I am thinking of what a "church" would look like. I am more thinking out loud in hopes that people provide some insightful feedback. Which is a bit unfair given that I haven't fully revealed what the meditation is yet. Here are some of my principals of practice/teaching that may help.
I noticed in writing this that I am speaking as if this is going to happen. This too concerns me as the very idea is frightening to me. I do not think that overall religion has been of great value to the world.
1. I teach method not results. It is not my job to determine how anyone's soul manifests. This is the work of the student, not the teacher. I will not provide a 'right' answer to one's trials as doing so can be of no benefit. Nor will I lead students to those answers.
2. There is no degree system. However, I believe (at this time) the first accomplishment in the process is experiencing Divine Grace. This is the state of so reducing the automatic personality that one feels the love of the divine and of being 'clean'. One's life misdemeanors are no longer a burden and are but a memory without attachment as if they were read in a book rather than having power in the present.
3. The meditation is based on the Qabala but in a much simplified form. Any junior high school student could understand the concept.
4. Because the brain is not fully formed for long term thinking and a bit of life experience is required, generally speaking, I'd prefer people over the age of 25 participate.
5. My role would be more of a facilitator than a teacher with the exception of the basic facts of the meditation.
6. Given item 2, a ranking of achievement with the process would be self-declared. This is the ideal. In the real world, people deceive themselves and/or try to deceive others. I am not sure how to handle this or if I should simply ignore it. One method is to allow self-declaration up to a point and then determine that after a certain point something needs confirmed.
This results in some problems. First, the idea of my or anyone else conferring a title demarcating spiritual achievement is against my concept of the process and proper teaching. Secondly, I cannot conceive of any ranking system given I have only one definite marker of such achievement at this time. Thirdly, ranking in general doesn't sit right with me.
Maybe the rank of facilitator could be determined. If someone can lead the discussions and keep everyone on track without interfering in the process of others, one can earn that rank. This would be a form of service to others.
7. This is a spiritual practice, method, life style and world view. It could be practiced by any religion at all. Is it then correct to call it a church, temple or any other such thing?
8. I like Witch Doctor Joe's concept of a secondary tradition. His Veritas Wicca is an adjunct to whatever you practice. The Meditation is much like that as you can tell by item seven.
9. I have had solid success at healing others using the Meditation. I would like advanced practitioners to serve others in this way. That said, I am warned by Ram Daas's words. He posits that one's only duty is to work on the Self as when one achieves enlightenment we all do. So called helping others is an ego trip. There is something fundamentally right about that but then helping to reduce the suffering of others is a positive thing in my book. I am conflicted on this point.
10. I have witnessed that the lack of behavioral dogma in the Pagan community has done more harm than good. People's random behavior can be very hurtful as no one knows what to expect from anyone else. In part, this is because we are not fully realized human beings. In part, societies need some sort of structure. So do groups, churches and the like. That said, dogma is what makes many of the world's religions so harmful to the spirit.
I know the Bahai have a doctrine that says any dogma or practice of their religion should be abandonned if the government forbids it. This is an attempt to keep their religion politically non-threatening. Beautiful in principal but so far not helpful in the Middle East.
I do believe in a spiritual principal that says we are born into the culture we are for a reason. Therefore, those cultural rules, no matter how silly, are there to teach us. This is true whether we follow them or break them. I also believe that at times we must practice antinomianism. While the link mostly puts this in a religious context, I look at from a secular point of view. Sometimes breaking societal rules, with purpose, is instructional. For instance, it can clear the mind from prejudice about long-haired men, if a man intentional grows his hair to be more like those he dislikes. Well timed acts of antinomianism can be instructive for those that witness it too but the actor normally pays a high price for that.
Maybe some generalized rules are a good thing, if it is paired with antinomianism. I am torn on this issue.
11. It is my belief that those in charge should appoint someone they will listen too as an ombudsman for the group. That person's job is to hear complaints from those that cannot tell the leader directly and, if s/he feels they are justified, to pass them to the leader. In addition, that person's job is to call foul when s/he feels the leader has abused his or her authority within the system. If the organization is large enough, perhaps each leader should have two such people. One s/he selects and another elected. I think the reasons for that are obvious.
Those are my thoughts of the moment.