Hearth & Horn

Tea break!

2018-09-10T23:52:17Z

OK, so I have one more post - it's a bibliography with links - but the file broke, so I'll have to finish it later in the week. Also, I have comments to reply to - I haven't forgotten :)

Cheers for reading. Cheers for any feedback, be they comments, response posts, or attempts to answer the initial prompt questions for yourself.
Cheers for making Dreamwidth a safer environment to talk about difficult stuff in.

When I was working on this earlier in the week, I had to go on some very brisk "get out of your head" walks to handle some worries which were coming up, but having finished it - I'm moderately proud of it, i feel the process of writing it was constructive & helpful, and confident about posting it. So this is a nice thing too.

comments

RSC [Part 6] - Unsolved Problems

2018-09-10T23:47:12Z

As I’ve been writing and thinking, there are a couple of big unanswered questions/unadressed problems.

The Mystery

“I HAVE BEEN GENEROUS UP UNTIL NOW, BUT I CAN BE CRUEL. EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANTED I HAVE DONE.YOU ASKED THAT THE CHILD BE TAKEN. I TOOK HIM. YOU COWERED BEFORE ME. I \WAS\ FRIGHTENING. I HAVE REORDERED TIME. I HAVE TURNED THE WORLD UPSIDE-DOWN, AND I HAVE DONE IT ALL FOR YOU! I AM EXHAUSED FROM LIVING UP TO YOUR EXPECTATIONS OF ME. ISN'T THAT GENEROUS?”

Quite a lot of the things critiqued in this series are things I/we all secretly want. Of course I want to meet a geniuine guru, with a genuine historic lineage, who is Jedi-like and wise and touched by the Goddess.

The principles I have laid out strip out a lot of the flim flam and make-believe, and suggest no more sacred an experience than joining the Women’s Institute. The experience of being initiated into the Mysteries is real – these things work on the psychology in a powerful way. Magic is supposed to be immersive, ecstatic, participatory and strange – not run like a business meeting.

To what extent is this a problem? Can we create similarly powerful and authentic experiences without them? What checks and accountability would be needed to continue using them? How would I give my congregation the experience of me, as the Prophet of the Aeon – masked and all-powerful, a shadow cast by the fire – without the imbalance of power that inevitably comes with it?

Abuse reporting?

Many communities have faced this head on by designing processes for reporting and handling abuse. A lot of writing has been done about community accountability & mediation; activist-aware communities will often have a page on what their principles are.
(Here’s someone trying:
They are all flawed, all inadequate to the task. This is a very hard problem to solve.
And having gone through it, I still don’t feel like I have any answers. These situations are simply horrible for everyone involved. This article is excellent, especially its list of flaws in Community Accountability processes.

--
For these reasons, I haven’t listed anything about how to handle abuse when/if it happens. Is this a failing? Definitely. But I think it is better to be honest about our limitations, and the extent to which individuals can effectively act as a substitute for law enforcement.

If I was a coven leader, and two members came to me with pistols-at-dawn abuse accusations against each other – I would likely run for the hills. And I’m not convinced that isn’t the best strategy: dissolve the coven, give everyone a month or two breathing space. Hope we have fostered a sufficient atmosphere of independence that coven-members can contact those other members they wish to spend time to reform and start working again in new groups. Throughout, I’ve tried stressing principles which make the individual more important than the unit, and making everyone feel empowered. Morgan and Steve can start their own coven without Carol – and without me – and exit the situation. After all: in relationships, when you get to the "hi we need to have another serious talk" stage, it's generally the beginning of the end. A serious accusation means your collective relationship is profoundly broken, and is best ended in its current form.

Now, this conflicts with an earlier principle: “Act Like A Larger Organisation”. Above a certain size, one really should develop a process for handling this, and do it before an accusation is made. Personally, I’d combat this by not letting it get that large. So perhaps there’s another point here about self-awareness and limitations, about setting a challenge you can meet. If I know I’m incapable of handling an abuse scandal in my organisation, I need to run an organisation sufficiently small that I can disband it just by no longer inviting members to tea.

---
Rising again to Alex’s challenge to think of ways that hierarchy can be good. A large umbrella organisation can also be a way to reduce spiritual abuse – if the organisation is up to it.

Presently, my only options for covens are “blokes I met in a pub”, there’s no vetting or quality control whatsoever. A very good organisation could train clergy, and remain responsible for them throughout their (?)ministry. I could check my new High Priestess was a member in good standing, and the organisation would prove its worth by requiring re-training every 5 years, and removing authority from anyone misusing it. To work in a Pagan context, you’d have to set it up to primarily teach pastoral and management skills rather than doctrine, so any denomination could get use out of it.

At the same time, the Catholic Church is an ugly lesson in an organisation refusing to take responsibility for the actions of those it ordains.

Creating safer communities and accountability is a primary task for any larger organisation, perhaps the defining reason why such organisations should exist at all.

I’m currently looking program which teaches me lore for 12 months, and at the end promises initiation into the tradition – the website says it has initiated 120 people or whatever. I doubt it does follow-up on all those people. It doesn’t claim to, it doesn’t have to – but I can’t help think that would be so much more useful than sharing lore and ritual scripts. I like the idea that when someone says “I was initiated by Haptalon himself and have attained the rank of Adept”, it stands as a mark of their integrity and quality, and if someone doubts it they can write to the
organisation for a fact-check.

But of course, at that stage – it requires an organisation free from corruption, who judges wisely, makes fair decisions, is not controlled by a clique, doesn’t cover things up…

Technique: Keep thinking about abuse

One option when passing on a reference would be to include some of your abuse-awareness materials as standard. You could write - "this is my impression of the person. But I don't feel able to vouch for anyone unconditionally, and would like to share some of the materials we use in our trad to assess the safety of individuals and groups"

For legal reasons, my work cannot provide character references - only factual ones. That's another neat way to both acknowledge and side-step responsibility: "I can confirm Jim worked in X Coven 2006-2008, and holds the rank of Fantastico - this role included...please note we don't give character references, but here are some resources for you". Job applications ask you why you left your previous role - so maybe it's appropriate to add "Jim was asked to leave after a serious infraction involving alcohol" or "Jim was a member in good standing, but wanted to pursue different avenues".

I'm a big fan of being upfront about limitations. Giving Jim a good or bad reference, or giving no references at all, cuts abuse out of the conversation, and doesn't offer insight into your perspective. Acknowledging the ways that reference-giving is imperfect means the recipient is thinking and reflecting about both Jim and me, and that's crucial.

Technique: Know Thyself

In terms of this blog series. The original question was – how would I create a safer environment – so my answer on this would be: not letting a group become bigger or more official than I could be accountable for.

Dropouts

Failure Mode 1: Cal is in a coven. Martin is evil and cunning and manipulative. Cal leaves the coven; or maybe they speak out about it and are disbelieved; and they kinda drop out of the Pagan scene, or maybe they stick around but don’t have any influence or social power. Betty joins Martin’s coven, without the opportunity to talk to Cal. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Failure Mode 2: Martin’s coven friends recognise he is a bad egg and eject him from the coven. They hear no more from him; or perhaps they try and spread the word, but tire of the responsibility, or aren’t well enough connected to do it effectively. Martin joins a new coven, who aren’t in contact with his old coven. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

This is one of the things which lets prolific abusers become so prolific. What’s to be done? It’s very difficult. Martin could change his name, or move countries. Abuse victims quite rightly want to move on. Ought a person or group have the responsibility - or the right - to tell stories about a person for months and years? What if Martin becomes a better person? What if the rumour-mongers are liars - what if Martin is the victim of a smear campaign? What if Martin’s accusers interpretations of the events are disproportionate or unfair? What if the tale-tellers have less social reach than Martin?

No solutions for this given, because few exist.

This is a scenario where a well-functioning hierarchy can be helpful. Your coven might not have any social reach or power, but you can let the other covens in your network know - and collectively, your organisation might have enough clout to spread the word further. If your org is large enough, maybe the scandal will be worthy of mention on The Wild Hunt or discussion in the wider Pagan blogosphere.

That doesn’t account for how “you’re on our blacklist and no longer welcome in this scene” is a horrifyingly powerful tool, and small community organisations don’t have the oversight or wisdom to use it with care. There’s a clutch of posts by Local Queer Notables about why I am a dangerous and toxic individual, written after I accused their buddy of the same. How is a third party supposed to judge between those two conflicting stories?

comments

RSC [Part 5] - Day to Day

2018-09-10T23:39:24Z

Heyyyyyy it's part 5! Still awake? Imagine we're walking in the snow - keep putting on thermal vests and extra jumpers and a second scarf and many, many pairs of socks. Layers and layers and layers and layers.

By now, you've got a coven whose organisation and liturgy are designed to limit unhealthy use of power. Your clergy and members are aware of abuse, and both are trained in ways to prevent their behavior, or help them spot it in others. Hopefully, some of this will quietly hum away in the background, ready to spring into action when required.

This post is about running the coven day-to-day, to discourage power concentrating in the wrong hands.

Keep thinking about abuse

Morbid, I know. But "safe space" isn't a static thing, it's a process, a series of choices. A space has to be made safe by the people in it.
Take opportunities to reflect, to check members feel OK, to find opportunities to respond to news stories or bring conversations about safety and trust into the circle, to get feedback, etc. Constant vigilance! If you have an annual meeting, why not get members to anonymously fill in the Bonewits Cult Safety survey so you can learn what isn't working & improve it.

Rotate ritual roles

Failure mode: The older figures I’m reading about often have one person associated with a ritual role – Crowley as the Beast, Cochraine as the Magister, and Murray’s wider idea of a single human who is both leader of the coven and Devil incarnate. This runs the risk of people investing semi-divine power in a human who might be very unscrupulous.

Success mode: "Leader of the coven – person who books the meeting hall & buys the cakes” is separate from “Leader of the coven – high priestess who channels the goddess”, and give everyone the opportunity to take on semi-divine roles in rites, as far as is possible.

Incarnating divinities is a fairly common Pagan practice - rotating might not be the best solution, or appropriate for your trad. I think it would feel weird to have "James is doing the Horned God today, but next month we have Laura, and then we have Louise" - weird and meaningless.
Still, we need to diminish the risk of a person identifying themselves too closely with a divinity - or with other people investing their awe of the divine in a mortal - or if we allow these things to happen, figure out how to channel that power in a healthy way.

For example - consider ways that everyone can be an avatar of the divine – I have less problem with someone claiming semi-divine status if I get to do it too! Both practically, as in they can’t pull rank on me, and psychologically, because it boosts up my sense of importance and strength. If James is consistantly the God, Laura the Lady, and Louise the Goblin King, each gets the benefits and is insulated against problems from the others.

Or see: speaking in tongues in Christian evangelical groups, and horsing in Vodou where anyone can have the spirits come to them. In these environments, any congregation-member can spontaneously claim divine contact. I’ve been in a meeting where a smug girl from choir channelled the power of Jesus to heal someone’s headache, and irritating as it was at the time – this is a good division of power. Smug choir girl isn’t anyone “special” in the organisation – in fact, I believe their sect don’t let women be priests – but she has the right, ability and confidence to channel the divine & access to its powers. That’s healthy.

Not the only way to solve the problem, but a concept which needs careful handling.

Rotate who people work with

Failure Mode: Carol is your only and primary contact within the group/ you work in a couple with Carol / Carol expects everyone’s primary loyalty to be to her / Carol is the core & hub the coven orbits around.

Success mode: You do divination with Morgan for a month, and then the next month you’re on library-work with Steve, and then you’re working with Carol and Sue on the ritual for Mabon.

A key feature of huge abuse scandals is 20 or 50 or 100 people thinking they were the only one, and feeling like they won’t be believed. Strong relationships with several group members mean a wider network if something seems “off”. Information is less concentrated.

Perhaps Morgan and Steve and Sue all have a funny feeling about Carol. If Carol is the person you do most of your working and communicating with, then you’ll all remain islands. Better to cultivate an atmosphere where perhaps Morgan is closest to Steve, so they have someone to “check out” Carol’s unsettling behaviour with.

The individual is greater than the group

Failure mode: "We cannot let this stain threaten the work of the church! If we don't say anything, our reputation will be intact and no one need ever know"

Success mode: "We run the risk of damaging or even destroying the church. Nevertheless, we have to support and protect our member - it is the right thing to do"

Especially when aspiring to create a tradition, or thinking about a group, it's easy to focus on the big picture at the expense of the little humans who make up your vision. It has always been the way of Great Men who have a vision, a mission, or a dream to sacrifice their footsoldiers for the greater good. That's evil shit, so don't do it

This includes a willingness to shape group practice around its members goals, rather than trying to shape members into what's "correct" for the tradition. This is also about humility: actually, the survival of your religious tradition really isn't all that important, on the grand scheme of things, compared to the wellbeing of those you have taken responsibilty for.

Open Source Ethos

Because I’m too 90s to function. Open Source is about challenging feelings of ownership. You write a Wikipedia page. Someone comes and changes it. Are you angered by the invasion, or uplifted by the collaboration?
The key to not being a shitty coven leader is, I think, the ability to take a step back, and see yourself as someone who is serving your members – rather than members being ritual props in “your” coven.
This means: cultivating a willingness to let go of your material, making space for others to participate in writing rituals, adapting things to members’ needs, seeing it as a collective organisation rather than “yours”, letting it be a living creature. As I said in the introduction, just thinking about this makes me feel pretty pissy about my Imaginary Coven Members changing bits of my Imaginary Liturgy.

There’s a bit of conflict here with something Jennet wrote about people entering new covens and immediately trying to change everything. That sounds extremely irritating! In Guernsey French we have a word broussepier, a verb meaning “to rub a cat’s fur in the wrong direction”. So groups ought to have a core identity, and lines where they say “no – this is a step too far away from our original purpose and practice, you need to explore this on your own”.

It’s back to asking about “proportionate means”:

Why do we do it the way we do it?
Why do I feel resistant to this change?
Is my desire to keep things the same proportionate and legitimate? Or is it coming from a place of envy or control?

Again, I see the primary goal of this process as actively recognising possessive feelings, and encouraging leaders to be aware of their authoritarian tendencies. Once you know they are there, you can challenge them, and hopefully make a better decision with that set to one side. That answer may still be “no, we keep things as they are” or “this is a hereditary trad, our key feature is doing things as they have always been done”. But it is important for that to be a decision from a place of strength, rather than threat.

comments

RSC [Part 4] - Training Clergy

2018-09-10T23:36:22Z

Welcome to part 4! Still with me? These techniques are on how to lead ethically, and how to train new leaders.

Include abuse training

Have similar sessions about abuse when training clergy.

In teaching, we were taught ground rules about not touching students or being alone in rooms with them – to prevent misunderstanding and red-flag anyone who did these things. What ground-rules about boundaries and so forth could adults set for how they interact with other adults?
What 3rd party resources are there about running safe organisations? There is a lot of things coming out of activist communities, some of which I love and some I think is very questionable. Schools, nursing, Guides/Scouts, other faiths will also have things you can work from.

Repeat these sessions periodically – for example, leaders doing reflective work on whether they are doing OK, leadership councils reflecting on the group’s ethos, whether it feels like a safe and mutual space.

Keep Your Cool Shit To Yourself

Failure Mode: “I’m actually related to Anne de Chatraine who was burnt in 1406 and learnt my craft from my grandmother, who is half Scottish half Native American, and have been anointed by the inner masters who have divulged great secrets to me. This is the source of my power and wisdom, and from them I learnt this circle-casting charm.”
Success mode: “Here is how we cast circles”.
Is there a specific, legitimate reason to tell people about your cool stuff? Usually, the answer will be no; the main outcome of sharing is establishing why you’re better than somebody else. It speaks of immaturity, & a desire for others to build you up. The sort of person who is privately confident in their power and does not need it validated is the sort of well-balanced and grounded person who ought to run magical groups.
At all other times, it is important “to keep Silent”. It’s useful to have things which make us feel important and special, but your witch grandma is not relevant to anyone else.
Occasionally, the answer is yes: “I’m actually the professor of anglo saxon at Christ’s College Oxford, and...”. Say a certain spirit keeps turning up uninvited in groupwork, and it’s a spirit you have history with – it’s then relevant and useful to share. But don’t put it on the business card.
“I’m part of [Big Name Pagan]’s original initiatory tradition” is a complicated middle ground. On the one hand, that’s a pretty important USP for a coven and part of its identity. At the same time, it discourages people from judging a group by the quality of work we are doing now. No authenticity, heritage or divine guidance saves a shitty ritual; and the lack of those things do not diminish an exceptional one.

Don’t only read Pagan books

As mentioned above. Leadership is a skill which has little or nothing to do with one’s knowledge of lore, sacred connection or magical skill.
Books on business, management, leadership, delegating, filing taxes, running a Scout Troop, providing pastoral care. I’d also see it as vital to read books written by authors from larger faiths on the skills/challenges/qualities of being clergy. There might also be courses or formal learning opportunities.

See it as a bigger job than just “Being Master of Ceremonies in the circle”, and cultivate a level of professionalism.

Fit your Own Lifebelt before helping others

“A.K.A. If you cant love yourself how in the hell are you gonna love somebody else”

I feel a lot of pity for Donald Trump. Ever since people have started weaponising his mental health and accusing him of having a Personality Disorder, I’ve found him acutely relatable – because I have a Personality Disorder too. I want to give his lost inner child a really big hug and to take care of him, all these weirdly maternal feelings – because he is clearly so very hurt in so many ways.

Trump is a man who is not currently capable of self-reflection, so he’s trying to get his validation needs met by squabbling with world leaders on Twitter, only watching positive news coverage, seeking chanting crowds; have you ever seen anyone with so deep and destructive a need to be loved? Stupid bastard. Somewhere during the presidential campaign he signed one hell of a shitty deal with a malevolent fairy prince, who gave him what he wanted – but not what he needed – and now he’s trapped in perhaps the worst possible situation an insecure person could be in.
Anyway, my point is that Trump has needs – as we all do – deep-rooted survival needs and the intense emotions attached to them. He has tried to meet them by becoming the most powerful man in the world so everybody loves him and does what he says. This was a spectacular miscalculation – it’s made things worse for him, and goodness knows it’s a disaster for the rest of the planet. As they say, “broken people break people”.

Trump is a level of damaged that, hopefully, most people will never meet in real life. But I think he’s an important parable about trying to get your needs met in appropriate ways, which do not harm you or other people. I try to have hope about people’s capacity for change; and while it likely won’t happen at the age of 79, I do believe a younger Trump might have found other ways to meet those emotional needs which would have been happier for everyone.
--
OK, why is this relevant for coven leadership?

I just went through 18 months of therapy, so I’m actually pretty good at self-reflection now – at least, I’m certainly better at it than Trump!
So check out my earlier comments about wanting to lead a coven specifically to insulate me from harm. I think it’s a very similar thought process to Donald thinking he wants to be president. We’ve both got an unmet need about safety/authority/stability/love, and have decided “more power” is the solution.
In the previous post, I wrote:

The process of writing a constitution encourages one to reflect on the purpose behind [degrees/oaths/titles/etc].
1. Is this a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim?
2. Or is it exclusively to make me feel a bit special & important?

Now, if the answer to question 2 is “slightly”, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a bad idea.
Let’s use an example: “Only an Adept may channel the spirit of the Mighty One and incarnate him in the circle”. There are some legitimate reasons for a rule like this:

perhaps channeling is dangerous or difficult
perhaps the Mighty One is picky and you need to do certain things before he will favour you
perhaps it’s more about experience in leading ritual – about making this experience real and terrifying and awe-inspiring for congregants, for which you need practice

It’s human nature to enjoy having a special title and an important hat and whatnot. But it’s a flag that one has to be cautious going forward, and very self-aware.
It’s especially important to be clear and really drill down to what specific need is being triggered.

If the fantasy is “I have this vision of myself leading an awesome ritual”, then you’re thinking of members as quasi-props and important checks would be letting members design and lead ritual, learning what their goals are and helping to facilitate them.
If it’s “I really want a bunch of people looking up to me for wisdom”, the focus has to be on finding other ways to self-validate and handle insecurity without needing it from others.
If it’s “I like the idea of establishing something lasting and permanent”, you’re trying to get a stability need met, a sense of permanence – are there other areas of your life to meet that need? Are you happy in your job? Is your home secure? Are you OK for money? What's happening in your family and relationships? Is this an older fear which has outlived its use, which you can practice letting go of?

I don’t think this kind of fantasy necessarily disqualifies someone from leadership, because it’s so natural and tempting (or is that just me…?). But it’s vital to be aware of it, and the specific needs a fantasy is meeting, and finding other ways to meet that need which don’t hurt or use others.
And yeah. In some cases, it really does disqualify you.
Great leaders aren't free from flaws - they are aware of them, and capable of handling them.

Have A Buddy Or Mentor

Following on from the previous point:
In an ideal world, clergy would have the maturity and skill to identify when they’re not behaving appropriately, or are wrong for the post full stop. In practice, we’re all fallible.
It's important to be real with someone - but I don't think it's appropriate or reassuring to lay it all out with the entire coven. That can quickly turn into a requirement for emotional labour, or another way of demanding members meet your needs. "I think I want to lead a coven because my family hate me and I need a surrogate to feel whole- what do you think guys?" puts the onus on members.
You could combat this lining up a buddy – formally or informally – to talk through this kind of stuff with, to get a second perspective. They could be in or out of the coven. They could be a therapist or counseller, or fellow-clergy/co-leader, or another member of the coven who's up for this kind of work. Taking Alex’s challenge to think about ways hierarchy can be good or useful: this is the kind of role a mentor or elder could fill.
I think about the role my partner plays in my life - we were friends for 10 years before we started dating. At times, I forget this, and then am surprised by how well he handles my bullshit. Like many people with a Personality Disorder - I am difficult. I think a lot about internet bros describing their exes as "she was so needy!" or "she was such a crazy bitch!", in part because they are often followed up by "I definitely think she was borderline, because she was evil and it makes me feel clever to use official-sounding words". I think about how "she was needy!" and "she was so cold!" might be rephrased more kindly as "we had very different boundaries and needs in relationships". PDs are very treatable, and in the right environment, no barrier at all to happy workplaces, relationships or covens. My partner is that right environment (Imagine people getting angry at their pet ferret because they don't behave like a dog; vs someone who expects their ferret to behave like a ferret, and has the skills and experience to understand its behavior and make good choices.)
I'd want him in my coven, because he would spot and check my shit. He has insight. He's the person I could confess my fucked up family-substitute fantasies to, he's the person who knows what I look like when I'm burnt out or being irrational.

You have to write a document like this for yourself

This article series started with a prompt "what would you do to combat these problems". Hence, my ideas are centered around ways I envisage fucking up, or I've observed other people doing so, and around the structure of coven I imagine running. So any potential-clergy member ought to do something similar, so it's relevant to their personal context. Remember, the suggested techniques are far less important than the problem they seek to solve, or the reasoning for using them.
I also think the process of thinking it through has been super helpful to me. I think I'm a better potential-coven-leader for this exercise, but it's also flagged up a lot of personal problems I'd have to overcome before actually doing it. In a sense, it's provided the kind of scrutiny I am envious of potential Christian clergy having from their bishop/abbess/cardinal/head monk. What's a head monk called?
I'd be dead chuffed if my ideas were used by groups or leaders-in-training, but they're no substitute for thinking it through yourself.

Set appropriate boundaries, esp around pastoral work

Religious figures are invested with oh so much unwarranted wisdom - they're seen as kinda special, even though they're just blokes in weird hats. They also typically take on pastoral roles - counselling through grief, bereavement, death and illness, offering advice on life changes and stages. Moments where this unearned power can be put to good, or evil uses, or simply be inadequate to the task of sorting out human complexity.
I wouldn't ever want to strip this out of clergy work. It's something I think I'd be good at, part of the "draw" for me. I remember fondly the C of E priest at my university making time to speak with me during a period of deep depression. I wasn't a Christian - I just liked hanging out in the Chaplaincy, it was quiet and spiritual and had neat beanbags. He let me talk for a bit. It helped.
That said, I think it's important to set boundaries upfront, and take this duty very seriously:

If you have a "We do this, we don't do this" statement in the constitution or a clergy "job description", lay out the boundaries of appropriate pastoral work
This can include "we do not do this. It is not appropriate" - and I think this is perhaps the most mature choice.
If you want to counsel, get a counselling degree. Or a certificate. Or do some training. Or at the very least, read a book.
Be honest about your limitations: "I don't feel able to support you, because I don't have the skills to do a good job"
Have links to other organisations - this might be a nice "clergy pastoral training exercise" - "...however, in our local community we have X, Y, Z resources. Would you like me to help you book an appointment?"
Be professional - set each pastoral challenge you might face as a study project. Amass resources, from both pagan and non-pagan sources. Study. Do exercises. Reflect. When you practice, make notes.
CONFIDENTIALITY, BITCHES. In bigger organisations, there are srs requirements for handling sensitive personal data. Another important study-project would be to learn about this, and write it into the constitution.
There may be legal aspects to be aware of. You're opening yourself up to liability and serious accusations. Are you ready for that? Do you know the law? Do you need to take out insurance, for example, or be a mandated reporter, or hold specific qualifications?
What if a member tells you they are suicidal? What if a member is underage pregnant and asks for help getting an abortion? What if a member discloses they are being abused at home? What are your legal requirements? Are you prepared? Are you actually prepared? Again, clergy training with a pastoral element ought to include this kind of "case study, what would you do?" exercise.
How often do you update these skills?

I was a teacher. I had to do so much of this stuff, and regret none of it. I get testy about amateurs on my patch. These are hardcore responsibilities - difficult, heavy, requiring skill & ongoing familiarity with best practice and the law. They deserve a level of serious, sober consideration.

comments

RSC [Part 3] - Training Members

2018-09-10T23:34:39Z

Welcome to Part III. These are tools you could use while training new coven members/initiates

Include abuse training in your initiatory program

Probably one of the most important techniques on the list.
Have a session on abuse with initiates i.e. about the same time as one teaches them to shield against nasties on the astral. Teach everyone how to spot it, what it feels like, what it looks like, what to do when you encounter it. Give them a printout of Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Tool, and other third-party resources.
Let initiates know it is always OK to discuss the behaviour of members with outsiders, and make clear that abusive behaviour is not covered by any oaths of silence or discretion one might have taken.
Ensure this session is led without prejudice:

assume the trainee might be a potential abuser, or a potential victim
don’t associate abuse with particular genders or sexualities
ensure you foreground the possibility of encountering abuse within your organisation, rather than it being “something other people do”

This series is written for the perspective of "how would I lead a safer community", and hence assumes I/the Cult Leader is the future charismatic-manipulative spiritual abuser. But it's wholly possible for a non-leader to be a bad apple, and to do just as much damage - power isn't always where you expect it to be.
(A key problem in queerfeminist scenes? Talking constantly about abuse as a thing associated with cisgender white straight men, even though we’re in a queerfeminist community and therefore straight men are spectacularly not relevant to the reality of my friendships, relationships and social networks. The dangerous blindspot that people thus develop both towards people around them, and to their own behaviour. Our community predator turned out to be the person running the biggest consent activism network, because of course it did and my life is a joke.)
I think I'd like to try writing out a template for this training session sometime soon.

Don’t ask to see reflective work

Early stage magical training often contains a lot of “shadow work” stuff about your past, your fears, etc. That material should only be seen by the applicant.
(I recently applied to join an online group which sent me a huge 2nd stage application form which included some “what do you most regret in your life” and “how do you handle feelings of unhappiness” style questions. Not information I’m happy to give over to a spiritual leader, especially not at so early a stage.)
See also Catholic confession: the expectation to tell your spiritual leader about your transgressions must have quite a powerful hold over you.

Make leaving possible & positive

Failure Mode: “You can only practice this style of craft in a coven of 13 when given appropriate status by us and a charter to operate a lodge; without it, the spirits will never favour you, as we are the only true church. You'll never work in this town again!”
Success Mode: The Campsite Rule - leave members in a better state than when they joined your group.
This one is about possession. Abuse usually comes hand-in-hand with possessive behaviour – the abuser seeing the abus-ee as an extension of themselves, rather than accepting the person as an individual with their own experiences and goals.
Dan Savage talks about the Campsite Rule for relationships – especially for when you are dating someone younger. You’re supposed to leave the campsite in a better state than you found it. Your ex should leave a relationship reflecting fondly on how you both grew and learned and became better people for the experience, even though it didn't work out. The ideal parent trains a child to no longer need them – they teach their child how to cook so their child has a skill and is stronger for it. They don’t put limits or controls on that ability or requirements on what or when they cook.
But this one is a little complicated. Lots of apprenticeship/training providers IRL work on the basis that training will be repaid with a certain number of years of work – “we invest in you in exchange for you investing in us”. This isn’t unreasonable – you train people in your tradition to prepare them to work within that tradition, in the hope they will be there for many years.
Still, there’s a middle ground here. The key is to proactively foster an environment where members are not ritual props who belong to the coven, but individuals who one day will leave this coven – hopefully stronger, wiser, and more skilled for the experience. This includes:

making as much of practice “open” as possible so members could go on to found a coven doing something similar-ish without breaking any big vows
Encourage coven members to network with other covens and magical groups, and be aware of other approaches – rather than encouraging a “our way is the only true way, and other covens are filled with our enemies” insularity. This helps members discover what is “normal” in Paganism.
Demonstrate ways you can practice individually, or in other group structures
Encourage members to try other kinds of magic, groups, and traditions, rather than demanding "spiritual monogamy" or cutting them off from other ideas
Support their growth, even if that growth is away from your group, and away from what you "wanted" from them.

Leaving a group should be, like Jennet said in an earlier comment, a “we’re all doing good work but aren’t a great fit for each other any more” sort of affair. Like a university who is proud of its alumni, going off to do great things, or an old job which gave you experience and development opportunities, and a good reference.

Flexible degree structure

Failure Mode: “Third level Adepts are the greatest mages, so know your place novice”
Success Mode: “Everyone has an individual skill-set, both magical and non-magical; everyone here has something important to offer the group. Carol is an excellent chef, and Bob here is a junior librarian in the Local Archives. Morgan has reached her third Divination badge, and generally oversees training in this for newcomers; Alice handles ritual-design and research”
Degree structures etc are like knives – great for buttering bread, shame some wangrods feel the need to stab people. I find the idea of attaining grades or levels motivating, & it helps me organise my thinking and learning in a really tangible way. But think critically about the purpose of degrees, titles etc, and how they ought to be used. They aren’t inevitably bad, but one needs to be reflective about their purpose. Again, Proportionate Means. Again, leaders having an awareness of grandiose feelings which come with a grand title, and handling them appropriately.
But learning isn’t linear, and neither is skill. I’m imagining something closer to Girl Guide badges, where the group affirms and celebrates everyone’s strengths. Your novice might play the guitar or speak Anglo Saxon or know how to brew herbal beers – and these skills are as valuable to a functioning group endeavour as inner understanding of a tradition.
Now, a similar aim can be accomplished without tinkering with Degrees at all. It's less about ensuring all your members get a special feel-good magic hat, than ensuring they are seen as important contributors. Degrees are a useful illustration and "scapegoat" for this kind of ugliness, but you could have a coven with no ranks at all which nevertheless failed hard at valuing all its members.

Be a team

Failure mode: “I have had a vision that Carol is no longer the High Priestess, and in fact it was traditional for women over a certain age to give way to a youthful maiden. Carol, have you met my new girlfriend Susan?”
Success mode: “This coven would be nothing without Carol’s drumming, and I’ve met someone new who’s also a dressmaker and we got talking about ritual robes”
Have you noticed that Bloc Party credit all their songs to “Block Party” rather than “Lennon; McCartney; Lennon & McCartney”? The man who wrote the chord sequence for Every Breath You Take gets 100% of the royalties, much to the chagrin of the man who created its iconic jangling guitar sound without which the song would be nothing. Robert Plant and Jimmy Page didn’t bother inviting John Paul Jones to the Led Zeppelin reunion tour. Ringo is my favourite Beatle; he may not be a Great Genius Artist, but good luck playing those songs without drums.
This is similar to my ideas about couples hunting to add a third to their relationship. So many of them really ought to hire a sex worker, because they’re looking for a prop to fulfil a fantasy – and one ought to pay for a service like that. Very few are looking for a flawed, messy, brilliant human to form an organic and complicated part of their lives. One also sees this in band adverts constantly: “I have written all the music for a three-album trilogy concept and drew the concept art and now I am looking for every other member of the band”. Dude, hire some session musicians. When you need someone to play music for you, you pay them. That’s not a band.
So a lot of it is about cultivating an environment. We want to diminish the risk of a certain personality being seen as the “star” of a coven, and everyone else their backing band – no one is essential, no one is disposable. We’re making music together, as a collective.

comments

RSC [Part 2] - Planning Spiritual Stuff

2018-09-10T23:33:34Z

Welcome to Part II. This post offers some suggestions for how design the spiritual framework for what a group does to insulate it against future problems.

Reduce material risks associated with leaving or dissent

Failure mode: “if you are excommunicated, you are cursed and then you go to hell, and no one from the congregation can speak to you again at risk of their souls too, and you cannot have contact with your children any more, and you have to leave our isolated rural community and be among the sinful folk of the cities.”
Success mode: Set things up so leaving the coven is as straightforward as leaving your board games group – you take your games home with you, and that’s the end of it. (Maybe you just got really into chess and can’t stand another game of Settlers of bloody Catan, but that’s OK because we’re all still friends and there are lots of chess clubs!)
Abuse generally occurs when the abus-ee is materially disadvantaged – when there’s a reason they can’t just leave. This can be a spouse who lacks financial means, or a junior employee reliant on a particularly well-connected boss, or a child dependent on a parent, etc. Modern witchcraft is more fortunate than historic, in that the idea of solitary craft is well established & supported – I think it would be easier to leave a coven now than historically.

(This would preclude any kind of “we’re all living in a village/commune/island” type plans. I have a lot of American-small-town-Christian-cult fantasies, like joining the Amish or the Mennonites or something. Such communities are very vulnerable to abuse, because exiting means leaving everything behind.)

Whenever you make a decision, ask “why”

Part of the benefit of a constitution is an opportunity to reflect on why these decisions are being made. There’s a nice phrase that keeps coming up in the UK government consultation about barring trans people from single-sex spaces: you can only do this if it is a “proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim”. I like that:

What is our aim?
Is it legitimate?
Is this the right means to meet it?
Are there other ways which might serve us better?
Or do you need to be honest and accept this decision is propelled by a discomfort or dislike of trans people which is unfounded and irrational…?

I think a similar tool could be use to curb one’s authoritarian tendencies when designing the structure of a ritual group. Lots of things in Paganism are ripe for abuse – this includes:

oath-bound material
sexual material
divine inspiration/avatars/prophecy/power
Initiatory structures which place some people above others in a hierarchy

The process of writing a constitution encourages one to reflect on the purpose behind such things.

1. Is this a proportionate means of meeting a legitimate aim?
2. Or is it exclusively to make me feel a bit special & important?

Without reflection, and without reflection on motives, it’s easy to sleepwalk into “We have 3 Degrees because that’s what covens do and I want to be High Priest”. With reflection, you ask – OK, what purpose are the degrees serving? How do we best meet that goal? And it helps focus the mind on how to implement it correctly, and throws up other methods, and other questions too.
I’ll come back to this one in the post about Clergy.

Reflect on flaws in your belief system

A lot of spiritual abuse has roots in shitty stuff from the Holy Book. For example – Christianity has stuff about the role of women or LGBT people which are put into use in ways that are controlling and unpleasant. Even though Paganism is generally more lassaiz-faire than faiths of the book – there are certainly ideas around gender, vegetarianism, health, curses, evil power/energy, sex and so forth which could be used in wicked ways. Clergy work should include some reflection on the core ideas of the faith and how members are expected to behave as a result. Do they make congregant’s life better? Why is this a requirement? Is it a Proportionate Means etc? Can we implement it differently? How do we have an ongoing awareness of how this rule is being put into practice?
(Most of the problems I experienced with the queer community grew out of underlying ideology which was flawed, or poorly applied, or grossly misued.
i.e. “Here are some problems with cultural monogamy” turning into “your monogamous relationship is politically problematic because it means we can’t fuck”; “Here are some problems with masculinity in our society” turning into “When you say you have a boyfriend, what I hear is he’s oppressing you and I need to liberate you into a relationship with me instead” or “rape is a tool of patriarchy used by cisgender men; the rules don’t apply to me because wlw/trans men/non binary people don’t count” etc etc etc etc.
There’s nothing worse than someone putting a noble idea to use as a tool for gaining personal power; it’s coarsening and destructive and very ugly. It takes root. It cuts you off from things you need for survival.)

comments

RSC [Part 1] - Planning Mundane Stuff

2018-09-10T23:30:26Z

Welcome to Part I. This post offers some suggestions for how to lay good groundwork during the planning stages. Here, we’re planning the humdrum everyday stuff any group needs to plan for.

Divide up power

Failure Mode: You don’t want all the power eggs in one basket, where a leader is the physical embodiment of the Aeon, and the prophet of Aiwass, and the best diviner, and the best mage, and the guy who writes your magazine, and receives the scripture, and who runs the organisation, and has the best cock, and the only person who can authorise you to run your own splinter coven, and he leads the rituals, and he’s also in charge of new members, and of training, and he’s had a new vision saying you are not the real Scarlet Woman and it’s actually this new babe he’s dating etc etc etc.
Success Mode: Reduce the concentration of power in one individual, and give everyone a vital role in the group. Instead of one leader, everyone has a “leadership” type role. Rather like a corporation – you have a secretary, a treasurer, a librarian, a CEO, a herbalist, etc etc etc.
In this context “Cult Leader” would be a job role defined to be boring as possible: an administrator responsible for calendar management, chairing meetings. No one should want to be the coven leader, because it’s a job and a very unglamorous one.
This would also underline the coven as a collective endeavour, and give everyone a “stake” in it – and a clear role in making it a success. And it minimises burnout, perhaps, and bystander syndrome, if everyone has a clear responsibility towards their own small part.
(Thinking about bands again – my most recent band did have a “leader”, and he booked gigs and did advertising and told us when rehearsals were. Brill. I play the keyboard, and my job was to be good at playing keyboard, and to turn up when told. That gave me a sense of pride and power, because I had responsibility for something important – and I was the Very Best keyboard player in the band!)
I would have epic respect for a coven who said “I’m Bob and this is my coven, but our spiritual leadership mostly comes from Karen who is a person I’m not shagging”.

Behave like a bigger organisation

One problem both queer & pagan scenes have is – they occupy a strange middle ground between “a bunch of mates hanging out” and “an organisation, with benefits and responsibilities”.
On the one hand, they are real networks with real power – not being able to access queer spaces means, I can’t access the binder exchange, I don’t hear about support services I might want to use, I’m not making friends who can relate to my life, I’m terrified at Pride – and not of the anti-gay protestors. The reality is, I am “banned” from these spaces, and it has a serious impact on my wellbeing.
On the other, they genuinely are just bunches of people who like spending time with each other, and one can hardly regulate that.
Another overlapping problem is how few of us there are. The same reason why bigger countries do better in the Olympics. I have a perhaps naïve hope that a huge Christian organisation has more people to choose from, and are less likely to enable crazies; just as you can go to any straight pub in the city – but there are only two gay bars, and there’s not really enough of you to start a third bar.
I think once a coven gets bigger than you, your boyfriend and some mates, it needs to take itself perhaps over-seriously and act very scrupulously indeed. For me, this would be the point at which you have a website, welcome applications from strangers, offer training etc.
For example:

seeking charitable status
having a written constitution
having an AGM
seeking training from non-Pagan sources (on management? Teaching? Counselling? Tax? Etc)
If money changes hand, showing financial docs for the org to members.
Clergy having a clear “job role” and set of boundaries, rather than it being fuzzy and ad hoc.
“Our responsibilities towards you are…your responsibilities towards us are…” style mission statements
Intermittent member moots: “we’re doing well at this, we’re doing badly at this”

These things exist in bigger organisations for a reason, and if one wants to be treated in semi-professional ways (“We provide a six-month initiatory program”) one ought to accept some of the responsibilities of that.

(I mention teaching because, as a teacher, I went to a heck of a lot of meetings about protection, accountability, punishment, mediation and best practice – it is a serious responsibility, perhaps less so with adults, but still. We were constantly thinking about how to use authority wisely and well.)

Have a written constitution

Failure mode: “your magic will vanish and you will be cursed until the end of time unless you agree to do this sex thing, and thou mayest not speak of it to any living creature for woe betide etc etc and this is the only way to truly keep the old ways, the same practices occur in every coven”
Success mode: “I may be new to witchcraft, but the constitution laid out what kind of sex things we do and what kinds of secrets we keep – and this grand master of the craft appears to be changing the rules on a whim, and I have a weird twisty feeling in my gut. I’ll ask my non-Pagan friend what they think...”

A written constitution helps lay members know what they are getting themselves into. It helps group members make decisions about whether this group shares their aims and vision, and it also lets them judge the group’s actual behavior by its written standards. It provides an initial statement of principles and intent which combats future authoritarian, hypocritical or shady behaviour by leaders. It gives members something to point at when another member is a dick: "Actually, Harold, it says here in the constution "Do not be a dick"".

It’s a useful tool for managing challenging Pagan content, like sex, oaths, hierarchy and so on:

“We work sky-clad and use ritual tying, however we do not touch people in the circle”
“We keep the names of our gods secret, however no one should ever require you to keep secrets about sexual rites."
"You should not disclose the names of members to people outside the coven, unless a serious crime has occurred; however you should tell trusted friends you are in a coven, and talk with them about it generally as you would any interpersonal relationship”.

If Future Me decides to move the goalposts, alert congregation members have an opportunity to spot the discrepancy between our stated principles and my behaviour, and be wary, call me on it, or run for the hills as appropriate.
(When cracks appeared in Gardener’s original coven, he conveniently “discovered” another ancient text supporting his point of view. His members were able to compare this information with previous, and say “that’s bollocks, Gerald”. He failed, but his coven did not. The safety net worked)
A constitution guides group leader(s) in their choices and decisions, and helps them reflect on why they are doing what they do – on which more below. Jennet has written some good comments about Group Aims – which comes at this stage – but I also think I’d want to drill down into specifics more than that. “What is the aim of having a Degree system?”, “What is the aim of having this sex rite?” and so on.

Have leaders in clearly defined roles

Alex made a comment that “hierarchies can be good”. I agree in theory, so I mulled it over to try and find some ways to understand this within my misanthropic worldview.
Another problem in the queer community is that there are no leaders – except there are. But the power dynamic is not made explicit. Hierarchies can make clear the power involved, so it can be questioned and monitored.
For example, if a teacher have an expectation they sleep with students – that is clearly vile. If a Certain Community Notable has an expectation they sleep with whoever they like, and not doing so results in rumours being spread about one and one’s invitation to the best private parties suddenly drying up and no one wants to know you any more, the power exists but it is not made explicit, and is very hard to challenge. I've encountered similar dynamics online, when someone with a huge follower count took umbridge with a throwaway post of mine. Part of me thoughts and still thinks - how could we regulate that? People with a large follower count have a lot of power, but it's unrecognised and people are unwilling or lack skills and awareness to adjust their behavior accordingly.
The biggest challenge here is people with a small-scale semi-celebrity status - if Stephen Fry behaved like this, everyone would call it what it was.

I think this is related to the idea of behaving like a bigger organisation from the outset.

comments

Running Safer Covens: Introduction

2018-09-10T23:26:51Z

alexseanchai asked some good questions in a recent comment:

How do you propose to ensure the safety of the community you propose to lead?
How do you ensure the perceived safety of the community you propose to lead, when you are top of the hierarchy? how will you prove that you are worth their trust (knowing that you are not the only one with these two instincts and especially knowing that religious hierarchy is easily abused?)
How do you propose to continue to ensure the safety, both actual and perceived, of this community at such point as you are no longer able/willing to be top of its hierarchy?

The two instincts I described were:

I believe groups to have an inherent capacity for violence, abuse and danger
I want to run a coven in part to ensure I'm not on the recieving end!

The topic is important enough for an expanded reply...

CN: This post series talks about spiritual abuse, community abuse, and #metoo dynamics - but not in graphic terms.

Power Imbalance

Power imbalances are knives: tools which are good, neutral, or wicked, depending on how they are used. Power imbalances can come about by…

Someone deliberately and maliciously taking power
Someone gradually believing their own bullshit
Valiente seems to think most of the chaps she worked with were in this category, becoming more authoritarian over time; and it’s the category I worry about being in too.
An individual congregant investing power in an individual
A collective investing power in an individual.

Usually, some combination of the above! This means there are as many points to stop authoritarian behaviour – the problem person can change, the individual can change, or the group can change.
I think an important theme in the ideas I’ve come up with is:
abuse prevention should be semi-automatic, and have failsafes

Like the American concept of “checks and balances”. Some of my ideas occur at the initial planning stages; others are ongoing; some target the potential cult-leader-type; some target lay members. Some are things the group has to continue to commit to, but others are embedded in the design and hopefully will continue to do good even if the group does not. A cult leader who goes off the rails in their later career might be checked by principles they put in place at the beginning.
Some techniques will fail; the key is a large enough safety net that not all of them fail.

Preventing Authoritarianism

In each technique, the goal is to do some combo of:
· Minimise the risk of an unsavoury individual taking charge
· Minimise the damage an unsavoury individual can do
· Provide opportunities for well-intentioned group leaders to reflect and check themselves
· Set a standard that helps leaders be accountable, and helps members spot things they ought to question

Again, a group doing all four of these simultaneously has a stronger immune system.
My understanding of abuse-prevention is that people ought to be taught simultaneously that they could be a perpetrator, or a victim, and how to handle both scenarios. Many of my bad experiences were with queer theorists who inevitably associated abuse with straight men, while having a (I hope, accidental) blind spot to their own capacity for violence; so I think it’s healthy for anyone in a position of responsibility to be self-aware and scrupulous about the possibility. Part of the fear is the fear of my own potential to be villainous, so a lot of these are designed to remind me of that capacity & provide opportunities throughout the process to spot and reflect on that urge.

Techniques

Alex asked two questions – how do you make a coven safe, and how do you demonstrate that it is safe? (The third question I’ll get to separately)
The techniques below would be “green flags” for me. They would demonstrate that a group were actively thinking about power & how to handle it.
There’s an important second stage, however – having accountability and evaluating whether techniques are working. People who “talk the talk” are perhaps the most dangerous. So I’ve also included a lot of “pauses” where a leader or group member can evaluate what is happening against their expectations, other covens, other members, group principles & so on.
Many of the techniques have multiple aims. For example, “Open Source Ethos”, “Rotate Ritual Roles” and “Divide Up the Power” all prevent one person taking undue control. But they also give a well-meaning leader opportunities to confront any possessive or authoritarian feelings which come up, and be aware of them.
(I think about my Imaginary Coven, and how I would feel about someone else coming in and saying they had had a vision and could we change how we do prayers – it makes me feel pretty pissy. And I don’t even have a real coven! It’s a thought experiment! It’s wholly imaginary but I really do not feel OK about my Imaginary Congregation changing my Imaginary Liturgy in my Imaginary Coven (and would you look at the number of times I used “my” in that sentence?!))
So planning for authoritarianism-prevention means anticipating these kinds of problems, and planning for them: here are techniques which both set a social norm of congregants contributing, and which give me opportunities to spot & handle my shit. If one fails, the other may catch us.

Disclaimers!

Before we start, here are some important disclaimers:

1. Humans are vile, and nothing will ever protect against a suitably motivated ne’er-do-well to twist to their own purposes.
2. I have zero experience in magical groups
3. I have a certain amount of applicable experience in other communities, and as a teacher
4. Some of this experience was very very bad. As such, my ideas might not be reasonable, practical or proportionate.

And most importantly
This is not a list of things 100% of magical groups must do or else they are evil.

They are pointers to places where hierarchy can become unhealthy, and ideas for how to limit the risk:
· There are other ways to accomplish the same goals
· These ideas might not make sense with the way a particular group works
· Some groups may not need these principles
· These methods could be used maliciously
· They might be shite.

In short, they’re conversation starters. This post got long because the actual method is less important than the reasoning. They’re things to consider. They are the things I would put in place; but they're not the only way, or the best way. Think of them as illustrating particular problems which could arise, and suggesting ways to solve them.

Thanks toalexseanchai for asking the question & providing the spark for some reflective writing; & everyone who follows my journal and interacts here for making this a welcoming & friendly environment to write difficult reflective content.

I’m looking forward to replies – criticism, questions, and strong disagreement are all welcome, but not nastiness.
I'm happy for an opportunity to make something constructive out of unhappy experiences - but bear in mind the root here is pain, it's a topic where I'm both vulnerable and sensitive. If you think this post is awful or I'm awful, please be mindful & kind and step away from the keyboard.
If you've not participated here before, I also welcome your voice - but check my rules of engagement first.
I think I borrowed this concept from Jennet's salon posts - when you comment on my blog, you're in my virtual "living room" attending a virtual tea party, so behave as you would in a stranger's house where you are a guest. Lively debates are excellent, but don't be destructive or cruel.

Master Index

Dear gods this got out of hand. Sorry everyone.

Planning Stage: Mundane Stuff
1. Divide up the power
2. Behave like a bigger organisation
3. Have leaders in clearly defined roles
4. Have a written constitution

Planning Stage: Spiritual Stuff
1. Reduce material risks associated with leaving and dissent
2. Reflect on flaws in your belief system
3. Whenever you make a decision, ask “why”?

Training: Members

Include abuse training in your initiatory program
Don’t ask to see reflective work
Make leaving possible & positive a.k.a. the campsite rule
Have a flexible degree structure

Clergy Training

Include abuse training
Keep your cool stuff to yourself
Don’t only read Pagan books
Fit your own lifebelt before helping others
Have a buddy or mentor
You have to write a document like this for yourself
Set appropriate boundaries, esp around pastoral work

Day to Day

Keep thinking about abuse
Rotate ritual roles
Rotate who people work with
The individual is greater than the group
Open source ethos

Unsolved Problems

The mystery
Having an abuse policy in the constitution?
Dropouts

comments