E. Criticisms and misconceptions regarding mixed paths and Paganism
Click here to go to the next section.
Using the classification system from the Agora, we would be classified as "Adorational Demipagans".
We do not try to discard our non-pagan pasts as neo-pagans do, when constructing our tradition. We recognize that any creative act draws on a subconscious that retains that past, and is influenced by it, whether we wish it to be or not, and to try to force it to fit its creation into a preconceived mold, is to take much of the life away from our creation. Worse still, as people who believe that the gods come to us, not as voices booming down from the sky, or as visions, but as inclinations which we must careful seek within ourselves, we feel that to deprive that process of its spontanaeity, is to close our ears and hearts to those we would worship or adore.
|
|
This is not to say that we discard our critical capacity. Far from it, it is that which makes the process of conception more than a matter of unfocused rambling. But we don't try to merge it with the creative process, but instead, allow it to perform a periodic check on that process, and give us a little feedback on where some extra attention and effort is needed, and why, and let that realisation work on us.
Thus, if Judaic or Roman Catholic elements should appear in our ritual, or, as we say, liturgy, this is no grounds either for surprise, or apology. We embrace our connection to the past, and are thankful for that which ties us to it, for it gives us, as a species, the capacity to develop and maintain traditions. It is tradition that allow us to build on what others have created before, not in a casual way, but one that grabs ahold of us in ways that we would never imagine on our own, and helps us become much more than ourselves, as we become a part of it.
We do not attempt to recreate that Paganism that existed before Christianity or Judaism, any more than we would attempt to unscramble an egg, or reheat a souflee. It is not possible, because even were the forms to be completely reproduced - and far too much information has been lost, for that to be possible - the spirit of the time is gone. We can't see those forms in the same way, and so their recreation would be forced, and not an exercise in spontaneous expression. But we accept this without overwhelming sorrow, because in our view, the spirituality of each period that endured for any length of time, did so because there was an element of truth in it, and offers us something of value, to be learned from, borrowed, and recast, in the new context that our culture's subsequent experiences have created.
|
The term for this approach, is "demipaganism", ie. that practice of those of us who are half-pagan, living on the boundary between Paganism, and non-Paganism. Some will see us as a bridge between the two, and take that in a negative sense, as if we were the unwitting front for conversion. This view is misguided for a number of reasons. First of all, because while some demipagans are Christo-Pagans, such as myself (Pagans who include Jesus in their pantheons), some merely worship the old gods, with a more modern sensibility. Secondly, because history simply doesn't bear it out.
Yes, some will argue that in in Northern Europe, such a dual faith was a precursor to full Christianity. We would not be surprised if this was so, but would suggest that if an analogous faith did serve such a precursor role, it would not be because Christianity arose from it, but because Christianity was being forced upon a reluctant population, and the dual faith was a product of a reluctance to abandon old ways, not a spontaneous phenomenon. Medieval Europe, and its church, were not noteworthy for their embrace of religious tolerance as a value. If, on the other hand, we examine a more "live and let live" society, such as that of post-revolutionary Mexico (as compared to that of Medieval Germany), we can often see the dual faith existing as a stable reality for centuries, highly resistant to the incursions both of "pure" Christianity and "pure" Paganism. As the saying goes, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. When the dual faith is a heartfelt expression of what the people believe, rather than what they are dragged through, kicking and screaming, to a spiritual place where they do not wish to go, it attains a richness that either of the pure strains seems hard pressed to match, one that people can only seem to be persuaded to abandon through arguments based on fear, not love. Each of the components of the faith, in giving a new way of looking at the other, seems to give it new depth and feeling.
Thus, this argument confuses symptom with cause, mesopaganism with demipaganism, and the forced with the spontaneous.
But we do not entirely reject this suggestion, that we form a bridge. Because bridges should be built between communities. People do need to learn how to talk to each other, and that means with people who don't have the same experiences or viewpoints as they do. Very often, they may find that they have far more in common than they ever imagined, and more than enough for a meaningful conversation, which each can learn from, to take place. So, in a 'perfect world', we would keep a foothold in each community, and make the effort to help each see the other's point of view.
If this seems like "fence straddling" to some, as it is all too fashionable to argue, now, let us examine recent history in Bosnia, and see where the unwillingness to make the attempt to keep that process of discussion alive will ultimately lead. Look at the moonscapes our cities have become, and don't imagine for a second, that we, as a nation, couldn't walk that far, down that road. The capacities for fanaticism and fratricide are parts of mankind's universal legacy. No society or people should ever fool itself into believing that it is immune to them, or may ever safely choose to stop working to keep these ills under control.
If it would be overdramatic to imagine that any given act would make history, it would be irresponsible to imagine that an individual act does not contribute to that accumulation that makes history. Every gesture made to another, each sentiment exchanged, makes a difference, and the differences add up.
There is a third reason, and deeper, reason why the "Christian front group" accusation is off base, that very specifically applies here. It lies in our conception of doctrine, and relation to deity. What we preach, is not a system of beliefs about the Divine, but a way of looking at the formation of beliefs about the Divine. The key point, is that one should, by examining one's own life experience closely, let it lead one to what it is, that one is to believe. Thus, were we to "convert" you, your first act, would be to stop listening to any suggestions from us, as to what it is that you "should" believe about the gods.
|
This is why, originally, this was not a specifically Christo-Pagan group, though it was always, of course, open and friendly to Christo-Pagans. We gather together in our adoration of Aphrodite, because we have felt the call within us, to do so. Now, if Jesus calls you, and you answer, I will welcome you with all joy. But, if he feels it would be best not to do so, who am I that I should second guess that choice ?
What brought us together, on common ground, was our devotion to the gods, of the Hellenic pantheon, and a desire to breath life into a tradition derived from the old one, and its sequels. Also, certain ideas about civility, which we'll get into here, so that we can work together.
So, what changed? Practical concerns. We got to see what "Paganism" has become in practice. To leave our doors open to the 'Pagan' community, would be to subject the Shrine to constant disruptive, uncivil behavior, as it had been subjected in the past, and that had to stop.
The 'perfect' world we alluded to, earlier, is one defined in terms of what may be, or might have been achieved, not what one may find oneself wishing for. In such a world, Classical institutions would have survived reasonably intact. However, they did not, and we suspect that makes all of the difference in the world. In terms of our own theological view, this makes sense. It takes time for a community to build a relationship with its deities, and time for them to touch their worshipper's hearts, and sway them. It takes time for the new institutions they inspire, to strike deep roots in the lives and culture of the faithful. The error of Neo-Paganism, in our view, lies in the notion that one can instantly break all ties to that which connected people to something greater than themselves, and then instantaneously form connections to something else, that will be able to instantly fill the void thus created.
|
Yes, Prometheus, in our 'perfect world', might be thought of as satifying the role, in a more purely Classical tradition, that Jesus satisfies in our blended one. However, we are living in the 21st century Midwestern United States, not in 1st century Athens, and "Prometheus" just doesn't carry the same weight among the faithful, that Jesus does. Perhaps, in time he will, and the day when a non-synchretic worship of the Olympians will work, in the context of creating a viable subculture, will come. But, we would maintain, that day is not here, and probably won't be for centuries. Perhaps a synchretic subculture must arise, to provide the context in which a purer Olympianism (that has yet to be seen) may arise, and ultimately be nurtured, when the time is right.
When that time comes, and a new 'perfect world' has arisen, then, we would say, it is time for us to welcome these 'Pure Pagans' of that future time, into our midst, as Christo-Pagans. Until then, the likeliest course for the honorable non-synchretic polytheist, is that like so many, she will choose to become a solitary as she grows sick of the pettiness, capriciousness and dishonesty of the 'mainstream Pagan community'. She will live among non-pagans, who will live under codes of behavior informed by their non-pagan faiths, in a world whose customs are formed by that behavior. She will do so, all the time thinking that he has rejected synchretism, when the reality is, that in practice, she lives it, without even knowing it.
Let us, however, never point this out to her, as an individual, or feel any superiority over her, over what we think of as being her lack of enlightenment on this point. We are all in the dark, in our own individual ways. I would argue, that the particular darkness each of us faces, was crafted by those who know better than us, in the world above, in order to guide us to those lessons we need to learn. Accepting this, let us not laugh as another student, recieves her own personal lessons from life, on those terms that the gods have thought best. The point here, is to recognize that we are not part of her lesson, and that she is not part of ours, today, not that she should be 'won over'.