Welcome to the third part of my series on The Religion of Society. If you’re new to this series, you can find the whole series linked on my articles page. So without further ado, I’ll get started.
I’ve previously drawn parallels between the structure of a religion and that of a society. I’ve covered the tenets and also the structure, but what about the priesthood? In my opinion, it can certainly be said that society has a pseudo-priesthood. A religion has an easily recognisable priesthood (most of the time), but a society? The function of a priesthood in society seems to me to be performed by politicians, the judiciary and celebrities, though whether this is knowingly is a matter for some debate. Of course, there is a more grass roots presence, I have always considered Paganism to be more like that. Similarly in society, we have local celebrities “characters” and also local politicians. These people might be home grown, but they have a similar (if locally limited) effect to the national and international public figures.
The ‘priesthood’ creates and interprets the ‘scriptures’ and helps enforce the ‘orthodoxy’ of the society or religion. In a religion, the creation of scripture and orthodoxy tends to be more formally done. For example, the Council of Nicea in 325AD; which resulted in the creation of an orthodox Christian doctrine. A similar thing happened in Buddhism with the first Buddhist Council in 543-542 BCE. Interpretation is a matter for priests and laymen were certainly discouraged from putting their own interpretations on things. Of course, things are different these days, though I think this is due to the influence of western society on religion.
In society, this tends to be an ongoing process. Laws are passed, repealed and amended. Then interpreted in courts and enforced with varying levels of strictness. Celebrities set or magnify trends and crazes and have an impact that neither law nor religion can emulate. But all of this does have a coherence, think national character, each nation has a distinct flavour.
Of course, both priesthoods are really part of a feedback process. As society got more sophisticated, the actual interpretations evolved a little as did the attitudes of the religious priesthood. Less of the fire and brimstone, more of the meek and mild. A message that might work on a deprived inner city congregation might not be so effective on a wealthier suburban audience. The sermons might also reflect that communities challenges, what they’re going through and would have to be tailored a little to their group character. So the priesthood could be seen, in ways, to act as a weathervane (or a mirror) for their followers.
Politicians are the same, they’ll change their tune quite readily. Celebrities caught getting a little too far away from orthodoxy will often issue public mea culpas, apologising to their public. It’s an interesting turn of phrase that one, their public, or maybe their flock? Worth a ponder in my opinion.
Ascension to the priesthood is strictly controlled in both cases, in the regular priesthood there is the seminary (or priest school). A society has various methods, taking the route into politics is one and from there into local or national government. Non-politicians can try the celebrity route, either the old fashioned way, or more recently via reality television. This does tend to lead to people who are famous for being famous, with no real idea what they contribute, but that’s getting off the subject.
OK, that concludes this part. I will attempt to write a shorter concluding part to wrap all this up and bring it to closure. With any luck I’ll manage it for next weekend, but no promises.
Creative Commons Acknowledgement.
The photo of the Priests Canteen is by sgatto and is under by-nc-nd.
You’re on a roll… I love your points, I think you are hitting the nail on the head!