The Role of Priesthood in Modern Kemeticism

[Darkhawk]

Your post also makes me think of the Bawy and that both of them make the King.  And now since we are in the Diaspora, we are more on Set's terrain than Herus.  Their reconciliation could really help us out here.

 
Indeed.  I love Bawy hardcore.

Currently I'm chewing my way through Seth: God of Confusion at last, which is informing a lot of my perspective....

[Nehet]

And as someone who serves Aset this is very confounding.  

Your post also makes me think of the Bawy and that both of them make the King.  And now since we are in the Diaspora, we are more on Set's terrain than Horus.  Their reconciliation could really help us out here.

That makes a lot of sense, Sat Aset.  

Maybe part of the answer lies with Bawy, and achieving balance.

[Firaza]

That makes a lot of sense, Sat Aset.  

Maybe part of the answer lies with Bawy, and achieving balance.

 
I'm sorry, but what is Bawy? I tried Googling it but nothing's coming up as any sort of explanation.

[Darkhawk]

I'm sorry, but what is Bawy? I tried Googling it but nothing's coming up as any sort of explanation.

 
Bawy means "the two souls", and is one of the names of the syncretised Heru-Set.  (There are others.  I don't know all of them, I think some are easier to find.)  Also known as "He with the two faces".

[Firaza]

Bawy means "the two souls", and is one of the names of the syncretised Heru-Set.  (There are others.  I don't know all of them, I think some are easier to find.)  Also known as "He with the two faces".

 
Ah, makes sense then. Thank you!

[Nehet]

Ah, makes sense then. Thank you!

The internets keep wanting to change it to "baby".   Even Wikipedia has no idea what I'm talking about.

[Firaza]

The internets keep wanting to change it to "baby".   Even Wikipedia has no idea what I'm talking about.

 
Exactly! Google kept asking me if I meant "baby Egypt" or "baby Kemetic"! :p

[Nehet]

I suspect it would be most useful to work out what, specifically, one's calling is and use appropriate terminology for it - which can probably be found in or at worse adapted from AE.  I think it's clear that 'priest' in practice is kind of a vague catch-all term, and there were many, many different terms and titles for priests, not all of which may be modern-applicable.

 
So the question, for me, becomes whether or not the term "hm(t) netjer" loses its validity if  the God's servant is attending their statue without any state sponsorship or hierarchy.  

I want to say that the terminology is neither here nor there.  What matters to me is doing the work.  At the same time, we place too high a value on words to leave things ambiguous.  And, for purely practical reasons, we have to call this something so people know what the hell we're talking about.

Admittedly, I'm reluctant to give up the title (or rather, the eventuality of having it).  I know it was "elite".  Maybe that doesn't bother me since I've re-framed it in my mind so it has lost those connotations.  I want to be Ausir's "servant", and that term makes me feel more humbled than anything.   There's a lot of joy connected with that  idea too, knowing that I can do that kind of work for him.  So, I'm kinda not wanting to give up saying I'm his servant.

I'm not necessarily saying that you're saying I should do this.  It's just...well, I guess if we're re-thinking all terminology then the option is on the table (at least for the sake of argument).  

If we can find a way for someone to still identify themselves as a God's servant without the administrative/state sponsored connotations, I'll get behind it.

Until then, well, if we take the word literally and the shoe fits...

[Setnakht]

So the question, for me, becomes whether or not the term "hm(t) netjer" loses its validity if  the God's servant is attending their statue without any state sponsorship or hierarchy.

 
 
I do not believe the term "hm(t) netjer" loses its validity. The term does not mean "servant of the Egyptian monarch" or "servant of the high priest" or any thing connected linguistically to those past structures or persons. So why would you question the term's validity? It refers quite specifically to someone who is a servant of a god. Sounds pretty clear and unincumbered to me. Just because the office of priest had been associated with those things in the distant past need not make the term meaningless
or unnecessary in today's world. The gods live on--without a pharaoh, without big temples, without an elaborate structure of various categories of servant-priests. The gods live on. They are not diminished
in their power just because they are served by solitary priests or small temple gatherings. They still heal, inspire, protect, and encourage their worshippers, answering prayers and sustaining those who honor them.
By continuing to use the term "hm(t) netjer"--or its modern language equivalent--we have a continual reminder of our basic, quintessential function--servant to the god.

[Nehet]

 
I do not believe the term "hm(t) netjer" loses its validity. The term does not mean "servant of the Egyptian monarch" or "servant of the high priest" or any thing connected linguistically to those past structures or persons. So why would you question the term's validity? It refers quite specifically to someone who is a servant of a god. Sounds pretty clear and unincumbered to me. Just because the office of priest had been associated with those things in the distant past need not make the term meaningless

This.  

I don't see why somebody can't use a term that simply means "servant of the God" just because those structures aren't in place.

Honestly, I've been wrestling with some of the stuff on this thread for days and the only answer I can come to is very simple:  hm(t) is the best we're going to get.

Maybe what we need to do is re-frame the word for ourselves and just take it at face value.  Maybe we need to just drop the baggage of "elite" office since the old hierarchical structures aren't applicable.  

I believe the ancients referred to a priest as "one sent", and originally it meant one sent by the king.  These days, we've got priests who aren't "sent" by anyone other than the Gods.   That doesn't mean we need to throw this sentiment out.  To me, that makes it all the more valid.

[Devo]

I don't see why somebody can't use a term that simply means "servant of the God" just because those structures aren't in place.

Honestly, I've been wrestling with some of the stuff on this thread for days and the only answer I can come to is very simple:  hm(t) is the best we're going to get.

Maybe what we need to do is re-frame the word for ourselves and just take it at face value.  Maybe we need to just drop the baggage of "elite" office since the old hierarchical structures aren't applicable.  

I believe the ancients referred to a priest as "one sent", and originally it meant one sent by the king.  These days, we've got priests who aren't "sent" by anyone other than the Gods.   That doesn't mean we need to throw this sentiment out.  To me, that makes it all the more valid.

So then, I guess to some degree, that makes everyone here hem.... right? I mean, I serve my god/s. But you serve yours to (what some could argue) a higher degree, or moreso than I do.

I guess I wonder if in the end, for many people, if it isn't just a pissing contest?

-Devo

[Setnakht]

So then, I guess to some degree, that makes everyone here hem.... right? I mean, I serve my god/s. But you serve yours to (what some could argue) a higher degree, or moreso than I do.

I guess I wonder if in the end, for many people, if it isn't just a pissing contest?

-Devo

I think that's not in the least what's going on--a pissing contest, with all the really negative connotations. It's not at all unusual for people to establish definitions. While every Kemetic may serve his or her deity,
not all choose to serve the god every day through a regular ritual. In an earlier post I clarified my belief that doing daily ritual neither makes a person better nor worse than a devotee--one who follows a less regular or less formal pattern of prayer, offering, ritual, meditation, etc. Neither better nor worse. That's not a pissing contest. It's just a way some of us see our role in this tradition.

[Devo]

I think that's not in the least what's going on--a pissing contest, with all the really negative connotations. It's not at all unusual for people to establish definitions. While every Kemetic may serve his or her deity,
not all choose to serve the god every day through a regular ritual. In an earlier post I clarified my belief that doing daily ritual neither makes a person better nor worse than a devotee--one who follows a less regular or less formal pattern of prayer, offering, ritual, meditation, etc. Neither better nor worse. That's not a pissing contest. It's just a way some of us see our role in this tradition.

 
I'm not saying that a pissing contest is occuring here specifically. I meant, that I see it a lot in the Kemetic community as a whole. I think you'd be sorely mistaken to think that some Kemetics don't fling around the priest title just to show that they are 'better'.

I bring this up because using the title of hem, and the definition that follows seems so much simpler, and so much closer to what is *important*, yet I wonder if some people would not like to use that term for reasons stated above.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Sorry about that.

-Devo

[Nehet]

I'm not saying that a pissing contest is occuring here specifically. I meant, that I see it a lot in the Kemetic community as a whole. I think you'd be sorely mistaken to think that some Kemetics don't fling around the priest title just to show that they are 'better'.

I'm sure that some of them do that.  I don't think Setnakht was saying that there were no such people, only that using the word "Hem Netjer" did not necessarily mean someone was initiating a pssing contest.  Most of the time, I think people are just calling a spade a spade.  It's the same as saying you're a teacher, or a vetrinarian.  People have to call their job something.  

I think it's sad that there are "pissing contest" connotations surrounding the word.  It doesn't have to be this way.

[Nehet]

I bring this up because using the title of hem, and the definition that follows seems so much simpler, and so much closer to what is *important*, yet I wonder if some people would not like to use that term for reasons stated above.

To add to this:  We can't help it whether people use it as a pretentiously or not. Some people, regrettably, are going to do that.   I'd hate to abandon the term because of them.  We can pick up a new term, but then the same people may hijack that as well.

Personally, I don't want to let people like that have control over what I choose to call myself.