The term "demipagan" is a holdover from the time when the Shrine still referred to itself as being a "Pagan" group. "So", somebody will say, "Are you saying that Demipagans are no longer Pagan, given that you still claim to be a Demipagan group?" But, as we have mentioned, the word has come to stand for things other than what it was originally intended for. "Demipagan" doesn't carry the same baggage.

Demipagans are Pagans in the sense of late antiquity. They are not Pagans in the contemporary, occult sense.

Q : What is a demipagan?

A : Let's start by noting the usual categories that Pagans and their traditions are put into.

1. Paleo-Pagan : refers to Pagans, and Paganism in a society that has always been strongly Pagan.
   
   
   eg. Ancient Greek religion



2. Meso-Pagan : refers to traditions maintaining continuity with a Paleo-Pagan past, but which exist surrounded by a predominantly Non-Pagan society
   
   
   eg. American Indian tribal religions, in the midst of American Christendom



3. Neo-Pagan : refers to a revival of Paganism, after continuity has been broken
   
   
   eg. Pagan Reconstructionists

Sounds pretty inclusive, doesn't it? But all of these categories have one thing in common. They hearken back to a time before Christianity (or Judaism or Islam) showed up. They're about the past, and maybe a desire to backtrack a little, and pursue a path that history might have taken, religiously speaking. We demipagans, on the other hand, see our brand of Paganism as being one that follows out of the Non-Pagan religions, not as something that helped to lead up to them.

Unlike the Mesopagan, who may see himself as fighting an exasperating, and losing battle to regain the purity of his Paleopagan roots, the Demipagan sees his Judeo-Christian-Islamic roots as being a precious part of his heritage, that he would be loath to dispose of. To us, it is not a matter of discarding that which replaced the Old Paganism, but recovering that which we have lost, and incorporating it in with that which we already have. As we view faith as a thing that takes place far more on a subconscious than a conscious level, we would view the attempt to root out the Non-Pagan elements of our background, in the search for a "pure" Paganism, as an exercise in futility, anyway.

Those influences are part of us, whether we wish them to be or not, and one has to come to terms with them. One can never fully return, to take the path not taken, without a part of one declining to take the path with one. But we would not wish to, even if we could. In our view, Divinity has always been in the process of entering this world, and each stage in the religious development of our own civilisation was there for a reason. Each reflected a degree of truth.

Perhaps this sounds like a contradiction. Does it not say in the Bible, "Thou shalt have no strange gods before me"?

The answer is, no it does not. The Bible was written in Old Hebrew, the word "god" is a modern English word. "Yes", someone will say, "but this is hairsplitting. The above is a translation of a sentence in the Bible". But is it a good translation? Look, the Ancient Greeks had a word that they used to describe a race of beings which the Olympians belonged to. The Ancient Hebrews had a word to describe the being that they encountered at Sinai. And we blithely translate both words, as the same English word, and in the process gloss over the question of whether or not the first word is an especially good translation of the second. In fact, it clearly is not.

Even Zeus, the King of the Olympians, was neither the creator of the Universe, nor even its supreme being. The latter honor belonged to a shadowy figure known as Moros (the son of fate), who Zeus himself had to submit to, "like the humblest mortal". Is it such an impossible reach, to imagine Moros as being the ancient Greeks' impression of their encounter with the God known to Israel? That is, if one does believe in that God - and not all Demi-Pagans will (*).

So, the Old Hellenic Paganism spoke to us, not of the ways and decrees of the Most High, but of those between us and Him, both in majesty and power. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, however, speak to us of the Lord of Creation, while saying relatively little about those beings in between, aside from noting that they do exist (they're called "angels"), and noting that they are not necessarily perfect (in the cases of Christianity and Islam - note the existence of the fallen angels, ie. the demons). One demipagan point of view, my own, is to view the God of the Old Testament as being supreme, but remote, only reluctantly engaging Himself in His creation, of which the lesser divinities are a part.

Here, I suppose, is where Orthodox Non-Paganism and Demi-Paganism part company. To a standard model Christian, it seems clear that the angels either do God's bidding, or the Devil's. A Demi-Pagan might ask him, if it is in the nature of any intelligent being, to ever enjoy being the puppet of another, even if the other is perfect and all knowing? For that matter, why is there no middle ground, between utter moral perfection, and perfect depravity, among these greater, and yet still finite beings? (Why, for that matter, if they merely are doing their master's bidding, and their master can do all with a thought, are they needed at all?)

Our point of view on this would be that while the angel, possessing a greater breadth of experience and more wisdom to put to use in understanding it, might have a clearer view of God than us, like us he would need that element of uncertainty to give life its meaning, which the Almighty, in His kindness, would grant. Thus, the angel, with his imperfections and uncertainties, would in part be left to his own devices, as he cared for those below in his own imperfect way, being as a god in his own right as he did so.

If the relationship between the Almighty and His creation, would be like that between parent and child, that between the gods (lower case, not to be confused with God) and their demipagan faithful is that between a caring older brother, and a younger brother. The younger brother will do well to listen, and, within bounds, may be punished if he does not, but the older brother is in need of growth and guidance himself, and will turn to his older brothers, or to the parent himself, for such guidance. Thus, gods above gods above ... and who can say, how far that would go?

But why pray to, or seek the intercession of lesser beings, instead of going directly to the highest, if one should believe he exists? Well, if you wish to have your streetlight fixed, do you call the president or your ward committeeman? The latter wields more power, to be sure, but the latter is more accessible. So it is, some of us would say, with the Divine. Those beings closest to us in stature, are also closest to us in spirit and action, and serve as a bridge between man and God, when nothing less than the intervention of the latter will suffice.

But, is it wrong to pay one's respects to any save God? I hear Standard Christians say "yes" to that all of the time - and then see nothing off about saying "yes, sir" to a lengthy string of fellow human beings, not one of which would be equal to even the least of the divinities. Why is it OK to be deferential to your boss, but not to them? And so it goes. What troubles so many about us, sometimes, is not that we deny the things that they believe, but that we affirm them, without evasion or apology. But if one truly loves and trusts God, should we ever be so fearful of His reaction, to a sincere pursuit of the truth?

Let's return to the previous page, now.

(*) Some demipagans, not believing in a supreme being, will view the saints as having been servants or avatars of the gods, even without knowing it, and will build on the culture, moral philosophy and some of the theological viewpoints that grew out of monotheism, even if they reject the monotheism itself.

So, continuing where we left off ...