them.

A not-so-little proposal, but the subject is an important one. This is only

somewhat-baked, and I see the need as both real and immediate, so please give

me some feedback on this.

BLESSED BE.