As I said in the last article, there were two topics discussed at the Jinja Honchō board meeting held on July 19th and reported in the August 5th issue of Jinja Shinpō that are worth picking up here. The first was the ongoing friction; the second was the question of a retirement age.
The proposal is not reported in detail, but it seems to involve the introduction of a retirement age for senior roles in the Jinja Honchō secretariat. The aim is given as allowing the promotion of younger staff members, and revitalising the organisation. The topic had already been discussed in May, and the directors decided to gather opinions from the secretariat. The results of this survey were reported to the board, but not in the paper.
Three responses from directors are reported, however. One said that he was not opposed in principle, but because it would be detrimental to some current employees they needed to be cautious. Another said that there are also a lot of priests at jinja who cannot become chief priest, and since the influence on those jinja needs to be considered, he would oppose anything limited to Jinja Honchō. A third director asked the first for the conditions under which he would introduce a retirement age, if he was not actually opposed. (No answer is reported.) One of the department heads at Jinja Honchō, who would be required to retire immediately if the retirement age was introduced, asked to speak (as he is not a director, I presume he does not have the right to do so, and thus needs permission). He was allowed to, and he asked the relevant department to gather accurate and detailed information from the senior staff, before explaining how bad it would be for the operation of Jinja Honchō if he were forced to retire.
The directors decided to create an opportunity to hear the opinions of the senior staff directly, but still apparently plan to introduce the retirement age next July, at the beginning of Jinja Honchō’s next financial year.
Retirement ages are always a touchy subject, but particularly so in the Shinto world. As I have noted elsewhere, at most jinja the only way to be a full-time priest is to have already retired from a job that pays a living wage. Your pension subsidises your priestly efforts. I have also noted that there are still obituaries being published for chief priests who have been chief priest since before I was born. In many, probably most, cases, this is because there was no-one else available to take over. Thus, introducing a retirement age (of less than 100 or so) for all chief priests would mainly result in huge numbers of jinja becoming legally inactive and risking government shutdown. Thus, any rule about retirement ages must have a limited scope, which means that the priests who are affected have reasons to feel that it is unfair.
On the other hand, there are a limited number of senior positions at both jinja and Jinja Honchō, and if they do not become vacant, it is impossible to promote anyone. This is doubtless very frustrating for younger people (in their sixties, say) who have their own ideas for how a jinja or department could be moved forward, and that frustration could lead to them leaving the Shinto world altogether. (It also makes it virtually impossible to promote women to senior positions. They are increasingly prominent in junior positions, but there is no clear path upwards.)
My personal thinking on the subject is that there should probably be a retirement age of 70, or maybe 75, for chief priests at Beppyō Jinja (the important jinja under the direct supervision of Jinja Honchō), senior staff and directors at Jinja Honchō, and the heads of Prefectural Jinjachō. The age should not be younger than 70 because, given the demographics of Japanese society, the normal retirement age should be no lower than that. Given the structure of the Shinto community, there is an argument for setting it a little higher. These are all posts where there would be no problem finding a successor, and where there are hierarchies that need mobility. The chief priests of Beppyō Jinja would generally be able to become chief priests of less important jinja supervised by the Beppyō Jinja, and so they could continue to serve the kami, and offer advice to their successors. (I know of at least one case where the chief priest seems to have done exactly that.) Senior staff at Jinja Honchō almost invariably have jinja to go back to, and Jinja Honchō has a title (komon, or advisor) that could be given to them so that they can continue to offer advice. The heads of Prefectural Jinjachō and directors at Jinja Honchō are almost all chief priests of important jinja, so maybe there should be two retirement ages.
In any case, this is an important and sensitive subject, and it should be tackled sooner rather than later. I hope that the disagreements over unrelated issues do not hold this up too much.