Sacred Texts Index Previous Next
Internet Book of Shadows, (Various Authors), [1999], at sacred-texts.com
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 prac-
ticing 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 Circl-
e/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 b-
etween 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 p-
urposes 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).
2224
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 techniqu-
es 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 Gr-
oves (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 c-
ases) 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) Const-
itution 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 wor-
ship 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
2225
f) to do other charitable acts of goodwill as will benefit the comm-
unity at large.
As stated in my definition of Temple above, I consider the provision
of Neo-Pagan (not necessarily Wiccan) religious instruction and servi-
ces 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 recog-
nised 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 adminis-
tered 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 usage, to describe our-
selves to them. Sure, there's some danger of picking up some ina-
ppropriate (to Wicca) ways of thinking along with those terms, but
we're more likely to import them with converts who were raised as C-
hristians. The solution to both problems is the same: clearly unde-
rstood (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 sig-
nificant 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 gov-
ernments 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 b-
odies 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
2226
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 r-
ather 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 witho-
ut violating the sovereignty that all three segments of the community
value rather highly.
One of the difficulties with any ideal is that it manifests imperfec-
tly, 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 Es-
tablishment, 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 a-
ble to avail themselves of public resources available to other, alrea-
dy recognised, religions, not the worshippers themselves. And ins-
titutions effectively mean the clergy. Note I don't say Priesthood. I-
t's one of the earmarks of the Craft that all Initiates are clergy,
but in many of our Traditions, Priesthood requires a deeper underst-
anding 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 expected by any
intended licensing bodies and ensure that those standards are
being met or exceeded by all graduates of said certification pro-
gram. 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 infor-
mation source, so we might as well plan on it and do the job pr-
operly.
3) To act as a Craft contact and social network to facilitate Pagan
networking among members and non-members alike.
2227
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 comprom-
ising 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 topics 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 phil-
osophy 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 unneces-
sarily 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 p-
rovide 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 ac-
creditation 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.
2228
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 objec-
tionable 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.
2229