Because only sheep need a shepherd, and we are men.

Here is a rebuttal to some feedback we have received, from a local High Priestess, who seemed to take serious issue with how we did things. Ever notice how no Pagan ever seems to call herself a mere "priestess" without feeling the need to give herself an immediate promotion? In her letter, she says

"I can't conceive of a temple without a school of divinity"

Note: then obviously, she can't conceive of the Old Greek Temples, in which the clergy were often altogether absent, the worshipper going in to that small space to be in the symbolic presence of the god, alone. Nor, apparently, could she conceive of a Jewish minyan, over which no rabbi is needed to preside, the rabbis claiming no clerical credentials (in the Christian sense), anyway. Any Jew who knows the rituals has the authority to preside and to teach. Note that Judaism has endured for well over 3,000 years. The more authoritarian Wiccan traditions, are struggling to make it to 60. Apparently, having a hierarchy isn't terribly essential in the establishment of a stable community or tradition, or necessarily even very useful.

"-for that you do need clergy, degrees, etc..." (1)

Really? To return to the case of Judaism, no Priesthood has been in existence since the Roman imperial authorities murdered the last High Priest in Jerusalem, before he could appoint a successor. (Who, by the way, did have a fair number of regular priests working under his authority, hence the title.) Yet yeshivas (Talmudic schools) have been with us from time immemorial.

"oh well, it's that old wiccan training of mine..."

Oh well, it's probably that old graduate school training of mine, telling me that material as conjectural as that usually raised in a Pagan setting, is, at best, appropriate for colloquia, but not for coursework. We'll get to that.

"your vision sounds like a cross between a pagan-friendly frat house"

Oh, yes, because when we picture a frat house, the first image we get is of the brothers giving lengthy expositions on post-Kantian metaphysics when they aren't trading recipes. Do you suppose that's why we weren't asked to rush?

"and Huxley's Brave New World..."

And, apparently, someone has shared that clever turn of phrase with others. Of course, as anyone who has gone through this site knows, that's outrageously far from the truth.

What Huxley shows us, in his notoriously dark satire, is a world in which traditional values have been cast aside, with nightmarish results. In other words, what one would get if the "do your own thing" ethic were to be wedded to high technology. We, by contrast, have argued at length for the sanctity of the individual and human life, and for the importance of preserving traditional values where they survive, and of beginning their restoration where they have been lost. Which is to say, we are diametrically opposed to that which has been attributed to us.

I guess what amused me the most about this letter, was that it was addressed to Antistoicus by someone who had previously sent a letter to the Chicago Reader, cc-ing it to him, to bitterly protest one of its writer's "distortions". As my grandmother would have said, "every fox smells its own hole first" (2). Not that we're taking this personally, mind you. A little character assassination seems to be the traditional greeting the Pagan community offers a new group here, and if anything, our initiation has probably been unusually gentle (3), so far. Now that we've dealt with a few potential rumors, let's move on.

(1) The ellipses are her own. No text has been cut from the quoted passage.

(2) Someone wrote in to complain about the "profanity" used, when we write that! For those of you who have never ventured more than three blocks outside of a city, a fox is a small, burrowing member of the canine family (including dogs, wolves and coyotes) often found in holes in the ground. The reference is to a fox, rising out of its underground dwelling, and complaining about the smell coming out of the holes in its area, when, in fact, the smell it will be detecting, will be the one from its own home. Colloquially, the expression refers to the human tendency to most loudly protest that which one is most notably guilty of, oneself.

Clear enough? Sheesh, some people!

(3) True at the time this article was written, that situation has changed considerably, as we note in the Prima Nocturne Incident, where the infantile behavior of some of the local elders is described.